The United Nations Biodiversity office in Montreal has responded quickly to a blog I wrote accusing it of spreading lies about deforestation. But it hasn’t explained why it favoured poorly sourced and decade-old data over current and far more credible UN data.
The blog highlighted UN Biodiversity’s recent promotion of an infographic on deforestation that was put together by a design student, not an environmental authority, some 12 years ago. The infographic contained serious flaws: it confused deforestation with forest cover loss and degradation; failed to mention the major causes of deforestation while blaming paper products; and perpetuated a myth about paper packaging.
The UN Biodiversity response, however, completely fails to explain why it didn’t use current and far more credible forest data that was publicly available from its sister UN body, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). And why it didn’t use FAO’s very own infographic on deforestation.
Here’s a slightly edited version of the response from UN Biodiversity’s director of communications, David Ainsworth, with my comments in italics following:
“The post is only one of a number of resources that we use in the programme of our postings…”
So what?
“… and should be considered as us highlighting the issues and debates relating to sustainable consumption and its relation to biodiversity loss.”
Surely the key issue here is whether the information you have posted three times so far is accurate or not? In your introduction to the infographic, you call these “shocking facts.” Are they even facts?
“We have a variety of other postings that capture different views.”
Differences are fine. So what? Are these so-called “facts” accurate?
“I have cautioned my team to be mindful of the sources and to be as transparent as possible …. so that it’s clear that we are presenting the very best information. The source in question that you highlighted has been flagged so that in the future our team will only consider posting it if it meets a higher standard of transparency in its data sources.”
Great. But it should have been flagged before you posted it the first time, and again before you reposted it.
“We won’t be removing the post in question however, as it did generate a very dynamic debate.”
Excuse me? The major reason you’re not removing it is because it generated a very dynamic debate? You won’t be removing it because it’s inaccurate? Because the “shocking facts” you promoted turned out to be embarrassing lies? Because the claims are at least a decade old? Because the infographic directly contradicts what your fellow UN organisation (the forestry specialist FAO) says about deforestation? Because its false and misleading claims have damaged the paper packaging industry? Your key reason for not removing it is because it generated “a very dynamic debate”?
I may be old-fashioned, sir, but I thought the mandate of any UN body was to seek out the facts, present them, and then move forward on solutions accordingly. And in this case, the most credible and current data on deforestation was available from a sister UN organisation, the FAO. You failed to use it, and are not saying why. Because you know you screwed up. And slapping “shocking facts” on it has made your predicament worse. Because it was not factual.
Instead of doing the decent and honourable thing and apologising, you are trying to weasel out of this whole sorry and embarrassing (to you) episode by portraying it as part of some debate over consumption and diversity loss, and differing views. BS. Facts are facts. You should acknowledge your error and move forward.
Here’s the appropriate (FAO) infographic you should have used:
