This is a story about the United Nations Biodiversity office in Montreal posting information on the internet that it should know is false and misleading, and which severely undercuts the hard-earned reputation and credibility of the UN as a whole.
No one denies that global deforestation is not a major issue and a cause of climate change. The UN through its own Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has done a good job of tracking the state of the world’s forests since 1946, and in explaining why, how, and where deforestation is occurring. It’s a pity that its fellow UN organisation, UN Biodiversity, has not been paying closer attention.
For under its name and logo, UN Biodiversity has on three recent occasions posted an infographic on deforestation that is not only out-of-date and out of context but also widely misleading. Even worse are the supportive comments it has made, including the claim that the infographic showcases some “shocking facts” and that it offers a “prescription for change.” [i]
This would be fine if some of those “shocking facts” about deforestation were accurate. They’re not.
The first red flag is the discovery that this particular infographic has been around for a long time, over a decade. Which raises the question of why UN Biodiversity is posting and reposting an infographic that’s so old. The second red flag is the difficulty in finding the actual sources on which the “shocking facts” are based. The infographic offers no specific details, just lists three websites for those who want more information.
The problem is that the back-up information is not there! Yes, time has passed, and websites change, and many of them don’t have search buttons. [ii] But isn’t it the mandate of the UN and UN Biodiversity to ensure the information it pushes out to the public is both accurate and available, and that it’s based on credible (and hopefully current) data? Somebody slipped up here, big time.
It’s not as if current and credible data on deforestation is not widely available. It is! Take, for example, the UN’s own FAO which publishes a Global Forest Resources Assessment every five years (the latest in 2020). Or the FAO’s biennial State of the World’s Forests (2024). Or the OECD-FAO Business Handbook on Deforestation and Due Diligence in Agricultural Supply Chains (2023). Or the FAO’s Remote Sensing Survey (2020).[iii]
There is something seriously wrong when UN Biodiversity repeatedly promotes stuff that’s ten or more years old, and is difficult to source. I would be absolutely livid if I was a forest scientist or forest policy expert at the FAO and someone from the biodiversity branch of the UN was pumping out unsourced claims about deforestation that were first made more than a decade ago. The UN does not look good coming out of this.
These are not deforestation numbers
A major problem with the infographic is that it combines figures for both cleared and “degraded” forest (without offering a definition of exactly what “degraded” means) while also talking about chainsaws, machetes, flames, and bulldozers. Great emotional stuff. But it soon becomes apparent that the infographic has confused or maybe somehow combined three different things: deforestation, degradation, and forest cover loss. Each is clearly of serious concern, but each is quite different, with different data points.
By the UN’s own definition, deforestation is where forest land is converted to non-forest land: “to agriculture, pasture, water reservoirs, mining and urban areas.”[iv] A degraded forest, by contrast, (and there is currently no FAO definition, although it is working on one), is a loss of tree cover without the change in land use that deforestation involves.[v] [vi] Forest cover loss is a far broader term that includes all causes of forest loss: natural disturbances such as fire, insect infestations, and natural tree death; as well as human-induced disturbances like the conversion of forest land to agriculture and so on.
An infographic on deforestation should stick to the facts on deforestation, and not confuse and embellish things by describing a much larger problem (for example, including degradation however it is defined, and forest cover loss). Each of the three requires different solutions, and there’s the important issue of scale. Wildfires in Canada, for example, burned through 85 times more forest in 2021 than was lost to deforestation. [vii]
Another example is the infographic’s claim that 4500 acres of forest (1821 hectares) is felled or burned every hour. No year or source is given for this claim, but on current UN FAO figures, less than half of that would be deforestation. And if that burning was a wildfire, that’s not deforestation either. Nor does the claim take into account the other side of the equation, that forests don’t just lose, they also gain through expansion, either naturally or through planting in formerly non-forested areas.[viii]
The imprecision of some of the claims when no sources are cited, is a major problem. For example, the infographic claims that “at the current rate of deforestation, by 2110 our forests will be gone.” It is not clear whether the infographic is talking about all forests or just tropical forests (45% of the total). Or whether it means forest cover or actual deforestation. And are we to assume that replanting or forest expansion has been taken into account? It paints an alarmist picture but supplies no credible data to back it up.
There is already widespread public confusion about what deforestation is. By promoting this infographic and its mixing of forest definitions and numbers, UN Biodiversity just muddies the waters and makes things worse. Separate infographics on deforestation, land or forest degradation, and forest cover loss might be a good idea. Just get the facts straight first!
Fails to name major causes, blames paper
The infographic also completely mischaracterises the major causes of global deforestation. Apart from a passing reference to the beef industry, the clear impression the infographic leaves, is that paper products are to blame. This is far from the truth. There’s no mention of the conversion of forest land to agricultural crops (much of it illegal), of soy and palm oil, forest cleared for wood fuel, hydro-electric development, or urbanisation: all key causes of global deforestation listed in numerous UN publications and elsewhere.
UN Biodiversity seems blissfully unaware of its sister organisation’s own 2020 Remote Sensing Survey. This FAO report estimated that from 2000 to 2018 nearly 90% of global deforestation was the result of agricultural expansion, including almost 50% from cropland expansion and 38% from livestock grazing. Oil palm alone accounted for 7% of global deforestation. There’s not a word about paper products. [ix] Do these UN bodies ever talk to each other? Check out the FAO’s own infographic on deforestation here:
Why didn’t UN Biodiversity use this? To repeatedly promote an infographic that’s old, doesn’t sufficiently cite its sources, and that implies paper products are the main (or major) cause of global deforestation, is totally misdirected and dishonest.[x] Here in Canada, the federal government estimates forestry was responsible for a mere 2% of the country’s latest deforestation rate. Conversion of forest land to agriculture was responsible for 44 percent.[xi]
Perpetuates the packaging myth
Then there’s the packaging myth. The infographic’s first recommendation on how to avoid deforestation (what UN Biodiversity calls in one posting a “prescription for change”) is to reduce the amount of paper packaging. That’s fine, I recognise that paper packaging (and packaging in general) is not exactly flavour of the month. But there are two points to be made here.
One is the obvious bias against paper in general. As indicated earlier, the infographic fails to mention avoiding the use of agricultural crops grown in tropical countries, or soy and palm oil, or dairy products and leather from cattle, cocoa, coffee, rubber, or of the (sometimes illegal) trade in wood products and furniture, or trees cut down for charcoal burning and energy.[xii] Does UN Biodiversity not consider these important ways to reduce deforestation? Its sister organisation, the FAO, certainly does.
The second point is that paper packaging is a relatively small component of the overall paper product mix. Yes, hardwood pulp from the tropics is used make some paper products, but the great majority of it is turned into tissue paper, a declining amount into graphic paper, with packaging grades third.
Whether this amounts to deforestation or not turns on the UN definition of deforestation. If the forest the wood pulp came from is not regenerated as forest, then that would be deforestation. But if the forest is regenerated (naturally or through tree planting or direct seeding) then that is not considered by the UN to be deforestation. The land remains forest land where trees will be grown again. Logging by itself, then, is not deforestation. Only if the land is not returned to forest.
In a Canadian context, this myth that paper packaging is a major cause of deforestation (a belief UN Biodiversity is encouraging through its repeated promotion of the infographic), is patently false. Paper packaging is not responsible for any deforestation in Canada because any forest land harvested for packaging grades must be regenerated as forest, by law. (In fact, most paper packaging made in Canada is 100% recycled content).[xiii] Now there’s some “shocking” facts!
In summary, the data on which the infographic is based is at least 10 years old, and the sources for its claims difficult to locate and verify (unlike more recent FAO data). It confuses deforestation with forest cover loss and degradation (significantly distorting the size and nature of the problem); completely fails to mention the major causes of deforestation while unfairly singling out paper products; and perpetuates a common myth about paper packaging.
“I might have even made up the numbers”
While the infographic clearly has serious flaws, I do not blame its designer, Jessica Strelioff. She was a student at California State University working on what was essentially a design layout project 12 years ago. She was not an environmental studies student but focussed on design, and so perhaps understandably does not precisely remember where she got the information that forms the backbone of her infographic. “I might have even made up the numbers!” she told me in an email. “So, I hope it’s not being used as a reference.”[xiv]
Unfortunately, it is, and with the apparent blessing of UN Biodiversity. This UN branch has a megaphone of 209,000 followers and the “shocking facts” piece had been reposted 45 times and “liked” 88 times at last review. In fact, UN Biodiversity liked the post so much that it reposted it twice more! The October 2023 post garnered 15,500 views.
Supporting these so-called “shocking facts” without first checking the UN’s own sources of information on deforestation is bad enough (and a black eye for both UN Biodiversity and the UN itself). Failure to cite credible sources and to actively promote false and misleading claims is quite another. The public should not be left to fumble around on the internet for hours trying to track down the origin of what someone claims. If we are to reduce global deforestation we need to base our actions on credible facts: not on fiction, not on suspect calculations, not on major omissions, not on emotional rhetoric and innuendo.
The real “shocker” here is how irresponsibly the organisation has acted on this issue. What it has done is very damaging, and a betrayal of the public trust. Only two explanations spring to mind: deliberate or incompetent. I think more likely incompetent because the serious flaws are just too obvious to those who know something about deforestation.
The infographic should be removed immediately from all UN Biodiversity communications; an apology made; and the most senior staff member who approved these postings either fired or severely reprimanded. Any future posts should cite the specific sources for claims made so that the public can check them out and know where the information is coming from. We live in a challenging world where credibility is key. On this particular subject, at this time, UN Biodiversity doesn’t have any.
POSTSCRIPT: I emailed UN Biodiversity’s Montreal office for comment on August 10. And followed this up with another email to the secretariat on August 15. The organisation’s director of communications, David Ainsworth, did respond, saying my email had been caught up in the spam filter. He would get back to me. So far, he has not done that.
[i] “Deforestation is the Death of the Forest” an infographic posted by the Official Account of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Executive Secretary: @SchomakerAstrid on November 17, 2022. “This infographic showcases some shocking facts about the forest and what can be done to help.” https://x.com/UNBiodiversity/status/1593318057874755585 UN Biodiversity is stated as having 208.7 K followers and this particular post at the time of review had been reposted 45 times, quoted 5 times, liked 88 times, and bookmarked twice. The same infographic was posted by the UN Biodiversity secretariat on October 15, 2023 and received 15.5 K views, 182 reposts, 10 quotes, 319 likes and 10 bookmarks. https://x.com/UNBiodiversity/status/1713645924830818572 UN Biodiversity (Convention on Biological Diversity) also posted the same infographic on February 4, 2023 saying it offered a “prescription for change.” https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?story_fbid=566482255516856&id=100064652591081&_rdr
[ii] Rainforest Action Network www.ran.org has no search button. There are plenty of claims made about forests and deforestation but no specific sources are cited to back up the infographic’s claims. Forest Protection Portal www.forests.org Is the website for Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), a forest management certifier. The website provides no evidence to back the claims in the infographic. National Geographic www.nationalgeographic.com does have one article about rain forest threats which roughly fits the time period when the infographic was being prepared (2009). It does seem to be the origin for at least two of the infographic’s claims, but no sources are cited for the claims made.
[iii] Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main Report, 2020, https://www.fao.org/3/ca9825en/ca9825en.pdf. See also FAO and UNEP, The State of the World’s Forests, 2024, Forests, Biodiversity and People, 2024, https://www.fao.org/publications/home/fao-flagship-publications/the-state-of-the-worlds-forests/en And OECD-FAO Business Handbook on Deforestation and Due Diligence in Agricultural Supply Chains, 2023, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-fao-business-handbook-on-deforestation-and-due-diligence-in-agricultural-supply-chains_c0d4bca7-en.html And FAO’s FRA 2020 Remote Sensing Survey https://fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/remote-sensing/fra-2020-remote-sensing-survey/en/
[iv] Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global Forest Resources Assessment (2020) Terms and Definitions (working paper 188) 2018, https://www.fao.org/3/i8661en/i8661en.pdf
[v] OECD-FAO Business Handbook on Deforestation and Due Diligence in Agricultural Supply Chains, Glossary and Annex A. ibid.
[vi] FAO recently surveyed 236 member countries on whether they monitored degraded forest. 10% ignored the question or did not respond. 68% said no, they did not specifically monitor forest degradation. Only 22% said they monitored the area of degraded forest, although the extent of that monitoring seems a little wishy-washy in light of some of the answers to the questions that followed. Most did not have a national definition; some said they were “working on” one; others offered very general forest policy statements and achievements. A few quoted clauses from the Kyoto Protocol or suggestions from the Convention on Biological Diversity. John Mullinder, Little Green Lies and Other BS: From “Ancient” Forests to “Zero” Waste, 2021, www.johnmullinder.ca
[vii] To get a common data-year comparison it was necessary to use two annual reports: Natural Resources Canada, The State of Canada’s Forests Annual Report for 2022 (page 72) and 2023. Fire losses in 2021 amounted to 4,307,520 hectares and deforestation 50,518 hectares. https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/nrcan/files/forest/sof2022/SoF_Annual2022_EN_access.pdf
[viii] On an annual basis, that 4500 acres would be 39.3 million acres (15.9 million hectares). But based on FAO’s 2010-2018 numbers, less than half of that (7.8 million hectares) would be deforestation (FAO’s Remote Sensing Survey, ibid.) And that doesn’t include the 11.6 million acres (4.7 million hectares) that was gained through forest expansion. FAO’s The State of the World’s Forests (2024) page 6, ibid. has a table of the top ten countries for average net gain in forest area (forest expansion minus deforestation equals net gain/loss) between 2010 and 2020: China, Australia, India, Chile, Viet Nam, Turkiye, USA, France, Italy, Romania.
[ix] FAO’s FRA 2020 Remote Sensing Survey, pages 47-48, ibid.
[x] The infographic also fails to tell the other side of the story; that the world gains forest through forest expansion every year. This amounted to 4.7 million hectares between 2010 and 2018, FAO, FRA 2020 Remote Sensing Survey, ibid.
[xi] Natural Resources Canada, The State of Canada’s Forests, Annual Report, 2023, ibid.
[xii] UN Biodiversity itself reports the FAO as saying that one in three of the world’s people (2.4 billion) use wood fuel to cook meals and sterilise water, UN Biodiversity post August, 8, 2024.
[xiii] “Most Canadian Packaging Board Now 100% Recycled Content,” (press release), Paper & Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council, (PPEC), September 12, 2019, https://www.ppec-paper.com/most-canadian-packaging-board-now-100-recycled-content/.
[xiv] Email correspondence with the author, July/August, 2024.