Greenpeace questions ERM analysis for APP

NGO seeks clarification on carbon footprinting methodology

Campaigners working for Greenpeace in the UK have been attempting to arrange a meeting with ERM staff to discuss work undertaken by the consultancy on carbon footprinting for Indonesian pulp and paper company, Asia Pulp and Paper (APP). The environmental NGO believes APP is attempting to downplay the scale of its greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions by keeping emissions associated with land use change “off the books”.

On 13 September ERM issued a brief statement in response to a “small number of enquiries” it says it has received about its ongoing assessment of APP's carbon footprint. In the statement, ERM confirmed it has worked for APP for the past four years on a series of similar projects and stated that it “prides itself on maintaining the highest standards”. It also referred to the “independent” nature of its findings.

Speaking with Environment Analyst, ERM managing director for UK and Ireland, Keryn James, said that a handful of enquiries from Greenpeace and others about its recent work for APP had prompted the statement. James emphasised that ERM will “provide an update” once its internal investigation of the matter is complete. “We are trying to understand the nature of the questions being raised,” said James.

Also speaking with Environment Analyst, Greenpeace senior campaign advisor, Andy Tait, said that the NGO views APP as a “notorious destroyer of forests” and that the company continues to clear peatlands recognised as significant carbon sinks. Greenpeace's enquiries are motivated by a desire to understand how ERM has calculated APP's carbon footprint, says Tait. Release of summary documentation has led Greenpeace to suspect that APP has taken emissions from deforestation “off the books” while simultaneously claiming substantial carbon sequestration 'credit' from other parts of its products' lifecycles. This has the combined effect of shrinking significantly APP's carbon footprint, argued Tait, and in a way deemed unethical by Greenpeace. APP refutes the NGO's claims.

“We want to understand how ERM has reached the figures it has,” Tait told Environment Analyst. One question Greenpeace would like to pose to ERM is: how can plantation carbon sequestration be claimed for APP's products without also including the release of carbon emissions from land use change earlier in lifecycles?

ERM's James said that the consultancy is happy to engage with “any stakeholder about any of our work” and to provide additional information within the bounds of its contractual agreements with clients. “At the moment, we're not in a position to comment more fully, but we intend to provide a clear statement,” said James, although she also made clear that ERM is not able to release many of the details about its work for APP without APP's permission.

Sustained campaigning against APP by Greenpeace has prompted the company to establish a dedicated website refuting NGO claims. APP describes itself as “one of the world's largest fully-integrated forestry, pulp and paper, green-cycle enterprises”.

Environmental NGOs rarely pursue openly the environmental advisers of the companies and/or governments they accuse of eco-damage. However, there are exceptions. Over the years, campaigns against contentious, high-impact infrastructure projects have prompted NGOs to raise questions about the impartiality of technical environmental advice. Examples include questions raised about the impartiality of advice provided by AEA staff regarding the environmental impact of the Sakhalin II oil and gas project on Russia's east coast (Environment Analyst 11-Sep-08). More recently, there were accusations from a coalition led by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds of alleged poor quality advice given by Parsons Brinckerhoff to the UK government on energy generation options for the Severn Bay Barrage (Environment Analyst 13-May-09). Also, ongoing controversy over Indian mining company Vedanta's plans for a bauxite mine in Orissa prompted NGO Survival International to question the integrity of London-based corporate responsibility consultancy CO3. (Environment Analyst 18-Nov-08).

• ERM news release
• APP website discounting NGO claims