Back in April, we revealed serious defects in national plans to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation, due to the influence of global mega-consultancy firm McKinsey. Incredibly, McKinsey’s advice to forest nations could actually lead to increased deforestation, more carbon emissions, huge loss of biodiversity and violations of human rights. Now we’ve taken another step in building pressure on McKinsey.
When we presented our McKinsey report at the spring session of the World Bank to a very interested audience, no-one present was inclined to defend the controversial McKinsey approach.
With the world’s climate negotiators recently gathered in Bonn, and with reducing emissions from deforestation (or Redd) high on the agenda, it was time to go and present our findings about McKinsey at the UN conference at an official side event. It was my job to sit on the panel.
Joining me in discussions were Dr Justin Ondopa from the Papua New Guinea (PNG) Eco-Forestry Forum, Richard Gledhill from PriceWaterhouseCoopers in London and Fabian Kesicki from the UCL Energy Institute in London who is co-author of a high-level academic report that is critical of McKinsey’s approach.
Ondopa’s contribution was a heartfelt description of the failure to properly consult with traditional owners of rainforest land in Papua New Guinea. One of Greenpeace’s main worries with the McKinsey-influenced plans in Papua New Guinea is the fundamental failure to properly consider the rights of forest peoples. Dr Ondopa’s presentation strongly confirmed the validity of these concerns.
The day after the event, documents came to light in the media showing the Papua New Guinea government paid almost US$ 500,000 (PGK 1.37 million) to McKinsey as recently as September 2010 for 10 weeks work assisting with the development of PNG’s Climate Compatible Development Strategy.
On the other hand, Richard Gledhill offered hope that even if McKinsey are sitting tight in their glass tower and failing to take responsibility for the problems we’ve exposed, that the market is moving on and commercial competitors like PriceWaterhouseCoopers appear to be offering advice that is more fit for purpose.
Gledhill made it clear that PriceWaterhouseCoopers regard safeguards on biodiversity and the rights of forest peoples as absolutely essential to national Redd schemes. The same kind of approach is evident in a report on operationalising Redd that PWC recently provided to the UK government. PWC should now take the logical step of making it clear (as McKinsey have failed to do) that they do not regard logging as climate mitigation measure.
When we got to questions, just as at the World Bank, nobody from the audience stood up to defend the McKinsey approach. However, a number of audience members did provide new information on McKinsey that does not feature in our current report. We might have to get writing again.
It is not too late: McKinsey can make amends, salvage its reputation and help rainforest countries to both protect forests and safeguard their economies at the same time. With competitors like PriceWaterhouseCoopers or KPMG distancing themselves from the McKinsey approach then the problem of McKinsey-influenced national Redd plans might just have its own market solution, putting at risk McKinsey’s position as the market leader in Redd advice.
Find out more about Greenpeace's work on forests and climate change:
- Rate and review Barbie's dirty deforestation habits (blog)
- Dark days in Brazil: campaigners assassinated and forest laws threatened (blog)
- One year after Nestlé committed to giving rainforests a break, what has been achieved? (blog)
- Amazon turning point? Brazil fights Forest Code changes (blog)
- Bad Influence: How McKinsey inspired plans lead to rainforest destruction (report)
