REDD+ study used by Guardian 'should be retracted': scientists

Quantum Commodity Intelligence – An international group of senior scientists has publicly rebuked an academic paper used as the basis for an article in the UK newspaper The Guardian earlier this year that slammed REDD projects, claiming they generate far fewer carbon credits than claimed.

The new research was led by Ed Mitchard, an academic and chief scientist at satellite data company Space Intelligence, in partnership with academics affiliated with institutes such as NASA, MIT and the Universities of California and Edinburgh.

The latest paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, claimed to have identified multiple errors in the original study and that it should be revised or retracted.

"The flawed analysis of 24 projects both understates the impact of the projects in the sample, and unfairly condemned all REDD projects, of which there are over 100," said lead author Professor Ed Mitchard.

"It risks cutting off finance for protecting vulnerable tropical forests from destruction when funding needs to grow rapidly."

The group of researchers claimed to have found "key flaws" in underlying data used by fellow academics in the 'West et al' paper.

They said the critical paper used "completely inappropriate" site samples, citing as an example the comparison between project areas based in Colombia and Peru with regions located on the other side of the Andes mountains.

Another significant error was the inadequate dataset usage as it contained "random errors" besides the fact that sensitivity varied over time as available satellites changed.

"This meant that projects that successfully reduced deforestation were less likely to be detected as such," according to the new study.

Moreover, the researchers affirmed that "West and colleagues made numerical errors" on carbon benefits calculation for projects they had deemed effective at stopping deforestation.

The original paper quoted by the Guardian had a significant impact on the demand of REDD credits with many project developers furious at the time about the research, claiming it was flawed. 

Prices for credits from REDD projects consequently tanked.

That research, the group led by Mitchard said, should now be "retracted or heavily revised".

"We call for future studies on the effectiveness of REDD projects to use locally tuned forest change data with known accuracies or point-based sampling approaches to quantify deforestation," it said.