NIHT accuses Four Corners investigation of bias
In February 2023, ABC broadcast an investigation into forest carbon projects in Papua New Guinea. The Four Corners investigation “Carbon Colonialism” included a detailed look at NIHT’s Topaiyo REDD+ Project. REDD-Monitor’s post about the documentary is available here.
The US-based company NIHT has now accused Four Corners of bias. The Australian, part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp empire, reports that NIHT is “exploring all options” regarding the Four Corners investigation.
This post looks at NIHT’s claims as reported in The Australian - followed by ABC’s responses to James Madden’s questions. Madden is the journalist at The Australian who wrote the article.
ABC asked The Australian to make the ABC’s responses publicly available, but it did not do so.
REDD in PNG enters the culture wars
The Australian reveals its biases early on in the article when Madden writes that,
“NIHT’s accusation of ABC imbalance comes just two months after a year-long investigation by the Australian Communications and Media Authority found Four Corners had breached two standards of the national broadcaster’s code of practice by omitting relevant information.”
This refers to a double ABC episode presented by Sarah Ferguson and titled “Fox and the Big Lie,” which was broadcast in 2021. It examined how Fox News became a propaganda tool for Donald Trump and helped spread and legitimise Trump’s allegations of election fraud in the 2020 US presidential election.
News Corp published 45 articles in two days attacking ABC following the broadcast.
Fox News subsequently complained to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), alleging that the episodes lacked impartiality, failed to present a diversity of views and contained “numerous provable falsehoods”.
After a year-long investigation ACMA did not uphold most of Fox News’ complaints, and concluded that the episodes met ABC’s impartiality standards. ACMA did find that the episodes omitted relevant contextual information in two instances: the role of social media in encouraging the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol; and the fact that Fox News censured two of its presenters for appearing at a Trump rally in 2018.
The Guardian quotes from the ACMA’s ruling:
“The episodes focussed on newsworthy allegations, presented evidence to support these allegations, and demonstrated open-mindedness by seeking and, where available, including relevant perspectives.”
Sarah Ferguson, the investigative journalist who presented “Fox and the Big Lie,” stood by her reporting. She wrote that the ACMA ruling has huge implications for journalism. Fox News presenters “were pushing the stolen election narrative at a precarious time for US democracy, doing Trump's bidding and currying favour with the most powerful figure in the country. That was our focus.”
Back to PNG. . . .
NIHT’s claims
The Australian makes the following claims against the Four Corners documentary:
Four Corners “was effectively doing the bidding of Forcert, one of NIHT’s commercial rivals in PNG.”
The Australian writes that Forcert is “an NGO that has had a long association with sustainable logging operations in certain areas of PNG” and that Forcert “currently has an application lodged with the country’s authorities to launch a rival project to NIHT’s existing carbon trading scheme”.
Four Corners found that villagers did not fully understand what they were signing up to when they agreed to the project. The Australian puts the words free, prior and informed consent in quotation marks, and writes that,
“NIHT received approval for its project from PNG’s designated government body on environmental matters, the Climate Change and Development Authority. International law firm Baker McKenzie was also engaged to assess if NIHT had legitimately obtained FPIC, and it found that the American company had fulfilled its obligations. Four Corners did not disclose this.”
The Australian writes that Four Corners did not mention “an unsuccessful court case brought against NIHT by the Kamlapar clan, which owns land within the NIHT project area. That action was filed on behalf of the landowners by a Forcert employee”.
Four Corners notes that Verra suspended NIHT from its registry, “pending a review of [NIHT founder] Stephen Strauss’s past securities law violations”. The Australian writes that less than a fortnight after the documentary was broadcast, Verra restored NIHT’s right to trade carbon credits.
The Australian reported Cosmas Makamet, Forcert’s manager in PNG, as saying that Forcert “does not consider itself to be in competition with NIHT” and that “no one from Forcert acted as a guide for the ABC during the 30-day visit by Four Corners”.
NIHT’s Strauss called the Four Corners documentary “disingenuous”.
He told The Australian that,
“We were set to receive $12.00 a ton per credit for the 2020 vintage and now we will probably get less than half that. This was also shared with Four Corners prior to the article. That is over a $12m loss – more than $8m to the people of PNG. We have an obligation as the responsible party for the carbon rights to ensure that our partners from PNG are protected. We are exploring all options.”
Obviously, neither The Australian nor Strauss makes any mention of the fact that villagers have only received 200 PNG Kina each (about US$55). Four Corners did speak to villagers in PNG about this. “It’s not enough,” one of the villagers told Four Corners.
ABC’s replies in full
ABC has posted its replies to the questions it received from The Australian’s journalist James Madden on its website. They are posted here in full:
Sent: Friday, 24 February 2023 3:19 PM
Subject: Questions from The Australian re Four Corners
Did Forcert pay for any transport or accommodation for Mr Long at any stage of the production of the program?
All costs were paid for by the ABC.
Why did 4C fail to disclose Forcert’s court action against NIHT – a process that delayed NIHT’s project in PNG?
The only court action we are aware of involved customary landowners and NIHT.
Why did the ABC fail to speak to any landowners who are benefitting from the NIHT program?
As Four Corners reported, all the landowners we spoke to had received monetary benefits from the NIHT program, and Four Corners accurately reflected the views of all those we spoke to.
Did a representative of Forcert, or someone associated with the company, drive Mr Long to the site which he claimed had been illegally and improperly (logged) by NIHT?
No. Also, Four Corners did not suggest the logging was conducted by NIHT.
We note Forcert is a not-for-profit NGO.
What evidence does Mr Long have that the site is “within the NIHT carbon credit project area”, as he asserts in the program?
Four Corners knew the boundaries of the project area and witnessed and filmed logging in areas that were clearly within those boundaries — in fact occurring next to signs stating that it was within the NIHT REDD+ area. It’s also readily apparent through satellite images.
NIHT has not disputed this. From the transcript: “NIHT told us it’s supporting the provincial government’s efforts to stop unwanted logging. It said it’s now managed to end two cases of logging in its carbon project area.”
Why did the ABC fail to disclose that Forcert worked with the Kait people as part of its certified logging project between 2005-2015?
This wasn’t relevant to investigating allegations concerning current carbon offset projects.
Re the appearance of The Australia Institute’s Polly Hemming in the program….why didn’t the ABC fail to disclose The Australia Institute’s stated position on carbon credits and the voluntary carbon market?
Ms Hemming made her position clear in the program.
The stickers on some of the logs, as seen in 4C, suggest that the logs were harvested in an area outside the NIHT project area. What steps did 4C take to verify that the logs which were shown in the program were harvested in the NIHT project area?
As stated, Four Corners witnessed and filmed logging taking place within the project area, and NIHT has not disputed this.
Did the ABC attempt to contact the logging company it claims was responsible for cutting down trees in the NIHT project area?
Four Corners spoke to representatives of the company.
Why didn’t the ABC seek to interview PNG’s Climate Change and Development Authority, which approved the NIHT project, and “was satisfied with the level of free prior informed consent and stakeholder engagement process undertaken by NIHT?”
For numerous reasons, including that Four Corners didn’t make any allegations against the CCDA.
Did the ABC not think it was noteworthy to observe that Forcery (sic) is currently seeking approval for its own carbon project in PNG? If not, why not?
That was stated in the Four Corners report.
Sent: Friday, 10 March 2023 3:55 PM
Subject: Further questions on 4C’s ‘Carbon Colonialism’ episode
Did an employee of Forcert accompany the ABC crew at any stage during the making of Four Corners’ recent ‘Carbon Colonialism’? If so, why wasn’t this disclosed?
Following an interview a Forcert employee showed us the location of a premises controlled by NIHT, where we then interviewed the local NIHT CEO.
Why didn’t the ABC seek to interview PNG’s Climate Change and Development Authority, which approved the NIHT project, and “was satisfied with the level of free prior informed consent and stakeholder engagement process undertaken by NIHT?” In your previous response to this question, you said the reason was that 4C “didn’t make any allegations against the CCDA.” That doesn’t answer my query. Did 4C not think it was worth seeking an interview, or a response, from the govt authority overseeing the carbon credit market in PNG?
You’ve quoted the previous response incorrectly. It said: For numerous reasons, including that Four Corners didn’t make any allegations against the CCDA.
Is the ABC aware that the CCDA has previously remarked on the positive contribution that the NIHT project has made to PNG, and raised concerns about the behaviour of Forcert in the country? Is that the reason why 4C did not approach the CCDA for comment?
No, it isn’t the reason.
Why no mention of the proposed Forcert project in the same region as the NIHT project? Isn’t it relevant to the story, that a major competitor to NIHT has lodged a proposal for a carbon credit project in PNG?
It is mentioned. Also Forcert is a not-for-profit NGO, not a “major competitor”.
Why did 4C fail to disclose Forcert’s court action against NIHT – a process that delayed NIHT’s project in PNG? Why didn’t 4C report that the case was dismissed?
We are not aware of Forcert being party to any litigation involving NIHT. The only court action we’re aware of involved customary landowners against NIHT.
5. (sic) Why did the ABC fail to observe that both CCDA and Verra investigated Forcert’s claim that NIHT hadn’t obtained FPIC, and ultimately cleared NIHT?
Your characterisation is misleading. A coalition of major environment groups and environment/human rights lawyers in PNG wrote to the Climate Change and Development Authority raising concerns about NIHT. Leaders of the Kamlapar clan also wrote to Verra raising concerns about free, prior and informed consent and potential breaches of law.
According to a statement from Verra it did not “clear NIHT”, merely told aggrieved landowners that the issue did not relate to any decisions by Verra and encouraged them to seek to resolve the issue through negotiation, mediation, arbitration or in court.
It is currently subject to a national court case in PNG.
At the conclusion of the 4C program, it was stated: “In the wake of our investigation, Verra suspended NIHT Inc’s right to trade carbon credits, pending a review of Stephen Strauss’s past securities law violations.” Witghin two weeks, Verra restored NIHT’s right to trade. Did the ABC report this development on any of its platforms? If so, could you please send me the link to the story?
The ABC hasn’t seen information on this from Verra, but any relevant updates will be noted in an Editor’s Note on the story.
Does the ABC believe the 4C program, “Carbon Colonialism”, was a fair and balanced piece of journalism?
Carbon Colonialism examines whether carbon credit projects in PNG being run by international companies are meeting their promises to stop exploitative timber harvesting while lifting locals out of poverty, and exposed extensive evidence of concerning problems.
Four Corners did exhaustive research for the program and spoke to dozens of people, including many local landowners, human rights lawyers, environmentalists, anthropologists and relevant bodies, companies and NGOs.
The report is independent, impartial, follows the weight of evidence and gives a fair and accurate account of what is occurring. It is an important piece of public interest investigative journalism.
I need a logics diagram of this to make sense of it...