Scientists Criticize UN Agency for Failing to Withdraw Flawed Livestock Emissions Report
Over 20 academic experts have expressed their disappointment with the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for not retracting or revising a report on livestock emissions, which two of the report's cited researchers claim contains significant errors.
The disputed report is accused of downplaying the potential impact that dietary changes could have on reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, which account for approximately a quarter of human-caused emissions, largely due to livestock.
In a letter seen by The Guardian, the scientists criticized the FAO for ignoring the "serious distortions" highlighted earlier this year by academics Paul Behrens and Matthew Hayek. The pair had pointed out that the report contained "multiple and egregious errors" and filed a formal complaint, but their concerns were largely dismissed.
Behrens and Hayek described the FAO's promised "technical dialogue" as insufficient, noting that it amounted to little more than a webinar where they could submit questions in a Q&A format. "There has been no serious response," Behrens said, explaining that only one minor issue was partially addressed, and even that in an "unscientific way." The rest of their complaints were left unaddressed, making the process feel like "hitting a brick wall," he added.
Jennifer Jacquet, a professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami, who signed the letter, compared the FAO's handling of the situation unfavorably with the standards of academic journals, where corrections are expected when significant errors are found.
The FAO's "Pathways Toward Lower Emissions" report, released at COP28 last year, was presented as a comprehensive overview of global livestock emissions. However, Behrens and Hayek have criticized the report for incorrectly using their research on outdated national recommended diets (NRDs), double-counting emissions from meat production, mixing baseline years in the analysis, and failing to account for carbon sequestration opportunities on non-farmed land. Hayek estimated that these errors caused an underestimation of livestock emissions reduction potential by a factor of six to 40.
In response to these complaints, Beth Crawford, the FAO's chief scientist, called the NRD-based forecast for 2050 a "rough estimate" due to the absence of a global database on dietary preferences. However, she did not address other key issues such as double-counting and mixed baseline years, which Hayek claimed resulted from the FAO's misuse of scientific data.
The FAO said that the report had been subject to a "rigorous and thorough review" by a group of scientists. However, in their letter, the experts and 78 environmental groups urged the FAO to hold itself to a higher standard, saying, "It is unacceptable for the FAO, a respected UN institution, to dismiss these serious errors as a ‘rough estimate' when its data and policy recommendations have such far-reaching international influence."
Jacquet concluded that some of the methodological choices made by the FAO seemed aimed at maintaining the status quo, with an emphasis on increasing meat production and consumption, rather than addressing its environmental impacts.
The FAO has been contacted for a response.