Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

The Swedish Energy Agency has stopped buying carbon credits from Green Resources’ destructive plantations in Uganda

Posted on 11 March 20201 April 2020
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

By Chris Lang

The Swedish Energy Agency has cancelled its contract to buy carbon credits from Green Resources. The Swedish Energy Agency has finally recognised the impacts that Green Resources’ industrial tree plantations have on local communities in Kachung in Uganda.

The Swedish Energy Agency’s decision followed a field visit to Kachung. According to a report by Development Today, Swedish Energy Agency’s staff found “villagers were deprived of vital resources and experienced threats and violence, and there is a lack of clarity regarding ownership in the reserve.”

Development Today’s editor, Bjørn H Amland writes on Twitter that an “on-going law suit over land in Uganda was a dealbreaker”.

Green Resources is a Norwegian company, founded in 1995. On its website, the company claims to be “a sustainable forestry company aiming at growing plantation forests across East Africa in a sustainable and socially just manner”. The company’s plantations generate carbon credits and timber products.

Two decades of criticism of Green Resources

The reality is that the company’s operations have been criticised repeatedly. In 2000, NorWatch wrote about Green Resources’ plantations in Uganda and Tanzania in a report titled “Tree Trouble”.

At the time the company was called Tree Farms. In Uganda, NorWatch found that:

  • Tree Farms had leased the land from the Ugandan authorities for a bargain price.
  • To make way for Tree Farms’ plantations about 8,000 people, mainly farmers and fishermen, were evicted from the company’s areas and thus deprived of their livelihoods.
  • Tree Farms is exploiting farmers by using their unpaid labour to clear and prepare the land that is to be planted.
  • Farmers destroyed some of the plantations, and termites attacked the trees. As a result the plantations were poor quality.
  • Tree Farms stood to make large profits from the sale of carbon credits from the tree plantations, but Uganda will receive little.
  • The amount of CO2 that would be stored by the tree plantations was extremely uncertain.

The Darker Side of Green

In 2014, the Oakland Institute published a report titled, “The Darker Side of Green: Plantation Forestry and Carbon Violence in Uganda”. The report exposed Green Resources’ claims of sustainable forestry as a myth.

When Mats Asprem, then-CEO of Green Resources responded to the Oakland Institute’s report claiming that everything was fine, the Oakland Institute replied in detail, countering Asprem’s claims.

In 2015, Sweden’s TV4 Kalla Fakta programme visited the plantations in Uganda. This documentary is well worth watching and highlighted the Swedish Energy Agency’s greenwashing of Green Resources’ destructive plantations.

After the programme was broadcast in Sweden, the Swedish Energy Agency announced that is was suspending payments to Green Resources.

In 2016, the Finnish Broadcasting Company, Yle, visited Green Resources plantations in Kachung. Also in 2016, Thomson Reuters Foundation reported on the impacts of Green Resources’ plantations on local communities’ livelihoods.

Eviction notices

The Oakland Institute published two more reports about Green Resources’ plantations. In August 2019, Oakland Institute published a report that included the eviction notices served to farmers in Kachung. Six months later, the Swedish Energy Agency has terminated its agreement with Green Resources.

In a statement, Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute, comments that,

“Despite solid evidence and documentation, Green Resources and its financiers, including the SEA, callously, not only turned a blind eye to the victims of their ‘green’ fraud, but also dismissed our findings. If they had paid heed to the concerns raised in 2014 — which should have been obvious to the SEA if due diligence had been done from the get go — Green Resources could not have gotten away with causing hunger, displacement, and distress amongst the population of 17 villages for this long.”

The Oakland Institute is calling for Green Resources and its financial backers to be held responsible. In 2012, the Finnish public investment fund Finnfund gave Green Resources an investment loan of US$10 million. In total Finnfund and Norway’s Norfund have financed the company with more than US$62.5 million.

The Oakland Institute states that,

The protracted misery inflicted on Kachung’s communities can only be rightfully addressed with the immediate end of this devastating project, so that they can reclaim their land and livelihoods.

The Forest Stewardship Council is also complicit

Green Resources’ plantations in Uganda have been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council since 2011. Obviously, this should not come as a surprise given two elephants in the room:

  • the conflict of interest at the heart of the FSC system (FSC’s assessors are paid by the company looking to get certified); and
  • FSC’s appalling record of certifying some of the most destructive industrial tree plantation operations on the planet.

The Oakland Institute’s Mittal concludes that,

“Land grabbing from Ugandan villagers to set up non-native pine plantations is a false climate solution, designed to allow polluters in Northern countries to continue with business as usual.”

 


PHOTO Credit: Green Resources plantation, Kristen Lyons, 2013.
 

Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

Related

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

REDDisms

“There are now already in development derivatives of CO2 prices that are so complicated that I do not understand it any more, if you get a reservoir of derivatives which becomes so big that it becomes an industry in itself that is very dangerous because you can get the tail wagging the dog.”

— Feike Sijbesma, CEO of chemicals group DSM, January 2010

Recent Posts

  • How REDD greenwashes Glencore’s coal mining operations in Colombia
  • The Durban Declaration on Carbon Trading
  • Book review: “Forest Conservation and Sustainability in Indonesia” by Bernice Maxton-Lee
  • Plant for the Planet: Felix Finkbeiner’s fake forests
  • Open letter to the lead authors of ‘Protecting 30% of the Planet for Nature’: “This paper reads to us like a proposal for a new model of colonialism”

Recent Comments

  • Chris Lang on Directors of Tullett Brown, Foxstone Carr, Carvier Limited get 14 year director bans
  • Alan Potkin on The Durban Declaration on Carbon Trading
  • Sabhrina Gita Aninta on Book review: “Forest Conservation and Sustainability in Indonesia” by Bernice Maxton-Lee
  • Erin on Savraj Gata-Aura sentenced to four years in prison for his role in the Bar Works investment scam
  • Lesley Walford on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”

Issues and Organisations

AB 32 Boiler rooms Bonn California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer Sustainable Forest Management The Nature Conservancy Ulu Masen UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Nigeria Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2021 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!