This case study examines the pitfalls of a forestry which relies on monoculture plantations, and in doing so offers a warning about the ecologically devastating effects that joint implementation and other flexible mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol could have on forests in the Czech Republic and elsewhere unless monoculture plantations are strictly prohibited.

The history of spruce monocultures in the Czech Republic reaches back to the second half of the eighteenth century. Since that time, Czech forests have been devastated by over-exploitation. The replacement of wood (until then the main source of energy, including for heating) by coal allowed for a reduction in wood harvesting, essentially saving Czech lands from complete deforestation. Around the same time, the science of forestry was born, with its goal of assuring an adequate supply of wood in future years.

The first foresters quickly discovered that some species of trees (spruce, fir, pine) have better production features than others and started to selectively replant forested areas - especially with spruce and pine, since the shade-loving fir does not grow well in deforested areas. The foresters thus replaced other species with mostly spruce trees, and with pines in the lower elevations. They later harvested the wood; this clearcutting and planting method was the preferred "forest" management strategy.

Both the monocultures and the clearcuts had disastrous impacts on the health of forest ecosystems in the Czech republic. What remained of natural original forest gradually decreased in area and became confinedmostly to inaccessible areas free of forest roads. The peak of this clearcut-and-monoculture management style was reached in the 1970s.

At present forests and tree plantations make up one-third of the total area of the Czech Republic – approximately 2,634,000 hectares. Spruce and pine monocultures form 90 per cent of this area. Forest/plantation management based on clearcuts continues, with an average rotation period of 115 years. During the last six years there have been noticeable positive changes in forestry, such as rules requiring a minimum percentage of soil-improving and indigenous species during planting. Since 1996 the maximum size of monocultures has also been restricted.

Table: Comparison of original species composition in the Czech Republic to what is found in Czech forests today (per cent):

However, the specified minimum percentage of natural species in managed forests required by the government (an average of 20 per cent) is entirely insufficient to restore stability within forest ecosystems. In an effort to back-track on even this minor concession to ecological needs, the Ministry of Agriculture is currently preparing an amendment to the forest law in which even these "minimum proportions" of native species would no longer be required.

As spruce monocultures are the most extensive and also suffer from most problems, this study will mostly focus on this type of plantation.

High mountain spruce forests are the only example of natural spruce forest in the Czech Republic (natural spruce growth at low elevations is very rare). Mountain spruce growth can be found in harsh climatic conditions at elevations higher than 1000 meters above sea level and in cold mountain valleys where the only other species that can survive are mountain-ash, birch, sycamore and maple.

Spruce monocultures have replaced not only natural mountain spruce forests but also fir-beech forests of middle elevations and oak forests of lower elevations. This means that foresters are growing spruce under conditions which are not suitable for it (out of its ecological optimum).

If the expected global climate change occurs, spruce vegetation might migrate to the higher elevations and natural spruce growth would remain only at the top of the few highest peaks in the Czech mountains. In such a case we can also expect a mass degradation of spruce monocultures at lower elevations where the spruce will be completely out of its ecological habitat. With this is mind it is incomprehensible that 50 per cent of forests at these lower elevations are still reforested with spruce.

The inner structure of forests is significantly changed by the growth of spruce monocultures. The forest structure in a monoculture contains an artificially high stand density, trees all of the same age and species, and results in closure of the tree canopy. The vertical diversity is minimized (lower younger and higher older trees and various bushes are missing) and herbs are ruthlessly suppressed due to the increased shade (mostly in the younger growths).

The reduction in species and genetic diversity is even more radical owing to the monotony of structure and decrease in sunlight. The methods used to extract wood during clearcuts further damage many species of plants, animals and micro-organisms, which are killed directly or indirectly by loss of habitat.

Because all the wood is removed, the forests forego the period of decomposition which is an irreplaceable source of biodiversity. Clearcuts completely change the character of the vegetation, as the clearings (paseka) are soon covered by light-loving species like the red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), great willow herb (Chamerion angustifolium) and grove ragwort (Senecio ovatus). In the last decade an invasive bush reed grass (Calamagrostis epigejos) has dangerously expanded within the spruce monocultures (in the mountain areas it is complimented by hairy reed grass - Calamagrostis villosa) and it represses the majority of native forest species. The expansion of the range of spruce monocultures has caused a radical decline in most forest herbs, which under ordinary circumstances form a green ground cover in leafy and mixed forests.

Forest hydrology is also disrupted by such changes, as is the water system in the countryside at large. Interception and absorption of precipitation are reduced.

 
Absorption of precipitation in different forests

  
In the graphs above, rainfall runoff and rainfall absorption of spruce monocultures and clearcut areas are compared to those of mixed fir-beech forests, with the latter indexed at 100 and the former represented as a percentage of that.

Spruce monocultures also result in soil degradation. In the layers of fallen needles, a non-nutritious acidic humus forms and slows the decomposition process, resulting in soil compaction.

Correspondingly, the cycle of nutrients and energy is disrupted. Thanks to the acidic soil reaction caused by an absence of leaf mulch, there is an increase in the release of basic ions (especially magnesium and calcium). Acidic rainfall then evokes a release of aluminum ions (Al3+) ions, which are very toxic to the mycorhizzaefungi which live on spruce roots. Owing to an absence of trees with deep roots (beech, fir, birch, mountain ash), there is no recycling to the surface soil of nutrients in deeper soil. Because all woody material is removed from the forest, most organic mass and nutrients are removed from the cycle. In several places a reduction in nutrient capacity and degradation of soil also results in withered features and reduced growth rates for second- and third- generation spruce monocultures. There also is a loss in the sanitary functioning of the forest. While natural forests give an impression of a living organism (due to species variability, seasonal changeability, and variability of colors, smells, shapes, light), spruce monocultures give an impression of a dead organism -- stiffness, stereotype, unnatural uniformity. In young spruce monocultures there is a deathly dusk.

The growth of spruce monocultures outside of the spruce's ecologically optimum area, the minimization of biodiversity, the unification of spatial structure, the disruption of hydrology and the degradation of soil combine to result in a clear crisis of ecological stability in spruce plantations. Although foresters strive to preserve the plantation trees through considerable inputs of energy (cleanings and thinnings), fertilization and eradication of pests and weeds, spruce monocultures are often seriously damaged by wind, snow, frost and bark beetles. If not killed by these natural disasters, they will often wither on their own. During the years 1992-1997 incidental calamity extraction (salvage felling) accounted for 60-80 per cent of total timber extraction, and in some areas this number approached 100 per cent.

For the time being, the social impacts of spruce monocultures are not a serious problem in the Czech Republic, although impacts can be expected in the future due to an increase in "calamity" (natural disaster) damage. The forest economy employs 36,700 people, or 0.7 per cent of government employees nationwide. If the forest economy makes a shift to more ecologically-friendly forest management one result would be a small increase of the number of jobs in this sector of the economy.

The cultivation of spruce monocultures has been fatal for the way people perceive forests. Spruce monocultures have been cultivated in the Czech Republic for 200 years, and the public perception of forests has followed suit. Today, most people perceive monocultures as normal forests because they are the only wooded areas they ever see in the countryside. What remains of natural forests appears as something exotic, out of control and untidy. The very meaning of the term "forest" has become skewed. People call spruce monocultures "forests" even though a monoculture can no more be called a forest than a corn field can be called a meadow.

The ridge between Tistoliník (elevation 1311 meters above sea level), Trojmezná and Plechá (elevation 1378 meters) lies at the border of the Czech Republic, Austria, and Germany, and is the highest region in the Czech portion of the Šumava Mountains. A strip of forest 500-800 meters wide sweeping down from the ridge forms the richest growth of native mountain spruce forest in the Czech Republic. A full two-thirds of this forest has been spared from clearcuts, and since 1933 the area has been protected as a nature reserve. In the lower elevation the reserve passes gradually from a spruce forest into a mixed fir-beech-spruce forest. Below the reserve, where once mixed fir-beech forests stood, one now finds third-generation spruce monocultures.

The first monumental event in the modern history of Sumava's forests resulted from the construction of a shipping channel in 1789 - 1822 by the largest land-owner in the Sumava Mountains at the time, Prince Schwarzenberg. The channel made it possible for the first time to transport large quantities of harvested wood easily. Previously untouched forests were quickly cleared and the clearings replanted exclusively with spruce seeds.

The second major turning point was a calamitous storm during the night of October 26, 1870. The biggest concentration of wind damage occurred in areas where 50 years before large sections of natural forest had been liquidated in order to meet quotas for shipping wood. The areas destroyed by the wind were replanted with monoculture spruce forests, and the fragile plantations here came under attack from the spruce bark beetle. The bark beetle infestation affected not only the artificial spruce monocultures, but also spread into the surrounding natural forest. Due to the beetle attack, the area suffered another round of major deforestation. The deforested areas were replanted again by spruce, partly through natural regeneration, and partly through human planting. Over time, the plantings shifted from trees of local genetic origin toward trees of foreign genetic makeup.

Table: Decay of spruce monocultures in the Šumava National Park, along the lower hillside of Trojmezná and Tístoliník:

Species composition of trees in Šumava (per cent): 

Aside from the above-mentioned reasons of instability of spruce monocultures, it is necessary to consider, in the mountain areas, whetherspruce will grow in wind-induced clearings or not. The extreme weather conditions in wind-induced mountain clearings (temperature fluctuations, wind, frost) result in natural selection in favor of so-called "pioneer" genotypes in both planted and naturally rejuvenating spruces. These are able to survive the extreme climate conditions, and even thrive, and are thus able to execute the function of pioneers -- they set the stage for other types of forest. Pioneer spruce live relatively short lives (in comparison to the climax genotype of spruce which grows slowly in the shade of older trees). The vitality of pioneer spruce terminates after 80-120 years, so tree decay hits these areas on average after 100 years of growth. The experience in Šumava confirms this trend.

The expected decay of unstable spruce monocultures on the lower hillside of Trojmezná started in 1989. In 1988 the foresters had authorized construction of a wide forest road there, clearing a 9-meter strip of monoculture spruce to do so. The open growth was exposed to the wind and attacked by the bark beetle. Infested and wind-felled trees are processed and transported out of the area each year, so the clearings only become bigger, exposing still more trees to the elements and the beetles. Even consistent preventive cuttings cannot contain the beetle infestations, and new trees are attacked each year. Even after 10 years of failure foresters still will not admit that they are unable to prevent the decomposition of spruce monocultures. And even though this region is part of an area designated a national park in 1990, their destructive methods have not changed. The deforested area now meaures more than 200 hectares and has reached the border of the nature reserve (the "first," or most protected zone of the national park), and with it the remaining natural mountain spruce forest.

Expedited processing of wood felled or threatened by wind and beetles creates a short-term need for many seasonal workers. The management of Sumava National Park has hired companies and large groups of foresters from around the Czech Republic and neighboring countries, while at the same time many local people are unemployed. The emergency work-effort is to the detriment of generating permanent job opportunities for local people.

There is now a new debate about a proposed amendment to the forest law. As mentioned above, this amendment would cancel the requirement that forestry projects plant a certain (limited) proportion of diverse native tree species, -- even though this quota is already grossly inadequate for anything approaching sustainable forestry. Friends of the Earth Czech Republic is trying to push forest legislation in the opposite direction – calling for an increase of this minimum quota. Failing an increase in the minimum natural diversity quota, the acceptance of a Framework Convention on Climate Change or Kyoto Protocol which allows and promotes the planting of spruce monocultures would start a new wave of spruce monocultures in the Czech Republic. Under present conditions involving second- and third- generation spruce monocultures, we are experiencing serious degradation of forest biotopes, making it clear that further moves in this direction would lead to the extinction of Czech forests, leaving only fragile plantations in their stead.

In tropical areas, deforestation produces immediate and clearly-visible local and global results. In Europe, the cultivation of monoculture conifer plantations represents a more hidden form of forest ecosystem destruction, leading more slowly but just as surely to the permanent collapse of not only the forest, but the entire capacity of the landscape to support life.

The only way to prevent this collapse is by a gradual return to a natural species composition through forest restoration and forest rehabilitation. But it is also necessary to enact changes in the methods of forestry -- no clearcuts, reduction of wood extraction in mountainous areas, and reduced numbers of deer. For conservation and for all the benefits humans derive from the existence of wilderness, biocorridors creating a connected network of forests should be established which contain representatives of all types of forest ecosystems, with sufficiently large areas to allow for their dynamic development.

Considering the negative impacts detailed in this study, it is crucial that FCCC Annex 1 countries focus on the development of integrated strategies to conserve and restore natural forest ecosystems in their countries (as required by both the FCCC and the Kyoto Protocol) and that they avoid further expansion of monocultures.

Bláha J., Višák R., Forest: Natural or Artificial, Friends of the Earth Czech Republic 1999

Buek A., Projected Evolution of Forest Vegetation, Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry University Brno 1997

Dostál J., New Flowers of Czechoslovakia, Prague Academy 1989

Hladilin V., Care of Forest Ecosystems in Sumava National Park, doctoral dissertation. Department of Forestry CZU Prague 1999

Košál L., personal communication

Luká J., Analysis of Flood Situation in the Malej Svinky River Basin, Friends of the Earth Slovakia, 1998

Lukac J., Let's Refill the Springs, Wolf Forest Protection Movement 1996

Maser Ch., The Redesigned Forest. R.Miles, San Pedro 1988

Míchal I., Petíek V., Care of Protected Areas, AOPK, Praha 1999

Rejl J., Kopecka V., Bucek A.: Modeling of Possible Consequences of Global Climate Change on the Czech Republic, AOPK Praha 1997

Úlehla V., Let's Refill the Spring, Life and Work, Prague 1947

Višák R., Forest in the Midnight Hour, Abies Prešov, sent to publisher

Report on the State of Forests and Forestry in the Czech Republic, Ministry of Agriculture 1999 and 2000

Over the past years, Norwegian companies have acquired huge land areas in East Africa where they are planting, or planning to plant, fast-growing trees such as eucalyptus and pine. When the trees mature, the plantations could yield an income through the sale of timber and wood. Against the backdrop of the Kyoto Protocol signed in December 1997, however, the Norwegian players envisage another and more immediate source of income; namely, selling carbon credits based on the storage of CO₂ in tree plantations.

Two days after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, Tree Farms (the company was then named Fjordgløtt) arranged a private placement that increased the company's capitalization from NOK 990,000 (USD 98,000) to NOK 13 million (USD 1.4 million). Five months later, the company invited outside investors to buy shares. One third of the new shares were bought by TRG, a company controlled by the Norwegian billionaire Kjell Inge Røkke.

In February, managing director Steinar Bysveen in Industrikraft Midt-Norge (which is behind the plans for a gas-fired power plant at Skogn, Norway) told NorWatch that one interesting source of carbon credits is "a tree-planting project with Norwegian owners in Africa". In the beginning of April this year, the identities of the Norwegian owners were confirmed. At that time, Industrikraft Midt-Norge and Tree Farms briefed the Foreign Ministry that the companies have made an agreement giving the power plant developers the first option on buying carbon credits from Tree Farms.

The same basic question applies both to the issue of new power plants and to the issue of climate change in general: Will the Norwegian tree-planting projects in Uganda contribute to a better climate, globally and locally - or is this just CO₂lonialism?

Uganda, formerly called "the pearl of Africa", is a country that has undergone dramatic political changes since the 1970s. Often, the country is associated mainly with the misguided regime of Idi Amin in the 1970s. However, a couple of decades have passed since Amin was run out of the country by the military dictator Obote, who was, again, toppled in 1986. Since then, the country has been ruled by president Yoweri Museveni, but several guerilla groups are fighting the regime, which does not permit a multi-party system.

The country north-east of Lake Victoria has rich and varied nature areas, ranging from tropical forest to the south and west, to savanna and desert-like areas in the north. Like most other tropical countries, Uganda has problems with deforestation. Several sources that NorWatch met during the visit believed that the country will experience an acute lack of wood in ten years. Today, Uganda has more than 700 larger and smaller state-owned Central Forest Reserves set aside for forestry and forest protection. These cover a total area of 1,167,000 hectares (7% of Uganda). It is in some of these forest reserves that the Norwegian companies Tree Farms and Norwegian Afforestation Group have acquired land for their tree-planting projects.

Tree Farms AS, formerly called Fjordgløtt AS, has its head office in Namsos (Norway). Mads Asprem, the driving force behind the company's East African foray, is on the company's board. Asprem, an investor and the director of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in London, who is considered one of the best forestry analysts in Europe, is by far the largest shareholder in Tree Farms, with a 46,92% ownership. The third largest shareholder is Kjell Inge Røkke, who owns 9,37% through the company TRG.

In 1995, Tree Farms/Fjordgløtt was awarded a NOK 127,000 (USD 13,900) grant from NORAD to explore the scope for activities in East Africa. The following year, the company set up in Tanzania and Uganda, and, later, in Malawi as well. Today, Tree Farms controls at least 20,000 hectares (50,000 acres) of land in the region, and is in the process of acquiring a further 70,000 hectares in Tanzania.

Tree Farms' subsidiary in Uganda is named the Busoga Forestry Company Ltd. According to the manager, Jose Byamah, the aim is to run tree plantations covering some 80-100,000 hectares in the area. The only place where the company has started up its activities, however, is in the Bukaleba Forest Reserve. In June 1996, the Busoga Forestry Company made a deal with the Ugandan authorities to lease, for a period of 50 years, a 5,160-hectare area within this reserve, which is at Lake Victoria just east of the town of Jinja. The Bukaleba Reserve is a total of 8,000 hectares. The rest of the reserve was rented to the German company Deutsche Forst Consult.

Tree Farms has so far planted 600 hectares, mainly with fast-growing pines (Pinus caribaea, P. oocarpa, P. tecunumani) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus grandis). On some smaller lots, the company has also planted the local tree species musizi (Aesopsis emini), mahogany (Khaya anthoiheca), and Musambya (Macadanua lutea). According to managing director Odd Ivar Løvhaugen, Tree Farms has, so far, invested NOK 5-6 million (about USD 600,000) in the project.

Norwegian Afforestation Group was founded as late as September 15, 1999, by Norwegians in foreign aid circles in Uganda. The company manager is Svein O. Wilhelmsen, who, through his company Økotek AS, is also the largest shareholder (see Table 2). This company, too, received NORAD grants, worth NOK 121,000 (USD 13,200), for preliminary studies that resulted in the company setting up in the country last fall. On November 15, 1999, Norwegian Afforestation Group made a deal with Ugandan authorities to lease, for a 50-year period, land areas within the Kachung Forest Reserve in Lira district about 400 km north of Kampala.

The Kachung Reserve totals 3,590 hectares, 3,000 of which are controlled by Norwegian Afforestation Group. The rest of the reserve is presently leased to the local company Edola & Sons Ltd., which operates a saw-mill based on existing plantation forest. As mentioned, Norwegian Afforestation Group has not started planting forest. According to the company, they will only plant pines within their areas.

The deals made by Tree Farms and Norwegian Afforestation Group with Uganda through the forestry authorities, function as follows:

• The land areas are leased by the companies for a 50-year period, with the option of renewing the contract for another 50 years.
• A one-off sum is paid to the authorities when the contract is signed, regardless of how large the leased area is. This one-off sum is 500,000 Ugandan shillings (approx. USD 312).
• The authorities receive an annual rent of 5,000 shillings (approx. USD 3) for each hectare planted with forest. The rent is adjusted every ten years according to the index of inflation as defined by the Bank of Uganda. No rent, then, is paid for areas that the companies have not planted with trees.
• The rental agreement implies that the companies commit themselves to planting forest and conducting modern forestry within the concession area.

Conclusion: Both Tree Farms and Norwegian Afforestation Group have leased their lands from Uganda at a bargain price. The authorities have virtually no capacity to assess what value the companies plan to generate through carbon trading. By leasing out areas for "carbon plantations", Uganda is giving away the option of changing land use in the future. The entire lease agreement resembles neo-colonialism.

5.2 Land ConflictSince the 1960s-1970s, local farmers and fishermen have moved in and out of the Norwegian as well as the German company's concession areas in Bukaleba. The forest reserve is in Iganga district, which is densely populated with migrants from other parts of Uganda, as well as from neighboring countries. With scant opportunities for work outside agriculture, and with a rapidly growing population, there is a huge pressure on land areas, including the Bukaleba Forest Reserve.

Already in the early 20th century, many people migrated into the area. However, because of an outbreak of the sleeping sickness (caused by the tsetse fly), people fled the area where the reserve now lies. When the tsetse fly was controlled in the 1970s, people moved back to Bukaleba. Also in the 1970s, Idi Amin gave permission for a cattle-herding project in the middle of the reserve, peaking at 3,000 grazing cattle. Politicians under the Obote regime in the 1980s also supported settlements in the forest reserve, and one minister from the area offered the following argument in favor: "Trees don't vote, but people do."

According to the rules and regulations applying to forest reserves in the country, everyone living or farming inside the reserve are illegal "encroachers". Still, some of the farmers claim they bought the land they are now working back in the 1980s, and that they therefore hold the right of ownership, or that the land they are farming has been owned by their family for generations.

Conclusion: Tree Farms' project cannot be carried out without some 8,000 people, mainly farmers and fishermen, being evicted from the company's areas and thus deprived of their livelihoods. The potential for social conflicts and increased poverty is therefore great. No similar conflict over land was observed by NorWatch at the Norwegian Afforestation Group project.

A few years ago, Tree Farms employed several hundred people to manage the plantations in the Bukaleba reserve. But today, it has only 43 employees, according to the assistant administrator at the company's forest station, Winfred Nakato. Of these, 20 people are working in the plantations. From the very beginning, Tree Farms has also based its operations on the so-called taungya system. In brief, this means that the farmers are allowed to grow maize, beans, and other products between the rows of planted trees during the first few years, until the trees have grown so high that other plant life will not grow beneath them. As early as 1998, when NorWatch first contacted investor Mads Aprem about this project, it was emphasized that the company practiced the taungya system.

Tree Farms have been strongly criticized for the use of the taungya system. The previously mentioned EU supported study, published by the Ugandan Ministry of Forestry, states that the manner in which this system has unfolded at Tree Farms "resembles a Middle Age feudal system but without the mandatory ‘nobless oblige’ and with the farmers paying for the bulk of the investment cost of the plantation establishment."

According to the study, the farmers actually have to pay Tree Farms to be allowed to farm on the company's lands. Payment is collected in the form of 100 kg of maize or 50 kg of millet per acre per season. In addition, the farmers must pay a cash rent, ranging from 10,000 to 85,000 shillings (USD 6 - USD 53), for their lots of land.

The EU supported study points out that Tree Farms is only paying 5,000 shillings (USD 3) per year to the authorities for every hectare actually planted with trees. The farmers' payments to the company per hectare, thus, are many times the amount paid by the company to the authorities.

Even though Norwegian Afforestation Group has not started planting forest in the Kachung Reserve, the company states clearly that they do not intend to make use of the taungya system. Manager Svein Wilhelmsen explains that they are against this system because it is against the policy of Ugandan forest authorities. The company plans to use female labor on the plantations, "at a normal decent wage level", as Wilhelmsen puts it in a comment to NorWatch. His explanation is that social conflicts and poverty are fought by giving work to women. By doing this, 100% of the salary returns to the family instead of 40% which is the case when a man receives the money, due to the fact that he will spend 60% on alcohol.

Conclusion: Tree Farms is exploiting farmers by using them as free labor to clear and prepare the land which is to be planted with forest (the taungya system). The fact that the company has also collected payment from the farmers by collecting maize from them (as well as probably cash), makes what goes on at Tree Farms resemble a Middle Age feudal system but without the mandatory "nobless oblige" and with the farmers paying for the bulk of the investment cost of the plantation establishment. The Norwegian Afforestation Group is against the taungya system and will not make use of it.

5.4 Carbon Profits

As mentioned, both Tree Farms and Norwegian Afforestation Group have CO₂ storage and carbon trading as an explicit aim for their East African tree plantations. Even though the rules for calculating CO₂ profits have not yet been worked out and adopted, the Norwegian companies have long since started setting up a carbon accounting system for their plantations. Today, Tree Farms' largest venture is in Tanzania. Since the publication of the CO2lonialism report, the Tree Farms project in Uganda has changed from being a "carbon plantation" to a conventional timber plantation. According to the management in Tree Farms, the project has been excluded from the options contract with Industrikraft Midt-Norge and has therefore no relevance in relation to CDM and carbon credit trade. This fact is crucial because it leaves the Tanzania project as the only potential CDM project in Tree Farms' portfolio.

As for Norwegian Afforestation Group, the company's concession area in the Kachung Reserve is a total of 3,000 hectares, 2,800 of which are to be planted with pine. The company is going to clear most of the existing plant cover, which is savanna-like "woodlands". The exception, according to manager Svein Wilhelmsen, is the large trees that will be left untouched in accordance with the company's wish to conserve some of the biological diversity. Wilhelmsen has presented the following CO₂ calculation to NorWatch: In 22-23 years' time (Tree Farms uses a 25-year growth period for pine), these 2,800 hectares of pine plantations will have stored a gross 2 million tons of CO₂. In other words, 714 tons of CO₂ will be stored per hectare. Wilhelmsen informs that the company has not calculated how much the net tradable quota will be, and points out that this will depend on the methodology that is finally adopted in international negotiations. However, Wilhelmsen says they have informed potential clients that the Kachung plantation will yield 1 million tons of net tradable carbon credits. If this turns out to be the final figure, Norwegian Afforestation Group will have 357 tons of tradable CO₂ per hectare (half of 714 tons of CO₂).

As mentioned before, by leasing out land for "carbon plantations", the authorities forego the opportunity of changing land use for other purposes. Once used to store CO₂ in the forest, the area must remain forested, in order not to release CO₂ back into the atmosphere. The need for using land for farming or firewood, as a result, for instance, of war or poverty, would not justify the authorities making use of the "Norwegian" areas without destroying the carbon accounts.

Conclusion: While Tree Farms and Norwegian Afforestation Group stand to make large profits from the sale of carbon credits from their tree plantations over the next 25 years, Uganda will be left with a few hundred thousand dollars in return. The carbon-storing plantations have to remain carbon-storing plantations for the foreseeable future, depriving the country's authorities of the choice of regulating the areas for other purposes in the people's interest. Nor would the Ugandans be allowed to use the carbon forests for their own carbon accounts when they themselves face commitments, because the credits will already have been sold to countries and companies in the rich countries, which, today, have commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

A complete carbon account for the Norwegian companies' plantations, especially with regard to Tree Farms, would be highly uncertain for several reasons:

• It is impossible to predict what will happen to the approximately 8,000 encroachers who have to move from the Bukaleba reserve. They all earn a living from farming, animal husbandry, and fisheries, and they will have to move to new areas where clearing forested or unforested land for agriculture may be the only alternative for survival.
• The tree plantations must be kept safe from political unrest and domestic upheavals to prevent plantation operations from being shelved and the land being designated for other purposes (as stated, the Norwegian companies have rented the areas for 50 years, with an option to lease them for a further 50 years period).
• Political unrest is not the only thing to guard against. In the future, the plantations may go to waste, simply because there is no market for the wood and timber.
• Tree Farms' areas already suffer from fires, allegedly lit to some extent by farmers, but especially by hunters.
• An unanswered question is what the impact of the companies' plantations on the spots of natural forest they are planning to leave alone will be, or on the vegetation cover outside the companies' lands.
• A further complication is the question how much CO₂ is released from the soil through clearing and ploughing before the trees are planted.

Conclusion: There is great uncertainty as to the net amount of CO₂ that will be removed and stored by the Norwegian tree plantations. The Ugandan market for wood is poor, and may, in the long run, contribute to make the investors feel that re-planting is not in their interest. Fires, political unrest, and upheavals are factors that make it hard to guarantee that the activities will be allowed to continue without obstacles. Another unknown factor is the impact of the monoculture plantations on the ability of the surrounding vegetation to remove and store CO₂. The carbon account is particularly uncertain for Tree Farms' project, which implies the eviction of an estimated 8,000 people who may clear new areas and forests in order to earn a living. All of this may lead to a carbon account that does not reflect reality.

The Norwegian afforestation projects in Uganda aim to give Tree Farms and Norwegian Afforestation Group an income from the sale of wood and timber, and of carbon credits. The two companies has a very different background. Tree Farms is backed by financially strong investors such as Kjell Inge Røkke and Mads Asprem, while Norwegian Afforestation Group has its origins in foreign aid circles in Uganda.

Both companies, however, are casting their projects as environmental friendly: What, after all, could be wrong with planting trees and storing CO₂ in a world that suffers from deforestation and pollution? Nor, perhaps, could anyone be against the companies' expressed intentions, providing employment and development for the Ugandan forestry sectors. And yet, NorWatch investigations show that the projects have some very questionable aspects. This applies particularly to the Tree Farms project.

• Both Tree Farms and Norwegian Afforestation Group have leased their land from the authorities for a bargain price.

• Tree Farms' project cannot be carried out without some 8,000 people, mainly farmers and fishermen, being evicted from the company's areas and thus deprived of their livelihoods.

• Tree Farms is exploiting farmers by using their unpaid labor to clear and prepare the land that is to be planted with forest.
• Due to farmers destroying the planted trees, to termite attacks on the eucalyptus trees, and to a lack of investments, Tree Farms' plantations are criticized for poor quality and a lack of progress.

• While Tree Farms and Norwegian Afforestation Group stand to make large profits from the sale of carbon credits from their tree plantations over the next 25 years, Uganda will be left with a few hundred thousand dollars in return.

• There is great uncertainty as to the net amount of CO₂ that will be removed and stored by the Norwegian tree plantations.

Tree Farms and Norwegian Afforestation Group have already positioned themselves in the hunt for carbon credits. Not until the November 2000 climate negotiations at the Conference of the Parties in The Hague, however, will it be decided whether carbon trading based on tree plantations in developing countries should be approved. If foreign investors are granted such an approval for earning money both from traditional forestry and the sale of carbon credits, countries such as Uganda may experience a Klondyke situation with cut-throat competition between foreign companies for cheap land - at the expense of people and the environment.

It may seem that we are facing a new form of CO₂lonialism.