Part: 1, 2, 3

Planting Trees in Africa

It turns out that Tendris doesn't actually plant trees. Instead, the company buys credits for newly-planted trees from a middleman, a Dutch foundation named Face. The Face Foundation, in turn, is paying the government of Uganda to plant 86,000 acres of trees in a remote region near the country's south western border with Congo. The planting is managed by the Uganda Wildlife Authority.

Recently, 15 workers carrying machetes and balancing baskets on their heads walked briskly along a muddy path winding through tall spear grass in the lush foothills of the Rwenzori Mountains. The men are locals working on a vast tree plantation set along the southern edge of Kibale National Park. Sam Mwanda directs field operations here for the Ugandan Wildlife Authority. "Tendris commits funds for carbon offsets, which it sends through Face to the Uganda Wildlife Authority," says Mwanda. "Uganda plants the trees that get the carbon from the atmosphere. And as it grows, we are all able to, you know, save the world."

So far, the Uganda Wildlife Authority has planted about 20,000 acres with indigenous trees, thanks to offset projects like Tendris' GreenCard. Workers meticulously tend the saplings for six months. Sam Mwanda says that in addition to sucking CO2 from the atmosphere, the planting is good for the local eco-system. Mwanda explains that the "advantages of tree planting are many. You are helping to improve the conditions of this park. Elephants and buffalos have now reappeared."

The local wildlife may be thriving here, but the human population is not. During the bloody reign of Idi Amin, villagers took refuge and began farming in two areas which later became national parks. More recently, the villagers were deemed "encroachers" and evicted by government troops. It's here that trees are being planted for carbon credits that are sold to Tendris.

Sam Mwanda explains that government troops expelled encroachers to protect the land in Kibale and Mount Elgon, a second national park where western carbon brokers are also planting trees. "We are trying to have the forest come back to as natural a process as possible," says Mwanda.

At a village about a mile from the Kibale tree plantation, locals offer a starkly different account of their expulsion from the park. Wilson Turinawe, a local farmer, tells us police and military beat people, torched their houses and then transported them out of the park. "Everything of my household was burned," he says. "A radio cassette [player], a bicycle, and even my gardens were all burned down."

Several other villagers tell similar stories. They blame western carbon brokers for the evictions. Timothy Byakola, an environmental activist with a Kampala-based group called Climate and Develop Initiatives, agrees with the villagers.

"One of the conditions that the Face Foundation gave to the Ugandan government was that 'we are giving you our money, but we want the guarantee of the safety of those trees,'" says Byakola. "So the Face Foundation told the Ugandan Wildlife Authority that they want those guys out of the forest."

The Face Foundation has denied any involvement in the violence and expulsions. Face says its position is supported by independent auditors. Sam Mwanda of the Uganda Wildlife Authority also supports Face's version of events, saying the government ordered the evictions before any deal was made with the foundation. What's more, Mwanda says jobs created by tree planting have boosted the local economy and helped the displaced villagers get land. "If one tried to compare their situation now and that before, you would definitely see a big leap in the standard of living," Mwanda says. "A big leap for the better."

Villagers living near Kibale dispute this. They say tree planting money is not enough to keep a family alive. They also say the evictions crowded villagers onto small parcels of land, poorly suited for farming. So instead of growing their own crops, locals work as tree planters in the park.

"When I was working for Face it was as a result of desperation," says one villager. "Because I'd been chased away from my own place where I was myself boss. So I didn't have an option but to work for Face."

Timothy Byakola says tree planting is beneficial for many parts of Africa, but not as part of the carbon offset industry.

"You think that, 'Oh, this is such a nice thing that somebody is putting across money to plant trees. Why would such a thing look bad?'" he asks. "So what the issue really is now is that with the emergence of this carbon trading, tree planting now in Uganda is a business."

And a bad business for the workers, Byakola adds. What's more, the trees may not even work to reduce carbon. The Face Foundation sells its carbon credits when the trees are only one year old, along with guarantees from the Ugandan government that they will survive 99 years. But the trees won't mature for decades. And many of today's trees may be dead before they can do any good. Timothy Byakola tells us angry villagers have re-entered the park to cut and burn the new trees in protest.

"If you are going to plant your trees in an area where the local communities are disenfranchised, you'll have those trees cut down, which is what has actually happened," he says.

Are Trees Good Offsets?

There's a broader debate about whether trees should be used as carbon offsets. The Kyoto Protocol did not include preserving forests as a means of generating emission credits on the international carbon market. Dan Lashof, a climate scientist at the National Resources Defense Council and an advisor for a rival green credit card company, says one reason forests are not included in Kyoto is that trees are effective in holding carbon only while they're standing. When they die, the process of locking in -- or sequestering -- the carbon is reversed.

"Whatever material's on the ground will be decomposed by bugs and microbes and fungus and that would take all the carbon dioxide that over a period of years was taken out of the atmosphere and put it back in the atmosphere very quickly," Lashof says. "And at the end of the day you haven't accomplished what you were planning to accomplish."

Other groups in the carbon trade disagree. Clearing forest land for development is a huge contributor to global warming. They say that giving private landowners an incentive to preserve trees on their land is a valid way to store carbon. The World Bank is planning to start a $250 million pilot project to reward developing countries for not cutting down their rain forests. Using forests to generate carbon credits also extends to the developed world. One San Francisco-based group, Pacific Forest Trust, sells carbon credits from a 2,000 acre redwood forest on California's north coast. The group's customers include California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"Over time, forest loss or forest depletion is 45-50 percent of the problem of excess CO2 in the atmosphere," says Laurie Wayburn, executive director for Pacific Forest Trust. "That's why it's so critical to work with forests to pull that CO2 out of the atmosphere."

Lashof and Wayburn agree that the U.S. government should step in to regulate the carbon market. Currently it doesn't.

"The challenge for consumers right now is that there really isn't a widely accepted and transparent standard for what qualifies as a good offset," says Lashof. "So right now, it's a bit of buyer beware."

There is hope that voluntary standards could fill the void. In July 2007, a consortium of environmental and trade groups announced agreement on a global standard for carbon offset projects. The Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) is expected to capture the largest offset volumes. Two other voluntary standards developed by NGOs are also in the mix: the gold standard and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard.

After our visit to Uganda, we asked Warner Phillips of the Dutch credit card company about the controversy over the tree planting.

"If things happened that were not anticipated, then that needs to be fixed," Phillips says. "We've been the first in the world to go out there and do this credit card, which means that we have an extra responsibility because if we screw it up for ourselves, we're going to screw it up for the competition as well."

Phillips tells us Tendris is re-evaluating its work with the Face Foundation, the Dutch carbon broker. But Tendris remains committed to offering carbon offsets to consumers. In fact, the company has big plans for global growth. Recently, Phillips moved with his wife and two children to San Francisco to prepare for the U.S. launch of Tendris' green credit card, which they are renaming "ClimaCount."

"Everybody that we've been talking to about this green card concept has been saying, 'I love it. Sign me up,' Phillips says.

However, with all the uncertainty, Phillips tells us Tendris' U.S. credit card will move away from planting trees.

"Trees are not going to solve the problem," Phillips says. "What is going to solve the problem is if we get a lot smarter about how to reduce carbon emissions in the Earth's atmosphere which always reminds us of a Dutch saying, 'It's better to close the tap than mopping with the tap open.' Which is you're treating the symptoms of the problem and you're not getting to the core of the problem."

Continue to part 3