A Critical Conversation on Climate Change ... - Green Choices

offsets – the fossil economy’s new arena of conflict 237local economy’ and ‘maintain or enhance the long-term social andeconomic well-being of forest workers and local communities’.Ironically, the SGS certifiers noted as one of PROFAFOR’s strongpoints the ‘participation of local communities in decision-making’, aswell as PROFAFOR’s continued ‘commitment’ to use native species.Local communities’ lack of power to object to such claims helps lubricatePROFAFOR’S international trade in carbon credits. No communitymember interviewed by Patricia Granda in 2004 even knewof the existence of the FSC, nor of its Principles and Criteria, norhow they might be enforced. Here, too, environmental markets havefailed to live up to their image in economics textbooks.The story continues –Carbon forestry in UgandaDem.Rep.CongoRwandaSudanUgandaTanzaniaKenyaOne thing can be said for theUS-Guatemala carbon trademediated by CARE describedin a previous section: it at leastattempted to square the productionof carbon for the Northwith local social goals. It wouldbe difficult to say the same fora Norwegian project to growcarbon credits in Uganda thatstarted up a bit later. JournalistHarald Eraker, who investigatedthe project, labelled it as a caseof ‘CO 2 lonialism’. 21The Uganda project was closely tied to the construction of conventionalgas-fired power plants in Norway by Naturkraft and Industri kraftMidt-Norge corporations. The plants were supported by Norway’sLabour Party, Conservative Party and Progress Party on the groundthat they could be made environmentally-friendly through the purchaseof carbon credits.Some of these credits were to be provided by Tree Farms, a Norwegianforestry company operating in Africa. In 1995, Tree Farms (orFjordgløtt, as it was then called) had received a grant from NORAD,the Norwegian aid agency, to explore the scope for activities in East