unsaveSave
Max’s tree planting project was supposed to fight poverty – but has led to food shortages and felled trees.
Now the fast food chain is responding to Aftonbladet’s disclosure.
– We take these claims very seriously and will ensure that Zeromission, which sold the carbon credits to us, follows up on these as soon as possible, says sustainability manager Kaj Török.
For several days, Aftonbladet has sought Max for an interview with the opportunity to ask questions about the review of the tree planting project in Uganda that the fast food chain supports.
The hamburger chain – as in a current one television advertising highlights his own climate work – has chosen to return with a written comment.
“We take these claims very seriously and will ensure that Zeromission, which sold the carbon credits to us, follows up on these as soon as possible,” writes Sustainability Manager Kaj Török.
He emphasizes that the fast food chain’s ambition with the tree planting is to capture carbon dioxide and contribute to local development.
“If the follow-up shows that there are irregularities, we will act forcefully.”
expand-left
full screen Photo: Niclas Hammarström
Zero Mission responds
The Swedish company Zero Mission has for several years sold carbon credits from the project in Uganda to both Max and other Swedish end customers, including trade unions, restaurants and travel agencies.
The company’s turnover has more than doubled in four years and last year amounted to SEK 73 million.
The company chooses to respond in writing, since the promised interview at the company’s office in Gamla stan in Stockholm was canceled at short notice.
“We have not received any signals whatsoever about the deviations you refer to, otherwise we would have acted immediately,” writes the company’s communications manager Henrik Hydén in an email.
Aftonbladet’s follow-up question, if you don’t know the one and a half year old one report from an established environmental organization that raised the alarm about serious problems, are left unanswered.
Zeromission states – contrary to the testimonies in Aftonbladet’s review – that the families were paid on time, that there is no famine in the area and that the farmers in the area are not suffering from a lack of land.
Here is a longer part from Zeromission’s answer:
“Of course, we take the review seriously. Our collaboration with Trees for Global Benefits (eds. note Ecotrust’s project in Uganda) stretches back over 15 years and we have always had a dialogue with the ambition to improve and develop. Projects such as this, which are verified according to the Plan Vivo standard, create great climate benefits by replanting forests while giving farmers the opportunity for a safer livelihood.
Any misbehavior experienced by the project’s participants is picked up at quarterly meetings in the various districts. Comments from these meetings as well as e-mails, text messages and phone calls between participants and project coordinators are captured and registered in order to be managed on an ongoing basis. We have not received signals of misconduct through this system, otherwise we would have acted immediately.
If there are still decisive shortcomings, we are keen that they can be rectified. Thanks to the project’s good reputation in the area, more participants are joining all the time, and currently there are over twenty thousand farmers involved. Of course, among so many there may be dissatisfied participants, but our picture is that the project is successful and that the farmers are satisfied.
Participating in the project is of course completely voluntary. The farmer can cancel at any time, cut down his trees and keep the income they provide and owe nothing to the project.”
(…)
“The timetable in the agreement has been followed on an annual basis. There may be delays in the payment of a specific payment but the schedule is followed. This means that the payments follow the annual plan but may be delayed by a few months. This has also been found to occur in third-party reviews. The explanation could be different spellings of names, changing mobile subscriptions, etc., which causes them to get stuck in the administration. It ensures that money is only paid out to the right person. There is absolutely reason to try to improve this deviation through routines, and information to project participants to minimize delays.
Plan Vivo is intended to support food security and is not expected to result in any food loss to the farmer and the payments are therefore never intended to cover food loss.
The goal of the payments that come in years 2, 5, 7 and 10 is not supposed to replace existing income that the farmer has, but instead to add another income in order to achieve better resilience for the households.
There is food insecurity, but not famine, in this region and it is linked to a variety of factors, including, for example, irregular rainfall and drought. Tree planting, which binds the soil, retains more moisture in the soil and provides some shade creates a better microclimate, is a solution to that kind of problem, not the cause! In the third-party review that was done most recently, 20 randomly selected farmers were interviewed, where 19 certified that their yield from the land had increased. One participant had a reduced yield from his crops and this was due to overplanting of trees.”
(…)
“People in this area do not lack land. They may very well cut down trees to sell and get money but have absolutely no need to cut down trees for food production or their own food supply.”
Footnote: Aftonbladet has unsuccessfully sought the environmental organization Ecotrust, which runs the project, for an interview.