Frequently Asked Questions
We hope this covers any questions you may have about the different topics found on this website. If you would like to know more about the project, please leave a comment at the bottom of the page and someone will contact you as soon as possible.
- What do you mean by ‘carbon violence’?
- What is the ‘green economy’?
- What is the ‘carbon market’?
- What are carbon offsets and how do they work?
- How do tree plantations work as a form of carbon offsetting?
- What do you mean by the ‘Global North’ and the ‘Global South’?
- Why do carbon offset plantations tend to be located in poorer countries?
- Who is Green Resources and how are they involved in carbon offsetting?
- Why is Green Resources in Uganda, and what are they doing there?
- Is this an example of REDD+?
- How much land is now held by Green Resources in Uganda and where is it?
- How has Green Resources acquired this land?
- How many people in Uganda are affected by Green Resources’ presence?
- How are local people affected by Green Resources’ presence?
- Are these acts illegal?
- What about Green Resources’ commitment to community development?
- How long has this sort of thing been going on in Uganda?
- How was the research for this report done?
- Is this happening in other parts of the world as well?
- How can I learn more?
What do you mean by ‘carbon violence’?
‘Carbon violence’ refers to some of the negative consequences of the growing global ‘green economy’, including specifically carbon market initiatives.
The word ‘carbon’ makes reference to ‘carbon offset’ projects, in this case tree plantations, which are designed to capture or ‘sequester’ carbon, thereby compensating for greenhouse gas emissions. Establishing and managing these projects has become a profitable industry, and in response, a number of profit-seeking companies have been formed, which participate in the broader global ‘green economy’. Often these companies implement carbon-offset projects in other, generally poorer countries.
We use the word ‘violence’ to indicate that these projects can be costly to people in a variety of different ways. In this case, we are referring to people who live (or lived) on or use land that has been acquired for these sorts of carbon-offset projects. Whilst the violence experienced by these people isn’t necessarily in the form of physical harm, we use the term more broadly to describe diverse experiences of ‘direct’ and ‘structural’ forms of violence, such as forced eviction, loss of livelihood, the restriction of access to important sites, chemical pollution, the imposition of jail terms and fines, and the use of threats and intimidation. You can read more about the specifics of these experiences here.
What is the ‘green economy’?
The ‘green economy’ describes a broad suite of mechanisms that are designed to respond to climate change from within the market-based economy. These measures can be implemented at a local, domestic, or international level, and may range from investing in renewable energy and sustainable transport, to participating in carbon trading schemes, such as carbon offsets. There is a rising engagement with the green economy across the private sector, as environmental concerns are increasingly included within the broader framework of corporate social responsibility. The growth of the green economy has also seen the establishment of whole ‘green markets’, such as the global carbon trading market, and the formation of private corporations like Green Resources, whose business is entirely based within profit-seeking green market mechanisms.
Many see the ‘green economy’ as an effective way to tackle climate change without compromising economic growth, thereby providing a “win-win-win” solution for the environment, the economy, and society. However, critics argue that the ‘green economy’ is at best an ineffective way of tackling the climate crisis, which many believe has its roots in the private market system itself, and at worst a means by which land and resources become vulnerable to new forms of corporate control and profit-driven ‘grabs’.
What is the ‘carbon market’?
The ‘carbon market’ describes the domestic and international trade of greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon dioxide, as a means to monitor and limit the amount of carbon emitted at the global level.
Emissions trading schemes come into being when a central regulatory body places a ‘cap’ on the amount of emissions that may be made by emitters. An emitter is usually considered to be a private company, but in some cases, emissions are also traded between nation-states. In the case of carbon emissions, this global regulation was initially and primarily linked to the Kyoto Protocol, although other regulatory bodies have since been established. The standard unit of measurement for carbon emissions is equal to one metric tonne of carbon dioxide. Each of these units represents a ‘permit’, or ‘carbon credit’.
Under these regulations, each ‘emitter’ entity is allowed a certain number of carbon credits, which is limited by the cap. If an entity seeks to increase its emissions beyond this cap, it must first obtain more carbon credits. The carbon market allows it to buy extra carbon credits from another entity that is emitting below its cap, and therefore has credits in surplus. Alternatively, an emitter might gain extra credits by purchasing carbon offsets, which, through a variety of mechanisms, aim to actively reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Supporters of the carbon market argue that it provides a more flexible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the board, and runs less risk of negatively impacting industrial interests and economic stability. Critics points out that trading schemes allow for industry to continue ‘business-as-usual’, instead of more profound, structural changes that would have a more positive long-term effect for the environment. Carbon trading has also been accused of ‘colonial’ tendencies and contributing to global inequality, by allowing rich, industrialised nations and companies, who can afford to buy carbon credits, to maintain high levels of production and consumption, whilst disadvantaging entities with less capital, and hindering their economic and industrial development.
What are carbon offsets and how do they work?
The term ‘carbon offset’ describes a multi-lateral attempt to regulate the amount of greenhouse gases that are being emitted at a global level. Within this broad framework exists a whole range of different ways in which states and companies try to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, emitted in one part of the world, in order to compensate for emissions made elsewhere. The theory is that a reduction in emissions in one place should balance out continued emissions in a different place, so that the net global level of emissions will fall.
Carbon offsetting typically means committing financial support to a project that aims to reduce global net greenhouse gas emissions. Such projects are numerous and diverse, and include the development of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures; the containment and combustion of methane; forest preservation, reforestation and afforestation (tree plantations); and purchasing carbon ‘credits’ from emissions trading schemes.
Carbon offsets are often seen as a convenient or practical way for states or companies to act responsibly with regard to climate change, without needing to reduce their own level of greenhouse gas emissions, which might be perceived as being too economically risky. As such, carbon offset projects are seen by some as a ‘win-win’ for the environment and economic stability.
Others argue, however, that carbon offsetting is, in fact, a way for participants to shirk, rather than accept, responsibility, and avoid making significant changes to their own environmentally destructive practices. Furthermore, some carbon offset schemes are plagued by a lack of transparency and accountability, meaning that only a fraction of pledges made to a carbon offset project are actually put to use in the project itself, with the majority of funding going to investors, distributors, ‘middle men,’ and other service providers such as advertising agencies.
How do tree plantations work as a form of carbon offsetting?
Trees naturally sequester (or absorb) carbon dioxide. As such, many carbon offsetting projects focus on preserving existing forests, planting trees to ‘reforest’ areas that were formerly forested, or ‘afforesting’ previously unforested land. To secure land for these sorts of projects, large areas are often purchased or licensed by a company, NGO, or government body, in order to then be preserved or planted.
Critics have raised many concerns with regards to the efficacy of tree plantations as carbon offsets. Many take issue with the practice of ‘future-selling’ carbon offsets by predicting how much carbon will be captured by a plantation over time. This is often based on assumptions that the plantation will exist in the long-term, which is impossible to guarantee. If trees die, rot, or are cut down, they release their carbon stores back into the atmosphere. It is extremely difficult to accurately calculate the amount of carbon that is actually sequestered by tree plantations in the first place, particularly given that not all trees survive to maturity. These sorts of predictions are therefore often criticised as being too imprecise to guarantee a significant, positive environmental difference. In addition, many tree planting projects use fast-growing, non-native species, and often planted in monoculture stands. These ‘invasive’ species often bring environmental problems of their own, such as habitat loss for native wildlife populations and reduced biodiversity.
Critics have also objected to the toll that some tree plantations have taken on indigenous or local peoples’ rights. There are many documented cases in which people have been displaced, or been excluded from using land and natural resources, to make way for the purchase/licence, planting and policing of land used for carbon offset plantations. Several of the best-known cases of this have occurred in Uganda (including by the UK-based New Forest Company), although there have been similar reports from other parts of Africa, Central and South America and India, amongst other countries.
The ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ describe a generalised economic division between countries, along similar lines as ‘developed’ and ‘developing’. Most but not all of the countries that make up the ‘Global North’ are located in the Northern Hemisphere. More relevantly, they are richer, and occupy more powerful positions in international trade relations. Generally speaking, they are also the countries that are responsible for more carbon emissions per capita than the Global South. Because of the relative disparity in wealth and power, countries of the Global North often develop exploitative or unequal relationships with the Global South for the purposes of extracting natural resources, acquiring land and raw materials, etc.
Importantly, the Global North/Global South divide describes economic relations rather than strict geographical locations. For example, Australia is considered to be part of the Global North, although it is located in the Southern Hemisphere, because it is a relatively wealthy and powerful economic actor within the global context.
Why do carbon offset plantations tend to be located in poorer countries?
Carbon offset plantations are often (though not always) operated by ‘Global North’ countries, but established in the ‘Global South’. Whilst the reasons for this vary across cases, there are a few different explanations at hand.
The injection of foreign capital and employment opportunities into Global South countries is often posited as an effective market-based ‘pro-poor’ development strategy. Integration or participation in global carbon markets is widely heralded as an opportunity to deliver economic benefits to host countries. This is sometimes backed by claims that carbon sequestration occurs at higher rates in tropical/equatorial climates (the location of many so-called Global South countries).
However, the broader dynamics of these transactions are subject to criticism. Since carbon offset schemes are profit-seeking ventures, it is an attractive option for wealthier countries to purchase, lease or obtain licences to land at a cheaper price than what they would pay in their homeland. Histories of colonisation, and pressures to de-regulate trade and integrate in global economies, leave countries in the Global South vulnerable to international land investors. Not only is land cheap to license or lease, there are often fewer (if any) regulations on the use of such land, including limited requirements related to taxation.
As a precursor to these deals, land in the Global South is often described as ‘under-utilised’ or ’empty’ – particularly in rural areas where populations are engaged in subsistence farming more than industrial development – although this is rarely the case in reality. As a result, local people who previously accessed and used the land freely have found themselves, in numerous cases, excluded and/or criminalised for continuing to do so.
Who is Green Resources and how are they involved in carbon offsetting?
Green Resources is a private Norwegian company that was incorporated in 1995. Its business is entirely based around forestry, including plantations, wood products, carbon offset schemes, and renewable energy. The company’s website claims it to be the largest forestation company in Africa, and to have “probably planted more new forest than any other organization in Africa during the last ten years.” Green Resources currently owns and manages 41,000 hectares of ‘standing forest’ in Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda, and has a further 300,000 hectares of land to be used for planting and conservation projects in the future.
Green Resources is an example of a company acting within the framework of the ‘green economy’, as they claim to work towards the multiple goals of growing, harvesting and selling forest products from responsibly managed plantations, whilst also making a positive contribution to long-term environmental sustainability, community development and the alleviation of poverty. Their site emphasises an environmental ethos, in that “the company only harvests plantation forest, plants at least ten new trees for every one tree that it harvests, and only plants on low value grassland or degraded forestland.” Green Resources claims to be a leader in forestry-based carbon offset schemes, by reforesting or afforesting formerly ‘degraded’ land in order to create carbon sinks. Though there are many categories of carbon offset projects, such as REDD+, the Clean Development Mechanism and Voluntary Carbon Markets, Green Resources’ activities fall under the latter two. Green Resources’ Ugandan sites provide carbon offsets that are validated respectively under the Verified Carbon Standard (Bukaleba) and the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (Kachung). The Kachung project is recognised as a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project, which is a form of carbon trading mechanism defined by the Kyoto Protocol.
To substantiate its commitment to social benefits, the company pledges to invest 10% of revenue generated from the sale of these carbon credits in community development projects that benefit the populations of the countries in which the carbon offsets were generated. Green Resources states that their “carbon offsets are unique, bringing more benefits to the local population than other projects,” and that the company “aims to be the preferred partner for local people in these areas.” Their website lists employment, building schools, and undertaking infrastructure projects, mostly in poor rural areas, as the primary means by which they work towards the alleviation of poverty.
Why is Green Resources in Uganda, and what are they doing there?
Some of the information on Green Resources’ website gives an indication of why they have established projects in Uganda. The company primarily cites economic reasons, such as Uganda’s rapid national economic growth – particularly in the construction industry, which provides a market for wood products – as well as its relative political stability. Green Resources’ website also refers to the deforestation of African forests due to the demand for fuel wood. The implication here is that Green Resources is helping to counter the detrimental effects of this deforestation by planting trees as well as establishing sustainable charcoal production projects, which should divert the need for firewood.
Green Resources currently operates two plantation sites in Uganda. One, at Bukaleba, comprises just over 9,000 hectares of land, which is being used for forest plantation (reforestation), conservation, roads and infrastructure, and ‘community forest activities.’ The Bukaleba plantation also provides Green Resources with marketable carbon credits (though it has not yet sold these into the carbon market). Company community development initiatives at and around the site, as listed on Green Resources’ website, include the provision of medical equipment, drilling bore holes for drinking water, sponsoring girls through secondary school, HIV/AIDs awareness measures, and distributing seedlings.
The other, at Kachung, covers 2,669 hectares in total, most of which is for forest plantation (afforestation), with small sections set aside for conservation and infrastructure respectively. Carbon credits generated from the Kachung project have been sold to the Swedish Energy Agency (SEA). This contract, which spans from 2012 until 2032, is valued at $4 million (USD) and is currently the world’s longest carbon transaction. Green Resources also lists the community development projects it has initiated at Kachung, such as building a children’s ward at a local health centre, renovating local water sources, initiating a HIV/AIDs sensitisation program, distributing seedlings, and implementing an ‘energy saving cooking stove technology’ project.
Green Resources also operates a pole treatment plant, a charcoal production plant, and a small sawmill in Jinja, a town located at the source of the Nile, in Uganda.
Is this an example of REDD+?
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) is a vehicle to financially reward developing countries for their verified efforts to reduce emissions and enhance removals of greenhouse gases through a variety of forest management options. REDD, and later REDD+, has been under negotiation by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since 2005.
REDD+ is one of a number of forms of carbon and forest offset projects. Others are the Clean Development Mechanism and Voluntary Carbon Markets. Green Resources activities in Uganda are an example of the latter two of these.
Uganda is currently readying itself for participation in the REDD+ market, and it can be expected that REDD+ projects will expand in Uganda in coming years.
How much land is now held by Green Resources in Uganda and where is it?
Green Resources holds land across two sites in Uganda. The first, at Bukaleba in the Mayuge District in eastern Uganda, covers a total of 9,165 hectares, and includes 5,780 hectares for reforestation site and 3,385 hectares for conservation. The second, at Kachung in the Dokolo District in northern Uganda, comprises 2,669 hectares, of which 2,099 hectares is for afforestation. The company’s website states that “Both plantations have been established within government-owned Central Forest Reserves that have been set aside for forest plantations.”
How has Green Resources acquired this land?
Ugandan land has been increasingly subject to privatisation since the 1990s, as part of a national strategy to attract foreign investment. Employees of certain Ugandan government bodies, the National Forestry Authority (NFA) and the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), have described partnerships with foreign private investors as key to environmental sustainability, the proliferation and conservation of forests, as well as community development in Uganda. As such, the Ugandan government has increasingly invited foreign private companies, especially those with agendas that align with the broader ‘green economy’ to purchase Ugandan land. However, some Ugandan community leaders have voiced concerns about the foreign private sector investing in land, emphasising that foreign investment must provide benefits for local people, as well as the investing body.
Green Resources is essentially renting land from the Ugandan government, having obtained licences from the National Forestry Authority (NFA) to establish and manage plantation projects in Bulakeba Forest Reserve in 1996, and Kachung Forest Reserve in 1999. Both sites had been designated by the NFA as ‘degraded’ land, available for reforestation, afforestation and conservation.
On the other side of the coin, finance companies and investors are increasingly looking to land and forestry as good investment opportunities. This has led to the growth in funding provided for international land acquisitions, usually of rural land, and often in developing countries. Green Resources is connected to this phenomenon, as the recipient of funding from large financiers looking to invest in this sector.
How many people in Uganda are affected by Green Resources’ presence?
There is a lack of information about how many people are directly affected by Green Resources’ presence in Uganda, and so it is difficult to obtain definite numbers. Estimates range between 8000 and 40,000 people.
There are 4 villages located inside the Bukaleba site and at least 12 adjacent to it. There are 14 villages adjacent to the Kachung site, but none inside it.
How are local people affected by Green Resources’ presence?
Ugandan people living within or close to the Bukaleba and Kachung sites have reported a number of negative experiences due to, or linked to, Green Resources’ presence. These accounts cover a whole range of experiences, which can be grouped into four main categories: (1) evictions and the destruction of food and farmland, (2) denial of rights and livelihoods, (3) the disruption of cultural practices, and (4) environmental destruction.
1. Evictions and the destruction of food and farmland
Some villagers have reported that their homes have been destroyed by Green Resources in order to clear land for forestry plantations, and members of communities have allegedly been arrested for trespass onto company licence areas. Many were also forced to relocate their livelihood activities, such as grazing and agriculture, and others have had their animals confiscated if they strayed into areas licensed to Green Resources. Many members of communities who had initially negotiated an agreement with Green Resources to continue to grow their crops amongst tree plantations have since been disallowed to do so. Villagers have also reported that Green Resources have planted trees on designated community land, the boundary of which is a subject of dispute between locals and company employees. As Green Resources expands its plantation land, many villagers describe an increasing pressure on food supply from local farmland.
2. Denial of rights and livelihoods
The licensing mechanism that gives control of land to Green Resources allows the company the legal right to enforce evictions and restrict access. Villages now experience “isolation” and “fear,” linked to their becoming “encroachers” or “trespassers” for accessing land that they have historically used freely. By losing access to the forest, people have lost their means of generating income, access to medicines and firewood from the forest, and access to water holes for their livestock. For the four villages located inside the Bukaleba area, the government has ceased to recognise their existence or, accordingly, provide support or services. While some individual government workers recognise a need to support these populations, and undertake to do so, this is not widely recognised or supported by government.
3. Disruption of cultural practices
Green Resources acknowledge the existence of several significant cultural sites within or proximate to their license areas. In some cases, these sites have been marked and left alone by the company. However, many villagers also report that their access to significant cultural sites of worship, sacrifice and prayer has been restricted, impacting on their capacity to practice important ceremonies such as manhood and initiation blessings. Some community members reported that cultural sites had themselves been disrupted or destroyed by Green Resources.
4. Environmental destruction
Local environmental officers and journalists report that Green Resources has breached several of the conditions they should be operating under, as stipulated by their Environmental Impact Statement. These include the use of chemicals, and encroaching into fragile ecosystems and sensitive areas such as riparian zones. Villagers have also attributed the death of livestock and vegetation to heavy chemical runoff from Green Resources’ weed control. Tree plantations are also often monocultures of non-native species, which have a questionable environmental impact on biodiversity in the long-term. Villagers have shared concerns about being forced to graze livestock in ecologically sensitive areas after being forced out of their traditional grazing areas by Green Resources’ expansion.
Are these acts illegal?
There is no simple answer to this question. On the one hand, Green Resources has obtained 50-year licenses from the Ugandan Government to operate in the two areas of land in Uganda, and on that basis, their activities are legal. Quite simply, the Ugandan Government has granted what are effectively private property rights to this international company, as enabled by the National Forestry Policy (2001) and the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003).
But it is not that simple. Many villagers claim to have lived on some of the land now licensed to the company for many decades. For example, in a number of villages people describe familial connections that date back to the 1950s; discussing burial grounds and cultural sites, as well as housing and trading centres, as evidence of their long-term connection to place. Some of these claims are backed by Green Resources, which, for example, installed a number of ‘burial ground’ signs within the Bukaleba license area in late 2013. Additionally, many villagers describe being actively encouraged to move into this area during the 1970s by the President Idi Amin, who reportedly distributed portions of protected areas to communities during this period.
On this basis, some villagers claim long-term connection, including access and use rights, to land now licensed to Green Resources. There’s the tension, as these rights appear to be trumped by the license agreement held by the company.
While this might be legal, is it fair? Additionally, is Green Resources compliant with the international governance frameworks to which it is bound – including the Forest Stewardship Council, the Clean Development Mechanisms, the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance? Our results suggest they may not be, and that more investigation is needed.
What about Green Resources’ commitment to community development?
Some villagers described positive benefits of Green Resources’ community development projects reaching some community members, particularly with regards to the provision of some medicines, and one scholarship for a girl to attend secondary school. However, most community members did not acknowledge any great benefit associated with Green Resources’ presence and development efforts. Instead, they were more concerned with their exclusion from land, and consequential loss of means by which to grow food or otherwise maintain their livelihood. Whilst some local people are employed by Green Resources, the majority are classed as unskilled labour, paid less than $1 per day, and subjected to poor working conditions. Community members did not identify Green Resources’ development projects as responding to their priorities, needs or concerns in any real or meaningful way, and many describe the company’s attempts at community consultation as grossly inadequate or unresponsive.
How long has this sort of thing been going on in Uganda?
Initiatives to price carbon and participate in international carbon markets started relatively early in Uganda, particularly compared to other parts of the African continent, and certainly before many of these sorts of national and international initiatives and frameworks were in place. Beginning in the early 1990s – and prior to the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism – the Forest Absorbing Carbon Emissions (FACE) Foundation approached the Ugandan Government to re-afforest what was described as ‘severely deforested’ Mt Elgon National Park, thereby enabling FACE to sell voluntary carbon credits in the international market. Although this initiative was framed as delivering benefits to ethical consumers – by enabling passengers to offset carbon emissions associated with airline, bus and rail travel – its implementation has been recorded as delivering wide-scale human rights abuses, with an estimated 150,000 people violently evicted from their lands by Uganda National Park rangers and the National Resistance Army.
While this controversy led to the hasty withdrawal of FACE from Ugandan carbon markets, other companies have followed in their path, with a number of recent reports similarly documenting evidence of forced evictions and land clearing to make way for plantation operations. These cases demonstrate the extent to which forced evictions and the denial of basic human rights have characterized Uganda’s carbon market and plantation forestry industries.
How was the research for this report done?
This information was collected and authored by three primary contributors: Dr Kristen Lyons, Associate Professor in the School of Social Science at The University of Queensland, Australia, and Senior Fellow with the Oakland Institute; Dr Carol Richards, Senior Research Fellow in the School of Management, Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Australia; and Dr Peter Westoby, Senior Lecturer in Community Development, within the School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, Australia, and Research Associate at the Centre for Development Support, University of the Free State, South Africa.
The evidence is drawn from primary data collection undertaken at both of Green Resource’s Ugandan plantations sites – Bukaleba and Kachung – during two field visits. The first field visit took place during June and July in 2012, and consisted of interviews and focus group discussions held by Kristen Lyons in nine villages, three of which are located inside Green Resources’ company licence area, and six adjacent to it. The second field visit was from July until September, 2013, during which time researchers Kristen Lyons and Peter Westoby revisited many of the same villages and individuals. The data draws from discussions involving a total of over 150 community members. These villages were selected on the basis of information provided by company employees, local NGOs and local elected representatives. The identity of these villages and community members is not disclosed, due to the risks that might be incurred by participants.
Researchers also interviewed six Green Resources company staff and sixteen representatives from the Ugandan government, environmental NGOs, journalists, and local community health officers. Green Resources CEO, Mads Asprem, declined to be interviewed.
Given the lack of documentary evidence with regards to these sorts of histories and experiences in this area, due to low levels of education amongst participants and relative lack of prior investigation, the accounts given by villagers were not able to be triangulated with other documentation.
This project attained ethics approval via The University of Queensland, Australia.
Is this happening in other parts of the world as well?
Unfortunately, there are many documented cases of the displacement and exclusion of local people to make way for international carbon investments in land. There are two relatively well-known cases that have taken place in Uganda – including one at Mount Elgon, as reported by the World Rainforest Movement, and another that was reported by Oxfam International in 2011, in which over 20,000 Ugandan farmers were displaced for a plantation operated by London-based New Forests Company.
Looking further around the world, we find a number of similar cases. In Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, a number of local people have been excluded from using their traditional lands, with several cases of criminal charges and incarceration, to make way for a carbon offset project run by the US-based Nature Conservancy. A number of other cases have been reported from Brazil, as well as REDD+ projects having displaced local populations in Kenya, Congo, Papua New Guinea and others, and Clean Development Mechanism schemes affecting communities’ use of lands at several sites across India.
For more information on Green Resources’ operation of forestry plantations in Uganda, and similar cases, go to our website, carbonviolence.org. There you can find our Learn More page, and some Useful Links.
Questions/comments about the project?
If you would like to know more about the project or have something to say, please Leave a Comment at the bottom of this page, or visit our Contact page.