I share much of your scepticism, Andrew, and agree that their discourse usually feeds on a sort of conservationist paradigm. Also the fact that the Lao state agencies are involved in this ‘instructional theatre’ as you call it, is highly suspicious. However, I would not make a caricature out of the whole idea despite the fact it promotes an idea of Buddhism and ecology that might come over as a bit naive and hippy-style. There were times in Thailand when the monks who were doing ‘tree-ordinations’ (at the begining of the ‘ecology monks’ movement) were quite courageous in opposing massive logging not by villagers, but by companies and risked their ‘careers’. Phra Prajak Khuttajitto is one example here. For further information see Susan Darlington’s article on the movement:

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/susan.htm

Obviously, these things become popularised, and indeed transformed into a kind of Adorno-style performative cultural industry at the service of state agencies displaying their will “to protect nature”. It’s not the practice of tree-ordination itself, but the question who does it for which purpose. I suppose some monks in Thailand have moved beyond simple conservation and are not only “betraying villagers” with cheap NGOs-paradigms.

We have used tree ordination as some sort of example for a children’s book on ecology and Buddhism in Laos and I think for simple awareness campaigns it might be useful. Real sustainability, and here I agree with you, is again a different question.