Responding to the allegations against the Trees for Global Benefits project in Uganda

On the 1st and 2nd of April the BBC intends to air a programme called ‘The Carbon Offset Trap’. The lead journalist/producer (Robert Nicholson) is from an organisation called Whistledown. He has been working with another journalist called Max de Halvevang, who has a history of being very critical of the VCM.

They highlighted a number of allegations centering on two Plan Vivo projects: run by Trees for Global Benefits (Albertine Rift & Mt. Elgon) in Uganda and Communitree in Nicaragua.

Their main allegations/questions related to farmer payments, food security, leakage, gender inclusion and farmer communications/consultations. 

Earthly runs a red-flag process, when such circumstances occur, where we seek to establish the fundamental truths behind such claims. Projects will be put on pause until they are proven to have fallen short of our high level of integrity or not. 

For this reason, we will not be selling the Albertine Rift & Mt. Elgon project until we are satisfied it meets our standards. Some of the key claims from the documentary are outlined below, alongside responses gleaned from our review to date. We will seek to verify these responses with the project developer and relevant third parties.

Concerns raised by the BBC:

Claim: Farmers aren’t paid sufficiently or on time, impacting livelihoods.

Response: 60% of carbon credit revenue goes directly to farmers via cash/in-kind benefits. Independent audits confirm payments were received and benefit-sharing was agreed with communities.

Claim: Food security is compromised - land used for trees no longer grows crops.

Response: Tree species include fruit and soil-enhancing trees (e.g., mango, avocado). 27 of 28 farmers in audits reported improved food production; only one flagged an issue, which was addressed.

Claim: Farmers don’t understand contracts or have copies in local languages.

Response: Contracts are available in local languages; facilitators were trained to support low-literacy participants. An issue identified in 2019 was resolved through updated guidance and auditor approval.

Claim: Payments go to male heads of households, disempowering women.

Response: The Albertine project uses the Gender Action Learning System (GALS) to support shared household decision-making. Independent verifiers confirmed women’s participation and gender-sensitive design.

Claim: The project has grown too fast - original audit shows 6,000 farmers, now 41,000+.

Response: Growth is explained by high demand and expansion over several years. All data is transparently reported in annual reports and monitored through third-party verification.

Claim: Trees are being cut down again (leakage) or carbon estimates are overstated.

Response: Earthly’s independent review found strong leakage mitigation (land-use plans, tenure security, agroforestry). Carbon estimates are based on field inventories, not satellite data alone, and models are peer-reviewed.

Earthly's official review

24/04/25

In light of the recent BBC documentary "The Carbon Offset Trap," Earthly has undertaken a formal review of the Trees for Global Benefit (TGB) project in Uganda. The documentary raises serious concerns about the effectiveness, fairness, and transparency of carbon offset projects, with TGB specifically mentioned in a series of claims. As an organisation committed to integrity, social and environmental justice, and transparency, Earthly paused all transactions with the project while a thorough red-flag review was conducted.

Our assessment draws on documentation from ECOTRUST (the Ugandan NGO implementing TGB), third-party verification audits spanning 2005 to 2023, field visits, farmer interviews, independent monitoring data, and expert analysis. The findings below respond to each of the primary allegations made by the BBC and contextualise them within the operational and cultural realities of the project.

Payments to Farmers

The claim that farmers are not paid on time or adequately is partially supported. Delays have occurred, largely due to manual verification processes, administrative bottlenecks, and limited access to digital infrastructure. However, the structure of the TGB program is such that payments are not meant to replace core household income, but to support long-term land stewardship. Payments are disbursed in performance-based tranches over a 10- to 25-year cycle, and 60% of carbon revenue is returned directly to farmers, which is notably high compared to other projects in the Voluntary Carbon Market.

Many farmers interviewed during the most recent audits and field visits indicated they had used carbon payments to pay school fees, invest in tools or animals, or support household savings. ECOTRUST is implementing technological upgrades, including digital payment systems and improved farmer training, to reduce delays and manage expectations more clearly.

Food Security

The BBC’s claim that tree planting compromises food security by reducing agricultural land does not reflect the project’s agroforestry model. TGB actively integrates food production and tree planting. The project promotes species that offer complementary ecological benefits and do not compromise staple food production. Interviews conducted in 2019 found that 27 out of 28 farmers reported increased food production as a result of the project, citing soil improvement, erosion control, and crop diversification.

While there are isolated instances where overplanting led to temporary reductions in crop yields, these were typically linked to limited land availability and have been addressed through improved planning and training. The TGB model is based on the principle that food production and environmental sustainability are not mutually exclusive, and agroforestry offers resilience against climate shocks while enhancing food security over time.

Contract Transparency

The assertion that farmers do not understand their contracts or have copies in local languages is historically grounded but no longer broadly accurate. Early audits identified this issue, and ECOTRUST responded by introducing a one-page summary of the contract in simplified terms and local languages, and by increasing the role of community facilitators in contract orientation.

Recent audits and interviews suggest that many farmers now retain copies of their contracts and can explain key components. However, we acknowledge that true comprehension is not binary and recommend that contract literacy remain a continuous area of investment, particularly as new farmers are recruited.

Gender and Payment Disparities

Contrary to the claim that only male heads of household receive payments, the evidence suggests a more complex gender dynamic. TGB has employed the Gender Action Learning System (GALS) to improve intra-household decision-making and ensure gender equity in benefit distribution. Reports from 2023 indicate that in some households, women are receiving payments directly, which has in certain cases led to tensions, including instances where husbands destroyed trees.

These cases, while troubling, reflect a broader and encouraging shift in household economics - one where women are increasingly empowered to control financial resources. Rather than indicating systemic disempowerment, this highlights the need for continued gender-sensitive programming and conflict resolution training. TGB is not exacerbating inequality but rather navigating the realities of shifting power within rural households.

Project Scale and Monitoring

The claim that TGB has grown too fast - from 6,000 to 41,000 farmers - suggests overstretched systems and poor oversight. However, our review of historical data shows that this figure conflates cumulative and active participant numbers. While the project has scaled significantly over two decades, this growth has been incremental and supported by increased staffing, digitised monitoring protocols, and improved training.

It is accurate that growth creates pressure on monitoring systems, but ECOTRUST has taken steps to ensure quality control scales alongside participation. Monitoring backlogs are periodically assessed, and third-party verifications continue to guide corrective action and operational refinement.

Tree Loss and Carbon Estimation

Concerns about tree felling (leakage) and inflated carbon estimates have merit in isolated historical cases. A 2009 audit identified instances where eucalyptus woodlots were removed prior to planting carbon-eligible trees. ECOTRUST clarified that these trees were mature and used for construction, which resulted in carbon being stored in long-lived products. The project has since revised eligibility criteria to prevent such occurrences and updated its operational manual to disqualify plots where trees were recently cleared.

Carbon estimations are made using conservative methodologies, including field sampling, national biomass databases, and a 10% risk buffer applied to all issued credits. A 2013 non-conformance finding relating to area monitoring was addressed by revising protocols to ensure that both tree survival and land area are measured. While no system is infallible, TGB’s carbon accounting practices are transparent, continuously updated, and consistent with international standards.

On Cultural Framing and Interpretive Bias

It is essential to recognise that many of the concerns raised by the BBC coverage are framed through a Western-centric lens that may not fully account for the cultural, economic, and governance realities of rural Uganda. For instance, expectations around cash flow, legal documentation, and gender dynamics often reflect values and norms not universally shared.

In Ugandan rural contexts, household income is often shared through informal mechanisms rather than individual bank accounts. Oral contracts and community reputation may hold more social currency than formal documentation. Women’s empowerment is occurring in relational and negotiated ways rather than through top-down enforcement. It is important that critiques of development projects avoid treating African communities as passive victims of flawed systems. These communities are active agents, capable of navigating complexity and negotiating trade-offs with discernment.

The critique offered in the documentary, while valuable in prompting accountability, risks simplifying these nuanced dynamics and portraying locally led solutions through a deficit-based lens. The TGB project is far from perfect, but it is rooted in locally defined needs, accountable to its participants, and demonstrably evolving in response to feedback and evidence.

Conclusion

Earthly remains committed to supporting high-integrity, community-led climate solutions. While the BBC documentary highlights areas for reflection and continued improvement, our comprehensive review finds that the core claims are either inaccurate, outdated, or lack sufficient context. TGB continues to provide meaningful ecological and social benefits to participating farmers, and we will work with ECOTRUST to further strengthen transparency, gender inclusion, and payment systems.

The future of climate finance depends on learning, dialogue, and cultural humility. We encourage all stakeholders - journalists, verifiers, donors, and implementers - to approach this work with nuance, care, and respect for the people most directly involved.