In the voluntary carbon credit market, we often talk about win-win situations, where project activities can benefit the climate, local people and even biodiversity. But is it really possible to achieve a 'triple win', and if so, who bears the costs? Can projects really benefit a smallholder farmer who needs to feed his family, while strengthening fragile ecosystems? Can we navigate this complex reality without sacrificing anything?

After conducting an extensive literature review of the Ugandan Trees for Global Benefits (TGB) project, I reflected on how it and other nature-based climate solutions projects operate in a complex context where different aspects are juxtaposed. Aspects such as climate, society and biodiversity all benefit from the project's activities, and are better with the project than without it - but what benefits one aspect may come at a cost to another.

Trees for Global Benefit project in Uganda

For example, Plan Vivo only allows the use of native and naturalized species of trees to generate carbon credits. This means that fast-growing plant species that could provide higher income to landowners cannot be used in the projects. From one perspective, this can be seen as an unfair barrier to achieving greater social benefit. But on the other hand, this is a safeguard aimed at preventing incentives to plant monocultures of fast-growing invasive species, which can be detrimental to biodiversity and negatively affect soil quality in the future. The standard aims to enable sustainable benefits without compromising other key values.

Another important aspect is how much land farmers can allocate to the projects. Here, the main focus is that project activities should not jeopardize household food security - even if this means including less land in the project. Land needs vary between projects and depend on factors such as land scarcity and land productivity. This is an example of how people's needs are prioritized over climate and biodiversity, which are crucial for the long-term sustainability of projects and the resilience of communities. Replacing food-producing areas with a diversity of native trees that promote biodiversity can put communities at risk in the event of a poor harvest - and these trees are likely to be removed in favor of food production again.

Identifying and measuring all the relationships and consequences of these trade-offs is extremely difficult, and what should be prioritized is often a matter of individual opinions and values. However, at ZeroMission , we feel confident that Plan Vivo, with almost 30 years of experience working with over 40,000 smallholder farmers in Uganda alone, certifies projects that achieve the best possible results across all three of these different components. Their holistic approach balances these factors and ensures that all stakeholders are included - including non-human ones - so that climate, society and biodiversity can continue to benefit for generations to come.