This is a collection article for our comments regarding Aftonbladet's article. The newest at the top.

July 2

Correction – In the text below from June 19, we have now clarified that the Swedish researcher Klara Fischer and the two Ugandan researchers traveled with us completely independently and also through their own funding. We also clarify that what we write here on our website are our own conclusions, not the researchers'.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

June 30

Aftonbladet has today published another article about us and about the Trees for Global Benefits project. After our site visit, we continue to feel confident in the conclusions we present here on the website. We are currently awaiting the third-party reviews that are now being carried out.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

June 19

We have now carried out the previously planned visit to the Trees for Global Benefits project in Uganda to get an updated picture on site with our own eyes. The trip was carried out June 1-9.

Purpose of the trip

1. Ensure that no farmer has been forced to take their children out of school or marry them off. ​
2. Understand whether there is a shortage of food or availability of crops, and what the challenges/competition with other land uses are.
3. Understand if and why farmers cut down their trees. And if and why they would have planted trees all over their land.
4. Ensure that payments to farmers have been made according to the agreements.
5. Get your own picture and deeper understanding of the criticisms and challenges raised in reports and also by Ecotrust itself.
6. If the claims are true, we want to understand how we, Ecotrust, Plan Vivo and other external reviewers have failed to capture these serious problems. 

Implementation

Independent visit and review by Ecotrust in the Hoima and Kikuube area.​

Aim to meet as many of the farmers portrayed as possible.

External expertise – We had three researchers with us; two from Makarere University in Uganda and one from SLU. The majority of the interviews with the farmers have been held by either Klara Fischer from SLU or Patrick Byangaba from Makerere University. These three researchers were with us completely independently from us and have also not been financed by us, but by research funds in their respective works. The conclusions that we write here are ZeroMission's and not the researchers'.

Participants

Henrik Juhlin – ZeroMission​

Maria King - ZeroMission

Klara Fischer – Lecturer in urban development at SLU​

Patrick Byangaba – Professor of Ecology at Makerere University​

David Tumusiime – Professor of Forestry at Makerere University

Marvin Mugarra – Local guide/interpreter​

Raymond – Driver/guide​

Brief summary of what we found on site

There are a number of gross inaccuracies in the descriptions of the farmers in the articles. The most important responses we found on site and want to convey are:

– people in the project are NOT starving because they planted trees

– NO underage girls have been married off due to poverty as a result of the family planting trees

– children of participating farmers have NOT been taken out of school as a result of planting trees

– the project and Ecotrust are very popular among the farmers in the area.

– NO ONE has cut down all their trees.

The above are answers to the claims in the article that we think are most important to describe. In addition, we have also received many responses regarding point 5 above.

Overview – these are the people we met on site

In Aftonbladet's article, 9 farmers were interviewed. We managed to meet all of them, and in addition to these, we also held interviews with three more people. We also organised a group meeting in workshop form with approximately 20 participants.

In addition to the above farmers, we also met representatives from the National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO), National Resource in Kikuube, and representatives from ECOTRUST's local office in Hoima and headquarters in Kampala.

Of the nine portrayed individuals, it turns out that two are not involved in the project.

We have made a thorough list of each person – how they have been portrayed in Aftonbladet, what we ourselves found on site, and what ECOTRUST has information about regarding land area and payments. We have recorded each interview and have extensive photographic material.

Reflections from us at ZeroMission

What we have seen when visiting the nine different farming families' land is a large variety of food in the form of crops, fruit trees, livestock, etc. Several have lawns, satellite dishes and solar panels on the roof. The families have enough food and are also better off than the average in Uganda. Our picture of how the farmers live therefore differs clearly from the one Aftonbladet has painted. For us, it is a relief to see that the people in the project are doing well, that the children are going to school and that no one has married off underage daughters because they have planted trees on their land. We feel strengthened that the control systems we have for our projects are working.

This is what's happening now

We will now await the three different external reviews that are ongoing or will soon be started:

• MAX third-party review conducted by EY, where both we ourselves and ECOTRUST are reviewed (expected to be completed in July)
• The third-party audit according to the Plan Vivo standard, which is done every five years and is half completed (expected to be completed in August)
• The Ugandan government's investigation following complaints from farmers in Kikuube about being offended by Aftonbladet's descriptions of them

Once we have all these pieces in place, we will put the puzzle together and act accordingly. We have previously described that over the years we have had annual reports, our own visits, and recurring third-party audits to rely on when it comes to our confidence in the project. We have also had over 15 years to build relationships and to see and understand how the local communities work. After this visit, we remain confident in working with the project.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

May 23

Aftonbladet has contacted us again to comment on further information that we assume they intend to publish. In consideration of the review that we are conducting ourselves, we have declined to comment. As part of creating our own picture of the various details in the series of articles, ZeroMission will travel to Uganda on June 1st. We are doing this together with, among others, independent researchers and an interpreter. However, we would like to reiterate that, based on all annual reports, third-party audits, and continuous communication with the project developer Ecotrust, we continue to feel confident that Trees for Global Benefits is of great benefit to over 25,000 farming families and to the climate.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

May 8

In a follow-up article, Aftonbladet highlighted researchers who had previously conducted a study on the Trees for Global Benefits project. When the researchers contacted us about their study, we invited them to our office to present their findings to us and to specially invited customers. Max Burgers were the ones who attended the presentation.

Contrary to what was written in Aftonbladet's article, we at ZeroMission took a number of measures to review the problems they raised. Here it may be appropriate to point out that their research at the time could not be seen as criticism, but rather that they raised risks in the project as well as already known problems, especially regarding payments that there were explanations for.

The following actions were taken on our part:

1) After the initial meeting with the researchers to present their critique, ZeroMission met with ECOTRUST and Plan Vivo to ask follow-up questions to clarify the picture provided by the researchers.

2) We reviewed all documentation such as previous audit reports and annual reports, as well as other articles that had been written about the project and asked questions to Plan Vivo Foundation. The challenges that existed were documented and addressed and the project is constantly evolving to improve. The project / ECOTRUST had nothing to hide, it was fully transparent.

3) We were in contact with researcher Professor Mark Purdon, Université du Québec in Montréal, who had also conducted broader studies of Trees for Global Benefits since 2009. In June 2019, Mark Purdon, together with Patrick Byakagaba at Makerere University in Uganda, conducted a follow-up research study of Trees for Global Benefits to look at the project's overall effectiveness and compare this with areas outside the project. Unlike the Lund researchers who only conducted qualitative analyses, Purdon / Byakagaba's study included both qualitative and quantitative analyses. In his study, Purdon pointed out the problem of the Lund researchers unilaterally highlighting problems and completely disregarding benefits, advantages, and opportunities for participating farmers.

4) In spring 2019, the project was third-party reviewed by the independent party Environmental Service Inc. Ahead of this, we asked the Plan Vivo Foundation to expand the third-party review to look more closely at the criticisms raised by the Lund researchers, e.g. "does the project take sufficient account of farmers' needs and wishes? Do farmers feel that they have made informed choices? (e.g. on where to plant, choice of species, etc.). The results showed that the project met the Plan Vivocriteria.

Trees for Global Benefits project in constant development

As stated in what we have already said about the project, we are completely transparent about the fact that there have been challenges of various kinds, which have emerged in, for example, third-party audits. Over the years, there has been a degree of learning in the project, which has also led to development and improvements in various procedures.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

May 8 

We note that ZeroMission's general comments to Aftonbladet, which were originally included in their first article, have been removed. Our comments were written in response to a number of general statements that we received via email and were therefore not direct responses to the article, which we had not seen at the time. Our comments are reported below:

AB: The trees have been planted on land previously used for agriculture. After a few years, they have grown so large and the crowns have become so dense that other cultivation is not possible. This has led to problems with food supply.

This is a land use project, farmers are switching from seasonal crops, e.g. sugar cane, tobacco and maize, to integrating trees on part of their farms.

Households in this part of the country who participate in the project own on average between 5 and 10 hectares – so these are quite large areas of land. TGB records show that these farmers only plant trees on about 1 to 2 hectares of the land. This is done according to a well-developed model, with selected tree species and in a specific way adapted for each farmer's land. There are three general planting models – ‘woodlot’, ‘boundary planting’ and ‘agroforestry’. The agricultural plan differs, for example, for a farm with completely flat land and another located on hilly land.

Food insecurity in Hoima has been documented for decades, but it is due to heavy rains and drought, not because of trees planted according to Plan Vivo's agricultural plans. On the contrary, the trees planted in that way help to bind the soil and thus reduce food insecurity. 

We also want to point out that these are agricultural communities in the tropical forest area, farmers know for sure what a forest plot looks like and they know which crops can be grown even under canopy cover. For example, sugar cane cannot be grown under trees but a number of other plants/crops thrive better in shade than in direct sun.

AB: Payments from Ecotrust have not followed the timetable in the contracts. In many cases, the money has not arrived at all, with no explanation given. The payments that have been made have been too small to cover the loss of food.

The contractual schedule has been followed on an annual basis. There may be delays in the disbursement of a specific payment but the schedule is followed, the delays may be a few months. This has also been found in third-party audits. The explanation may be different spelling of names, change of mobile subscription (payments are often made as mobile phone payments, a kind of Swish) etc. which makes them stuck in the administration. Ecotrust ensures that money is only paid to the right person. There are reasons 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 lead to any food loss at all for the farmer and payments are therefore never intended to cover food loss.

The goal of the payments that come in years 0, 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 is not intended to replace existing income that the farmer has, but instead to provide an additional income in order to achieve better resilience for the households. One purpose of the project is to create a certain overall change in how farmers view their household management. In this case, it includes encouraging farmers to think more long-term by being able to supplement the short-term income from annual crops with income from trees on a much longer time horizon. Trees such as avocado provide both food and income for many years after the payments from the project cease after 10 years. Other trees are intended entirely for timber, and when they are felled, a new one should be planted.

There is food insecurity, but not famine, in this region and it is linked to a variety of factors including, for example, irregular rains and drought. Tree planting, which binds the soil, retains more moisture in the ground and provides shade that creates a better microclimate, is a solution to these kinds of problems, not the cause! The most recent third-party review included interviews with 20 randomly selected farmers, 19 of whom confirmed that their yields from the land had increased. One participant had reduced yields from his crops and this was due to overplanting of trees.

AB: In addition to famine, farmers report taking children out of school, marrying off girls, etc. as a result of the deteriorating economic situation caused by tree planting.

The project's management believes that people would never resort to such desperate measures. With the government's Universal Primary Education and Universal Secondary Education programs providing free schooling, farmers in this region are unlikely to actually trade their children for a smaller amount of food.

Marrying off girls is illegal in Uganda. These communities may be poor but are decently working communities that have been documented to have quite varied sources of income.  

The project argues that it is unfortunate, and false, to paint the farmers in the project as victims.

Trees for Global Benefits is often invited to talk about the project because it has a good local reputation. The project's expansion in recent years from 2,000 farmers in 2012 to 15,000 in 2022 and now over 20,000, also demonstrates that it has a strong local presence and reputation.

AB: Farmers are now cutting down trees to grow food instead.

People in this area are not short of land. They may well cut down trees to sell and make money but have absolutely no need to cut down trees for food production or their own food supply.

In the region, there are larger commercial farms (that are not part of the project). The main driving force behind deforestation has largely been documented to be linked to this type of agriculture – mainly sugar cane and tobacco. Aftonbladet's claim may be true, but if so, it is taken out of context. A smallholder family in the area can manage their food supply on as little as 0.5 hectares. Participants in the project have at least 3-4 hectares of land for their own food supply / food production left when the trees are planted, in other words, significantly more than the minimum.

An addition here that we did not write to the reporter but which may be good to know is that in the area in question in Hoima there are several actors and several different tree planting initiatives. Some landowners who do not belong to Trees for Global Benefits only plant trees on certain plots, not any crops at all, and these are intended for e.g. timber and charcoal production. Some of these tree plantations are on small plots and on considerably larger areas. In Aftonbladet's article there are pictures showing a more large-scale tree plantation, which is grossly misleading. These should not be confused with the type of tree planting that takes place within Trees for Global Benefits.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

May 5

We repeat what we have said before, namely that we take Aftonbladet's article very seriously. What emerges is not the picture we have had during many years of collaboration with the project developer ECOTRUST.

Since the report was published, we have tried to find out as many facts as possible in order to be able to act on what has emerged in the report and also to provide information in as correct a way as possible.

Our concrete actions now are to

• continue dialogue with the management of ECOTRUST, the local organization running the project in Uganda
• continue the dialogue with the management of Plan Vivo, the organization that certifies the project
• find out about the methodology of the newspaper's reporting to get an idea of how it was done
• urgently push forward and, if possible, expand the scope of the third-party audit currently being carried out under the Plan Vivo standard.

In order to get as comprehensive a picture as possible, we intend to revisit the project in Uganda as soon as possible to re-evaluate the Aftonbladet article. Independent experts and interpreters will then be part of the work. We will be completely transparent about what we find. We will then take whatever action we deem necessary with respect to the participants in the project and our stakeholders.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

May 4

ZeroMission was given the opportunity to comment in advance on a number of discrepancies that Aftonbladet found in its report. The discrepancies were relatively general, which made it difficult to give specific answers. Our written response is partly attached to the article in the newspaper. We chose not to meet with Aftonbladet for a taped interview before the article was published, but we have subsequently, through our CEO Henrik Juhlin, participated in TV4 Nyhetsmorgon to give our view live after all the material had been published.

ZeroMission takes the report very seriously

Aftonbladet's article points to a number of different shortcomings and abuses in the Trees for Global Benefits project in Uganda. We take the report very seriously and have already begun our own investigations to, to begin with, create as accurate a picture as possible. We are now in contact with the organization behind the project, ECOTRUST. We will also follow up on the content of the article by, for example, checking whether those interviewed in the report are still part of the project.

ZeroMission has been working with ECOTRUST and the Trees for Global Benefints (TGB) project for over 15 years. In addition to having a close dialog directly with ECOTRUST, there is also a well-defined framework for how the project should progress, which is reflected in annual reports and third-party audits every five years. We have also visited the different areas of the project ourselves on several occasions, most recently last year. From what we have seen, read and captured, our assessment has been that the project is functioning well.

TGB is certified by Plan Vivo, one of several standards available for carbon credits. The Plan Vivo standard is more far-reaching than any other standard, and ZeroMission has therefore chosen to primarily work with projects that have their certification. Annual reports are an example of what is written into the standard, which is more far-reaching than other actors'.  

We are of course very concerned when we see Aftonbladet's report. What is shown is a picture of the project that we, based on the above, do not recognize. It is tragic to see stories of starving children, payments that have not been made, etc. that emerge in the article. The project involves over 20,000 farmers and does not exclude that there are individual people who are dissatisfied. The report presents about ten witnesses, and we believe that it is difficult to get a fair picture based on only these people. We will seek many more answers than that, as we ultimately want to see that everyone is satisfied.

The project is well known and popular in the regions where it operates. The number of participating farmers has increased every year since its inception and, in our view, this can only be because the project brings benefits to participating farmers. The project is entirely voluntary. If you are not satisfied with how it works, you are free to leave. You can keep the trees that have been planted, sell them and owe the organization nothing. Since the project has existed for almost two decades, we believe that if there had been widespread dissatisfaction among participating farmers, the project would never have been so in demand and had the growth it has.

ZeroMission has been working with full focus on the climate since 2006. We are well known for our commitment and have been active in the sustainability sphere long before it became the big issue it is today. Since the start, we have driven development, tried to inspire companies to do more to reduce their climate impact and set an example. We work actively with our customers to calculate emissions, set reduction plans to reduce emissions and then take responsibility for the emissions that you still have. Our intentions have always been good and we will continue on this path.