New report
REVEALING THE HIDDEN COSTS OF CARBON CREDITS
As pressure grows to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, carbon credits are increasingly being used by corporations, organizations and individuals in high-income countries to meet net-zero targets or offset emissions. Against this backdrop, Swedwatch and its project partners examined a reforestation carbon project in Sierra Leone. While the project has reportedly brought some environmental and economic benefits, the findings raise serious concerns about its implementation and impacts on affected communities.
The report Uprooted Promises presents a case study of the human rights impacts associated with the carbon credit project Reforestation of Degraded Lands in Sierra Leone. The project encompasses around 10,000 hectares of commercial forestry plantations, approximately half of which are eligible for generating carbon credits.
The plantations are owned by UK-based Miro Forestry Developments Limited (Miro). The Swiss climate consultancy South Pole was hired by Miro to support the registration of the plantations as a carbon project under Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and to sell the resulting carbon credits.
The carbon project was registered in 2021 and has since generated more than 480,000 carbon credits, including credits issued retroactively from 2016.
Communities report loss of land and livelihoods
The research, carried out by Swedwatch and SiLNoRF in October 2025 (see methodology in the side bar), found a significant disconnect between official project documentation and third-party audits on the one hand, and the experiences reported by members of the six communities visited on the other. The findings point to a gap between formal consultation processes and meaningful community participation, particularly for women.
Community members interviewed said there had been limited consultation and negotiation with communities ahead of the land acquisition process. While project documentation describes the carbon project area as “degraded”, community members reported that some of the land had been actively used for subsistence farming and harvesting natural resources.
Interviewees said that converting some areas into plantations had restricted their access to land and natural resources, which they associated with increased food insecurity and poverty. Many also said they were unaware of the duration of the land leases.
Residents of the six communities visited, as well as key informants and some local authorities, also said they were unaware that a carbon project existed on the land. They believed the plantations were being used solely for timber production.
Applicable carbon registration standards required project proponents to conduct local stakeholder consultations to inform communities and maximize participation. It is therefore concerning that some community members and key stakeholders remained unaware of the carbon project operating on these plantations, says Davide Maneschi, Programme Officer at Swedwatch and co-author of the report.
Low compensation and disproportionate impacts on women
Women interviewed for the report said they had been particularly affected. They reported losing access to resources such as fruit trees and firewood, while largely being excluded from consultations and lease payments, which were typically distributed to male elders.
Landowners interviewed also described the average annual rent of USD 12 per hectare as insufficient to compensate for lost subsistence income or support large families. As one landowner said, commenting on the low compensation:
We used the land to cultivate crops that we use for our families and welfare. But we don’t have access to that land anymore.
Questions over how carbon revenues benefit communities
The report also raises concerns about how revenues generated through the sale of carbon credits benefit affected communities.
In 2024, Miro reported USD 6.7 million in revenues from carbon credit sales across its two African projects. Project documents state that a sharing agreement providing 5% of net profits to a community fund was enclosed with the land lease.
However, according to landowners interviewed for the report, communities have not yet received a share of the proceeds from carbon credit sales, and there is currently no functioning mechanism for sharing operational revenue.
In communication with Swedwatch, Miro explained that the company had not yet made a net profit, which is also confirmed by the company’s financial disclosure. Miro also has stated that it is committed to reviewing a revenue-based benefit-sharing mechanism from January 2027, as a possible alternative to the profit-sharing model.
Carbon projects are often portrayed as an opportunity to unlock climate finance and ultimately provide benefits to local communities in low-income countries. However, this is unlikely to happen in the absence of clear regulatory frameworks mandating revenue and benefit sharing between project developers, governments, and communities. When communities report losing access to land and livelihoods while having little insight into the revenues generated, it points to a fundamental imbalance in power that carbon market actors, and regulators, need to address, says Davide Maneschi.
Human rights impacts: What communities report
✔️ Loss of land and livelihoods
Communities reported losing access to land used for traditional farming and natural resources, contributing to food insecurity and poverty.
✔️Limited consultation
Many residents said they were unaware that a carbon project existed on their land, raising questions about free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).
✔️Unequal benefits
Payments were considered insufficient to support families or compensate for lost subsistence income.
✔️Women were disproportionately affected
Women, largely responsible for food provision, lost access to vital resources and were often excluded from consultations and lease payments.
Explore the findings in more detail in the full report.
Project-specific recommendations & general conclusion
This case study highlights both the potential benefits and significant social risks of voluntary carbon market projects. While the project has reportedly contributed to tree cover restoration, an improved local microclimate and employment, communities interviewed also reported significant negative impacts.
The findings point to the need for stronger human rights due diligence, meaningful community participation, fair benefit-sharing, accessible grievance mechanisms and greater transparency. They also highlight the importance of independent and community-driven oversight, rather than relying solely on third-party certification and audits.
The report calls on Miro to renegotiate land leases in line with Sierra Leone’s 2022 Customary Land Rights Act, implement its new revenue-based benefit-sharing model and ensure women’s meaningful participation in land governance.
South Pole and Verra should strengthen human rights due diligence and oversight of auditors and validation and verification bodies, and engage meaningfully with affected communities to ensure social safeguards work in practice.
The Government of Sierra Leone should ensure that carbon market policies protect customary land rights and human rights, provide effective grievance mechanisms and require greater transparency from investors.
While focused on this specific project, the findings also highlight broader challenges associated with large-scale afforestation carbon projects and offer lessons for similar projects elsewhere.
Company responses
As part of the research process, key findings were shared with Miro, South Pole, and Verra for comment prior to publication. Miro and South Pole disagreed with the characterization of these impacts and held that their operations fully complied with all local laws, international sustainability standards, and validated methodologies.
They also pointed to the fact that the project has been certified by independent third parties, including the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Miro and South Pole also raised concerns about the methodology of the study, stating that the report mainly relies on verbal accounts from a small number of communities. Verra declined to comment, stating that providing a meaningful response required reviewing the full text of the report rather than just the summary of findings. Miro, South Pole, and Verra were invited to comment ahead of publication. Miro’s and South Pole’s responses appear below. Verra had not responded at the time of publication.
Download the report
This report was authored by Swedwatch in collaboration with Swiss Church Aid HEKS/EPER and Sierra Leone Network on the Right to Food (SiLNoRF).
What are carbon credits?
⬆️ Carbon projects involve different actors across the project lifecycle, from design and verification to the issuance and sale of credits. This report focuses on the project owner, project developer, and carbon crediting program with which the project is registered and issues credits.
About the carbon project
Miro has operated plantations in Sierra Leone since 2012 and registered its greenhouse gas reduction project in 2021, with a crediting period start date of 2016. The plantations generate CO₂ credits from carbon stored in standing trees, timber and wood products. Such projects aim to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere to balance an emitter’s real-world emissions on paper. Land-based carbon projects require land for sequestration and conservation, which can conflict with existing agricultural and forestry uses. Spending on carbon credits exceeded USD 1 billion in 2025, according to Sylvera’s State of Carbon Credits.
About the research
⬆️The report is based on field research conducted in October 2025, using a qualitative case-study approach combining fieldwork, interviews, document review and data triangulation. Participatory discussions were held during traditional community meetings in six villages in the Tonkolili and Port Loko districts, where Miro’s plantations are located. In total, 289 community members participated, 55 percent of whom were women.
We just signed these documents; there was no lawyer, and we don’t understand what we signed, that’s why we are suffering. /Landowner
