Claim:

The article claims that at the beginning of the project, smallholder farmers were expelled from lands they had used for generations and were forced to relocate.

Clarification:

The Kikonda Central Forest Reserve was established by the Ugandan government after independence from British colonial rule in 1963 as a state forest reserve, legally designated for reforestation and not for permanent settlement or agriculture. We recognize that formal legality is not the only dimension relevant to land use rights. While statutory law in Uganda prohibits settlement within the boundaries of the Kikonda Forest Reserve, we also acknowledge that customary land practices and informal claims continue to play a role in people’s livelihoods and sense of belonging. Development in post-colonial contexts must navigate the tension between legal frameworks and lived realities, and we believe it is important to approach such situations with cultural sensitivity and historical awareness. 

Forest Reserves make up approximately 1% of the Ugandan land area. By the time Global Woods began project implementation in 2002, and at least 10 years earlier in the 1990s, no settlements existed within the lease area, as confirmed by on-site visits from independent verification (TÜV Süd, see Gold Standard Registry: Link).

It is true, however, that from time to time individuals from the surrounding communities have harvested timber illegally within the state forest—mostly to produce charcoal, a highly controversial practice that has also been penalized by the local forestry authorities.

During the early project phase (2002–2010), only a small fraction (~1,500 ha of 12,000 ha) were reforested. At that time, no guards were employed, as contact with local villages was minimal and many villagers were engaged as project staff to help implement its activities. The project was led by Shedrack Kajura, a respected local forestry officer who maintained community relations.

In Uganda, in general, long-term occupants can claim legal rights to land, however, this does not apply inside any of the state-owned forest reserves, where, regardless of how long someone has inhabited or used the land, they are not legally entitled to occupy, cultivate, or claim compensation under current land tenure laws.

While settlement and agricultural activities were formally prohibited, the lease agreement granted to Global Woods by the government allowed for some flexibility. This included the toleration of activities in unplanted areas and the possibility of negotiated agreements with neighboring farmers, permitting limited land use – such as intercropping, grazing between trees, or firewood collection in areas with woody shrubs.

In several cases, Global Woods supported neighboring communities in asserting legitimate claims against the state, represented by the National Forestry Authority. Incidents of conflict were taken seriously, and misconduct from Global Woods staff led to disciplinary action.

Years before any of these allegations were raised (since 2012), the project has been audited annually under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) by rotating independent auditors – as the first carbon forestry project in Eastern Africa also to be certified under FSC. All grievances were thus processed under Ugandan law and FSC criteria. A small number of complaints were indeed raised—as expected in any functioning grievance system—and resolved transparently. FSC audits in 2016 and 2022 confirmed that the project met all applicable standards concerning land tenure and use rights.

Claim:

The article claims that homes have been allegedly burned, children were beaten, and arrests have been orchestrated by the security team of Global Woods.

Clarification:

Global Woods categorically rejects all forms of violence and has never authorized or instructed the use of violence under any circumstances. In cases where staff or contracted personnel have failed to uphold this principle, the company has taken immediate and decisive corrective action.

While no systemic pattern of violence has been found, in 2013, an incident occurred involving a local farmer, Mr. Lawrence Kamonyo, and adult members of his family, who had repeatedly allowed their cattle to enter and graze in a newly planted forest section, causing damage to the young trees. In response, forest rangers employed by Global Woods acted in violation of company policy by physically assaulting the individuals involved and destroying a small temporary rain shelter that had been illegally constructed within the plantation.

This behavior constituted a clear breach of Global Woods’ internal procedures, which strictly require that in cases of unauthorized land use, staff must instruct the individuals to leave the area and, if not followed, report the matter to the police — and not use force. As a result, the forest rangers involved were immediately suspended and, following an internal investigation, permanently dismissed.

Global Woods promptly reached out to Mr. Kamonyo to express its regret and initiated a reparations process. This process was temporarily suspended pending the outcome of legal proceedings against the forest rangers involved. In 2015, following the conclusion of the court case, the process was resumed and resolved through mutual agreement between the parties.

Claim:

The article claims that herbicides applied in the project would cause birth defects and illnesses in local cattle.

Clarification:

There is no evidence that herbicides applied in the project were in any way related to birth defects or illness in cattle. All agrochemicals were applied within Ugandan regulatory and FSC limits as well as UN-endorsed guidelines. A veterinary investigation by Makerere University concluded that reported cattle symptoms were caused by nutritional deficiencies rather than chemical exposure.

Claim:

The article claims that the project would plant monocultures that harm biodiversity.

Clarification:

All forest reserves demarcated by the Ugandan government are primarily intended to provide wood supply for the national market. Based on these conditions, the lease contract was granted to Global Woods.

While monocultures are viewed critically in some Western societies, they globally are the backbone of sustainable timber production.

Monocultures do not inherently lead to a loss of biodiversity. When managed responsibly, they can even contribute to its enhancement. This is why FSC — a standard supported by organizations such as Greenpeace and WWF — permits such plantations under specific conditions.

On the Kikonda sites mainly Pinus caribaea and Eucalyptus grandis were planted in accordance with FSC guidelines for timber production. Approximately 20% of the area is set aside for biodiversity conservation, including wildlife corridors and buffer zones. These zones are amongst the largest privately financed protected areas in the country. Multiple FSC audits (e.g. 2020, 2023) have documented the project’s contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem services as it provides habitat for wildlife and reduces pressure on remaining natural forests by providing sustainable timber for the country’s growing demand for wood for construction. (FSC 2020, FSC, 2023).

Claim:

The article claims the project would benefit from the fact that the founder of Global Woods (Dr. Manfred Vohrer) is related to Moriz Vohrer (who had a leading role in the Gold Standard).

Clarification:

Moriz Vohrer co-founded the CarbonFix Standard, which later merged into the Gold Standard Foundation. He worked in a technical role at Gold Standard until 2016 while holding a 9% share in Global Woods gained as compensation for his work in the company until 2006. At the Gold Standard, he had no role in approving or auditing the Kikonda project. All certification audits are conducted by independent third parties. 

The Gold Standard Foundation formally registered and then dismissed related complaints after two on-site expert reviews in 2016 (Link). All audit protocols and final reports remain publicly available for external scrutiny.

Claim:

The article claims that more than 10,000 people would have been evicted due to the project in 2002. To substantiate these claims, the article cites a person, Viivi Fredrick, who claims to be among the residents who had settled in the forest in the 1990s, and therefore would be entitled to the land or to compensation according to the Ugandan Constitution.

Clarification:

This claim is addressed in detail in Allegation 1.1. In summary:

There is no evidence of mass evictions or the destruction of the basis of living in 2002. Such a claim is highly implausible, as only a few hundred people lived in the surrounding area at that time.

At the start of the project in 2002, less than hundred hectares had been planted. No guards were active, and no relocation took place. Independent audits (e.g. TÜV Süd 2009, FSC 2016 & 2022) found no indication of such incidents. At project start in 2002 and at least 10 years before, there have not been any settlements in the project area. This was explicitly confirmed by TÜV Süd, 20.01.2009, verification report accessible on the GoldStandard Registry (Link).

Claims that “former land users are now denied access” may reflect current realities in 2025, but they do not apply to the situation in 2002, when the area was largely unoccupied and reforestation had only just begun.

Claim:

The article claims that evictions would have been accompanied by violence, rape, and destruction of homes, led by a person named Mugisa, a member of the Ugandan police. To substantiate these claims, the article cites a person, Rose Adongo, who claims that the man named Mugisa forced at least three women to sexual acts.

Clarification:

Global Woods has no records, reports, or knowledge of the alleged incidents described in the article. Such claims were not raised through any of the company’s grievance mechanisms, community consultations, or through local management.

Global Woods strongly rejects all forms of violence. The company has never authorized, tolerated, or instructed any act of violence in connection with its operations.

Where the Ugandan police or other state actors are involved in law enforcement activities, they do so under their own legal authority and outside the operational control of the company. Should individuals acting in the name of public institutions be alleged to have committed criminal offences, the allegation has to be investigated and judged upon by the respective law enforcement and juridical institutions. Global Woods has always supported administration of justice through impartial, professional institutions. As a company, Global Woods does not have the legal mandate to conduct criminal investigations or judge upon the lawfulness of claims. 

Claim:

The article claims that Global Woods workers committed violent crimes, including physical assault, rape, kidnapping, and attempted murder. To substantiate these claims, the article cites a person, Viivi Fredrick, that states that he was attacked by Global Woods workers in 2014 with a trap wire and again attacked in 2018 where he was beaten and Global Woods workers intended to cut his throat. The article further quotes the same person, stating that young girls were raped by company workers while collecting firewood in the forest. The article further quotes another person, Kamya Fred, stating that the company’s workers destroyed marriages by kidnaping and raping women.

Clarification:

Global Woods strongly rejects all forms of violence and criminal conduct and has never authorized, instructed or tolerated such actions under any circumstances. In cases where staff or contracted personnel have failed to comply with the company’s strict ethical standards, Global Woods has taken immediate and decisive corrective action.

The project employed several hundred local workers in an area with a high crime rate (for example, the murder rate in Uganda is approximately ten times higher than in Germany). The claims were unknown to the company and had never been raised through any formal or informal channels during or after the alleged incidents.

Allegations of this nature constitute serious criminal offences and fall under the jurisdiction of the national police and judicial authorities. Global Woods has reported the claims to the current management and encourages witnesses to come forward.

At the same time, Global Woods firmly rejects the framing that the company would ever authorize, instruct or tolerate violence of any kind. The public dissemination of such potentially defamatory allegations is taken very seriously.

Claim:

The article claims that livestock was stolen by individuals associated with the project. To substantiate this allegation, it cites a person named Viivi Fredrick, who stated that people’s livestock was stolen and slaughtered and/or confiscated, and that people were forced to pay 20,000 Ugandan shillings (approximately 5 USD) per animal to retrieve them.

Clarification:

Grazing within newly planted reforestation areas has always been prohibited, as livestock poses a serious threat to the survival of young trees. In the early years of project implementation, there was not yet a formal written policy in place to manage incidents of unauthorized grazing. During that time, under the supervision of then-operations manager Shedrack Kathura, forest guards occasionally removed trespassing livestock from the project area and temporarily kept the animals within fenced sections of the leased area. Since the animals required feeding during this period, owners were asked to reimburse the cost of fodder upon collecting their livestock. This practice was consistent with locally accepted norms aimed at discouraging repeated grazing on reforested land.

Since then, Global Woods has clarified and formalized its protocols: unauthorized grazing incidents were to be documented and reported directly to local authorities, and company staff were explicitly instructed not to detain livestock or request compensation.

Claim:

The article quotes a local person, stating that the project poisons people’s water sources.

Clarification:

No evidence supports this. Herbicide use follows strict guidelines. Independent assessments have not found any indication of groundwater contamination. The project has in fact built wells and water ponds in multiple surrounding communities, improving water access for hundreds of families.

Claim:

The article claims that the local population, who should benefit most, see none of the proclaimed success of the project.

Clarification:

Global Woods strongly rejects the assumption that the project has not delivered benefits for the population in the vicinity of the Kikonda Forest Reserve. Independent audits confirm that the project has a highly positive impact on surrounding communities and their basis of livelihood , such as the improved water access through wells and ponds, the support of local education through school construction and the provision of teaching materials, and the distribution of fuel-efficient cookstoves to reduce pressure on natural forests. Community engagement programs have benefited over 8,400 people through training in sustainable farming, while more than 400,000 tree seedlings have been donated to restore degraded land and create woodlots owned by local smallhold families. The project has also provided employment to several hundred local residents and actively involved them in biodiversity monitoring. The majority of expenses in the Kikonda project went into salaries which were spent locally – a major boost for local shops and service providers. Partnerships with local associations and institutions such as NACOA, Nature Uganda, Makerere University and the National Forestry Authority have strengthened forest protection and conservation across more than 5,000 hectares of dedicated conservation area. These outcomes reflect the project’s long-standing commitment to environmental integrity and inclusive development.