Loading...
BETA – We are refining the platform. Your feedback helps us improve. Share feedback
Loading...
Publish your own articles and insights on Citable ESG
Pro organisations publish unlimited content, strengthening their AI Citability Score and visibility to procurement teams, investors, clients, customers, partners, and followers.

The Welsh government is terminating a tree-planting scheme in Uganda after nine years and £4m in public funding. The move signals growing scrutiny of carbon offset projects that operate at arm's length from the countries making climate commitments.
This matters because Wales positioned the scheme as part of its climate strategy. Offsetting remains a contentious mechanism in net-zero pledges: critics argue it allows wealthy nations to fund projects elsewhere rather than reducing emissions at home. The scheme's cancellation suggests policymakers are reconsidering whether such programmes deliver genuine climate benefit or simply displace responsibility.
The withdrawal reflects two pressures. First, budget constraints are forcing hard choices about which programmes survive. Second, and more important, scrutiny of offset quality has intensified. Not all tree-planting delivers equivalent carbon sequestration; permanence is uncertain; and local land-use impacts matter but are often poorly monitored.
Wales' decision doesn't mean all nature-based climate solutions are flawed – reforestation and restoration projects can work. But they work best when embedded in rigorous accounting frameworks, verified independently, and aligned with the host country's own climate and development priorities, not treated as a substitute for domestic emissions cuts.
The question now is whether other governments funding similar schemes overseas will conduct equivalent audits, or whether budget pressure remains the only driver of change.