A new report by Swedwatch, HEKS, and the Sierra Leone Network on the Right to Food (Silnorf) investigates the human rights impacts of a carbon project tree plantation in Sierra Leone. The plantations are owned by a UK-based company called Miro Forestry Developments Limited.
The report found that communities report the following impacts:
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.
In a press release about the report, Davide Maneschi, programme officer at Swedwatch and a co-author of the report, says that,
“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.”
Commercial plantations — not “reforestation”
The project title is “Reforestation of Degraded Lands in Sierra Leone” but the first line of the Project Description Document explains that,
Miro Sierra Leone Commercial Plantations Project consists of the establishment of high-quality commercial forestry plantations with short rotation species, for producing sawn timber, poles, plywood and biomass, for domestic and international markets, and providing environmental, social and economic benefits to local communities.
In a press release about the project Miro stated that the plantation “consists of over 21,000 hectares of flat and fertile land”. Miro is growing fast-growing plantations of eucalyptus, acacia, and gmelina. Miro stated that the land “was once forested with primary forest, however the land now consists of secondary growth including grasses, low level bush and palms”.
Miro started its operations in Sierra Leone in 2012. Since 2017, the company’s monoculture plantations have been certified as well managed under the FSC system.
Swedwatch, HEKS, and Silnorf state in their report that the plantations cover about 10,000 hectares, “of which roughly 5,000 hectares are eligible for the generation of carbon credits”.
Miro hired Swiss climate consulting firm South Pole to help develop the carbon project and to sell the carbon credits. The project started generating carbon credits in 2016 and was registered by Verra in 2021. (Verra allows project developers to sell carbon credits that were generated up to five years before the project was registered.)
According to Miro’s 2023 Annual Report (the most recent available) the company expected to generate 700,000 carbon credits from its plantations in Ghana and Sierra Leone for sale in 2024. “The price of such credits,” Miro writes, “is currently typically around US$12/credit.”
Enter Nigel Farage
Dutch Green Business Group claims to have bought 128,000 carbon credits from Miro’s industrial tree plantation project in Sierra Leone. DGB Group is an iffy-looking company run by Selwyn Duijvestijn that partnered with the far right UK politician Nigel Farage in 2021. You can read more about that farce here:
Farage’s involvement didn’t last long. Just two years later, he was out:
Miro’s Sierra Leone plantation project has sold more than 480,000 carbon credits. But the current status of the project is listed on Verra’s registry as “Verification Approval Requested”.
Miro should not be short of cash. The company has received large amounts of government and private funding for its monocultures in Sierra Leone — including the following:
the UK government through the CDC Group (now British International Investment);
the Finnish government through Finnfund;
the Dutch government through FMO;
the Canadian government through FinDev Canada;
the Green Climate Fund through the Arbaro Fund; and
Community concerns
In October 2025, Swedwatch and Silnorf’s researchers held discussions in six villages in the Tonkolili district close to Miro’s plantations. In total, 289 people took part in these meetings, of whom 55% were women. They also spoke to local government representatives, and the NGOs Namati and Land for Life.
In its press release about the Sierra Leone project, Miro stated that “The land area has limited subsistence farming going on which is primarily centered around the low lying swampy areas for rice cultivation unsuitable for forestry.”
The reality is that communities reported that some of the plantation areas were used for subsistence farming and harvesting natural resources. The result is increasing food insecurity and poverty.
Communities raised concerns about the way in which Miro acquired the land for its plantations. Miro initially requested 21,000 hectares of land for a period of 100 years. Many landowners rejected this because of the long duration and the low rent of US$2 per hectare per year.
Eventually, five villages signed a 49-year lease.
One villager said that,
“When the first meeting was held it was a community meeting. All of us declined to give the land. Later when few agreed to allow Miro to take the land, not all of us were involved. That was a closed meeting. Not everybody was present.”
Miro claims to have communicated the risks, costs, and benefits of the carbon project, but the researchers found that communities, several government officials, and key stakeholders “were unaware of the carbon project’s existence on Miro’s leased land”.
“No, we don’t know Miro is selling carbon credits,” one villager said. “Never heard of carbon project.”
“We don’t know about carbon,” another said, “Miro never told us about carbon credits.”
Communities, particularly women, told the researchers that they face increased hunger and hardship as a result of losing land and natural resources to Miro’s plantations. One villager said that,
“Our problem is that we used to have free access to the land. Anyone could farm on as many parcels as they wanted, but now we do not have enough land. Before you could cultivate one bushel, but now you can only cultivate six pans.1 When you harvest those six pans and reserve some for the next planting season, you will not have enough left to eat. The half bag of rice the company provides to employees will not even serve them for one month, so we are experiencing food shortages.”
The company cut down large mango, orange, and plum trees, all of which were important food sources, including for children. “When the company cut the fruit trees, we felt really bad,” a community health worker told the researchers.
“We told them that we are not happy that they are cutting these trees, because these are fruits that our children have been surviving from. Even though they said they would pay for them, we were still not happy about it. But Miro asked that we should allow it to happen.”
Miro promised jobs for local communities during the land lease negotiations. But villagers told the researchers that the jobs often went to people from outside their villages. “They said they will employ our children,” one woman told the researchers. “But after we give them our land, they started employing people from other districts.” Few of those employed are women.
The researchers report that villagers “have not received any share of the plantations’ profits, either from timber operations or carbon credit sales”. Villagers also told researchers that the project’s financial data was not transparent. They did not know how much Miro earned, how any community share is calculated, or who manages the community development fund that the company is supposed to put the community payments.
On top of all this are concerns about occupational health and safety and about the low wages. Workers are exposed to hazardous chemicals, operate machinery without adequate protection, and have to work in extreme heat. Workers who were injured received limited financial assistance and had to cover their own healthcare costs. “I am paid 1,500 Leones. This money is too small compared to the work I do and the cost of living in Sierra Leone,” a factory worker told the researchers.
Villagers are also concerned about chemicals used in the plantations affecting local water sources. Miro uses imidacloprid (a neonicotinoid insecticide) and glyphosate (a notorious herbicide). “Unintentional spray drift [of glyphosate] has potential to significantly increase risk to the environment and public welfare,” an FSC audit report states.
The researchers note that there is a “disconnect between desk-based, documentation-driven compliance in audits and certifications and the lived realities of host communities”.
Swedwatch, HEKS, and Silnorf shared their findings with Miro, South Pole, and Verra. Miro states that it takes the concerns reported seriously, “and will act immediately where action is warranted”. But the company disagreed with many of the findings in the report. South Pole’s response focuses on the company’s role as carbon asset developer and consultant: “South Pole is not involved in commercial timber management, plantations operations, land acquisition or lease negotiation which are subject to FSC oversight.”
Verra did not respond.