This is a contested claim. Each organisation’s own account is shown in full below; the hub draws no composite finding between them.
“Our response to the report is that it is misguided, poorly researched and inaccurate in nearly all respects." / "The report suggests that NRT is financially benefiting from the project, when in fact NRT does not take any profit." / "The project was validated under Verra's Verified Carbon Standard by two independent external auditors, and has undergone two verifications.”
“no empirical evidence drawn from direct assessment or data that the project's purported 'planned rotational grazing' is either a/ actually occurring across most of the project area or b/ actually any better for soil carbon accumulation." / "wholly unconvincing evidence presented that NRT has properly informed communities about the project, let alone received their free prior and informed consent to it." Grazing reports are "generally extremely poor in quality" and "almost entirely worthless.”