evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Trees of Hope — Community Agroforestry Carbon (Malawi)

Malawi · Dowa · See the Malawi profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 64% 40/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Trees of Hope paid 2,000+ smallholder farmers in Malawi's Dowa and Neno districts to plant mango, citrus, and hardwood trees under Plan Vivo certification, projecting 200,000 tCO2e sequestration and distributing over US$100,000 in carbon revenues — with many participants opening

2,000+
Smallholder farmers registered (2007-2022)
875
Farmers who received payment (by 2016)
~2 million
Trees planted
200,000 tCO2e
Projected carbon sequestration
100,000+ USD
Total payments distributed to farmers (by 2016)
376
Farmers who opened a bank account for the first time
5 USD per tCO2e
Payment rate per verified carbon credit
488+ hectares
Land under boundary/orchard/woodlot planting
5,743 100m units
Boundary plantings

Details

Maturity
Discontinued
Promoter
Clinton Development Initiative (CDI)
Period
2007–2022
Keywords
NGO, community, agroforestry, carbon, livelihoods

Context

Trees of Hope is a community agroforestry-carbon initiative in Malawi's Dowa and Neno districts, run by the Clinton Development Initiative (CDI) with Carbon Offsets To Alleviate Poverty (COTAP), operating under Plan Vivo Standard certification. Smallholder farmers on degraded forest and agricultural land are compensated for boundary planting of indigenous hardwoods, mango orchards and woodlots, generating verified carbon credits sold on the voluntary market.

Objectives

Restore degraded forest and agricultural land while providing smallholder farmers with a supplementary cash income from verified carbon credit sales, targeting a minimum 55% revenue share to participants.

Activities

Farmers organized into ~200 producer groups planted boundary hardwoods, mango orchards and woodlots across 488+ hectares plus 5,743 boundary plantings; verified carbon sequestration was monetized at US$5 per tonne CO2e and distributed to participants, several of whom opened bank accounts for the first time to receive payment.

Results

Over 2,000 smallholder farmers registered, of whom 875 had received payment by 2016; roughly 2 million trees were planted; more than US$100,000 had been distributed to participants by 2016; and 376 farmers opened a bank account for the first time upon receiving payment. The project's crediting period targeted roughly 200,000 tCO2e of sequestration.

Conclusions

The project met its Plan Vivo monitoring and reporting obligations and delivered measurable financial-inclusion side-effects (first-time bank accounts), but credit issuance has since concluded and new carbon-credit allocation is paused, while biodiversity, water and soil co-benefits were never independently quantified.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — Farmers paid US$5 per verified tonne CO2e with a minimum 55% revenue share; over US$100,000 had been distributed to participants by 2016 across 2,000+ registered farmers — a low per-farmer/overall cost model reliant on voluntary carbon credit sales.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Operated 2007-2022 (15 years); credit issuance has since concluded and the project remains in final Plan Vivo monitoring/reporting obligations with new credit allocation paused.
Staffing & skills
Clinton Development Initiative (CDI) field staff, COTAP administrative/fundraising partner, ~200 local producer groups coordinating farmers

Conditions for success

  • Plan Vivo Standard certification providing credible MRV and buyer confidence
  • Minimum 55% revenue-share rule ensuring farmers received a guaranteed portion of carbon payments
  • Diversified planting types (boundary hardwoods, mango orchards, woodlots) fitting existing farming systems

Common failure modes

  • New carbon credit allocation has been paused, ending fresh farmer payments
  • Only 875 of 2,000+ registered farmers had received payment by 2016, indicating payment lags
  • Carbon and biodiversity/soil co-benefits were not independently monitored or quantified

Where it fits

Governance type
NGO/private partnership
Scale
district-level (two districts)
Income level
low income

Commonly funded by

Philanthropic / foundation funding

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful