One of Scotland’s largest landowners uses controversial carbon credit firm Verra for new woodland

21 September 2026

This article was first published in Scotland on Sunday on 20 September 2026 by Katherine Hay

The firm has been involved in recent controversies over how its woodland schemes are carried out.

One of Scotland’s largest landowners is using a controversial international carbon credit standard for new woodland projects in Scotland, despite the existence of a UK government-backed scheme specifically designed to certify carbon from new forests.

Gresham House confirmed to The Scotsman that for new woodland schemes it uses Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), which describes itself as the world’s most widely used greenhouse gas crediting programme. The scheme generates carbon credits that companies can buy to offset emissions on the voluntary carbon market.

Verra has faced international criticism over some of its methodologies, particularly those used for rainforest and avoided-deforestation projects, amid wider concerns about the credibility of voluntary carbon markets.

The decision has attracted scrutiny because Gresham House has received £50m in taxpayers money from the Scottish National Investment Bank (SNIB). The bank said its investment would help sequester 1.2m tonnes of carbon over 20 years, while delivering biodiversity benefits and creating jobs.

The revelation, first published in the blog Parkswatch Scotland, has prompted questions from land campaigners about why Gresham House has chosen an international standard rather than the UK’s Woodland Carbon Code (WCC), which was established to certify carbon sequestration from woodland creation.

The company said concerns about Verra’s rainforest carbon offsets related to “avoidance” or, in some cases, “hybrid” credits, which are generated by protecting existing forests that might otherwise have been harvested. Gresham House said instead its Gresham House Forest Growth & Sustainability Fund focuses exclusively on “removal credits”, generated by establishing new woodland. The firm has been behind large-scale controversial woodland schemes including Stobo Hope and Todrig in the Borders.

A Gresham House spokesperson said: “Gresham House is committed to creating new woodland in Scotland. The carbon credits generated by our woodland creation projects represent genuine carbon removals from the atmosphere and may provide an additional source of income that can support the creation and long-term management of new forests.

“The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), administered by Verra, is the world’s most widely used greenhouse gas crediting programme, operating across more than 130 countries. It predates the Woodland Carbon Code (WCC) and has issued more than one billion verified carbon units globally, compared with carbon units in the low millions issued under the WCC. As a global forestry manager, it is entirely appropriate for Gresham House to participate in the global voluntary carbon market.”

Gresham House said the WCC had changed substantially since its introduction, with successive revisions to its methodology. It argued that the frequency of those changes could make it difficult to design long-term woodland projects against a standard that might change between conception, planting and carbon sequestration.

“This is one reason why internationally recognised standards such as VCS can have an important role to play alongside the WCC,” the spokesperson said.

The company added that its woodland projects were designed to deliver additional carbon removals through the establishment of new forests, alongside wider environmental, economic and social benefits.

But Community Land Scotland (CLS) said that controversy surrounding some of Verra’s methodologies had contributed to a loss of confidence in voluntary carbon markets.

Darren Wisniewski, a policy officer at CLS, questioned why Gresham House had chosen Verra while the Scottish government expects natural capital projects to be “high-integrity”.

He said while the WCC had “some serious issues,” using alternative Verra methodologies for the majority of reported sites created an increased risk of “greenwashing” and could further undermine confidence in carbon offset markets.

CLS has also previously criticised SNIB’s investment in Gresham House, arguing that public investment in forestry and carbon markets could contribute to rising land values and undermine Scotland’s land reform and community wealth-building objectives.

Confor, the forestry industry body, did not respond to direct questions about Verra but said it supported “credible and robust mechanisms” for validating woodland carbon projects and facilitating carbon trading.

“It is for individual buyers and sellers to decide which recognised standard or mechanism best meets their needs,” a spokesperson said.

Verra was approached for comment.

Full comment from Community Land Scotland:

Community Land Scotland, Policy Officer, Darren Wisniewski, said:

“The research published by Parkswatch raises more troubling questions for the Scottish National Investment Bank and their decision to put public money into the asset management corporation Gresham House.

In October 2025 we wrote about SNIB’s investment and Gresham House’s seemingly strange land purchases, which Parkswatch have again highlighted. SNIB seem to be inadvertently fuelling speculation on carbon markets and driving eye-watering land value inflation. This actively works against the Scottish Government’s land reform and community wealth building policies, and SNIB’s own mission to foster inclusive economic growth.

This latest research raises particular questions about Gresham House’s use of Verra carbon credits. Verra methodologies have been internationally controversial when carbon offset claims didn’t match reality, contributing to global loss of confidence in voluntary carbon offset markets. Why have Gresham House opted for the questionable Verra credits, whilst the Scottish Government expects natural capital developments like this to be ‘high-integrity’? There is seemingly some nervousness from Scottish Forestry around this decision, and it’s hardly surprising given it oversees the UK-Government backed Woodland Carbon Code.

While the Woodland Carbon Code has some serious issues, the intention to make use of alternative Verra methodologies for the vast majority of reported sites, presents a real increased risk of ‘greenwashing’ and further undermines whatever credibility these offset markets have left.

Given their recently reported losses, SNIB might want to rethink their investment strategy. The public money they manage should deliver transparent and accountable investment that drives actual innovation in the public interest for climate, nature, and communities in Scotland. Instead, they appear to be throwing money at opaque forestry investments, propping up inflated land values, and potentially exacerbating the climate and nature crises.”

One of Scotland’s largest landowners uses controversial carbon credit firm Verra for new woodland – The Scotsman