Nothing here asks you to take our word for it. Where a claim can be checked by somebody who does not work for us, this page says how.
Why this page exists
A charity website is a document written by the organisation it describes. Every figure on it was chosen by us, every photograph was cropped by us, and every account of what went well was written by the people it went well for. That is true of this site as much as any other, and no amount of careful writing changes it.
What can change is how much of it you are able to check. So the pages that carry evidence are listed here together, along with the specific thing on each that an outsider can test, and the places where the honest answer is that you cannot check us yet.
The records
| Record | Issuing body | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|
| Certificate of incorporation | Uganda Registration Services Bureau | Number published on issue; the URSB register is public and searchable |
| Certificate of registration | National Bureau for Non-Governmental Organisations | Number published on issue |
| Permit of operation | National Bureau for NGOs | Renewed annually; the current permit period will be shown here |
| Tax identification number | Uganda Revenue Authority | Published on issue |
| Annual returns | NGO Bureau | Filed each year. We publish the same return here that we file there |
| Audited accounts | External auditor | None yet. External audit applies once we reach the threshold, and the first audited year will be published in full |
The gap, stated plainly
We have not published a registration number, because we do not publish one until the certificate is in hand. An organisation that types a number it cannot evidence gets found out, and the damage is worse than the gap. If the absence matters to a decision you are making, write and ask where the application stands and we will tell you.
What you can check today, without asking us
- The elevation profile of the catchment. It is built from NASA SRTM 30 m data, which is public domain — anyone can pull the same samples and get the same hills.
- Our twelve-month survival rate, against our own planting counts. Both numbers are published together, on every page either appears.
- The control site. RW-05 is a stretch we have deliberately never restored, and it is in the monitoring series alongside the restored points. Without it an improvement proves nothing, and its presence is checkable in the data.
- The failures. Nyakayojo is in the project directory as Failed, in the denominator of every survival figure, and described on the lessons page. It has not been quietly removed.
- The photographs. Every image carries its photographer and licence, and several are other people's work under Creative Commons — those licences are linked and independently verifiable.
What each claim rests on
| Mark | Means | How far it can be pushed |
|---|---|---|
| Measured | We counted it ourselves, in the field, on a stated date | As far as our method allows, which is published in full. Small samples, one organisation, no external verification yet |
| Cited | Somebody else published it and we are quoting them | As far as the original source allows. We name the source so you can go to it rather than to us |
| Indicative | An approximation, a projection, or an unaudited split | Not far. These are the figures we would revise first, and they are marked so you know which they are |
Ask for the underlying data
The water quality readings, the planting and survival records, the fixed-point photography and the site boundaries are all available free, to anyone, in plain formats. You do not have to be a researcher and there is no form.
They come with their limitations described rather than buried: quarterly sampling is too coarse to separate a restoration effect from seasonal variation, the 2022 cohort has incomplete six-month returns, and sites that failed remain in the denominator. We would rather you found those caveats in our covering note than in your own analysis.
The pages that carry the evidence
How we measure
The monitoring protocol in full: what is sampled, where, how often, and what the method cannot tell you.
Read moreResults and evidence
The readings themselves, restored points against the control, including the season they got worse.
Read moreWhat did not work
Three things we would do differently, written up rather than left out.
Read moreProject directory
Every site, with its status defined — including the one marked Failed.
Read moreGovernance and policies
Registration, safeguarding, finance controls, and how to complain about us.
Read moreFinancials
Income and expenditure by category, with the unaudited split labelled as unaudited.
Read more
If you think something here is wrong
Tell us. A correction to a figure is noted on the page rather than made silently, because a number that changes without explanation is worse than the original error, and anybody who quoted the old one deserves to be able to see that it moved.
If your concern is about conduct rather than accuracy, the contact form has a route that goes to the board rather than to staff. We acknowledge within five working days and aim to respond substantively within twenty.
If you are not satisfied with our response, the National Bureau for Non-Governmental Organisations regulates organisations of this kind in Uganda and will take a complaint about us directly.
Ask us something specific
Registration status, a dataset, a figure you want the working for, or a site you want to visit.