Trust has to be designed into the system, not added as marketing copy later.
This page explains project approval, funding, verification and the limits around Orman’s environmental claims.
How projects are approved
Projects move from documents to site checks, planting and monitoring verification.
How sponsorship money is framed
Funding is assigned to explicit categories instead of one vague donation bucket.
Sponsored, planted and verified-alive are not interchangeable.
A sponsor commitment can happen before planting. Planting can happen before a survival review. Verified alive updates only after monitoring.
A funded commitment linked to a project’s target tree count.
A tree recorded as planted by an approved partner or field team.
A planted tree confirmed alive during a later monitoring cycle.
Verification needs a visible chain of evidence, not a single badge.
Documents are reviewed for partner credibility, planting logic and maintenance feasibility.
Locations are checked before public launch so fundraising does not open on unclear sites.
Planting records are uploaded with counts, dates and supporting evidence.
Monitoring reviews confirm survival, replacement needs and status changes over time.
How event participation is reported
Community turnout is tracked through registration, attendance confirmation and no-show review.
Why this matters
A public planting platform should show whether registrations become actual field participation.
Public reporting pack
Core documents a sponsor, journalist or verifier should be able to inspect before trusting the platform.
Complaint and correction logic
When a project record is disputed, the platform can flag it, correct it and show what changed.