VERIFICATION REPORT FOR THE PROJECT

Transcription

1 VERIFICATION REPORT FOR THE PROJECT REDUCCIÓN DE LA DEFORESTACIÓN Y DEGRADACIÓN EN LA RESERVA NACIONAL TAMBOPATA Y EN EL PARQUE NACIONAL BAHUAJA-SONENE DEL ÁMBITO DE LA REGIÓN MADRE DE DIOS PERÚ 1 Project Title Version 01 Contact Information: AENOR 6 Génova Madrid Spain Reducción de la Deforestación y Degradación en la Reserva Nacional Tambopata y en el Parque Nacional Bahuaja-Sonene del Ámbito de la Región Madre de Dios Perú Report ID AENOR VER CCBA version 1 Report Title Implementation Period Client Verification Report for the Project: "Reducción de la Deforestación y Degradación en la Reserva Nacional Tambopata y en el Parque Nacional Bahuaja-Sonene del Ámbito de la Región Madre de Dios Perú /07/ /06/2014 AIDER Pages 57 Date of Issue Prepared By AENOR 1 Project name in English language and as registered in VCS: Reduction of deforestation and degradation in Tambopata National Reserve and Bahuaja-Sonene National Park within the area of Madre de Dios region Peru. 1

2 Contact Work Out By Carried Génova Madrid- Spain. Telephone , Lead auditor: Manuel García-Rosell. Auditor: Jose Luis Fuentes Pérez. Summary: AENOR started the verification process on July 15, 2015 when AENOR submitted the PIR for public comments. The field visit took place on August 03-07, 2015, in which the auditors visited the project zone, interviewed key stakeholders, staff and other related experts, and also reviewed the PIR, validated PDD, the monitoring plan and other supporting documents. The purpose of the visit was to determine the conformance of the project implementation with respect to the CCB Standard Second Edition. The implementation period covered by this verification reports is from 01July 2013 to 30 June The auditor submitted to the PPs a draft verification report in which the 03 Non Conformities and 03 Clarifications were reported. However, all these issues raised during the verification process where appropriately closed by means of corrections, more clear explanations and other supported documents. Thus, once all issued detected were appropriate solved, AENOR have carried out this final verification report and deems with reasonable level of assurance that the project implementation complies with all verification requirements of the CCB Standard. 2

3 Table of contents Table of contents Introduction Objective Scope and Criteria Project Description Summary of Verification Results METHODOLOGY CCBA Standards Verification Team Audit process Interviews STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS VERIFICATION FINDINGS General Section G1. Original Conditions in the project area G2. Baseline projections G3. Project Design and Goal G4. Management Capacity and Best Practices G5. Legal Status and Property Rights Climate Section CL1 Net Positive Climate Section CL2 Offsite Climate Impacts (Leakage) CL3 Climate Impact Monitoring Community Section CM1 Net Positive Community Impacts CM2 Offsite Stakeholder Impacts CM3 Community Impact Monitoring Biodiversity Section B.1 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts B2. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts B3. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring GOLD LEVEL SECTION GL 1. Climate Change Adaptation Benefits GL2. Exceptional Community Benefits GL3. Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits VERIFICATION CONCLUSION APPENDIX 1: LIST OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED

4 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objective The objective of the verification audit was to conduct an independent assessment of the project against all defined criteria as defined by the Climate Biodiversity and Community Alliance. Verification will result in a conclusion by AENOR whether the project activity is in compliance with the CCB Standard second edition. 1.2 Scope and Criteria The project was assessed against the CCB Standards Second Edition to determine which of the fourteen required and three optional CCB Standards criteria the project satisfies. Any potential or actual material discrepancies identified during the assessment process were resolved through the issuance of findings. The types of findings issued by AENOR were characterized as follows: A Clarification Request (CL) is raised if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CCB requirements have been met. Where a non-conformance arises the verification team shall raise a Non Conformity (NC). A NC is issued, where: Non-Conformity (NC): An NC signified a material discrepancy with respect to a specific requirement. This type of finding could only be closed upon receipt by AENOR of evidence indicating that the identified discrepancy had been corrected. Resolution of all open NCs was a prerequisite for issuance the final verification report and the verification statement. The project participants were requested to address all verification findings and finally provided the verification team with sufficient evidence to determine that the applicable CCB requirements have been met. The project participant modified the initial PIR to resolve the verification team concerns and resubmitted a final version of the PIR. AENOR has prepared this report based on the final PIR. All the verification findings are detailed in section 3 below. 1.3 Project Description The project purpose is to conserve forest against deforestation imminent advance in Tambopata National Reserve and the sector of Bahuaja-Sonene National Park located in Madre de Dios region. Both Natural Protected Areas (ANP) belong politically to Tampopata province, Inambari and Tambopata districts, and have a combined area of 573, hectares. The conservation of these forests protects the habitat of several species of fauna and flora. 4

5 The project strategy has 5 components: conservation agreements; promotion of production activities; surveillance and control, forest governance and communication. Moreover, the project strategy will support the development of sustainable economic activities, thus improving the life condition of the surrounding communities and its resilience. The project proposes to reduce pressure to change land-use at the ANPs Buffer Zone by promoting sustainable economic activities and establishing conservation agreements at previously identified critical areas. Both actions are looking forward to consolidate a barrier against expansion of economic frontier (agricultural and mining activities), with alliance and permanent coordination with institutions that are currently doing conservation activities in the area. Additionally, RNTAMB and PNBS control and surveillance system will be strengthened, even more on conformation and operation of community committees of surveillance with official recognition, as a strategy for local communities to participate in ANPs management. The project will provide technical support to regional forest authority and National Service of Natural Protected Areas SERNANP for forest and environmental governance of Madre de Dios region, enhancing State participation on ANPs and optimizing coordination and collaboration between authorities and local population on ANPs management. From 01 July 2013 to 30 June 2014, the project has contributed to the climate change mitigation by avoiding the emission of 416,745 tco2-e The project comprises benefits for local population and for biodiversity conservation, beyond benefits of GHG emissions reduction. The project was validated in June 2012, under the CCB Standards second edition, and under the Gold Level for Climate Adaptation and Biodiversity exceptional benefits. Its first implementation report was approved in May Summary of Verification Results This report of our verification findings addresses each of the CCB criteria and indicators. For each criterion, the CCB indicators are listed along with a description of the evidence that was considered, and reference the findings from the audit when applicable. These findings can include Non-Conformity, Clarifications and Forward Actions Requests. To carry out this final verification report all issues have to be closed. A summary of results is provided below. Criterion Required/ Optional Conformanc e Y/N N/A G1 Original Conditions in the Project area Required Y G2 Baseline projections Required Y G3 Project design and goals Required Y 5

6 G4 Management capacity and best practices Required Y G5 Legal Status and property rights Required Y CL1 Net positive climate impacts Required Y CL2 Offsite climate impacts Required Y CL3 Climate impact monitoring Required Y CM1 Net positive community impacts Required Y CM2 Offsite community impacts Required Y CM3 Community impact monitoring Required Y B1 Net positive biodiversity impacts Required Y B2 Offsite biodiversity impacts Required Y B3 Biodiversity impact monitoring Required Y GL1 Climate change adaptation Benefits Optional Y GL2 Exceptional community benefits Optional N/A GL3 Exceptional biodiversity benefits Optional Y 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 CCBA Standards AENOR conducted its evaluation to validate claims that the Project conforms to the CCBA Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design Standards (Second Edition). The CCB Standards require conformance to 14 criteria in each of 4 categories: 1) General (5 criteria), 2) Climate (3 criteria), 3) Community (3 criteria), and 4) Biodiversity (3 criteria). In addition, applicants can achieve a higher level of verification through the application of two criteria in the Gold Level section. Gold level verification can be achieved by projects that meet the core requirements and at least one optional Gold Level criterion. 6

7 2.2 Verification Team Lead Auditor: Manuel García-Rosell Mr. García-Rosell is Forestry Engineer and Diploma of Specialization in Management of Agriculture business from Nacional Agraria La Molina University (Perú) and Diploma in Natural Resources Management from Universidad Científica del Sur. Mr García-Rosell is qualified by AENOR in Validation and Verification of Sustainable Development Projects under Clean Development Mechanism Requirements (CDM projects) and other voluntary schemes as Carbon Standard (VCS), Gold Standard, REDD+ and CCB. Mr García-Rosell has experience in Social Development Projects with NGOs and forestry consultancy tasks. Auditor: Jose Luis Fuentes Pérez Mr. Fuentes is Master Science in Forestry Engineering from the Polytechnic University of Madrid (Spain), Master in Business Administration from Industrial Organization School of Madrid and Environment Management Postgraduate from the Polytechnic University of Madrid. Mr. Fuentes have been working for 9 years as Lead auditor, qualified by AENOR in Validation and Verification of Sustainable Development Projects under Clean Development Mechanism Requirements (CDM projects) and other voluntary schemes as Carbon Standard (VCS), Gold Standard, REDD+ and CCB. Mr. Fuentes has experienced in Forestry Management Certification (PEFC), Quality System (ISO 9000 and 14000) and forestry consultancy tasks. 2.3 Audit process The audit process included the following steps: Initial Review of PDD for public comment. Site visit August 03-07, 2015 that included meetings with project team, with project field technicians and local communities. Review of stakeholder comments Issuance of NCs, CLs and FARs, if applicable. Project proponent response to NCs, CLs, and FARs Further document review and draft report preparation Technical review and approval of the draft report. 7

8 Issuance of the final report. 2.4 Interviews The list of the interviewed people is following detailed. The people interviewed were those directly affected or involved in the project activity, and in some cases were just indirectly affected. Audit Date Name Title 03/08/2015 Lis Cantaro Condor. AIDER. Responsible of Madre de Dios Office. 03/08/2015 Claudia Lebel. AIDER. Responsible of Environmental Services Unit. Madre de Dios Office. 03/08/2015 Aristóteles Vasquez Ascarza. AIDER. Ecosystem Services Unit. Technical assistant. 03/08/2015 Oliver Liao. Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental- SPDA. 04/08/2015 Cirilo Sanchez Cruz. President of the Cooperative Tambopata- Candamo. 04/08/2015 Gilberto Vera. AIDER. Specialist on Cocoa Crops. 04/08/2015 Nicolás Flores Palomino. Farmer. Sector Monte Sinaí 04/08/2015 Elito Coronado. Farmer. Sector Florida Baja. 04/08/2015 Jorge Fukumoto Rolin. Farmer. Sector Florida Baja. 04/08/2015 Maria Esther Rolin Fernandez. Farmer. Sector Florida Baja. 06/08/2015 Vladimir Ramirez Prada. Manager of the National Reserve Tambopata 06/08/2015 Erick Huamani Villalobos AIDER. Biological Monitoring Responsible. 06/08/2015 Cesar Medina. Mammology Unit. Museum of Natural History of the National University San Agustin. 06/08/2015 Din Heredia. Researcher. Scientific Institute Michael Owen Dillon -IMOD. 06/08/2015 Roberto Gutierrez: AIDER. Responsible of Biological Research. Madre de Dios Office. 07/08/2015 Isabel Yalico. Representative of Tambopata Management Committee and representative of FADEMAD 07/08/2015 Jorge Luis Sanchez. AIDER. Social Specialist. 07/08/2015 Ronald Rojas. Former Manager of Natural Resources of Madre De Dios Regional Government. 07/08/2015 Arturo Shaeta Shanocua. Representative of the Management Committee of Tambopata National Reserve. 07/08/2015 Ives Quispe. Técnico de Campo. Especialista SIG. Proyecto Paisajes. 07/08/2015 David Aranibar. Chief of Bahuaja-Sonene National Park. 8

9 3 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS The Project Implementation Report (PIR) was posted on the CCBA website on 16 July 2015 and, the public comment period extended through 15 August No comments were received via the CCBA online comment process. The project proponents also conducted their own processes to engage stakeholders. As indicator CM.1.1 states the communication process was participatory, starting in Evidence provided (attendance lists, pictures of meetings, meeting programs and meeting reports) confirms the participatory process conducted during the period of project implementation. These documents detail the way in which project documentation was distributed throughout the project zone and stakeholders were invited to comment. This process is further discussed in the findings related to the indicator G VERIFICATION FINDINGS 4.1 General Section The General Section of the CCB Standards addresses original conditions in the project are baseline projections, project design and goals, management capacity and best practices, and legal status and property rights G1. Original Conditions in the project area The original conditions at the project area and the surrounding project zone before the project commences must be described. This description, along with baseline projections (see G2), will help to determine the likely impacts of the project. Indicator G1.1 The location of the project and basic physical parameters (e.g. soil, geology, climate). This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. (Validated 21 June 2012). The PDD details the location of the project and basic physical parameters. There have been no changes to aspects such as geology, soils, and overall climate. PDD and site visit. 9

10 Indicator G1.2 The types and condition of vegetation within the project area. This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. The types and condition of vegetation within the project area have not changed. PDD, stratification maps and site visit. Indicator G1.3 The boundaries of the project area and the project zone This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. According to the PIR , the project area and project zone boundaries still being the same as were described in the PDD without alterations. The boundaries of the project were confirmed at verification and have not changed at the date. This indicator has been correctly addressed in the PIR. PDD, KLM files, GIS project shapefiles and interviews during the site visit. Indicator G1.4 - Current carbon stocks within the project area(s), using stratification by land-use or vegetation type and methods of carbon calculation (such as biomass plots, formulae, default values) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change s 2006 Guidelines for National GHG Inventories for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (IPCC 2006 GL for AFOLU) or a more robust and detailed methodology. This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. 10

11 PDD, VCS Methodology VM REDD Methodology Modules (REDD-MF) and spreadsheet of baseline carbon stocks calculation. Indicator G1.5 A description of communities located in the project zone, including basic socioeconomic and cultural information that describes the social, economic and cultural diversity within communities (wealth, gender, age, ethnicity etc.), identifies specific groups such as Indigenous Peoples and describes any community characteristics. The reader is referred to the validated PDD. The PDD describes the local communities in the project area and project zone and the basic socioeconomic and cultural information. None of these aspects have changed since the original validation, which was also confirmed during the site visit. PDD and interviews during the on-site visit. Indicator G1.6 A description of current land use and customary and legal property rights including community property in the project zone, identifying any ongoing or unresolved conflicts or disputes and identifying and describing any disputes over land tenure that were resolved during the last ten years (see also G5). The reader is referred to the validated PDD, which describes this indicator. Validated PDD, PIR, interviews during the site visit. 11

12 Indicator G1.7 A description of current biodiversity within the project zone (diversity of species and ecosystems) and threats to that biodiversity, using appropriate methodologies, substantiated where possible with appropriate reference material. The reader is referred to the validated PDD, which fully describes the biodiversity as of validation (21 June 2012). PDD and site visit. Indicator G1.8 An evaluation of whether the project zone includes any of the following High Conservation Values (HCVs) and a description of the qualifying attributes: The reader is referred to the validated PDD, which fully describes this indicator Globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values; Protected areas Threatened species Endemic species Areas that support significant concentrations of a species during any time in their lifecycle (e.g. migrations, feeding grounds, 12

13 breeding areas) 8.2. Globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape-level areas where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance; 8.3. Threatened or rare ecosystems 8.4. Areas that provide critical ecosystem services (e.g., hydrological services, erosion control, fire control); 8.5. Areas that are fundamental for meeting the basic needs of local communities (e.g., for essential food, fuel, fodder, medicines or building materials without readily available alternatives); and 8.6. Areas that are critical for the traditional cultural identity of communities (e.g., areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in collaboration with the communities). Validated PDD G2. Baseline projections A baseline projection is a description of expected conditions in the project zone in the absence of project activities. The project impacts will be measured against this without-project reference scenario. 13

14 Indicator G Describe the most likely land-use scenario in the absence of the project following IPCC 2006 GL for AFOLU or a more robust and detailed methodology, describing the range of potential land use scenarios and the associated drivers of GHG emissions and justifying why the land-use scenario selected is most likely. This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. The validated PDD describes the most-likely land-use scenario in the absence of project activities. Is reasonable to assume that no changes have occurred to the most likely land-use scenario. PDD, VCS Methodology, Indicator G Document that project benefits would not have occurred in the absence of the project, explaining how existing laws or regulations would likely affect land use and justifying that the benefits being claimed by the project are truly additional and would be unlikely to occur without the project. The reader is referred to the validated PDD. The PDD describes the likelihood of occurrence of project activities in the absence of the project. Is reasonable to assume that no changes have occurred to the validated scenario. Site visit observations also confirm this. PDD. Indicator G Calculate the estimated carbon stock changes associated with the without project reference scenario described above. This requires estimation of carbon stocks for each of the land-use classes of concern and a definition This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. The estimated carbon stock changes associated with the without project reference scenario was confirmed at validation. 14

15 of the carbon pools included, among the classes defined in the IPCC 2006 GL for AFOLU. The timeframe for this analysis can be either the project lifetime (see G3) or the project GHG accounting period, whichever is more appropriate. Estimate the net change in the emissions of non-co2 GHG emissions such as CH4 and N2O in the without project scenario. Non-CO2 gases must be included if they are likely to account for more than 5% (in terms of CO2-equivalent) of the project s overall GHG impact over each monitoring period. Projects whose activities are designed to avoid GHG emissions (such as those reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), avoiding conversion of non-forest land, or certain improved forest management projects) must include an analysis of the relevant drivers and rates of deforestation and/or degradation and a description and justification of the approaches, assumptions and data used to perform this analysis. Regional-level estimates can be used at the project s planning stage as long as there is a commitment to evaluate locally-specific carbon stocks and to develop a projectspecific spatial analysis of deforestation and/or degradation using an appropriately robust and detailed carbon accounting methodology before the start of the project. PDD and ex-ante GHG baseline emission calculation spreadsheet. 15

16 Indicator G Describe how the without project reference scenario would affect communities in the project zone, including the impact of likely changes in water, soil and other locally important ecosystem services. The reader is referred to the validated PDD. The validated PDD describes how without project reference scenario would affect communities in the project zone. Is reasonable to assume that no changes have occurred to this without project scenario. Site visit observations also confirmed this. PDD and Participative Socioeconomic Diagnostics: Nueva America, Las Mercedes, San Francisco, San Bernardo, Filadelfia, Sol Naciente, Sonene, Union Progreso and Virgen de La Candelaria Indicator G Describe how the without project reference scenario would affect biodiversity in the project zone (e.g., habitat availability, landscape connectivity and threatened species). The reader is referred to the validated PDD. The validated PDD describes how without project reference scenario would affect biodiversity in the project zone. The without project reference scenario remains unchanged from validation. PDD, Site visit G3. Project Design and Goal The project must be described in sufficient detail so that a third-party can adequately evaluate it. Projects must be designed to minimize risks to the expected climate, community and biodiversity benefits and to maintain those benefits beyond the life of the project. Effective local participation in project design and 16

17 implementation is key to optimizing multiple benefits, equitably and sustainably. Projects that operate in a transparent manner build confidence with stakeholders and outside parties and enable them to contribute more effectively to the project. Indicator G Provide a summary of the project s major climate, community and biodiversity objectives. This section was addressed in Section G3.1 of the PDD. The audit team has confirmed that the climate, community and biodiversity objectives still being the same. PDD Indicator G Describe each project activity with expected climate, community and biodiversity impacts and its relevance to achieving the projects objectives. This indicator has been correctly addressed, considering the project activities planned described in the PDD still valid and the additional information given in the section G.3.2 of PIR. PD and interviews during the on-site visit. Indicator G Provide a map identifying the project location and boundaries of the project area(s), where the project activities will occur, of the project zone and of additional surrounding locations that are predicted to be impacted by project activities (e.g. through leakage). This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. PDD, PIR, maps of project activities location and interview during the site visit. 17

18 Indicator G Define the project lifetime and GHG accounting period and explain and justify any differences between them. Define an implementation schedule, indicating key dates and milestones in the project s development. Project lifetime and GHG accounting period are explain and justified. The start date is 1 January 2009 and the lifetime of the project is 20 years. On the other hand, the project GHG accounting period began with the VCS crediting period, that is 1 July 2010, in order to use a validated baseline. Audit team considers this is correct and conservative. The implementation schedule, indicating key dates and milestones in the project s development, was described in the PDD. CCB PDD and PIR, and VCS PD. This indicator has been correctly addressed. Indicator G Identify likely natural and human-induced risks to the expected climate, community and biodiversity benefits during the project lifetime and outline measures adopted to mitigate these risks. This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD, which identified different risk types, such as human induced, climatic, economic, land and resources and political and measures to mitigate these risk. Likely natural and human-induced risks to the expected climate, community and biodiversity benefits during the project lifetime and outline measures adopted to mitigate these risks has been identified. In addition, the PIR list some measures carried out to face natural and human-induced, such as fire prevention measures, diversified production practices and advocacy. In order to obtain data about occurrence of events, the platform SINPAD (National System of Information for 18

19 Disaster Prevention and data from the National Agrarian Health Service- SENASA, has been used. PDD and PIR. This indicator has been correctly addressed. Indicator G Demonstrate that the project design includes specific measures to ensure the maintenance or enhancement of the high conservation value attributes identified in G1 consistent with the precautionary principle. The reader is referred to the validated PDD. PDD Indicator G Describe the measures that will be taken to maintain and enhance the climate, community and biodiversity benefits beyond the project lifetime. The reader is referred to the validated PDD. PDD Indicator G Document and defend how communities and other According with information provided, relevant communities and other stakeholders was identified 19

20 stakeholders potentially affected by the project activities have been identified and have been involved in project design through effective consultation, particularly with a view to optimizing community and stakeholder benefits, respecting local customs and values and maintaining high conservation values. Project developers must document stakeholder dialogues and indicate if and how the project proposal was revised based on such input. A plan must be developed to continue communication and consultation between project managers and all community groups about the project and its impacts to facilitate adaptive management throughout the life of the project. and involved in the project design. The community involvement in the project design was discussed in the PDD. The project proponent maintains permanent communication and coordination with the management committees of National Reserve Tambopata and Bahuaja-Sonene National Park, which are made up of representatives of local population. The Committees are permanently informed of the planned and carry out activities through periodic meetings of coordination. In addition, participation in radio programs has constituted another media to communicate news about the project. During the project implementation period internal communication strategies have been implemented to improve the communication with the native communities of Palma Real, Sonene and Infierno. During the site visit through interviews to relevant stakeholder, such as representatives of local management committees and local communities, the audit team was able to verify the information provided in the PIR. PDD, PIR, reports of meetings with the Management Committees, reports and attendance list of workshops with the local population. PIR, then, no findings were raised. Indicator G Describe what specific steps have been taken, and communications methods used, to publicize the CCBA public comment period to communities and other stakeholders and to facilitate their submission of comments to CCBA. Project proponents must play an PIR described the methods used to communicate the project activities to the relevant stakeholders as well as for the local population involvement. In that sense, PIR mentions there is a permanent coordination with the Management Committees of the Tambopata National Reserve and the Bahuaja-Sonene National Park, which represents the local surrounding 20

21 active role in distributing key project documents to affected communities and stakeholders and hold widely publicized information meetings in relevant local or regional languages. population. PIR has been made in Spanish, which the relevant language for both the national and local stakeholders. In accordance with the PIR, letters were sent to relevant stakeholders in order to communicate about the public comments period for the Project Implementation Report. PIR, letter AIDER, and interviews during the site visit CL 01: PP shall provide as evidence the letters sent to stakeholders to publicize the CCBA public comment periods. Project proponent has provided the copy of the letter sent to different stakeholders such as the management committees of Tambopata National Reserve, NGOs, private enterprises, local authorities, etc. Furthermore, during the site visit the audit team was able to confirm the information provided in the PIR. CL 01 is closed. Indicator G Formalize a clear process for handling unresolved conflicts and grievances that arise during project planning and implementation. The project design must include a process for hearing, responding to and resolving community and other stakeholder grievances within a reasonable time period. This grievance process must be publicized to communities and other stakeholders and must be managed by a third party or mediator In the validated PDD, section G3.10 the project proponent provides a description of the process/methodology to be used to handle the conflicts and claims that arise throughout the project planning and implementation phase. It also indicates how they are recorded and what the roles are of external organizations such as the RNTAMB Management Committee, the Forest Authorities, COFOPRI, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the RNTAMB Directors in this process. The PP has described in the PIR how the procedures are being applied successfully. In that sense, during 21

22 to prevent any conflict of interest. Project management must attempt to resolve all reasonable grievances raised, and provide a written response to grievances within 30 days. Grievances and project responses must be documented. the implementation period the project has supported to marking boundaries of the Community of Palma Real, in order to the use of lands out of its territory. PDD, PIR, Master Plan of Tambopata National Reserve, interviews during the site visit. PIR. Indicator G Demonstrate that financial mechanisms adopted, including projected revenues from emissions reductions and other sources, are likely to provide an adequate flow of funds for project implementation and to achieve the anticipated climate, community and biodiversity benefits. This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. PDD G4. Management Capacity and Best Practices. The success of a project depends upon the competence of the implementing management team. Projects that include a significant capacity-building (training, skill building, etc.) component are more likely to sustain the positive outcomes generated by the project and have them replicated elsewhere. Best practices for project management include: local stakeholder employment, worker rights, worker safety and a clear process for handling grievances. 22

23 Indicator G Identify a single project proponent, which is responsible for the project s design and implementation. If multiple organizations or individuals are involved in the project s development and implementation the governance structure, roles and responsibilities of each of the organizations or individuals involved must also be described. PIR in section G.4.1 described the governance structure, roles and responsibilities of each organization involved in the project. PP has included in the PIR the updated information regarding the organization involved in the project. AIDER is the project proponent and executor of the contract for management of monitoring and research operations, and AIDER is responsible for project implementation. It also defines the supervisory and political roles of SERNANP through the Tambopata National Reserve and Bahuaja-Sonene National Park Directorships. The information in the PIR has been verified in interviews of the stakeholders involved in the contract signed for execution of these activities. final version of the PIR. PIR, PDD and on-site visit interviews Indicator G Document key technical skills that will be required to implement the project successfully, including community engagement, biodiversity assessment and carbon measurement and monitoring skills. Document the management team s expertise and prior experience implementing land management projects at the scale of this project. If relevant experience is lacking, the proponents must either demonstrate how other organizations will be In accordance with the PIR, the positions and management skills requirements mentioned in the PDD still in place. In the PIR, section G4.2, the project proponent presents its team s technical abilities for project implementation regarding the carbon, community and biodiversity. Chart 03 describes the specialist team and their skills to work on biodiversity monitoring, the geographic management system (SIG), management of deforestation, carbon stock models and work with the community. 23

24 partnered with to support the project or have a recruitment strategy to fill the gaps. final version of the PIR. PDD, PIR and interviews. Indicator G Include a plan to provide orientation and training for the project s employees and relevant people from the communities with an objective of building locally useful skills and knowledge to increase local participation in project implementation. These capacity building efforts should target a wide range of people in the communities, including minority and underrepresented groups. Identify how training will be passed on to new workers when there is staff turnover, so that local capacity will not be lost. This indicator was discussed in the PDD. A Plan was included in the PDD. However, updated information was included in the PIR. PP states in the PIR that the plan to provide orientation and training for the project s employees and relevant people from the communities included in the PDD still valid. Several activities were developed in this period and evidence was provided to the audit team. PDD, PIR, reports and list of attendance of workshops. Indicator G Show that people from the communities will be given an equal opportunity to fill all employment positions (including management) if the job requirements are met. Project proponents must PIR described how is given opportunities to fill job position by the local people and practices of gender equity adopted. PP has included in the PIR information regarding opportunities to fill job position by local people. Evidence has been provided and considered appropriate. This was also verified through 24

25 explain how employees will be selected for positions and where relevant, must indicate how local community members, including women and other potentially underrepresented groups, will be given a fair chance to fill positions for which they can be trained. interviews to some workers during the on-site visit. PDD, PIR, interviews during the on-site visit. Indicator G Submit a list of all relevant laws and regulations covering worker s rights in the host country. Describe how the project will inform workers about their rights. Provide assurance that the project meets or exceeds all applicable laws and/or regulations covering worker rights and, where relevant, demonstrate how compliance is achieved. A list of relevant laws and regulation issued during the period was included in the PIR. However, the list does not include any reference to relevant laws or regulation issued covering workers rights issued before PDD, PIR and Peruvian Law on Safety and Health at Work (Law No ) NC 01: PP shall provide a complete and updated list of all relevant laws and regulations covering workers rights in the host country. PIR final version includes an updated list of all relevant laws and regulations covering workers rights in the host country. The audit team considers the list complete. NC 01 is closed. 25

26 This indicator has been correctly addressed. Indicator G Comprehensively assess situations and occupations that pose a substantial risk to worker safety. A plan must be in place to inform workers of risks and to explain how to minimize such risks. Where worker safety cannot be guaranteed, project proponents must show how the risks will be minimized using best work practices. This indicator was addressed in the PDD. A safety plan has been developed. In addition, PIR summarize some action develop during the monitoring period in order to minimize risk to worker safety. Workshops on safety measures applied to avoid risks in the project activities have been given to the local population. PDD, PIR, workshops reports and list of attendance and safety plan. This indicator has been correctly addressed. Indicator G Document the financial health of the implementing organization(s) to demonstrate that financial resources budgeted will be adequate to implement the project. PIR version referred to the PDD. However, updated information is requested. PDD and PIR NC 02: PP shall provide updated information in order to show the financial health for the project implementation. PP has included updated information regarding the financial health for the project implementation. Evidence, such as project cash flow and a loan agreement, has been provided to the audit team. NC 02 is closed, This indicator has been correctly addressed. 26

27 4.1.5 G5. Legal Status and Property Rights. The project must be based on a solid legal framework (e.g., appropriate contracts are in place) and the project must satisfy applicable planning and regulatory requirements. During the project design phase, the project proponents should communicate early on with relevant local, regional and national authorities in order to allow adequate time to earn necessary approvals. The project design should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate potential modifications that may arise as a result of this process. In the event of unresolved disputes over tenure or use rights to land or resources in the project zone, the project should demonstrate how it will help to bring them to resolution so that there are no unresolved disputes by the start of the project. Indicator G Submit a list of all relevant national and local laws and regulations in the host country and all applicable international treaties and agreements. Provide assurance that the project will comply with these and, where relevant, demonstrate how compliance is achieved. In the PIR has been listed all the relevant national and local laws and regulations. The list of relevant laws and regulation detailed in the PIR and evidence of its fulfilment is considered complete. PDD and PIR final version of the PIR. Indicator G Document that the project has approval from the appropriate authorities, including the established formal and/or traditional authorities customarily required by the communities. The approval from national authorities was presented in the PDD. The project proponent presents approval from the Peruvian government, represented by SERNANP, by means of a contract titled Agreement between the Institute of National Resources - INRENA and AIDER. PDD and Agreement between the Institute of Natural Resources - INRENA and AIDER. 27

28 This indicator has been correctly addressed. Then no finding was raised. Indicator G Demonstrate with documented consultations and agreements that the project will not encroach uninvited on private property, community property, or government property and has obtained the free, prior, and informed consent of those whose rights will be affected by the project. This indicator was discussed in the PDD. In addition, the PIR reiterates the fulfilment of this indicator. PDD, PIR and on-site visit interviews. This indicator has been correctly addressed. Then no finding was raised. Indicator G Demonstrate that the project does not require the involuntary relocation of people or of the activities important for the livelihoods and culture of the communities. If any relocation of habitation or activities is undertaken within the terms of an agreement, the project proponents must demonstrate that the agreement was made with the free, prior, and informed consent of those concerned and includes provisions for just and fair compensation. In accordance with the PDD and PIR, relocation of people has not been required. The National Reserve Tambopata and Bahuaja-Sonene National Park management plans contemplate the natural resources right of use in the area by native communities and local brazilian nuts collectors. In addition the PIR indicates that the project strategy includes develop sustainable economic activities in partnership with the local communities. PDD, PIR, Monitoring Plan, list of attendance of workshops, Master Plan of Tambopata National Reserve, interviews during the on-site visit. This indicator has been correctly addressed. Then no finding was raised. 28

29 Indicator G Identify any illegal activities that could affect the project s climate, community or biodiversity impacts (e.g., logging) taking place in the project zone and describe how the project will help to reduce these activities so that project benefits are not derived from illegal activities. Reader is referred to the PDD. The PDD identified illegal activities that affect project objectives and activities that the project will carry out to promote productive alternatives for these activities and to increase control and surveillance. Project benefits are not derived from illegal activities. Illegal activities were identified in the PDD. Site visit observations and interview with participants further confirms these elements have not changed since the validation of the PDD, and thus, no new information is needed to be presented here. Issue is addressed. PDD, PIR, Monitoring Plan, list of attendance of workshops, Master Plan of Tambopata National Reserve, interviews during the on-site visit. This indicator has been correctly addressed. Then no finding was raised. Indicator G Demonstrate that the project proponents have clear, uncontested title to the carbon rights, or provide legal documentation demonstrating that the project is undertaken on behalf of the carbon owners with their full consent. Where local or national conditions preclude clear title to the carbon rights at the time of validation against the Standards, the project proponents must provide evidence that their ownership of carbon rights is likely to be established before they enter into any transactions concerning the project s carbon assets. Project proponent holds an administrative contract with SERNANP (Servicio Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas de Peru) being the state of Peru owner of Reserva Nacional Tambopata and Parque Nacional Bahuaja Sonene. Title to carbon rights has not changed and all elements of this indicator remain constant since the previous validation effort. PDD, PIR and agreement (administrative contract) between AIDER and SERNANP. This indicator was adequately addressed. 29

30 4.2 Climate Section CL1 Net Positive Climate Section The project must generate net positive impacts on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) over the project lifetime from land use changes within the project boundaries. Indicator CL.1.1- Estimate the net change in carbon stocks due to the project activities using the methods of calculation, formulae and default values of the IPCC 2006 GL for AFOLU or using a more robust and detailed methodology. The net change is equal to carbon stock changes with the project minus carbon stock changes without the project (the latter having been estimated in G2). This estimate must be based on clearly defined and defendable assumptions about how project activities will alter GHG emissions or carbon stocks over the duration of the project or the project GHG accounting period. PP has detailed in the PIR the net changes in carbon stocks in accordance with the VCS methodology VM0007- REDD Methodology Modules (REDD-MF). GHG emissions calculation spreadsheet has been provided. PDD, PIR, GHG emission calculation spreadsheet , baseline project emissions calculations. This indicator has been correctly addressed. Indicator CL.1.2- Estimate the net change in the emissions of non-co2 GHG emissions such as CH4 and N2O in the with and without project scenarios if those gases are likely to account for more than a 5% increase or decrease (in terms of CO2- equivalent) of the project s overall GHG emissions reductions or removals over each monitoring period. The section CL. 1.2 has reported t CO2-e as the amount emission of non-co2 GHG emissions. The GHG calculation spreadsheet has been provided to the audit team. The spreadsheet has been checked and calculation has been made in accordance with the methodology. However, the amount emission of non- CO2 GHG reported is not consistent with the spreadsheet calculation. PDD, PIR, GHG emission calculation spreadsheet , baseline project emissions calculations. 30

31 CL 02: PP shall clarify the correct value of net change in the emissions of non-co2 GHG emissions during the monitoring period. Project proponent has provided an updated version of PIR. The emissions of non-co2 GHG emissions was revised and now is consistent with the GHG spreadsheet calculation CL 02 is closed. Finally, the determination of significance of the non- CO2 gases during the implementation period has been made in accordance with the VCS methodology VM0007- REDD Methodology Modules (REDD-MF) and the "Tool for testing the significance of GHG emissions from A/R CDM project activities (T -SIG). The emission of Non-CO2 gases has been less than 5 %, this is considered insignificant. The Significance Calculation Spreadsheet was provided to the audit team and is considered correct. This indicator has been correctly addressed. Indicator CL1.3.- Estimate any other GHG emissions resulting from project activities. Emissions sources include, but are not limited to, emissions from biomass burning during site preparation, emissions from fossil fuel combustion, direct emissions from the use of synthetic fertilizers, and emissions from the decomposition of N-fixing species. No biomass burning is considered in the project. No synthetic fertilizers are applied and no increase in the use of N fixing species is expected. PDD, PIR, list of project activities developed and site visit These sources of GHG emissions are not applicable to this project, which was also confirmed at validation. This indicator has been correctly addressed. Then no 31

32 finding was raised. Indicator CL1.4.- Demonstrate that the net climate impact of the project is positive. The net climate impact of the project is the net change in carbon stocks plus net change in non-co2 GHGs where appropriate minus any other GHG emissions resulting from project activities minus any likely project-related unmitigated negative offsite climate impacts (see CL2.3). PP has provided the net climate impact assessment of the project for the complete implementation period. The GHG emissions calculation was provided to the audit team, which is completely treatable and in accordance with the applied methodology. PDD, PIR and GHG Emission calculation spreadsheet. Project proponent has demonstrated that the net climate impact of the project is positive. The project has reduced a total of 416,745.7 t CO eq. This indicator has been correctly addressed. Indicator CL1.5.- Specify how double counting of GHG emissions reductions or removals will be avoided, particularly for offsets sold on the voluntary market and generated in a country with an emissions cap. This indicator was described in the PDD. The proponent has included in the last version of PIR updated information about how is avoided the double counting. PIR reiterates that double counting will be avoided because the project is not included in an emissions trade program and because Peru has not made any commitments in terms of a cap on GHG emissions as the country does not belong to Annex 1 of the Kyoto Protocol. On the other hand, the country is developing a Forest and Climate Change National Strategy, however the national REDD program is under construction yet. Finally, the Peruvian government is developing a 32