validation assessment report for: initiative développement ... · pdf filevalidation...

C-83 CFS Verif Master Report Tmpl 16Sep11

Validation Assessment Report for:

Initiative Développement – China

in Yunnan Province

Assessed by:

65 Millet St. Suite 201 Richmond, VT 05477 USA

Tel: 802-434-5491 Fax: 802-434-3116

www.rainforest-alliance.org

Carbon Forestry Project Audit Managed by:

Asia-Pacific Regional Office

Jl. Kapten Cok Agung Tresna Griya Alamanda Blok No. 17

Lingkungan Jayagiri, Denpasar Timur, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia 80234

Tel: +62 361 256 689 Fax: +62 361 256 634

Contact person: Chisato Tomimura Email: [email protected]

Report Finalized: April 10, 2014

Audit Dates: December 2 to 4, 2013

Lead Auditor: Indu Bikal Sapkota

Audit Team Member(s):

Wan Jian, Local Expert

Audit Standard: CarbonFix Standard v3.2

Validation Code(s): RA-VAL-CFS-019028

Project Latitude/Longitude:

27.0833/103.1166

Project Proponent Contact:

Clément Rigal, Carbon Sequestration and Forestry Project Officer, Initiative Développement – China

Project Proponent Address:

Room 25C, mingchang building, 32 renmin middle road, Kunming 650021, Yunnan Province, CHINA, www.id-ong.org/cn

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.id-ong.org/cn

http://www.id-ong.org/cn


Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Objective ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Scope and Criteria ................................................................................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.4 Level of assurance ................................................................................................................................................................. 5

2 Audit Overview ..................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Audit Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Nonconformance evaluation ................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Observations.......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Actions taken by the Project Proponent address NCRs (including any resolution of material discrepancy) ....................... 9

3 Audit Methodology .............................................................................................. 10 3.1 Audit Team ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Description of the Audit Process ........................................................................................................................................ 11

3.3 Review of Documents ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 3.4 Interviews ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13

APPENDIX A: Field Audit Findings .......................................................................... 14 APPENDIX B: Organization Details .......................................................................... 30

Contacts ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 30


1 Introduction The Rainforest Alliance’s SmartWood program was founded in 1989 to certify forestry practices conforming to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards and now focuses on providing a variety of forest auditing services. In addition to being an ANSI ISO 14065:2007 accredited validation and verification body, Rainforest Alliance SmartWood program is also a member of the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) standards, and an approved verification body with a number of other forest carbon project standards. For a complete list of the services provided by Rainforest Alliance see http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/climate.cfm?id=international_standards. Dispute resolution: If Rainforest Alliance clients encounter organizations or individuals having concerns or comments about Rainforest Alliance / SmartWood and our services, these parties are strongly encouraged to contact the SmartWood program headquarters directly.

1.1 Objective The purpose of this report is to document the conformance of Reforestation in Yunnan Mountainous Communities Project

with the requirements of theCarbonFix Standard (CFS). The project was developed by Initiative Développement – China,

hereafter referred to as “Project Proponent”. The report presents the findings of qualified Rainforest Alliance auditors who have evaluated the Project Proponent’s systems and performance against the applicable standard(s). 1.2 Scope and Criteria

Scope: The scope of the audit is to assess the conformance of the Reforestation in Yunnan Mountainous Communities Project against theCarbonFix Standard. The objectives of this audit included an assessment of the project’s conformance with the standard criteria. In addition, the audit assessed the project with respect to the baseline scenarios presented in the project design document. The project covers an area of 38.2 ha. The land is community-managed. The project has a lifetime of 30 years, and has calculated a GHG reduction and/or removal of 6,936 tCO2e (net) over the course of themonitoring period.

Standard criteria: Criteria from the following documents were used to assess this project:

CarbonFix Standard v3.2 Materiality: All GHG sinks, sources and/or reservoirs (SSRs) and GHG emissions equal to or greater than 5% of the total GHG assertion. 1.3 Project Description

Reforestation in Yunnan Mountainous Communities Project is a community-based project implemented by Initiative

Development, a French development NGO, which has been working in China since 2002. The project is located in Qinggangling

Township, in Southwest China, where farmers are amongst the poorest of Yunnan province and where land is subject to heavy

erosion. The planting of trees will bring additional revenues to farmers through subsidy at planting time and through the sale of

Non-Timber Forest Products, will reduce land depletion by increasing vegetation cover and shall increase biodiversity through

the creation of forested areas planted with native tree species in mixed stands, namely Pinus armandii, Alnus nepalensis,

Albizia kalkora, Toxidendron vernicifluum, Juglans sigillata and Castanea mollisma. While farmers will benefit from the forest

products, Initiative Développement will own the carbon credits which sale will contribute funding the project implementation and

the monitoring in the long-run.

The first meetings with villagers to select the land, choose the tree species through participatory activities and agree on the

project design took place in 2011, along with regular meetings and field visits with experts from the local government as well as

with experts from the Yunnan Academy of Forestry, a local university based in Kunming. Implementation followed one year and

a half later with the planting of trees on 38.2ha of lands abandoned in the past decades due to rural-to-urban migration resulting

in labor shortage in the countryside. Eventually, the certification process/field work under the CarbonFix Standard took place in

December 2013.

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/forestry/smartwood/index.html

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/climate.cfm?id=international_standards


During the first 5 years after planting activities, local forest guards will protect the young trees from animal grazing while, after

this period of time, the local government will become responsible for the overall protection of the forested areas (protection from

grazing, encroachment and forest fires). Costs of replacement of the dead seedlings will be ensured by Initiative Développement

during the first 3 years after planting and labor will be provided by farmers. Management will be carried out by farmers

themselves, who remain the sole owners of the trees. To ensure good practices, Initiative Développement will organize training

sessions for each of them regarding watering, adding composts and fertilizers and pruning the trees, and will lend materials

such as water pumps, which would otherwise be out of reach for poor communities. Monitoring will be conducted by Initiative

Développement during 30 years– the crediting period - during which no tree shall be harvested. After that, the forest shall be

managed in a sustainable way, so as to preserve carbon storage.

After 30 years, the trees will have sequestered the equivalent of 7,824tCO2eq amongst which 888tCO2eq will balance losses

from the baseline scenario, leakages due to the displacement of animal grazing and project emissions. 30% (2,081tCO2eq) of

the net CO2 fixation will be used in a buffer for insurance and the remaining 4,855tCO2eq will be delivered as ex-ante carbon

credits to be sold on the voluntary market.

Area (ha)

Carbon sequestration after 30 years (tCO2)

Baseline (tCO2)

Leakage (animal grazing) (tCO2)

Project emissions (tCO2)

Net CO2 fixation (tCO2)

38.2 7824 420 191 277 6936

Buffer (30%) (tCO2)

Ex-ante carbon credits (tCO2)

2081 4855

1.4 Level of assurance The assessment was conducted to provide a reasonable level of assurance of conformance against the defined audit criteria and materiality thresholds within the audit scope. Based on the audit findings, a positive evaluation statement reasonably assures that the project GHG assertion is materially correct and is a fair representation of the GHG data and information.


2 Audit Overview Based on Project’s conformance with audit criteria, the auditor makes the following recommendation:

Final Report Conclusions

Validation approved:

NCR(s) closed

Validation not approved:

Conformance with NCR(s) required

Draft Final Report Conclusions


NCR(s) closed

The Project Proponent has 7 days from the date of this report to submit any comments related to the factual accuracy of the report or the correctness of decisions reached. The auditors will not review any new material submitted at this time.



Draft Report Conclusions


No NCRs issued

The Project Proponent has 30 days from the date of this report to revise documentation and provide any additional evidence necessary to close the open non-conformances (NCRs). If new material is submitted the auditor will review the material and add updated findings to this report and close NCRs appropriately. If no new material is received before the 30 day deadline, or the new material was insufficient to close all open NCRs the report will be finalised with the NCRs open, and validation and/or verification will not be achieved. If all NCRs are successfully addressed, the report will be finalised and proceed towards issuance of a assessment statement.



2.1 Audit Conclusions With the closure of two open NCRs after the review of the updated PDD (February 19, 2014), validation of the project is recommended.

2.2 Nonconformance evaluation

Note: A non-conformance is defined in this report as a deficiency, discrepancy or misrepresentation that in all probability materially affects carbon credit claims. Non-conformance Request (NCR) language uses “shall” to suggest its necessity but is not prescriptive in terms of mechanisms to mitigate the NCR. Each NCR is brief and refers to a more detailed finding in the appendices. NCRs identified in the Draft Report must be closed through submission of additional evidence by the Project Proponents before Rainforest Alliance can submit an unqualified statement of conformance to the GHG program.

NCR#: 01/13

Standard & Requirement: Carbon Fix Standard V3.2, Sustainable Forest Management (03)

Report Section: 03-01

Description of Non-conformance and Related Evidence:

The description of forest management objectives was not provided adequately in the PDD.

Corrective Action Request: Organization shall implement corrective actions to demonstrate conformance with the requirement(s) referenced above.

Note: Effective corrective actions focus on addressing the specific occurrence described in evidence above, as well as the root cause to eliminate and prevent recurrence of the non-conformance.


Timeline for Conformance: Prior to verification

Evidence Provided by Organization:

A section was added in the project document to describe the general forest management objectives.

Findings for Evaluation of Evidence:

Organization provided the detail forest management objectives in the updated PDD, refer page 1 of 03 forest management.

NCR Status: CLOSED

Comments (optional):

NCR#: 02/13

Standard & Requirement: Carbon Fix Standard V3.2, Sustainable Forest Management (03)

Report Section: 03-02

Description of Non-conformance and Related Evidence:

Organization uses pepper trees and natural landscape features as boundaries of project area, planting area and natural conservation area, and they are visible in the field, however, the boundaries are not clearly defined with detail location in the PDD.

Corrective Action Request: Organization shall implement corrective actions to demonstrate conformance with the requirement(s) referenced above.

Note: Effective corrective actions focus on addressing the specific occurrence described in evidence above, as well as the root cause to eliminate and prevent recurrence of the non-conformance.

Timeline for Conformance: Prior to verification

Evidence Provided by Organization:

A paragraph was added in the project document to detail the borders of the planting areas.

Findings for Evaluation of Evidence:

For all the four sites of the project, organization clearly defined the boundaries with location of four directions and their GPS data in the updated PDD, refer pages 4, 5, and 6 of 03 forest management.

NCR Status: CLOSED

Comments (optional):

2.3 Observations

Note: Observations are issued for areas that the auditor sees the potential for improvement in implementing standard requirements or in the quality system; observations may lead to direct non-conformances if not addressed. Unlike NCRs, observations are not formally closed. Findings from the field audit related to observations are discussed in Appendix A below.

OBS 01/13 Reference Standard & Requirement: Carbon Fix Standard V3.2

Description of findings leading to observation:

The description of the four main land-use classes in Qinggangling Township and its surrounding area was included in the PDD. Organization provided the pictures for agriculture land, forest land and abandoned land, however, the picture for urban land was not provided.

Observation: Organization should update the PDD with the required picture/s and information.



There is an inconsistency in description of the abandoned areas. Organization described in the PDD that a few trees remain where previous afforestation programs took place but failed. However, from interview with officers of local forestry bureau and local forestry station, and the farmers in Shenjiagou cillage, Ledegu village and Xinqiao village, it was revealed that the afforestation programs were not conducted in the project area.

Observation: Organization should ensure the background information of the project area clear and consistent throughout the PDD.




There is also an inconsistency in description of land-use class. It states on page 1 of the PDD that there was no farmland before the project, but on page 4, it states that there was a few vegetable layer moved during planting activities.

Observation: Organization should ensure the background information of the project area clear and consistent throughout the PDD.



The PDD states the chemical products that have been used are Hymexazol and Cholopyfrifos, however, interview with the nursery manager revealed that they only used CuSO4 on Pinus armandii, and for other species they did not use chemical products.

Observation: Organization should confirm with the nursery manager about the chemical products and ensure consistent information in the PDD.



Interview with the nursery manager revealed that the subcontractors were provided with PPEs including gloves, glasses and mask, and they use machine during the operation so the risk will be very low. However, it is not described completely in the PDD.

Observation: Organization should describe all the PPEs and equipment used in the nursery when presenting analysis of the risks in the nursery.



PDD states that all the three forest guards met for the signature of the contract. However, the PDD does not mention about the nursery manager.

Observation: Organization should ensure the clear and consistent information throughout the PDD.



In terms of presentation of the quantification of carbon pools, the project proponent grouped the results according to species than by management unit. As observed during the field audit, there are 4 distinct planting areas (management units – sites of community group 9, group 14, and group 17 and 18), and each planting area consists of different mix of species.

Observation: Organization should present the CO2 quantification according to management unit.



The technical description was included in the PDD covering tree nursery, land preparation, planting, beating up, maintenance, pruning, thinning and harvesting. From this description and interview with the management staff and its external experts from local forestry bureau and forestry station, the auditor verified that the project has sufficient technical capacity for now. However, the auditor would assume that if the project manager Mr Clement, leaves the project the project might be unable to get the technical support.

Observation: Organization should make sure the technical capacity will be in place all the time.




During the on-site visit, auditor found some economic tree species like walnut trees and chestnut trees died. It was explained that one of the reasons was that roots were destroyed in the nursery. The technical capacity of tree nursery management should be enhanced to make sure all the trees are survived within the first three years of the project. (The contract between villagers and ID stipulates that ID is responsible for providing new seedlings within the first three years, which means if the trees died after three year of the project the villages have to buy new one. It was told by the villagers that they would not have enough money for the seedlings however, they were quite confident that the forest would be established and all the trees would be survived.)

Observation: Organization should make sure the forests established within three years, which means the survive rate of trees should be ensured.



The potential risks and risks mitigation measures were defined in the PDD. The risks includes drought, domestic animals grazing, forest fire, disease amongst nut trees or amongst other tree species, coldness. However, during the on-site visit on the top of hill in Community 9, Xinqiao village, the auditor found some trees were bitten by the wild rabbit. This risk was not included in the document and suitable solution was yet to be sought.

Observation: Organization should update the PDD and seek suitable solution of the damage.

2.4 Actions taken by the Project Proponent address NCRs (including any resolution of material discrepancy)

Action Taken by Project Proponent following the issuance of the Draft Report Date

Additional documents submitted to audit team (additional documents listed below)

Yes No N/A

Additional stakeholder consultation conducted (evidence described below) Yes No N/A

Additional clarification provided Yes No N/A

Documents revised (document revision description noted below) Yes No N/A 19 Feb. 2014

GHG calculation revised (evidence described below) Yes No N/A

Included in the actions taken by the Project Proponent to address NCRs was the submission of the following revised files:

Ref Title, Author(s), Version, Date Electronic Filename

1a. Title: PDD, 03 Forest Management

Author: Clement Version, Date: 19 Feb. 2014

Forest_Management_YMC_CFS

http://www.climateprojects.info/cms.php?pagedef=outbox&fileid=14288


3 Audit Methodology

3.1 Audit Team

Overview of roles and responsibilities:

Auditor(s)

Responsibilities

Lead Desk

Review

On-site visit

Climate Specialist

Biodiversity Specialist

Social Specialist

Report Senior Internal Review

Indu Bikal Sapkota

Wan Jian

Campbell Moore (Technical Review)

Janice O’Brien (Final review)

Auditor qualifications:

Auditor(s) Qualifications

Mr. Indu Bikal Sapkota, Lead auditor Indu Bikal Sapkota has been working as an Associate Regional Manager, Asia Pacific, Rainforest Alliance, and he is responsible for the management of the RA day to day operation of the region including coordinating forest management client portfolio and for servicing present and prospective clients in all matters related to forest management certification, carbon, and verification. He is a climate focal person of the region. Indu holds an international master’s degree (MSc) in Tropical Forestry from Wageningen University, the Netherlands; and has also earned an BSc Forestry degree with a distinction from Tribhuvan University. Prior to joining Rainforest Alliance, Indu spent over 10 years working in forestry and conservation in Asia and Europe. He has also worked as a facilitator for the Rainforest Alliance Assessor Training Program too. He has received the RA Carbon and Forest Management Assessor Training and Lead Auditor Training. He is also an ISO 9001 approved lead auditor. He has been involved intensively in FSC FM assessment/audit; CoC assessment/audit, and Carbon projects as an auditor as well as project manager. Until now, he has taken part over 45 audits/reassessments/assessments in Asia Pacific countries; and led more than 80% of them as a lead auditor.

Ms. Wan Jian 万坚

Local expert

Wan Jian, Master, has 9-year experience in silviculture and forest protection. Wan Jian is working for China Quality Mark Certification Group Product Certification Co.,Ltd as Project Manager of the International Department. Before that, she has worked for Rainforest Alliance SmartWood China as a member of FSC China Working Group. As an auditor or translator, she has participated in 20 audits, including 7 FM audits, 11 CoC audits and 2 VLO audits. She has attended “FSC/CoC and Controlled Wood Assessment Workshop” and “FSC/CoC New Standards Training” in Beijing, "FSC Group Certification Workshop" and "FSC Forest Management Auditor Training" in Hangzhou. In November 2010, she attended the “ISO Lead Auditor Training” provided by BSI Management Systems Vietnam Co., Ltd in Bali, Indonesia. Wan Jian has passed the ISO 9001 training exam and got the certificate from BSI.

Campbell Moore Campbell is a tropical forestry and REDD+ expert with international professional experience in Africa, Central America, South America and Southeast Asia. He is Carbon Expert with Rainforest Alliance where he conducts audits against six forest carbon standards, supervises methodology assessments, and acts as technical expert on carbon for RA-Cert globally. Campbell has experience on both the technical and policy sides of REDD+. Previous professional experience includes consulting work for GIZ Philippines performing carbon stock assessments of different forest types including agroforestry and plantation systems, as well as work centered on reforestation in Sri Lanka for the


Environmental Leadership and Training Initiative. He additionally has worked for Climate Focus on LULUCF policy issues. From 2009-2011 Campbell pursued his Master of Forestry from the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. This period included a variety of forestry projects including developing a management plan for Connecticut forest preserve, planning timber sales in a New England hardwood forest, and designing and modeling carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems for the Nature Conservancy’s Global Climate Team. Prior to his time at Yale, Campbell worked in The Gambia for over two years as a Peace Corps Volunteer designing and implementing a wide variety of forestry, agroforestry, and agricultural projects. In addition to his Master of Forestry degree, he holds a M.A. in Environmental Studies from St. Mary’s College. Campbell is fluent in Pulaar and Wolof and has experience with Spanish.

Janice O’Brien Janice has a Master's Degree in Forest Conservation from the University of Toronto and has been with Rainforest Alliance for 7 years. Janice acts as both the Canadian Verification Services and Chain of Custody Coordinator. She is a carbon lead auditor, and has participated in 7 Carbon Validation and/or Verification Projects across multiple standards (VCS, CCB, CarbonFix) and geographic regions (Africa, India, Canada, US, Central America). She is the project manager for Canadian and Africa carbon work, and has managed multiple Carbon methodology assessments. Janice has completed a training program in GHG Accounting for Forests. Additionally, she has coordinated approximately 1000 FSC Chain of Custody audits and assessments, conducted approximately 50 assessments/audits, and participated in 1 Forest Management Audit. Prior to joining Rainforest Alliance she worked in operational and financial risk management for 13 years.

3.2 Description of the Audit Process

Location/Facility Date(s) Length of Audit

Auditor(s)

Initiative Développement field office in Zhaotong

December 2, 2013

4 hour Audit team (opening meeting, documents review, interview with project proponent team)

Group-9 planting site, Xinqiao village December 2 1 hour Audit team (field site observation, interview with project field staff)

Group 14 planting site, Ledegu village December 2 1 hour Audit team (field site observation, interview with project field staff)

Group 17 and 18 planting sites, Ledegu village

December 2 1 hour Audit team (field site observation, interview with project field staff)

Zhaoyang County Forest Bureau Office December 3 1 hour Audit team (interview with Wang Bin, Reforestation Head)

Qinggangling Township Forest Bureau Office December 3 1 and ½ hour Audit team (interview with Qiao, Forest Officer)

Ledegu village December 3 3 hour Audit team (interview with village leaders, forest guard, nursery manager)

Xinqiao village December 3 2 hour Audit team (interview with Group 9 members)

Initiative Développement field office in Zhaotong

December 4 2 hour Audit team (closing meeting with project proponent team)

Kunming December 4 1 hour Audit team (discussion with Prof. Li Jiang from Yunnan Academy of Forestry)


3.3 Review of Documents The following documents were viewed as a part of the field audit:

Ref Title, Author(s), Version, Date Electronic Filename

1 PDD, ID, December 4, 2013 (all chapters and respective supporting documents)

PDD_YMC_CFS

2 Fauna inventory and assessment on planted land of the ID project, 2012

04-06_Methodology for fauna inventory DnFr_2012

3 Flora Inventory on Planted land of Qinggangling village, 2012

04-07_Flora Inventory Cn_2012

4 Picture 04-08_ Pesticide 1



7 Statement, Meidi timber seedling supply service department, September 20, 2013

04-11_No GMO statement

8 Training session-Planting Walnut and Chestnut trees 05-01_Training session report_En

9 Training session-Planting pines and broadleaf trees 05-02_Training session report_En

10 Contract for the implementation of the forestry project, ID, August 26, 2013

05-03_Examples of contract with villagers

11 Meeting records, pictures and signatures, 2012 05-04_Meeting with beneficiaries

12 LSC REPORT, ID, June, 2013 05-05_LST report_2013-06

13 PDD of CDM Southwest Sichuan 2011 06-01_ PDD of CDM Southwest Sichuan 2011

14 PDD of CDM Tengchong Yunnan 2007 06-02_ PDD of CDM Tengchong Yunnan 2007

15 Carbon Sequestration of the Stands under the SLCP in Yunnan, 2009

06-03_ Carbon Sequestration of the Stands under the SLCP in Yunnan, 2009

16 Walnut tree growth curve, 2013 06-04_Walnut tree growth curve, 2013

17 Guide to Efficient N Fertilizer Use.jpg 07-01_ Guide to Efficient N Fertilizer Use.jpg

18 N removal and inputs for Walnut trees.xls 07-02_ N removal and inputs for Walnut trees.xls

19 Baseline and inventories 08-01_Baseline and inventories

20 Carbon Sequestration of the Stands under the SLCP in Yunnan, 2009

08-02_ Carbon Sequestration of the Stands under the SLCP in Yunnan, 2009

21 PDD of CDM Southwest Sichuan 2011 08-03_PDD of CDM Southwest Sichuan 2011

22 Biomass of shrubs 08-04_Biomass of shrubs

23 Animal and pastureland inventory 09-01_Animal and pastureland inventory

24 Methodology to estimate animal grazing habits 09-02_ Methodology to estimate animal grazing habits

25 Interviews 09-03_Interviews

26 Animal grazing habits 09-04_Animal grazing habits

27 Estimation of leakage due to animal grazing 09-05_ Estimation of leakage due to animal grazing

28 CDM Tool Sustainable grazing capacity 09-06_ CDM Tool Sustainable grazing capacity

29 IPCC Climatic Zones 09-07_ IPCC Climatic Zones

30 Forest Bureau ZY-Initiative Development Progranne Zhaoyang Yunnan Cooperation Agreement, December, 2012.

10-01_Contract with Zhaoyang Forest Bureau

31 Memorandum of understanding between Yunan Academy if Forestry and Initiative Development, March 28, 2013

10-02_MoU with the Yunan Academy of Forestry

32 10-03_Cash flow, ID 10-03_Cash flow

33 Initiative Development Rapport Annual 2012, ID, 2013 10-04_ID Rapport Activities_2012

34 Commitment letter, Trafigura Foundation, September 2, 2013

10-05_Commitment by project founder

35 Links to the website 10-06_Market Environmental Registry

36 Training session-Planting Walnut and Chestnut trees 10-08_Training session report_En


37 Training session-Planting pines and broadleaf trees 10-09_Training session report_En

38 Prevention Measures on Forest Fire in planted lands of Qinggangling Village of the ID project, Zhaoyang Forestry Bureau, September 22, 2013

10-10_Prevention of forest fire

39 Changes and trends in forest tenure and institutional arrangements for collective forest resources in Yunnan province, China, Dr. ZHENG Baohua Director and Professor, Centre for Community Development Studies (CDS)

11-01_Changes and trends in forest tenure_2006

40 Contract for the implementation of the forestry project, ID, August 26, 2013

11-02_Contract with villagers

3.4 Interviews

The following is a list of the people interviewed as part of the audit. The interviewees included those people directly, and in some cases indirectly, involved and/or affected by the project activities.

Audit Date Name Title

December 2 Ling Xianzhi Project Assistant

December 2 Zhang Yi Project Technician

December 2 Zhang Likun Investigator

December 2 Ma Jian Investigator

December 2 Clement Rizal Forestry Project Officer/Project Manager

December 3 Wang Bin Head, Silviculture Department, Zhaoyang Area, Zhaotong City, Yunan Province

December 3 Qiao Jiarong Stationmaster of Forestry Station, Qinggangling Town

December 3 Jiang Dekao Village head of Shenjiagou Village, nursery manager

December 3 Wu Guangcai Community leader of Community 14, Ledegu Village, forestry guard

December 3 Zhao Qingyun Community leader of Communities 17 and 18, Ledegu Village, forestry guard

December 3 Ai Biyou Farmer of Community 9, Xinqiao Village

December 3 Li Shiwen Farmer of Community 9, Xinqiao Village

December 3 Chen Shifen Farmer of Community 9, Xinqiao Village

December 3 Hong Zhengxiu Farmer of Community 9, Xinqiao Village

December 3 Huo Pingzhi Farmer of Community 9, Xinqiao Village

December 4 Prof Li Jiang Yunnan Academy of Forestry, Kunming


APPENDIX A: Field Audit Findings

Note: Findings presented in this section are specific to the findings resulting from the field audit as presented in the Draft Audit Report. Any non-conformances or observations identified during the field audit are noted in this section, and specific NCR and OBS tables are included in section 3.2 of this report for each identified non-conformance and observations. All findings related to audit team review of additional evidence submitted by the Project Proponent following the issuance of the Draft Audit Report by Rainforest Alliance, is included within section 3.2 of this report.

00. Transparency

1) All project information must be made publically available through the ClimateProjects web system, except for confidential information.

2) Shapefiles with the following information must be submitted through ClimateProjects: a) Project area(s) b) Management Units

3) The certification body may require to upload shapefiles with the following information: a) Land-use classes of the project area at the project start b) Land-use classes of the project area 10 years prior to project start c) Nature conservation areas d) Neighbours of the project (individuals, villages, towns, etc.) e) Infrastructure of the project (roads, rivers, houses, etc.)

4) Shapefiles of the different land-use classes (criteria 3.a. and 3.b.) can further be divided into i) eligible or non-eligible areas.

Findings from Field Audit

1. As evident during the field audit period, all project information have been made publicly available through the ClimateProjects web system (http://www.climateprojects.info/CN-YMC/). 2. A shapefile of the project areas and management units with the borders of Qinggangling Township was uploaded to the ClimateProject platform (under Location). 3. Shapefiles with all the above required details were uploaded to the ClimateProjects platform (refer PDD section 03 Forest Management, requirement 9 and supporting documents: 03-05; 03-06; 03-07; 03-08; 03-09, and 03-10). 4. As verified during the field audit, all project areas are eligible planting areas, and there is no wetland area in the project areas (refer the audit findings under Eligibility below for further details).

http://www.climateprojects.info/CN-YMC/


Conformance Yes No N/A

NCR/OBS

A. Preconditions 1. Eligibility

1) A description of the historical and the current situation of the project area must be given for the last 50 years. This description must include the development of its socioeconomic situation, its changes in land-uses and changes of property rights.

2) Planting area is ONLY eligible, if the land: a) Is planted with trees during the initial certification AND b) is not a forest at the date of the project start AND c) will result in the creation of a forest AND d) has not been forest within 10 years prior to the project start OR has been forest within 10 years prior to the project

start and evidence is given that absolutely no relation between the project participants and the cause of deforestation exists (e.g. that the forest destruction was caused by force majeure) i) Criterion 2.d. must be proven by the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs, official maps or land-

use records. 3) Planting area is NOT eligible, if the land

a) was deforested to generate CO2-certificates OR b) is wetland OR c) is situated on ground that is permafrost OR d) is agriculture farming land and threatens through the conversion to forest the food security of the local population.

4) Evidence must be given, that in case any agricultural or silvopasture activities are taking place on the project area, they contribute to the aim of creating a forest.

5) Evidence must be given that project activities will not lead to a long-term increase of greenhouse gas emissions of the carbon pool ‘soil’ on the project area.

6) If litter (leaves and small branches) is extracted from the eligible planting area, it must be limited to the extent of not harming the nutrient balance of the soil.


As described in the PDD, and as verified at the time of the field audit through sites visit and interviews with project participants, the project met all the eligibility requirements of the standard. 1) The PDD provided a very detailed historical and existing situation of the project area with maps and pictures from the time of

1949 (Pages 1 to 4). The project proponents had also presented the details including the development of the socio-economic situation of the project area, land use changes and property rights.

2) As reflected from the interviews with stakeholders at the time of the field audit, and as described in the PDD, the planting areas have not been forest within 10 years of the project start. The PDD provides evidences with satellite images (Map 01-01; Map 01-02; Map 01-03; Map 01-04), and picture (01-06). The planting areas were found to be degraded abandoned land, and were planted with trees between December 2012 and August 2013. The list of tree species that were planted were the following: Pinus armandii, Alnus nepalensis, Toxidendron vernicifluum, Albizia kalkora, Juglans sigillata, Castanea mollisma.

3) During the field audit, it was found that the planting area was not deforested to generate CO2-certificates, nor the area consists of any wetland. There was no record of permafrost on the areas. The planting areas were abandoned degraded land so it would not threaten the local food security in any ways.

4) From the field audit, it was clearly evident that there was no agriculture or silvopasture activity. All the planting areas were planted with above mentioned trees. The audit team also found that in some parts of the planting areas, the casualty replacement was done with the above mentioned species.

5) As reflected in the PDD and as found during the field audit, all planting activities were done manually, and there was no activity reported that would lead to a long-term increase of greenhouse gases of the carbon pool (soil) on the project area.

6) As explained by local communities/farmers at the time of the field audit, they were not collecting any litter from the project area. The PDD also described that the consumption of litter by farmers from some of other nearby forests is much lower than the production. The audit team observed a pine forest (outside the project area) in the Xinqiao village with a very thick layer of pine needles at the bottom.



NCR/OBS

2. Additionality

1) Evidence must be given that the project is not business as usual. Therefore, the additionality analysis must be executed according to the latest ‘A/R CDM project activities’ Link: : http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/ARmethodologies/tools/ Terms of these guidelines might differ from the ones used in the CFS and shall be interpreted according to its common meaning. The first point of Step 0 can be omitted.

2) Evidence must be given that the most likely without-project scenario would not lead to an increase of woody biomass on the eligible planting area.

If this is not the case, the amount of woody biomass generated long-term (calculated with the same approach as the future CO2-fixation – see chapter ’C – 06 CO2-fixation’) must be used for the parameter ‘Baseline woody biomass’ – see chapter ’C – 04 Baseline’.

3) Evidence must be given that the project contributes to a more sustainable development than the most likely without-project scenario, short-, mid- and long-term.


As analysed and documented in the PDD, and as presented by the project participants at the time of the field audit and sites visit, the project was found to meet all the additionality requirements of the standard.

Evidences for additionality were given according to the A/R Methodological Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in A/R CDM Project Activities (Version 02). Four scenario were identified: 1) continuation of the pre-project land use, 2) forestation of the land by farmers themselves without the use of carbon finance, 3) afforestation of the land through governmental programs and 4) forestry activities by private entities for economic returns. Only the two first scenarios were deemed feasible regarding historical trends, the poor land condition and the strict rules regarding forestry activities in the project area. Furthermore, the barrier analysis showed that the second scenario was not feasible due to three barriers: labour shortage, grazing on planting areas and a lack of farmers’ investment capacities. Therefore, according to the A/R CDM tool, only the continuation of the current land use was deemed feasible and no investment analysis was required. The last step – the common practice analysis – evidenced that other similar forestry projects took place in the last decades in the area. However, it was documented that these projects did not face the same barriers, namely the sources of funding, the perception of risks due to tree species mixes and the labour shortage. Consequently, the use of carbon finance was found justified for the current forestry project. At the time of the field audit, the project proponent presented the additionality analysis with various with-and-without project scenarios, and the audit team also verified the various feasible and infeasible options through interviews with forestry government officials and local community members. It was confirmed that planting trees with an objective of creating forest demonstrates the additionality of the project activity. Moreover, the PDD well documented the analysis according to the A/R CDM project activities with evidences (such as Pictures 02-03; Map 02-01; Picture 04-04).2. As the most likely without-project scenario is the continuation of the pre-project scenario, meaning lands that are currently abandoned will remain abandoned and will continue to be degraded due to heavy grazing, it was found from the site visit and interview with project proponent and other stakeholders, the baseline scenario would not lead to an increase of woody biomass from the planting area. 3. Through interviews with local community members/farmers and local forestry officials, it was found that the project activities have already started creating local employment, such as through planting activities and appointment of forest guards, and contributed in capacity building and entrepreneurship through various training. The PDD has also documented various ways in which the project could contribute to a more sustainable development on short-term, mid-term, and long-term.


NCR/OBS

http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/ARmethodologies/tools/


B. Sustainable Forest Management 3. Forest Management

1) A description of the project’s silvicultural and forest management objectives must be given. 2) Evidence must be given that the borders of the project area, planting area (eligible and noneligible), management units

and nature conservation area are clearly defined and visible in the field. 3) A description of the following tree species characteristics must be given:

a) Origin and distribution of the tree species d. Possible pests and diseases (indicate whether the species are native or not)

b) Provenance of the seeds are used c) Main purpose / use of trees d) Possible pests and diseases e) Expected time when forest products will be used

The following criteria are also required in case of a combined certification with FSC. See chapter ‘H - Combined Certification’. 4) Evidence must be given that at least 10% of the project area is managed

a) as a nature conservation area OR b) to meet a national or sub-national HCV area definition.

This criterion needs not be fulfilled in case the project consists of more than 30% conservation forest managed according to

Chapter 06 CO2 Fixation, Option 1b) Conservation forest 5) Evidence must be given that the nature conservation area is protected or managed in order to establish or re-establish

the natural ecosystem of the landscape the project is integrated in. 6) Evidence must be given that the protection or management of the nature conservation area enhances habitat

connectivity. 7) Key figures on the following parameters must be provided:

a) Project area b) Planting area c) Eligible planting area d) Nature conservation area

In case the areas are fragmented, a table shall give a clear overview. 8) Shapefiles with the project information must be submitted through ClimateProjects:

i) Project area(s) ii) Management Units

9) The certification body may require the submission of shapefiles for: a) Land use classes of the project area 10 yrs prior to planting start b) Wetland areas within the project area c) Nature conservation areas d) Neighbors of the project e) Eligible planting area and non-eligible planting area f) Land-use classes of the project area just before the planting start g) Infrastructure of the project


1. The project proponent briefly mentioned the forest management objective in the PDD, but it was not detailed. See NCR 01/13. 2. The project proponent uses pepper trees and natural landscape features as boundaries of project area, planting area and natural conservation area, and they are visible in the field, however, the boundaries are not clearly defined with detail location in the PDD. NCR 02/13. 3. The characteristics for all the six tree species are included in the PDD, including species (Latin name and local language), origin and distribution, if native or not, provenance, main purpose/use of trees, possible pests and diseases, time of use. It is defined in the PDD that 27.2 ha mixed forest or 71% of the project area are managed so as to restore the ecosystem on degraded lands. No harvesting is allowed. That means more than 30% of the project area is managed as conservation forest. It was confirmed from interview with the project participants including local community members and stakeholders and on-site visit. 4. It is defined in the PDD that the nature conservation area is planted with a mix of local tree species adapted to poor soil


conditions and therefore adapted to restore the natural forest ecosystem on lands degraded due to previous agricultural practices, erosion and animal grazing. From interview with the project manager, local forestry bureau officer and the farmers, and on-site visit, the auditor confirmed that 71% area of the project is managed as conservation area in order to establish the natural ecosystem. 5. The nature conservation areas increase density of these patches in the township. For instance, in Xinqiao Village, the nature conservation area links to existing forested areas in the North and in the South, confirmed by reviewing pictures that were provided. During on-site visit in Community group 9 of Xinqiao village, the auditors also found the trails of wild rabbits from the adjacent forests. 6. The PDD describes the key figures in a table which shows that project area is 38.2 ha, planting area is 38.2 ha, eligible planting area 38.2 ha and nature conservation area 27.2 ha. And it was confirmed during the on-site visit to the forests by a range finder which was brought with the audit team by the PP staff (Clement). 7. A shapefile with the borders of Qinggangling Township and for each of the management units was uploaded to the ClimateProject platform (under Location). It was reviewed by the auditor. 8. Shapefiles with all the above required details were uploaded to the ClimateProjects platform (refer PDD section 03 Forest Management, requirement 9 and supporting documents: 03-05; 03-06; 03-07; 03-08; 03-09, and 03-10).


NCR/OBS NCR 01/13: The description of forest management objectives was not provided in detail in the PDD. NCR 02/13: The project proponent uses pepper trees and natural landscape features as boundaries of project area, planting area and natural conservation area, and they are visible in the field, however, the boundaries are not clearly defined with detail location in the PDD. Second review: Both the above NCRs were closed after review of the updated PDD. Forest management objectives as well as boundaries of project area are adequately detailed in the revised PDD.

4. Environmental Aspects

1) A description, including pictures, of the different land-use classes (see chapter ’00 Transparency’ - Point 3c.) of the project area must be given. In case significantly different land-use classes are bordering the project area, they must also be described.

2) Evidence must be given that the project has net-positive ecological impacts. Therefore, a) positive ecological impacts of the projects must be enhanced and b) negative or potential negative ecological impacts must be mitigated. Descriptions of the following project characteristics must be given in regard to point 2.a. and 2.b.:

o Soil Nutrients, Erosion o Water Quality, Quantity o Biodiversity Flora, Fauna o Climate Temperatures, Rain

3) Regarding the biodiversity of a project area, all endangered and critically endangered species of the IUCN Red List must be identified and evidence must be given that appropriate activities are put into place to protect them.

4) Evidence must be given that the use of chemical products is a. minimized AND b. documented AND c. justified

5) Evidence must be given that waste is disposed of in an environmentally appropriate way. 6) Evidence must be given that 15 meter wide buffer strips along permanent or temporary water courses (streams, rivers,

wetlands) are implemented. These buffer strips must be o part of the nature conservation area, OR o must be managed according to ‘06 CO2-fixation - Option 1b) Conservation forest’.

In both cases only native tree species are allowed to be planted. 7) Evidence must be given that no genetically modified species are being used. 8) Evidence must be given that the project management is planting native species in mixed stands and in case the timber

of the forest is being used, selective harvesting management is applied.

Otherwise, the project must justify its o choice of tree species o silvicultural system o harvesting method

9) Evidence must be given that all species planted are site-adapted under changing climate conditions.



1) The description of the four main land-use classes in Qinggangling Township and its surrounding area was included in the PDD. They provided the pictures for agriculture land, forest land and abandoned land, however, the picture for urban land was not provided. OBS 01/13.

2) There is an inconsistency in description of the abandoned areas. The project proponent described in the PDD that a few trees remain where previous afforestation programs took place but failed. However, from interview with officers of local forestry bureau and local forestry station, and the farmers in Shenjiagou village, Ledegu village and Xinqiao village, it was revealed that the afforestation programs were not on/in the project area. OBS 02/13. There is also an inconsistency in description of land-use class. It states on page 1 of the PDD that there was no farmland before the project, but on page 4, it states that there were a few vegetable layer moved during planting activities. OBS 03/13.

3) PDD includes the identified positive aspects for both erosion and fertility aspects, how will positive aspects be enhanced, as well as identified negative, risk rate and how will it be mitigated. Description of water, biodiversity and climate regarding to positive impacts and negative impacts are also included. Through interview with the local experts and farmers and also on-site visit to the forests, the auditor considered the risks and mitigation described in the PDD as reasonable.

4) 5) An inventory conducted by two experts from Yunnan Academy of Forestry demonstrates that none endangered and critically

endangered species of the IUCN Red list was found. This was confirmed through reviewing the IUCN website. The inventory methodology and report was provided (See supporting document 04-06, 04-07).

6) The PDD describes the name of chemical product, active ingredients, purpose of use, how the use is documented, how the use is minimized. The PDD states the chemical products that have been used are Hymexazol and Cholopyfrifos (see supporting document 04-08, 04-09, and 04-10), however, interview with the nursery manager revealed that they only used CuSO4 on Pinus armandii, and for other species they did not use chemical products. It needs to be consistent in the PDD. OBS 04/13.

7) It is defined in the PDD that waste will be collected in a box and brought to Zhaotong city where the collected wastes are disposed in the city waste treatment system. The picture for collecting food packaging wastes is included in the PDD. It’s confirmed by interview with the project staff and the farmers. During on-site visit, no waste was found.

8) No water courses were located within 15 meters from the planting areas. The project area nearest to the river is Community 18 of Ledegu village, where is about 40 meters from the river bank. The plots nearest to the water course are planted with native species and managed as conservation forest. It was defined in the PDD as well as the audit team verified it during the on-site visit.

9) The supporting documents were provided to demonstrate that no genetically modified species are being used (See supporting document 04-11). It was confirmed by interview with the officers from the local forestry bureau and forestry station.

10) All the chosen species except Juglans sigillata, are native species. Choice of Juglans sigillata is justified in the PDD. All planting areas are planted in mixed stands. Community members and forestry officials were found to be aware that trees shall not be harvested during the project lifetime.

11) The project proponent did an inventory on greatest risk associated with climate change in the project area and found that all the selected tree species were seen in the project area, which attests that they can cope with droughts. Therefore, all the tree species are site-adapted under changing climate conditions. From interview with the stakeholders and on-site visit, the auditor verified that the species planted are site-adapted under changing climate conditions.


NCR/OBS OBS 01/13: The description of the four main land-use classes in Qinggangling Township and its surrounding area was included in the PDD. They provided the pictures for agriculture land, forest land and abandoned land, however, the picture for urban land was not provided. OBS 02/13: There is an inconsistency in description of the abandoned areas. The project proponent described in the PDD that a few trees remain where previous afforestation programs took place but failed. However, from interview with officers of local forestry bureau and local forestry station, and the farmers in Shenjiagou village, Ledegu village and Xinqiao village, it was revealed that the afforestation programs were not on in the project area. OBS 03/13: There is also an inconsistency in description of land-use class. It states on page 1 of the PDD that there was no farmland before the project, but on page 4, it states that there was a few vegetable layer moved during planting activities. OBS 04/13: The PDD describes the name of chemical product, active ingredients, purpose of use, how the


use is documented, how the use is minimized. The PDD states the chemical products that have been used are Hymexazol and Cholopyfrifos (see supporting document 04-08, 04-09, and 04-10), however, interview with the nursery manager revealed that they only used CuSO4 on Pinus armandii, and for other species they did not use chemical products. It needs to be consistent in the PDD.

5. Socio-Economic Aspects

1) Evidence must be given that the project has net-positive socio-economic impacts. Therefore, a) positive socio-economic impacts of the project must be enhanced and b) negative or potentially negative socio-economic impacts must be mitigated. For point 1.a. descriptions of the following aspects must be given:

o Creation of employment o Capacity building o Welfare activities

For point 1.b. descriptions of the following aspects must be given: o Displacement of people o Spiritual, religious, or other socially important places influenced by the project activities

2) Stakeholder must be subject to free, prior, and informed consent on project activities that may have an impact on them. Further, consultation must take place to give further evidence for the criteria 1.a. and 1.b. With all stakeholder groups an agreement on the continuous dialog shall be established from the project start. In this

agreement the following topics shall be addressed: o Contact person that represents the stakeholder group o Means, frequency, and contents of information exchange o Standard procedure to address and solve concerns AND

The results of the consultations must be documented. 3) Evidence must be given that working staff’s working environment is kept safe and risk free. 4) Evidence must be given that the working staff is able to organize themselves and negotiate with their employers on a

voluntary basis. 5) Evidence must be given that no children under the age of 16 are working for the project. 6) Evidence must be given that contracts are clearly defined and include the following aspects:

For employees o Working hours and leave days o Duties o Salary o Modalities on health insurance o Modalities on the termination of the contract

For contractors o Tasks (quantity, quality, time) o Payment o Modalities on the termination of the contract

7) Evidence must be given that working staff from areas close to the project is preferred.


1) The project creates employment by hiring three forest guards and one nursery manger, the farmers who carried out planting activities were also provided with payments. All the workers and farmers involved in the project were provided with training or advices to enhance their capacity. The training session reports were provided (refer supporting document 05-01, 05-02). The project proponent also carried out welfare activities in the project area including projects for access to green energy, education about hygiene in schools and construction of toilets, Reconstruction of storage facilities for crops and of shelters for animals after the earthquake in September 2012. The pictures were attached in the PDD. The project is carried out on abandoned hills and will not result in the displacement of people. The only areas of spiritual importance are the farmers’ cemeteries on the traditional graves where no planting activities carried out. All the findings above were confirmed by interview with the local farmers.

2) The project proponent has agreements with the stakeholders including villagers who are associated with the project, forestry authority, employees and contractors. Contract sample with the villagers were provided. (See supporting document 05-03).The agreements were provided during the audit. It was confirmed through interview with the stakeholders that they were subject to free, prior, and informed consent on project activities. The auditors reviewed the agreements and found all the topics required in this requirement were included. Report from the local stakeholder consultation of 70 pages was provided


(refer supporting document 05-05). Description of the meetings, pictures of meetings, signatures of beneficiaries to acknowledge that they understood the project and are willing to join it were provided (refer supporting document 05-04).

3) PDD stipulates the potential risks that can endanger a safe working environment, risks for the working staff, measures to mitigate risks, measures taken when risk occurs. From these, the auditor can conclude that the working staff’s working environment is kept safe and risk free. Interview with the nursery manager revealed that the subcontractors were provided with PPEs including gloves, glasses and mask, and they use machine during the operation so the risk will be very low. However, it is not described completely in the PDD.OBS 05/13.

4) PDD states that all the three forest guards met for the signature of the contract. However, the nursery manager is not included. OBS 06/13. All the working staff can organize themselves to negotiate with the project proponent. It was confirmed by interview with the two of the forest guards Mr. Wu Guangcai and Mr. Zhao Qingyun.

5) From review of the contracts with villagers who joined the project, forestry authority, employees and contractors, and interviews with them, the auditor verified that no children under the age of 16 are working for the project.

6) From review of the contracts with villagers who joined the project, forestry authority, employees and contractors, the various aspects as required are included.

7) Out of the 6 project staff, 5 were recruited from local areas. Moreover, forest guards were also contracted locally.


NCR/OBS OBS 05/13: Interview with the nursery manager revealed that the subcontractors were provided with PPEs including gloves, glasses and mask, and they use machine during the operation so the risk will be very low. However, it is not described completely in the PDD. OBS 06/13: PDD states that all the three forest guards met for the signature of the contract. However, the nursery manager is not included in the PDD.

C. CO2-Fixation For additional guidance on the calculation of CO2-Fixation see p. 12 – 14 of the CarbonFix Standard v3.2. 6. CO2-fixation

To determine the parameter CO2-fixation - which can be regarded as present CO2-fixation as well asfuture CO2-fixation the following preset carbon pools must be included in the assessment:

1) Once the average tree height within a management unit exceeds 3 meters, the present CO2-fixation must be determined, based on the CFS guideline, ‘Forest Inventory’.

2) The future CO2-fixation is determined by a management unit specific growth-model Evidence must be given, that growth-models are based on credible scientific sources and site-adapted factors. Evidence must be given that before any monitoring certification, the management unit specific growth models are adjusted according to the latest actual monitoring data gained thru the assessment of the present CO2-fixation.

Depending on the applied silvicultural methods, one of the following calculative options must be used to determine the future CO2-fixation:

Option 1 - a) Selective harvesting or b) Conservation forest

3) In case of selective harvesting (a) or conservation forest (b), the future CO2 fixation is based on the equilibrium stand volume during the crediting period of the project. If the equilibrium stand volume is not reached by the end of the project’s crediting period the future CO2 fixation is determined by stand volume of the year the crediting period ends (see CFS v3.2) Evidence must be given through the projects characteristics (tree species, project participants, etc.) and its silvicultural objectives that the forests will be used with a selective harvesting regime or will be conserved (no use of timber).


.

Option 2 – Rotation forestry

4) In case of rotation forestry, the future CO2-fixation is based on the mean stand volume during the first rotation period.

Note that the graph above only shows the rotation system within one management unit. Projects normally consist of multiple management units. It is possible that management units are managed in different ways.


As documented in the PDD as well as review of supporting documents, and as explained by the project proponent, the parameter of the CO2 fixation was determined as required by the standard. 1. As explained by the project proponent, the above first criterion will be applied while carrying forest inventories and once the average tree height will exceed 3 meters.


2. The PDD provides site-specific and species specific data in terms of the future CO2 fixation. As explained by the project proponent and review of supporting documents and PDD, the growth model for Pinus armandii is based on information available from a CDM project in Southwest Sichuan, at less than 100km from the project site. Local growth curves were fitted using forest inventories in 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2007. Growth model for Alnus nepalensis is based on information available from a CDM project in Yunnan Province, the same province as the proposed forestry project. Local growth curves were derived using forest inventories in 1992, 1997 and 2002. They are therefore also site adapted (refer supporting document 06-01 and 06-02). Similarly, the growth model for Albizia kalkora and Toxidendron vernicifluumis based on a scientific article, published in 2009 (Chen et al. 2009), and related to carbon sequestration under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in Yunnan Province (refer 06-03). Since no scientific literature was available regarding the biomass of walnut and chestnut trees, the project proponent (ID) mandated the Yunnan Academy of Forestry to conduct a field study in the project area to estimate the growth of walnut trees (06-04). It was also confirmed through interview with a professor from Yunnan Academy of Forestry. However, in terms of presentation of the quantification of carbon pools, the project proponent grouped the results according to species than by management unit. As observed during the field audit, there are 4 distinct planting areas (management units – sites of community group 9, group 14, and group 17 and 18), and each planting area consists of different mix of species. OBS 07/13. 3. As reflected in the PDD and from interview with the project staff, since no area will have reached its equilibrium stand volume after 30 years, which is the project crediting period, the future CO2-fixation is based on the stand volume after 30 years. Planting areas planted with species other walnut and chestnut trees will be included in the Natural Forest Protection Program and will therefore be managed as conservation forests. Walnut and chestnut trees are trees whose yields increase with age and will thus be managed as “conservation forests” (no use of timber). This information was verified by the audit team with the project participants at the time of the field audit. 4. No rotation forestry was found in use nor being planned in the project area.


NCR/OBS OBS 06/13: In terms of presentation of the quantification of carbon pools, the project proponent grouped the results according to species than by management unit. As observed during the field audit, there are 4 distinct planting areas (management units – sites of community group 9, group 14, and group 17 and 18), and each planting area consists of different mix of species. The project proponent should present the CO2 quantification according to management unit.

7. Project Emissions

The parameter ‘Project emissions’ does not require the use of a template. It is determined by the selection of the appropriate options through the ClimateProjects web system.

1) In order to account for project emissions due to the use of fossil energy within the project (e.g. through machines,

flights, etc.), 0.5% of the future CO2-fixation will be deducted. 2) In case fertilizer is used, 0.005 tCO2 per kg of nitrogen (N) must be deducted. Therefore, the amount of kgN per year

of each management unit must be entered into the ClimateProjects web system. 3) In case the biomass of the baseline is burned on the field for the purpose of land preparation, an additional 10% of

the baseline emissions must be accounted for. This is due to other greenhouse gases (N2O and CH4) that are released during the burning process.


1. As reflected in the PDD and from interview with the project proponent, it was found that the 0.5% parameter has been entered in the ClimateProject system. 2. From the review of supporting documents (07-01 and 07-02), it was found that 0.005 tCO2 per kg of nitrogen (N) was deducted. It was estimated that a total of 2,344 kg/ha of Nitrogen from fertilizers and 2,813 kg/ha of Nitrogen from compost will have been used after 30 years, which will lead to the equivalent of 25.8tCo2/ha for model4_CW (for chestnut and walnut trees only).


3. No evidence was found at the time of the field audit that any biomass of the baseline is burned.


NCR/OBS

8. Baseline To determine the parameter baseline the following preset carbon pools must be assessed:

1) The baseline is the woody and non-woody biomass on the eligible planting area just before the project start. The

calculation can be done in two different ways: a) By executing field measurements. Here, the CFS ‘Forest Inventory’ guideline shall be applied. b) By estimating the biomass in reference to similar areas

o regional and national default values are preferably used o international default values shall only be used if other values are not available


As presented by the project proponent at the time of the field audit, and from the review of the PDD and supporting documents, it was found that the baseline was calculated by dividing the planting areas into shrubland with woody (a few scattered trees) and shrubland non woody (grasses and shrubs). The auditor visited the planting areas to verify both the situations. Moreover, it was verified that the project proponent together with forest guards and community members conducted inventories on 9 different points (plots) to measure tree parameters (species, dbh, height), and then the baseline for wood biomass was quantified (supporting document 08-01 and 08-02). Moreover, biomass from shrubs and grasses were estimated based on the CDM project validated in Southwest Sichuan (refer supporting documents 08-03 and 08-04).


NCR/OBS

C.Net CO2-Fixation 9. Leakage

To determine the parameter leakage, the following preset carbon pools must be assessed:

1) Leakage is caused by an increase of greenhouse gas emissions outside of the project area as a result of the project

activity.


Leakage emissions can be caused due to a shift in the following activities: a) Fuelwood use b) Charcoal burning c) Timber harvesting d) Agricultural farming e) Resettlement f) Livestock grazing

Depending on the category of leakage selected, the following formulas must be applied:

Formula for category a. b. c. d. and e.

Formula for category f.

For examples of the leakage determination, the document ‘Example calculations’ can be downloaded from www.CarbonFix.info/Standard under ‘Assisting documents’



As documented in the PDD and verified through interviews with community members/farmers and field observations, leakage due to the project is caused by livestock grazing. No other categories of leakage emissions were reported during the audit. The leakage was then quantified through both the field inventories of animals (supporting document 09-01), field interviews (09-02, 09-03, 09-04), and literature review for above ground net primary production and total peak living biomass (refer CDM tool 09-06). According to the project proponent, the value for CO2 stock (above ground biomass) is retrieved from IPCC reports (09-07) and is applicable to grasslands in the project area. The calculations were presented in excel file (09-05) which was verified by the audit team.


NCR/OBS

D. Permanence In order to ensure the permanence of CO2-certificates, the project must have a long-term sustainable set-up. Amongst other factors, this depends on the capacities of the project workforces and the secured land tenure of the project area. Since a small risk of project shortfalls always exists, these are covered

o firstly by compensation activities (see chapter ‘C – 006 Procedures’) and o secondly, in case of a project’s exclusion, by the CFS buffer (see chapter ‘J - CFS Buffer’)

10. Capacities Management Capacity

1) Evidence must be given that the management staff has sufficient qualification and an appropriate structure to ensure the sustainable implementation and management of the project.

2) Evidence must be given that management staff decisions are taken based on a joint process. 3) Evidence must be given that the management staff is working with an internal quality control system. 4) Evidence must be given that the project works with other institutions to continuously expand the management staff’s

qualifications. 5) Evidence must be given that a suitable knowledge transfer within the management staff is ensured over time.

Financial Capacity

6) Evidence must be provided that sufficient financial means are available for the long-term finance of the project. 7) If two or more of the following points apply, the project is only allowed to assign 50% of its future CO2 certificates

until the first successful monitoring certification – however at the earliest 3 years after the initial certification:

The project financier has not managed other projects (not necessarily in forestry) of similar financial scale, yet

The organization of the project developer was founded less than 5 years ago

The project is located in a country which is ranked in the second half of the Land Property (LP) rating by IPRI Technical Capacity

8) Evidence must be given that the project has sufficient technical capacities to ensure the sustainable implementation and management of the project.

Therefore, a technical description of the following activities must be given:

a) Tree nursery e. Maintenance b) Land preparation (incl. lining out /spacing) c) Planting d) Beating up (replacing of dead seedlings) e) Maintenance f) Pruning g) Thinning h) Harvesting

Protective Capacity


9) Evidence must be given that risks which endanger the permanence of a project are mitigated.

Therefore, an evaluation of the following risks must be given a) Water (drought, flood, hail, snow, heavy rains …) b) Wind (storms, hurricanes …) c) Animals (insects, domestic animals, wild animals …) d) Fire (human made, natural) e) Diseases (fungi, viruses …) f) Temperature (coldness, heat) g) Encroachment of people h) Others

A description must be given on how the project is protecting itself against the possible risks and which activities are implemented to mitigate them.

10) In case there is a risk of fire a ‘Fire Management Plan’ must be provided. This plan must include a description of the following activities:

a) Fire awareness b) Fire prevention c) Fire equipment d) Fire detection e) Fire suspension f) Fire damage rehabilitation


1) The qualification of the management staff was described in PDD, including educational level, duties, years of working experience, GIS knowledge, etc. The structure is also included. From the description in the PDD and interview with all the management staff, the auditor verified that they had sufficient qualification and an appropriate structure to ensure the sustainable implementation and management of the project.

2) ID’s team is organized so as to allow a maximum of consultation before taking decisions. The consultation records with the pictures are included in the PDD. From interview with the farmers, it was confirmed that project management decisions are based on a joint process.

3) The project proponent has procedures to control and enhance the quality of its activities. Some examples of the procedures were provided in the PDD. From interview with the management staff, auditor verified that the procedures were carried out.

4) The project proponent works with Zhaoyang Forest Bureau and the Yunnan Academy of Forestry and received technical and logistical support on the project. The contract with Zhaoyang Forest Bureau and MoU with Yunnan Academy of Forestry were provided to demonstrate the partnerships (refer supporting document10-01, 10-02). From interview with the officers from these two entities, it’s confirmed that these two entities could help the organization continuously expand the management staff’s qualification.

5) It was defined in the PDD and also introduced by the project manager Mr Clement that knowledge acquired through the project design and implementation activities as well as knowledge related to carbon finance will be secured within ID as part of the NGO global “knowledge building plan” and thus transferred over time within the organization. Technical knowledge on the management of the trees is transferred to beneficiaries of the project during training sessions. The Training session reports were provided (refer supporting document 10-08, 10-09).

6) The cash-flow was provided and reviewed (refer supporting document 10-03). The organization’s finance report was in the ID report 2012 (supporting document 10-04, page 19). Trafigura Foundation agreed to support the project from 2012 to 2015. The commitment by project founder was also provided (supporting document 10-05). From these documents, the auditor confirmed that sufficient financial means are available for the long-term finance of the project.

7) Organization was found in 1994 and it has managed projects of similar scale. Other carbon-projects including “Biogas Tanks in Guizhou Province in China”, “Zhaoyang rural household biogas tank program”, “GS1205 Sustainable Energy for Development Programme of Activity Master Project” were reviewed by the auditor (supporting document 10-06).

8) The technical description was included in the PDD covering tree nursery, land preparation, planting, beating up, maintenance, pruning, thinning and harvesting. From this description and interview with the management staff and its external experts from local forestry bureau and forestry station, the auditor verified that they have sufficient technical capacities. However, the auditor would assume that if the project manager Mr Clement left his position, that the project might be unable to get the technical support required. OBS 08/13. During the on-site visit, auditor found some economical trees species such as walnut trees and chestnut trees died. It was explained that one of the reasons was that roots were destroyed in the nursery. The technical capacity of tree nursery still needs to be enhanced. OBS 09/13.

9) The potential risks and risks mitigation measures were defined in the PDD. The risks includes drought, domestic animals


grazing, forest fire, disease amongst nut trees or amongst other tree species, coldness. However, during on-site visit on the top of hill in Community 9, Xinqiao village, the auditor found some trees were bitten by the wild rabbit. This risk was not included in the document and the solution was not yet found. OBS 10/13.

10) Forest fire did not yet occur. A document named “Prevention of forest fire” was developed by the forestry bureau on September 23, 2013. In which, the description of points a to f above of this requirement are included. (See supporting document 10-10). The Stationmaster of Forestry Station Qinggangling Town Mr Qiao Jiarong told the auditor that it was in the forest fire prevention period, the forest bureau was responsible for implementing the forest fire preventing work. From interview with the two forest guards, it was told that they also detect forest fire.


NCR/OBS OBS 08/13: The technical description was included in the PDD covering tree nursery, land preparation, planting, beating up, maintenance, pruning, thinning and harvesting. From this description and interview with the management staff and its external experts from local forestry bureau and forestry station, the auditor verified that they have sufficient technical capacities for now. However, the auditor would assume that if the project manager Mr Clement left his position, that the project might be unable to get the technical support required. OBS 09/13: During the on-site visit, auditor found some economical trees species such as walnut trees and chestnut trees died. It was explained that one of the reasons was that roots were destroyed in the nursery. The technical capacity of tree nursery still needs to be enhanced. OBS 10/13: The potential risks and risks mitigation measures were defined in the PDD. The risks includes drought, domestic animals grazing, forest fire, disease amongst nut trees or amongst other tree species, coldness. However, during on-site visit on the top of hill in Community 9, Xinqiao village, the auditor found some trees were bitten by the wild rabbit. This risk was not included in the document and the solution was yet to be sought.

12. Land & CO2 Tenure

1) Evidence must be given that the project developer has a long-term uncontested legal land title for a minimum period of the project’s crediting period

2) Evidence must be given that permits which are necessary for the project’s implementation and management (planting permits, harvesting permits, infrastructures permits, etc.) are secured for a minimum of the project’s crediting period.

3) An overview of the contact details of the project participants must be provided. 4) Evidence must be given that the project developer is the

a) Owner of the CO2-rights of the project area AND b) Owner of the land (the project area) AND c) Owner of the timber AND d) Owner of other resources (within the project area) e) Project financier

In case the project developer is not all of the above, evidence must be given that the respective participant agree with the expected project activity for the minimum period of the project’s crediting period.

5) In case the owner of CO2-rights is a group of multiple individuals, authorization for the issuance and assignment of the CO2-certificates must be given to the project developer with a written approval.


1) From interview with officers of local forestry bureau and local forestry station, and the farmers in Shenjiagou village, Ledegu village and Xinqiao village, auditor confirmed that all the lands in China belong to the government and the farmers have the management right for 30 years through contract on this project. The contract between ID and forestry bureau and contracts between ID and farmers were provided to demonstrate the management right (refer supporting document 10-01, 11-02).

2) Interview with officers of local forestry bureau and local forestry station revealed that organization and the local forestry bureau has agreed on a partnership regarding the project. The contract between ID and forestry bureau was provided (refer supporting document 10-01). From interview with the farmers and review the contract between ID and farmers, it is revealed


that the farmers planted the trees on abandoned hills and have the management right according to Chinese laws (refer supporting document 11-01, 11-02).

3) The contact details of project participants including project developer, owner of the CO2-rights, owner of the land, owner of the timber, owner of other resources and project financial were included in the PDD.

4) Owner of the CO2-rights and project financier is ID while owner of the land is the government and owner of the timber and non-timber forest product are the villagers. The contract between ID and forestry bureau and contracts between ID and farmers were provided to demonstrate that the respective participant agrees with the expected project activity for 30 years. (See supporting document 10-01, 11-02). It was also confirmed by interview with the officers of local forestry bureau and local forestry station and the local villagers.

5) From interview with the villagers and review of the contracts, it was confirmed that villagers gave the authorization for issuance and assignment of the CO2 certificates to ID through signature on the contracts (refer supporting document 11-02).


NCR/OBS None


APPENDIX B: Organization Details Contacts

Primary Contact for Coordination with Rainforest Alliance

Primary Contact, Position: Clément Rigal, Carbon Sequestration and Forestry Project Officer, Initiative Développement – China

Address: Room 25C, mingchang building, 32 renmin middle road, Kunming 650021, Yunnan Province, CHINA

云南省昆明市人民中路 32号明昌大厦 25楼 C, 邮编：650021

Tel/Fax/Email: +86 182 88 20 08 41

Billing Contact

Contact, Position: Clément Rigal, Carbon Sequestration and Forestry Project Officer, Initiative Développement – China

Address: Room 25C, mingchang building, 32 renmin middle road, Kunming 650021, Yunnan Province, CHINA

云南省昆明市人民中路 32号明昌大厦 25楼 C, 邮编：650021

Tel/Fax/Email: +86 182 88 20 08 41