Introduction This report presents the findings of an audit conducted by Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI), to validate that the claims made by BioCarbon Partners conform to the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design Standards (Second Edition- December 2008). ESI is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) under ISO 14065:2007 for greenhouse gas validation and verifications bodies and is approved by the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) to perform such validations.
Contact Information Client Name Address Phone Website
3rd Party Auditors Environmental Services, Inc. Lead Validator Caitlin Sellers ([email protected] / 772-834-8571) Validation Team Shawn McMahon – Validation Team Member ([email protected] /
330-833-9941) Stewart McMorrow – Validation Team Member ([email protected] / 530-412-1221) Richard Scharf – Validation Team Member ([email protected] / 252-402-7354) Steve Ruddell – VCS AFOLU-REDD Expert/Validation Team Member ([email protected] / 970-403-3430) Jonathan Pomp – Validation Team Member ([email protected] /304-642-1277) Chris DeRolph – Validation Team Member/GIS Analyst ([email protected] / (919-212-1760) Janice McMahon – QA/QC ([email protected] / 330-833-9941)
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 5 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Validation Details Validation Standard Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design
Standards (Second Edition – December 2008)
Validation Criteria The criteria will follow the validation guidance documents provided by CCBA located at www.climate-standards.org. These documents include the following: a) Project Design Standards (Second Edition,
December 2008) b) Rules for the use of the Climate, Community &
Biodiversity Standards, Version June 21, 2010.
Level of Assurance The level of assurance was used to determine the depth of detail that the validator placed in the validation plan to determine if there were any errors, omissions, or misrepresentations (ISO 14064-3:2006). ESI selected samples of data and information to be validated, to provide reasonable assurance.
Validation Scope The scope of the validation included the review of all project documentation provided by the project developer and the appropriate level of fact finding by the validator during the on-site visit. The validator used evidence such as, but not limited to, interviews with stakeholders and project proponents, review of supporting records and reports.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 6 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Validation Date(s) 29 January 2013 – 20 June 2013
Materiality Materiality is a concept that errors, omissions and misrepresentations could affect the project design assertions and influence the intended users. CCB does not specifically outline a materiality threshold, but ESI used a 5% threshold for evidence. . However, for PDD validations, the specific level of materiality does not apply. The materiality of a CCBA validation is based on an evaluation of whether or not the proposed project design (PDD) is consistent with the CCB Project Design Standards criteria (Second Edition). If a non-conformance is discovered, the project developer is given the opportunity to correct the non-conformance to the PDD within a reasonable timeframe (within 30 days). If the non-conformance is corrected, the level of assurance has been met, the project design is recommended for validation approval. If the non-conformance cannot be met, the project design will not be validated. For this project, all non-conformances were corrected, so the project design is herewith validated.
Site Visits 10 April 2013 – 15 April 2013
Final Documents from Client • Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project PDD CCB [Version:
21 June 2013]
Please see Appendix A for a complete list of documents received/reviewed during this validation.
Public Comment Period on CCBA
Number of Comments Received
13 March-12 April 2013 – Project listing on CCB website for public comment
11
Project Description “The Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project will reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) on 38,781 hectares (ha) of privately-owned land in Rufunsa District, Zambia. The Project Area is also known as ‘Rufunsa Conservancy’ and is owned by the Zambian company – Sable Transport Limited. The Project Area remains one of the last intact areas of forest in Lusaka Province and provides a 60-kilometer buffer to Lower Zambezi National Park (LZNP), a strategically protected area in Zambia in a globally significant trans-frontier conservation area. LZNP is adjacent to Mana Pools National Park in Zimbabwe, which is a UNESCO designated
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 7 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
World Heritage Site. The population of the Project Zone is approximately 8,300 people living in 28 villages spread within 4 community zones. The Project Proponent is BioCarbon Partners Limited (BCP), which is responsible for Project certification and early-stage Project finance. The core project climate activities undertaken include forest carbon inventorying, modeling cumulative deforestation patterns, and soil carbon assessments. Core community project activities include up to eighteen different types of community-based deforestation mitigation initiatives designed to create sustainable, scalable alternatives to deforestation, and strategic, meaningful incentives that comprise part of pay for performance programs that support forest conservation. Core biodiversity project activities include forest conservation systems, biodiversity monitoring and management, and fire management. The Project is being developed to conform to the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design Standards (Second Edition, December 2008) and the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS, Version 3). Furthermore, the Project is aligned with the Government of the Republic of Zambia’s (GRZ) National REDD+ Program, implemented through the Forestry Department.”1
Executive Summary of Validation Results Criterion Required/
Optional Conformance Y/N or N/A
G1 Original Conditions in the Project Area Required Y G2 Baseline Projections Required Y G3 Project Design and Goals Required Y 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 (“Leakage”) Required Y CL3 Climate Impact Monitoring Required Y CM1 Net Positive Community Impacts Required Y CM2 Offsite Stakeholder 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 Y GL3 Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits Optional Y
1 BioCarbon Partners, Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project, Version 08 March 2013, Executive Summary
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 8 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Validation Findings G1 Original Conditions in the Project Area Indicator G1.1 – The location of the project and basic physical parameters (e.g., soil, geology, climate).
Section G1.1 of the Project Design Document (PDD) describes the location as approximately 120 km southeast of Lusaka, within the recently declared Rufunsa District. It borders the Lower Zambezi National Park to the east and south, the Chiawa Game Management Area to the west and the Soli Shamifwi Royal Establishment to the north. The project area is comprised of the majority of the Rufunsa Conservancy. It falls within the Miombo eco-region. Climate information was generated from the nearest meteorological station in Lusaka. The majority of upland soils are orthic and sandy in nature, with a low nutrient status. Other types of soils compose a very minor area of the Project. Dominant soils include Lithosols, Orthic Ferralsols, and Chromic Luvisols. The project appears to fall within the Karoo super group, containing formations with significant amounts of carbonate rocks, quartzite and laterite. The topography is rolling hills with deep river valleys. See Figure 2 for additional information.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Site visit, which included visits to the project boundary to confirm area; census data; soil, topography, climate data.
Findings: The general information provided is mostly sufficient; however, some additional documents are needed.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please describe where the project lies in proximity to the Rufunsa Valley, as Section G1.1 is the only place the “valley” is listed, with no context. Please provide, if possible, a website link to the Zambian Meteorological Department information or a scan of the paper copy.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
An incorrect term was used. The section should read as follows:
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 9 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
• “The Rufunsa Conservancy geology is dominated by the Karoo supergroup, which covers almost two thirds of the present land surface of southern Africa. Rufunsa Conservancy formations contain significant amounts of carbonate rocks (Limestone and Dolomite) which are sedimentary in nature; quartzite and laterite.” (top of page 3 of PDD).
This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Updated Section G1.1 of the PDD reflects the revision and accurately addresses the requirements of G1.1. Addressed.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator G1.2 – The types and condition of vegetation within the project area.
The Project falls within the Miombo ecoregion, dominated by trees in the family Caesalpiniaceae, characterized by Brachystegia and Julbernardia species. There is a minor component of Munga woodland, dominated by Acacia species. Additionally, wetland areas on-site consist of grasses, such as Hyparrhenia spp.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Site visit; Section G1.2 of the PDD
Findings: The description in Section G1.2 sufficiently describes the on-site vegetation characterization. The site visit enabled the validator to view and confirm species.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please describe how the three strata (mentioned first in the Figure 3 description) were determined.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
The vegetation strata depicted in Figure 3 were determined based on two disparate sources of information. Initially, the viability study, which saw the enumeration of 26 biomass plots, was used to identify the vegetation strata present. Following the completion of the viability sampling, BioCarbon Partners employed the use of both high resolution satellite data (Google Earth), as well as medium resolution Landsat TM imagery to confirm the
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 10 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
stratification. Section G1.4 outlines the technical details of the classification, briefly, a supervised classification was employed using training data derived from biomass sampling as well as field work activities. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section G1.2 of the PDD sufficiently describes strata determination. Addressed.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator G1.3 – The boundaries of the project area and the project zone.
The project area is the boundary of Farm 10800, also known as Rufunsa Conservancy. The project area boundaries area clearly defined in a Government of Zambia deed. The project zone is located north of the project area and is comprised of the local stakeholder communities that will participate in and directly benefit from project activities.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
GPS boundary checking during site visit; Section G1.3 of PDD; Table 3 & Figure 4
Findings: GPX files were viewed during the site visit to confirm the boundaries. Table 3 provides the latitudes/longitudes of the project area.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Although mentioned in Section G1.1, please describe the exclusion of the area of charcoal production encroachment from the project area in Section G1.3. Please provide a table (similar to Table 3) for the project zone boundaries, or differentiate between the two areas for lat/long.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
Figure 3 shows the project area boundaries as well as the vegetation stratification mentioned above. It is important to note that while the title deed outlines the boundaries of the conservancy, the reader will see that a portion of this area has been removed along the northern boundary. This excluded area has been removed as this portion of the property has been encroached by illegal squatters currently undertaking charcoaling and subsistence agriculture activities. The boundaries of the exclusion area are based on a
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 11 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
survey undertaken by BioCarbon Partners. Each illegal squatting household was surveyed with additional location data also collected using a hand held Global Positioning System (GPS). A convex hull was then generated around these points and used to adjust the boundaries of the conservancy. BioCarbon Partners will not be including this area in the calculation of net emission reductions. There will be no BCP eco-charcoal production in the Project Area (Rufunsa Conservancy-boundaries as per title deed) or the accounting area or the excluded encroached area. The area that has been excluded from the project accounting area has been occupied illegally by charcoal producers and subsistence agriculturalists from the neighboring community due to ignorance of the boundary location. It has been decided that the best option is to exclude the encroached area from carbon accounting as including it will most likely make it necessary to relocate the occupants which could lead to unnecessary conflict. Eco-charcoal will only be produced in the project zone outside of the project area and accounting area as described in Figures 18 and 19. The project zone boundaries have been added to an updated version of Table 3 below and this section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013. Table 3. Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project boundaries.
Project Boundary Location Northern Boundary Communal lands Northern Extent -15° 20' 19.32" Southern Boundary Lower Zambezi National Park Southern Extent -15° 35' 51.36" Eastern Boundary Lower Zambezi National Park,
Mwambashi River Eastern Extent 29° 23' 43.44" Western Boundary Chongwe River Western Extent 29° 1' 34.68"
Project Zone Location
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 12 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Northern Boundary Great East Road Northern Extent -15° 14' 26.16" Southern Boundary Lower Zambezi National Park Southern Extent -15° 35' 51.36" Eastern Boundary Lower Zambezi National Park,
Mwambashi River Eastern Extent 29° 23' 43.44" Western Boundary Mwachombela village Western Extent 29° 12' 14.04"
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section G1.3 of the PDD adequately describes the relevant areas within and excluded from the project. Addressed.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 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 Use5 (IPCC 2006 GL for AFOLU) or a more robust and detailed methodology.
The Project is utilizing VCS Methodology VM0009 v2.1 for accounting of current carbon stocks. Current carbon stocks are estimated to be 17,225,309.79 tonnes CO2e.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G1.4 of the PD; site visit; criteria of VM0009
Findings: Section G1.4 generally details the VCS Methodology being utilized, the justifications to use the
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 13 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
methodology, the stratification criteria, and the estimated current tonnes of CO2e for the entire project area.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Per footnote 6 of the CCB Project Design Standards, please clarify if any variations or deviations from the methodology VM0009 will occur for project accounting. Please provide spatial data so the validator may confirm points 3-5 under Section G1.4 of the PDD. For point 8, please define the criteria used to delineate the reference area in more detail. Please provide the imagery for point 9.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
Deviations from VM0009 Version 2.1: The only deviation from the methodology is the sampling procedure of the Lying Dead (LD) Wood pool which was enumerated within inventory plots instead of along transects as suggested by the methodology. Lying Dead wood occurs at very low densities in the project accounting area and the additional time costs of sampling LD along transects could not be warranted. Lying dead wood is an optional carbon pool in VM0009. We believe the deviation will still result in a conservative estimate of LD. Information on the delineation of the criteria used for the delineation of the Reference Region has been added to the PDD. The baseline type for the Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project is U3 – Avoided Unplanned Deforestation and Degradation Frontier or Mosaic. The length of the perimeter within 120m of deforestation is less than 25% of the total perimeter. Spatial data provided to validator: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pdfrguuscsofpfx/LXnJvDla4N This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Findings: Per the observations during the site visit, the validator confirms the deviation for measuring lying deadwood will result in accurate and conservative estimations of
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 14 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
the pool. Regarding the statement in the PDD that says “The length of the perimeter within 120m of deforestation is less than 25% of the total perimeter.”: in order for the validator to confirm, the project proponent needs to specifically tell us which shapefiles they used (and they need to provide them to us if they haven’t already done so) to run this calculation. The validator has received two shapefiles that have ‘deforestation’ in their name, but one contains a line and one contains a polygon.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please clarify if any of the recent revisions to the geospatial analysis would have changed the information presented in Tables 5 & 6. If so, please update for accuracy. Please provide the validator the data used for the 25% calculation, walk through how the calculation was made, and provide ESI with the results of the calculation (in lieu of the general statement of ‘we met this criteria’).
Date Issued: 30 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
Tables 5 and 6 were not affected by the changes in the CDM model. Tables 5 & 6 detail the land cover present in the project accounting area and are not related to the changes to the CDM points. The 25% calculation was undertaken as follows.
1. Deforestation within a 120m of the Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project boundary was digitized and saved as BCP_LZRP_Deforestation_2009_120m_UTM35S.shp
2. The Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project boundary was converted from a polygon to a line.
3. The project boundary was clipped using deforestation layer digitized above and saved as BCP_LZRP_Deforestation_UCalc_UTM35S.shp
4. Length of both the boundary and the clipped region were then calculated.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 15 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
5. See image below for graphical explanation.
Results from the 25% calculation are as follows: Project Boundary: 125.568 km Deforestation within 120m: 4.221 km Percentage of total boundary within 120m of deforestation is 3.362 % Deforestation was identified and digitized using a Landsat scene from 2009 (2009-06-02). Shapefile data shared with Validator are as follows: BCP_LZRP_Conservancy_Boundary_UTM35S.shp BCP_LZRP_Deforestation_2009_120m_UTM35S.shp BCP_LZRP_Deforestation_UCalc_UTM35S.shp Attribute tables in both the Deforestation files contain length of the boundary and the deforestation. PDD updated with this information on June 3rd, 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Above explanation and accompanying shapefiles were reviewed and the requirements of VM0009 were confirmed to sufficiently close this NCR..
Date Closed: 11 June 2013 Indicator G1.5 - A description of communities located in the project zone, including basic socio-economic and cultural information that
The community descriptions provided are extensive. The project zone is divided into four areas, Ndubulula, Chilimba, Mweeshang’ombe and Namanongo, with a total population of about 8,300.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 16 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
describes the social, economic and cultural diversity within communities (wealth, gender, age, ethnicity etc.), identifies specific groups such as Indigenous Peoples8 and describes any community characteristics.
The PDD describes the communities as rural, without electricity, public water or sanitation services, reliant on charcoal production and subsistence farming. 88% of households live below the $1.25/day World Bank poverty line. 74% of residents of the project zone were not born there but are recent immigrants to the area – particularly the Tonga people in the Mweeshang’ombe and Chilimba zones. Ndubulula residents lived in the area longest and have the most community cohesion and fewest social problems. The Soli ethnic group is the largest, has been in the project zone the longest, and often comprises the headmen.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G1.5 of the PDD, Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project Baseline Survey Report, v1 16 Oct. 2012.
Findings: Indicator G1.5 has been adequately addressed. 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 PDD describes the two types of land tenure rights in the project area and zone as follows (from section G1.6): 1. “The project area (Rufunsa Conservancy) is held under leasehold agreement with the Government of the Republic of Zambia. This type of 99 year renewable lease within the law constitutes private ownership, and lessees hold title to the land, as well as usage and exploitation rights for the resources on the land. 2. “The project zone (villages affected by the Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project) is in designated customary land which is occupied by rural villagers, headed by a Chief. Resources on communal land are public, and are held by the President on behalf of the people. Under the customary system de facto land Headmen or Headwomen of villages carry out land allocation, although the State still retains de jure land ownership. Under the Land Act of 1995, customary land can be converted to leasehold tenure (MLRNP 2010).”
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 17 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
About 19 households had settled on project area lands. While it was agreed by all that the land was under lease by the project developer, the project developer excluded this part of the land from the project area, in order to avoid relocating any of the households. In 2007, the government of Zambia cancelled the title deed for the Rufunsa Conservancy, due to an administrative error. A lawsuit was decided in favor of the Rufunsa Conservancy, and the deed was reinstated in 2011.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G1.6 of the PDD; viewing of the government deed during the site visit
Findings: Section G1.6 adequately explains land ownership and recent land-related disputes in the project area and zone, but the section does not describe current land use.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please provide a description of current land use in the project area and zone.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
The current land use in the project area is forest and wildlife conservation with future eco-tourism planned. The current land use in the project zone is primarily unsustainable charcoal production and subsistence agriculture. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Additions to section G1.6 of the PDD reflect the required information.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 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
The project zone is within the Miombo eco-region. The PDD points to a 2012 biodiversity survey in the Lower Zambezi National Park, and states “a large portion” of the species there will be on the Rufunsa Conservancy lands. Three threats are listed: habitat loss, poaching and
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 18 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
material. mining. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G1.7 of the PDD, site visit; GL3.1
Findings: One of the key references used is to a study by “Pettersen et al. 2012,” but the citations at the end of the PDD includes no information on this study.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please provide information on the Pettersen study and further evidence that findings in that study apply to the project area and zone.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
Petterson, U., M. Chifunda, A. Shikwe, M. Bingham, K. Chanda, R. Ferguson, A. Gardiner, S. Kapembwa, J. Loveridge, V. Nyirenda, M. Shaw, and R. Stjernstedt. 2012. Environmental Impact Statement For Large Scale Minining Activities Under License Number 15547-Hq-Lml, Owned By: Mwembeshi Resources Limited. Located In: Luangwa District. Page 319. GeoQuest Limited, Lusaka. Document submitted to validator. https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7u4qqvczch84bs/EIS%20Mwembeshi%20Resources%20Final.pdf The study was conducted in a similar ecosystem to the project zone (Zambezi Valley Escarpment) and is located approximately 22km east of Rufunsa Conservancy. The study was conducted in Lower Zambezi NP. As Rufunsa Conservancy is directly adjacent to the National Park and the study was conducted in similar habitat with no ecological barriers between the study site and Rufunsa Conservancy, the findings are applicable to the project area. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section G1.7 of the PDD and a copy of the Pettersen report: Environmental Impact Statement for Large Scale Mining Activities Under License Number 15547-HQ-LML Owned by: Mwembeshi Resources Limited Located in: Lusaka District
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 19 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 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. Indicator 8.1 - Globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values: a. protected areas
b. threatened species
c. endemic species
d. areas that support significant concentrations of a species during any time in their lifecycle (e.g. migrations, feeding grounds, breeding areas). Indicator 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. Indicator 8.3 Threatened or rare ecosystems. Indicator 8.4 - Areas that provide critical ecosystem services (e.g., hydrological services, erosion control, fire control). Indicator 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).
8.1: The PDD mentions the Petterson study in Zambezi National Park found several vulnerable bird species populations in the park. A botanical study on a nearby game management study lists a number of endemic plant species in the area. Scouts for the project report signs of “elephant probing” along the 60 km common border between Conservancy project land and the national park. Suitable habitat and water sources are available on project lands. A confirmed sighting of wild dogs occurred in February 2012 19 km from the Conservancy boundary. Lion sign was found within the Conservancy by project scouts. 8.2: The project land is described as part of a strategic landscape, including park lands in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. 8.4: Two perennial rivers run through the project lands, one of which is the only perennial river to run into the Lower Zambezi National Park. The project lands are envisioned as breeding zones for large animals. Some items mentioned, including “funding” and “fire control” seem to be services that would be supplied by the project, not by the land itself. 8.6: Traditional burial ground on conservancy property. Some medicinal plants on the project lands are collected and used by the local population in the project zone.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 20 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Indicator 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).
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G1.8 of the PDD, site visit.
Findings: Based on the fact project lands border on the LZNP and the vast area of adjoining protected land in neighboring countries, and the known wildlife populations there, project lands have the HCVs described in G1.8.1 and G1.8.2.
G2 Baseline Projections Indicator G2.1 - 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.
In the absence of the project, illegal encroachment on the project lands is likely to continue. The encroachment includes charcoal making and subsistence farming. Soil fertility is expected to decline.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G2.1 of the PDD and the site visit confirmed the likelihood of encroachment
Findings: Methodology used to determine without project scenario not mentioned.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please state the formal methodology used. Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
Participatory rural appraisal techniques were used, including group dynamics (feedback sessions, interviews) and sampling (social mapping, survey data collection, analysis and reporting) to determine the most likely land-use scenario in the absence of the project. Most recently, throughout meetings held from March 19th-22nd, 2013 community representatives from all 4 zones confirmed their expectation that in the absence of this project high levels of deforestation in the project zone would continue, and waves of immigration would continue to threaten the existing project area boundaries, as
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 21 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
community forest resources would become increasingly constrained. Such sentiments were also documented in some of the public comments that were submitted to the auditor for review. To complement the participatory rural appraisal techniques, the Biomass Emissions Model of VM0009, based on point interpretation of historical imagery, was used to confirm the baseline scenario. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section G2.1 of the PDD shows the project meets the requirements of indicator G2.1.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator G2.2 - 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.
Poaching pressure has prevented the ranch from generating income through hunting or ecotourism. No other money generating enterprise is feasible. Aside from carbon, there is no other way to generate income for conservation activities. Significant investment would be required for fencing and animal purchases to generate income through ecotourism or hunting. There is a complete lack of enforcement of forest laws/regulations through government institutions. Significant portions of LZNP have been settled. A lack of alternative energy resources means continued charcoaling. Conservation practices are very uncommon in the area.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G2.2 of the PDD; site visit confirmed that poaching is prevalent, as very little wildlife was noted in an area that should contain significant amounts of wildlife; site visit also confirmed charcoal encroachment near the project area.
Findings: The PDD provided extensive explanation of barriers to implementation.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please include in this section a discussion of existing laws or lack of them relating to forest/wildlife
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 22 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
conservation. Some mention has already been made that laws are not enforced.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
All relevant wildlife and forestry laws are listed in section G5.1. They are the Environmental Management Act No. 12 of 2011, Zambia Wildlife Act No. 12 of 1998 and Forests Act, 1999. As stated, the Zambia Wildlife Authority and the Forestry Department are resource and capacity-constrained to effectively enforce these laws. BCP assists both institutions with fuel, transport, communications facilitation and rations in order to assist these agencies at a local level to better enforce the relevant conservation laws. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section G2.2 of the PDD shows the project meets the requirements of indicator G2.1.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator G2.3 - 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 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.
Using VM0009, the project proponents designed a cumulative deforestation model, using satellite imagery. They estimate the project will prevent the emissions of 9,611,864 tCO2e over 30 years. The reference area boundary provided and that is depicted in all of the figures appears to be incorrect and not the most up to date.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 23 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
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 project-specific spatial analysis of deforestation and/or degradation using an appropriately robust and detailed carbon accounting methodology before the start of the project. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G2.3 of the PDD; RefAreaB11_final_35S.zip
Findings: The reference area boundary provided and that is depicted in all of the figures appears to be incorrect and not updated. The validator generated a random sample of 5% of the 1790 grid points in each time step. The validator found issues with 19 of the 90 points.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please revise all PDD figures and any mention of the area (ha) of the reference area that may be outdated. Please review the file “ESIReview_Round1.gdb.zip” and explain discrepancies. Please explain why leaf-off imagery was used in the first time step of the reference period.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
All PDD figures have been revised. Leaf-off imagery was the only available scene in that time period and it should result in a conservative estimate of
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 24 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
deforestation. Updated Reference Area - 49506.34 ha. BCP acknowledges that there may have been some issues with the original CDM point interpretation. These issues are related to difficulty interpreting the Landsat imagery. A consultant unfamiliar with the area undertook the original interpretation and thus some of the state classifications were incorrect. We have corrected this by reinterpreting the entire set of CDM points by making a number of corrections to the points used as well as the status of these points throughout the reference period. Reinterpretation was undertaken by an experienced earth observation professional who is familiar with the study area based on several site visits and the characteristics of the imagery. Following the completion of the point reinterpretation, the CDM model was rerun as per the requirements of the VM0009 methodology. The updated model parameters are included in the PDD along with new GERs. A number of the 19 points found wanting by the validator were found to occur in grassy wetland (dambo) vegetation and were excluded from the baseline emissions model. All other points occurring in dambos were subsequently removed. The number of points were reduced to 1593 from the original 1790, all being forest in image 1 (1984) in compliance with VM0009. The revised Baseline Emissions Model with point re-interpretation has been made available to the validator. This response was made on 15 May 2013.
Findings: The validator generated a random selection of 5% of the 1593 grid points (80 points). For each point in the set of 80, the validator identified the 3x3 pixel neighborhood as either forest or non-forest. The validator downloaded leaf-on Landsat image from June 1984 to aid in visual interpretation of 1984 forest/non-forest state. BCP used October 1984 and
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 25 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
stated it was the “only available scene in that time period.” There are a few clouds in the June image, but it worked much better for the validator than the October 1984 leaf-off image. The validator used two different false color composites to aid in identifying forest/non-forest visually in the imagery. The validator entered comments in an attached shapefile for additional points on which we had questions. This shapefile contains BCP’s original forest/non-forest designations for each year, the validator’s forest/non-forest designations for each year, the original point ID that BCP assigned each point, and ESI’s comments on discrepancies. Seven (7/80 = 8.75%) of the issues identified would result in overestimation of deforestation in the reference region over the reference period, while one of the issues was a location that appeared to be clearly non-forest in 1984 but underwent forest regeneration and appeared forested in 1992 to 2010.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Although BCP has provided an interim response on 30 May 2013, the validator would prefer to see a qualitative analysis to discuss why the additional points found were changed or removed and demonstration of the conservativeness of the effort. Regarding selection of historic imagery and adherence to Section 6.7.4 of VM0009: the source of the data (Landsat) and the resolution of the data (30m) used is acceptable, but, Section 6.7.3 states “To analyze deforestation and estimate alpha, beta, and theta, historical imagery shall be acquired and interpreted for forest state (see Section 6.7.4). Therein lies an issue of the use of leaf-off imagery, especially for the first time-step. Leaf-off imagery makes it difficult to determine forest state. Please explain why leaf-off imagery was used in this instance.
Date Issued: 30 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
Interpretation of the satellite imagery is by its very nature subjective. In the original NCR response BCP explained that the review of the CDM point interpretation was undertaken as the original reviewer was unfamiliar with the characteristics of the study
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 26 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
area, namely the prevalence of Dambos (wetlands) which were misinterpreted as forest pixels. The initial reinterpretation of the points resulted in removing a number of points from the initial forest state (1984) (Original CDM: 1790, Second round CDM: 1593). A total of 197 points were removed reducing the size of the total initial forest state data set by almost 10%. The second round of NCRs saw a number of changes being made to the initial forest state data set (1984 image interpretation). Initially, only points falling within the Dambos were removed. In the second and most recent review we have removed all points that were marginal in terms of the forest state. These points are generally adjacent to non-forested areas such as Dambos and farms. The second round re-interpretation resulted in a number of marginal points being removed from the data set. These are outlined in the *.xlsx document provided to the Validators. In this round a total of 38 marginal points were removed thereby reducing the initial forest state to 1555 points. BCP are now confident that the points represented in this data set are an accurate representation of the forested state within the reference area at the start of the baseline monitoring period (1984). In addition to the changes made to the 1984 scene initial forest state data set a number of changes were made to the final forest state data set on the 2010 Landsat image. BCP agrees with all of the suggestions made by the auditor with regards to marginal points being classified as non-forest when in fact the points were forest. Changes have been made to all points except one (PID: 1862) which BCP believes is a non-forest point. In addition, a number of changes were made to the final forest state points. These have been detailed in the ESI_Round2.xlsx spreadsheet. In total 11 points were changed to non-forest from forest, while 6 points were changed from forest to non-forest. The conservativeness of the CDM changes is illustrated in the table below. It is clear to see that the
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 27 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
changes made to the CDM have resulted in a progressively more conservative estimate of NERS. The values below are taken from table 13 in the PDD. Initial CDM (Round 1) 9,615,646 tCO2e Changes after Round 2 9,611,864 tCO2e With regards to the selection of the initial 1984 image. While the selection of this image may seem to be ineffective the use of leaf-off image for the initial forest state is indeed conservative in nature. Following re-interpretation of the points it is clear that the forest state defined using this image is indeed conservative as the marginal pixels have now been removed and those conforming to forest states have been retained. Using a leaf-off image for initial forest state ensures that all forested points are indeed forest, provided the interpreter has the required expert knowledge to recognize forest versus non-forest pixels. For VCS verification, BCP will refine the selection of the initial forest state imagery with a view to minimizing associated uncertainty in the initial forest state. Further BCP is currently developing Quality Control and Quality Assurance procedures which will be implemented in advance of VCS verification. It should however be noted that despite the uncertainty and perceived errors, BCP have calculated the estimated carbon stock changes as per the requirements of the standard and the project has a net climate benefit despite the uncertainties which have now been mitigated. This response was provided to the Validators on June 4th, 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: The validator generally agrees that the use of leaf-off imagery in the first time step could be considered conservative. The Project has sufficiently shown that it will result in a net-positive effect on emissions reductions. The Project has shown that it will utilize a robust methodology to quantify these emissions reductions, and thus the NCR can be considered addressed. The assertions of the leaf-off imagery will
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 28 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
be further vetted during the VCS validation process. Date Closed: 11 June 2013
Indicator G2.4 - 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.
Without the project, continued inefficient charcoaling and clearing land for agriculture will continue. This will lead to continued soil fertility declines, and likely groundwater declines due to deforestation. Local residents’ dependency on large, wild ungulates for protein will mean sustained or increasing pressure on native wildlife.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G2.4 of the PDD, LZ REDD+ Project Baseline Survey Report.
Findings: Indicator G2.4 has been adequately addressed. Indicator G2.5 - Describe how the ‘without project’ reference scenario would affect biodiversity in the project zone (e.g., habitat availability, landscape connectivity and threatened species).
Virtually all large animals have already disappeared from communal lands, due to poaching and habitat loss, and Rufunsa Conservancy lands have significantly reduced animal diversity, compared with neighboring LZNP. The baseline scenario is continued charcoaling and conversion to agriculture. Studies show that when savannah or grassland is converted to agriculture, biodiversity drops as much as 52%. Moderate rangeland use results in much higher biodiversity levels. Cannot decipher this concluding paragraph: “The baseline scenario will reduce available habitat in the Lower Zambezi ecosystem by approximately 10% of the total size of the Lower Zambezi NP. This will also fragment connectivity between Chiawa GMA and the northern portion of the national park.”
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G2.5 of the PDD, Baseline survey report, site visit.
Findings: Continued biodiversity decline appears likely. Non-conformance Request (NCR): For conciseness and clarity, please re-examine and
reword the concluding paragraph in this section. Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 29 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Rufunsa Conservancy is approximately 10 percent of the size of Lower Zambezi NP. If Rufunsa Conservancy is deforested, the ecosystem will lose this important park buffer zone. Deforestation in Rufunsa Conservancy will also fragment connectivity between Chiawa GMA and the northern portion of the Lower Zambezi National Park as the Conservancy serves as a habitat linkage between the two areas.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section G2.5 of the PDD reflects that the project meets the requirements of indicator G2.5.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013
G3 Project Design and Goals Indicator G3.1 - Provide a summary of the project’s major climate, community and biodiversity objectives.
The objectives for the project are listed as: • Long term conservation of Miombo
woodlands on Rufunsa Conservancy, resulting in avoidance of CO2 emissions,
• Enhancement of biodiversity, • Manage land as a buffer zone for LZNP,
Chiawa GMA and as a wildlife corridor, • Improve habitat for key large mammal HCV
species (elephant, wild dog, leopard, sable antelope, roan antelope, lion),
• Watershed management to ensure year round flows in Chongwe and Mwambashi Rivers.
• Creation of employment opportunities for people in project zone in sustainable industries, to reduce pressure on land and reduce poverty,
• Fire management, • Support toward delivery of critical services, • Assist farmers in accessing markets,
expanding to include non-timber forest products, such as honey production,
• Pilot use of “community covenants” to link community activities mitigates deforestation and biodiversity threats.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G3.1 of the PDD, site visit; stakeholder meetings during site visit
Findings: Indicator G3.1 has been adequately addressed.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 30 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Indicator G3.2 - Describe each project activity with expected climate, community and biodiversity impacts and its relevance to achieving the project’s objectives.
The project includes both improved management of Conservancy lands and community projects. The largest community projects are the sustainable eco-charcoal project and conservation farming training. There will also be a tree planting project, tree nurseries, livestock project, fruit orchards and vegetable gardens. Improved Conservancy Management (comprehensive management plan has been developed):
• Increase scout outposts • Hire more scouts. • Improve current scout outposts • Establish communications network • Increase scout mobility • Design/implement security team • Re-train scouts • Game surveys • Fire management • Develop relationships with ZAWA and CLZ • Enhance Conservancy infrastructure
Eco-Tourism will be promoted “once conservation management on the ranch is fully operational.” Revenue from this is expected to be small, and10% is pledged to communities. Community Covenants are agreements between the project proponent and community representatives to reduce non-REDD compatible activities in exchange for project investment, support or employment, and are a critical component of the project strategy. Eco-Charcoal Production, including incorporating charcoal production in a sustainable forest management plan and introducing higher efficiency kilns. Conservation Farming – Partnering with the Conservation Farming Unit (an NGO) to implement a conservation farming program.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 31 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Improved Small Livestock Production through training and bringing in higher quality goats and “village chicken projects” to reduce hunting pressure on wildlife. School refurbishing and support through carbon revenues. Borehole refurbishment (self-explanatory) Other agricultural development, including Sustainable Honey Production, seasonal thatch business, mushroom farming, fruit and orchard projects, crop diversification, and establishing woodlots.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G3.2 of the PDD, site visit reflect that the project meets the requirements of indicator G3.2.
Findings: Indicator G3.2 has been adequately addressed. Indicator G3.3 - 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).
Maps depicted in PDD and shapefiles have been provided. However, the reference area appears to be incorrect in the PDD.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G2.3 of the PDD; RefAreaB11_final_35S.zip
Findings: The reference area boundary provided and that is depicted in all of the figures appears to be incorrect and not updated.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please revise all PDD figures and any mention of the area (ha) of the reference area that may be outdated.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
All maps revised on 8th May 2013. Please see example below of Figure 1.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 32 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Updated Reference Area - 49506.34 ha. Spatial data submitted to the validator. https://www.dropbox.com/s/n305hn8au55mv3u/RefAreaB11_final_35S.zip
Evidence Used to Close NCR: ESI reviewed new shapefiles and found the same area of the reference area.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator G3.4 - 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.
The project start date and beginning of the GHG accounting period is 1 October 2009. The length of the accounting period is 30 years. A schedule of expected validation dates is provided (Table 14).
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G3.4 of the PDD.
Findings: Indicator G3.4 has been adequately addressed. Indicator G3.5 - 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.
Risks to the project are listed as follows: Political risk is low, since Zambia is a stable and peaceful country. Significant interest in REDD+ projects within government. Expropriation risk is considered low due to free and clear title, along with consultation with local leaders. Because of successful defense of its title in court, it is believed unlikely that it will be attempted again. Income risk is considered low, because projections of carbon income are very conservative. A trust was established to help counter the risk of low carbon
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 33 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
prices. Community risks include settling on project lands, objections from locals. Project boundaries have been agreed upon with local leaders, and areas of Conservancy land settled illegally have been removed from the project. Fire – studies have concluded that fire is not a major problem in this ecosystem, as the vegetation is adapted to it. Drought – Studies have concluded that vegetation in the ecosystem is well adapted to drought. Elephant damage – Currently no elephants on the property, but studies show Miombo woodland remains intact, even in the presence of elephants. Natural Disasters are not expected, since the land is geologically stable. Risk of flooding is essentially zero. Risks are described, but some risks (even if considered low) do not necessarily contain specific mitigation measures.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G3.5 of the PDD
Findings: Risks are described, but some risks (even if considered low) do not necessarily contain specific mitigation measures.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please ensure all risks detail specific mitigation measures, even if the perceived risk is low.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
Risk Mitigation: Political Risk: Zambia is a stable country and BCP has approval and support from all the relevant Zambian Government Departments to implement the project. It is thus reasonable to assume the longevity of the project from a political stability perspective. However, in order to mitigate political risks, BCP proactively consults, engages, coordinates and collaborates with various Government offices, in addition to keeping them regularly informed about the project to keep it in the spotlight. Risk of expropriation: To mitigate expropriation risks, the project will invest in publicizing the project locally and internationally to ensure that the GRZ remains aware of the values that this project is
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 34 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
providing the Nation as the country’s first and currently only pilot REDD+ project. In addition, the Project is building a positive, lasting relationship with neighbouring communities and the Government of Zambia to ensure that the land is productive and beneficial to the Nation. Income Risk: The project proponent has established a not-for-profit organization (BioCarbon Partners Trust) to help counter the risk of low carbon prices affecting community benefits from the project. The Trust aims to leverage funds specifically to support and build upon community benefits. The project is also exploring diversifying revenues into tourism to mitigate the risk of low carbon prices. In addition, the project will invest in marketing the project and its strategic conservation and poverty reduction benefits in order to seek higher credit prices. Community Risks: To mitigate community risks, BCP has engaged in significant capacity-building efforts among our staff, local community members and local implementation partners, so that we can best avoid and respond to such problems. We are also managing the risk of corruption through the use of Zone Development Committees (ZDCs) and other BCP-supported community consultation and implementation structures (see Section G3.8 for more information about our Community Engagement Strategy). We have endeavored to create tight systems that do not leave room for manipulation or abuse, and, most importantly, by ensuring that our projects bring tangible community benefits, we have worked hard to reduce any incentives that individuals might feel to engage in destructive or corrupt activities. Another key risk mitigation strategy is the development of substantial community benefit projects and systems (conservation community covenants). Fire: In order to mitigate risks, BCP will be implementing a fire management system on Rufunsa Conservancy, in partnership with neighbouring communities, with the specific aim of preventing potentially damaging, hot, late season fires. This will be done through introducing a system of firebreaks and controlled, rotational early burns to mitigate
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 35 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
potentially devastating late season fires. Drought: An early burning fire management program will mitigate the risks that drought poses in contributing to late season fires that are potentially very damaging to vegetation. Elephants: If large numbers of elephants do start entering the project area, this risk will be mitigated by managing the population by introducing a rotational grazing system by opening and closing access to artificial water points. Natural Disasters: With a view to mitigating the risk of natural disasters, BCP’s community projects are designed to promote and build local stakeholder resilience to disasters, including the negative effects of climate change. Projects such as crop diversification, income diversification, and our conservation farming training program—which is designed to introduce improved farming techniques—are intended to mitigate the negative effects that disasters, such as the army worm pest that was declared a national emergency in 2012, do not destroy local livelihoods, and to ensure that households are more resilient in the face of changing rainfall patterns, including drought. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section G3.5 of the PDD reflects that the project meets the requirements of indicator G3.5.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator G3.6 - 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.
Maintaining HCVs is the intent of the project. Threats are identified as deforestation through farming and charcoal production. Enhanced patrols will reduce poaching if HCV animals appear on the property.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G3.6 of the PDD, as well as activities described in G3.2.
Findings: While it is clear that protection of HCVs is the thrust of the project, linking specific threats and mitigation provided by project activities has only been done for increased patrols.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 36 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Non-conformance Request (NCR): In this section, please specifically detail the ways in which project activities will serve to protect HCVs.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
Community-based activities will serve to protect HCVs through the provision of alternate source of protein (such as the village chicken project). The use of Community Covenants to link project level investments to reductions in poaching will serve as a formal deterrent to poaching within the Conservancy. The proposed ‘biodiversity banking’ scheme of sharing tourism revenues with local communities will serve as a direct incentive to maintaining HCVs. BCP’s investment in two community schools includes environmental education that serves to raise awareness amongst children about the threats of poaching. Community engagement and job creation also assists intelligence networks that are effective in obtaining information that can contribute to better patrol deployment, and identification of poaching gangs. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Updated section G3.6 of the PDD reflects that the project meets the requirements of indicator G3.6.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator G3.7 - Describe the measures that will be taken to maintain and enhance the climate, community and biodiversity benefits beyond the project lifetime.
Project is planned to become self-sustaining in the long run.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G3.7 of the PDD. Site visit.
Findings: The PDD states the project is designed to be self-sustaining, but specific evidence is not presented.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please specifically explain how the project’s goals and achievements will be able to continue after carbon funds through the project completion.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
The project aims to ensure that all project activities implemented become self-sustaining. The Rufunsa Conservancy is being geared towards eco-tourism.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 37 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
This includes exploring innovative niche tourism development, such as adventure education and guiding training. The deforestation mitigation and community development projects in the remainder of the project zone are all designed to become self-sustaining, commercially viable ventures. Some examples of this include the eco-charcoal project, conservation farming, village chickens and honey production. BCP Trust is an entity which is designed to be able to leverage donor funds which are non-carbon funds. BCP has also promoted the development and support of local institutions, such as Zone Development Committees, which are being trained and empowered to manage projects and community natural resources more effectively on their own. The BCP Trust’s long-term aims include community ownership and management of all projects; our ongoing training and capacity building efforts demonstrate this, as well as our significant community presence and heavy reliance on community-based decision-making practices. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Review of revised section G3.7 of the PDD and additional supporting documents reflects that the project meets the requirements of indicator G3.7.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator G3.8 - Document and defend how communities and other 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
Stakeholder communities were identified by their involvement in deforestation activities, like farming and charcoaling, in or near the project area, using remote sensing and on-the-ground consultation process. The project design process included:
1. Community sensitization (educate and inform)
2. Identification of potential projects. 3. Zone development committees 4. Consultation Meetings. 5. Traditional leadership involvement/support 6. Implementation with community coordinators
and officers
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 38 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
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.
7. Community engagement is in place and ongoing.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G3.8 of the PDD, Baseline Survey Report, site visit reflect that the project meets the requirements of indicator G3.8.
Findings: Indicator G3.8 has been adequately addressed. Indicator G3.9 - 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 active role in distributing key project documents to affected communities and stakeholders and hold widely publicized information meetings in relevant local or regional languages.
The PDD states that the PDD will be made available at “civic centers” around the project zone. Members of the community engagement team will distribute additional copies, and will be trained in collecting comments on it. Meetings will be held to explain the document, due to high rates of illiteracy, and to collect comments.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G3.9 of the PDD. Letters of support from various community leaders; stakeholder comments from public comment period
Findings: Stakeholders were actively participant in the CCB Public Comment period, as the validator was provided several emails detailing their positive comments. Letters of support indicate meetings took place, but PDD describes them as happening in the future.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please provide evidence for when the measures described in G3.9 occurred.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
Public PDD Launch Meetings were held in all four community zones from 19-22 March, as per the below schedule of meetings:
- 19 March: Ndubulula Zone - 20 March: Chilimba Zone
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 39 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
- 21 March: Mweeshang’ombe Zone - 22 March: Namanongo Zone
The BCP Trust Director/Human Rights Officer led each official PDD launch meeting in each zone, in which the contents of the PDD were described to the community, outlines of the PDD were provided to the community (in English and Nyanja), questions and discussions were encouraged, a copy of the PDD was publicly presented to the local Community Coordinator, and all stakeholders were encouraged to view and provide feedback on the document. The purpose of these meetings was to ensure that local community stakeholders were aware of the availability of the PDD, understood the purpose of the PDD dissemination, provided with an introduction to the content of the PDD, and encouraged to become informed of the content of the PDD—either by attending such public meetings (dates for future meetings were planned and publicly advertised), by reading outlines of the PDD (available in English and Nyanja) or by reading the PDD itself. Copies of the PDD were publicly presented to the local community (pictures confirming this handover have been provided to the Validator). Local leaders, ZDC representatives and interested community stakeholders were in attendance at these meetings, as were the BCP Community Engagement Manager and local Community Coordinator for each zone. All of these PDD launch meetings were formally “minuted” to ensure a record of the content of these meetings was maintained, in order to demonstrate compliance with the standards set by Indicator G3.9. Copies of the minuted meetings, outlining the content of these meetings, have been uploaded to Dropbox for Validation evaluation. Following the official launch meetings, the BCP Community Coordinator for each zone organized smaller and more local “follow-up” meetings at the village and zone level, to ensure widespread dissemination of information contained in the PDD (as provided in outlines available in English and
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 40 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Nyanja), to make the PDD available for public scrutiny, and to collect questions and feedback from community stakeholders. Many of the community comments that were submitted to the auditor were collected during this time. Such meetings were conducted in local languages, and were held in pre-agreed locations at times that the community identified as acceptable. Finally, the BCP Trust Director and Community Engagement Manager held formal PDD follow-up meetings throughout the first week of April (April 2-4), prior to the auditor’s arrival. In these meetings, the content of the PDD was discussed again, and community members were encouraged to provide feedback and ask questions. Throughout this process, and beginning with the official PDD launch meetings that were held in mid-March, BCP representatives raised public awareness about the upcoming Validator site-visits, and posted announcements (in English and Nyanja) about the auditor’s upcoming visits in early April. BCP Community Coordinators and ZDC representatives were instructed to invite local stakeholders from all villages to attend, and to ensure that information about the upcoming meetings was made widely available. A detailed description of the process by which information about the PDD and upcoming Validator visit was disseminated to local communities is available in the BCP Guide to Community Engagement handbook, which has been provided to the Validator. This document contains pictures of public announcements (in English and Nyanja) being posted throughout the community. Hard copies of PDD availability announcements (in English and Nyanja), outlines of the content of the PDD (in English and Nyanja) and announcements about the time and location of the Validator site-visit meetings (in English and Nyanja) were provided to the Validator. Additional copies of these documents are available upon request, and have been uploaded to
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 41 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
the Dropbox. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Hard copies of materials and revised section G3.9 of the PDD reflect that the project meets the requirements of indicator G3.9.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator G3.10 - 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 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 project proponents expect no conflicts, but a grievance mechanism is in place, and described at all community meetings and all public communications.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G3.10 of the PDD, Social Monitoring SOP, V4, Community Engagement Strategy; site visit observations
Findings: While a third-party mediator is described as part of the grievance process, none is identified.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please identify the third-party mediator, or show who played this role in any grievances received to-date.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
Section G3.10 identifies third-party mediators that would be called upon depending on the sector of grievance. This section is included here, with one clarification that the District Commissioner of Rufunsa would be the ultimate third party mediator. There have been no grievances to date.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 42 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
“In the event that community stakeholders have a serious concern or grievance about BCP’s Community Engagement Strategy, or if there is an on-going or long-lasting grievance among community stakeholders that BCP has been unable to address, BCP’s grievance mechanism allows for the involvement of a neutral third party arbitrator (including legal counsel) that will be able to clarify or resolve the grievance for either or both sides in the dispute. The preferred third party arbitrator, in the event of disputes, would be a representative from an appropriate Non-Governmental Organization with local presence in Zambia—for example, in the event of grievances concerning land, an organization that deals with land-access and/or land-rights will be involved. In the event that there is a grievance concerning food security, an organization such as the Conservation Farming Unit would be involved. In the event that the community prefers to involve local government, BCP has instructed the communities that they are welcome to bring concerns to the District government, which is headed by the Rufunsa District Commissioner. BCP has a close working relationship with local government representatives in the area of the project zone, and local District government officials have been identified as a mutually-trusted third party for both the stakeholder communities and BCP.” This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section G3.10 of the PDD reflects that the project meets the requirements of indicator G3.10.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator G3.11 - 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
The PDD states that project income is through VERs and that a financial plan will be supplied to the validator
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 43 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
biodiversity benefits. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G3.11 of the PDD.
Findings: During the site visit, the Project Proponent showed the validator the financial records and funding resources. Most of this documentation was confidential, but the validator was confident that there was an adequate flow of funds for project implementation.
G4 Management Capacity and Best Practices Indicator G4.1 - 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.
BioCarbon Partners is the project proponent. Partners include Musika Development Initiatives, who will provide an agricultural extension agent; The Conservation Farming Unit is helping to develop conservation agriculture projects; Engineers Without Borders Canada is helping with the eco-charcoal project; The US Development Programme’s African Training and Management Services Project is providing financial resources for staff training.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G4.1 of the PDD.
Findings: Indicator G4.1 has been adequately addressed. Indicator G4.2 - 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 partnered with to support the project or have a recruitment strategy to fill the gaps.
The PDD lists the management team who will implement the project, along with their qualifications.
Evidence Used to Assess Section G4.2 of the PDD. Site visit interviews
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 44 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Conformance: Findings: The qualifications detailed are more than sufficient to
show that all skills required for the success of project implementation have been achieved.
Indicator G4.3 - 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.
The PDD lists 6 training courses provided to employees, including:
• Compliance with VCS and CCBA standards for sampling and dealing with local stakeholders.
• Sustainable forest management and charcoal production.
• Forest biomass data collection • Wildlife and forest law enforcement training. • GIS, remote sensing and GPS use. • Principles of deforestation, climate change
REDD and BCP’s model.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G4.3 of the PDD, Social monitoring SOPs, biomass sampling SOP.
Findings: While the training classes are explained, and some are backed by SOP documents, there is no information regarding subsequent training, or how new staff will be trained. No information regarding outreach to underrepresented groups was located.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please explain how training will be passed on to new workers and underrepresented groups, as stated in indicator G4.3.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
Training is provided to new BCP employees and project participants at the time of their recruitment/beginning of involvement with BCP projects. The BCP Guide to Community Engagement handbook (which was provided to the Validator in hard copy during her site visit, and which has been uploaded to Dropbox) contains a detailed description of the training that members of BCP’s Community Engagement Team receive, as well as an outline of BCP’s overall Community Sensitization and Consultation process and Zone Development Committee formation and development process. This
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 45 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
handbook also provides a detailed description of the project launch and training process for the Village Chicken Project, which is representative of the way that BCP Trust launches all of its community projects—project participants are provided with initial training and regular follow-up, to allow them to manage and monitor their project participation, with the support of BCP’s Community Engagement Team staff. As BCP’s Guide to Community Engagement and SOP Concerning Community Engagement describe, BCP staff and project participants receive regular and ongoing training that is intended to promote local involvement in and ownership of projects, as well as to build local capacity and promote self-sustaining projects that benefit from local knowledge and oversight. BCP is an “Equal Opportunity Employer,” as our Community Engagement SOPs, HR Policy, and PDD describe. We endeavor to include women, minorities, and impoverished households in our projects, with an aim to achieving holistic community empowerment and development. Our Eco-Charcoal Project, for example, has targeted charcoal-dependent households (“the poorest of the poor,” as our Baseline Survey data demonstrates) for participation. Currently, 8 of the 15 participants in this project (53%) are women. Similarly, the Village Chicken Project and Conservation Farming Training project have targeted women and youths for inclusion—we aim for 30% of all project beneficiaries to be women, as per our own internal standards. New BCP staff members are provided with relevant training, which has been designed by relevant staff members. Members of BCP’s community-based Plot Team, for example, have received training from senior managers (including BCP’s Carbon Accounting Manager), and have access to handbooks and SOPs that have been specifically created to provide on-going information and training for employees. Similar hands-on trainings and specially designed training programs have been developed for BCP’s Forest Protection Officers (“Scouts”), as well
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 46 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
as our Community Engagement Team. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section G4.3 of the PDD reflects that the project meets the requirements of indicator G4.3.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator G4.4 - 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 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.
The PDD states that BCP first seeks to hire from the project zone, and only seeks employees beyond the zone when suitable local employees are not found. Job descriptions are physically distributed and announced in local languages at community meetings. Help is provided to applicants unable to read and write. BCP staff members are “required to ensure that information about employment opportunities is clearly disseminated to members of all community groups.” At least one management position is held by a woman from the Tonga ethnic group (immigrant to the area). The eco-charcoal project targets marginalized, charcoal producers, who are quite poor, according to community survey data.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G4.4 of the PDD, site visit
Findings: Indicator G4.4 has been adequately addressed. Indicator G4.5 - 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
Three relevant laws are listed: • The Employment Act (CAP.268) • Minimum Waged and Conditions of
BCP’s professional HR and administration management team ensures strict compliance, and the project meets or exceeds all applicable laws.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 47 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
compliance is achieved. BCP sees its treatment of workers as important incentives to attract and retain good employees.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G4.5 of the PDD
Findings: Indicator G4.5 has been adequately addressed. Indicator G4.6 - 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.
Safety risks include those faced by scouts during anti-poaching patrols, from poachers or animals. Scouts have exceptional bush knowledge, and are managed and trained by two professional hunters (Rufus and Kirchner) with extensive wildlife management and anti-poaching experience. Scouts receive firearm safety and arrest training from government approved trainers. They have specific rules of engagement to reduce risks from armed poachers. Fire management also has risks, and will be under the management of Rufus and Kirchner. Other participants are not employees of the project, but are experienced in their work, and do not face new risks. They will be provided with safety clothing, gloves and boots. Safety training will be provided. Another risk is in vehicle use. Drivers must sign a comprehensive vehicle policy, which sets safety standards.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G4.6 of the PDD; site visit
Findings: Indicator G4.6 depicts the risks and relevant mitigation; during the site visit, one of the workers requested additional safety equipment, such as mosquito nets and hygiene products.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please ensure all field crews are allotted proper safety equipment or demonstrate how this has already been achieved.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
The Ndubulula Eco-Charcoal Association has been equipped already with the following safety equipment: 1. Safety boots;
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 48 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
1. Protective full-length work uniforms; 2. Full length leather protective gloves; 3. Face masks. The Field Plot Team has been issued with the following safety equipment: 2. Work boots; 3. Protective full-length work uniforms; 4. Reflective safety vests; 5. ID Cards to reduce risks when encountering armed anti-poaching patrols or poaching gangs; 6. Communications equipment; 7. Modern mosquito proof tents; 8. First aid kit. Forest scouts have been issued the following safety equipment: 1. Work boots; 2. Protective full-length work uniforms; 3. Cold weather gear (clothing and sleeping bags); 4. Mosquito proof tents; 5. First aid kit; 6. Communications equipment (VHF radios); 7. GPS Navigation equipment; 8. Headgear. 9. Military style rucksacks designed to carry loads safely. Additional safety equipment will be procured for field crews. These will be identified through regular team meetings. Vehicles are strictly maintained and equipped with all legally mandated safety equipment such as fire extinguishers. Motorcycle riders are required to wear project-issued helmets and boots at all time. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section G4.6 of the PDD reflects that the project meets the requirements of indicator G4.6, to be further reviewed during CCB verification.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 49 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Indicator G4.7 - Document the financial health of the implementing organization(s) to demonstrate that financial resources budgeted will be adequate to implement the project.
The PDD states that BioCarbon Partners is a Mauritius registered company in good standing, and says that the corporate laws of Mauritius ensures the company remains financially solvent and able to meet liabilities. The project has so far been financed by private and grant financing.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G4.7 of the PDD; site visit document review
Findings: PDD points to copies of grant and shareholder agreements to prove funding. These documents were provided to the validator during the site visit.
G5 Legal Status and Property Rights Indicator G5.1 - 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.
The PDD lists and describes the following relevant laws: Environmental Management Act No. 12 of 2011 Mining and Minerals Development Act (No. 7 of 2008) Zambia Wildlife Act No. 12 of 1998 Water Resource Management Act Forest Act, 1999 Zambia Tourism and Hospitality Act No. 24 of 2007 National Heritage Conservation Commission Act No. 23 of 1989 Labour and Social Security The Employment Act (CAP. 268) Minimum Wages and Conditions of Employment Act (CAP. 276) (Statutory Instruments (SI) no. 2 & 3) SI No. 46 of 2012 and the General Order, 2011 Industrial and Labour Relations Act (CAP. 269) The Land Acquisition Act, Chapter 189 of the Laws of Zambia The Lands Act, Chapter 184 of the Laws of Zambia The PDD states it will fully comply with these laws.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G5.1 of the PDD, site visit.
Findings: Indicator G5.1 has been adequately addressed. Indicator G5.2 - Document that the project has approval from the
The PDD provides letters of support from the Chongwe District Council, Chief Bunda-Bunda,
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 50 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
appropriate authorities, including the established formal and/or traditional authorities customarily required by the communities.
village headmen in all four parts of the project zone, Zambia Department of Forestry and a letter from ZEMA, exempting the project from EIA
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G5.2 of the PDD, Appendices C, D, E, F and H of the PDD; stakeholder discussions during site visit
Findings: Indicator G5.2 has been adequately addressed. Indicator G5.3 - 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.
The PDD states that the project takes place on private property with the full consent of the owner, and there is an easement transferring carbon rights to the project proponent from the landowner. The project developer sought and received consent from communities in the project zone, although it is not required by law, according to the FPIC process. Thirty three informational meetings within the project zone were conducted. 2,110 participants attended, in total. Information was presented in local languages, particularly Nyanja. The project is not on government land and will not encroach on government property.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G5.3 of the PDD, letters of consent from local leaders; site visit
Findings: Copy of easement between the landowners and the BCP provided on 15 April 2013 reflects that the project meets the requirements of indicator G5.3.
Indicator G5.4 - 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
No one is living on project lands. Some illegal charcoalers and farmers are living on a part of the conservancy land, but it was removed from the project, and the people will not be involuntarily relocated. The project developers have consulted with all these households.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 51 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
provisions for just and fair compensation. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G5.4 of the PDD; site visit
Findings: Although Indicator G5.4 states that no one lives on the project lands, it appeared from the site visit that there may be a farmer (Josam Chiyakamba) living on or very near the boundary of the project area.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please clarify if the farmer does in fact live on land within the actual project area. If so, please demonstrate how Indicator G5.4 will be met throughout the project.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
The farmer does live within the project area; however, he will not be relocated. Mr. Chiyakamba will be allowed to maintain his residence within the project area, with no fear of relocation, so long as he does not contribute to new deforestation in the project area. We have already discussed this arrangement with him, and both sides believe it will be acceptable and possible to agree to this arrangement, which will be signed by both parties.
As an already successful farmer and a leader in our CFTP, BCP will work closely with Mr. Chiyakamba to ensure he is able to maintain his livelihood without clearing new fields inside the project area. Mr. Chiyakamba’s household located within the project area is one of his four households located in the project zone, he has already cleared sufficient fields for farming, and he does not engage in charcoal production (data from his baseline survey confirm this). It is therefore anticipated that Mr. Chiyakamba will be able to maintain his lifestyle, even if he agrees not to deforest around his household within the project area—this will not be a significant change or sacrifice on his part.
Furthermore, BCP Trust has targeted Mr. Chiyakamba and his household for project-derived benefits; Mr. Chiyakamba is one of the lead farmers in BCP’s Conservation Farming Training Program, his house in Mweeshang’ombe village is the site of a Village Chicken Project, and as the Chairman of the
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 52 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
PTA he is channeling BCP Trust benefits to the local school. From the beginning of our involvement in Mweeshang’ombe Zone in early 2012, Mr. Chiyakamba has actively participated in and supported BCP activities—his name is documented on numerous attendance sheets from formal meetings and trainings. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised Section G5.4 of the PDD and site visit confirms the requirements of G5.4 will be met.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator G5.5 - 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.
The PDD identifies illegal charcoal production and poaching as taking place in the project zone and area. The eco-charcoal project is specifically developed to reduce illegal charcoal production, and increase earnings from legally produced charcoal. Scout patrols will also deter illegal charcoaling activities. Poaching will be reduced through scout patrols, developing other employment opportunities for locals, and promoting eco-tourism.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G5.5 of the PDD and site visit
Findings: Indicator G5.5 has been adequately addressed. Indicator G5.6 - 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
The PDD states that while Zambia doesn’t have specific laws dealing with carbon rights, the landowner has rights to above and below ground biomass, and the Forest Act establishes the licensing and sale of forests, and the participation of local communities and NGOs in forest management. Easements are also permitted. A “carbon rights covenant” was signed between the landowner and the project proponent.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 53 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
any transactions concerning the project’s carbon assets. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section G5.6 of the PDD, site visit; Signed_CRC_Rufunsa_FINAL.pdf
Findings: Carbon covenant document sent on 15 April 2013.
CL1 Net Positive Climate Impacts Indicator CL1.1 - 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 of carbon stocks over the duration of the project or the project GHG accounting period.
The PDD states that the project will prevent the emissions of 9,611,864 tCO2e over 30 years.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CL1.1 of the PDD.
Findings: Although this will be further vetted during VCS Validation, the project is utilizing appropriate methods to quantify the total carbon stocks.
Indicator CL1.2 - 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 PDD states that the net reduction in non-CO2 GHG emissions is estimated to be 134,053 tCO2e over the lifespan of the project.
Evidence Used to Assess Section CL1.2 of the PDD
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 54 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Conformance: Findings: Although this will be further vetted during VCS
Validation, the project is utilizing appropriate methods to quantify the total non-carbon stocks
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.
Other non-CO2 emissions from the project are negligible, coming only from 3 or 4 light work vehicles and will account for less than 1% of emissions. Emissions from eco-charcoal production are accounted for in section G2.3 (emissions from biomass burning). These emissions will be less than the biomass burning that would occur in the absence of the project. Synthetic fertilizer use will be discouraged.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CL1.3 of the PDD.
Findings: Although this will be further vetted during VCS Validation, the project is utilizing appropriate methods to quantify the total other emissions.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please check the spelling of “emissions” in first sentence. Please demonstrate the 1% assumption, including any other vehicles used for the project transportation, chainsaw usage, etc.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
• Emissions have been correctly spelled in the first sentence.
• All fuel use since the beginning of this project averages 770 liters of diesel per month. Some vehicles (allometry chainsaw, motorcycles, and one vehicle) use higher grade gasoline but to be conservative all emissions were quantified using diesel as a unit. Annual emissions from all fuel use calculated from management accounts (with payment vouchers as supporting documentation) amounts to 24.96tCO2e/yr. This is less than 1%.
This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section CL1.3 of the PDD and calculations reflect that the project meets the requirements of
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 55 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
indicator CL1.3. Date Closed: 24 May 2013
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).
The PDD states the net climate impact is a reduction in GHG emissions equal to 9,611,864 tCO2e over 30 years.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CL1.4 of the PDD.
Findings: Although this will be further vetted during VCS Validation, the project is utilizing appropriate and conservative methods to quantify the total carbon stocks.
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.
Zambia has no emissions cap. The project will be registered under VCS, which will prevent double counting.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CL1.5 of the PDD
Findings: The information provided is sufficient to satisfy Indicator CL1.5.
CL2 Offsite Climate Impacts (“Leakage”) Indicator CL2.1 - Determine the types of leakage that are expected and estimate potential offsite increases in GHGs (increases in emissions or decreases in sequestration) due to project activities. Where relevant, define and justify where leakage is most likely to take place.
The only type of leakage identified is activity shifting leakage of charcoal production and agricultural conversion. Mitigation measures are explained, and those activities are expected to prevent leakage.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CL2.1 of the PDD
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 56 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Findings: Leakage types have been sufficiently detailed. Indicator CL2.2 - Document how any leakage will be mitigated and estimate the extent to which such impacts will be reduced by these mitigation activities.
The project is designed to increase charcoal production several-fold, using eco-charcoal techniques, so leakage for charcoal burning should not occur. Farming techniques, using already cleared land will be taught in local communities. A leakage monitoring system has been established.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CL2.2 and CL2.1 of the PDD
Findings: The project activities, specifically eco-charcoaling, will sufficiently mitigate the potential for leakage.
Indicator CL2.3 - Subtract any likely project-related unmitigated negative offsite climate impacts from the climate benefits being claimed by the project and demonstrate that this has been included in the evaluation of net climate impact of the project (as calculated in CL1.4).
No negative impacts are expected.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CL2.3 of the PDD; site visit
Findings: No negative impacts are expected, which conforms to the validator’s field observations.
Indicator CL2.4 - Non-CO2 gases must be included if they are likely to account for more than a 5% increase or decrease (in terms of CO2-equivalent) of the net change calculations (above) of the project’s overall off-site GHG emissions reductions or removals over each monitoring period.
None are expected
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CL2.4 of the PDD; site visit
Findings: No unmitigated non-carbon emissions are expected, which conforms to the validator’s field observations.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 57 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
CL3 Climate Impact Monitoring Indicator CL3.1 - Develop an initial plan for selecting carbon pools and non-CO2 GHGs to be monitored, and determine the frequency of monitoring. Potential pools include aboveground biomass, litter, dead wood, belowground biomass, wood products, soil carbon and peat. Pools to monitor must include any pools expected to decrease as a result of project activities, including those in the region outside the project boundaries resulting from all types of leakage identified in CL2. A plan must be in place to continue leakage monitoring for at least five years after all activity displacement or other leakage causing activity has taken place. Individual GHG sources may be considered ‘insignificant’ and do not have to be accounted for if together such omitted decreases in carbon pools and increases in GHG emissions amount to less than 5% of the total CO2-equivalent benefits generated by the project. 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. Direct field measurements using scientifically robust sampling must be used to measure more significant elements of the project’s carbon stocks. Other data must be suitable to the project site and specific forest type.
The monitoring plan includes the following carbon pools (as per VM0009): 1. Above Ground Other Trees (AGOT). Above
Ground Merchantable Trees were not considered as commercial and illegal logging for long-lived wood products are not considered a deforestation threat to the project area. Wood Products were therefore excluded as a carbon pool.
2. Below Ground Biomass (BGB) 3. Standing Dead Wood (SD) 4. Lying Dead Wood (LD) 5. Above Ground Non-Tree (AGNT) which
included shrubs/saplings but not herbaceous biomass
6. Below Ground Non-Tree (BGNT) 7. Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) Fuel consumption will be recorded, but is not expected to be greater than 5% of total emissions reductions. No significant emissions from livestock or fertilizer. Plots have been identified and a schedule for sampling is in place.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CL3.1 of the PDD, REDD+ Field Based Carbon Stock Assessment Field Manual
Findings: Section CL3.1 has been adequately addressed.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 58 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Indicator CL3.2 - Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months of the project start date or within twelve months of validation against the Standards and to disseminate this plan and the results of monitoring, ensuring that they are made publicly available on the internet and are communicated to the communities and other stakeholders.
The PDD states that the project proponent will submit a full monitoring plan within 12 months of validation, and results will be made publically available.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CL3.2 of the PDD.
Findings: Indicator CL3.2 has been adequately addressed.
CM1 Net Positive Community Impacts Indicator CM1.1 - Use appropriate methodologies to estimate the impacts on communities, including all constituent socio-economic or cultural groups such as indigenous peoples (defined in G1), resulting from planned project activities. A credible estimate of impacts must include changes in community well-being due to project activities and an evaluation of the impacts by the affected groups. This estimate must be based on clearly defined and defendable assumptions about how project activities will alter social and economic well-being, including potential impacts of changes in natural resources and ecosystem services identified as important by the communities (including water and soil resources), over the duration of the project. The ‘with project’ scenario must then be compared with the ‘without project’ scenario of social and economic well-being in the absence of the project (completed in G2). The difference (i.e., the
The project activities were designed with the dual purposes of improving the livelihoods of the local people while reducing/preventing deforestation. Project activities were chosen with the input of local communities. A table of the project activities, along with assumed impacts is provided. All predict positive impacts, with the possibility of no impact from the sustainable honey production activity, which may fail if “forest resources are not intact enough in communal areas of the project zone.”
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 59 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
community benefit) must be positive for all community groups. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CM1.1 of the PDD, Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project Baseline Survey Report, pp. 41 – 45.
Findings: Indicator CM1.1 has been adequately addressed. Indicator CM1.2 - Demonstrate that no High Conservation Values identified in G1.8.4-6 will be negatively affected by the project.
Project activities are designed to protect and enhance HCVs, and cannot reasonably be expected to be detrimental to them.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Sections CM1.2 and G3.2 of the PDD.
Findings: Indicator CM1.2 has been adequately addressed.
CM2 Offsite Stakeholder Impacts Indicator CM2.1 - Identify any potential negative offsite stakeholder impacts that the project activities are likely to cause.
The PDD states the project will not have negative offsite stakeholder impacts, and that the positive benefits will likely extend beyond the project zone. The higher production of charcoal via eco-charcoal methods is mentioned as likely to attract attention by outsiders.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Sections CM2.1 and G3.2 of the PDD.
Findings: Indicator CM2.1 has been adequately addressed. Indicator CM2.2 - Describe how the project plans to mitigate these negative offsite social and economic impacts.
The PDD states that no negative offsite community impacts are expected, but the project grievance mechanism will continue to be in effect, and representatives will respond within 30 days.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CM2.2 of the PDD
Findings: Indicator CM2.2 has been adequately addressed. Indicator CM2.3 - Demonstrate that the project is not likely to result in net negative impacts on the well-being of other stakeholder groups.
The PDD states that no stakeholder groups, inside or outside the project zone will be negatively impacted by the project.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Sections CM2.3 and G3.2 of the PDD.
Findings: Due to the nature of the project, negative impacts are highly unlikely. Indicator CM2.3 has been adequately addressed.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 60 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
CM3 Community Impact Monitoring Indicator CM3.1 - Develop an initial plan for selecting community variables to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring and reporting to ensure that monitoring variables are directly linked to the project’s community development objectives and to anticipated impacts (positive and negative).
The project’s baseline community survey will be used. The same households will be surveyed repeatedly through the project’s life. Additional households will be added during each repeat survey. The PDD lists the parameters that will be monitored, on a biennial basis. Indicators will also be measured to assess the effectiveness of project activities on improving the well-being of stakeholders. A table is provided, explaining the parameters to be measured for each project activity.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CM3.1 of the PDD, Social Monitoring Program SOP, Project Baseline Survey Report.
Findings: Indicator CM3.1 has been adequately addressed. Indicator CM3.2 - Develop an initial plan for how they will assess the effectiveness of measures used to maintain or enhance High Conservation Values related to community well-being (G1.8.4-6) present in the project zone.
The PDD states that the two HCVs identified (areas fundamental to meeting basic needs and areas critical to local communities’ cultural identity) will be monitored in interview questions as part of community survey monitoring. The questions that are to be asked are provided.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CM3.2 of the PDD.
Findings: The PDD adequately addresses the two HCVs mentioned in section CM3.2, but not the HCV mentioned in section G1.8.4: the perennial rivers.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please address whether the effects of project activities on the flow of the perennial rivers will be monitored, and if so, explain.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
The project proponent will monitor the flow of rivers periodically (dry and wet season) to ensure that the stated conservation of HCV is being met. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section CM3.2 of the PDD reflects that the project meets the requirements of indicator CM3.2;
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 61 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
this will be further confirmed in verification events. Date Closed: 24 May 2013
Indicator CM3.3 - Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months of the project start date or within twelve months of validation against the Standards and to disseminate this plan and the results of monitoring, ensuring that they are made publicly available on the internet and are communicated to the communities and other stakeholders.
The PDD states the project proponent will develop a full monitoring plan within 12 months of validation, and to disseminate the plan and the results of monitoring to key stakeholders.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section CM3.3 of the PDD.
Findings: Indicator CM3.3 has been adequately addressed.
B1 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts Indicator B1.1 - Use appropriate methodologies to estimate changes in biodiversity as a result of the project in the project zone and in the project lifetime. This estimate must be based on clearly defined and defendable assumptions. The ‘with project’ scenario should then be compared with the baseline ‘without project’ biodiversity scenario completed in G2. The difference (i.e., the net biodiversity benefit) must be positive.
The PDD lists the biodiversity benefits expected to occur and that “appropriate methodologies to estimate changes in biodiversity will be implemented,” and lists scout-based monitoring, use of GIS and regular plot sampling to detect invasive species.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section B1.1 of the PDD.
Findings: Measures to monitor biodiversity appear to be written in the future tense in the PDD.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Although the PDD lists appropriate methodologies to monitor biodiversity in the future, please outline what has specifically occurred already to estimate changes in biodiversity.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
Community-based scout teams patrolling jointly with ZAWA have been trained to collect spatial data using GPS of wildlife sightings such as medium to large
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 62 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
mammals and HCV species. This data has begun to be mapped monthly to inform adaptive management based on wildlife movements. Previously, scouts collected sighting data using paper data sheets. In addition to scouts, management collect sightings information while moving around the conservancy. Already recoveries and breeding of certain species are being noted thanks to improved protection afforded by the project. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: The validator reviewed many of the scouts’ data sheets during the field visit. Revised section B1.2 of the PDD further details the requirements.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 Indicator B1.2 - Demonstrate that no High Conservation Values identified in G1.8.1-3 will be negatively affected by the project.
The PDD states that there will be no negative impacts on biodiversity or habitat. One of the main aims of the project is to enhance and conserve biodiversity.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Sections B1.2 and G1.8 of the PDD.
Findings: The statement in section B1.2 addresses the HCVs described for G1.8.1.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please also specifically address the HCV that fits G1.8.2 – part of a strategic landscape.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:
There will be no threats to the strategic landscape. The project is specifically designed to conserve Rufunsa Conservancy and this will have subsequent benefits to the larger landscape by protecting boundaries of two important protected areas namely the Lower Zambezi National Park and the Chiawa Game Management Area. It is in fact designed to prevent potential deforestation in Chiawa GMA which has been identified as a potential leakage area. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section B1.2 of the PDD reflects that the project meets the requirements of indicator B1.2.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 63 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Indicator B1.3 - Identify all species to be used by the project and show that no known invasive species will be introduced into any area affected by the project and that the population of any invasive species will not increase as a result of the project.
The PDD lists the following non-native species that will be used in project activities: Zea mays Cajanus cajan Mangifera indica Carica papaya Moringa oleifera Faidherbia albida Trichilia emetica None are listed as invasive species for Zambia on the Global Invasive Species Database.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Sections B1.3 and B1.4 of the PDD, Global Invasive Species Database.
Findings: Indicator B1.3 has been adequately addressed. Indicator B1.4 - Describe possible adverse effects of non-native species used by the project on the region’s environment, including impacts on native species and disease introduction or facilitation. Project proponents must justify any use of non-native species over native species
The list of non-native species includes no invasive ones. No species will be used that is not already cultivated in Zambia. No land will be cleared of native vegetation and planted to non-native trees or crops. Orchards will be confined to settled areas. Some of the non-native species used are promoted by the forestry service.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Sections B1.3 and B1.4 of the PDD; site visit
Findings: Indicator B1.4 has been adequately addressed. Indicator B1.5 - Guarantee that no GMOs will be used to generate GHG emissions reductions or removals.
The PDD states, “We guarantee that no GMOs will be used to generate GHG emissions reductions or removals.”
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section B1.5 of the PDD.
Findings: Indicator B1.5 has been adequately addressed.
B2 Offsite Biodiversity Impacts Indicator B2.1 - Identify potential negative offsite biodiversity impacts that the project is likely to cause.
No potential negative offsite biodiversity impacts have been identified. The project activities are likely to have positive impacts.
Evidence Used to Assess Section B2.1 of the PDD, the project activities
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 64 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Conformance: described throughout the document. Findings: Indicator B2.1 has been adequately addressed.
Indicator B2.2 - Document how the project plans to mitigate these negative offsite biodiversity impacts.
None are expected, but a biodiversity monitoring is expected to pick up any problems, so that management can adapt to address any negative impacts.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Sections B2.1 and B2.2 of the PDD.
Findings: Indicator B2.2 has been adequately addressed. Indicator B2.3 - Evaluate likely unmitigated negative offsite biodiversity impacts against the biodiversity benefits of the project within the project boundaries. Justify and demonstrate that the net effect of the project on biodiversity is positive.
No negative impacts are expected. A biodiversity monitoring plan will alert the project proponent of negative impacts. The project team will work closely with stakeholders to deal with unforeseen impacts. All impacts are expected to be strongly positive.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section B2.3 of the PDD.
Findings: Indicator B2.3 has been adequately addressed.
B3 Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Indicator B3.1 - Develop an initial plan for selecting biodiversity variables to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring and reporting to ensure that monitoring variables are directly linked to the project’s biodiversity objectives and to anticipated impacts (positive and negative).
The PDD presents an initial plan of selected biodiversity variables in table form, including reports of illegal activities, as well as reports that count species in direct and indirect ways. The reporting frequency will be every two years. A full plan is being developed.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section B3.1 of the PDD.
Findings: Indicator B3.1 has been adequately addressed. Indicator B3.2 - Develop an initial plan for assessing the effectiveness of measures used to maintain or enhance High Conservation Values related to globally, regionally or nationally significant biodiversity (G1.8.1-3)
The PDD states that there will be “regular HCV monitoring.” It involves daily scout patrols to monitor HCV species. Remote sensing and plot sampling will be used to monitor landscape level HCVs.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 65 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
present in the project zone. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section B3.2 of the PDD.
Findings: The measures proposed constitute a preliminary plan, with intentions of developing a more robust plan. Indicator B3.2 has been adequately addressed.
Indicator B3.3 - Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months of the project start date or within twelve months of validation against the Standards and to disseminate this plan and the results of monitoring, ensuring that they are made publicly available on the internet and are communicated to the communities and other stakeholders.
The PDD states, “We commit to developing a monitoring plan within twelve months of validation and make it publicly available to both the local communities and stakeholders, and publicly available on the Internet.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section B3.3 of the PDD.
Findings: Indicator B3.3 has been adequately addressed.
Gold Level Section GL1 Climate Change Adaptation Benefits Indicator GL1.1 - Identify likely regional climate change and climate variability scenarios and impacts, using available studies, and identify potential changes in the local land-use scenario due to these climate change scenarios in the absence of the project.
Using the UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles, the PDD states mean annual temperatures are expected to increase by 1.5 to 5.5oC by 2090, and rainfall patterns are expected to change. A larger proportion of total rainfall is expected to occur in heavy events. Annual totals are not expected to change very much. Zambia weather is very sensitive to El Nino and La Nina currents, but models disagree on how climate change will affect these phenomena. In summary, temperatures are expected to increase over the course of the project, and rainfall to be more erratic. Deforestation pressure would likely increase from charcoal production, and poaching for subsistence would increase due to failed crops in the absence of the project.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 66 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section GL1.1 of the PDD, UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles, Zambia.
Findings: Indicator GL1.1 has been adequately addressed. Indicator GL1.2 - Identify any risks to the project’s climate, community and biodiversity benefits resulting from likely climate change and climate variability impacts and explain how these risks will be mitigated.
Increased temperatures, longer dry periods and heavier rainfall events may require project activities to adapt, and developing suitable management strategies as change arrives is part of the project plan. Risks and associated mitigation include:
• Crop failure due to increased temperature and variable precipitation pattern increase the likelihood of subsistence poaching and increased charcoaling for income. Conservation farming practices and additional drought resistant cash crops, as well as increased planting of fruit trees are expected to “buffer local agents” from environmental change by diversifying their livelihoods.
• Fire, as a result of longer dry seasons and higher temperatures, will reduce production of re-growth from the Miombo woodlands, and/or change the season of the year when the most regrowth occurs. (Re-growth is key to eco-charcoal production.) While Miombo woodlands are fire adapted, harvesting for eco-charcoal production at the wrong time can interfere with re-growth. The project proponent will monitor conditions and alter harvesting schedules, as needed.
• Death of tree seedlings due to reduced availability of moisture would affect the project activity involving planting abandoned fields back to forest or fruit trees. A key project activity involves refurbishing old boreholes to increase water availability. This will also provide for the use of groundwater to sustain seedlings during the longer dry seasons.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section GL1.2 of the PDD, site visit.
Findings: Indicator GL1.2 has been adequately addressed.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 67 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Indicator GL1.3 - Demonstrate that current or anticipated climate changes are having or are likely to have an impact on the well-being of communities and/or the conservation status of biodiversity in the project zone and surrounding regions.
The subsistence farmers in the project zone usually produce just enough for themselves and their families, and raise chickens and goats for extra income, or practice charcoaling. Predicted climate change of prolonged dry periods and rainfall arriving in fewer, more intense episodes is almost certain to have a negative effect on their well-being by reducing agricultural production. Failed crops mean people will resort to more poaching and traditional charcoaling trying to make up for shortfalls, reducing wildlife populations and habitat. Reduction of seasonal water availability will also harm wildlife.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section GL1.3 of the PDD, UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles, Zambia; site visit demonstrated that the farmers had already seen an unusual lack of rain this season and attributed to climate change
Findings: Indicator GL1.3 has been adequately addressed. Indicator GL1.4 - Demonstrate that the project activities will assist communities53 and/or biodiversity to adapt to the probable impacts of climate change.
Project activities are aimed at improving the livelihoods of the local people by diversifying crops grown (up from monoculture) and diversifying income and market opportunities. Key activities include:
• Eco-charcoal production will increase the efficiency of charcoaling by several-fold, and is sustainable without clearing forest. It will reduce or end illegal traditional charcoaling in the project area, saving habitat and biomass.
• Eco-tourism is envisioned once management practices on the conservancy lands are in place, providing an additional source of revenue. Part of this activity includes improving water availability for wildlife, to increase viewing opportunities.
• Fire management will assist biodiversity by reducing the destructiveness of late season fires.
• Conservation agriculture will diversify crops and increase yields by better utilizing soil moisture, potentially allowing for surplus to be sold for cash.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 68 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
• Reforestation through the tree nurseries will help diversify income as well as increase biomass.
• Improved Educational opportunities will likely uplift local communities in the long run, providing opportunities for people to leave the world of subsistence agriculture.
• Improved livestock production by introducing improved chickens will diversify household income sources and provide a buffer against crop failure.
• The honey production activity will provide another source of income, and provide an additional buffer in case of poor crops due to weather conditions.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section GL1.4 of the PDD reflects that the project meets the requirements of indicator GL1.4.
Findings: Indicator GL1.4 has been adequately addressed.
GL2 Exceptional Community Benefits Indicator GL2.1 - Demonstrate that the project zone is in a low human development country OR in an administrative area of a medium or high human development country in which at least 50% of the population of that area is below the national poverty line.
Zambia is a “least developed country” according to the WTO, with estimates that about 68.5% of the population lives below the poverty line of $1.25/person/day. The project’s own survey found 88% of households in the project zone live below this line.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section GL2.1 of the PDD, UNDP Human Development Report 2013, Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project Baseline Survey Report.
Findings: Indicator GL2.1 has been adequately addressed. Indicator GL2.2 - Demonstrate that at least 50% of households within the lowest category of well-being (e.g., poorest quartile) of the community are likely to benefit substantially from the project.
The PDD states that since 88% of the population is below the poverty line, it is safe to assume the project will benefit the poorest of the poor. The intentions of the project are clear to local communities, and as the project proceeds, the project proponents and community leaders will ensure that poorest households are targeted.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section GL2.2 of the PDD.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 69 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Findings: While there is little doubt that many people below the poverty line would benefit from this project, the indicator requires that it be demonstrated that the poorest 50% of the people in the community are likely to benefit.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please address this indicator toward the lower 50% stratum of the community, rather than just people below the poverty line. Please justify the response with supporting documentation.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project proponent response/actions: BCP’s Social Monitoring Program requires that we
complete regular overall (baseline) surveys of the stakeholders living within the project zone, as well as project-specific surveys for all participants (see BCP’s Social Monitoring Program SOP, for more information). This data will allow us to assess how participating households compare with the rest of the overall stakeholder community—i.e.: we will be able to identify whether or not participating households fall within the poorest 50% of the community, based on the extensive social data that we regularly collect.
Projects supported by BCP are designed to address the local drivers of deforestation, which include high levels of poverty and high dependency on charcoal production as a source of income. As such, BCP’s livelihood improvement projects—such as the Eco-Charcoal Project, Village Chicken Project, and other alternative livelihood projects—will be automatically geared toward uplifting the poorest households and reducing dependency on unsustainable deforestation for charcoal production. Our baseline survey has clearly identified charcoal production as an activity undertaken by the poorest households in the community; this finding has been confirmed by numerous interviews with local charcoal producers, who argue that they dislike charcoal production because it involves hard labor and there is very minimal income, and claim they would stop producing charcoal if they only had a viable alternative. Since all of BCP’s community projects are designed as deforestation mitigation activities (as opposed to “mere” community development or livelihood improvement projects), this link between
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 70 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
reducing deforestation and participant benefits from BCP projects must be made clear, for example, through our use of innovative community covenants. As such, our community projects are specifically targeted at involving, providing alternatives to, and improving the condition of those households that are currently the poorest and most dependent on charcoal production in the stakeholder community living within the project zone for the Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project. Data collected through our Social Monitoring Program will be used to demonstrate that we are achieving our aims to do so, and that we are thereby complying with the criteria listed under Indicator GL2.2. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Findings: Revised section GL2.2 of the PDD. Non-conformance Request (NCR): Although future monitoring may quantitatively prove
at least 50% of households within the lowest category of well-being of the community are likely to benefit substantially from the project, this is a metric that must be shown at initial project validation in order to qualify for gold level benefits. Please show how the project meets this metric currently.
Date Issued: 30 May 2013 Evidence Used to Close NCR: The PDD was updated on May 31st, 2013 with the
following information regarding poverty and metrics: BCP’s Community Engagement Strategy SOP clearly describes how BCP’s projects are designed to benefit entire communities, and to address the related problems of poverty and deforestation in a holistic way. In so doing, our projects are specifically designed to include and benefit the poorest members of communities, as these are precisely the households that have been identified as ‘most dependent’ upon deforestation-dependent livelihoods. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques identified that households that engage in charcoal production are in the 50% of households within the lowest category of well-being. Because our projects are designed to provide viable alternatives to households that are currently dependent upon
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 71 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
livelihood activities that result in deforestation, our projects are targeted to inherently benefit “the poorest of the poor” in our stakeholder communities, since deforestation-dependent activities are most commonly and most seriously undertaken by those who are in the lowest category of well-being. For example, charcoal production is uniquely undertaken by the absolute poorest of the poor: charcoal production involves backbreaking labor and results in minimal payment (in some cases, producers must accept “payment in kind,” which is often paid in local brew). As numerous stakeholders have explained to us, charcoal production is a “last resort” activity; no one who has a viable option or alternative will engage in charcoal production. Since BCP’s projects are designed to address and reduce such activities, specifically unsustainable charcoal production within the Project Zone for the Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project, our projects are de-facto designed to include and benefit those households that are in the lowest category of wellbeing; certainly those that are among the poorest 50% of the community, since those are the households that have no other options, financially or socially. As part of BCP’s Social Monitoring Program, BCP’s Baseline Survey gathered critical socio-economic data from a representative sample of the community stakeholders living within the Project Zone. From the data that was collected, BCP has calculated that an estimated 88% of community stakeholders live below the international poverty line (of $1.25 USD per day). The median household income according to Baseline Survey data was 3,240 KR ($632 USD), meaning that from a purely financial definition of poverty, the ‘lowest 50%’ of households could be identified as those who report income lower than this amount. As BCP’s Social Monitoring Program SOP describes data collected through our rigorous on-going Social Monitoring Program will easily allow us to identify those poorest households living within our Project Zone, and to track and monitor their involvement in BCP projects and the impacts that these projects have on their livelihoods.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 72 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
However, it is certainly more accurate and reflective to define “poverty” in a more holistic way than purely financial terms. As the results of our Baseline Survey demonstrated, income was not necessarily an accurate indicator of household “wealth” or wellbeing, especially due to the high levels of subsistence agriculture taking place among stakeholders living within local communities. As such, taking a more holistic (and realistically reflective) view of poverty, BCP has defined poverty within the Project Zone using a number of important indicators:
1. Financial: income-based - Poorest (50%) do not generate income, or generate income below the median for households in the Project Zone
2. Access to education - Poorest (50%) of households do not have access to basic primary education
3. Access to healthcare - Poorest (50%) of households do not have access to basic healthcare
4. Access to clean water - Poorest (50%) of households do not have access to clean drinking water
5. Access to alternative energy - Poorest (50%) of households use charcoal for fuel and firewood for light, heat and cooking. These fuel sources contribute to deforestation, and also do not allow for additional promotion of ‘development technology’ such as the charging/powering of cell phones, radios or televisions [communication technology]
6. Access to markets - Poorest (50%) do not engage in commercial production activities
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 73 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
other than charcoal, due to lack of access to transportation and/or markets. As such, and given the lack of alternative activities in the Project Zone, they exist purely on subsistence (agriculture) activities
Including all of these indicators in a more holistic understanding of poverty allows BCP to confidently state that we anticipate to benefit at least the poorest 50% of the community in our projects. We can demonstrate this in the following ways: Education: BCP has identified households without access to basic (primary) education as falling within the lowest category of wellbeing. As such, these poorest households are specifically addressed through the School Support Program of the BCP Trust, which is providing critical educational support to community schools in two zones—Chilimba and Mweeshang’ombe—which are also the poorest zones in the Project Zone (including in purely financial terms) according to our Baseline Survey2. Currently, the 485 households (42% of total household population in the project zone) living within these two poorest zones have minimal or no feasible access to government-recognized primary education facilities. In Mweeshang’ombe, for example, students who wish to continue past Grade 3 must walk 30 km round-trip daily to attend the Namanongo Basic School, where additional school fees are often prohibitive for the majority of impoverished households. Attendance at these community schools is inconsistent—by both community teachers and students. The reasons for this are that these two communities struggle to mobilize the resources to pay community teachers who in turn are erratic. The poorest of the poor households also struggle to equip
2 Nearly 70% of respondents from Chilimba and Mweeshang’ombe reported annual incomes of between 0 and 5 thousand KR—the lowest income category recorded by our Baseline Survey. This compares to approximately 65% of respondents from Namanongo, 35% from Ndubulula, and 60% of respondents, overall.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 74 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
their children with school supplies. BCP is addressing this by co-funding community teacher salaries on condition of performance metrics, such as consistent teacher attendance. BCP is also assisting schools with school supplies so that children from the poorest households have equal access to learning materials. The purpose of the BCP School Support Program is to ensure that children have access to quality primary education facilities—a critical indicator of improved livelihood among the absolute poorest of the poor. The BCP Trust School Support Program aims to improve access to primary education by providing key interventions designed to promote student attendance, teacher attendance, quality of curriculum and availability of school supplies to students. For example, our School Support Program has already doubled the number of teachers at the Chilimba Community School (from two to four teachers), where there are seven grade levels taught. Ultimately, the project is designed to convert current community (informal) schools into government-recognized “District” schools, within the next five years. Government recognition as a District School results in a flow of resources from the State, including Government trained teachers. This would greatly improve the access to quality education among the poorest of the poorest households living within the Project Zone for the Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project. A proposed scholarship program termed the “Forest Heroes” program will seek candidates through the Parent-Teacher Association who are from the poorest households within these two communities. By aiming to improve access to basic primary education facilities for the 485 households in the two poorest zones of our Project Zone, BCP is confident that our School Support Program will be one of the multiple ways that we can ensure that our projects reach the poorest of the poor—the poorest 50% of households in an area where 88% of the overall population is anticipated to live below the international poverty line, already.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 75 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Access to Clean Water: In addition to the educational support that BCP is providing to 485 households through our School Support Program, our Borehole Refurbishment Project is benefitting an additional 115 households (minimum estimate) from within the lowest category of wellbeing, by providing them with free access to clean drinking water. BCP identifies “access to clean drinking water” to be a critical indicator of health (and therefore “wealth”), and it seems safe to assume that those households that did not previously have access to clean drinking water could be considered among the lowest category of wellbeing. According to 2010 statistics listed on the CIA World Factbook page, only 46% of Zambians living in rural areas have access to clean drinking water. As such, this project is identified as a critical intervention that is confidently anticipated to improve wellbeing among those households within the lowest category of wellbeing, in an already impoverished and under-developed area. Access to healthcare: In addition to the support that BCP is providing in terms of education and access to clean drinking water, BCP is also making strategic investments in local healthcare, by providing support to the Namanongo Rural Health Centre. This support is designed to improve the nature and quality of healthcare available to residents living within the Project Zone, and is ultimately intended to transform the clinic into a more effective health centre where patients will be able to receive treatment for a variety of conditions. Currently, the clinic is severely under-staffed and under-resourced: there is only one full-time health worker on-site, and due to resource constraints, he is unable to perform many tests and medical procedures, and is mostly limited to making diagnoses and sending patients with “referrals” to other, more distant clinics where they can receive treatment. A recent visit to the clinic showed that there was no medication available for malaria patients, which is one of the most common diseases
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 76 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
in the area. As such, patients suffering from even malaria would have to transport themselves to more distant health centers. The Namanongo Rural Health Centre is the only healthcare facility in the Project Zone; otherwise, the nearest clinics are located in Sinjela and Chongwe—anywhere from 17 to 98 km away for rural households in the Project Zone. As such, the support that BCP Trust provides to the Namanongo Rural Health Centre has the potential to benefit all 1,167 households from our Project Zone, since this is the closest (and only) healthcare facility in the area. In order to be conservative, for quantification purposes, we have calculated that only the 344 households within Namanongo are indirect beneficiaries of the project Health support. This health program support is guaranteed to go to those households living within the lowest category of wellbeing, as it will benefit those households who could otherwise not afford to access healthcare—due to the long distances and expensive fees related to transportation and medical services at private facilities or government facilities where a patient has not been referred by a local healthcare provider. Households in the lowest category of wellbeing (certainly within the poorest 50%) are therefore currently limited to the minimal services that are available at the Namanongo Rural Health Centre, as they are unable to access alternative sources of healthcare. As such, BCP support to the Namanongo Rural Health Centre is confidently anticipated to improve wellbeing among the poorest 50% of households within the Project Zone, as this support will improve the nature and quality of healthcare services that are available to those households that cannot feasibly access alternatives. Access to tools of development and technology: As BCP’s Baseline Survey indicated, some households—those in higher categories of wellbeing—have been able to purchase solar panels and other technology, which allows them to charge cell phones, power radios and/or televisions (according to the baseline survey, approximately 50%
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 77 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
of households own a solar panel—indicating potentially that the poorer 50% of households are those that do not possess solar panels). These technologies are critical development tools that allow for communication, access to news and information sharing. However, unfortunately, for the majority of households—especially those in the lowest category of wellbeing—access to solar and other forms of alternative technology is difficult and expensive. There is no access or connection to electrical grids available in the Project Zone. From BCP’s experiences and PRA experience, many households—particularly the poorest of the poor—continue to use firewood for heat, cooking and light. As such, lack of access to electrical energy or viable sources of alternative energy are not only indicators of poverty, but also drivers of forest degradation. In order to address (and improve) these development conditions and to reduce deforestation in the Project Zone, BCP has formed a strategic partnership with SunnyMoney—a Lusaka-based social enterprise—in an effort to promote the availability and access to solar technology among the poorest of the poor households; those who are most likely to be involved in cutting firewood for energy (including light and heat), and who are too poor to afford other alternative sources of energy. Our Solar Empowerment Project is set to engage 4 local community members in this small-business opportunity to work as Solar Extension Agents, who will promote solar technology among those households in the lowest category of wellbeing. This project will be specifically targeted at providing solar technology to those households that are in the lowest category of wellbeing, who would otherwise lack access to viable alternatives and who would most likely continue to engage in deforestation in order to access fuel and energy sources. An initial Solar Empowerment Project launch event, scheduled for early June, is anticipated to provide a minimum of 100 households in Mweeshang’ombe with access to solar technology units and information. This launch
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 78 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
would then be repeated across all four community zones, so as to target the poorest 100 households in each zone (a total of 400 households from the lowest category of wellbeing) for inclusion in the Solar Empowerment Project. Food Security and Commercial Agriculture: BCP’s Baseline Survey demonstrated that while the majority of households are engaged in agriculture, for the poorest households, commercial agriculture is not an option due to the high cost of inputs and transportation, and lack of access to commercial agricultural markets. Through partner organizations such as Musika and the Zambian Conservation Farming Unit (CFU), BCP has launched a “Conservation Farming Training Program” (CFTP) that is specifically designed to include poor households in trainings about improved farming techniques, and access to agricultural markets. Through this program, those houses within the lowest category of wellbeing will be exposed to practices and opportunities that will allow them to produce agricultural products at a commercial scale, so as to allow them to generate income from agriculture, as opposed to activities such as unsustainable, illegal charcoal production. BCP’s CFTP, Sustainable Eco-Charcoal Project and Village Chicken Projects are all designed to improve rural producer livelihoods by providing producers with critical training (for improved, higher-quality products), linking producers to urban markets, and ensuring that producers are paid higher prices for their goods. All of these improved livelihood alternative projects are specifically targeted at those households within the lowest category of wellbeing, those that are among the poorest 50%, in an effort to improve their livelihoods and food security, and to thereby reduce their need to engage in activities that contribute to deforestation, such as the clearing of new areas for farming or engaging in unsustainable charcoal production. Currently, there are approximately 349 households directly benefitting from these projects and project-level employment (30
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 79 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
percent of total households). Within 2013, the number of participating households is anticipated to surpass 450. Summary: BCP is already able to demonstrate that a significant percentage of community stakeholders are directly benefitting from BCP supported projects. The number of estimated households that are indirect beneficiaries of BCP’s Health, Education and Clean Water Programs are estimated at 944 households (approximately 81% of all households within the project zone) within the Project Zone, and this number is expected to increase significantly within the upcoming year. Given that our projects are specifically designed to target the root causes of high rates of deforestation, which especially includes poverty, BCP is specifically targeting “the poorest of the poor” (the poorest 50% of households living in our Project Zone, where 88% of households are already expected to live below the poverty line). As such, it is clear that BCP’s community-based deforestation mitigation and social services projects are confidently expected to impact the poorest 50% of households within our Project Zone, according to a variety of conceptions of poverty—including purely financially defined poverty—and certainly according to a holistic conception of poverty. BCP has specifically-designed interventions that are targeted at making critical improvements in the education, health and economic sectors of our community stakeholders’ lives. Additional Information provided 15 June 2013: From the Baseline Survey data, average household income is 6.6 million ZMK (6,000 KR), and the median household income is 3.24m ZMK (3,240 KR). Of the 286 household respondents from the Village Chicken Project, 172 (60%) reported incomes below the reported median from the baseline, and 227 (79%) reported incomes below the household average.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 80 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
This data is indicative of the extent to which our projects are already engaging with those households in the "poorest 50%" of the community. As you know and as our response to GL2.2 already indicates, the Village Chicken Project is just one of a number of interventions that BCP is already supporting and intends to support. BCP strongly believes that this trend can confidently be expected to continue as BCP's community engagement activities continue, expand and intensify.
Evidence used to close NCR: The validator’s discussions while on-site, the arguments presented above, and the further metric of specific income survey information provided on 15 June 2013 show that the project sufficiently meets the criterion.
Date Closed: 18 June 2013 Indicator GL2.3 - Demonstrate that any barriers or risks that might prevent benefits going to poorer households have been identified and addressed in order to increase the probable flow of benefits to poorer households.
The PDD states that project activities were designed and implemented through consultation with local stakeholders. Support for projects is performance based, and must improve community livelihoods and reduce deforestation. Benefiting the poorest of the poor is vital. No barriers are anticipated. The perception of “fairness” is important to the success of the project.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Section GL2.3 of the PDD.
Findings: In this section, the PDD explains that it is important for the poorest households to benefit, and therefore this will be ensured. This amounts to a declaration that the poorest will benefit, without explaining any mechanism by which this will be ensured.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please explain how “unfairness” in the reaping of project benefits will be identified, if it occurs, and how it will be addressed.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project Proponent Response/Actions: As GL2.2 describes, BCP’s projects are designed and
anticipated to be targeted towards the poorest of the poor: our SOP’s concerning Community Engagement and BCP’s Social Monitoring program outline these expectations, and describe how BCP intends to achieve, monitor and document these outcomes.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 81 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
As BCP’s PDD and SOP concerning Community Engagement describe, BCP has worked closely with local stakeholders to support and develop community-based institutions (“Zone Development Committees”) that will be highly involved in decision-making about project design and implementation. BCP will work through these Zone Development Committees, which involve traditional leadership authorities, to explain the overall aims of each project and to identify the most suitable households for pilot-project participation and project implementation. As such, all decisions about project participants should be led and supported by local decision-making bodies, who will be instrumental in helping to describe, defend and legitimize such decisions to members of the local community. In the event that there is ever a perception of “unfairness,” BCP anticipates that the local leaders and ZDC members who were involved in the decision-making process will be able to describe and defend the choices that were made to members of the local community. Their support and involvement in this process is intended to grant significant legitimacy to decisions made about BCP projects and participants, to avoid such accusations in the first place, and to appropriately respond in the event that any such perceptions arise. Furthermore, given the high levels of overall need and poverty in the community, many of BCP’s projects will be intended to benefit as many stakeholders as possible/as interested. For example, although our Conservation Farming Training Program began with a small pilot, in 2013, we are in the process of expanding this project to any and all interested participants in all community zones. As such, all community members are anticipated to at least have the opportunity to benefit from a number of “open participation” projects available to stakeholders within the project zone. Ideally, the majority of all community stakeholders will ultimately be receiving benefits from BCP projects, further helping to reduce the risk of any perceptions of “unfairness”.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 82 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013. This section was further updated on May 30th, 2013 with the additional information in bold below: As GL2.2 describes, BCP’s projects are designed and anticipated to be targeted towards the poorest of the poor: our SOP’s concerning Community Engagement and BCP’s Social Monitoring program outline these expectations, and describe how BCP intends to achieve, monitor and document these outcomes, and to identify barriers to benefit flows to the poor. As BCP’s PDD and SOP concerning Community Engagement describe, BCP has worked closely with local stakeholders to support and develop community-based institutions (“Zone Development Committees”) that will be highly involved in decision-making about project design and implementation. BCP will work through these Zone Development Committees, which involve traditional leadership authorities, to explain the overall aims of each project and to identify the most suitable households for pilot-project participation and project implementation. As such, all decisions about project participants should be led and supported by local decision-making bodies, who will be instrumental in helping to describe, defend and legitimize such decisions to members of the local community. If any barriers become apparent, the project team will implement adaptive management to address barriers. This adaptive management approach will be implemented under the aegis of Molly Crystal, BCP’s Human Rights Officer and BCP Trust Director.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section GL2.3 of the PDD. The validator believes the extensive social monitoring program will adequately assess the distribution of the benefits to the poorer households. Although fairness can never be guaranteed, the validator believes BCP has made every effort to ensure the principle is carried out to the greatest possible extent.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 83 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
Indicator GL2.4 - Demonstrate that measures have been taken to identify any poorer and more vulnerable households and individuals whose well-being or poverty may be negatively affected by the project, and that the project design includes measures to avoid any such impacts. Where negative impacts are unavoidable, demonstrate that they will be effectively mitigated.
The PDD states that no negative impacts from project activities are expected.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Sections GL2.4 and CM2.
Findings: It is highly unlikely that the project will produce any negative impacts, and this extends to the most vulnerable households. Indicator GL2.4 has been adequately addressed.
Indicator GL2.5 - Demonstrate that community impact monitoring will be able to identify positive and negative impacts on poorer and more vulnerable groups. The social impact monitoring must take a differentiated approach that can identify positive and negative impacts on poorer households and individuals and other disadvantaged groups, including women.
The community monitoring plan includes surveying a wide variety of households, including poorer and female-headed households. People from such households are involved in project activities. Surveys are both general and project activity based. Opportunity to report negative impacts, like crop yield reductions, will be available.
Findings: It is likely that the monitoring plan will be able to identify positive and negative impacts on stakeholder households by income level, and demographic parameters. Indicator GL2.5 has been adequately addressed.
GL3 Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits Indicator GL3.1 – Vulnerability Regular occurrence of a globally threatened species (according to the IUCN Red List) at the site:
The PDD states that the project fulfills vulnerability criteria GL3.1.2, due to the presence of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus), which are endangered. Other endangered species include the white backed and hooded vultures.
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 84 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
1.1 - Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) species - presence of at least a single individual; or 1.2 - Vulnerable species (VU) - presence of at least 30 individuals or 10 pairs.
The project area is also utilized by vulnerable species, like the elephant and lion, etc.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:
Sections GL3.1 and G1.8, Conservation Lower Zambezi website.
Findings: Due to the project location, it is not doubted that these animals exist in the project area. Evidence is stated to exist, but the reports of the presence of these animals are not cited. The CLZ website link does not directly link to the pertinent reports.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Although documents were reviewed during the site visit and provided subsequent to the visit, please provide citations for reports or other evidence for the presence of these species.
Date Issued: 07 May 2013 Project proponent response/actions The presence of HCV species has been proven by
literature, direct sightings, observance of signs and experts, as well as by partners of the Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project, which have a long track record of working with wildlife in the area3. A 2005 Aerial Survey illustrates estimated populations of elephants and other large mammals in the ecosystem (Simwanza 2005). Conservation Lower Zambezi has also provided a written testimonial regarding HCV sightings in the ecosystem which has been provided to the Validator. HCVs, such as lion and wild dog, have been reported in signed scout reports since 2002. Copies of these signed scout patrol reports have been provided to the Validator. This section of the PDD has been updated with this information on the 9th May 2013.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: Revised section GL3.1 of the PDD and scout reports shown to the validator during the site visit.
Date Closed: 24 May 2013 OR Indicator GL3.2 – Irreplaceability N/A 3www.conservationlowerzambezi.org
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 85 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
A minimum proportion of a species’ global population present at the site at any stage of the species’ lifecycle according to the following thresholds:
2.1 - Restricted-range species - species with a global range less than 50,000 km2 and 5% of global population at the site; or 2.2 - Species with large but clumped distributions - 5% of the global population at the site; or 2.3 - Globally significant congregations - 1% of the global population seasonally at the site; or 2.4 - Globally significant source populations - 1% of the global population at the site.
Public Shareholder Comments Public comments for CCBA were solicited in three ways; posting of the PDD to the CCBA website, posting of PDD at all civic centers throughout the project zone, and public meetings. ESI confirms that all comments were addressed and is satisfied with the results of the public shareholder/stakeholder meetings outreach programs.
Local Shareholder Comments The PDD was made available at all civic centers throughout the project zone. Additional copies were distributed by BioCarbon Partner’s Community Engagement Team. This team was trained in collecting concerns and grievances about the document. The document was available in the predominant local language, Nyanja. Meetings were held where the content of the PDD was presented and explained. Community members were given the opportunity to discuss, question and provide feedback. Community members were encouraged to submit written comments to community coordinators. Comments were received from the following individuals via the internet:
• Sarah Davies, Base Camp Manager, Conservation Lower Zambezi
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 86 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
• Professor Emmanuel Ngulube CHIDUMAYO, Ecologis/Manager, Makeni Savanna Research Project.
• Charles Musonda • William Soko, Park Ranger, Zambia Wildlife Authority • Joshua Munkombwe • Ben Nemeth • Rob Munro, Senior Technical Advisory, Musika • Phiri K. Timothy, Environmental Education Lecturer, University of Zambia • Mike Mailloux
Comments received by people in writing and dictated to BCP staff:
• Dilon Shamboko • Mr. Libanda Lungu • Mr. Sikalezo • Mr. Kelvin Susu • Abysalome Mwale • Willing Muchindu • Chrispine Simapapa • Josan Chiuakambu • Antlermen Choonga • Enny Simutwi • Headman Mweeshargombe • Joseph Mwale • Zulu Oswald • HM Kabandi • Jovu Daveson • Benard Kavosa • Wilson Phiri • Mr. Paul Kasongo, District Commissioner, Rufunsa District
Comments collected can be found in Appendix B. All comments were positive and in support of the project.
CCB Public Comment Period The project PDD was posted to the CCBA website for the formal 30-day public comment period (13 March 2013 to 12 April 2013). Eleven comments were received and can be viewed in Appendix B. Public Meetings “BioCarbon Partners held four public meetings in the four community zones, between 19-22 March 2013, according to the following schedule:
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 87 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
19 March Ndubulula Zone 20 March Chilimba Zone 21 March Mweeshang’ombe Zone 22 March Namanongo Zone The BioCarbon Partners Trust Director/Human Rights Officer led the official meetings, describing the contents of the PDD, outlines were handed out in English and Nyanja, questions and discussion encouraged. The validator’s site visit was announced and posted at community centers. Full copies of the PDD were presented to the local community. Minutes were taken at each meeting. Smaller, local follow-up meetings at the village level were organized to ensure dissemination of the PDD, to collect questions and feedback from community members, and to disseminate information in local languages. Finally, formal follow up meetings were held during 02-04 April. The content of the PDD was again discussed and community members were encouraged to provide feedback.”4 During ESI’s site visit of 10-15 April 2013, Public Meetings were held in all four zones. The validator confirmed that the meeting notices had been visibly and appropriately posted in central areas of the villages. Attendance to the meetings was good. The validator observed the process of the meetings and determined that the Project was well understood and appreciated by the communities. Many of the community members were able to clearly articulate an accurate understanding of the Project and its benefits on the community and environment, which showed the validator that the dissemination of Project information and training has been successful to-date.
Validation Conclusion ESI confirms all validation activities, including objectives, scope and criteria, level of assurance and the PDD adherence to the CCB Project Design Standards, Second Edition, as documented in this report are complete. ESI concludes without any qualifications or limiting conditions that the CCB Project Design Documentation BioCarbon Partners – Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project (21 June 2013), meets the requirements of the CCB Project Design Standards (Second Edition – December 2008) and all three Gold Level Benefits, including Climate Change Adaptation, Exceptional Community, and Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits. Submittal Information Report Submitted to: BioCarbon Partners
o BCP_Rufunsa_CCBPDD_SummaryStats_7March_2013.xlsx
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 90 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
o BCP_Rufunsa_Cum_deforestationmodel_rawdata_April_2012.csv
o BCP_Rufunsa_TreeBiom_Calc_Chidumayo2013Eq_Pfunc_cap39DBH_7March_2013.xlsx
o BCP_Rufunsa_Viab_Soil_Analyse_Data_May_2012.xlsx
o BCP_RufunsaCCB_Fire_GER_Baseline+Project_8March_2013_V1.2.xlsx
o BCP_slope_cultivation_Mar_2012 Filled.xlsx
o RU1 Feasibility Data.pdf o RU2 Feasibility Data.pdf o RU7_RU102_Feasibility
data.pdf o RU12 FEasibility Data.pdf o RU13 Feasibility Data.pdf o RU17 Feasibility Data.pdf o RU18 Feasibility Data.pdf o RU20_40_Feasibility
Data.pdf o RU21.pdf o RU26 Feasibility Data.pdf o RU27 Feasibility Data.pdf o RU29 Feasibility Data 1.pdf o RU29 Feasibility Data 2.pdf o RU39 Feasibility Data 1.pdf o RU39 Feasibility Data 2.pdf o RU101 Feasibility Data.pdf o RU105.pdf o RU108 Feasibility Data.pdf o RU111_34_11_107_16_113_
feasibility data.pdf o RU117 Feasibility Data.pdf o RU118.pdf
o rufunsa stratified srs inventory v1.7 - B11.xlsm
• Socio-Economic Data o Social Monitoring SOP
V4_Social Monitoring Program_2013.03.pdf
o BASELINE REPORT_FINAL_2use.pdf
o Baseline Survey_Database_Nov13KP_MC.xlsx
o BCP HR Manual 2012_v2.pdf
o Social Monitoring SOP V4_Community Engagement Strategy_2013.03.pdf
o Social Monitoring SOP V4_FPIC_2013.03.pdf
• Spatial Data o LZRP_ReferenceArea.shx o LandsatImagery_LZRP_CCB
A-PDD.png o LZRP_Conservancy.dbf o LZRP_Conservancy.prj o LZRP_Conservancy.qpj o LZRP_Conservancy.shp o LZRP_Conservancy.shx o LZRP_Conservancy_Accoun
tingArea.dbf o LZRP_Conservancy_Accoun
tingArea.prj o LZRP_Conservancy_Accoun
tingArea.qpj o LZRP_Conservancy_Accoun
tingArea.shp o LZRP_Conservancy_Accoun
tingArea.shx
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 91 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
o LZRP_Conservancy_BiomassPlots.dbf
o LZRP_Conservancy_BiomassPlots.gpx
o LZRP_Conservancy_BiomassPlots.prj
o LZRP_Conservancy_BiomassPlots.qpj
o LZRP_Conservancy_BiomassPlots.shp
o LZRP_Conservancy_BiomassPlots.shx
o LZRP_Conservancy_Encroachment.dbf
o LZRP_Conservancy_Encroachment.prj
o LZRP_Conservancy_Encroachment.qpj
o LZRP_Conservancy_Encroachment.shp
o LZRP_Conservancy_Encroachment.shx
o LZRP_Conservancy_LandCover.dbf
o LZRP_Conservancy_LandCover.prj
o LZRP_Conservancy_LandCover.qpj
o LZRP_Conservancy_LandCover.shp
o LZRP_Conservancy_LandCover.shx
o LZRP_LeakageArea.dbf o LZRP_LeakageArea.prj o LZRP_LeakageArea.qpj o LZRP_LeakageArea.shp o LZRP_LeakageArea.shx o LZRP_ProjectActivities.dbf
o LZRP_ProjectActivities.prj o LZRP_ProjectActivities.qpj o LZRP_ProjectActivities.shp o LZRP_ProjectActivities.shx o LZRP_ProjectActivities_Eco
-charcoal.dbf o LZRP_ProjectActivities_Eco
-charcoal.prj o LZRP_ProjectActivities_Eco
-charcoal.qpj o LZRP_ProjectActivities_Eco
-charcoal.shp o LZRP_ProjectActivities_Eco
-charcoal.shx o LZRP_ProjectArea.dbf o LZRP_ProjectArea.prj o LZRP_ProjectArea.qpj o LZRP_ProjectArea.shp o LZRP_ProjectArea.shx o LZRP_ProjectArea_Villages.
dbf o LZRP_ProjectArea_Villages.
prj o LZRP_ProjectArea_Villages.
qpj o LZRP_ProjectArea_Villages.
shp o LZRP_ProjectArea_Villages.
shx o LZRP_ReferenceArea.dbf o LZRP_ReferenceArea.prj o LZRP_ReferenceArea.qpj o LZRP_ReferenceArea.shp
Documents received 15 April 2013
• Imagery o L71171071_07120020709.tif.
xml
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 92 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
o L5171071_07119841019.tif o L5171071_07119841019.tif.a
ux.xml o L5171071_07119841019.tif.o
vr o L5171071_07119841019.tif.x
ml o L5171071_07119920619.tif o L5171071_07119920619.tif.a
ux.xml o L5171071_07119920619.tif.o
vr o L5171071_07119920619.tif.x
ml o L5171071_07120100504.tif o L5171071_07120100504.tif.a
ux.xml o L5171071_07120100504.tif.o
vr o L5171071_07120100504.tif.x
ml o L71171071_07119990701.tif o L71171071_07119990701.tif.
aux.xml o L71171071_07119990701.tif.
ovr o L71171071_07119990701.tif.
xml o L71171071_07120020709.tif o L71171071_07120020709.tif.
aux.xml o L71171071_07120020709.tif.
ovr • Point Interpretation.gdb
o gdb o \timestamps o a0000000f.gdbindexes o a0000000f.gdbtable
o a0000000f.gdbtablx o a0000000f.spx o a00000001.freelist o a00000001.gdbindexes o a00000001.gdbtable o a00000001.gdbtablx o a00000001.TablesByName.at
x o a00000002.gdbtable o a00000002.gdbtablx o a00000003.gdbindexes o a00000003.gdbtable o a00000003.gdbtablx o a00000004.CatItemsByPhysi
calName.atx o a00000004.CatItemsByType.
atx o a00000004.FDO_UUID.atx o a00000004.freelist o a00000004.gdbindexes o a00000004.gdbtable o a00000004.gdbtablx o a00000004.spx o a00000005.CatRelsByDestin
ationID.atx o a00000005.CatRelsByOriginI
D.atx o a00000005.CatRelsByType.a
tx o a00000005.FDO_UUID.atx o a00000005.freelist o a00000005.gdbindexes o a00000005.gdbtable o a00000005.gdbtablx o a00000006.CatRelTypesByB
ackwardLabel.atx o a00000006.CatRelTypesByD
estItemTypeID.atx"
Lower Zambezi REDD+ Project
098-FOR-CCBA Validation/Verification Report Template – final – v2 93 Controlled Document 8 March 2013
o a00000006.CatRelTypesByForwardLabel.atx
o a00000006.CatRelTypesByName.atx
o a00000006.CatRelTypesByOriginItemTypeID.atx
o a00000006.CatRelTypesByUUID.atx
o a00000006.gdbindexes o a00000006.gdbtable o a00000006.gdbtablx o a00000007.CatItemTypesBy
Name.atx o a00000007.CatItemTypesBy
ParentTypeID.atx o a00000007.CatItemTypesBy
UUID.atx o a00000007.gdbindexes o a00000007.gdbtable o a00000007.gdbtablx o a00000010.gdbindexes o a00000010.gdbtable o a00000010.gdbtablx o a00000010.spx o a00000011.gdbindexes o a00000011.gdbtable o a00000011.gdbtablx o a00000011.spx o a00000012.gdbindexes o a00000012.gdbtable o a00000012.gdbtablx o a00000012.spx o a00000013.gdbindexes o a00000013.gdbtable o a00000013.gdbtablx o a00000013.spx
• FINAL_LoI_Comaco_BCP_2013.04.09.pdf
• AERIAL SURVEY OF LARGE HERBIVORES IN THE ZAMBEZI HEARTLAND 2005.pdf
