Drawa Forest Project – Project Description (PD) Part B ... · PDF fileDrawa Forest...

TechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v1.0,20140409

DrawaForestProject–ProjectDescription(PD)PartB:PESAccounting

AnImprovedForestManagementProjectatDrawa,VanuaLevu,Fiji.

D3.2bv1.020151009

TheNakauProgramme:AnindigenousForestConservationProgramme

throughPaymentsforEcosystemServices

EUROPEAN UNION

DrawaForestProjectPDPartBD3.2bv1.0,20151009

2

A project of Live & Learn Environmental Education in collaboration with Carbon Partnership Ltd.FundedbytheEuropeanUnionandtheAsianDevelopmentBank.Reportpreparedby:SeanWeaverandIanPaytonforLiveandLearnEnvironmentalEducation,andthePlanVivoFoundation.CoverPhoto:Weaver-viewtowardsDrawafromthesouthcoastofVanuaLevu,Fiji.SeanWeaver,Principal,CarbonPartnershipLtd.POBox215Takaka7142,GoldenBay,NewZealand.IanPayton,Associate,CarbonPartnershipLtd.29CentralTakakaRd,RD1,Takaka7183,GoldenBay,NewZealandSuggestedcitationforthisreport:Weaver,S.A.2015.DrawaForestProject,ProjectDescriptionPartB:PESAccounting.AnimprovedforestmanagementprojectatDrawa,VanuaLevu,Fiji.D3.2av1.0.NakauProgrammePtyLtd.

ThispublicationhasbeenproducedwiththeassistanceoftheEuropeanUnion,intheframeworkoftheproject "Pilot effective models for governance and implementation of REDD in Small IslandsDevelopmentStatestoprovideequitablebenefitsforforestdependentlocalandindigenouspeople",co-fundedbytheEuropeanUnion.Thecontentsofthispublicationarethesoleresponsibilityoftheauthorsand Live & Learn Environmental Education and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of theEuropeanUnion.

European Union


3

TableofContents1.ELIGIBILITY&GUIDANCE ..........................................................................................71.1 Eligibility ................................................................................................................. 81.1.1GeneralEligibility ................................................................................................. 81.1.2EligibleBaselineActivities .................................................................................... 91.1.3EligibleProjectActivities .................................................................................... 101.1.4EligibleForestStrata .......................................................................................... 101.1.5SpecificConditions ............................................................................................. 131.1.6RationaleFor30-YearProjectPeriod ................................................................. 14

1.2StandardsAndGuidance ......................................................................................... 141.2.1AlignmentToPlanVivoStandard(2013) ........................................................... 15

2.IDENTIFYINGGHGSOURCES,SINKSANDRESERVOIRS ............................................17

3.DETERMININGTHEBASELINESCENARIO.................................................................203.1BaselineSelection,AdditionalityandBaselineModelling....................................... 213.1.1SelectionofBaseline .......................................................................................... 213.1.2JustificationofSelectedBaseline ....................................................................... 213.1.3JustificationforExcludingAlternativeBaselines................................................ 233.1.4Stratification....................................................................................................... 243.1.5Additionality....................................................................................................... 253.1.6BaselineRevision................................................................................................ 25

4.QUANTIFYINGBASELINEGHGEMISSIONSANDREMOVALS ....................................264.1CalculationofGHGEmissionsandRemovals .......................................................... 274.1.1Step1–HarvestRate(HR) ................................................................................. 284.1.2Step2–TotalWoodHarvested(TWH) .............................................................. 294.1.3Step3–CollateralDamage(CD) ........................................................................ 294.1.4Step4–AboveGroundBiomassEmitted(AGBE) .............................................. 294.1.5Step5–BelowGroundBiomassEmitted(BGBE)............................................... 294.1.6Step6–TotalEmittedWoodVolumeinCubicMetres(TM3) ........................... 294.1.7Step7–GrossTotalEmissionsintCO2e(GTCO2) .............................................. 304.1.8Step8–GrossBaselineEmissionsForRotation1(GBER1) ................................. 304.1.9Step9–SequestrationintoLongTermWoodProductsforRotation1(ltWPR1)304.1.10Step10–NetBaselineEmissionsAvoidedForRotation1(NBERx) .................. 31

5.QUANTIFYINGPROJECTEMISSIONREDUCTIONS&REMOVALENHANCEMENTS.....325.1ProjectGHGEmissionsandRemovals ..................................................................... 325.1.1Step11–EnhancedRemovals(ER) .................................................................... 335.1.2Step12–EnhancedRemovalsWindow(ERW) .................................................. 33

5.2ProjectLeakage ....................................................................................................... 355.2.1Step13–TotalActivityShiftingLeakage(TAL) .................................................. 35


4

5.2.2Step14–TotalMarketLeakage(TML) .............................................................. 355.2.3Step15-TotalLeakage(TLK) ............................................................................. 35

5.3NetGreenhouseGasEmissionReductions.............................................................. 355.3.1Step16–NetProjectRemovals(NPR)............................................................... 36

5.4Non-PermanenceRiskAndBufferDetermination................................................... 365.4.1Step17–BufferCredits ..................................................................................... 36

5.5NetCarbonCredits .................................................................................................. 375.5.1Step18–NetCarbonCredits(NCCRx) ................................................................ 37

5.6ManagingLossEvents ............................................................................................. 37

6.QUANTIFYINGPROJECTHABITATHECTAREENHANCEMENTS .................................386.1BaselineHabitatHectares ....................................................................................... 386.2ProjectHabitatHectares ......................................................................................... 386.3Leakage.................................................................................................................... 386.4QuantificationofHabitathectareUnits .................................................................. 396.4.1GrossHabitatHectares ...................................................................................... 396.4.2HabitatHectareBuffer ....................................................................................... 396.4.3NetHabitatHectares.......................................................................................... 396.4.4NetCarbonCreditEquivalent ............................................................................ 396.4.5NetCarbonCreditsPerHabitatHectare ............................................................ 40

6.5ManagingLossEvents ............................................................................................. 40

7.ASSESSMENTOFUNCERTAINTY..............................................................................417.1UncertaintyinBaselineGHGEmissionsandRemovals ........................................... 417.1.1AboveGroundBiomassEmitted ........................................................................ 417.1.2BelowGroundBiomassEmitted......................................................................... 427.1.3GrossTotalEmissionsintCO2 ............................................................................ 42

7.2ProjectGHGEmissionsandRemovals ..................................................................... 427.2.1EnhancedRemovals ........................................................................................... 42

8.MONITORINGTHEGHGPROJECT............................................................................438.1CarbonMonitoring .................................................................................................. 448.1.1MonitoredAndNon-MonitoredParameters-Carbon ...................................... 448.1.2MonitoredParameters-Carbon........................................................................ 468.1.3MonitoringRolesAndResponsibilities-Carbon................................................ 488.1.4InformationManagementSystems-Carbon..................................................... 488.1.5SimplifiedProjectMonitoringReportMethodology-Carbon ........................... 488.1.6StandardOperatingProcedure:ProjectMonitoring-Carbon ........................... 498.1.7MonitoringResourcesandCapacity-Carbon................................................... 538.1.8CommunityMonitoring-Carbon ....................................................................... 53

8.2CommunityImpactMonitoring ............................................................................... 548.2.1MonitoredAndNon-MonitoredParameters–Community............................... 548.2.2MonitoredParameters–Community ................................................................ 55


5

8.2.3MonitoringRolesAndResponsibilities-Community......................................... 578.2.4InformationManagementSystems-Community.............................................. 578.2.5SimplifiedProjectMonitoringReportMethodology-Community.................... 578.2.6StandardOperatingProcedure:ProjectMonitoring–Community ................... 57

8.3BiodiversityMonitoring........................................................................................... 588.3.1MonitoredAndNon-MonitoredParameters–Biodiversity .............................. 588.3.2MonitoredParameters–Biodiversity ................................................................ 598.3.3MonitoringRolesAndResponsibilities-Biodiversity......................................... 598.3.4InformationManagementSystems-Biodiversity.............................................. 608.3.5SimplifiedProjectMonitoringReportMethodology-Biodiversity.................... 608.3.6StandardOperatingProcedure:ProjectMonitoring–Biodiversity ................... 60

REFERENCES...............................................................................................................62

APPENDICES...............................................................................................................64Appendix1:Definitions ................................................................................................. 64Appendix2.SiteDescriptionPlotSheet ........................................................................ 69Appendix3.FoliarCoverScale ...................................................................................... 70Appendix4.StemDiameterRecordSheet .................................................................... 71Appendix5.DrawaCarbonBudget&PricingSpreadsheet ........................................... 72Appendix6.EligibleForestBoundaryInspectionTemplate.......................................... 73Appendix7.EligibleForestAreaInspectionTemplate.................................................. 74Appendix8.DeMinimisHarvestingInspectionTemplate............................................. 75Appendix9.ActivityShiftingInspectionTemplate........................................................ 76Appendix10.AdditionalityAssessment ........................................................................ 77ApplicabilityConditions................................................................................................. 77Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 77Step0:PreliminaryscreeningbasedonthestartingdateoftheIFMprojectactivity .. 78Step1:Identificationofalternativelandusescenarios ................................................ 78Sub-step1a.Identifycrediblealternativelandusescenarios..................................... 78Sub-step1b.Consistencyofcrediblelandusescenarioswithlawsandregulations.. 80Sub-step1c.Selectionofthebaselinescenario:......................................................... 81

Step2.Investmentanalysis ........................................................................................... 81Sub-step2a.Determineappropriateanalysismethod ............................................... 82Sub-step2b.–OptionI.Applysimplecostanalysis .................................................... 82Sub-step2b.–OptionII.Applyinvestmentcomparisonanalysis ............................... 82Sub-step2b–OptionIII.Applybenchmarkanalysis ................................................... 83Sub-step2c.Calculationandcomparisonoffinancialindicators................................ 83Sub-step2d.Sensitivityanalysis ................................................................................. 84

Step3.Barrieranalysis .................................................................................................. 85Sub-step3a.Barriersthatwouldpreventtheproposedprojectactivity.................... 85Sub-step3b.Barriersnotpreventingalternativelandusescenarios ......................... 89

Step4.Commonpracticeanalysis................................................................................. 90


6

Appendix11:DrawaProfileReport............................................................................... 92Appendix12:Pre-HarvestInventory ............................................................................. 92


7

1. Eligibility & Guidance AccordingtoSection5ofthePlanVivoStandard(2013,p16):

5.1. Theprojectmustdeveloptechnicalspecificationsforeachoftheprojectinterventions,describing:5.1.1.The applicability conditions, i.e. under what baseline conditions the technical

specificationmaybeused5.1.2.Theactivitiesandrequiredinputs5.1.3. What ecosystem service benefits will be generated and how they will be

quantified. (NB Technical specification templates can be provided by the PlanVivoFoundation)

AccordingtoSection5.1oftheISO14064-2standard(2006):

TheprojectproponentshallensuretheGHGprojectconformstorelevantrequirementsoftheGHG programme to which it subscribes (if any), including eligibility or approval criteria,relevantlegislationorotherrequirements.

In fulfilling the detailed requirements of this clause, the project proponent shall identify,consideranduserelevantcurrentgoodpracticeguidance.Theprojectproponentshallselectand apply established criteria and procedures from a recognized origin, if available, asrelevantcurrentgoodpracticeguidance.

In cases where the project proponent uses criteria and procedures from relevant currentgood practice guidance that derive from a recognized origin, the project proponent shalljustifyanydeparturefromthosecriteriaandprocedures.

In cases where good practice guidance frommore than one recognized origin exists, theprojectproponentshalljustifythereasonforusingtheselectedrecognizedorigin.

Where there is no relevant current good practice guidance from a recognized origin, theproject proponent shall establish, justify and apply criteria and procedures to fulfill therequirementsinthispartofISO14064.

TechnicalSpecificationsModule/sapplied:

TechnicalSpecificationsModule (C)1.1 (IFM-LtPF) ImprovedForestManagement–LoggedtoProtectedForestv1.0.D2.2.1v2.0,20150815.


8

1.1 ELIGIBILITY

Accordingtosection5.2(j)oftheISO14064-2standard(2006):

This includes any information relevant for the eligibility of a GHG project under a GHGprogrammeandquantificationof emission reductionsor removal enhancements, includinglegislative,technical,economic,sectoral,social,environmental,geographic,site-specificandtemporalinformation.

1.1.1 General Eligibility

AccordingtoSection5ofthePlanVivoStandard(2013,p17):

5.14. To avoid ‘double counting’ of ecosystem services, project intervention areasmustnotbeinuseforanyotherprojectsorinitiatives,includinganationalorregionallevel mandatory GHG emissions accounting programme, that will claim credits orfunding in respectof the sameecosystem services, unlessa formalagreement is inplace with the other project or initiative that avoids double-counting or otherconflictingclaims,e.g.aformalnestingagreementwithanationalPESscheme.

AccordingtoSection1.1.1ofTSModuleIFM-LtPF:

AllprojectsapplyingthisTechnicalSpecificationsModulemustmeetthefollowingeligibilitycriteria:

a. Eligibleforestswillbe indigenousforeststhatqualifiedas ‘forest lands’asof31December2009.

b. Baselineandprojectactivitiesineligibleforestscomprisemanagementofcarbonstocksinforest-remaining-as-forestactivities.

c. ProjectswillaccountforAFOLUGHGemissionsandremovalsinthebaselineandprojectscenarios.

d. EligibleforestsarenotsubjecttocarboncreditorothercarbonorPESunitclaimsbyanyotherentity (includinggovernments)aspartofanyotherprogrammeatthenational,jurisdictionalorprojectlevelatanytimeduringtheProjectPeriod.

e. Eligibleforestsmustmeettheadditionalityconditionsofthismethodologyandinso doing demonstrate the high probability that the forests of the project areawould have been logged within the project period in the absence of projectactivities.


9

1.1.1aForestLand

The eligible forest area for the Drawa Forest Project qualified as forest land as of 31December2009.Thisforestisatallcoastalrainforestandwasestablishedpriortothe20thcentury.

1.1.1bDeforestationBaseline

Thebaselineactivityforthisprojectisconventionallogging.

1.1.1cForestProtection

Theprojectactivityinthisprojectisforestprotectionusingalegalinstrumentofprotection.

1.1.1dAFOLUEmissions&Removals

This project accounts for AFOLU emissions and removals in the baseline and projectscenarios.SeeSections4and5ofthisdocument.

1.1.1eNoDoubleCounting

ThisprojectisnotsubjecttoanyothercarboncreditorotherPESunitclaimsbyanyotherentity(includinggovernment)atanyscale.

1.1.2 Eligible Baseline Activities


Baseline activities for projects applying this Technical Specifications Module are thoseimplementedonforestlands1managedforwoodproductssuchassawntimber,pulpwood,andfuelwoodandareincludedintheIPCCcategory“forestsremainingasforests”,wherebythe logging activities to produce such wood products would have occurred during theprojectperiodintheabsenceofprojectactivities.

Onlyareasthathavebeendesignated,sanctionedorapprovedforsuchactivities(e.g.wherethereislegalsanctiontoharvesttimberorfuelwood)bythenationaland/orlocalregulatorybodiesareeligibleforcreditingunderthisactivitytype.

TheDrawaForestProjecttakesplaceonlandwherethere is legalsanctionundertakehighintensityselectivelogging(conventionallogging).

1SeedefinitionsinAppendix1.


10

1.1.3 Eligible Project Activities


The project activity for each project applying this Technical Specifications Module willinvolve the legal protection of the eligible forests within the Project Area. This legalprotection is required to legally prevent baseline activities and require the on-goingimplementationofprojectactivitiesforthedurationoftheProjectPeriod.

TheeligibleforestareaforthisprojectwillbeprotectedbymeansofaConservationLeaseunder the iTaukei Lands Trust Board (TLTB). The Conservation Lease for this project isbetween lessors TLTB (on behalf of the nine mataqali landowners) and the DBFCC(establishedbythesameninemataqalilandowners).

1.1.4 Eligible Forest Strata

AccordingtoSection1.1.4ofTSModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF)D2.1.1v1.020151009:

Eligibleforestswillincludeunloggedforestorforestthathaspreviouslybeenloggedandiscurrentlyregenerating.Eligibleforestswillincludetwoforestmanagementstrataasfollows:

a. UnloggedForest:Where there isnoevidenceofprior loggingornorecordofpriorlogging.UnloggedForestisnoteligibletoclaimenhancedremovalcarbonbenefitsinthis methodology. Project activities will protect this unlogged forest from timberharvesting,apartfromdeminimis2non-commercialwoodharvestingforlocalhouse-buildingorotherculturalpurposes.

b. LoggedForest:Withsupportingevidenceshowingthattheareahasbeenpreviouslyloggedbetween1 January1930and31December2009,orwhere the commercialwood harvesting operation currently occurring in these forests began prior to 31December2009,orwherethereisevidencethattheforestisregeneratingandnotinan‘oldgrowth’condition.LoggedForestiseligibletoclaimenhancedremovalcarbonbenefits in this methodology. Project activities will prevent this previously loggedforest from timber harvesting (apart from de minimis harvests mentioned in a.above).

Theeligibleforestarea iscomprisedof1,396haofLoggedForestand327haofUnloggedForestareas.

Thisprojectthereforeappliesvariants1and2ofthetwovariantsforthisIFM-LtPFactivitytype as depicted in Figure 1.1.4b of TSModule (C) 1.1 (IFM-LtPF) D2.1.1 v1.0 20151009:(reproducedinFigure1.1.4aandbbelow).

2I.e.Lowerthan5%ofthetotalallowableannualcommercialtimberharvestvolumefortheequivalentrotation.


11

Figure1.1.4a.Variant1-Conceptdiagram:IFM-LtPFULFinUnlogged(oldgrowth)Forest.

Key: O= Originalmeancarbonstocksinoldgrowthundisturbedforest B= BaselineScenariocarbonstocksundertimberharvestingregime(harvest/regrowth) P= ProjectScenariocarbonstocksunderforestprotectionregime MBR1= MeanBaselinecarbonstocksduringRotation1 MBR2= MeanBaselinecarbonstocksduringRotation2 MBR3= MeanBaselinecarbonstocksduringRotation3 GBER1= GrossBaselineEmissionsduringRotation1 GBER2= GrossBaselineEmissionsduringRotation2 GBER3= GrossBaselineEmissionsduringRotation3 NBER1= NetBaselineEmissionsduringRotation1 NBER2= NetBaselineEmissionsduringRotation2 NBER3= NetBaselineEmissionsduringRotation3

P

MBR3

MBR2

MBR1

GBER2

GBER3NBER3

NBER2

NBER1

O

Carbon

2(tCO

2/ha)

Project2Period

B

Time

GBE

R1

R12(152years) R22(152years) R32(152years)


12

Figure1.1.4b.Variant2a-Conceptdiagram:IFM-LtPFLFinLogged(regenerating)Forest.

Key: O= Originalmeancarbonstocksinoldgrowthundisturbedforest HL= Historicallogging RHL= Regenerationfollowinghistoricallogging B= BaselineScenariocarbonstocksundertimberharvestingregime(harvest/regrowth) P= ProjectScenariocarbonstocksunderforestprotectionregime HB= Harvestbaseline(meancarbonstocksatstartofbaselinetimberharvesting) MBR1= MeanBaselinecarbonstocksduringRotation1 MBR2= MeanBaselinecarbonstocksduringRotation2 MBR3= MeanBaselinecarbonstocksduringRotation3 GBER1= GrossBaselineEmissionsduringRotation1 GBER2= GrossBaselineEmissionsduringRotation2 GBER3= GrossBaselineEmissionsduringRotation3 NBER1= NetBaselineEmissionsduringRotation1 NBER2= NetBaselineEmissionsduringRotation2 NBER3= NetBaselineEmissionsduringRotation3 ER= EnhancedRemovals(ProjectScenario) ERW= EnhancedRemovalsWindow(ProjectScenario)

GBER1

HL

RHL

O

Carbon

/(tCO

2/ha)

Project/Period

P

MPCS

B

Time

ERW

ER

HB

R1/(15/years) R2/(15/years) R3

MBR1

MBR2

NBER1

NBER2

GBER2


13

1.1.5 Specific Conditions


SpecificconditionsforprojectsapplyingthisTechnicalSpecificationsModule:

a. TheProjectPeriodforallprojectsusingthisTechnicalSpecificationsModuleshallbenolessthan30years,withperpetualrightofrenewal.

b. Project Owner exists as an entity capable of entering into binding projectcommitmentswith the ProgrammeOperator and capable of owning carbon creditassets.

c. ProjectOwnerownsthecarbonrightsandmanagementrightsovertheforestlandsintheprojectarea.

d. Currentandplannedlanduse:landmustbelegallyeligiblefordeforestation.e. Theremaybenoleakagethroughactivityshiftingtootherlandsownedormanaged

byprojectparticipantsoutsidetheboundsofthecarbonproject.

TheProjectPeriodis30yearsandperpetuallyrenewable.

The Project Owner is the Drawa Block Forest Community Cooperative (DBFCC) – acooperativeestablishedundertheFijiCooperativesAct1996.

TheDBFCCownsthecarbonandlandmanagementrightsassociatedwiththeProjectAreapursuanttothefollowinglawsandregulations:● iTaukeiLandTrust(LeasesandLicenses)Regulations1984governstheleasingof

iTaukeiLands(landsownedbyregisteredindigenouspeoples).ThesigningofConservationLease(Appendix4)isevidencethattheprojectiscompliantwiththisRegulation.

● FijiCooperativesAct1996governstheformationcooperatives.TheregisteringoftheDrawaBlockForestCommunityCooperativeisevidenceofprojectbeingcompliancewiththisAct.SeeER2.13.10a(PDPartA).

● The Forest Decree 1992 is the main law regulating forest use in Fiji. There is noprovisionspecificallyreferringtosustainableforestmanagementortheparticipationof landowners in themanagement of forest resources. TheDecree does recognisetherightsofcustomarylandownersandprovidesthatsubsistenceforestusethat isrecognised by customary law is permitted and should not be restricted by theDecree. A legal review of the PES Agreement was undertaken by private lawyers(SiwatibauandSloan)toassesscompliancewiththeForestDecree.Theassessmentfound that the Forest Decree does not mention carbon projects and noted thatregulationforcarbonprojectsisstillbeingdevelopedinFiji.HoweverthereviewalsofoundthatthePESAgreementdoesnotcontradictanythingintheForestDecree,andisthereforeallowable.SeeER2.13.10b(PDPartA).


14

ThelandislegallyeligibleforconventionalloggingundertheForestDecree1992-themainlawregulatingforestuseinFiji.

TheProjectAreaissubjecttoalanduseplan(TheNakauManagementPlan)thatspecifiestheplannedlanduseforthearea.TheManagementPlanprotectstheeligibleforestareainthe form of a conservation lease. This does not leave any significant forest for activityshiftingleakagetobepossible.

Table1.1.5:EvidenceRequirement:SpecificConditions# Description

Documentation to prove that Project Owner exists as a legal entity capable of acting as acounterparty toa sale andpurchaseagreementand capableofowning carbon credit assets.This could be a certificate of incorporation, or similar legal document associated with theestablishmentofthelegalentitysufficienttomeetthiseligibilitycriterion.

1.1.5a

SeeER2.13.10a(PDPartA).Documentation todemonstrate that ProjectOwnerowns the carbon rights andmanagementrightsovertheforestlandsintheprojectarea.Thiswouldneedtoincludedocumentationfromthe government that clarifies options for carbon rights ownership and the particular optionselected in this case. Itwould also need to include evidence of said rights ownership by theProjectOwnerlegalentity.

1.1.5b

SeeER1.1.5b.DocumentationtodemonstratethatProjectOwnerislegallyeligibletoundertakeconventionalloggingintheprojectarea.

1.1.5c

SeeER1.1.5c(pg1).EvidenceofavoidanceofactivityshiftingleakagetotaketheformofaleakageassessmentusingSection5.2ofthisTechnicalSpecificationsModule.

1.1.5d

TobeprovidedintheleakageassessmentundertakeninPartB,Section5.2ofthePD.

1.1.6 Rationale For 30-Year Project Period


5.5. Ecosystemservicesmustbeaccountedforoveraspecifiedquantificationperiodthatisofsufficientlengthtoprovideaclearpictureofthelong-termimpactoftheactivity.

5.6. The quantification period must not exceed the period over which participants canmakeameaningfulcommitmenttotheprojectintervention,andmustbejustifiedinrelationtothedurationofpaymentandmonitoringobligations.

TheProjectPeriodis30yearsandisperpetuallyrenewableasperSection1.1.6oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v1.0,20151009.

1.2 STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE

This Project is validated to the Plan Vivo Standard (2013). The following standards andguidancewereused:


15

Table1.2.1:GoodPracticeGuidance# GoodPracticeGuidanceElement1.2.1a PlanVivoStandard ThisprojectisvalidatedtothePlanVivoStandard,andfollowsthefollowingPlanVivoguidance

documents:• PlanVivoStandard(2013)• PlanVivoPDDTemplate• PlanVivoPINTemplate• PlanVivoGuidanceManual

1.2.1b IPCC2006GuidelinesonNationalGHGInventories ThisprojectisalignedtotheIPCC2006GuidelinesonNationalGHGInventoriesinthefollowing

way:• ThecarbonstockchangecalculationsframeworkusedinthismethodologyfollowsSection

2.2.1ofVolume4oftheIPCC2006Guidelines.Specifically,thismethodologyelaboratesonEquation2.3ofVolume4oftheIPCC2006Guidelinesbutvariesbyconservativelyneglectinglitterandsoilcarbon.

• WooddensityanddrywoodtocarbondefaultvaluesusedinthismethodologyusedthedefaultvaluesfromtheIPCC2006GuidelinesonNationalGHGInventories.

1.2.1c ISO14064-2Standard ThisprojectfollowstheISO14064-2standardineveryrespect.1.2.1d ThisprojectuseselementsoftheVerifiedCarbonStandard(VCS)withreferencetothe

followingVCSdocuments: • VCSAFOLURequirementsV3.4

• VCSGuidanceforLossEvents(8March2011)• VCSToolthedemonstrationandassessmentofadditionalityinVCSagriculture,forestryand

otherlanduse(AFOLU)projectactivities(VT0001,V3.0).• TherewasaclosealignmentofthisprojectwiththeGreenCollarIFMmethodologyVersion

1.0(18March2011)approvedbytheVCSin2011.

1.2.1e TheCleanDevelopmentMechanism(CDM) • TheCDMwasusedasthebroadframeworkfortheProgrammeofActivities/Grouped

Projectscopeofthismethodology.• Exclusionofemissionsderivedfromtheremovalofherbaceousvegetationwasbasedon

CDMEBdecisionreflectedinparagraph11ofthereportofthe23rdsessionoftheboard:cdm.unfccc.int/Panels/ar/023/ar_023_rep.pdf

• TheAdditionalitytestinthisprojectisfromtheVCS,whichinturnisderivedfromtheCDMToolforDemonstrationofAdditionality.

1.2.1 Alignment To Plan Vivo Standard (2013)

ThisProjectDescriptionPartB(whenusedincombinationwiththeProjectDescriptionPartA) aligns to every element of the Plan Vivo Standard (2013) as depicted in the followingtable. Note that this alignment includes elements that are located in the NakauMethodologyFramework.


16

Table1.2.2PlanVivoStandardAlignmentTable

Plan

VivoStan

dard

Elem

ent

Location

inProject

Description

PartA

Location

inProject

Description

PartB

(thisdo

cumen

t)

Plan

VivoStan

dard

Elem

ent

Location

inProject

Description

PartA

Location

inProject

Description

PartB

(thisdo

cumen

t)

Plan

VivoStan

dard

Elem

ent

Location

inProject

Description

PartA

Location

inProject

Description

PartB

(thisdo

cumen

t)

1 4.5 3.1.4 6.3 5.4.11.1 1.3.2 4.6 3.1.5.1 6.4 5.4.11.2 1.3.2 4.7 3.1.5.1 7 1.2.1 1.3.2 4.8 3.1.5.1 7.1 5.2.2 1.2.2 1.3.2 4.9 3.1.5.1 7.2 5.2.1,5.2.2 1.2.3 1.3.2 4.10 3.1.5.1 7.2.1 5.2.1 1.2.4 1.3.2 4.11 2.4 7.2.2 5.2.1 2 4.12 3.1.6 7.2.3 5.2.1 2.1 1.3.3 4.13 3.1.6 7.2.4 5.2.1 2.1.1 1.3.3 4.14 3.2 7.2.5 5.2.1 2.1.2 1.3.3 5 7.2.6 5.2.1 2.1.3 1.3.3 5.1 5.1 7.2.7 5.2.1 2.1.4 1.3.3 5.1.1 5.1 7.2.8 5.2.1 2.2 2.8 5.1.2 5.1 7.3 5.2.2 2.3 2.10 5.1.3 5.1 7.4 5.2.3 2.4 2.5 5.2 4,5 7.4.1 5.2.3.2 2.4.1 2.5 5.3 3.1.6 7.4.2 5.2.3.5 2.4.2 2.5 5.4 3.1.5 7.5 5.2.3.6 3 5.4.1 3.1.5 8 3.1 2.13.1 5.4.2 3.1.5 8.1 4 3.2 2.13.3 5.5 1.1.6 8.2 4.1.1 3.3 2.13.5 5.6 1.1.6 8.2.1 4.1.1 3.4 2.13.4 5.7 5.1 8.2.2 4.1.1 3.5 2.13.4 5.8 1.3.3 8.2.3 4.1.1 3.6 2.13.9 5.9 8 8.2.4 4.1.1 3.7 2.13.10 5.9.1 8 8.2.5 4.1.1 3.8 2.13.11 5.9.2 8 8.2.6 4.1.1 3.9 2.13.12,4.2 5.9.3 8 8.2.7 4.1.1 3.10 2.13.13,4.2.2 5.9.4 8 8.2.8 4.1.1 3.11 2.13.14 5.9.5 6.2.2 8.2.9 4.1.1 3.12 2.13.15 5.9.6 8.1.8 8.2.10 4.1.1 3.13 2.13.16 5.9.7 8.1.8 8.3 4.1.2 3.14 2.13.17 5.9.8 8.1.8 8.4 4.1.1 3.15 2.13.18 5.10 8.1.8 8.5 4.1.3 3.16 2.13.19 5.11 7 8.5.1 4.1.3 4 5.12 3.1.1 8.5.2 4.1.3 4.1 3.1.2 5.13 5.3 8.5.3 4.1.3 4.1.1 3.1.2 5.14 1.1.1 8.6 4.1.3 4.1.2 3.1.2 5.15 2 8.7 4.1.3 4.1.3 3.1.2 5.16 5.6 8.8 4.3 4.1.4 3.1.2 5.17 4.1 8.9 4.3 4.1.5 3.1.2 5.18 4.1 8.10 4.3 4.1.6 3.1.2 5.19 5.2 8.11 4.3 4.1.7 3.1.2 5.20 5.2 8.12 4.3 4.2 3.1.2.2 6 8.13 4.3 4.3 3.1.2.2 6.1 5.4 4.4 3.1.3 6.2 5.4


17

2. Identifying GHG Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs AccordingtoSection5ofthePlanVivoStandard(2013,p18):

5.15. All carbon pools and emissions sources used to quantify climate services must bespecifiedwithjustificationfortheirinclusion.Carbonpoolsexpectedtodecrease,andemissionssourcesexpectedtoincreaseasaresultoftheprojectinterventionmustbeincluded,unlessdecreasesoremissionsarelikelytobeinsignificant,i.e.lessthan5%oftotalclimatebenefits.

Section5.3oftheISO14064-2Standardrequiresprojectproponentsto:

Selectorestablishcriteriaandprocedures for identifyingandassessingGHGsources, sinksandreservoirscontrolled,relatedto,oraffectedbytheproject.

Basedonselectedorestablishedcriteriaandprocedures,theprojectproponentshallidentifyGHGsources,sinksandreservoirsasbeing:

a) Controlledbytheprojectproponent,b) RelatedtotheGHGproject,orc) AffectedbytheGHGproject.


[Identify]GHGsources,sinksandreservoirsrelevanttothebaselinescenario,andforeach

a) Consider criteria and procedures used for identifying the GHG sources, sinks andreservoirsrelevantfortheproject,

b) If necessary, explain and apply additional criteria for identifying relevant baselineGHGsources,sinksandreservoirs,and

c) Compare the project's identified GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs with thoseidentifiedinthebaseline.


Select or establish criteria and procedures for selecting relevant GHG sources, sinks andreservoirsforeitherregularmonitoringorestimation.

JustifynotselectinganyrelevantGHGsource,sinkandreservoirforregularmonitoring.


18

CriteriaForSelectingRelevantGHGSources,SinksandReservoirs

The GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs estimated in this project are restricted to LULUCFsectorcarbonemissionsandremovalsasfollows:

Table3a:GHGSources,Sinks,andReservoirs:PacificREDD+Program

CO2eemissionsfromabovegroundwoodybiomassremovedfromtheforest.CO2eemissionsfromabovegroundwoodybiomassenteringthedeadwoodpoolintheformofdiscardedcrownandbranchesofharvested(target)trees.CO2eemissionsfromadditionstotheabovegrounddeadwoodcarbonpoolresultingfromcollateraldamagetonon-targettreesduetowoodharvestactivities.

Sources

CO2eemissionsfromthedecompositionofbelowgroundbiomassresultingfromabovegroundwoodharvestingandcollateraldamage.CO2esequesteredinthenaturalbackgroundrateofnaturalforestregeneration.SinksCO2esequesteredinharvestpatchesasaconsequenceoftheopeningtheforestcanopy.

Reservoirs TheGHGassessmentinthisprojectestimatesthechangeincarbonstockscontainedincarbonreservoirs(andassociatedemissionsand/orremovals),ratherthanthetotalcontentofcarbonstoredintheforestcarbonreservoirs/pools.

The total volume of carbon stored in the above ground carbon pools ismeasured in thisprojectbymeansofacarbonstockinventory.Carbonstoredbelowgroundisderivedfromtheapplicationofaroot-shootratio.Furthermore,theGHGsourcesandsinksestimatedinthisprojectarerestrictedtoLULUCFcarbonpoolsthatarecontrolledbytheProjectOwnersandliewithintheEligibleForestAreaoftheproject.

Thecarbonpoolsusedinthisprojectare:

Table3b:CarbonPoolsUsedinthisMethodology

CarbonPool Included/Excluded

Justification

Abovegroundbiomass(AGB)

Included Ataminimum,thestockchangeintheabove-groundtreebiomassshallbeestimated.

Belowgroundbiomass(BGB)

Included Whenyoukillatreeyoualsokillitsroots(unlessthetreeisofaspeciesthatcoppices).The2006IPCCGuidelinesonGHGInventoriesusesaBGBdefaultvalueof0.37ofAGBfortropicalrainforest.Theonlyexceptiontothisdefaultruleforthismethodologyappliestospeciesthatareknowntobecapableofregeneratingfromcutstumps.ProjectCoordinatorsshallidentifytheproportionoftheabovegroundbiomassemitted(AGBE)attributabletothesespeciesintheBaseline,andremovethebelowgroundbiomassemitted(BGBE)portionforthesespeciesinthebaselinecalculation.


19

Dead-wood(DW) Included RequiredunderVCSToolforAFOLUMethodologicalIssues.

HarvestedWoodProducts Included RequiredunderVCSToolforAFOLUMethodologicalIssues, even though harvested wood products areusuallynotconsideredwhenestimatingthebaselineor project scenarios under the Plan Vivo Standardsfor RED projects (Estrada (CIFOR) 2011, p49).Included in this methodology to maintainconsistencywiththeVCSonthispoint.

Litter Excluded Insignificantandexclusionisconservative.Soilorganiccarbon Excluded Exclusionisconservative.

Theinclusion/exclusionofgreenhousegasesinthisprojectareshowninTable3c.

Table3c:Emissionsourcesotherthanresultingfromchangesinstocksincarbonpools

Gas Sources Included/Excluded

Justification

Removalofwoodyvegetationthroughcommercialloggingactivity

Included SuchremovalofvegetationcausesCO2

emissionstotheatmosphere.

Combustionoffossilfuels(invehicles,machineryandequipment)

Excluded NotrequiredbyPlanVivoStandards.

Carbondioxide(CO2)

Removalofherbaceousvegetation Excluded BasedonCDMEBdecisionreflectedinparagraph11ofthereportofthe23rdsessionoftheboard:cdm.unfccc.int/Panels/ar/023/ar_023_rep.pdf


Excluded NotrequiredbyPlanVivoStandards.Methane(CH4)

Burningofbiomass Excluded Exclusionisconservative.


Excluded NotrequiredbyPlanVivoStandards.

Nitrogenbasedfertilizer Excluded Potentialemissionsareconservativelyneglected.

Nitrousoxide(N2O)

Burningofbiomass Excluded Potentialemissionsareconservativelyneglected.

ComparisonBetweenBaseline&Project

The sources, sinks and reservoirs defined in the baseline scenario are the same for theprojectscenario.


20

3. Determining The Baseline Scenario Section5.4oftheISO14064-2Standardrequiresprojectproponentsto:

1.Selectorestablishcriteriaandproceduresforidentifyingandassessingpotentialbaselinescenariosconsideringthefollowing:

a) The project description, including identifiedGHG sources, sinks and reservoirs ([seeSection3above]);

b) Existingandalternativeprojecttypes,activitiesandtechnologiesprovidingequivalenttypeandlevelofactivityofproductsorservicestotheproject;

c) Dataavailability,reliabilityandlimitations;d) Other relevant information concerning present or future conditions, such as

legislative, technical, economic, socio-cultural, environmental, geographic, site-specificandtemporalassumptionsorprojections.

2. Demonstrate equivalence in type and level of activity of products or services providedbetween the project and the baseline scenario and shall explain, as appropriate, anysignificantdifferencesbetweentheprojectandthebaselinescenario.

3.Selectorestablish,explainandapplycriteriaandproceduresforidentifyingandjustifyingthebaselinescenario.

4.[Develop]thebaselinescenario,theprojectproponentshallselecttheassumptions,valuesandprocedures thathelpensure thatGHGemissions reductionsor removalenhancementsarenotover-estimated.

Baseline activities for this project are restricted to conventional logging implemented onforestlands3andisa“forest-remaining-as-forest”activity.

Onlyareasthathavebeendesignated,sanctionedorapprovedforsuchactivities(e.g.wherethere is legal sanction to undertake conventional logging) by the national and/or localregulatorybodiesareeligibleforcreditingunderthisproject.

3UsingtheFAOFRA2010definition: Landspanningmorethan0.5hectareswithtreeshigherthan5metersandacanopycoverofmorethan10percent,ortreesabletoreachthesethresholdsinsitu.Itdoesnotincludelandthatispredominantlyunderagriculturalorurbanlanduse.Source:http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am665e/am665e00.pdf


21

3.1 BASELINE SELECTION, ADDITIONALITY AND BASELINE MODELLING

3.1.1 Selection of Baseline

AccordingtothePlanVivoStandard(2013,p17):

5.12. A baseline scenario must be provided for each project intervention, describingcurrentlandusesandhabitattypesandexistingmajorecosystemservicesprovidedinthearea,andhowthesearemostlikelytochangeoverthequantificationperiodintheabsenceofprojectinterventions.

Thebaselinescenarioforeachlandparcelinthisprojectisdeforestation.

AccordingtotheTSModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF)D2.1.1v1.020151009:

InjustifyingtheBaselineActivity,ProjectCoordinatorsmustdeterminethemostlikelylanduseintheabsenceoftheproject,throughtheidentificationofpossiblelandusesusingthefollowingcriteria,andanassessmentoflanduseoptionsaccordingtothefollowingcriteria:

a. Landsuitabilityb. Technicalbarriersc. Economicbarriersd. Institutionalconstraints

Themostlikelylanduseintheabsenceoftheprojectisconventionallogging.ThislanduseistheprevalentlanduseinthelandssurroundingtheProjectArea.Thelandissuitabletothebaselineactivity in termsofaspect, soils,and topographyasevidencedby the landuse inlandssurroundingtheProjectArea.

Thereareno technicalbarriers toconventional loggingat theproject sitebecauseofpastloggingactivityandloggingplanningandinfrastructuredevelopment(e.g.loggingroads).

There are no economic barriers to conventional logging at the project site. In fact theopposite is true. There are economic incentives for conventional logging given the needamongthelandowningcommunityforeconomicdevelopmentandtheexistingmarketsfortimber.

Therearenoinstitutionalconstraintstoconventionalloggingattheprojectsite.

3.1.2 Justification of Selected Baseline

The Project Coordinator asserts that the Baseline Scenario for forestmanagement at theDrawaBlockisconventionallogging.


22

Between200)and2009theSecretariatofthePacificCommunity(SPC) inpartnershipwithGermanTechnicalCooperation(GTZ-nowGIZ)developedasustainableforestmanagement(SFM)projectatDrawaasaProjectScenarioincontrasttoaconventional loggingBaselineScenario at this location. This project did not succeed commercially even though it wastechnicallyrobustandwellsupportedfinanciallyduringprojectdevelopment.

TheFijiDepartmentofForestry thenproposed theDrawaBlockasanofficialpilotprojectsitefortheFijiREDD+Programme.ItappointedLive&LearnastheimplementingagencytodeveloptheDrawaForestCarbonProject.ThisprojectappliesthesameconventionalloggingBaseline Scenario as the SFM project that preceded it, but applies a different ProjectScenarioinvolvingforestprotectionthroughpaymentsforecosystemservices.

If sustainable forestmanagementproved tobe commercially viable atDrawaprior to theinceptionoftheDrawaForestPESProject,thenaSFMbaselinewouldhavebeenappliedintheDrawa Forest Carbon Project, because SFMwould have been the forestmanagementactivitydisplacedbythecarbonproject.Butthiswasnotthecase,andassuch,conventionalloggingremainsthemostplausibleBaselineScenariofortheDrawaBlock.

The SFM project undertaken by SPC/GTZ at Drawa provided inventory data and timberharvest plans that became central to the carbon accounting data sets at the heart of theDrawa Forest Carbon Project. The current Drawa PES Project therefore, emerges as atechnical collaborationbetweenSPC/GTZ (forest inventory/baseline timberharvestplans)and Live & Learn (carbon accounting andMRV, carbon project development, communitybased project governance, sales and marketing). The Drawa SFM project developed bySPC/GTZwasclearlytechnicallyfeasible,butdidnotsucceedcommercially.

ForSFMtobeappliedsuccessfullyas thebaseline fora forestcarbonprojectatDrawaatleastoneofthefollowingconditionswouldneedtobemet:

• CommerciallyviableSFMloggingoperationsarecommonpracticeelsewhereinFiji.• SFMloggingwas/iscommerciallysuccessfulatDrawaoronneighboringlands.

Neitheroftheseconditionshasbeenmet,andassuch,thisprojectassertsthatconventionalloggingisthemostplausibleactivityintheabsenceofthePESproject.

Incontrastthereisevidencetosupportaconventionalloggingbaselinebecausebothofthefollowingconditionshavebeenmet:

ProjectScenario1SFMLogging(SPC/GTZ)

ProjectScenario2ForestProtection(LLEE)

ConventionalLoggingBaseline


23

• CommerciallyviableconventionalloggingoperationsarecommonpracticeelsewhereinFiji.

• Conventionalloggingwas/iscommerciallysuccessfulonneighboringlands.

3.1.2.1 Commercially Viable Baseline


Projectsarealso required toundertakeaneconomicanalysis forestablishing the scaleofbaselineactivityanddemonstratingthatthebaselineactivityiscommerciallyviable.

ThisTechnical SpecificationsModuleestablishes thebaselineonhistoricalactivities in theproject and/or reference area, so is similar to making the assumption that the baselinescenariowillcontinuefortheProjectPeriod.ProjectCoordinatorsarerequiredtoupdatethebaselineeverytenyearsfromtheProjectStartDate.

3.1.3 Justification for Excluding Alternative Baselines

Possiblealternativebaselines:

ForestProtection

This is not likely given theneed for economicdevelopment among the landowners in thelandowningmataqalioftheDrawaBlockwhoseeconomicdevelopmentneedsareunabletobemetunderexistinglandusearrangements.

SustainableForestManagementlogging

Thesustainableforestmanagement(SFM)projectestablishedbySPC/GTZ(nowGIZ)intheearly 2000swas unsuccessful commercially. Landowners at Drawa grew frustrated at thelack of progress for economic development in their locale, and were in the process ofconsideringconventional loggingwhentheProjectCoordinatorproposedaPESproject.SostrongwastheincentivetoreturntoconventionalloggingthattwolandowningclansoftheoriginalsetofprojectlandownersoptedoutofthePESprojectelectingconventionallogginginstead(mataqaliNavoatuandmataqaliVulavuladamu).Thistookplaceinearly2015where24%of theoriginalprojectwas lost toconventional logging (seeAppendix5, sheetDrawaPHI,cellsI32,andI40-I46toseetheadjustedPHIcalculationsfollowingtheexitofthesetwolandownergroupsfromthePESProjectinfavourofconventionallogging).

Commercial SFM practitioners throughout the Pacific Islands region have found manybarriers tocommercial viability for community-basedSFM. Inpractice thishasmeant thatalthoughtechnicallyviable,SFMoperationsrarelysucceedcommercially in theregion.Forexample, the Natural Resources Development Foundation (NRDF) in the Solomon Islands(http://nrdfsolomons.org/about-us/)providedtechnicalsupportforSFMprojectsinWestern


24

Provincebetween2003andthepresent,andreportedtousthefollowinginrelationtoSFMloggingventures:

AlthoughcommunitybasedSFMsawmilloperationscan(intheory)runprofitably,alackof management capacity commonly prevents commercial success. The main problemNRDFseeinSFMsawmilloperationsare:

• Alackofcapitaltostartoperations• Nocapitalkeptforsparepartspartwaythrough• Noreplacementforsawmillsoafter5-6yearsitallstops• Higher production costs when trees have low recovery rates (rotten trees,

rejectionhighaftergrading)• Lotsoftimberwastewhichisnotutilizedforincomegeneration.• Incomenormallyrequiredforsustainingtheforestryoperationgetusedforday-

to-day familyneedssono longtermdevelopmentoutcomesresult from loggingoperations

• Logisticproblems(e.g.timbertransportfromsitetobeachandtomarket)makerunningcostsprohibitivelyhigh.

TheDrawaSFMprojectinFijiandtheButmasSFMprojectinVanuatuwerebothunabletosucceed commercially in spite of strong technical support fromGTZ during project designand development. These examples underscore the challenges faced by Pacific Island SFMloggingoperations ina commercial context, andhelp toexplainwhycommercial SFMhasnotbecomeanormintheregion.ThisabsenceofcommercialsuccessinSFMlogginginthePacific Islands (and Fiji in particular) reinforces the justification for a conventional loggingbaselineforaPESprojectatDrawa.

3.1.4 Stratification


AllprojectsapplyingthisTechnicalSpecificationsModuleshallstratifythebaselinescenariointothefollowingstrata:

a. Forestcompositionstratification.b. Forestmanagementstratification.

Thisprojecthasthreestrata:

1. Non-Forest(notcontainedintheEligibleForestArea)2. LoggedForest– forest thathasbeen influencedby logging in thepastandthereby

currentlyexistsasaregeneratingforestthatissequesteringcarbondioxideannually3. Unlogged Forest – forest that has not been influenced by logging in the past and

thereby currently exists as an old-growth forest that is not sequestering carbondioxideannually,butwhererespirationandphotosysnthesisratescanceleachotherout.


25

3.1.5 Additionality


5.4. Ecosystem services forming the basis of Plan Vivo projects must be additional i.e.would not have been generated in the absence of the project,which involves as aminimumdemonstratingthat:

5.4.1. Projectinterventionsarenotrequiredbyexistinglawsorregulations,unlessitcanbeshownthatthose lawsarenotenforcedorcommonlymet inpracticeandthesupportoftheprojectisthereforejustified;

5.4.2. Therearefinancial,social,cultural,technical,scientificorinstitutionalbarrierspreventingprojectinterventionsfromtakingplace.

Accordingtosection5.4oftheISO14064-2standard(2006):

Theprojectproponentshallselectorestablish, justifyandapplycriteriaandproceduresfordemonstrating that the project results in GHG emissions reductions or removalenhancementsthatareadditionaltowhatwouldoccurinthebaselinescenario.

Thisproject tests theadditionalityof theprojectusingthemostrecentversionof theVCSAdditionalityTool for IFMProjects.TheAdditionalityAssessment ispresented inAppendix10.

3.1.6 Baseline Revision

AccordingtoSection5.3ofthePlanVivoStandard(2013):

Technical specificationsmust be updated at least every 5 yearswhere they are still beingusedtosignnewPESAgreements,byreviewingbothavailabledatafromprojectmonitoringresults,e.g.speciesgrowthdata,andnewavailabledatafromoutsidetheproject.

All projects are required to undertake a baseline revision every 5 years. This baselinerevisionwill include revisionof the technicaldataused to create theBaselineandProjectScenariosfromanecosystemserviceaccountingperspective.


26

4. Quantifying Baseline GHG Emissions and Removals AccordingtoSection5ofthePlanVivoStandard(2013):

5.2. Sources of data used to quantify ecosystem services, including all assumptions anddefault factors,mustbe specifiedandasup-to-dateaspossible,witha justificationforwhytheyareappropriate.

5.18. Anapprovedapproachmustbeusedtoquantify initialcarbonstocksandemissionssources,andestimatehowtheyaremostlikelytochangeovertheprojectperiod,aspartofthebaselinescenario.

AccordingtoSection5.7oftheISO14064-2Standard:

Theprojectproponentshallselectorestablishcriteria,proceduresand/ormethodologiesforquantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for selected GHG sources, sinks and/orreservoirs(seeSection6above).

Based on selected or established criteria and procedures, the project proponent shallquantifyGHGemissionsand/orremovalsseparatelyfor

a) Each relevant GHG for each GHG source, sink and/or reservoir relevant for theproject,and

b) EachGHGsource,sinkand/orreservoirrelevantforthebaselinescenario.

When highly uncertain data and information are relied upon, the project proponent shallselect assumptions and values that ensure that the quantification does not lead to over-estimationofGHGemissionsreductionsorremovalenhancements.

TheprojectproponentshallestimateGHGemissionsand/orremovalsbyGHGsources,sinksandreservoirsrelevantfortheprojectandrelevantforthebaselinescenario,butnotselectedforregularmonitoring.

Theprojectproponentshallestablishandapplycriteria,proceduresand/ormethodologiestoassess the risk of a reversal of a GHG emission reduction or removal enhancement (i.e.permanenceofGHGemissionreductionorremovalenhancement).

Ifapplicable,theprojectproponentshallselectordevelopGHGemissionsorremovalfactorsthat:• arederivedfromarecognizedorigin,• areappropriatefortheGHGsourceorsinkconcerned,


27

• arecurrentatthetimeofquantification,• takeaccountofthequantificationuncertaintyandarecalculated inamanner intended

toyieldaccurateandreproducibleresults,and• areconsistentwiththeintendeduseoftheGHGreport.

This Technical SpecificationsModule calculates thenet anthropogenicGHGemissions andremovalsintheBaselineScenario,andthencalculatesthenetanthropogenicGHGemissionsandremovalsintheProjectScenario.

4.1 CALCULATION OF GHG EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS

The highest-level equation for carbon stock change measurement in this TechnicalSpecificationsModule for baseline and project scenarios is equivalent to Equation 2.3 ofVolume4,Chapter2ofthe2006IPCCGuidelinesforNationalGHGInventories:

Where: ∆CLUi = Carbon stock changes for a stratum of land-use category; and subscriptsdenote the followingcarbonpools:AB=AboveGroundLiveBiomass;BB=BelowGroundLiveBiomass;DW=Deadwood;LI=Litter;SO=Soils;HWP=HarvestedWoodProducts.

Annual carbon stock change calculations for baseline and project scenarios are based onEquation 2.7 (Chapter 2, Volume 4) of the IPCC 2006 Guidelines on National GHGInventories.

Where:∆CB=Annualchangeincarbonstocksinbiomass,(tonnesCyr-1);∆CG=Annualgain(removals)ofcarboninbiomassduetobiomassgrowthconsideringthetotalarea(tonnesCyr-1);∆CL=Annualloss(emissions)ofcarboninbiomassduetobiomasslossconsideringthetotalarea(tonnesCyr-1).

!"#$%&'()*(+&,&'-.(/&%"010203-&4(5$$2-.#62&(%0(/72%-$2&(8#,19:4&(!#%&30'-&4(

);;<(=>!!(+7-1&2-,&4(?0'(@#%-0,#2(+'&&,"074&(+#4(=,A&,%0'-&4( )BC(

!8( D(!'0$2#,1(

+8( D(+'#442#,1(

E8( D(E&%2#,14(

F8( D(F&%%2&G&,%4(

H8( D(H%"&'(8#,1(

(

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

(

!"#$%&'()*+*)$((#$,)-$./'()0%'-1)-2$(3!0)4'.)$),$(56#0!)-$%!3'.7)$0)$)0#8)'4)-2$(3!0)&()!$-2)

0%.$%#8)9&%2&()%2!)-$%!3'.7)��%

&'&' ()) (

E"&'&*(

�!8:((D(.#'60,(4%0.L(."#,3&4(?0'(#(2#,1974&(M8:P(.#%&30'J(#4(1&?-,&1(-,(QR7#%-0,()BUB(

%(( (((D(1&,0%&4( #( 4$&.-?-.( 4%'#%7G(0'( 4761-A-4-0,(S-%"-,( %"&( 2#,1974&(.#%&30'J( M6J(#,J(.0G6-,#%-0,(0?(4$&.-&4K(.2-G#%-.(N0,&K(&.0%J$&K(G#,#3&G&,%('&3-G&(&%.BK(4&&(!"#$%&'(OPK*%(D(U(%0(,B((

(

!"#$%&'()*+:)$((#$,)-$./'()0%'-1)-2$(3!0)4'.)$)0%.$%#8)'4)$),$(56#0!)-$%!3'.7)$0)$)0#8)'4)

-2$(3!0)&()$,,);'',0)

+,-./&(0,1121&' )))))))%

�� (

E"&'&*(

�!8:%(D(.#'60,(4%0.L(."#,3&4(?0'(#(4%'#%7G(0?(#(2#,1974&(.#%&30'J(

F764.'-$%4(1&,0%&(%"&(?0220S-,3(.#'60,($0024*(

5X( D(#60A&93'07,1(6-0G#44(

XX( D(6&20S93'07,1(6-0G#44(

YE( D(1&#1S001(

8=( D(2-%%&'(

FH( D(40-24(

WE>(D("#'A&4%&1(S001($'017.%4(

(

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

(

!"#$%&'()'*+,-.$#/$,&0'1",&2/,3'456'7/8&,'9456':2&'

;<=;' ;>>?'@ABB'C$-6&#-5&2'D",'E4/-"54#'C,&&58"$2&'C42'@5F&5/",-&2'

!"#"$"$% &'()%*+,'-(-(.%-(%'%&'()/01+%2'3+.4*5%

GH$4/-"5';<I'-5.#$6&2'/8&'D-F&'.4,J"5'K""#2'D",'L8-.8'2/".M'.845+&'&2/-%4/&2'4,&',&H$-,&6<'N8-2'2&./-"5'K,&2&5/2'

%&/8"62'D",'&2/-%4/-5+'J-"%422'.4,J"5'+4-520'#"22&2'456'5&/'.845+&2<'C4-52'-5.#$6&'J-"%422'+,"L/8'-5'4J"F&O

+,"$56'456'J&#"LO+,"$56'."%K"5&5/2<'9"22&2'4,&'.4/&+",-P&6'-5/"'L""6'D&##-5+2'",'84,F&2/0'D$&#L""6'+4/8&,-5+0'

456'#"22&2'D,"%'54/$,4#'6-2/$,J45.&2'"5'%454+&6'#456'2$.8'42'D-,&0'-52&./'"$/J,&4M2'456'&Q/,&%&'L&4/8&,'&F&5/2'

R&<+<0'8$,,-.45&20'D#""6-5+S<'NL"'%&/8"62'4,&'K,"F-6&6'D",'&2/-%4/-5+'.4,J"5'2/".M'.845+&2'-5'J-"%422<''

367% .89:/&;<<% ,7=6;>' ,&H$-,&2' /8&' J-"%422' .4,J"5' #"22' /"' J&' 2$J/,4./&6' D,"%' /8&' J-"%422' .4,J"5' +4-5'RGH$4/-"5' ;<TS<' N8-2' $56&,K-52' /8&' N-&,' ='%&/8"60' D",'L8-.8' 6&D4$#/' F4#$&2' D",' .4#.$#4/-"5' "D' -5.,&%&5/' 456'

#"22&2' 4,&' K,"F-6&6' -5' /8-2' !"#$%&' /"' &2/-%4/&' 2/".M' .845+&2' -5' J-"%422<' U-+8&,' /-&,' %&/8"62' $2&' ."$5/,3O

2K&.-D-.'64/4'/"'&2/-%4/&'+4-5'456'#"22',4/&2<'1",'4##'/-&,20'/8&2&'&2/-%4/&2',&H$-,&'."$5/,3O2K&.-D-.'4./-F-/3'64/40'

4#/8"$+8'D",'N-&,'=0'/8&2&'64/4'.45'J&'"J/4-5&6'D,"%'+#"J4##3O."%K-#&6'64/4J42&2'R&<+<0'1*7'2/4/-2/-.2S<'

'

+?0'3-4(%!"@%'((0'&%2A'(.+%-(%2'*B4(%1342C1%-(%B-4,'11%%

-(%&'()%*+,'-(-(.%-(%'%D'*3-20&'*%&'()/01+%2'3+.4*5%E.'-(/&411%,+3A4)F%

!"# $$$ �� '

V8&,&)'

�BW'X'455$4#'.845+&'-5'.4,J"5'2/".M2'-5'J-"%422'R/8&'2$%'"D'4J"F&O+,"$56'456'J&#"LO+,"$56'J-"%422'

/&,%2'-5'GH$4/-"5';<IS'D",'&4.8'#456'2$JO.4/&+",30'."52-6&,-5+'/8&'/"/4#'4,&40'/"55&2'B'3,O=''

�BC'X'455$4#' -5.,&42&'-5'.4,J"5'2/".M2'6$&'/"'J-"%422'+,"L/8'D",'&4.8'#456'2$JO.4/&+",30'."52-6&,-5+'

/8&'/"/4#'4,&40'/"55&2'B'3,O='

�B9'X'455$4#'6&.,&42&'-5'.4,J"5'2/".M2'6$&'/"'J-"%422'#"22'D",'&4.8'#456'2$JO.4/&+",30'."52-6&,-5+'/8&'

/"/4#'4,&40'/"55&2'B'3,O='

N8&' .845+&2' -5' B' 2/".M' -5' J-"%422' D",' #456' ,&%4-5-5+' -5' /8&' 24%&' #456O$2&' .4/&+",3' R&<+<0' %&'()*+ !,-.+/(0,1-1-2+%&'()*+!,-.S'4,&'J42&6'"5'&2/-%4/&2'"D'455$4#'+4-5'456'#"22'-5'J-"%422'2/".M2<'B"$5/,-&2'$2-5+'453'"D' /8&' /8,&&' /-&,2' .45' 46"K/' /8-2' %&/8"6<' N8-2' %&/8"6' .45' J&' $2&6' J3' ."$5/,-&2' /84/' 6"' 5"/' 84F&' 54/-"54#'

-5F&5/",3'232/&%2'6&2-+5&6'D",'&2/-%4/-5+'L""63'J-"%422'2/".M2<'Y&D4$#/'64/4'4,&'K,"F-6&6'-5'#456O$2&'.4/&+",3'

.84K/&,2' D",' -5F&5/",3'."%K-#&,2'L8"'6"'5"/'84F&'4..&22' /"'."$5/,3O2K&.-D-.'64/4<'V",M28&&/2'84F&'4#2"'J&&5'

6&F&#"K&6'$2-5+'/8&'%&/8"62'456'&H$4/-"52'R*55&Q'=S<''

367'1=;GH/)9II7J7:G7%,7=6;>',&H$-,&2'J-"%422'.4,J"5'2/".M'-5F&5/",-&2'D",'4'+-F&5'#456'4,&40'4/'/L"'K"-5/2'-5'/-%&<'*55$4#'J-"%422'.845+&'-2'/8&'6-DD&,&5.&'J&/L&&5'/8&'J-"%422'2/".M'4/'/-%&'/

;'456'/-%&'/

=0'6-F-6&6'J3'/8&'

5$%J&,'"D'3&4,2'J&/L&&5'/8&'-5F&5/",-&2'RGH$4/-"5';<ZS<''@5'2"%&'.42&20'K,-%4,3'64/4'"5'J-"%422'%43'J&'-5'/8&'

D",%'"D'L""6'F"#$%&'64/40'D",'&Q4%K#&0'D,"%'D",&2/'2$,F&320'-5'L8-.8'.42&'D4./",2'4,&'K,"F-6&6'/"'."5F&,/'L""6'

F"#$%&'/"'.4,J"5'%422'$5-/20'42'28"L5'-5'GH$4/-"5';<Z<J<'

'

+?0'3-4(%!"K%'((0'&%2A'(.+%-(%2'*B4(%1342C1%-(%B-4,'11%%

-(%&'()%*+,'-(-(.%-(%3A+%1',+%&'()/01+%2'3+.4*5%E1342C/)-LL+*+(2+%,+3A4)F%

SR

SR

=;

=;

**$$

$ **# �

�� '' ' ' ' R4S'

L8&,&'

� ��31

313143131 $%/#$5%67$31

0

0000 [S=R\0

' RJS'

V8&,&)'

�BW'X'455$4#'.845+&'-5'.4,J"5'2/".M2'-5'J-"%422'R/8&'2$%'"D'4J"F&O+,"$56'456'J&#"LO+,"$56'J-"%422'

/&,%2'-5'GH$4/-"5';<I'S'-5'#456',&%4-5-5+'-5'/8&'24%&'.4/&+",3'R&<+<0'%&'()*+!,-.+/(0,1-1-2+%&'()*+!,-.S0'/"55&2'B'3,O=+

B'/;' X'/"/4#'.4,J"5'-5'J-"%422'D",'&4.8'#456'2$JO.4/&+",3'4/'/-%&'/

;0'/"55&2'B''


28

ThefollowingtableliststhebaselineGHGsourcesandsinksmodelledbythismethodology:

Table4.1:BaselineGHGSourcesandSinks Acronym

IncludedinModelling: AboveGroundBiomassEmittedasaresultofbaselinedeforestation AGBEBelowGroundBiomassEmittedasaresultofbaselineactivity BGBERemovalssequesteredintothelong-termwoodproductpool ltWPResidualLiveBiomassinpostdeforestationwoodyvegetation RLBPDExcludedfromModelling: Emissionsfromfossilfuelcomponentsofbaselineactivity

Calculation of Baseline Scenario carbon dioxide emissions and removals involves theapplicationoftheequationspresentedinthissectionofthismethodologytocompletethecarbon accounting for all land parcels in the Baseline Scenario. The baseline and projectemissions and removal calculations are based on conservative default values applied toempiricalmeasurementofbaselinetimberharvestingrates.


5.17. Whereclimateservicesareaffectedbycyclicalmanagementactivity,e.g.harvestingornaturallyoccurringcycles,thequantificationperiodmustberepresentativeoftheservicesprovidedthroughoutthefullcycleofevents.

Theequations calculate the total emissionsacross the creditingperiod foreachemissionssource.

Table4.1a:EvidenceRequirement:BaselineScenarioGHGEmissions/Removals# Name/Description4.1a CommercialtimberharvestplanfortheEligibleForestArea.SuppliedinTable10of

theDrawaModelAreaForestManagementPlan(p21)Appendix12incombinationwithan80%harvestrateunderaconventionalloggingbaseline(i.e.removalof80%ofcommercialtimberidentifiedinthepre-harvestinventory).ThelatterisprovidedinAppendix5(DrawaCarbonBudget&PricingSpreadsheetDrawaPHI,columnI).

4.1.1 Step 1 – Harvest Rate (HR)

The Harvest Rate (HR) for this project was calculated using a harvest plan (Appendix 5)developedfortheareaandappliesaconventional loggingbaselineofan80%harvestrateforcommercialspecies.TheharvestratefortheEligibleForestAreaiscalculatedasthesumofharvestratesforeachloggingcoupusingan80%loggingratescenario.

TheHarvestRatefortheEligibleForestAreais:8,147m3yr-1

(SeeAppendix5DrawaCarbonBudget&Pricing,sheetDrawaPHI,cellI51.)


29

4.1.2 Step 2 – Total Wood Harvested (TWH)

TotalWoodHarvested(TWH)iscalculatedusingthemethodologypresentedinSection4.1.2oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

TWH=8,147/0.50=16,295m3yr-1

(SeeAppendix5DrawaCarbonBudget&Pricing,sheetDrawaCarbon,cellD4.)

4.1.3 Step 3 – Collateral Damage (CD)

CollateralDamage(CD)iscalculatedusingthemethodologypresentedinSection4.1.3oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

CW=16,295x0.15=2,444m3yr-1


4.1.4 Step 4 – Above Ground Biomass Emitted (AGBE)

AboveGround Biomass Emitted (AGBE) is calculated using themethodology presented inSection 4.1.4 of the Technical Specifications Module (C) 1.1 (IFM-LtPF): D2.1.1 v2.0,20151009).

AGBE=16,295+2,444=18,159m3yr-1


4.1.5 Step 5 – Below Ground Biomass Emitted (BGBE)

Below Ground Biomass Emitted (BGBE) is calculated using themethodology presented inSection 4.1.5 of the Technical Specifications Module (C) 1.1 (IFM-LtPF): D2.1.1 v2.0,20151009).

BGBE=18,159x0.37=6,933m3yr-1


Thereareno speciesknown to regenerate fromstumps located in theeligible forestareaandassuchnosubtractionshavebeenmadetoBGBE.

4.1.6 Step 6 – Total Emitted Wood Volume in Cubic Metres (TM3)

Total EmittedWood Volume for Rotation 1 in cubicmeters (TM3) is calculated using themethodologypresentedinSection4.1.6oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).


30

TM3=18,159+6,933=25,672m3yr-1


4.1.7 Step 7 – Gross Total Emissions in tCO2e (GTCO2)

GrossTotalEmissions intCO2eforRotation1(GTCO2) iscalculatedusingthemethodologypresentedinSection4.1.7oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

GTCO2=((25,672x0.45)x0.51))x3.66=21,689tCO2eyr-1


Meanwooddensityof0.51wasappliedandisderivedfromPaytonandWeaver(2011),andSPC/GTZ(2003),andcalculatedinAppendix5DrawaCarbonBudget&Pricing,sheetDrawaWoodDensity,cellD38.

AccordingtotheDrawaForestManagementPlanthecurrenttop10marketablespeciesofFijicompriseofalmost50%ofthetotalnumberoftrees≥35cmdbh.ThemostfrequentspeciesareDamanu,Kaudamumale,Yasiyasi,Sa,SasawiraandWaciwaci.

4.1.8 Step 8 – Gross Baseline Emissions For Rotation 1 (GBER1)

Gross Baseline Emissions for Rotation 1 (GBER1) is calculated using the methodologypresentedinSection4.1.8oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

GBER1=21,689–501=21,187tCO2eyr-1


4.1.9 Step 9 – Sequestration into Long Term Wood Products for Rotation 1 (ltWPR1)

Removals sequestered into the long-termWood Products pool for Rotation 1 (ltWPR1) iscalculatedusingthemethodologypresentedinSection4.1.9oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

ltWPR1=501tCO2eyr-1

(SeeAppendix5DrawaCarbonBudget&Pricing,sheetDrawaCarbon,cellR26.)


31

4.1.10 Step 10 – Net Baseline Emissions Avoided For Rotation 1 (NBERx)

Net Baseline Emissions for Rotation 1 (NBEARx) is calculated using the methodologypresentedinSection4.1.10oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0, 20151009). NBEA for Rotation 1 (NBEAR1) and Rotation 2 (NBEAR2) are calculatedbelow.

NBEAR1=21,187*0.75=15,891tCO2eyr-1


NBEAR2=15,891*0.25=3,973tCO2eyr-1


Thisprojectappliesacombinationofbaselinescenariovariants1and2asdefinedin4.1.10oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).Variant1is applied to unlogged forest land parcelswithin the Eligible Forest Area, and variant 2 isappliedtologgedforestlandparcelswithintheEligibleForestArea.

Landparcelsapplyingbaselinescenariovariant2(loggedforest)are:

Table4.1.10LoggedForestLandParcels

LandParcel ha

Nadugumoimoi 137

Nakalounivuaka 637Koroni 360

Nakase 161Tonikula 101

Totalloggedarea 1,396

(SeeAppendix5DrawaCarbonBudget&Pricing,sheetDrawaPHI,cellsO5-12.)

Thebalanceof327haisunloggedforest.


32

5. Quantifying Project Emission Reductions & Removal Enhancements AccordingtoSection5ofthePlanVivoStandard(2013):

5.2. Sources of data used to quantify ecosystem services, including all assumptions anddefault factors,mustbe specifiedandasup-to-dateaspossible,witha justificationforwhytheyareappropriate.

AccordingtoSection5.8oftheISO14064-2Standard:

Theprojectproponentshallselectorestablishcriteria,proceduresand/ormethodologiesforquantifying GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements during projectimplementation.

Theprojectproponentshallapplythecriteriaandmethodologiesselectedorestablishedtoquantify GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements for the GHG project. GHGemissionreductionsorremovalenhancementsshallbequantifiedasthedifferencebetweentheGHGemissionsand/orremovalsfromGHGsources,sinksandreservoirsrelevantfortheprojectandthoserelevantforthebaselinescenario.

Theprojectproponentshallquantify,asappropriate,GHGemissionreductionsandremovalenhancements separately for each relevantGHGand its correspondingGHG sources, sinksand/orreservoirsfortheprojectandthebaselinescenario

TheprojectproponentshallusetonnesastheunitofmeasureandshallconvertthequantityofeachtypeofGHGtotonnesofCO2eusingappropriateGWPs.

5.1 PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS

ProjectactivityemissionsareexcludedfromthisprojectasprovidedforinSection5.1oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

The period for which projects can claim Enhanced Removals (ER) for Logged Forest landparcelsfollowsSection5.1oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).


33

5.1.1 Step 11 – Enhanced Removals (ER)

EnhancedRemovals(ER) iscalculatedusingthemethodologypresented inSection5.1.1oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

ER=12,564tCO2eyr-1


TheMeanSequestrationRateappliedinthisprojectis9tCO2eha-1yr-1.Thisisderivedfrom

(andappliesaconservativenessfactorto)theIPCCdefaultvalueforcarbonsequestrationintropical rainforest for the region Asia (other) set at 11.78tCO2eha

-1yr-1 - assuming a 0.47carbonfraction(woodandfoliage)(IPCC2006,Ch4,p4.59–Table4.10).

5.1.2 Step 12 – Enhanced Removals Window (ERW)

TheEnhancedRemovalsWindow (ERW) for Logged Forest landparcels is calculatedusingthemethodologypresented inSection5.1.2of theTechnicalSpecificationsModule (C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

ERW=45yearsstartingin2005

Landowner consultations revealed past logging to have taken place in the land parcelsdepictedinTable4.1.10.ThemostrecentloggingintheLoggedForestAreaswasasfollows:

• Illegalloggingin2002withtheremovalof144m3• LoggingaspartoftheSustainableForestManagementprogrammein2005withthe

removalof503m3

SeeAppendix11,Section5.1.1,p37,andFigure5.1.2forinformationonpastlogging.


34

Figure5.1.1LoggingundertheDrawaSustainableForestManagementproject

ThestratificationoftheProjectAreaintoLoggedandUnloggedforest(i.e.regeneratingandold-growthforest) issupportedbydatafromtheNationalForest Inventoryof1995,whichclassifiedthisareaasbeingcomprisedof:

Table5.1.2NationalForestInventoryClassificationoftheDrawaForestForestCover CrownCover% %TotalAreaDenseForest 75-100MediumDenseForest 45-80

44

ScatteredForest 15-50 46Non-Forest <15 10Total(6,345.5ha) 100

Source:SPC/GTZ2003.TheDrawaModelAreaForestManagementPlan2003-2012,p16.

Forty fiveyears from2005wassetas theEnhancedRemovalsWindow(applicableonly toLogged/regenerating Forest) assuming that by 2050 the carbon stocks affected by pastloggingwouldhaverecoveredtoalevelwherethemeansequestrationratebecomeszero.


35

5.2 PROJECT LEAKAGE

5.2.1 Step 13 – Total Activity Shifting Leakage (TAL)

Total Activity Shifting Leakage (TAL) is calculated using the methodology presented inSection 5.2.1 of the Technical Specifications Module (C) 1.1 (IFM-LtPF): D2.1.1 v2.0,20151009).

TAL=0tCO2eyr-1

Thisisjustifiedonthebasisthatallforestlandownedbyparticipatinglandownershasbeenincludedintheprotectedforest.Theonlyareasofnaturalforestthatarenotincludedintheprojectcompriseof landsneartoexistinghumansettlementsallocatedtosubsistenceandcashcropgardensunderboththebaselineandprojectscenarios.

5.2.2 Step 14 – Total Market Leakage (TML)

TotalMarketLeakage(TML)iscalculatedusingthemethodologypresentedinSection5.2.2oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

TAL=0tCO2eyr-1

Itisestimatedthatpastloggingintheprojectareahasthusfarextracted647m3oftimberbetween2003andthepresent(seeAppendix5DrawaCarbonBudget&Pricingspreadsheet,sheet Drawa PHI cells I47-49). The contribution of the Project Area to the nationalcommercialtimbervolumeisinsignificant.

5.2.3 Step 15 - Total Leakage (TLK)

Total Leakage (TLK) is calculatedusing themethodologypresented in Section5.2.3of theTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

TLK=0tCO2eyr-1


5.3 NET GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS

GreenhousegasemissioncalculationsundertakenthroughSteps1to15aboveallowsanex-ante estimation of the net GHG Emission Reductions brought about by replacing theBaseline Scenario with the Project Scenario. This involves the calculation of Net BaselineEmissionsAvoided (NBEA),NetProjectEmissions (i.e.EnhancedRemovals)andaccountingforleakage.ThisprovidesabasistocalculateNetProjectBenefits(NPB)foreachrotationinthebaselinetimeline.


36

5.3.1 Step 16 – Net Project Removals (NPR)

NetProjectRemovals(NPR)iscalculatedusingthemethodologypresentedinSection5.3.1of the Technical SpecificationsModule (C) 1.1 (IFM-LtPF): D2.1.1 v2.0, 20151009). This iscalculatedforRotation1 (NPRR1)andRotation2 (NPRR2),which incombinationcomprisethe30-yearProjectPeriod.

NPRR1=12,564tCO2eyr-1


NPRR2=12,564tCO2eyr-1


5.4 NON-PERMANENCE RISK AND BUFFER DETERMINATION

Thisprojectappliesadefault20%buffer.

5.4.1 Step 17 – Buffer Credits

5.4.1.1 Project Buffer Rating

TheProjectBufferRating(PBR)isusedtocalculatetheBufferforthebaselinetimeline.TheProjectBufferRating(PBR)isequalto0.2inthisTechnicalSpecificationsModule.

5.4.1.2 Buffer Credits For Net Baseline Emissions Avoided

BufferCreditsassociatedwithNetBaselineEmissionsAvoided (NBEA)arecalculatedusingthemethodologypresentedinSection5.4.1.2oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF): D2.1.1 v2.0, 20151009). This is calculated for Rotation 1 (BUFNBEAR1) andRotation2BUFNBEAR2).

BUFNBEAR1=15,891x0.2=3,178tCO2eyr-1


BUFNBEAR2=3,973x0.2=795tCO2eyr-1


5.4.1.3 Buffer Credits For Net Project Removals

BufferCreditsassociatedwithNetProjectRemovals(NPR)foreachrotationinthebaselinetimelinefortheProjectScenarioarecalculatedusingthemethodologypresentedinSection5.4.1.3 of the Technical SpecificationsModule (C) 1.1 (IFM-LtPF): D2.1.1 v2.0, 20151009).ThisiscalculatedforRotation1(BUFNPRR1)andRotation2BUFNPRR2).

BUFNPRR1=12,564x0.2=2,513tCO2eyr-1


37


BUFNPRR2=12,564x0.2=2,513tCO2eyr-1


5.4.1.4 Buffer Account Attributes

TheBufferAccountAttributes forthisprojectapplythemethodologypresented inSection5.4.1.4oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

5.5 NET CARBON CREDITS

5.5.1 Step 18 – Net Carbon Credits (NCCRx)

Net carbon credits for this project are calculated using the methodology presented inSection 5.5.1 of the Technical Specifications Module (C) 1.1 (IFM-LtPF): D2.1.1 v2.0,20151009).ThisiscalculatedforRotation1(NCCR1)andRotation2(NCCR2).

NCCR1=(15,891–12,712)+(11,168–2,234)=22,764tCO2eyr-1


NCCR2=(3,973–795)+(12,564–2,513)=13,229tCO2eyr-1


5.6 MANAGING LOSS EVENTS

This project applies Section 5.6 of the Technical SpecificationsModule (C) 1.1 (IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009)formanaginglossevents.


38

6. Quantifying Project Habitat Hectare Enhancements This project has elected to produce Habitat Hectare units as mutually exclusive units toCarbonCreditsasspecifiedinSection6oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

This project elects to issue Habitat Hectare units through the issuance/retirement of theequivalentvolumeofCarbonCreditsperHabitatHectaresold(i.e.aregistryproxy). Inthisway, Habitat Hectare units are mutually exclusive to Carbon Credits from an ecosystemaccounting perspective for this project. For example, when this project sells one habitathectareunit,theequivalentvolumeofCarbonCreditsissuedtothisprojectwillberetiredatthepointof sale (i.e. therewill beno secondarymarket forHabitatHectareunits for thisproject as required in Section 6 of the Technical SpecificationsModule (C) 1.1 (IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009).

6.1 BASELINE HABITAT HECTARES

The baseline for Habitat Hectare units is conventional logging over 100% of the eligibleforestarea (BHH).BaselineHabitatHectareunits (BHH) isequal to thenumberofHabitatHectareunitstobeproducedinthebaseline.

BHH=0hayr-1

6.2 PROJECT HABITAT HECTARES

ProjectHabitatHectareEnhancementsarecalculatedusing themethodologypresented inSection6.2oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009.

The eligible forest area (EFA) is 1,723 ha in size. Project Habitat Hectares of rainforestprotected inside theeligible forestarea:1,378hayr-1 forbothRotation1andRotation2.ThisamountstotheEFA–20%.

6.3 LEAKAGE

TheleakageassessmentforHabitatHectares inthisprojectequalstheleakageassessmentforCarbonCreditsasspecifiedinSection5.2ofthisdocument.Accordingly,therehasbeennoactivityshiftingleakage.Therehasbeennomarketleakageinthismonitoringperiod(duetotheinsignificantvolumeofbaselinetimberharvestinginrelationtothenationaldomestictimbermarket).

Annualleakage(ceterisparibus)forthisproject=0ha.


39

6.4 QUANTIFICATION OF HABITAT HECTARE UNITS

6.4.1 Gross Habitat Hectares

GrossHabitatHectares(GHH)iscalculatedbyapplyingthemethodologyspecifiedinSection6.4.4oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009.

EFA=GHH=1,723ha.

(SeeAppendix5DrawaCarbonBudget&Pricing,sheetDrawaHH,cellE5.)

6.4.2 Habitat Hectare Buffer

TheHabitatHectareBuffer(BUFHH)iscalculatedbyapplyingthemethodologyspecifiedinSection 6.4.2 of the Technical Specifications Module (C) 1.1 (IFM-LtPF): D2.1.1 v2.0,20151009.

BUFHH=345ha.


6.4.3 Net Habitat Hectares

NetHabitatHectares (NHH) iscalculatedbyapplyingthemethodologyspecified inSection6.4.3oftheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009.

NHH=1,723–345=1,378ha


6.4.4 Net Carbon Credit Equivalent

NetCarbonCreditEquivalent(NCCE)iscalculatedbyapplyingthemethodologyspecifiedinSection6.4.4ofTechnicalSpecificationsModule (C)1.1 (IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009.ThisiscalculatedforRotation1(NCCER1)andRotation2(NCCER2).

NCCER1=1,378x16.51=22,764tCO2eyr-1

(SeeAppendix5DrawaCarbonBudget&Pricing,sheetDrawaHH,cellE9.Thiscalculationcanbe cross-checkedby ensuring that this number is the sameasNCCR1 in sheetDrawaCarbon,cellD33).

NCCER2=1,378x9.60=13,229tCO2eyr-1

(SeeAppendix5DrawaCarbonBudget&Pricing,sheetDrawaHH,cellE11.Thiscalculationcanbe cross checkedbyensuring that this number is the sameasNCCR1 in sheetDrawaCarbon,cellD34).


40

6.4.5 Net Carbon Credits Per Habitat Hectare

NetCarbonCreditsPerHabitatHectare(NCC/HH)iscalculatedbyapplyingthemethodologyspecified in Section6.4.5of theTechnical SpecificationsModule (C)1.1 (IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009.

NCC/HHR1=(12,712+10,051)/1,378=16.51tCO2eha-1yr-1

NCC/HHR2=(3,178+10,051)/1,378=9.60tCO2eha-1yr-1

NetHabitatHectares(NHH)iscalculatedasfollows:

Table6.4QuantificationofHabitatHectareunits

Year GrossHabitatHectares(GHH)(ha)

Buffer(GHH)(ha)

Leakage(ha)

NetHabitatHectares(NHH)(ha)

NetCarbonCreditsequivalent

(mutuallyexclusivetoHHs)(tCO2e)

NetCarbonCredits/HabitatHectare(tCO2e)

R1 1,723 345 0 1,378 22,764 16.51

R2 1,723 345 0 1,378 13,229 9.60

(SeeAppendix5DrawaCarbonBudget&Pricing,sheetDrawaHH,cellsE4-E12.)

6.5 MANAGING LOSS EVENTS

Managing loss events is addressed in Section 5.6 of this document and focuses on theCarbonCreditlossesandconvertsthembacktoHHlossesusingtheequationsabove.


41

7. Assessment of Uncertainty ThisprojectisguidedbytheuncertaintyassessmentdevelopedbytheVCS.

AccordingtothePlanVivoStandard(2013,p17):

5.11. Projects must identify and describe where uncertainty exists in quantifications ofecosystemservicesandestimatetheapproximate levelor rangeofuncertainty.Thelevelofuncertaintymustbefactoredintothelevelofconservativenessappliedintheaccountingmethodforquantifyingecosystemservices.

According to the Approved VCS Tool for the Estimation of Uncertainty for IFM ProjectActivitiesVT0003V1.0(2010):

Conservativeestimatescanbeusedinsteadofuncertainties,providedthattheyarebasedonverifiableliteraturesourcesorexpertjudgment.Inthiscasetheuncertaintyisassumedtobezero. However, this tool provides a procedure to combine uncertainty information andconservativeestimatesresultinginanoverallex-postprojectuncertainty.

Itisimportantthattheprocessofprojectplanningconsideruncertainty.Proceduresincludingstratification and the allocation of sufficientmeasurement plots can help ensure that lowuncertaintyincarbonstocksresultsandultimatelyfullcreditingcanresult.

7.1 UNCERTAINTY IN BASELINE GHG EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS

7.1.1 Above Ground Biomass Emitted

The core of the avoided emissions component of the baseline calculation is based on aconservativeestimateofthewoodybiomassvolumetoberemovedinthebaselineactivity.Uncertainty isaddressedbymeansofapplyingpre-harvest inventorydataasstated in theDrawaModelAreForestManagementPlan(SPC/GTZ2003,p73):

The pre-harvest inventory was done through a systematic line sampling design,wherebyparallelstripswereestablishedwithcontinuousplotsof20x10m(0.02ha).ToachievethestatisticaltargetofStandardErrorsaround<10thedistancebetweensampling strips varies according to the coupe size. The chosen sampling intensitiesallowforasufficientlyreliableinterpretationofcoupelevel.

In themain plots all trees >35cmdbh have been assessed for species, diameter atbreast heightmeasuredwith diameter tape, heightmeasuredwith clinometer andquality to estimate total standing stock. In addition in 3145 sub-plots (in ever fifth


42

mainplot)treesbetween10and35cmdbhhavebeenrecordedaccordinglywithouttakingheightstoobtainanimpressionoftheunderstorycondition.

Asamplingintensityof11%and1.9%hadbeenachievedforthemainandsubplotsrespectivelytakinggrossareasasreference.

WooddensitydatainthisprojectisderivedfromwooddensitydataforthespeciesfromtheFijiForestryDepartment(seePaytonandWeaver2011).ThisproducedahigherresolutionwooddensitycalculationthatrequiredbytheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF):D2.1.1v2.0,20151009.

Uncertaintyinabovegrounddeadbiomassleaflitter,aswellassoilcarbonisaddressedbyexclusionwhereexclusionisconservative.

7.1.2 Below Ground Biomass Emitted

UncertaintyinthecalculationofBelowGroundBiomassEmitted(BGBE)isaddressedinthisproject by applying the default value for below ground biomass used by the IPCC 2006InventoryGuidelines(Chapter4,pg.49)of0.37.

7.1.3 Gross Total Emissions in tCO2

UncertaintyinthecalculationofGrossTotalEmissionsintCO2e(GTCO2)isaddressedinthisprojectby:

a. FollowingtheIPCCprocedureforconvertingmoistwoodvolumetocarbondioxide,and

b. Using species-by-species wood density for the speciesmix contained in the forestinventorydata(andrevertingtogenusorfamilywhenspeciesdatawasunavailable).

7.2 PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS

7.2.1 Enhanced Removals

Uncertainty associated with the calculation of the mean sequestration is addressed byapplicationofaconservativenessfactorbuiltintothecalculationofEnhancedRemovals.

TheMeanSequestrationRateappliedinthisprojectis9tCO2eha-1yr-1.Thisisderivedfrom

(andappliesaconservativenessfactorto)theIPCCdefaultvalueforcarbonsequestrationintropical rainforest for the region Asia (other) set at 11.78tCO2eha

-1yr-1 - assuming a 0.47carbonfraction(woodandfoliage)(IPCC2006,Ch4,p4.59–Table4.10).


43

8. Monitoring The GHG Project AccordingtoSection5ofthePlanVivoStandard(2013,p17):

5.9. Amonitoringplanmustbedevelopedforeachprojectinterventionwhichspecifies:5.9.1. Performance indicatorsand targets tobeusedandhowtheydemonstrate if

ecosystemservicesarebeingdelivered.Performance targetsmaybedirectlyor indirectly linked to the delivery of ecosystem services, e.g. based onsuccessful implementation ofmanagement activities or other improvementsbutmustservetomotivateparticipantstosustaintheprojectintervention

5.9.2. Monitoringapproaches(methods)5.9.3. Frequencyofmonitoring5.9.4. Durationofmonitoring

Accordingtosection5.10oftheISO14064-2Standard:

The project proponent shall establish andmaintain criteria and procedures for obtaining,recording, compiling and analysing data and information important for quantifying andreportingGHGemissionsand/orremovalsrelevantfortheprojectandbaselinescenario(i.e.GHGinformationsystem).Monitoringproceduresshouldincludethefollowing:

a) Purposeofmonitoring;b) Typesofdataandinformationtobereported,includingunitsofmeasurement;c) Originofthedata;d) Monitoringmethodologies,includingestimation,modelling,measurementor

calculationapproaches;e) Monitoringtimesandperiods,consideringtheneedsofintendedusers;f) Monitoringrolesandresponsibilities;g) GHGinformationmanagementsystems,includingthelocationandretention

ofstoreddata.

Wheremeasurementandmonitoringequipmentisused,theprojectproponentshallensuretheequipmentiscalibratedaccordingtocurrentgoodpractice.

TheprojectproponentshallapplyGHGmonitoringcriteriaandproceduresonaregularbasisduringprojectimplementation.


44

The purpose of project monitoring is to measure, report, and verify ecosystem serviceoutcomesdeliveredbytheproject.Whileaprojectmaygeneratemultipleecosystemserviceandsocialoutcomes,thescopeofprojectmonitoringisrestrictedtothespecificoutcomesrepresentedbyPESunits.

TwoPESunittypesareproducedbythisproject:CarbonOffsetsandHabitatHectareunits.Bothoftheseunittypesaremutuallyexclusivetoeachotherandcannotbedoublecounted.ThecorePESunitforpurposesofprojectmonitoringiscarbonoffsets.HabitatHectaresareaproxyforgeneralrainforestprotectionwherebytheassertionofvaluedeliveredinprojectimplementation is dominated by project implementation activities associated with thecreationofcarbonoffsets.

TheparticulartypeofcarbonoffsetproducedbythisprojectisaPlanVivoCertificateissuedasaVerifiedEmissionReductionunit(VER)butimbuedwithbiodiversityandcommunityco-benefitsasrequiredbythePlanVivoStandard.Theseco-benefitsare integralattributesofthe carbon offsets produced under this standard and for this reason, project monitoringrequires measurement, reporting and verification of the following project outcomeattributes:

• Carbonbenefits• Communitybenefits• Biodiversitybenefits

Project measurement requirements set out in the PD are broken down into these threecategories.Similarly,projectmonitoringisalsobrokendownintothesamethreecategories.The Project Monitoring Plan is the annual standard operating procedure for measuringprojectoutcomedeliveryaccordingtothesethreeprojectbenefittypes.

8.1 CARBON MONITORING

Carbonoffsetsare issuedtothisprojectasaresultof3rdpartyverificationofeachProjectMonitoring Report, which contains data sufficient to provide evidence to support a GHGassertionfortheProjectMonitoringPeriodinquestion.

Project Monitoring reports will be produced using the latest VCS Monitoring ReportTemplateatamaximumof5-yearly intervalscoveringeachProjectMonitoringPeriod.TheProjectMonitoringReportwillbeproducedintheyearfollowingthefinalyearoftheProjectMonitoringPeriod.

8.1.1 Monitored And Non-Monitored Parameters - Carbon

Somedataparametersarederived fromdefaultvaluesoraremeasuredatone timeonly.These are non-monitored parameters. Other data parameters aremonitored during eachMonitoringPeriod.


45

Table8.1.1MonitoredandNon-MonitoredParameters(monitoredparametersingreen)Notation Parameter Unit Equa-

tionOrigin Monitored

EFA EligibleForestArea

ha - PD Monitored

LF/ULF Foreststratification(logged/unloggedforest)

ha - PD AreacalculatedinPD

HR HarvestRate m3yr-1 4.1.1 Calculatedfrominventory NotmonitoredUpdatedeachBaselineRevision

TWH TotalWoodHarvested

m3yr-1 4.1.2 Defaultfactorapplied NotmonitoredUpdatedeachBaselineRevision

CD CollateralDamage

m3yr-1 4.1.3 Root-shootratio(proportionofAGBE)

NotmonitoredUpdatedeachBaselineRevision

AGBE AboveGroundBiomassEmitted

m3yr-1 4.1.4 SumofTWHandCD NotmonitoredUpdatedeachBaselineRevision

BGBE BelowGroundBiomassEmitted

m3yr-1 4.1.5 Root-shootratio(proportionofAGBE)


TM3 TotalEmissionsinm3

m3yr-1 4.1.6 SumofAGBEandBGBE NotmonitoredUpdatedeachBaselineRevision

GTCO2 GrossTotalEmissionsintCO2e

tCO2eyr-1 4.1.7

Conversionfactorsfromwoodvolumetoemissions


GBER1 GrossBaselineEmissionsRotation1

tCO2eyr-1 4.1.8 Conversionfactorsfromwood

productscalculationNotmonitoredUpdatedeachBaselineRevision

ltWP LongTermWoodProducts

tCO2eyr-1 4.1.9 Calculatedthroughconversion

factorsbasedonvolumeofwoodharvested.

Notmonitored

NBEARx NetBaselineEmissionsAvoided

tCO2eyr-1 4.1.10

DefaultfactorsbasedonGBE Notmonitored

UpdatedeachBaselineRevision

ER EnhancedRemovals

tCO2eyr-1 5.1.1 Defaultvaluesderivedfrom

meansequestrationratesforrelevantforesttypesandsubsequentlyderivedfromproject-specificdata

NotMonitoredUpdatedeachMonitoringPeriod

TAL TotalActivityShiftingLeakage

tCO2eyr-1 5.2.1 DerivedfromActivityShifting

LeakageAnalysisMonitoredUpdatedeachMonitoringPeriod


46

8.1.2 Monitored Parameters - Carbon

Monitoreddataandparametersaresummarizedinthetablesbelow.

DataUnit/Parameter: EligibleForestArea(EligibleForestArea)Dataunit: HaDescription: Forestareaincludedinbaselineandprojectscenario,andareaupon

whichcreditingisbased(EFALF&/orEFAULF)Sourceofdata: AerialimageryandProjectBoundaryInspectionDescriptionofmeasurementmethodsandprocedurestobeapplied:

Aerialimagery(sub-meteraccuracy)todefineEligibleForestAreaboundary;boundarysurveyinspections(sub-meteraccuracy)usingGPS.MeasureanyreversalsoccurringintheEligibleForestArea.MonitoredbymeansofEligibleForestBoundaryInspectionsthatrecordanyreversalincidentoccurringwithintheEligibleForestArea.TheareaofanyreversalaboveandbeyondthedeminimisthresholdismeasuredusingGPSunitssetupforsub-meteraccuracyandmeasuringtapes.AreasubjecttoreversalisremovedfromtheEligibleForestAreauntilthereversalhasrecoveredthecarbonvolumelostinthereversal.Thisiscalculatedbymeansofsequestrationratesandtheestimateoftheforestagefortheareasubjecttothereversal.Forestageoftheareasubjecttothereversaliscalculatedby:• Dendrochronologyonstumpsinthecaseofatimberharvest

reversal• Dendrochronologyonadjacentlivingtreesofequivalentsizeof

burntstumpsFrequencyofmonitoring/recording:

Aerialimagery:5-yearlyEligibleForestBoundaryinspections:annually

Valuemonitored: AreaMonitoringequipment: Aerialimagery/satellitedatatosub-meteraccuracy

HandheldGPSunit,photographyQA/QCprocedurestobeapplied:

3-yearly3rdpartyverificationofProjectManagementReports.

Calculationmethod: SubtractreversalareafromtheEligibleForestAreaandrecalculatetheNetCarbonCreditsbymeansoftheBufferAccountRules(Section5.5.2thisdocument).

DataUnit/Parameter: TotalActivityShiftingLeakageDataunit: tCO2e/yr

Description: LeakagecausedbyactivityshiftingSourceofdata: ProjectAreaInspection(outsideEligibleForestArea)Descriptionofmeasurementmethodsandprocedurestobeapplied:

SitevisitofindigenousforestlandsownedandcontrolledbytheProjectOwnertoassesscommercialtimberharvestingactivityincomparisonwiththeBaselineActivityandProjectActivityasstatedinthePD.

Wherecommercialindigenoustimberharvestingisoccurringonlands


47

ownedandcontrolledbytheProjectOwnerbutlyingoutsidetheEligibleForestArea,andwheresuchharvestinghasbeendeclaredinthePD,thefollowingassessmentwillbeundertaken:

• RecordsoftimberharvestingactivityareinspectedandverifiedagainstthetimberharvestingplanstatedinthePD.

• TimberharvestingsitesareinspectedtoverifythattheyareoccurringintheareasspecifiedinthePD.

WherecommercialindigenoustimberharvestingisoccurringonlandsownedandcontrolledbytheProjectOwnerbutlyingoutsidetheEligibleForestArea,andwheresuchharvestinghasnotbeendeclaredinthePD(i.e.andtherebyconstitutesActivityShiftingLeakage),thefollowingassessmentwillbeundertaken:

• Recordsoftimberharvestingactivityareinspectedandannualtimberharvestingvolumesandspeciesarerecorded.

• Timberharvestingsitesareinspectedtodetermineareaofharvestingactivity.

• CalculationsaremadeusingthebaselineGHGemissionsmeasurementmethodologyintheTechnicalSpecificationsModule2.1(C)(IFM-LtPF),todeterminethevolumeofActivityShiftingLeakage.

• NetCarbonCreditsarerecalculatedtoaccountforTotalActivityShiftingLeakage(TAL)

• TheProjectOwnerisnotifiedoftheconsequenceofanycontinuationofActivityShiftingLeakageintermsofthereductioninNetCarbonCreditsfortheProject.

TheProjectOwnerisinstructedtoterminateActivityShiftingtimberharvestingorrisksuspensionorterminationfromtheNakauProgramme.

Frequencyofmonitoring/recording:

AnnualLeakageInspectionandresultsincorporatedintotheannualProjectManagementReport.5-yearly2ndpartyverificationofProjectManagementReportingbytheProgrammeOperator.

Valuemonitored: m3yr-1Monitoringequipment: GPSunit,measuringtape,photographyQA/QCprocedurestobeapplied:

5-yearly3rdpartyverificationofProjectManagementReports.

Calculationmethod: Activity Shifting Leakage method specified in Section 5.2.1 of theTechnical Specifications Module (C) 1.1 (IFM-LtPF): D2.1.1 v2.0,20151009.


48

8.1.3 Monitoring Roles And Responsibilities - Carbon

SpecificprojectmonitoringrolesforthisprojectispresentedinTable8.1.3below:

Table8.1.3ProjectMonitoringRoles/ResponsibilitiesTask ResponsibilityEligibleForestAreaBoundaryInspections

ProjectOwnerwithassistancefromtheProjectCoordinatorwhereneeded

EligibleForestAreaInspections ProjectOwnerwithassistancefromtheProjectCoordinatorwhereneeded

ProjectManagementReporting ProjectOwnerwithassistancefromtheProjectCoordinator

Aerialimagery/mapping ProjectCoordinator

ProjectMonitoringdatamanagement

ProjectCoordinator

8.1.4 Information Management Systems - Carbon

ThisprojectusestheinformationmanagementsystemdescribedinSection7.1oftheNakauMethodologyFramework.

8.1.5 Simplified Project Monitoring Report Methodology - Carbon

Thisprojectwill submitasimplifiedProjectMonitoringReport for its firstverification.TheSimplifiedProjectMonitoringReportwillfulfilallcomponentsofthelatestVCSMonitoringReport Template with the exception that Section 3.2 will list the data and parametersmonitored but the full monitoring procedures will not be implemented until the secondverification. Monitoring activities equivalent to those required in the monitoring wereundertakenduringprojectdevelopmentprovidedandfulfilledthematerialrequirementsoftheMonitoringPlancontainedinthisPDbutdidnotfulfiltheproceduralrequirements.Thisis because the monitoring plan was being developed towards the end of projectdevelopment, which coincided with the end of the first monitoring period. At firstverification thisprojectwill submit theequivalentof aDirector’sCertificate toassert thatthe Project Activity has taken place according to the requirements of the NakauMethodology Framework and the Technical Specification Module applied between theProjectStartDateandtheendofthefirstMonitoringPeriod.


49

8.1.6 Standard Operating Procedure: Project Monitoring - Carbon

TheStandardOperatingProcedure(SOP)forMonitoringCarbonbenefitsispresentedbelow.

Table8.1.6MonitoringSchedule-CarbonCarbonActivity Frequency Responsibility HumanResources FinancialResources

EligibleForestArea

6-monthlyinspection3-yearlyaerialimagery

Landowner(rangers);ProjectCoordinator

Rangersemployedbytheprojectfromthelandownercommunity;ProjectCoordinatorstaff

PESunitpriceaccountsforemploymentofrangersandProjectCoordinatorstaff

EligibleForestBoundary





Deminimistimberharvestinginspections





ActivityShiftingLeakage

Annualinspection3-yearlycalculation

ProjectCoordinatorandLandowner



8.1.6.1 Forest Management Areas

TheForestManagementAreasforthisprojectarepresentedinFigure8.1.6.1.


50

Figure8.1.6.1DrawaRainforestConservationProjectmanagementzones

TheEligibleForestAreamanagementzonesaredepictedinFigure3.1.6.1above.

8.1.6.2 Eligible Forest Boundary Inspections

Description:TheEligibleForestAreaboundaryisinspectedannuallytorecordthestatusofthisboundary.

Purpose:Monitorandmanageanyreversalsoccurringattheboundary.

Method:

MakeobservationsoftheEligibleForestAreaboundaryduringthecourseofthe6-monthlyEligibleForestAreaInspections.ThisisconductedduringthewalkingoflinetransectsfromonesideofanEligibleForestAreaboundarytoanother,andbyviewingtheEligibleForestAreaboundaryinbothdirectionsalongtheboundaryfromthepointoneachtransectlineasitmeetstheEligibleForestAreaboundary.IfreversalsattheEligibleForestAreaboundaryareobservedatpointsalongtheboundarythatdonotcoincidewiththelinetransectthenthe reversal is recordedusing theEligibleForestBoundary InspectionTemplate (Appendix6).

EFA 1

EFA 2

EFA 3

EFA4

EFA 5

EFA 6 EFA 7

EFA 8


51

Recurrence:6-monthlyinspections.

Responsibility: ProjectOwnerwith supervision support from theProjectCoordinatoruntilsuchtimeasProjectCoordinatorsupervisionsupportnotrequired(asdeterminedbyProjectOwner and Project Coordinator by mutual agreement). Project Coordinator to superviseEligibleForestBoundaryInspectionatleasonceduringeach3-yearlymonitoringperiod.

8.1.6.3 Eligible Forest Area Inspections

Description:DescriptivesurveyofforestconditionwithinEligibleForestAreaboundary.

Purpose:Monitor any reversals occurringwithin Eligible ForestArea, andensure that anytimber harvesting lieswithin thedeminimis limit imposedby the Technical SpecificationsModuleapplied.

Method:

Large Area Transect Method: For each Forest Management Area, permanently mark aTransect Base Point with a boundary peg (this can be a boundary peg used for forestinventoryand/orpermanentsampleplots).DefineaTransectDatumLineusingacompassbearingandorient the transectdatum linealong the longaxisof theForestManagementArea (see Figure 8.1.6.3). Use the last two digits from random numbers and convert tometers, to select a transect starting point along the TransectDatum Line.Use a compassbearing to mark out parallel transect lines through the Forest Management Area, withtransects located between 100m and 500m intervals and orientated perpendicular to theTransectDatumLine.

Medium Area Transect Method: For forest management areas that are too small toundertake two or more transects using the Large Area Transect Method, use the samemethodastheLargeAreaTransectMethodbutselectthelastsingledigitfromtherandomnumbersto locatethefirsttransect line,and locatethetransectsbetween20mand100mintervalsalongthetransectdatumline.

SmallAreaTransectMethod:Forforestmanagementareaslessthan100mlong,startwiththeTransectBasePoint,thenlocateasingletransectrunningthroughthelongestaxisoftheforestpatch(andcurvingthetransectwherenecessaryinordertokeepthetransectwithintheforestboundary).

TransectSurveyProcedure:WalkthefulllengthofeachtransectlineandontheProjectAreaInspectionTemplate(Appendix7)recordthefollowingReversalEvents:

a. Evidenceoftimberharvestingb. Evidenceoffirec. Evidence of detrimental changes in forest health (e.g. browsing, pest infestation,

disease,snow-break,dieback)

ForeachReversalEventrecordthelocationwithaGPSunitanddescribetheeventusingtheEligibleForestArea InspectionChecklist.Foreach timberharvestingReversalEvent record


52

thestumpdiameter,thespeciesofharvestedtreewherepossible,anyevidenceofon-sitetimberprocessing,loghauling,andcollateraldamage.

Figure8.1.6.3EligibleForestAreaInspectionTransectLocation

Recurrence:6-monthlyinspections.

Responsibility: ProjectOwnerwith supervision support from theProjectCoordinatoruntilsuchtimeasProjectCoordinatorsupervisionsupportnotrequired(asdeterminedbyProjectOwner and Project Coordinator by mutual agreement). Project Coordinator to superviseEligibleForestBoundaryInspectionatleasonceduringeach3-yearlymonitoringperiod.

Note: Use a different random number to generate the transect starting point along thetransectdatumlineforeachsubsequentannualmonitoringcycle.

8.1.6.4 De Minimis Timber Harvest Inspection

Deminimistimberharvestinginspectionswillbeundertaken6-monthlyinconjunctionwiththe6-monthlyEligibleForestAreaInspectionsdescribedinSection8.1.6.3.

Thedeminimis timberharvestingvolumefortheDrawaRainforestConservationProject is407m3 per year. This amounts to <5% of the total allowable annual commercial timberharvest intheBaselineScenario intheEligibleForestAreaasprovidedfor intheTechnicalSpecificationsModuleapplied.

Theprojectwillrecorddeminimis timberharvestingeventsusingthetemplatesuppliedinAppendix8.

8.1.6.5 Activity Shifting Leakage Inspection

ActivityShiftingLeakageInspectionswillbeundertakenannuallyfollowingfirstverification.Theseinspectionswillbeundertakeninconjunctionwiththe6-monthlyEligibleForestAreaInspectionsdescribedinSection8.1.6.3.

The project will record Activity Shifting Leakage events using the template supplied inAppendix9.

TransectBasePoint

TransectDatumLine(blue)

TransectLines(red)

6a

ForestManagementAreaIdentifier


53

8.1.7 Monitoring Resources and Capacity - Carbon


5.9. Amonitoringplanmustbedevelopedforeachprojectinterventionwhichspecifies:5.9.6. Resourcesandcapacityrequired

AccordingtotheTechnicalSpecificationsModule(C)1.1(IFM-LtPF)D2.1.1v1.020151009:

TheProjectMonitoringPlanmustidentify(andprovideevidencefor)theresourcesavailabletoundertakemonitoring,including:

• Financialresourcesandthesourceofsuchfinance(e.g.unitpricing,grants,fees)• Humanresourcesandcapabilityrequired.

The financialandhuman resourcesallocated toprojectmonitoringarepresented inTable8.1.6above.

8.1.8 Community Monitoring - Carbon


5.9. Amonitoringplanmustbedevelopedforeachprojectinterventionwhichspecifies:5.9.7. Howcommunitieswillparticipate inmonitoring,e.g.bytrainingcommunity

membersandgraduallydelegatingmonitoringactivitiesoverthedurationoftheproject

5.9.8. Howresultsofmonitoringwillbesharedanddiscussedwithparticipants

5.10. Whereparticipantsareinvolvedinmonitoring,asystemforcheckingtherobustnessofmonitoringresultsmustbeinplace,e.g.checkingarandomsampleofmonitoringresultsbytheprojectcoordinator.


TheProjectMonitoringPlanmustinclude:

• AdescriptionofhowtheProjectOwnerand/orotherlocalpeoplewillparticipateinmonitoringincompliancewiththeProjectParticipationProtocolspecifiedinSection3.1ofthePD(applyingSection3.1oftheNakauMethodologyFramework).

• A description of how the results of monitoring will be shared and discussed withparticipantswithreferencetotheProjectMonitoringWorkshopsspecifiedinSection3.1.7ofthePD(applyingSection3.1.7oftheNakauMethodologyFramework).


54

• AdescriptionofthequalitycontrolsusedtosafeguardtheintegrityandaccuracyofdatagatheredfrommonitoringactivitiesinvolvingProjectOwnersand/orotherlocalpeople.

CommunityinvolvementinmonitoringissetoutinTable8.1.6above.

8.1.8.1 Community Participation In Monitoring

TheProjectOwnerwillrecruitrangerswithresponsibilitiestoundertakeprojectmonitoringtasks described in Table 8.1.6. The ProjectOwnerwill be responsible for recruitment andmanagement of rangers for this project. The Project Coordinator will provide supervisionand support for ranger activitieswith this role scaling downwards through time at a ratedeterminedbymutualagreementbetweentheProjectCoordinatorandtheProjectOwner.

8.1.8.2 Sharing Results of Community Monitoring

Community monitoring outputs are recorded in annual Project Management ReportspreparedandapprovedbySerthiacwiththeassistanceof theProjectCoordinator.ProjectManagement Reports are submitted for approval to the Project Coordinator and theProgrammeOperator on an annual basis. The Project Coordinator collates the content ofannualProjectManagementReportsintothree-yearlyProjectMonitoringReports.Serthiacand the Project Coordinator approves each Project Monitoring Report before beingsubmitted to the Programme Operator for approval. Once approved by the ProgrammeOperatortheProjectMonitoringReportissubmittedforaverificationaudit.

8.1.8.3 Quality Controls for Community Monitoring

QualitycontrolsforcommunitymonitoringaredescribedinSection8.1.8.2.

8.2 COMMUNITY IMPACT MONITORING

Carbonoffsetsare issuedtothisprojectasaresultof3rdpartyverificationofeachProjectMonitoring Report, which contains data sufficient to provide evidence to support acommunity impact assertion for the Project Monitoring Period in question. This is arequirementforthecarbonoffsetstobeissuedasPlanVivoCertificatesunderthePlanVivoStandard.

8.2.1 Monitored And Non-Monitored Parameters – Community

Monitoredandnon-monitoredcommunityimpactdataarelistedinTable8.2.1below.

Table8.2.1MonitoredandNon-MonitoredParameters–CommunityImpactsNotation Parameter Unit Origin MonitoredFA Food&Agriculture Various CommunityImpactSurvey Monitored


55

W Wateraccessibility % CommunityImpactSurvey Monitored

H HouseholdIncome Vatu CommunityImpactSurvey Monitored

P Participation Number&% CommunityImpactSurvey Monitored

8.2.2 Monitored Parameters – Community


DataUnit/Parameter: Food&AgricultureDataunit: VariousDescription: Wewanttoknow:

• Iftheforestproductscontinuetobeusedindicatingthecontinuationoftraditionalpractices

• Ifaccesstolandforgardensdiminishestoapointthatitaffectsaccesstofood

• Ifprojectownersbegintopurchasefoodmoreoftenindicatingincreasedincomebutalsocreatingpossiblenegativeunintendedimpacts(i.e.health)

• Ifincomeisstillsoughtthroughthesaleoffoodandhowthisincomechangesovertime.

Sourceofdata: CommunityImpactSurveyDescriptionofmeasurementmethodsandprocedurestobeapplied:

Structuredinterviewspursuingthefollowingquestions:1.1 Howoftendoyoubuyfood?1.2 Howbigisyourfamilygarden?1.3 Howoftendoyoueatfreefoodfromyourgarden?1.4 Howoftendoyourunoutoffood?1.5 Howoftendoyoueatfoodfromtheforest?1.6Howmuchdoyoumakesellingfood?


3-yearly

Valuemonitored: VariousMonitoringequipment: SocialsurveyequipmentQA/QCprocedurestobeapplied:

3-yearly3rdpartyverificationofProjectMonitoringReports.

Calculationmethod: CompareresponseswithprevioussurveyDataUnit/Parameter: WaterAccessibilityDataunit: VariousDescription: Accesstowaterhasbeenakeyissueforprojectowners.Wewanttoknowif

improvedaccesstowaterresultsfromtheproject.Further,accesstowaterbeingsuchabasicneed,isanotherindicatorofoverallwellbeing.Theimpactofthisonwomendeservesspecialattentionbyinterviewers.


Structuredinterviewspursuingthefollowingquestions:1.1 Doyourunoutofwater?1.2 Aretheredayswhenyoucanuseasmuchasyoulike?


56


3-yearly



Calculationmethod: CompareresponseswithprevioussurveyDataUnit/Parameter: HouseholdIncomeDataunit: VariousDescription: Increasedincomecandemonstrateincreasedwellbeingalthoughitcanalso

bedamaging.Whilewemeasureincomeovertime,wealsomeasurechangesinlivelihoodsortimespentonactivitieseverydaysuchashousework,gardeningetc.Thiswillhelpustoseeifprojectownershavemoretimetogivetonon-coreactivitiesandtherefore,perhapstheirlivesaremadeeasierbytheproject.Wewillalsomonitorifthemoneyiscausingsocialdecayviaitsusefornegativepursuits(i.e.alcohol).Educationisalsousedtodeterminewhetherincreasedincomeiscreatinggreaterwellbeing.


Structuredinterviewspursuingthefollowingquestions:1.1 AccesstoEducation1.2 PersonalMonthlyIncome(VUV)1.3 Traveltotown(timesperweek)1.4 Hoursspentcooking(perday)1.5 HoursspentGardening(Perday)1.6 Hoursspentresting


3-yearly



Calculationmethod: CompareresponseswithprevioussurveyDataUnit/Parameter: ProjectParticipationDataunit: VariousDescription: Wewanttousethismonitoringasachancetoassesshowwellthe‘REDD+

Enterprise’(i.e.thecooperativeorfamilybusiness)isdoingatengagingtheprojectownersandearninglocaltrust.Thisindicatesresilienceandoverallwellbeingifthefaithinthisinstitutionishigh.


Structuredinterviewspursuingthefollowingquestions:4.1HowmanyyouthdoyouknowthatareengagedwiththeREDD+Enterprise?4.2AreyougiventheopportunitytoaccessinformationabouttheREDD+Enterprise'sfinancesandactivities?4.3DoyoutrusttheREDD+Enterprise?

Frequencyof 3-yearly


57

monitoring/recording:Valuemonitored: VariousMonitoringequipment: SocialsurveyequipmentQA/QCprocedurestobeapplied:


Calculationmethod: Compareresponseswithprevioussurvey

8.2.3 Monitoring Roles And Responsibilities - Community

Community Impact Monitoring surveys are the responsibility of the Project Coordinator.SurveysaretobeconductedwiththeconsentofSerthiac.

8.2.4 Information Management Systems - Community


8.2.5 Simplified Project Monitoring Report Methodology - Community

ThisprojectwillsubmitasimplifiedProjectMonitoringReport for its firstverification.Thiswill involve the presentation of baseline community impact data gathered during projectdevelopmentconcurrentlywiththefirstmonitoringperiod.Projectcommunityimpactdataandresultswillbepresentedforthefirsttimeatsecondverification.

8.2.6 Standard Operating Procedure: Project Monitoring – Community

The StandardOperating Procedure (SOP) forMonitoring Community Impacts is presentedbelow.

Table8.2.6MonitoringSchedule–CommunityImpactsCommunityActivity Frequency Responsibility HumanResources FinancialResourcesFood,consumption,agriculture

3-yearly ProjectCoordinator

ProjectCoordinatorstaff PESunitpriceaccountsforemploymentofProjectCoordinatorstaff

Wateraccessibility



Householdincome



Participation 3-yearly ProjectCoordinator



58

8.2.6.1 Baseline Community Impacts

Baseline community impacts were measured during project development and have beenmeasuredandpresentedinSection5.2.2.2oftheDrawaForestProjectPDPartAD3.2av1.020151009.ProjectCommunity impactswillbepresentedatsecondverificationdueto thisfirstProjectMonitoringReportapplyingasimplifiedProjectMonitoringReportasprovidedforinSection8.2.5oftheDrawaPDPartB(thisdocument).

8.2.6.2 Project Community Impacts

Project community impacts will be measured by means of a 3-yearly community impactsurvey to quantify change in the community impact indicators described in Section 8.2.2above.

8.2.6.3 Net Community Impact Enhancements

Tabulation of baseline and project community impacts, and net community impactenhancementswillbepresentedinsummaryusingthefollowingformat.

Baselinecommunity

impacts

Projectcommunity

impacts

Netcommunityimpact

enhancements

Impact1

Impact2…

8.3 BIODIVERSITY MONITORING

Carbonoffsetsare issuedtothisprojectasaresultof3rdpartyverificationofeachProjectMonitoring Report, which contains data sufficient to provide evidence to support abiodiversity impact assertion for the Project Monitoring Period in question. This is arequirementforthecarbonoffsetstobeissuedasPlanVivoCertificatesunderthePlanVivoStandard.

8.3.1 Monitored And Non-Monitored Parameters – Biodiversity

Monitoredandnon-monitoredcommunityimpactdataarelistedinTable8.2.1below.

Table8.3.1MonitoredandNon-MonitoredParameters–BiodiversityImpactsNotation Parameter Unit Origin MonitoredSSA Significantspecies-

AnimalsPresence/absence BiodiversitySurvey Monitored

SSP Significantspecies-Plants

Presence/absence BiodiversitySurvey Monitored


59

8.3.2 Monitored Parameters – Biodiversity


DataUnit/Parameter: SignificantSpecies-AnimalsDataunit: Presence/absenceDescription:

Sourceofdata: BiodiversitySurveyDescriptionofmeasurementmethodsandprocedurestobeapplied:

RecordsignificantspeciesduringEligibleForestAreaInspections.


3-yearly

Valuemonitored: Presence/absenceMonitoringequipment: Animalidentificationtable,binoculars,mobilephone,itracker

software(orequivalent)QA/QCprocedurestobeapplied:




DataUnit/Parameter: SignificantSpecies-PlantsDataunit: Presence/absenceDescription:

Sourceofdata: BiodiversitySurveyDescriptionofmeasurementmethodsandprocedurestobeapplied:

RecordsignificantspeciesduringEligibleForestAreaInspections.


3-yearly

Valuemonitored: Presence/absenceMonitoringequipment: Plantidentificationtable,binoculars,mobilephone,itrackersoftware

(orequivalent)QA/QCprocedurestobeapplied:



8.3.3 Monitoring Roles And Responsibilities - Biodiversity

BiodiversityMonitoringsurveysaretheresponsibilityoftheProjectOwnerwithsupportandsupervisionoftheProjectCoordinator.SurveysaretobeconductedwiththeconsentoftheProjectOwner.


60

8.3.4 Information Management Systems - Biodiversity


8.3.5 Simplified Project Monitoring Report Methodology - Biodiversity

ThisprojectwillsubmitasimplifiedProjectMonitoringReport for its firstverification.Thiswill involvethepresentationofthefirstprojectbiodiversitysurveybutwillnotincludethepresentation of the baseline biodiversity survey (to be presented at a subsequentverificationevent).

8.3.6 Standard Operating Procedure: Project Monitoring – Biodiversity

TheStandardOperatingProcedure(SOP)forMonitoringBiodiversityispresentedbelow.

Table8.3.6MonitoringSchedule–BiodiversityImpactsCommunityActivity Frequency Responsibility HumanResources FinancialResourcesBiodiversitySurvey-Animals

3-yearly ProjectOwner ProjectRangers PESunitpriceaccountsforemploymentofProjectCoordinatorstaff

BiodiversitySurvey-Plants

3-yearly ProjectOwner ProjectRangers PESunitpriceaccountsforemploymentofProjectCoordinatorstaff

8.3.6.1 Baseline Biodiversity Impacts

Baselinebiodiversityimpacts(i.e.surveyofareferenceareasupportinghabitattypesinthebaseline)havenotbeenmeasured.AbaselinebiodiversitysurveyisoptionalunderthePlanVivostandardminimumrequirementsforbiodiversity,butit istheaspirationoftheDrawaForest Project to undertake a baseline biodiversity survey to enable comparison betweenbaselineandprojectbiodiversityindicatorsandgenerateanetbiodiversityimpactassertion.

8.3.6.2 Project Biodiversity Impacts

Project biodiversity impacts will bemeasured bymeans of a 3-yearly biodiversity impactsurvey to quantify change and/or trends in site biodiversity. The first project biodiversityimpact surveywas undertaken during project development and have beenmeasured andpresentedinSection5.3.1oftheDrawaForestProjectPDPartAD3.2av1.020151009.

8.3.6.3 Net Biodiversity Impact Enhancements

Tabulation of baseline and project biodiversity impacts, and net biodiversity impactenhancementswillbepresentedinsummaryusingthefollowingformat.


61

Baselinecommunity

impacts

Projectcommunity

impacts

Netcommunityimpact

enhancements

Impact1

Impact2…


62

References BatesDM,WattsDG1980.Relativecurvaturemeasuresofnonlinearity.JournaloftheRoyalStatisticalSociety,

SeriesB:1-25.

CDMToolforDemonstrationandAssessmentofAdditionality.

CDMToolfortestingsignificanceofGHGemissionsinA/RCDMprojectactivities

BasukiTM,vanLaakePE,SkidmoreAK,HussinYA2009.Allometricequationsforestimatingtheabove-groundbiomassintropicallowlandDipterocarpforests.ForestEcologyandManagement257:1684–1694.

BrownS,GilliespieAJR,LugoAE1989.Biomassestimationmethodsfortropicalforestswithapplicationstoforestinventorydata.ForestScience35:881–902.

ChaveJ,AndaloC,BrownS,CairnsMA,ChambersJQ,EamusD,FölsterH,FromardF,HiguciN,KiraT,LescureJ-P,NelsonBW,OgawaH,PuigH,RiéraB,YamakuraT2005.Treeallometryandimprovedestimationofcarbonstocksandbalanceintropicalforests.Oecologia145:87–99.

Estrada,M.2011Standardsandmethodsavailableforestimatingproject-levelREDD+carbonbenefits:referenceguideforprojectdevelopers.WorkingPaper52.CIFOR,Bogor,Indonesia.

Enters,T.2001.Trashortreasure?LoggingandmillresiduesinAsiaandthePacific.FAOCorporateDocumentRepository.RAPPublicationVersion2001/16,p5.Availablehere:ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/x6966e/x6966e00.pdf.

FearnsideP.M.,LashofD.A.,Moura-CostaP.2000.AccountingfortimeinMitigatingGlobalWarmingthroughland-usechangeandforestry.MitigationandAdaptationStrategiesforGlobalChange,Volume5,Number3,2000,pp.239-270

GovernmentofFiji2014.FijiReadinessPreparationPlan(R-PP).WorldBankForestCarbonPartnershipFacility.WashingtonDC.Availablehere:https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/February/Fiji_R-PP_rev_2014_01_22.pdf

GovernmentofVanuatu2013.VanuatuReadinessPreparationPlan(R-PP).WorldBankForestCarbonPartnershipFacility.WashingtonDC.Availablehere:https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/Oct2013/Vanuatu%20R-PP-final_revised%204%20original.pdf

GreenCollar2010.VCSProposedMethodologyforImprovedForestManagement,ConversionofLoggedtoProtectedForestV3-0,July2010.

HuschB,BeersTW,KershawJA2003.ForestMensuration.4thedn.Wiley,NewJersey.

IPCC2000.Landuse,LanduseChangeandForestry.R.T.Watson,I.R.Noble,B.Bolin,N.H.Ravindranath,D.J.VerardoandD.J.Dokken(Eds.).CambridgeUniversityPress,UK.pp375.Availablehere:http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=267#s5-3-4-1

IPCC2003.GoodPracticeGuidanceForLandUse,LandUseChangeAndForestry.IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.Published:IGES,Japan.


63

IPCC2006.2006IPCCGuidelinesforNationalGreenhouseGasInventories,PreparedbytheNationalGreenhouseGasInventoriesProgram,EgglestonH.S.,BuendiaL.,MiwaK.,NgaraT.andTanabeK.(eds).Published:IGES,Japan.

ISO14064-2:2006.GreenhouseGases-Part2:Specificationwithguidanceattheprojectlevelforquantification,monitoringandreportingofgreenhousegasemissionreductionsorremovalenhancements.FirstEdition2006-03-01.

KetteringsQM,CoeR,vanNoordwijkM,AmbagauY,PalmCA2001.Reducinguncertaintyintheuseofallometricbiomassequationsforpredictingabove-groundtreebiomassinmixedsecondaryforests.ForestEcologyandManagement146:199–209.

Kilkki,R.1992.Reductionofwoodwastebysmall-scalelogproductionandconversionintropicalhighforest.FAO.ISSN:1014-9945.Availablehere:http://www.fao.org/docrep/u7890E/u7890E00.htm

Moura-Costa,P.H.andC.Wilson,2000:AnequivalencefactorbetweenCO2avoidedemissionsandsequestration–descriptionandapplicationsinforestry.MitigationandAdaptationStrategiesforGlobalChange5:51-60.

Payton,I.J.,andWeaver,S.A.2011.FijinationalforestcarbonstockassessmentVersion1.CompiledbyCarbonPartnershipLtdforSPC/GIZRegionalProgrammeCopingwithClimateChangeinthePacificIslandRegionandtheFijiForestryDepartment.

Payton,I.J.2012.DevelopmentofanationalmethodologyforforestcarbonstockassessmentinFiji.LandcareResearch.PreparedforSecretariatofthePacificCommunity(SPC)/DeutscheGesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeit(GIZ)CopingwithClimateChangeinthePacificIslandRegionProgramme.April2012.

PinheiroJ,BatesD,DebRoyS,SarkarDandRCoreTeam(2015).nlme:LinearandNonlinearMixedEffectsModels.Rpackageversion3.1-121

ProdanM,PetersR,CoxF,RealP1997.Mensuraforestal.InstitutoInteramericanodeCooperaciónparalaAgricultura(IICA),SanJosé,CostaRica.561p.

Rowell,R.1984.Thechemistryofsolidwood.AdvancesinChemistrySeries,207.AmericanChemicalSociety,WashingtonD.C614pp.

ThomasSC1996.AsymptoticheightasapredictorofgrowthandallometriccharacteristicsinMalaysianrainforesttrees.AmericanJournalofBotany83:556–566.

UnitedNations1998.KyotoProtocoltotheUnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange.

VCS2013.VerifiedCarbonStandardAgriculture,ForestryandOtherLandUseRequirements.v3.4.

VCS2012.ToolforthedemonstrationandassessmentofadditionalityinIFMprojectactivities.VT0002,v1.0.

Weaver,S.A.Payton,I,Fahey,G.2012.RarakauProgrammeMethodologyV1.0.AnImprovedForestManagement–LoggedtoProtectedForestGroupedProjectMethodologyForNewZealandIndigenousForest.RarakauProgrammeReportD2.1v1.0,15May2012.CarbonPartnershipLtd.Takaka.


64

Appendices APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS

A/R Afforestation/Reforestation

ActivityType Specifically defined carbon project activity combining a reference activity and aprojectactivitytogeneratecarbonbenefits

Afforestation Establishment of forest through planting and/or deliberate seeding on land that,untilthen,wasnotclassifiedasforest(FAO2010).SeeExplanatoryNotebelow.

AFOLU Agriculture,ForestryandOtherLandUses

BaselineScenario

Carbonbalancearisingfrombaseline(BAU)activities

BAU Business-as-Usual

Carbonbalance Sumof carbon in a system into account carbon stored in reservoirs, emissions ofcarbonfromsources,andsequestrationofcarbonintosinks

Carbonbenefits Net CO2e benefits arising from total net avoided emissions and net enhancedremovals

Carbonflux Movementofcarbonthroughdifferentcarbonpools

Carbonpool Componentoftheearthsystemthatstorescarbon

Carbonreservoir

Carbonpoolthatstorescarbonforlongtimescales

Carbonsink Carbonpoolthatabsorbs/sequesterscarbondioxidebytransforminggaseousCO2eintoacarbon-basedliquidorsolid

Carbonsource Carbonpoolthatemitscarbonfromaliquidorsolidformintoagas

CCB ClimateCommunityandBiodiversityStandard

CDM CleanDevelopmentMechanism

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent: translation of non-CO2 GHG tonnes into equivalentCO2tonnesthroughconversionusingglobalwarmingpotentialofnon-CO2GHG

ComplianceSpace

What is contained within the GHG accounting boundary of a compliance GHGaccountingregime(e.g.KyotoProtocol,NZETS)

COP ConferenceofParties(totheUNFCCC)

CSR CorporateSocialResponsibility

Deforestation The conversionof forest toother landuseor the long-term reductionof the treecanopy cover below the minimum 10 percent threshold (FAO 2010). SeeExplanatoryNotebelow.

DOE DesignatedOperationalEntity

EligibleArea SubsetofForestAreacomprisingareaofforesteligibleforcrediting


65

Enhancedremovals

Carbon sequestrationassistedbymanagement intervention toa level abovewhatwouldoccurnaturally

Exante Beforetheevent(referringtofutureactivities)

Expost Afterthefact(referringtopastactivities)

ForestArea SubsetofProjectAreacomprisingforestlandwithinProjectArea

ForestDegradation

Thereductionofthecapacityofaforesttoprovidegoodsandservices.

ForestLand Landspanningmorethan0.5hectareswithtreeshigherthan5metersandacanopycover ofmore than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. Itdoes not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use(FAO2010).SeeExplanatoryNotebelow.

GHG GreenhouseGas

GIS GeographicalInformationSystem

GPG GoodPracticeGuidance

HWP HarvestedWoodProducts

IFM ImprovedForestManagement

IFM-LtPF Improvedforestmanagement–loggedtoprotectedforestactivitytype

IPCC IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange

ISO InternationalStandardsOrganisation

LULUCF LandUse,LandUseChangeandForestry

MRV Measurement/MonitoringReportingandVerification

Non-ForestLand All land that is not classified as Forest or Other wooded land (FAO 2010). SeeExplanatoryNotesfor‘OtherLand’below).Samedefinitionas‘OtherLand’.

OperationalForestArea

Term used in sustainable forest management plans delimiting area eligible fortimberharvesting

OtherLand All land that is not classified as Forest or Other wooded land (FAO 2010). SeeExplanatoryNotesbelow).Samedefinitionas‘Non-ForestLand’.

OtherWoodedLand

Land not classified as Forest, spanningmore than 0.5 hectares;with trees higherthan 5meters and a canopy cover of 5-10 percent, or trees able to reach thesethresholds insitu;orwithacombinedcoverofshrubs,bushesandtreesabove10percent. Itdoesnot include landthat ispredominantlyunderagriculturalorurbanlanduse(FAO2010).SeeExplanatoryNotebelow.

Participants Theadult land/resource rightsholders involved in theproject– including,butnotlimitedtotheprojectownergroupboard/committeemembers.

PD ProjectDescription

PDD ProjectDesignDocument(synonymouswithPDinthisdocument)

PES PaymentforEcosystemServices


66

ProjectArea Landownershipboundarywithinwhichcarbonprojectwilltakeplace

ProjectCoordinator

TheentityassistingtheProjectOwnertodevelopandimplementtheforestcarbonproject.

ProjectGoverningBoard

Subset of the Project Owner community appointed by the Project OwnercommunitytogoverntheprojectintheinterestsoftheProjectOwnercommunity.

ProjectScenario Carbonbalancearisingfromprojectactivities

ProgrammeOperator

The entity that owns and administers the Nakau Programme. This entity isresponsibleforsafeguardingtheintegrityoftheNakauProgrammeanditsroleistoa)governtheNakauProgramme;b)owntheIPassociatedwithNakauProgrammemethodologiesandprotocols;c)bethebeneficiaryofanycovenantonthelandtitleoftheProjectOwnerthatprotectstheforest;d)ownthebuffercreditsoftheNakauProgramme; e) administer the buffer account with the registry; and f) act as theguardianoftheNakauProgramme.

ProjectOwner Theowneroftheforestandforestcarbonrightssubjecttotheproject

ProjectProponent

TheProjectOwnerandProjectCoordinatorcombined.

ProjectScenario CarbonbalancearisingfromProjectactivities(carbonprojectchangefromBAU)

ProtectedForest

Haltingoravoidingactivitiesthatwouldreducecarbonstocksandmanagingaforesttomaintainhighand/orincreasingcarbonstocks

RED ReducingEmissionsfromDeforestation

REDD ReducingEmissionsfromDeforestationandDegradation

Reforestation Re-establishment of forest through planting and/or deliberate seeding on landclassifiedasforest(FAO2010).SeeExplanatoryNotebelow.

REL ReferenceEmissionLevel:rateofGHGemissionsunderBAU

Removals Carbonsequesteredfromtheatmosphereintoacarbonsink

SFM SustainableForestManagement

UNFCCC UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange

Validation IndependentauditofProjectDescription(PD)and/orMethodology

VCS VerifiedCarbonStandard

Verification IndependentauditofProjectMonitoringReports


67

ExplanatoryNotes

All definitions and explanatory notes relating to forest and non-forest land, afforestation,reforestation, deforestation, forest degradation is taken from the FAO Global ForestResourcesAssessment2010.

Forest Land:

1. Forest is determined both by the presence of trees and the absence of other predominant landuses.Thetreesshouldbeabletoreachaminimumheightof5metersinsitu.

2. Includes areas with young trees that have not yet reached but which are expected to reach acanopy coverof10percentand treeheightof5meters. It also includesareas that are temporarilyunstockedduetoclear-cuttingaspartofaforestmanagementpracticeornaturaldisasters,andwhichareexpectedtoberegeneratedwithin5years.Localconditionsmay,inexceptionalcases,justifythatalongertimeframeisused.

3. Includes forest roads, firebreaks and other small open areas; forest in national parks, naturereserves and other protected areas such as those of specific environmental, scientific, historical,culturalorspiritualinterest.

4.Includeswindbreaks,shelterbeltsandcorridorsoftreeswithanareaofmorethan0.5hectaresandwidthofmorethan20meters.

5.Includesabandonedshiftingcultivationlandwitharegenerationoftreesthathave,orisexpectedtoreach,acanopycoverof10percentandtreeheightof5meters.

6.Includesareaswithmangrovesintidalzones,regardlesswhetherthisareaisclassifiedaslandareaornot.

7.Includesrubber-wood,corkoakandChristmastreeplantations.

8.Includesareaswithbambooandpalmsprovidedthatlanduse,heightandcanopycovercriteriaaremet.

9. Excludes tree stands in agricultural production systems, such as fruit tree plantations, oil palmplantations and agroforestry systems when crops are grown under tree cover. Note: Someagroforestrysystemssuchasthe“Taungya”systemwherecropsaregrownonlyduringthefirstyearsoftheforestrotationshouldbeclassifiedasforest.

Other Wooded Land

1.Thedefinitionabovehastwooptions:

• Thecanopycoveroftreesisbetween5and10percent;treesshouldbehigherthan5metersorabletoreach5metersinsitu.

• Thecanopycoverof trees is less than5percentbut thecombinedcoverof shrubs,bushesandtrees ismorethan10percent. Includesareasofshrubsandbusheswherenotreesarepresent.

2.Includesareaswithtreesthatwillnotreachaheightof5metersinsituandwithacanopycoverof10percentormore,e.g.somealpinetreevegetationtypes,aridzonemangroves,etc.

3.Includesareaswithbambooandpalmsprovidedthatlanduse,heightandcanopycovercriteriaaremet.


68

Other Land

1. Includes agricultural land, meadows and pastures, built-up areas, barren land, land underpermanentice,etc.

2.Includesallareasclassifiedunderthesub-category“Otherlandwithtreecover”.

Afforestation

1.Impliesatransformationoflandusefromnon-foresttoforest.

Reforestation

1.Impliesnochangeoflanduse.

2.Includesplanting/seedingoftemporarilyunstockedforestareasaswellasplanting/seedingofareaswithforestcover.

3.Includescoppicefromtreesthatwereoriginallyplantedorseeded.

4.Excludesnaturalregenerationofforest.

Deforestation

1.Deforestation impliesthe long-termorpermanent lossofforestcoverand impliestransformationintoanotherlanduse.Suchalosscanonlybecausedandmaintainedbyacontinuedhuman-inducedornaturalperturbation.

2.Deforestationincludesareasofforestconvertedtoagriculture,pasture,waterreservoirsandurbanareas.

3.Thetermspecificallyexcludesareaswherethetreeshavebeenremovedasaresultofharvestingorlogging, and where the forest is expected to regenerate naturally or with the aid of silviculturalmeasures. Unless logging is followed by the clearing of the remaining logged-over forest for theintroduction of alternative land uses, or the maintenance of the clearings through continueddisturbance,forestscommonlyregenerate,althoughoftentoadifferent,secondarycondition.

4. In areas of shifting agriculture, forest, forest fallow and agricultural lands appear in a dynamicpatternwheredeforestation and the returnof forest occur frequently in small patches. To simplifyreportingofsuchareas,thenetchangeoveralargerareaistypicallyused.

5.Deforestationalsoincludesareaswhere,forexample,theimpactofdisturbance,overutilizationorchangingenvironmentalconditionsaffectstheforesttoanextentthat itcannotsustainatreecoverabovethe10percentthreshold.


69

APPENDIX 2. SITE DESCRIPTION PLOT SHEET

SITEDESCRIPTIONPLOTSHEET

Surveyname: Datemeasured:

Plotidentifier: Measuredby:

Location:

Plotlayout: GPSmake&model

Bearing Slopedistance Slopeangle Easting:

A–B Southing:

B–C Single/averaged2D/3D±m

C–D Datum:

D–A

Altitude(m)

Physiography:ridgegullyfaceterrace

Aspect(0-359°)

Slope(°)concaveconvexlinear

Averagetopheight(m)

CanopyCover(%)

Cultural:noneburntloggedcleared

minedgrazedtracked

Subplotsoutsidesurveyarea:

Locationdiagram:

Approachnotes:

Dominanttreespecies:

Otherplantspecies:

Fauna: Notes:


70

APPENDIX 3. FOLIAR COVER SCALE


71

APPENDIX 4. STEM DIAMETER RECORD SHEET

PlotIdentifier: Measuredby:Date: Recordedby:

Subplot TagNo. Localname Botanicalname Diameter Notes


72

APPENDIX 5. DRAWA CARBON BUDGET & PRICING SPREADSHEET

Suppliedseparately


73

APPENDIX 6. ELIGIBLE FOREST BOUNDARY INSPECTION TEMPLATE

ProjectBoundaryInspectionDataEntryTemplateProjectBoundaryInspectionKeyDataA ProjectName B InspectionDate C ProjectManagement

ReportNumber

D GPSSettings

ForestManagementArea(FMA)Data(repeatforeachFMA)1 ForestManagementArea(FMA) 2 TransectBasePoint(TBP)

Selectupto4landmarksidentifiablebyaerialimageryasanchorpointslinkinggroundbaseddatawithaerialimagerydata

KeyIdentifiers

Name/Description GPSLocationKeyIdentifier1 E.g.RoadIntersectionwithfenceline

20mSWofTBP

KeyIdentifier2 KeyIdentifier3

3

KeyIdentifier4 4 EligibleForestAreaBoundary(GPSReadings@50mintervals) GPSFilenumber BoundarySurvey(recordalleventsandenteradditionallinesasnecessary)5 EvidenceofReversal Description GPSLocation Photo TimberHarvesting 1 Description:

Cause:Avoidable/unavoidable:Remedy:

Y/N

2 Y/N Fire 1 Y/N 2 Y/N ForestHealth 1 Y/N 2 Y/N6 EvidenceofAddition Description GPSLocation Photo 1 Y/N 2 Y/N7 Notes


74

APPENDIX 7. ELIGIBLE FOREST AREA INSPECTION TEMPLATE

ProjectAreaInspectionDataEntryTemplateProjectAreaInspectionKeyDataA ProjectName B InspectionDate C ProjectManagement

ReportNumber

D GPSSettings

ForestManagementArea(FMA)Data(repeatforeachFMA)1 ForestManagementArea(FMA) 2 TransectBasePoint(TBP) 3 TransectMethod LargeArea MediumArea SmallArea4 TransectDatumLineCompassBearing 5 TransectStartingPoint Enterlasttwoorlast

randomnumberdigitDescriptionofhowTransectStartingPointwaspositioned

SketchoftransectlocationinFMA6

7 TransectSurvey(recordalleventsandenteradditionallinesasnecessary) EvidenceofReversal Description GPSLocation Photo TimberHarvesting 1 Description:

Cause:Avoidable/unavoidable:Remedy:

Y/N

2 Y/N Fire 1 Y/N 2 Y/N Cyclone 1 Y/N 2 Y/N ForestHealth 1 Y/N 2 Y/N Other 1 Y/N 2 Y/N8 Notes


75

APPENDIX 8. DE MINIMIS HARVESTING INSPECTION TEMPLATE


ReportNumber

D GPSSettings




7 TransectSurvey(recordalleventsandenteradditionallinesasnecessary) Evidenceofde

minimistimberharvesting

Description GPSLocation Photo

Harvestevent 1 StemDiameter:Species:

Y/N

2 StemDiameter:Species:

Y/N

8 Notes


76

APPENDIX 9. ACTIVITY SHIFTING INSPECTION TEMPLATE


ReportNumber

D GPSSettings




7 TransectSurvey(recordalleventsandenteradditionallinesasnecessary) Evidence of Activity

ShiftingDescription GPSLocation Photo

Harvestevent 1 Areaaffected(ha):

Y/N

2 Areaaffected(ha):

Y/N

8 Notes


77

APPENDIX 10. ADDITIONALITY ASSESSMENT

ThisprojectappliesthemostrecentVCStoolforthedemonstrationofadditionalityforIFMProjects:

ToolfortheDemonstrationandAssessmentofAdditionalityinIFMProjectActivities,VT0002v1.0.

APPLICABILITY CONDITIONS

Thetoolisapplicableunderthefollowingconditions:

• TheIFMprojectactivityiseligibleunderthecurrentVCSIFMtypes(seeVCSToolforAFOLUMethodologicalIssues);

• Activities within the proposed project boundary performed with or without beingregisteredasIFMprojectactivityshallnotleadtoviolationofanyapplicablelawevenifthelawisnotenforced;

• Theuseofthistooltodetermineadditionalityrequiresthebaselinemethodologytoprovide foranapproach justifying thedeterminationof themostplausiblebaselinescenario. Project proponents proposing new baseline methodologies shall ensureconsistencybetweenthedeterminationofabaselinescenarioandthedeterminationofadditionalityofaprojectactivity.

Thisprojectmeetseachoftheapplicabilityconditions listedabove.ThisprojectappliesanImproved ForestManagement – Logged to Protected Forest activity type. This project asdesigned does not and will not violate any applicable laws. The baseline methodologyprovides for an approach that justifies the determination of the most plausible baselinescenario.Thenewmethodologydevelopedforthisprojecthasensuredconsistencybetweenthe determination of a baseline scenario and the determination of additionality of theprojectactivity.

PROCEDURE

Projectproponent(s)shallapplythefollowingfoursteps:

(a) STEP0.PreliminaryscreeningbasedonthestartingdateoftheIFMprojectactivity

(b) STEP1.IdentificationofalternativelandusescenariostotheIFMprojectactivity;

(c) STEP2. Investment analysis todetermine that theproposedproject activity is notthemosteconomicallyorfinanciallyattractiveoftheidentifiedlandusescenarios;or

(d) STEP3.Barriersanalysis;and

(e) STEP4.Commonpracticeanalysis.


78

STEP 0: PRELIMINARY SCREENING BASED ON THE STARTING DATE OF THE IFM PROJECT ACTIVITY

TheVCSIFMAdditionalityToolrequiresthefollowing:

TheprojectcreditingstartdateandprojectstartdateshallbeinaccordancewiththemostrecentversionoftheapplicableVCSrequirements.

This project does not formally apply a VCS methodological requirement, but applies theNakau Programme Technical Specifications Module (C) 1.1 (IFM-LtPF): Improved ForestManagement – Logged to Protected Forest v1.0 validated to the Plan Vivo standard. ThisTechnical Specifications Module has been developed in accordance with the VCS AFLOURequirementsv3.4.TheactivitytypeisequivalenttotheVCSactivitytypeImprovedForestManagement–LoggedtoProtectedForest(LtPF)(seeVCSAFOLURequirementsv3.4p18,34,36,46,53.

STEP 1: IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS

Sub-step 1a. Identify credible alternative land use scenarios

TheVCSIFMAdditionalityToolrequiresprojectstoundertakethefollowing:

Identifyrealisticandcredibleland-usescenariosthatwouldhaveoccurredonthelandwithinthe proposed project boundary in the absence of IFM project activity under the VCS. Thescenariosshouldbefeasible for theprojectproponentsorsimilarprojectdeveloperstakingintoaccountrelevantnationaland/orsectoralpoliciesandcircumstances,suchashistoricalland uses, practices and economic trends. The identified land use scenarios shall at leastinclude:

• Projectedforestdegradationasestimatedusingtheapplicablebaselinemethodology;• Avoidingforestdegradationofthelandwithintheprojectboundaryperformedwithoutbeing

registeredastheIFMprojectactivity;• Ifapplicable,IFMactivitiesofatleastapartofthelandwithintheprojectboundaryofthe

proposedIFMprojectatarateresultingfrom:o Legalrequirements;oro Extrapolationofobservedactivitiesimprovingforestmanagementinthe

geographicalareawithsimilarsocio-economicandecologicalconditionstotheproposedIFMprojectactivityoccurringinthe10-yearperiodbeforetheProjectStartDate,asselectedbytheprojectproponent.

For identifying the realisticandcredible land-usescenarios, landuse records, field surveys,data and feedback from stakeholders, and information from other appropriate sources,includingParticipatoryruralappraisal(PRA)maybeusedasappropriate.

Realisticandcredible landuse scenarios thatwouldhaveoccurredon the landwithin theEligibleForestAreaintheabsenceofthisprojectinclude:

• Conventionallogging


79

• Piece-mealforestdegradationfollowingconventionalloggingthroughlocalharvestsoftimberfordomesticuses

• Clearanceofdegradedforestforcashcroppingsuchascocoa,coffee,yaqona.

This landuse isconsistentwith localdevelopmentand landusetrends,evidencedby landuseactivitiesonneighbouringlandsandthroughoutFiji.

TheprojectedforestdegradationasestimatedusingtheapplicablebaselinemethodologyisprovidedinAppendix5.

No avoided degradation is projected to take place within the eligible forest area in thebaseline.Notethatthebaselineisconventionallogginganddoesnotinclude:

• Piece-mealforestdegradationfollowingconventionalloggingthroughlocalharvestsoftimberfordomesticuses

• Clearanceofdegradedforestforcashcroppingsuchascocoa,coffee,yaqona.

Thisprojectassertsthatthebaselineisthereforeconservative.


All identified landuse scenariosmustbecredible.All land-useswithin theboundaryof theproposed IFM project activity or the geographical area with similar socio-economic andecologicalconditionstotheproposedIFMprojectactivity,thatarecurrentlyexistingorthatexistedatsometimeinthe10-yearperiodbeforetheProjectStartDatebutnolongerexist,may be deemed realistic and credible. For all other land use scenarios, credibility shall bejustified. The justification shall include elements of spatial planning information (ifapplicable)orlegalrequirementsandmayincludeassessmentofeconomicalfeasibilityoftheproposedlandusescenario.

Justificationfortheassertionthatthelandusescenariosdescribedabovearecrediblestemsfromthe fact that theseare thepredominant landuse types for thispartofFiji,andsuchlanduseexistsonneighbouringlands.


(b) OutcomeofSub-step1a: Listof crediblealternative landuse scenarios that couldhaveoccurredonthelandwithintheprojectboundaryoftheVCSIFMproject.

• Conventionallogging• Piece-mealforestdegradationfollowingconventionalloggingthroughlocalharvests

oftimberfordomesticuses• Clearanceofdegradedforestforcashcroppingsuchascocoa,coffee,yaqona.


80

Sub-step 1b. Consistency of credible land use scenarios with laws and regulations

TheVCSIFMAdditionalityToolrequiresprojectstoapplythefollowingprocedure:

Demonstratethatalllandusescenariosidentifiedinthesub-step1a:areincompliancewithallmandatoryapplicablelegalandregulatoryrequirements;

This project asserts that the baseline activity is that the Drawa landowners undertakeconventionallogginglandswithintheEligibleForestArea.Thisinvolvesharvestingtimberatan 80%harvest rate through a 15-year rotation until forest degradation renders the areauneconomicforcommercialtimberharvesting(i.e.after45years).

Thiskindoflandmanagementactivityiscompliantwiththefollowing:

• ForestDecree1992-themainlawregulatingforestuseinFiji.

• iTaukeiLandTrust(LeasesandLicenses)Regulations1984governstheleasingofiTaukeiLandsforcommercialtimberextraction.

List of plausible alternative land use scenarios that are in compliance with mandatorylegislationandregulationstakingintoaccounttheirenforcementinFiji:




Ifanalternativedoesnotcomplywithallmandatoryapplicablelegislationandregulations,then show that, based on an examination of current practice in the region in which themandatory law or regulation applies, those applicable mandatory legal or regulatoryrequirements are systematically not enforced and that non-compliance with thoserequirements is widespread, i.e. prevalent on at least 30% of the area of the smallestadministrativeunitthatencompassestheprojectarea;

Alternativelanduseslistedaboveallcomplywithforestry,landuseandagriculturelegislationandregulationsinFiji,arecommonpractice,andarepracticedonneighbouringlands.


Remove from the land use scenarios identified in the sub-step 1a, any land use scenarioswhicharenotincompliancewithapplicablemandatorylawsandregulationsunlessitcanbeshowntheselandusescenariosresultfromsystematiclackofenforcementofapplicablelawsandregulations.


81

Notapplicable.


OutcomeofSub-step1b:Listofplausiblealternative landusescenariostothe IFMprojectactivity that are in compliance with mandatory legislation and regulations taking intoaccounttheirenforcementintheregionorcountryandanyVCSdecisionsonnationaland/orsectoralpoliciesandregulations.

IfthelistresultingfromtheSub-step1bisemptyorcontainsonlyonelandusescenario,thentheproposedIFMprojectactivityisnotadditional.

List of plausible alternative land use scenarios that are in compliance with mandatorylegislationandregulationstakingintoaccounttheirenforcementinFiji:



Sub-step 1c. Selection of the baseline scenario:

AccordingtotheVCSIFMAdditionalityTool:

The baselinemethodology that would use this tool shall provide for a stepwise approachjustifyingbaselineforestdegradationandthepost-degradationlanduseandcarbonstocks.

→ProceedtoStep2 (Investmentanalysis)orStep3 (Barrieranalysis),as it isnecessarytoundertakeatleastoneofthem.

This project elects to undertake a Barrier Analysis and thereby moves directly to Step 3below.

STEP 2. INVESTMENT ANALYSIS

TheVCSIFMAdditionalityToolrequiresprojectsto:

Determinewhethertheproposedprojectactivity,withoutcarbonmarket-relatedrevenues,iseconomicallyorfinancially lessattractivethanat leastoneoftheother landusescenarios.Investment analysis may be performed as a stand-alone additionality analysis or inconnection to the Barrier analysis (Step 3). To conduct the investment analysis, use thefollowingsub-steps:


82

Sub-step 2a. Determine appropriate analysis method


Determine whether to apply simple cost analysis, investment comparison analysis orbenchmark analysis (sub-step 2b). If the IFM project activity generates no financial oreconomic benefits other than carbon market-related income, then apply the simple costanalysis (Option I). Otherwise, use the investment comparison analysis (Option II) or thebenchmarkanalysis(OptionIII).Note,thatOptionsI,IIandIIIaremutuallyexclusive,hence,onlyoneofthemcanbeapplied.

Notapplicable.

Sub-step 2b. – Option I. Apply simple cost analysis


Document the costs associated with the IFM project activity and demonstrate that theactivityproducesnofinancialbenefitsotherthancarbonmarket-relatedincome.

If activities improving forestmanagement in the project area or in the geographical areawith similar socio-economic and ecological conditions to the proposed IFMproject activityoccurring inthe10-yearperiodbeforetheProjectStartDatehavedisappeared,theprojectproponents shall identify incentives/reasons/actions that allowed for the past activitiesimproving forest management and demonstrate that the current legal/financial or otherapplicable regulations or socio-economical or ecological or other local conditions havechanged to an extent that justifies the conclusion that the activity produces no financialbenefitsotherthancarbonmarket-relatedincome.

→IfitisconcludedthattheproposedVCSAFOLUprojectproducesnofinancialbenefitsotherthanVCSrelatedincomethenproceedtoStep4(Commonpracticeanalysis).

Notapplicable.

Sub-step 2b. – Option II. Apply investment comparison analysis

TheVCSAFOLUAdditionalityToolrequiresprojectsto:

Identify the financial indicator, such as IRR (investment rate of return), NPV (net presentvalue), payback period, cost benefit ratiomost suitable for the project type and decision-makingcontext.

Notapplicable.


83

Sub-step 2b – Option III. Apply benchmark analysis


Identifythefinancialindicator,suchasIRR,NPV,paybackperiod,costbenefitratio,orother(e.g. required rate of return (RRR) related to investments in agriculture or forestry, bankdeposit interest rate corrected for risk inherent to the project or the opportunity costs ofland,suchasanyexpectedincomefromlandspeculation)mostsuitablefortheprojecttypeand decision context. Identify the relevant benchmark value, such as the required rate ofreturn (RRR) on equity. The benchmark is to represent standard returns in the market,consideringthespecificriskoftheprojecttype,butnotlinkedtothesubjectiveprofitabilityexpectationorriskprofileofaparticularprojectdeveloper.Benchmarkscanbederivedfrom:

• Government bond rates, increased by a suitable risk premium to reflect privateinvestment and/or the project type, as substantiated by an independent (financial)expert;

• Estimates of the cost of financing and required return on capital (e.g., commercial

lendingratesandguaranteesrequiredforthecountryandthetypeofprojectactivityconcerned), based on bankers views and private equity investors/funds‟ requiredreturnoncomparableprojects;

• A company internal benchmark (weighted average capital cost of the company) if

thereisonlyonepotentialprojectdeveloper(e.g.,whentheproposedprojectlandisownedorotherwisecontrolledbyasingleentity,physicalpersonoracompany,whois also the project developer). The project developers shall demonstrate that thisbenchmarkhasbeen consistentlyused in thepast, i.e., thatprojectactivitiesundersimilarconditionsdevelopedbythesamecompanyusedthesamebenchmark.

Notapplicable.

Sub-step 2c. Calculation and comparison of financial indicators

According to the VCS IFM Additionality Tool those projects electing Options II and III arerequiredtocalculateandcomparefinancialindicatorsasfollows:

Calculate the suitable financial indicator for the proposed IFMproject activitywithout thefinancialbenefitsfromcarbonfinanceand,inthecaseofOptionIIabove,fortheotherlanduse scenarios. Include all relevant costs (including, for example, the investment cost, theoperations andmaintenance costs), and revenues (excluding carbonmarket revenues, butincludingsubsidies/fiscalincentiveswhereapplicable),and,asappropriate,non-marketcostandbenefitsinthecaseofpublicinvestors.

Present the investment analysis in a transparent manner and provide all the relevantassumptionsintheVCSPD,sothatareadercanreproducetheanalysisandobtainthesameresults.Clearlypresentcriticaleconomicparametersandassumptions(suchascapitalcosts,


84

lifetimes,anddiscountrateorcostofcapital). Justifyand/orciteassumptions inamannerthatcanbevalidatedbythevalidator.Incalculatingthefinancialindicator,theproject’sriskscanbe includedthroughthecash flowpattern,subject toproject-specificexpectationsandassumptions (e.g. insurancepremiumscanbeused in thecalculationto reflectspecific riskequivalents).

Assumptions and input data for the investment analysis shall not differ across the projectactivityanditsalternatives,unlessdifferencescanbewellsubstantiated.

PresentintheVCSPDsubmittedforvalidationaclearcomparisonofthefinancialindicatorfortheproposedIFMprojectactivitywithoutthefinancialbenefitsfromcarbonfinanceand:

Option II (investment comparison analysis): If one of the other land use scenarios has thebetter indicator (e.g. higher IRR), then the IFM project activity cannot be considered asfinanciallyattractive;or

OptionIII(benchmarkanalysis):IftheIFMprojectactivityhasalessfavourableindicator(e.g.lower IRR) than the benchmark, then the IFM project activity cannot be considered asfinanciallyattractive.

→IfitisconcludedthattheproposedIFMprojectactivitywithoutthefinancialbenefitsfromcarbon finance is not financially most attractive then proceed to Step 2d (SensitivityAnalysis).

Notapplicable.

Sub-step 2d. Sensitivity analysis

According to the VCS IFM Additionality Tool those projects electing Options II and III arerequiredtoundertakeasensitivityanalysisasfollows:

Include a sensitivity analysis that shows whether the conclusion regarding the financialattractivenessisrobusttoreasonablevariationsinthecriticalassumptions.Theinvestmentanalysisprovidesavalidargument in favourofadditionalityonly if itconsistentlysupports(fora realistic rangeofassumptions) theconclusion that theproposed IFMprojectactivitywithoutthefinancialbenefitsfromcarbonfinanceisunlikelytobefinanciallyattractive.

If activities improving forestmanagement in the project area or in the geographical areawith similar socio-economic and ecological conditions to the proposed IFMproject activityoccurring inthe10-yearperiodbeforetheProjectStartDatehavedisappeared,theprojectproponents shall demonstrate that incentives/reasons/actions that allowed for the pastactivitieshavechangedtoanextentthataffectsthefinancialattractivenessofsuchactivitiesintheprojectareawithoutbeingregisteredastheIFMproject.

• Ifafter thesensitivityanalysis it isconcludedthat theproposed IFMprojectactivitywithout the financialbenefits fromcarbon finance isunlikely tobe financiallymost


85

attractive(OptionIIandOptionIII),thenproceeddirectlytoStep4(Commonpracticeanalysis).

• IfafterthesensitivityanalysisitisconcludedthattheproposedIFMprojectactivityislikely to be financially most attractive (Option II and Option III), then the projectactivity cannot be considered additional bymeans of financial analysis. OptionallyproceedtoStep3(Barrieranalysis)toprovethattheproposedprojectactivityfacesbarriers thatdonotprevent thebaseline landusescenario(s) fromoccurring. If theStep 3 (Barrier analysis) is not employed then the project activity cannot beconsideredadditional.

Notapplicable.

STEP 3. BARRIER ANALYSIS

AccordingtotheVCSIFMAdditionalityToolprojectscanelecttoundertakeabarrieranalysisinsteadoforasanextensionofinvestmentanalysis:

Barrieranalysismaybeperformedasastand-aloneadditionalityanalysisorasanextensionofinvestmentanalysis.

Ifthisstepisused,determinewhethertheproposedprojectactivityfacesbarriersthat:

• Preventtheimplementationofthistypeofproposedprojectactivity;and• Do not prevent the implementation of at least one of the alternative land use

scenarios.

Usethefollowingsub-steps:

The proposed project activity of forest protection faces barriers that prevent theimplementationofthistypeofproposedprojectactivity.Thesebarriersdonotpreventtheimplementationofatleastoneofthealternativelandusescenarios.

Sub-step 3a. Barriers that would prevent the proposed project activity

WhenundertakingaBarrierAnalysistheVCSIFMAdditionalityToolrequiresprojectsto:

Establish that there are barriers that would prevent the implementation of the type ofproposedprojectactivityfrombeingcarriedoutiftheprojectactivitywasnotregisteredasanIFMactivity.Thebarriersshouldnotbespecifictotheprojectortheprojectproponent(s).Suchbarriersmayinclude,amongothers:

• Investment barriers, other than the economic/financial barriers in Step 2 above, interalia:

o ForIFMprojectactivitiesundertakenandoperatedbyprivateentities:Similaractivities have only been implementedwith grants or other non-commercialfinance terms. In this context similar activities are defined as activities of asimilar scale that take place in a comparable environment with respect toregulatoryframeworkandareundertakenintherelevantgeographicalarea;


86

o Debtfundingisnotavailableforthistypeofprojectactivity;o No access to international capital markets due to real or perceived risks

associatedwithdomesticorforeigndirectinvestmentinthecountrywheretheprojectactivityistobeimplemented,asdemonstratedbythecreditratingofthecountryorothercountryinvestmentreportsofreputedorigin;

o Lackofaccesstocredit.• Institutionalbarriers,interalia:

o Riskrelatedtochangesingovernmentpoliciesorlaws;o Lackofenforcementofforestorland-use-relatedlegislation.

• Technologicalbarriers,interalia:o Lack of access to planting materials (e.g. if plantations are a leakage

avoidanceo strategy);o Lack of technological know-how of implementing improved forest

management;o Lackofinfrastructureforimplementationofthetechnology.

• Barriersrelatedtolocaltradition,interalia:o Traditionalknowledgeorlackthereof,lawsandcustoms,marketconditions,o practices;o Traditionalequipmentandtechnology.

• Barriersduetoprevailingpractice,interalia:o Theprojectactivity isthe“firstof itskind”:Noprojectactivityofthistype is

currentlyoperationalinthehostcountryorregion;• Barriersduetosocialconditions,interalia:

o Demographic pressure on the land (e.g. increased demand on land due topopulationgrowth);

o Social conflict among interest groups in the regionwhere the project takesplace;

o Widespread illegal practices (e.g. illegal grazing, non-timber productextractionandtreefelling);

o Lackofskilledand/orproperlytrainedlabourforce;o Lackoforganisationoflocalcommunities.

• Barriers relating to land tenure, ownership, inheritance, and property rights, interalia:

o CommunallandownershipwithahierarchyofrightsfordifferentstakeholderslimitstheincentivestoundertakeIFMactivity;

o Lackofsuitablelandtenurelegislationandregulationtosupportthesecurityoftenure;

o Absenceofclearlydefinedandregulatedpropertyrightsinrelationtonaturalresourceproductsandservices;

o Formaland informaltenuresystemsthat increasetherisksoffragmentationoflandholdings.


87

ThecommunitiesoftheDrawaBlockofrainforestinwesternVanuaLevuhavebasicsocio-economic needs and aspirations relating to local community infrastructure establishmentand/or enhancement. Infrastructure in needof establishment and/or enhancement in thevillages at the Project Site include access to sanitation, piped water, electricity, housing,transportation, and health care for current and future generations of landowners. TheDrawalandownersalsoaspiretogainingaccesstoemploymentforhouseholdcashflowstoraisethestandardoflivingforindividualfamiliesinthiscommunity.Thereisalsoadesiretogenerate localised employment to stem the tide of outmigration from villages to urbancentres,andpreservethelocalvillagelabourforceasbestaspossible.

InremoteforestedareasinFiji,thenormalmeansofgeneratingbothcapitalforcommunityinfrastructure development and cash flows for families is through either removal ofindigenousforestfollowedbyagriculturalproductionorplantationforestry,orconventionalloggingofindigenoustimberspecieswithoutchangingfromaforesttonon-forestlanduse,or changing to non-forest land uses only gradually and in patchy distribution at decadaltimescales.

Intheabsenceofcounter-measurescapableofdeliveringeconomicdevelopmentcapableofsupporting local economic development needs and aspirations, landowners have fewoptionsbuttopursueconventionalloggingforeconomicdevelopment.

In contrast, neighbouring communities that have pursued conventional logging haveincreased their access to such economic development in the form of communityinfrastructure,employmentandincome.Theon-goingeconomicdevelopmentopportunitiesassociatedwithconventionalloggingandactivitiesmadeavailableondegradedforestlandshasbenefitedcommunitiesthathaveelectedtoundertakeconventionallogging.

Notable in this regard is the decision of theVulavuladamu andNavoatu clans to exit thisrainforestprotectionproject inearly2015afterthreeyearsofprojectdevelopment.Theseclansexitedtheprojectinordertopursueconventionalloggingactivities,whichresultedintheproject decreasing in sizeby 24%. The reason for this exitwasdue to the compellingneedforcommunityeconomicdevelopmentthattheseclansfeltcouldonlybedelivered(atsufficientlylowfinancialrisk)throughconventionallogging.

Priortothesetwoclansexitingtheproject,otherneighbouringclanswerecontinuingwithconventionallogginguptotheprojectboundary.

It is clear that local poverty combined with demand for basic economic developmentcombined with the availability of low financial risk development solutions throughconventionalloggingmeansthatintheabsenceofthisprojectthebaselineofconventionalloggingwouldoccurintheEligibleForestArea.

When undertaking a Barrier Analysis the VCS IFM Additionality Tool requires projects toaddressthefollowing:

The identifiedbarriersareonlysufficientgroundsfordemonstrationofadditionality if they


88

wouldpreventpotentialprojectproponentsfromcarryingouttheproposedprojectactivityifitwasnotexpectedtoberegisteredasaIFMprojectactivity.

If the project was not registered as an IFM project activity, the consequent absence ofcarbon revenues would mean that the conservation opportunity costs would not beaddressed.Accordingly,withoutanIFMprojectthereasonabledemandamonglandownersfor modest community economic development in proportion with their means (i.e. inproportion with their own resources capable of driving economic development) wouldremain undelivered. This reasonable demand (without the IFM project activity) wouldcompel the landowners to turn to the baseline activity as the most plausible land usescenariointheabsenceofthisproject.


Providetransparentanddocumentedevidence,andofferconservativeinterpretationsofthisdocumented evidence, as to how it demonstrates the existence and significance of theidentifiedbarriers.Anecdotal evidence canbe included,butalone isnot sufficientproofofbarriers.Thetypeofevidencetobeprovidedmayinclude:

• Relevant legislation, regulatory information or environmental/natural resourcemanagementnorms,actsorrules;

• Relevant (sectoral) studies or surveys (e.g.market surveys, technology studies, etc)undertaken by universities, research institutions, associations, companies,bilateral/multilateralinstitutions,etc;

• Relevantstatisticaldatafromnationalorinternationalstatistics;• Documentationofrelevantmarketdata(e.g.marketprices,tariffs,rules);• Writtendocumentationfromthecompanyorinstitutiondevelopingorimplementing

the IFM project activity or the IFM project developer, such asminutes from Boardmeetings,correspondence,feasibilitystudies,financialorbudgetaryinformation,etc.;

• Documentspreparedbytheprojectdeveloper,contractorsorprojectpartnersinthecontextoftheproposedprojectactivityorsimilarpreviousprojectimplementations;

• Written documentation of independent expert judgments fromagriculture, forestryand other land-use related Government / Non-Government bodies or individualexperts,educationalinstitutions(e.g.universities,technicalschools,trainingcentres),professionalassociationsandothers.

ThelandownersoftheDrawablockhavebeenpursuinganasyetunfulfilledpursuittogainaccess tomodest formsofeconomicdevelopment throughutilizing their forests since thelate 1990s (Fung 2005). This involved the establishment of a project to undertakecommercially viable sustainable forest management timber harvesting with the technicalsupport of the Secretariat of thePacific Community and theGTZPacificGermanRegionalForestryProject(PGRFP)(Fung2005;DrawaForestManagementPlann.d.).Thisprojectwasdeveloped and piloted between 1999 and 2009, and while technically feasible it did notsucceedcommercially.Thelocaldemandforeconomicdevelopmentdidnotabate,andsoin2011 the Fiji Department of Forests invited the Project Coordinator (Live & Learn Fiji) to


89

develop a forest carbon project as a pilot project within the framework of the NaitonalREDD+programme.

To reiterate the tangible threat to the carbon stored in these forests: Two landowninggroupsexitedtheprojectinearly2015topursueconventionalloggingasameanstoaccesseconomic development using their own resources. These two landowning clans (mataqaliVulavuladamu andmataqali Navoatu)were part of the SPC/GTZDrawa sustainable forestmanagementproject,andparticipantsofthisrainforestcarbonprojectduringthefirstthreeyearsofprojectdevelopment.Theycametothedecisionthattheirwell-beingandaccesstoeconomicdevelopmentwasbestservedbymeansofconventionallogging–anactivitywellprovenbeyond(butadjacenttotheoriginalprojectboundaryandthroughoutFiji).

When undertaking a Barrier Analysis the VCS IFM Additionality Tool requires projects toaddressthefollowing:

If activities improving forestmanagement in the project area or in the geographical areawith similar socio-economic and ecological conditions to the proposed IFMproject activityoccurring inthe10-yearperiodbeforetheProjectStartDatehavedisappeared,theprojectproponent shall identify incentives/reasons/actions/that allowed for the past activity andshall demonstrate that the current legal/financial or other applicable regulations orecologicalorotherlocalconditionshavechangedtotheextentthattheyposeabarrierwhichallowsforconclusionthatrepetitionoftheactivityperformedwithoutbeingregisteredastheIFMprojectactivityisnotpossible.

The Drawa sustainable forest management project operated by SPC/GTZ and the Drawalandowners did not succeed commercially. For this reason it could be considered to havecompleted the project development phase of the project cycle, but did not successfullytransition to project implementation. As such, there have been no IFM project activitiesimplementedontheprojectsite in the10-yearperiodbefore theprojectstartdate,apartfrompilotsustainableforestmanagementlogginginasmallpartoftheEligibleForestArea(thishasbeenaccountedforinthecarbonaccountinginthisproject).

Sub-step 3b. Barriers not preventing alternative land use scenarios


If the identifiedbarriersalsoaffectother landusescenarios,explainhowtheyareaffectedlessstronglythantheyaffecttheproposedIFMprojectactivity.Inotherwords,explainhowthe identified barriers are not preventing the implementation of at least one of thealternativelandusescenarios.Anylandusescenariothatwouldbepreventedbythebarriersidentified in Sub-step 3a is not a viable alternative, and shall be eliminated fromconsideration.Atleastoneviablelandusescenarioshallbeidentified.

• If both Sub-steps 3a – 3b are satisfied, then proceed directly to Step 4 (Commonpracticeanalysis).


90

• If one of the Sub-steps 3a – 3b is not satisfied then the project activity cannot beconsidered additional by means of barrier analysis. Optionally proceed to Step 2(Investment analysis) to prove that the proposed IFM project activity without thefinancial benefits from carbon markets is unlikely to produce economic benefit(Option I) or to be financially attractive (Option II and Option III). If the Step 2(Investmentanalysis)isnotemployedthentheprojectactivitycannotbeconsideredadditional.

The barrier to a project to permanently protect the indigenous forest at Drawa is theinability of a protected forest to cater to the reasonable (and very basic) socio-economicdevelopmentneedsandaspirationsof the localcommunity,nowand into the future.Thisbarrier to rainforest protection is not a barrier to the implementation of any of thealternativelandusescenariosidentified.Theconventionalloggingbaselinescenariodirectlyovercomesthebarriertoeconomicdevelopmentposedbythelong-termprotectionoftheindigenousforest.

STEP 4. COMMON PRACTICE ANALYSIS

AccordingtotheVCSIFMAdditionalityTool:

The previous steps shall be complementedwith an analysis of the extent towhich similaractivities improving forestmanagement have already diffused in the geographical area oftheproposedIFMprojectactivity.Thistestisacredibilitychecktodemonstrateadditionalitythatcomplementsthebarrieranalysis(Step2)andtheinvestmentanalysis(Step3).

Provide ananalysis towhich extent similar activities improving forestmanagement to theoneproposedastheIFMprojectactivityhavebeenimplementedpreviouslyorarecurrently(i.e. at the time the project participants involved considered the incentives from carbonfinance) underway. Similar activities are defined as thosewhich are of similar scale, takeplaceinacomparableenvironment,interalia,withrespecttotheregulatoryframeworkandare undertaken in the relevant geographical area, subject to further guidance by theunderlyingmethodology.OtherregisteredIFMprojectactivitiesshallnotbeincludedinthisanalysis.Providedocumentedevidenceand,whererelevant,quantitativeinformation.Limityourconsiderationstothe10-yearperiodpriortotheProjectStartDate.

If activities improving forestmanagement similar to the proposed IFMproject activity areidentified, then compare the proposed project activity to the other similar activities andassess whether there are essential distinctions between them. Essential distinctions mayincludeafundamentalandverifiablechangeincircumstancesunderwhichtheproposedIFMproject activitywill be implementedwhen compared to circumstancesunderwhich similaractivitieswerecarriedout.Forexample,barriersmayexist,orpromotionalpoliciesmayhaveended. If certain benefits rendered the similar forestation activities financially attractive(e.g.,subsidiesorotherfinancialflows),explainwhytheproposedIFMprojectactivitycannotusethebenefits.Ifapplicable,explainwhythesimilaractivitiesdidnotfacebarrierstowhichtheproposedIFMprojectactivityissubject.


91

→ If Step 4 is satisfied, i.e. similar activities can be observed and essential distinctionsbetween theproposed IFMprojectactivityand similaractivities cannotbemade, then theproposedIFMprojectactivitycannotbeconsideredadditional.Otherwise,theproposedIFMprojectactivityisnotthebaselinescenarioand,hence,itisadditional.

The baseline activity of conventional logging is the predominant land use activity in allneighbouringlands,intheregionofwesternVanuaLevuandalsothepredominantlandusefor village based economic development throughout rural Fiji where indigenous forest isavailablefortimberproduction.

TheprojectactivityisthefirstofitskindinFiji(i.e.paymentforecosystemservices)andsothereisnoopportunitytocompareitwithsimilaractivitiesthathavealreadydiffusedinthegeographicalareaoftheproposedproject.


92

APPENDIX 11: DRAWA PROFILE REPORT

Suppliedseparately

APPENDIX 12: PRE-HARVEST INVENTORY

Suppliedseparately

Date post:	09-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	letram
View:	219 times
Download:	4 times