Date post: | 30-May-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | gruporeddperu |
View: | 228 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 16
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
1/161www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
Voluntary Carbon Standard
Tool or AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk
Analysis and Buer Determination
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
2/162www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
Tool or AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buer Determination
18 November 2008
I. SCOPE and PARAMETERS
Scope
1. This tool denes the step-wise approach or conducting the non-permanence risk analysis
to determine the number o buer credits that a given AFOLU project shall deposit into the
AFOLU Pooled Buer Account;
2. This tool shall be used in addition to any guidance provided by the most current versions o
the Voluntary Carbon Standard and VCS Program Guidelines;
3. Project proponents shall clearly document and substantiate this sel risk assessment covering
each risk actor applicable to the project. During validation and verication1 the VCS verier
will evaluate the document; and,
4. In evaluating the application o this tool to a proposed project activity, VCS Veriers shall
assess the credibility o all data, rationales, assumptions, justications and documentation
provided by the project participant to support the non-permanence risk analysis and buer
determination.
Parameters
Parameter Sign Description
Buer Withholding
Percentage
% Based on the projects overall risk classication,
the percentage o carbon credits generated by the
approved project activity that must be deposited into
the AFOLU Pooled Buer Account to cover non-permanence related project risks.
II. PROCEDURE
The project proponents shall take the ollowing steps:
Step 1: Conduct a risk assessment.
Sub-step 1a: Evaluate the project against the risk actors applicable to all AFOLU
project types.
Sub-step 1b: Evaluate the project against the risk actors associated with the specic
project type.
Sub-step 1c: Based on the above assessments, determine the overall risk classication or
the project.
Step 2: Based on the projects overall risk classication, deposit the appropriate amount o credits
into the AFOLU Pooled Buer Account.
Step 3: Repeat Steps 1 and 2 every time the project seeks VCS verication and adjust the projects
buer withholding as necessary.
1 Projects that are not validated and veried simultaneously must have their initial risk assessment validated
at the same time as VCS project validation. The risk assessment must also be reevaluated at the time o credit
issuance (i.e., verication).
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
3/163www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
Step 1: Conduct a risk assessment.
1. Project proponents shall assess both transient and permanent potential losses in carbon stocks
and determine the appropriate buer reserve based on this Tool.
2. The outcome o the risk assessment shall be clearly documented and substantiated and be
oered to the VCS verier or assessment when the project is being validated or veried.
3. The overall risk classication o the project shall be based on risk ratings or generic risk
actors and other risk actors associated with the specic AFOLU activity type:
Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR);
Agricultural Land Management (ALM);
Improved Forest Management (IFM); or,
Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD)
4. When determining the overall non-permanence risk classication, all the risk actors relevant
to the project shall be weighed up together. To assist with this process, the risk likelihood
signicance risk assessment methodology2, described in Appendix A, may be used.
5. Beore VCUs can be issued, a VCS verier will need to conrm the overall project risk
classication and the buer withholding percentage as determined by the project proponent
in accordance with this Tool.3
6. I the verier eels that the non-permanence risk associated with the project warrants a buer
reserve greater than the highest withholding percentage available or that project type (as
indicated in the buer tables below) then the project is not eligible or crediting under the VCS.
7. The outcome o the risk assessment at the rst VCU issuance and at subsequent risk
assessments where the project is classied as lower risk compared to the previous assessment
will be subjected to the VCS double approval process. I no agreement can be reached by the
two VCS veriers on the percentage o credits the project must withhold, the project can opt to
go with the more conservative o the buer determinations or appeal to the VCS Association.
2 This approach provides assessors with a ramework or evaluating both quantitative and qualitative risks in
an integrated manner in order to come to a deendable overall risk classication o low, medium, high
or unacceptably high/ail.
3 While this tool is intended to cover the key actors driving non-permanence risk, validators and veriers
may identiy other risks they consider signicant or a given project, in which case these additional actors
should be included in the overall risk assessment.
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
4/164www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
Sub-step 1a: Determination o the risk actors applicable to all project types
8. Generic risk actors that shall be assessed or all AFOLU project types are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Risk actors applicable to all project types
Project riskRisk o unclear land tenure and potential or disputes
Risk o nancial ailure
Risk o technical ailure
Risk o management ailure
Economic risk
Risk o rising land opportunity costs that cause reversal o sequestration and/or protection
Regulatory and social risk
Risk o political instability
Risk o social instability
Natural disturbance risk
Risk o devastating re
Risk o pest and disease attacks
Risk o extreme weather events (e.g. foods, drought, winds)
Geological risk (e.g. volcanoes, earthquakes, landslides)
Sub-step 1b: Determination o the risk actors associated with the specic project types
I Aorestation, Reorestation and Revegetation (ARR)
9. To assess ARR project risks, the risk ratings listed in Table 2 below shall be assigned, whereby
the interaction between rotation period and the level o a projects commitment to replanting
across two or more rotation periods shall be expressed as short-term, medium-term or long-
term commitment.
a. Projects with rotation periods o less than 25 years and no commitment to replant ater
the rst harvest are characterized as having a short-term commitment period.
b. Projects with rotation periods o less than 25 years, but with a commitment to replant are
characterized as having a medium-term commitment period.
c. Projects with rotation periods o more than 25 years, but no commitment to replant arealso characterized as having a medium-term commitment period.
d. Projects with rotation periods o more than 25 years and a commitment to replant, and
those with primarily a orest restoration and habitat emphasis, are characterized as
having a long-term commitment period.
10. When determining the overall non-permanence risk rating or the project, veriers shall
weigh all the risk actors together. However, certain risks may be signicant enough that
their individual rating determines the projects overall risk rating, no matter what the project
scored on other risk dimensions.
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
5/165www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
Table 2: Risk actors applicable to ARR projects
Risk actor Risk
Rating
Project longevity/ Commitment period
Long-term commitment (i.e., many decades or unlimited) with no harvesting Low
Long-term commitment with no harvesting in politically unstable countries Medium
Long-term commitment with harvesting Medium
Medium-term commitment with harvesting High
Medium-term commitment (i.e., a ew decades) with no harvesting High
Short-term commitment with or without harvesting Fail
Ownership type and user rights
Established NGO or conservation agency owner; or owner-operated
private land
Low
Rented or tenant-operated land Medium
Clear land tenure but disputed land use rights High
Uncertain tenure but with established user rights High
Uncertain land tenure and no established user rights Fail
Technical capability
Proven technologies and ready access to relevant expertise Low
Technologies proven to be eective in other regions under similar soil and
climate conditions, but lacking local experimental results and having limited
access to relevant expertise
Medium
Financial capacity
Financial backing rom established nancial institutions, NGOs and/orgovernments
Low
Long-term project unding not secured Medium
Management capacity o project developer
Substantial previous project experience ( 5 projects) with on-site
management team
Low
Limited project experience (
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
6/166www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
11. Table 3 below provides the deault buer withholding ranges or ARR projects associated
with low, medium and high non-permanence risk classes. Veriers must use their expert
judgment to determine the appropriate withholding percentage within each range based on
whether the project is deemed to be at the low, medium or high end o a given risk class.
Table 3: Deault buer withholding percentages or ARR projects
ARR Risk Class Buer Range
High 40-60%
Medium 20-40%
Low 10-20%
II Agricultural Land Management (ALM)
12. To assess ALM project risks the risk ratings listed in Table 4 shall be assigned.
13. Permanence risk assessment applies only to emission reductions or removals (through sinks)
o CO2. Activities generating emissions reductions o N2O, CH4 or ossil-derived CO2 are notsubject to buer withholding, since these GHG benets cannot be reversed.
14. When determining the overall non-permanence risk rating or the project, veriers shall
weigh all the risk actors together. However, certain risks may be signicant enough that
their individual rating determines the projects overall risk rating, no matter what the project
scored on other risk dimensions.
Table 4: Risk actors applicable to ALM projects
Risk actor Improved cropland
management
Improved grassland
management
Cropland & grassland
conversions
Ownership type and landtenure
Established NGO or
conservation agency owner;
owner-operated private land
Low Low Low
Rented or tenant-operated land Medium Medium Medium
Uncertain land tenure High High High
Unproven technologies
and practices
Use o proven practices
veried or local conditions
Low Low Low
Use o proven technology
shown to be eective elsewhere,
but not veried locally
Medium Medium Medium
Use o technologies with
minimal previous application in
similar environments to project
High High High
Use o technologies without
any scientic basis or
application to C storage or
greenhouse gas mitigation
Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Table continued overlea.
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
7/167www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
Change in net nancial
returns rom displaced/
avoided commodity
production, or rom increased
costs4 due to project
< 10% reduction Low Low Low
10-20% reduction Medium Medium Low
> 20% reduction High High LowCompetitive land uses in
immediate vicinity (within
100 km radius)5
Negligible net losses o
agricultural land (e.g.,
conversion to settlement/
urban, other land uses)
Low Low Low
Discernible but limited (1-2%/
yr) net loss o agricultural land
Low-Medium Low-Medium Low-Medium
Signicant (>2%/yr) net loss
o agricultural land
Low-High Low-High Low-High
Incidence o crop ailure
rom severe drought or
insects/diseases
Inrequent (< 1 in 10 yrs) Low Low Low
Frequent (> 1 in 10 yrs) Medium Medium Low
Project longevity
Project plan and
demonstrated commitment
to long-term project
maintenance (>40 yr)
Low Low Low
Short-term project
commitment (20 to 40 years)
Low Low High
45
15. Table 5 below provides the deault buer withholding ranges associated with low, medium and
high non-permanence risk classes or dierent ALM activities. Veriers must use their expert
judgement to determine the appropriate withholding percentage within each range based on
whether the project is deemed to be at the low, medium or high end o a given risk class.
Table 5: Deault buer withholding percentages or ALM projects
ALM Risk Class Improved cropland
management
Improved grassland
management
Cropland & grassland
conversions
High 30-60% 25-50% 25-50%
Medium 15-30% 15-25% 15-25%
Low 10-15% 10-15% 10-15%
4 This risk actor only applies to activities whose nancial viability is largely dependent on continued
production o agricultural commodities. For example, land restoration activities or conservation set-asides
in conjunction with NGOs or governmental entities may not be subject to these nancial risks.
5 Relative risk ratings or competitive land uses will depend, in part, on ownership attributes, where
commercial agricultural operations are likely to have higher risk in areas with competitive land uses and
increasing land values, whereas land conservation activities (e.g., by NGOs, government) may have a low
risk in spite o acing strong competition rom other land uses. Other actors, e.g., proximity to urban
development and landscape attributes, will also impact this risk actor, such that the risk analysis should
consider competitive land uses in the context o project-specic circumstances.
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
8/168www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
III Improved Forest Management (IFM)
16. To assess IFM project risks the risk ratings listed in Table 6 shall be assigned.
17. In the case o IFM projects, the actor with the highest rank determines the projects overall
risk rating and shall be used to determine the required buer.
Table 6: Risk actors applicable to IFM projects
Risk actors Conventional to
Reduced Impact
Logging (RIL)
Convert logged to
protected orest
(LtPF)
Extend rotation age
(ERA)
Conversion o
low-productive
orests to high-
productive
orests (LtHP)
Devastating re potential
Low to medium re return
interval (> 50 years)
Very low Low to Medium Very low to Low Low
High re return interval (5 yr),
because expect no
change in labor needs
Very low to Low
-because expect
no change in
labor needs
Very low Low Very low Very low
6
6 Zero risk does not indicate there is no eect but rather that there is no dierence between the baseline and project scenario.
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
9/169www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
18. Table 7 below provides the deault buer withholding ranges associated with low, medium and
high non-permanence risk classes or dierent IFM activities. Veriers must use their expert
judgement to determine the appropriate withholding percentage within each range based on
whether the project is deemed to be at the low, medium or high end o a given risk class.
Table 7: Deault buer withholding percentages or IFM projects
IFM Risk Class Conventional
to RIL
Convert logged
to protected
orest
Extend rotation
age
Conversion o low-
productive orests
to high-productive
orests
High 40-60% 40-60% 40-60% 40-60%
Medium 15-40% 15-40% 15-40% 15-40%
Low 10-15% 10-15% 10-15% 10-15%
IV Reducing Emissions rom Deorestation and Degradation (REDD)
19. To assess REDD project risks the risk ratings listed in Table 8 shall be assigned.
20. When determining the overall non-permanence risk rating or the project, veriers shall
weigh all the risk actors together. However, certain risks may be signicant enough that
their individual rating determines the projects overall risk rating, no matter what the project
scored on other risk dimensions.
21. Projects rated high risk across three or more o the most signicant risk criteria (shown
in bold in the table below) are not considered acceptable rom an overall risk perspective, and
are not eligible or VCS crediting.
Table 8: Risk actors and risk ratings applicable to REDD projects
Risk actor Risk rating or APD Risk rating or AFUDD
and AUMDD
Land ownership / land management type
Land owned by private or public orest conservation
organization with a good track record in orest
conservation activities and able to obtain and enorce
nationally recognized legal protection o the land
Very low Very low
Privately owned land Low-Medium Low-Medium
Uncertain land tenure Not applicable Medium-High
Land legally protected Not applicable Low-Medium
Land not protected by laws or protected with weak
enorcement
Medium Medium-High
Technical capability o project
developer/implementer
Proven capacity to design and successully implement
activities that are likely to ensure the longevity o carbon
benets (e.g., creating sustainable livelihood alternatives
and/or eectively managing protected areas)
Very low Very low
No previous experience in the design and implementation o
activities that may ensure the longevity o carbon benets
Medium Medium-High
Table continued overlea.
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
10/1610www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
Net revenues/nancial returns rom the project to
ALL relevant stakeholders (e.g., project developer,
deorestation agents, national to local governments)
Lower than pre-project or lower than alternative land-uses Low if project developer a
conservation group
Medium to high or other
developer types
Low if project developer a
conservation group
Medium to high or other
developer types
Similar to pre-project or similar to alternative land-uses Low if project developer aconservation group
Medium for other
developer types
Low if project developer aconservation group
Medium for other
developer types
Higher than pre-project or higher than alternative land-uses Very low Very low
Inrastructure and natural resources
High likelihood o new road(s)/rails being built near the
REDD project boundary
Low-Medium Medium-High
Low likelihood o new road(s)/rails being built near the
REDD project boundary
Very low Low
High-value non-orest related natural resources (oil,
minerals, etc.) known to exist within REDD project area
Low to High depending on
who owns the project landsand their mission (private
company or conservation
organization) and who owns
(or is likely to own in the
uture) the mining right i
separate rom land ownership
Low to High depending on
who the project developer isand their mission (private
company, indigenous group,
conservation organization)
and who owns (or is likely
to own in the uture) the
mining rights
High hydroelectric potential within REDD project area? Same as above Same as above
Population surrounding the project area
Decreasing or increasing, but with low population density
(e.g., 150 people/km2)
Low to medium Medium to High
Incidence o crop ailure on surrounding lands rom
severe droughts, fooding and/or pests/diseases
Inrequent (1 in 10 years) Low Medium-High
Project nancial plan
Credible long-term nancial strategy in place (e.g.,
endowment, annuity-paying investments, and the like)
Low Low
Credible long-term nancial strategy absent Medium High
Legal easement or ongoing protection tied to land title
in place
Very low Very low
22. Table 9 below provides guidance or veriers to use when determining the appropriate buer
size or any given REDD project based on its risk class. Specically, the ranges listed indicate
the percentage o a projects carbon credits that are to be withheld as a buer reserve.
Table 9: Deault buer withholding percentages or REDD projects
Risk Class Avoided Planned
Deorestation (APD)
Avoided Unplanned
Frontier Deorestation
& Degradation
(AUFDD)
Avoided Unplanned
Mosaic Deorestation
& Degradation
(AUMDD)
High 20-30% 25-35% 30-40%
Medium 10-20% 10-25% 10-30%
Low 10% 10% 10%
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
11/1611www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
Step 2: Deposit the appropriate amount o credits into the AFOLU Pooled Buer Account7
23. According to this risk rating, the appropriate percentage o carbon credits shall be withheld.
Such credits cannot be traded and will be held in the AFOLU Pooled Buer Account.
24. Future verication o AFOLU projects that have generated VCUs in the past is optional.
However, any subsequent verication o a VCS AFOLU project must take place prior to the
expiration o its crediting period. As a result o such uture verication a percentage o the
carbon held in the buer may be released i a project has demonstrated, over its longevity,
the projects sustainability and ability to eectively mitigate risks.
25. The remaining credit balance o a projects buer is automatically cancelled at the end o
the project.
Step 3: Repeat the previous steps each time a project seeks VCS verication and adjust the
projects buer withholding accordingly.
26. I during a subsequent verication total to-date project emissions are shown to exceed the
baseline emissions, or total to-date project emissions removals (rom sequestration) are less
than in the baseline scenario, then no uture VCUs are issued to the project until the decit isremedied. I VCUs were issued in previous verications, an amount o buer credits equivalent
to the excess emissions or reduced sequestration shall be cancelled rom the AFOLU Pooled
Buer Account. This necessity shall be indicated in the verication statement within the
verication report.
27. I a projects overall risk rating remains the same or decreases rom one verication event
to the next, then every ve years upon verication 15% o its total buer reserve (including
newly deposited credits rom the current verication) shall be released8 and made available
or trading. I a projects risk rating increases rom one verication event to the next, the
total buer reserve shall not be reduced.
28. I the projects risk rating decreases rom one verication event to the next, then the new (lower)buer withholding percentage shall apply to all credits generated to date by the project9.
29. The remaining buer credit balance associated with the project is automatically cancelled
rom the AFOLU Pooled Buer Account at the end o the project.
7 For an entire description o the AFOLU Pooled Buer Account methodology, see Program Guidelines.
8 When released, buer credits will be cancelled and converted into VCUs and deposited into the registry
account o the project and made available or trading.
9 In such cases, the projects buer shall be reduced to refect the lower risk-assessed withholding
requirement in addition to the 15% time-related release (i.e., these two kinds o buer reductions should
be applied cumulatively).
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
12/1612www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
APPENDIX A
Likelihood Signicance Methodology or Assessing AFOLU Project Risk
Both quantitative and qualitative risks can be calculated based on a systematic prediction o the
likelihood and signicance o a given impact (absolute risk). Certain management practices may
help to reduce the absolute impact o a potential event. Thereore, a well-designed and implemented
project may be able to reduce the projects overall risk classication.
This risk likelihood signicance approach provides project proponents and veriers (together
reerred to as assessors) with a consistent and holistic ramework or assessing both quantitative
and qualitative risk in an integrated manner and coming to a single overall risk classication o
low, medium, high or unacceptably high/ail.
I relevant expertise and sucient project inormation exists, project risk ratings can be dened
more directly based on the risk guidelines dened in the individual AFOLU project category sections
ound in the main body o this document. These aorementioned risk ratings integrate inormation
on the above components o total risk (i.e., likelihood, signicance and counter measures). This
appendix outlines a project risk evaluation ramework that assessors can use in those instances
when direct assessment is not easible/credible. The ollowing approach can be used as an alternativeor to supplement a more direct risk assessment.
Steps to apply risk likelihood signicance approach:
1. Projects using the risk likelihood x signicance approach shall, at a minimum, be assessed
against each risk actor listed or their respective project category, outlined in this document,
to ensure that no key risk actors have been overlooked.
2. List any potential risks identied and classiy them as quantitative or qualitative.
3. Assess the likelihood (that the risk occurs) and signicance o the impact (the impact when it
occurs) without management intererence. This is reerred to as an absolute risk.
4. The likelihood is the inverse o the average number o times the event has occurred over a
period equivalent to the lie span o the project (see box 1).
5. The signicance o quantitative and qualitative risks are determined dierently:
a. The signicance o quantitative risk is determined by the damage that the project would
sustain i the event occurred and is expressed as a percentage o total carbon benets
(see box 2);
b. The signicance o qualitative risk is determined by assigning a relative rating o 0-3
(see box 3).
6. Identiy and list strategies being employed by the project to mitigate identied risks and
assess the quality o the management system to eectively implement the counter-measures
(see box 4).
7. Calculate project-specic total quantitative and qualitative risks (see box 5).
8. Convert the calculated risk into one o the ollowing risk classes: low, medium, high or
unacceptably high/ail (see section 6).
9. The highest risk rom the quantitative and qualitative assessment determines the buer
applied. For example, i a total quantitative risk is high and a total qualitative risk is medium,
or vice versa, the project is considered overall high risk. The buer withholding percentageis obtained rom the guidance provided within each project category section o this document.
Since this is a range or each risk class, the assessor has reedom to apply a higher or a lower
buer within this range, depending on the circumstances.
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
13/1613www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
I available, steps 2 through 4 above can be replaced by a direct rating o risk according to the
tables and guidelines provided under each o the AFOLU project category sections.
Box 1: Determination o LIKELIHOOD
I historical data are available, the likelihood is dened as the inverse o the average number
o times the event has occurred over a period equivalent to the lie span o the project.
I the requency can only be guestimated, the ollowing guidelines can be used:
Frequency Likelihood
[General rule 1/(requency o event)]
Less than once during the lie o the project tends to 0.00
Once every 100 years 0.0100
Once every 50 to
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
14/16
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
15/1615www.v-c-s.org VCS Association
Box 5: Calculation o a TOTAL RISK
R = L S (1 - (C M)/16)10
Where:
R = Total risk,
L = Likelihood o occurrence,
S = Signicance o impact,
C = Adequacy o countermeasures to avert or minimize risk,
M = Adequacy o management system.
Example: A risk actor is highly likely to occur once a year (likelihood 1) and is destructive
(with a permanent loss o carbon, e.g., due to re, without means to replant); L S = 1. I,
however, the project has measures and good management practices in place to counter this
risk, the total risk will be less than 1.
Section 6: Conversion o total risk into RISK CLASSES
Translating the risk assessment into a general risk class is based on a combination o quantitative
risks (as a total percentage) and qualitative risks (as a set o scores).
1. The sum o the quantitative risks is converted into one o our risk classes.
Score (example11) Risk Classication
> 6.0 Fail
4.0 6.0 High
2.0 3.9 Medium
0 1.9 Low
I the indicated quantitative risk percentage exceeds the highest buer withholding value available
or the project type being assessed as indicated in the tables in Step 1 o Risk Tool, then the project
is considered o unacceptably high risk and is not eligible or crediting under the VCS.
2. All individual qualitative risk calculations are converted into one o our risk classes.
Score Risk Classication
2.8 3.0 Fail
2.0
8/14/2019 VCS_Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
16/16
Intellectual Property Rights, Copyright and Disclaimer
This document contains materials the copyright and other intellectual property rights in which
are vested in the VCS Association or which appear with the consent o the copyright owner. These
materials are made available or you to review and to copy or the use (the Authorised Use) o
your establishment or operation in a project under the VCS Program (the Authorised Use).
Except or the Authorised Use, all commercial use o this document is prohibited. You are not
permitted to view, download, modiy, copy, distribute, transmit, store, reproduce or otherwise use,
publish, licence, transer, sell or create derivative works (in whatever ormat) rom this document
or any inormation obtained rom this document otherwise than or the Authorised Use or or per-
sonal, academic or other non-commercial purposes.
All copyright and other proprietary notices contained in this document must be retained on
any copy that you make. All other rights o the copyright owner not expressly dealt with above
are reserved.
No representation, warranty or guarantee express or implied is made in this document.
No representation, warranty or guarantee express or implied is made that the inormation
provided is accurate, current or complete. Whilst care is taken in the collection and provi-
sion o this inormation, the VCS Association and its ocers, employees, agents, advisers and
sponsors will not be liable or any errors, omissions, misstatements or mistakes in any
inormation or damages resulting rom the use o this inormation or any decision made or
action taken in reliance on this inormation.
Cover: Harvesting shade grown coee near San Vito, Costa Rica.
John Tidwell / Conservation International