Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design ... UG CCB... · 12/16/2014 · December 2013....

Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design Standards

(Second Edition – December 2008) Project Verification Report

TIST Program in Uganda CCB-001

16 December 2014

Project No. VO14077.00

Verification Conducted by:

Environmental Services, Inc. Forestry, Carbon, and GHG Services Division

Corporate Offices at: 7220 Financial Way, Suite 100

Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Phone: 904-470-2200; Fax: 904-470-2112


168-FOR-CCBA Verification Report Template – final – v2 2 Controlled Document 08 August 2014

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

Contact Information ........................................................................................................................ 4

Verification Team ....................................................................................................................... 4

Verification Details ......................................................................................................................... 5

Verification Standard .................................................................................................................. 5

Verification Criteria .................................................................................................................... 5

Level of Assurance ..................................................................................................................... 5

Verification Date(s) .................................................................................................................... 5

Materiality ................................................................................................................................... 5

Final Documents from Client...................................................................................................... 6

Project Description.......................................................................................................................... 6

Executive Summary of Verification Results ................................................................................... 6

Verification Findings .................................................................................................................... 7

G1 Original Conditions in the Project Area ...................................................................... 7

G2 Baseline Projections ..................................................................................................... 11

G3 Project Design and Goals ............................................................................................. 13

G4 Management Capacity and Best Practices ................................................................. 20

G5 Legal Status and Property Rights ............................................................................... 24

CL1 Net Positive Climate Impacts ................................................................................... 26

CL2 Offsite Climate Impacts (“Leakage”) ..................................................................... 29

CL3 Climate Impact Monitoring ..................................................................................... 30

CM1 Net Positive Community Impacts ............................................................................ 32

CM2 Offsite Stakeholder Impacts .................................................................................... 33

CM3 Community Impact Monitoring .............................................................................. 34

B1 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts ............................................................................... 35

B2 Offsite Biodiversity Impacts ........................................................................................ 38

B3 Biodiversity Impact Monitoring ................................................................................. 38

Gold Level Section ..................................................................................................................... 40

Public Shareholder Comments ...................................................................................................... 44

Local Shareholder Comments ................................................................................................... 44

CCB Public Comment Period ................................................................................................... 44



Public Meetings ........................................................................................................................ 44

Verification Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 45

Submittal Information ................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix A – Documents Reviewed / Received .......................................................................... 46

Appendix B – Stakeholder Meeting Announcements and Comments .......................................... 48



Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance TIST Program in Uganda CCB-001 Verification Report

Introduction This report presents the findings of an audit conducted by Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI), to verify the claims made by the TIST Program in Uganda CCB-001 conforms to the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Project Design Standards (Second Edition- December 2008). ESI is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) under ISO 14065:2007 for greenhouse gas validation and verifications bodies and is approved by the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) to perform such validations/verifications.

Contact Information Client Name Address Phone Website

Clean Air Action Corporation P.O. Box 4607 Tulsa, OK 74159 720-304-2112 http://www.cleanairaction.com/

Contact Name Address Phone

Charlie Williams P.O. Box 4607 Tulsa, OK 74159 720-304-2112

3rd Party Auditors Environmental Services, Inc. Lead Verifier Shawn McMahon

Environmental Services, Inc. 3800 Clermont Street NW North Lawrence, Ohio 44666 330-833-9941

Verification Team • Shawn McMahon – Lead Verifier ([email protected] / 330-

833-9941) • Richard Scharf –Verification Team Member ([email protected] /

252-402-7354) • Caitlin Sellers –Verification Team Member ([email protected] /

772-834-8571) • Jonathan Pomp –Verification Team Member ([email protected]

/304-642-1277) • Matthew Perkowski – Verification Team Member

([email protected] / 301-332-0771) • Eric Jaeschke - Verification Team Member ([email protected] /

703-314-9064) • Janice McMahon – QA/QC ([email protected] / 330-833-9941)

mailto:[email protected]









Verification Details

Verification Standard Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design Standards (Second Edition – December 2008)

Verification Criteria The criteria will follow the verification guidance documents provided by CCBA located at www.climate-standards.org. These documents include the following: a) Project Design Standards (Second Edition, December 2008) b) Rules for the use of the Climate, Community, & Biodiversity

Standards, Version December 2013.

Level of Assurance The level of assurance was used to determine the depth of detail that the verifier placed in the verification plan to determine if there were any errors, omissions, or misrepresentations (ISO 14064-3:2006). ESI selected samples of data and information to be verified, to provide reasonable assurance.

Verification Scope The scope of the verification, included the GHG project and implementation; baseline scenarios; physical infrastructure, activities, technologies and processes of the GHG project; GHG sources, sinks and/or reservoirs; types of GHG’s; periods covered; the validated PDD; and the evaluation of the project’s net climate, community, and biodiversity benefits. Period of evaluation: 7 October 2011 to 31 December 2013.

Verification Date(s) 23 October 2014 – 12 December 2014

Materiality Materiality is a concept that errors, omissions and misrepresentations could affect the project design assertions and influence the intended users. CCB does not specifically outline a materiality threshold; however, ESI used a 5% threshold for evidence. If a non-conformance was discovered, the project developer was given the opportunity to correct the non-conformity to the project design document within a reasonable timeframe (within 30 days). If the non-conformance is corrected, the level of assurance has been met, the project design is recommended for validation/verification approval. If the non-conformance cannot be met, the project design will not be verified For this project, all non-conformances were corrected, so the PIR is herewith verified.

Site Visits Desktop review



Final Documents from Client

• CCB Monitoring Report for TIST Program in Uganda, CCB-001, Verification 02 – 25 November 2014

Please see Appendix A for a complete list of documents received/reviewed during this verification.

Public Comment Period on CCBA Number of Comments Received

24 October 2014 – 24 November 2014 – Project listing on CCB for public comment

o No comments 24 October 2014– Posting of Project Implementation Plan

o No Comments

27 October 2014 – Email Solicitation to stakeholders in Uganda. 29 October 2014 – Notification of public meeting and solicitation of comments in New Vision (daily paper). 31 October 2014 – Notification of public meeting and solicitation of comments in Entatsi (weekly paper). 4 November 2014 – TIST Public Meeting in Kanungu, Uganda

Project Description The TIST Program in Uganda is an organization of small holder subsistence farmers who plant trees on private and community lands for the sequestration of carbon within the planted trees and soil. Carbon credits derived through growing trees provide income, training in conservation farming, as well as marketable commodities, like fruit, nuts and honey. The project improves income and provides some relief to deforestation pressures on surrounding protected forests and wildlife habitat.

Executive Summary of Verification Results Criterion Required/

Optional Conformance

Y/N N/A G1 Original Conditions in the Project Area Required Y G2 Baseline Projections Required Y G3 Project Design and Goals Required Y G4 Management Capacity and Best Practices Required Y G5 Legal Status and Property Rights Required Y CL1 Net Positive Climate Impacts Required Y CL2 Offsite Climate Impacts (“Leakage”) Required Y



CL3 Climate Impact Monitoring Required Y CM1 Net Positive Community Impacts Required Y CM2 Offsite Stakeholder Impacts Required Y CM3 Community Impact Monitoring Required Y B1 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts Required Y B2 Offsite Biodiversity Impacts Required Y B3 Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Required Y GL1 Climate Change Adaptation Benefits Optional N/A GL2 Exceptional Community Benefits Optional Y GL3 Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits Optional N/A

Verification Findings G1 Original Conditions in the Project Area Indicator G1.1 – The location of the project and basic physical parameters (e.g. soil, geology, climate).

This indicator was confirmed in the validated PDD.

Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:

PDD

Findings: PDD provided sufficient information on the location and physical parameters.

Indicator G1.2 – The types and condition of vegetation within the project area.

This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD.


PDD

Findings: The types and condition of vegetation within the project area were confirmed at validation and have not changed.

Indicator G1.3 – The boundaries of the project area and the project zone.

The PIR currently states “This project description is for a subset of the TIST Uganda program and corresponds to TIST VCS project description VCS-001, VCS-002, VCS-003 and VCS-004. It originally applied to 456 Small Groups 2,932 members, 1,645 project areas and 1,487.5 ha.”.


PIR, monitoring spreadsheets

Findings: It appears there have been instances removals of PA’s from the project. If this is the case the statement in this section of the PIR now needs to state what the current totals are for the small



groups/members/project areas. Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please revise this statement in the PIR to also indicate

what the current totals are for small groups/members/project areas.

Date Issued: 11 November 2014 Project proponent response/actions

Done.

Evidence Used to Close NCR: The new current totals of small groups, project areas and total area were provided in the revised project overview in the PIR

Date Closed: 3 December 2014 Indicator G1.4 - Current carbon stocks within the project area(s), using stratification by land-use or vegetation type and methods of carbon calculation (such as biomass plots, formulae, default values) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2006 Guidelines for National GHG Inventories for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use5 (IPCC 2006 GL for AFOLU) or a more robust and detailed methodology.

This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. It refers to carbon stocks before the project commenced.


PDD

Findings: The baseline carbon stocks were confirmed at validation.

Indicator G1.5 - A description of communities located in the project zone, including basic socio-economic and cultural information that describes the social, economic and cultural diversity within communities (wealth, gender, age, ethnicity etc.), identifies specific groups such as Indigenous Peoples8 and describes any community characteristics.

This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. It refers to the communities before the project commenced.


PDD

Findings: The demographics and description of the



communities before the project commenced was confirmed at validation.

Indicator G1.6 - A description of current land use and customary and legal property rights including community property in the project zone, identifying any ongoing or unresolved conflicts or disputes and identifying and describing any disputes over land tenure that were resolved during the last ten years (see also G5).

The PIR states the land use at the start of the project was agriculture, and is now agriculture and tree planting. There are four main types of land tenure in the project area: Customary tenure: owner may use and dispose of land at will. Leasehold tenure: held by contract for up to 99 years. Freehold tenure: absolute private ownership of interest in land, which can be transferred without restriction. Mailo land: Land was given by traditional kings. Farmers are considered tenants without ownership rights, they pay a fixed rent set by government. No land disputes have been identified.


Section G1.6 of the PIR, section G1.6 of the PDD.

Findings: The project developers more than covered the information necessary to address this indicator. The indicator was successfully addressed during validation and only needs to be re-opened if changes occurred.

Indicator G1.7 - A description of current biodiversity within the project zone (diversity of species and ecosystems) and threats to that biodiversity, using appropriate methodologies, substantiated where possible with appropriate reference material.



PDD

Findings: The baseline biodiversity was confirmed at validation. Monitoring of biodiversity is detailed elsewhere in this document.



Indicator G1.8 - An evaluation of whether the project zone includes any of the following High Conservation Values (HCVs) and a description of the qualifying attributes. Indicator 8.1 - Globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values: a. protected areas

b. threatened species

c. endemic species

d. areas that support significant concentrations of a species during any time in their lifecycle (e.g. migrations, feeding grounds, breeding areas). Indicator 8.2 - Globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape-level areas where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance. Indicator 8.3 Threatened or rare ecosystems. Indicator 8.4 - Areas that provide critical ecosystem services (e.g., hydrological services, erosion control, fire control). Indicator 8.5 - Areas that are fundamental for meeting the basic needs of local communities (e.g., for essential food, fuel, fodder, medicines or building materials without readily available alternatives). Indicator 8.6 - Areas that are critical for the traditional cultural identity of

This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. HCVs claimed for the project zone include indicator G1.8.1 a-d, for Queen Elizabeth National Park, Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and surrounding protected forests.



communities (e.g., areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in collaboration with the communities). Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:

PDD

Findings: The evaluation of baseline HCVs was confirmed at validation.

G2 Baseline Projections Indicator G2.1 - Describe the most likely land-use scenario in the absence of the project following IPCC 2006 GL for AFOLU or a more robust and detailed methodology,

describing the range of potential land use scenarios and the associated drivers of GHG emissions and justifying why the land-use scenario selected is most likely.

This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. The most likely without project scenario is for the land to remain in substance agriculture, with surrounding forests in the project zone to be continually deforested.


PDD

Findings: The most likely land use scenario was confirmed at validation.

Indicator G2.2 - Document that project benefits would not have occurred in the absence of the project, explaining how existing laws or regulations would likely affect land use and justifying that the benefits being claimed by the project are truly ‘additional’ and would be unlikely to occur without the project.

This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. Barriers to the project activities in the absence of the project include investment barriers, barriers due to social conditions and lack of organization.


PDD

Findings: Demonstration that project benefits would not have occurred without the project was confirmed at validation.

Indicator G2.3 - Calculate the estimated carbon stock changes associated with the ‘without project’

This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. The estimated carbon stock changes in the without project scenario were calculated to be 3,111.2 tons.



reference scenario described above. This requires estimation of carbon stocks for each of the land-use classes of concern and a definition of the carbon pools included, among the classes defined in the IPCC 2006 GL for AFOLU. The timeframe for this analysis can be either the project lifetime (see G3) or the project GHG accounting period, whichever is more appropriate. Estimate the net change in the emissions of non-CO2 GHG emissions such as CH4 and N2O in the ‘without project’ scenario. Non-CO2

gases must be included if they are likely to account for more than 5% (in terms of CO2-equivalent) of the project’s overall GHG impact over each monitoring period. Projects whose activities are designed to avoid GHG emissions (such as those reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), avoiding conversion of non-forest land, or certain improved forest management projects) must include an analysis of the relevant drivers and rates of deforestation and/or degradation and a description and justification of the approaches, assumptions and data used to perform this analysis. Regional-level estimates can be used at the project’s planning stage as long as there is a commitment to evaluate locally-specific carbon stocks and to develop a project-specific spatial analysis of deforestation and/or degradation using an appropriately robust and detailed carbon accounting methodology before the start of the project. Evidence Used to Assess PDD



Conformance: Findings: The estimated carbon stock changes associated with

the ‘without project’ reference scenario was confirmed at validation.

Indicator G2.4 - Describe how the ‘without project’ reference scenario would affect communities in the project zone, including the impact of likely changes in water, soil and other locally important ecosystem services.

This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. Essentially, the communities would exist without the project benefits, and continued environmental degradation is likely.


PDD

Findings: The impact on the without project scenario on the communities was confirmed at validation.

Indicator G2.5 - Describe how the ‘without project’ reference scenario would affect biodiversity in the project zone (e.g., habitat availability, landscape connectivity and threatened species).

This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD. Biodiversity has been declining for decades. Deforestation will continue regardless of the project, but some relief in deforestation pressure will occur with the planting of thousands of trees.


PDD

Findings: The impacts of the without project scenario on biodiversity was confirmed at validation.

G3 Project Design and Goals Indicator G3.1 - Provide a summary of the project’s major climate, community and biodiversity objectives.



PDD.

Findings: The projects major climate, community and biodiversity benefits were confirmed at validation.

Indicator G3.2 - Describe each project activity with expected climate, community and biodiversity impacts and its relevance to achieving the project’s objectives.





PDD

Findings: The project activities with expected climate, community and biodiversity impacts were assessed at validation.

Indicator G3.3 - Provide a map identifying the project location and boundaries of the project area(s), where the project activities will occur, of the project zone and of additional surrounding locations that are predicted to be impacted by project activities (e.g. through leakage).



PDD

Findings: Maps and geospatial information of the boundaries, project activities and surrounding locations were confirmed at validation.

Indicator G3.4 - Define the project lifetime and GHG accounting period and explain and justify any differences between them. Define an implementation schedule, indicating key dates and milestones in the project’s development.

The project lifetime is 60 years, beginning 1 January 2003 and ending 31 December 2062, which is the same as the carbon accounting period. This PIR was prepared for the second verification period, which covers 7 October 2011 through 31 December 2013. This matches the period of the second VCS verification conducted by JACO. A series of Gantt charts show the timing of events for the project. Main planting is complete, but replacement planting and other individual plantings in individual project areas may occur. Monitoring is ongoing, verification, thinning, harvest schedules are also described in the Gantt charts.


Section G3.4 of the PIR.

Findings: The project periods and accounting periods are the same. A general schedule of project activities is provided, fulfilling the requirements of this indicator.



Indicator G3.5 - Identify likely natural and human-induced risks to the expected climate, community and biodiversity benefits during the project lifetime and outline measures adopted to mitigate these risks.

The main risk mentioned is the human induced risk of a poor market for afforestation/reforestation credits, which fund the project. The extremely low cost of the TIST program is cited as mitigation.

Another human risk is that participating farmers will drop out of the program. PIR states “This is mitigated by the fact that there are thousands of individuals involved already and TIST continues to grow. Having a few farmers quit will not have a significant effect on the project.” Natural risks cited include drought, pestilence and fire. The fact that the project are consists of thousands of individual projects scattered over a large area mitigates these risks. A risk analysis for the PIR period was conducted for VCS, verified by JACO. Project is considered low risk.


Section G3.5 of the PIR, TIST UG PD-VCS-002k App10 Verif 02 Monitoring Rpt 140915.doc; TIST UG PD-VCS-003j App09 Verif 02 Risk Analysis 141106.doc; TIST UG PD-VCS-003k App10 Verif 02 Monitoring Rpt 141106.doc; TIST UG PD-VCS-004j App09 Verif 02 Risk Analysis 141021.doc; TIST UG PD-VCS-004k App10 Verif 02 Monitoring Rpt 141106.doc; TIST UG PD-VCS-001j App09 Verif 02 Risk Analysis 141021.doc; TIST UG PD-VCS-001k App10 Verif 02 Monitoring Rpt 140915.doc; TIST UG PD-VCS-002j App09 Verif 02 Risk Analysis 141021.doc

Findings: The primary risk to the project identified is the failure of the market for voluntary offset credits. Regarding farmers leaving the project, Given the proportion of farmers who have been removed from the project, the risk of farmers dropping out of the project needs to be discussed in this section of the PIR. As reported in the individual risk reports:

• VCS-001 “landowners representing 19% of the PAs and 8% of the carbon stocks violated the contract (see below) and left the program.”

• VCS-003 “Landowners representing 20% of the



PAs and 18% of the carbon stocks violated the contract (see below) and left the program.”

• VCS-004 “Landowners representing 7.7% of the PAs and 1.9 of the carbon stocks violated the contract (see below) and left the program.”

It is unclear if the percent of carbon stocks violated represents the ex-ante estimate or carbon stocks for the crediting period. As the VCS Risk Tool and buffer are used to assess and mitigate risk, application of the tool was reviewed. These appear to have been addressed through a novel approach in the “without legal agreement/requirement” section of the risk tool. While the VCS verifier did accept it, the approach is not listed as an option in the Risk Tool and should be explained in the PIR.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please add a discussion to this section of the PIR explaining the project wide total number of landowners removed and the percent of carbon stocks impacted by the violations to the contract. Clarify if the percent of carbon stocks impacted refers to this reporting period or ex-ante estimates. Please explain and justify the approach used in the “without legal agreement/requirement” section of the Risk Tool to offset these losses and discuss what appears to be a notable risk.


Done, new paragraphs added to PIR

Evidence Used to Close NCR: Addition information and text added to section G3.5 includes a table describing the project areas removed from the project, the reason for the removal and the quantity/percentage of CO2 equivalents lost through these removals.

Date Closed: 3 December 2014 Indicator G3.6 - Demonstrate that the project design includes specific measures to ensure the maintenance or enhancement of the high conservation value attributes identified in G1 consistent with the

HCV attributes identified in the PDD were all outside the project areas but within the project zone. Long settlement and previous conversion to agriculture eliminated most wildlife from the project areas, but protected areas, including Queen Elizabeth National Park and Bwindi Impenetrable National Park include



precautionary principle. many endangered species.

Deforestation is a major problem in Uganda Trees planted in the TIST program help relieve the pressure on these forests from illegal subsistence deforestation. There is also potential that trees planted will serve as additional habitat and sometimes wildlife corridors for animals that rarely come out of the protected areas.


Section G3.6 of the PIR, various sections of the PDD.

Findings: In the project area, natural habitat no longer exists and people’s need for cooking fuel drives them to take trees from protected forests in the project zone that support important wildlife populations and support hydrological services. The project is designed to alleviate the pressure on the forests from the surrounding population’s need for fuel, and also to provide some additional habitat for some species and provide potential wildlife corridors. The project addresses a major source of pressure on forest in the project zone, and enhances habitat in the project areas by design. There is little possibility that the project will be a detriment to HCVs.

Indicator G3.7 - Describe the measures that will be taken to maintain and enhance the climate, community and biodiversity benefits beyond the project lifetime.

Measures taken to carry project benefits beyond the project lifetime revolve around training the farmers in uses of different tree species, maintenance of a sustainable woodlot and the benefits of biodiversity and how maintenance of woodlots enhances other aspects of their lives. Farmers will have plenty of incentive to maintain sustainable woodlots without carbon payments.



Findings: A main project activity is spreading the knowledge of maintaining a woodlot for fuel and harvest of fruits, nuts and other products, improving the lives of farm families in several ways, including reducing the need



to travel far to collect fuel wood and providing new food and income sources. Knowledge to increase productivity and reduce resource expenditures on fuel collection is likely to spread and take root permanently.

Indicator G3.8 - Document and defend how communities and other stakeholders potentially affected by the project activities have been identified and have been involved in project design through effective consultation, particularly with a view to optimizing community and stakeholder benefits, respecting local customs and values and maintaining high conservation values. Project developers must document stakeholder dialogues and indicate if and how the project proposal was revised based on such input. A plan must be developed to continue communication and consultation between project managers and all community groups about the project and its impacts to facilitate adaptive management throughout the life of the project.

The TIST project is completely voluntary. No one’s land is included within the project area without the farmer’s active consent. They are also free to leave the program, at will.

TIST projects begin by contacting local community leaders, villages, local NGOs and governments to see if there is interest in the program. If there is interest, TIST holds a seminar explaining the program, followed by regular meetings that are open to the public. The growth of the program is evidence of its popularity among community members. The PDD outlines initial meetings and public comments in detail. The PIR summarizes the same. A newsletter called The Tree is published by TIST Uganda to disseminate project information. Small Group members meet with TIST representatives regularly at “cluster meetings.”



Findings: The success of the TIST project is dependent on good relationships with farmer participants, who directly benefit from the project. The activities are done on private land with the cooperation and consent of a fully-informed farmer. No negative impacts are anticipated from project activities on any community member or other stakeholder. Comments are well documented.

Indicator G3.9 - Describe what specific steps have been taken, and communications methods used, to publicize the CCBA public comment period to communities and other

An updated section G3.9 of the PIR states that TIST solicited public comments for the PIR in two ways – through a public hearing in Bushenyi, Uganda, and a series of emails to stakeholders.



stakeholders and to facilitate their submission of comments to CCBA. Project proponents must play an active role in distributing key project documents to affected communities and stakeholders and hold widely publicized information meetings in relevant local or regional languages.

The public meeting was held on 4 November 2014 at the Holy Cross Guest House in Kanungu, Uganda. Notice was advertised in a daily paper called New Vision and a weekly called Entatsi.

Copies of the email and the advertisements were supplied to the auditors, along with a sign in sheet for participants. Fifty-four people signed the attendance sheet. Minutes were supplied.


Updated section G3.9 of the PIR.

Findings: The project developer notified stakeholders of the meeting and requested comments during the comment period via email. Comments were received during the public meeting.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please update language in section G3.9 to that of the updated section G3.9 supplied to the verifiers via email.

Date Issued: 11 November 2014 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:

Exhibit " TIST UG PD-VCS-Ex 14c Public Comments CCB-001 V02.doc" is available at "http://www.tist.org/PD-UG-VCS-001-004%20Documents.php"

Evidence Used to Close NCR: Language in section G3.9 was updated. The document “TIST UG PD-VCS-Ex 14c Public Comments CCB-001 V02.doc” provides copies of emails, newspaper announcements, meeting sign-in sheets comments taken at the meeting and comments provided in writing.

Date Closed: 3 December 2014 Indicator G3.10 - Formalize a clear process for handling unresolved conflicts and grievances that arise during project planning and implementation. The project design must include a process for hearing, responding to and resolving community and other stakeholder grievances within a reasonable time period. This grievance process must be publicized to communities and other stakeholders and must be

A clear process for dealing with unresolved grievances is provided. Since the program is completely voluntary and participants can leave the project at will, no grievances or conflicts have had to be resolved.

http://www.tist.org/tist/docs/PDD-Documents/TIST%20UG%20PD-VCS-Ex%2014c%20Public%20Comments%20CCB-001%20V02.doc

http://www.tist.org/tist/docs/PDD-Documents/TIST%20UG%20PD-VCS-Ex%2014c%20Public%20Comments%20CCB-001%20V02.doc

http://www.tist.org/PD-UG-VCS-001-004%20Documents.php




managed by a third party or mediator to prevent any conflict of interest. Project management must attempt to resolve all reasonable grievances raised, and provide a written response to grievances within 30 days. Grievances and project responses must be documented. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:

Section G3.10, the free and voluntary nature of the project.

Findings: While a grievance procedure is in place, the nature of the project reduces the likelihood a serious grievance would arise. A third party mediator is involved when grievances cannot be resolved internally. This indicator is adequately addressed.

Indicator G3.11 - Demonstrate that financial mechanisms adopted, including projected revenues from emissions reductions and other sources, are likely to provide an adequate flow of funds for project implementation and to achieve the anticipated climate, community and biodiversity benefits.

This indicator was not addressed in the PIR. The PDD states that a series of financial projections showed the project would be sustainable, based solely on carbon revenues, after the first 6 – 10 years of the project. The fact that TIST is thriving after over a decade in operation is the evidence of its longevity.



Findings: TIST has been up and running, in multiple countries, for a number of years. Section G3.11 updates the reader in that the program has no external debt and has a cash balance through early 2015. This indicator is adequately addressed.

G4 Management Capacity and Best Practices Indicator G4.1 - Identify a single project proponent which is responsible for the project’s design and implementation. If multiple organizations or individuals are involved in the project’s development and implementation the governance structure, roles and responsibilities of each of the organizations or individuals involved must also be

The PIR refers the reader to the PDD. This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD.



described. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:

PIR, PDD

Findings: A single project proponent is identified in the PDD. Indicator G4.2 - Document key technical skills that will be required to implement the project successfully, including community engagement, biodiversity assessment and carbon measurement and monitoring skills. Document the management team’s expertise and prior experience implementing land management projects at the scale of this project. If relevant experience is lacking, the proponents must either demonstrate how other organizations will be partnered with to support the project or have a recruitment strategy to fill the gaps.

A list of technical skills required to carry out this project is provided. The PIR explains TIST has been in operation for over 14 years, in 4 countries, involving 70,000 farmers, planting about 12,000,000 trees. Staff and contractors are trained and experienced. The monitoring system has received awards. TIST itself has been through numerous validations and verifications. This is the second verification for this project.



Findings: The management team’s expertise and prior experience is considerable, and is quite capable of running this project.

Indicator G4.3 - Include a plan to provide orientation and training for the project’s employees and relevant people from the communities with an objective of building locally useful skills and knowledge to increase local participation in project implementation. These capacity building efforts should target a wide range of people in the communities, including minority and underrepresented groups. Identify how training will be passed on to new workers when there is staff turnover, so that local capacity will not be lost.

The TIST program in Uganda is run by Ugandans. Almost all the local staff was hired from TIST members, including all quantifiers and trainers. Hiring was done on the basis of ability only, but a balance in gender and tribal affiliation was sought. As needed, the US team holds seminars to provide new information. US staff totals only 4.

Training is ongoing, as needed, but each quantifier must attend at least one seminar a year. Small groups training in conservation farming, biodiversity, cook stoves, health and other practical topics are provided on an ongoing basis.





Findings: A system for providing training in relevant skills for the project, conservation farming, etc. is in place. Most training and passing on of skills is already done by the local people.

Indicator G4.4 - Show that people from the communities will be given an equal opportunity to fill all employment positions (including management) if the job requirements are met. Project proponents must explain how employees will be selected for positions and where relevant, must indicate how local community members, including women and other potentially underrepresented groups, will be given a fair chance to fill positions for which they can be trained.

TIST in Uganda is completely run by Ugandans, and staff is hired from the members. The PIR states that hiring is done by ability, not gender, religion or tribal affiliation. Farmers are trained as trainers. Group meetings are run by Ugandans. All members have the opportunity to become group leaders. A concerted effort is made to make sure seminar attendance has a gender balance. During this verification period, six new quantifiers were hired, half of whom were female. The hiring process is briefly described. Section G4.3 mentions that tribal affiliation is not an issue in this area.


Sections G4.3 and G4.4 of the PIR.

Findings: Employment opportunities go to local people. Recent hires indicate gender bias is not an issue at this time. The hiring process is summarized. This indicator is adequately addressed.

Indicator G4.5 - Submit a list of all relevant laws and regulations covering worker’s rights in the host country. Describe how the project will inform workers about their rights. Provide assurance that the project meets or exceeds all applicable laws and/or regulations covering worker rights and, where relevant, demonstrate how compliance is achieved.

A list of relevant laws is provided. CAAC uses an employment contract that explains the important parts of the employment laws. The PIR states that all laws will be met or exceeded.



Findings: The list of laws was provided and the method for



informing workers of their rights stated. A statement of assurance that laws will be met or exceeded has been given. This indicator is adequately addressed.

Indicator G4.6 - Comprehensively assess situations and occupations that pose a substantial risk to worker safety. A plan must be in place to inform workers of risks and to explain how to minimize such risks. Where worker safety cannot be guaranteed, project proponents must show how the risks will be minimized using best work practices.

The risks facing TIST workers are minimal, and are no different from risks anyone in the area would face. The PIR lists:

• Risk of crash or robbery on local transportation.

• Dangerous snakes TIST has an SOP to address safety. Each quantifier is briefed on the safety policy annually.



Findings: It is likely that risks faced by TIST employees and contractors don’t exceed those faced by the people on a regular basis, anyway. “TIST UG PD-VCS-Ex 15 Quantifier Safety 110110.doc” was not provided.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please provide a copy of “TIST KE PD-CCB-Spt 13 Quantifier Safety 110110.doc,” which was referenced in the footnote on page 12 of the PIR.


The reference was in error. The document is " TIST UG PD-VCS-Ex 15 Quantifier Safety 110110.doc" and is available at "http://www.tist.org/PD-UG-VCS-001-004%20Documents.php"

Evidence Used to Close NCR: The document “TIST KE PD-CCB-Spt 13 Quantifier Safety 110110.doc” is now available at the link provided. The footnote was updated, accordingly.

Date Closed: 03 December 2014 Indicator G4.7 - Document the financial health of the implementing organization(s) to demonstrate that financial resources budgeted will be adequate to implement the project.



PDD

Findings: The financial health of the implementing

http://www.tist.org/tist/docs/PDD-Documents/TIST%20UG%20PD-VCS-Ex%2015%20Quantifier%20Safety%20110110.doc

http://www.tist.org/tist/docs/PDD-Documents/TIST%20UG%20PD-VCS-Ex%2015%20Quantifier%20Safety%20110110.doc





organization was confirmed at validation.

G5 Legal Status and Property Rights Indicator G5.1 - Submit a list of all relevant national and local laws and regulations in the host country and all applicable international treaties and agreements. Provide assurance that the project will comply with these and, where relevant, demonstrate how compliance is achieved.

The PIR refers the employment related laws of G4.5, and also listed: Companies Act, Cap. 110 The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 The National Environment Act of 1996. The forestry and tree planting act of 8/2003. TIST Uganda complies with these laws. Most have little or no direct influence on a project of this nature.


Lists and assurances in Section G5.1 of the PIR.

Findings: There is assurance that all requirements are being followed.

Indicator G5.2 - Document that the project has approval from the appropriate authorities, including the established formal and/or traditional authorities customarily required by the communities.

All project approvals are documented in the validated PDD.


PDD

Findings: All approvals were confirmed at validation. Indicator G5.3 - Demonstrate with documented consultations and agreements that the project will not encroach uninvited on private property, community property, or government property and has obtained the free, prior, and informed consent of those whose rights will be affected by the project.

The project does not own or lease land. Project lands are owned by the participants, and participation in the project is purely voluntary. Participants attest to their ownership of their land.


Section G5.3 of the PIR, the voluntary nature of the project.

Findings: Due to the structure of the project it is unlikely that the project could encroach on other lands.



Indicator G5.4 - Demonstrate that the project does not require the involuntary relocation of people or of the activities important for the livelihoods and culture of the communities. If any relocation of habitation or activities is undertaken within the terms of an agreement, the project proponents must demonstrate that the agreement was made with the free, prior, and informed consent of those concerned and includes provisions for just and fair compensation.

The PIR states the project developers have no authority or desire to relocate anyone. All farmers voluntarily join the project and may leave at will.


Section G5.4 of the PIR, the nature of the project.

Findings: This TIST project has no goal of relocating anyone, nor the authority or ability to do so. The indicator is addressed.

Indicator G5.5 - Identify any illegal activities that could affect the project’s climate, community or biodiversity impacts (e.g., logging) taking place in the project zone and describe how the project will help to reduce these activities so that project benefits are not derived from illegal activities.

Illegal logging or charcoal making in protected forests goes on. It is not related to the TIST project, caused or exacerbated by it. Growing trees on farmland will reduce the need to cut trees illegally.



Findings: Growing trees on farmland will likely reduce the need for farmers to take trees from surrounding protected forests. Indicator addressed.

Indicator G5.6 - Demonstrate that the project proponents have clear, uncontested title to the carbon rights, or provide legal documentation demonstrating that the project is undertaken on behalf of the carbon owners with their full consent. Where local or national conditions preclude

The carbon rights originally vest with the trees and are transferred to the Project Proponent with the “Carbon Credit Sale Agreement.”



clear title to the carbon rights at the time of validation against the Standards, the project proponents must provide evidence that their ownership of carbon rights is likely to be established before they enter into any transactions concerning the project’s carbon assets. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:

PD, PIR, TIST KE PD-VCS-006l App11 Verif 02 Monitor Data 140725.xlsx

Findings: ESI is requesting demonstration of ownership for a selected sample of project areas/owners.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please provide the ownership demonstrations related to the following project area IDs: VCS-001: 2010UG188-Barugahare 2009UG70-Mugisha Benon 4 2006UG298-Kengongyi Alice VCS-002: 2010UG76-Apollo 2007UG334-Mpanju G 02 VCS-003: 2010UG60-Bahira 02 2009UG49-Chris 01 2007UG103-Paul 02 VCS-004 2003UG249-Byereta K 01 2009UG61-Abakubarirwa 01


Provided

Finding: Documents were provided. Date Closed: 03 December 2014

CL1 Net Positive Climate Impacts Indicator CL1.1 - Estimate the net change in carbon stocks due to the project activities using the methods of calculation, formulae and default values of the IPCC 2006 GL for AFOLU or using a more robust and detailed methodology. The net change is equal to carbon stock

Change without the Project. The methodology allows the change in baseline carbon without the project to be ignored, providing it is less than 10% of the change in carbon that results from the project. The existing trees were recorded and measured during the baseline study (worksheet "Baseline Strata"). The non-woody areas were stratified and the area estimated (worksheet "Grove Summary). A



changes with the project minus carbon stock changes without the project (the latter having been estimated in G2). This estimate must be based on clearly defined and defendable assumptions about how project activities will alter GHG emissions of carbon stocks over the duration of the project or the project GHG accounting period.

conservative case was used to estimate the increase in carbon overtime (worksheet "Baseline Growth"). The ex-ante estimate of the baseline without the project is 0.2% of the ex-ante estimate with the project and the baseline case is ignored in the calculations. Net change in Carbon Stocks. Due to the methodology, the change in baseline carbon is ignored and the ex-ante net change in carbon stocks is 1,356,574 tonnes of CO

2e.


TIST UG PD-VCS-001l App11 Verif 02 Monitoring Data 140826.xlsx; TIST UG PD-VCS-002l App11 Verif 02 Monitoring Data 140826.xlsx; TIST UG PD-VCS-003l App11 Verif 02 Monitoring Data 141105.xlsx; TIST UG PD-VCS-004l App11 Verif 02 Monitoring Data 140826.xlsx; TIST UG PD-CCB-001j App09 Verif 02 PIR 141023.doc

Findings: The PIR appropriately estimates the net change in carbon stocks.

Indicator CL1.2 - Estimate the net change in the emissions of non-CO2

GHG emissions such as CH4 and N2O in the with and without project scenarios if those gases are likely to account for more than a 5% increase or decrease (in terms of CO2-equivalent) of the project’s overall GHG emissions reductions or removals over each monitoring period.

The change in emissions of non-CO2 carbon stocks are expected to be below 5% and are ignored. The potential source of methane is burning of biomass. Because the farmers planting the trees are subsistence farmers that rely on wood for cooking food, they are not expected to engage in widespread burning; available wood will be used for domestic fuel and would just offset fuel wood gathered from outside the project area. In addition, the burning of biomass is neither necessary for the project, nor promoted. Any methane emission will be de minimis and well below the 5% threshold. N2O is a potential source from chemical fertilizers. The policy of TIST is for the farmers to refrain from using chemical fertilizers, and instead, to rely on dung and plant material. Neither of these is the result of project activity and need not be considered.


PD; TIST UG PD-CCB-001j App09 Verif 02 PIR 141023.doc

Findings: The justification provided at validation still stands which supports that the CH4 and N2O are minimal and are acceptably considered de minimis.



Indicator CL1.3 - Estimate any other GHG emissions resulting from project activities. Emissions sources include, but are not limited to, emissions from biomass burning during site preparation, emissions from fossil fuel combustion, direct emissions from the use of synthetic fertilizers, and emissions from the decomposition of N-fixing species.

In accordance with the methodology, ex ante leakage is assumed to be zero. TIST does not own any vehicles or fossil fuel equipment. Planting and site preparation is done manually. TIST promotes the use of natural fertilizers and does not supply any chemical fertilizers. N-fixing species will not be left to degrade. Any dead wood will be used by the farmers for fuel wood.


PD; TIST UG PD-CCB-001j App09 Verif 02 PIR 141023.doc

Findings: Sufficient justification provided that other GHG emissions are likely too minimal to consider.

Indicator CL1.4 - Demonstrate that the net climate impact of the project is positive. The net climate impact of the project is the net change in carbon stocks plus net change in non-CO2

GHGs where appropriate minus any other GHG emissions resulting from project activities minus any likely project-related unmitigated negative offsite climate impacts (see CL2.3).

The ex-ante estimate is that TIST trees will sequester is 1,356,574 tonnes of CO2e over the 30 years (ex-ante, see PDD) and will, therefore, have a net positive impact on the climate. The total net change through the end of the PIR Period is 221,833 tonnes and the net change for the PIR period is 84,341 tonnes.


TIST UG PD-VCS-001l App11 Verif 02 Monitoring Data 140826.xlsx; TIST UG PD-VCS-002l App11 Verif 02 Monitoring Data 140826.xlsx; TIST UG PD-VCS-003l App11 Verif 02 Monitoring Data 141105.xlsx; TIST UG PD-VCS-004l App11 Verif 02 Monitoring Data 140826.xlsx; TIST UG PD-CCB-001j App09 Verif 02 PIR 141023.doc

Findings: It is a straightforward conclusion that the tree planting activities, as designed by the TIST program, will yield a net positive impact. While the PIR states the net change for the PIR period to be 84,341, when summed from the individual spreadsheet the net change is 84,323.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please confirm that the reported net change in the PIR of 84,341 is correct.

Date issued: 10 November 2014



Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:

The correct amount, 84,323, has been added to the PIR.

Finding: The correct amount now appears in the updated PIR. Date Closed: 03 December 2014

Indicator CL1.5 - Specify how double counting of GHG emissions reductions or removals will be avoided, particularly for offsets sold on the voluntary market and generated in a country with an emissions cap.

The project areas that make up this CCB PD are being verified under VCS. VCS will issue VERs that will be entered on one registry. The registry rules will prevent these VERs from being sold twice. Uganda is not subject to an emissions cap.


PD, PIR

Findings: The VCS registry program is a widely recognized registry system with its primary goals to ensure GHG emissions removals are real and permanent.

CL2 Offsite Climate Impacts (“Leakage”) Indicator CL2.1 - Determine the types of leakage that are expected and estimate potential offsite increases in GHGs (increases in emissions or decreases in sequestration) due to project activities. Where relevant, define and justify where leakage is most likely to take place.

The PIR refers the reader to the PDD. The PDD states that no leakage is expected, and provides explanations for why each type of leakage does not apply.


Sections CL2.1 of the PIR and PDD.

Findings: The lack of leakage is adequately explained in the PDD.

Indicator CL2.2 - Document how any leakage will be mitigated and estimate the extent to which such impacts will be reduced by these mitigation activities.

No leakage sources were identified, so no mitigation is necessary.


Sections CL2.2 of the PIR and PDD, section CL2.1 of the PDD.

Findings: No mitigation for leakage is required. Indicator CL2.3 - Subtract any Because there is no expected leakage, the amount to



likely project-related unmitigated negative offsite climate impacts from the climate benefits being claimed by the project and demonstrate that this has been included in the evaluation of net climate impact of the project (as calculated in CL1.4).

be subtracted from the net climate impact of the project is zero.



Findings: Not applicable as leakage is reported to be zero. Indicator CL2.4 - Non-CO2 gases must be included if they are likely to account for more than a 5% increase or decrease (in terms of CO2-equivalent) of the net change calculations (above) of the project’s overall off-site GHG emissions reductions or removals over each monitoring period.

None have been identified.



Findings: Not applicable as leakage is reported to be zero.

CL3 Climate Impact Monitoring Indicator CL3.1 - Develop an initial plan for selecting carbon pools and non-CO2 GHGs to be monitored, and determine the frequency of monitoring. Potential pools include aboveground biomass, litter, dead wood, belowground biomass, wood products, soil carbon and peat. Pools to monitor must include any pools expected to decrease as a result of project activities, including those in the region outside the project boundaries resulting from all types of leakage identified in CL2. A plan must be in place to continue leakage monitoring for at least five years after all activity displacement or other leakage causing activity has taken

This project has been ongoing since 2004. The monitoring plan is operational.



place. Individual GHG sources may be considered ‘insignificant’ and do not have to be accounted for if together such omitted decreases in carbon pools and increases in GHG emissions amount to less than 5% of the total CO2-equivalent benefits generated by the project. Non-CO2

gases must be included if they are likely to account for more than 5% (in terms of CO2-equivalent) of the project’s overall GHG impact over each monitoring period. Direct field measurements using scientifically robust sampling must be used to measure more significant elements of the project’s carbon stocks. Other data must be suitable to the project site and specific forest type. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:

PD and PIR

Findings: Initial plan for selecting carbon pools and non-CO2

GHGs to be monitored has been in place since validation and is confirmed to be implemented.

Indicator CL3.2 - Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months of the project start date or within twelve months of validation against the Standards and to disseminate this plan and the results of monitoring, ensuring that they are made publicly available on the internet and are communicated to the communities and other stakeholders.

This project has been ongoing since 2004. The monitoring plan is operational.


PD and PIR

Findings: Initial plan for selecting carbon pools and non-CO2

GHGs to be monitored has been in place since validation and is confirmed to be implemented.



CM1 Net Positive Community Impacts Indicator CM1.1 - Use appropriate methodologies to estimate the impacts on communities, including all constituent socio-economic or cultural groups such as indigenous peoples (defined in G1), resulting from planned project activities. A credible estimate of impacts must include changes in community well-being due to project activities and an evaluation of the impacts by the affected groups. This estimate must be based on clearly defined and defendable assumptions about how project activities will alter social and economic well-being, including potential impacts of changes in natural resources and ecosystem services identified as important by the communities (including water and soil resources), over the duration of the project. The ‘with project’ scenario must then be compared with the ‘without project’ scenario of social and economic well-being in the absence of the project (completed in G2). The difference (i.e., the community benefit) must be positive for all community groups.

The PIR lists a series of positive community impacts. Community impacts include:

• New job opportunities, including four staff employees and 21 contract quantifiers.

• New source of income to members. • Improved farm production. • Rotating leadership promotes gender equity. • Fruits and nuts from plantings. • Timber/wood source. • Natural medicines and other products from

trees. • Capacity building for ag improvements,

nurseries, etc. • Small group organization – can deal with

social, economic and health issues. • Improved beauty of landscape.

Some projections into the future of the value of the project to small groups, in terms of wood and other products, are supplied in graphs. No negative impacts were reported. The ‘without project’ scenario would include none of the benefits listed.


Section CM1.1 of the PIR.

Findings: Positive impacts reported are reasonable for the project activities. Based on the goals and monitoring elements of the TIST project, negative impacts are not anticipated.

Indicator CM1.2 - Demonstrate that no High Conservation Values identified in G1.8.4-6 will be negatively affected by the project.

None of the HCVs relating to communities (G1.8.4-6) were claimed to exist in the project area and zone. Regardless the PIR states that the greatest threat to HCVs in the project zone is deforestation and the associated loss of habitat. The same is true for ecosystem services.

Evidence Used to Assess Section CM1.2 of the PIR, section G1.8 of the PDD.



Conformance: Findings: Natural areas within the project zone are less likely to

be deforested in the with project scenario. No negative effects to HCVs or ecosystem services should be expected.

CM2 Offsite Stakeholder Impacts Indicator CM2.1 - Identify any potential negative offsite stakeholder impacts that the project activities are likely to cause.

The PIR explains that because the land has been under agricultural production for many years, and the project activity does not change that use, few negative impacts to offsite stakeholders are likely.

The only one mentioned is the potential effect of eucalyptus trees on groundwater and surface water courses. The effects of eucalyptus were explained to farmers. There is ongoing training regarding alternatives to eucalyptus.



Findings: The project developer has identified a potential negative impact of the project on offsite stakeholders. Given the nature of the project, few offsite impacts would be expected.

Indicator CM2.2 - Describe how the project plans to mitigate these negative offsite social and economic impacts.

To mitigate the impact of eucalyptus, TIST has been training members and trainers about indigenous trees and their benefits, as well as the negative effects of eucalyptus in sensitive areas.



Findings: The project developers appear to be using reasonable incentives to move farmers away from planting too many eucalyptus trees, especially in more sensitive areas.

Indicator CM2.3 - Demonstrate that the project is not likely to result in net negative impacts on the well-being of other stakeholder groups.

The PIR states that the benefits of the project far outweigh the potential impact of the eucalyptus. Eucalyptus covers about 19% of the total project area, and a far smaller percentage of the entire project zone.





Findings: Given the relatively small number of eucalyptus trees in the project it is unlikely any effect on water resources would outweigh project benefits.

CM3 Community Impact Monitoring Indicator CM3.1 - Develop an initial plan for selecting community variables to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring and reporting to ensure that monitoring variables are directly linked to the project’s community development objectives and to anticipated impacts (positive and negative).

The PIR lists 12 parameters/components of the initial monitoring plan. Community monitoring is done along with quantifying tree growth, by quantifiers. Trainers collect information regarding training and meetings.



Findings: An initial monitoring plan was developed. Indicator CM3.2 - Develop an initial plan for how they will assess the effectiveness of measures used to maintain or enhance High Conservation Values related to community well-being (G1.8.4-6) present in the project zone.

There is no direct monitoring of the Queen Elizabeth National Forest, Bwindi Impenetrable National Park or the surrounding protected forests, because the project is being conducted on private lands that have been under the same land use for generations. Monitoring consists of quantifying the indigenous trees planted by the project and the area covered by indigenous trees.



Findings: It is reasonable to assume the project will reduce deforestation pressure on the protected areas, but the project activities cannot eliminate deforestation, since the causes go well beyond the wood gathering activities of the participating farmers. This indicator was adequately addressed.

Indicator CM3.3 - Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months of the project start date or within twelve months of validation against the Standards and to disseminate this plan and the

A full monitoring plan was developed prior to the initial verification. A reference is made to Appendix 06 of the PDD. Raw data from community impact monitoring is supplied, as of December 31, 2013.



results of monitoring, ensuring that they are made publicly available on the internet and are communicated to the communities and other stakeholders.



Findings: Appendix 06 of the PDD was not found. Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please supply the referenced monitoring plan. Date Issued: 12 November 2014 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:

The document is "TIST UG PD-CCB-001g App06 Monitoring Plan 120221.doc" and is available at "http://www.tist.org/PD-UG-VCS-001-004%20Documents.php"

Evidence Used to Close NCR: The full monitoring plan was provided to the verifiers through the link, above.

Date Closed: 03 December 2014

B1 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts Indicator B1.1 - Use appropriate methodologies to estimate changes in biodiversity as a result of the project in the project zone and in the project lifetime. This estimate must be based on clearly defined and defendable assumptions. The ‘with project’ scenario should then be compared with the baseline ‘without project’ biodiversity scenario completed in G2. The difference (i.e., the net biodiversity benefit) must be positive.

Natural wildlife populations were driven off from the project area long ago. Only transient wildlife populations exist. It is assumed that planting of woodlots would improve connectivity between natural forests.

Over 7,904 new indigenous trees were planted in the project area, or 8.4 ha of indigenous trees. An environmental screening shows that project areas were not high in biodiversity. Conservation farming and cultivation of trees should reduce pressures on high biodiversity forests in the project zone. In the ‘without project’ scenario, no tree planting would have occurred, with no concurrent reduction in deforestation pressure.


Section B1.1 of the PIR.

Findings: While direct measurement of the results of the project on biodiversity is not practical and perhaps not





possible, additional deforestation pressure would exist in the absence of the project, simply because it has created new sources for wood and tree products. Indicator addressed.

Indicator B1.2 - Demonstrate that no High Conservation Values identified in G1.8.1-3 will be negatively affected by the project.

The Queen Elizabeth National Forest, Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and surrounding forest HCVs will not be negatively affected by the project. Planting trees on farmland adjacent to protected forest will not increase deforestation pressure in the project zone, and will likely do the opposite. Connectivity for migrating wildlife may be improved.


Section B1.2 of the PIR, the nature of the project and project area and zone.

Findings: No negative effects on biodiversity of neighboring lands to the project area can reasonably be expected.

Indicator B1.3 - Identify all species to be used by the project and show that no known invasive species will be introduced into any area affected by the project and that the population of any invasive species will not increase as a result of the project.

The PIR provides a list of the trees that are planted in the project. They are species with a history of being grown in the project area. The project does not introduce these species to the project zone. They were chosen by the group members from trees and plants already planted in the area. TIST provides no seed stock, the seed is gathered locally. Further, the PIR states that the species were checked against the ISSG invasive species database in 2011, and none of the species were on the list.


Section B1.3 of the PIR, www.issg.org invasive species database.

Findings: The first species on the list, Acacia meamsii, is now considered an invasive species. According to the database, “It threatens native habitats by competing with indigenous vegetation, replacing grass communities, reducing native biodiversity and increasing water loss from riparian zones.”

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please address the use of what is now considered an

http://www.issg.org/



invasive species in Uganda. Date Issued: 16 November 2014 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:

"Table B1.3 Tree Species Selected" is wrong. There are no Acacia meamsii in the four VCS PDs. The table has been corrected.

Evidence Used to Close NCR: While the PD does show Acacia meamsii as a potential species, it is no longer listed as a species used by the project in the updated PIR.

Date Closed: 03 December 2014 Indicator B1.4 - Describe possible adverse effects of non-native species used by the project on the region’s environment, including impacts on native species and disease introduction or facilitation. Project proponents must justify any use of non-native species over native species

Effects of eucalpytus are discussed, though not Acacia meamsii, which now appears on the invasive species list.

All species used in the project were already in the project area. Seed stock is sourced locally, from trees with a tradition of being grown in the area.

Justification for the use of non-native species is that they are chosen by the farmers for needed products and services, and they are already growing in the area. Seeds are sourced locally. Some non-native species, like eucalyptus, are promoted by government agencies.



Findings: The project proponents reasonably justify the use of non-native species, such as eucalyptus, and also discourage the use of some of them through education. The adverse effects of the species that is now on the invasive species list were not discussed.

Non-conformance Request (NCR):

Please discuss the potential negative impacts of Acacia meamsii. Justification for the use of non-native species appears reasonable.


"Table B1.3 Tree Species Selected" is wrong. There are no Acacia meamsii in the four VCS PDs. The table has been corrected.

Evidence Used to Close NCR: While the PD does show Acacia meamsii as a potential species, it is no longer listed as a species used by the project in the updated PIR.




Indicator B1.5 - Guarantee that no GMOs will be used to generate GHG emissions reductions or removals.

The PIR states that no GMOs were used to generate GHG emission reductions or removals.



Findings: The no-GMO pledge was carried out during the monitoring period.

B2 Offsite Biodiversity Impacts Indicator B2.1 - Identify potential negative offsite biodiversity impacts that the project is likely to cause.

No negative offsite biodiversity impacts were identified. The main pressure on biodiversity stems from deforestation. This project plants trees for use by the people who participate in deforestation.



Findings: No negative offsite biodiversity impacts are likely to occur.

Indicator B2.2 - Document how the project plans to mitigate these negative offsite biodiversity impacts.

N/A. No negative impacts are expected.


Section B2.2 of the PIR, the nature of the project.

Findings: No negative impacts should be expected. Indicator B2.3 - Evaluate likely unmitigated negative offsite biodiversity impacts against the biodiversity benefits of the project within the project boundaries. Justify and demonstrate that the net effect of the project on biodiversity is positive.

With no negative offsite biodiversity impacts identified, it is very likely that impacts will be positive, since deforestation pressure is reduced.



Findings: Offsite biodiversity impacts are likely to be positive, and essentially impossible to be negative.

B3 Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Indicator B3.1 - Develop an initial plan for selecting biodiversity

The project has been in operation since 2003. A full monitoring plan is in place, said to be in Appendix



variables to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring and reporting to ensure that monitoring variables are directly linked to the project’s biodiversity objectives and to anticipated impacts (positive and negative).

06.

Trees are the main focus of biodiversity monitoring. The number of hectares of improved riparian land by planting of indigenous trees by TIST farmers is considered a key parameter.



Findings: Since the project has been in operation for about ten years, a full monitoring plan likely exists, though it was not provided to the auditors.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please provide a copy of the monitoring plan. Date Issued: 12 November 2014 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:


Evidence Used to Close NCR: The monitoring plan was made available through the link, above. This indicator was adequately addressed.

Date Closed: XX December 2014 Indicator B3.2 - Develop an initial plan for assessing the effectiveness of measures used to maintain or enhance High Conservation Values related to globally, regionally or nationally significant biodiversity (G1.8.1-3) present in the project zone.

There is no direct interaction between the project and the HCV areas. Monitoring is indirect, based on direct project achievements, per B3.1 and B3.2.



Findings: Since there are likely a myriad of pressures on the HCV that have nothing to do with the project, directly monitoring wildlife on public lands is unlikely to measure the effects of the TIST program.

Indicator B3.3 - Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months of the project start date or within twelve months of validation against the Standards and to disseminate this plan and the results of monitoring, ensuring that

The PIR states the full monitoring plan was developed prior to the first verification, and is available in appendix 06. A list of 6 results of monitoring is provided.





they are made publicly available on the internet and are communicated to the communities and other stakeholders. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:

Section B3.3 of the PIR, previous validation and verification record.

Findings: It is known that the project proponents developed a monitoring plan, because the auditors were involved in the previous verification. However, appendix 06 was not provided for this verification.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please provide the auditors with appendix 06. Date Issued: 12 November 2014 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:


Evidence Used to Close NCR: The monitoring plan was provided to the verifiers via the above-mentioned link.

Date Closed: XX December 2014

Gold Level Section

GL2 Exceptional Community Benefits Indicator GL2.1 - Demonstrate that the project zone is in a low human development country OR in an administrative area of a medium or high human development country in which at least 50% of the population of that area is below the national poverty line.

The PIR states that Uganda is a low human development country with a human development index of 0.446, ranking 161 out of 187 countries, according to UNEP and other sources.


Section GL2.1 of the PIR, UNDP reports of 2014.

Findings: Uganda is considered a low human development country. According to a UNDP report of 2014, the HDI is 0.484, ranking 164 out of 187 countries.

Indicator GL2.2 - Demonstrate that at least 50% of households within the lowest category of well-being (e.g., poorest quartile) of the community are likely to benefit substantially from the

The project targets “the poorest of the poor,” the subsistence farmers of rural Uganda. Most rural poor have land on which to plant trees, but that is not necessary to participate and benefit from the project.





project. No purchases are required. Participants are taught to collect seeds and cultivate their own trees. They can sell surplus. Participants are taught to construct cook stoves made of locally available material. Other training is also free. Surveys of farmers have shown that 5% of members make less than $160/year, and 45% make less than $800/year. It is unreasonable to expect a project with a project zone covering thousands of square miles to demonstrate that 50% of the lowest quartile will benefit. It would require 50% voluntary participation in the project over that same area. The PIR points out that any climate change mitigation and environmental improvement benefit all. Food security in the area is improved by increased production due to conservation farming techniques and food products from planted trees. Surplus food is sold locally. Planting of trees improves the environment, and therefore benefits the lower quartile. Health classes benefit the poor.


Section GL2.2 of the PIR

Findings: It is agreed that it is not possible to incorporate 50% of the population over thousands of square kilometers into the project. It is also clear that the project has no barriers that would keep the poorest of the poor from joining and benefiting. Non-participants also may benefit through the increased supply of local foods and the dissemination of important health and agricultural information from trainings (available to non-members).



The project proponents have demonstrated that at least 50% of participants from all quartiles will benefit from the project, and many poor non-participants will benefit, as well.

Indicator GL2.3 - Demonstrate that any barriers or risks that might prevent benefits going to poorer households have been identified and addressed in order to increase the probable flow of benefits to poorer households.

Barriers that might prevent benefits from going to the poorer households were identified and eliminated in section G2.2. There is no cost to joining, and no requirement to even own land. Training is available to all. The project was designed to reach the poorest of the poor.


Sections GL2.2 and GL2.3 of the PIR.

Findings: No barriers prevent the poorest or anyone in the project zone from joining and benefiting from the project.

Indicator GL2.4 - Demonstrate that measures have been taken to identify any poorer and more vulnerable households and individuals whose well-being or poverty may be negatively affected by the project, and that the project design includes measures to avoid any such impacts. Where negative impacts are unavoidable, demonstrate that they will be effectively mitigated.

TIST was developed in Tanzania through visioning sessions with poor, subsistence farmers in the late 90s. The problems of concern were famine, poor crops, lack of shade and fuel, declining rainfall, soil fertility, access to water, diet, health problems (AIDS, malaria) lack of income opportunities, declining wildlife and lack of forests. It was designed from the bottom up, with helping the poorest to improve their lives.

No negative effects on the poorest, most vulnerable have been identified.


Section GL2.4 of the PIR.

Findings: It is not likely negative impacts on the poor would stem from a project of this nature.

Indicator GL2.5 - Demonstrate that community impact monitoring will be able to identify positive and negative impacts on poorer and more vulnerable groups. The social impact monitoring must take a differentiated approach that can identify positive and

A community impact monitoring survey was carried out in 2012. The 37 questions covered basic information, TIST membership information, benefits from TIST activities, Conservation farming, food security and “progress out of poverty” questions developed by the Gameen Foundation. Sample size was 46.



negative impacts on poorer households and individuals and other disadvantaged groups, including women.

Benefits were in relative proportion to the member’s adoption of conservation practices. Benefits identified include carbon income, seedling production, fruit and nuts, sustainable firewood, conservation farming and improved cookstoves. Cumulative economic benefit for an average member was calculated to be 7.98 million Ush. Negative impacts were reported. Two members said they were losing money because of TIST, 4 said they had less to eat because of TIST, and another said he was too busy with TIST to do other important things. The gender balance on the survey was 30% women, 70% men. When economic benefits were analyzed, women had a higher average cumulative benefit. Negative impacts were described in the PIR and are few.

18 of the 46 survey subjects reported an income of less than $2/day. The 7 poorest and most vulnerable were identified. Their average economic benefit was 6.93 million Ush, slightly lower than the average of 7.98 million, but significant. Negative impacts were few.


Section GL2.5 of the PIR.

Findings: The first verification confirmed that the survey was able to identify positive and negative impacts to poorer, more vulnerable groups. However, the survey and survey data was not provided and could not be located on the TIST website. As the survey is referenced in the PIR (footnotes 52 and 53) and informs of the project benefits to communities, it would seem appropriate that it be made available for verifications on the TIST website or provided directly.

Opportunity For Improvement (OFI): Please provide the survey and survey results either directly or through the TIST website.


"TIST UG PD-VCS-Ex 21 GL2 Community Survey Template.doc" and "TIST UG PD-VCS-Ex 22 GL2 Community Survey Result.doc" are available at

http://www.tist.org/tist/docs/PDD-Documents/TIST%20UG%20PD-VCS-Ex%2021%20GL2%20Community%20Survey%20Template.doc

http://www.tist.org/tist/docs/PDD-Documents/TIST%20UG%20PD-VCS-Ex%2021%20GL2%20Community%20Survey%20Template.doc

http://www.tist.org/tist/docs/PDD-Documents/TIST%20UG%20PD-VCS-Ex%2022%20GL2%20Community%20Survey%20Result.doc

http://www.tist.org/tist/docs/PDD-Documents/TIST%20UG%20PD-VCS-Ex%2022%20GL2%20Community%20Survey%20Result.doc




Evidence Used to Close NCR: The survey and survey results were provide to the verifiers via the above-mentioned links. The survey appears to be adequate for monitoring impacts on the poorest and most underserved community members.


Public Shareholder Comments The project proponent solicited public comments for the PIR in two ways – through a public hearing in Bushenyi, Uganda, and a series of emails to stakeholders. The public meeting was held on 4 November 2014 at the Holy Cross Guest House in Kanungu, Uganda. Notice was advertised in a daily paper called New Vision and a weekly called Entatsi.

Copies of the email and the advertisements were supplied to the auditors, along with a sign in sheet for participants. Fifty-four people signed the attendance sheet. Minutes were supplied. ESI confirms that all comments were addressed and is satisfied with the results of the public shareholder/stakeholder meetings outreach programs.

Local Shareholder Comments At the public meeting in Kanungu the content of the PIR was presented and explained. Community members were given the opportunity to discuss, question and provide feedback. Community members were encouraged to submit written comments to community coordinators. Comments were received both in writing and verbally dictated to staff at the public meeting. The comments provided were largely positive.

CCB Public Comment Period The project PIR was posted to the CCBA website for the formal 30-day public comment period (24 October 2014 – 23 November 2014). No comments were received. Public Meetings TIST Uganda held one public meeting in the Kanungu, Uganda, on 4 November 2014. Comments collected can be found in Appendix B. All comments were positive, but some included suggestions regarding increasing or otherwise adjusting the wages of quantifiers.





Verification Conclusion ESI confirms all verification activities including objectives, scope and criteria, level of assurance, the project’s adherence to the validated PDD , and implementation as outlined in the PIR adhere to the CCB Project Design Standards, Second Edition, as documented in this report are complete. ESI concludes without any qualifications or limiting conditions that the CCB Project Implementation Report TIST Program in Uganda CCB-001 (25 November 2014), meets the requirements of the CCB Project Design Standards (Second Edition – December 2008) and Exceptional Community Gold Level Benefits. Submittal Information Report Submitted to:

Clean Air Action Corporation P.O. Box 4607 Tulsa, OK 74159 Contact: Charlie Williams

Climate, Community &Biodiversity Alliance

Report Submitted (CCBA-Approved Verifier) by:

Environmental Services Inc. 7220 Financial Way, Suite 100 Jacksonville, Florida 32256

Lead Verifier and Regional Technical Manager (QA/QC) Names and Signatures:

Shawn McMahon – Lead Verifier

Janice McMahon – Vice President and Regional Technical Manager Forestry, Carbon, and GHG Services Division

Date: 16 December 2014

RS/SM/JPM/RMB VO14077.00 CCB Ver Report-final2.doc K:pf 12/16/14f



Appendix A – Documents Reviewed / Received Documents received 21 October 2014

• TIST UG PD-CCB-001j App09 Verif 02 PIR 141014.doc Documents received 23 October 2014

• TIST UG PD-CCB-001j App09 Verif 02 PIR 141023.doc Documents received 28 October 2014

• TIST UG VCS-002g JACO Verification Report 141027.pdf • TIST UG VCS-001g JACO Verification Report 141027.pdf

Documents received 07 November 2014

• TIST UG VCS-004g JACO Verification Report 141107.pdf • TIST UG VCS-003g JACO Verification Report 141107.pdf


• TIST UG VCS-004h JACO Verification Statement 141107.pdf • TIST UG PD-CCB-001i App08 Monitoring Data 120221.xls • TIST UG PD-VCS-001j App09 Verif 02 Risk Analysis 141021.doc • TIST UG PD-VCS-001k App10 Verif 02 Monitoring Rpt 140915.doc • TIST UG PD-VCS-001l App11 Verif 02 Monitoring Data 140826.xlsx • TIST UG PD-VCS-002j App09 Verif 02 Risk Analysis 141021.doc • TIST UG PD-VCS-002k App10 Verif 02 Monitoring Rpt 140915.doc • TIST UG PD-VCS-002l App11 Verif 02 Monitoring Data 140826.xlsx • TIST UG PD-VCS-003j App09 Verif 02 Risk Analysis 141106.doc • TIST UG PD-VCS-003k App10 Verif 02 Monitoring Rpt 141106.doc • TIST UG PD-VCS-003l App11 Verif 02 Monitoring Data 141105.xlsx • TIST UG PD-VCS-004j App09 Verif 02 Risk Analysis 141021.doc • TIST UG PD-VCS-004k App10 Verif 02 Monitoring Rpt 141106.doc • TIST UG PD-VCS-004l App11 Verif 02 Monitoring Data 140826.xlsx • TIST UG PD-VCS-Ex 14c Public Comments CCB-001 V02.doc • TIST UG VCS-001h JACO Verification Statement 141029.pdf • TIST UG VCS-002h JACO Verification Statement 141029.pdf • TIST UG VCS-003g JACO Verification Report 141107.pdf • TIST UG VCS-003h JACO Verification Statement 141107.pdf • TIST UG VCS-004g JACO Verification Report 141107.pdf


• VO14076_TIST_UG_CCBA_001_Verification_Round 1_NCRs-CLs_Final.docx • 2003UG249-Byereta K 01.pdf • 2006UG298-Kengongyi Alice.pdf



• 2007UG103-Paul 02.pdf • 2007UG334-Mpanju G 02.pdf • 2009UG49-Chris 01.pdf • 2009UG61-Abakubarirwa 01.pdf • 2009UG70-Mugisha Benon 4.pdf • 2010UG60-Bahira 02.pdf • 2010UG76-Apollo.pdf • 2010UG188-Barugahare.pdf • TIST UG PD-CCB-001j App09 Verif 02 PIR 141125.doc



Appendix B – Stakeholder Meeting Announcements and Comments

CCBA Public Comments Public comments for CCBA were solicited two ways. First a public hearing was held in Bushenyi Uganda. Second, a series of emails were sent to stakeholders. Public Meeting The Public Meeting was held between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM on 04 November, 2014 at the Holy Cross Guest House in Kanungu, Uganda. Notice was given in leading Uganda papers as follows:

• New Vision (a daily national paper) : notice on 29 October 2014, in English. • Entatsi (a regional weekly publication): notice on 31 October 2014, in

Runyankore/Rukiga.

TIST Program to hold Public Meeting

Clean Air Action Corporation (CAAC) announces its intent to verify its project "TIST Program in Uganda CCB-001" for the second time under the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) standards. The project was validated and verified under the Standard in 2012. This verification is for the period 07-October-2011 to 31-December-2013. To receive the verification, CAAC must demonstrate, among other things, that TIST is beneficial to climate, community and biodiversity. CAAC has submitted a Project Implementation Report (PIR) to Environmental Services Inc, a CCBA certified auditor. The document is available on line at: http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html. A public stakeholders meeting will be held between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM on 04 November, 2014 at the Holy Cross Guest House in Kanungu, Uganda. where comments will be taken. In addition, comments may be submitted up to 24 November, 2014 to CCBA by clicking on "SUBMIT COMMENTS" at:

http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html.

Copies of the notice are attached.

http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html




Email Solicitation The following email was sent to stakeholders in Uganda on 27 October 2014.

Subject: TIST Uganda seeking CCBA accreditation. Comments Requested. Clean Air Action Corporation (CAAC) announces its intent to verify its project "TIST Program in Uganda CCB-001" for the second time under the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) standards. The project was validated and verified under the Standard in 2012. This verification is for the period 07-October-2011 to 31-December-2013. To receive the verification, CAAC must demonstrate, among other things, that TIST is beneficial to climate, community and biodiversity. CAAC has submitted a Project Implementation Report (PIR) to Environmental Services Inc., a CCBA certified auditor. The document is available on line at: http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html. In addition, all documents and appendices related to the original validation and verification are available at: http://www.tist.org/PD-UG-VCS-001-004%20Documents.php CAAC is seeking public comments. They may be submitted directly to CCBA by clicking on "SUBMIT COMMENTS" at: http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html. The comment period is open through 24 November, 2014. In addition, a public stakeholders meeting will be held between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM on 04 November, 2014 at the Holy Cross Guest House in Kanungu, Uganda where questions will be answered and comments will be taken. Attendance is not required at the meeting in order to submit comments to CCBA. In the CCB documents we will demonstrate that we meet the CCB standards as follow: Climate: 84,341 net reductions of CO2 have been made during the verification period and have been verified under VCS Standard.

Community: TIST has provided a new sustainable revenue stream in the form of carbon payment; improved food security from Conservation Farming, fruits, nuts and honey; other tree products such as fodder, poles and fuel; capacity building; sustainable wood lots; health training; improved stoves.






Biodiversity: TIST farmers have planted new indigenous trees, improved connectivity with the protected forest, reduced the pressure to take fuel wood from the protected forests and have made a net improvement to biodiversity. Exceptional Community Benefits: TIST was created to be pro-poor in a poor area and with net positive impacts on community. Survey results show that participants experience a range of economic benefits and positive social impacts, regardless of socioeconomic status, gender or part of more vulnerable groups.

The emails or letters were sent to the following organizations and individuals:

• Abel Bishoni. [email protected] • Action for Social Economic Development. [email protected] • AIDS Healthcare Foundation. [email protected] • Berkeley Reafforestation Trust, Rodney Portman. [email protected] • Bushenyi District Local Government. [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected] (email sent 29-Oct) • Care International, Uganda. [email protected]. • Forestry and Environmental Development Network. [email protected] • Jane Goodall Institute. [email protected] • Kanungu District Local Government. Hand delivered. • Kanungu District NGO/CBO Forum. [email protected] • Kabale District Local Government. [email protected] • Kyabuhangwa Women in Development. [email protected] • Ministry of Water and Environment. [email protected] • National Climate Change Steering Committee (NCCSC),

http://www.ccu.go.ug/index.php/contact-us. Online email form (form broken). • National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).

http://www.nemaug.org/send_us_a_mail.php. Online email form. • National Forestry Authority.

http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=2&Itemid=172 . Online email form.

• Navigators of Development Association. [email protected] • Peter Apell. [email protected] • Sawlog Production Grant Scheme. [email protected] • Sawlog Production Grant Scheme. [email protected] • Uganda Conservation (U) Ltd. [email protected] • Uganda Wildlife Authority. [email protected] • USAID/Uganda, David Eckerson, Mission Director. [email protected] • World Vision. [email protected] • World Wildlife Foundation (WWF). [email protected] • TIST Small Group. [email protected]

http://www.ccu.go.ug/index.php/contact-us

http://www.nemaug.org/send_us_a_mail.php

http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=2&Itemid=172

http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=2&Itemid=172




• TIST Small Group ,Green Earth Movement SG. [email protected] • TIST Small Group, Forest Fruit Food SG. [email protected] • TIST Small Group ,Green Earth Movement SG. [email protected] • TIST Staff. [email protected] • TIST Quantifiers, Bushenyi. [email protected] • TIST Quantifiers, Kanungu. [email protected] (email not valid) • TIST Quantifiers, Kabale. [email protected] (email not valid) • TIST Quantifier, Kanungu. [email protected] • TIST Quantifier, Kabale. [email protected] • ESI. Shawn McMahon, [email protected]




Public Notice, 29 October 2014, New Vision Newspaper



Public Notice, 31 October, 2014, Entatsi Newspaper



Email Comment Solicitation, 27 October 2014 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:29:18 -0600 From: Charlie Williams <[email protected]> To: "Williams, Charlie" <[email protected]> CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Rodney Portman <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "info "@nfa.org.ug, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "Bachwa, Hakim" <[email protected]>, "Baanyanga, Ara" <[email protected]>, Shawn McMahon <[email protected]>, Janice McMahon <[email protected]>, Richard Scharf <[email protected]> Subject: TIST Uganda seeking CCBA accreditation. Comments Requested. *TIST Uganda seeking CCBA accreditation. Comments Requested.* Clean Air Action Corporation (CAAC) announces its intent to verify its project "TIST Program in Uganda CCB-001" for the second time under the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) standards. The project was validated and verified under the Standard in 2012. This verification is for the period 07-October-2011 to 31-December-2013. To receive the verification, CAAC must demonstrate, among other things, that TIST is beneficial to climate, community and biodiversity. CAAC has submitted a Project Implementation Report (PIR) to Environmental Services Inc., a CCBA certified auditor. The document is available on line at: http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html. In addition, all documents and appendices related to the original validation and verification are available at: http://www.tist.org/PD-UG-VCS-001-004%20Documents.php CAAC is seeking public comments. They may be submitted directly to CCBA by clicking on "SUBMIT COMMENTS" at: http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html. The comment period is open through 24 November, 2014. In addition, a public stakeholders meeting will be held between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM on 04 November, 2014 at the Holy Cross Guest House in Kanungu, Uganda where questions will be answered and comments will be taken. Attendance is not required at the meeting in order to submit comments to CCBA.



In the CCB documents we will demonstrate that we meet the CCB standards as follow: *Climate:* 84,341 net reductions of CO2 have been made during the verification period and have been verified under VCS Standard. *Community:* TIST has provided a new sustainable revenue stream in the form of carbon payment; improved food security from Conservation Farming, fruits, nuts and honey; other tree products such as fodder, poles and fuel; capacity building; sustainable wood lots; health training; improved stoves. *Biodiversity:* TIST farmers have planted new indigenous trees, improved connectivity with the protected forest, reduced the pressure to take fuel wood from the protected forests and have made a net improvement to biodiversity. *Exceptional Community Benefits:* TIST was created to be pro-poor in a poor area and with net positive impacts on community. Survey results show that participants experience a range of economic benefits and positive social impacts, regardless of socioeconomic status, gender or part of more vulnerable groups.



Notice mailed or hand delivered



Sign-In Sheet for Public Meeting



CCBA MEETING FOR COMMENTS HELD IN KANUNGU-4/11/14 CCBA COMMENTS FROM STAKE HOLDERS.

Opening Comments from Chairperson Josephine Kasya, Kanungu Local Council Five (LC-V), presented by Secretary Christopher Kamara The representative gave the participants his remarks as follows both positive and negative impacts. Natural forests are fading away due to people’s needs of cutting down trees due to brick making, making Local beer and the communities not following government policies of restoring the nature for their common good. He continued informing them that TIST is a good program because it trains individuals and communities to be environmental friendly and at the same time to utilize land effectively on economic principles. He promised that in the District council meetings, TIST will have a say since it has good projects targeting on environment restoration. He told the participants that road reserves in Kanungu District will be gazetted for tree planting work .This land will be given to TIST SGs nearby will be beneficiaries because of the good work that TIST is performing. He also pledged that he himself will plant pawpaws in his plantation for nutrition since he had seen TIST encouraging its farmers to do so in their gardens. He added on saying that even Gravellia tree will be planted in Tea shambas as wind breaks which will increase the number of trees for environment protection. He concluded by saying that TIST will always be called up on to address good issues on the environment collectively to work hand in hand with the government to promote the standard of living. He wished the participant to observe time and give in their comments on TIST program and activities. Comments by George Agaba, Kanungu NEMA Officer The National Environment Officer Kanungu was happy to address the SGs participants and commentators who came to give in their comments. He told the communities to avoid planting eucalyptus on good soils ideal for food crops. He put on emphasis that tree branches which can cause havoc to the neighbors’ premises, crops or hit electric wires should be pruned before it causes accidents. He told people that they should not plant eucalyptus in wetlands since eucalyptus dries up water. He informed the gathering that they should observe the boundaries and keep land in good order not to be washed away by runoff waters. He emphasized planting indigenous trees on bare land and encouraged farmers to plant fruits for food and income. He said protective measures on land use and improvements is essential act which should be done for our environment by individuals and communities. He also told them that food security and shelter should be observed and in turn to have a good life span without compromising for the future generations.



Other Comments

Address Comments Name:Mwenda Patrick Contact:0772659324 SG Name:

Comment: TIST is a good program for development and boosting family income but payments per tree are still very low.

Name:Tumusiime Suluman Contact:0753996784 SG Name:

Comment: TIST is a good program for small income earner farmers because it gives tree incentives to farmers.

Name:Rukanyangira Matayo Contact:0772396006 SG Name:Itembezo Tutungukye Group

Comment: TIST program has made us rich by giving us tree incentives that in turn helps us in taking care of our trees. Also some of the tree species promoted by TIST program increase soil fertility, and also provides fire wood when pruned. TIST Program also increased environmental impact awareness among people.

Name:Fabith Mushuhukye Contact:0782394513 SG Name:Nyakishojwa TPG

Comment: Tree planting by TIST program has led to increased rainfall and enough clean air for people.

Name:Tumuhairwe Theresa Contact:0782358644 SG Name:Yerusalem Tutungukye

Comment: TIST program supports families without falling into debts; I therefore support the program to continue in God’s work of creation and innovation. TIST should increase on the amount of money paid per tree.

Name:Tushabemukama Apollo Contact: SG Name:Abamaririre Designation: Quantifier

Comment: TIST program has improved the welfare of farmers and has fulfilled its obligation by paying incentives to tree farmers. TIST has also managed to provide employment to rural Ugandans

Name:Florence Nkwasibwe Contact: 0779299801 SG Name:

Comment: TIST program has enabled to work hard and have enough food especially from fruit trees like Jack fruit, Mangoes and papaws. TIST program has organized us to work in small groups and we are able to exchange knowledge.

Name:Tibeijuka James Contact:0772194073 SG Name:Tukore Group

Comment: TIST program and management is very organized and serves us effectively.

Name:Arinitwe Ezra Contact:0772668636 SG Name: Email:[email protected]

Comment: For the betterment of TIST to work well and live together, recognition of members time should be observed in sense that when a new member who is being trained by a senior staff should not be paid the same



Designation: Quantifier amount. Therefore an increment should be considered from time to time and if possible have different levels such as-Juniors, Seniors and Principle as some organizations do. Also quantifiers request for a whole weekend to relax for example Saturdays should be free to give quantifiers time to attend their families.

Name:Kyarisima Jackiline Contact:0701940664 SG Name:Twetungule Group

Comment: As far as tree planting is concerned, TIST has been of much importance to us through:- TIST has generated income and employment. Tree planting by TIST has been a source for oxygen and habitat for some creatures. TIST has created good environment to live in and has controlled soil erosion. Wasted land has been put to use for tree planting for example mountains and valleys.

Name:Keitu Kabati Eriya Contact:0774700571 SG Name:

Comment: TIST program has promoted tree planting of different species that increase soil fertility like Gravelia. Also tree planting has improved our environment by reducing air pollution. We also earn income from tree planting thus improving our homes.

Name: Elizabeth Dembe Contact: SG Name: Dembe Tree Planting

Comment: TIST program in Kanungu has made people to use environment conservation systems such as conservation Farming. People have also been trained on opening group accounts that has helped them to save money for the rainy days. We have been taught on how to plant fruit trees that we can now value for commercial basis. Through TIST, people have learnt to work as team and in team spirit.

Name:Barigye Pamela Contact:0772360429 SG Name:Turyakira Group Email:[email protected] Designation: Quantifier

Comment: TIST efforts have been seen appreciated by the communities around as climate has changed in last 2 years. We are experiencing rainy season from time to time.

Name:Kayabuki Caleb Contact:0774511571 SG Name: Email:[email protected] Designation: Quantifier

Comment: TIST program has increased the planting of more and different tree species in Uganda.

Name: Abraham Arinaitwe Contact: SG Name:

Comment: Having worked for TIST program since 2009, I have found everything very interesting as a man who likes nature.



Email:[email protected] Designation: Quantifier

I believe that given enough field facilitation, TIST will be a great achiever in Uganda and the rest of the world.

Name:Kyarikunda Vivian Contact:0771879296 SG Name: Email:[email protected] Designation: Quantifier

Comment: TIST is a good organization; however we would also need some improvement in certain areas, for example on facilitation. It would be good if we would get an increase on facilitation as rates of transport and meals increased. Also machines and other equipment used in quantification sometimes hinder our work thus making it difficult for us.

Name:Agaba Denis Contact:0775690713 SG Name:Kanyinya Small Group Email:[email protected] Designation: Quantifier

Comment: As quantifier I am being tasked by TIST farmers requesting to know as to when they are to start receiving the carbon credit payment. TIST should also revise on the salary it pays the workers because little has changed and yet the cost of living in Uganda has increased. TIST has also helped me in several ways to improve my life such as in learning about nutrition and conservation farming.

Name: Michael Nuwagira Contact: SG Name: Email:[email protected] Designation: Quantifier

Comment: Farmers request that CAAC should increase on tree incentives especially for fruit trees. TIST has enabled us to improve our environment by planting trees that provide shade for our homes.

Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design ... UG CCB... · 12/16/2014 · December 2013....

Documents

Transcript of Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design ... UG CCB... · 12/16/2014 · December 2013....