YACUMAMA FOREST CARBON PROJECT - Amazon S3...PROJECT DESCRIPTION VCS Version 3, CCB Standards Second Edition v3.0 8 Climate, Soils and Hydrology The upper Peruvian Amazon Basin (Figure

PROJECT DESCRIPTION VCS Version 3, CCB Standards Second Edition

v3.0

1

YACUMAMA FOREST CARBON PROJECT

Document Prepared By Conservation Management Institute at Virginia Tech-College of Natural Resources and Environment

Project Title Yacumama Forest Carbon Project

Version 1.1

Date of Issue DD-Month-YYYY this version of the document issued

Prepared By Dr. Verl Emrick, Research Scientist Virginia Tech Conservation Management

Institute

Contact Verl Emrick Ph.D. Research Scientist-Ecologist Conservation Management Institute Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment 1900 Kraft Drive Blacksburg,VA 24061 540-231-8851 cmi.vt.edu


v3.0

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 General .................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Summary Description of the Project (G3)........................................................................ 4 1.2 Project Location (G1 & G3) ............................................................................................. 4

1.3 Conditions Prior to Project Initiation (G1) ..................................................................... 12 1.4 Project Proponent (G4)................................................................................................... 23 1.5 Other Entities Involved in the Project (G4) ................................................................... 23 1.6 Project Start Date (G3) ................................................................................................... 24 1.7 Project Crediting Period (G3) ........................................................................................ 24

2 Design ................................................................................................................................... 25 2.1 Sectoral Scope and Project Type .................................................................................... 25

2.2 Description of the Project Activity (G3) ........................................................................ 25 2.3 Management of Risks to Project Benefits (G3) ............................................................. 27 2.4 Measures to Maintain High Conservation Values (G3) ................................................. 27 2.5 Project Financing (G3 & G4) ......................................................................................... 27

2.6 Employment Opportunities and Worker Safety (G4) .................................................... 27 2.7 Stakeholders (G3) ........................................................................................................... 29

2.8 Commercially Sensitive Information ............................................................................. 32 3 Legal Status ........................................................................................................................... 32

3.1 Compliance with Laws, Statues, Property Rights & Other Regulatory Frameworks (G4

& G5) 32 3.2 Evidence of Right of Use (G5) ....................................................................................... 33

3.3 Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits (CL1) .................................... 33

3.4 Participation under Other GHG Programs (CL1) .......................................................... 33

3.5 Other Forms of Environmental Credit (CL1) ................................................................. 33 3.6 Projects Rejected by Other GHG Programs (CL1) ........................................................ 33

3.7 Respect for Rights and No Involuntary Relocation (G5) ............................................... 34 3.8 Illegal Activities and Project Benefits (G5) ................................................................... 34

4 Application of Methodology ................................................................................................. 34

4.1 Title and Reference of Methodology ............................................................................. 34 4.2 Applicability of Methodology ........................................................................................ 35 4.3 Methodology Deviations ................................................................................................ 36 4.4 Project Boundary (G1) ................................................................................................... 36

4.5 Baseline Scenario (G2)................................................................................................... 38 4.6 Additionality (G2) .......................................................................................................... 39

5 Quantificaton of GHG Emission Reductions and REmovals (Climate) ............................... 43

5.1 Project Scale and Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals ......................... 43 5.2 Leakage Management (CL2) .......................................................................................... 44 5.3 Baseline Emissions (G2) ................................................................................................ 44 5.4 Project Emissions (CL1) ................................................................................................ 47

5.5 Leakage (CL2)................................................................................................................ 48 5.6 Summary of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals (CL1 & CL2) ......................... 49 5.7 Climate Change Adaptation Benefits (GL1) .................................................................. 51

6 Community ........................................................................................................................... 51


v3.0

3

6.1 Net Positive Community Impacts (CM1) ...................................................................... 51 6.2 Negative Offsite Stakeholder impacts (CM2) ................................................................ 54 6.3 Exceptional Community Benefits (GL2) ....................................................................... 55

7 Biodiversity ........................................................................................................................... 55

7.1 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts (B1) ......................................................................... 55 7.2 Negative Offsite Biodiversity Impacts (B2)................................................................... 56 7.3 Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits (GL3) ....................................................................... 56

8 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 56 8.1 Description of the Monitoring Plan (CL3, CM3 & B3) ................................................. 56

8.2 Data and Parameters Available at Validation (CL3) ...................................................... 60 8.3 Data and Parameters Monitored (CL3, CM3 & B3) ...................................................... 64

9 References and Literature Consulted ................................................................................... 70


v3.0

4

1 GENERAL

1.1 Summary Description of the Project (G3)

The overall goal for the Yacumama Forest Carbon Project (“Project”) is to protect and conserve the

tropical lowland floodplain forest on Yacumama, a privately held lodge, research, education, and

conservation area, in the Amazon Basin of Peru, for long-term carbon sequestration. In addition, the

Project also serves to protect, maintain, and (for some taxa) improve native biodiversity while supporting

local community livelihoods by increasing sustainable economic opportunities. The climate objective for

the Project is to avoid emissions from deforestation and degradation. The entire property including the

Project Area will, by economic necessity, be sold by the owners in the absence of funding from carbon

financing. Because the owners have legal permission to harvest the entire property, which under

Peruvian law transfers with the sale, the most likely buyer would be a company who would harvest the

entire property, sell the valuable wood, burn the remaining woody biomass, and implement agricultural

conversion on the fertile floodplain soils.

There are three explicit Project objectives:

The climate objective is to avoid emissions from land clearing and conversion to agriculture.

The community objectives are to increase economic opportunities for local villagers through

employment and increased access to health care.

The biodiversity objective is to protect and maintain the native biodiversity.

1.2 Project Location (G1 & G3)

The Yacumama Forest Carbon Project is located in the Peruvian Amazon Basin approximately 15 km

straight line upstream from the confluence of the Rio Marañon and Rio Ucayali which join to form the

Amazon River. The Yacumama property boundary encompasses (3,299 ha) of tropical rainforest, of

which (2,992 ha) are available for conversion to agricultural uses in the absence of carbon financing. The


v3.0

5

Project Area is located at latitude -4° 34’ 03.26’’ North, and at longitude -73° 27’ 04.64’’ East in the Loreto

District, Peru roughly 90 km south of the city of Iquitos (Figures 1, 2, 3).

Figure 1: Yacumama Forest Carbon Project location at a continental scale.


v3.0

6

Figure 2: Yacumama Forest Carbon Project location at a regional scale.


v3.0

7

Figure 3: Yacumama Forest Carbon Project at a local scale.


v3.0

8

Climate, Soils and Hydrology

The upper Peruvian Amazon Basin (Figure 2) where the Project is located has a lowland tropical climate

characterized by high heat / humidity and substantial rainfall throughout the year. Mean annual

temperature in Jenaro Herrera1 is 25.9°C with a mean annual rainfall of 2715 mm (Kvist and Nebel 2001).

While precipitation occurs throughout the year April typically has the highest rainfall and July the lowest

rainfall.

Soils of Yacumama are classified as entisols which are soils of recent origin that developed from

unconsolidated parent material that have little development of pedogenic horizons except an “A” horizon.

Within the Project area there are two identified soil subgroups Typic Hydraquents and Typic Fluvaquent

(Nebel et al. 2001b). Each subgroup has an upper “A” horizon 5–10 cm thick above an incipient “B”

horizon extending to approximately 150 cm. The “B” horizon has a high clay content (generally exceeding

50%), but the fraction of sandy material increases with depth (Nebel et al. 2001b). These subgroups are

characterized by little faunal activity in all horizons likely due to yearly inundation.

The upper Peruvian Amazon Basin, defined as the region above the confluence of the Rio Ucayali and

Rio Marañon (Figure 2), is affected by significant yearly flooding events that temporarily inundate large

tracts of tropical forest. On average, flood stages peak in April and drop to their lowest in August (Lamotte

1990), but can be quite variable from year to year (Kvist and Nebel 2001). It is estimated that about 12%

of the region (over 60,000 km2) are exposed to annual flooding in the Peruvian Amazon Basin (Kvist and

Nebel 2001, Salo et al. 1986). Water levels on the Ucayali can shift 9-10 m per year from its lowest to

highest points (Lamotte 1990). The annual flooding is a natural part of the system and integral to

ecosystem processes. Flood waters originating in the Andes Mountains carry large sediment loads that

deposit essential plant nutrients as the flood waters recede. During the highest peak of flooding, almost

the entire Yacumama property can be inundated. Thus, depending upon the time of year, the forest at

Yacumama provides critical habitat for not only terrestrial species but aquatic species as well.

1 The closest town with climate information available is Jenaro Herrera, a small river town situated on the

Rio Ucayali, approximately 44 km southwest of the Yacumama Lodge.


v3.0

9

The color of the streams and rivers of the Amazon Basin (i.e. white-water, black-water, and clear-water)

provide important clues to the origin, nutrient content, and even fish species assemblages (Kvist and

Nebel 2001, Saint-Paul et al. 2000). White-water rivers are turbid, nutrient rich, and muddy in color due to

the large amount of suspended sediment from runoff originating in the Andes Mountains (Kvist and Nebel

2001). White-water rivers are the most common type in the Peruvian Amazon Basin, including the two

major tributaries forming the Amazon River, the Rio Ucayali and the Rio Marañon. Clear-water rivers

originate in geologically older areas with little erosion, hold little suspended sediments, are nutrient poor,

and are a fairly uncommon river type in Peru. Black-water rivers which are common in the Peruvian

Amazon Basin get their color from slowly degrading phenolic substances in leaves (e.g. tannins)

originating in poorly drained swampy areas (Kvist and Nebel 2001). The Rio Yarapa on which Yacumama

in located and which bisects much of the Project Area (Figure 3) is considered a black-water river.

However, streams and rivers may also change water types during different times of the year which is true

of the Rio Yarapa (Kvist and Nebel 2001). A river that is black-water for the majority of the year can

become white-water during the annual flood stage due to the increased sediments collected during high-

water periods. Portions of the Yacumama property are influenced by white-water coming from the nearby

Rio Cumaseba and Rio Ucayali which mix with the Rio Yarapa during high flood stage.

Project Zone and Project Area

The Project Zone (Figure 4) for the Project encompasses three lodges on the Rio Yarapa and nearby Rio

Cumaseba in addition to the village of Puerto Miguel. The Project area for the Project encompasses the

entire Yacumama property with the exception of a small parcel on which the lodge buildings and other

infrastructure are situated (Figure 5).


v3.0

10

Figure 4: Project Zone for Yacumama Forest Carbon Project.


v3.0

11

Figure 5: Project Area for Yacumama Forest Carbon Project.


v3.0

12

1.3 Conditions Prior to Project Initiation (G1)

The property now known as Yacumama was purchased in in 1992 with the intent of developing a lodge

and private conservation area to support ecotourism and promote education, research, and conservation

of biodiversity (Table 1). From 1992-1994 lodge buildings and other infrastructure were constructed to

support the ecotourism operation. In addition the relationship with the local village of Puerto Miguel

(Figure 5) began in earnest as workers were hired and local goods and services were procured. By 1995

the lodge was fully operational and being promoted internationally. From 1995-2001 business was

running smoothly for Yacumama and there were continued improvements to infrastructure and expanded

lodge facilities were constructed. During this time period, Yacumama management built and supplied a

health care clinic in Puerto Miguel and assisted in the development of a local women’s cooperative to sell

local arts and crafts to visitors. In September 2001 the terrorist attacks in the United States caused an

immediate cessation of new reservations and cancellation of all previously booked guests. Because of the

absence of business, the lodge was forced to close and the facilities were ‘mothballed’ from 2002-2004

leaving only a skeleton staff to provide security and limited maintenance. During 2005-2006 the lodge

underwent renovations and updates in anticipation of re-opening. By 2007 as the world economy

experienced recession the management of Yacumama began to promote and focus on conservation

education and scientific research instead of tourism as a strategy to expand their clientel. However in

2008 a fire in the main lodge damaged much of the building and other infrastructure prompting the

management to again close Yacumama. By 2009 Yacumama management had determined that the

ecotourism model for maintaining the property was uncertain and a different approach was required.

Because of the cost of maintaining the facility, Yacumama and the surrounding property would have to be

sold if alternative income was not realized. Yacumama management decided to undertake limited logging

operations and obtained necessary permits from the Government of Peru. After initial logging and

exporting of lumber, Yacumama management came to the conclusion that to make sufficient income to

maintain the property a large-scale logging operation was required which left two options: 1) contract a

logging company to cut, mill and export the lumber, or 2) sell the property. Yacumama management

considered option 2 the best alternative from an economic standpoint for several reasons. First and


v3.0

13

foremost the property has abundant and valuable hardwood trees, the property can be sold at a premium

since logging and exporting of wood products had already been approved by the Government of Peru,

and Yacumama management could recoup their entire financial investment. As a result, at the end of

2009 management concluded that there were two economic options: 1) sell the property which would

result in the large-scale logging of the property, or 2) pursue carbon financing to maintain and protect the

property and the associated biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Table 1: History of Yacumama lodge and conservation area.

Year Event Notes

1992-1993

Purchase of property

Property was purchased from the Government of Peru for the purpose of developing an ecotourism lodge to provide income to conserve the

property. Official land survey was conducted.

1993-1994

Infrastructure development

Building of lodge, bungalows and infrastructure to support ecotourism operation. Interaction with local communities begins in earnest (i.e. local

workers, purchasing agricultural goods etc.).

1994-1995

Opening of Yacumama lodge

Promotion and client development focusing on educational tourism.

1995-2001

Yacumama lodge operation

Expansion of lodge facilities to meet the needs of larger groups. Continued improvement in infrastructure.

2001-2002

Tourism declines substantially

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 caused an immediate cessation of tourism for Yacumama. All previously booked groups cancel. Lodge closes due to lack of bookings and is mothballed.

2002- 2004

Yacumama lodge closed

Skeleton staff is maintained for security and maintenance of lodge facilities. Core infrastructure is maintained by cannibalizing other

superfluous facilities.

2005-2006

Yacumama lodge refurbishment

Based upon improving economic conditions and the potential for increased tourism Yacumama refurbishes and updates lodge facilities in anticipation of re-opening. During this period Yacumama also funds the

building of a health clinic in the village of Puerto Miguel.

2007-2008

Yacumama lodge refocus

Because of the international economic slowdown bookings were reduced. Yacumama management decides to increasingly focus on

education and scientific research.

2008 Partial destruction of lodge facilities

by fire

Fire partially destroys lodge facilities and results in closure as a tourist lodge. Lodge is mothballed and skeleton staff is maintained for security

and maintenance of lodge facilities.

2009 Alternative income from logging

Due to the cost of maintaining the facility Yacumama and the surrounding property would have to be sold if alternative income is not realized. Yacumama management undertakes logging operations and

obtains necessary permits from Government of Peru. After initial logging and exporting of lumber Yacumama management came to the

conclusion that to make sufficient income to maintain the property a large-scale logging operation was required.

2009-2010

Forest management

At the end of 2009 management decided that there were two economic options:1) engage in the large-scale logging of the property, or 2) pursue


v3.0

14

PROJECT ZONE (Figure 4)

Current Land Use

The Project does not encroach upon community property. The property is privately held, and no

approvals are required from the Government of Peru or the local communities. There is no historical

context of communities living on the property and no ongoing property disputes with the Project property.

Within the Project Zone there are three active lodges; Dolphin Corners, Renaco, Jungle Walk, and the

village of Puerto Miguel.

Land use related to ecotourism in the Project Zone involves activities to support tourists and gathering of

forest products to support lodge infrastructure and operations. Tourists travel through the area by boat for

variety of activities such as bird watching, photography and sport fishing. Small trails near the lodges are

used but generally have minimal impact on forest resources. Lodges do gather palm fronds for roofing

material and some wood is harvested to build and maintain lodge infrastructure in the immediate vicinity

of the lodges.

Puerto Miguel, with a population of approximately 1000 individuals, uses the land within the Project Zone

to provide a variety of resources. Wood and palm fronds are harvested and used to build and roof

houses, local meeting establishments and build boats. While non-timber forests products are gathered for

both food and medicine. Intensive agriculture is practiced in the cleared areas surrounding the village and

along the major rivers as yearly floodwaters subside. Farming is supplemented by subsistence fishing

and hunting throughout the Project Zone though hunting pressure is most intense near navigable rivers

and streams. Increasingly the local population combines agriculture, fishing, hunting, and extraction of

forest resources into a suite of products that they can bring to market. The growing population coupled

with the increased need for monetary incomes combined with external economic interests will increasingly

endanger important resources within the Project Zone (Kvist and Nebel 2001).

decisions forest carbon financing to maintain the property.

2010-Present

Forest carbon project

Yacumama explicitly begins a forest carbon project.


v3.0

15

Current Biodiversity within Project Zone

The Project Zone is located in the western Amazon Basin which is widely considered one of the most

biodiverse regions on the planet with a high diversity of plants, insects, mammals, amphibians and birds

(Finer et al. 2008, Schulman et al. 2007). The floodplain ecosystems of the Peruvian Amazon Basin have

the highest species richness compared to all other floodplain forests worldwide (Wittman et al. 2011,

Finer et al. 2008). The Yacumana Project Zone and Project Area represent typical species richness of the

western Amazon Basin in their diversity of fauna and flora.

PROJECT AREA (Figure 5)

Vegetation

Yacumama is part of the Amazon Basin mixed-water flooded forest and riparian vegetation ecological

system as defined by Josse et al. (2007) (Figure 6). More commonly, the forests at Yacumama are

described and classified as tropical lowland floodplain rainforest. The floodplain forests of this region

alternate between terrestrial and aquatic phases, impacted by floodwaters from 1-6 months per year

based on topography. Nebel et al. (2001b) provides thorough treatment of the tree species composition

on the floodplain forests of the Peruvian Amazon. The nutrient availability of the soils of floodplain forests

are heavily influenced by the type of stream or river that seasonally floods the forest (Kvist and Nebel

2001). The relatively nutrient rich white-water rivers supply more sediment to forests than clear-water or

black-water rivers. The Rio Yarapa is generally classified as a black-water river but during flood stage the

Rio Yarapa carries a significant amount of sediment and resembles a white-water river thus increasing

the amount of sediments and nutrients delivered to the forests of Yacumama.

Within the floodplain forests, two different habitat types have been described primarily based on the

duration of inundation, restinga and tahuampa. Restinga is a riverine mixed forest habitat that occurs on

the highest portions of the flood plain forest and is only inundated for 1-3 months a year (Kvist and Nebel

2001). Tahuampa is also a riverine mixed forest habitat, occurs on lower terrain than restinga, and is

typically inundated from 3-6 months a year. Soils of both restinga and tahuampa are usually well-drained,


v3.0

16

and the tree species are resilient against long periods of inundation. Factors such as amplitude,

frequency, and duration of flooding play a role in determining species composition, due to the fact that

different species have varying tolerances to flooding (Kvist and Nebel 2001). There are no clear cut

transitions between habitat types, and intermediate zones will have a mix of species from both restinga

and tahuampa (Kvist and Nebel 2001). Nebel et al. (2001b) examined in detail the floristic composition of

both restinga and tahuampa habitat types. In addition, Nebel et al. (2001b) found the highest species

richness in the low restinga, and tahuampa, suggesting that plant diversity is related to inundation period.

The proximity of habitat types to a river system is often an indicator of the age of the forest because of the

constantly changing course of the river. The meandering nature of rivers in the floodplain contributes to

the diversity of the region, creating a mosaic of different aged forests as it migrates (Salo et al. 1986).

Communities

There are no communities located within the Project Area.

Carbon Stocks

The approach to measuring carbon stocks in the Project Area is based upon the Sourcebook for Land

Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Projects (Pearson et al. 2005). These methods comply with the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2006 Guidelines for National GHG Inventories for

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use.


v3.0

17

Figure 6: Land Cover at Yacumama Forest Carbon Project


v3.0

18

Carbon Pools

The carbon pools selected for measurements were the above ground tree > 5 cm diameter-at-breast-

height (DBH) and below ground biomass. Aboveground non-tree biomass (lianas and palms), down or

standing dead wood, and leaf litter were not measured, which resulted in a conservative estimation of

carbon stocks (Table 2).

Table 2: Carbon pools measured and excluded from the baseline analysis for the project.

Carbon Pools Included / Excluded Justification / Explanation of Choice

Above ground biomass. Included. A major component of Project.

Below ground biomass. Included. A major component of Project.

Dead-wood. Excluded. Excluded to be conservative and make the monitoring cost-effective.

Harvested wood products. Excluded. The standard practice in Peru for conversion of forest to agricultural lands is to remove valuable timber species and then bulldoze

and burn the remaining trees. This pool was analyzed for significance and found to be de

minimis.

Litter. Excluded. Excluded to be conservative and make the monitoring cost-effective.

Soil organic carbon. Excluded. Excluded to be conservative and make the monitoring cost-effective.

Current carbon stocks in the above ground and below ground pools on Project site were determined to be

103.74 tons carbon per hectares.

Field Measurements

The estimated number of forest plots needed for the Project Area was calculated using published forest

biomass data (Nebel et al. 2001a) and the Winrock International Sampling Calculator.2 Nebel et al.

(2001a) reported mean above-ground biomass with 95% confidence limits from a 4-year study near

Jenaro Herrera, Peru, a town estimated to be roughly 50 km southwest of Yacumama Lodge. The study

included means for restinga, tahuampa, and all sites. The mean for all plots was used since both restinga

and tahuampa occur on Yacumama property, and the inability to distinguish and map vegetation types

2 http://www.winrock.org/Ecosystems/tools.asp


v3.0

19

using remote sensing. Based on 1 ha forest plots, Nebel et al. (2001a) reported 39,682 ± 2894 g / m2,

which converts to 198.41 carbon tons/ha with a 22.15 ton / ha standard deviation. Using the total area of

the Yacumama property, the Winrock International Sampling Calculator estimated 19 forest plots were

needed to achieve a 95% confidence interval. CMI allocated 26 forest plots to ensure the full range of

variability was captured. Using an automated random point generator, the plots were distributed

throughout the Project Area (Figure 3).

Because destructive sampling was not practical to measure above ground carbon stocks, published

allometric equations were used to determine aboveground biomass based upon the DBH of hardwood

trees. Field data collection was based on the nested circular plot design described in Pearson et al.

(2005). All living trees within 4 m radius of the plot center with a minimum diameter of 5.0 cm DBH were

measured using a DBH tape. Each tree was examined to make sure it was alive, and identified by local

guides whenever possible. Trees greater than or equal to 5.0 cm DBH were labeled with a unique

numbered tag, and the DBH, local name, and tag ID were recorded. Once all of the trees within the 4.0 m

radius were measured, trees greater than or equal to 20.0 cm DBH were measured and recorded within

14.0 m radius of the plot center. Once all of the 20.0 cm DBH trees were measured within 14.0 m of the

plot center, any trees within 20.0 m of the plot center greater than or equal to 50.0 cm DBH were

measured.

Carbon Stock Calculation

Data collected were entered into spreadsheets following field data collection. Unaltered field data

underwent quality assurance / quality control analysis by another CMI staff, double checking all diameter

values, and tree tag numbers. For each tagged tree, aboveground biomass (kg) was estimated using the

tropical wet forest equation from Pearson et al. (2005). The aboveground biomass for each tree was

converted from kilograms to tons (divided by 1000), followed by a conversion of total aboveground

biomass to aboveground carbon stock by multiplying the mass by the carbon fraction of biomass (0.47).


v3.0

20

Belowground biomass for each tree was estimated by multiplying the aboveground biomass of the tree by

the tropical rainforest root to shoot ratio 0.37 presented in Table 4.4 of the IPCC GL AFOLU.

Table 3: Potential allometric equations available for Yacumama forest carbon calculations.

Type Rainfall (mm / yr)

Source Equation

Tree (AGB) Moist

Tropical

1500-4000 Pearson et al. 2005

AGB = exp(-2.289 + 2.649 * ln(D) - 0.021 * ln(D2)

Tree (AGB) Wet Tropical

>4000 Pearson et al. 2005

AGB= 21.297 – 6.953 * (D) + 0.740 * (D2)

Tree (AGB) Moist

Tropical

1500-3000 Chave et al. 2005

AGB = ρ * exp(-1.499 + 2.148 ln(D) + 0.207 (ln(D))2 - 0.0281

(ln(D))3)

AGB = aboveground biomass

D = diameter at breast height

ρ = wood density (0.55 from Reyes et al. 1992)

Legal Property Rights

The entire Yacumama property is privately owned and is divided into three parcels (Table 4)

Table 4: Land ownership for the entire Yacumama lodge property.

Parcel Owners Area (ha) Within Project Area (y / n)

1 (Yacumama) Yacumama Ltd. 300 No

2 (Yacurana) Lawrence Bishop 1499 Yes

3 (Santuario Privado) Lawrence Bishop & Adriana Bishop 1500 Yes

Project Area Biodiversity

As previously discussed the Peruvian Amazon Basin in general has a high level of biodiversity and

specifically the “Amazon mixed-water flooded forest and riparian vegetation ecosystem” in which the

Project is located is considered the most bio-diverse floodplain ecosystem in the world (Wittman et al.

2011). Biologists from the Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute (CMI) documented

vertebrate fauna in two separate field trips in 2013 to support the Project. These fauna included incidental

observations of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish. CMI biologists identified 106 bird species,


v3.0

21

19 mammal species, 7 reptile species, 7 amphibian species, and 20 fish species. In addition, the

Peruvian ornithologist Thomas Valqui conducted a survey of the birds surrounding the Yacumama lodge

in1995 and identified 220 bird species (Valqui 1996). Biologists with CMI added an additional 26 species

that had not been previously documented, bringing the total documented bird species to 246.

According to the IUCN Red List of threatened and endangered species (v 3.1 31 July 2013), 4 species

CMI observed are classified and Near Threatened (NT) and 5 as Vulnerable (VU) (Table 5). The NT

species include: White-Throated Tinamou (Tinamus guttatus), Marbled Wood-Quail (Odontophorus

gujanensis), Orange-Cheeked Parrot (Pyrilia barrabandi), and Jaguar (Panthera onca). The VU species

were: Great Tinamou (Tinamus tao), Agami Heron (Agamia agami), White-Bellied Parrot (Pionites

leucogaster), Common Wooly Monkey (Lagothrix lagothricha), and Brazilian Tapir (Tapirus terrestris). Of

the species detected whose status and population trends have been evaluated by IUCN, 51% were

experiencing population declines, 12% are increasing and 36% are stable (v 3.1 31 July 2013) (Table 5).

CMI also detected 11 species (3 bird and 8 mammal species) that were identified as important faunal

resources within the region each which are currently negatively influenced by human activities (Kvist and

Nebel 2001, Soni et al. 1996).

High Conservation Values

An assessment and evaluation of High Conservation Values (HCV) within the Project Zone and Project

Area is shown in Table 6. This Project addresses multiple HCV in the form of threatened species (8.1.B)

support significant concentrations of Pink River Dolphins (Inia geoffrensis) (8.1.B). In addition, the Rio

Yarapa which bisects the property and Project Area is an important subsistence fishing resource for the

local population (8.5).


v3.0

22

Table 5: Summary of IUCN Near Threatened and Vulnerable species identified in the Project Area.

Common Name

Scientific Name IUCN Red List Classification

Population Trend

With Project

Without Project

Common Wooly

Monkey

Lagothrix lagothricha

Vulnerable A3cd Decreasing Reduction in hunting

pressure

Illegal hunting and Habitat

loss

Great Tinamou

Tinamus tao Vulnerable A3c Decreasing No change Habitat loss

Agami Heron Agamia agami Vulnerable A3c Unknown No change Habitat loss

White-Bellied Parrot

Pionites leucogaster

Vulnerable A3c Stable No change Habitat loss

Brazilian Tapir

Tapirus terrestris Vulnerable A2cde+3cde

Decreasing Reduction in hunting

pressure


loss

White-Throated Tinamou

Tinamus guttatus Near Threatened Decreasing No change Habitat loss

Marbled Wood-quail

Odontophorus gujanensis

Near Threatened Decreasing Reduction in hunting

pressure


loss

Orange-Cheeked

Parrot

Pyrilia barrabandi Near Threatened Stable No change Habitat loss

Jaguar Panthera onca Near Threatened Decreasing Reduction in hunting

pressure


loss

Table 6: High Conversation Values within the Project Area and Project Zone

High Conservation Values

Project Description

8.1. Globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values: A. Protected areas, B. Threatened species, C. Endemic species, and D. Areas that support significant concentrations of a species during any time in their lifecycle.

A. No protected areas are included in the Project Zone. B. 9 IUCN species listed as either VU or NT are documented to occur on the site. An additional 17 species are listed by IUCN that also occur on the site. C. No endemic species. D. Pink River Dolphin (Inia geoffrensis) utilizes the Rio Yarapa and the flooded forest as a nursery and important feeding area.

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.

None noted.

8.3. Threatened or rare ecosystems. None noted.

8.4. Areas that provide critical ecosystem services. None noted.


v3.0

23

8.5. Areas that are fundamental for meeting the basic needs of local communities.

The Rio Yarapa is very important for subsistence fishing for the local population.

1.4 Project Proponent (G4)

Lawrence Bishop (Yacumama Lodge) PO Box 1098 Nashville, Indiana 47448-1098 812-988-2056 [email protected]

Mr. Lawrence Bishop hired the Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute to support the

development of the project design document, collect data supporting the Project, design the project

monitoring plan and implement the project monitoring plan. Implementation decisions regarding Project

activities are the sole responsibility of Lawrence Bishop (Yacumama Lodge).

1.5 Other Entities Involved in the Project (G4)

Mr. Norman Walters Director Yacumama S.R. Ltda. Peru SA Norman E Walters Designs 644 NW 18th St. Homestead, FL 33030 786-376-1072 [email protected] Verl Emrick Ph.D. (Technical Lead and Project Manager) Research Scientist-Ecologist Conservation Management Institute Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment 1900 Kraft Drive Blacksburg,VA 24061 540-231-8851 [email protected] cmi.vt.edu

The key technical skills to implement the Project are:

The business skills required to successfully manage a large and complex operation,

The managerial skills to manage the property effectively,

The diplomatic and language skills to successfully interact with the local communities, and

mailto:[email protected]

tel:786-376-1072




v3.0

24

The technical skills to conduct monitoring on a periodic basis.

The leadership team at Yacumama has over twenty years of experience working in Peru and has

significant skills in managing the property. The property has been owned and managed by the

Yacumama team for over 20 years.

The Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute (CMI) serves as technical support for Project

design and monitoring. CMI is a research center within the College of Natural Resources and

Environment at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA. CMI has extensive experience in the development and

implementation of carbon offset projects in addition to experience in monitoring protocol development and

implementation for natural resources throughout North America with additional experience in Belize,

Dominican Republic, Peru, and Nepal.

1.6 Project Start Date (G3)

Project start date is January 1, 2010. Project start date is based upon decisions made by the Yacumama

management team to cease pursuing timber harvesting operations and pursue carbon financing as a

more sustainable long-term solution to their financial situation.

1.7 Project Crediting Period (G3)

Project crediting period start date is January 1, 2010 with an end date of December 31, 2039 resulting in

a Project length of 30 years (Table 7). This Project will be validated using the CCBA protocol Climate,

Community, and Biodiversity Project Design Standards Second Edition, and validated and verified to the

Verified Carbon Standard.


v3.0

25

Table 7: Project Implementation timeline

*Verification audits will occur at least once every 5 years.

2 DESIGN

2.1 Sectoral Scope and Project Type

This Project will be verified to the Verified Carbon Standard Version 3.2 as an Agriculture, Forestry, or

Land Use (AFOLU) Project using a strategy of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation

(REDD). This Project is not a grouped project.

2.2 Description of the Project Activity (G3)

The Project will use carbon financing to protect the forest and avoid selling of the Yacumama property,

and subsequent harvesting of the forest, and conversion to agriculture. The primary methods employed to

achieve the desired result is maintaining a robust presence both at the main facility and patrols of the

property to prevent incursions and illegal logging. In addition, an integrated monitoring program that

addresses both carbon and biodiversity will be implemented to insure permanence for the climate and

biodiversity benefits. Furthermore, the need to staff the facility, patrol the forest and river and monitor the

forest biomass and biodiversity will require hiring and training of additional staff. Finally, Yacumama

Milestone 2010 2012 2013 2039

Project start

Crediting period begins

Initial CMI background work

Field GIS and plot work

CCBA Validation / VCS Validation and Verification*

Project Ends


v3.0

26

management will be able to continue supporting health care for local communities by providing facilities

for Amazon Promise and furnishing monetary support to the local clinic in Puerto Miguel. Table 8

summarizes activities planned for Project implementation and climate, community, and biodiversity

benefits.

Table 8: Activities planned for Project implementation and climate, community, and biodiversity, benefits.

Activity Climate Benefits Community Benefits Biodiversity Benefits

Maintain a permanent presence at the main

facility in order to discourage illegal hunting and tree

removal and serve as point of contact.

Carbon sequestration. Provide employment

opportunities.

Reduced poaching of both forest products and

animals.

Control access to the forest at Yacumama

through regular patrols both riverine and

terrestrial.

Carbon sequestration. Provide employment

opportunities.

Reduced poaching of both forest products and

animals.

Maintain habitat for

native flora and fauna

including IUCN listed

species.

Carbon sequestration. Maintain HCV for high

profile species. Protect habitat.

Maintain current forest structure and biomass.

Carbon sequestration Maintain HCV for high

profile species. Protect habitat.

Monitor forest composition and

biomass. To insure permanence.

Provide livelihoods for communities. Provide

employment opportunities.

Protect habitat.

Biodiversity data collection and

monitoring.

To insure permanence and provide critical

scientific information on species diversity.

Train staff to assist ecologists in monitoring

forest biomass and diversity.

Develop human capital and provide capabilities for future employment.

Train staff in the maintenance and care

of lodge facilities.

Develop human capital and provide capabilities for future employment.

Provide healthcare opportunities to local

communities

Improve general health of communities.


v3.0

27

2.3 Management of Risks to Project Benefits (G3)

Risks to the Project from instability in the Government of Peru, changes to Peruvian natural resource laws

or a change in leadership at Yacumama are considered minimal. To the best of the Project proponent’s

knowledge no oil or mineral resources occur on the Project site and exploration for mineral resources is

not occurring. The greatest risk to the Project is reversals due to illegal timber extraction. Given the low

population levels and remoteness of the site, this risk is considered to be low.

2.4 Measures to Maintain High Conservation Values (G3)

The primary strategy for maintaining HCVs is protection through patrolling and managing the property for

existing forest biomass and high quality habitats with no reduction in forest cover. Patrols will prevent

illegal hunting by preventing incursions from hunters. Maintaining habitat will prevent the loss of HCVs by

maintaining the landscape components necessary for each species to complete its life cycle. No

enhancement of HCVs is required or anticipated.

2.5 Project Financing (G3 & G4)

Primary expenses are to pay for maintaining a physical presence at the Project site, patrols, and funds to

pay for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and community monitoring expenses. Carbon financing

received after contractual obligations will fund Yacumama to pay for the management and monitoring

activities.

2.6 Employment Opportunities and Worker Safety (G4)

The Project will employ individuals from the local village of Puerto Miguel which has been a source of

workers for Yacumama for 20 years. Employment opportunities will be advertised. Employment at

Yacumama will follow Peruvian labor law and codes. Staff will be chosen based on capacity to meet the

needs of Yacumama as a tropical education and research center.


v3.0

28

The current staff employed by Yacumama are local, all from the village of Puerto Miguel and are

representative of the general population in the area. Jobs at Yacumama are prized by the local population

and Yacumama managers are well-regarded in Puerto Miguel from years of interaction and support to the

community. Some staff turnover is inevitable over such a long time period however, and when there is

staff turnover, measures will be taken not to lose local capacity and skills by providing training to new staff

(Table 9).

All local, district, and national workplace standards will be met at the moment of hiring of each staff

member. Local regulations and safety concerns will be discussed with each staff member with an

emphasis on guaranteeing workplace safety according to Peruvian law. Staff will be made aware of

workplace hazards and safety precautions and equipment provided by Yacumama (Table 10).

Table 9: Basic training for jobs at Yacumama. Many individual employees are cross-trained in a variety of jobs and will receive specialized training from Yacumama management when necessary.

Training Type Topics Covered Personnel Frequency

Rangers and patrols.

First aid and orientation / navigation.

Four individuals. Initial training as staff are employed and periodic refreshers as needed or for recertification of first aid training.

Hand held equipment (power saws, drills etc.) for operations and maintenance.

Safe operation. Situational effectiveness of equipment.

Four individuals. Initial training as staff are employed and periodic refreshers as needed.

Assisting forest carbon data and biodiversity data collection.

Data collection. Use of GPS for navigation to plots. Maintaining plot markings.

Two individuals. Initial training as staff are employed and periodic refreshers before data collection events.

Cook. Nutrition and hygiene.

Two individuals Initial training as staff are employed and periodic refreshers as needed.


v3.0

29

Table 10: Workplace hazards and safety precautions and equipment provided by Yacumama

2.7 Stakeholders (G3)

Stakeholders were identified using the procedural steps found in the “Community Development Toolkit”

methodology.3 Yacumama management has actively sought to inform and engage local stakeholders of

the Project and encourage comments on this combined VCS / CCB Project Design Document (PDD). The

primary local stakeholders are the employees of the lodge. Several of the local lodge staff were actively

involved in the collection of forest biomass data and will play a key role in patrolling the property and

biodiversity monitoring. Other stakeholder involvement has been solicited formally and informally over a

period of time to inform stakeholders of the Project and solicit feedback. Because local stakeholders in

Puerto Miguel and Yacumama lodge do not have access to digital information, except through cell

phones, a considerable effort was expended by Yacumama management and CMI to explain in detail the

overall Project in person. In addition, both Spanish and English language flyers describing the Project

were posted and circulated both among lodge employees and in the village of Puerto Miguel. Furthermore

a Spanish translation of the English PDD will be placed at the lodge and the village. A yearly update on

the status of the Project will be provided to all identified stakeholders.

Project Zone stakeholder groups are:

Yacumama management and staff

The village of Puerto Miguel Loreto Province, Peru

Amazon Promise

Dolphin Corners Ecolodge

3 http://www.icmm.com/page/629/community-development-toolkit-c

Hazard Safety Strategy and Equipment

Snake bite. First aid training, adequate boots, radios, minimum two-person crews.

Poachers. Radios, minimum two-person crews.

Fire. First aid training, first aid kit, radios.

Machete cuts. First aid training, first aid kit, radios, minimum two-person crews, boots, gloves.


v3.0

30

Renaco Lodge

Jungle Walk Lodge

Peruvian Forestry Department

Stakeholder meetings were held at the Yacumama Lodge on Tuesday June 25, 2013 with both short-term

and long-term employees of Yacumama. A second Community Meeting was held on Wednesday June

26, 2013 4:00pm at the Artisans Committee Pavilion, Puerto Miguel, Loreto Province, Peru.

Approximately 70 men, women and children were in attendance form the village. Three village officials

oversaw the meeting and notes were taken and entered in the official community ledger (Figures 7- 9).

Figure 7: Stakeholder meeting held on Wednesday June 26, 2013 4:00pm at the Artisans Committee Pavilion, Puerto Miguel, Loreto Province, Peru.


v3.0

31

Figure 8: Yacumama management (Norman Walters) discussing project with local stakeholders in Puerto Miguel.

Figure 9: Receiving input from local stakeholders in Puerto Miguel at the meeting conducted on June 26, 2013.


v3.0

32

Yacumama publicized its CCBA Project for public comment in the following manner:

Direct email and phone contact with: Amazon Promise, Dolphin Corners Ecolodge, Renaco

Lodge, Peruvian Forestry Department and the Designated National Authority.

The PDD was made available on the CCBA webpage and open to public comments.

2.8 Commercially Sensitive Information

Not applicable.

3 LEGAL STATUS

3.1 Compliance with Laws, Statues, Property Rights & Other Regulatory Frameworks

(G4 & G5)

Ley Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre and its Reglamento: Ley Nº 27308 y Decreto Supremo Nº N° 014-

2001-AG. These also are relevant since they establish specific means for use of timber and non-timber

forest resources, and for the establishment of timber and non-timber concessions in appropriate regions.

Legal and other requirements relating to biodiversity:

Red List of endangered species and other threats category - IUCN Red List

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora - CITES

Peruvian law (Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG).

Legal and other requirements relating to workers’ rights:

Current Constitution (Art.25) Workshop, resting right, regulating compensation.

D.S. N ° 003-97-TR, Competitiveness Act and Labor Productivity.

o Promoting job training and education of workers;

o Provide transfer of persons engaged in urban and rural areas of low productivity and

income to other more productive activities;

o Ensure the incomes of workers and protection against arbitrary dismissal;

o Unify works procurement rules and strengthen existing social benefits.


v3.0

33

D.S. N ° 007-2002-TR Amended Text of Legislative Decree. Act No. 854 Workshop, Modification

by Law No. 27,671.

D. Leg. No. 910, General Law on Labour Inspection and Labor Defense

D. Leg. No. 728 Ley de Fomento al Empleo

3.2 Evidence of Right of Use (G5)

The Project proponent owns the land on which the Project is located fee simple (Table 4). Yacumama

follows all applicable environmental laws including the General Environmental Law (2005) which sets

national environmental policy and management and ties together all previous legislation. The

Government of Peru ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 as a non-Annex I country.

3.3 Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits (CL1)

Not applicable.

3.4 Participation under Other GHG Programs (CL1)

The Project is not registered nor is seeking registration under any other GHG programs.

3.5 Other Forms of Environmental Credit (CL1)

All of the Project’s emission reductions will be registered and held by an independent third-party registry,

Markit Environmental Registry, to guarantee avoidance of double-counting.

3.6 Projects Rejected by Other GHG Programs (CL1)

The Project has not been previously rejected by other GHG programs.


v3.0

34

3.7 Respect for Rights and No Involuntary Relocation (G5)

The Project site does not have human inhabitants besides laborers, management, and owners. The

Project does not involve the relocation or inward migration of any people. If immigration were to occur, the

Project’s monitoring teams will work with all stakeholders using appropriate tools to engage towards a

resolution. The Project proponent owns the property fee simple and titles reviewed by the auditor. The

Project does not encroach upon private property, community property, or government property.

3.8 Illegal Activities and Project Benefits (G5)

Project will include regular patrols to address illegal hunting, timber poaching, or wood gathering.

4 APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY

4.1 Title and Reference of Methodology

This Project is designed for validation and verification under the Verified Carbon Standard Version 3.1,

AFOLU Requirements Version 3.0 and utilizing methodology and modules:

VM0007 REDD Methodology Module, REDD Methodology Framework (REDD-MF), version 1.3.

M-MON VMD0015 Methods for monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions and removals, version

2.1.

X-UNC VMD0017 Estimation of uncertainty for REDD project activities, version 2.0.

X -STR VMD0016 Methods for stratification of the project area, version 1.0.

CP-AB VMD0001 Estimation of carbon stocks in the above- and belowground biomass in live tree

and non-tree pools, version 1.0.

T-SIG CDM Tool for testing significance of GHG emissions in A/R CDM project activities, version

1.0.

LK-ASP VMD0009 Estimation of emissions from activity shifting for avoided planned, version1.1.

BL-PL VMD0006 Estimation of baseline carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions

from planned deforestation and planned degradation, version 1.2.


v3.0

35

T-ADD VT0001 Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in VCS Agriculture,

Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Project Activities

.

4.2 Applicability of Methodology

Based on the methodology and the reference for the methodology, VCS “Tool for AFOLU Methodological

Issues”, this Project qualifies because of a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide from planned

deforestation in the with-Project scenario. This methodology is applicable because:

Land in the Project Area qualified as forest at least 10 years before the Project start date based

on definition of forest land in FAO Forest Resource Assessment of 2000 and remote sensing

analysis.

No peat soils are present on the Project site.

Project proponent can show ownership of the Project site and ownership of the carbon rights for

the Project Area.

Baseline deforestation in the Project Area falls within the category of planned deforestation (VCS

category avoided planned deforestation).

Baselines will be renewed every 10 years after the start of the Project except where triggers lead

to a more frequent renewal.

No areas registered under the Clean Development Mechanism or any other carbon trading

scheme are included within the Project site; validation under the Climate, Community, and

Biodiversity Alliance for co-benefits has been disclosed.

The baseline condition is conversion of the property to a permanent deforested state of

agriculture.

No reforestation is proposed for the Project; and leakage avoidance activities do not include

either agriculture lands flooded to increase production, or intensifying livestock production.


v3.0

36

The Project is considered under the VCS category Avoided Planned Deforestation. This Project qualifies

because:

Conversion of forestlands to a deforested condition is legally permitted.

Documentation is available to clearly demonstrate with credible evidence that the land would

have been converted to non-forest use if not for the Project.

Post deforestation land use does not include reforestation.

4.3 Methodology Deviations

Not applicable.

4.4 Project Boundary (G1)

The spatial boundary for the Project is presented in Figure 5 and has been provided as a .kml file. The

sources of GHG emissions for both the baseline and Project scenario are presented in Table 11.

Table 11: GHG emissions for both the baseline and Project scenario.

Source Gas Included? Justification / Explanation

Baselin

e

Aboveground

Tree Biomass

CO2 Yes Required pool.

CH4 No

N2O No

Other No

Belowground

Tree Root

Biomass

CO2 Yes Pool calculated based upon aboveground biomass.

CH4 No

N2O No

Other No

Soil Carbon

CO2 No Conservatively excluded.

CH4 No

N2O No

Other No

Dead Wood CO2 No Conservatively excluded.


v3.0

37


CH4 No

N2O No

Other No

Harvested

Wood

Products

CO2 No In Peru the standard practice for conversion of forest

to agricultural lands is to remove valuable timber

species and then bulldoze and burn the remaining

trees. This pool was analyzed for significance and

found to be de minimis.

CH4 No

N2O No

Other No

Litter

CO2 No Conservatively excluded.

CH4 No

N2O No

Other No

Fuel Wood

Collection

CO2 No Fuel wood collection is limited to small down trees and

branches for small campfires for fisherman. The

number of campfires and wood gathering is small and

the pool is de minimis.

CH4 No

N2O No

Other No

Biomass

Burning

CO2 No Emissions are accounted for through changes in

above and below ground pools. No biomass burning

will occur as a Project activity. CH4 No

N2O No

Other No

Combustion of

Fossil Fuels

CO2 No Conservatively omitted from both scenarios.

CH4 No

N2O No

Other No

Pro

ject

Aboveground

Tree Biomass

CO2 Yes Required pool.

CH4 No

N2O No

Other No

Belowground

Tree Biomass

CO2 Yes Pool calculated based upon aboveground biomass.

CH4 No

N2O No

Other No

Project CO2 Yes Leakage addressed using LK-ASP.


v3.0

38


Leakage CH4 No

N2O No

Other No

4.5 Baseline Scenario (G2)

The estimation of carbon stocks in the with-Project scenario requires the identification of a reasonable

and credible alternative land use scenario (i.e. baseline scenario). The analysis conducted by CMI (using

BL-PL) of potential alternative land use scenarios identified conversion to agriculture as the most likely

land use alternative for the baseline scenario. There are a variety of crops that can be grown in the

region both on a commercial and individual scale. Commonly grown crops of the region include rice, corn,

beans, and peanuts particularly in riparian areas, and manioc, plantains and bananas on upland soils

(McClain and Cossio 2003). All of these crops are grown within the Project Zone. In addition, oil palm

plantations are increasing at a relatively rapid rate in the Peruvian Amazon Basin (Gutierrez-Velez et al.

2011).

The land within the Project Area is ideal for conversion to agriculture since the annual inundation of

floodwaters results in deposition of nutrient rich sediments carried by rivers, resulting in some of the most

fertile soils of the Amazon Basin (Kvist and Nebel 2001, McClain and Cossio 2003). These areas are

widely acknowledged for their agricultural productivity, and in 1997 Peruvian Amazon Research Institute

(IIAP) called for intensified agricultural development in the floodplains of the Loreto Department due to the

more favorable edaphic conditions when compared to terra firma (Kvist and Nebel 2001).

Baseline Scenario Effect on Communities

The community of Puerto Miguel, the staff at Yacumama and the other tourist lodges in the Project Zone

will be affected in a number ways under the baseline scenario. Under the baseline scenario, the owners

of Yacumama will be forced, for economic reasons, to sell the property most likely to a company that will


v3.0

39

harvest the valuable hardwoods and burn the remaining trees. The cleared land, a scarce resource in the

Peruvian Amazon Basin, would then be subject to large-scale conversion to mixed agricultural uses due

to fertile soils and ease of access. The loss of forest cover would have substantial negative impacts on

the local lodges whose business is predicated on locally intact tropical forests. The land clearing process

and subsequent agricultural exploitation would likely result in an influx of workers attracted by available

low wage and low skill jobs. The clearing of a substantial portion of the forest within the Project Zone and

subsequent influx of workers and equipment in close proximity to lodges catering to ecotourism would

considerably reduce the desirability of these lodges, reduce guest nights and likely result in reduction in

operations if not outright closure. Furthermore, the Yacumama lodge would be permanently closed

resulting in the loss of desirable temporary and permanent employment for Puerto Miguel residents. In

addition, fishing on the Rio Yarapa is a critical food and increasingly economic resource for the local

community. The denuding of the riparian area for a substantial distance along the Rio Yarapa will

negatively affect productivity of this locally important fishery. In addition, during the periods of inundation

the forest provides critical ‘nursery’ habitat for many fish species which would be lost under the baseline

scenario.

Baseline Biodiversity

Biodiversity loss will be substantial in the baseline scenario due to the complete clearing of the Project

area forests and conversion to mixed agriculture. All the IUCN NT and VU confirmed at Yacumama will

experience adverse effects under the baseline scenario (Table 5). The mechanical clearing of the Project

area forests would result in significant landscape level fragmentation and habitat loss. Each of the

species listed is either associated directly with mature tropical forest, or is directly dependent on prey

species that are associated with Tropical forest.

4.6 Additionality (G2)

Because of the loss of substantial capital investment in the Yacumama lodge due to multiple economic

downturns and a fire which destroyed significant infrastructure Yacumama owners do not have the


v3.0

40

financial means to reinvest the necessary capital in the lodge to rebuild the business. Currently there are

substantial costs just to maintain the property which is a significant drain on the financial resources of the

owners of Yacumama. Because no income is currently being generated, the owners by economic

necessity will be forced to sell the entire property. The Project proponent and property owner has clear

title to Project property and legal permission to harvest timber from the Government of Peru. As result

there is a high likelihood of selling the property to a company that would harvest the valuable trees and

clear the land of remaining woody vegetation. This action will create open land with fertile soils that would

be suitable for extensive commercial agriculture. Conversion of the forest includes harvesting

merchantable trees, bulldozing, piling, and burning the remaining vegetation. No part of the Project Area

is currently restricted from development due to government regulation or other legal requirement.

Additionality Analysis

The following analysis was conducted to determine alternative baseline scenarios according to the

procedure presented in “VT0001 Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in VCS

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Project Activities.” This tool is applicable because a)

the proposed Project activities will not violate any Peruvian law, and b) the use of this tool results in

identification of the most plausible baseline scenario of the several possible baseline scenarios identified

below.

Step 1: Identification of alternative land use scenarios to the AFOLU Project activity.

The following is a “ranking” of the most likely alternative land uses.

Sub-step 1a. Identify credible alternative land use scenarios to the proposed VCS AFOLU project

activity.

A. Conversion to Agriculture

Conversion to agriculture is the most probable land use under the baseline scenario. Large-scale

cultivation, cattle ranching with expansion of areas under pasture, production of annual crops using slash


v3.0

41

and burn agriculture, and large-scale cultivation of oil palm are all primary agricultural drivers of

deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon Basin (Verlarde et al. 2010). The underlying driver of deforestation

and conversion to agriculture in the Peruvian Amazon Basin is population increase. Population has grown

from 1,772,000 inhabitants in 1981 to 4,115,000 in 2007 according to the Peruvian National Institute of

Statistics and Informatics (Verlarde et al. 2010). Concurrent with the increase in population is an increase

in rural poverty in the Peruvian Amazon Basin, increasing from 68%, in 1985, to 69% in 2000 thus further

creating pressure to generate income from forest resources (Verlarde et al. 2010). By 2010, 5% of the

original forest cover in the Peruvian Amazon Basin had been lost and Soares-Filho et al. (2006) estimate

in just the next 20 years that figure will at least double.

The available land at Yacumama is suitable for land conversion to agriculture since the annual inundation

of floodwaters results in deposition of nutrient rich sediments carried by nearby rivers, resulting in some of

the most fertile soils of the Amazon Basin (Kvist and Nebel 2001, McClain and Cossio 2003). These

areas are widely recognized for their productivity, and in 1997 IIAP called for intensified agricultural

development in the floodplains of the Loreto Department due to the more favorable edaphic conditions

when compared to terra firma (Kvist and Nebel 2001).

B. Purchase of the Land by another Entity to Re-open Lodge for Ecotourism

An alternative land use involves the selling of the land and lodge to another entity to refurbish and re-

open the lodge. There are several ecotourism lodges in the region which are currently operating and this

is a potential alternative land use. However, most of the value associated with the property is in the timber

and timber concession. Presuming a buyer can be found that would refurbish and operate the lodge, the

current owners likely would have to sell at below market value.


v3.0

42

C. Purchase of the Land as a Conservation Area

Privately owned conservation areas exist in Peru. However, there is no tangible income to offset the

purchase price, maintenance, protection, and tax burden that accompanies owning a private conservation

area. Therefore this alternative is considered highly unlikely.

D. Continuation of Pre-Project Land Use

The Project Area has been in forest as far as the historical record goes back. The baseline plan will result

in the current owners selling the property to an entity that would harvest the valuable hardwoods and

clear the land for agriculture. Current income from the Project Area is zero. Property taxes, maintenance

and patrolling are still required expenses, therefore continuation of the pre-Project land use is

unsustainable.

E. Project activity on the land within the Project boundary performed without being registered as the VCS AFOLU project

This alternative land use is essentially continuation of the pre-Project land use. Income from the Project

Area is zero, while expenses for this scenario include property taxes, maintenance, patrolling, and

monitoring. Therefore conducting the Project without registration as a VCS AFOLU Project is

unsustainable.

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

regulations.

All alternatives presented are legal under Peruvian law.

Step 2. Investment Analysis

Sub-step 2a. Determine appropriate analysis method

Because the Project generates no financial or economic benefits other than VCS related income, simple

cost analysis is selected.


v3.0

43

Sub-step 2b. Option 1. Apply simple cost analysis.

Costs have been documented for the Project and audited to demonstrate no financial benefits other than

VCS related income.

Step 4. Common Practice Analysis

There are multiple private properties officially recognized as private protected areas and numerous

privately held preserves within national protected areas in Peru (Solano 2009). A key distinction between

the Project and other lands managed as private protected areas is that, at least in some cases, other

areas are able to support the annual costs of management through outside means such as non-

governmental organization (NGO) supported and endorsed ecotourism (e.g. the American Bird

Conservancy), direct support by NGO’s, or private funds. Income from these sources is not available to

Yacumama landowners and therefore the Project activity is additional.

5 QUANTIFICATON OF GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS (CLIMATE)

5.1 Project Scale and Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals

Mean annual GHG emission reductions were estimated 738,257 mtCO2e annually (Table 12).

Project

Large project X

Table 12: Summary of estimated GHG emission reductions (t CO2 e).

Years Estimated GHG emission reductions or removals (mtCO2e)

2010 53,959

2011 414,812

2012 774,248

2013 774,248 2014 774,248 2015 774,248 2016 774,248 2017 774,248 2018 774,248 2019 774,248


v3.0

44

2020 774,248 2021 774,248 2022 774,248 2023 774,248 2024 774,248 2025 774,248 2026 774,248 2027 774,248 2028 774,248 2029 774,248 2030 774,248 2031 774,248 2032 774,248 2033 774,248 2034 774,248 2035 774,248 2036 774,248 2037 774,248 2038 774,248 2039 774,248

Total estimated ERs 22,147,735

Total number of crediting years 30

Average annual ERs 738,257

5.2 Leakage Management (CL2)

The portion of the Yacumama property that is not included in the project area will be monitored to insure

no deforestation will occur. No income generated by the project will be used for activities that will result in

GHG emissions from deforestation.

5.3 Baseline Emissions (G2)

In order to estimate GHG loss und the baseline scenario the following variables are required:

Area of forest available for conversion.

Baseline carbon stocks.

Deforestation / conversion rates.

Carbon stocks in agro-ecosystems.

Fate of commercial timber and long-lived wood products.


v3.0

45

Losses of biomass attributable to fuel-wood collection.

Avoided emissions from fertilizer use.

Avoided emissions from biomass burning.

Avoided emissions from transportation fuel use.

1. Area of forest available for conversion

The entire Yacumama property boundary encompasses (3,299 ha) of tropical rainforest, of which (2,992

ha) are available for conversion to agricultural uses.

2. Biomass Baseline Carbon Stocks

Baseline biomass carbon stocks were the above ground tree > 5 cm DBH and below-ground biomass.

Aboveground non-tree biomass (lianas and palms), down or standing dead wood, and leaf litter were not

measured, which resulted in a conservative estimation of carbon stocks in the project area. The mean

total carbon pool in 2013 was based on field data collected in 2013 and independently verified.

Aboveground biomass (kg) was calculated using the tropical wet forest equation from Pearson et al.

(2005). The aboveground biomass for each tree was converted from kilograms to tons (divided by 1000),

followed by a conversion of total aboveground biomass to aboveground carbon stock by multiplying the

mass by the carbon fraction of biomass (0.47). Belowground biomass for each tree was estimated by

multiplying the aboveground biomass of the tree by the tropical rainforest root to shoot ratio 0.37

presented in Table 4.4 of the IPCC GL AFOLU. Aboveground and belowground biomass attributed to

non-tree biomass (palms and lianas) and soil carbon was conservatively excluded. Accuracy of the

equation was validated using the procedure described in module CP-AB “Estimation of carbon stocks in

the above- and belowground biomass in live tree and non-tree pools”.

An uncertainty level of 5% was calculated using module Estimation of uncertainty for REDD project

activities (X-UNC).


v3.0

46

3. Rate of Deforestation and Agricultural Conversion

Deforestation rates were calculated based upon 6 proxy areas located in the Amazon basin of Peru and

neighbouring areas of Brazil. The calculated deforestation rate was 33.3% per year.

4. Carbon stocks in agro-ecosystems

Conversion to agriculture is the most probable land use under the baseline scenario. While it is likely that

large areas of the Project would be subject to conversion to monocultures of rice or other intensive

cropping system, under the baseline scenario we identified a ‘multi-crop / short-term fallow’ as our

baseline agriculture system. The ‘multi-crop / short-term fallow’ agriculture system is the most widespread

in the Loreto province followed by intensive cropping systems (Henman et al. 2008). Baseline carbon

stocks for ‘multi-crop / short-term fallow’ agricultural system in the Loreto district, where the project is

located, is 18 mt C ha-1

(Henman et. al 2008).

5. Fate of Forest Resources Lost to Agricultural Conversion (Long-lived Wood Products)

The standard practice in Peru for conversion of forest to agricultural lands is to remove valuable timber

species and then bulldoze and burn the remaining trees. An analysis was conducted using module CP-W

(Estimation of carbon stocks in the long-term wood products pool) based on the inventory data and found

that the available timber for a long-lived wood products pool was de minimis.

6. Loss of biomass attributable to fuel-wood collection

Minor fuel wood collection for small cooking fires for fisherman was occurring prior to the project and

would continue under the project scenario. However, this was determined to be de minimis.

7. Avoided emissions from fertilizer use

Emissions from fertilizer use was conservatively excluded from the baseline scenario.


v3.0

47

8. Avoided emissions from biomass burning

In the baseline scenario, land clearing would include piling and burning of all remaining aboveground

woody biomass on the site after the valuable timber species were removed. Emissions of CH4 and N2O

from biomass burning were conservatively excluded.

9. Avoided emissions from transportation fuel use

Emissions from transportation fuel use are conservatively omitted in both the baseline and project

scenarios.

5.4 Project Emissions (CL1)

The same carbon pools are used in the with-project scenario as the baseline scenario for GHG emissions

and/or removals. In the with-project scenario activity shifting leakage is the only addition.

1. Area of forest available for conversion

Same as baseline.

2. Baseline carbon stocks

Same as baseline.

3. Deforestation/conversion rates

No deforestation is allowed under with-project scenario.

4. Carbon stocks in agro-ecosystems

No conversion is allowed under the with-project scenario.

5. Fate of commercial timber and long-lived wood products


v3.0

48

No reductions or removals are allowed under the with-project scenario.

6. Losses of biomass attributable to fuel-wood collection

No reductions or removals allowed under the with-project scenario.

7. Avoided emissions from fertilizer use

No fertilization will occur under the with-project scenario.

8. Avoided emissions from biomass burning

No biomass burning is allowed under the with-project scenario.

9. Avoided emissions from transportation fuel use.

Conservatively omitted from both the baseline and with-project scenarios.

5.5 Leakage (CL2)

The module Estimation of emissions from activity shifting for avoided planned deforestation (LK-ASP) was

utilized to establish leakage. A specific agent of deforestation was not able to be identified, therefore we

identified a class of deforestation agents.

Step 1: Identify the commodity produced by the baseline class of agent.

The commodity is ‘multi-crop / short-term fallow’ agriculture. This agricultural type is well suited to the

region and is the largest, in terms of area, agricultural system in the region (Henman et al. 2008).

Step 2: Assess proportion of available areas that are forested.

Using NatureServe’s ecosystem map4 for the Andes-Amazon the vegetation type was identified in which

the Project is located and the total area for this type in the Loreto province calculated. This vegetation

4 http://www.natureserve.org/aboutUs/latinamerica/gis_data_downloads.jsp


v3.0

49

type is well suited in terms of soil type, elevation, precipitation and access to markets for ‘multi-crop /

short-term fallow’ agriculture. An indisputably conservative figure of 100% was used for the available area

that is currently forested.

Step 3: Evaluate project area relative to other forested areas for commodity production in the

country.

The available land in the project is highly suitable for agriculture since the annual inundation of

floodwaters results in deposition of nutrient rich sediments carried by nearby rivers, resulting in some of

the most fertile soils of the Amazon region (Kvist and Nebel 2001, McClain and Cossio 2003). These

areas are widely recognized for their productivity, and in 1997 IIAP called for intensified agricultural

development in the floodplains of the Loreto Department due to the more favorable edaphic conditions

when compared to terra firma (Kvist and Nebel 2001).

Step 4: Assess proportional leakage factor.

Average productivity of alternative lands is very similar to the project area therefore a leakage factor of

0.4 was used.

Step 5: Calculate Leakage5

Leakage was calculated at 125,573 t CO2e per year.

5.6 Summary of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals (CL1 & CL2)

The net change in carbon stocks in the with-project scenario before reductions for a risk buffer is

conservatively estimated at 22,147,735 mt CO2 e (Table 12 and 13) for the 30 year life of the project. This

project is designed for validation under the Verified Carbon Standard Version 3.1, AFOLU Requirements

Version 3.0 and utilizing methodology VM0007 REDD Methodology Modules and Climate, Community &

5 All mathematical equations and procedures are provided in an accompanying Excel spreadsheet.


v3.0

50

Biodiversity Project Design Standards Second Edition. The following methodology modules were used for

this project: REDD-MF, M-MON, X-UNC, X-STR, BL-PL, LK-ASP, CP-AB, and T-SIG.

Table 13: GHG Emissions the baseline, project, and removals.

Years Estimated Baseline

Emissions or Removals (t

CO2e)

Estimated Project Emissions or

Removals (t CO2e)

Estimated Leakage Emissions (t CO2e)

Estimated net GHG Emission

Reductions or Removals (t CO2e) after Uncertainty

Deductions

2010 182,373 0 125,573 53,959

2011 562,218 0 125,573 414,812

2012 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2013 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2014 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2015 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2016 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2017 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2018 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2019 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2020 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2021 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2022 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2023 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2024 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2025 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2026 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2027 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2028 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2029 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2030 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2031 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2032 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2033 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2034 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2035 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2036 940,572 0 125,573 774,248


v3.0

51

2037 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2038 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

2039 940,572 0 125,573 774,248

5.7 Climate Change Adaptation Benefits (GL1)

Not applicable.

6 COMMUNITY

6.1 Net Positive Community Impacts (CM1)

The benefits to the community will differentially affect community members based upon their level of

involvement with the Yacumama lodge (i.e. full-time and part-time staff) and the indirect effect of the

continuation of Yacumama as a research and education center. The following analysis follows the Social

Impact and Opportunities Assessment procedures (http://www.icmm.com/community-development-

toolkit) developed by the International Council of Mining and Metals.

Step 1: Review social baseline study and determine areas of concern to the communities,

potential impacts, as well as areas where the project might present opportunities.

Opportunities for the community in the with-Project scenario and concerns for the baseline scenario were

compiled through meetings and communications with stakeholders.

Step 2: Assess potential impacts and opportunities and identify areas needing impact

management programs.

Negative impacts were not identified in the with-Project scenario. The primary impact under the baseline

scenario was the loss in forest cover directly adjacent and in the vicinity of several lodges which would

reduce their viability possibly leading to closure and loss of jobs. The baseline scenario would directly

result in the loss of jobs at Yacumama and negatively impact fishing due to the removal of forest cover

along the Rio Yarapa and other small streams in the project area.

http://www.icmm.com/community-development-toolkit

http://www.icmm.com/community-development-toolkit


v3.0

52

Step 3: Propose measures to manage and if necessary mitigate the identified impacts and

enhance opportunities.

Negative impacts were not identified in the with-Project scenario.

Step 4: Reassess the impacts and opportunities, taking proposed management measures into

account.

The effects of deforestation in the baseline scenario cannot be mitigated.

Step 5: Work with community and other partners on participatory development plans that address

community priority programs (enhancing opportunities) as well as required mitigation programs

(mitigating impacts).

The community suggested that support for the local health clinic be renewed (when Yacumama was an

active tourist lodge the owners financially supported the Puerto Miguel health clinic). The community was

also interested in support for developing a tree nursery and fish farm for both food and income.

Step 6: Review Management Measures and Programs.

At the community meeting those in attendance voiced their support for the Project and it was officially

recorded in the meeting minutes.

A summary of the effects of the with-Project (Table 14) and baseline scenarios (Table 15) clearly

indicates substantial net positive benefits for the community and stakeholders under the with-Project

scenario.


v3.0

53

Table 14: The effects on existing community members and stakeholders in the with-Project scenario.

Effect Positive or Negative Impact Significance

Livelihoods *Predicted impacts

*Predicted impacts after mitigation measures

Positive N/A

High N/A

Community Relations *Predicted impacts


Positive N/A

High N/A

Education *Predicted impacts


Positive N/A

Moderate N/A

Health *Predicted impacts


Positive N/A

Very High N/A

Infrastructure *Predicted impacts


Positive N/A

Moderate N/A

Community Development *Predicted impacts


Positive N/A

High N/A

Table 15: The effects on existing community members and stakeholders in the baseline scenario.

Effects Positive or Negative Impact Significance

Livelihoods *Predicted impacts


Negative No impact

Low Low

Community Relations *Predicted impacts


Negative N/A

High N/A

Education *Predicted impacts


Negative N/A

Low N/A

Health *Predicted impacts


Negative N/A

Very High N/A

Infrastructure *Predicted impacts


Negative N/A

Moderate N/A

Community Development


v3.0

54

*Predicted impacts *Predicted impacts after

mitigation measures

Neutral N/A

Moderate N/A

Benefits to Yacumama Staff Community

In the with-Project scenario the primary and substantial benefit to the Yacumama staff community will be

continued and increased employment opportunities. The Yacumama staff will also receive training in a

variety of fields necessary to support the Project including but not limited to: carpentry, food preparation,

property patrolling, assistance with monitoring, and technical support to visiting scientists and researchers.

Benefits to the Larger Community

For the larger community (i.e. residents of Puerto Miguel, staff and owners of other lodges etc.) there are

direct and indirect benefits under the with-Project scenario. Residents of the village of Puerto Miguel will

directly benefit from the renewed support by Yacumama management to the local health clinic.

Furthermore, Yacumama serves as the logistical base for Amazon Promise6, a non-profit organization

providing needed medical and dental care to remote populations living in the Upper Amazon Basin of

Northeastern Peru. In addition, Yacumama management will work with the Puerto Miguel residents to

develop a tree nursery and fish farm. The environmental effects of maintaining forest cover on the Rio

Yarapa will benefit both the lodges and community of Puerto Miguel through maintenance of water quality

and habitat for the important Rio Yarapa fishery. Furthermore, no community HCV’s are expected to be

affected by the Project.

6.2 Negative Offsite Stakeholder impacts (CM2)

There are no anticipated negative offsite impacts. If a negative offsite impact is identified Yacumama

management will address the problems with affected stakeholders.

6 http://www.amazonpromise.org/

http://www.amazonpromise.org/


v3.0

55

6.3 Exceptional Community Benefits (GL2)

Not applicable.

7 BIODIVERSITY

7.1 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts (B1)

The objectives for biodiversity in the with-Project scenario are to maintain the existing biodiversity and

HCV’s on Yacumama property. All of the vulnerable and near threatened IUCN species identified on the

property (Table 5) will be adversely affected though habitat loss and / or illegal hunting under the baseline

scenario.

With-Project Scenario

Under the with-Project scenario the present high quality tropical floodplain forest habitat will remain intact

thus conserving not on the native biodiversity but also the underlying ecological processes. The floodplain

forest habitat is not only important for terrestrial species but for many aquatic species during periods of

inundation. In addition, the with-Project scenario will provide needed funding to allow for increased

patrols and an overall physical presence on the property to discourage illegal hunting and poaching.

Funding under the with-Project scenario will allow Yacumama management to refurbish their remaining

facilities thus encouraging a resumption of biodiversity surveys by university researchers and students.

Furthermore, specific biodiversity surveys for Meso-mammals and birds are an explicit objective of the

biodiversity monitoring.

Without-Project Scenario

The without-Project scenario will result in the elimination and degradation of tropical floodplain forest

habitat on the property thus eliminating habitat for all of the terrestrial IUCN near threatened and

vulnerable species currently using the property. In addition, the loss of tropical floodplain forest habitat

will also negatively impact aquatic species that utilize the forest as nursery habitat for many fish species

that the local community use as a food and economic resource. Furthermore, patrols to eliminate illegal


v3.0

56

hunting would cease resulting in significant negative impacts to prey and the predators that rely on hunted

species not only on the property but in the overall project zone. Removal of tropical forest component will

severely degrade riparian habitat within the property thus negatively impacting local water quality.

No invasive or genetically modified species will be used under the with-project scenario.

7.2 Negative Offsite Biodiversity Impacts (B2)

No negative offsite biodiversity impacts will occur under the with-Project scenario. The maintenance of

high quality tropical floodplain forest habitat will enhance the off-site habitat and by extension biodiversity.

7.3 Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits (GL3)

Not applicable.

8 MONITORING

8.1 Description of the Monitoring Plan (CL3, CM3 & B3)7

Forest Biomass and Cover Monitoring

Yacumama management and the Project proponent in particular have primary responsibility for

conducting scientifically accurate monitoring of forest cover for the Project. To this end Yacumama

management contracted the Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute to design and implement

forest biomass and cover monitoring. The initial monitoring of forest biomass and cover was conducted in

June and July of 2013 by the Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute. Yacumama will contract

the Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute or other qualified contractor for subsequent

monitoring events.

7 Detailed methods and analyses are provided in the monitoring and implementation report.


v3.0

57

The primary monitoring objective is to identify reversals in forest cover for the baseline renewal in 10

years. A series of permanent plots have been established to quantify forest biomass and cover. Remote

sensing will be used in concert with ground data to produce a forest / non-forest geodatabase. The

geodatabase will be produced for each verification audit and the plots will be measured annually and a

report of the results produced for each verification audit.

Monitoring data will be collected annually, except in cases plots are inaccessible due to high water or

other factor making access unsafe, and summarized for periodic 3rd

party independent audits. Audits will

occur no less frequently than every 5 years. It is the responsibility of Yacumama to conduct monitoring.

All data collected as part of the monitoring program will be archived electronically at the Virginia Tech

Conservation Management Institute in Excel compatible spreadsheets or ARC compatible Geodatabases

and kept at least for two years after the end of the project. A mirror copy of the databases will also be

housed with Yacumama management.

All of the data will be monitored if not indicated otherwise in tables below.

Biodiversity Monitoring

Biodiversity monitoring will concentrate of two taxa, meso-mammals and birds (Table 16). In addition

incidental observations of amphibians, reptiles and fish will be collected. A comprehensive biodiversity

monitoring plan will developed no later than 12months form initial validation of the Project.


v3.0

58

Table 16: Biodiversity monitoring taxa and objectives.

Taxa Objective Methods Analysis

Meso-mammals. Determine distribution

and abundance of IUCN

and other mammalian

species using the forest

habitat at Yacumama.

Camera trapping array

distributed over the

entire property.

Diversity indices,

species richness,

species heterogeneity,

species evenness,

relative trap success,

and population size

analysis for individually

identifiable species (e.g.

jaguar).

Birds. Develop an atlas of the

birds utilizing the

habitats at Yacumama.

Systematic surveys over

the entire property,

Incidental observations.

Species presence.

Amphibians, reptiles

and fish.

Document presence. Targeted surveys and

incidental observations.

Species presence

Monitoring will occur in a scientifically credible manner in conjunction with each verification event and at a

minimum of every 5 years.

Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Effectiveness

The overall strategy for maintaining biodiversity and HCVs (Table 6) is to protect the property through

patrols and avoid conversion to agriculture. The monitoring metric is presence/absence of the biodiversity

HCVs. Loss of an HCV species is not necessarily considered a failure of the Project if that loss is not

linked to anthropomorphic factors like hunting. Maintenance of the tropical riparian forest habitat is the

primary biodiversity objective of the Project. Monitoring of biodiversity is expected to be 100% effective at

determining presence/absence of HCVs.

Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Implementation

A Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Plan will be finalized and implemented within twelve months of validation

against the CCB standards. The monitoring plan will be disseminated to stakeholders through internet

communication and by hardcopy when requested. The results of monitoring will be disseminated in the


v3.0

59

same manner. After approval the monitoring plan it will be implemented by Yacumama and repeated at

least every five years by qualified trained biologists.

Community Monitoring

Community monitoring metrics must be directly related to the community objectives of the project. A

comprehensive community monitoring plan will developed no later than 12months form initial validation of

the Project.

For community members who are Yacumama staff, the monitoring metrics are:

Payroll records.

Training days.

For community members who are not Yacumama staff, the monitoring metrics are:

Logistical and financial support for the local health clinic in Puerto Miguel.

Continued logistical support for Amazon Promise health care providers.

Logistical and financial assistance in developing a tree nursery and fish farm in Puerto

Miguel.

High Conservation Value Plan

No community HCVs have been identified that will be impacted by the project.

Community Impact Monitoring Implementation

Within twelve months of Project validation a monitoring plan will be developed and implemented. The

monitoring plan will be made publicly available on the internet, and results communicated to all

stakeholders.


v3.0

60

8.2 Data and Parameters Available at Validation (CL3)

Data Unit / Parameter: Project Forest Cover Monitoring Map

Data unit: Ha

Description: Map showing the location of forest land within the project area at the beginning of each monitoring period. If within the Project Area some forest land is cleared, the benchmark map must show the deforested areas at each monitoring event

Source of data: Remote sensing in combination with GPS data collected during ground truthing

Value applied: 100%

Justification of choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures applied:

Required by methodology. The minimum map accuracy should be 90% for the classification of forest/non-forest in the remote sensing imagery. If the classification accuracy is less than 90% then the map is not acceptable for further analysis. More remote sensing data and ground truthing data will be needed to produce a product that reaches the 90% minimum mapping accuracy. Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if verification occurs on a frequency of less than every 5 years examination must occur prior to any verification event

Any comment: If stratification is required in the future due to a reversal, then new strata will be identified using module X-STR.

Data Unit / Parameter: ADefPA,i,t

Data unit: Ha

Description: Area of recorded deforestation in the project area at time t (if any occurs)

Source of data: Remote sensing imagery

Value applied: 0


Required by methodology. Head’s up delineation using GIS and landsat imagery (or higher resolution) using multiple images to get a cloud free image. Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if verification occurs on a frequency of less than every 5 years examination must occur prior to any


v3.0

61

Data Unit / Parameter: CAB_tree,i

Data unit: t CO2-e ha-1

Description: Carbon stock in aboveground biomass in trees in the baseline stratum, i

Source of data: Field measurements applied with allometric equation published in Pearson et. al. (2005)

Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

See field methods section.

Frequency of monitoring/recording: Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if

verification occurs on a frequency of less than

every 5 years examination must occur prior to

any verification event.

Value applied: In 2013, 380.36 t CO2-e ha-1

.

Monitoring equipment: Computer and spreadsheet software.

QA/QC procedures to be applied: Independent 3rd party audit of field

measurements utilizing re-measurement of a

sample of plots.

Calculation method: Calculation method follows Pearson et. al. 2005.

Any comment: Key variable used to calculate with project

carbon stocks and year by year growth rate.

Data Unit / Parameter: CBB_tree,i


Description: Carbon stock in belowground biomass in trees in the baseline stratum, i

Source of data: CAB_tree,I multiplied by a root to shoot ratio available in the IPCC GL AFLOU


See methods section.





verification event.

Any comment: This is presumed to be zero ex ante


v3.0

62


.



measurements utilizing remeasurement of a

sample of plots.

Calculation method: Calculation method follows CP-AB



Data Unit / Parameter: Asp

Data unit: ha

Description: Area of sample plots in ha.

Source of data: Nested plot design published in Pearson et al (2005).


See field method section.





Value applied:

Tree Class

Plot Radius

Plot Area

Proportion of Hectare

>5.0cm 4.0m 50m2 0.005

>20.0cm 14.0m 616m2 0.062

>50.0cm 20.0m 1256m2 0.125

Monitoring equipment: 30m fiberglass tape.

QA/QC procedures to be applied: Not applicable.

Calculation method: Not applicable.

Any comment: Where carbon stock estimation occurs only for determination of the baseline this parameter shall be known ex-ante. Where part of project monitoring, ex-ante the number and area of sample plots shall be estimated based on projected sample effort relative to projections of growth and emissions.


v3.0

63

Data Unit / Parameter: N

Data unit: Dimensionless

Description: Number of sample points

Source of data: Published forest biomass and standard deviation from Nebel et al (2001a).


Information from Nebel et al (2001a) was entered into Winrock Sampling Calculator to determine total number of plots needed.

Frequency of monitoring/recording: Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if verification occurs on a frequency of less than every 5 years examination must occur prior to any verification event.

Value applied: 26 forest plots

Monitoring equipment: Not applicable

QA/QC procedures to be applied: Not applicable

Calculation method: Winrock Sampling Calculator

Any comment: Where carbon stock estimation occurs only for determination of the baseline this parameter shall be known ex-ante. Where part of project monitoring, ex-ante the number of sample plots shall be estimated based on projected sample effort relative to projections of growth and emissions.

Data Unit / Parameter: DBH

Data unit: cm

Description: Diameter at breast height (1.3m) of a tree in cm

Source of data: Field measurements in sample plots


Measured at 1.3m aboveground, unless tree has buttresses or irregular growth. Minimum diameter is 5cm. See field methods section for detailed procedures




v3.0

64



Value applied: See database for tree measurements.

Monitoring equipment: Diameter tape incremented in centimeters, 1.3m staff, 30m fiberglass tape, GPS to navigate to permanent plots

QA/QC procedures to be applied: See field methods section

Calculation method: Direct observation



8.3 Data and Parameters Monitored (CL3, CM3 & B3)

Data Unit / Parameter: Project Forest Cover Monitoring Map

Data unit: Ha

Description: Map showing the location of forest land within the project area at the beginning of each monitoring period. If within the Project Area some forest land is cleared, the benchmark map must show the deforested areas at each monitoring event

Source of data: Remote sensing in combination with GPS data collected during ground truthing

Value applied: 100%


Required by methodology. The minimum map accuracy should be 90% for the classification of forest/non-forest in the remote sensing imagery. If the classification accuracy is less than 90% then the map is not acceptable for further analysis. More remote sensing data and ground truthing data will be needed to produce a product that reaches the 90% minimum mapping accuracy. Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if verification occurs on a frequency of less than every 5 years examination must occur prior to any verification event

Any comment: If stratification is required in the future due to a reversal, then new strata will be identified using module X-STR.


v3.0

65

Data Unit / Parameter: CAB_tree,i


Description: Carbon stock in aboveground biomass in trees in the baseline stratum, i

Source of data: Field measurements applied with allometric equation published in Pearson et. al. (2005)


See field methods section.






.



measurements utilizing re-measurement of a

sample of plots.

Calculation method: Calculation method follows Pearson et. al. 2005.



Data Unit / Parameter: ADefPA,i,t

Data unit: Ha

Description: Area of recorded deforestation in the project area at time t (if any occurs)

Source of data: Remote sensing imagery

Value applied: 0


Required by methodology. Head’s up delineation using GIS and landsat imagery (or higher resolution) using multiple images to get a cloud free image. Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if verification occurs on a frequency of less than every 5 years examination must occur prior to any verification event.

Any comment: This is presumed to be zero ex ante


v3.0

66

Data Unit / Parameter: CBB_tree,i


Description: Carbon stock in belowground biomass in trees in the baseline stratum, i

Source of data: CAB_tree,I multiplied by a root to shoot ratio available in the IPCC GL AFLOU


See methods section.






.



measurements utilizing remeasurement of a

sample of plots.

Calculation method: Calculation method follows CP-AB



Data Unit / Parameter: Meso-mammals

Data unit: abundance, diversity

Description: Relative abundance, Species richness

Source of data: Camera traps


A systematic array of camera traps throughout the entire property.





Value applied:

Monitoring equipment: Remote Field Cameras

QA/QC procedures to be applied: Each photo will observed independently by two observers to confirm species and/or individual identity.

Calculation method: Direct observation of photos

Any comment:


v3.0

67

Data Unit / Parameter: Birds

Data unit: Presence

Description: Species richness

Source of data: Direct observation by sight and/or sound


A systematic survey and incidental observations


Value applied: n/a

Monitoring equipment: Binoculars

QA/QC procedures to be applied: Each photo will observed independently by two observers to confirm species and/or individual identity.


Any comment:

Data Unit / Parameter: Amphibians, Reptiles and Fish

Data unit: Presence

Description: Species richness

Source of data: Direct observation by sight and/or sound


Incidental and targeted observations


Value applied: n/a

Monitoring equipment: Binoculars,

QA/QC procedures to be applied:


Any comment:


v3.0

68

Data Unit / Parameter: Yacumama Staff Payroll

Data unit: Number of employees paid

Description:

Source of data: Yacumama Management Payroll Records


Timely payment to staff


Value applied: n/a

Monitoring equipment:


Calculation method:

Any comment:

Data Unit / Parameter: Staff Training

Data unit: Training days and training types

Description: Number and type of training days for Yacumama staff

Source of data: Yacumama Management Records



Value applied: n/a



Calculation method:

Any comment:


v3.0

69

Data Unit / Parameter: Health Care Support to Community

Data unit: Financial amount provided to clinic; number of days Amazon Promise uses Yacumama lodge facilities and other logistical support

Description: Financial Support to Puerto Miguel Clinic

Source of data: Yacumama Management Records



Value applied: n/a



Calculation method:

Any comment:

Data Unit / Parameter: Financial and logistical support for Puerto Miguel tree nursery and Fish farm

Data unit: Specific financial and logistical support

Description:

Source of data:



Value applied: n/a



Calculation method:

Any comment:


v3.0

70

9 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CONSULTED

Brown, S. 1997. Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. FAO Forestry

Paper 134, Rome, Italy.

Chave, J., C. Andalo, S. Brown, M. A. Cairns, J. Q. Chambers, D. Eamus, H. Folster, F. Fromard, N.

Higuchi, T. Kira, J. P. Lescure, B. W. Nelson, H. Ogawa, H. Puig, B. Riera and T. Yamakura. 2005. Tree

allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145: 87-99.

Finer, M., and M. Orta-Martinez.2010 A second hydrocarbon boom threatens the Peruvian Amazon:

trends, projections, and policy implications. Environmental Research Letters. 5:

Gehring, C., S. Park, and M. Denich. 2004. Liana allometric biomass equations for Amazonian primary

and secondary forest. Forest Ecology and Management 195: 69-83.

Gerwing, J.J., and D.L. Farias. 2000. Integrating liana abundance and forest stature into an estimate of

total aboveground biomass for an eastern Amazonian forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16: 327-335.

Henman, J.E., S. P. Hamburg, and A. A. Salazar Vega. 2008Feasibility and barriers to entry for small-

scale CDM forest carbon projects: A case study from Northeastern Peru. Carbon and Climate L. Rev.

3:254-263.

Gutierrez-Velez, V., R. DeFries, M. Pinedo-Vasquez, M. Uriarte, C. Padoch, W. Baethgen, K. Fernandes,

and Y. Lim. High-yield oil palm expansion spares land at the expense of forests in the Peruvian Amazon.

Environmental Research Letters 6 (2011) 044029 (5pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044029


v3.0

71

Josse, C., G. Navarro, F. Encarnación, A. Tovar, P. Comer, W. Ferreira, F. Rodríguez, J. Saito, J.

Sanjurjo, J. Dyson, E. Rubin de Celis, R. Zárate, J. Chang, M. Ahuite, C. Vargas, F. Paredes, W. Castro,

J. Maco y F.Reátegui. 2007. Ecological Systems of the Amazon Basin of Peru and Bolivia.Clasification

and Mapping. NatureServe. Arlington, Virginia, USA .

Kvist, L.P., and G. Nebel. 2001. A review of Peruvian flood plain forests: ecosystems, inhabitants and

resource use. Forest Ecology and Management 150: 3-26.

Lamotte, S. 1990. Fluvial dynamics and succession in the Lower Ucayali River basin, Peruvian Amazon.

Forest Ecology and Management 33/34: 141-156.

Magnussen, S. and D. Reed. 2004. Modeling for estimation and monitoring. National Forest Assessments

Knowledge Reference. FAO-IUFRO. Available online at http://www.fao.org/forestry/8758/en. Accessed

January 9, 2012.

McClain, M. E. and R. E. Cossio. 2003. The use and conservation of riparian zones in the rural Peruvian

Amazon. Environmental Conservation 30:242–248.

Nebel, G. 2001. Sustainable land-use in Peruvian flood plain forests: options, planning and

implementation. Forest Ecology and Management 150: 187-198.

Nebel, G., J. Dragsted, and A.S. Vega. 2001a. Litter fall, biomass and net primary production in flood

plain forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 150: 93-102.

Nebel, G., L. P. Kvist, J. K. Vanclay, H. Christensen, L. Freitas, and J. Ruiz. 2001b. Structure and floristic

composition of flood plain forests in the Peruvian Amazon I. Overstorey. Forest Ecology and Management

150: 27-57.


v3.0

72

Pearson, T., S. Walker and S. Brown. 2005. Sourcebook for land use, land-use change and forestry

projects. Winrock International and the BioCarbon Fund of the World Bank.

Reyes, G., S. Brown, J. Chapman and A.E. Lugo. 1992. Wood densities of tropical tree species. USDA

Forest Service, General Technical Report No. S0-88. Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans.

Saint-Paul, U., J. Zuanon, M. A. Vallacorta Correa, M. Garcia, N. N. Fabre, U. Berger, and W. Junk. 2000.

Fish communities in central Amazonian white- and blackwater floodplains. Environmental Biology of

Fishes 57: 235-250.

Salo, J., R. Kalliola, I. Hakkinen, Y. Makinen, P. Niemela, M. Puhakka, and P. D. Coley. 1986. River

dynamics and the diversity of Amazon lowland forest. Nature 322: 254-258.

Schnitzer, S., S.J. DeWalt, and J. Chave. 2006. Censusing and Measuring Lianas: A Quantitative

Comparison of the Common Methods. Biotropica 38(5): 581-591.

Schnitzer, S., S. Rutishauser, and S. Aguilar. 2008. Supplemental protocol for liana censuses. Forest

Ecology and Management 255: 1044-1049.

Schulman, L., K. Ruokolainen , L. Junikka, I. E. Sääksjärvi, M. Salo, S-K. Juvonen, J. Salo , and

M.Higgins. 2007. Amazonian biodiversity and protected areas:do they meet? Biodiversity Conservation

16:3011–3051

Solano, P. 2009. Legal framework for protected areas: Peru. IUCN-EPLP No. 81:53 pp.


v3.0

73

Soares-Filho, B., et al. 2006. Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin, Nature,

440: 520–523.

Soini, P., Sicchar, L. A., Gil, N. G., Fachin, T. A., Pezo, R., Chumbe, A. M., 1996. Una evaluation de la

fauna Silvestre y su aprovachamiento de la reserve nacional Pacaya-Samiria, Peru. Instituto de

Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana, Iquitos. Documento Technico No. 24, 64pp.

Valqui, T. 1996. Preliminary bird list of Yacumama lodge and surroundings. Report submitted to

Yacumama lodge. 10 pages.

Velarde SJ, Ugarte-Guerra J, Tito MR, Capella JL, Sandoval M, Hyman G, Castro A, Marín JA and

Barona E. 2010. Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses in Peru. Final National Report. ASB

Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins. Nairobi, Kenya. 142 p.

Winrock International. 2006. Carbon Storage in the Los Amigos Conservation Concession, Madre de

Dios, Peru. http://www.winrock.org/ecosystems/files/LACC_Carbon.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2013.

Wittmann, F, J. Schöngart, and W. J. Junk. 2011.W.J. Phytogeography, Species Diversity, Community

Structure and Dynamics of Central Amazonian Floodplain Forests. In: Amazonian Floodplain Forests:

Ecophysiology, Junk et al. (eds.), Biodiversity and Sustainable Management, Ecological Studies 210.

YACUMAMA FOREST CARBON PROJECT - Amazon S3...PROJECT DESCRIPTION VCS Version 3, CCB Standards Second Edition v3.0 8 Climate, Soils and Hydrology The upper Peruvian Amazon Basin (Figure

Documents