1 COVER PAGE I. Project Name Planting for the Future: Financially

COVER PAGE

i. project name

Planting for the Future: Financially sustainable agroforestry systems and payments for ecosystem services ii. project location (country, sub‐national jurisdiction(s))

Current Instances: Loreto and Ucayali, Peru

Wider Geographical Area for Programmatic Approach expansion – multiple provinces in Peru iii. Project Proponent (organization and contact name with email address and phone number)

Proponent: Plant your Future

Contact Person: Jenny Henman

Email: [email protected]

Tel: 07828 608711 iv. Auditor (organization and contact name with email address and phone number)

Auditor: Rainforest Alliance

Contact Person: Campbell Moore

Email: [email protected]

Tel: +1 202.903.0717 v. project start date, GHG accounting period and lifetime

January 16, 2012

The project lifetime is 30 years, and the GHG accounting period, as well as biodiversity and community benefits assessment period are the same. vi. whether the document relates to a full validation or a gap validation

Full validation

1 vii. history of CCB Status, where appropriate, including issuance date(s) of earlier Validation/ Verification Statements etc.

First Validation viii. the edition of the CCB Standards being used for this validation

3rd Edition ix. a brief summary of the project’s expected climate, community and biodiversity benefits

Deforestation of 7.9 million hectares was recorded in the Peruvian Amazon from 2000‐2009 (MINAM, 20111). This has caused substantial biodiversity loss, contributed to climate change, and perpetuated poverty amongst local communities. Unsustainable smallholder agriculture and ranching are the principle drivers of deforestation and degradation in the Amazon basin of Peru. Planting for the Future aims to relieve smallholders of their reliance on these activities by implementing a market‐orientated agroforestry model following a programmatic approach.

All our project activities come together to try and achieve on overall project impact, which brings positive climate, community and biodiversity benefits, which is summarized in our project vision:

We will empower smallholder farmers in Peru to transition from unsustainable agriculture to market‐oriented agroforestry systems. Using a scalable approach, the project will use carbon finance to facilitate farmers in establishing climate‐smart farms that use native species to provide diverse income streams from sale of gourmet produce and certified timber trees.

We will create a scalable model for sustainable agriculture, which will reduce deforestation and which will be adopted at a landscape scale in the Peruvian Amazon. Farmers’ technical and business capacity will be enhanced, they will gain access to formal markets for native fruit and timber, and their incomes will be increased and diversified. As a result, the livelihoods of farming families will be enhanced and poverty reduced.

The project design is applicable to landowning smallholder farmers across Peru who have in the past relied on ‘slash and burn’ shifting cultivation agriculture or ranching that resulted in unproductive agricultural lands and degraded pastures. The project will provide seedlings and training to farmers to reforest their farms, converting them from low productivity migratory agriculture where they have to rotate farmed areas to market‐orientated agroforestry systems. From the total 25.2 ha of initial Project instances in Loreto and Ucayali, we anticipate generating a long‐term average emission reductions of 9147.24 tCO2e tCO2e emissions reductions over 30 years (prior to any risk buffer deductions).

1 MINAM (Ministerio del Ambiente de Perú). 2011. El Perú de los Bosques. Retrieved from http://sinia.minam.gob.pe/index.php?accion=verElemento&idElementoInformacion=1218

2 The systems are designed to generate multiple revenue streams to ensure that they will support livelihoods for farm families; the integrated nature of the systems is critical to providing adequate financial incentives for farmers to adopt agroforestry. Core elements of Planting for the Future’s strategy are a support to farmers to establish trade associations, and a business plan and marketing strategy to commercialize native, high‐value tropical fruits that the project will re‐introduce to farms. Carbon credits will provide farmers with a source of revenue to maintain their fruit and timber trees in the medium term. Combined, the revenue from produce sales and carbon credits should allow farmers to realize the value of the sale of mature timber.

Local people will benefit not only from enhanced livelihoods, but also by learning about nursery management, tree planting and maintenance, and silviculture; training in business administration and accounting; and trade associations with strong and transparent governance.

The Peruvian Amazon is one of the most biodiverse regions in the world, renowned for its abundance of rare animal, bird and plant life and designated as High Conservation Value Forest for its high levels of endemic and rare fauna and flora. The Project Zone is home to jaguars, pink dolphins and encompasses the species‐rich Allpahuayo Mishana National Reserve, home to the critically endangered Iquitos Gnatcatcher (Polioptila clementsi). Planting for the Future will give smallholders an alternative to clearing ‘virgin’ rainforest. The agroforestry systems established in the project will restore degraded land, thereby increasing forest cover, expanding habitat for these rare species, and promoting ecosystem connectivity by creating wildlife corridors between rainforest areas and national parks. x. which optional Gold Level criteria are being used and a brief description of the attributes that enable the project to qualify for each relevant Gold Level

GL1. Climate Change Adaptation Benefits

The project area will be subjected to the negative impacts of climate change, and these will be worsened further by increasing environmental degradation and deforestation. The project activities build the smallholder farmers resilience to climate change.

GL2. Exceptional Community Benefits

Project beneficiaries are smallholder farmers, who are defined as land holders that are not structurally dependent on permanent hired labour, manage their land mainly with their own and their family’s labour force, and whose primary income comes from their land management activities. The project generates short‐term and long‐term net positive well‐being benefits for smallholders, including vulnerable group including women. The project places a strong focus on participation of the smallholder farmers in all elements of project planning, design and implementation, and in building their capacity.

GL3. Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits

The Project Zone includes a site of high biodiversity conservation priority Endangered species; there is the presence of the Iquitos gnatcatcher (Polioptila clementsi), the black‐faced spider

3 monkey (Ateles chamek), the Peruvian woolly monkey (Lagothrix cana), and the Giant Brazilian Otter (Pteronura brasiliensis). By implementing agroforestry systems, Planting for the Future will help smallholder farmers rise out of poverty and not have to rely on degrading the forest through slash‐and‐burn forestry practices. We will create native species forest, increase habitat for the primate and avian species and enhancing ecosystem services in the Project Zone.

xi. date of completion of this version of the PDD, and version number, as appropriate

June 24th 2014 xii. expected schedule for verification, if known.

Anticipated first verification – August 2016

PLANTING FOR THE FUTURE: FINANCIALLY SUSTAINABLE AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS AND PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROJECT DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR VALIDATION TO THE CLIMATE, COMMUNITY AND BIODIVERSITY STANDARDS THIRD EDITION

JUNE 2014

www.plantyourfuture.org.uk

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover Page ...... 1 G1. Project Goals, Design and Long‐term Viability ...... 8 Project Design and Boundaries ...... 20 Risk Management and Long‐term Viability ...... 41 Programmatic approach ...... 43 G2. Without‐project Land Use Scenario and Additionality ...... 46 G3. Stakeholder Engagement ...... 50 Access to information ...... 50 Consultation ...... 54 Participation in decision‐making and implementation ...... 55 Anti‐discrimination ...... 55 Feedback and Grievance Redress Procedure ...... 56 Worker Relations ...... 56 G4. Management Capacity ...... 59 G5. Legal Status and Property Rights ...... 63 Respect for rights to lands, territories and resources, and Free, Prior and Informed Consent .. 63 Legal status ...... 65 Climate Section ...... 68 Climate Section Waiver ...... 68 GL1. Climate Change Adaptation Benefits ...... 68 Community Section ...... 72 CM1. Without‐project Community Scenario ...... 72 CM2. Net Positive Community Impacts ...... 73 CM3. Other Stakeholder Impacts ...... 78 CM4. Community Impact Monitoring ...... 79 Monitoring Indicators ...... 79 GL2. Exceptional Community Benefits ...... 86 Biodiversity Section ...... 91 B1. Biodiversity Without‐project Scenario ...... 91 B2. Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts ...... 104 B3. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts ...... 106 B4. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring ...... 106 GL3. Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits ...... 111 Select References ...... 114 Appendix 1. Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality in A/R CDM project activities (version 01) ...... 117

6 Applicability conditions ...... 117 Step 0: Preliminary screening based on the stating date of the A/R project activity ...... 117 Baseline scenario A SHIFTING CULTIVATION ‘SLASH AND BURN’ AGRICULTURE ...... 117 Scenario A, Step 1. Identification of alternative land use scenarios to the proposed project activity ...... 117 Scenario A, Step 2. Barrier Analysis ...... 122 Scenario A, Step 4: Common practice analysis ...... 124 Baseline scenario B degraded pasture ...... 125 Scenario B, Step 1: Identification of alternative land use scenarios to the proposed project activity ...... 125 Scenario B, Step 2: Barrier Analysis ...... 128 Scenario B, Step 4. Common practice analysis ...... 130

7 GENERAL SECTION

G1. PROJECT GOALS, DESIGN AND LONG‐TERM VIABILITY

G1.1 Identify the primary Project Proponent which is responsible for the project’s design and implementation and provide contact details.

The primary Project Proponent is Plant your Future, a charity registered in England and Wales (No. 1134720).

Plant your Future works in Peru with its affiliate organisation Asociación Civil Planta tu Futuro (RUC 20556440639).

UK Contact Point:

Jenny Henman, Chairman and Founder.

Jenny can be reached at [email protected], or at:

. 33a Wadeson Street . London E2 9DR . United Kingdom

Peru Contact Point:

Michael Soulsby, Executive Director at [email protected] or at:

. Av. Dos de Mayo 534, oficina 408 . Miraflores, Lima . Peru

G1.2 Define the project’s climate, community and biodiversity objectives.

Deforestation of 7.9 million hectares was recorded in the Peruvian Amazon from 2000‐2009 (MINAM, 20112). This has caused substantial biodiversity loss, contributed to climate change, and perpetuated poverty amongst local communities. Unsustainable smallholder agriculture and ranching are the principle drivers of deforestation and degradation in the Amazon basin of Peru. Planting for the Future aims to relieve smallholders of their reliance on these activities by implementing a market‐orientated agroforestry model following a programmatic approach.

2 MINAM (Ministerio del Ambiente de Perú). 2011. El Perú de los Bosques. Retrieved from http://sinia.minam.gob.pe/index.php?accion=verElemento&idElementoInformacion=1218

8 All our project activities come together to try and achieve on overall project impact, which brings positive climate, community and biodiversity benefits, which is summarized in our project vision:

Project Vision

The systems are designed to generate multiple revenue streams to ensure that they will support livelihoods for farm families; the integrated nature of the systems is critical to providing adequate financial incentives for farmers to adopt agroforestry. Core elements of Planting for the Future’s strategy are a support to farmers to establish trade associations, and a business plan and marketing strategy to commercialize native, high‐value tropical fruits that the project will re‐introduce to farms. Carbon credits will provide farmers with a source of revenue to maintain their fruit and timber trees in the medium term. Combined, the revenue from produce sales and carbon credits should allow farmers to realize the value of the sale of mature timber.

9 dolphins and encompasses the species‐rich Allpahuayo Mishana National Reserve, home to the critically endangered Iquitos Gnatcatcher (Polioptila clementsi). Planting for the Future will give smallholders an alternative to clearing ‘virgin’ rainforest. The agroforestry systems established in the project will restore degraded land, thereby increasing forest cover, expanding habitat for these rare species, and promoting ecosystem connectivity by creating wildlife corridors between rainforest areas and national parks.

G1.3 Provide the location (country, sub‐national jurisdictions(s)) and a brief overview of the basic physical and social parameters of the project.

In this document we present two initial project instances for Planting for the Future’s programmatic approach – one in Loreto region, Maynas province and the other in Ucayali region, Coronel Portillo province. Both are located in the Peruvian Amazon (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Overview of location of current project areas within Peru

LORETO INSTANCE

The Loreto instance is comprised of 19.64 hectares of non‐contiguous land south of the city of Iquitos, in the economic corridor close to both the Iquitos/Nauta Highway (between km 14 and 33) and the Allpahuayo Mishana National Reserve . The Project Areas are located in the communities of Palo Seco, Moralillo, Varillal and 13 de Febrero in the District of San Juan Bautista in Maynas Province, Loreto Region.

10 Land use

The project area is deforested/degraded land which has been cleared for agricultural cropping using slash‐and‐burn. Crops which dominate in these areas are banana, yucca and maize.

Climate

The climate is hot and wet. Average annual temperatures range from 25 to 27oC, and relative humidity from 78 to 96 %. The wettest months fall between October and May, with a mean annual precipitation of 3000mm (IIAP, 20013).

Relief, hydrology and soils

The topography across the Loreto 1st instance can be described as generally flat with terraces near the city of Iquitos. The soils of the terra firma are characterized by red and yellow clays, and a distinctive swath of white sand. Upland soils are acidic and of low fertility in contrast to the soils of the floodplains which are more fertile. The oldest geological sequences are pre‐Andean, the legacy of a discontinuous sequence of continental and marine deposits. Folding in the Pleistocene brought to the surface these old sedimentary layers which explain the distinctive band of white sand. (Paredes Arc et al, 19984). The wider region is delimited by a network of rivers, namely the Rivers Nanay, Itaya and Amazon.

Ecosystem

The Loreto instance is located within two Global Ecoregions, as defined by WWF. These are the ‘Napo Moist Forests’ and the ‘Amazon River and Flooded Forests’. The Global Ecoregions is a science‐based global ranking of the Earth's most biologically outstanding terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats (WWF, 2013). The natural vegetation of the region is rainforest; which is highly variable in terms of species composition, varying within small distances depending on geology, soil type and topography. In the area includes sections of white sand geology upon which a distinctive rainforest type called varillal is found, characterised by thin trees and an unusually high species diversity, including many endemics. The Allpuayo Mishana National Reserve, adjacent to the Loreto Instance, has been designated in an area which is principally varillal. On the clayey uplands the largest number of valuable timber species grow56.

3 Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana (IIAP) (2001) Zonificacion Ecologica Economica del Area de Influencia de la Carretera Iquitos Nauta, Documento Mimeografiado, Iquitos.

4 Paredes Arc, G, Kauffman, S, Kalliola, R. (1998) Suelos Aluviales Recientes de la Zone Iquitos‐Nauta, p 231‐250 In: Geología y Desarrollo Amazónico: Estudio Integrado en la Zona de Iquitos. Kalliola, R. and Flores Paitan, S. (eds). Instituto Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana, Iquitos, Perú, pp. 369– 387. (In Spanish).

5 Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana (IIAP) (2001) Zonificacion Ecologica Economica del Area de Influencia de la Carretera Iquitos Nauta, Documento Mimeografiado, Iquitos.

11 Vegetation

Within the productive agricultural areas common crops include banana, manioc (yucca), corn, pineapple, heart of palm and sugar cane. The area of the project instances themselves are either in productive agriculture or are in fallow. Common species found in the fallows include common early stage successional tree species such as topa (Ochroma pyramidale), pashaco (Schizolobium excelsum), Shimbillo (Inga spp), Rifari (Miconia spp) and Atadijo (Trema micrantha).

Biodiversity

The forests of the Western Arc of the Amazon Rainforest, which include Loreto are amongst the richest in the world, both in terms of biological diversity and natural resources (WWF, 2013). The Loreto project instance falls within two ecoregions, as described by WWF – namely Napo Moist Forest and Amazon River and Flooded Forests. The amazing diversity of the region stems from the high and relatively seasonal rainfall in parts of the ecoregion. The complex topography and soils and vast river systems create a dynamic mosaic of habitats. This leads to an amazing growth of flora and endemism. More than 310 tree species have been found to exist in a one hectare area in the Napo Moist Forests. The area is internationally celebrated as being among the most species‐rich forests known on our planet but is threatened by accelerating deforestation.

The Loreto 1st instance is located in a region of High Conservation Value Forest with high levels of endemism and endangered species. The project zone includes the species‐rich Allpahuayo Mishana National Reserve which is home to Iquitos Gnatcatcher (Polioptila Clementsi), classified as ‘critically endangered’ by the IUCN Red List. Across the region habitat loss and deforestation from unsustainable agricultural expansion by smallholder farmers threatens other endangered species such as the White Bellied Spider Monkey (Ateles belzebuth), the Black Faced Spider Monkey (Ateles Chamek), and the Giant Brazilian Otter (Pteronura brasiliensis) – all of these are classified as endangered on the IUCN Red List7. On the deforested agricultural lands biodiversity has dramatically diminished. (IIAP, 2013)

Social Overview

The Project Zone in Loreto encompasses forest parts of the Iquitos várzea ecoregion and the Napo moist forest ecoregion (Sears, 2014a8, Sears, Marín and Schipper, 20149). Both are parts of the

6 Flores Paitan, S, Gomez Romero, E, Kalliola, R. (1998) Caracteristicas Generales de la zone de Iquitos, p17‐31 In: Geología y Desarrollo Amazónico: Estudio Integrado en la Zona de Iquitos. Kalliola, R. and Flores Paitan, S. (eds). Instituto Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana, Iquitos, Perú, pp. 369–387. 7 http://www.iucnredlist.org/ Accessed 31st Jan 2014 8 Sears, R. 2014a. Seasonally flooded river basins of Brazil, Peru and Bolivia. World Wildlife Fund International. Retrieved from http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0128

9 Sears, R., Marín, C., & Schipper, J. 2014. Eastern South America: Southern Colombia, eastern Venezuela, and northern Peru. World Wildlife Fund International. Retrieved from http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0142

12 Amazon floristic province, an area of extreme diversity and endemism in species of both flora and fauna (Sears, Marín, and Schipper, 201410). This Project Zone includes floodable forests that provide varied, heterogeneous habitats. Loreto’s population is extremely poor and challenged by pressures on natural resources that have resulted in extreme environmental degradation including contamination of bodies of water from urban activities and loss of soil nutrients and biodiversity (IIAP, 200211). Primary economic activities in this province are small scale agriculture, livestock farming and natural resource extraction including rubber, wood, animal skins and oil.

10 ibid 11 IIAP. 2002. Propuesta de Zonificación Ecológica Económica para el Desarrollo Sostenible del área de influencia de la Carretera Iquitos Nauta y Caracterización Biofísica de la Reserva Nacional Pacaya‐Samiria, Departamento de Loreto. Programa de Ordenamiento Ambiental. Editado en CD‐ ROM.

13 Figure 2. Map of the Loreto instance project zone

Figure 3. Project Areas within the Loreto instance (each number represents a different farm)

UCAYALI INSTANCE:

The Ucayali instance is comprised of 5.57 hectares and is found outside of the city of Pucallpa, and close to the Campo Verde reforestation project. The Campo Verde reforestation project has been implemented on a large area of contiguous degraded pasture, owned by private company Bosques Amazonicos, and which has been successfully validated to the CCB and VCS Standards (Figure 4). The Ucayali instance is comprised of degraded pasture as well, but owned by smallholder farmers which are near to the existing Campo Verde project.

Land use

The project lands were converted from forest into pastures in the early 1970s. The land has continued as low productivity pasture lands since that time. The pressure of cattle on the land, the inherent low fertility of Amazonian soils, the heavy rain and the natural undulation of the land has led to its degradation over time. The invasive grass Braquiaria decumbes coupled with periodic wildfires has meant forest cannot re‐establish naturally.

Climate

The climate of the Ucayali project instance can be described as tropical, with year round high temperatures and high precipitation. The annual average of highest and lowest temperature (period 1997‐2003) is 31.9°C and 21.8°C, respectively (Estación Meterológica, 200312).The average annual rainfall is 1861.68 mm, with a range of 1600‐2500mm annually (Sears and Schipper, 201413) and relative humidity is 84%. (1997‐2003) (Estación Meterológica14). There is, however, a dry season, from June to September, when humidity and precipitation drop significantly. ‘Dry’ in this context means a monthly average rainfall of around 40‐70mm.

Relief and Soils

The project area is characterized by gently undulating terraces, with low gradients of between 0‐ 4%. The height ranges from 155 to 220m above sea level. The project area contains relic small hills created by historic fluvial action. The relief of the lands means they are not affected by flooding during the rainy season. There is good to moderate drainage across the project area. The soils in the

12 Estación Meterológica, Universidad Nacional de Ucayali, Almanaque de Ucayali 2002‐2003.

13 Sears, R., & Schipper, J. 2014. Eastern South America: Central Peru. World Wildlife Fund International. Retrieved from http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0174

14 Estación Meterológica, Universidad Nacional de Ucayali, Almanaque de Ucayali 2002‐2003.

16 project area classified using the pH scale range from extremely to strongly acidic (pH around 3.5). The soils display an average bulk density of 1.13 g/cm3 and a low organic content, averaging 0.86% carbon in the top ten centimetres.

Biodiversity

The clearing of native forest cover, overgrazing and frequent fires has led to degradation, loss of biodiversity and soil impoverishment of the land in the Ucayali instance. Forest removal and consequent habitat destruction has affected most species of fauna, which generally live in low densities in the forests of the region. Birds such Guacamayo (Ara spp.), Perdiz (Tinamus spp.), Pihuicho (Brotogeris spp), Toucan (Rhamphastos spp ) are not able to live in a pasture habitat.

Because of this degradation, the project area does not represent a permanent habitat for native species of fauna, but the remnant primary forests and mature secondary forests near the project area continue to provide habitat to a range of species.

According to a study of the biodiversity in the forest areas in the project zone, near the project instances, there are 62 vertebrate species; the most common species are Carachupa (Dasypus novemcinctus), Majaz (Agouti paca) and Sachacuy (Proechimys spp.) (AIDER, 200615). The planned reforestation activities will contribute to providing biological corridors between the various forest ecosystems in the region thereby expanding species habitat and increasing genetic diversity.

Ecosystem

The Ucayali instance is located in the Subtropical Amazon bio‐geographic province and the native forest cover is classified as pre‐mountain tropical humid forest in transition to tropical humid forest. 16

Vegetation

In the Ucayali instance, the dominant vegetation of the degraded pastures is the invasive grass Braquiaria decumbes with a few shrubs, isolated trees or clumps of trees. This grass species is also associated with hard stem grass (8.8% of cover) and Cashaucsha grass (Imperata brasiliensis) (7.8%). These grasses are invasive and have a high fuel load, leading to regular fires that then prevent natural regeneration in the pasture areas.

Social Overview

15 AIDER. 2006. Diagnostico biofisico, zonificacion y caracterizacion de flora y fauna del area de trabajo.

16 According to the life zones classification developed by Holdridge (1947). Holdridge, L.R. 1947. Determination of world plant formations from simple climatic data. Science, 105: 367‐368.

17 As in the Loreto Project Areas, Community Groups are very poor and rely almost entirely on small‐ scale agriculture and ranching.

18 Figure 4. Location of the first Ucayali instance

Figure 5. Project Areas within the Ucayali instance.

(Campo Verde is a CCB Standards‐validated project of reforestation on degraded pasture land and is shown in the map for orientation purposes)

PROJECT DESIGN AND BOUNDARIES G1.4 Define the boundaries of the Project Area where project activities aim to generate net climate benefits and the Project Zone where project activities are implemented. In the Loreto Instance there is a project area of 19.64 hectares, shown in Figure 3,and in the Ucayali Instance there is a project area of 5.57 hectares, shown in Figure 5. The UTM coordinates of these project areas are shown in Table 1. Each instance also has a defined project zone, which is a larger areas, encompassing the project area itself but also a surrounding area in which project activities that directly affect land and associated resources, including activities such as those related to provision of alternative livelihoods and community development, are implemented. Figure x and x below show the respective project zones for the Loreto and Ucayali instances.

In terms of the potential area where activities can be replicated in the future using a programmatic approach, the Project Zone also includes all potential Project Areas (i.e. all potential new land areas in which project activities that aim to generate net climate benefits may be implemented in the future after the initial validation). In this case of this project this refers to all areas that fall within the defined Geographical Area delineated in the VCS PD and show in Figure 15.However, it should be noted that new instances must also demonstrate they comply with the eligibility criteria on application to join the Planting for the Future programmatic project framework.

Table 1: UTM Coordinates of Project Area Locations

latitude‐min (south) latitude max (north longitude min (west) longitude max (east)

Ucayali ‐9.08 ‐8.06 ‐75.26 ‐74.33

Loreto ‐4.5 ‐3.4 ‐73.8 ‐72.88

G1.5 Explain the process of stakeholder identification and analysis used to identify Communities, Community Groups and Other Stakeholders.

Loreto Instance: Plant your Future, and affiliate Planta tu Futuro, has been working in the project zone of the Loreto Instance since 2010. Plant your Future has worked to implement the Loreto Instance with partner ProNaturaleza, a Peruvian NGO with an office in Iquitos and a regional Loreto programme, founded in 1984. In the project inception phase for the Loreto Instance we worked in collaboration with regional farmers cooperative, COPASIMOL with offices in Iquitos and members across the project zone. Plant your Future worked with an expert local agronomist to do an initial assessment in the project zone and make recommendations on how to identify and select smallholder project participants (Communities).

20 Through these partnerships, studies17 and published literature, as well as our own existing knowledge of actors, we were able to identify Communities, Community Groups and Other Stakeholders. On October 17th and 18th Plant your Future held meetings at ProNaturaleza offices in Iquitos, with participation from COPASIMOL, Plant your Future and ProNaturaleza staff where we were able to make a preliminary list of Community Groups and Other Stakeholders, and well as discuss criteria to select direct project participants (Communities). This was stakeholder identification process was complemented by initial consultations with key stakeholders.

In addition the socio‐economic assessment carried out by Mateo further consolidated the analysis of Communities, Community Groups and Other Stakeholders both through direct interviews and meetings, and a review of regionally specific literature. As part of her socio‐economic assessment Mateo conducted surveys, interviews, meetings and a workshop specifically with farmers in communities near to Iquitos and around the Iquitos/Nauta highway (Varillal, Moralillo, Nuevo Milagros, Palo Seco and 13 de Febrero). The farmers interviewed and surveyed were those who had been identified by Plant your Future and ProNaturaleza for participation in the project.

UCAYALI INSTANCE: We collaboration with Bosque Amazonicos and relied on the Campo Verde CCB and VCS project documentation and and field visits to identify Communities, Community Groups and Other Stakeholders in the Ucayali Project Zone.

G1.6 List all Communities, Community Groups and Other Stakeholders identified using the process explained in G1.5. The project Planting for the Future will work with smallholder farmers as the Community. The projects has set out criteria (see section G1.14) which must be met for smallholder farmers to participate in this programmatic project. Project Areas will always be under the ownership of a smallholder household, as so benefits from the project will primarily be generated at the household level which transcends other Community Groups as the household participants are comprised of men, women, youth and can be headed by men or women, single or married, with or without children.

LORETO INSTANCE

Community:

We have identified 18 smallholder farming families that we will work with directly in the Loreto Instance. We are working with smallholder farmers who meet the criteria set by the project, as defined by our programmatic approach in accordance with VCS methodology requirements. The smallholder farmers we are working with have land title. They directly derive an income from agricultural and forestry produce generated on their land. They are the sole beneficiaries of incomes from sale of produce or assets from their land. We selected smallholder farmers from 4

17 Studies done for the Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo Mishana (INRENA, 2005 and IIAP, 2004) were useful in our analysis of the Communities, Community Groups and Other Stakeholders of Plant your Future’s project in the Loreto region. 17

21 different villages. These 4 villages are called Palo Seco, 13 de Febrero, Moralillo and Varillal. These villages were selected based on baseline land‐use conditions, accessibility to Iquitos, interest in the project and existing contacts from project partners.

There are around 42,000 people living between the city of Iquitos and the town of Nauta (excluding the population of those cities) with 7% annual population growth, distributed in approximately 200 villages (Tello, 200118). All the villages that are in our Project Area can be characterised by populations of smallholder farmers who are “mestizo”, and who work land which is privately owned (mainly by the smallholder inhabitant themselves) and which are divided into a mosaic of small parcels. Smallholders belong to a specific communities, which usually has a nucleus of homes and are engaged in subsistence level trade with the city of Iquitos.

It was determined by a socio‐economic analysis that participants in the project own an average 13.5 ha each, often including a mixture of degraded agricultural land and virgin forest (Mateo, 2013b19). This is a great deal more land than that which will be included in the “project area” itself. The project area itself is a sub‐area of their overall land holding which has been deforested and degraded in the past by slash and burn agriculture. Each smallholder limits his or her farming activities to their plot.

Communal work has become less common in villages nearer Iquitos and the Iquitos/Nauta highway. Traditionally farmers would carry out ‘mingas’ where they carried out work together to assist each other with agricultural work or village level projects. At a ‘minga’ remuneration is mainly through the provision of food in return for labour. In villages nearer the highway manual labour is now more commonly rewarded with a day‐salary paid in cash.

All respondents to the project’s socioeconomic survey were over 40 years of age and the majority (71%) had been educated at a primary school level. The average family size among beneficiaries was 2‐3 people. About 89% of people in the region of the project are in‐migrants to the area from Iquitos or neighbouring regions (INRENA, 200520), indicating a long tradition of “Amazonian” culture – people who know and live off of the forest – in the Project Zone.

18 Tello, H. 2001. Valoración económica de la diversidad biológica en el área de influencia de la Carretera Iquitos – Nauta. En Valoración Económica de la Diversidad Biológica y Servicios Ambientales en el Perú, INRENA, IRG/Biofor, USAID. Peru. 474 pp.

19 Mateo, S. 2013b. Plantando para el futuro: Análisis socioeconómico y consulta a actores clave en el ámbito del proyecto. Plant your Future and ProNaturaleza.

20 INRENA. 2005. Plan Maestro de la Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo Mishana 2006‐2010. Ministerio de Agricultura, Perú. 150 pp. Retrieved from http://www.sernanp.gob.pe/sernanp/archivos/biblioteca/publicaciones/RN_ALLPAHUAYOMISHA NA/PlanMaestro_2006‐2010_Allpahuayo%20Mishana.pdf

22 The survey showed that the beneficiaries of the project are all subsistence farmers. Agricultural product sales are exclusively for the Iquitos market. Trade there is highly variable depending on the season. Smallholder farmers sell informally in the market, and not via formal contracts, making it difficult to plan ahead or be confident on pricing. It proved difficult for farmers to estimate their income, but those who could offered a range of 300‐800 soles (PEN) per month – enough to cover their basic needs, but not enough to make major investments. Besides farming, half of the farmers earn wages from small‐scale, local activities: fish farms, small stores, raising pigs, caretaking land for others and general labour.

Community Groups: Planting for the Future is working with smallholder farmers at the household level. The household transcends across Community Groups, and as such includes sub‐groups of communities. In the case of this project Community Groups include women, youth, evangelical Christians and shop owners. There are no indigenous people’s living in the Loreto Project Area forming part of Community Groups.

Other Stakeholders: The project has done wide consultation in the Peruvian Amazon on our project, including, but not limited to with regional government and other non‐governmental and research organizations. These have been on a formal and informal level.

Table 2 List of participants at consultative workshop, November 2012, Iquitos, Peru

Name Organisation Organisation (Full Name) Melchor Aguilar Rojas GRDS Gerencia Regional de Desarrollo Social ‐ Gobierno Lourdes Bocanegra Torres OTAE ‐ GRL Organo Técnico de Administración Especial ‐ Luis Campos Baca IIAP Instituto de Investigación de la Amazonia Peruana Flor de M Bardales Morí DIREPRO Dirección Regional de la Producción ‐ Gobierno Carlos Ushiñahua DRA‐L Dirección Regional de Agricultura de Loreto Zoila Perea De Arévalo DIRESA‐DESA Dirección Regional de Salud ‐ Dirección Ejecutiva de Charline Bandry LATITUD SUR Latitud Sur Feliciano Rodríguez DRA‐L Dirección Regional de Agricultura de Loreto Bruno Paino ICRAF Centro Mundial de Agroforestería Jhonatan Caro Tuesta WCS Wildlife Conservation Society Natalia Freitas Gómez DAR Derecho Ambiental y Recursos Naturales ‐ Gobierno Jorge Raul López García GOREL Gobierno Regional de Loreto Moisés David Bendayan DRAL ‐ PROCREA Dirección Regional de Agricultura Loreto ‐ Elisa Edith Chota Torres PRMRFFS Programa Regional de Manejo de Recursos Liz Cristina López Muñoz PRMRFFS Programa Regional de Manejo de Recursos James Manuel Vásquez OTAE ‐ GOREL Organo Técnico de Administración Especial ‐ Gladys Arneda Saldaña OPIPP‐GOREL Organismo Publico Infraestructura para la

23 Marco Antonio Valcárcel OPIPP‐GOREL Organismo Publico Infraestructura para la Emilio Villar Castro D.R. AGRICULTURA Dirección Regional de Agricultura Loreto Flor Hidalgo Panduro GR. RR.NN. Y G Gerencia Regional de Recursos Naturales y Gestión Christian Pérez GORELORETO‐DAR Derecho Ambiental y Recursos Naturales ‐ Gobierno Jorge Gómez Noriega PRONATURALEZA Fundación Peruana para la Conservación de la Ricardo Montes Vásquez COMITÉ Comité de Productores COPASIMOL Julio Ángel Pérez Pérez INVERSIONES TRES Inversiones Tres Hermanos Guillermo Gorbitz Dupuy IICA Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Henk Lette IICA PMFS Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Gaby Rivera Campos IICA PMFS Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Julio Wagner Vásquez PRONATURALEZA Fundación Peruana para la Conservación de la Luis Felipe Vela PRONATURALEZA Fundación Peruana para la Conservación de la

We have also done wide consultation at the national level. The Inter‐American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) hosted a workshop on November 15th 2013 at their offices in La Molina, Lima where other Stakeholders were invited to attend to hear about the project and methodologies applied and give their feedback. See Table 3 for list of participants. This meeting was relevant for the whole project, in both Loreto and Ucayali, and the broader Geographical Area for expansion.

Table 3 Participants at Lima Consultative Workshop

Name Organisation Ruth Sandra Romero Paucar UNALM Maria Ana Cisneros Maravi Perubosque/Untecs Edward Mitchard Plant Your Future/University of Edinburgh Javier Perla Álvarez LIBELULA David Licapa Tacuri Universidad Nacional UNTECS Verónica Valcárcel MFS‐IICA Gilberto Domínguez T UNALM‐FCF Celestina Crey Flores INIA Sandra Roncal García MINAM Nadya Villavicencio IICA‐MFS Kenneth Peralta Nario MINAM‐DGCEDRN Hernando Rivera L IICA Manuel Mavila IICA Henk Lette IICA‐PMFS Guillermo Gorbitz IICA‐PMFS Celso Alexis Navia Cuba ECOTIERRA Erly Camizán Morán ECOTIERRA Jorge Torres BAM David Llanos Dulanto Rainforest Alliance Valentina Robiglin ICRAF Bruno Paino ICRAF Ana Teresa Ruiz ProNaturaleza Luis Felipe Vela ProNaturaleza Carlos Sanches Díaz AIDER

UCAYALI INSTANCE

Community: The 5 smallholder farming households who comprise the Project Area in the Ucayali Instance are homogenous enough to be considered one “community”, although are infact located in several villages near the Campo Verde plantation . These are small‐scale cattle ranchers and

25 farmers. They are mestizo, and have title to their land. As in the Loreto Instance the land‐use within their overall smallholding may be mixed, however the Project Area itself specifically complies with the degraded pasture baseline criteria. These 5 smallholding families are the sole beneficiaries of incomes derived from their respective parts of the Project Area.

Socioeconomic surveys of villages in the Project Zone21 completed by the neighboring Campo Verde reforestation carbon project22 found the following:

 The highest level of education obtained by the majority of adults is primary school.  Only 54% of the residents of these villages were from Ucayali region, only 26% were from the Campo Verde area (the same area of Ucayali where Planting for the Future activities take place), indicating a high degree of migration.  Agriculture is the primary occupation. The majority of farmers grow rice, yucca and corn; less frequently they also grow citrus, pepper and bananas. 50% of products are consumed by the farmers and their families, while 44% goes to the market.  One out of every three families has some cattle. Other activities used to complement farming, all at a very small‐scale, include beekeeping, housekeeping, business, laboring for others, forestry, fishing, carpentry and serving as a chauffeur.  Monthly income from the average 8ha plot is lower than in Loreto, at 371 soles.  As opposed to the Loreto instance, people from this community have had positive experiences already with reforestation: many are employed in some capacity in the Campo Verde reforestation carbon project.

73% of respondents in the Campo Verde reforestation carbon project surveys (conducted with smallholder communities around the Campo Verde area) were still in the process of getting title to their land, suggesting that not all will be eligible to participate in Planting for the Future. However, the community itself already defined in the initial Ucayali Instance do have land title, and future families to participate will have be households who have land title.

Community Groups: Planting for the Future is working with smallholder farmers at the household level. The household transcends across Community Groups, and as such includes sub‐groups of communities. In the case of this project Community Groups include women, youth, evangelical Christians and shop owners. There are no indigenous people’s living in the Ucayali Project Area forming part of Community Groups.

Other stakeholders: SFM, SFM‐BAM SAC, AIDER are local environmental and forestry organizations that operate the adjacent, carbon‐financed Campo Verde reforestation project. Plant

21 surveys conducted in the following villages: Agua Blanca, Agua Dulce, Manco Cápac, Pimental, Pimienta cocha, Santa Teresita de Agua Blanca, and Tierra Roja/Nuevo Amanacer 22 See the CCB Standards project design document for Reforestation with Native Commercial Species on Degraded Lands for Timber and Carbon Purposes in Campo Verde, Ucayali – Peru, Annex E, available at http://www.climate‐standards.org/2008/11/25/reforestation‐with‐native‐ commercial‐species‐on‐degraded‐lands‐for‐timber‐and‐carbon‐purposes‐in‐campo‐verde‐ ucayali‐peru/

26 your Future has a signed agreement for information sharing with this project. There is no conflict or redundancy between Planting for the Future and Campo Verde, as the latter project is designed to deal exclusively with one privately‐owned plot and doesn’t work with smallholder owned land. Table 3 shows the consultation that occurred on the project at the national level with other stakeholders.

G1.7 Provide a map identifying the location of Communities and the boundaries of the Project Area(s), of the Project Zone, including any High Conservation Value areas (identified in CM1 and B1), and of additional areas that are predicted to be impacted by project activities identified in CL3, CM3 and B3.

Figure 6 North ‐East Peruvian Amazon showing Ucayali and Loreto Project Zones , National Reserves and Private Reserves

28 Figure 7. Location of Communities, High Conservation Value Areas and other areas that will be impacted by project activities in Loreto

Figure 8. Location of Communities, High Conservation Value Areas and other areas that will be impacted by project activities in Ucayali (see Figure 5 for location of Communities)

Figure 9: High Conservation Values locations in relation to Planting for the Future Geographical Area (where future activities can be scaled to)

31 High Conservation Value Planting for the Future’s Impact

HCV1 Areas containing globally, regionally or The Loreto Project Zone includes parts of the nationally significant concentrations of Key Biodiversity Area and Important Bird Area biodiversity values Cuenca Río Nanay. Classification of this KBA and IBA is based on the presence of significant populations of globally threatened species, significant populations of endemic species known only to be found in a limited area, significant populations of species known only to be found in a particular biome and/or significant regional/sub‐regional populations of trigger species. The trigger species in this case is the Iquitos gnatcatcher (Polioptila clementsi), the presence of which has also earned the Cuenca Río Nanay the classification of an Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) site.

The Ucayali Project Zone includes the following endangered species: black‐faced spider monkey (Ateles chamek)23, Peruvian woolly monkey (Lagothrix cana) 24, and Giant Brazilian Otter (Pteronura brasiliensis)25.

HCV2 Globally, regionally or nationally The area of the Project Zones currently has a significant large landscape‐level areas where high proportion of primary forest. viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of The Loreto Project Zone is classified by Global 26 distribution and abundance. Forest Watch as “intact forest landscape” . The region around it includes the following protected areas:

 Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo‐Mishana

23 Wallace, R.B., Mittermeier, R.A., Cornejo, F. & Boubli, J.‐P. 2008. Ateles chamek. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41547/0 24 Boubli, J.‐P., Di Fiore, A., Rylands, A.B. & Wallace, R.B. 2008. Lagothrix cana. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved at http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39925/0 25 Duplaix, N., Waldemarin, H.F., Groenedijk, J., Evangelista, E., Munis, M., Valesco, M. & Botello, J.C. 2008. Pteronura brasiliensis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/18711/0 26 World Resources Institute. 2014. Global Forest Watch. Retrieved from http://www.globalforestwatch.org/

32  Reserva Nacional Pacaya‐Samiria  Area de Conservación Regional Comunal Tamishiyacu‐Tahuayo  Area de Conservación Regional Alto Nanay Pintuyacu Chambira  Area de Conservación Privada Herman Dantas  Area de Conservación Privada Amazon Natural Park The area around the Ucayali Project Zones includes the Campo Verde reforestation carbon project and three Protected Natural Areas of the national system of protected natural areas (SINANPE). These are located a few kilometres away.

HCV3 Rare, threatened, or endangered The Loreto Project Zone includes sections of ecosystems, habitats or refugia. white sand geology upon which a distinctive varillal rainforest is found. Varillal is characterised by thin trees and an unusually high species diversity, including many endemics. In addition, the Loreto Project Zone includes the flooded forests called várzea.

The development and dense population of the city of Iquitos and areas along the Iquitos/Nauta highway threatens both habitat diversity and the rainforest ecosystem itself.

Clearing due to subsistence farming, fire and illegal hunting threatens the ecosystem of the Ucayali Project Zone.

Project activities are playing key role in reversing the intensification of small‐scale agriculture and cattle ranching, reducing the threat of these drivers of deforestation.

HCV4 Basic ecosystem services in critical The project will positively impact the following situations, including protection of water ecosystem services, which are all in critical catchments and control of erosion of situations given the high rate of deforestation vulnerable soils and slopes. threatening the Project Zones and the likely impacts of climate change in the region:

Flood regulation Water

33 purification

Climate regulation Disease regulation

Genetic resources Soil formation

Nutrient cycling Primary production

HCV5 Sites and resources fundamental for In both Project Zones, the local communities satisfying the basic necessities of local are smallholder subsistence farmers. They live communities or indigenous peoples (for off of their land out of necessity, because they livelihoods, health, nutrition, water, etc.), do not have the financial or technical capacity identified through engagement with these to do otherwise. Crops that are more than communities or indigenous peoples. what the families need for their own consumption are sold locally to generate income to meet other basic needs. The project activities will enable smallholders to enhance their livelihoods while conserving their resources for the future.

Local people are also permitted to hunt on their own land (for non‐commercial purposes), and so are provided with essential animal protein.

The Project Zones also provide water for local communities.

HCV6 Sites, resources, habitats and landscapes Despite the large proportion of smallholders in of global or national cultural, archaeological each Project Zone that have migrated to the or historical significance, and/or of critical region only recently, the majority come from cultural, ecological, economic or other forest‐dependent Amazon regions. Their religious/sacred importance for the culture is one of reliance on natural resources. traditional cultures of local communities or HCV 6 is not identified as present in the project indigenous peoples, identified through areas. engagement with these local communities or indigenous peoples.

G1.8 Briefly describe each project activity and the expected outputs, outcomes and impacts of the activities identifying the causal relationships that explain how the activities will achieve the project’s predicted climate, community and biodiversity benefits.

We will work around 3 focal issues and associated project activities:

1. Sustainable agriculture: We will build a sustainable agroforestry model for smallholder farmers. The model is designed to restore deforested lands with native crops and trees. Species and maintenance are selected so as to ensure resiliency to natural vulnerabilities (changing climate, pests, etc.) and to ensure that farmer livelihoods are improved from multiple revenue streams.

2. Access to formal markets for smallholder farmers: Strengthen the social structure between farmers, enhancing their capacity to profit from natural resource‐based enterprises. Smallholders will successfully govern their own trade associations; these associations will enable communities to work together in unified structures with capacity to engage in the formal market through business contracts, and manage the supply of Amazonian fruit, and add value to their supply chain.

3. Biodiversity conservation: Deforestation and degradation of the rainforest from smallholder agriculture will be reduced, and forest cover increased, improving biodiversity conservation in the Amazon.

We have developed an “agroforestry” model that will restore value to degraded, unproductive agricultural lands through market‐orientated agroforestry systems, thereby reducing deforestation pressure. At the core of our model is the importance of diversifying farmer incomes through sale of produce in the short and medium term, timber in the medium to long‐term, and complimented by payments for ecosystem services (namely carbon). Our model has been developed from over 10 years research in the Peruvian Amazon by Plant your Future, and it is centered on the understanding that the only way to really improve livelihoods is to connect farmers with the market. This will also bring positive benefits for the climate and biodiversity, but without addresses the central livelihood issue for smallholders these cannot be achieved. Our key project activity for Planting for the Future is implementing these agroforestry systems on degrading lands, and building farmers capacity to maintain and manage them.

Figure 10. The Planting for the Future model

Key ‘innovative elements’ of the model are the sale of short term crops aimed at high value ‘gourmet’ markets and the sale of carbon offsets. Providing farmers a revenue in the short and medium term is the key element that has been missing to date, and which has prevented the adoption of agroforestry amongst most farmers.

We have identified planting chilli peppers within the agroforestry systems as one option for high value short‐term crop(Capsicum chinense ). These grow well as a native crop of the Peruvian Amazon and are an established condiment with a growing market. This will be part of the project activity in the Loreto and Ucayali instances.

We will facilitate the formation of a trade association for farmers, work with them to develop a supply chain, and support marketing of chilli, and other high value Amazonian fruits, to local businesses in Iquitos as well as to high end “gastro‐chefs” and markets in Lima.

Carbon finance will complement income from short‐term crops, enabling farmers to maintain their trees in the medium term. To this end, we have developed a programmatic framework that will be verified under the Verified Carbon Standard and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard. (see section 2) In the long term, farmers will realize a large payoff when their timber trees have matured.

36 For the model to work properly all elements of the model need to be functioning to ensure farmers get the revenues they need to positively incentivize them to adopt and continue agroforestry, and improve their livelihoods.

A comprehensive monitoring system will enable the project to keep track of project outputs, outcomes and impacts.

Expected outputs, outcomes and impacts from project activities:

The over‐arching impact is to achieve the project vision as described in section G1.2; will see Peruvian smallholders transition from unsustainable agriculture to market‐oriented agroforestry systems. We aim to achieve large scale uptake of the Plant your Future model by smallholder farmers in Loreto and Ucayali, and across the broader geographical area for expansion. The impact of our model will be that income generating sustainable agroforestry will have replaced low‐value subsistence agriculture and degraded pastures for smallholder farmers. Project beneficiaries in Loreto and Ucayali will be earning income from sale of chilli peppers, Amazonian fruits and carbon offset sales from their smallholdings. Smallholders will be successfully governing their own trade associations. These associations will enable communities to work together in unified structures with capacity to engage in business contracts and manage the supply of Amazonian fruit. The trade associations will run a chilli pepper business that sells peppers into domestic and international, gourmet markets. They will expand over time to sell other Amazonian fruits harvested from the fruit trees such as copoazu and guanabana. Our model will inspire, and enable, other smallholder farmers with degraded lands to join in project activities, reducing deforestation pressure on the landscape scale. In addition, we will have developed a detailed business case to attract the flow of private capital to allow the model to be scaled up, modelling returns and establishing an investment vehicle. The agroforestry systems will generate carbon offsets certified by under the VCS and the CCB Standards and sold to high‐end buys who recognize not only the carbon mitigation value but also the exceptional community and biodiversity benefits of the project.

The three problem flow diagrams show the theory of change for the three focal issues looking at the current problem, project opportunity as well as direct threats. Addressing these three focal issues will be critical to achieving the overall project vision. Climate, Community and Biodiversity benefits are relevant to all focal issues.

37 Figure 11. Sustainable agriculture problem flow

38 Figure 12. Market access problem flow

Figure 13. Biodiversity problem flow

G1.9 Define the project start date and lifetime, and GHG accounting period and biodiversity and community benefits assessment period if relevant, and explain and justify any differences between them. Define an implementation schedule, indicating key dates and milestones in the project’s development. Project start date: January 16, 2012 – the day the first trees were planted, located in the Loreto Instance.

The project lifetime is 30 years, and the GHG accounting period, as well as biodiversity and community benefits assessment period are the same. It is anticipated project benefits fro community and biodiversity will extend beyond 30 years, but the project lifetime is only 30 years as this is the length of legal agreements with farmers.

Figure 14 Implementation Schedule

RISK MANAGEMENT AND LONG‐TERM VIABILITY G1.10 Identify likely natural and human‐induced risks to the expected climate, community and biodiversity benefits during the project lifetime and outline measures needed and taken to mitigate these risks. Climate: For risks associated with the climate change mitigation element of this project, see the completed VCS AFOLU Non‐Permanence Risk Tool, version 3.2.

41 Community: Based on the farmers’ culture of short timeframes and many immediate needs, there is a risk that the farmers will become disillusioned with the project if they fail to see results and positive incentives from the reforestation/agroforestry activities. This would lead to them selling land or simply cutting down or neglecting the trees planted for Planting for the Future, and breaking the legal agreements in place for their commitment to the project. In the Loreto Project Areas, where there have been a number of failed reforestation/agroforestry projects in the past, this is a risk that needs to be mitigated by constant support. The project’s technician, based in Iquitos, spends several days a week farmers and providing them with resources, technical support and supervision. The Ucayali participants have been inspired by the success of the Campo Verde reforestation carbon project, but Plant your Future will work to ensure that the participants in Planting for the Future do not become discouraged if something goes wrong in the Campo Verde project. We will follow a similar model to Loreto with on‐going technical support and visits from extension workers/project technicians. The careful planning of short, medium and long term crops, as well as financial support for weeding and pest control by the project in the early years of the project aims to mitigate the risk of farmers leaving the project.

Plant your Future has ensured that farmers only use a small portion of their total landholding for agroforestry. Furthermore, farmers participated in the planting plan development. This ensures that they are knowledgeable about and confident in the crops that they are growing. The core element of the project is restoring degraded lands and introducing and building farmers capacity to implement a new model for agriculture which replaces the old system of migratory agriculture. The aim of the project is that smallholder farmers see the positive incentives from agroforestry and with time adopt this more broadly on their land.

Climate change will likely lead to increased temperatures and changing rain patterns, if not over the time frame of this project, then definitely over the longer term. Planting for the Future has taken this into consideration in species selection. We will provide information and technical support to farmers for the duration of the project, educating them to be able to carefully consider the impacts that climate change might have in the future.

Biodiversity:

The project is only working with native species and is restoring degraded areas to the native ecosystem type which is forest. We are using natural pest control and disease control measures wherever possible.

G1.11 Describe the measures needed and taken to maintain and enhance the climate, community and biodiversity benefits beyond the project lifetime. The Planting for the Future programme is set up to demonstrate that higher returns can be generated from agroforestry than from subsistence agriculture and raising cattle. Over the 30‐year life of the project, it is intended that farmer capacity, social capital, technical know‐how, business know‐how, knowledge and connections are established so that the model can sustain itself into the future and will be replicated by farmers as their preferred land use choice. The project aims to create a paradigm shift in the type of agriculture that farmers use, and that by the end of the project farmers will realise this type of land use (agroforestry/sustainable forestry) improves their

42 livelihoods, so will be adopted over and above the baseline agriculture type (slash and burn/ranching)

G1.12 Demonstrate that financial mechanisms adopted, including actual and projected revenues from GHG emissions reductions or removals and other sources, provide an adequate actual and projected flow of funds for project implementation and to achieve the project’s climate, community and biodiversity benefits. The project is raising funds from philanthropic and investment sources to fund the initial implementation activities – i.e. site preparation, nursery development and planting of trees. We have budgeted to provide on‐going financial and technical support for the first three years following the installation of the agroforestry systems. While VCU’s will not be generated until verification the project anticipates selling a proportion of carbon credits ex‐ante, following validation. This will provide an important revenue stream to support the maintenance of the agroforestry systems in the critical early years. Revenues from carbon benefits will also be shared with smallholder farmers participating in the project directly, from year 3.

The project has identified it is essential that in the near term we help farmers to generate a short‐term income through the planting of a high value short term crop within the agroforestry systems. In the Loreto and Ucayali Instances we are implementing a programme to produce chilli’s (capsicum) in these areas between the young trees. This would mean the farmers are maximising their energies, by using the land which they are maintaining, and are already weeding (around and between the young trees) to grow something that will generate them a strong return. Based on an assessment of market condition and natural growing conditions we believe developing a chilli pepper business would offer the strongest potential for increasing their incomes.

Starting a chilli pepper production programme ( in combination with other higher value short term crops such as cocona and papaya) is important, giving the farmers a focused activity to keep them motivated in the short term within the agroforestry systems and with an income to enable them to maintain the other trees in the systems for their longer‐term income.

PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH The project is structured to start with an initial small group of smallholder farmers, scaling up over time as others see the model proven and become interested in joining. Given the significant proportion of the millions of hectares of deforested land in Peru that is owned by smallholders, we believe this will provide a critical framework to tackle the reforestation of deforested lands at a landscape level.

G1.13 Specify the Project Area(s) and Communities that may be included under the programmatic approach, and identify any new Project Area(s) and Communities that have been included in the project since the last validation or verification against the CCB Standards.

43 See Figure 2‐Figure 5 for the location of current Project Areas and G1.7 for location and description of current Communities.

In creating a model that is truly scalable, it is our intention that, in the future, Planting for the Future could expand to new areas, include instances managed directly by Plant your Future as well as organizations other than Plant your Future within Peru that meet the eligibility criteria described in G1.14. Figure 15 illustrates the potential area for Planting for the Future activities to be scaled to at the national level. It is not possible at the present time to determine where future Project Areas may occur, so we plan to submit documentation of new Project Zones as new Project Areas are added outside of the current Zones.

Figure 15. Geographic area (blue) where potential Planting for the Future activities could occur, pending compliance with the criteria in G1.14.

G1.14 Specify the eligibility criteria and process for project expansion under the programmatic approach and demonstrate that these have been met for any new Project

44 Areas and Communities that have been included in the project since the last validation or verification against the CCB Standards. Project activities must meet the following eligibility criteria:

 Be located in the Republic of Peru within Geographical area show in Figure 15  Occur on land belonging to a ‘smallholder” farmer’. A ‘smallholder farmer’ is defined for the purposes of this grouped project description as a land holder that is not structurally dependent on permanent hired labour, manages their land mainly with their own and their family’s labour force, and whose primary income comes from their land management activities27. o Ownership of land by the smallholder must be demonstrated by clear title and relevant documentation. In exceptional cases the smallholder can hold possession title over the land only, but be in the advanced stages of and committed to obtaining complete title. The complete title must be obtainable before verification.  It must be demonstrable that the land was not cleared of native vegetation in order to create GHG credits  It must be demonstrable that the land was clear of native ecosystems prior to the start date of this programmatic approach, January 16th, 2012.  The smallholder wants to restore their land to forest and put it into sustainable management  The land owner is willing and able to sign an agreement which commits him to transfer the rights for the carbon to the project proponent and maintain the trees which have been planted as part of the project for a minimum of 30 years in accordance with an agreed management plan.  The land owner is willing to allow access to his land for inspection and monitoring of carbon stocks, community impacts and biodiversity  It must be demonstrable that the land to be included in new project instances meets one of the two baseline criteria, namely: o Shifting cultivation (‘slash and burn’) agriculture, whereby the land must have been burnt to prepare the land for agriculture at least once within the ten‐year period January 15, 2002‐ January 16, 2012; or o Degraded pasture, whereby lands must have been cleared of their native ecosystems since January 15, 2002.

For all lands included in the current Project Areas (Loreto and Ucayali Instances), these criteria have been met through the use of social surveys, satellite imagery, legal due diligence and contracts with land owners.

G1.15 Establish scalability limits, if applicable, and describe measures needed and taken to address any risks to climate, community and biodiversity benefits if the project expands beyond those limits.

27 Definition taken from the Plan Vivo Standard

45 The project can only be scaled within the Geographical Area if it meets the eligibility criteria. The project aims to scale up to the landscape level to achieve maximum climate, community and biodiversity benefits. Given that we use conservative estimates for carbon sequestration, we do not believe there is a risk that carbon sequestration will be overestimated as Project Areas are added. The programmatic approach is employed explicitly so that Planting for the Future can build its economic and managerial capacity, as well as that of participating farmers, as the project activities are replicated. Because of the small‐scale of individual reforestation activities and that it will only occur on a percentage of a smallholder landholding (generally under 50%) we do not anticipate undue burden on a given smallholder family, but we will monitor this as the project is implemented and take actions as necessary to compensate for or eliminate potential issues.

G2. WITHOUT‐PROJECT LAND USE SCENARIO AND ADDITIONALITY

G2.1 Describe the most likely land‐use scenario within the Project Zone in the absence of the project, describing the range of potential land‐use scenarios and the associated drivers of land use changes and justifying why the land‐use scenario selected is most likely. It is allowable for different locations within the Project Zone to have different without‐ project land use scenarios.

The without‐project land use scenario (hereafter referred to as baseline scenario) of Planting for the Future is defined through the application of the Clean Development Mechanism’s Combined Tool To Identify The Baseline Scenario and Demonstrate Additionality in A/R CDM Project Activities, version 1 (see Appendix 1. Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality in A/R CDM project activities (version 01). Two strata have been identified for the baseline scenario, so the procedure is applied twice.

BASELINE SCENARIO A. SHIFTING CULTIVATION ‘SLASH AND BURN’ AGRICULTURE

The slash and burn agriculture baseline represents land that has been cleared of tropical forest and burnt to make way for agriculture. The land is then cultivated for a few years until it is depleted of nutrients. The farmer then moves on to a new area of land to cultivate, leaving the previously cultivated area fallow. Following the area being left to fallow, the farmer will return to the land to re‐clear and burn, allowing the soils to gain nutrients and the land to be re‐cultivated.

Under this baseline scenario, which applies in the current Loreto Project Areas, the land owned by farmers undergoes a constant cycle of clearing for agriculture, being farmed for 2‐3 years (chacra), then left as fallow (purma) for a number of years before being cleared again. Most farmers’ land is therefore a mosaic of agriculture and wooded fallow in various stages of recovery.

Our baseline scenario assumes that this land, without the project, would remain in the same cycle of clearing and low‐value growth. We assume that the time between clearing events will be the same in the future as in the recent past, and calculate the mean carbon stock through time using a set of field plots located in agriculture and various ages of regrowth.

Determination of time between clearing events

46 An analysis was performed using satellite imagery in order to confirm that the project area was subject to repeated clearings and to attempt to estimate the average time between clearing events. This analysis was conducted using Landsat imagery downloaded from the United States Geographical Survey and analysed by Edward Mitchard from the University of Edinburgh.

The Landsat archive from 1992 (20 years prior to the project start date) was queried, searching for scenes with less than 10% cloud cover over the project area. Only scenes captured in the dry season were considered, as only in the dry season can intact forest, degraded forest/fallow, and agricultural land be confidently distinguished. Five cloud‐free dry‐season Landsat scenes were found, from 1995, 1999, 2005, 2009 and 2011.

Training areas corresponding to areas of known land cover type were identified individually for every image. These included intact forest, young fallow, agriculture/grassland, bare ground and water bodies. At least 20 polygons were identified for each class, as recommended in GOFC‐GOLD (200928). Not all sites used as training data had been visited, with in some cases these sites were defined using hyperspatial imagery (e.g. IKONOS scenes from 2002 and 2010 made available to the project through a grant from the GeoEye Foundation) and expert knowledge. Supervised classification was then performed using a Neural Network approach, with user’s classification accuracies better than 95% in all cases (mean 98.5%). A full report that gives more details on the classification approach is available on request.

A simple turnover analysis was used to confirm that all agricultural plots were found in areas that were in this shifting cultivation cycle. We took all five classifications (1995‐2011) and mapped all areas that had changed from forest to non‐forest at least once, in addition to those areas that were always non‐forest or always forest. The result is shown in Figure 16

28 GOFC‐GOLD. 2009. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries: a sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring, measuring and reporting. Alberta, Canada: GOFC‐GOLD Report version COP14‐2, 49. Retrieved from http://www.gofc‐gold.uni‐jena.de/redd/sourcebook/Sourcebook_Version_July_2009_cop14‐2.pdf

Figure 16. Land use in the Loreto Project Areas between 1995 and 2011

We found that all land considered for the project was in the ‘shifting forest/non‐forest’ class, and thus all land was deemed to be qualified under this baseline scenario. As a further check, we also individually examined 0.8 m resolution IKONOS data from 2002 and 2010 for all parcels where it was available to confirm that the project parcels within the land of each farmer did not overlap with any undisturbed forest areas and confirmed that they were on areas used for agriculture or in early stages of fallow in both dates.

We placed field plots in a range of fallow age strata, but needed to establish the average time between clearing events in order to calculate the mean carbon storage of land in the fallow cycle. Time between clearing is known to vary considerably, from as little as 2 years to as much as 15 years. Due to the long time scales and poor sample sizes involved in establishing mean fallow time from interviews with farmers, results from such surveys are very likely to be incorrect or biased. We therefore decided to use the satellite analysis for this calculation. Though it has its own inaccuracies, satellite analysis benefits from a very large sample size (millions of pixels) and an unbiased and consistent picture of the recent past. We calculated the number of years between clearing events for areas of forest in the Loreto region that had been cleared at least twice during 1995‐2011 (the longest range available from satellite data). As annual data is not available, there is limited temporal resolution in this analysis: the minimum time between clearing visible is the shortest time span between three images, which was six years (for land that was non‐forest in 2005, fallow in 2009 and non‐forest again in 2011), and the maximum time span was 16 years (non‐forest in 1995, forest at some point in between, and non‐forest again in 2011). However, we

48 believe most land is cleared between these extremes, so this represents a reasonable dataset for calculating the mean time between clearing events.

The result was a mean time between clearing events of 8.97 years for the project area, based on a dataset of 1,156 ha of land that was cleared at least twice. The results are shown in Figure 17

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 1 234 5 6 7 8910 11 12 13 14 15 16 Time between forest clearing events (years)

Figure 17. Time between clearing events in the Loreto project region (mean = 8.97 years)

BASELINE SCENARIO B. DEGRADED PASTURES

The degraded pasture baseline represents land that has been cleared of tropical forest and burnt to make way for cattle grazing and some subsistence agriculture.

Under this baseline scenario, which applies in the current Ucayali Project Areas, the land owned by farmers is continuously degraded by cattle grazing and frequent fires. The land is covered by grass and shrubs. It is dominated by the grass Braquiaria decumbes, which grows quickly, is difficult to control, and prevents the growth of native vegetation (Faus da Silva Dias, da Costa Aguiar Alves, de Souza Dias, 200429).

The baseline conditions for the degraded pastures assessed and validated as part of the adjacent Campo Verde VCS /CCB carbon project can be extrapolated for the Ucayali instances in Planting for the Future. The pastures have experienced the same past land‐use. The VCS PD for that project30 describes the area as follows:

Field measurements placed 110 plots randomly throughout the [Campo Verde] project area found no saplings (trees >1.3 m height, less than 5 cm DBH).

29 Faus da Silva, G., da Costa Aguiar Alves, P.L., and de Souza Dias, T.C. 2004. Piracicaba, Brazil: Sci. Agric., v.61, n.6, p.579‐583. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/sa/v61n6/a03v61n6.pdf

30 Available at http://www.climate‐standards.org/2008/11/25/reforestation‐with‐native‐ commercial‐species‐on‐degraded‐lands‐for‐timber‐and‐carbon‐purposes‐in‐campo‐verde‐ ucayali‐peru/

49 Based on field measurements from the Campo Verde project, the soils in the project area contain very low levels of carbon (average 0.86% in top ten cm). The maximum loss of soil carbon from ploughing

would be 40% of soil carbon or 24,000 t CO2e. (740 ha * 33t CO2e/ha = 24,420 tCO2e). Current vegetation cover is dominated by an average of 2 t C ha‐1 of grass that is grazed and burned over time, thus organic inputs into the soil are minimal. The trees planted during the project will supply significantly large amounts of organic inputs into the soil. Thus, even if minimal amounts of soil carbon are lost initially, this soil carbon loss will be regained quickly.

Litter levels from the dominant grass vegetation can be assumed to be at a steady state or decreasing due to degradation in the absence of the project. In the project, the amount of leaf litter will increase significantly within the first year of the project. The very limited number of existing trees produces only minimal amounts of dead wood that will either decrease more or increase less than the project activity. Soil carbon levels are very low (Less than 1%). Soil carbon levels were measured in the project area and an adjoining forest area and were found to not be significantly different. Therefore, soil carbon can be expected to increase less in the baseline than in the project scenario.

Soil drainage disturbances are insignificant.

G2.2 Document that project benefits including climate, community and biodiversity benefits would not have occurred in the absence of the project, explaining how existing laws, regulations and governance arrangements, or lack of laws and regulations and their enforcement, would likely affect land use and justifying that the benefits being claimed by the project are truly ‘additional’ and would not have occurred without the project. Identify any distinct climate, community and biodiversity benefits intended for use as offsets and specify how additionality is established for each of these benefits.

Please refer to Appendix 1. Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality in A/R CDM project activities (version 01). This tool is comparable to the Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in VCS Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Project Activities, which is specified in footnote 34 to the CCB Standards Third Edition as a method for justifying the additionality of the project’s climate, community and biodiversity benefits. Appendix 1.

G3. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

ACCESS TO INFORMATION G3.1 Describe how full project documentation has been made accessible to Communities and Other Stakeholders, how summary project documentation (including how to access full documentation) has been actively disseminated to Communities in relevant local or regional languages, and how widely publicized information meetings have been held with Communities and Other Stakeholders.

50 Extensive consultations, formal and informal, have been taken with Communities and Other Stakeholders. In addition to the meetings referenced in Table 2 and Table 3 Plant your Future has been in contact with technical experts, local NGOs, and companies associated with reforestation projects in the region. Table 4 and Table 5 below list other key consultative events.

The workshop of October 23rd 2012 includes participants from the regional government of Loreto (GOREL), The Research Institute of the Peruvian Amazon (IIAP), Latitud Sur, Regional Agricultural Department, OTAE, COPASIMOL, WCS, ICRAF and Inveriones Tres Hermanos.

Table 4. Consultative meetings regarding the Loreto Project Zone

Date(s) Event Conducted by Participants Subjects whom addressed

On‐going from One to one Plant your Future Communities Sustainable 2011 until 2014 consultations with ProNaturaleza and Other agriculture, smallholders and Stakeholders agroforestry, informal visits to carbon credits. farms

22 October 2012 Workshop with Plant your Communities Agroforestry farmers and small‐ Future, and Other system design, scale producers in Stakeholders carbon Moralillo and ProNaturaleza certification and Varillal credits

23 October 2012 Workshop with Plant your Future Other Plant your Future representatives of technical team Stakeholders model for the Mesa REDD sustainable Loreto and agriculture, carbon technicians of the certification and region credits

6‐20 December Farmer survey Plant your Communities Establish current 2012 Future, land use

consultant Sara Mateo

16 December Workshop 1 with Plant your Communities Project concept 2012 farmers Future,

consultant Sara Mateo

51 January 2013 Workshop 2 with Plant your Communities Parcel design and farmers Future, species selection

consultant Sara Mateo

April 2013 Consultation on Plant your Communities Signing of LOI project design and Future, carbon agreements ProNaturaleza

July 12th Consultation on Plant your Communities legal agreement Future, Maria text Rondon (legal consultant), ProNaturaleza, IICA

July 13th Legal consultation Plant your Communities Consultation on on draft Future, Legal Agreements project/carbon ProNaturaleza, agreements Maria Rondon including benefit (legal sharing on carbon consultant), IICA revenues

November 2013 Legal consultation Plant your Communities, Consultation on on draft Future, Other Legal Agreements project/carbon ProNaturaleza, Stakeholders, agreements Planta tu Futuro Notary including benefit sharing on carbon revenues

Table 5. Consultative meetings regarding the Ucayali Project Zone

Date Event Conducted by Participants Subjects whom addressed

October 2013 Initial consultative Bosque Communities Sustainable discussions with agriculture,

52 villages Amazonicos agroforestry, surrounding carbon credits. Campo Verde plantation about project concept. Field visits.

November 2013 Workshop with Plant your Communities Project concept farmers and small‐ Future/Bosques and Other scale producers Amazonicos Stakeholders

January 2014 Site visits and one‐ Bosques Communities Project eligibility to‐one discussions Amazonicos criteria

June 2014 Consultation on Plant your Communities Consultation on project design and Future/Bosques Legal Agreements carbon agreements Amazonicos and benefit sharing

G3.2 Explain how relevant and adequate information about potential costs, risks and benefits to Communities has been provided to them in a form they understand and in a timely manner prior to any decision they may be asked to make with respect to participation in the project. Information was provided to the smallholder farmers via PowerPoint presentations, formal discussions, informal group discussions, individual discussions and via pamphlets. These described the potential costs, risks and benefits for smallholder participating in the project. These were provided prior to the signing of any legal agreements.

G3.3 Describe the measures taken, and communications methods used, to explain to Communities and Other Stakeholders the process for validation and/or verification against the CCB Standards by an independent Auditor, providing them with timely information about the Auditor’s site visit before the site visit occurs and facilitating direct and independent communication between them or their representatives and the Auditor.

Communities and Stakeholders have been made aware of the projects intension to be certified against the CCB Standard since consultations started in relation to the project in November 2012. Initially this involved explaining the CCB Standard and its value and importance to the project. Further capacity building was done subsequently with Communities and Other Stakeholders to explain the CCB criteria, and design the project in accordance with its criteria.

Communities and Other Stakeholders will be notified by project personnel via email and in person during July 2014 of the auditor’s site visit. The project will comply with the auditors request in terms of facilitating independent communication between Communities and Other Stakeholders during the audit.

53 CONSULTATION G3.4 Describe how Communities including all the Community Groups and Other Stakeholders have influenced project design and implementation through Effective Consultation, particularly with a view to optimizing Community and Other Stakeholder benefits, respecting local customs, values and institutions and maintaining high conservation values. Project proponents must document consultations and indicate if and how the project design and implementation has been revised based on such input. A plan must be developed and implemented to continue communication and consultation between the project proponents and Communities, including all the Community Groups, and Other Stakeholders about the project and its impacts to facilitate adaptive management throughout the life of the project.

Plant your Future, in conjunction with partners, has carried out an extensive consultation and capacity building process with the smallholder farmers in relation to the design of the project, participation in the project activities and legal agreements in relation to smallholder farmers participation in the project and commitments from both them and Plant your Future. See Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 for the details of consultations that have been carried out. Consultation will continue in the future. There is on‐going consultation between Plant your Future and Communities through regular farm visiting and one‐on‐one discussions. We will also convene an annual general meeting for Communities of each project instance, as well as on‐going meetings convened with Community Groups and Other Stakeholders.

Consultation with Community Groups

The concept of carbon rights, carbon offsets and carbon markets was novel to farmers, and farmers had limited knowledge of how carbon certification and commercialisation works. Plant your Future has developed a series of training workshops and take home materials to explain these concepts to farmers. Farmers have had the opportunity to participate in a range of large group, small groups and individual workshops and meetings to discuss the issue of the carbon rights. Participation by farmers in the scheme is entirely voluntary, and the programme has been designed with farmer decision making at the centre of the project since its inception. The legal agreement has also undergone an extensive review process from partners and donors, including a revisions process by a third party Peruvian legal institution to ensure equity and clarity for the smallholders was being given. Third party representative have been present at all plenary workshops to witness transparent information exchange between farmers and Planta tu Futuro representatives e.g. representatives from ProNaturaleza and from the donor organisation Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación por la Agricultura (IICA).

Consultation with Other Stakeholders

Wider consultation has occurred in relation to the project has occurred at the local and national level in Peru and internationally. Plant your Future, in collaboration with ProNaturaleza and IICA, organised a workshop in Iquitos for representatives from regional government and local research institutions and NGO’s.

54 Plant your Future has also socialised the project in a variety of settings in England and sought feedback including through presentations at Oxford University, LSE and the Anglo‐Peruvian Society in London.

G3.5 Demonstrate that all consultations and participatory processes have been undertaken directly with Communities and Other Stakeholders or through their legitimate representatives, ensuring adequate levels of information sharing with the members of the groups.

All consultations were undertaken directly with Community groups – which in the case of this project are smallholder projects participating in the project. A variety of techniques has been taken to ensure full participation –varying consultation from meetings with all farmers present, to village meetings and also individual meetings held at smallholders homes or on their farm. For regional level consultation with Other Stakeholders initiations were issued to a consultation to legitimate representatives. Consultations were also made at an individual level with Other Stakeholder groups, as part of the participatory design of the project.

PARTICIPATION IN DECISION‐MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION G3.6 Describe the measures needed and taken to enable effective participation, as appropriate, of all Communities, including all the Community Groups, that want and need to be involved in project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation throughout the project lifetime, and describe how they have been implemented in a culturally appropriate and gender sensitive manner.

The project is being implemented directly with smallholder farmers on land which they own in a culturally sensitive and gender sensitive manner. Implementation of project activities are led by technicians from the region who have experience working with smallholder farmers. Participation in the project is voluntary, and farmers were selected who met pre‐defined project criteria. All smallholder farmers were invited to attend plenary consultation events, and were given advance notice of the dates of meetings, and were provide funds to cover their transportation costs to the plenary consultation to ensure participation was not restricted by financial means. In this way smallholder farmers have directly participated in project design – namely selecting the area of their farm for inclusion in the project and through consultation on which species to plant. They are responsible for the implementation of reforestation activities and on‐going maintenance. This has been implemented through on‐going farm visits from Plant your Future staff, including regular visits from our local technicians who they see on a regular basis. Communities are critical to project monitoring and evaluation and a programme of monitoring is implemented on an on‐going basis by Communities.

ANTI‐DISCRIMINATION

55 G3.7 Describe the measures needed and taken to ensure that the project proponent and all other entities involved in project design and implementation are not involved in or complicit in any form of discrimination or sexual harassment with respect to the project.

Plant your Future and Planta tu Futuro share a policy of zero tolerance to any form of harassment or discrimination by or toward all staff, personnel, trustees and partners. See ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.

FEEDBACK AND GRIEVANCE REDRESS PROCEDURE G3.8 Demonstrate that a clear grievance redress procedure has been formalized to address disputes with Communities and Other Stakeholders that may arise during project planning, implementation and evaluation with respect but not limited to, Free, Prior and Informed Consent, rights to lands, territories and resources, benefit sharing, and participation.

The project has a clear grievance and re‐dress process in place, which has been ratified by the Plant your Future Board of trustees, and disseminated to staff, Communities and Other Stakeholders.

The project shall include a process for receiving, hearing, responding to and attempting to resolve Grievances within a reasonable time period. The Feedback and Grievance Redress Procedure shall take into account traditional methods that Communities and Other Stakeholders use to resolve conflicts.

The Feedback and Grievance Redress Policy includes a process for receiving, hearing and responding to Grievances, taking into account traditional methods that are appropriate for Communities and Other Stakeholders. This is detailed in the policy. Available on request at audit.

WORKER RELATIONS G3.9 Describe measures needed and taken to provide orientation and training for the project’s workers and relevant people from the Communities with an objective of building locally useful skills and knowledge to increase local participation in project implementation. These capacity building efforts should target a wide range of people in the Communities, with special attention to women and vulnerable and/or marginalized people. Identify how training is passed on to new workers when there is staff turnover, so that local capacity will not be lost.

Plant your Future has a small staff. Project beneficiaries, who work on the project are selected based on the eligibility criteria described in Section G1.14 and are smallholder farmers. In accordance with the anti‐discrimination policy recruit it not biased to gender, race etc. Capacity building is provided to project beneficiaries through training workshops at all stages of project implementation, as well as hands on training and guidance on the farm provided by Plant your Future technicians. Existing farmers in the programme play an important role in training new farmers in the scheme through visits to existing agroforestry systems and farmer to farmer training on the farm and in the nursery.

56 G3.10 Demonstrate that people from the Communities are given an equal opportunity to fill all work positions (including management) if the job requirements are met. Explain how workers are selected for positions and where relevant, describe the measures needed and taken to ensure Community members, including women and vulnerable and/or marginalized people, are given a fair chance to fill positions for which they can be trained.

Plant your Future and Planta tu Futuro are small organizations with few employees. Communities are given an equal opportunity to fill all work positions, including management, if the job requirements are met. The project has hired extension workers from the Communities wherever possible.

G3.11 Submit a list of all relevant laws and regulations covering worker’s rights in the host country. Describe measures needed and taken to inform workers about their rights. Provide assurance that the project meets or exceeds all applicable laws and/or regulations covering worker rights and, where relevant, demonstrate how compliance is achieved.

Plant your Future and Planta tu Futuro comply with all relevant laws and regulations covering worker’s rights that apply to the project, which include the following:

 United Nations: o Universal Declaration of Human Rights o International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights o Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women  Organization of American States: American Convention on Human Rights  International Labour Organization: Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention (no. 65)  Constitución Política del Perú  Código Civil (Ley 23403)  Ley de Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo (Ley 29783)  Ley de Productividad y Competitividad Laboral y su Reglamento (Dercreto Legislativo 728)  Ley de Igualidad de Oportunidades (Ley 28983)  Código Penal (Decreto Legislativo 635)  Décimo Primera Política del Acuerdo Nacional

Plant your Future educates all of those employed in Planting for the Future activities of their rights and obligations at the time of contract signing. Pay is established according to the level of skill required by the position and compensation is in compliance with the standards established by law.

G3.12 Comprehensively assess situations and occupations that might arise through the implementation of the project and pose a substantial risk to worker safety. Describe measures needed and taken to inform workers of risks and to explain how to minimize such risks. Where worker safety cannot be guaranteed, project proponents must show

57 how the risks are minimized using best work practices in line with the culture and customary practices of the communities.

Risk scenarios

Safety is a primary concern for Plant your Future. All producers are educated about the following risk scenarios.

Current risks:

 Pesticide and insecticide use  Bites or stings of snakes, spiders or poisonous insects, which could happen when producers are working on agroforestry activities such as weeding, pruning, fertilizing, etc.  Injury due to machete use for weeding  Injury due to use of pruning tools  Vehicular accident (Plant your Future staff only): Plant your Future has provided a motorcycle and helmet to enable project staff to get around to all of the producers. This is poses the risk of accident due to bad road conditions, bad drivers on the road around, and possible vehicle failure.  Contraction of malaria, dengue and yellow fever, all of which are present in the Project Zone.31  Poisoning caused by the application of insecticide, herbicide or other chemicals that affect the producer  Poisoning from ingestion of spoiled food Future risks:

 All of the above  Injury due to falls and other things associated with tree maintenance  Injuries associated with timber harvest Preventative measures

Before carbon stock measurements, producers and technical staff are asked to read Procedimiento Estándar de Operaciones Manual de Instrucciones para Seguridad en Campo Durante las Mediciones de Carbono Terrestre (Standard Operating Procedure, Field Saftey Instruction Manual During Land‐Based Carbon Measurments, available upon auditor request). This manual suggests the following preventative measures for field measuring and monitoring teams; they are also recommended where appropriate to producers as best practice.

 All field teams are required to have a minimum of two people  For each day in the field, the teams must give specific information about where they will be and for how long to a point of contact designated by Plant your Future

31 As project participants are working their own land, the project activities do not represent greater exposure risk than they would otherwise have.

58  The nearest medical centre must be identified based on where the field team will be working that day  Have personal and institutional insurance and identification cards at all times  Each team should have at least one charged telephone  Each team should have a first aid kit that includes antivenin for areas where there are known to be poisonous snakes  Wear clothing and footwear appropriate to the conditions that will most likely be encountered, e.g. field boots and leg protectors in areas where there are known to be poisonous snakes  Before going to the field, verify rules about hunting (which change from location to location; while there is no hunting permitted in the Project Zones, it is possible that the landowner might be hunting for his or her own consumption)  Take care in operating motor vehicles. The project is taking pesticide and insecticide use very seriously. While farmers are familiar with and ask for pesticides that can have serious negative side effects, the project recognizes the need to use integrated pest management. Staff and farmers are working with Bosques Amazonicos to pilot organic methods.

As the project progresses, producers and other project staff will be trained in procedures for safely harvesting agricultural produce and timber.

G4. MANAGEMENT CAPACITY

G4.1 Describe the project’s governance structures, and roles and responsibilities of all the entities involved in project design and implementation. For projects using a programmatic approach, identify any new entities included in the project since the last validation or verification against the CCB Standards.

Plant your Future has developed the Planting for the Future programmatic approach. Plant your Future is responsible for the carbon validation and verification of the project as well as the overall management of the project, and is responsible for the implementation and monitoring of project activities in the project instances described in this project documentation. Plant your Future is governed by a Trust deed which was approved by the Charity Commission of England and Wales. We currently has a Board of Trustees of 7 people, and make an annual account/turnover submission to the Charity Commission along with an annual report.

Associación Civil Planta tu Futuro is the NGO registered in Peru with the same mission as Plant your Future. Planta tu Futuro will own the carbon credits from the project. It will be responsible for the distribution of carbon revenues to farmers.

Fundación Peruana Para La Conservacion de la Naturaleza (ProNaturaleza) is a Peruvian conservation NGO established in 1984 with offices across Peru including in the city of Iquitos at a close proximity to the Loreto Project Zone. ProNaturaleza has been responsible for the technical supervision of the installation of the 20.2 hectares of agroforestry systems in Loreto. Their roles

59 have included the setting up of nurseries, procurement of seedlings and planting out in the field during 2012 and 2013.

Bosques Amazonicos (BAM) is a Peruvian private company established in 2004 working in reforestation and forest conservation in the Amazon provinces of Peru. Together with Sustainable Forest Management Ltd. (SFM), it created the joint venture company SFM‐BAM to finance the neighbouring Campo Verde reforestation carbon project. BAM’s role is assisting with technical supervision for the installation of the agroforestry systems, and providing the baseline information for the degraded pasture baseline.

Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación por la Agricultura (IICA) is the organization that provided funding for the writing of the VCS PD, 15 hectares of the Planting for the Future’s initial instance in Loreto, and the validation of the project against the VCS and CCB Standards.

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

Plant your Future is overseen by a Board of Trustee, many of whom have long standing management expertise and prior experience implementing land management and carbon projects. Specifically Jenny Henman, Edward Mitchard, Maria Spink, Juan Chang and Sandra Brown have experience working on VCS and CCB across the tropics. Please see www.plantyourfuture.org.uk for more detailed biographies. Adriana Vidal, who has advised the project and will join the Board of Planta tu Futuro is a Peruvian Lawyer, experienced in Peru in REDD+ carbon transactions. Mike Soulsby works in the international fruit export based in Lima, and has experience managing staff, budgets and with complex logistics.

Technical Skills Description Plant your Future and partner capacity Required

Plant your Future has hired Julio Vasquez since 2011 as the Technical Knowledge Technical expertise in field coordinator and technician for Planting for the Future. on Agroforestry nursery development of Julio has a degree in Agronomoy from the National University native tree species, site of the Peruvian Amazon (UNAP) and 10 years work preparation, pest experience working on smallholder agriculture in the Peruvian Amazon before joining the project. The project control and silvi‐cultural regularly consults with local experts and interact with local activities to manage organisations such as the Research Institute of the Peruvian agroforestry systems Amazon (IIAP) and partner organisation Bosque Amazonicos. Both of these organisations are leaders in technical aspects of reforestation and agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon. Community Consultation, and The Plant your Future field coordinator, Julio Vasquez, is participatory project responsible for overseeing interactions with

60 Engagement development and Communities. Plant your Future works will lead farmers implementation who are employed as extension workers within the working with local Communities. We partnered with ProNaturaleza and communities COPASIMOL initially to facilitate introductions within Communities, and in Ucayali we are partnering with BAM. We also work with experienced socio‐economic consultants from well respected local organisations as needed. (e.g. we have worked with Peruvian experts Aldo Acosta, Sara Mateo and Maria Angelica Rondon in the project design phases for different types of consultation)

Biodiversity Assessment of There are many organisations in the Peruvian Amazon Assessment biodiversity impacts of specialised in biodiversity assessments. We review the the project literature from other organisations specialised in biodiversity assessment and with local expert consults as needed, and partner with local organisations. Plant your Future management also have experience with biodiversity assessment. Jenny Henman, Edward Mitchard, Sandra Brown and Juan Chang Olivas have applied experience of designing and implementing biodiversity monitoring for CCB and other projects in the tropics, including but not limited to those working with restoration of smallholder land through reforestation.

Carbon Measurement Preparing carbon Plant your Future management has considerable and Monitoring Skills certification documents, experience in this area. Jenny Henman, Chairman, has and monitoring carbon over 10 years experience working in carbon measurement and monitoring, including numerous existing VCS and CCB validated project. Jenny had hands on experience on the successful monitoring of the VCS Campo Verde Reforestation project in Peru.

Other Plant your Future trustees also have considerable experience. Juan Chang has been a auditor for forestry for TUV SUD and is a global leader in carbon quantification and measurement in forests. Dr Sandra Brown has successfully led more than 50 projects on estimating the carbon dynamics of the world’s forests, particularly tropical forests. She has published more than 200 peer‐reviewed publications in scientific journals and books. She served as a co‐convening lead

61 author for chapters in five UNFCCC IPCC Reports (and for which she received recognition from the Nobel Prize winning IPCC in 2007).

Expert in using satellite data to map forest carbon stocks. Dr Edward Mitchard is an academic at the University of Edinburgh, and has published a number of peer‐reviewed scientific papers in this area.

Legal Knowledge Oversight of legal Plant your Future is supported by international law firm agreements, benefit Hogan Lovells http://www.hoganlovells.com and work sharing mechanisms and with local counsel as needed. Adriana Vidal, will become carbon rights a Board member of Planta tu Futuro, and who has provided legal advice to the charity since 2013 is a Peruvian Lawyer.

Accounting and Management of project Plant your Future has an appointed treasurer, who is finance funds and cashflow responsible for the charities accounting. Kirsty Laughlin our current treasurer hold a degree in Mathematics from Oxford University and has passed the exams for the Chartered Financial Analyst qualification. In Peru funds are managed by Mike Soulsby, Managing Director of Planta tu Future, who holds a degree in Business Administration from the University of Bath.

G4.3 Document the financial health of the implementing organization(s). Provide assurance that the Project Proponent and any of the other entities involved in project design and implementation are not involved in or are not complicit in any form of corruption such as bribery, embezzlement, fraud, favouritism, cronyism, nepotism, extortion, and collusion, and describe any measures needed and taken to be able to provide this assurance.

Table 6 provides an overview of Plant your Future turn over during the last 3 years, as reported to the Charity Commission of England and Wales.

Table 6 Plant your Future Income and Expenditure Overview**

Year Income Expenditure

2013 £36,263 £44,111

2012 £13,643 £12,591

62 2011 £6,343 £7,662

**please note in 2012/2013 Plant your Future won and managed a grant for US$250,000 with Peruvian NGO ProNaturaleza. Plant your Future was responsible for supervising tasks under this grant. Funds were managed in Peru and are not reflected in the turnover statement. 32

Plant your Future not does tolerate any form of corruption such as bribery, embezzlement, fraud, favouritism, cronyism, nepotism, extortion, and collusion. Plant your Future is a registered charity with the Charity Commission of England and Wales, governed by the laws of England and Wales, with an approved Trust Deed which sets out to prevent such activities or behaviour. Similarly the “Acta” (deed) of Planta tu Futuro approved and registered with the Public Registry and governed by Peruvian Law also sets out to prevent such activities or behaviour.

G5. LEGAL STATUS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

RESPECT FOR RIGHTS TO LANDS, TERRITORIES AND RESOURCES, AND FREE, PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT G5.1 Describe and map statutory and customary tenure/use/access/management rights to lands, territories and resources in the Project Zone including individual and collective rights and including overlapping or conflicting rights. If applicable, describe measures needed and taken by the project to help to secure statutory rights. Demonstrate that all Property Rights are recognized, respected, and supported.

Only farmers who have full title to their land (Derecho de Propiedad) can participate in Planting for the Future. They would be the only people in the Project Zone eligible to obtain a forestry permit under Peruvian Law, which is required to be able to obtain the rights to environmental services. Whilst a number of farmers may have another type of rights over the superficial land recognized under Peruvian law, such as “possession” or “right of superficial‐land use” (“Derecho de posesión” or “Derecho de uso y habitación”) they cannot participate in this project until they obtain full title (Derecho de Propiedad), given that their rights are not enough to obtain a forestry permit as described above.

Plant your Future has checked that all farmers participating in the scheme who will be included in the first instances in Loreto and Ucayali have full title, including documentation and listing with the ‘public registry’.

Copies of titles and signed legal agreements are available on request by the auditor.

G5.2 Demonstrate with documented consultations and agreements that

32http://www.forestalsostenibleandina.net/Proyectos/nuestro‐proyectos/Plantando‐para‐el‐futuro‐‐ sistemas‐agroforestales‐.aspx

63 a. the project will not encroach uninvited on private property, community property, or government property, b. the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent has been obtained of those whose property rights are affected by the project through a transparent, agreed process.

Every farmer participating in the programme in the first instances in Loreto and Ucayali has signed or will sign a contract with Planta tu Futuro setting the conditions of their participation in the program, in which they agree to transfer all of their rights of use over carbon emission reductions generated by the forestry plantation/agroforestry systems to the Civil Association Planta tu Futuro. Planta tu Futuro will take responsibility for the certification of the carbon credits, as well as their sale. Copies of this contract are available on request by the auditor.

Plant your Future, in conjunction with partners, has carried out an extensive consultation and capacity building process with the smallholder farmers in relation to the legal agreements transferring the carbon rights. The concept of carbon rights, carbon offsets and carbon markets was novel to farmers, and farmers had limited knowledge of how carbon certification and commercialisation works. Plant your Future has developed a series of training workshops and take‐ home materials to explain these concepts to farmers. Farmers have had the opportunity to participate in a range of large group, small groups and individual workshops and meetings to discuss the issue of the carbon rights. Participation by farmers in the scheme is entirely voluntary, and the programme has been designed with farmer decision‐making at the centre of the project since its inception. The legal agreement has also undergone an extensive review process from partners and donors, including a revisions process by a third party Peruvian legal institution to ensure equity and clarity for the smallholders was being given. Third party representative have been present at all plenary workshops to witness transparent information exchange between farmers and Planta tu Futuro representatives e.g. representatives from ProNaturaleza and from the donor organisation Instituto Interamericano de Cooperacion por la Agricultura (IICA).

G5.3 Demonstrate that project activities do not lead to involuntary removal or relocation of Property Rights Holders from their lands or territories, and does not force them to relocate activities important to their culture or livelihood. If any relocation of habitation or activities is undertaken within the terms of an agreement, the project proponents must demonstrate that the agreement was made with the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of those concerned and includes provisions for just and fair compensation.

The project does not lead to any removal or relocation of Property Rights, nor does it force anyone relocate. Participation in the project is purely voluntary, and directly involves working with smallholders who select an eligible area of their land for project activity implementation. A full FPIC process was carried out, and compensation levels agreed with smallholder farmers who wish to join the Planting for the Future project. Full FPIC will be carried out with any future smallholder farmers wishing to join the scheme through the programmatic approach.

G5.4 Identify any illegal activities that could affect the project’s climate, community or biodiversity impacts (e.g. illegal logging) taking place in the Project Zone and describe

64 measures needed and taken to reduce these activities so that project benefits are not derived from illegal activities.

Commercial hunting is banned in the project zones, however, hunting for personal consumption is allowed. This is most common for the following species ‐ Tayassu pecari, Pecari tajacu and Agouti paca, all types of monkeys and Tapirus terrestres. Whilst farmers will be given training on the conservation of these species to mitigate this occuring, it is not possible to prevente hunting for personal consumption, and this could effect the biodiversity benefits of the project. It is also possible that commercial hunting could occur illegally.

It is possible that illegal loggers will try and cut down trees on smallholders land as they mature. However, smallholder will be patrolling and working on their land which reduces the likelihood of this risk.

G5.5 Identify any ongoing or unresolved conflicts or disputes over rights to lands, territories and resources and also any disputes that were resolved during the last twenty years where such records exist, or at least during the last ten years. If applicable, describe measures needed and taken to resolve conflicts or disputes. Demonstrate that no activity is undertaken by the project that could prejudice the outcome of an unresolved dispute relevant to the project over lands, territories and resources in the Project Zone.

All project areas are privately held and ownerships are not contested. There are no unresolved conflicts or disputes over rights to land.

LEGAL STATUS G5.6 Submit a list of all national and local laws and regulations in the host country that are relevant to the project activities. Provide assurance that the project is complying with these and, where relevant, demonstrate how compliance is achieved.

The key part of Peruvian law that relates to right of use of environmental services, and hence carbon offsets through reforestation, falls under the Forestry and Wildlife Law (FWL), the requirements of which are detailed below. As a framework of the FWL, the National Constitution (La Constitucion Politica del Peru) provides that natural resources are patrimony of the nation, stating that by Institutional Law it would be determined mechanisms through which private owners can be granted with natural resources’ rights of use. The Institutional Law for the Sustainable Use of Resources (Ley Orgánica para el Aprovechamiento Sostenible de los Recursos Naturales, Ley No. 26821) states in Article 4 that “the fruits and products of natural resources ... are owned by the holders of the right of use of such fruits and products”. This right of use is included in a number of legal instruments, depending on the natural resource the private owner wants to use.

The applicable Law for the use of forestry and wildlife resources is the Forestry and Wildlife Law (Ley Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre) – Law 27308. Under this law, and its regulation, forestry plantations located in private property which contain natural resources (i.e. timber‐related and non‐timber‐related resources, such as environmental services) can be used by the owner of such private property. Under this law, there are two procedural conditions required by the owner to

65 start using its forestry resources: the registry of their land as a forest plantation, and the acquisition of a forestry permit (the later requires the submission of the land ownership/title documentation to a governmental agency).

However, Peru has seen the development of the New Forestry and Wildlife Law (Nueva Ley Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre – NLFFS) – Ley 29763. This new law will come into force when its Regulation is promulgated, and at that stage the NLFFS will supersede the current Law no. 27308. The NLFFS changes the requirements slightly on forestry plantations located on private lands, providing the constituent right of the owner to use all natural resources that his plantations contains. This mean that the only obligation that remains under this law for private‐owned forestry plantations is the registration before the government agency. All Project Areas that are or will be part of Planting for the Future are registered.

There is also now a precedent in Peru established by other reforestation projects validated and verified by the CCBA, VCS and other carbon standards recognising right of use of carbon offsets by owners of private lands.

G5.7 Document that the project has approval from the appropriate authorities, including the established formal and/or traditional authorities customarily required by the Communities.

The project is working on land which is owned by smallholder farmers – they have voluntarily entered into agreements with the project. No other specific authority is needed.

G5.8 Demonstrate that the Project Proponent(s) has the unconditional, undisputed and unencumbered ability to claim that the project will or did generate or cause the project’s climate, community and biodiversity benefits.

The project has the unconditional, undisputed and unemcumbered ability to claim that project activities generate the project climate, community and biodiversity benefits. The project activities occur on privately owned lands, and would not be generated without the project itself.

G5.9 Identify the tradable climate, community and biodiversity benefits of the project and specify how double counting is avoided, particularly for offsets sold on the voluntary market and generated in a country participating in a compliance mechanism.

Carbon credits will be registered with the VCS project database following validation. Following verification VCUs will be registered with a carbon registry following the VCS Registry System. This is a secure platform where credits can be assigned unique serial numbers allowing any project and any credit to be searched for and tracked online.

The greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions or removals generated by Planting for the Future will not be used for compliance with an emissions trading program or to meet binding limits on GHG emissions.

Plant your Future does not anticipate commercializing the community or biodiversity benefits associated with Planting for the Future other than through adding a CCB label to the VCUs issued.

67 CLIMATE SECTION

CLIMATE SECTION WAIVER

Provide documentation demonstrating that the same project meets the requirements for verification of the Recognized GHG Program for the same time period as for the CCB Verification. Equivalent documentation to the Project Design Documentation (PDD) for validation and the Project Implementation Report (PIR) for verification, demonstrating how the project meets the requirements of the Recognized GHG Program, shall be submitted by the Auditor to the CCBA for the CCB Standards public comment period at the same time as the relevant PDD/PIR documents are submitted for the CCB Validation or Verification.

The Validation or Verification Report shall include evidence in the form of a positive validation or verification statement following the procedure of the Recognized GHG Program that the project meets the requirements of the Recognized GHG Program (for the appropriate time period, in the case of verification).

GL1. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION BENEFITS

GL1.1 Identify likely regional or sub‐national climate change and climate variability scenarios and impacts, using available studies, and identify potential changes in the local land use scenario due to these climate change scenarios in the absence of the project.

Changes in the local land use scenario due to the impacts of climate change are unlikely – the crops grown for subsistence will still be viable through the project’s lifetime. A map published in Climate change adaptation in Peru: The local experiences33 shows a medium to low confluence of climatic hazards, biodiversity, desert encroachment and poverty – key determinants of the severity of climate change impacts – in Loreto and Ucayali. Although one of the major impacts of climate change in the Amazon region may be flooding,34 none of the project areas are in floodplains. On the other hand, 2005 and 2010 experienced large droughts in all of the Amazon region. A 20‐30% increase in fire risk is predicted due to less precipitation and a longer dry season – this could have a negative effect on the ability of farmers in Ucayali and Loreto to grow crops and weather and seasons become less predictables, as well as tend to cattle. Farmers already notice that the rainy season doesn’t start and stop with the regularity that it has in the past. Without the ability to make accurate predictions, they risk not planting crops and trees early enough to get them established before the rainy season ends and the dry season begins.

Pioneer species will change their range to higher altitudes as temperatures at the elevation of the Project Zone rise. Erosion will become a more significant issue with increasingly variable

33 Clements, R., Cossío, M. Ensor, J. (eds.). 2010. Climate change adaptation in Peru: The local experiences. Lima: Soluciones Prácticas. 34 Unless otherwise noted, all of the information in this section comes from the following source: PNUD. 2013. Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano Peru 2013. Retrieved from http://www.pe.undp.org/content/peru/es/home/library/poverty/Informesobredesarrollohumano2013/ID HPeru2013/

68 precipitation events. There will be increased human pressure on natural resources. Deforestation will contribute to infrastructure instability.

GL1.2. Demonstrate that current or anticipated climate changes are having or are likely to have an impact on the well‐being of Communities and/or the conservation status of biodiversity in the Project Zone and surrounding regions.

Poverty is a principle indicator of vulnerability to climate change. The communities in the Project Zone are hugely economically limited. They have a short‐term vision in decision‐making, and are thus wholly un‐prepared for climate change’s impacts. Policies that incentivize expanding the agriculture border farther into the Amazon region have encouraged growers to cultivate crops that are ill‐suited to the area’s changing climate. (Acosta, 2011) When these farms fail, their workers will be forced to subsistence farming.

The impact on physical infrastructure that is likely due to flooding will negatively affect public health efforts, increasing the prevalence of diseases such as malaria and dengue.

The variety of habitats provided in the Project Zone and surrounding regions will be more limited as flooding or droughts cut off corridors between protected areas and there is increasing human pressure on increasingly limited natural resources.

GL1.3 Describe measures needed and taken to assist Communities and/or biodiversity to adapt to the probable impacts of climate change based on the causal model that explains how the project activities will achieve the project’s predicted adaptation benefits.

Reforestation is a method of managing natural resources so that they will resist and recuperate from climatic events. Specifically, use of native species such as those in Planting for the Future or other drought‐resistant species can serve to help with irrigation. By planting agroforestry systems, Plant your Future aims to increase household incomes and also introduce medium‐ and long‐term vision in natural resources management. Plant your Future put a large emphasis on building farmers capacity to not only technically grow agroforestry systems but also to build their ability to engage in business profitably. Plant your Future is working with smallholder farmers to build their social capital and business capacity. We are working with farmers to help them set up cooperatives/trade associations and engage formally in business. This will ultimately help to build farmers resilience to climate change as they have more savings, and are in a better position through increased capacity to deal with changes in weather patterns.

Because of lack of knowledge or lack of control of logging, the most valuable timber species, including mahogany, are at the point of commercial extinction. The project will help farmers re‐ build the region’s forestry industry.

A study of an agroforestry system implemented in the northern Amazon rainforest of San Martín province35 points out that agroforestry is a non‐invasive climate change adaptation strategy as it

35 Clements, R., Cossío, M. Ensor, J. (eds.). 2010. Climate change adaptation in Peru: The local experiences. Lima: Soluciones Prácticas.

69 does not involve the use of new technologies. The area of the study is similar to the two baseline scenarios of Planting for the Future in that the local economy is based on farming and livestock raising activities which receive little support from the government in terms of disaster planning and social organisation. This confirms that by planting a diverse system of crops, income to farmers is increased and people were less likely to abandon their land to migrate elsewhere.

The project will also engage directly in climate change adaptation planning, incorporating it into agroforestry strategies. Though there are numerous climate change adaptation programmes active in Peru36, they are mainly focused on the Andes region. These programmes do not address the vulnerabilities of people living in poverty or those of biodiversity in the Amazon region. Plant your Future is unaware of other programs working in Loreto or Ucayali that help smallholder farmers learn about, mitigate, or adapt to climate change.

GL1.4 Include indicators for adaptation benefits for Communities and/or biodiversity in the monitoring plan. Demonstrate that the project activities assist Communities and/or biodiversity to adapt to the probable impacts of climate change. Assessment of impacts of project activities on Communities must include an evaluation of the impacts by the affected Communities.

Many of the indicators to be monitored for the climate mitigation, community and biodiversity sections of the project are also significant for adaptation to climate change (see Table 7). At the next field visit, Plant your Future will conduct in‐person consultations with the project staff and participants to establish missing parts of that analysis and add any missing indicators to the monitoring plan.

Table 7. Existing indicators and their significance for adaptation to climate change

Indicator Significance for adaptation to climate change

Trees planted/survival rate Greater tree cover for native plants and animals

Protection from erosion caused by precipitation events

Greater soil integrity

Long‐term thinking

Diversified crop cultivation, meaning greater resiliency in case of changes in pests, precipitation or fire regimes

Market development Increased income (from sale of produce and timber and carbon credits)

36 See the 2008 presentation “Adaptation to climate change and risk management in Peru”, slide 5, as a start (retrieved from http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/perurisk.pdf)

70 Eradication of non‐native Protection against fire grass species in new agroforestry areas

Increased capacity of farmers Ability to take in climate information and plan for future with respect to long‐term changes planning

71 COMMUNITY SECTION

CM1. WITHOUT‐PROJECT COMMUNITY SCENARIO

CM1.1 Describe the Communities at the start of the project and significant community changes in the past, including well‐being information, and any community characteristics. Describe the social, economic and cultural diversity within the Communities and the differences and interactions between the Community Groups.

The project Planting for the Future will work with smallholder farmers as the Community. The projects has set out criteria (see section G1.14) which must be met for smallholder farmers to participate in this programmatic project. Project Areas will always be under the ownership of a smallholder household, as so benefits from the project will primarily be generated at the household level which transcends other Community Groups as the household participants are comprised of men, women, youth and can be headed by men or women, single or married, with or without children.

Please refer to section G1.6 where Communities are described in more detail.

CM1.2 Evaluate whether the Project Zone includes any of the following High Conservation Values (HCVs) related to community well‐being and describe the qualifying attributes for any identified HCVs:

a. Areas that provide critical ecosystem services; b. Areas that are fundamental for the livelihoods of Communities; and c. Areas that are critical for the traditional cultural identity of Communities.

Identify the areas that need to be managed to maintain or enhance the identified HCVs.

Please refer to ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. for a summary of HCVs in the Project Zones. Plant your Future will work to reduce pressure on existing forest in the Project Zones by making existing degraded land more valuable. This will benefit all of the HCVs in both Project Zones. In both without‐project baseline scenarios, Communities would continue their current patterns of land use, not benefitting from the technical knowledge transfer, financial support and business organization provided by Plant your Future.

LORETO PROJECT ZONE:

The ecosystem corridor formed by the protected areas and the Loreto Project Zone provide critical hydrological services to the surrounding area. Without the project, forest will be continuously degraded or cut down altogether, decreasing the resiliency of the soils and ability of the communities to cope with flooding.

UCAYALI PROJECT ZONE:

Without the project, the Loreto Project Zone will experience continued soil degradation and invasive grasses will prevent reforestation and, eventually, agriculture. These conditions will make

72 it increasingly difficult for farmers to subsist from their own crops, leading them potentially to move out of the area for work.

3. Describe the expected changes in the well‐being conditions and other characteristics of Communities under the without‐project land use scenario, including the impact of likely changes on all ecosystem services in the Project Zones identified as important to Communities.

We expect that wellbeing of Communities in both Project Zones would worsen as their soil is leached of nutrients , their environment is degraded and key ecosystem functions reduced and they are forced to cut down more forest in order to grow crops. Under the without‐project scenario their social capital is not build, they are stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty and environmental degradation and they continue to live in a subsistence level “from hand to mouth”, with no savings. They would continue to be almost entirely excluded from the formal market, only selling produce informally to intermediaries or at market stalls, with no power to add value in their supply chains. Without the project, young people are more likely to move away from the Project Zones to land that is more fertile, to deforest new areas of rainforest or to move to cities for work other than agriculture. Without the project, neither smallholder farmer living in the Project Zones nor fauna will be as resilient to the increased temperatures and changes in rainfall that climate change will bring. Please see the VCS PD and refer to section G1.6 where the ‘without‐project’ scenario is described in more detail.

CM2. NET POSITIVE COMMUNITY IMPACTS

CM2.1 Use appropriate methodologies to assess the impacts, including predicted and actual, direct and indirect benefits, costs and risks, on each of the identified Community Groups (identified in G1.5) resulting from project activities under the with‐project scenario. The assessment of impacts must include changes in well‐being due to project activities and an evaluation of the impacts by the affected Community Groups. This assessment must be based on clearly defined and defendable assumptions about changes in well‐being of the Community Groups under the with‐project scenario, including potential impacts of changes in all ecosystem services identified as important for the Communities (including water and soil resources), over the project lifetime.

As described in section G1.5 the project activities are being implemented with smallholder farmers, with the Project Area only comprising land which is owned and controlled by individual smallholder households. The Community Groups include women, youth, evangelical Christians and shop owners. The impact of the project on Community Groups is positive. Communities only enter into the project based on a detailed FPIC process, and voluntarily. Given households include different sub‐groups every effort is made to engage with them. Whilst traditionally often smallholder farming families are headed by a male, the project has made every effort to include female partners/wives in all consultation and capacity building. Where there is a female headed house then Plant your Future will engage directly with females, and this is the case for various

73 families in the initial Loreto and Ucayali Instances. Men do the lions share of manual farming work on farms, and Plant your Future is sensitive to this cultural norm, and natural gender roles in terms of capacity building and training. Youth are also invited along to capacity building both in formal workshops and on the farm with technicians if it doesn’t conflict with schooling commitments. Plant your Future does not discrimination in‐terms of Community selection on religious, or related to the gender of the head of the household. Figure 18, Figure 19 and Figure 20 below show anticipated results chain from strategies related to the three project focal issues. These results chains are the result of the social impact assessment, consultations with farmers both at the group and individual level and consultations with Other Stakeholders. Results are broken up into intermediate results and direct results. The results chain detail potential risks as well as mitigation activities for these risks.

The project activities will positively impact water and soil resources. The restoration of degraded/deforested agricultural areas to forest cover through agroforestry will enhance soil fertility and composition. It will also restore natural hydrology as the ecosystem is restored to forest. This will also improve water quality as trees play a purify role through riparian buffer zones. The restoration of riparian forests help control sediment, reduce the damaging effects of flooding and aid in stabilizing stream banks.

Figure 18 Sustainable Agriculture Results Chain

KEY:

Figure 19: Market Access Results Chain

KEY:

Figure 20: Biodiversity Conservation Results Chain

KEY:

CM2.2 Describe measures needed and taken to mitigate any negative well‐being impacts on Community Groups and for maintenance or enhancement of the High Conservation Value attributes (identified in CM1.2) consistent with the precautionary principle.

Planting for the Future poses no threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity or any other HCV. Planting for the Future enhances HCV’s through increased income from crop production and sustainable forestry and restoring forest cover to degraded/deforested areas.

CM2.3 Demonstrate that the net well‐being impacts of the project are positive for all identified Community Groups compared with their anticipated well‐being conditions under the without‐project land use scenario (described in CM1).

The without‐project scenario predicts that wellbeing of Communities in both project instances would worsen. Planting for the Future will not only increase farm families’ incomes and give them medium‐ and long‐term security, it will also increase capacity in the area for silviculture and climate smart farming, and build institutions and social structures.

CM2.4 Demonstrate that no High Conservation Values (identified in CM1.2) are negatively affected by the project.

Planting for the Future will not negatively impact the HCVs identified in CM1.2. There is no significant physical infrastructure associated with the project, and it works with social systems already in place. Tree planting will: enhance the hydrologic system and soil integrity of farms; by adding value to degraded areas, enable farmers to maintain forest on other parts of their property; improve farmers’ knowledge base; and provide livelihoods that motivate young people to stay in the Project Zone.

As shown in the results chain flow diagram in section CM2.1 the well‐being impacts of the project are positive. The results chain applies at the household level which transcends across Community Groups.

CM3. OTHER STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS

CM3.1 Identify any potential positive and negative impacts that the project activities are likely to cause on the well‐being of Other Stakeholders.

The capacity building and training done by the project will increase the knowledge of smallholder farmers on biodiversity conservation, the importance and role of forests and on climate change mitigation and adaptation. This will positively impact the conservation of the Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo‐Mishana. As some of the Loreto Project Areas are in the buffer zone of the Reserve, areas of farms that are reforested due to Planting for the Future will provide more habitat for all species, but particularly fauna, that have been confined to the reserve or forested areas of adjacent farms.

78 SFM‐BAM will benefit by neighboring smallholder farmers having a stake in reforestation activity in addition to their employment by the Campo Verde reforestation carbon project. That project already has a reciprocal relationship of information sharing with Plant your Future.

CM3.2 Describe the measures needed and taken to mitigate the negative well‐being impacts on Other Stakeholders.

Planting for the Future poses no threat to the well‐being of Other Stakeholders.

CM3.3 Demonstrate that the project activities do not result in net negative impacts on the well‐being of Other Stakeholders.

Planting for the Future poses no threat to the well‐being of Other Stakeholders.

CM4. COMMUNITY IMPACT MONITORING

CM4.1 Develop and implement a monitoring plan that identifies community variables to be monitored, Communities, Community Groups and Other Stakeholders to be monitored, the types of measurements, the sampling methods, and the frequency of monitoring and reporting. Monitoring variables must be directly linked to the project’s objectives for Communities and Community Groups and to predicted outputs, outcomes and impacts identified in the project’s causal model related to the well‐being of Communities (described in G1.8). Monitoring must assess differentiated impacts, including and benefits, costs and risks, for each of the Community Groups and must include an evaluation by the affected Community Groups.

Plant your Future has developed the CCB Standard Community and Biodiversity Monitoring Plan, based on the social and environmental impact assessment and consultations partners, with Communities and Other Stakeholders. The monitoring criteria are structured around the three core focal issues, which contribute to achieving the overall project objective. Monitoring parameters have been developed using a Theory of Change approach and grouped into output, outcome and impact monitoring indicators. The monitoring will be carried out with Communities and will be designed to ensure identified Community Groups are monitored as part of a carefully designed sampling approach. Please refer to the full monitoring plan for complete details and descriptions. Below is a summary of monitoring indicators.

MONITORING INDICATORS The theory of change, an analysis of anticipated cause and effect sequences from project activities through to outcomes and eventual long‐term impacts, has been applied to the project’s different community related activities and has served as a guide to develop appropriate indicators and monitoring requirements in line with the CCBS.

79 Activity 1: Sustainable Agriculture

Activity Overview: Implementation of Agroforestry Systems

Output Indicators

Sampling Activity Output Type/Product Timing/Frequency

No. of nurseries Nursery Development established record in data form monthly report

Number of Nursery Development samplings cultivated record in data form monthly report

No. of fruit trees Agroforestry installation planted record in data form monthly report

No. of timber trees Agroforestry installation planted record in data form monthly report

count 3 months after initial planting and again Tree survival rate % mortality record in data form after 1 year

Legal agreements with No. of contracts farmers signed record in data form ongoing

Workshop reports. Capacity building with No. of workshops Technician field farmers and no. of farm visits reports. ongoing

Outcome Indicators

Outcome Sampling Type/Product Timing/Frequency

80 No. of hectares of agroforestry under From a survey of farmers management following planting Annually

Volume of Amazonian fruits produced farmer data records monthly

Value of carbon offset payments made ERPA ongoing

Impact Indicators

Sampling Impacts Type/Product Timing/Frequency

Longitudinal farmer survery Increased using a sampling income from approach with sale of fruits selected farmers annually

Increased income from accounts records sale of timber trade association annually

Increased remote sensing forest cover data/mapping annually

Longitudinal farmer survery using a sampling Reduced approach with poverty selected farmers annually

81 Activity 2: Market Access

Output Indicators

Sampling Activity Output Type/Product Timing/Frequency

Consultation with No. of consultation farmers on trade meetings/No. of association participants/No. of establishment women participants record in data form ongoing

Drafting of trade association statutes and development of Draft statute and governance strategy governance document documents one off

Business plan development for sale of Business Plan Amazonian fruits Document report one off

No. of workshops, Capacity building in information business for farmers dissemination report ongoing

Photos of storage unit Setting up of storage and report on facility storage building specifications one off

Photos of processing Setting up of processing unit and report on facility processing unit specifications one off

Outcome Indicators

Outcome Sampling Type/Product Timing/Frequency

Registration of trade association with RR.PP official documentation one off

82 Registration of farmers trade association with SUNAT and obtention of a RUC official documentation one off

Governance of trade association by elected farmers minutes of meetings ongoing

Sale of Amazonian fruits via contract contracts/accounts ongoing

Volume of process Amazonian fruits sold reports from trade association ongoing

Impact Indicators

Sampling Impacts Type/Product Timing/Frequency

longitudinal farmer survery using a sampling approach Increased with selected incomes farmers annually

longitudinal farmer survery using a sampling approach Reduced with selected Poverty farmers annually

83 Activity 3: Biodiversity Conservation

Output Indicators

Installation of No. of trees planted, type of Agroforestry pesticide or insecticide used, record in data systems species planted, form ongoing

Capacity building of farmers in sustainable No. of workshops or capacity agriculture building sessions report ongoing

Outcome Indicators

Outcome Sampling Type/Product Timing/Frequency

Reduction in soil erosion soil sampling annually

Agroforestry adopted as longitudinal farmer prefered survery using a sampling agricultural approach with selected practise farmers annually

longitudinal farmer survery using a sampling approach with selected Increase in farm farmers/ records trade productivity association annually

Increased habitat no. of hectares of forest for rare species restored annually

84 increase in rare biodiversity sighting of rare species annually

Impact Indicators

Sampling Impacts Type/Product Timing/Frequency

remote sensing/ longitudinal farmer Reduced survery using a deforestation sampling approach rate with selected farmers every 3 years

remote sensing/ longitudinal farmer survery using a Reduced forest sampling approach degradation with selected farmers every 3 years

Increased remote sensing/ forest cover longitudinal farmer through survery using a restoration of sampling approach degraded land with selected farmers every 3 years

CM4.2 Develop and implement a monitoring plan to assess the effectiveness of measures taken to maintain or enhance all identified High Conservation Values related to community well‐being.

Monitoring of High Conservation Values

The CCBS requires that HCV areas are identified and monitored within the project zone. The project zone contains examples of various HCV’s. Many of these are covered in the ‘biodiversity’ section of the CCB PDD and the Biodiversity Monitoring Plan. Specifically monitoring of HCV’s 1‐4 are covered in the Biodiversity Monitoring Plans although it is acknowledged there are cross‐ cutting impacts here on communities. HCV 5 and 6 specifically related to communities.

85 High Conservation Values 5 and 6

HCV5. Areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health)

HCV6. Areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities)

HCV 5: The project area, and the project zone are fundamental to meeting the basic needs of local communities through subsistence farming. The project area, and the project zone are a fundamental area for food production, for subsistence‐consumption, and sale. Surplus crops to family consumption needs are used to generate an income to enable Communities to purchase other items to meet basic needs. The project zone also provides water for local communities.

Monitoring HCV 5: Monitoring HCV 5 will be completed through the monitoring of sustainable agriculture, and the production of crops and income generation. This is included in the monitoring protocols described under Focal Issue 1 – Sustainable Agriculture.

HCV 6

This is not present in the project area, so monitoring isn’t required.

CM4.3 Disseminate the monitoring plan, and any results of monitoring undertaken in accordance with the monitoring plan, ensuring that they are made publicly available on the internet and summaries are communicated to the Communities and Other Stakeholders through appropriate means.

The monitoring plan will be made public on the internet as part of the CCB Public Comment period. The monitoring plans and indicators have been explained to Communities through local meetings. Other Stakeholders have been made aware of our monitoring plan via local meetings and via email.

GL2. EXCEPTIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS

GL2.1 a. Demonstrate that Smallholders/Community Members or Communities either own or have management rights, statutory or customary, individually or collectively, to land in the Project Area. The Smallholders/Community Members or Communities have rights to claim that their activities will or did generate or cause the project’s climate, community and biodiversity benefits.

b. Demonstrate that the Project Zone is in a low human development country OR in an administrative area of a medium or high human development country in which at least 50% of the households within the Communities are below the national poverty line.

86 Planting for the Future meets indicator GL2.1a: one of the eligibility criteria for participation in the project is that the participants are smallholder farmers, who are defined as land holders that are not structurally dependent on permanent hired labour, manage their land mainly with their own and their family’s labour force, and whose primary income comes from their land management activities37.

The participants in this project have total land holdings averaging 8 ha in Ucayali (Campo Verde socioeconomic survey) and 15 ha in Loreto (Mateo, 2013b38). These households actively participate in the project.

With respect to indicator GL2.1b, Peru’s human development index (HDI) value for 2012, 0.741, falls to 0.561, in the medium human development range, when adjusted for inequality (UNDP, 201339). The HDIs of Maynas Province, Loreto and Coronel Portillo, Ucayali are 0.461 and 0.468, respectively (PNUD, 201340). 41.8% of the population of Loreto Region lives in monetary poverty while only 13.2% of the population in Ucayali Region are in the same situation (INEI, 201341).

GL2.2 Demonstrate that the project generates short‐term and long‐term net positive well‐ being benefits for Smallholders/ Community Members. Include indicators of well‐being impacts on Smallholder/Community Members in the monitoring plan. The assessment of impacts must include changes in well‐being due to project activities and an evaluation of the impacts by the affected Smallholders/Community Members.

The project generated short‐term and long‐term net positive benefits for smallholders, who are the projects primary beneficiary. (see Results Chain Flow Diagrams in Figure 18, Figure 19 and Figure 1) The monitoring plan includes provisions to assess changes in well‐being due to project activities for the smallholder farmers participating in the project.

37 Definition taken from the Plan Vivo Standard

38 Mateo, S. 2013b. Plantando para el futuro: Análisis socioeconómico y consulta a actores clave en el ámbito del proyecto. Plant your Future and ProNaturaleza.

39 UNDP. 2013. Explanatory note on 2013 HDR composite indices – Peru. Human Development Report 2013. The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/Country‐Profiles/PER.pdf

40 PNUD. 2013. Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano Peru 2013. Retrieved from http://www.pe.undp.org/content/peru/es/home/library/poverty/Informesobredesarrollohuman o2013/IDHPeru2013/

41 INEI. 2013. Encuesta Nacional de Hogares, as cited in the presentation Evolución de la Pobreza Monetaria en el Perú al 2012. Retrieved from http://www.inei.gob.pe/media/cifras_de_pobreza/pobreza_exposicionjefe2013.pdf

87 GL2.3 Identify, through a participatory process, risks for the Smallholders/Community Members to participate in the project, including those related to tradeoffs with food security, land loss, loss of yields and short‐term and long‐term climate change adaptation. Explain how the project is designed to avoid such tradeoffs and the measures taken to manage the identified risks. Include indicators of risks for Smallholders/Community Members in the monitoring plan.

The project has engaged in a process to identify risks using a participatory process with smallholders and Community Members. The project does not pose a risks related to trade off with food security, loss of yields. In terms of climate change adaptation in the short and long term the project will smallholder resilience. Indicators of income and volume of produce are included in the monitoring plan. The agroforestry system allow normal subsistence crops to be planted in year one, but under better technical supervision than under the baseline scenario, so there will be no loss of normal crop yields.

GL2.4 Identify Community Groups that are marginalized and/or vulnerable. Demonstrate that the project generates net positive impacts on the well‐being of all identified marginalized and/or vulnerable Community Groups. Demonstrate that any barriers or risks that might prevent benefits going to marginalized and/or vulnerable Smallholder/Community Members have been identified and addressed. Demonstrate that measures are taken to identify any marginalized and/or vulnerable Smallholders/Community Members, whose well‐being may be negatively affected by the project, and that measures are taken to avoid, or when unavoidable to mitigate, any such impacts.

The project has identified smallholder farmers who are elderly or female headed as being potentially vulnerable. These smallholders have been included in the project, and that they will be positive impact by project activities. Barriers to successful implementation may be lack of manual labour at the household level and/or vulnerability to illness meaning systems cannot be maintained (e.g. weeded/pest control at certain times) Plant your Future provide extra support to these vulnerable groups as required – either through additional financial support for maintenance or more farm visits and support from our technicians.

GL2.5 Demonstrate that the project generates net positive impacts on the well‐being of women and that women participate in or influence decision‐making and include indicators of impacts on women in the monitoring plan.

The project activities are orientated to implementation at the household level. Most households include women. Female members of the household have been encouraged to attend all formal project meetings, consultations and capacity building. As such women have been able to influence decision‐making during the consultative and participatory process for project design.

The project does not discriminate against female headed households, and they are actively participating in the first project instances. Legal agreements related to the project are signed by husband and wife, even if the title is only in the name of the husband.

88 The monitoring plan includes the monitoring of women as an identified Community Group.

GL2.6 Describe the design and implementation of a benefit sharing mechanism, demonstrating that Smallholders/Community Members have fully and effectively participated in defining the decision‐making process and the distribution mechanism for benefit sharing; and demonstrating transparency, including on project funding and costs as well as on benefit distribution.

Smallholders have been involved in the design of the benefit sharing mechanism and distribution mechanism from the beginning. Consultations and participatory discussions were held with smallholders farmers in 2012 and 2013. These were convened by Plant your Future and ProNaturaleza, but there was also independent participation by IICA and COPASIMOL, plus Peruvian Legal Experts to explain to farmers their rights. Records and attendance lists have been kept of meetings held to discuss benefit sharing, and the development and evolution of the final legal agreements between Planta tu Futuro and smallholders can be made available to the auditor on request. International law firm Hogan Lovells were responsible for drafting of the benefit sharing agreement, assisted by Peruvian Counsel. Hogan Lovells incorporated feedback from Community Members, as well as Other Stakeholders, as part of a multi‐step development process. The benefit sharing mechanism was also independently reviewed by Peruvian Legal experts and feedback provided was incorporated into the final version of the benefit sharing agreement.

GL2.7 Explain how relevant and adequate information about predicted and actual benefits, costs and risks has been communicated to Smallholders/Community Members and provide evidence that the information is understood.

As described above Plant your Future held a series of participatory meetings and consultations with smallholders in relation to the project costs, the support they will receive and the risks. They were presented with various possible scenarios in relation to carbon revenues, showing sensitivity to price and growth rates and explained to that carbon prices were variable, like other commodities in the market, so an estimate of exact financial benefits from the carbon revenue stream could not be predicted. Evidence that this information was understood was provided through farmer’s questions during meeting discussions. Third parties were present at these meeting including ProNaturaleza, IICA and Notary.

GL2.8 Describe the project’s governance and implementation structures, and any relevant self‐governance or other structures used for aggregation of Smallholders/Community members, and demonstrate that they enable full and effective participation of Smallholders/Community Members in project decision‐making and implementation.

Legal agreements are held directly between smallholder title holders, and Planta tu Futuro.

Within the legal agreements there is provision for the smallholder farmers to elect one person to sit on the sub‐committee of Planta tu Futuro which will provide oversight to the management of the funds generated from the sale of carbon credits. The legal agreements also include clauses about communication between Planta tu Futuro and the smallholder farmers on sale of the carbon offsets, plus the convening of an annual general meeting for participating smallholders.

89 We will work with farmers in the future to help them establish trade associations, which is a key component of the overall project strategy to help farmers access formal markets, and improve the incomes they generate from sale of crops, fruits and timber.

GL2.9 Demonstrate how the project is developing the capacity of Smallholders/Community Members, and relevant local organizations or institutions, to participate effectively and actively in project design, implementation and management.

The project is committed to developing the capacity of smallholder farmers, and this is a guiding principle of our vision. We aim to empower smallholder farmers to participate fully in project design, implementation and management. Smallholder farmers are involved in decision making for the project. Their capacity is being build through structured group information and training sessions, as well as one‐on‐one capacity building on their farm with the project technicians. Smallholders receive a visit to their farm at least once a month by a project technician, and they are learning‐by‐doing as project implementation proceeds.

Smallholder farmer capacity business capacity will be built through the development of trade associations, which they will manage.

During the implementation phase two smallholder farmers participating in the scheme were selected to act as local community managers for the project, and took on important coordination roles, as well as nursery management.

90 BIODIVERSITY SECTION

B1. BIODIVERSITY WITHOUT‐PROJECT SCENARIO

B1.1 Describe biodiversity within the Project Zone at the start of the project and threats to that biodiversity, using appropriate methodologies.

The Project Zones include two WWF‐designated global ecoregions : the Napo Moist Forest and Amazon River and Flooded Forests.

The global Napo Moist Forest ecoregion [containing the terrestrial ecoregions Napo Moist Forests (Loreto Project Zone) and Ucayali Moist Forests (Ucayali Project Zone)] has complex topography and soils and vast river systems that create a dynamic mosaic of habitats and complex biogeographic histories. According to WWF42, new and planned roads are opening the Napo Moist Forests to deforestation and degradation through colonisation, agriculture, cattle ranching, intensive hunting, oil exploration, and timber exploitation.

The Amazon river and flooded forests (váreza) global ecoregion (which contains the Iquitos váreza terrestrial ecoregion, where the Loreto instance of the project is located) is home to humid tropical floodplain forests. Várzeas are commonly referred to as aguajales in the Project Zones because of the dominance of the palm of that name (Mauritia flexuosa). Among terrestrial Amazon ecosystems, 43 aguajales store the largest amount of carbon, close to 1800t/ha of CO2 equivalent . They host a great diversity of trees, which provide critical habitat for reproductive and nursery grounds for fishes and many invertebrates, 200 mammal species, primates, a number of rodents and bats. These forests also have a long history of human occupation because of their high productivity and accessibility44. They are threatened due to colonisation and associated infrastructure development, selective logging, conversion to cattle ranching, and water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) introduction45.

LORETO INSTANCE:

The Research Institute of the Peruvian Amazon (IIAP) has conducted several biodiversity studies in the area of the Loreto instance of which the most relevant to this biodiversity of the project area is the study “Biophysical bases and proposals of zoning and programs for the Master Plan Allpahuayo

42 WWF. nd. Napo Moist Forests. Retrieved from http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/napo_moist_forests.cfm 43 Salazar Vega, A. 2010. Aguajales in Loreto, Peru: Environmental Services of the Aguajales and the Opportunities for a Global Business for the Loreto Region. Katoomba Group: Ecosystem Marketplace. Retrieved from http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=6019§ion=home&eo d=1 44 Sears, R. 2014. Seasonally flooded river basins of Brazil, Peru and Bolivia. World Wildlife Fund International. Retrieved from http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0128 45 WWF. nd. Amazon River and Flooded Forests. Retrieved from http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/amazon_river_forests.cfm.

91 ‐ Mishana Reserve”46. The area of Allpahuayo ‐ Mishana is directly included in the Loreto Project Zone and the scattered remnants of forest between cropped areas in the Project Zone have similar characteristics to the forest in the reserve.

The project zone, including the Allpahuayo‐Mishana National Reserve, contain patches of a rare and precious forest type known as “Varillales” – these are discontinuous patches of forested white sand that make up only 1% of the Peruvian Amazon. 47 This forest is home to unique fauna and flora, adapted to harsh conditions of nutrient stress and constant water table fluctuation.

According to the IIAP study, in the Allpahuayo – Mishana Reserve, 275 tree species, including numerous endemic plants and new to science, had been recorded as of 2004. There are no longer commercially valuable species, because those species have been selectively extracted over the years48.

The IIAP study recorded the presence of 145 species of mammals, of which seven species are currently threatened with local extinction (see Table 8).

Table 8. Mammal species documented near the Loreto Project Zone found (by IUCN) to be threatened with extinction or (by IIAP) local extinction

Latin name Common name Local name IUCN Red List Threat of status local extinction Alouatta seniculus Colombian red Vulnerable Vulnerable howler monkey Callicebus Collared titi Least concern Highly torquatus monkey vulnerable Cebus albifrons White‐fronted Least concern Vulnerable capuchin Cebus apella Black‐capped Least concern Vulnerable capuchin Herpailurus Jaguarundi Puma Least concern yaguarondi

46 IIAP. 2004. Bases biofísicas y propuestas de zonificación y de programas para el Plan Maestro de la Zona Reservada Allpahuayo ‐ Mishana. Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana; BIODAMAZ Proyecto Diversidad Biológica de la Amazonía Peruana. Retrieved from http://www.iiap.org.pe/Upload/Publicacion/DT010.pdf 47 Vrisendorp, C., Pitman, N, Rojas Moscoso, J. I., Pawlak, B. A., and Rivera Chavez, L. 2006. Perú: Matsés (Rapid Biological Inventories 16). Chicago, IL: Field Museum. Retrieved from http://fm2.fieldmuseum.org/rbi/temp/Matses_English.pdf 48 Tello, H. 2001. Valoración económica de la diversidad biológica en el área de influencia de la Carretera Iquitos – Nauta. En Valoración Económica de la Diversidad Biológica y Servicios Ambientales en el Perú, INRENA, IRG/Biofor, USAID. Peru. 474 pp.

92 Hydrochaeris Capybara Capybara Least concern Highly hydrochaeris vulnerable Lagothrix Humboldt's Mono choro Vulnerable Vulnerable lagotricha woolly monkey Leopardus wiedii Margay Ocelot Near threatened Leopardus pardalis Ocelot Ocelot Least concern Myrmecophaga Giant anteater Oso Vulnerable Vulnerable tridactyla hormiguero Panther onca Jaguar Jaguar Near threatened Pithecia Equatorial saki Least concern Highly aequatorialis vulnerable Potos flavus Kinkajou Chosna Least concern Highly vulnerable Priodontes Giant armadillo Vungunturo Vulnerable Vulnerable maximus Tapirus terrestris Lowland tapir Vulnerable Vulnerable

475 species of birds, including at least nine species endemic to the Napo Ecoregion, were documented in the IIAP study. Of these, sixteen taxa are threatened with local extinction and one, Polioptila clementsi – the Iquitos gnatcatcher – is listed by IUCN as critically endangered49. Only 70‐ 400 of these birds are thought to exist. In the BirdLife‐authored IUCN Red List entry, reforestation around Allpahuayo – Mishana Reserve is listed as an ideal conservation measure. The gnatcatcher’s only habitat are Varillal forests. The project is planting trees where there were none on at least one white sand plot, thereby directly creating habitat for this the gnatcatcher.

118 species of reptiles, including several rare species, were recorded in the IIAP study (see Table 9).

Table 9. Reptile species documented near the Loreto Project Zone found (by IUCN) to be threatened with extinction or (by IUCN) local extinction

Latin name Common name Local name IUCN Red List Threat of status local extinction

49 BirdLife International. 2013. Polioptila clementsi. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22734664/0

93 Caiman crocodilus Common caiman Lower Threatened risk/least concern Chelus fimbriatus Mata mata Not yet Highly evaluated vulnerable Geochelone Yellow‐footed Vulnerable Highly denticulata tortoise vulnerable Paleosuchus Dwarf caiman Lower Threatened palpebrosus risk/least concern Podocnemis unifilis Yellow‐spotted Vulnerable Threatened river turtle Paleosuchus Smooth‐fronted Lower Highly trigonatus caiman risk/least vulnerable concern

The IIAP study documented 81 species of amphibians which include three frogs that are endemic to the Napo ecoregion (Dendrobates reticulatus, Nyctimantis rugiceps and Syncope carvalhoi) and a salamander species (Bolitoglossa sp.) that is new to science.

UCAYALI INSTANCE:

The Ucayali Project Zone is dominated by pasture, secondary forest, residual primary forest and agriculture. Birds such as the macaw (guacamayo in Spanish, of the Ara genus), partridge (perdiz in Spanish, species name Alectoris rufa), colbalt‐winged parakeet pihuicho in Spanish, species name Brotogeris cyanoptera), wood pigeon or ring dove (torcaza in Spanish), toucan (tucán in Spanish, of the family Ramphastidae) and others are especially vulnerable to reduction in their habitat.50 The surrounding areas of the project are primary and secondary forests where 86 different species of trees and 62 species of birds, reptiles and mammals were recorded in a biophysical survey carried out in January 200551. The Peruvian woolly monkey (Lagothrix cana), not sighted but in theory present in the Project Zone, is listed as endangered, given that at least a 50% population decline is

50 See Campo Verde project documentation for CCB Validation, Annex C (available from http://www.climate‐ standards.org/2008/11/25/reforestation‐with‐native‐commercial‐species‐on‐degraded‐lands‐for‐timber‐ and‐carbon‐purposes‐in‐campo‐verde‐ucayali‐peru/) 51 See Campo Verde project documentation for CCB Validation, Annex C (available from http://www.climate‐ standards.org/2008/11/25/reforestation‐with‐native‐commercial‐species‐on‐degraded‐lands‐for‐timber‐ and‐carbon‐purposes‐in‐campo‐verde‐ucayali‐peru/)

94 estimated to have occurred over the past 3 generations (45 years) due to heavy deforestation and hunting52. No flora species are on the IUCN Red List or noted as locally vulnerable.

A survey by the Social Property Company (EPS) Tierra Roja, completed in 198353, mentions that the vegetation of the project zone in that year was high forest, exuberant, thick and with presence of orchids, lianas, bromeliads, ferns and epiphytic plants. According to the Evaluation of Permanent Production Forests of the Ucayali Region, conducted by INRENA in 200354, the forests of the project zone are catalogued as Terraza Baja (“forests of the low terraces”), with an average of 52 trees per hectare.

B1.2 Evaluate whether the Project Zone includes any of the following High Conservation Values (HCVs) related to biodiversity and describe the qualifying attributes for any identified HCVs:

a. Globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values; . The Loreto project instance is situated in the key biodiversity area Cuenca Río Nanay (Nanay River Watershed), and the Ucayali project instance includes part of the key biodiversity area Reserva Communal El Sira (Sira Communal Reserve).

i. protected areas

The Project Zones provide crucial connectivity between the many conservation areas at different levels of protection in the region that are depicted in Figure 21.

52 Boubli, J.‐P., Di Fiore, A., Rylands, A.B. & Wallace, R.B. 2008. Lagothrix cana. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved at http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39925/0 53 Proyecto técnico económico de la empresa de propiedad social “Luchadores Tierra Roja” 1983 54 INRENA. 2003. Mapificacion y Evaluacion Forestal del Bosque de Produccion Permanente del Departamento de Ucayali.

Figure 21. Protected areas of Loreto, Ucayali and surrounding regions55 The Loreto Project Zone is situated in the Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo‐Mishana and the Ucayali Project Zone includes parts of the Sira Communal Reserve, both of which are listed as IUCN category IV Protected Areas. This means that these areas contain predominantly unmodified

55 SERNAP, INEI. 2014. Mapa de Areas Naturales Protegidas. Peru. Retrieved from http://www.sernanp.gob.pe/sernanp/bmapas.jsp?NroPag=1&ID=429

96 natural systems, and should be managed to ensure long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs.

ii. threatened species

LORETO INSTANCE: The Iquitos gnatcatcher, Polioptila clementsi, is listed by IUCN as critically endangered. All of the species listed in Table 8and Table 9 are locally vulnerable. In addition, the long‐haired spider monkey (Ateles belzebuth)56 and the Giant Brazilian Otter (Pteronura brasiliensis)57 are present in this Project Zone and, according to the IUCN, endangered.

UCAYALI INSTANCE: Birds such as the macaw (guacamayo in Spanish, of the Ara genus), partridge (perdiz in Spanish, species name Alectoris rufa), colbalt‐winged parakeet pihuicho in Spanish, species name Brotogeris cyanoptera), wood pigeon or ring dove (torcaza in Spanish), toucan (tucán in Spanish, of the family Ramphastidae) and others are especially vulnerable to reduction in their habitat.58 The black caiman (Melanosuchus niger) is listed by IUCN as “conservation dependent”59. At least two endangered species are found in this project zone: the black‐faced spider monkey (Ateles chamek)60, the Peruvian woolly monkey (Lagothrix cana) 61 and the Giant Brazilian Otter (Pteronura brasiliensis).

iii. endemic species

LORETO INSTANCE: This project zone lies in the Upper Amazon‐Napo lowlands endemic bird area (see Table 10). Many species are endemic to varillales forests of the Allpahuayo – Mishana region, including the flora Mauritia carana, Platycarpum

56 Boubli, J.‐P., Di Fiore, A., Stevenson, P., Link, A., Marsh, L. & Morales, A.L. 2008. Ateles belzebuth. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2276/0 57 Duplaix, N., Waldemarin, H.F., Groenedijk, J., Evangelista, E., Munis, M., Valesco, M. & Botello, J.C. 2008. Pteronura brasiliensis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/18711/0 58 See Campo Verde project documentation for CCB Validation, Annex C (available from http://www.climate‐ standards.org/2008/11/25/reforestation‐with‐native‐commercial‐species‐on‐degraded‐lands‐for‐timber‐ and‐carbon‐purposes‐in‐campo‐verde‐ucayali‐peru/) 59 Ross, J.P. 2000. Melanosuchus niger. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/13053/0 60 Wallace, R.B., Mittermeier, R.A., Cornejo, F. & Boubli, J.‐P. 2008. Ateles chamek. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41547/0 61 Boubli, J.‐P., Di Fiore, A., Rylands, A.B. & Wallace, R.B. 2008. Lagothrix cana. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved at http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39925/0

97 orinocense, and Byronima cf. laevigata62. The Iquitos gnatcatcher, Polioptila clementsi, is endemic to this area. Titi monkeys (Callicebus torquatus) are endemic to the váreza.

Table 10.Upper Amazon‐Napo lowlands restricted‐range species63

Species IUCN Category Olive‐spotted Hummingbird (Leucippus chlorocercus) Least concern Brown Nunlet (Nonnula brunnea) Least concern Orange‐crested Manakin (Heterocercus aurantiivertex) Least concern Olive‐chested Flycatcher (Myiophobus cryptoxanthus) Least concern Golden‐winged Tody‐flycatcher (Poecilotriccus calopterus) Least concern Cocha Antshrike (Thamnophilus praecox) Near threatened Black‐tailed Antbird (Myrmoborus melanurus) Vulnerable White‐masked Antbird (Pithys castaneus) Near threatened Ochre‐striped Antpitta (Grallaria dignissima) Least concern Ecuadorian Cacique (Cacicus sclateri) Least concern

UCAYALI INSTANCE: This project zone lies in the Upper Amazon‐Napo lowlands and the South‐east Peruvian lowlands endemic bird areas. In addition to the restricted‐range bird species listed in Table 10 for the Upper Amazon‐Napo lowlands, the South‐east Peruvian lowlands host restricted‐range bird species listed in Table 11.

Table 11. South‐east Peruvian lowlands restricted‐range species64

Species IUCN Category Scarlet‐hooded Barbet (Eubucco tucinkae) Least concern Fine‐barred Piculet (Picumnus subtilis) Least concern Semicollared Puffbird (Malacoptila semicincta) Least concern

62 Vrisendorp, C., Pitman, N, Rojas Moscoso, J. I., Pawlak, B. A., and Rivera Chavez, L. 2006. Perú: Matsés (Rapid Biological Inventories 16). Chicago, IL: Field Museum. Retrieved from http://fm2.fieldmuseum.org/rbi/temp/Matses_English.pdf 63 BirdLife International. 2014. Endemic Bird Area factsheet: Upper Amazon‐Napo Lowlands. Retrieved from http://www.birdlife.org. 64 BirdLife International. 2014. Endemic Bird Area factsheet: South‐east Peruvian lowlands. Retrieved from http://www.birdlife.org.

98 Black‐faced Cotinga (Conioptilon mcilhennyi) Least concern Long‐crested Pygmy‐tyrant (Lophotriccus Least concern eulophotes) White‐cheeked Tody‐flycatcher (Poecilotriccus Least concern albifacies) Black‐backed Tody‐flycatcher (Poecilotriccus Least concern pulchellus) White‐lined Antbird (Percnostola lophotes) Near threatened Goeldi's Antbird (Myrmeciza goeldii) Least concern Rufous‐fronted Antthrush (Formicarius Near threatened rufifrons) Elusive Antpitta (Grallaria eludens) Least concern Selva Cacique (Cacicus koepckeae) Endangered

iv. areas that support significant concentrations of a species during any time in their lifecycle.

The project zones support significant concentrations of many species during their lifecycle

b. 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;

Restricted‐range bird species are supported throughout the Project Zones – see B1.2a(i). In addition, the Project Zones include refugia – patches of primary forest that will be degraded without the project activities. Project activities will increasing forest cover around these refugia, improving connectivity between them and other conservation lands on the landscape‐scale. The programmatic approach taken in Planting for the Future is to have this level of impact for all of the flora and fauna of this hugely biodiverse region.

c. Threatened or rare ecosystems.

The váreza (floodplain forests) and varillales (white sand forests) and many other ecosystems in the Napo Moist Forest global ecoregion are rare and threatened by just the drivers that this project aims to address, poverty and lack of knowledge/capacity.

Identify the areas that need to be managed to maintain or enhance the identified HCVs.

Smallholders with title to their lands have control over land use on their land holding, including conversion of rainforest to agricultural lands– that is why they are particularly

99 important to involve in conservation and empower to use sustainable land management techniques. To enhance connectivity, the areas that Plant your Future is targeting for agroforestry are deforested areas adjacent to primary and secondary forest. Increasing forest cover in those areas will improve high conservation values in the Project Zones and the region as a whole. Native species will be used to ensure that the agroforestry provides habitat that is as similar as possible to the historical and future forests of the region.

See also the summary in Figure 9: High Conservation Values locations in relation to Planting for the Future Geographical Area (where future activities can be scaled to) .

B1.3 Describe how the without‐project land use scenario would affect biodiversity conditions in the Project Zone.

The problem flow (contributing factors and direct threats) for biodiversity conservation in the Project Zones at the present time is described in ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.. In both Project Zones, poverty and lack of knowledge or capacity leave smallholders with no alternatives to slash and burn agriculture (and livestock raising). This causes incremental degradation of soils, which will force smallholders to cut down primary and secondary forest that is currently being used by fauna as refugia. Further causes of deforestation and degradation are extraction of wood for charcoal production and population growth – especially in the Loreto instances, which are along the Iquitos‐Natua highway. Local and regional institutions are in need of strengthening and to coordinate policy; currently in some instances theyinadvertently give perverse incentives for rainforest destruction or there are conflicting policies between institutions. Local and regional institutions are often not able to enforce the law because of lack of resources.. As the dry season extends due to climate change, the loss of these cool, forested areas will be a real loss to fauna.

Among those smallholders participating in the project, understanding of biodiversity and its value is quite high. However, in the general population, the existence of protected areas is not well‐known and the motivations for illegal and excessive natural resource use are many. People poach butterflies, poisonous frogs, ornamental fish, irapay (Lepidocaryum gracile Martius) leaves, and logs. Furthermore, the crops that smallholders grow are increasingly less biodiverse. Cultural traditions related to biodiversity are being lost, and there is little leadership or participatory planning.

In the Ucayali instance, pastures will be increasingly dominated by non‐native, invasive grasses, leaving less diversity. Commercialization of wild meat and poverty has resulted in increased hunting in recent years, leading to a notable drop in the population of primates in the area65; without the project, this is likely to continue.

65 See Campo Verde project documentation for CCB Validation, Annex C (available from http://www.climate‐ standards.org/2008/11/25/reforestation‐with‐native‐commercial‐species‐on‐degraded‐lands‐for‐timber‐ and‐carbon‐purposes‐in‐campo‐verde‐ucayali‐peru/)

100

Figure 22. Biodiversity conservation problem flow

101

Figure 23: Biodiversity Conservation Results Chain

102

103 B2. NET POSITIVE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

B2.1 Use appropriate methodologies to estimate changes in biodiversity, including assessment of predicted and actual, positive and negative, direct and indirect impacts, resulting from project activities under the with‐project scenario in the Project Zone and over the project lifetime. This estimate must be based on clearly defined and defendable assumptions.

¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. describes how the project strategy of agroforestry will lead to direct increases in forest cover and reductions in deforestation, leading to conservation of biodiversity and enhanced connectivity between regional protected areas.

B2.2 Demonstrate that the project’s net impacts on biodiversity in the Project Zone are positive, compared with the biodiversity conditions under the without‐project land use scenario (described in B1).

The project risks direct adverse impacts on biodiversity only if the native species agroforestry systems attract wildlife that is considered by the farmers as pests to crops, timber trees or anything else in the Project Zone. Plant your Future will monitor this closely and work with farmers to develop appropriate wildlife management systems in the meantime. The project will provide smallholders with knowledge and support in managing the biodiversity of their land in a more sustainable manner.

The without‐project land use scenario is one of continuing degradation and invasive species establishment. The project will undoubtedly have an overall net positive impact.

B2.3 Describe measures needed and taken to mitigate negative impacts on biodiversity and any measures needed and taken for maintenance or enhancement of the High Conservation Value attributes (identified in B1.2) consistent with the precautionary principle.

The project will plant only native species and manage pests with integrated pest management techniques that are not harmful to the area’s biodiversity. Establishment of agroforestry plantations will only occur on degraded cropland and pasture that were converted at least 10 years prior to the project start date. Water is not scarce in this region, so watering saplings should not interfere with local water availability.

B2.4 Demonstrate that no High Conservation Values (identified in B1.2) are negatively affected by the project.

HCV’s are only positively impacted by the project through restoring degraded habitats to the natural ecosystem of forest and using native species.

B2.5 Identify all species used by the project and show that no known invasive species are introduced into any area affected by the project and that the population of any invasive species does not increase as a result of the project.

104 The current list of species used by the project is presented in Table 12. The project does not use any species known to be invasive in the region. In fact, one of the goals of the agroforestry activity is to stop the spread of the invasive grass Brachiria decumbens. This will be done by planting and maintaining tree seedlings in areas where this grass has grown in, with the aim that the grass will eventually be shaded out.

Table 12. Species used in the project

Scientific Name Local Name No. planted per hectare (approx.) Timber species

Cedrelinga cataeniformis Ducke Tornillo 221

Simarouba amara Marupa 104 Calycophylum spruceanum or Capirona or 208 Cordia bicolor; Cordia alliodora Añalucaspi or or Croton Lechleri M Sangre de Grado

Copaifera Officinalis L Copaiba 48 Cedrela odorata Cedro 32 Aniba rosaedora Ducke Palo de Rosa 48

Fruit tree species Theobroma grandiflorum Copoazu 208 Annona muricata Guanabana 52 Matisia cordata Zapotes 18 Inga edulis Mart Guabas 34 Citrus aurantifolia Limón Tahiti 78 Citrus nobilis Mandarina San Martín 13 Citrus sisnensis Naranja13 Total Trees Per Hectare 1,077

B2.6 Describe possible adverse effects of non‐native species used by the project on the region’s environment, including impacts on native species and disease introduction or facilitation. Justify any use of non‐native species over native species.

All species used in this project will be native to the region.

B2.7 Guarantee that no GMOs are used to generate GHG emissions reductions or removals.

105 Plant your Future guarantees that no genetically modified organisms will be used to generate GHG emission resections or removals. Seeds are sourced locally, from within Loreto or Ucayali.

B2.8 Describe the possible adverse effects of, and justify the use of, fertilizers, chemical pesticides, biological control agents and other inputs used for the project.

The project is taking pesticide and insecticide use very seriously. While farmers are familiar with and request pesticides that can have serious negative side effects, the project recognizes the need to use integrated pest management. Staff and farmers are working to use local knowledge of natural biological controls, and with inputs from technical specialists at Bosques Amazonicos to pilot organic methods.

B2.9 Describe the process for identifying, classifying and managing all waste products resulting from project activities.

Waste resulting from project activities will primarily be organic in nature – the results of pruning, weeding and harvest. Smallholders will designate a spot for composting of these remains, or they will be left in the agroforestry plot as ground cover.

B3. OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

B3.1 Identify potential negative impacts on biodiversity that the project activities are likely to cause outside the Project Zone.

Plant your Future does not anticipate any negative impacts on biodiversity outside the Project Zones.

B3.2 Describe the measures needed and taken to mitigate these negative impacts on biodiversity outside the Project Zone.

No negative impacts on biodiversity are expected beyond the Project Zone. Farmers are installing agroforestry on a small portion of their lands. This ensures that they have other lands on which to grow agricultural crops and harvest firewood, eliminating their potential need to degrade other forests for cropland or energy beyond the Project Zone.

B3.3 Evaluate unmitigated negative impacts on biodiversity outside the Project Zone and compare them with the project’s biodiversity benefits within the Project Zone. Justify and demonstrate that the net effect of the project on biodiversity is positive.

There should be no unmitigated negative impacts on biodiversity outside of the Project Zone.

B4. BIODIVERSITY IMPACT MONITORING

B4.1 Develop and implement a monitoring plan that identifies biodiversity variables to be monitored, the areas to be monitored, the sampling methods, and the frequency of monitoring and reporting. Monitoring variables must be directly linked to the project’s

106 biodiversity objectives and to predicted activities, outcomes and impacts identified in the project’s causal model related to biodiversity (described in G1.8).

OUTPUT INDICATORS No. Output Sampling Type Product Timing/Frequency

OP3a Installation of No. of trees planted, type of record in data ongoing agroforestry pesticide or insecticide form systems used, species planted, nurseries established OP3b Capacity No. of workshops or report ongoing building of capacity building sessions technical manual farmers in for growing sustainable native species on agriculture degraded lands OP3c Digital Protocol developed, no. of protocol and data ongoing monitoring times implemented protocol for native agroforestry systems

OUTCOME INDICATORS No. Outcome Sampling Type/Product Timing/Frequency

OC3a Reduction in soil soil sampling annually erosion

OC3b Agroforestry longitudinal farmer survey annually adopted as using a sampling approach with preferred selected farmers agricultural practise

OC3c Increase in farm longitudinal farmer survey annually productivity using a sampling approach with selected farmers/ records trade association

OC3d Extended longitudinal farmer survey annually rotations/ using a sampling approach with

107 sedentary selected farmers agriculture

OC3e Increased habitat no. of hectares of forest annually for rare species restored

OC3f Increase in rare Recordkeeping requested of Ongoing with annual check‐in biodiversity smallholders on all new or rare wildlife on farm

Check‐ins with Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo Mishana to find out about the species they are tracking: collared titi monkeys (Callicebus torquatus), South American spiny mouse (Callicebus torquatus), and the Equatorial Saki (Pithecia aequatorialis). SERNAP says that the former is protected only in the reserve, and that the latter are endemic to it66.

OC3g Increased longitudinal farmer survey annually understanding using a sampling approach with among farm selected farmers families about the value of biodiversity and how to promote its conservation

IMPACT INDICATORS No. Impacts Sampling Type/Product Timing/Frequency

I3a Reduced deforestation remote sensing/ longitudinal farmer survey every 3 years using a sampling approach with selected

66 Servicio Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado. 2014. Reserva Allpahuayo mishana: Observación de Flora y Fauna. Retrieved from http://www.sernanp.gob.pe/sernanp/zonaturismoi.jsp?ID=1&c=1

108 rate farmers

I3b Reduced forest remote sensing/ longitudinal farmer survey every 3 years degradation using a sampling approach with selected farmers

I3c Increased forest cover remote sensing (see VCS project every 3 years through restoration of documentation for carbon monitoring degraded land protocol)/ longitudinal farmer survey using a sampling approach with selected farmers

13d Increased connectivity Remote sensing every 3 years between protected areas

These indicators are also included in the Planting for the Future Community and Biodiversity Monitoring Plan.

B4.2 Develop and implement a monitoring plan to assess the effectiveness of measures taken to maintain or enhance all identified High Conservation Values related to globally, regionally or nationally significant Biodiversity (identified in B1.2) present in the Project Zone.

High Conservation Value Planting for the Future’s Impact

HCV1 Areas containing globally, DEFINITION: The Loreto Project Zone includes parts of regionally or nationally the Key Biodiversity Area and Important Bird Area Cuenca significant concentrations of Río Nanay. Classification of this KBA and IBA is based on the biodiversity values presence of significant populations of globally threatened species, significant populations of endemic species known only to be found in a limited area, significant populations of species known only to be found in a particular biome and/or significant regional/sub‐regional populations of trigger species. The trigger species in this case is the Iquitos gnatcatcher (Polioptila clementsi), the presence of which has also earned the Cuenca Río Nanay the classification of an Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) site.

The Ucayali Project Zone includes the following endangered species: black‐faced spider monkey (Ateles chamek)67,

67 Wallace, R.B., Mittermeier, R.A., Cornejo, F. & Boubli, J.‐P. 2008. Ateles chamek. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41547/0

109 Peruvian woolly monkey (Lagothrix cana) 68, and Giant Brazilian Otter (Pteronura brasiliensis)69.

MONITORING: OC3e, OC3f, OC3g

HCV2 Globally, regionally or DEFINITION: The area of the Project Zones currently has a nationally significant large high proportion of primary forest. landscape‐level areas where viable populations of most if not The Loreto Project Zone is classified by Global Forest Watch 70 all naturally occurring species as “intact forest landscape” . The region around it includes exist in natural patterns of the following protected areas: distribution and abundance.  Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo‐Mishana  Reserva Nacional Pacaya‐Samiria  Area de Conservación Regional Comunal Tamishiyacu‐ Tahuayo  Area de Conservación Regional Alto Nanay Pintuyacu Chambira  Area de Conservación Privada Herman Dantas  Area de Conservación Privada Amazon Natural Park The area around the Ucayali Project Zones includes the Campo Verde reforestation carbon project and three Protected Natural Areas of the national system of protected natural areas (SINANPE). These are located a few kilometres away.

MONITORING: I3a, I3b, I3c, I3d

HCV3 Rare, threatened, or DEFINITION: The Loreto Project Zone includes sections of endangered ecosystems, habitats white sand geology upon which a distinctive varillal or refugia. rainforest is found. Varillal is characterised by thin trees and an unusually high species diversity, including many endemics. In addition, the Loreto Project Zone includes the

68 Boubli, J.‐P., Di Fiore, A., Rylands, A.B. & Wallace, R.B. 2008. Lagothrix cana. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved at http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39925/0 69 Duplaix, N., Waldemarin, H.F., Groenedijk, J., Evangelista, E., Munis, M., Valesco, M. & Botello, J.C. 2008. Pteronura brasiliensis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/18711/0 70 World Resources Institute. 2014. Global Forest Watch. Retrieved from http://www.globalforestwatch.org/

110 flooded forests called várzea.

The development and dense population of the city of Iquitos and areas along the Iquitos/Natua highway threatens both habitat diversity and the rainforest ecosystem itself.

Clearing due to subsistence farming, fire and illegal hunting threatens the ecosystem of the Ucayali Project Zone.

Project activities are playing key role in reversing the intensification of small‐scale agriculture and cattle ranching, reducing the threat of these drivers of deforestation.

MONITORING: OP1c, OP1d, OP1g, OC1a, I1a, I1b, I2a, I2b; all indicators under project activity 3, biodiversity conservation

B4.3 Disseminate the monitoring plan and the results of monitoring, ensuring that they are made publicly available on the internet and summaries are communicated to the Communities and Other Stakeholders through appropriate means.

GL3. EXCEPTIONAL BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS

GL3.1 Demonstrate that the Project Zone includes a site of high biodiversity conservation priority by meeting either the vulnerability or irreplaceability criteria defined below, identifying the ‘Trigger’ species that cause(s) the site to meet any of the following qualifying conditions and providing evidence that the qualifying conditions are met:

1.1 Vulnerability

Regular occurrence of a globally threatened species (according to the IUCN Red List) at the site:

a. Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) species ‐ presence of at least a single individual; or

Endangered species in the Project Zones include the Iquitos gnatcatcher (Polioptila clementsi), the black‐faced spider monkey (Ateles chamek), the Peruvian woolly monkey (Lagothrix cana), and the Giant Brazilian Otter (Pteronura brasiliensis).

111 b. Vulnerable species (VU) ‐ presence of at least 30 individuals or 10 pairs.

1.2 Irreplaceability

A minimum proportion of a species’ global population present at the site at any stage of the species’ lifecycle according to the following thresholds:

a. Restricted‐range species ‐ species with a global range less than 50,000 km2 and 5% of global population at the site; or b. Species with large but clumped distributions ‐ 5% of the global population at the site; or c. Globally significant congregations ‐ 1% of the global population seasonally at the site; or d. Globally significant source populations ‐ 1% of the global population at the site. GL3.2 Describe recent population trends of each of the Trigger species in the Project Zone at the start of the project and describe the most likely changes under the without‐project land use scenario.

All populations of the endangered species found in the Project Zones are predicted to decrease in the without‐project scenario.

Iquitos gnatcatcher (Polioptila clementsi): The population is made up of only approximately 50‐249 mature individuals, equating to 75‐374 individuals in total. This species is confined to white‐sand forest with a canopy height of 15‐30 m and tall, humid varillal forest. The population is declining due to agriculture‐ and logging‐driven habitat reduction71.

Black‐faced spider monkey (Ateles chamek): Though this species may be one of the most common primates, its population may have declined by at least 50% over the past 45 years (three generations) due primarily to hunting and habitat loss72.

Peruvian woolly monkey (Lagothrix cana): In Peru, it occurs between the Pachitea and Ucayali rivers and south from the Río Inuya to both sides of the Río Madre de Dios and the Río Tambopata

71 BirdLife International 2013. Polioptila clementsi. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22734664/0 72 Wallace, R.B., Mittermeier, R.A., Cornejo, F. & Boubli, J.‐P. 2008. Ateles chamek. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41547/0

112 basin, as far as the Río Inambari to the frontier with Bolivia. This species is heavily hunted and infants are much favoured as pets73.

Giant Brazilian Otter (Pteronura brasiliensis): The current total wild population is estimated at between 1,000‐5,000 individuals. This species is considered to be endangered due to an inferred future population decline due to habitat loss and exploitation74.

GL3.3 Describe measures needed and taken to maintain or enhance the population status of each Trigger species in the Project Zone, and to reduce the threats to them based on the causal model that identifies threats to Trigger species and activities to address them.

By implementing agroforestry systems, Planting for the Future will help smallholder farmers rise out of poverty and not have to rely on degrading the forest through slash‐and‐burn forestry practices. We will create native species forest, increase habitat for the primate and avian species and enhancing ecosystem services in the Project Zone.

GL3.4 Include indicators of the population trend of each Trigger species and/or the threats to them in the monitoring plan and demonstrate the effectiveness of measures needed and taken to maintain or enhance the population status of Trigger species.

Through the installation of agroforestry systems (output 3a), increased habitat for rare species (outcome 3e), and increase in rare biodiversity (outcome 3f), Plant your Future intends to monitor the impact of project activities on the four endangered species in the Project Zones. This is an ambitious goal, so we will use as proxies the presence of all rare and vulnerable species and the provision of habitat in which the named endangered species could live.

73 Boubli, J.‐P., Di Fiore, A., Rylands, A.B. & Wallace, R.B. 2008. Lagothrix cana. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved at http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39925/0 74 Duplaix, N., Waldemarin, H.F., Groenedijk, J., Evangelista, E., Munis, M., Valesco, M. & Botello, J.C. 2008. Pteronura brasiliensis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/18711/0

113 SELECT REFERENCES

AIDER. 2006. Diagnostico biofisico, zonificacion y caracterizacion de flora y fauna del area de trabajo.

Campion, A. and Bantug‐Herrera, A. 2007. microNOTE #27, Rural and Agricultural Finance: Emerging Practices from Peruvian Financial Institutions. USAID. Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADI834.pdf

Campo Verde VCS PD, revision 2. 2009.

CDM. 2007. A/R Methodological tool “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality in A/R CDM project activities” (Version 01). UNFCCC: CDM Executive Board 35 Report Annex 19. Retrieved from http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/ARmethodologies/tools/ar‐am‐tool‐02‐v1.pdf

COFIDE. 2009. Productos y servicios financieros. Retrieved from http://www.cofide.com.pe/productos2.html

Congreso de la Republica de Perú. 2008. Presupuesto Publico 2008. Retrieved from http://www.congreso.gob.pe/comisiones/2007/presupuesto/libro/TOMO1/25_Ucayali.pdf

Elgegren, J. 2005. La Deforestacion en el Peru. Paracas.

Estación Meterológica, Universidad Nacional de Ucayali, Almanaque de Ucayali 2002‐2003.

Faus da Silva, G., da Costa Aguiar Alves, P.L., and de Souza Dias, T.C. 2004. Piracicaba, Brazil: Sci. Agric., v.61, n.6, p.579‐583. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/sa/v61n6/a03v61n6.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2008. Perú: la industria de la nuez de Brasil en Madre de Dios. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0226s/a0226s08.pdf

Gentry, A. 1988. Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental and geographical gradients. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 75:1‐34.

GOFC‐GOLD. 2009. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries: a sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring, measuring and reporting. Alberta, Canada: GOFC‐GOLD Report version COP14‐2, 49. Retrieved from http://www.gofc‐gold.uni‐jena.de/redd/sourcebook/Sourcebook_Version_July_2009_cop14‐2.pdf

Holdridge, L.R. 1947. Determination of world plant formations from simple climatic data. Science, 105: 367‐368.

IIAP. 2002. Propuesta de Zonificación Ecológica Económica para el Desarrollo Sostenible del área de influencia de la Carretera Iquitos Nauta y Caracterización Biofísica de la Reserva Nacional Pacaya‐ Samiria, Departamento de Loreto. Programa de Ordenamiento Ambiental. Editado en CD‐ROM.

114 INEI. 2013. Encuesta Nacional de Hogares, as cited in the presentation Evolución de la Pobreza Monetaria en el Perú al 2012. Retrieved from http://www.inei.gob.pe/media/cifras_de_pobreza/pobreza_exposicionjefe2013.pdf

INRENA. 2005. Plan Maestro de la Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo Mishana 2006‐2010. Ministerio de Agricultura, Perú. 150 pp. Retrieved from http://www.sernanp.gob.pe/sernanp/archivos/biblioteca/publicaciones/RN_ALLPAHUAYOMISHA NA/PlanMaestro_2006‐2010_Allpahuayo%20Mishana.pdf

Mateo, S. 2013a. Plantando para el futuro: Análisis ambiental para el proyecto agrupado. Plant your Future and ProNaturaleza.

Mateo, S. 2013b. Plantando para el futuro: Análisis socioeconómico y consulta a actores clave en el ámbito del proyecto. Plant your Future and ProNaturaleza.

MINAM (Ministerio del Ambiente de Perú). 2011. El Perú de los Bosques. Retrieved from http://sinia.minam.gob.pe/index.php?accion=verElemento&idElementoInformacion=1218

MINAM. 2013. Plan de Inversion Forestal FIP Perú version 20 junio 2013. Retrieved from http://cambioclimatico.minam.gob.pe/plan‐de‐inversion‐forestal‐actualizado‐al‐20‐de‐junio‐de‐ 2013/

NASA LANCE ‐ FIRMS, 2011. MODIS Hotspot / Active Fire Detections. Retrieved from http://earthdata.nasa.gov/data/nrt‐data/firms

PNUD. 2013. Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano Peru 2013. Retrieved from http://www.pe.undp.org/content/peru/es/home/library/poverty/Informesobredesarrollohuman o2013/IDHPeru2013/

Sears, R. 2014a. Seasonally flooded river basins of Brazil, Peru and Bolivia. World Wildlife Fund International. Retrieved from http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0128

Sears, R. 2014b. Upper Amazon basin of Peru, Brazil and Bolivia. World Wildlife Fund International. Retrieved from http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0128

Sears, R., Marín, C., & Schipper, J. 2014. Eastern South America: Southern Colombia, eastern Venezuela, and northern Peru. World Wildlife Fund International. Retrieved from http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0142

Sears, R., & Schipper, J. 2014. Eastern South America: Central Peru. World Wildlife Fund International. Retrieved from http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0174

Tello, H. 2001. Valoración económica de la diversidad biológica en el área de influencia de la Carretera Iquitos – Nauta. En Valoración Económica de la Diversidad Biológica y Servicios Ambientales en el Perú, INRENA, IRG/Biofor, USAID. Peru. 474 pp.

115 UNDP. 2013. Explanatory note on 2013 HDR composite indices – Peru. Human Development Report 2013. The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/Country‐Profiles/PER.pdf

WWF. nd. Climate change in the Amazon. Retrieved from http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/problems/climate_change_amazon/

116 APPENDIX 1. COMBINED TOOL TO IDENTIFY THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND DEMONSTRATE ADDITIONALITY IN A/R CDM PROJECT ACTIVITIES (VERSION 01)75

APPLICABILITY CONDITIONS

The project activities do not lead to violation of any applicable laws. All project activities comply with Peruvian law. Planting for the Future is not a small‐scale afforestation and reforestation project activity. The scenarios described herein are used to determine the appropriate baseline and additionality of the activities involved in Planting for the Future.

STEP 0: PRELIMINARY SCREENING BASED ON THE STATING DATE OF THE A/R PROJECT ACTIVITY76

The project start date is January 16, 2012. This corresponds to when the first trees were planted in the agroforestry systems as part of the first project instance.

The incentive for the sale of verified carbon units (VCUs) was seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity. This is demonstrated through documentation provided in the Planta tu Futuro and Plant your Future trust deeds and registration documents to achieve charitable/NGO status, as well as grant applications and trustee meeting minutes. The planned sale of emission reductions has been a key part of the project design and the decision to proceed with the activity77.

Planting for the Future has two baseline scenarios, so the Steps 1‐4 have been defined once for Baseline Scenario A (the current shifting cultivation ‘slash and burn’ agriculture) and again for Baseline Scenario B (the current degraded pasture areas). These are considered therefore as two ‘stratum’ in this Additionality analysis.

BASELINE SCENARIO A SHIFTING CULTIVATION ‘SLASH AND BURN’ AGRICULTURE

SCENARIO A, STEP 1. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITY The study “Ecological and Economic Micro‐Zoning for the Sustainable Development of the Iquitos‐ Nauta Highway area” is currently being completed by the Regional Government of Loreto through the Research Institute of the Peruvian Amazon (IIAP, 2013). The study is in the final stages of completion and approval.

75 This tool is comparable to the Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in VCS Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Project Activities, which is specified in footnote 34 to the CCB Standards Third Edition as a method for justifying the additionality of the project’s climate, community and biodiversity benefits. 76 This step is not required by the VCS tool. 77 Plant your Future has been officially registered with the England and Wales Charity Commission since March 9, 2010 (see http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/find‐charities/).

117 A 2012 study by Ramírez identified a variety of different types of land‐use in the area around the Iquitos – Nauta road are the following (Ramírez, J. 2012):

1. Intensive poultry breeding 9. Coca cultivation 2. Intensive pig breeding 10. Subsistence crops 3. Intensive cattle breeding 11. Fruit cultivation in family gardens 4. Riparian crops in temporally flooded 12. New farm plots and in preparation areas 13. Secondary forest (fallow) left idle 5. Lemon and papaya cultivation 14. Legal forest exploitation in 6. Sugar cane cultivation concessions 7. Huasaí and pijuayo cultivation for 15. Informal harvesting of forest products palm / palm heart 16. Fish farms 8. Oil palm and sacha inchi cultivation 17. Recreation and tourism The sizes of the areas and their locations are variable. The study is still in its final stage of approval, any may be further updated. However, details of the areas can be seen in Figure 24.

118

Figure 24. Land use in the Loreto Project Zone (Ecological and Economic Zoning Subcommission)

119 SCENARIO A, SUB‐STEP 1A. CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITY AREA Scenario A(i). Continuation of subsistence crop cultivation using slash and burn techniques

Slash and burn agriculture for the production of short‐term subsistence crops such as manioc, banana, corn, pineapple and rice has been the traditional dominant rural activity in the project area and much of the Peruvian Amazon for decades. As described in the socio‐economic study for the Loreto project instance (Mateo, 2013b78) this is currently the principle activity for the population of the area in terms of livelihood and income. The project area is of low fertility, so farmers practice shifting cultivation (Mateo, 2013b, Rafael, 2012). According to the Master Plan for the Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo‐Mishana (RNAM), the shifting cultivation agricultural activity of the area is characterized by small‐scale manual agriculture, with traditional slash and burn practices used in crop rotation (INRENA, 200579). This is depicted in Figure 25. The application of chemical of organic fertilizers in not practiced.

78 Mateo, S. 2013b. Plantando para el futuro: Análisis socioeconómico y consulta a actores clave en el ámbito del proyecto. Plant your Future and ProNaturaleza.

79 INRENA. 2005. Plan Maestro de la Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo Mishana 2006‐2010. Ministerio de Agricultura, Perú. 150 pp. Retrieved from http://www.sernanp.gob.pe/sernanp/archivos/biblioteca/publicaciones/RN_ALLPAHUAYOMISHA NA/PlanMaestro_2006‐2010_Allpahuayo%20Mishana.pdf

120 Clear rainforest for agriculture

Cultivate short‐term crops until soil is no longer fertile

Abandon land/leave to fallow

Burn fallow vegetation

Figure 25. Typical shifting cultivation agriculture. We find that the average slash and burn cycle is 9 years in the Loreto region.

Scenario A(ii). Reforestation of the project area through installation of agroforestry systems (without being registered as a carbon project)

The installation of mixed species agroforestry systems has occurred in the Loreto region in the past at a small scale. There are few successful examples of financially sustainable agroforestry systems. These installations have been implemented linked to short‐term, limited NGO‐ and regional government‐funded programmes with smallholder farmers. These systems generally incorporate the planting of a large range of fruit tree species – often over 10 different types of fruits in one hectare. Funding has not generally included the maintenance and management of agroforestry systems, leading to the abandonment of most systems by the farmers (Acosta, 2011). Given that all previous agroforestry projects we are aware of were/are linked to NGO or government funding, is

121 clear that farmers lack funds and other resources needed to install and maintain agroforestry systems themselves (Mateo, 2013a80).

The commercial success of agroforestry systems also depends on the ability of farmers to market their products. Due to the basic level of education of smallholder farmers, coupled with their general past experience of only subsistence level trade, farmers have not successfully marketed their products. Failures of previous agroforestry initiatives (government or otherwise) has resulted in farmers’ loss of confidence in such projects. A top‐down, short term, non‐market orientated approach has characterised agroforestry systems the past, which has result in them being unsuccessful and largely abandoned.

Scenario A(iii). Reforestation of the project area through direct planting with timber species (without being registered as a carbon project)

Because of the large areas of existing tropical forest in Loreto, the reforestation of degraded cropland is not a common practice. There is no legal requirement to reforest in the Loreto region of Peru following use of the land for agriculture. There has been limited reforestation with timber species in the Loreto region, but in general the trend is for a reduction of forest cover in the region. Reforestation through human‐assisted natural regeneration requires capital investment to plant the trees, financing to maintain the trees, and resources to carry out required silvicultural activities. The potential for timber revenues in the medium to long term are quite high, but the farmer needs a short term activity and technical support, which makes this kind of investment almost impossible (Mateo, 2013a).

SCENARIO A, SUB‐STEP 1B. CONSISTENCY OF CREDIBLE LAND USE SCENARIOS WITH ENFORCED MANDATORY APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS The following land use scenarios are in compliance with legal and regulatory requirements:

Scenario A(i). Continuation of subsistence crop cultivation using slash and burn techniques

Scenario A(ii). Reforestation of the project area through installation of agroforestry systems

Scenario A(iii). Reforestation of the project area through direct planting with timber species

Reforestation, a factor in A(ii) and A(iii), is not mandated by any enforced law, statute or other regulatory framework.

SCENARIO A, STEP 2. BARRIER ANALYSIS81

80 Mateo, S. 2013a. Plantando para el futuro: Análisis ambiental para el proyecto agrupado. Plant your Future and ProNaturaleza

81 In the VCS tool, there is a sub‐step 1C preceding this step that requires the selection of a baseline scenario – this is sub‐step 2C of the CDM tool. Step 2 of the CDM tool is Step 3 of the VCS tool.

122 SCENARIO A, SUB‐STEP 2A. IDENTIFICATION OF BARRIERS THAT WOULD PREVENT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AT LEAST ONE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIO Smallholder farmers face investment, technological and traditional barriers to implementing agroforestry systems on their own, without the project.

INVESTMENT BARRIERS Installing and maintaining agroforestry systems has a high upfront cost, especially in the first three years. The implementation of reforestation with timber species through direct planting is very costly (minimum $2,500 for installation of one hectare of reforestation at a small to medium scale). Smallholder farmers cannot access debt, loan or credit financing (Mateo, 2013a) or private capital to install agroforestry systems. Access to grants from other NGOs or regional government is limited, and farmers have grown tired, and sceptical of these grants given past experiences of failure in the region given the short term nature of the grants, to only help with installing agroforestry systems, and not maintaining them over the long term (Acosta, 2011). Furthermore, many farmer communities are very remote with very poor access infrastructure: such villages, members of which are included in this project, have very little contact with regional government or NGOs. Thus even if suitable grant programs existed they would be very unlikely to be used by these farmers. Resources from the state for reforestation with timber species are limited even for established private companies; making access for smallholders impossible.82

TECHNOLOGICAL BARRIERS Farmers lack access to necessary materials, such as nurseries and pest control technologies, and silvicultural expertise to perform maintenance and harvest activities. Without the project they cannot support successful agroforestry systems. Farmers lack institutional and business infrastructure, such as trade associations and a business and sales plan, to market the agroforestry products in a commercially viable manner. The lack of baseline knowledge here cannot be overstated: there is no field manual for agroforestry systems in Peru, very little data on tree growth rates, ideal planting densities, necessary pesticide and fertilizer applications, etc. Farmers need direct assistance and supervision from technical experts to create successful agroforestry systems.

BARRIERS RELATED TO PREVAILING PRACTICE AND LOCAL TRADITION The smallholder farmers living in the project area depend on the crops produced from their land for their subsistence. Farmers live off the crops for food, and with the extra income they make from the sale of crops they have enough to meet only basic needs. Farmers live in poverty, and few are able to save money beyond that for ‘emergencies’ (Mateo, 2013b83, Ramirez, 2012). Given this farmers

82 See the VCS Validated Project Description ALTO HUAYABAMBA: CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION THROUGH REFORESTATION WITH SMALL‐SCALE FARMERS IN PERU, SAN MARTIN REGION. 83 Mateo, S. 2013b. Plantando para el futuro: Análisis socioeconómico y consulta a actores clave en el ámbito del proyecto. Plant your Future and ProNaturaleza.

123 live with a day‐to‐day focus, concentrating resources on activities that generate an income within a relatively short time period. The trajectory for installing traditional agroforestry systems requires looking beyond the immediate time frame, which these smallholder farmers do not generally do. Farmers know installing agroforestry systems is a medium‐ to long‐term investment with high upfront costs, so this is not a traditional practice for them. There is very little plantation forestry in Peru to set a cultural example of long time frame investments.

SCENARIO A, SUB‐STEP 2B. ELIMINATION OF LAND USE SCENARIOS THAT ARE PREVENTED BY THE IDENTIFIED BARRIERS The cost, knowledge and culture barriers described in Scenario A, sub‐step 2A prevent smallholder farmers from implementing agroforestry or reforesting with timber trees on their own, scenarios A(ii) and A(iii). However, scenario A(i), continuation of subsistence crop cultivation using slash and burn techniques, is a viable alternative. It is legal, it is affordable, and it is what farmers know.

SCENARIO A, SUB‐STEP 2C. DETERMINATION OF A BASELINE SCENARIO Forestation without being registered as a carbon project activity, scenarios A(ii) and A(iii), is prevented by the barriers identified in Scenario A, sub‐step 2A. Therefore, the remaining baseline scenario for the Project Areas with Scenario A conditions at the start of the project shall be A(i), continuation of subsistence crop cultivation using slash and burn techniques.

SCENARIO A, STEP 4: COMMON PRACTICE ANALYSIS There have been programmes to install agroforestry systems in the past in Loreto, including in the Project Zone. They have not been successful in improving farmers’ livelihoods, and have largely been abandoned. There have been examples of nine agroforestry projects led by nine different institutions over the last 30 years around the area of the Iquitos‐Nauta highway. These were implemented through a mixture of NGOs and regional government programmes, namely: San Roque – INIA, CARITAS, OTAE, TOLERANCE, GOREL (Regional Government of Loreto)‐United Nations Programme, INCAGRO, IIAP, FINCYT (Acosta, 2011) Of these programmes, one was purely for research purposes (i.e. the establishment of an experimental system), three were for research carried out on farmers’ land, one was related to technology transfer and only four were for the purposes of production. All of these past experiences with agroforestry were orientated to the generation of agricultural and forest products, but without defining ahead of time what would be done with the produce – i.e. there was no strategy for harvesting, processing, marketing or sales. None of these projects were oriented to the sale of products, or income generation at the regional, national or international level. Most of the projects experimented with a very large range of different species within one hectare, resulting low quantities of any one species. This ultimately resulted in frustration and disappointment amongst the participating farmers. It led farmers to lose confidence and question the credibility of institutions supporting these projects, as the farmers were not able to sell the products from their agroforestry systems and so they did not see any additional income.

The choice of species for use in agroforestry systems is arguably one of the major downfalls of existing systems to improve farmers’ livelihoods. The criteria for selecting species to grow in

124 agroforestry systems of these nine past projects has been related to whether they are found in the forests surrounding the project zone, soil suitability, availability of information on how to cultivate the species – the criteria were mainly related to ensuring there were conditions in which the species could grow rather than any consideration of whether there was a market for the products of the chosen species (Acosta, 2011).

A common aspect of all these projects is that the plots with the smallholders were on average 1 hectare in size, and the project provided technical assistance, monitoring and evaluation for a maximum of 3 years. In some case this support was for less time. After this the farmer was left to his own devices, and expected to continue activities alone. No support was given after this time for on‐going maintenance costs, silvicultural support, pest control advice on marketing the crops or harvesting (Acosta, 2011).

The lack of ongoing support or market focus of past agroforestry systems has resulted in the abandonment of most of the agroforestry systems implemented by other NGOs and government in the region. All the current agroforestry programmes mentioned above have in any case come to an end, with no further funding. There are currently no other funding opportunities for smallholder farmers to implement agroforestry systems.

In contrast, the Plant you Future sustainable agroforestry systems are distinct in a number of ways.

 The Plant your Future model is to provide support over the 30 year project duration orientated to on‐going maintenance and support to the smallholders;  The systems will generate carbon revenues which will be divided between the farmers and the project to fund the maintenance of the systems, expand systems and provide the farmer an additional income;  The Plant your Future systems are market‐oriented, with a business plan and strategy developed to sell the fruits from trees in the systems;  The project will work with farmers to harvest, process, sell and coordinate product sales.

BASELINE SCENARIO B DEGRADED PASTURE

SCENARIO B, STEP 1: IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITY

SCENARIO B, SUB‐STEP 1A. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITY According to INRENA and PROCLIM (Elgegren, 200584), the annual deforestation rate in Ucayali region was almost 8,000 hectares during the period 1990‐2000. The majority of this deforestation is attributed regionally to deforestation for smallholder shifting cultivation (Elgegren, 2005). The

84 Elgegren, J. 2005. La Deforestacion en el Peru. Paracas.

125 unsustainable land use practices common in the region have led to the creation of large areas of degraded lands such as those in the project area. Analysis of Landsat imagery from 1996 and 2006 show that in the Pucallpa region, areas that were non‐forested in the past have remained unforested.

The following five realistic and credible alternatives to the proposed project activity area identified:

Scenario B(i). Continuation of pre‐project land use: unproductive pastureland

The lands to be reforested are abandoned degraded pastures with some herbaceous vegetation and few trees. These lands currently support little activity, apart from low‐density cattle grazing. This area has remained in a state of degraded pastureland since the 1980s. There have been no ecological changes that would result in a change in the current land use except the possible further degradation due to continued grazing and fires. Interviews with local officials and project stakeholders indicate that there is no common practice of converting unproductive pastureland into another land use. There is no evidence that pastureland will revert to forest in the short‐ to medium‐ term in the absence of human activity.

This activity is widespread along the Federico Basadre and Tornavista highways. The neighbouring lands are also under low level grazing lands.

Scenario B(i). Commercial cattle ranching

The last commercial activity in the project area was commercial cattle grazing. However, this commercial cattle ranching was abandoned many years ago due to the economic downturn and terrorist activity, and was not re‐established due to its degraded state and prospect of low returns. At the regional level, the Ucayali Government promotes the development of cattle grazing projects by giving concessional financing to the developers. Intensive management of the pastureland via suppression of the invasive grass, planting of additional forage plants, and rotational grazing could be instituted in this area. However, improved grazing management is not a common practice in the region.

Scenario B(iii). Crop production

Although this area may have supported crop production in the past, the area has been under pasture for over ten years. Due to the degraded nature of the pasture area, agricultural production would result in low yields. This degraded land cover is very common in the region. The Peruvian National Plan for Reforestation85 found that 966,191 hectares were deforested in 2005 and only 57% was being worked. The other 43% were abandoned.

Scenario B(iv). Afforestation/reforestation of the project area through direct planting without being registered as a carbon project activity

85 Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales, Ministerio de Agricultura de Peru, 2005. Plan Nacional de Reforestacion.

126 Because of the large area of existing tropical forest surrounding the Pucallpa region, afforestation or reforestation of existing pastureland is not a common practice. There is no legal requirement to reforest in the Ucayali region of Peru. There has been virtually no reforestation or afforestation via large scale commercial forestry in the Pucallpa region. According to INRENA from 2001‐2006 only 196 hectares of land have been reforested in the Ucayali Region.

Scenario B(v). Afforestation/reforestation of the project area through human‐assisted natural regeneration without being registered as a carbon project activity

There is no legal requirement to reforest in the Ucayali region of Peru. There has been virtually no reforestation or afforestation in the areas surrounding Pucallpa (Coronel Portillo province). According to INRENA from 2001‐2006 only 196 hectares of land have been reforested in the Ucayali region. Reforestation through human‐assisted natural regeneration requires capital investment in land management and firefighting activities. The potential for timber returns from such an activity are unknown.

Forest Investment Programme‐supported efforts to develop a sustainable forest products industry in the province of Atalaya, to the south of Coronel Portillo province in Ucayali region, will hopefully pave the way for such activities in Coronel Portillo (MINAM, 201386). However, it is unlikely that without the project’s assistance farmers would be able to make the necessary investments or trade connections for afforestation or reforestation activities.

SCENARIO B, SUB‐STEP 1B: CONSISTENCY OF CREDIBLE LAND USE SCENARIOS WITH ENFORCED MANDATORY APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS Scenario B(i). Continuation of pre‐project land use: unproductive pastureland

The current land use is in compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements.

Scenario B(ii). Commercial cattle ranching

The Ucayali regional government promotes the development of cattle grazing projects by giving concessional financing to the developers. However, there is no legal regulation requiring cattle grazing take place in the project area.

Scenario B(iii). Crop production

There are no legal or regulatory requirements blocking or requiring use of the proposed project area for crop production.

86 MINAM. 2013. Plan de Inversion Forestal FIP Perú version 20 junio 2013. Retrieved from http://cambioclimatico.minam.gob.pe/plan‐de‐inversion‐forestal‐actualizado‐al‐20‐de‐junio‐de‐ 2013/

127 Scenario B(iv). Afforestation/reforestation of the project area through direct planting (without being registered as a carbon project activity)

At the national level, Peru has a reforestation plan aimed at promoting plantations with commercial purposes and basin conservation purposes. However this plan lacks resources, organisation and funding to support implementation, and no activities have been witnessed in Ucayali to date.

Afforestation is not mandated by any enforced law, statute, or other regulatory framework87.

Scenario B(v). Afforestation/reforestation of the project area through human‐assisted natural regeneration (without being registered as a carbon project activity)

Afforestation is not mandated by any enforced law, statute, or other regulatory framework88.

SCENARIO B, STEP 2: BARRIER ANALYSIS

SCENARIO B, SUB‐STEP 2A. IDENTIFICATION OF BARRIER THAT WOULD PREVENT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AT LEAST ONE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS. The proposed project activities face barriers that prevent the implementation of the agroforestry systems.

INVESTMENT BARRIERS Public funding for reforestation activities in the Ucayali region is almost non‐existent. In the 2008 Ucayali’s budget, funding for reforestation projects of native species was not considered while funding for reforestation of fast‐growth species and for the recovery of degraded areas sums S/. 780,000 (seven hundred and eighty thousand Nuevos Soles), less than 1% of Ucayali’s budget (Congreso de la Republica de Perú, 200889).

Funding from commercial banks is very limited as well. According to the USAID report Rural and Agricultural Finance: Emerging Practices from Peruvian Financial Institutions, “the formal financial system in Peru, all entities regulated by the Superintendency of Banks and Insurance, provides very limited rural and agricultural finance services and most financial institutions focus uniquely on serving urban clients” (Campion & Bantug‐Herrera, 200790).

87 VCS Additionality Project Test: Step 2: Regulatory Surplus (Section 5.8 of VCS 2007.1) 88 VCS Additionality Project Test: Step 2: Regulatory Surplus (Section 5.8 of VCS 2007.1) 89 Congreso de la Republica de Perú. 2008. Presupuesto Publico 2008. Retrieved from http://www.congreso.gob.pe/comisiones/2007/presupuesto/libro/TOMO1/25_Ucayali.pdf

90 Campion, A. and Bantug‐Herrera, A. 2007. microNOTE #27, Rural and Agricultural Finance: Emerging Practices from Peruvian Financial Institutions. USAID. Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADI834.pdf

128 The banks that do provide rural and agricultural finance require a repayment period not longer than three years (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 200891). Moreover, COFIDE, the government sponsored Peruvian development bank, offers funding for projects for up to 10 years only (COFIDE, 200992).

Smallholders lack the resources to prepare the lands for reforestation without technical and financial resources from the project. In this scenario, farmers especially need assistance to overcome invasive grasses and to implement strategies to prevent fire from destroying the reforestation activities.

Farmers lack institutional and business infrastructure, such as trade associations and a business and sales plan, to market the agroforestry products in a commercially viable manner.

BARRIERS RELATED TO PREVAILING PRACTICE AND LOCAL TRADITION The smallholder farmers living in the project area depend on revenues from cattle grazing and the crops produced from their land for their subsistence. In this cattle grazing scenario, agricultural returns are even lower than in the pure subsistence agriculture scenario because grazing results in compaction of soil, making it less viable for growing crops. In addition, grazing encourages the growth of invasive grasses.

Farmers live in poverty, and few are able to save money beyond that for ‘emergencies’ (Mateo, 2013b, Ramirez, 2012). Given this farmers live with a ‘day‐to‐day’ focus, focusing on activities that generate an income within a relatively short time period. The trajectory for installing traditional agroforestry systems requires looking beyond the immediate time frame which the smallholder farmers do not generally do. Farmers know installing agroforestry systems is a medium to long‐ term investment with high upfront costs so this is not a traditional practice for them.

91 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2008. Perú: la industria de la nuez de Brasil en Madre de Dios. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0226s/a0226s08.pdf

92 COFIDE. 2009. Productos y servicios financieros. Retrieved from http://www.cofide.com.pe/productos2.html

93 NASA LANCE ‐ FIRMS, 2011. MODIS Hotspot / Active Fire Detections. Retrieved from http://earthdata.nasa.gov/data/nrt‐data/firms

129 SCENARIO B, SUB‐STEP 2B. ELIMINATION OF LAND USE SCENARIOS THAT ARE PREVENTED BY THE IDENTIFIED BARRIERS As described in Scenario B, sub‐step 2A, smallholders depend on the crops they produce for their subsistence and produce markets are under‐developed. These facts prevent farmers from being able to dedicate all of their land to commercial cattle ranching, scenario B(ii). The prevailing practice of cattle grazing is prohibitive of sustainable crop production, scenario B(iii). Without the project, the high cost and lack of knowledge and business culture are barriers to implementing agroforestry or reforesting with timber trees, scenarios B(iv) and B(v).

However, scenario B(i), Continuation of pre‐project land use: unproductive pastureland, is a viable alternative. It is legal, it is affordable, and it is what farmers know.

SCENARIO B, SUB‐STEP 2C. DETERMINATION OF BASELINE SCENARIO Forestation without being registered as a carbon project activity is prevented by the barriers described in Scenario B, sub‐step 2A. Scenario B(i), Continuation of pre‐project land use: unproductive pastureland, is the only viable alternative, so this has been selected as the baseline for Scenario B.

SCENARIO B, STEP 4. COMMON PRACTICE ANALYSIS Agroforestry implemented on degraded pasturelands is not commonly practiced in the Pucallpa region. According to INRENA, for the period 2001‐2006, only 196 hectares have been reforested in the entire Ucayali Region (Elgegren, 2005). There are no similar forestation activities in the Pucallpa area that can be compared with the proposed Plant your Future activities with the exception of the Campo Verde VCS project.

The Plant your Future systems are fundamentally distinct from other forestation projects in Peru in five key ways:

130

131