Document 3.2 Local Stakeholder Consultation Report

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Project Title EcoMakala Virunga Reforestation project Gold Standard ID GS5618 Type of Certification

Initial Certification New Area Certification Dual Certification

FSC - Dual certification

If the project is certified according the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the certification status replaces the completion of this template. Please provide the ‘FSC Audit Report’ in the supporting documents of section ‘3. Sustainability’ and provide a reference to this supporting document in this template: ...

Design of physical meeting(s) Certificates Agenda Agenda of the Local Stakeholder Consultation of the projects “EcoMakala Energy” and “EcoMakala Reforestation” held in the hotel Mbiza in Goma on the 14th of October 2016:

Time Topic 08:30 Registration of the participants 09:00 – 09:30 Opening of the meeting and presentation of the participants 09:30 – 10:00 Presentation of the projects “EcoMakala Reforestation” and “EcoMakala Energy” 10:00 – 11:00 Q&A session 11:00 – 11:30 Coffee Break 11:30 – 13:00 Plenary session of “do-no-harm” assessment and focus group sessions of sustainable development impact assessment of the projects “EcoMakala Reforestation” and “EcoMakala Energy” projects 13:00 – 14:00 Lunch 14:00 – 14:30 Discussion of the continuous input and grievance mechanism and discussion on monitoring the sustainable development indicators of the projects “EcoMakala Reforestation” and “EcoMakala Energy” projects 14:30 – 15:00 Discussion on the outcome of focus group sessions (blind ‘SD Matrix‘ exercise) 15:00 – 15:30 Evaluation of the projects and the local stakeholder consultation 15:30 – 16:00 Closure of the meeting

Invitation tracking table Certificates

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 1 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Category code Organisation (if Name of invitee Way of Date of Confirmation relevant) invitation invitation received? Y/N A Planter and Mukoba Letter and 30/09/2016 Y member of LUNGERE phone RAPNAV (Association Network for the Protection of the Nature around Virunga) – Tongo (Rutshuru) A Planter and Fabien Letter and 30/09/2016 Y member of PAEDE KALEFULO phone (Support Program to the Farmers and Breeders for Endogenous Development) – Bweremana (Masisi) A Planter and Muzuna Letter and 30/09/2016 Y member of FOD MUKEZO phone (Federation of Development Organisations) - Kiwanja (Rutshuru) A Big Planter Goma Serge RUBUGA Letter and 30/09/2016 Y phone A Planter and Nzanzu KIRI Letter and 30/09/2016 Y member of phone CIPSOPA (Intervention Centre for Social Promotion) – Kiwanja (Rutshuru) A Planter and Philippe Letter and 30/09/2016 Y member of NDAGAHIRA phone APLORERU (Association of Local Nurseries for the reforestation of Rutshuru) - Rubare A Planter and MUNDELE Letter and 30/09/2016 Y member of ONDE phone (Naturalists Organization for the Defense of the Environment) - Sake (Masisi)

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 2 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

A Planter and Kujitakiya Letter and 30/09/2016 Y member of BUKALOSE phone ACODRI (Community Action for Integrated Development) - Kitshanga (Masisi) A Planter and Déon Letter and 30/09/2016 Y member of ADICO MAKOMBER phone (Support to integrated development of the Congo) - Kibumba (Nyiragongo) A Big Planter Kambale Letter and 30/09/2016 Y Masumo (Lubero) Isengngo phone MULERE A Planter and Kambale Letter and 30/09/2016 Y member of OPERL MBAFUMOJA phone (Peasant Organization against Rural Exodus) - Kirumba (Lubero) A Planter and Pascal MARU Phone 30/09/2016 Y member of PDL (Local Development Programme) - Butembo A Planter and Fataki BALOTI Phone 30/09/2016 Y member of JEAN (Young people for decent Ecosystems and Sanitation of Nature) - Butembo A Planter and Heri Kakule Phone 30/09/2016 Y member of CENED VUTSEME (Nutritional and Environmental Education Centre for Development) - Kanyabayonga (Lubero) A Planter and Paluku phone 30/09/2016 Y member of CICEKI MUGHONGO (Complex of Initiatives for Cultivators of Kivu) - Beni

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 3 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

A Planter and Kambale Phone 30/09/2016 Y member of OPEGL BUKUNDIKA (Peasants Organization for the Protection of the Environment of the Great Lakes) - Kasindi (Beni) A Planter and Bernard Letter and 30/09/2016 Y member of CDR Balikwisha phone (Compassion for KIRIKUMUVI the Deprived Rural world) - Kamahigha (Beni) A Planter and Joseph Kyalire Letter and 30/09/2016 Y member of PDL KYATSINGE phone (Local Development Programme) - Maboya (Beni) A Stove producer Francoise Letter and 30/09/2016 Y and member of Masika phone REPROFCA BAKWANAMABA (Producers Network of Improved cookstoves for domestic use) – Goma A Stove producer Amsini BAHOSE Letter and 30/09/2016 Y and member of phone REPROFCA (Producers Network of Improved cookstoves for domestic use) - Goma A Stove seller and Olivine MASIKA Letter and 30/09/2016 Y member of phone REPROFCA (Producers Network of Improved cookstoves for domestic use) – Goma

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 4 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

A Stove seller and Claudine letter 30/09/2016 Y member of KAFIRONGO REPROFCA (Producers Network of Improved cookstoves for domestic use) – Goma A Improved Berthe Letter 30/09/2016 Y cookstove user KISANGANI Goma A Improved Desanges Letter 30/09/2016 Y cookstove user KAVIRA Goma A Improved Rachel KEMBE Letter 30/09/2016 Y cookstove user Goma A Traditional stove Riziki Letter 30/09/2016 Y user Goma MWENGESYALI A Traditional stove Lorentine Letter 30/09/2016 Y user Goma KAVIRA B Ministry in charge Jeannot Matadi Phone and 30/09/2016 Y of Energy and NENGA Email Hydraulic Resources B Ministère de l'Env. Bienvenu Liyota Email 1/10/2016 N et Dév. Durable/ NDJOLI National Kinshasa B Ministère de la Dr Félix Kabange Phone and 1/10/2016 N Santé Publique NUMBI Email Kinshasa B Ministère en Addressed to Phone and 1/10/2016 N charge de the agriculture Email l'agriculture ministry (name Kinshasa not specified) B Coordination Victor Email 30/09/2016 N National REDD KABENGELE WA Kinshasa KADILU B Coordination Patrick BISIMWA Email 30/09/2016 Y National REDD Kinshasa B Provencial Prof. Anselme Letter and 1/10/2016 Y Ministry in charge Paluku KITAKYA phone of Energy and Hydraulic Resources Goma B Provencial Dr Martial Email and 1/10/2016 Y Ministry ion KAMBUMBU letter charge of Public Health Goma

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 5 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

B Provencial Balthazar letter 30/09/2016 Y Ministry in charge Kanyamanza of the MUSABE Environment Goma B Chief of Sylvestre Bashali Phone and 30/09/2016 Y Chiefdoms of NYANGUBA letter Masisi (Bashali) (Bashali) B Chief of Nicolas Kalinda Phone and 1/10/2016 Y Chiefdoms of KIBANJA letter Masisi (Bahunde) (Bahunde) B Chief of MURAIRI Phone and 30/09/2016 Y Chiefdoms of letter Nyiragongo B Chief of Francis Ndeze Phone and 30/09/2016 Y Chiefdoms of NDAYIZEYE letter Rusthuru (Bwisha) B Chief of Kalekene Phone and 30/09/2016 Y Chiefdoms of BUKAVU letter Rusthuru (Bwito) B Administrator of Justin MUKANYA Phone and 30/09/2016 Y Rutshuru Territory letter B Administrator of Dieudonné Phone 30/09/2016 Y Masisi Territory TCHISHIKU B Administrator of Augustin Kazadi Letter and 30/09/2016 Y Nyiragongo YEBONDO phone Territory B Provencial Adèle BAZIZANE Email 30/09/2016 N Ministry in charge of Gender B Administrator of Addressed to Phone and 30/09/2016 Y Lubero Territory the letter administrator of Lubero Territory (name not specified) B Chief of Addressed to phone 30/09/2016 N Chiefdoms of the chief of Lubero chiefdoms of Lubero (name not specified) B Provencial Christophe Phone and 30/09/2016 Y Ministry in charge NDIBESHE letter of Agriculture Goma C DNA Hans André Email 30/09/2016 Y DJAMBA

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 6 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

D REPROFCA Adeline TSONGO Letter 30/09/2016 Y (Producers Network of Improved cookstoves for domestic use) D PAEDE (Support Gervais Letter 30/09/2016 Y Program to the Munyororo Farmers and YADE Breeders for Endogenous Development) D FOD (Federation Jerôme TANZI Letter and 30/09/2016 Y of Development phone Organisations) D ONDE (Naturalists Ami MUHIMA Letter and 30/09/2016 Y Organization for phone the Defense of the Environment) D JIKO BORA Jeanne phone 30/09/2016 Y SUMBUSU D Network CREF Alphonse letter 30/09/2016 Y (Network for the MUHINDO Restoration of Forest Ecosystems) D Coordination of Thomas Letter and 30/09/2016 Y Civil Society D'Acquin MUITI phone

D Coordination of Etienne phone 30/09/2016 Y Civil Society KAMBALE D COOPAL (Tree Malikidogo phone 30/09/2016 Y Planters MULAMO Cooperative of Lubero territory) D CACOPROB Yenga Yenga Letter and 30/09/2016 Y (Cooperative for WETEMWANI phone the Marketing of Wood Products) D COPROMA Samuel Letter and 30/09/2016 Y (Cooperative of SHIRAMBE phone Makala Producers) D COCOPROBBA Pierre Fuluko Letter 30/09/2016 Y (Cooperative for BUUMA the Commercialization of Wood Products in the Chiefdom of Bashali)

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 7 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

D Groupe Climat Matthieu Letter and 30/09/2016 Y LINEKO phone D Novacel sprl Olivier Nkole phone 29/9/2016 Y MUSHIETE D Orbeo Philippe ROSIER Email N D University of Marco BINDI Email 30/09/2016 N Florence (Italy) - Department of Agronomy and Land Management D OGEC Francis USENI Email 30/09/2016 N (Organisation pour la Gestion de l’Environnement au Congo) D BIODEC sprl Alain BADJOKO Email 30/09/2016 N (Bioenergy Development Company) D Carbon2green Louis Email 05/10/2015 N Developments TOURILLON Ltd. D WESD Capital Georges Bakaly Email 3/10/2016 N SEMBE D Tricorona Carbon Moe Moe OO Email 3/10/2016 N Asset Management Pte Ltd. D TaiCom sprl Joseph NKINZO Email 30/09/2016 N TCHIBO D Climate Manfred Email 3/10/2016 N Corporation STOCKMAYER Emissions Trading GmbH D Vitol S.A. David FRANSEN Email 3/10/2016 N D Wildlife works Jeremy T. Email 3/10/2016 N FREUND D Jadora LLC Donald TUTTLE Email 3/10/2016 N D Fondation Roi Hervé LISOIR Email 30/09/2016 Y Beaudoin D African Clotilde Email 30/09/2016 N Development NGOMBA Bank D African Cyrano Email 30/09/2016 N Development OMBOLO Bank

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 8 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

D UNDP Taifourou Email 4/10/2016 N (United Nations DIALLO Development Program) D Alliance Yvon Email 30/09/2016 Y Congolaise pour MUTOMBO les Foyers et Combustibles Améliorés D GIZ Jean-Luc Email 4/10/2016 Y ZUNGULUKA BIBENTYO D NEFCO (Nordic Tina NYBERG Email 3/10/2016 N Environment Finance Corporation) D Université de Sylvestre Email 3/10/2016 Y Goma – Higher KINYATA Institute for Rueal Devlopment D Free University of Mumbere Phone 3/10/2016 Y the Great Lakes KIKOLI Countries Goma E Gold Standard Pinar OZTURK Email 3/10/2016 Y E Gold Standard Jacob Email 3/10/2016 Y BOURGEOIS F WWF Bella ROSCHER Email 3/10/2016 Y International F Helio Lajambe Email 3/10/2016 N International O'CONNOR F Mercy Corps David Email 3/10/2016 Y NICHOLSON F World Vision Dr. Dean C Email 3/10/2016 Y Australia THOMSON F REEEP Katrin HARVEY Email 3/10/2016 Y F Care International Kit (Christopher) Email 3/10/2016 Y VAUGHAN F Development Ashok KHOSLA Email 3/10/2016 Y Alternatives F HIVOS Harry CLEMENS Email 3/10/2016 N F Rainforest Julianne Email 3/10/2016 N Alliance BAROODY

Describe your selection Cat. A: planters who are involved in the project were invented equally selected from of all territories within the project boundaries. The planters were also representing the local associations of planters involved in the project

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 9 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Describe your selection Cat B.: (i) provincial authorities related to the activity of reforestation (like ministries in charge of environment and sustainable development, agriculture); (ii) national REDD coordination; (iii) local administrative and traditional authorities of the territories within the project boundary Cat C: DNA of host country Cat D: (i) local cooperatives of territories within the project boundary involved in the value chain of EcoMakala: tree planters, Makala producers and marketing of wood products like EcoMakala (ii) local NGO’s involved in local development and more specifically in reforestation activities; (iii) representatives of civil society; (iv) other carbon project developers active in the host country; (iv) research institutes; (v) international development organisations; Cat E: Gold Standard Regional Manager Cat F: International Gold Standard NGO Supporters and Gold Standard NGO Supporters located in the host country of the project

As shown above, a broad range of stakeholders representing the different categories were invited for the LSC meeting. It was ensured that also women and stakeholders of different ages participated in the LSC meeting. Different media, like radio and local TV announcements, phone calls, personal invitation letters and Email invitations were used to invite stakeholders. For some of the stakeholders’ travel expenses were paid. See supporting documentation attached.

Text of individual invitations Invitation letter:

Local stakeholder consultation of the projects « EcoMakala Reforestation» et « EcoMakala Energy »

INVITATION

Excellency, Mrs, Mr, …………………………………………………………………….

Initiated by WWF in eastern DRC in late 2007 and 2009 respectively, the projects “EcoMakala Reforestation" and "EcoMakala Energy" aim to increase the supply of wood energy fuel in the form of sustainable charcoal and to reduce the consumption of charcoal in large urban centres in order to reduce the deforestation in the Virunga National Park. These initiatives of reforestation, production and marketing of improved cookstoves in large urban centres and production of sustainable wood charcoal replacing charcoal produced from unsustainable wood sources are alternatives to the illegal exploitation of wood fuels in natural forests. WWF with the support of CO2logic intends to generate carbon credits from Gold Standard projects "EcoMakala Reforestation" and "EcoMakala Energy" in order to have the financial means to sustain the actions in the projects on the long-term. In the context of the Gold Standard certification process WWF organizes a local stakeholder consultation to which you are invited to receive feedback and an idea of the impact of projects "EcoMakala Reforestation" and "EcoMakala Energy". The local stakeholder consultation will take place on October 14, 2016, in the great hall of the Hotel Mbiza in Goma, in Northern Province -Kivu. The consultation will have the following agenda: - Opening of the consultation - Presentation of the participants - Presentation of the projects - Questions & Answers - Discussion on the evolution of the projects, « do-no-harm » assessment and evaluation of the socio- economic and environmental impacts - Discussion on continuous input & grievance mechanism - Monitoring of the sustainable development indicators - Evaluation of the projects and the consultation - Closure of the consultation

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 10 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Text of individual invitations Kindly confirm your participation by filling out the reply form attached, and return it no later than October 5, 2016 by email at [email protected]. Travel and accommodation expenses will be covered by your organization. If you can’t attend the workshop, please send your comments on the non-technical summary notes attached to this invitation before October 13, 2016 by email to the following addresses: [email protected], Tlusenge @ wwfdrc .org, [email protected]. We thank you in advance for your availability.

Thierry Lusenge

Head of Sustainable Energy Program

Non-technical summary:

NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT « ECOMAKALA REFORESTATION» In the Nord-Kivu Region, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), The World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) promotes various activities in order to protect the forests of Virunga National Park (ViNP) and alleviate poverty of the surrounding communities. One of these activities, and probably the most important, is project “EcoMakala”, which consists in improving the charcoal sector while reducing deforestation. For this, three main activities are being implemented: (i) reforestation with fast growing species, (ii) production of improved cookstoves, and (iii) production of sustainable charcoal. The project "EcoMakala Reforestation" relates to the first activity, which in a first phase (2007-2016), foresees planting of 10,000 ha in collaboration with local associations, cooperatives and landowners. The main objective of these plantations is the sustainable production of charcoal, which is the main source of energy in the region. In fact, more than 90% of energy requirements in Nord-Kivu are provided by biomass, either as firewood or charcoal. Biomass comes mainly from non-sustainable and even illegal sources from the ViNP, to the point that today, most of forest cover around urban zones of the region has disappeared. With this activity EcoMakala aims not only to increase the forest plantation area in North Kivu province, but also to promote forestry techniques and improve the productivity of community plantations. Given that reforestation is a valuable activity in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, WWF aims, with support of CO2logic, to participate in the voluntary carbon market. Accordingly, the chosen certification standard has been the Gold Standard.

Description of the project The "EcoMakala Reforestation" project is designed as a community reforestation project since its inception in 2007. The project involved about 70 local farmers associations, including more than 300 technicians (agronomists and nurseryman) which were trained on plant production techniques trees and establishment of tree plantations. Partnership contracts are signed between the Project (WWF) and the associations. The associations also signed similar contracts with planters: 6.199 reforestation contracts were signed, representing the participation of 4.933 planters. So far, 4.572 hectares have already been planted, of which 3.419,41 ha are eligible under the Gold Standard requirements. The primary area of plantations are in North- Kivu in the territories of Masisi, Rutshuru and Nyiragongo and secondary area of Lubero, Butembo and Beni, all around the Virunga National Park. Reforestation is achieved with fast growing species, planted in high density. The main species include among others: Eucalyptus saligna, Eucalyptus maidenii, Eucalyptus sp, Senna siamea, Grevillea robusta, Cedrela odorata, and Acacia mearnsii.. Reforestation must follow specific technical procedures, including: site selection, soil preparation, planting, weeding, firewall construction, thinning, harvesting and replanting. Timber harvesting in collaboration with associations serves as source for the chain of production and marketing of sustainably produced charcoal. The carbon credits from the project "Reforestation EcoMakala" will be issued based on the carbon sequestration of the plantations. In addition to a contribution to mitigating climate change, the project generates the following socio-economic benefits:

Environmental

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 11 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Text of individual invitations Biodiversity Deforestation of Virunga park is reduced by the provision of alternative energy wood from plantations outside the park; Soil Erosion is reduced on sloping land by afforestation; Water The plantations allow to improve the infiltration of water, and so the quality and quantity of water sources Climate Microclimate regulation Social Women Women and children traditionally involved in harvesting timber for charcoal production can use the saved time for other activities. The traditional timber harvesting also poses risks to women and children, as they need to move away far enough into the park, which is a refuge for armed rebel groups. Security The charcoal from deforestation is a major source of funding of rebel groups that cause conflicts in the region. Economical Employment Job creation / increase income farmers and artisans: The project involves more than 9,000 farmers, offering them a new source of revenue these woodlands

Nota Bene: The project developer decided after the LSC meeting to extend the planting period up to 2025 and the estimated plantation area has been increased, now comprising of more than 11,000 ha. Further, the species Eucalyptus sp. does not further make part of the project. These changes to the NTS will be communicated to the stakeholders during the SFR.

Description of other consultation methods used If invitees were unable to attend the physical meeting, they were able to transmit their questions or observations on the non-technical summary through Email or phone.

Participants’ in physical meeting(s) Certificates Reference ID to the original participants’ list Presence_list_LSC_20161014_Goma Additional comments: None

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 12 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Participants list Date and time 14th of October 2016 Location Hotel Mbiza / Goma RDC Category Code Name of participant, Male/Female Signature Organisation (if job/ position in the relevant) community Category Code A LUNGERE Mukomba M See RAPNAV (Association Planter and member of original Network for the RAPNAV – Tongo participant Protection of the Nature (Rutshuru) s list for around Virunga) signatures A ISENGINGO Kambale M Planter A MUMBERE Kataliko M PDL (Local Development Planter and member of Program) PDL A MUHINDO Muzuna M FOD (Federation of Planter and member of Development FOD Organisations) A PALUKU MUGUNDO Luc M CICEKI (Complex of Planter and member of Initiatives for Cultivators CICEKI of Kivu) A KAKULE Maru M PDL (Local Development Planter and member of Program) PDL A BASHALI Bokalos M ACODRI (Community Action for Integrated Development) A KAHINDO Adeline F REPROFCA (Producers End-user of improved Network of Improved cookstoves and Cookstoves for domestic President of REPROFCA use) A MAKOMBO Deo M ADICO (Support to Planter and Chief of integrated development ADICO of the Congo) A MASIKA Olivine F REPROFCA (Producers End-user of improved Network of Improved cookstoves and Vice- Cookstoves for domestic President of REPROFCA use)

A MASIKA Bakwanamah F REPROFCA (Producers End-user of improved Network of Improved cookstoves and member Cookstoves for domestic of REPROFCA use) A RIZIKI Mwengasyali F End-user of improved cookstoves

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 13 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

A TSONGO Deborah F REPROFCA (Producers End-user of improved Network of Improved cookstoves and member Cookstoves for domestic of REPROFCA use) A KALEPFULO Fabien M PAEDE (Support Program Planter and member of to the Farmers and PAEDE Masisi Breeders for Endogenous Development) A NTANGAHIRA Philippe M APLORERU (Association Planter and member of of Local Nurseries for APLORERU Rutshuru the reforestation of Rutshuru)

A BALOTI Fataki M JEAN (Young people for Planter and member of decent Ecosystems and JEAN - Butembo Sanitation of Nature) A MBAFUMOJA Kambale M OPERL (Peasant Planter and member of Organization against OPERL - Lubero Rural Exodus) A BUKUNDIKA Kambale M OPEGL (Peasants Planter and member of Organization for the OPEGL - Beni Protection of the Environment of the Great Lakes) A PALUKU Henri M CENED (Nutritional and Planter and member of Environmental CENED - Lubero Education Centre for Development) B BOMBELE LIAMA Glodi M Green Climate Fund DRC Responsible of studies

B MUKANYA Justin M Administration of Administrator of Rutshuru Territory Rutshuru Territory B NZONDERO Tumba M Provencial Ministry in Head of Division charge of Environment Goma B KAMBALE M Herman M Provencial Ministry in Chief of Staff charge of Agriculture Goma B BATUNDI Kazadi M Administration of Masisi Assistant to the Territory Administrator of Masisi Territory B BISIMWA Patrick M Coordination National Project Manager REDD Kinshasa B AMISI Kalonda M Administration of Beni Administrator of Beni Territory Territory

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 14 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

B MWAMI Bashali NY M Chiefdoms of Bashali Chief of Chiefdoms of Bashali B NDEZE Francis M Chiefdoms of Rusthuru Chief of Chiefdoms of (Bwisha) Rusthuru (Bwisha) B BOKELE Djoy M Administration of Administrator of Lubero Lubero Territory Territory D IKUTI Josue M ADDC (Sustainable Assistance for the Development of Communities) D MULAMO Malikidogo M COOPAL (Tree Planters V/President Cooperative of Lubero territory) D MAPENDANO David M WWF DRC East Logistician D WETEMWAMI Michel M CACOPROB( Cooperative Manager for the commercialization of forest products) D VAN GEIT Mone F WWF Belgium Project Manager D KASEREKA Archippe M WWF DRC East Forester D KPETE Gedeon M D LOSTINE Katiri M Network CREF (Network Researcher for the Restoration of Forest Ecosystems) D RUSHUKA Martin M OJDCN (Youth Organization for the Development and Conservation of Nature) D SYALUHA Patrick M B-one TV Journalist D LAMBALE Mupira M CRSN (Natural Sciences Technician Research Center) D KASISA Gabriel M AJDD (Youth Association for Sustainable Development) D RAMAZANI Michel M DIOBASS (Approach for Office administrator an Interaction Between Basic Organizations and Other Sources of Knowledge) D ZABONA Norbert M RCC-RDC (Climate Technical Director Change Network DRC)

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 15 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

D KASEREKA Kambere M CLDC (Local Committee Executive Secretary for Devleopment and Conservation) D VWAMBALE Anselme M WCS (Wildlife Expert Improved Conservation Society) Cookstoves D ZUNGULUKA Jean-Luc M GIZ ( Gesellschaft für Technical Advisor Internationale Zusammenarbeit) D ISHIMWE Isabelle F PAE (Student support Member program)

D MUHINDO Eric M UNIGOM (University of Student Goma)

D MUGISHO Chiza M FAIDA (Foundation for Empoyee the Support of Development through Agriculture) D NKIKO Toussain M UNIGOM (University of Researcher Goma)

D JACKSON Mahuka M UNIGOM (University of Researcher Goma) D RUZINGE Grace F ISC (Higher Institute for Trade) D NABINIBO Jean-Paul M UNIGOM (University of Student Goma) D ABELI Frank M UNIGOM (University of Student Goma) D TSONGO Balikwisha M CDR Butembo Chairman of the Board (Compassion for the of Directors Deprived Rural world)

D SHIRAMBERE Samuel M COPROMA Chairman of the Board (Cooperative of Makala of Directors Producers)

D KABISUBA Henriette F WWF- RDC East Assistant Logistics D MUNGANGA Genthy F WWF- RDC East Community officer D LINEKO Mathieu M Groupe Climat President D KAFIRONGO Claudine F AMAVED (Association of President commercial Mothers)

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 16 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

D BAKERETHI Gedeon M WWF RDC East Responsible for Environmental Education D NTAMIRWA Bienfait M WWF RDC East Data manager D FULUKO Buuma M COCOPROBBA Chairman of the Board (Cooperative for the of Directors Commercialization of Wood Products in the Chiefdom of Bashali) D THALER Johann M Mkaarbon Safari Consultant / Founder D MODOGO Muthembwi M Producer D YADE Gervais M PAEDE (Support Program Coordinator to the Farmers and Breeders for Endogenous Development) D LUSENGE Thierry M WWF RDC East Program Manager

D KAVIRA Consolée F WWF RDC East Project Manager D AMSINI Bahose M CAP (Protestant President Welcome Centre) D MBUTA Didier M WWF RDC East Forester D KAMBALE Etienne M Coordination of Civil Assistant rapporteur Society North of Kivu D AMI MUHIMA Claude M ONDE (Naturalists Chairman of the Board Organization for the of Directors Defense of the Environment) D TANZI Jerome M FOD (Federation of Coordinator Development Organisations) D SUMBUSU Jeanne F JIKO BORA Executive Secretary – Beni D KISANGANI Berthe F JIKO BORA Secretary – Goma

D NOBA Kakwaya M Provencial Ministry in Administrative Secretary charge of gender Goma

D NTAWINEZA Marie F WWF RDC East M&E Officer

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 17 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

D MABILI Papa Gerard M EPW (Energy for Peace Monitoring and in the World) Evaluation D NYANGI Bernardin M SORADEC/ RADIO OKAPI Coordinateur / Journalist D SIBANZA Mike Tassy M

D NOPPEN Herman M CO2Logic Project Director

Evaluation forms Certificates Reference ID to the original ‘evaluation forms’ Evaluation_LSC_20161014_Goma_Lot1 Evaluation_LSC_20161014_Goma_Lot2 Evaluation_LSC_20161014_Goma_Lot3 Evaluation_LSC_20161014_Goma_Lot4 Evaluation_LSC_20161014_Goma_Lot5 Evaluation_LSC_20161014_Goma_Lot6 Additional comments: In the evaluation form distinction was made between the EcoMakala Reforestation and the EcoMakala Energy project.

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 18 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Summarise the main comments in the table below (please translate into English if necessary). Provide references to the individual ‘evaluation forms’. What is your • The workshop helped me understand many of the concepts related to the impression of carbon market the meeting? • Good, but rather scientific • Enriching. Desire for multiple meetings of this kind • The workshop is good by its framework and facilitation, however, the methodology took a long time by questioning. • The workshop had its reason, but time was insufficient. • Meeting of great importance, the two projects evolve very well for the benefit of the population and in particular to the planters and manufacturers of the improved cookstoves. • The workshop was of great importance because it allowed the stakeholders to express themselves freely in relation to the actions undertaken and thus propose possible solutions. • Good approach or participatory methodology. • Good impression, but too technical and scientific? It had to be spread over two or three days. • Good capacity building: Participatory stakeholder approach and relevance in current and future issues (carbon credit and climate change) • Good impression concerning the innovative carbon credit approach in addition to the enormous impacts of the project on the life of the communities What do you • The biodiversity it generates through the plantation of trees like about the • Contribution to the fight against deforestation project? • Support to local associations in reforestation • Protection of the ViNP, Fight against poverty by income from reforestation products and contribution to the reduction of global warming. • Reforestation allows planters to have a job. • Improvement of living conditions of populations • Social and economic development, Community participation and the sustainability of the project. • Distribution of seedlings and supervision of farmers' associations. • Helps purify the air. There is no longer a tendency to destroy the park in search of firewood. • The fact that the project integrates all the links of the wood-energy value chain and the good techniques of carbonization. • Frequency of awareness raising and involvement of local communities in decision-making and participation of associations in extension. • Proud of the fact that through our plantations, we contribute to solve global problems. • Increased plant cover in the region and the regeneration of capital to planters. • Development of the cooperative's chain approach and business plans.

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 19 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

What do you • We are discouraged by the payment of multiple taxes when felling trees. not like about • As for reforestation, associations and growers must be considered as true the project? partners and not subcontractors • Commercialization was not good because of the debts. Blocking harvesting for others. • Low funding compared to reforestation costs. • Use of soil-depleting eucalyptus • The fact that the project includes self-sufficiency planters who have enough afforestation. • Non-involvement of the administrative authorities in this field with a view to the sustainable protection of ecosystems. No association of agroecology. • Support for community forests is not yet funded. • The fact of working with many partners to protect nature and the Park. • Increasing the quality of species • The fact of being limited to the populations surrounding the Park and forgetting the populations living further away from the ViNP • Based on only certain tree species • The non-integration of many large planters. • Low level of involvement of local authorities and state services • Late payment of the costs allocated to the associations and planters and this implies the delay of the interviews of the plantations. • Use of non-biodegradable bags

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 20 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Pictures from physical meeting(s)

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 21 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Pictures from physical meeting(s)

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 22 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Outcome of consultation process Certificates Minutes of physical meeting(s) Opening of the meeting The official opening of the local stakeholder consultation was announced by Mr. Thierry Lusenge, Sustainable Energy Program Manager at the WWF office in Goma. Mr. Lusenge welcomed all participants and presented the agenda of the stakeholder consultation. Participants included planters, customary leaders, association leaders, local policy makers, manufacturers and users of improved cookstoves, WWF and CO2logic agents, students and researchers, and other interested persons. Afterwards Mr. Herman Noppen, Project Director at CO2logic, which is the project developer of the EcoMakala carbon project, presented the agenda.

Presentation of WWF and CO2logic The activities of WWF East RDC are focused on (i) environmental education; (ii) support to the Virunga National Park in North Kivu and Itombwe Reserve in South Kivu in close collaboration with ICCN (Congolese Institute for the Conservation of Nature) to conserve biodiversity; and (iii) the fight against deforestation and degradation. CO2logic is an environmental consulting company based in Brussels assisting companies and organizations to limit their climate impact.

Presentation of the project The project “EcoMakala” of WWF consists in improving the charcoal sector while reducing deforestation. For this, three main activities are being implemented: (i) reforestation with fast growing species, (ii) production of improved cookstoves, and (iii) production of sustainable charcoal. The project ‘EcoMakala Virunga Reforestation project’ relates to the first activity, which in a first phase (2007-2016), foresees planting of 10,000 ha in collaboration with local associations, cooperatives and landowners.1

Explanation of the carbon market Some explanation has been given on how the voluntary carbon markets functions, on the Gold Standard Certification process and on what will be done with the carbon revenues. Some insights has been provided about the upcoming GS version 3.0.

Questions and Answer session Following these different presentations, the following question-answers were the subject of fruitful exchanges between the participants.

Question 1: Is there a project to demarcate the western part of the Virunga National Park? Answer: The demarcation project exists and the process is underway within WWF only the security context as well as several other parameters do not allow it for the moment.

Question 2: Does WWF have the same objective as Alliance Virunga in terms of energy balance? Answer: Affirmative. With activities outside the Park, the WWF office helps protecting it.

Question 3: How long does it take for a plantation to sequester carbon? Answer: The calculation of the biomass and hence sequestered carbon has to take into account several factors including the area, the planted species, the soil, etc. The biomass of previously existing forests must be deducted. A margin of between 2 and 8 tonnes CO2 per year per hectare planted can therefore be indicated.

Question 4: How long does it take for a project to benefit from carbon credits? Answer: A project has to follow a pre-defined certification process: - Initial certification: Confirms the expected CO2 certificates (validated CO2 certificates) taking into account 20% discount as a buffer (possibility of bush fire or the possibility of other cases of force majeure)

1 The project developer decided after the LSC meeting to extend the planting period up to 2025 and the estimated plantation area has been increased, now comprising of more than 11,000 ha. These changes will be communicated to the stakeholders during the SFR.

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 23 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Minutes of physical meeting(s) -After 5 years, performance certification: CO2 certificates can be issued after successful certification. -The duration of a carbon crediting period is 10 or 3 times 7 years for the energy project and 30 to 50 years for the reforestation project.

Question 5: How will the project limit the harmful effects of Eucalyptus on the environment knowing that a large part of the plantation is populated by Eucalytputs species? Answer: Eucalyptus presents not only economic benefits, but also ecological consequences. The choice of this species depends on each planter. We can limit the harmful effects by complying with various guidelines such planting them in uncultivated areas, restricting Eucalyptus species to a single plantation per farmer, limiting the participation of small planters to ensure food security, plant other species, specify space between trees and so on. The environmental study remains under discussion.

Question 6: How much carbon can a natural forest sequester? Answer: Biomass determination depends on soil, climate and other factors. On a permanent forest, after 30 years it can sequester between 6 and 10 tons per year per hectare.

Question 7: How much must a producer of improved stoves or planter earn? What is their return on carbon investment (discussion on the distribution of profit)? Is there a balance between the companies that emit CO2 and the small planter that protects nature? Where is this small planter placed in the whole project? Answer: 1. Returns of carbon credit sales generated by plantations of growers already involved in the project will be invested in scaling up the project to other growers that want to adhere to the project. There is no revenue sharing mechanism towards the growers as they received already money from the EcoMakala project for their plantations. Carbon credit money would be used to fund the upscaling of the project. 2. Planters transfer the right on carbon credit ownership to the project developer when signing the contract. Carbon credits are used to scale up the project (as previously explained), but also to pay transaction costs related to the certification process of the project. In addition not every planter is eligible for the project because the definition of a forest in the DRC requires a minimum area of 0.5 ha.

Discussion on Do-No-Harm assessment The Do-no-harm assessment has been discussed during a plenary session. All of the safeguarding principles were presented with special attention paid to the following requirements:

• Occupational Health & Safety – 18 (template 3.1). Workers shall have safe protective equipment, tools and machinery appropriate for their work: Safety should be assured during harvesting activities on the plantations. 2 • Environmental – Tree Species – 20 (template 3.1). Exotic tree species shall not be used, unless direct experience, or scientific research, demonstrate that there is, or can be, no invasiveness and no adverse impacts: Neither Eucalyptus nor any other species used in the project activity are deemed to be invasive in DRC. Nevertheless water consumption and soil acidification of Eucalyptus trees planted on non- volcanic sols are attention points and mitigation measures will be implemented accordingly. • Water resources – 34 (template 3.1): It was confirmed during the LSC meeting that all plantations shall be at least 20 metres on both sides apart from water resources.

2 No serious accidents/injuries were reported during a survey conducted after the LSC meeting with 120 charcoal producers. At the same time, all of the interviewed people confirmed to have received training/instructions how to cut/harvest trees and how to avoid accidents and injuries. The survey responses clearly show that the risks during harvesting activities are low and that people involved in harvesting activities are sufficiently trained and with enough experience to avoid possible accidents or injuries. It should be also noted that it is beyond WWF’s control to distribute PPE and ensure its use. The cooperatives, responsible for coordinating harvesting activities with growers/charcoal producers, will be sensitized so that they convince charcoal producers or other people involved in harvesting activities to use PPE to avoid smaller injuries. For more details see template 3.1 (point 18). Stakeholders will be informed about the aforementioned during the SFR.

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 24 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Minutes of physical meeting(s)

• Waste – 37 (template 3.1): It was clarified to the stakeholders that under the project, a procedure is established to encourage that plastic bags (used in nurseries for seedling growth) will be well collected, reused and then disposed.

Blind exercise Sustainable development impact assessment In preparation of the Blind SD matrix exercise the three categories of sustainable development (environment, social and technological, and economic) were explained with the respective 12 indicators. Afterwards groups were formed to discuss the impacts of the EcoMakala Virunga Reforestation project on sustainable development. The result of these group discussions were presented to the whole audience. The group results were consolidated and are presented below under ”Sustainable Development Assessment”.

Discussion of the continuous input and grievance mechanism and monitoring of sustainable development indicators The different methods of the continuous input and grievance mechanism have been explained during the LSC. The different transparent and continuous communication channels that were proposed to the participants, were (i) a physical grievance note book at the offices of WWF in Goma and Béni; (ii) mobile phone numbers of the project coordinators; (iii) email of the project coordinators. The participants didn’t find it necessary to appoint a mediator and agreed with the proposed options. The importance of monitoring the sustainable development indicators was also explained to the participants and some examples were given. The participants didn’t raise any issues or objections.

Closure of the meeting Before the closure of the meeting feedback was asked to all participants on the local stakeholder consultation as well as on the project through evaluation forms. Feedback can be found in section “Evaluation forms”.

Minutes of other consultations Persons who could not attend the meeting were able to raise questions by mail. The following questions have been received and have been responded accordingly:

Question: Has a simple management plan for plantations been developed which defines the modalities in order to ensure the sustainability of the biomass sequestration? Response: A management plan has been drawn up and planters are trained on the application of this management plan. The management plan is structured on three levels: (i) planting standard; (Ii) operating plan; And (iii) reforestation management plan after harvest. Training courses are organized every year for associations and planters.

Question: What support was given to the 70 associations in addition to technical training on the production and placement of seedlings? Response: Besides these training courses, these associations have followed different modules on the management of organizations (small accounting, planning, administration, inventory management, human resources management ...). In addition, the contractual financial contribution ($ 150 / ha) is added.

Assessment of all comments Certificates

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 25 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Stakeholder comment Was comment taken into account Explanation (Why? How?) (Y/N) Is there a project to demarcate the N Not directly related to the project western part of the Virunga National Park? Does WWF have the same Y Explanation was given on how the objective as Alliance Virunga in project will contribute to the terms of energy balance? provision of renewable energy. How much can a plantation Y Explanation was given on the sequester CO2? evaluation of biomass sequestration of plantations. How long does it take for a project Y Explanation was given on the to benefit from carbon benefits certification of carbon projects and issuance of credits What is the impact of usage of Y The fraction of Eucalyptus Eucalyptus on the plantations? plantations planted between 2007 and 2016 is 75%. The objective for future plantations between 2017 and 2025 is to reduce the fraction of Eucalyptus plantations to 45%. How much carbon can a natural Y Explanation was given on the forest sequester? amount of carbon sequestration of natural forests. Is there a benefit sharing Y Explanation was given that the mechanism for the planters from project already enabled the the sales of credits? planters to be included in the project. The sales of credits will allow to extend the project to other participants and will also be used to fund for upscaling the project.

Summary of alterations based on comments Almost 75% of the eligible plantations planted between 2007 and 2016 consists of Eucalyptus. In order to diversify the species on the plantations the objective is to limit the fraction of Eucalyptus plantations to be planted between 2017 and 2025 to 45%. No other alterations needed based on the stakeholders’ comments provided.

S ustainable Development Assessment Certificates Sustainable Development Assessment of the project owner:

Indicator Description and Score Mitigation measure

Environment Category score: 0 1. Air quality Indicator score: 0 N/A Trees affect air quality through the direct removal of air pollutants.

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 26 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Sustainable Development Assessment of the project owner:

Indicator Description and Score Mitigation measure

As these positive impacts of trees on air quality are difficult to measure, the score of this category will be neutral 2. Water Indicator score: -1 Planting of Eucalyptus trees (as well as quality and It is believed that Eucalyptus species consume all other species included in the quantity more water than other, less productive project) more than 20 meters from species. water courses 3. Soil Indicator score: -1 -Retention of bark and leaves on the condition The growing of eucalypts as short rotation and site high yielding crops, results in a nutrient loss in -Mulching the soil. Since soil nutrients are finite and may be naturally replenished at a slower rate than they are lost, measures may be required to ensure the sustainability of yields and maintenance of soil quality. 4. Other Indicator score: 0 N/A pollutants No impact on other pollutants have been identified.

5. Biodiversity Indicator score: 0 N/A An important contribution of plantations is in replacing indigenous species for firewood/charcoal, thereby preventing further denudation of natural forests. These plantations may save biodiversity elsewhere by preventing the destruction of Virunga National Park (ViNP). However as it is difficult to proof that any increase in biodiversity in ViNP are directly related to the plantations as displacement of indigenous trees from the park, the indicator is considered as neutral.

Social Category score: +1 Development 6. Quality of Indicator score: +1 N/A employment All growers included in the project receive training/workshops related to forest management (including planting, harvesting and maintaining the plantations)

7. Livelihood of Indicator score: +1 N/A the poor The reforestation activities will contribute to poverty alleviation as income will be generated from wood products, bee keeping activities associated with the plantations and value creation of lands which were considered previously as low fertile lands.

8. Access to Indicator score: 0 N/A affordable The plantation contribute to clean energy and clean services as the harvested wood for firewood and charcoal is considered as renewable. As

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 27 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Sustainable Development Assessment of the project owner:

Indicator Description and Score Mitigation measure

energy this sustainable development benefit will be services valorised in the interlinked EcoMakala Energy project, this indicator in the A/R project is evaluated as neutral. It must be said that the EcoMakala Reforestation project focus rather on the permanent biomass on the plantation than on the harvested biomass.

9. Human and Indicator score: +1 N/A institutional The project is providing specific opportunities capacity for women in terms of employment as women are working in the nurseries and are managing some of the associations involved in the project.

Economic & Category score: +1 Technical Development 10. Quantitative Indicator score: +1 N/A employment The project generates more jobs for local and income people compared to the baseline and generation generates income from employment: foresters, service providers and technicians of the associations.

11. Access to Indicator score: 0 N/A investment No impact on access to investment have been identified.

12. Technology Indicator score: 0 N/A transfer and The capacity building activities are already technological valorised in the indicator Quality of self-reliance employment. The project will per se not introduce a new technology but rather disseminate appropriate forest management practices.

Justification choices, data source and provision of references

Environment 1. Air quality Different scientific articles document the positive impact of trees on air quality and associated health benefits. Trees remove gaseous air pollution primarily by uptake via leaf stomata, though some gases are removed by the plant surface. In addition trees directly affect particulate matter in the atmosphere by intercepting particles, emitting particles (e.g., pollen) and resuspension of particles captured on the plant surface. Since however the quantification of improved air quality is very difficult, the project developer decided to score this indicator as neutral. Source: D.J; Nowak, et al., 2014, Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in the United States;

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 28 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Justification choices, data source and provision of references

2. Water Water use by eucalypt plantations has historically been a controversial matter in many quality and parts of the world. Research has shown that it depends on the region, species, quantity environmental conditions and land-use practices (1). Nevertheless, it is believed that Eucalyptus species consume more water than other, less productive species. Growing Eucalyptus in low rainfall areas may cause adverse environmental impacts due to competition for water with other species and an increased incidence of allelopathy. Generally, the areas which receive an annual rainfall of less than about 400 mm are less suitable for Eucalyptus wood production purposes due to this reason (2). As the annual rainfall in Goma is 1192 mm/year, these conditions are not applicable to the project. Nevertheless a preventive measure will be applied to mitigate any potential negative impacts, which is that Eucalyptus will not be planted within 20 metres of watercourses/-sources. Sources: (1) Auro C. Almeida, et.al., 2007, Growth and water balance of Eucalyptus grandis hybrid plantations in Brazil during a rotation for pulp production; (2) FAO http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac777e/ac777e0a.htm#bm10.2 3. Soil The extent of loss of nutrients in the soil of Eucalyptus plantations depends on the condition species, climate, soil type and harvesting scheme. In harvesting a eucalypt stand, a portion of the stored nutrients in the above ground biomass is removed. In order to keep the natural inputs build up the nutrient chain sufficiently and to mitigate the negative impacts on soils from Eucalyptus plantations, it is recommended to (i) retain barks and leaves in situ; and/or (iii) apply proper mulching techniques. Source: FAO S. Shyam Sunder The ecological, economic and social effects of Eucalyptus http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac777e/ac777e08.htm 4. Other No changes compared to the baseline are expected in regards to other pollutants, like pollutants level of noise or visual pollution, hence this indicator has been scored neutral. Harvesting activities are carried out during daytime, hence there is no noise impact on evening or night hours. Besides, most of the plantations are quite distant from villages, hence do not cause any noise disturbance for surrounding inhabitants. Visual pollution is not applicable to the project. 5. Biodiversity The plantations help save biodiversity by meeting fuel and small wood needs otherwise coming from the ViNP. In the report “State of Forest 2010 – The Forest of the Congo Basin” the EcoMakala reforestation project is mentioned as one of the few initiatives in DRC to limit illegal charcoal exploitation from neighbouring natural reserves like the ViNP. However, the positive impacts on biodiversity in the ViNP is difficult to prove and quantify, hence project developer decided to score this indicator as neutral.

Sources: Schure J., 2011, Contribution of woodfuel to meet the energy needs of the population of Central Africa: prospects for sustainable management of available resources in “State of Forest 2010 – The Forest of the Congo Basin”

FAO S. Shyam Sunder The ecological, economic and social effects of Eucalyptus http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac777e/ac777e08.htm Social Development 6. Quality of Studies such as the FAO report listed below show various benefits of capacity building employment among planters on planting and exploitation techniques: The continuous engagement over a long period, across dimensions allows for the building of a critical mass of skills, institutional memory and the policies, norms, values and structures to support the work. Widely recognised success was also achieved in integrating Capacity Development into several pilot projects testing new technologies. Hence, the indicator has been scored positive.

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 29 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Justification choices, data source and provision of references

Source: FAO. 2010. Evaluation of FAO’s Activities on Capacity Development in Africa. Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/3/a-k8635e.pdf 7. Livelihood of Forests in Africa form a veritable base from which substantial proportion of the populace the poor derives their source of livelihood. The demand for forest products is expected to continue to increase thus there is need for reforestation and effective management of forest resources. Apart from fuel-wood, high-yield plantation trees provide communities with forage for livestock, herbal medicine, gums, dyes and vegetable oil, hence the indicator is scored positive.

Source: FAO S. Role of forests in poverty alleviation and sustainable development in West Africa (2003) http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0123-A2.HTM

Scientific sources such as indicated below attribute the contribution to poverty alleviation of forests resources in sub-Saharan Africa. Forests attribute to the well-being of sub-Saharan communities through the bounty of goods and services provided by the forest.

Source: Soaga, J. A., and V. O. Kolade. "The role of forests and forest products in poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa in the 21st century." Forest Science and Practice 15.4 (2013): 357-362.

8. Access to The plantations contribute to clean energy services as the harvested wood for firewood affordable and charcoal is considered as renewable. As this sustainable development benefit will and clean be valorised in the interlinked EcoMakala Energy project, this indicator in the A/R energy project is evaluated as neutral. It must be said that the EcoMakala Reforestation services project focus rather on the permanent biomass on the plantation than on the harvested biomass. 9. Human and Research shows that capacity building reduces constraints generally faced by women institutional by providing marketing information for forest products. These products play an capacity important role in the livelihoods of rural and poor urban households. It is shown that empowering women by capacity building in forestry management improved the livelihoods of rural and poor urban households in other sub-Saharan regions. Hence, the indicator has been scored positive. Source: Awono, Abdon, Ousseynou Ndoye, and Luke Preece. "Empowering women’s capacity for improved livelihoods in non-timber forest product trade in Cameroon." International journal of social forestry 3.2 (2010). http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/AAwono1001.pdf Economic & Technical Development 10. Quantitative More than 70 associations have been brought together by the WWF by means of the employment EcoMakala project. About 5 cooperatives have been established to carry out the and income economic activities related to the project. One example of such cooperatives is the generation COOPAL Cooperative. To ensure sustainable plantation management for charcoal production, the COOPAL cooperation was established in 2012. COOPAL consist of more than 234 planters, but numbers are rapidly growing. COOPAL offers job opportunities, which were not present before the start of the project, for 46.3 FTE. Hence, the indicator has been scored positive. Source:

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 30 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Justification choices, data source and provision of references

Kaponirwe Saasita, G., Kambale Muhasa, P., Kibengo Sefu, A. "Plan d’affaires pour la cooperative COOPAL" (2015).

11. Access to Though the project may attract future investments into similar or other activities in investment future, it is difficult to quantify the same. Hence, the project developer decided to score this indicator as neutral. 12. Technology The capacity building activities are already valorised in the indicator ‘Quality of transfer and employment’. The project will per se not introduce a new technology but rather technological disseminate appropriate forest management practices. Hence, the indicator has been self-reliance scored neutral.

Summary of Sustainable Development Assessment of the stakeholders - BLIND exercise:

Indicator Description and Score Mitigation measure

Environment Category score: +1 1. Air quality Indicator score: +1 N/A Planted trees contribute to improved air quality and refreshment of the environment 2. Water Indicator score: -1 Stakeholders did not indicate any quality and The majority of the plantations consist of mitigation measures quantity Eucalyptus which needs lots of water 3. Soil Indicator score: -1 Stakeholders did not indicate any condition Eucalyptus impoverish the soil mitigation measures 4. Other Indicator score: 0 N/A pollutants 5. Biodiversity Indicator score: +1 N/A Protection and improvement of fauna and flora within the ViNP Social Category score: +1 Development 6. Quality of Indicator score: +1 N/A employment Employment generation through the exploitation of the plantations 7. Livelihood of Indicator score: +1 N/A the poor Cooperatives help to organize revenue creation through the whole value chain 8. Access to Indicator score: +1 N/A affordable Energy (biomass) is available and comes from and clean a proper and renewable source energy services 9. Human and Indicator score: +1 N/A institutional Capacity building on technical norms of capacity reforestation and improved carbonization techniques Economic & Category score: +1 Technical Development 10. Quantitative Indicator score: +1 N/A employment Employment creation

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 31 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Summary of Sustainable Development Assessment of the stakeholders - BLIND exercise:

Indicator Description and Score Mitigation measure

and income generation 11. Access to Indicator score: +1 N/A investment Value creation around the ViNP which attracts other investment 12. Technology Indicator score: +1 N/A transfer and Technology transfer on improved exploitation technological techniques of plantations self-reliance

Comments accompanying the BLIND exercise Four focus groups were involved in the blind exercise for EcoMakala Reforestation project. For each indicator the most conservative value was taken of the four focus groups. For the indicators Water quality and Soil condition one group mentioned negative impact, whereas three other groups mentioned positive impact. Nevertheless the most conservative result was taken, which is negative impact.

Main differences The project owner and the stakeholders both identified the same negative impacts, which are “Water quality and quantity” and “Soil condition”. The stakeholders identified 9 positive impacts, whereas the project owner 4. Following the conservativeness approach the consolidated sustainable development assessment will contain only four positive impacts, which are “Quality of employment”, “Livelihood of the poor”, “Human and institutional capacity” and “Quantitative employment and income generation”.

Consolidated Sustainable Development Assessment - with final scores

Indicator Description and Score Mitigation measure

Environment Category score: 0 1. Air quality Indicator score: 0 N/A Trees affect air quality through the direct removal of air pollutants. As these positive impacts of trees on air quality are difficult to measure, the score of this category will be neutral 2. Water Indicator score: -1 Planting of Eucalyptus trees (as well as quality and It is believed that Eucalyptus species all other species included in the quantity consume more water than other, less project) more than 20 meters from productive species. water courses 3. Soil Indicator score: -1 -Retention of bark and leaves on the condition The growing of eucalypts as short rotation site and high yielding crops, results in a nutrient -Mulching loss in the soil. Since soil nutrients are finite and may be naturally replenished at a slower rate than they are lost, measures may be required to ensure the sustainability of yields and maintenance of soil quality.

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 32 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Consolidated Sustainable Development Assessment - with final scores

Indicator Description and Score Mitigation measure

4. Other Indicator score: 0 N/A pollutants No impact on other pollutants have been identified. 5. Biodiversity Indicator score: 0 N/A An important contribution of plantations is in replacing indigenous species for firewood/charcoal, thereby preventing further denudation of natural forests. These plantations may save biodiversity elsewhere by preventing the destruction of Virunga National Park (ViNP). However as it is difficult to proof that any increase in biodiversity in ViNP are directly related to the plantations as displacement of indigenous trees from the park, the indicator is considered as neutral.

8. Access to Indicator score: 0 N/A affordable The plantation contribute to clean energy and clean services as the harvested wood for firewood energy and charcoal is considered as renewable. As services this sustainable development benefit will be valorised in the interlinked EcoMakala Energy project, this indicator in the A/R project is evaluated as neutral. It must be said that the EcoMakala Reforestation project focus rather on the permanent biomass on the plantation than on the harvested biomass.

9. Human and Indicator score: +1 N/A institutional The project is providing specific opportunities capacity in terms of employment as women are working in the nurseries and are managing some of the associations involved in the project.

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 33 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Consolidated Sustainable Development Assessment - with final scores

Indicator Description and Score Mitigation measure

11. Access to Indicator score: 0 N/A investment No impact on access to investment have been identified.

Sustainability Monitoring Plan Certificates Discussion on Sustainability Monitoring Plan Stakeholders were invited to provide some suggestions on how the SD indicators could be monitored. The propositions consisted of tracking the number of capacity building workshops and the registration of income generating activities.

Discussion on continuous Input and Grievance Mechanism Certificates

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 34 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local Stakeholder Consultation Version: 0.9 (Road-Test)

Discussion on Sustainability Monitoring Plan

Method chosen Justification (include all known details e.g. location of book, phone, number, identity of mediator) Continuous Input and Grievance Office of WWF-DRC in Goma: At least 2 continuous input and Expression Process Book 142/02, Avenue Mont Goma grievance books are provided, B.P. 106 Goma one in the south (Goma, the capital of North Kivu) and one in the north (Beni) of the project Office of WWF-DRC in Beni: area. The books give access to a Commune: Beu large number and wide range of Quartier: Malepe stakeholders. Those ones who do Boulevard Nyamwisi, 55 not have access to the books, can provide their comments or other queries through telephone or Email (see below). Telephone access Genthy Munganga : +243 99 770 Stakeholders can call during 5585 business hours either Thierry Thierry Lusenge: +243 97 132 Lusenge (WWF programme 1047 / +243 81 317 7567 director) or Genthy Munganga (Community officer). Gold Standard: +41 22 788 70 Stakeholders may also directly call 80 the Gold Standard Foundation. Internet/email access Genthy Munganga : Stakeholders can email at any [email protected] time either Thierry Lusenge Thierry Lusenge : (WWF programme director) or [email protected] Genthy Munganga (Community officer) Gold Standard: Stakeholders may also directly [email protected] email the Gold Standard Foundation. Nominated Independent Not used Not applicable Mediator (optional)

Stakeholder feedback round Certificates Description of the design of the stakeholder feedback round The LSC documentation along with the revised project documentation will be sent to all participants and invitees by email or by letter. To enable the stakeholders a better understanding, the LSC report will be provided in French. The project developer will ensure to translate any of the other project documents if this is requested by any of the stakeholders. The Local Stakeholder Consultation report along with the other project documentation will be published on the website of WWF-DRC and/or CO2logic and a few hard copies will be made available. It will be ensured that stakeholders have at least two months to provide their comments and that the SFR will be completed prior to finalisation of the Initial Certification.

Project type: A/R Saved: May 04, 2017 35 of 35 | Local Stakeholder Consultation