climate, community biodiversity alliance project ......charlie williams clean air action corporation...

Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance Project Verification Report

(Second Monitoring Period Verification)

The International Small Group & Tree Planting Program (TIST), Kenya, CCB‐003

15 October 2014

Project No. V014076.00

Verification Conducted by:

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

Corporate Offices at: 7220 Financial Way, Suite 100 Jacksonville, Florida 32256

Phone: 904‐470‐2200; Fax: 904‐470‐2112

The International Small Group &

Tree Planting Program (TIST), Kenya, CCB-003

168‐FOR‐CCBA Verification Report Template – final – v1 2 Controlled Document 08 August 2014

TableofContents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Summary of Verification Results ................................................................................... 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

CL1 Net Positive Climate Impacts ..................................................................................... 27

CL2 Offsite Climate Impacts (“Leakage”) ......................................................................... 30

CL3 Climate Impact Monitoring ........................................................................................ 31

CM1 Net Positive Community Impacts ............................................................................... 33

CM2 Offsite Stakeholder Impacts ....................................................................................... 34

CM3 Community Impact Monitoring .................................................................................. 35

B1 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts .................................................................................. 36

B2 Offsite Biodiversity Impacts .......................................................................................... 40

B3 Biodiversity Impact Monitoring ..................................................................................... 40

Gold Level Section ....................................................................................................................... 42

GL2 Exceptional Community Benefits ............................................................................... 42

Public Shareholder Comments ...................................................................................................... 46




Verification Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 46

Submittal Information ................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix A – Documents Reviewed / Received .......................................................................... 48

Appendix B – Stakeholder Meeting Announcements and Comments .......................................... 49




Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance TIST Program in Kenya CCB-003 Verification Report

Introduction This report presents the findings of an audit conducted by Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI), to verify the claims made by the TIST Program in Kenya CCB-003 conforms to the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Project Design Standards (Second Edition- December 2008). ESI is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) under ISO 14065:2007 for greenhouse gas validation and verifications bodies and is approved by the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) to perform such validations/verifications.

ContactInformationClient Name Address Phone Website

Clean Air Action Corporation 7134 South Yale Avenue, Suite 310 Tulsa, OK 74136 918-747-8749 www.tist.org

Contact Name Address Phone

Charlie Williams Clean Air Action Corporation 7134 South Yale Avenue, Suite 310 Tulsa, OK 74136 918-747-8749

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

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

Verification Team Lead Verifier/: Shawn McMahon Team Members: Rich Scharf, Caitlin Sellers, Jonathan Pomp, Matthew Perkowski, Guy Pinjuv, and Eric Jaeschke QA/QC: Janice McMahon




VerificationDetails

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

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

Standards, Version December 2013.

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

Verification Scope The scope of the verification, included the GHG project and implementation; baseline scenarios; physical infrastructure, activities, technologies and processes of the GHG project; GHG sources, sinks and/or reservoirs; types of GHG’s; periods covered; the validated PDD; and the evaluation of the project’s net climate, community, and biodiversity benefits. Period of evaluation: 30 June 2012 to 31 December 2013.

Verification Date(s) 22 August 2014 – 15 October 2014

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

Site Visits No site visit was conducted. In accordance with CCB Rules, ESI relied on its site visit of 12-July-2012 to 24-July-2012




Final Documents from Client

TIST_Kenya_CCB-003_Verification_NCR_Round1.docx" TIST KE PD-CCB-003g App06 Monitoring Plan 120626.doc" TIST KE PD-CCB-003i App08 Verif 02 PIR 141002.doc" TIST KE PD-CCB-Spt 13 Quantifier Safety 110110.doc" TIST KE PD-CCB-Spt 14g Public Comments PD-003 V02.doc

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

Public Comment Period on CCBA Number of Comments Received

26 August 2014 – 25 September 2014 – Project listing on CCB for public comment No comments were received

Project Description The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST) empower Small Groups of 6-to-12 subsistence farmers in India, Kenya, Tanzania, and Kenya to combat the devastating effects of deforestation, poverty and drought. Combining sustainable development with carbon sequestration, TIST already supports the reforestation and biodiversity efforts of over 64,000 subsistence farmers. Carbon credit sales generate participant income and provide project funding to address agricultural, HIV/AIDS, nutritional and fuel challenges. As TIST expands to more groups and more areas, it ensures more trees, more biodiversity, more climate change benefit and more income for more people. Since its inception in 1999, TIST participants organized into over 8,900 TIST Small Groups have planted over 10 million trees on their own and community lands. GHG sequestration is creating a potential long-term income stream and developing sustainable environments and livelihoods. TIST in Kenya began in 2004 and has grown to 52,000 TIST participants in over 7,100 Small Groups. As a grassroots initiative, Small Groups are provided a structural network of training and communications that allows them to build on their own internal strengths and develop best practices. Small Groups benefit from a new income source; the sale of carbon credits that result from the sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere in the biomass of the trees and soil. These credits are expected to be approved under the Voluntary Carbon Standard and/or CDM and, because they are tied to tree growth, will be sustainable. The carbon credits create a new ‘virtual’ cash crop for the participants who gain all the direct benefits of growing trees and also receive quarterly cash stipends based on the GHG benefits created by their efforts. The maturing trees and conservation farming will provide additional sustainable benefits that far exceed the carbon payments. These include improved crop yield, improved environment, and marketable commodities such as fruits, nuts, and honey. TIST utilizes a high-tech approach to quantify the benefits and report the results in a method transparent to the whole world, which includes palm computers, GPS, and a dynamic “real time” internet based database.




This project is for a subset of the TIST Kenya program and corresponds to TIST Kenya VCS-006 project description. It applies to 3,961 of the Small Groups, 29,222 members, 18,099 project areas and 7,419.2 ha.

Executive Summary of Verification Results Criterion Required/

Optional Conformance

Y/N N/A G1 Original Conditions in the Project Area Required y G2 Baseline Projections Required y G3 Project Design and Goals Required y G4 Management Capacity and Best Practices Required y G5 Legal Status and Property Rights Required y CL1 Net Positive Climate Impacts Required y CL2 Offsite Climate Impacts (“Leakage”) Required y CL3 Climate Impact Monitoring Required y CM1 Net Positive Community Impacts Required y CM2 Offsite Stakeholder Impacts Required y CM3 Community Impact Monitoring Required y B1 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts Required y B2 Offsite Biodiversity Impacts Required y B3 Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Required y GL1 Climate Change Adaptation Benefits Optional n GL2 Exceptional Community Benefits Optional y GL3 Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits Optional n

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

This indicator was confirmed in the validated PDD.

Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:

PDD

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

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

This indicator was addressed in the validated PDD.

Evidence Used to Assess PDD




Conformance: Findings: The types and condition of vegetation within the

project area were confirmed at validation and have not changed.

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



PDD

Findings: The boundaries of the project were confirmed at validation and have not changed.

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



PDD

Findings: The baseline carbon stocks were confirmed at validation.

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



PDD




Findings: The demographics and description of the communities was confirmed at validation and has not substantially changed.

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

The PIR explains that Kenya’s land system is undergoing a transformation from a communal based system to individuals holding title to their land. 80% of the land in Kenya has been converted to the individual ownership system. The project zone has been settled for a long time and has not been subject to land rights disputes.

This section also provides detail regarding the relationship between the project and participants, and how distribution of money derived from carbon credit sales are determined.


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

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

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



PDD

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

Indicator G1.8 - An evaluation of whether the project zone includes any of the following High Conservation





Values (HCVs) and a description of the qualifying attributes. Indicator 8.1 - Globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values: a. protected areas

b. threatened species

c. endemic species

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




significance identified in collaboration with the communities). Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:

PDD

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

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

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



PDD

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

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



PDD

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

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





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

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




Conformance: Findings: The estimated carbon stock changes associated with

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

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



PDD

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

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



PDD

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

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



PDD.

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

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





achieving the project’s objectives. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:

PDD

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

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



PDD

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

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

The project lifetime is 60 years, beginning 1 January 2004 and ending 31 December 2063, which is the same as the carbon accounting period. This PIR was prepared for the second verification period, which covers 30 June 2012 through 31 December 2013. A series of Gantt charts show the timing of events for the project. Main planting is complete, but replacement planting and other individual plantings in individual project areas may occur. Monitoring is ongoing, verification, thinning, harvest schedules are also described in the Gantt charts.


Section G3.4 of the PIR.

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




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

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

Another human risk is that participating farmers will drop out of the program. The numbers involved mitigate this risk, and the numbers seeking to join the program can replace them. This risk is deemed insignificant. Natural risks cited include drought, pestilence and fire. The fact that the project are consists of thousands of individual projects scattered over a large area mitigates these risks. A risk analysis for the PIR period was conducted for VCS KE 006, verified by JACO. Project is considered low risk.


Section G3.5 of the PIR, VCS risk analysis from “TIST KE PD-VCS-006j App09 Verif 02 Risk Analysis 140725.doc”

Findings: The greatest risk to the project identified is the failure of the market for voluntary offset credits.

Indicator G3.6 - Demonstrate that the project design includes specific measures to ensure the maintenance or enhancement of the high conservation value attributes identified in G1 consistent with the precautionary principle.

HCV attributes identified in the PDD were all outside the project areas but within the project zone. Long settlement and previous conversion to agriculture eliminated most wildlife from the project areas, but protected areas, including Mount Kenya and gazette forests used as wildlife corridors include near threatened, vulnerable and endangered species. These natural areas also provide important water resources.

Deforestation is a major problem in Kenya. 20% is a result of the need for cooking fuel. Trees planted in the TIST program help relieve the pressure on these forests from illegal subsistence deforestation. There is also potential that trees planted will serve as additional habitat and sometimes wildlife corridors for animals that rarely come out of the protected




areas.


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

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

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

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



Findings: A main project activity is spreading the knowledge of maintaining a woodlot for fuel and harvest of fruits, nuts and other products, improving the lives of farm families in several ways, including reducing the need to travel far to collect fuel wood and providing new food and income sources. Knowledge to increase productivity and reduce resource expenditures on fuel collection is likely to spread and take root permanently.




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

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

TIST projects begin by contacting local community leaders, villages, local NGOs and governments to see if there is interest in the program. If there is interest, TIST holds a seminar explaining the program, followed by regular meetings that are open to the public. The growth of the program is evidence of its popularity among community members. The PDD outlines initial meetings and public comments in detail. The PIR summarizes the same.


Sections G3.8 of the PIR and the PDD.

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

Indicator G3.9 - Describe what specific steps have been taken, and communications methods used, to publicize the CCBA public comment period to communities and other stakeholders and to facilitate their submission of comments to CCBA. Project proponents must play an active role in distributing key project documents to affected communities

The PIR states that TIST will announce the intent to apply for CCBA validation [italics added by ESI] in Nairobi papers and announce the public meeting. Stakeholders will also be informed via email, with a link to the CCBA website, where the documents are posted. The verification team was copied on the email announcement sent to stakeholders. A stakeholder meeting was held on 4 September 2014.




and stakeholders and hold widely publicized information meetings in relevant local or regional languages. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:

Section G3.9 of the PIR, email exchange between project developer and verification team regarding the necessity of the public meeting.

Findings: The project developer notified stakeholders of the meeting and requested comments during the comment period via email. No further information on the newspaper announcement.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please provide a copy of the newspaper announcement for the meeting. Please update language in section G3.9 to indicate this is verification rather than a validation.

Date Issued: 30 September 2014 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:

The newspaper announcement is provided in " TIST KE PD-CCB-Spt 14g Public Comments PD-003 V02.doc" demonstrating that we used the term verified. The PIR has been corrected and updated to reflect no negative comments.

Evidence Used to Close NCR: TIST KE PD-CCB-Spt 14g Public Comments PD-003 V02.doc was provided which shows the newspaper announcements, the comments from the public meeting and shows that the term verification was used. Addressed.

Date Closed: 10 October 2014 Indicator G3.10 - Formalize a clear process for handling unresolved conflicts and grievances that arise during project planning and implementation. The project design must include a process for hearing, responding to and resolving community and other stakeholder grievances within a reasonable time period. This grievance process must be publicized to communities and other stakeholders and must be managed by a third party or mediator to prevent any conflict of interest.

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




Project management must attempt to resolve all reasonable grievances raised, and provide a written response to grievances within 30 days. Grievances and project responses must be documented. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:

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

Findings: While a grievance procedure is in place, the nature of the project and the ability for farmers to leave the project at will reduces the likelihood a serious grievance would arise. No third party mediator is mentioned, nor the 30 day response period.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please specify that a third party would ultimately mediate any unresolved grievance and include the required 30 day response time.


The following has been added to the PIR: If conflicts or grievances cannot be resolved internally, CAAC will submit to arbitration in through the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Kenya Branch within 30 days for notice by the aggrieved party indicating they wish to appeal the internal process.

Evidence Used to Close NCR: PIR. The language added to the PIR sufficiently addresses the NCR regarding arbitration.

Date Closed: 10 October 2014 Indicator G3.11 - Demonstrate that financial mechanisms adopted, including projected revenues from emissions reductions and other sources, are likely to provide an adequate flow of funds for project implementation and to achieve the anticipated climate, community and biodiversity benefits.

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


Section G3.11 of the PDD.

Findings: TIST has been up and running, in multiple countries, for a number of years. However no detail on how the project finances its operation was provided.




Non-conformance Request (NCR): While the fact that TIST is still up and running is evidence that sufficient funds exist to run the program thus far, an update as to how the realities of the last few years have either confirmed original projections or required a change in financing plans is needed.

Date Issued: 1 October 2014 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:

Section G3.11 has been added to the PIR.

Evidence Used to Close NCR: PIR. The discussion provided in G3.11 provides sufficient narrative to provide an update regarding how the project has tracked with original financial projections.

Date Closed: 10 October 2014

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

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


PIR, PDD

Findings: A single project proponent is identified in the PDD. Indicator G4.2 - Document key technical skills that will be required to implement the project successfully, including community engagement, biodiversity assessment and carbon measurement and monitoring skills. Document the management team’s expertise and prior experience implementing land management projects at the scale of this project. If relevant experience is lacking, the

The PIR explains TIST has been in operation for over 14 years, in 4 countries, involving 70,000 farmers. Staff and contractors are trained and experienced. The monitoring system has received awards. TIST itself has been through numerous validations and verifications. This is the second verification for this project.




proponents must either demonstrate how other organizations will be partnered with to support the project or have a recruitment strategy to fill the gaps. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:


Findings: The management team’s expertise and prior experience is considerable.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please mention the technical skills required for this project.


We added a list of technical skill needed for the project in the PIR

Evidence Used to Close NCR: PIR. The list of technical skills needed has now been provided in the PIR.

Date Closed: 10 October 2014 Indicator G4.3 - Include a plan to provide orientation and training for the project’s employees and relevant people from the communities with an objective of building locally useful skills and knowledge to increase local participation in project implementation. These capacity building efforts should target a wide range of people in the communities, including minority and underrepresented groups. Identify how training will be passed on to new workers when there is staff turnover, so that local capacity will not be lost.

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

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



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




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

TIST in Kenya is completely run by Kenyans, and staff is hired from the members. The PIR states that hiring is done by ability, not gender, religion or tribal affiliation. Farmers are trained as trainers. Group meetings are run by Kenyans. All members have the opportunity to become group leaders. A concerted effort is made to make sure seminar attendance has a gender balance. Section G4.3 mentions that efforts are made to keep a balance in tribal affiliation, as well.


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

Findings: Employment opportunities go to local people. Given the nature of the project, it seems likely that any gender bias in hiring would stem from bias within the local communities, and not some problem within TIST.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Given this is a desktop verification and no site visit interviews are possible, please summarize the hiring process, showing how underrepresented groups are given a fair chance to fill positions, and how tribal balance is achieved.


There have been no new salaried hires during the verification period. Four new independent contractors were added as Cluster Servants. See the PIR for the new paragraph to address this NCR.

Evidence Used to Close NCR: PIR. The narrative provided shows that the latest 4 hires included women and persons from different tribes. Addressed.

Date Closed: 10 October 2014 Indicator G4.5 - Submit a list of all relevant laws and regulations covering worker’s rights in the host country. Describe how the project will inform workers about their

A list of relevant laws is provided. CAAC uses an employment contract that explains the important parts of the employment laws.




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. Evidence Used to Assess Conformance:


Findings: The list of laws was provided and the method for informing workers of their rights stated. No statement of assurance that laws will be met or exceeded.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please include a statement of assurance that relevant laws will be met or exceeded.


The statement has been added to the PIR.

Evidence Used to Close NCR: PIR. The statement “CAAC and TIST meets or exceeds all applicable laws and/or regulations covering worker rights and all other relevant laws.” has been added to the PIR. Addressed.

Date Closed: 10 October 2014 Indicator G4.6 - Comprehensively assess situations and occupations that pose a substantial risk to worker safety. A plan must be in place to inform workers of risks and to explain how to minimize such risks. Where worker safety cannot be guaranteed, project proponents must show how the risks will be minimized using best work practices.

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

Risk of crash or robbery on local transportation.

Dangerous snakes Elephants (in Meru area).

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



Findings: It is likely that risks faced by TIST employees and contractors don’t exceed those faced by the people on a regular basis, anyway. “TIST KE PD-CCB-Spt 13 Quantifier Safety 110110.doc” was not provided.

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




in the footnote on page 11 of the PIR. Date Issued: 30 September 2014 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:

This document as well as all other referenced documents is provided at http://www.tist.org/PD-KE-VCS-006%20Documents.php. See section "CCB Support Documents, CCB-003", "TIST KE PD-CCB-Spt 13 Quantifier Safety 110110.doc"

Evidence Used to Close NCR: TIST KE PD-CCB-Spt 13 Quantifier Safety 110110.doc. The document provided adequately describes the safety practices for the TIST project. Addressed.

Date Closed: 10 October 2014 Indicator G4.7 - Document the financial health of the implementing organization(s) to demonstrate that financial resources budgeted will be adequate to implement the project.



PDD

Findings: The financial health of the implementing organization was confirmed at validation.

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

The PIR reiterates the employment related laws of G4.5, and also listed the Companies Act and the Environmental Management and Coordination Act. Assurance of compliance is provided. A series of regulations that must be followed due to TIST receiving a USAID award is provided. TIST is subject to a separate audit for these.

Regulations regarding Eucalyptus trees in riparian lands do not apply to TIST farmers, because none are in designated riparian lands.


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

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




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

All project approvals are documented in the validated PDD.


PDD

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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




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

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



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

Indicator G5.6 - Demonstrate that the project proponents have clear, uncontested title to the carbon rights, or provide legal documentation demonstrating that the project is undertaken on behalf of the carbon owners with their full consent. Where local or national conditions preclude clear title to the carbon rights at the time of validation against the Standards, the project proponents must provide evidence that their ownership of carbon rights is likely to be established before they enter into any transactions concerning the project’s carbon assets.

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


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

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

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please provide the demonstration of land and carbon ownership for the following groves: 2011KE172-Daniel K Musyoka 2008KE376-Cecillia Wambui 2008KE2179-Teresa stream




2008KE1625-Peter m muchee 2007KE716-Ndubi m.manene 2007KE406-ISAIAH-ORSHARD 2007KE218-GITONGA-FARM 2006KE640-Joshua murerwa 2006KE398-Washington kirimi 2006KE129-Damaris Kaburo


The contracts have been forwarded.

Finding: Contracts provided by client. The contracts confirm carbon ownership. The element of land ownership is problematic in this region as ownership is often under customary tenure for which there is no documentation or under a formal title, which most landowners are reluctant to show other for fear of having it stolen. The client provided further statements as to which of the selected sample of TIST members were under customary tenure or alternatively formal title.


CL1 Net Positive Climate Impacts Indicator CL1.1 - Estimate the net change in carbon stocks due to the project activities using the methods of calculation, formulae and default values of the IPCC 2006 GL for AFOLU or using a more robust and detailed methodology. The net change is equal to carbon stock changes with the project minus carbon stock changes without the project (the latter having been estimated in G2). This estimate must be based on clearly defined and defendable assumptions about how project activities will alter GHG emissions of carbon stocks over the duration of the project or the project GHG accounting period.

Change without the Project. The methodology allows the change in baseline carbon without the project to be ignored, providing it is less than 10% of the change in carbon that results from the project. The existing trees were recorded and measured during the baseline study (worksheet "Baseline Strata"). The non-woody areas were stratified and the area estimated (worksheet "Grove Summary). A conservative case was used to estimate the increase in carbon overtime (worksheet "Baseline Growth"). The ex-ante estimate of the baseline without the project is 1.6% of the ex-ante estimate with the project and the baseline case is ignored in the calculations. Net change in Carbon Stocks. Due to the methodology, the change in baseline carbon is ignored and the ex-ante net change in carbon stocks is 6,998,259 tonnes of CO

2e.





TIST KE PD-VCS-006k App10 Verif 02 Monitoring Rpt 140725.doc; TIST KE PD-VCS-006l App11 Verif 02 Monitor Data 140725.xlsx; TIST KE PD-CCB-003i App08 Verif 02 PIR 140820.doc

Findings: PD indicates that, as per step 5, DBH will be measured on up to 20 trees. Last verification it was reported that 104,550 were sampled out of the project total 794,447. This verification the "Circ" tab in the monitoring spreadsheet indicates a total of 682,418 total trees and 667,765 trees sampled (less the 14,653 "0" trees from column J). Possibly this is an interpretation error in reading the spreadsheet.

Clarification Request (CL)): Please clarify the apparent discrepancy (decrease in total trees/substantial increase in sampled trees) since the previous verification.


Verifier is incorrect; there were 507,470 samples in the first verification and there was not a decrease in sample size from the time of the first and second verifications. The 14,653 samples with zero cm indicate the trees were below breast height.

Evidence Used to Close NCR: In this instance the project proponent is correct. The 794,447 and 104,550 numbers were taken from comments in the previous verification and appear to have been in error. A check of the same spreadsheet from the previous verification confirmed the 507,470 total. Addressed.

Date Closed: 10 October 2014 Indicator CL1.2 - Estimate the net change in the emissions of non-CO2

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

The change in emissions of non-CO2 carbon stocks are expected to be below 5% and are ignored. The potential source of methane is burning of biomass. Because the farmers planting the trees are subsistence farmers that rely on wood for cooking food, they are not expected to engage in widespread burning; available wood will be used for domestic fuel and would just offset fuel wood gathered from outside the project area. In addition, the burning of biomass is neither necessary for the project, nor promoted. Any methane emission will be de minimis and well below the 5% threshold.




N2O is a potential source from chemical fertilizers. The policy of TIST is for the farmers to refrain from using chemical fertilizers, and instead, to rely on dung and plant material. Neither of these is the result of project activity and need not be considered.



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

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

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



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

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

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

The ex-ante estimate is that TIST trees will sequester is 6,998,259 tonnes of CO2e over the 30 years and will, therefore, have a net positive impact on the climate. In addition, planting the trees will benefit the overall ecosystem and, through the use of deadwood from the project, result in reduced deforestation outside the project boundaries.

Evidence Used to Assess TIST KE PD-VCS-006k App10 Verif 02 Monitoring




Conformance: Rpt 140725.doc; TIST KE PD-VCS-006l App11 Verif 02 Monitor Data 140725.xlsx; TIST KE PD-CCB-003i App08 Verif 02 PIR 140820.doc

Findings: It is a fairly straightforward conclusion that the tree planting activities, as designed by the TIST program, will yield a net positive impact.

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

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



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

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

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


Sections CL2.1 of the PIR and PDD.

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

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

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

Evidence Used to Assess Sections CL2.2 of the PIR and PDD, section CL2.1




Conformance: of the PDD. Findings: No mitigation for leakage is required.

Indicator CL2.3 - Subtract any likely project-related unmitigated negative offsite climate impacts from the climate benefits being claimed by the project and demonstrate that this has been included in the evaluation of net climate impact of the project (as calculated in CL1.4).

Because there is no expected leakage, the amount to be subtracted from the net climate impact of the project is zero.


Sections CL2.3 of the PIR and PDD, section CL2.3 of the PDD.

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

None have been identified.


Sections CL2.4 of the PIR and PDD, section CL2.4 of the PDD.

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

CL3 Climate Impact Monitoring Indicator CL3.1 - Develop an initial plan for selecting carbon pools and non-CO2 GHGs to be monitored, and determine the frequency of monitoring. Potential pools include aboveground biomass, litter, dead wood, belowground biomass, wood products, soil carbon and peat. Pools to monitor must include any pools expected to decrease as a result of project activities, including those in the region outside the project boundaries resulting from all types of

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




leakage identified in CL2. A plan must be in place to continue leakage monitoring for at least five years after all activity displacement or other leakage causing activity has taken place. Individual GHG sources may be considered ‘insignificant’ and do not have to be accounted for if together such omitted decreases in carbon pools and increases in GHG emissions amount to less than 5% of the total CO2-equivalent benefits generated by the project. Non-CO2

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

PD and PIR

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

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

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

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


PD and PIR




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

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

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

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

New job opportunities, including two staff employees and 50 contract quantifiers.

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

trees. Capacity building for ag improvements,

nurseries, etc. Small group organization – can deal with

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

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


Section CM1.1 of the PIR.

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

Indicator CM1.2 - Demonstrate that None of the HCVs identified in the project zone




no High Conservation Values identified in G1.8.4-6 will be negatively affected by the project.

would be negatively affected by the project activities. Project activities act to reduce pressure on project zone HCV 1.8.4, because they reduce the need to deforest the catchment areas for hydrological services.


Section CM1.2 of the PIR, section G1.8 of the PDD.

Findings: The only identified community-related HCV in the PDD was the hydrological services offered by surrounding natural areas. These natural areas are more likely to be preserved, or degradation reduced, in the ‘with project’ scenario.

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

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

The only one mentioned is the potential effect of eucalyptus trees on groundwater and surface water courses. The effects of eucalyptus were explained to farmers. However, the Kenya Forest Service and Kenya Power and Light encourage the planting of eucalyptus for use as utility poles. Because of the demand, there are many eucalyptus trees in the project.



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

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

To mitigate the impact of eucalyptus, TIST requires small groups to reduce the percentage of their trees to under 30% of total trees. Plans must be filed to show how these reductions will be achieved. A higher per tree incentive to plant indigenous trees in riparian areas is offered by TIST.






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

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

The PIR states that the benefits of the project far outweigh the potential impact of the eucalyptus. Eucalyptus covers about 12% of the total project area, and a far smaller percentage of the entire project zone.



Findings: Given the relatively small number of eucalyptus trees in the project it is unlikely any effect on water resources would outweigh project benefits, especially given that the drive to plant eucalyptus does not come from the project, but outside government and market forces and the fact that the project limits eucalyptus plantings.

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

The PIR lists 17 parameters/components of the initial monitoring plan. Community monitoring is done along with quantifying tree growth, by quantifiers. Trainers collect information regarding training and meetings.



Findings: An initial monitoring plan was developed. Indicator CM3.2 - Develop an initial plan for how they will assess the effectiveness of measures used to maintain or enhance High

There is no direct monitoring of the Mt. Kenya HCV for hydrologic services, because the project is being conducted on private lands that have been under the same land use for generations. Monitoring consists of




Conservation Values related to community well-being (G1.8.4-6) present in the project zone.

quantifying the indigenous trees planted by the project and the area covered by indigenous trees.



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

Indicator CM3.3 - Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months of the project start date or within twelve months of validation against the Standards and to disseminate this plan and the results of monitoring, ensuring that they are made publicly available on the internet and are communicated to the communities and other stakeholders.

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



Findings: Appendix 06 of the PDD was not found. Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please supply the referenced monitoring plan. Date Issued: 30 September 2014 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:

This document as well as all other referenced documents is provided at http://www.tist.org/PD-KE-VCS-006%20Documents.php. See section "CCB Project Documents, TIST Kenya CCB-003", "TIST KE PD-CCB-003g App06 Monitoring Plan 120626.doc"

Evidence Used to Close NCR: TIST KE PD-CCB-003g App06 Monitoring Plan 120626.doc. The monitoring plan was provided via the TIST website. Addressed.


B1 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts Indicator B1.1 - Use appropriate methodologies to estimate changes in

Natural wildlife populations were driven off from the project area long ago. Only transient wildlife




biodiversity as a result of the project in the project zone and in the project lifetime. This estimate must be based on clearly defined and defendable assumptions. The ‘with project’ scenario should then be compared with the baseline ‘without project’ biodiversity scenario completed in G2. The difference (i.e., the net biodiversity benefit) must be positive.

populations exist. It is assumed that planting of woodlots would improve connectivity between natural forests.

Over 300,000 new indigenous trees were planted in the project area, or 1,203 ha of indigenous trees. An environmental audit shows that project areas were not high in biodiversity, but adjacent Mt. Kenya and conserved forests are rich in biodiversity. Conservation farming and cultivation of trees should reduce pressures on high biodiversity forests in the project zone. In the ‘without project’ scenario, no tree planting would have occurred, with no concurrent reduction in deforestation pressure.


Section B1.1 of the PIR.

Findings: While direct measurement of the results of the project on biodiversity is not practical and perhaps not possible, it is clear that additional deforestation pressure would exist in the absence of the project, simply because it has created new sources for wood and tree products. Indicator addressed.

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

The Mt. Kenya HCV will not be negatively affected by the project. Planting trees on farmland adjacent to protected forest will not increase deforestation pressure in the project zone, and will likely do the opposite. Connectivity for migrating wildlife may be improved.


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

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




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

The PIR provides a list of the trees that are planted in the project. Two appear on the invasive species list on the ISSG.Org website: Psidium guajava and Leucaena leucocephala.

P. guajava has been grown in Africa since the 1800s, and over 25% of households eat the fruit. It is planted on agricultural lands. The PIR states that it represents 0.49% of trees planted in the project. L. leucocephala is planted for reforestation and forage purposes. It makes good fodder and benefits soil. Seeds are used for biofuels. They are being planted in farmland, not forest. Only 0.06% of the trees planted are L. Leucocephala. The project does not introduce these species to the project zone. They were chosen by the group members from trees and plants already planted in the area. TIST provides no seed stock, the seed is gathered locally.


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

Findings: The project does use two species considered invasive in Kenya, but the PIR indicates they are under control and that the Kenya Forest Service does not consider them to be invasive. No monitoring of invasives is mentioned. Since seeds are sourced locally, the project did not introduce these species to the project area. Further the project restricts both the numbers of eucalyptus that can be planted and the planting locations.

Indicator B1.4 - Describe possible adverse effects of non-native species used by the project on the region’s environment, including impacts on native species and disease

Effects of some of the non-native species are discussed, though not the two on the invasive species list.

All species used in the project were already in the




introduction or facilitation. Project proponents must justify any use of non-native species over native species

project area. Seed stock is sourced locally, from trees with a tradition of being grown in the area.

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



Findings: The project proponents reasonably justify the use of non-native species, and also discourage the use of some of them in certain situations. The adverse effects of the invasive non-native species was not discussed.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please discuss the potential negative impacts of the two species on the invasive species list, mentioned in section B1.3. Justification for the use of non-native species appears reasonable.


Please note that as mentioned in B1.3, these two species are not considered invasive in Kenya by Kenya Forest Service. However a new paragraph was added to the PIR.

Evidence Used to Close NCR: PIR. Noted that though the of the species are listed on the International Union of Concerned Scientists, Global Invasive Species Database, the Kenya forest service does not consider these to be invasive. Additionally, sufficient justification has been provided for the mitigation of their use. Addressed.

Date Closed: 10 October 2014 Indicator B1.5 - Guarantee that no GMOs will be used to generate GHG emissions reductions or removals.

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



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




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

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



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

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

N/A. No negative impacts are expected.


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

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

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



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

B3 Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Indicator B3.1 - Develop an initial plan for selecting biodiversity variables to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring and reporting to ensure that monitoring variables are directly linked to the project’s biodiversity objectives and to anticipated impacts (positive and negative).

The project has been in operation since 2004. A full monitoring plan is in place, said to be in Appendix 06. Trees are the main focus of biodiversity monitoring. The number of hectares of improved riparian land by planting of indigenous trees by TIST farmers is considered a key parameter.






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

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please provide a copy of the monitoring plan. Date Issued: 30 September 2014 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:



Date Closed: 10 October 2014 Indicator B3.2 - Develop an initial plan for assessing the effectiveness of measures used to maintain or enhance High Conservation Values related to globally, regionally or nationally significant biodiversity (G1.8.1-3) present in the project zone.

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



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

Indicator B3.3 - Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months of the project start date or within twelve months of validation against the Standards and to disseminate this plan and the results of monitoring, ensuring that they are made publicly available on the internet and are communicated to the communities and other stakeholders.

The PIR states the full monitoring plan was developed prior to the first verification, and is available in appendix 06.

Evidence Used to Assess Section B3.3 of the PIR, previous validation and




Conformance: verification record. Findings: It is known that the project proponents developed a

monitoring plan, because the auditors were involved in the previous verification. However, appendix 06 was not provided for this verification.

Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please provide the auditors with appendix 06. Date Issued: 30 September 2014 Project Proponent Response/Actions and Date:




GoldLevelSection

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

The PIR states that Kenya is a medium human development country with at least 50% of the population of the area under the poverty line. The cited UNDP Human Development report of 2009 backs this up. The more recent 2013 report shows Kenya is a low human development country.


Section GL2.1 of the PIR, UNDP reports of 2009 and 2013.

Findings: Kenya is considered a low human development country. When it was considered a medium human development country, more than 50% of the population was below the poverty line. This Gold Level indicator has been satisfied.

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

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




likely to benefit substantially from the project.

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


Section GL2.2 of the PIR

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




of important health and agricultural information from trainings (available to non-members). The project proponents have demonstrated that at least 50% of participants from all quartiles will benefit from the project, and many poor non-participants will benefit, as well.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Section GL2.4 of the PIR.

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

Indicator GL2.5 - Demonstrate that community impact monitoring will be able to identify positive and negative impacts on poorer and more

The PD states “A similar survey will be conducted at least every five years as part of the re-verification to the CCB standard. The survey may be modified in future monitoring based on lessons learned from




vulnerable groups. The social impact monitoring must take a differentiated approach that can identify positive and negative impacts on poorer households and individuals and other disadvantaged groups, including women.

initial data collection and so that it can be integrated with the TIST monitoring system for more frequent and extensive data collection on impacts.” TIST members were randomly selected for a survey to detect impacts in 2011.Survey results are provided in support documents. It indicated 35.5% of the respondents made less than US$123/year and 85% make less than US$616/year. Most members are therefore poor. A list of benefits from the project that were reported by the members is supplied. Benefits were received by the most vulnerable 15%, and reported. Benefits reported were overwhelmingly positive, though a small percentage of participants reported negative consequences of the program.


Section GL2.5 of the PIR.

Findings: The survey reported is from 2011. It is assumed no subsequent survey has been performed since then, but there is no confirmation. It appears likely that a survey of this nature will be able to identify positive and negative impacts to poorer, more vulnerable groups.

Clarification Request (CL): Please clarify if an additional survey to assess community impacts has been conducted since the 2011 survey.

Date Issued:: 30 September 2014 Project proponent response/actions No subsequent survey has been taken. The next one

will take place before the 5 year anniversary of the first and be available in subsequent verifications.

Evidence Used to Close NCR: NCR response. The response is sufficient as the project proponent has clarified that a new survey has not been conducted. The PD states “A similar survey will be conducted at least every five years” and 5 years has not elapsed.





Public Shareholder Comments The project PIR was posted to the CCBA website for the formal 30-day public comment period (The public comment period was from 26 August 2014 – 25 September 2014.). TIST announced the intent to verify this project in two major Nairobi papers, in an email to stakeholders and at a public meeting in Nairobi on 14 September 2014 (Appendix B). Comments were solicited on behalf of CCB and in person at the public meeting. In addition, TIST maintains a publicly accessible webpage that lists and contains all of the documents associated with this and the associated VCS project. It includes the PDDs, PIRs, maps, KML files, risk reports, spreadsheets, monitoring reports, verification reports and appendices. The web link to this page was made available as part of the public notification along with the evidence of publication in the newspapers. There were 12 comments of support provided during the September 14 meeting and no comments received from CCB. ESI is satisfied that the results of the public shareholder/stakeholder meetings outreach programs provided sufficient opportunities for feedback on the TIST program.

VerificationConclusionESI confirms all verification activities including objectives, scope and criteria, level of assurance, the project’s adherence to the validated PDD , and implementation as outlined in the PIR adhere to the CCB Project Design Standards, Second Edition, as documented in this report are complete. ESI concludes without any qualifications or limiting conditions that the International Small Group & Tree Planting Program (TIST), Kenya, CCB-003, CCBA Project Implementation Report for TIST Program in Kenya CCB-003, Verification 02 (2 October 2014), and the CCB Monitoring Report for TIST Program in Kenya VCS-006, Verification 02 (25 July 2014) for the monitoring period of 30 June 2012 to 31 December 2013, meets the requirements of the CCB Project Design Standards (Second Edition – December 2008) and Gold Level for Exceptional Community Benefits.




Submittal Information Report Submitted to: Charlie Williams

Clean Air Action Corporation 7134 South Yale Avenue, Suite 310 Tulsa, OK 74136 Climate, Community &Biodiversity Alliance

Report Submitted (CCBA-Approved Verifier) by:

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

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

Shawn McMahon – Lead Verifier

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

Date: 15 October 2014

SM VO14076.00 CCB Ver Report _Final.doc K:pf 10-15-14f




AppendixA–DocumentsReviewed/Received Documents received 20 August 2014

TIST KE PD-CCB-003i App08 Verif 02 PIR 140820.doc CCB Standards Second Edition PIR Information.docx

Documents received 22 August 2014

TIST KE VCS-006h JACO Verification Representation 140731.pdf TIST KE VCS-006g JACO Verification Report 140730.pdf TIST KE PD-VCS-006j App09 Verif 02 Risk Analysis 140725.doc TIST KE PD-VCS-006l App11 Verif 02 Monitor Data 140725.xlsx TIST KE PD-VCS-006k App10 Verif 02 Monitoring Rpt 140725.doc

Documents received 26 August 2014

TIST KE PD-CCB-003i App08 Verif 02 PIR 140820.doc Documents received 27 August 2014

Email notification of comment period& meeting.pdf Documents received 03 October 2014

2006KE129.pdf 2006KE398.pdf 2006KE640.pdf 2007KE218.pdf 2007KE406.pdf 2007KE716.pdf 2008KE376.pdf 2008KE1625.pdf 2008KE2179.pdf 2011KE172.pdf TIST KE PD-CCB-003g App06 Monitoring Plan 120626.doc TIST KE PD-CCB-003i App08 Verif 02 PIR 141002.doc TIST KE PD-CCB-Spt 13 Quantifier Safety 110110.doc TIST KE PD-CCB-Spt 14g Public Comments PD-003 V02.doc TIST_Kenya_CCB-003_Verification_NCR_Round1.docx




AppendixB–StakeholderMeetingAnnouncementsandComments

CCBA Public Comments TIST KE PD-CCB-003, Verification 02

Public comments for CCBA were solicited two ways. First a public hearing was held in Meru Kenya. Second, a series of emails were sent to stakeholders. Public Meeting The Public Meeting was held between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM on 04 September, 2014 at the Gitoro Conferences Center in Meru, Kenya. Notice was given in leading Kenya papers as follows:

Daily Nation: notice on 30 August in English. Taifa Leo: notice on 30 August in Swahili.

TIST Program to hold Public Meeting Clean Air Action Corporation (CAAC) announces its intent to verify its project "TIST Program in Kenya CCB-003" for the second time under the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) standards. The project was validated and verified under the Standard in 2012. This verification is for the period 30-June-2013 to 31-December-2014. To receive the verification, CAAC must demonstrate, among other things, that TIST is beneficial to climate, community and biodiversity. CAAC has submitted a Project Implementation Report (PIR) to Environmental Services Inc, a CCBA certified auditor. The document is available on line at:

http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html. A public stakeholders meeting will be held between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM on 04 September, 2014 at the Gitoro Conferences Center in Meru, Kenya where comments will be taken. In addition, comments may be submitted up to 25- September-2014 to CCBA by clicking on "SUBMIT COMMENTS" at:

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

Samples of the notice are attached.




Email Solicitation The following email was sent to stakeholders in Kenya 27 August 2014.

Subject: TIST Kenya seeking CCBA accreditation. Comments Requested. Clean Air Action Corporation (CAAC) announces its intent to verify its project "TIST Program in Kenya CCB-003" for the second time under the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) standards. The project was validated and verified under the Standard in 2012. This verification is for the period 30-June-2013 to 31-December-2014. To receive the verification, CAAC must demonstrate, among other things, that TIST is beneficial to climate, community and biodiversity. CAAC has submitted a Project Implementation Report (PIR) to Environmental Services Inc., a CCBA certified auditor. The document is available on line at: http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html. In addition, all documents and appendices related to the original validation and verification are available at: http://www.tist.org/PD-KE-VCS-006%20Documents.php CAAC is seeking public comments. They may be submitted directly to CCBA by clicking on "SUBMIT COMMENTS" at: http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html. The comment period is open through 25 September 2014. In addition, a public stakeholders meeting will be held between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM on 4 September, 2014 at the Gitoro Conferences Center in Meru, Kenya where questions will be answered and comments will be taken. Attendance is not required at the meeting in order to submit comments to CCBA. In the CCB documents we will demonstrate that we meet the CCB standards as follow:

Climate: 138,802 net reductions of CO2 have been made during the verification period and have been verified under VCS Standard.

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




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

The emails were sent to the following organizations and individuals (red indicates returned email):

Africa Wildlife Foundation, Kenya, [email protected] Agriculture Office, Maara District. Agnes Mwenda. [email protected] Agriculture Office Meru Central District, Laban Muringi. [email protected] Berkeley Reafforestation Trust, Rodney Portman. [email protected] Care International, Communications Officer. [email protected] Catholic Relief Services, Shaun Ferris. [email protected] Catholic Relief Services, Mwende Kusewa. [email protected] Catholic Relief Services, Charles Njue. [email protected] CCB, Gareth Wishart [email protected] Desert Edge, Susan Wren. [email protected] EcoAgriculture Partners, Seth Shames. [email protected] Environmental Services Inc., Shawn McMahon. [email protected] Environmental Services Inc., Janice McMahon [email protected] Environmental Services Inc., Richard Scharf [email protected] Fintrac, Timothey Mwangi. [email protected] Government of Kenya, Chief Erustus Munene Kiramiti. [email protected] Greenbelt Movement, Njogu Kahare. [email protected] Kenya Forestry Research Institute. Directors Office. [email protected] Kenya Forestry Service, Directors Office. [email protected] Kenya Forestry Service, Evans Maneno, Zonal Manager, Meru.

[email protected] Kenya Forestry Service, Daniel Mbithi, Asst. Director. [email protected] Kenya Forestry Society. [email protected] Kenya Wildlife Service. [email protected] Kenya Wildlife Service. [email protected] Laikipia Wildlife Forum, Anthony King. [email protected] Laikipia Wildlife Forum, Dr Mordecai Ogada. [email protected]




National Environmental Management Authority (Meru), Damaris Maina. [email protected]

National Environmental Management Authority,[email protected] National Environmental Management Authority (Laikipia), Simon Weru.

[email protected] Methodist Church, Dr. Rev. Lawi Imathiu. [email protected] Northern Rangelands, Tom Lalampaa. [email protected] Northern Rangelands, Ryan Luster. [email protected] Northern Rangelands, Julie King. [email protected] Pact (worldwide), Steven Sharp. [email protected] Pact Kenya, Anthony Kariuki. [email protected] Pact Kenya, Leslie Mitchell. [email protected] Paradigm Project, Neil Bellefeuille. [email protected] Pyretehrum Growers Association, Justus Mochache Monda.

[email protected] Resource Projects Kenya, Kennedy Njenga. [email protected] Rural Development Institute, Deborah Espinosa. [email protected] Jennifer Duncan at [email protected] TIST, Martin Weru. [email protected] US Agency for International Development (USAID), Enoch Kanyanya.

[email protected] US Agency for International Development, Wamalwa, Beatrice. [email protected] World Agroforestry Center, Michael Misiko. [email protected] World Agroforestry Center. [email protected] World Wildlife Fund, Doris Ombara. [email protected] World Wildlife Fund, Mohamed Awer. [email protected]




Public Notice, 30 August 2014, Daily Nation (English)

Public Notice, 30 August 2014, Taifa Leo (Swahili)




Email Comment Solicitation, 27 August 2014 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:52:40 -0600 From: Charlie Williams <[email protected]> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Williams, Charlie" <[email protected]> CC: [email protected], [email protected], laban rintuara <[email protected]>, Rodney Portman <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Susie Wren <[email protected]>, Seth Shames <[email protected]>, Shawn McMahon <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Ryan Luster <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Neil Bellefeuille <[email protected]>, Justus Mochache <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], "Weru, Martin" <[email protected]>, "Enock (KENYA/ABEO/NRM) Kanyanya" <[email protected]>, "Wamalwa, Beatrice (KENYA/ABEO)" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Janice McMahon <[email protected]>, Gareth Wishart <[email protected]> Subject: TIST Kenya seeking CCBA accreditation. Comments Requested. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit TIST Kenya seeking CCBA accreditation. Comments Requested. Clean Air Action Corporation (CAAC) announces its intent to verify its project "TIST Program in Kenya CCB-003" for the second time under the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) standards. The project was validated and verified under the Standard in 2012. This verification is for the period 30-June-2013 to 31-December-2014. To receive the verification, CAAC must demonstrate, among other things, that TIST is beneficial to climate, community and biodiversity. CAAC has submitted a Project Implementation Report (PIR) to Environmental Services Inc., a CCBA certified auditor. The document is available on line at: http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html.




In addition, all documents and appendices related to the original validation and verification of the project and its sister VCS project (KE VCS 006) are available at: http://www.tist.org/PD-KE-VCS-006%20Documents.php. CAAC is seeking public comments. They may be submitted directly to CCBA by clicking on "SUBMIT COMMENTS" at: http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html. The comment period is open through 25 September 2014. In addition, a public stakeholders meeting will be held between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM on 4 September, 2014 at the Gitoro Conferences Center in Meru, Kenya where questions will be answered and comments will be taken. Attendance is not required at the meeting in order to submit comments to CCBA. TIST in Kenya began in 2004 and has grown to over 58,000 TIST participants in over 7,900 Small Groups. The project is a subset of TIST Kenya and is located in Kenya around Mt Kenya, in Laikipia and in the upper Mara River basin. In the CCB documents we will demonstrate that we meet the CCB standards as follow: Climate: 138,802 net reductions of CO2 have been made during the verification period and have been verified under VCS Standard. Community: TIST has provided a new sustainable revenue stream in the form of carbon payment; improved food security from Conservation Farming, fruits, nuts and honey; other tree products such as fodder, poles and fuel; capacity building; sustainable wood lots; health training; improved stoves. Biodiversity: TIST farmers have planted new indigenous trees, improved connectivity with the protected forest, reduced the pressure to take fuel wood from the protected forests and have made a net improvement to biodiversity. Exceptional Community Benefits: TIST was created to be pro-poor in a poor area and with net positive impacts on community. Survey results show that participants experience a range of economic benefits and positive social impacts, regardless of socioeconomic status, gender or part of more vulnerable groups.




CCBA PUBLIC MEETING GITORO CONFERENCE CENTER

04 September 2014 The meeting was called to order at 11.00 am. Martin Weru gave the brief overview of the TIST Program, the validation and Verification process and the agenda for the meeting. The meeting lasted for 2 hours.

1. Francis Kinoti, Position in the community: Mitooro, Secretary Water project TIST Benefits to us

‐ SG payments. Many farmers in our village get tree payments and this has improved family income.

‐ Fruits - We get fruits for market and also for family consumption ‐ Food – Through CF, we now get more food ‐ Wood – We now have plenty of wood fuel for our home cooking

2. James Mikua

Position in the community: Farmer TIST Benefits to us

‐ Trees are Asset for the farm

3. Joseph Muriithi Position in the community: Farmer TIST Benefits to us ‐ TIST helped the community plant many more trees ‐ Curbed desertification – getting more food from our farms ‐ Curbed soil erosion ‐ Curbed wind erosion ‐ Water increased ‐ Food security has improved as a result

4. Lucy Kinanu, Kanja,

Position in the community: Farmer, and TIST leader TIST Benefits to us

‐ People now know the importance of trees through TIST trainings




‐ Degraded lands have been rehabilitated since people started planting trees with TIST

‐ Fodder for our animals.

5. Boniface Muguna, Position in the community: Church Leader and Chair, Dairy goat association TIST Benefits to us ‐ Women now get wood fuel from our own farms (short distances) as opposed to before

they were walking long distances. ‐ Sawdust innovation now being used to cook hence saving trees ‐ Fodder for our animals- increased livestock production ‐ Compost manure for improved crop ‐ Surplus seedlings are sold for extra income

6. David Mwirigi,

Position in the community: Farmer TIST Benefits to us ‐ SG payments to farmers encouraging planting of many trees with different varieties ‐ Wood fuel is plenty ‐ Thinning and extra wood fuel. ‐ Neighbours get influenced by TIST to plant trees

7. Wiliam Bundi

Position in the community: , Retired Teacher, Chair, Rural electrification, Chairman TIST Benefits to us ‐ Compost manure – increased crop yield ‐ Wood fuel ‐ Honey making – setting up of bee hives. I make money from honey. Bees also help

in pollination. Honey is also medicine, so better health for my family ‐ Water quality and quantity has increased. Season rivers are now running permanently.

Environment has generally changed. Good shade ‐ Fodder for the animals ‐ Medicinal plants such as Mithiga helping us cure some of the common ailments. ‐ Indigenous trees helping ‘get some of the lost’ birds back. ‐ TIST training helped us avoid planting eucalyptus trees in wetlands. ‐ Helped in improving of local housing , better shelter for families..




‐ Cluster Leadership model of rotational leadership give chance to different people to lead and exercise their gifts and talents in leadership.

8. Judith Mwenda

Position in the community: Farmer and Women leader TIST Benefits to us ‐ Trained bout CF- increased harvest, more crop ‐ Trained on improved stoves. Cooking has been made easier for women

9. Erastus Munene

Position in the community: Administrative Chief, Chungari TIST Benefits to us ‐ Helped community get together through meetings ‐ Rains have improved ‐ Food security boosted ‐ Wood fuel is now in plenty reducing conflicts in the forests ‐ TIST should continue expanding

10. Dorothy Mutembei,

Position in the community: Farmer TIST Benefits to us ‐ Improved stoves – women and children are safer in cooking places. ‐ Training on CF – we have practiced and getting more food ‐ Our area is semi –arid. Since started planting trees with TIST, our area is becoming

potentially productive. ‐ More training needed to benefit more people

11. Veronica Mwirigi,

Position in the community: Farmer and TIST Cluster Leader TIST Benefits to us ‐ Trained on tree nurseries – helped plant tree in our farms and sold surplus ‐ Wood fuel, wood for constructing decent houses

12. Philip Kiburi.

Position in the community: Treasurer, Kaaga Methodist




TIST Benefits to us ‐ Planting Trees with TIST helps increase farm value.