Cordillera Azul National Park REDD Project

Evidence found for 2 of 4 checks (A2, A3); not found in the excerpt: A1, A4.

• Not foundA1 Financial analysis with a benchmarkright 10/11 in testing (short excerpts)
• FoundA2 Common practiceright 10/11 in testing (short excerpts)

  “2.5.2 Common Practice Step 4: Common Practice Assessment There are twelve designated national parks in Peru. Two non-profit organizations have management contracts with the Peruvian government over two of these national parks. Cordillera Azul is managed by”

• FoundA3 Not required by lawright 11/11 in testing (short excerpts)

  “1.11.2 Regulatory Additionality CIMA’s agreement to support the management of the park was a completely voluntary action; there was no regulatory obligation. Because of resource limitations, it is almost certain that the Peruvian government would not have designated PNCAZ as a national park if an organization had not been willing to fund and manage the park. Additional background regarding the creation of the park is provided in Section 2.5, Additionality. In the absence of this REDD project, the intense deforestation surrounding PNCAZ would overwhelm any weight that a national park designation carries when it is only a “paper park” and the intact forests of the park would succumb to fragmentation and deterioration. When the park was established, there were large-scale illegal logging settlements operating in the park. These operations were all removed from the park peacefully, in coordination and collaboration with surrounding communities. In addition, the regional governments’ resources are severely strained, especially given the rapid, large influx of immigrants. There is currently insufficient capacity to ensure awareness of and adherence to national, regional and local laws in the buffer zone. Without the project, land-use zoning and tenure processes would be limited to nonexistent and illegal activities would seldom be reported to the correct law enforcement authorities by community members 1.12 Ownership and Other Programs”

• Not foundA4 Carbon revenue considered earlyright 11/11 in testing (short excerpts)

Evidence found for 2 of 3 checks (P1, P3); not found in the excerpt: P2.

• FoundP1 Reversal risk assessedright 3/4 in testing (short excerpts)

  “1.13.4 Risk Assessment (CCB: G3.5) The risk analysis has been conducted in accordance with the Verified Carbon Standard, AFOLU Non- Permanence Risk Tool Version 3.1 dated February 1, 2012 (VCS Non-Permanence Tool). Risks were assessed over a period of 100 years in accordance with the Tool’s requirements. The overall risk rating is calculated using the formulas included in the Tool and the criteria for each subsection. The overall risk table summarizes the scores for each sub-section and presents the total risk. The Non-Permanence Risk Report details the analysis and is included in Appendix 3. Table 1.5: Overall Risk Rating Table (Summary from Appendix 3) Risk Category Rating a) Internal Risk 0 b) External Risk 0 c) Natural Risk 3 Overall Risk Rating (a + b + c) = 3 The Overall Risk Rating is 3. Per the requirements of the tool, the project will use 10 for its risk rating since that is the lowest rating allowed. Additional risks to the project not included in the VCS risk assessment include the following issues. CIMA has worked and will continue to work actively to mitigate these potential threats as detailed below each risk. Concessions in the buffer zone – The Peruvian government has granted timber, mining, and oil concessions in the buffer zone. Not all of these concessions are active but the concession owners do have the right to use the land. While these concessions are not in the park directly, they pose a risk to the park. Threats to the park may result from illegal operations in or misuse of the concessions, resulting in deforestation or pollution within the park and displacement of immigrants who move closer to or into the park, increasing pressure in the area. Mitigation strategy: CIMA will continue to build relationships and work closely with local, regional, and national government entities to monitor concession activities. In addition, CIMA will raise awareness of laws and regulations in the communities to enable community members also to monitor and report illegal activities to the proper authorities. Lack of land tenure in the buffer zone – As discussed several times in this document, most individuals in the buffer zone do not own their land. This results in immigrants having only weak ties to a specific location and no motivation to remain as erosion and soil depletion occurs, when instead they move to a new location. This advancing agricultural frontier presents one of the most severe threats to the park as waves of immigrants advance their deforestation and erosion-provoking practices closer to and eventually well into the park. Mitigation strategy: CIMA will work to train local community members in sustainable land-use practices; to facilitate land-tenure processes; to ensure constant communication with as many communities as possible, and to strengthen and improve the quality of life in the communities. Many of the specific”

  “5 NON-PERMANANCE RISK ASSESSMENT The project developer described the non permanence risk assessment process and summarized supporting data in a document titled “PNCAZ Non-Permanence Risk Report.” The document outlines a risk assessment conducted using the VCA AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool. SCS reviewed the risk scores assigned and the supporting evidence presented. During field interviews, SCS inquired about risk elements, and as relevant, checked any calculations made. SCS determined that the risk score assigned by the project proponent is appropriate and in conformance with the tool. The risk score assigned and evidence reviewed is summarized below:”

• Not foundP2 Buffer contribution givenright 4/4 in testing (short excerpts)
• FoundP3 Measures against reversalright 4/4 in testing (short excerpts)

  “1.10.4 Land Use and Property Rights (CCB: G1.6, G5.2, G5.3, G5.4, G5.5) Land within the project area is a national park owned by the national government of Peru. Land use in national parks is limited by Law No. 26834 to non-commercial activities. The park is sub-divided into four zones, each with a range of restrictions, from areas with no permitted entry to ones that permit traditional and low-impact uses (INRENA 2006). With SERNANP, CIMA developed criteria for land use based on the history of traditional use and fragility of the land and then implemented programs to patrol and enforce the designated uses. As described in Section 1.10.1.1, there is a possibility that an uncontacted group of Kakataibo resides in or near the park, which led to the development of the intangible zone that permits no entry or use by anyone other than the Kakataibo in voluntary isolation. CIMA worked extensively with Kakataibo tribal leaders and the Peruvian government to identify the greatest possible range of these people when defining this intangible zone. Park guards, communal park guards and extension team personnel all receive training regarding how to respect the rights of these people to remain uncontacted and the best ways to react if contact accidentally happens in the buffer zone. Any attempts to locate these people in voluntary isolation, to ask them for permission to develop a REDD project, would directly violate their right under Peruvian laws and the international agreements signed by Peru as described in Section 1.11 to remain uncontacted. However, through the efforts discussed, CIMA has taken every possible measure to ensure that the project design allows no project activity in any way to encroach on these people. In fact, the activities in this region are designed specifically to allow the uncontacted peoples to conduct their lives as they wish, with zero interference from outsiders. In late 2000, when CIMA’s predecessor organization APECO and The Field Museum were preparing the documents necessary to establish Cordillera Azul National Park, they partnered with Conservational International (CI). CI retained a law firm in Peru to research land ownership and claims in the area so that boundaries for the park could be designed to avoid any private properties inside. Due to an oversight, ownership claims filed in the district of Loreto were not investigated. As a result, the park was established with some private parcels, 1,227 hectares, inside the park boundaries. CIMA reached agreements with all 21 landowners to limit land-clearing activities in the park. Although there are no permanent residences in the park, the project will not claim any avoided deforestation credits for these areas. When the project began, only one area inside the park continued to be incompatible with conservation: an estimated 220 hectare, cattle ranch on the southwest corner of the park that had not been detected when the park was established. Once it was detected, the cattle rancher was asked to leave the park (Carta Multiple Nº 002-2006-INRENA-IANP-PNCAZ/J) since he did not own the land. In a response letter, the rancher offered not to expand his operations and to help keep watch for illegal uses of land within the park (Carta de respuesta y compromiso del 18 de febrero de 2007), since he was there prior to the development of the Park. SERNANP and CIMA agreed to this and allowed the rancher to remain under these terms because he had been there prior to the Park’s establishment. Just prior to the start of the project, monitoring demonstrated that the cattle rancher has expanded his operations in violation of his agreement. CIMA is working with SERNANP to develop a plan for legally relocating the rancher to suitable, already cleared land in the buffer zone. The legal process will be handled by MINAM and will work through the Peruvian legal system to ensure that the cattle rancher obtains appropriate legal representation in the proceedings. The Peruvian government has assigned rights or designated areas in the buffer zone for various uses including forestry concessions, petroleum lots, mining concessions and community lands. While the area assigned for a specific use is clearly delineated, designated lands often overlap with each other. The majority of people in the buffer zone do not legally own their land. They are squatters who live and work on land owned by the national government. These overlapping concessions and squatters lead to conflict when all try to work the same land. One of the project priorities is to work with the communities in critical areas where roads or rivers provide access into the park to establish community boundaries, obtain land tenure for residents, lessen land erosion, and strengthen interest in conservation and sustainable land use. The communities in critical areas and other areas of priority in the buffer zone have had extensive interaction with CIMA as described in Sections 1.10.2 Demographics, 6.1 Net Impact on the Community, 7.1 Stakeholder Involvement in Project Design, and 6.2 Community Monitoring.”

  “1.13.4 Risk Assessment (CCB: G3.5) The risk analysis has been conducted in accordance with the Verified Carbon Standard, AFOLU Non- Permanence Risk Tool Version 3.1 dated February 1, 2012 (VCS Non-Permanence Tool). Risks were assessed over a period of 100 years in accordance with the Tool’s requirements. The overall risk rating is calculated using the formulas included in the Tool and the criteria for each subsection. The overall risk table summarizes the scores for each sub-section and presents the total risk. The Non-Permanence Risk Report details the analysis and is included in Appendix 3. Table 1.5: Overall Risk Rating Table (Summary from Appendix 3) Risk Category Rating a) Internal Risk 0 b) External Risk 0 c) Natural Risk 3 Overall Risk Rating (a + b + c) = 3 The Overall Risk Rating is 3. Per the requirements of the tool, the project will use 10 for its risk rating since that is the lowest rating allowed. Additional risks to the project not included in the VCS risk assessment include the following issues. CIMA has worked and will continue to work actively to mitigate these potential threats as detailed below each risk. Concessions in the buffer zone – The Peruvian government has granted timber, mining, and oil concessions in the buffer zone. Not all of these concessions are active but the concession owners do have the right to use the land. While these concessions are not in the park directly, they pose a risk to the park. Threats to the park may result from illegal operations in or misuse of the concessions, resulting in deforestation or pollution within the park and displacement of immigrants who move closer to or into the park, increasing pressure in the area. Mitigation strategy: CIMA will continue to build relationships and work closely with local, regional, and national government entities to monitor concession activities. In addition, CIMA will raise awareness of laws and regulations in the communities to enable community members also to monitor and report illegal activities to the proper authorities. Lack of land tenure in the buffer zone – As discussed several times in this document, most individuals in the buffer zone do not own their land. This results in immigrants having only weak ties to a specific location and no motivation to remain as erosion and soil depletion occurs, when instead they move to a new location. This advancing agricultural frontier presents one of the most severe threats to the park as waves of immigrants advance their deforestation and erosion-provoking practices closer to and eventually well into the park. Mitigation strategy: CIMA will work to train local community members in sustainable land-use practices; to facilitate land-tenure processes; to ensure constant communication with as many communities as possible, and to strengthen and improve the quality of life in the communities. Many of the specific”

  “activities will be further defined once the regional meetings with communities have taken place to allow communities to provide their input into the design process. Illegal activities in the buffer zone – Illegal activities in the buffer zone place additional deforestation pressure on the park by increasing deforestation in the buffer zone and pushing immigrants closer to and eventually into the park. Mitigation strategy: CIMA will raise awareness of laws and regulations in the communities to enable communities also to monitor and report illegal activities to the proper authorities. Because many illegal activities are driven by a need for additional resources, CIMA will work to train local communities in sustainable land-use practices; to facilitate land-tenure processes; to ensure constant communication with as many communities as possible, and to strengthen and improve the quality of life in the communities (as mentioned above). Increased tensions between communities CIMA is initially working with and those that will be worked with in the future – There is a possibility that communities not located in the critical areas will become jealous of the communities that have received priority. On the one hand, this would indicate a major success in that jealousy will only arise if CIMA’s activities are perceived as having value and improving the quality of life for buffer zone communities. On the other hand, increased tensions might be a negative issue and may pose a risk to the project if raids or land grabs occurred as a result. For example, some communities may become jealous of others who have been formally granted land tenure or zoning. Mitigation strategy: CIMA will work to ensure constant communication with as many communities as possible to identify and address concerns as quickly as possible and to institute a strong, proactive communication program and complaint-resolution process. CIMA will never be able to work with all communities simultaneously but these measures will assist communities in understanding the priority- setting process and to be able to voice concerns.”

  “Goal 2:Sub-goal: Strengthen the participatory management model for PNCAZ Activity: 5. Coordinate with the Comité de Gestión (CG) to develop and implement the Plan Maestro The CG has participated in the development of the Plan Maestro but has not yet been fully integrated into the implementation of the Plan Maestro. Not all members of the CG represent Primary Stakeholders, and therefore not all members have been equally trained regarding the REDD Project. The CG’s role will continue to increase following the implementation of the Secondary Stakeholder Communication Plan. Once all primary and secondary stakeholders are introduced to the REDD project process and the project activities, the CG will be able to play a greater role as an organization. All other activities have occurred during the timeframe of this monitoring period. Summary of Park Protection Activities The approach to park protection has not changed over the four year monitoring period. CIMA continues to implement the ICC, an integrated planning and monitoring tool that incorporates social, biological, institutional, and operational aspects to effectively manage and protect the park. The system of park guard control posts and routes remains the same and is being maintained. The park guards’ routes are defined but special patrols are done periodically in response to potential threats being reported. Feedback from park guards and CIMA has been used to improve and streamline the reporting system. Park guards continue to document key species observed (sightings or tracks) during their patrols to monitor the project’s impacts on biodiversity. Similarly park guards report any signs of illegal uses of the park found in the park or buffer zone. Summary of Buffer Zone Activities CIMA’s work in the buffer zone has evolved over the monitoring period as CIMA was able to monitor the effectiveness of its activities and learn new techniques and participatory processes. Based on its work in the region prior to the project’s start in 2008, CIMA initially focused on five strategies for stabilizing land use and improving quality of life in the buffer zone: Environmental Awareness, Strengthening Organizations, Strengthening Technical Support for community efforts, Monitoring and Evaluation. During this time, CIMA developed a number of conservation agreements with communities in line with the customary and traditional uses in the region where communities committed to using their resources in a sustainable manner. These agreements also include commitments by local people to participate in supporting the protection of PNCAZ (park guards and control posts), and their own resources in the buffer zone (rural patrols, self-defense committees) In 2009 and 2010, CIMA began a formal strategic planning effort with communities building on the efforts of the educational programs. Quality of Life plans specific to each community began to be developed allowing CIMA and the residents to better define the community’s needs and future desires and identify how these related to the park’s conservation and economic sustainability. These plans included setting objectives in three areas:”

  “Further, during the monitoring period, no fires were detected in the project area by Firecast, with the latest update issued 28 January 2015. Firecast2 is a MODIS-based fire monitoring system developed by Conservation International, NASA and ESRI, with highly precise detection of fires >50m2.”

  “Further, during the monitoring period, no fires were detected in the project area by Firecast, within the period from August 2014 to August 2015. Firecast 2 is a MODIS-based fire monitoring system developed by Conservation International, NASA and ESRI, with highly precise detection of fires >50m2. A map showing the location of all reported fires from Firecast is shown in Figure 4.1.2”

  “Further, during the monitoring period, no fires were detected in the project area by Firecast, within the period from August 2015 to August 2016. Firecast29 is a MODIS-based fire monitoring system developed by Conservation International, NASA and ESRI, with highly precise detection of fires >50m2. A map showing the location of all reported fires from Firecast is shown in Figure 10”

  “Parkguards reported no forest fires during the monitoring period from August 2016 to August 2018.”

  “Likewise, Firecast detected few fires in the project area during the same period (Figure 10). Firecast35 is a MODIS-based fire monitoring system developed by Conservation International, NASA and ESRI, with highly precise detection of fires >50m2. Two apparent fires were detected in the northern area of PNCAZ, however, in the classification process, no evidence of fire scars was detected (i.e. no visible loss of forest cover or structural loss), and therefore Aburn,i,t was set equal to 0.”

Evidence found for 4 of 4 checks (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4).

• FoundQ1 Baseline calculation shownright 11/11 in testing (short excerpts)

  “Ex-ante baseline emissions occurring in the leakage belt are estimated by first estimating the amount of deforestation that is thought to be displaced from the project area to the leakage belt due to the implementation of the REDD project activity. For ex ante purposes, a leakage factor of 20% is applied, i.e. 20% of deforestation caused by local agents is shifted outside of the project area due the project activity. Leakage is then calculated as the difference between project and baseline emissions in the leakage belt, as outlined in Equation 1 from LK-ASU Module (below). Ex-ante estimates of the net CO2 emissions due to unplanned deforestation displaced from the project area to the leakage belt is calculated for each year in the baseline period in Table 3.38.”

• FoundQ2 Leakage addressedright 11/11 in testing (short excerpts)

  “Ex-ante baseline emissions occurring in the leakage belt are estimated by first estimating the amount of deforestation that is thought to be displaced from the project area to the leakage belt due to the implementation of the REDD project activity. For ex ante purposes, a leakage factor of 20% is applied, i.e. 20% of deforestation caused by local agents is shifted outside of the project area due the project activity. Leakage is then calculated as the difference between project and baseline emissions in the leakage belt, as outlined in Equation 1 from LK-ASU Module (below). Ex-ante estimates of the net CO2 emissions due to unplanned deforestation displaced from the project area to the leakage belt is calculated for each year in the baseline period in Table 3.38.”

• FoundQ3 Uncertainty or conservativenessright 11/11 in testing (short excerpts)

  “Uncertainty calculations and appropriate deductions are applied by the methodology in the monitoring stage, and will use the X-UNC module. These calculations are reported in monitoring reports, and are assessed at verification, rather than validation.”

• FoundQ4 Monitoring plan with parametersright 8/11 in testing (short excerpts)

  “4.3.3 Emissions due to deforestation and natural disturbance Forest cover change due to deforestation and natural disturbance is monitored through periodic assessment of classified satellite imagery covering the project area. Emissions (ÄCP,Def,i,t and ÄCP,DistPA,i,t for deforestation and natural disturbance, respectively) are estimated by multiplying area of forest loss detected (ADefPA,u,i,t and ADistPA,q,i,t, for deforestation and natural disturbance, respectively) by average forest carbon stock per unit area (conservatively assuming ÄCP,Dist,q,i,t and ÄCpools,Def,u,i,t = CBSL,i). Stock estimates from the initial field inventory completed in 2009, are valid for 10 years (per VM0007), minimally through 2018. Post 2018, forest carbon stock estimates will be updated for any strata where deforestation or natural disturbance is detected. 4.3.3.1 Monitoring changes in forest cover The project boundary, as set in the PD, will serve as the initial “forest cover benchmark map” against which changes in forest cover will assessed over the interval of the first monitoring period; the entire project area has been demonstrated to meet the forest definition at the beginning of the crediting period. For subsequent monitoring periods, change in forest cover will be assessed against the preceding classified forest cover map marking the beginning of the monitoring interval. Data collection and analysis to determine forest cover change at each monitoring event will follow the procedures detailed below. The resulting classified image is compared with the preceding classified image (forest cover benchmark map marking the start of the monitoring interval) to detect forest cover change over the monitoring interval, and subsequently becomes the updated forest cover benchmark map for the next monitoring interval. Thus, the forest benchmark map is updated at each monitoring event. All changes in forest cover detected for the monitoring interval will be annualized (to produce estimates of ha for each year) by dividing the area by the number of years in the period. For each monitoring/verification date, satellite imagery for that year will be acquired and interpreted to produce a classified forest cover map in which forest and non forest are distinguished. AMinimum Mapping Unit (MMU) of 0.81 ha, corresponding to 3pixels by 3 pixels Landsat resolution (90m by 90m) will be used throughout the duration of the project crediting period. The general work flow for monitoring forest cover change is shown in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: General workflow for monitoring of forest cover change in the project area and leakage belt”

Evidence found for 2 of 3 checks (D1, D2); not found in the excerpt: D3.

• FoundD1 Other GHG programsright 10/11 in testing (short excerpts)

  “1.12.3 Participation under Other GHG Programs (CCB: CL1.5) This project is only seeking registration under the VCS and CCB programs. CCB does not issue carbon credits and the project is not seeking to register credits with any other program.”

• FoundD2 Other credits or certificatesright 10/11 in testing (short excerpts)

  “1.12.4 Other Forms of Environmental Credit (CCB: CL1.5) This project has not and will not seek to generate any other form of environmental credit.”

  “1.12.2 Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits (CCB: CL1.5) The avoided emissions from this project will not be used for compliance purposes in a regional or national compliance program or to demonstrate conformance with a binding limit on GHG emissions. Neither Peru nor regional or local governments have established a national target, a compliance program or a cap and trade system.”

• Not foundD3 Host-country accountingright 11/11 in testing (short excerpts)

Evidence found for 4 of 4 checks (S1, S2, S3, S4).

• FoundS1 Stakeholder consultation details Needs review· second model says not found (39%)right 11/11 in testing (short excerpts)

  “The MUF process has evolved over time. For the 2003 MUF, communities elected their local facilitator. Depending on the size of the community, more than one facilitator was elected. For example, for the 2003 MUF, 53 facilitators, 5% women, were hired for the two month period while for the 2008 MUF, 345 community representatives were hired, 19% women. CIMA and The Field Museum personnel trained the facilitators and community representatives on data collection and provided information regarding PNCAZ and CIMA. In 2003, facilitators collected data on social organizations and use of natural resources over a two month period, using community assemblies and household interviews to conduct structured and semi-structured interviews. Eight focus groups were used in each community along with individual interviews: four focus groups included residents of both genders and all age groups, two focus groups included only women, one group was of community leaders, and one included only specialists or experts (e.g., the best hunters). Individual interviews were conducted with health workers, teachers, and directors of the local school if one is present, and other significant individuals like shamans, healers, and community leaders or founders. In 2008, a change was made to the process to improve data collection and workshops were held with community representatives from each geographic area. Three to four representatives from each community participated in the process to update the data from the previous MUF.”

  A team member found it unclear (checklist model: found; second model 39% likely found) · “The cited paragraphs (p35-01, p35-02) describe the MUF participatory mapping: 2003 and a 2008 update, 89 buffer-zone communities, 53 local facilitators in 2003 and 345 community representatives in 2008, 8 focus groups per community. Whether this mapping exercise counts as a stakeholder consultation is a matter of interpretation, so the models' disagreement is left open.”

• FoundS2 Grievance mechanismright 11/11 in testing (short excerpts)

  “complaints voiced by residents to the field offices. Most items will be easily resolved by the field offices, but when necessary will be forwarded to the Program Director or local law enforcement authorities, as appropriate. Concerns and comments will be handled in a consistent manner. Depending on the issue, conference calls, in-person meetings, interviews with the commenter or CIMA personnel, and other means will be used to obtain additional information as necessary, and appropriate actions will then be taken. Some complaints have resulted in expanded training, new communications to buffer zone communities, and even firing of an employee. There is no formal written procedure for this process but it will be applied consistently and will build on CIMA's close relationship with the buffer zone communities. CIMA’s Executive Director will be ultimately responsible for the resolution of all issues but questions, complaints, and comments may be addressed by several individuals within the organization, depending on the topic. To date, all issues have been satisfactorily resolved through this process. When issues are addressed immediately in the field by the park guard or technician, the interaction will be documented in the park guard’s or technician’s report but no formal written summary of the response will be provided to the individual with the question or concern. If the issue cannot be immediately resolved and is forwarded to CIMA’s offices or Headquarters, a written response will be issued to the individual in question within 30 days. If any stakeholder feels that an issue cannot be or has not been addressed satisfactorily through this process, all stakeholders could also raise the issue to the Comité de Gestión (CG). This organization includes representation from all stakeholders involved in the management of the park including communities, local and regional governments, local organizations, the Park Head and CIMA. CIMA will recuse itself from all CG meeting items regarding these issues to ensure the impartiality of the review. This diverse representation provides natural pathways for reporting issues and for providing an independent, third-party review of any issues raised. Outcomes of the CG reviews will also be provided in writing to the submitting individual or community within 30 days. Minutes of the CG meetings, park guard reports and technician reports will capture the input received from communities while emails, meeting minutes and phone logs will capture input from primary stakeholders. In addition, reports to funders will often summarize much of the same information. All of this information will feed into the ICC system to provide data on new threats (illegal activities, tensions between communities), suggestions or other issues. As appropriate, CIMA’s strategies and activities will be adjusted better to achieve the project’s goals. Immediate threats may result in immediate changes in activities and will not require a quarterly ICC review. The ICC documentation and quarterly project reports will capture how the plan has been revised as a result of stakeholder dialogues. Once the regional community meetings have occurred in 2008 and early 2009, a summary document will be prepared in conjunction with the new Plan Maestro documenting this input process, its results, and how the project has been developed in line with this input.”

• FoundS3 Environmental impact assessmentright 10/11 in testing (short excerpts)

  “5.1.2 Biodiversity Impacts in the Buffer Zone and Offsite This project is devoted to preventing negative biodiversity impacts inside the project area and in the surrounding lands (buffer zone). Project activities themselves will generate positive, not negative impacts on biodiversity. Work with communities in the buffer zone focuses primarily on land-use stabilization and wildlife management. Both efforts benefit native biodiversity outside the park. In addition, stream recovery and agroforestry with native species is promoted in the buffer zone as well as reducing hunting pressure inside PNCAZ, further benefiting the native biota in the region which in turn benefits the local communities. For example, “huanganadas” (big herds of peccaries) have been seen entering the buffer zone as noted in Table 5.2. Similar positive impacts may also be felt beyond the buffer zone (offsite). Stream recovery and erosion prevention measures will have impacts on biodiversity all along the stream and downstream waters. Increases in herd size and habitat may allow biota to travel in wider ranges and some locations offsite might also notice increases in biota numbers. Table 5.2: Wildlife Sightings in the PNCAZ Buffer Zone (Source: CIMA Field Technical Team) ITEM Date Community Event 1 2006 No specific”

• FoundS4 Community rightsright 9/11 in testing (short excerpts)

  “It should be noted that any attempts to locate these people in voluntary isolation, to ask them for permission to develop a REDD project, would directly violate their right to remain uncontacted under Peruvian laws and the international agreements signed by Peru (see PD Section 3.1.2). In this context, CIMA and SERNANP (parkguards) activities in this region are designed specifically to allow the uncontacted peoples to conduct their lives as they wish, with zero interference from outsiders.”