MONITORING REPORT:CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

KRUGER TO CANYONS (K2C)
RANGELAND RESTORATION PROJECT

Document Prepared by Conservation South Africa in collaboration with Unique land use GmbHContact Information: Leon Theron, Forrest House, Ground Floor, Belmont Office Park, Belmont Road,
Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa, Mobile: +27 82 459 8070, ltheron@conservation.org
Project Title
Project ID
Version
Report ID
Date of Issue
Project Location

Project Proponent(s)Prepared By

Validation/Verification Body

GHG Accounting/ Crediting
PeriodMonitoring Period of thisReportHistory of CCB Status

Gold Level Criteria

1
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

KRUGER TO CANYONS RANGELAND RESTORATION PROJECT
3397
01
K2C_Monitoring_Report 23052023 v 1
07 June 2023
South Africa
Conservation South Africa
Forrest House, Ground Floor, Belmont Office Park, Belmont Road,
Rondebosch, 7700, South Africa+2721 100 3950
ltheron@conservation.org
Conservation South Africa & unique land use GmbHSCS Global Services
2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600
Emeryville
CA 94608
USA
www.SCSglobalServices.com
08 August 2018 – 07 August 2048; 30-year lifetime
08-08-2018 to 07-08-2022
N/A
The K2C project seeks to achieve all climate, community, andbiodiversity Gold Level criteria.
Exceptional climate benefits
The project contributes to the climate resilience / adaptation of rural
households by restoring nature’s capacity to retain soil, provide fodder
for livestock, replenish aquifers, store water, and reduce impacts ofdroughts and fires.

MONITORING REPORT:CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Biodiversity benefits
This project zone falls within the Kruger 2 Canyons area which isrecognized by UNESCO as a Biosphere reserve. The project zone
also contains around 350 individuals of the African Wild dog species
which is classified by IUCN as an endangered species.
Exceptional community benefits
The project is community-led. Participating communities havemanagement rights to land in the project area and rights to claim that
their activities will cause the project’s benefits. The role of project
proponent will also be handed over to community structures once
these are fully put in place. The project creates jobs for unemployedyouth who are one of most vulnerable community groups.

2
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

MONITORING REPORT:CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Table of Contents
The page numbers of the table of contents below shall be updated upon completion of the report.
1)

2

3

4

5

Summary of Project Benefits ............................................................................................................. 4
1.1

Unique Project Benefits................................................................................................................. 4

1.2

Standardized Benefit Metrics ........................................................................................................ 5

GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................. 9
2.1

Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 9

2.2

Project Implementation Status .................................................................................................... 17

2.3

Stakeholder Engagement............................................................................................................ 24

2.4Management Capacity ................................................................................................................ 32

2.5

Legal Status and Property Rights ............................................................................................... 35

Climate ............................................................................................................................................... 41
3.1

Monitoring GHG Emission Reductions and Removals ............................................................... 41

3.2

Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals ...................................................... 78

3.3

Optional Criterion: Climate Change Adaptation Benefits ............................................................ 92

Community......................................................................................................................................... 95
4.1

Net Positive Community Impacts ................................................................................................ 95

4.2

Other Stakeholder Impacts ......................................................................................................... 97

4.3

Community Impact Monitoring .................................................................................................... 98

4.4

Optional Criterion: Exceptional Community Benefits ................................................................ 101

Biodiversity ...................................................................................................................................... 106
5.1

Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts .............................................................................................. 106

5.2

Offsite Biodiversity Impacts ....................................................................................................... 108

5.3

Biodiversity Impact Monitoring .................................................................................................. 109

5.4

Optional Criterion: Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits ................................................................ 112

6Additional Project Implementation Information ........................................................................... 112

7

Additonal project Impact Information ........................................................................................... 113

8

Appendicies ..................................................................................................................................... 114
8.1

Appendix 1: Project Activities and Theory of Change Table ..................................................... 114

3
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 141) SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITSThis section highlights some of this project’s important benefits. Section 1.1 (Unique Project Benefits)
should be aligned with a project’s causal model and is specific to this project. Section 1.2 (Standardized
Benefit Metrics) is the same quantifiable information for all CCB projects. This section does not replace
the development of a project-specific causal model or the monitoring and reporting of all associatedproject-specific impacts (positive and negative) in Sections 2-5 of this document.
Unique Project Benefits

Outcome or Impact

1) Restoration andrehabilitation of degradedrangelands to buffer
against drought & soil
erosion2) Improved livestock &human health

4
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Achievements during theMonitoring Period

SectionReference

1.1

Achievements during
the Project Lifetime

Increase in above ground biomass
and perennial grass species

3.3.1

Increase in above
ground biomass andperennial grass species

Data not available

4.1.1

Data not available

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

MetricNet estimated emission removals in
the project area, measured against
the without-project scenario
Net estimated emission reductions in
the project area, measured against
the without-project scenario
For REDD2 projects: Number of
hectares of reduced forest loss in the
project area measured against thewithout-project scenario
For ARR3 projects: Number of
hectares of forest cover increased in
the project area measured against thewithout-project scenario
Number of hectares of existingproduction forest land in which IFM4
practices have occurred as a result of
the project’s activities, measured
against the without-project scenario
Number of hectares of non-forest landin which improved land management
has occurred as a result of the
project’s activities, measured against
the without-project scenario
Total number of community members
who have improved skills and/or
knowledge resulting from training
provided as part of project activities
Number of female community
members who have improved skills
and/or knowledge resulting fromTraining

Improved land
management

Forest1 coverCategory

1

Achievements
during Monitoring
PeriodSectionReference

Standardized Benefit Metrics

GHG emission
reductions &removals

1.2

Achievements
during the Project
Lifetime

55,576

3.2.4

55,576

-754

3.2.4

-754

Not applicablen.a.

Not applicableNot applicablen.a.

Not applicableNot applicablen.a.

Not applicable

6,432

2.1.1

6,432

3,695

4.3.1

3,695

519 (from data
available during2020 and 2021.

4.3.1

519

Land with woody vegetation that meets an internationally accepted definition (e.g., UNFCCC, FAO or
IPCC) of what constitutes a forest, which includes threshold parameters, such as minimum forest area,
tree height and level of crown cover, and may include mature, secondary, degraded and wetland forests(VCS Program Definitions)
2 Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) - Activities that reduce GHG
emissions by slowing or stopping conversion of forests to non-forest land and/or reduce the degradationof forest land where forest biomass is lost (VCS Program Definitions)
3 Afforestation, reforestation and revegetation (ARR) - Activities that increase carbon stocks in woody
biomass (and in some cases soils) by establishing, increasing and/or restoring vegetative cover throughthe planting, sowing and/or human-assisted natural regeneration of woody vegetation (VCS Program
Definitions)
4 Improved forest management (IFM) - Activities that change forest management practices and increasecarbon stock on forest lands managed for wood products such as saw timber, pulpwood and fuelwood(VCS Program Definitions)5
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Education

HealthLivelihoods

Employment

MetricAchievements
during Monitoring
Periodtraining provided as part of project
activities of project activities

Data not available
for 2019).

Total number of people employed inof project activities,5 expressed as
number of full-time employees6
Number of women employed inproject activities, expressed as
number of full-time employees
Total number of people with improved
livelihoods7 or income generated as aresult of project activities

32

4.3.1

32

20

4.3.1

20

354 farmers
beneficiaries and
373 youth throughemployment
programs such as
internships or
through Yes forYouth
186 (from data thatwas made available)

4.3.1

727

4.4.3

186

Not applicablen.a.

Not applicableNot applicable

4.3.1

Not applicable

3,542 learners at
schools haveaccess to highspeed internet and
350 learners
through the scouting
environmental
education program

4.4.2

3,892

Number of women with improved
livelihoods or income generated as aresult of project activities
Total number of people for whom
health services were improved as aresult of project activities, measured
against the without-project scenario
Number of women for whom healthservices were improved as a result of
project activities, measured against
the without-project scenario
Total number of people for whom
access to, or quality of, education
was improved as a result of project
activities, measured against thewithout-project scenario

5

SectionReference

Category

Achievements
during the Project
Lifetime

Employed in project activities means people directly working on project activities in return forcompensation (financial or otherwise), including employees, contracted workers, sub-contracted workers
and community members that are paid to carry out project-related work.
6 Full time equivalency is calculated as the total number of hours worked (by full-time, part-time,
temporary and/or seasonal staff) divided by the average number of hours worked in full-time jobs within
the country, region or economic territory (adapted from UN System of National Accounts (1993)
paragraphs 17.14[15.102];[17.28])
7 Livelihoods are the capabilities, assets (including material and social resources) and activities required
for a means of living (Krantz, Lasse, 2001. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction.
SIDA). Livelihood benefits may include benefits reported in the Employment metrics of this table.
6
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Biodiversity
conservatio Well-being
n

Water

Category

MetricNumber of women and girls for whom
access to, or quality of, education
was improved as a result of project
activities, measured against thewithout-project scenario
Total number of people who
experienced increased water quality
and/or improved access to drinking
water as a result of project activities,
measured against the without-project
scenario
Number of women who experienced
increased water quality and/or
improved access to drinking water asa result of project activities, measured
against the without-project scenario
Total number of community members
whose well-being8 was improved as aresult of project activities

Number of women whose well-being
was improved as a result of project
activities
Change in the number of hectares
significantly better managed by the
project for biodiversity conservation,9measured against the without-project
scenario

Achievements
during Monitoring
PeriodSectionReference

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Achievements
during the Project
Lifetime

Data not available

4.4.2

Data not available

Not applicablen.a.

Not applicableNot applicablen.a.

Not applicable

7,996 (includes
community
members who havebeen employed,received training,
signed conservationagreements, andreceive internet inschool)Data not available

4.1.3

7,996

4.4.2

Data not available

6,432

5.1.2

6,432

Well-being is people’s experience of the quality of their lives. Well-being benefits may include benefits
reported in other metrics of this table (e.g. Training, Employment, Health, Education, Water, etc.), but
could also include other benefits such as empowerment of community groups, strengthened legal rights
to resources, conservation of access to areas of cultural significance, etc.
9 Biodiversity conservation in this context means areas where specific management measures are being
implemented as a part of project activities with an objective of enhancing biodiversity conservation.
8

7
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Category

MetricNumber of globally CriticallyEndangered or Endangered species10
benefiting from reduced threats as aresult of project activities,11 measured
against the without-project scenario

Achievements
during Monitoring
Period350

SectionReference

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

5.4.1

Achievements
during the Project
Lifetime
350

Per IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species
In the absence of direct population or occupancy measures, measurement of reduced threats may be
used as evidence of benefit
10118
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
2

GENERAL2.1
2.1.1

Project Description
Implementation Description

In the first project instance, conservation agreements (CAs) have been signed with four Farmers’
Cooperatives (grazing associations) representing 348 livestock farmers in 4 villages within the Mnisi tribalarea. Grazing calendars have been collaboratively developed and the introduction of planned rotationalgrazing with rest camps successfully implemented in rangelands of the Farmers’ Cooperatives (Grazing
associations) under CAs. The pilot sites cover an area of 6,432 ha in total. Fourteen camps in the four
villages were used for grazing and rotational resting was applied according to the grazing plans that weredeveloped.
Community engagement and negotiations are underway to design new CAs in planned expansion sites(Figure 1). The project expansion is planned according to the implementation schedule in section 2.2.1.
Throughout the project area, compliance monitoring is done in grazing areas through patrols by
Yes4Youth herders and Eco-trainers. Within project instances that are well fenced, (Dixie and Utah)
weekly fence patrols are done to monitor the integrity of the fence.
Project activities targeted at community impact such as capacity development, establishment of ICT
centers in schools and communities for the provision of internet access, and further restoration activities
including brush packing and the clearing of alien/invasive plant species have also been undertaken during
this monitoring period.
The main challenge to the implementation schedule during this monitoring period was the lockdown andisolation measures due to the Covid-19 outbreak. This prevented several planned stakeholder
engagement events, learning exchanges and monitoring surveys from taking place.
The total net GHG emission reductions or removals generated in this monitoring period is 54,819 tCO2e.

2.1.2 Project Category and Activity TypeThe project falls under sectoral scope 14: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) of the
VERRA’s VCS Program.
It is an Improved Grassland Management (IGM) project under VM0032, which includes practices thatmanipulate number and type of domestic livestock grazing animals and/or grouping, timing and season ofgrazing in ways that sequester soil carbon and/or reduce methane emissions. Altering fire frequency
and/or intensity in ways that increase carbon inputs to soil is also an included activity.
This is a grouped project as per the VCS Standard version 4.4, i.e., “projects structured to allow the
expansion of a project activity subsequent to project validation”.
2.1.3

Project Proponent(s)Organization name

Conservation South Africa

Contact person

Julia Levin

Title

Vice President, Africa, South Africa

Address
TelephoneForrest House, Ground Floor, Belmont Office Park, Belmont Road,
Rondebosch, 7700, South Africa+2721 100 3950

Emailjlevin@conservation.org

9
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
2.1.4

Other Entities Involved in the Project

Organization nameContact person

Meat Naturally Pty
Partner
Nomusa Mashile

Title

K2C Meat Naturally Incentives Manager

Address
Telephone

K2C Nodal Office, Zandspruit Bush and Aero Estate, R527 road,
Hoedspruit
072 470 0650

Emailnmmashile@conservation.org

Organization name

Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve Partner

Contact person

Marie-Tinka Uys

Title

Executive Coordinator & Chief Operating Officer

Address
Telephone

K2C Biosphere Nodal Centre, Zandspruit Bush & Aero Estate, R527,
Hoedspruit, Limpopo, South Africa
015 817 1838

Emailinfo@kruger2canyons.org

Organization name

Ahititirheleni Farmers’ Cooperative (Dixie Community)

Contact person

Farmers Organization Chairperson

Title

Justice Ntimane

Address

Chairperson

TelephoneDixie Trust, Stand Number 20067, Hluvukani, 1363

Email

0714380147
Justicentimane26@gmail.com

Organization name

Mokgapeng Farmers’ Cooperative (Welverdiend A)

Contact person

Farmers organization Chairperson

Title

Lion Thete

Address

Chairperson of the Cooperative

Telephone

P.O.Box 39; Hluvukani; 1363

Email

0723342867
N/A

10
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Organization name

Welverdiend B Farmers’ Cooperative

Contact person

Farmers Organization Chairperson

Title

Johnson Mlambo

Address

Chairperson

Telephone

Welverdiend B, Stand Number 27, Hluvukani, 1363

Email

0762327049
N/A

Organization nameNhlanganani Farmers’ Cooperative (Utah)

Contact person

Farmers Organization chairperson

Title

Lucas Ubisi

Address

Chairperson

Telephone

Utah Stand number 10133; Hluvukani, 1363

Email

0728762821
Lucasubisi67@gmail.com

Organization nameMnisi Traditional Authority

Contact person

Lawrence Ndubane

Title

Secretary

Address

Thulamahashe Rd, Khokhovela, 1367

Telephone+27 829657949

Emailndubane10@gmail.com

Organization nameAmashangana Traditional Authority

Contact person

Masocha Khoza

Title

Senior Admin

Address

Newforest Bushbuckridge

Telephone+27 022736996

Emailamashanganatraditionalcoucil@gmail.com

Organization name

Unique land use GmbH (PD writing and technical support)

Contact person

Benjamin Schwarz

Title

Senior consultant

11
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Address

Schnewlinstr. 10, 79098 Freiburg, Germany

Telephone+49 761 208534-29

Emailbenjamin.schwarz@unique-landuse.de

Organization name

Conservation International

Contact person

Chris Zink

Title

Vice President Carbon Finance

Address
Telephone2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22202+1 703 341 2400

Emailczink@conservation.org

2.1.5 Project Start Date (G1.9)
The project start date was 8 August 2018 with the signing of conservation agreements between
Conservation South Africa and implementation of grazing plans with the initial grazing associations(Ahitiriheleni and Nhlanganani cooperatives).

2.1.6 Project Crediting Period (G1.9)
The project crediting period is 30 years from the start date: from 8 August 2018 to 7 August 2048. This is
the project lifetime.

2.1.7 Project Location
The grouped project is located within the Kruger to Canyons (K2C) Biosphere within the Limpopo andMpumalanga provinces of South Africa (Figure 1). Geodetic coordinates are provided below and isavailable separately as a KML file. Sites that will be included into the project by 2030 stretch overMpumalanga and Limpopo Province in the Ehlanzeni, Thaba Chewu and Maruleng Municipalities. The
first activity instance which is the subject of this monitoring period comprises of Dixie (Phungwe), Utah
and Welverdiend communal grazing camps (orange and yellow polygons) totaling 6,432 ha. Areas
proposed for immediate expansion are outlined in white, and subsequent expansion areas to the west are
outlined in green, blue, and pink. Sites that will be included into the project by 2030 stretch overMpumalanga and Limpopo Province in the Ehlanzeni, Thaba Chewu and Maruleng District Municipalities
and Bushbuckridge Local Municipality. Geodetic coordinates are provided below and are available
separately as a KML file.
Coordinates

12
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Welverdiend:

24°35'7.33"S31°19'22.39"E

Dixie:

24°42'13.07"S
31°28'31.40"E

Utah:

24°42'56.82"S
31°26'10.73"E

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Figure 1: Project location in the Kruger to Canyons (K2C) Biosphere within the Limpopo (LIM) and Mpumalanga (MP)provinces of South Africa. The base maps are satellite imagery.

2.1.8

Title and Reference of Methodology

Methodology:•

The methodology used in this project is the VCS VM0032 Methodology for the Adoption of
Sustainable Grasslands through Adjustment of Fire and Grazing, v1.0.

Tools:• CDM A/R methodological tool Calculation of the number of sample plots for measurements within
A/R CDM project activities• VMD0016 Methods for stratification of the project area (X-STR), VMD0016, v1.2
• VT0001 Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in VCS AFOLU Project
Activities, version v3.0
• VMD0040 Leakage from Displacement of Grazing Activities VMD0040, v1.0
• VCS AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool, v4.0

2.1.9 Other Programs (G5.9)
The project will only be registered under the VCS 4.4 and CCBA 3.0 Standards. It will not pursue otherforms of environmental credit. The VCS is the only standard that allows carbon credits under agriculturalland management to adjust grazing. Project credits are also ineligible under existing Emissions Trading
programs.
13
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

2.1.10 Sustainable Development
The project contributes to underprivileged farming communities’ resilience to climate change by restoring
nature’s capacity to retain soil, provide fodder for livestock, replenish aquifers, store water, and reduce
impacts of floods and fires. From South Africa’s National Development Plan 203012, the project
specifically addresses 2 of 13 stated action areas:••

Economy and Employment
Environmental sustainability and resilience

The project also aligns with the objectives of the South African National Adaptation Plan13 which are to:••••

Build climate resilience and adaptive capacity to respond to climate change risk and vulnerability.
Promote the integration of climate change adaptation response into development objectives,
policy, planning and implementation.
Improve understanding of climate change impacts and capacity to respond to these impacts.
Ensure resources and Systems are in place to enable implementation of climate change
responses.

The project measures its contribution to Sustainable Development through indicators linked to the SDGs,
particularly in outcomes 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), 13 (Climate Action) and 15 (Life on land).
Table 1: Sustainable Development Goals of the K2C Rangeland Restoration Project

SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENTGOAL

SUB-TARGET

INDICATORSRELATEDPROJECT
ACTIVITIESSECTION
REFERENCE

SDG 6.3
Improve water
quality (6.3.2 ambient water
quality)
SDG 6.4
Increasewater-use
efficiency andensuresustainable
withdrawals
and supply to
reduce water
scarcity

Rangeland
rehabilitation: spring
repairEcosystem health:critical habitat
condition

WASH education
through the CSA
Veld Sanitation
Guide.

4.4.6 (noquantitative data
monitored)

SDG 6.6
Protect andrestore water-

12
13

https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/ndp-2030-our-future-make-it-workr.pdf
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/South-Africa_NAP.pdf

14
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENTGOAL

SUB-TARGET

INDICATORSRELATEDPROJECT
ACTIVITIESSECTION
REFERENCE

relatedecosystems

SDG 13
CombatclimatechangeSDG 13b
Combatclimatechange via
education of
the youth,
women, andmarginalized
communities

SDG15A.
Increasefinancialresources toconserve &sustainablyusebiodiversity
andecosystems

15
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Soil carbon stocks

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

3.2

Net ecosystem
exchange. Net CO2

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing
SNAPGRAZE(modelled)

3.2

Number of youth (1624 yrs) trained
formally (accredited),
and informally(mentored, workplacelearning, internship,
primary health caresession).

All activities

4.3

Number of people(>24yrs) trained
formally (accredited),
informally (mentored,
workplace learning,internship, primary
health care session).

All activities

4.3

Number of influential
actors (officials,
traditional leaders,etc.) trained

All activities

4.4.6 (noquantitative data
monitored)

Number oforganisations trained

All activities

4.4.6 (noquantitative data
monitored)

Number of direct
beneficiaries inlandscapeAll activities

4.3

Number of jobs
createdAll Activities

4.3

Value of stock sales at
auctions.

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Meat Naturally

4.1.1 (noquantitative data
monitored)

Number of households
supported from stock
sales and GED

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Meat Naturally

4.1.1

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENTGOAL

SUB-TARGET

SDG15.1
Conservation,
restoration &sustainable
use ofterrestrial andinlandfreshwater
systems

SDG15.3
Combatdesertification,
restore16
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

INDICATORSRELATEDPROJECT
ACTIVITIESSECTION
REFERENCE

Meat Naturally Pty
turnover (Rands)

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Meat Naturally

4.3

Number ofConservation
Agreements individuals and entities

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

4.3

Area covered byConservation
Agreements(hectares)

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

2.1.1

CompliantConservation
Agreements

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

2.1.1

Area of indigenous
woody plant
encroachment
reduced (hectares)

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing(no quantitative
data monitored)

Grazing plans in place

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

2.1.1

Number of rest days in
grazing plan

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

3.1

Total camps area
(hectares)

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

3.1

Productivity/greennessof rangelands (NDVI)

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

3.1

Change in % basal
cover of herbaceous
layer

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

5.3

Plant biodiversity andcomposition. Shannon
Wiener index / species
list

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

5.3

Area of wetlands
protected by planned
exclusion of livestock(hectares)

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing(no quantitative
data monitored)

Number of gabions,micro-catchments

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Erosion control
activity

3.3.1

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENTGOAL

SUB-TARGET

INDICATORSRELATEDPROJECT
ACTIVITIESSECTION
REFERENCE

Hectares of Alien
vegetation infestation

Rangeland
rehabilitation

5.3

Hectares of Alien
vegetation cleared tomaintenance level

Rangeland
rehabilitation

5.3

degraded landand soil
SDG15.8
Prevent andreduceinvasive alien
species

2.2

Project Implementation Status

2.2.1 Implementation Schedule (G1.9)
Date
Milestone(s) in the project’s development and implementation
April 2015
Baseline vegetation surveys undertaken
March 2017

Socio-Economic Survey baseline done in pilot sites

April 2017

Feasibility study assessing states of rangelands:•••

October 2017
February 2018
May 2018

August 2018

October 2018
August 2019
March 2021
2022-2023
2023-24
Yearly
2024
2025
2028

17
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Veld Condition Assessment (G Wolfaard);
Conservation Stewards Programme Feasibility(Conservation South Africa) and
Vulnerability Assessment (S Holness)

Assessment

Stakeholder mapping & skills audit done. Inception meetings held &engagement on CSP commenced.
Design & negotiation workshops started.
Capacity building for CSA project staff, CSA Eco-rangers & Eco-trainers,
K2C Env monitors, herd monitors to assist with the implementation ofRangeland Management Plans, monitoring.
Community trainings to strengthen capacities for improved rangeland
management
Meat Naturally trial slaughters successfully conducted to demonstrate
benefits to farmers.
CAs successfully negotiated & signed with farmer cooperatives
Grazing calendars collaboratively developed & implementation introducedin the rangelands.
Infrastructure for monitoring gully erosion and water infiltration installed ingrazing areas, baseline recordedFirst annual review of benefit packages provided to Farmers Organisations
upon verified compliance to Farmers Organisations.
Baseline soil sampling survey done in pilot sites as well as 10-year
expansion sites.
SNAP graze model calibrated / validated for project area
Project validation, First verification and credit issuanceMonitoring of Climate, Community and Biodiversity indicators
Mnisi 3-year expansion areas of 12,500 ha
Bapedi Dinkwanyane (DWS) expansion of 11,800 ha
Bushbuck Ridge Expansion of 51,000 haVM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Every 5 years from 2023
onwards

Verification of Monitoring Report by external auditors

2.2.2 Methodology Deviations
Limited data were collected for baseline carbon stocks at the project start in 2018 due to logisticalconstraints; while project activities had already commenced by that time in the first project instances, thefull implementation of this complex and far-reaching project was still in its infancy. Thus, most baseline
carbon stock measurements have only been collected since 2021, three years after the project start date.
However, this is not thought to affect the accuracy or conservativeness of estimated GHG benefits forseveral reasons.
First, the three-year delay is unlikely to have a significant effect on estimated GHG benefits, sincechanges in SOC stock between two distinct land use types happen gradually, in a time frame of about 20
years (Lal 2004).
Second, baseline carbon stock sampling included the first project instances as well as areas within the
K2C biosphere/project region outside of the first project instances. Samples collected starting in 2021
within the first project instance may overestimate baseline carbon stocks, since project activities would
have already produced increases in carbon stocks; based on these data, the change between baseline
and project SOC stocks could appear to be lower than if the samples had been collected in 2018,
reducing estimated emissions removals and increasing the conservativeness of estimated GHG benefits.
However, even this impact may have been insignificant due to the aforementioned delay in SOC stockchanges after a land use change occurs.
Third, the rest of the K2C biosphere/project region (outside of the first project influence) is unlikely to haveexperienced significant changes to baseline carbon stocks between 2018 and 2021, since grazing
practices remained similar to those of the baseline scenario. In addition, these areas have long beenused as grazing lands, even before the land area has been assigned to the Tribal Authorities, with theland use of unmanaged grazing having persisted for more than 30 years. Thus, due to the continuity of
the land use, any changes to SOC stock would be minor. Based on the findings of Lal (2004), thebaseline SOC stock equilibrium should have been reached for at least a decade prior to the collection of
baseline soil samples, and the three-year delay in data collection would have had a minor impact.
Cattle numbers for the baseline scenario are well recorded in a yearly count by the State Vet as of 2015.
To estimate the harmonic mean of the cattle numbers in each category, this dataset has been used.
Though it does not cover the required 10 years baseline period, it is the most accurate dataset andtherefore can better represent baseline conditions than any other means proposed in the methodology.
Animal numbers are likely to have declined in recent years due to degradation of grasslands. Thus, by notaccounting for the full 10-year period, the baseline estimate of methane emissions of cattle is rather
underestimating. Therefore, this methodology deviation is considered conservative. Cattle numbers arecounted at the end of January each year by the State Veterinary Services. The years of 2015 to 2018
represent the baseline.

2.2.3 Minor Changes to Project Description (Rules 3.5.6)
Not applicable.
2.2.4 Project Description Deviations (Rules 3.5.7 – 3.5.10)
Not applicable.
2.2.5 Grouped Projects
This project is a grouped project. The first project activity instance, which is the subject of this first
verification, includes 6,432 ha as outlined in section 2.1.1. This is the first project validation / verification

18
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
event and no new instances have been included which differ from those identified in the projectdescription document (PD).
1) New Project Areas and Communities (G1.13)
Not applicable. This is the first VCS and CCB validation. Therefore, the project areas and communities
included are the same as identified in the project description.
2) Removed Project Areas and Communities (G1.13)
Not applicable. This is the first VCS and CCB validation. Therefore, the project areas and communities
included are the same as identified in the project description.
3) Eligibility Criteria for Grouped Projects (G1.14)
Not applicable. This is the first VCS and CCB validation. Therefore, the project areas and communities
included are the same as identified in the project description.
4) Scalability Limits for Grouped Projects (G1.15)
Not applicable. This is the first VCS and CCB validation. Therefore, the project areas and communities
included are the same as identified in the project description.
5) Risk Mitigation for Grouped Projects (G1.15)
Not applicable. This is the first VCS and CCB validation. Therefore, the project areas and communities
included are the same as identified in the project description.

19
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 146) Project Zone Map (G1.13)

7) Changes to Management (G4.1)
Not applicable. No new entities have joined the project.

2.2.6

Risks to the Project (G1.10)

The risks as well as their mitigation strategy is presented in the table below. In addition to the risks
identified in the project description, some additional risks were identified during the project
implementation. The main risk is a lack of changed grazing intensity or herd structure, which may arise
due to e.g., unfavorable climate, inadequate stakeholder engagement, or traditional tendencies to keep
older male animals.
Table 2: Project Risks and mitigation measures taken.

RISK EVENT /ISSUE

DESCRIPTIONPOTENTIAL
MITIGATIONSTRATEGY

Non-complianceof communal
farmers withagreedrestoration
activities

Compliance of
farmers depends on
short-term (2-yr)
conservationagreements (CAs),
which in turn depend

Non-compliancemeans no benefits(auctions, etc). The
well-establishedsocial enterprise(Meat Naturally Pty,

20
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

OCCURRENCE/ MITIGATIONDURING MONITORING PERIOD

Cases of farmers underconservation agreement that did
not comply to the grazing plan andresting of camps were resolved byherd monitors and Yes herders who
are able to identify the cattle from

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

RISK EVENT /ISSUE(plannedgrazing,management of
herdcharacteristics)

Land ownershipand Land rights

DESCRIPTION
on incentives(auctions, fodder,training, etc) andfarmer willingness

Land ownership is acomplex issue incommunal systems,
meaning the land isstate owned andwithout an individualownership title deedbut is rather under
the custodianship of
the Tribal Authorities
and recognised
under the Communal
Land Rights Act 11(2004) and theInterim Protection ofInformal Land Rights
Act (IPILRA) of 1996.
The use of the landis decided throughthe Tribal Authority
and local municipal
government throughconsultation with
communities andcommunity
structures. Therefore,change in land use
from communal
rangeland to any
other land use ispossible but unlikely.

21
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

POTENTIAL
MITIGATIONSTRATEGY
MNP) provides asustainable market
mechanism that has
proved to encourage
good compliancewith CAs. Extend
conservationagreement
renewable period to
5 years.

Livestock ownershipis part of cultural
practices. Therefore,
the need forcommunal land tograze livestock isentrenched and noteasily lost. Small
portions of the areas
may change in land
use but not in totality.

OCCURRENCE/ MITIGATIONDURING MONITORING PERIOD
their brandmarks and ear tags.
Isolated cases of broken fences
and open gates at grazing camps
are mostly due to wood harvestingfrom outside parties. This has been
discussed at farmer meetings andresolved collectively as a team todo the necessary repairs and fundthe process. We are working
towards a realistic solution for thecommunity and the rangelands tocontrol the challenge of
uncontrolled wood harvesting insome of the planned grazing camps

N/AVM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

RISK EVENT /ISSUEClimate change
impacts areevident in thearea andpredicted toincreasethrough longer
dry seasons andincreased
temperatures.

Foot and Mouth
DiseaseDESCRIPTION
Longer dry seasonsand increased
temperatures arestressors forlivestock production
in communal
rangelands. Here,people rely heavily
on rainfall andsurface water for
livestock as well as
good grass
production. Overutilization during
growing seasons canresult in increased
risk during the dry
periods.
The areas adjacentto the Greater Kruger
fall within the Footand Mouth
Vaccination zone.
This is monitored bystate vet services,and, if foot andmouth disease isdetected in the area,
it can slow the
progress of certain
activities

Discrimination

Women and youth
experience
discrimination in the
distribution of
benefits because
they do not own
large herds of cattle.

Land Use
ChangeThere is pressure
from urban areas,and some areas
might be needed forurbanisation andexpansion.

22
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

POTENTIAL
MITIGATIONSTRATEGY

OCCURRENCE/ MITIGATIONDURING MONITORING PERIOD

Planned grazing
should account for
extreme climatic
predictions to ensurethat risk is mitigated.
An incentive forbetter quality animals
ahead of higher
quantity of animals
should beincorporated from the
beginning to reduceover utilization

N/A

Work by CSA in FMD
areas to findalternative market
options and policy
work with the OIE
around FMD
regulations are
already underway
and are well
supported.

Due to stringent Foot and Mouth
Disease (FMD) regulations, Meat
Naturally Pty has had difficulty inmaintaining a strong presence inthe landscape, this has affected the
project's ability to ensure long term
access to the red meat market for
Farmer Cooperatives underconservation agreements. Meat
Naturally Pty and CSA currently
exploring alternative ways in which
to help Farmers access the redmeat market

All CSA employees
are familiarised with
CSA’s nondiscrimination
policies and follow
the principles ofthese policies during
all stakeholder
engagements. In
addition, CSA
employees promote
gender equality
according to thegender plan.
Support and workwith local authorities
such as Traditional
Councils andMunicipalities tomitigate land usechange impacts on

N/A

The project team had to address
fall outs in the community brought
about due to opportunities
presented to two communities(Dixie and Utah Villages) in theform of construction of a lodge thatwould be built on a significant

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

RISK EVENT /ISSUE

DESCRIPTIONPOTENTIAL
MITIGATIONSTRATEGY
importantecosystems, such as
the rangelands.

Capacities formonitoring /implementatione.g., Ecorangers & Herd
Monitors

A shortage of staff tofill critical roles could
stall project
implementation andmonitoring activities.

Theft / damageof project ormonitoring
infrastructure

Theft / damage of
project or monitoring
infrastructure could
interrupt project
implementation
schedule.

Provision of
benefits

Challenges withdelivering benefits tocompliant farmers as
per conservationagreements can leadto loss of farmer
willingness toparticipate

Work withpartnerships topromote sustainable
employment
streams, such as theYes for Youthemployment scheme

OCCURRENCE/ MITIGATIONDURING MONITORING PERIOD
portion of their grazing land, and on
which planned grazing was being
implemented. The team was invited
to attend meetings in which theproposed project was outlined andwere asked to partake in the public
participation process of the
proposed project by the Farmer
Cooperatives committees.
CSA was unable to provide fullscale support to Farmers
Organisations through Eco-rangers
from June 2018 as contract with
Department of Environmental
Affairs not been renewed due tointernal audits process within thedepartment. Stewards in Utahproposing imposition of penalties
on CSA for unavailability of Ecorangers as per the terms stipulated
in the conservation agreement,
despite CSA efforts to fill gap left by
Ecoranger absence. Three Ecorangers in Dixie village were
employed on a short-term basis.
Kruger 2 Canyons Biosphere Herdmonitors were employed to fill therole of Eco-rangers though their
numbers were significantly low, andtheir contracts came to an end in
March 2019 and this left a gap in
the project's compliance monitoringprocess.

Additional security
measures to be inplace and ensure
regular check in on
monitoring
equipment.

Remeasurement of gully profiles in
Welverdiend A & B, Dixie & Utah
could not be completed as someinfrastructure was removed or
tampered with.

Source additional
suppliers as needed
to ensure benefits
are delivered.

Challenges of fodder provisionwere encountered in 2019 due tolack of total volume of locally
produced fodder. Open and honest
communication with Farmer
Cooperatives when/if unable todeliver benefits as agreed ensured
that the farmers still trust in CSA
and are willing to continue with theprocess despite challenges.

Other unpredicted issues which occurred during the monitoring period are described below. These are
isolated events and not included in the risk register since they are not anticipated to reoccur:
23
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
•

•

2.2.7

Covid-19 related disruptions due to COVID protocols caused limitations of people gatherings andaffected the following project activities: Starting planned grazing and restoration in 4 new sites(Clare A, Clare B, Share and Eglington) in the K2C region was delayed in March 2021 preventing
negotiations to get new conservation agreements signed. A follow up Socio-economic survey was
postponed in Welverdiend A and Welverdiend B and learning exchanges between Cooperatives
in Mnisi were also postponed due to the Covid-19 measures.
The sudden passing of key members in Mnisi Traditional Authority slowed down engagement
processes in proposed expansion sites as well as re-negotiation process in 4 pilot sites. Reestablishment of leadership structures is currently underway, and the CSA team remains wellinformed on progress.
Benefit Permanence (G1.11)

Over the project lifetime, the project intends to hand-over as much of the project management away from
CSA to the communities. This is on track to being achieved through building up institutional capacities
and setting up a community-led organizational structure that can distribute the profits transparently andcontinue the function of delivering the benefits derived from conservation activities long beyond thelifespan of this project.
There has been a strong focus on strengthening institutional capacity and communal decision-making
structures in the project area. This took the form of formal trainings, as well as informal interactions
through attendance at weekly grazing association meetings. Provision of governance training to somemembers of the Farmers Cooperatives under CAs helped strengthen leadership structures, improve
communication between members, and increased interest of members in the cooperatives. This wasseen through consistent attendance of weekly farmers meeting, payment of membership fees bymembers and signing of CAs. Agency was built up in the Farmer cooperative’s leadership to takeresponsibility of certain processes such as ensuring compliance to CAs by all cooperative members.
It is also expected that witnessing higher income through better prices and more productive cattle withaccess to more palatable grass from sustainable grasslands, should motivate farmers to continue thismore lucrative way of managing rangelands. Already, there is an observed willingness to continue
implementation of planned grazing. Planned grazing has been established through CAs as a viablestrategy to ensure that grazing areas are in a good condition as well as ensuring availability of grass forlonger periods. With guidance from the leadership of each cooperative, planned grazing can continue
outside of conservation agreements. This is further supported by the willingness of farmers in villages in
Mnisi who have expressed interest in learning about and implementing planned grazing without thepromise of incentives; what is needed however is some engagement, training, and support by CSA
project team at the beginning stages.
2.3
2.3.1

Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Access to Project Documents (G3.1)

The different stakeholder groups will be able to access the complete documents and monitoring reports ofthe project. Hard copies will be left with the traditional authorities, in the communities and in schools/youth
centers where CSA provides internet access. The project monitoring report will also be published on the
Verra website and made available to the wider public for a public commenting period. CI will share thislink as well with other project stakeholders for their information and input.
2.3.2 Dissemination of Summary Project Documents (G3.1)
As mentioned above, project description documentation and monitoring reports will be shared as hardcopies with the traditional authorities, in the communities and in schools/youth centers where CSA
provides internet access. A translated summary is planned to be provided with this documentation. In
addition, Eco-rangers and/or CSA staff will present and discuss summaries of the documents in the24
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
livestock committees as well as in the events of the Scouts. These presentations will take the form offocused feedback sessions on specific issues of particular interest to stakeholder groups such as soil,
grazing quality etc.
2.3.3 Informational Meetings with Stakeholders (G3.1)
Traditional Authorities were consulted first before approaching the communities since they are thestatutory custodians of the land. At the project inception phase, CSA Environmental Monitors working on
a particular village approach the village Induna (local chief) to introduce the project and seek approval towork in the Village. Once approval is obtained from the Induna, CSA then facilitates community meetings
to explain the intended project and engage members of the community, partners, CDF, businesspeople,
land users, government employees, youth, women, and all influencers. After this is done, the venue andall other necessary resources are then organized to facilitate the Skills Audits and visioning workshops.
During visioning workshops, the communities voice their challenges and needs, their skills, andresources, as well as their connections with other organizations. CSA then presents itself, checks forwhich challenges they can provide help and then explains how they will deliver this help throughconservation agreements. This process is described in CSA’s field guide serving as the SOP on outreach.
After the engagement team presents the conservation agreement idea (including costs, benefits, andrisks, if any) and verifies that the stewards understand the intent, the representatives are given as muchtime as they need to communicate with their constituency and discuss the desirability of designing anagreement with CSA. CSA confirms that the decision made reflects the sentiment of the wider resource
user group, for example through randomly selected focus groups or informal individual interviews (withrepresentatives from a variety of social groups). The objective of this step is to ensure that the resource
users understand and consent to the proposition of proceeding to the next step, namely designing a
conservation agreement. So far, design and negotiation workshops were successfully facilitated with four
Farmers Cooperatives in Mnisi area, two in Welverdiend and one each in Utah and Dixie. During the
project implementation, dissemination of information is channeled through the weekly Farmers’
Cooperative meetings. Constant feedback is also received through this platform to enable adaptive
management.
2.3.4 Community Costs, Risks, and Benefits (G3.2)
During the engagement phase, CSA presents the conservation agreement concept to the resource users(stewards) to introduce the idea and explore whether they are interested in working together toward anagreement. During the process, it is ensured to involve all relevant groups within a community (womenand men, youth as well as the elderly, different resource-user groups, marginalized sub-groups, etc.) This
phase also sets the stage for design and negotiation of the agreement, by presenting what an agreement
is and how it works, verifying understanding of the concept, and seeking a mutual decision to proceedwith design of specific agreement terms. Since conservation agreements are voluntary, CSA emphasizes
that this is a choice and ensures that stewards understand the concept. Once communities show interestin working towards a conservation agreement, negotiation workshops ensue whereby the conservation
actions and benefits are designed together with the communities. During negotiation workshops the costs
and benefits are explained to farmers by experienced facilitators following the CSP Field Guide SOP. All
exchanges take place in the local languages of potential stewards’, while observing cultural norms andexpectations to ensure transparency and a shared understanding.
2.3.5 Information to Stakeholder on Verification Process (G3.3)
When the project was initiated, it did not envision to be developed into a carbon project according to the
Verified Carbon Standards (VCS). However, since the inception of these standards in the project scope,
livestock farmers that are part of the conservation agreements, have been made aware of what it means
to align the grazing project with a VCS methodology. CSA took a tiered approach in disseminating
communications regarding this process.
The first step was to draft communication materials describing what carbon is, how the methodology
speaks to the grazing activities, and how carbon markets work. This training material will be madeavailable to the validator. Once the material was created it was important that the CSA team understood
what this entailed and undertook a train-the-trainer approach. This approach rolled out a series of training
25
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
sessions that were facilitated to the Eco-trainers, Eco-rangers, Yes 4 Youth supervisors and Yes 4 Youthparticipants. These sessions included a practical session in-field that spoke to how herbaceous coversupports soil organic sequestration. The train-the-trainer approach enables large scale knowledge
sharing within local communities.
The second stage of communication and information dissemination was focused on the Farmers
Cooperatives (grazing associations). This was done through two communication methods. The first
method focused on presentations that were presented at the weekly Farmers’ Cooperative meetings,
where a presentation was given on the prepared materials. Discussions were also held with printed
materials (some farmers do not have good vision, and the printed material made it possible for them tosee the presentation). Throughout these engagements, the communications were translated andfacilitated in Tsonga, a local language.
The second approach was done through video screening sessions. A video was played that explained thecarbon project and was translated on-site to facilitate discussion and understanding. Key questions were
captured during these engagement sessions to provide feedback to communities if there were any
uncertainties. These screening sessions were also open to all community members to attend.
CSA promotes open and informed communication between all its stakeholders. It is extremely importantthat conversations regarding the carbon project are continuous and that Eco-trainers continue to facilitatecarbon-related discussions with grazing organizations in a way that they can understand. All engagement
materials can be made available upon request.
2.3.6 Site Visit Information and Opportunities to Communicate with Auditor (G3.3)
As soon as auditing events are scheduled, stakeholders are informed via communication by the Ecorangers in the weekly meetings of farmers on the date and planned timing of the site visit. CSA willorganize the meetings between the auditor and stakeholders and moderate introductions. At thediscretion of the auditor, CSA staff shall leave the meeting for enough time so that stakeholders are notinfluenced by the presence of the project proponent. For a closing of the discussion, CSA staff stays onsite and can be called back to the meeting as necessary.
2.3.7 Stakeholder Consultation (G3.4)
As described in sections 2.3.3, 2.3.4, the first step in the conservation agreement approach involved
visioning workshops where the communities voice their challenges and needs. Afterwards, CSA presents
the concept of conservation agreements, and resource users consent to further processes. Negotiation
workshops commence, where conservation agreements are designed. In conservation agreements,
farmer associations agree to certain conservation actions in exchange for incentives/benefits. These
conservation actions make up the inputs for grazing plans, which are drafted together with Eco-trainers ina subsequent step. All farmers are present when grazing plans are made, and they jointly take thedecision to participate during the planning session. Throughout the whole approach, stakeholders are
directly involved in the project activity design and in selecting benefits which are most suited to theirneeds. (See Supporting Documents “Stakeholder Consultation” and “Conservation Agreements”).
Furthermore, it is planned that stakeholders will become the owners of this project over time. CSA isacting as the initial Project Proponent and leading project development until such time as thecooperatives register a community-owned entity.
2.3.8 Continued Consultation and Adaptive Management (G3.4)
The management and steering of the project are influenced by the continuous feedback obtained by the
Herd monitors and Eco-rangers who work directly with the farmers (see section 4.3.1) as well as by other
CSA staff involved e.g., in pro-nature business development supporting other community members(oftentimes women) with compliance and business-related questions. Feedback is also collected throughproject monitoring structures e.g., weekly farmer meetings and bi-annual household surveys. For future
upscaling of the project in terms of area or quality, feedback from stakeholders is encouraged andconsidered in the management plan as much as possible. Continued stakeholder consultation according
to the processes described in sections 2.3.3, 2.3.4, and 2.3.7 is expected as project expansion continues.
26
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
2.3.9

Stakeholder Consultation Channels (G3.5)

Stakeholder engagement and participatory processes through which the project organizes information
sharing and consultations are described at length in the above sections of chapter 2.3. In addition, thisproject has placed a strong focus on strengthening institutional capacity and decision making of theparticipating farmer communities. Attendance in weekly grazing association meetings has increased since
the project started. Meetings are organized and chaired independently of CSA, minutes taken by anominated member, and CSA is requested to report back on issues where necessary.
2.3.10 Stakeholder Participation in Decision-Making and Implementation (G3.6)
Respecting customary decision-making mechanisms within communities ensures that CAs are adapted to
local realities. However, it is important to also remember that some customary decision-making
mechanisms do not allow for disadvantaged or marginalized groups to be heard. It is necessary to findculturally appropriate ways to ensure those voices are part of decision-making. Various socioeconomic
and cultural dimensions shape social groups, such as ethnicity or race, poverty level, gender, age, field ofwork or religion, among others. This is considered by the engagement team. As an example, when CSA
commenced with the engagement of Farmers Organizations to introduce and discuss CSP andconservation agreements, there was limited inclusion, especially of youth and women. This was largelyon account of prevailing cultural norms and taboos in the area. These norms and taboos often meant thatwomen and young people did not speak during workshops or meetings and therefore their inputs on theprocess were not included. Through introduction of FPIC the team highlighted the importance ofeveryone's participation in the process and this prompted the leadership to start encouraging everyone tospeak in meetings, although this was a slow process overtime participation of women and youth improved
as the chairperson (in Utah village) would use the techniques such as saying "for the next 10 minutes weonly want inputs from the women", this allowed some of the more outspoken men to give others a chanceto speak, until it became a norm over time. Creation of informal communication platforms also played auseful role. For example, during breaks women or silent participants in the meeting are asked bilaterally
for their inputs and if they are happy with where the discussion is going. Also, house visits by female
environmental monitors allowed the team to capture the inputs of women and youth members.
Throughout the implementation stage participation of these two groups, especially in Utah and Dixie
villages has improved to the point where women lead key processes such as facilitation of learning
exchanges and being representatives at meetings with the department of agriculture and recently were
they successfully engaged the MTPA on compensation packages for farmers who lost livestock due tolions breaking out of the Manyeleti Nature Reserve which is next to the communities.
Since participation in conservation agreements is voluntary, CSA works to ensure that community
members who are not willing to participate in project activities are not stigmatized or forced to participate
via the imposition of other community members. Communal livestock farmers are sensitized about thevoluntary nature of the agreement and educated on conflict management within the project.
2.3.11 Anti-Discrimination Assurance (G3.7)
The project is committed to the fair treatment and equal opportunity for all stakeholders, community
members and employees. This is ensured through CSA’s code of ethics as well as policies towards
Harassment and Workplace violence and Gender Policies which are strictly complied to. These policies
are available under the attached ‘CSA internal policies and processes’ folder.
Neither the project, nor any agent of the project, has been found to violate these policies or todiscriminate against any person for any reason, including – but not limited to – gender, religion,
nationality, tribe, or sexual identity.
2.3.12 Grievances (G3.8)
Records of grievances are available in the attached Excel ‘Grievance Tracker_Form’. For additional
information on the project’s Grievance Mechanism, refer to ‘Grievance Overview.ppt’ provided in the
Supporting Documents as well as the description in the Project Design Document.
2.3.13 Worker Training (G3.9)
The following training is provided to field staff implementing project activities:
27
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Workplace Ethics Training
Conservation Stewardship Program field guide training
Project team trained on carbon, carbon credits and financing.
Veld and Sanitation Training (for Environmental Monitors, Eco-trainers and project staff)
Training in facilitation skills, difficult conversation & conflict resolution.
Financial Literacy (Yes4Youth, Eco-trainers, Environmental Monitors & project staff).
Gender Based Violence Training (Yes4Youth, Eco-trainers, Environmental Monitors & project
staff).
Alien Invasive Plants Removal Training
Waste Management Training through Operation Basis
Rangeland management and restoration learning exchanges.

Almost all staff in the project area are either directly or indirectly connected to livestock herding, grazing
management, and livestock marketing as either they or their families own or have owned cattle. So, theskills learnt in these trainings cater to locally useful skills and knowledge. So far, the project shows little
staff turnover, partly also since local job opportunities are rare. Potential gaps in the staff of e.g., Ecorangers can be filled through learning exchanges hosted by senior team members.

2.3.14 Community Employment Opportunities (G3.10)
The Yes 4 Youth program forms the basis of local job creation through the project. Yes 4 Youth is agovernment-led program to offer job experience to one of the most vulnerable groups in South Africa
society: unskilled, lowly educated, unemployed youth. The project offers 10 vacancies per supervisor
each year per community. The community and livestock herders decide who will get these vacancies
depending on who they find trustworthy and fit for the job. The best of these Yes 4 Youth are offered thepossibility to become Eco-rangers after their contract ends (1 year). Eco-rangers are the mentors of theYes 4 Youth. Individual Eco-rangers qualify for further training to become Eco-trainers. Current Ecotrainers eventually move up to fill Monitoring and Evaluation positions. Eco-rangers are also selected fromlocal communities and are employed on an annual basis, the selection of Eco-rangers is done throughcommunity consultation. As the project expands throughout the landscape it envisions having an Ecoranger present in each community.
Livestock herding is culturally male dominated. Recognizing this and to also provide opportunities for
women in the project, vacancies in other parts of the project, such as finances/operations, livestock
marketing, pro-nature business development, and more are specifically reserved for women.
2.3.15 Relevant Laws and Regulations Related to Worker’s Rights (G3.11)
List all relevant laws and regulations covering worker’s rights in the host country and provide assurance
that the project has met or exceeded each. Where relevant, demonstrate how compliance was achieved
and describe activities and/or processes implemented to inform workers about their rights.
The following laws and regulations contain provisions with regards to labour rights in South Africa:
1.
Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA): This act sets out the minimum standards forworking conditions, including working hours, leave, payment, and termination of employment.
2.
Labour Relations Act (LRA): This act regulates the relationship between employers andemployees and provides for collective bargaining, dispute resolution, and protection of
employees' rights.
3.
Employment Equity Act (EEA): This act promotes equal opportunities and fair treatment in
employment, prohibits unfair discrimination, and requires affirmative action measures to redress
imbalances in the workplace.

28
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

9.
10.

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA): This act provides forcompensation for employees who suffer injuries or contract diseases arising from their work.
Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA): This act sets out the health and safety standards forworkplaces and imposes duties on employers to provide safe working conditions.
Skills Development Act (SDA): This act promotes skills development and training for employees
and provides for the establishment of Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs).
National Minimum Wage Act (NMWA): This act provides for a national minimum wage that
employers must pay their employees, as well as for exemptions and enforcement measures.
Unemployment Insurance Act (UIA): This act provides for the payment of unemployment
insurance benefits to employees who become unemployed or are unable to work due to illness ormaternity leave.
Skills Development Levies Act (SDLA): This act requires employers to contribute a percentage of
their payroll to the National Skills Fund, which is used to fund training and development initiatives.
Employment Services Act (ESA): This act provides for the establishment of public employment
services and the registration of private employment agencies.

Key elements of these labour laws are embodied in the employment contracts of workers, according to
National and Provincial legislation, governed by The Department of Employment and Labour. These
Departments ensure the implementation of the country’s and province’s labour laws, regulations andpolicies and protect labour rights. The core mandate of the Department of Employment and Labour is toregulate the South African Labour Market for sustainable economic development through appropriate
legislation and regulations, inspection, compliance monitoring and enforcement, protection of humanrights, provision of employment services, promotion of equity, social and income protection, and social
dialogue.
South Africa joined the ILO (International Labour Organisation) in 1994. The country has ratified 28 ILO
Conventions. Of these, 25 are already in force in the country. The project proponents being a socially
responsible organization will ensure that any relevant international conventions or government laws andregulations (provincial and national) are fully followed. All staff employed by the project are compensatedabove the national minimum wage and adhere to regulations on working hours. The project provides skill
development training for employees. The measures taken to ensure Occupational Health and Safety aredescribed in section 2.3.16 below.

2.3.16 Occupational Safety Assessment (G3.12)
CSA as an affiliate to Conservation International (CI) is working in increasingly complex environments thatpose a range of safety and security risks to our people, assets, operations, and reputation. Conservation
International believes that managing these safety and security risks is essential in not only ensuring that
our critical assets are protected, but also to guarantee we can continue to empower societies to care fornature, our global biodiversity, and for the well-being of humanity. Conservation International will takeevery reasonable measure to ensure that safety and security risks are minimized.
The following risks to the health and safety of workers were identified through the project’s CI safety andsecurity analysis process. None of the identified risks occurred during this monitoring period. The CI
Safety Screening risk assessment provides further details on the security plan for CSA (Conservational
International South Africa Safety Security Plan V2). All workers are fully informed about workplace risks
and safe practices to mitigate those risks. These include training in conflict resolution, safe working
practices, as well as the enforcement of requirements for safe handling of equipment and other materials.
All CSA employees are contracted under a medical aid scheme that prescribes the minimum
requirements for medical cover to ensure that each employee has access to an accepted standard of
medical treatment.

29
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Project activity

Risk

Mitigation

Office Security

Office fire
Break-in / Theft
Injury while at office

•
•

•
•

•

Travel Security

Vehicle Accident

•

•
•

•

•

30
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Each office has their keys held by the respective focal
point, with spare keys held by the landscape director.
An annual fire drill should be held. A fire drill is effective
if it results in the rapid evacuation of all people from theoffice and to the pre-arranged rendezvous point
outside of the building.
Fire-fighting equipment is available.
The office first aid kit is stored in the kitchen cupboard
in the boardroom and contains basic supplies to treat apatient during an emergency.
If you are in the office at the time of the break in,attempt to leave the office and contact the police whensafe to do so, do not confront intruder
Conservation South Africa relies currently relies on CI
owned vehicles and utilizes CI staff who have a valid
driver’s license for driving.
All CI staff who are authorized to drive for work duties
must have their local driving license on file.
Cars must only carry the number of passengers as
legally authorized by the vehicle and insurance. No
passengers should ride in the back of pickups.
Conservation South Africa hired vehicles must havethe following equipment (depending on whether or not
the travel is rural or urban).
o Safety belts (Urban and Rural)o Spare tire and tools (U/R)
o First aid kit (often provided by CI) (R)o Adequate fuel for the journey (U/R)
o Hazard signs to mark the vehicle in the eventof a break down (U/R0o Communications equipment – if travel isbeyond mobile network for extended periods,
then consider satellite communications
devices. (R)o Water and basic emergency food supplies (R)o Emergency blankets and mosquito nets (R)No road travel between towns will occur during thehours of darkness, except in exceptional circumstances(such as medical emergency) authorized by the CEOof Conservation South Africa or Operations Director.

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Ranger PatrollingandConfrontations--

Injury on duty
resulting fromrestoration
activities.
Conflict fromlivestock theft
Increase illegal
poaching andrangelands
become unsafe
for herders

•

•

•

•

•

•
•
•

Wildlife Attacks-

Domestic or
rabid dog
Lions
Elephants
Hippos
BuffalosCrocodiles
Snakes

•

•
•

•
•

31
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Eco-rangers, must be deployed in locations with mobile
coverage and have contact numbers for the relevant
local police and local community leaders.
Prior to deployment, Eco-rangers/ Restoration workers
are given level 1 and 2 first aid training as well as
Health and Safety training.
Evacuation plans for each field site are required andmonthly health and safety meetings with teams will
help to highlight concerns and complications. Typically,
the type of issues being reported include people notwearing PPE, drunken workers, community conflicts,
etc.
Ensure all restoration workers are fully equipment withthe correct PPE prior to any restoration work may
commence.
Whenever rangers observe livestock thieves or peoplesuspected of planning these activities they must alert
the police and local community livestock committee,
which will mobilize members of the community toconfront the thieves. The Eco-rangers should not
directly engage with the thieves who should beconsidered as being armed and dangerous.
Collaboration with SANParks and authorities.
Introduction of alternative, sustainable livelihoods todiscourage poaching activities.
Do not engage directly with any suspected illegal
poachers.
When budgeting for Eco-rangers working in high-riskareas the programs should budget to have theindividuals vaccinated against rabies.
Don’t make direct eye contact but shout at the animal
look threatening and confident.
Keep a safe distance from the wildlife and do not
engage it and walk away from it and report sighting toteam members
Stay in the vehicle if you suspect wildlife in close
proximity.
Should you be bitten follow the emergency response
guidelines and contact emergency services.

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Health-Malaria
Typhoid••

2.4

Take malaria precautions such as wearing long
sleeves, insect repellent, and using mosquito nets.
Avoid Typhoid using the following precautions;o Drink bottled water (preferably carbonated)o If bottled water cannot be sourced, ensure
water is heated on a rolling boil for at least one
minute before consuming or is form a cleansource.
o Ensure fresh fruit and vegetables are cleaned
in clean water.

Management Capacity

2.4.1 Required Technical Skills (G4.2)
CSA, being the project proponent, will lead the implementation of proposed project activities incollaboration with the local communities and other partner organizations when deemed appropriate anduseful. This includes those partners listed in Section 2.1.4 but also includes a range of othercollaborators. CSA has the required human resources with expertise in ecosystem restoration,
stakeholder engagement, training facilitation, wildlife conservation as well as the management capacity to
implement large-scale conservation and carbon projects.
Through the herding for health program, CSA’s Eco-trainers who are trained in regenerative land
management will support the communities of livestock farmers with the development of grazing plans andin building up sufficient local capacities for sustainable rangeland management via selected herders andEco-rangers. Eco-trainers also receive accredited training at the SA college for Tourism Herding
Academy.
The social enterprise Meat Naturally Pty Ltd brings experience and expertise in livestock management
and livestock markets. They will be responsible for providing a suite of livestock management benefits(vaccination, planned grazing equipment, and herder training) to the participating farmers as part of theConservation Agreement Approach.
Consulting organization Unique land use GmbH guides in preparation of this document and theapplication of the methodology to the project area. Unique land use GmbH brings 20 years of experiencein developing nature-based climate solutions around the world. Capabilities for carbon monitoring will bebuilt up among CSA Eco-trainers as well as setting up project monitoring and reporting systems.
Monitoring of biodiversity benefits is being conducted by Sustineri Ecological Consulting (Pty) Ltd withtechnical expertise in Ecological Science. The specialist team is led by Graeme Wolfaard who is a
Professional Natural Scientist in Ecological Science (SACNASP No. 117179), and an active partner ofInternational Conservation Services CC. Graeme has experience undertaking veld conditionassessments, terrestrial ecological assessments for EIAs and developing management plans for gamereserves and communal rangelands.
2.4.2 Management Team Experience (G4.2)
The project management team comprises individuals who have significant experiences in AFOLU
projects development. Additionally, Conservation International has been involved in numerous carbon
projects from inception, design, implementation to validation and several verification rounds. Hence, they
have developed the capacity to design this AFOLU project, account for climate mitigation impacts, andreport and participate in validation and verification under the VCS program.

32
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Key Staff in the Kruger to Canyons Landscape:Michael Grover
Michael Grover holds an BSc Honor in GIS and Spatial Mapping and as the landscape director has been
the driving force of the Kruger to Canyons Landscape since its implementation in 2016. He works closelywith the field teams in all aspects of operations, from financial management to conservation agreement
facilitations. Michael has extensive experience in ecology with a strong focus on landscape and business
management.
Hardie van Tonder
Hardie is the Rangeland Restoration Manager, he holds a BS Honours in Wildlife Management and has
also attended the land management course for executives at the Herding Academy, South Africa. He has
9 years’ experience working as a wildlife manager and a facilitator.
Lerato Mogane
Lerato holds a BSc. Geography and Environmental Sciences. She started her career working under aLearnership program run by the South African Wildlife College and Thaba-Chweu Municipality from 2013
to 2015 focusing on environmental education and waste management. From there she joined the
Association of Water and Rural Development (AWARD) as a project officer under the RESILIM-O
program. In 2018 Lerato joined CSA as a Stewardship Coordinator in the K2C landscape and has been
the key facilitator for conservation agreements.
Natasha Reynolds
Natasha Reynolds has been working in the Kruger to Canyons project since 2020 as a Monitoring and
Evaluation Co-ordinator. She holds a BA Honours degree in in Environmental Management and has beenworking in the environmental field for the past 8 years, some of her key roles include project
management, Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental compliance.
Moses Mathabela
Moses has a number of certificates to support his role as community liaison officer namely Diploma in
Youth Development University of South Africa; Senior Teachers Diploma; Conflict management incommunity. He has been working as the community liaison officer for CSA since prior to that he has
worked for Sabi Sands on the Pfunanani Enterprise Development as Community Liaison Officer, otherexperience includes working with women and youth on medical awareness programmes.

Agnes Rapau
Agnes holds numerous certificates including: Advanced Diploma in computer literacy; Assessor
Moderator (Oxbridge Academy); Small Business enrichment Programme (UJ); Mentoring programme asa Mentor (Reach Africa); Project Management (IQ Academy); Tourism and Hospitality Management(IQ
Academy). She worked at Small Enterprise Foundation (SEF) as a branch Manager from 1996-2008,
thereafter she worked as the regional manager at Women Development Business until 2013. She gained
business development experience working with Hand in hand as Enterprise Development Manager until
2014. In 2015 she joined Pfunanani Enterprise Development Project (Buffelshoek Trust) as an Enterprise
Development Manager and then Joined CSA in March 2017 as Enterprise Development Coordinator andis currently coordinating the development of Green Businesses for the Kruger to Canyons landscape. She
is also a lead facilitator for establishing governance structures and formal business registration with
communities.
Nomusa Mashile
Nomusa holds a BSc Agric (Animal Science) and MSc Agric (Animal Production &Ecology). She did herinternship at Agricultural Research Council under Animal Production (2011-2012). Worked at Red Farms
AgriPark (2014-2017) as the deputy director for Specialized Animal Production. Thereafter she worked forMeat Naturally Pty (2017-2023) as the Farmer Outreach and Mobile Abattoir Project Coordinator.
Currently she is working for Conservation South Africa as the Stewardship Incentive Manager.

33
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Stanley Mathebula
Stanley is one of the senior Eco-trainers working on the Kruger to Canyons project. He initially started
working in the landscape under the Herding for Health programme, which dates to 2016. Since then, he
has been promoted to the monitoring officer and has received formal training on Herd Management form
the Herding Academy South Africa. He has extensive experience with indigenous knowledge of
pastoralism and working with communities on grazing plans as well as monitoring rangelands.
National supporting staff:
Leon-Jacques Theron
Leon is the Carbon Project Development Director for Conservation International, he holds a MSc in
Zoology, and his work focuses on carbon accounting in the land use sector and ensuring that projects
comply with ISO standards and pass third party verification. He has led the verification of VCS and CCB
projects.
Heidi-Jane Hawkins
Heidi is a research fellow at Conservation International (CI), a research associate at the University ofCape Town, and led the action research portfolio at CI in South Africa between 2015 and 2022. Her
doctoral and postdoctoral work explored nutrient and water relations including in specialized roots androot symbioses.
Perushan Rajah
Perushan Rajah has been with CSA for over 4 years, he holds a PhD in Environmental Sciences (Remotesensing) and leads the Conservation Impact Portfolio for the country program. He has a strong
background in spatial science and earth observation which is critical to the way CSA measures, tracks,
and reports on conservation Impact.

2.4.3 Project Management Partnerships/Team Development (G4.2)
CSA has been using CI’s Conservation Stewards Program (CSP) conservation agreements framework to
make conservation a viable choice for local resource users since 2009. The CSP operates through anexisting governance platform, the K2C Biosphere, a public benefit organization that includes the partners
CSA, South African National Biodiversity Institute, South African National Parks, National Research
Foundation, BirdLife South Africa, government, industry, and others. The K2C employs a network ofcommunity based environmental monitors including herd monitors in partnership with CSA, rhino monitors
and the world-renowned Black Mamba all ladies anti-poaching team. Other relevant project management
partnerships are detailed in Sections 2.4.1.
2.4.4 Financial Health of Implementing Organization(s) (G4.3)
The project proponent CSA is a member of the Conservation International network, a non-profit
environmental organization with a presence in 29 countries. CI and CSA receive revenue from adiversified, well-balanced portfolio of donors, including individuals, corporations, foundations,
government, and multi-lateral agencies. In general, this support is evenly distributed between contribution
and grant and contract revenue. The broad diversification of funding sources affords CSA the flexibility tosupport annual operating needs, meet unforeseen short-term needs, and the resources to implement
complex, longer-term programs at scale. In addition, CI is fortunate to receive consistent, ongoing support
from a highly engaged Board of Directors as does CSA.
CSA’s audited financial statements are published in an annual report on their official website14 . Further
details if needed can be made available to the validator.
2.4.5 Avoidance of Corruption and Other Unethical Behavior (G4.3)
Necessary steps have been taken to avoid corruption and other unethical behavior within the project.
These steps among others include:14

2018-19 report here.

34
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
1. Annual declaration of conflict of interests by the project team per CI’s requirements.
2. Mandatory attendance of training on ethics, power dynamics and harassment done annually by
project team.
3. Use of FPIC in engagement of project beneficiaries and partners to ensure inclusivity, fairness,and transparency.
4. Safeguards and Gender Mainstreaming Plan completed by project team to explore and address
any potential challenges in implementation.
5. CSA project team and project beneficiaries made aware of CI Ethics hotline for reporting ofcorrupt practices and unethical behaviour.
6. Compliance to Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998
7. Compliance CI Procurement Policy when sourcing services
CSA is committed to the highest standards in integrity ethics from their staff, directors, vendors andgrantees and CI provides regular training to staff, including CSA, and partners on these policies, ensuresawareness of, understanding of and compliance with these policies. Above-mentioned policy documents
are provided as supporting documents to the validator in the folder ‘CSA Policies and Processes’.
2.4.6 Commercially Sensitive Information (Rules 3.5.13 – 3.5.14)
There is no commercially sensitive information that has been excluded.
2.5

Legal Status and Property Rights

2.5.1 Recognition of Property Rights (G5.1)
The project proponent has signed Conservation Agreements with the grazing associations who have thegrazing rights designated by the Traditional Authorities to implement rangeland restoration activities
following an FPIC process described in the following section. All property rights are fully supported andrespected, and no property rights are transferred or infringed upon by the implementation of rangeland
restoration and associated activities of this project.
2.5.2 Free, Prior and Informed Consent (G5.2)
Any conservation agreement initiative involves a thorough community engagement process and aparticipatory design and negotiation stage that together must embody the principle of Free, Prior andInformed Consent (FPIC)15.
Engagement of Tribal Authorities was first done to introduce CSA and give a detailed overview on theorganization and projects as well as to seek permission and endorsement to engage livestock farmers’
cooperatives, who are one of several groups using the rangeland. Tribal Authorities provide theorganization with a letter to indicate consent. Afterwards, community engagement is commenced byhosting a ‘visioning’ workshop in which the organization seeks to understand the community’s challenges
and determine if they can be addressed through any of the proposed projects. FPIC is obtained verballyduring the engagement and negotiation stage of conservation agreements. Attendance registers are
signed during these engagements to record all parties present.
The Conservation Agreements themselves include declarations that indicate CSA’s recognition of project
beneficiaries' rights as land users and thus does not implement any activities without their consent (seeconsolidated conservation agreement). Project activities are only limited to designated grazing areas, andgrazing plans are designed and implemented with the input of conservation agreement signatories.
Consent letters, attendance registers and Conservation agreements are provided as supporting
documents under the folders “Grazing Plans” and Conservation Agreements”.
2.5.3 Property Right Protection (G5.3)
Project activities are limited to designated grazing areas in project sites and do not involve any removal or
relocation of property. The Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (IPILRA) of 1996 regulates the
15

CI’s FPIC Guidelines here35
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
question of whether the activities or arrangement between the parties is either a (i)“disposal” or (ii) a“deprivation” of the community’s right “to” or right “in” land. If an activity or arrangement amounts to suchdisposal or deprivation, then implementation of the activity would require formal consent from thecommunity. In relation to disposal, IPLRA defines an informal right to land as including “the use of,occupation of, or access to land” and a disposal of the land or a right in the land would, therefore, be adisposal of such rights. In the present instance, the community is not disposing of its rights to use, occupy
or access the land but is entering into Conservation Agreements (effectively, land managementagreements) pertaining to rangeland practices on the land. The CAs themselves emphasize the voluntary
nature of the agreement which in no way infringes on the rights of members regarding the use of land.
Moreover, project activities are implemented directly by the land users. Consent to undertake project
activities are requested from the tribal authority and Farmers Cooperatives (grazing associations) duringconservation agreements negotiation.
2.5.4 Identification of Illegal Activity (G5.4)
Illegal activities which may occur in the project area with a direct impact on the project activities thatthreaten the ecosystem of the rangelands include sand mining, wood harvesting, and illegal dumping ofwaste. Eco-trainers and environmental monitors which are supported by the project are mandated tocapture and report on any of the abovementioned activities. In the instance of these illegal activities, themonitors would highlight areas where these activities have taken place and report the occurrences to the
local leader of the community (Induna). The report is then raised through traditional structures. These
structures are based on indigenous conflict resolution methods, whereby community members aregathered to discuss the issues, and resolve the matters at hand through confronting identified offenders.
In the signed legal Benefit Sharing Agreement between CSA and Traditional Authority, the TA commit insection 6 to supporting CSA to “ensure that the Land is not used in any way which would negatively
impact on the operation of the Project and/or the generation of Carbon Credits.”
Furthermore, the data that is gathered from the monitors form part of the Kruger to Canyons Monitoring
Schema. This provides supporting evidence of illegal activities present in the landscape and enables
supporting conditions for enforcement under the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998.
Within a larger context the Kruger National Park is faced with widespread corruption linked to criminal
syndicates associated with illegal poaching. Unfortunately, corruption at this scale cannot be mitigatedthrough intervention of the project activities and requires a national approach to be addressed. This isthus beyond the sphere of influence of this project.
2.5.5 Ongoing Disputes (G5.5)
The project has implemented activities to resolve any potential disputes over land through continued
stakeholder engagement which establishes a communication channel between different communities. It ispart of the job of an Eco-ranger to mediate between communities. Below are some of the disputes whichhave been identified and/or resolved:• An ongoing three – year long court dispute exists in Dixie, where some farmers want to lease
700ha of communal land to a tourism operation. This is currently being appealed and outcomesremain uncertain. However, the risk of disrupting the project is minimal as the area in question
constitutes only one percent of the total project area.
• The project team had to address fall outs in the community brought about due to opportunities
presented to two communities (Dixie and Utah Villages) in the form of construction of a lodge thatwould be built on a significant portion of their grazing land, and on which planned grazing was
being implemented. The team was invited to attend meetings in which the proposed project was
outlined and were asked to partake in the public participation process of the proposed project by
the Farmer Cooperative committees. The Background Information Document to this proposeddevelopment can be made available to the validator.
• Finally, through the mediation of Eco-rangers, the communities of Utah and Dixie were able toresolve an ongoing quarrel on the use rights of a certain grazing camp. This grazing camp is now
open to both communities and a resolution was achieved. Documented evidence is provided inthe ‘Grievance Tracker Form.xlsx’.

36
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
2.5.6 National and Local Laws (G5.6)
The project activity involving livestock grazing in communal lands is a legal activity. Communal
rangelands are recognized under the Communal Land Rights Act 11 (2004). The customary land tenuresystem in South Africa is currently governed by the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of1996 (IPILRA). Relevant labour laws are discussed in section 2.3.16. In summary, below is a list of lawsthat are applicable to the project. All laws are strictly adhered to.
Law / Regulatory
Framework
National
Environmental
Management Act (No.
107 of 1998)

National
Environmental
Management:
Biodiversity Act (No.
10 of 2004)

National Water Act(No. 36 of 1998)

37
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Summary description

Project Compliance to it

This Act serves as the primary framework forenvironmental management and protectionin the country. It established principles forenvironmental management which include
sustainable development, intergenerational
equity, integration of environmental
considerations into decision-making, and thepolluter pays principle. The Act establishes
the South African National Biodiversity
Institute (SANBI) and the South African
National Parks (SANParks) as statutory
bodies responsible for biodiversity
conservation and protected areas
management, respectively. NEMA requiresthat certain activities likely to have asignificant impact on the environment
undergo an environmental impact
assessment. NEMA provides for theestablishment and management of protectedareas, including national parks, nature
reserves, and protected ecosystems
NEMBA establishes mechanisms for theprotection of ecosystems, species, andgenetic diversity, including the regulation ofinvasive species and the establishment ofprotected areas. It also emphasizes theimportance of public participation,
cooperation with other sectors, and theintegration of biodiversity considerations into
decision-making processes.
The Act establishes a framework for
integrated water resource management,emphasizing the equitable allocation andefficient utilization of water. It promotes theparticipation of stakeholders, including
communities and water users, in decisionmaking processes. The NWA alsoestablishes a system of water resourceclassification, licensing, and monitoring toensure the sustainable development andprotection of water resources. It addresses
issues such as water pollution, water
conservation, and water infrastructuredevelopment.

The improved grazing andrangeland restoration activitiesof the project support theresilience of protected areas
and their buffer zones. The
project works together withSANParks and otherauthorities to achievesustainable management of
the rangeland ecosystem inthe project area.

The project includes
biodiversity considerations into
its design process andcontributes to net-positive
biodiversity impacts.

The projects rangeland
restoration activities contributetowards the policy’s key targetof conserving natural water
resources.

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
National Veld andForest Fire Act (No.
101 of 1998)

Communal Land
Rights Act (No. 11 of
2004)

Animal Protection Act(No. 71 of 1962)

Carbon Tax Act (No.
15 of 2019)

Upgrading of Land
Tenure Rights Act(ULTRA; No. 112 of
1991)
38
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

This legislation is aimed at preventing andmanaging veld and forest fires. The Act
establishes measures for fire management,
including fire prevention, suppression, andcontrol. It promotes the development of fire
protection associations and encourages
cooperation between landowners,
government authorities, and communities infire management efforts. The NVFFA
empowers designated officers to enforce fire
safety regulations and issue permits forcontrolled burning. It also outlines penalties
for non-compliance and provides aframework for the investigation of fireincidents.
The Act aims to address historical injustices
by providing legal recognition to customaryland tenure systems and promoting equitable
access to and ownership of communal land.
It establishes mechanisms for theregistration and administration of communal
land rights, ensuring communities havesecure tenure and control over their land.
The CLRA also emphasizes the participationand decision-making rights of community
members in land-related matters andencourages sustainable land management
practices.
The Act sets out various provisions toprevent cruelty and ensure the well-being ofanimals. It prohibits acts of cruelty towards
animals, including unnecessary suffering,abandonment, and neglect. The APA also
regulates the transportation, sale, andslaughter of animals, ensuring that these
activities are conducted in a humane andethical manner. It empowers inspectors to
enforce animal welfare standards and takelegal action against offenders.
The Act imposes a tax on the carbon dioxide
equivalent emissions produced by certain
activities and sectors, including fossil fuelcombustion, industrial processes, and waste
management. The tax is designed toincentivize businesses and industries toreduce their carbon emissions and transition
towards cleaner and more sustainable
practices. The revenue generated from thecarbon tax is utilized to support government
initiatives aimed at mitigating climate change
impacts and promoting the transition to a
low-carbon economy.
The Act seeks to address historical injustices
and promote land reform by granting certain
rights and protections to occupiers of land.
ULTRA establishes mechanisms for the

The project excludes the useof fire/burning as amanagement strategy.

The project acknowledges
communal land rights andintegrates traditional structures
for land management anddecision-making processes

The project supports improved
livestock management
practices and educatescommunities about wildlife
conservation with the aim to
reduce threats to endangered
wildlife

N/AVM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Basic conditions of
Employment Act(BCEA; No. 75 of
1997)

Labour Relations Act(LRA; No. 24 of 1956)

Employment Equity
Act (No. 55 of 1998)

Occupational Healthand Safety Act (No. 85
of 1993)

39
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

upgrading of land tenure rights, including theconversion of insecure rights into formal
ownership or leasehold arrangements. It
provides for the establishment of Land
Rights Boards to oversee the process of
upgrading and resolve disputes related toland tenure.
The Act sets out minimum standards forworking hours, leave entitlements,
remuneration, and other essential
employment conditions. It ensures that
employees are protected from unfair labor
practices and discrimination. The BCEA
establishes regulations for issues such as
overtime, night work, annual leave, sickleave, maternity leave, and termination of
employment. It also guarantees employees'
rights to fair labor practices, including theright to form and join trade unions andengage in collective bargaining.
LRA sets out provisions for collective
bargaining, dispute resolution, and the rights
of workers to organize and engage inprotected industrial action. It establishes
mechanisms for the registration andregulation of trade unions and employer
organizations. The LRA prohibits unfair labor
practices, such as unfair dismissals anddiscrimination in the workplace. It also
provides for the establishment of theCommission for Conciliation, Mediation, andArbitration (CCMA) as a central institution for
dispute resolution.
This legislation seeks to address historical
disadvantages and promote diversity andinclusion. It requires designated employers
to implement affirmative action measures toensure equitable representation ofdesignated groups, such as Black people,
women, and people with disabilities, at alllevels of employment. The EEA prohibits
unfair discrimination in employment
practices, including recruitment, promotion,and remuneration, based on factors such as
race, gender, and disability. The Act alsoestablishes mechanisms for monitoring andreporting on employment equity progress.
The Employment Equity Act plays a vital rolein fostering a more inclusive and equitable
workforce in South Africa, promoting equal
opportunities, and addressing systemic
discrimination.
The Act sets out comprehensive regulations
and standards to protect employees fromwork-related hazards and promote a safe
working environment. It places

All staff employed by the
project are compensatedabove the national minimum
wage and adhere to
regulations on working hours.

The project incorporates fairlabour practices and does not
restrict participation of workers
in trade unions.

The project is committed to thefair treatment and equal
opportunity for all community
members and employees. Thisis ensured through CSA’s codeof ethics as well as policies
towards Harassment andWorkplace violence andGender Policies which arestrictly complied to. These
policies are available under theattached ‘CSA internal policies
and processes’ folder.

The measures taken to ensure
Occupational Health and
Safety are described in section
2.3.16 below.

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Local Government
Municipal Systems Act(No. 32 of 2000)

Interim Protection ofInformal Land Rights
Act (No. 31 of 1996)

Local Government:
Municipal FinanceManagement Act (No.
56 of 2003)

40
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

responsibilities on employers to provide asafe workplace, conduct risk assessments,
implement safety measures, and provide
training and protective equipment toemployees. The OHSA also establishes
mechanisms for employee participation,such as health and safety committees, toensure collaboration and communication on
health and safety matters.
This Act aims to establish a framework for
efficient, transparent, and accountable local
governance. It sets out provisions for theestablishment and functioning ofmunicipalities, including their organizational
structures, financial management, andservice delivery obligations. The MSA
promotes public participation in decisionmaking processes and emphasizes theimportance of community involvement inlocal government affairs. It also outlines
mechanisms for the oversight andintervention by national and provincial
government in cases of non-compliance ordysfunctional municipalities.
The Act recognizes and provides temporary
legal protection to those who have occupied
and used land without formal ownershiprights. It seeks to prevent forced evictions
and provides a legal framework fornegotiation, mediation, and resolution of
disputes related to informal land rights. The
IPILRA establishes the Interim Protection ofInformal Land Rights Board to oversee andadjudicate matters concerning informal land
rights. This Act plays a crucial role insafeguarding the rights and interests ofindividuals and communities who havehistorically occupied land informally,
providing them with temporary legal
protection and promoting land tenure
security.
Act No. 56 of 2003 is a legislation thatgoverns the financial management andaccountability of local government
municipalities. The Act aims to ensure
prudent and transparent financial practices,
promote sound financial governance, andenhance service delivery at the local level. It
sets out regulations for budgeting,procurement, financial reporting, andauditing within municipalities. The MFMA
establishes financial management standards
and requirements for municipalities,
including the preparation and approval ofannual budgets, the management of revenue
and expenditure, and the prevention of

The project recognizes andrespects informal rights anddoes not deprive or dispose
any party of rights to use,
occupy or access the land

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
financial mismanagement and irregularities.
The Act also establishes mechanisms foroversight and intervention by national andprovincial government in cases of financial
distress or mismanagement withinmunicipalities.
3

CLIMATE

3.1

Monitoring GHG Emission Reductions and Removals

3.1.1

Data and Parameters Available at Validation

Project Design
Per the VCS VM0032 methodology, the following data and parameters will be presented at validation:(1) Maps of the project area, indicating all land parcels included in the project, as indicated inaccompanying shape files with vector coordinates of project and stratum boundaries.
(2) Maps, with accompanying georeferenced shape files, of the locations of the permanent
sampling stations overlaid on a map of project strata.
(3) Results of analysis to determine the number of sampling units and their allocation among
strata.
(4) Results of cluster analysis to determine project strata.
(5) Table of all project strata, their description, and area, PAm(6) Legal statements of the usage rights of conservancy members to graze livestock and benefit
from carbon sales, and governmental permissions for conducting the project.
(7) Justification of planned rotational grazing practices.
(8) Justification of methane as the major emission source and methane and soil carbon as the
major sink for carbon dioxide in the project.

Data / Parameter

PAm,gData unitha

Description

Project area in stratum m

Source of data

Measured in project area

Value applied

Total project area of first instances is 6,432 ha.

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

This is only the project area of the first project instances Utah,
Dixie, and Welverdiend, which all are in the “lowveld stratum”.
New project instances will join the project over time, so no final
value can yet be fixed here. It is estimated to be ca. 80,300 ha.
Area data will come from shape files in a GIS.

41
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Purpose of data

Calculation of project and baseline emissions
Computation of project soil carbon removals

Comments

Data Unit / Parameter

GWPCH4

Data unit

tCO2e/t CH4

Description

Global-warming potential (GWP) for CH4

Source of data

100-year GWPCH4 without climate change feedback obtained
from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report

Value applied

28

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

Recent and common value, not substantially different thanvalue of IPCC 6th Assessment report (27.2)

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions
Calculation of project emissions

Comment

Baseline Methane Emissions

Data / Parameter

Wc,tData unitkg

Description

Average body weight for animals of category c in year t

Source of data

•
•
•
•

Estimated from measurements in project area combined with expert
estimates
Average weights
based on IPCC 2006
(Table 10 A2)
Cattle classes
(kg)
400
Bulls
400
Oxen (castrated bulls)
350
Cows
240
Tollies (young bulls)•

Heifers (pre-reproductive females)

240

•
•

Male calves
Female calves

100
100

Value applied42
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4••

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Justification of choice ofdata or description of
measurement methods andprocedures applied

Necessary to estimate emission factor for grazing animals using
allometric equations. Measurements must be taken in accordance withthe procedures described in Section 9.1.2 of the VM0032 Methodology.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions
Calculation of project emissions

Comments

43
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Data / Parameter

Nc,iData unit

NumberDescription

Baseline number of animals of category c in census i

Source of data

Measured in project area by State Veterinary Services

Value applied

See Table 5 and calculation sheet “Project methane emissions
calculation and uncertainty”
The number of animals in each census i are measured to calculate
the harmonic mean of the multiple counts i of n censuses ofanimals in category c. The methodology requires at least fourmeasurements within the baseline period, with at least two during
the period 5-10 years prior to the project start.

Justification of choice ofdata or description of
measurement methods andprocedures applied

However, data were not available for the entirety of the required
10-year baseline period, and, therefore, a methodologicaldeviation was taken. Cattle numbers of the baseline are wellrecorded in a yearly count by State Veterinary Services as of2015. To estimate the harmonic mean of the cattle numbers ineach category c, a dataset was used that covered each year in the
period 2015-2018. Though it does not cover the entire 10-yearbaseline period, this is the most accurate dataset available, and,
therefore better represents baseline conditions than any othermeans proposed in the methodology. Animal numbers are likely tohave declined in recent years due to degradation of grasslands.
Thus, by not accounting the full 10-year period, the baseline
estimate of methane emissions of cattle is rather underestimating.
Cattle numbers are counted at the end of January each year by
the State Veterinary Services. The years 2015 to 2018 represent
the baseline. Measurements must be taken in accordance with theprocedures described in Section 9.1.2. of the VM0032
Methodology.
Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions

Comments

This document provides in Table 5 historical estimates fornumber of grazing animals, BNc, for each year in which counts or
estimates are available. The breed is national and homogenous.
Sex and age plus the respective live body weights (Wc) of eachcategory, with 95% CI and uncertainties are provided.
The project description also provides a data table showing
calculations of methane emissions based on the equations in

44
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
VM0032 for each animal category for each year the data are
available. The table includes calculated total emissions
for that year and a cell containing the harmonic mean of total
annual calculated methane emissions. This is the baseline BEM.
The harmonic mean appropriately and conservatively weights theaverage methane emissions towards the lower values of a timeseries of measurements. The table also shows the uncertainty indaily methane emissions and the harmonic mean and its
uncertainty.

Parameters for Baseline Calculation of Emissions from Burning of Biomass
The project does not plan to increase fire intensity. Therefore, the data/parameters within VM0032 formonitoring burning of biomass are not applicable.

Parameters for Calculation of Baseline SOC
Data / Parameter

DEPTHm,j,0

Data unitcm

Description

Soil core depth at station j in stratum m at time t = 0 (ie, atthe start of the project or since the last verification)

Source of data

Measured in project area

Value applied

20

Justification of choice of data or
description of measurement
methods and procedures appliedAt each sampling station j, according to standard methods,
soil is taken from four (4) soil cores to a depth that reflects
depth to the general hardpan and until deeper auger
measurements were not possible. The four sub-sample cores
were well-mixed into a single composite sample for analysis.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions

Comments

Data / Parameter

SOC%j,m,0

Data unit

Dimensionless proportion expressed as a percent

Description

Proportion soil organic carbon at station j in stratum m at time
t = 0 (i.e., at the start of the project or since the lastverification)
Measured in project area

Source of data

45
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Value applied

Shown for each station

Justification of choice of data or The baseline for the measured offset approach is based on
description of measurement
increasing SOC. Tracked at the level of j = 1 to zm individual
methods and procedures applied sampling stations in each stratum because offset will bebased on demonstrating changes in SOC at individual
stations and then summing increments. At each samplingstation j, according to standard methods, measurements asabove were applied. Organic carbon concentrations were
measured in an appropriate academic laboratory that usedeither chemical combustion or the Walkley-Black method.
Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions

Comments

Data / Parameter

BULKm,j,0

Data unit

g/cm3

Description

Bulk density at station j in stratum m at time t = 0 (i.e., at
the start of the project or since the last verification)

Source of data

Measured in project area

Justification of choice of data or
description of measurement
methods and procedures appliedAt each sampling station j, according to standard methods,
soil was taken from at least 4 soil cores to the depth thatreflects the depth to hardpans. A volumetric ring with known
volumes of soil was used. Cores were sieved to remove
rocks, pebbles, and coarse fragments. The remainder wasdried (5 days at 45°C or equivalent) and weighed todetermine bulk density.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions

Comments

Parameters for Soil Carbon Models

Data / Parameter

MAPm

Data unit

mm/yr

Description

Mean annual precipitation in stratum m

Source of data

ERA 5 climate dataset

46
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Value applied

604.6

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

A key variable that affects a number of processes driving
SOC. ERA 5 gave the best value accounting for local
differences.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions

Comments

Five-year averages used (2013 – 2017)

Data / Parameter

MAT

Data unit°C

Description

Mean annual temperature over the project area

Source of data

ERA 5 climate dataset

Value applied

20.9

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

A key variable that affects a number of processes driving
SOC, especially microbial respiration. ERA 5 gave the bestvalue accounting for local differences.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions

Comments

Five-year averages used (2013 – 2017)

Data / ParameternData unit
Description

Number of pastures per village

Source of data

Measured in project area

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

A key input variable that influences the grazing intensity during
grazing events

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions

47
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Comments

Data / Parameter

SAND%j,m

Data unit

Dimensionless proportion, expressed as percent

Description

Proportion of soil that is sand, silt, and or clay at station jin stratum m

Equations

Model input

Value applied

Individual values for each sampling station

Source of data

Measured in project area

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

Soil collected to desired depth at each sampling station must
be mixed, and subsample analyzed for clay, silt, and sandfractions in a professional laboratory. Some models require
percent sand, some percent clay and some percent of all threeparticleclasses, sand, silt, andclay.
Calculation of baseline emissions

Purpose of data
Comments

Data / Parameterw

Data unitkg

Description

Average animal body size (live weight) as an input to the
SNAPGRAZE model
Estimated average based on diptank inspections & market
value assessment crosschecked with the IPCC default values
as used above
320

Source of data

Value applied

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

Average animal body size determines the biomass
consumption rate in the model.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline soil carbon emissions through
SNAPGRAZE

Comments

Data / Parameter

Livestock density

Data unit

Number/ha

48
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Description

Cattle density in the project area and at every sampling station

Source of data

Measured in project area by State Veterinary Services andestimated based on cattle movements for each samplingstations
Individual at each sampling station,
average = 0.6

Value applied

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

Livestock density is an important input variable for the
SNAPGRAZE model as it determines the grazing intensity
when a camp is open for cattle

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline and project emissions through
SNAPGRAZEClassification for each sampling station based on grazing
history/ frequency of herd movements. Will remain a fixedvalue for each sampling station as long as there is no
substantial change in the cattle herd numbers.

Comments

Data / Parameter

FIRE

Data unit

Number/year

Description

Average number of fires per year

Source of data
Value applied

MCD64A1 v061 MODIS/Terra+Aqua Burned Area Monthly L3
Global 500 m SIN Grid
0.055

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

A variable that influences the aboveground grass biomass
that is lost due to fire during the dormant season. QC: In
field surveillance and of fires and their intensity.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions through SNAPGRAZE

Comments

The model accounts for fires in the calculation of plant derived
SOC inputs and multiplies the aboveground biomass with (1FIRE), thus assumes that during a fire event all abovegroundbiomass is burnt. Although there were fires in the project areain the 10 years prior to the project, on no occasion thecomplete project area burnt. Therefore our fire analysis was
not only focused on the number of fires but also their intensityand extent.

Data / Parameter

Gdays

Data unit

days

Description

Total number of days in the growing season

Source of data

NDVI analysis of plant growth49
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Value applied

212

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

A key input variable that influences the plant abovegroundand belowground productivity.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions through SNAPGRAZE

Comments

Long-term average

Data / Parameter

Edays

Data unit

days

Description
Source of data

Number of days within the growing season prior to grazing
episodeCamp management plans

Value applied

31

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

Input for the SNAPGRAZE soil carbon model. Because
there is a management plan with a bi-annual cycle ofopening and closing camps, a 2-year average is applied. For
conservativeness, the average was reduced by 20 days toaccount for potential non-compliance.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions through SNAPGRAZE

Comments

2-year average describing the baseline

Data / Parameter

Ddays

Data unit

days

Description

Number of days of grazing episode

Source of dataCamp management plans

Value applied

181

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

Input for the SNAPGRAZE soil carbon model. Because
there is a management plan with a bi-annual cycle ofopening and closing camps, a 2-year average is applied. For
conservativeness, the average was reduced by 20 days toaccount for potential non-compliance.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions through SNAPGRAZE

Comments

2-year average describing the baseline

Data / Parameter

Fdays

50
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Data unit

days

Description
Source of data

Number of days left in the growing season after the grazing
episodeCamp management plans

Value applied

0

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

Input for the SNAPGRAZE soil carbon model. Because
there is a management plan with a bi-annual cycle ofopening and closing camps, a 2-year average is applied. For
conservativeness, the average was reduced by 20 days toaccount for potential non-compliance.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions through SNAPGRAZE

Comments

2-year average describing the baseline

Data / Parameter

APCcorrection factor

Data unit
Description

A correction factor that is applied to the model when forage isdominated by annuals instead of perennials

Source of data

Measured in project area during vegetation assessments

Value applied

1

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

An input variable that determines belowground andaboveground productivity. If annuals dominate, then a value of
0.291 is applied. If not, then the default value is 1.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions through SNAPGRAZE

Comments

Data / Parameter

LIGCELL

Data unit

Dimensionless proportion

Description

Mean aboveground plant cellulose plus lignin at sampling
plot j in stratum m

Equations

Model input

Source of data

Measured in project area

Value applied

Individual value for each sampling station

51
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Justification of choice of data or
description of measurement
methods and procedures applied

SOC is often closely related to inputs of these forms ofcarbon because they resist microbial decomposition.
Lignin and cellulose were measured as acid digestible
fibre as per Richie (2014), using the Ankom commercial
digestion products and process. Samples were taken
form 67 sites in Welverdiend, Dixie and Utah, whereby
clippings of the three dominant species were dried,weighed, and then subjected to a sulfuric acid hydrolysis
method, as per the Ankom Technology Corp commercial
digestion products.
The lignin and cellulose data were captured in the K2C
Carbon LIGCELL_measured11112021 dataset andstored in the MEL Database.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions

Comments

Data / Parameter

MSOCm,j,b

Data unittC/ha

Description

Modeled SOC at station j in stratum m for each year b
during the baseline period

Source of data

SOC model

Value applied

Individual value for each sampling station

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

The SNAPGRAZE model applied meets the modelingrequirements described in Section 8.1.3.4 of VM0032 asshown above
Calculation of baseline emissions

Comments

Grazing intensity GIj,m is not required by SNAPGRAZE.
PSOCeqm,j (Project modeled equilibrium SOC at station j in stratum m (tC/ha) based onparameter values from zm sampling stations in stratum m) is not a value that can be produced at
validation and will be demonstrated in the first monitoring report.
D (Years required to achieve equilibrium) is not required by SNAPGRAZE.
Parameters for Removals from Woody Plant Biomass
Woody plant biomass removals are conservatively assumed to be de minimis and, therefore, are notapplicable to this project.

52
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

3.1.2

Data and Parameters Monitored

Data / Parameter

PAm,tData unitha

Description

Project area in stratum m in year t

Source of data

Measured in project area

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedUsing shapefiles in a GIS or from known coordinates of stratumboundaries or from legal descriptions of the property included in
the project area.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

AnnualValue monitored

6,432

Monitoring equipment

None

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedArea has been determined from accurate GIS layers of classified
project area using Google Earth. The results have beencrosschecked with the help of farmers in the respective
communities.

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Calculation method

Measured directly

Comments

This value reflects the total area of the first project instances Utah,
Dixie, and Welverdiend. Total project area is supposed to increase
to around 80,300 ha.

Project Animal Methane Emissions
Data / Parameter

PNc,tData unit

NumberDescription

Arithmetic mean number of animals of category c in the project
area during year t

53
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Source of data

Measured in project area via State Veterinary Services of South
Africa combined with support of Eco-rangers present during
counting events at the dip tanks.

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedMonitoring values are measured as total cattle numbers inJanuary of the respective year. Based on the estimated cattle
structure, this total cattle herd is then subdivided into
subcategories of adult and juveniles. The arithmetic mean numberof animals in each category over the verification period is thencalculated and presented in Table 9.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

AnnualValue monitored

Year

WelverdiendB
775

Uthla A

Dixie

2019

Welverdiend
A
1721

875

232

2020
2021

1887
2219

860
955

961
970

240
254

Monitoring equipment

Pen and paper

QA/QC procedures to be
applied

Reviews of records of livestock numbers, interviews with grazing
managers, coordinators, herders, or other administrative staff.
Records to be kept as paper and electronic copies.

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Calculation method

Total herd measured annually and then subdivided into
categories/classes according to the following estimated herd
structure:••

Cattle classes

•
•
•
•

Bulls
Oxen (castrated bulls)
Cows
Tollies (young bulls)

10
25
25
10

Averageweights basedon IPCC 2006
(Table 10 A2)
(kg)
400
400
350
240

•

Heifers (pre-reproductive
females)

10

240

•
•

Male calves
Female calves

10
10

100
100

•

Proportion ofherd (%)

Annual arithmetic mean for each cattle class or category is thencalculated over the monitoring period (3 years).

54
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Comments

Project Emissions from Burning of Biomass
Emissions from burning biomass are expected to be de minimis because fire events are rather reduced
due to project activities. The parameters are therefore not applicable for monitoring.

Parameters for Calculating SOC Removals
After crediting periods long enough to detect changes in SOC at sampling stations, e.g., 5-7 years, thesoil organic carbon SOCm,j,Z will be re-measured in order to re-validate and recalibrate the SNAPGRAZE
soil carbon model.

Data / Parameter

DEPTHm,j,t

Data unitcm

Description

Soil core depth at station j in stratum m at time t = 0 (ie, at thestart of the project or since the last verification)

Source of data

Measured at sampling stations

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedSoil will be taken from at least four three soil cores (with 10 coresat each site recommended to reduce uncertainty) at each station j
to a depth that accounts for the vast majority (> 80 percent) of
SOC in the soil column, reflects depth to hardpans or bedrock, ormatches calculations from soil carbon models. Multiple cores may
be well-mixed into a single composite sample for analysis.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

For modeled approach, after a desired monitoring period for recalibrating the chosen soil carbon model on the basis of its ability
to predict changes in soil carbon during the monitoring period.

Value applied

20

Monitoring equipment

Measuring tape

QA/QC procedures to be
applied

Depth cored must be the same as for baseline soil carbon
sampling. However, the depth used in calculating SOC after Y
years of project activities must be adjusted to account for changes
in bulk density such that DEPTHm,j,Y x BULKm,j,Y = DEPTHm,j,0 x
BULKm,j,0 . This ensures that equal masses of soil are compared
between year 0 and year Y

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

55
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Calculation method

MeasuredComments

Data / Parameter

SOC%m,j,t

Data unit

Dimensionless proportion expressed as a percent

Description

Proportion soil organic carbon at station j in stratum m at time t

Source of data

Measured in project area

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedSoil will be taken from at least three soil cores (with 10 cores at
each site recommended to reduce uncertainty) at each station j toa depth that accounts for the vast majority (> 80 percent) of SOC
in the soil column, reflects depth to hardpans or bedrock, ormatches calculations from soil carbon models. Multiple cores may
be well-mixed into a single composite sample for analysis. The
organic carbon concentrations will be measured in appropriate
academic or industrial laboratories with chemical automated,calibrated analytical machines or with project-area calibrated infrared IR spectrometers.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

At the end of the monitoring period for measured approachprojects, or, for modeled approach, after a desired monitoring
period for re-validating the chosen soil carbon model on the basisof its ability to predict changes in soil carbon during the monitoring
period. This is expected to be every 7 years.

Value monitored

Not measured in this monitoring period. Will vary with location

Monitoring equipment

Equipment for taking soil cores (augers, metal pipes, etc.) and lab
equipment for doing loss on ignition (drying ovens, furnaces) or
autoanalyzer for estimating carbon loss on combustion, or
spectrophotometers for measuring infrared light reflectance.

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedThe organic carbon concentrations will be measured inappropriate academic or industrial laboratories with chemical
automated, calibrated analytical machines or with project-area
calibrated infra-red IR spectrometers. IR methods in casenecessary will be calibrated by regression, with R2 > 0.90, of IR
measurement with measurement by chemical or combustion
methods. Graphs of regression of IR versus combustion or
chemical methods must be shown. There must be no significant
bias (i.e., slope of 95% CI must include 1). The intercept of the
95% CI must include 0, which will ensure that MBIAS, following

56
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
equation (5) of the VM0032 Methodology is between -10% and+10%. If an IR spectrometer is to be used, the project proponent
must show all calibration data in a table with spectral emissions
and measurements of soils or plants and graphs showing theregressions of spectral data against measurements.
Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Calculation method

MeasuredComments

Data / Parameter

BULKm,j, t

Data unit

g/cm3

Description

Bulk density in stratum m, station j, year t

Source of data

Measured in project area

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedNecessary to convert proportion of SOC in soil to mass of
SOC/volume following changes in SOC, after Z crediting years 5-7
crediting years.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

At the end of the monitoring period for measured approachprojects, or, for modeled approach, after a desired monitoring
period for re-validating the chosen soil carbon model on the basisof its ability to predict changes in soil carbon during the monitoring
period. This is expected to be every 7 years.

Value monitored

Not measured in this monitoring period. Will vary by location

Monitoring equipment

Metal pipe of known volume, sledge hammer, metal plate toprevent soil from leaking, drying oven, sieve (2mm mesh). Heavy
duty plastic bags, graduated cylinder.

57
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Soil will be taken from at least three soil cores (with 10 cores at
each site recommended to reduce uncertainty) at each station j toa depth that accounts for the vast majority (> 80 percent) of SOC
in the soil column, reflects depth to hardpans or bedrock, ormatches calculations from soil carbon models. Multiple cores may
be well-mixed into a single composite sample for analysis. Known
volumes of soil from the cores must be sieved to remove rocks,
pebbles, and coarse fragments, and then the remainder dried (5days at 45oC or equivalent) and weighed to determine bulk
density.

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
QA/QC procedures to be
appliedA consistent system of soil storage to prevent loss of mass prior toweighing, accurate estimation of rock volume, paper and digitalarchiving, corroboration with literature values

Purpose of data

Calculation of project removals

Calculation method

MeasuredComments

Parameters for Project Soil Carbon Models
Data / Parameter

MAPm,Y

Data unit

mm/yr

Description

Mean annual precipitation in stratum m over the project crediting
period Y years.

Source of data

Precipitation maps or nearby weather stations or ERA 5 climate
datasetDescription of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied

A key variable that affects a number of processes driving SOC

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Annually if obtained from government sources or local weather
stations, daily if collected on the project area

Value applied

604.6

Monitoring equipment

None

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedData should be obtained from government sources or local official
weather stations or datasets combining these.

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

Data / Parameter

MAT

Data unit°C

Description

Mean annual temperature over the project area

58
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Source of data

ERA 5 climate dataset

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied

A key variable that affects a number of processes driving SOC

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Annually if obtained from government sources or local weather
stations, daily if collected on the project area

Value applied

20.9

Monitoring equipment

None

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedData should be obtained from government sources or local official
weather stations or datasets combining these.

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

Data / Parameter

FIRE

Data unit

n/yearDescription

Average number of fires per year

Source of data

MCD64A1 v061 MODIS/Terra+Aqua Burned Area Monthly L3
Global 500 m SIN Grid

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied

A variable that influences the aboveground grass biomass that islost due to fire during the dormant season.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Annually

Value applied

0.055

Monitoring equipment

None

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedIn field surveillance of fires and their intensity

Purpose of data

Input for the SNAPGRAZE soil carbon model for the calculation ofproject emissions

59
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Comments

Although fire frequency is sought to be reduced compared to theperiod of 2008 – 2017 the baseline value is applied forconservativeness.

Data / Parameter

SAND

Data unit%

Description

Sand content as percent at a sampling station

Source of data

Measured at the sampling stations

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied

A key variable that affects a number of processes driving SOC

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

At every model validation

Value applied

Not measured in this monitoring period. Will vary by location.

Monitoring equipment

Soil auger; volumetric cylinder

QA/QC procedures tobe applied

Collaboration with academia to ensure quality sampling andanalysis.

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

Data / Parameter

LIGCELL

Data unit

Dimensionless proportion

Description

Lignin and cellulose content of livestock feed for year t

Source of data

Measured at the sampling stations

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied

A key variable that affects a number of processes driving
SOC. Lignin and cellulose were measured as acid digestible
fibre as per Richie (2014), using the Ankom commercial
digestion products and process. Samples were taken form 67
sites in Welverdiend, Dixie and Utah, whereby clippings of thethree dominant species were dried, weighed, and then60
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
subjected to a sulfuric acid hydrolysis method, as per the
Ankom Technology Corp commercial digestion products.

The lignin and cellulose data were captured in the K2C Carbon
LIGCELL_measured11112021 dataset and stored in the MEL
Database.
Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

At every model validation

Value appliedWill vary by location

Monitoring equipment

Knive, sample bags, labelling

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedCollaboration with academia

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

Data / Parameter

Gdays

Data unit

days

Description

Total number of days in the growing season

Source of data

NDVI analysis of plant growth

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied

A key input variable that influences the plant aboveground andbelowground productivity.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

At every model validation

Value applied

212

Monitoring equipment

None

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedReporting by Eco-herders and exchanges during technicalmeetings of CSA.

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

61
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Comments

Data / Parameter

Edays

Data unit

days

Description

Number of days within the growing season prior to grazing
episodeSource of dataCamp management plans

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedInput variable that influences grass biomass accumulation prior toa grazing event

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Annually

Value applied

101.5

Monitoring equipment

None

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedReporting by Eco-herders and exchanges during technicalmeetings of CSA.

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

2-year average

Data / Parameter

Ddays

Data unit

days

Description

Number of days of grazing episode

Source of dataCamp management plans

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedInput variable that determines the biomass removed during a
grazing episode, when a camp is opened for cattle

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Annually

62
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Value applied

110.5

Monitoring equipment

None

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedReporting by Eco-herders and exchanges during technicalmeetings of CSA.

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

2-year average

Data / Parameter

Fdays

Data unit

days

Description

Number of days left in the growing season after the grazing
episodeSource of dataCamp management plans

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedInput variable that influences grass biomass
regrowth/accumulation after a grazing event

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Annually

Value applied

0

Monitoring equipment

None

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedReporting by Eco-herders and exchanges during technicalmeetings of CSA.

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

2-year average

Data / ParameternData unit

63
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Description

Number of pastures per village

Source of data

Measured in project area

Justification of choice ofdata or description of
measurement methods
and procedures applied

A key input variable that influences the grazing intensity during
grazing events

Frequency of monitoring

Annually

Value applied

2

Monitoring equipment

None

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedRechecked by Eco-trainers and CSA technical teamPurpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

A value of 2 gives the most conservative results in the modelling of
project SOC sequestration. Communities decide every year on thenumber of defined pastures. Sometimes more than 2 are defined.

Data / Parameterw

Data unitkg

Description

Average animal body size (live weight)

Source of data

Diptank inspections & market value assessment

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedInput variable that influences grass biomass consumption by thecattleFrequency ofmonitoring/recording

Weekly/Monthly

Value applied

320

Monitoring equipment

None controlled by the project proponent

QA/QC procedures to be
applied64
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

Estimated from measurements in project area combined withexpert estimates

Data / Parameter

Livestock density

Data unit

Number/ha

Description

Cattle density in the project area and at every sampling station

Source of data

Total cattle numbers are measured in project area by State
Veterinary Services. Livestock density at individual samplingstations is then estimated based on cattle movements for eachsampling stations
Unchanged for this monitoring period

Value applied

Justification of choice ofdata or description of
measurement methods andprocedures applied

Individual at each sampling station (recorded in model),average = 0.6
Livestock density is an important input variable for the
SNAPGRAZE model as it determines the grazing intensity
when a camp is open for cattle

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

Classification for each sampling station based on grazing history/
frequency of herd movements. Will remain a fixed value for eachsampling station as long as there is no substantial change in the
cattle herd numbers.

Data / Parameter

APC correction factor

Data unit

Dimensionless

Description

Factor that is applied when grasslands are dominated by annual
grasses

Source of data

Vegetation assessments

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedGrass species identified by experts (e.g., Eco-rangers) during
vegetation assessments

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Yearly65
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Value applied

1

Monitoring equipment

Visual assessment

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedEco-herder training in correct assessment. Checks by supervising
Eco-trainers.

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

0.291 if the project area is dominated by annuals. It is not and the
project seeks to favor perennial grasses. Thus, the default valueof 1 is applied.

GIj,m is not required by SNAPGRAZE.

Parameters for Project Removals from Woody Plant Biomass
Project Removals from woody plant biomass are conservatively excluded and thus monitoring notapplicable.

Parameters for Leakage

Data / Parameter

DNC,xData unit

Head (Number)

Description

Number of livestock (cattle) that were outside the project area(outside the fence defining the community boundary of the projectarea)

Source of data

Measured

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedThrough K2C Environmental Monitors, Eco-rangers and Yes 4
Youth, compliance to the conservation agreement shall be verified
and feedback provided to CSA through daily reports and to
farmers during weekly farmers meetings. Records of complianceshall be archived and utilized to determine the extent of provisionand dissemination of the benefit package to stewards as well as torecommend corrective measures should there be extensive noncompliance. GPS collars are also used in some herds to trackcompliance.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Monthly66
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Value monitored

Depends on month

Monitoring equipment

Where used, GPS-collars

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedRecords will be kept as paper and electronic copies

Purpose of data

Calculation of leakage

Calculation method

Count

Comments

Data / Parameterd

Data unit

days

Description

Total number of days livestock were off the project area

Source of data

Measured

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedThrough K2C Environmental Monitors, Eco-rangers and Yes for
Youth, compliance to the conservation agreement shall be verified
and feedback provided to CSA through daily reports and to
farmers during weekly farmers meetings. Records of complianceshall be archived and utilized to determine the extent of provisionand dissemination of the benefit package to stewards as well as torecommend corrective measures should there be extensive noncompliance. GPS collars are also used in some herds to trackcompliance.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Monthly

Value monitored

Depends on month

Monitoring equipment

None

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedRecords shall be kept as paper and electronic copies, with at least
one electronic copy kept off the project as an online database

Purpose of data

Calculation of leakage

Calculation method

count

67
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Comments

3.1.3

Monitoring Plan

Organizational structure of monitoring activities
CSA has a three-tiered approach to rangeland monitoring. The first tier, or first “point of contact”, is thedata collection based on field activities on the ground. This is done by community members, Eco-rangers,
Environmental Monitors and Yes 4 Youth. The ground-based data collection aims to collect data on cattle
numbers, grazing activities, herd health, etc. The second tier is where the Monitoring Officer captures
project activities. This includes the number and character of training sessions held, job opportunities,
number of beneficiaries, and area under improved management. The third and final tier has strong focus
on scientific data collection and analysis.

Figure 2: CSA monitoring and Evaluation framework - a three-tiered approach.

To measure improvement, CSA had to choose indicators that are both representative of the key
properties of the Monitoring and Evaluation (ME) system and that relate directly to the plannedinterventions. In monitoring the effect of an intervention on the monitoring system, CSA compareschanges in indicator values over time and/or relative to a standard or target (e.g. GOOD Matrix or Natural
Resource Management targets). This can happen at various levels: the river catchment, landscape, or
farm level. Indicators can measure activities or outputs (e.g., hectares of rangeland cleared of invasiveplants) but should also aim to measure longer-term outcomes (e.g., hectares of natural habitat restored,
markets accessed through green economic development).
In line with Conservation South Africa’s strategic plan, interventions fall within the following categories
and form the basis for establishing good indicators:• rehabilitation and restoration in native rangelands used as production landscapes, principally
through erosion control, removal of invasive alien plant (IAP), and planned grazing;• social upliftment in production landscapes (mostly via skills development, conservation
knowledge and market opportunities);• influencing disaster risk reduction (DRR); and68
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14•

sustainable investments.

CSA has a strong focus on building capacity of Eco-rangers and livestock farmers on monitoring methods
and relating scientific indicators in a language that is easily grasped. The monitoring coordinator is
responsible for vetting the ground data with the Eco-rangers and environmental monitors, this is done
through fact checking and comparisons on previous data collected. A second vetting process isundertaken by the Monitoring and Evaluation Manager through a quarterly survey that is captured online
through the CSA Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning and Research (MERL) SharePoint.
All monitoring activities are guided by standardized operating procedures (SOP) and by the K2C
monitoring plan, which was derived from the CSA ME framework. Quality control of data is done throughthe SOP on data management. Ground activities are captured through dedicated WhatsApp groups andTeams Channels, vetted monthly and captured in the K2C Monitoring Schema. The timely capture of data
is a core element of the monitoring systems. All trainings and engagements are captured through aTeams reporting channel whereby attendance registers are shared as well as a brief description of theactivity or event. This data flow contributes to capturing data mostly related to social upliftment indicators.
A second stream of data capture is used to monitor rangeland restoration activities. Depending on theindicators, monitoring activities are captured in the field on a weekly, quarterly, and/or annual basis andcaptured electronically in the MERL SharePoint. The data is collected according to the indicators listed inTable 4.
The three-tiered monitoring approach allows for all project data to be vetted through various forms ofsubmission and the quarterly survey. The three-tiered approach aims to mitigate non-conformities,
alongside storing and making use of the online database to capture all raw and processed data. Working
from an online database allows senior staff to spot-check data uploaded and the frequency thereof.
Sampling Design
The initial monitoring sites were established prior to this project (2009-2015) within homogenous
vegetation units of varying altitude in the communal rangelands of Dixie, Utah, and Welverdiend. The
sites were established as part of a long-term ecological monitoring programme (Mnisi Community
Programme – University of Pretoria) and are used to assess and determine seasonal trends in rangeland
dynamics and productivity across the interface.

Figure 3: Initial monitoring sites incorporated into project scope.

The fieldwork phase of the research was undertaken using the Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM)
method. The MIM method has been used to monitor rangelands across numerous vegetation types(mainly those associated with savanna and grassland biomes) throughout the Lowveld and surrounding
regions of South Africa for the past 28 years. The MIM method provides sound scientific evidence for thedevelopment and implementation of sustainable rangeland management strategies. The method
incorporates numerous facets from widely used and well-documented monitoring techniques andmeasures numerous rangeland health indicators associated with both the herbaceous and woody
component. The MIM method includes conducting a survey of herbaceous vegetation, above-ground69
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
standing crops and grazing capacity (herbaceous biomass), a woody vegetation survey, and estimating
biodiversity (Shannon-Wiener).The vegetation assessment protocol can be made available to thevalidator upon request.
Since 2016, the fixed monitoring sites were increased from 25 to 75, and they are monitored according to
the MIM method. In 2021, the baseline soil sampling campaign measured soil samples from the 62 fixedsites, including a full vegetation assessment according to the MIM method. An additional 100 soil samples
were collected across the landscape. These sites where stratified according to the sampling strategy in
Figure 28.

Figure 4: Monitoring sites across project area.

70
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Sampling Strategy: Spatial Analysis and Planning

Figure 5: Sampling Strategy

71
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Monitoring of animal numbers
In partnership with the State Veterinary Services, Eco-trainers work with the State Vet technicians tocapture cattle numbers present at the dip tank on a weekly basis. This data is captured by the State Vet
Technician in their data collection books, and the Eco-trainers report the data through the WhatsApp andTeams channels. Once the data has been reported, the data is captured in the MERL.
Table 3: Mean cattle number 2015-2022

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022

Welverdiend
3248
2710
2530
2851
2496
2747
3174
3425

Utah
923
742
694
802
875
961
970
1076

Dixie
246
137
124
141
232
240
254
252

K2C environmental monitors and CSA Eco-trainers conduct regular patrols in the designated grazing
areas to ensure that cattle are grazing in the correct camps as outlined in the co-designed grazing plan.
Cattle found to be grazing in a rested camp will be photographed and have their tag numbers and brandmarks recorded; this information is reported to CSA via WhatsApp for record-keeping and to conservation
stewards during weekly farmers meetings, where penalty for non-compliance will be issued by thecooperative committee. To ensure compliance, signs indicating closure or availability of camp for grazing
will be placed on the gates of each camp.

Monitoring of grazing intensity
Above-ground grass standing crop is measured through the application of the disc pasture meter method(Bransby and Tainton 1977). In the MIM, this method entails recording above-ground grass standing crop
every 1 meter along the length of a 100-m transect, giving a total of 100 measurements per monitoringsite. The above-ground grass standing crop is then estimated using the equation (Trollope and Potgieter
1986):
y = -3019 + 2260 √𝒙
𝑦 = −3019 + 2260√𝑥
where: y = mean above-ground grass standing crop (kg ha-1);
x = mean disc height (cm)The project aims to improve the measurement of grazing intensity through establishing enclosures inclose proximity to the permanent monitoring sites. An index for grazing intensity will be developed using
temporal measurements of biomass within enclosure plots as well as outside enclosure plots. Disc
pasture meter measurements of standing biomass within enclosure plots will be compared to standing
biomass measurements outside the enclosures.

Monitoring of plant species composition
The plant species composition is conducted in accordance with the MIM method. The herbaceous
vegetation survey is conducted on an annual basis by Sustineri Ecological Consulting PTY Ltd (byGraeme Wolfaard, ecologist) using the following methodology.

72
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
A 100-m tape measure is used to establish a 25 m x 25 m belt transect. Measurements are recorded ateach meter mark up until the 50-m mark has been reached. Thereafter, measurements are recorded atevery even number (i.e. 52, 54, 56, etc.), to give a total minimum of 75 herbaceous meter-recordings permonitoring site. A thin wire rod is dropped vertically to the ground at each of the relevant meter marks,
where the following herbaceous indicators of rangeland health are determined:•••

Record the closest rooted herbaceous individual:o Perennial grass species are recorded at the relevant meter marks.
o Should the closest individual be a perennial grass species from the start, then the‘annual’ column in the datasheet is left blank and only the necessary measurements ofthe perennial species are recorded.
o If the closest individual is an annual, it is measured first. Thereafter the closest perennial
grass species is measured as a “2nd species”. Annual grass species are recorded by
species name, herbaceous dicotyledons are recorded as “forb”, and species belonging to
the family Cyperaceae are recorded as ‘sedge’.
Distance-to-tuft and tuft diameter measurements (mm) of the above-mentioned individuals arerecorded to provide an estimation of herbaceous basal cover.
An estimate of percentage canopy cover is determined by extending a vertical projection above
each meter mark. The growth of many palatable and productive grass species is associated with
canopy cover.

The data is recorded by the ecologist and captured in the vegetation assessment database on the MERL
SharePoint.
Monitoring of Plant Lignin and Cellulose
Lignin and cellulose are measured as acid-digestible fibre as per Richie (2014), using the Ankom
commercial digestion products and process. Samples were taken form 67 sites in Welverdiend, Dixie, andUtah, whereby clippings of the three dominate species were dried, weighed and then subjected to asulfuric acid hydrolysis method, as per the Ankom Technology Corp commercial digestion products.
The lignin and cellulose data were captured in the K2C Carbon LIGCELL_measured11112021 dataset
and stored in the MEL Database.
Leakage monitoring
The monitoring plan for carbon-related parameters as outlined in the previous chapters is embedded in alarger monitoring framework to ensure compliance with the conservation agreements. Through K2C
Environmental Monitors, Eco-rangers, and Yes 4 Youth, compliance with the conservation agreements
shall be verified and feedback provided to CSA through daily reporting and to farmers during weekly
farmers meetings. Records of compliance shall be archived and utilized to determine the extent ofprovision and dissemination of the benefit package to stewards as well as to recommend corrective
measures should there be extensive non-compliance.
A pilot project was launched in collaboration with the University of Pretoria to track and record the
movements of cattle in the Dixie community. Eight heads of cattle were fitted with GPS collars for a periodof finally about 3 months to track animal movements in accordance to the grazing management plan
(Figure 6). This data can support compliance monitoring of the grazing plans. Unfortunately, during themonitoring period there were no additional resource made available, so the project could not yet seek toextend the collaring activities into other communities.

73
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Figure 6. GPS collars on cattle (green dots) and remote sensing (EVI) are being used to track compliance ingrazing/rested areas in Dixie. Here, Camp 1 is open for grazing while Camp 2 is closed and shows little
encroachment of cattle (top) apparently resulting i

74
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Table 4 CSA indicators per intervention.
Intervention
1. Rangeland restoration-Conservation agreements-Destocking-Planned grazing-Kraaling-Livestock improvement(veterinary care, breeds)-IAP removal to 5%-Skills development

2.

Wetland restoration-Gabions-Stock exclusion-IAP removal to 5%-Skills development

75
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Indicator and (unit)
1.1 Conservation Agreements (% oftarget area [ha])1.2 Sustainably managed rangeland(% of target area [ha])1.3 Sustainably managed mining (%target area [ha])1.4 De-trended NDVI
1.5 Veld condition score
1.6 Self-sufficiency (% herd soldrelative to target)
1.7 Self-sufficiency (% herdslaughtered relative to target)
1.8 Employment generation (% persondays target)
1.9 Compliance (% of required ha
LSU-1)
1.10 Plant species composition
1.11 Percentage IAP cleared tomaintenance level (Area [ha] at
5% /Total area [ha] infested)
1.12 Skills development (% of target/
number of people)
1.13 Households supported (% oftarget/ number of people)
1.14 Livestock survival (% LSU
reaching 6 months)
1.15 Livestock resilience (LSU survival
mm-1 MAP)
1.16 Livestock resilience (LSU survival
degree-1 °C MAT)
1.17 Overall rangeland restoration
score (no unit)
2.1 Sustainably managed wetlands (%target area [ha])2.2 Employment generation (% target
person days)
2.3 Gully profile (Length [m]/Height [m])2.4 Water table height (dip well height[m] as % of total well height [m])Type
Productivity

Reference value *25,000 ha

Frequency
Annual

Productivity

80,000 ha

Annual

Productivity

30,000 ha

Annual

Productivity
Productivity
Productivity
Productivity
Productivity

Change over time
650
25%

Quarterly
AnnualAnnualAnnualEcosystem
Ecosystem
Ecosystem

25%
100%

Annual45 or 60 ha LSU-1
272
100%

Ecosystem
Stability
Stability
Stability
Reliability
Resil. & Adapt.
As above

100%
100%
100%
90
100%
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑆𝑈⁄𝑅𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑆𝑈⁄𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝

All

1600

Productivity

Area (ha) TBD

Productivity
Ecosystem
Ecosystem

100
0
75

Ecosystem

100

AnnualMonthly
AnnualQuarterly

Quarterly
AnnualAnnual-AnnualVM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Intervention

Indicator and (unit)
2.5 Percentage IAP cleared tomaintenance level (Area at 5%[ha]])
2.6 Skills development (% of target)
2.7 Water security (table height / mm
rainfall (m mm-1)

Type
Stability
Resilience

Reference value *100
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡⁄𝑅𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙

Frequency

All

700

Productivity

50

Productivity

TBD

Ecosystem

100

Stability
Stability

12
100

All

500

Stability
Ecosystem
Ecosystem/
Productivity
All

TBD
TBD
2
TBD
300

Quarterly

Stability
Stability
Stability
Stability
Stability

2

Quarterly

All

500

2.8 Overall wetland restoration score(no unit)3.

Predator conservation-Skills development

4.

Disaster Risk Reduction

5.

Sustainable investments

3.1 Livestock loss to predators (%of control treatment / number ofincidents)
3.2 Employment generation (%target person-days)
3.3 Wildlife populations on-farm (%of national reserve)
3.4 Skills development (% of target)
3.5 Cost of predator management(% of control)
3.6 Overall predator conservation
score (no unit)
4.1 No. gabions (% of target)
4.2 Wetland restoration (% of target)
4.3 Rangeland restoration (% of target
communities)
4.4 Overall DDR score (no unit)
5.1 Sustainable business (% target
engagements)
5.2 IDP engagement (% target
engagements)
5.3 Knowledge & data sharing (%target reports)
5.4 Technical input (% target reports)
5.5 Skills development (% of target)
5.6 Overall sustainable investment
score (no unit)

76
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

QuarterlyVM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Intervention
6. Social upliftment

OVERALL LANDSCAPE SCORE77
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Indicator and (unit)
6.1 Input into Local Economic
Development plans (% target
municipalities / number of plans
adapted)
6.2 Improved governance (no.
governing bodies)
6.3 Representation in governing body(% community / number ofcommunity members)
6.4 Other employment generation (%target households / number of
employment opportunities))
6.5 Overall skills development (% oftarget trained in intervention
sections 1-5)
6.6 Conservation knowledge (index)
6.7 Conservation behavior (index)
6.8 Willingness to participate (index)
6.9 Overall social upliftment score(no unit)
IMPACT OF INTERVENTIONSType
Stability

Reference value *1Stability
Stability
Productivity
Productivity

3
100
100
1000

Stability

100

Stability
Stability
Stability

1
1
1

All

800

ALL

3900

Frequency
Quarterly

Additive scoresVM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

3.1.4 Dissemination of Monitoring Plan and Results (CL4.2)
The Eco-trainers play a pivotal role in disseminating information to livestock owners and other community
members that may have an interest in the project. Through the weekly meetings and continuous
engagement, the Eco-trainers have shared information from the monitoring activities with the support ofthe monitoring coordinator. The different stakeholders of interest are able to access the complete
documents and monitoring reports after their verification of the project freely and through a means towhich they have access; hard copies will be left with the traditional authorities in the communities and inschools/youth centers where CSA provides internet access. The project monitoring report will also be
published on the Verra website and made available to the wider public for a public commenting period. CI
and CSA will also share this link with other project stakeholders for their information and input after
verification.

3.2
3.2.1

Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals
Baseline Emissions

Methane emissions
Baseline methane emissions from grazing animals is estimated from data on livestock categories thatreflect species, age, sex, and average weight in the project area. Annual calculations are based on
estimations of daily methane emissions (for each livestock category as a function of the body weight, kg)
multiplied by the number of animals in each category and the number of days in a year (365). Emissions
from all categories are summed to provide the baseline annual methane emissions from livestock in the
project area.
Per methodology requirements, the equation below was followed to obtain the annual methane emissions
in year t from grazing animals of each category, which only consists of cattle (ruminants).

𝐵𝐸𝑀 = ∑𝑘𝑐=1(𝐵𝑁𝑐 ∗ 𝐷𝑀𝐸𝐹(𝑊𝑐 )) ∗ 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐶𝐻4 ∗ 365 ∗ 6.26 ∗ 10−7
where:BEM
BNc
DMEF(Wc)
Wc
GWPCH4C
K
365
6.26 x 10-7

Baseline annual emissions from grazing animals (tCO2e)
Baseline number of animals of category c (head), measured as per equation below
Daily emission factor as a function of animal weight category c (L CH4 day-1)
Average body weight during the baseline period for animals of category c (kg)Global warming potential for methane (28 tCO2e / tCH4),
Category of grazing animal
Number of categories of grazing animals, e.g., species, gender, age combinations
Number of days in a year to convert daily to annual emissions
Conversion factor for L CH4 day-1 to t CH4 day-1

In the project area, most livestock are cattle. Cattle is also the target livestock type for project activities.
Thus, the accounting focusses only on this type. Therefore, DMEF(Wc) is 0.66 * Wc 0.97 for ruminants, withan uncertainty of 9.5% (see Table 4 in VM0032 methodology). Forage quality is not included in the
VM0032 methodology since it would require the measurement of dry matter intake by animals andaccurate estimations for free-living animals on grasslands, which is impractical and prohibitively
expensive.

BNc (harmonic mean number of animals in each category during the period 2015-2018 prior to the project
start date of 2018) was calculated as in equation (2) as per VM0032:

78
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
1

1

𝑛

∑𝑖=1

𝐵𝑁𝑐 = ( ) ∗ ( 𝑛

1
𝑁𝑐,𝑖

)

The harmonic mean of baseline cattle numbers as per the State Veterinary Services report (counting
livestock at weekly dipping events) is as follows:
Table 5 Baseline livestock population by project instance yearly and as harmonic mean (Source: State Veterinary
Services South Africa)Year

Welverdiend A

Welverdiend B

Utah A

Dixie

2015

2,157

1,091

923

246

2016

1,961

749

742

137

2017

1,911

619

694

124

2018

1,946

905

802

141

The weights per cattle class are based on IPCC default values and crosschecked with average measured
weights in K2C communal areas as well as with expert opinion of Meat Naturally (Table 6). The proportionof each cattle class in the total herd has been similarly estimated by Meat Naturally and in consultation
with livestock owners.

Table 6: Share of cattle sex and age classes from total livestock and the respective average weights.

••

Cattle classes

•
•
•
•

Bulls
Oxen (castrated bulls)
Cows
Tollies (young bulls)

10
25
25
10

Average weights
based on IPCC 2006
(Table 10 A2)
(kg)
400
400
350
240

•

Heifers (pre-reproductive females)

10

240

•
•

Male calves
Female calves

10
10

100
100

•

Proportion of herd(%)

Applying these shares and average weights to the harmonic mean of baseline livestock population in
Equation 1 above gives the following baseline emissions as a result.

79
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Table 7 Calculation and results table of baseline methane emissions from animal census
Animal category

Sex/Agecategory
bulls
oxen
cows
Dixie
tolliesheifers
calves_m
calves_f
bulls
oxen
cows
Utah
tolliesheifers
calves_m
calves_f
bulls
oxen
cows
Welverdiend tollies
heifers
calves_m
calves_f
village

Estimated
proportionof total
herd
10%
25%
25%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
25%
25%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
25%
25%
10%
10%
10%
10%

Weight (kg)as of
Per Animal
Tab10A2_IP DMEF_Wc Uncertainty
CC(L CH4/day) (UDME_c) GWP_CH4 conv_L_t
400
220,6
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
400
220,6
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
350
193,8
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
240
134,4
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
240
134,4
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
100
57,5
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
100
57,5
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
400
220,6
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
400
220,6
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
350
193,8
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
240
134,4
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
240
134,4
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
100
57,5
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
100
57,5
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
400
220,6
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
400
220,6
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
350
193,8
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
240
134,4
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
240
134,4
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
100
57,5
9,5%
28
6,26E-07
100
57,5
9,5%
28
6,26E-07

Animal Census (Number of cattle)

2015
25
62
62
25
25
25
25
92
231
231
92
92
92
92
325
812
812
325
325
325
325

2016
14
34
34
14
14
14
14
74
186
186
74
74
74
74
271
678
678
271
271
271
271

2017
12
31
31
12
12
12
12
69
174
174
69
69
69
69
253
633
633
253
253
253
253

Harmonic
2018 Mean (BNc) SD (1/N_C,i)
14
150,015235
38
0,006135
38
0,006114
150,015214
150,015214
150,015214
150,015280780,0013201
195
0,0005201
195
0,00058078
0,001380780,001380780,001380780,0013285
281
0,0003713
703
0,0001713
703
0,0001285
281
0,0003285
281
0,0003285
281
0,0003285
281
0,0003

Total
Animals80
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Methane Emissions
AnnualBaseline
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
methanein projectin projectemissionsmean ofmethaneanimals (BEM_t)
emissions(UBN_c) (tCO2e/yr)(UBEM_c)
SEBN_c2,050,98%
21,3
51,86%
5,0
50,98%
53,2
51,86%
5,0
50,98%
46,7
51,86%
2,0
50,98%
13,0
51,86%
2,0
50,98%
13,0
51,86%
2,0
50,98%
5,5
51,86%
2,0
50,98%
5,5
51,86%
4,7
22,95%
110,3
24,84%
11,7
22,95%
275,7
24,84%
11,7
22,95%
242,2
24,84%
4,7
22,95%
67,2
24,84%
4,7
22,95%
67,2
24,84%
4,7
22,95%
28,7
24,84%
4,7
22,95%
28,7
24,84%
14,5
19,84%
396,7
22,00%
36,3
19,84%
991,7
22,00%
36,3
19,84%
871,2
22,00%
14,5
19,84%
241,7
22,00%
14,5
19,84%
241,7
22,00%
14,5
19,84%
103,4
22,00%
14,5
19,84%
103,4
22,00%

Total Annual
Baselineemissions3743 (tCO2e/year)

Uncertainty
in baseline
methaneemissions(UBEM)
3928

23,8%

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Baseline Soil Organic Carbon
Baseline soil organic carbon was calculated based on the requirements of the modeled approach under
VM0032.The project uses the SNAPGRAZE model for soil organic carbon dynamics (Ritchie 2020) which
is an extension of the SNAP carbon model that was developed in a savanna grazing system in the
Serengeti National Park (Ritchie 2014). The SNAPGRAZE model was developed by Mark Ritchie andpublished in 2020 (Ritchie 2020). The output of the model is the soil organic carbon at equilibrium that will
be achieved with the given input data on climate, vegetation, soil, and cattle management. Several
improvements have been done to the model by the authors, which were recorded in the PDD. The resultsof the model calibration and validation can be found in the file “SOC model
SNAPGRAZE_validation,BL,Project,uncertainty”.
Under a modeled approach, VM0032 requires that the chosen soil carbon model estimate the maximum
SOC at each station j in each stratum m during the 10 years prior to the project start date using atechnique called back casting. This estimate, MSOCm,j,0, is then used as a conservative estimate ofbaseline SOC at the project start date. Back casting implies knowledge of a prior condition (in this case,SOC) from which the model is run forward to estimate the current measured SOC, or SOCm,j,0. From thismodel run, the predicted SOC for 10 years prior to the current time (MSOCm,j,0) can be determined. Thisis, however, a directive based on the SNAP model. As SNAPGRAZE was developed later, this step is notapplicable (nor feasible) anymore. The output of the SNAPGRAZE model is the soil organic carbon
equilibrium that is achieved with the given input data on climate, vegetation, soil characteristics, and cattle
management. As shown in the Methodology Deviations section of the PDD, the baseline SOC equilibrium
10 years prior to the project start (2008) can be assumed to be the same as at project start (2018)
because baseline practices of uncontrolled cattle management and overgrazing of the communal
rangeland had been practiced for more than the prior 20 years. No significant land use change has
happened since the early 1980s.
The output of the SNAPGRAZE model is the soil organic carbon equilibrium that is achieved with thegiven input data on climate, vegetation, soil and cattle management. The baseline cattle management
was determined by consultations of local cattle farmers. The model was used to calculate the soil organiccarbon equilibrium at each permanent sampling station.
Uncertainty in baseline emissions
Since the project does not account for emission reductions produced by adjusting the fire frequency,
baseline uncertainty is represented by UBEM alone.
1(∑𝑘𝑐=1(𝐵𝐸𝑀𝑐 × 𝑈𝐵𝐸𝑀𝑐 )2 )2𝑈𝐵𝐸𝑀 =∑𝑘𝑐=1 𝐵𝐸𝑀𝑐
Where:
UBEM
UBEMc
BEMc

= Uncertainty in baseline methane emissions from grazing animals (%)= Uncertainty in baseline methane emissions from animals in category c (%)= Baseline emissions from animals in category c (tCO2e)

UBEMc is the uncertainty in methane emissions from animals in category C, as dictated by whether the
animals are ruminants, equids, or pigs (see Table 4, section 8.1.3.1 in VM0032), UBEMc is calculated
from the uncertainty for each animal category in the regression equations that predict daily methane
emissions per animal (DMEc) based on the mean body weight (UDMEc) and the uncertainty in theharmonic mean of animal counts (UBNc) during the baseline period.
To obtain UBNc , one must first calculate SEBNc, the standard error31 of the harmonic mean BNc of theseries’1)
𝑁𝑐,𝑖2
𝑆𝐸𝐵𝑁𝑐 = (𝐵𝑁𝑐 ) ×(𝑛 − 1)1⁄2
Where:𝑆𝐷 (81
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
SEBNc
SD(1/Nc,i)
Nc,I
BNc
n

= Standard error of the harmonic mean of animal counts in category c= Standard deviation of the inverses of the count I of animals in category c= Animals in category c in census I (head)= Harmonic mean number of animals in category c (head) during the baseline period= Number of censuses

The 95 percent confidence interval-based uncertainty in the estimated number of animals in category c is:
𝑆𝐸𝐵𝑁𝑐
𝑈𝐵𝑁𝑐 = 3.84 × 100 ×
𝐵𝑁𝑐
Where:UBNc= Uncertainty in the harmonic mean of animal counts (%)
SEBNc= Standard error of the harmonic mean of animal counts
BNc= Baseline number of animals of category c (head)
3.84= Multiplier converts expression into a 95% confidence interval
100= Multiplier converts expression into percent
𝑈𝐵𝐸𝑀𝑐 = (𝑈𝐵𝑁𝑐2 + 𝑈𝐷𝑀𝐸𝑐2 )1/2
Where:
UBEMc= Uncertainty in baseline methane emissions from animals in category c (%)
UBNc= Uncertainty in the baseline harmonic mean of animals of category c (%)
UDMEc = Uncertainty in the regression for predicting daily methane emissions for animals of category c(%) = 9.5% (as per Table 4 in VM0032)

Estimation of baseline emissions and uncertainty
The calculation results following the above protocol have been presented above in Table 7 for the firstproject instances. SOC is conservatively assumed to be zero, ΔSOC = 0, so
𝐵𝐸𝑅 = 𝐵𝐸𝑀

3.2.2

Project Emissions

Calculation of project emissions and removals
Net annual GHG emissions and removals of the project, NPRt, are determined by the sum of methane
emissions, PEMt, and net removals from SOC sequestration, PRSt.
NPRt = PEMt + PRSt

Methane emissions
Project activities do not focus on the reduction of livestock numbers per se and thus, no market leakage isapplicable. Activities rather focus on grassland productivity, animal health, and, consequently, meatproductivity increase, which may lead to changes in livestock numbers and even more so on herd
structure. Such changes in number and structure may lead to decreased methane emission in the project
scenario. Since no displacement of cattle via market leakage can be expected, this should be accounted
for following the below calculation. Calculations are based on animal counts and emission factor data
based on project area-applicable body weight (Table 6) of each category as shown in the previous subchapter.
The cattle herd numbers for the monitoring period are demonstrated in Table 8.

82
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Table 8 Project livestock population in monitoring period by project activity instance yearly (Source: State Veterinary
Services South Africa)Year

Welverdiend A

Welverdiend B

Uthla A

Dixie

2019

1721

775

875

232

2020

1887

860

961

240

2021

2219

955

970

254

Project methane emissions from livestock enteric fermentation are calculated as shown below:𝑘

𝑃𝐸𝑀𝑡 = ∑where:PEMt
PNc
DMEf(Wc)
Wc
GWPCH4C
K
365
6.26 x 10-7

𝑐=1

(𝑃𝑁𝑐 ∗ 𝐷𝑀𝐸𝑓(𝑊𝑐 )) ∗ 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐶𝐻4 ∗ 365 ∗ 6.26 ∗ 10−7

= Project emissions of CH4 from grazing animals in year t (tCO2e)= Number of animals in category c (head)= Daily emission factor as a function of animal weight category c (L CH4 day-1)= Average body weight during year t for animals of category c (kg)= Global warming potential for methane (28 tCO2e / tCH4),= Category of grazing animal= Number of categories of grazing animals, e.g., species, gender, age combinations= Number of days in a year to convert daily to annual emissions= Conversion factor for L CH4 day-1 to t CH4 day-1

The summary results including related uncertainty are shown in Table 9 below.

83
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Table 9 Project methane emissions from animal census

Sex/Agecategory
bulls
oxen
cows
tolliesDixie
heifers
calves_m
calves_f
bulls
oxen
cows
tolliesUtahheifers
calves_m
calves_f
bulls
oxen
cows
Welverdiend tollies
heifers
calves_m
calves_f

village

Estimated Weight
Per Animal
proportion (kg) as of
Tab10A2_IP DMEF_Wc (L Uncertainty
of total
GWP_CH4(UDME_c)
CH4/day)
CC
herd
10%
9,5%
220,6
400
25%
9,5%
220,6
400
25%
9,5%
193,8
350
10%
9,5%
134,4
240
10%
9,5%
134,4
240
10%
9,5%
57,5
100
9,5%
57,5
100
10%
10%
9,5%
220,6
400
25%
9,5%
220,6
400
25%
9,5%
193,8
350
10%
9,5%
134,4
240
10%
9,5%
134,4
240
10%
9,5%
57,5
100
9,5%
57,5
100
10%
10%
9,5%
220,6
400
25%
9,5%
220,6
400
25%
9,5%
193,8
350
10%
9,5%
134,4
240
10%
9,5%
134,4
240
10%
9,5%
57,5
100
10%
9,5%
57,5
100

Methane Emissions
Annual Project
Uncertainty inmethaneproject
Uncertainty inmethaneproject mean emissions(PEM_t)Arithmetic
emissionsof animals(UPEM_c)(UPN_c)(tCO2e/yr)
2021 Mean (PNc) SD (PN_c,Y)
13,94%
34,1
10,20%
0,9
24
25
13,94%
85,4
10,20%
2,3
61
64
13,94%
75,0
10,20%
2,3
61
64
13,94%
20,8
10,20%
0,9
24
25
13,94%
20,8
10,20%
0,9
24
25
13,94%
8,9
10,20%
0,9
24
25
13,94%
8,9
10,20%
0,9
24
25
15,65%
132,0
12,43%
4,3
94
97
15,65%
330,0
12,43%
10,7
234
243
15,65%
289,912,43%
10,7
234
243
15,65%
80,4
12,43%
4,3
94
97
15,65%
80,4
12,43%
4,3
94
97
15,65%
34,4
12,43%
4,3
94
97
15,65%
34,4
12,43%
4,3
94
97
28,70%
395,927,09%
28,0
281
317
28,70%
989,8
27,09%
70,0
701
794
28,70%
869,5
27,09%
70,0
701
794
28,70%
241,2
27,09%
28,0
281
317
28,70%
241,2
27,09%
28,0
281
317
28,70%
103,2
27,09%
28,0
281
317
28,70%
103,2
27,09%
28,0
281
317

Animal Census (Number of cattle)

Animal category

conv_L_t
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626
28 0,000000626

2019
23
58
58
23
23
23
23
88
219
219
88
88
88
88
250
624
624
250
250
250
250

2020
24
60
60
24
24
24
24
96
240
240
96
96
96
96
275
687
687
275
275
275
275

Total
Animals84
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Total annual
project
emissions3983 (tCO2e/year)

4179

Uncertainty inprojectmethaneemissions
during themonitoring
period (UPEM)

24,74%

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Soil carbon removals

The SNAPGRAZE model predicts a SOC equilibrium that will be achieved with the given input parameters
on climate, vegetation, soil properties and livestock management. Improved grazing management has thepotential to restore SOC stocks. The model does not calculate nor indicate the time to reach equilibrium
and therefore does not by itself calculate an annual SOC change. Therefore, we assume a time frame of
20 years to reach the new SOC equilibrium based on Lal (2004). Annual project removals due to changes
in SOC stocks (PRSt) were calculated using the following equations. First, removals were calculated foreach stratum:

𝒁

𝒆𝒒

𝒎
𝟒𝟒 ∑𝒋=𝟏(𝑷𝑺𝑶𝑪𝒎,𝒋 − 𝑴𝑺𝑶𝑪𝒎,𝒋,𝟎 )𝟏
𝑷𝑹𝑺𝒎,𝒕 =
(
)×
𝟏𝟐
𝒁𝒎
𝑫

Where:
PRSm,t= Annual project removals due to changes in SOC stocks in stratum m in year t(tCO2e/ha)

PSOCeqm,j,= Project modelled equilibrium SOC at station j in stratum m (tC/ha) based onparameter values from zm sampling stations in stratum mzm= Number of sampling stations in stratum m

MSOCm,j,0= Modeled baseline SOC at station j for stratum m at time t =0 (tC/ha) (seeprevious subchapter)Dby SNAPGRAZE= Years required to achieve equilibrium (project-wide value); Term not required

44/12= Conversion factor from tC to tCO2e

Then, removals across all strata were estimated using the following equation:𝒔

𝑷𝑹𝑺𝒕 = ∑(𝑷𝑨𝒎,𝒕 × 𝑷𝑹𝑺𝒎,𝒕 )𝒎

Where:
PRSt= Project removals due to changes in SOC stocks in year t (tCO2e)

PAm,t= Project area of stratum m in year t (ha)s

= Number of strata in the project area

PRSm,tha)= Annual project removals due to changes in SOC stocks in stratum m in year t (tCO2e /85
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
The annual project removals due to changes in SOC stocks for the included project instances amount to18,525 tCO2e.
Uncertainty in project emissions and removals
Total uncertainty is calculated by weighting uncertainties according to the magnitude of emission or
removal. In this case, uncertainty in net reductions and removals UNRt is driven by uncertainty inbaseline emissions, project emissions, and project net changes in carbon stocks.
𝑈𝑁𝑅𝑡 =((𝑈𝑃𝐸𝑀𝑡 × 𝑃𝐸𝑀𝑡 )2 + (𝑈𝑁𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑡 × 𝑁𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑡 )2 + (𝑈𝐵𝐸 × 𝐵𝐸𝑀)2 )1⁄2
𝑃𝐸𝑀𝑡 + 𝑁𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑡 + 𝐵𝐸𝑀

Where:UNRt= Uncertainty in net emission reductions and removals, not including leakage, attime t (%)

UPEMt= Uncertainty in project emissions at time t (%)

UNCCSt= Uncertainty in net change in carbon stocks at time t (%)

UBE= Uncertainty in baseline emissions (%)

BEM= Baseline animal methane emissions (tCO2e)

PEMt= Project animal methane emissions at time t (tCO2e)

NCCSt= Net project changes in carbon stocks (tCO2e)

Uncertainty in annual project methane emissions is calculated as:
𝑈𝑃𝐸𝑀 =(∑𝑘𝑐=1(𝑃𝐸𝑀𝑐 × 𝑈𝑃𝐸𝑀𝑐 )2 )1⁄2
∑𝑘𝑐=1 𝑃𝐸𝑀𝑐

Where:
UPEM
period (%)= Uncertainty in project methane emissions from grazing animals during the monitoring

UPEMc,= Uncertainty in project methane emissions from animals in category c (%)

PEMc= Project methane emissions from animals in category c (tCO2e)

UPEMc, is the uncertainty in methane emissions calculated from the uncertainty, for each animal
category, in the regression equations for per animal daily methane production and the uncertainty in thearithmetic mean of animal censuses for category c, PNc, during the monitoring period.

86
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

𝑈𝑃𝐸𝑀𝑐, = (𝑈𝑃𝑁𝑐2 + 𝑈𝐷𝑀𝐸𝑐2 )1⁄2

Where:
UPNc= Uncertainty in the project mean of animals in category c

𝑈𝑃𝑁𝑐 = 3.84 × 100 ×𝑆𝐷(𝑃𝑁𝑐,𝑌 )𝑃𝑁𝑐 × (𝑛 − 1)1⁄2

SD(PNc,Y)
period= Standard deviation of animal counts in category c across Y years of the monitoring

PNc= Arithmetic mean of animal numbers in category c (head)Y= Years in the monitoring period

3.84= Multiplier converting expression into a 95% confidence interval

100= Multiplier converting expression into percent

UPMEc= Uncertainty in the regression for predicting daily methane emissions for animals of
category c (%) = 9.5% (as per Table 4 in VM0032)

Uncertainty in changes in soil carbon stocks under a modelled approach, UNCCSm,t is obtained from thecalculated 95% confidence interval as required by the current VCS Standard 3.7 and the VM0032
methodology using a Monte Carlo simulation of NCCSm,t based on parameter values in each stratum m.
This interval is determined by iterated calculations that sample from hypothetical normal distributions ofvalues of each parameter in the calculation, defined by the mean and standard errors of each parameterfor that stratum. Repeated calculations, with random draws from the distributions from each parameter,
give a distribution of calculation outcomes with an overall mean and standard error for the calculation.
Such Monte Carlo simulations were done using the SNAPGRAZE model software. The standard error
for the SNAPGRAZE SOC prediction, SE(PRSm) for each stratum generated by the Monte Carlosimulations was then then be used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for SOC removals.
Under a modelled approach, UNCCSt is obtained from the calculated 95% CI, as required by the VCS
VM0032 methodology from a Monte Carlo simulation of modelled changes in soil carbon averaged
across n model runs in stratum m and across all strata s. For each stratum:

UPRSm,t87
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

= 3.84 × 100 ×𝑆𝐷(𝑀𝑂𝐷∆𝑆𝑂𝐶)
𝑀𝑂𝐷∆𝑆𝑂𝐶×(𝑛−1)1⁄2

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Where:
UPRSm,t(%)= Uncertainty in project removals through increased soil carbon in stratum m at time t

SDMODΔSOCm = Standard deviation of more than 100 modelled differences between product SOC(PSOCm) and estimated modelled baseline SOC (MSOCm) estimates for stratum mfrom Monte Carlo simulation.
MODΔSOCm= Mean modelled difference between project equilibrium SOC for stratum m (PSOCm)
and modelled baseline SOC (MSOCm) from more than 100 simulations of project
equilibrium SOC, (tC/ha)n= Number of times simulation is run (must be greater than 100)

3.84

= Multiplier to convert standard error into a 95% confidence interval

100= Multiplier to convert to percent

3.2.3

Leakage

Leakage can result from displacement of livestock to areas outside of the project area (displacement
leakage) and from the replacement of livestock, reduced intentionally by project activities to reduce
methane emissions, by producers outside the project area to meet market demand (market leakage).
Displacement leakage
Movement of livestock to areas outside of the project area could result in losses of carbon from higher
levels of overgrazing in these areas, a phenomenon known as displacement leakage. Displacement
leakage can be determined using the tool VMD0040 Leakage from Displacement of Grazing Activities fora measured approach or by using the penalty approach based on a reduction in net removals proportional
to the total livestock-days spent off the project area. The project uses the penalty approach. In this case,displacement leakage (LDt) must be calculated as a proportion of net removals from increased soil carbon
in year t (PRSt), based on the proportion of total project livestock-days in project year t (365 x PNC,t) that
occurred outside the project area.
𝐿𝐷𝑡 =Where:
LDt
DNc,x
D
K
PNc,t
PRSt

∑𝑑𝑥=1 ∑𝑘𝑐=1 𝐷𝑁𝑐,𝑥
× 𝑃𝑅𝑆𝑡365 × ∑𝑘𝑐=1 𝑃𝑁𝑐,𝑡= Leakage emissions from displaced livestock (tCO2e)= Number of livestock of each category c that were off the project area on day x (head)= Total number of days livestock of class c were off the project area
= Total number of livestock categories= Number of animals of each category c in year t (head)= Project removals due to changes in SOC in year t (tCO2e)

Displacement leakage has been estimated based on collar data from Dixie on 8 heads of cattle toestimate a percentage of leakage emissions. A summary of collar data is given in Figure 7. Note, that the
GPS in these collars has a certain error of precision, so that only points that are clearly away from the
project boundary (black line) can be considered displaced cattle. Each data point is a ping by a collar,

88
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
which was sent every 2 to 20 minutes during the pilot phase of 1 month for 2020. During this time only asingle leakage point could be identified. The close supervision of the herd by Eco-rangers and herders
can explain why livestock barely wanders off the project area.
The village/diptank area is not necessarily part of the project area. However, any cattle there cannot be
considered displaced because this is where they are housed or treated against ticks even in a baseline
scenario. Therefore, the data there is not considered for the leakage calculation.

Village/
diptankarea

Singleleakage point

Figure 7 Leakage data based on collar sample

To estimate total leakage an indication of “head-days” off the project area is necessary. Upscaling fromthis pilot in dixie, we can assume that in a herd of 8 cattle, 20 minutes a month livestock has been
displaced. This means, for every 576 heads of cattle, there is one full day of displacement leakage permonth. The calculation is irrespective of the age of the cattle.
This results in actually insignificant leakage emissions of 1.06 tCO2e/year, which have been anyways
included in the calculation of the project’s net GHG benefit.

Market Leakage
Market leakage is considered negligible since livestock numbers are rather connected to carrying
capacity than to market dynamics. Project participants cannot access any market outside the foot-andmouth disease red zone, which renders the market with very few buyers and leads to high market
inefficiencies.
Consequently, with market leakage = 0, total leakage is calculated as:
𝐿𝐸𝑡 = 𝐿𝐷𝑡
Total leakage uncertainty is calculated as:
𝑈𝐿𝐸𝑡 = 𝑈𝑃𝑅𝑆𝑡89
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
3.2.4

Net GHG Emission Reductions and Removals

The estimation of net project emission reductions, PERt, and net change in carbon stocks, NCCSt, foreach year of the monitoring period is calculated using the following equations:
𝑃𝐸𝑅𝑡 = 𝑃𝐸𝑀𝑡 − 𝐵𝐸𝑀
Where:PERt= Net project emission reductions in year t (tCO2e)

PEMt= Project methane emissions from livestock in year t (tCO2e)

BEM= Baseline methane emissions from livestock (tCO2e)

Changes in carbon stocks, in absence of changes in aboveground woody plant carbon, which is deminimis in this ecosystem without fire, are given by
𝑁𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑡 = 𝑃𝑅𝑆𝑡
Where:NCCSt= Net change in carbon stocks in year t (tCO2e)

PRSt= Project removals due to sequestration of soil carbon in year t (tCO2e)

Note that there is no term included for changes in carbon stocks due to changes in woody plant biomass
because there are no project activities that should significantly reduce aboveground woody carbon andany increases in aboveground woody carbon are conservatively excluded. Bush thinning throughpruning and brush packing activities do not reduce the total number of trees, but rather promote growthof pruned trees that will ultimately shade out small encroaching trees.
The net GHG benefit is calculated using the following equation:
𝑅𝑡 = 𝑃𝐸𝑅𝑡 + 𝑁𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑡 − 𝐿𝐸𝑡
Where:
Rt= Net GHG emission reductions and removals in year t (tCO2e)

PERt= Net project emission reductions in year t (tCO2e)

NCCSt= Net change in carbon stocks in year t (tCO2e)LEt= Total leakage changes in soil carbon in year t (tCO2e)

Total project uncertainty is given by:90
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

𝑈𝑇𝑡 =((𝑁𝑅𝑡 × 𝑈𝑁𝑅𝑡 )2 + (𝐿𝐸𝑡 × 𝑈𝐿𝐸𝑡 )2 )1⁄2
𝑁𝑅𝑡 + 𝐿𝐸𝑡

Where:
UTt= Total project uncertainty (%)

UNRt= Uncertainty in net emissions and removals, not including leakage (%)

ULEt= Uncertainty in leakage emissions and losses from soil carbon stocks at time t (%)

NRt= Net emissions reductions and removals at time t, not including leakage (tCO2e)

LEt= Leakage emissions and losses from soil carbon stocks at time t (tCO2e)

If total project uncertainty in year t, based on 95% CI, UTt ≤ 30%, then no deduction is applied. If UTt >30%, then the modified discounted value, Rt = Rt disc for net anthropogenic GHG removal by sinks toaccount for uncertainty is calculated as:
𝑅𝑡𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐 =(100 − 𝑈𝑇𝑡) 𝑥 𝑅𝑡
100

Where:
Rt disc= Discounted net GHG emission reductions and removals by year t (tCO2e)

UTt= Total project uncertainty

Rt= Net GHG emission reductions and removals by year t (tCO2e)

For each year Y of the monitoring period,𝑑𝑢

𝑅𝑌 = ∑ 𝑅𝑡𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐 + ∑ 𝑅𝑡
𝑡=1

𝑡=1

Where:d= Number of years in which net removal must be discountedu= Number of years in which removals are not discountedY= Number of years in the monitoring period (d + u)

Rtdisc= Discounted net GHG emission reductions and removals by year t (tCO2e)

Rt= Net GHG emission reductions and removals by year t (tCO2e)91
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

The total annual project uncertainty is 8.01% and therefore does not trigger an uncertainty deduction as
per the methodology. The overall project performance is shown in the table below and can further be
reviewed in the file “Total GHG benefits, leakage, uncertainty_2019-2021”. Non-permanence risk buffer
has been conservatively only applied on the net change in carbon stocks.

Year

Net projectemission
reductions(PER_t, tCO2e)

Net change incarbon stocks(NCCS_t = PRS_t,tCO2e)

Total leakagechanges in soil
carbon (LE_t =LD_t, tCO2e)

Net GHG
emission
reductions
and removals(R_t, tCO2e)

Totalannualproject
uncertainty(UTt)

Nonpermanencerisk buffer
credits
(10%)

2019
2020

-251
-251

18,525
18,5251.06
1.06

18,273
18,273

8.01%
8.01%

1,853
1,853

2021

-251

18,525

1.06

18,273

8.01%

1,853

Total

-754

55,576

3

54,819

8.01%

5,558

3.3 Optional Criterion: Climate Change Adaptation Benefits
The proposed project seeks to be verified at the Gold Level for Exceptional Climate Change Adaptation
Benefits.
3.3.1

Activities and/or processes implemented for Adaptation (GL1.3)

Brush packing: Branches are collected from encroached bush through pruning and bush thinning andused to cover (brush pack) gully and sheet erosion sites. This is done to allow for stabilization of the soil
surface, reduce the run-off rate of water and allow for the establishment of a healthy/sustainable grasslayer. Collecting of branches also serves as a control measure for alien invasive species which
outcompete the indigenous vegetation. Reduced sheet and gully erosion during the monitoring period
proved difficult to measure due to theft of monitoring infrastructure. However, consolidated data shows
four out of six gullies monitored decreased significantly in size, one remained the same, and one showedsoil loss in a higher magnitude than the control (which also showed soil loss) (see attached report in“Erosion field data”).

92
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Figure 8: Photo demonstrating brush packing activities in field.

Rotational grazing: The project activity of planned rotational-rest grazing implemented across 6,432 haof rangelands is expected to improve soil cover (reduction of bare soil) and, therefore, enhance the waterholding capacity of the soil, providing a buffer against flooding and increasing water availability during
drought. The increased abundance of perennial grass cover resulting from this activity should ensure
availability of fodder for livestock even during the dry season, making the livestock and the livestockfarming communities more adaptable to the effects of climate change. An overall increase in biomass
availability over the monitoring period was observed via an increase in recorded Above ground grassstanding crop (AGGSC) and the increasing abundance of perennial grass species in the 2021 monitoring
period, after a decline from 2016-2020. The veld condition score of the project area also showed
improvements due to rotational grazing activities. The veld condition score is used as a benchmark for thecondition of the vegetation in relation to some functional characteristics, generally sustained forage
production and resistance to soil erosion. These results are summarized in the table below.
During an evaluation of the grazing lands by the resource users themselves, a household survey
conducted in 202116 showed that 60% of surveyed respondents perceived the grazing lands as having
improved in the last few years. This perception was related to the indication of more grass and water, withless money being spent on fodder and less cattle dying. Farmers’ needs to support livestock production
were also highlighted by the survey with primary concerns being better sales price, improved access towater and healthier grazing areas.

16‘Household Surveys Report_2021’

93
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Capacity / skills development: Finally, the project supports income diversification as a strategy to build
up resilience of communities in the project area to the impacts of climate change. Capacity building andskills development trainings are organized around the theme of green (climate friendly) businesses as asustainable source of income especially for women in project communities. Chapter 4 provides moredetail on the nature of training activities and beneficiaries.
The table below shows a summary of climate change adaptation activities and outputs. Note that the data
for Veld Condition score, Perennial grass species and AGGSC are averaged across the monitoring sites.
Comprehensive reports are available under the folder ‘Vegetation Assessments’. Data on water tableheight couldn’t be measured during this monitoring period but will be part of the monitoring process going
forward.
Climate change adaptation
Training: Number of training
Activity
beneficiaries including internships
and Yes for Youth participants

2016

2019

2020

2021

N/A

1991

399

1305

Activity

Erosion control: brush packing
occurrence

N/A

1*

1*

40

Activity

Rotational grazing: Area underrotational grazing (ha)

0

6,432

6,432

6,432

OutcomeRotational grazing: Above groundgrass standing crop (AGGSC;
kgha-1)

362

50

50

1108

OutcomeRotational grazing: Perennial grass
species (% total individuals)

79

65

64

71

OutcomeErosion control: Gully profile(Length (m)/Height (m))

N/ANo dataavailable

No dataavailable

No dataavailable

ImpactRotational grazing: Veld Condition
Score

532

576

567

537

ImpactRotational grazing: Water security(table height (m) / rainfall (mm))

N/A

No dataavailable

No dataavailable

No dataavailable* Limited data available
The relative reduction in number of perennial species across the communal rangelands from 2016-2020
is indicative of a shift in ecosystem dynamics due to a disturbance (drought). Also apparent across the
project area from 2016-2020 was the increase in Increaser II grasses which are notably abundant inovergrazed veld. This indicates an over-utilization of the herbaceous layer across the communal
rangelands during the same period. It is also likely that the lower above-ground grass standing crop
observed during the same time can be accredited to limited establishment and growth of individuals dueto the lower-than-usual rainfall and continuous grazing pressure exerted on the rangelands during thistime. In 2021, however, the increase in the mean percentage of perennials recorded provides evidence ofthe ecological benefits that rotational resting has had on the veld in terms of promoting a sustainablegrass layer. This, in addition to the increasing volume of AGGSC indicates a positive turnaround in veld
condition after the recent dry spell of the previous 3 years.

94
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
4

COMMUNITY

4.1

Net Positive Community Impacts

4.1.1

Community Impacts (CM2.1)

As part of the Conservation Agreements negotiations, the stewardship coordinator reviews the community
impacts as part of the discussion with community members. This allows for an open discussion to review
and evaluate the impacts and benefits that the community have seen as part of the project activities. The
weekly farmers meetings also pose the opportunity to evaluate and discuss project impacts.
Community Group
ImpactType of Benefit/Cost/Risk
Change in Well-being

Community Group
ImpactType of Benefit/Cost/Risk
Change in Well-being

Community Group
ImpactType of Benefit/Cost/Risk
Change in Well-being95
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Livestock farmers in project areas•
Improved market access and livestock sales•
Increased fodder availability•
Improved livestock condition (herd health)
Impacts listed are actual, direct benefits•
124 livestock farmers benefitted in this monitoring
period from cattle auctions facilitated by Meat
Naturally. Recorded turnover from cattle sales in the
project area increased by 2% between 2020-2022•
The observed increase in grass biomass coverkg/ha (See section 3.3.1) is indicative of increased
fodder availability for livestock. This is expected toreduce production costs for farmers in the long term.
(In the Baseline socio-economic survey, farmers
spent an average of R7,000 per year purchasing
cattle fodder)•
Monitoring data for livestock condition was notcollected consistently during this period, and will bebetter integrated into future monitoring
Women• Capacity and skills development• Business development• Direct employment
Impacts listed are actual, direct benefits
The wellbeing of women in the project communities is improved
as they develop new skills through trainings, which enhancetheir employment prospects.
Women receive support to register and formalize their SME
businesses as well as training on financial management.
Women are also directly employed by the project.
(See section 4.4.2 for details)
Unemployed youth•
Capacity development•
Jobs creation
Impacts listed are actual, direct benefits
An average of 200 jobs are created yearly by the project throughwhich mostly youth are employed via the Yes4Youth program.
700 Youth are also impacted by skill-building trainings eachyear.
(See section 4.4.2 for details)

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Community Group
ImpactChildren and youth
Education & Skills development

Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk
Change in Well-being

Impact is an actual, direct benefit
Children and youth in the project area learn about wildlife,
recycling, conservation and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene(WASH) through the weekly scout meetings. The scout program
has an average membership of 300 children/youth each year in
the project area.
They also develop digital skills through the project-established
ICT centers where they are provided with reliable and fastinternet connections. ICT centers established by the project areused by over 3,000 children and youth yearly.

Community Group
ImpactHouseholds near / downstream project areas
Resilience to climate change effects through restored
ecosystem conditions
Impact is a predicted, indirect benefit of project activities
See section 3.3.1

Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk
Change in Well-being

4.1.2 Negative Community Impact Mitigation (CM2.2)
Because the project activities are implemented on communal grazing lands, and are voluntary, there
is a risk that these community members who have not decided to participate in conservationagreements may be stigmatized or forced to participate via the imposition of other community
members. CSA works to ensure this doesn’t happen by sensitizing the communal livestock farmers
about the need for tolerance, voluntary participation rights and conflict management within the
project. Increased awareness of resting and grazing areas through signs and engagements has
happened as well as increased monitoring of resting camps including reporting of tracks and dung at
the camp gates.
Moreover, in cooperatives internally there are certain non-compliance repercussions, such as e.g., a
R50.00 fee for not helping with fence fixing. Note this is an internal arrangement within farmer
cooperatives and not part of any Conservation Agreement. Typically, during cooperative or dip tankmeetings non-compliant farmers are additionally being called out and must publicly pay the fee. Longterm reliance on incentives is to be mitigated by farmers becoming shareholders of Meat Naturally
Program (MNP) (as in other CSA areas), so that profits replace incentives over time. The type andduration of services from MNP should be standardized (vs ad hoc) to increase farmer willingness andsecure project sustainability.
4.1.3 Net Positive Community Well-Being (CM2.3, GL1.4)
The project generated net positive wellbeing impacts in the following aspects:• Livelihoods
Livestock farmers make higher turnover from cattle sales and now have increased access tobuyers through the auctions facilitated by MNP.
• Livestock healthWeekly monitoring by Herd Monitors during regulation dipping events promotes good cattle
husbandry and herd health. Since January 2021, the number of incidents such as fence breaks,
predation, theft, wounds, and missing cattle reported by herd monitors per month have decreased
significantly, after the monitoring and planned grazing were refined. The Herd Monitors make asignificant difference in the control and management of cattle in a diverse rangeland, by assisting
the farmers with weekly inspections, fence patrols and water level checks.
• Skills development
Around 900 individuals on average benefit from training and capacity building events each year
on various subjects (See 4.4.6 for details)• Climate adaptation

96
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14•

Restoration techniques have been applied in grazing camps where severe erosion and bareground was found. (See 3.3.1 for details). Increased availability of fodder also provides a buffer
which can be used in times of drought. Diversification of income sources improves the ability ofcommunities to adapt to unpredictable climate change effects.
Employment
Around 200 community members on average are employed by the project as Herd monitors, ICT
center monitors, Yes4Youth coordinators, scout leaders and in other administrative positions
each year. All staff employed by the project receive above the national minimum wage.

See 4.1.1. & 4.3.1
4.1.4 Protection of High Conservation Values (CM2.4)
The project has not adversely affected any identified community HCVs. Rather, these have beenprotected and/or improved under the project scenario.
- Evidence from the monitoring period shows that forage productivity within the project zone will
become more robust following improved grazing management practices. This secures the
livelihoods of the livestock farmers and communities who depend on the rangeland resources.
- Buffer zones for protected areas have also been better managed during this monitoring period.
This enables greater adaptation of the flora, fauna and people depending on protected areas.
- Finally, improved soil condition in project areas located in major river catchment areas is also
expected to have net positive effects on the groundwater water resources in the project zone,
compared to the without-project scenario. This impact will be measured in subsequent monitoring
periods.
4.2

Other Stakeholder Impacts

4.2.1 Mitigation of Negative Impacts on Other Stakeholders (CM3.2)
No offsite stakeholder impacts were anticipated or observed during this monitoring period. During thedesign phase of the project, potential offsite groups were identified, but none are considered likely to be
impacted by the project.
4.2.2 Net Impacts on Other Stakeholders (CM3.3)
The project has not resulted in any net negative impacts on any of the identified stakeholders as outlined
below:
Stakeholder

Net Impacts

Kruger to Canyons Biosphere
Reserve*

Net positive impact through improved resilience, decreased erosionof water catchments feeding protected areas and better protectionof wildlife outside protected areas
Net positive impact through strengthened governance structures
within livestock communities via grazing associations. Livelihoodsof communities are generally improved and there is an increased
potential for eco-tourism in the area

Traditional Authorities:- Mnisi- AmaShangaan- Jongilanga- Ba pedi
Dinkwanyane
Bushbuckridge Local
Municipality
Ehlanzeni District
Municipality

97
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Net positive impact through improved livelihoods of constituents
Net positive impact through improved livelihoods of constituents

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
SANParks BSP

Net positive impact through improved rangeland conditions andimproved community wildlife conservation

Parastatals(Mpumalanga Tourism andParks Agency*, SANParks,
LEDET)DARDLEA

Net positive impact through improved rangeland conditions andincreased potential for eco-tourism

University of Pretoria, Wits
Rural Facility, University of
Mpumalanga, Southern
African Wildlife College
Department of Agriculture
through the Mpumalanga
State Veterinary Department
Thaba Chewu and Maruleng
Municipalities

Improved collaboration of socio-economic and natural resource use
research in the area generating a positive feedback loop that will
help to improve K2C carbon project activities

Department of Forestry,
Fisheries and Environment

Net positive impact through reduced erosion and rangeland
restoration, rangeland resilience, potential positive biodiversity
impacts

4.3

Net positive impact through improved pasture production

Net positive impact as livestock in the area are better managed andfarmers have higher incentives to follow government-recommended
practices such as Foot and Mouth Disease and tick control
Net positive impact through improved livelihoods of constituents

Community Impact Monitoring

4.3.1 Community Monitoring Plan (CM4.1, CM4.2, GL1.4, GL2.2, GL2.3, GL2.5)
Monitoring of the project’s community benefits is carried out through 2 main processes which aredescribed below with selected (key) results for the current project monitoring period presented
accordingly. Project reports and Excel sheets are available to the validator as supporting documents(“MERL Reports”).
1) Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Learning (MERL) reporting
MERL reports are compiled every quarter from data collected continuously by Yes4Youth Herders, Ecorangers, and CSA Eco-trainers. Daily monitoring of the rangelands is reported via WhatsApp by the Herd
Monitors and Eco-trainers to allow evaluation of grazing plans and compliance at the end of the growing
season. This feeds into the compliance monitoring of the rested camps, to determine if fences are still inplace to avoid cattle entering rested camps. The daily reports capture discussion points brought up by the
local community members as well as training and learning exchange events. The structure of reporting
sets out to disaggregate gender and age groups of members who attend meetings and learning
exchanges. During weekly farmers meetings, any non-compliance issues are also raised between
farmers and the Herd monitors. Further reporting includes rainfall in the areas, dip tank visits, livestock
sales and general rangeland activities, photographs, and GPS locations of findings in the rangelands,
such as the location and extent of alien invasive plants found in the rangelands or waste that has been
dumped. Fence line patrols are also reported on a weekly basis to determine if any fence lines needrepairs for the grazing camps or protected area fences have been broken. Furthermore, during weekly
regulation dipping/FMD inspections by state veterinary services, cattle are monitored by Herd Monitors topromote good cattle husbandry and herd health. The herd monitors work closely with the eco-trainer teamand report any incidents, such as fence breaks, predation, theft, wounds, and missing cattle.
The data reported via WhatsApp is captured and analyzed monthly whereby reporting gaps are identified
and reported back to the team to ensure that these gaps are addressed. MERL reports are then compiled
quarterly.

98
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Due to the time taken to establish effective monitoring structures for the project, no MERL data wasrecorded for 2018. Furthermore, some data gaps exist for the periods between 2019 and 2020,
particularly pertaining to the disaggregation of data by gender and age demographics. From 2021,
improvements in the data quality can be observed which is attributable to a restructuring of the monitoring
framework and building up monitoring capacity within the Herd monitors and Eco-rangers.
No interventions on bursaries and scholarships were implemented and so this was not reported for thisperiod although included in the initial monitoring design.
Average yearly data for the current monitoring period is summarized below. As reflected in the data, theCovid-19 pandemic affected training and scout activities in 2020.
Indicator

2019

2020

2021

Total number of beneficiaries of the project(Total of trainings, access to ICT, Scouts and
CA beneficiaries)

6,115

4,619

5,583

Number of households supported directly by
project interventions (same as livestock
farmers under CAs).

348

354

354

Number of training beneficiaries

1957

377

984

Number of youth beneficiaries – ICT centers

3,542

3,542

3,542

Number of youth beneficiaries – scouts

210

300

350

Number of full-time jobs created directly andindirectly that can be attributed to the projectinterventions

24

24

32

Number of learning experiences throughemployment such as internships or the Yes
for Youth programme.

34

22

321

Number of livestock sales

Data notavailable

4

4

Turnover from livestock sales (ZAR)

Data notavailable

R 660 438.00

R 672 495.00

The average number of livestock dipped
yearly in community dip tanks.

Data notavailable

3,226

4,535

2) Socio-Economic household Survey (SES)This is conducted every two years by CSA Eco-trainers with the assistance of the project M&E officer andthe Stewardship Coordinator. The survey data is collected from a sample of livestock farmers via the
Kobo Collect Application and stored on the central Kobo Server. A first baseline survey was conducted in2017 covering 65 respondents from the project area of Dixie, Utah and Welverdien. A follow-up survey
was done in 2019 with a sample size of 69 covering Utah and Dixie. The 2019 follow up survey inWelverdien was disrupted following restrictions imposed by the government due to South Africa’s Covid19 outbreak.

99
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Below is a summary of key findings from the surveys.
2017

2019

Total number of responses

65

69

Age (highest age)

18-34

50-70

% households having member

23%

27%

64%

47%

96%

100%

86%

96%

25%

25%

Amount spent on cattle feed

Average: R6936

Average: R2355(average and maximum

Maximum: R50 000

Maximum: R25 000

4%

23%

23%

37%

with tertiary education% households earning less than
R2000
% respondents attending dip
tanks weekly% respondents willing to allow
trained herders look after theircattle% willing to pay towards theherders

response)% respondents who havereceived business training% respondents who keep trackof income and expenditure
In both years, the main sources of household income were government grants or pension. The limitations
to livestock trade were also compared across both years with the highest reasons in 2017 given as
disease, bad prices, limited buyers, grazing/fodder, and livestock death. By 2019, these limitations werereduced significantly (Figure 9).

100
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14% respondents

What are the biggest limitations to selling livestock?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

2017
2019

Limitations
Figure 9: Limitations to livestock trade

It should be noted that an effective time-series comparison is limited by the fact that data from the followup survey was collected from different individuals than the baseline survey. Therefore, observed
differences cannot be directly interpreted as changes. In addition, the survey questions so far were notstandardized, further limiting comparability. Protocols guiding sample selection for the survey and thedevelopment of questions following best practice are to be formulated going forward to improve future
SES monitoring.
4.3.2 Monitoring Plan Dissemination (CM4.3)
Project monitoring reports will be shared as hard copies with the traditional authorities, in the communities
and in schools/youth centers where CSA provides internet access. A translated summary is planned to beprovided with this documentation.
In addition, Eco-rangers and/or CSA staff will present and discuss summaries of the documents in the
livestock committees as well as in the events of the Scouts. These presentations will take the form offocused feedback sessions on specific issues of particular interest to stakeholder groups such as soil,
grazing quality etc. This is already taking place in part during the weekly farmer meetings wheresummaries of the daily reporting are presented for discussion among the farmer cooperatives and noncompliance issues are raised.
The project monitoring report will also be published on the Verra website and made available to the wider
public for a public commenting period. CI will share this link as well with other project stakeholders fortheir information and input.
4.4 Optional Criterion: Exceptional Community Benefits
The project meets the exceptional community criteria because communities participating in the project
have management rights to land in the project area and rights to claim that their activities will cause theproject’s climate, community, and biodiversity benefits. Although the rangelands are communal (i.e., state101
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
owned and without an individual ownership title deed), the rangelands belong to the community throughthe guidance of the Nduna and Chief from the tribal authorities. This is recognized under the Communal
Land Rights Act 11 (2004). Under tribal custodianship, the use of the land is decided through the Tribal
Authority and local municipal government through consultation with communities and community
structures. The capacity to enforce rights is through the existing governance structures, either livestock
committees or dip tank committees as well as traditional authorities. Communities therefore lead theprocess of dividing grazing areas into rested and grazed zones and own the entire management andimplementation process. CI currently functions as the project proponent but in the future will transfer thisrole as well to the communities via a suitable governance structure.
4.4.1 Short-term and Long-term Community Benefits (GL2.2)
The project is generating the following short-term community benefits in the project area and is on trackto generate the long-term benefits listed below. This is evidenced in the monitoring results shown abovein Section 4.3.1.
Short-term benefits- Direct training & employment of youth- Empowerment of women with income-generating skills- Increased income from livestock sales- Better governing structures among livestock farmers
Long-term benefits- Increased household income via employment opportunities for youth and women- Restoration of perennial grasses for improved livestock forage- Additional employment opportunities via eco-tourism- Improved local knowledge about sustainable rangeland management.
- Greater tolerance and conservation of wildlife outside protected areas- Resilience of ecosystems and rangeland resources- Improved quality and quantity of surface water- Increased knowledge on health and wellbeing through ‘one-health’ approach with the veld
sanitation guide.
4.4.2

Marginalized and/or Vulnerable Community Groups (GL2.4)
Community GroupNet positive impacts

102
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Women
• 53% of training participants are women. This includes
trainings in financial literacy, savings, cooperatives,and business development.
• 51% of job opportunities of the project directly go towomen as Herd Monitors, Yes4Youth supervisors &Eco-trainers.
• Increased household income is expected to have a net
positive impact on women as well as other household
members. Household income trends are reported in
4.3.1 and will be continuously tracked through future
Socio-economic surveys.
• Finally, the participation of women in decision making
has also been strengthened within communities. Prior
to the project, the inclusion of women in workshops /meetings was limited. Through community
engagement and the provision of safe communication
platforms, women in project communities are now able
to give greater input into communal decisions.

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Benefit access

Negative impacts

Community GroupNet positive impacts

Benefit access

Negative impacts

Community GroupNet positive impacts

Benefit access

Negative impacts

103
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Women-only workshops are held for selected skill
development trainings. These sessions are held when womenare mostly available, this is facilitated by asking women andscheduling sessions at times that suit most women attendees
e.g., morning sessions when children are mostly at school.
In larger sessions involving male and female participants,
women are encouraged to speak up and voice their opinions(see section 4.4.3 below).
The project also ensures a fair selection process for
employment, so that men alone aren’t employed in project
activities (see section 2.3.14).
No negative impacts of the project activities on women were
foreseen.

Children / Youth (below 25 years of age).
Increase in average number of attendees of the weekly scout
meetings to over 200.
11 ICT centers were established in local communities as partof the school support program. These centers are used bymore than 3,000 children / youth yearly to develop relevant
ICT skills.
Youth / ICT centers are established locally so that they areeasily accessible since long distance transportation could be abarrier. Whenever veld hikes are conducted for the scouts,
transportation arrangements are made for participants who
require this. Weekly scout meetings are held after school for
convenient participation. Finally, sessions are held in local
languages to ensure the understanding is not limited by any ofthe participants.
Since this project activity involves school children, it isconducted outside school hours and only once a week so that
school activities are not affected, and to allow time for otheractivities or household tasks. Parental permission is also
required for children to participate as scouts.

Unemployed youth
Work experience opportunities are created yearly as Ecotrainers, Yes4Youth Herd monitors, Scout leaders etc. (see4.3.1). These programs employ youth who are paid above
minimum wage.
Youth receive training on topics such as rangeland
management, waste & recycling, financial literacy, CV &proposal writing targeted at increasing employment prospectsof youth in the communities.
Through the Yes 4 Youth program integrated in project, youth
within the communities are selected through a participatory
process by the farmers to work as herders. CSA ensures theselection process is democratic and all youth withincommunities are given a fair chance to participate in the
training activities.
No negative impacts are expected to occur from this project
activity.

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
4.4.3

Net Impacts on Women (GL2.5)

As mentioned in section 4.4.2 above, this project has strengthened the participation of women withinproject communities in decision making processes. As a detailed example, when CSA commenced withthe engagement of Farmers Organizations to introduce and discuss the project, there was limited
inclusion, especially of youth and women. This was largely on account of prevailing cultural norms andtaboos in the area. These norms and taboos often meant that women and young people did not speak
during workshops or meetings and therefore their inputs on the process were not included. Throughintroduction of FPIC the team highlighted the importance of everyone's participation in the process andthis prompted the leadership to start encouraging everyone to speak in meetings, although this was aslow process overtime participation of women and youth improved as the chairperson (in Utah village)
would use the techniques such as saying "for the next 10 minutes we only want inputs from the women",this allowed some of the more outspoken men to give others a chance to speak, until it became a norm
over time. Creation of informal communication platforms also played a useful role. For example, during
breaks women or silent participants in the meeting are asked bilaterally for their inputs and if they are
happy with where the discussion is going. Also, house visits by female environmental monitors allowed
the team to capture the inputs of women and youth members. Throughout the implementation stage
participation of these two groups, especially in Utah and Dixie villages has improved to the point where
women lead key processes such as facilitation of learning exchanges and being representatives atmeetings with the department of agriculture. Other net impacts of the project activities on women in the
project area are highlighted in section 4.4.2. No net negative impacts were identified.
4.4.4 Benefit Sharing Mechanisms (GL2.6)
Benefit sharing mechanisms for the project are agreed upon and concretized in benefit sharing contracts
wherein livestock farmers undertake to perform certain project activities, and CSA to deliver the livestock
management benefits to the communities using carbon revenues generated from project activities. The
carbon revenue (after deducting carbon transaction costs) will be used to support sustained delivery of
the Livestock Management Benefits and incentives such as the provision of fodder, provision of herders
and Eco-trainers to support with project activities, provision of training opportunities (livestock production,
health and management, market access, red meat value chain), facilitation of partners who provide
services / support e.g. DARDLEA (fencing, water infrastructure etc.), Meat Naturally (improved
participation of farmers in red meat value chain).
4.4.5 Governance and Implementation Structures (GL2.8)
Livestock farmers establish a Cooperative that forms the foundation for the implementation andgovernance of livestock management and activities that contribute rangeland restoration through thesupport of Conservation South Africa. Livestock Farmers Cooperatives ensure good governances throughensuring that the Cooperative’s membership list is updated, registration certificate is obtained andproperly archived, that a bank account in the Cooperative’s name is opened and that each farmer in the
Cooperative has made payment to the Cooperative of an agreed membership fee. The Cooperative
members also attend monthly farmers meetings to ensure proper implementation of the grazing plan andcompliance with conservation agreements.
CSA is an independent affiliate of Conservation International, as an affiliate, CSA subscribes to theaspirational vision and mission, strategic framework, and operational requirements of Conservation
International, but is enabled to adapt language and specific policies and goals to the unique context ofSouth Africa. CSA is a registered Non-Profit Organization working across South Africa and works withgovernment, communities, and the private sector to implement sustainable landscape management
strategies and restore degraded ecosystems, while supporting the creation of green enterprises, green
jobs, and green skills. Focusing on vulnerable households with an emphasis on rural women, youth andsmall-scale farmers. In the Kruger to Canyons landscape there is a strong focus on working with livestock
farmers to promote rangeland restoration in communal rangelands.

104
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
The governance and organizational model (Figure 11) below is the result of discussions both internallyand externally with livestock farmers and/or Farmers Cooperatives (grazing associations), traditional
authorities, and any project implementation partners, such as Meat Naturally.
1) Livestock farmers who are part of a Farmers Cooperative, sign a conservation agreement with CSA(or other legal entity as determined during the next stage of this project) as a conservation action ofplanned grazing/resting in accordance with the Benefit Sharing Agreement and conditions outlined in
the conservation agreement.
2) Conservation South Africa will provide transparent governance and oversight of conservationagreements and financial transparency through the carbon project with all Farmers Cooperatives andTraditional Authorities.
3) Conservation South Africa provides the technical expertise for initiation and operating project
activities, including initial project development (e.g., stakeholder consultations, engagement,
workshops, site visits, and co-planning; feasibility studies; technical analyses; capacity building;strategic planning; communications), ongoing project maintenance and implementation activities(e.g., sustainable livelihood support; protection and enforcement related activities; project
infrastructure and equipment; community engagement, training, and capacity building; biodiversity /social impact monitoring; management plans; restoration; planting; and communications).
Conservation International provide funding for project implementation costs and services, including but
not limited to marketing, communications, public relations, due diligence on potential carbon credit
offtakers, negotiations with carbon credit offtakers, legal services (including project related advice anddrafting / negotiations of Verified Emission Reduction Purchase Agreements), carbon registry
management, reporting to project stakeholders and carbon offtakers, related project and financial
management, monitoring, and oversight (including site visits, as necessary), and technical Project support(including Verra compliance, future Project verification matters, and carbon baseline calculation).

Figure 10: Governance and organizational model for the Kruger to Canyons carbon project.

The benefit sharing agreement depicts the responsibilities and benefit sharing structure of any carbon
revenue generated through project activities that resulted in the generation of carbon credits. The benefit
agreement ensures transparency is maintained with Farmers Co-operations and Traditional Authorities
throughout the project lifespan.

105
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
4.4.6

Smallholders/Community Members Capacity Development (GL2.9)• Through the project, communities farming livestock receive training on market access andanimal production which enables sustainable grazing and efficient climate-smart husbandry
practices.
• Selected community members are formally trained as herd monitors (also called Ecorangers) and ‘Eco-trainers’, i.e., in herding, kraaling and other critical skills and are directly
employed by the project to provide services to the members of grazing associations.
• Farmers in cooperatives receive governance training which enhances the understanding of
their role as a governing body, builds administrative capabilities, the ability to approach andengage with local government as a valid stakeholder; make ecologically informed decisions
about how to manage their rangelands; and share lessons from their experience with othergrazing associations.
• Women in the communities are trained in green retail businesses which are potential sourcesof income.
• Men and women participants alike receive financial literacy training through the project’s
partners (local banks).
• Children in the project communities learn the value of wildlife, recycling, veld
sanitation/health, and conservation in their weekly scout meetings. The Water Sanitation andHygiene (WASH) education is facilitated using CSA’s Veld Sanitation Guide• Youth are supported with computer skills through the establishment of ICT centres at schools
and youth centres in communities.
Details and participant lists of trainings held during the monitoring period are available under the folder‘01_Stakeholder consultation’
5

BIODIVERSITY

5.1

Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts

5.1.1

Biodiversity Changes (B2.1)
Change in Biodiversity
Monitored Change

Justification of Change

Change in Biodiversity
Monitored Change

Reduced threats to populations of African Wild dog outside
protected areas in project zone
Couldn’t be monitored during this period.
Eco-rangers as part of the herding training, continuously
educate livestock farming communities on managing humanpredator conflicts. The occurrence of wildlife conflicts in the
project area is monitored via reports from Herd monitors andeco-rangers as well as wildlife tracking data shared by
Endangered Wildlife Trust.

Justification of Change

Increased vegetation diversity and composition in project area
Increased biomass cover and upward trend in vegetation
biodiversity indices recorded.
The project introduces managed rotational grazing to enable
recovery time for perennial grass species. This increase ismonitored through a comprehensive vegetation assessment andassessed via the Shannon Weaver index and a comprehensive
species list every 1-5 yrs.

Change in Biodiversity
Monitored Change

Reduction of alien/invasive vegetation species in project area
Reduced infestation of alien species observed

106
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Justification of Change

Strategic bush thinning and pruning activities are promoted by
the project. Change is measured as a proportion of alienvegetation infestation (ha) compared to baseline level

5.1.2 Mitigation Actions (B2.3)
According to the project's Theory of Change and monitoring plan, no adverse effects on biodiversity havebeen observed. However, the project will closely monitor the biodiversity impacts through its monitoringplan and implement adaptive management strategies if any negative effects on biodiversity necessitate
mitigation.
HCV biodiversity attributes are enhanced through the following project activities:
Improved rotational grazing.
By the implementation of rotational grazing, perennial grasses should be restored across the project area.
Improved veld condition will have long term benefits, both in terms of enhanced livestock health, andimproved ecological functioning. Furthermore, the restored rangelands will act as a corridor between
protected areas for many of the smaller fauna. Improved ground cover and water infiltration resulting fromthese activities also influences water quality and quantity of rivers and tributaries that flow through therangelands and into the Protected area of the GKNP on which the area relies heavily. Consequently, theproject activities build resilience for both the environment itself, and those who depend on it.
Removal of Invasive species
Alien clearing teams were formed to engage in bush clearing and removal of invasive alien plants in therangelands in collaboration with SANParks and K2C Biosphere. The first pilot was successful (see map in
Figure 11) and will be scaled with special focus on alien species which are harmful to livestock or wildlife
health and those which outcompete natural vegetation.
Detection and prevention of wildlife conflict
Designated Eco-rangers patrol communal rangelands and have received training in identifying tracks ofwildlife, specifically predators to support neighboring nature reserves with tracking wildlife that havecrossed over the fence. This supports immediate reporting to the applicable authorities of wildlife outside
protected areas and aims to prevent human wildlife conflicts. The Eco-rangers engage continuously withthe communities, raising awareness on the importance of wildlife, threats they face, and solutions to
reduce conflict between wildlife and people e.g., the practice of kraaling to avoid predation incidents. Thisis expected to increase tolerance of herders towards predators such as Wild Dogs (Lycaon pictus) and
improve the prospects for conserving wildlife in general outside of protected areas.
5.1.3 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts (B2.2, GL1.4)
The project’s core activities involve rehabilitation and restoration in native rangelands used as production
landscapes. Previous studies (Ebrahim & Negussie, 2020) show that areas under high utilization (pastand present) require intensive management intervention to facilitate recovery. The shift from the baseline
livestock management approach of unmanaged, continuous grazing is therefore vital for rangelandresilience given the heavy pressures of utilization.
• During the current monitoring period, vegetation biodiversity (represented by the Shanon-Weiner
index) indicators show an increase in species richness and evenness of both woody andherbaceous biomass compared to the baseline.
• In addition, monitoring sites show larger grass tuft diameter and shorter distance between tufts,
indicating the increase in grass cover and reduction of bare ground. This will contribute to theresilience of the ecosystem to drought and other climate change effects.
• Project activities which educate the livestock communities and prevent incidences of humanwildlife conflicts are predicted to increase conservation by reducing threats to vulnerable wildlife.
This impact was not monitored during this monitoring period and will be reported on for the next
monitoring period.

107
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
5.1.4 High Conservation Values Protected (B2.4)
The project does not adversely affect any identified biodiversity HCVs. Pressure on protected areas has
decreased under the project scenario by promoting the ecological functioning of buffer zones. Increased
protection from conflict and attacks is expected to benefit endangered or vulnerable endemic local
populations of carnivorous lions, cheetahs, and wild dogs.
5.1.5 Invasive Species (B2.5)
Not applicable, no species are planted by the project.
5.1.6 Impacts of Non-native Species (B2.6)
The project does not introduce any non-native species into the project area, as re-seeding or plantings
are not a project activity. Project activities merely adjust the way in which livestock are herded and moved
across the landscape.
5.1.7 GMO Exclusion (B2.7)
The project does not introduce any GMOs into the project area, as re-seeding or plantings are not a
project activity. Project activities merely adjust the way in which livestock are herded and moved acrossthe landscape.
5.1.8 Inputs Justification (B2.8)
Project activities exclude the use of fertilizers to increase productivity and potential carbon sequestration.
Project activities are not applicable to land other than grassland, so no increased use of pesticides or
herbicides is anticipated. A small portion of the project area is affected by the invasive species Lantana
camara, Psidium guajava, and Agave sisalana, which inhibits the establishment of indigenous species.
Selective removal of this species is exclusively mechanical, as removal is done by humans using handtools.
5.2

Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

5.2.1 Negative Offsite Biodiversity Impacts (B3.1) and Mitigation Actions (B3.2)
No negative offsite biodiversity impacts were observed from project activities during this monitoring
period.
In the absence of the project, farmers would similarly utilize their land as grazing land. There is no
specific benefit for biodiversity foreseeable in the baseline scenario, which could be seized due to project
activities. Soil degradation through unmanaged grazing in the baseline has rather negative siltation
effects on waterways leading through high-value biodiversity areas such as the Kruger National Park.
Project activities rather uplift biodiversity in offsite areas due to reduced erosion and increased water
infiltration, reduced human-wildlife conflicts opening safer pathways and steppingstones for endangered
fauna, such as African Wild Dog.
The project may thus cause potential for human-wildlife conflicts further away from conservation areas
where such conflicts have not yet existed due to the absence of relevant species. This is rather a form of
biodiversity “leakage” than negative impact.
5.2.2 Net Offsite Biodiversity Benefits (B3.3)
No negative offsite biodiversity impacts could be identified. Therefore, a bi-modal evaluation andcomparison with biodiversity benefits of the project is not possible. The net effect of the project
biodiversity is positive as described in section 5.1.

108
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
5.3

Biodiversity Impact Monitoring

5.3.1 Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (B4.1, B4.2, GL1.4, GL3.4)
Monitoring design.
To monitor the biodiversity effect of interventions in the project area, the project focuses on two major
aspects.
1) Improvement of natural rangeland conditions including the cover and diversity ofvegetation; and the presence of invasive grass species compared to the condition at
project start. This is monitored through vegetation assessments which evaluate species
richness and Shannon-Wiener diversity index in response to the planned forage and grazingchanges. This is compared with the baseline conditions. A baseline survey was conducted in2016 by Sustineri (Pty) Ltd and follow up data is collected annually at 75 sites across the
project area (Figure 12). Assessments are carried out according to the Multiple Indicator
Monitoring (MIM) Method (Peel et al. 2005). The presence of invasive grass species in therangelands will also be monitored and compared to the condition at project start.

Figure 12: Soil and Biodiversity Monitoring sites within the K2C Biosphere

2) Reduced threats to threatened predator species (African Wild dogs) occurring outsideof protected areas. Human-wildlife conflicts contribute the largest threat to endangered
predator species (wild dogs) in the project area. Conflicts and predator movements outside
protected areas are recorded via incidence reports from Eco-rangers. The occurrence of
predators in the project area is also monitored using information shared from Endangered
Wildlife Trust17 using the Earth Ranger tool. Earth Ranger was successfully set-up in Q1
2022 to assist with spatial data collection of monitoring of Human-wildlife conflict, Rangeland
Management and Monitoring all on one platform.

17

As part of their carnivore conservation program, EWT monitors wild dog populations along the whole of theWestern Boundary of the Kruger National Park. Monitoring alerts will be shared with CSA via the “Earth rangers”
platform whenever a pack of wild dogs move out of the protected areas into Communal rangeland.

109
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Figure 13: Example output of the Earth Ranger tool

Monitoring results
The key Biodiversity changes from this monitoring period are shown in the table below. Note that results
are the average values for the project area. The comprehensive assessment reports are available to thevalidator under the folder “Vegetation assessment”. Data on Above ground biomass and Veld Condition
score have been reported under climate adaptation (3.3.1), along with the other climate adaptation
indicators designated in the Project Description document. Long term trends in rangeland dynamics show
an increase in diversity of both woody and herbaceous individuals as indicated by the Shannon Weiner
Index (Figure 14). The Shannon-Weiner index considers both the richness (number of different species)
and the evenness (relative abundance or proportion of each species) within a community. To address theremoval of invasive alien plants (IAP) in the rangelands, alien clearing teams were formed in collaboration
with SANParks and K2C Biosphere. A total of 1300 ha has been cleared and is shown in Figure 15.
Yearly data on proportion of IAP cleared to maintenance level (5% infestation) could not be tracked
during this period.

Shannon Weiner Indices (H')
2,8
2,7
2,6
2,5
2,4
2,3
2,2
2,1
2

Herbaceous
biomass
Woodybiomass

2016

2019

2020

2021

Figure 14: Change in biodiversity Indices for herbaceous and Woody biomass

110
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

Figure 15: Areas in blue indicating where bush clearing has been implemented.

Similarly, data tracking the occurrence of threats to vulnerable wildlife couldn’t be collected during thisperiod as the Earth Ranger tool was effectively set up in 2022. However, several activities wereconducted during the monitoring period which are expected to reduce the threat of human-wildlife conflict,according to the project’s Theory of Change. Conflict with humans and human activities was identified asa leading threat to the endangered Lycaon pictus species in the project area. Activities conducted during
this monitoring period to reduce this threat include training of Eco-rangers on predator tracking for Human
Wildlife conflict. Three (3) Predator Tracking Training courses were completed in Q1 2022 by 9 of the
Eco-trainers (2F & 7M), 7x herd monitors (5F & 2M) and 36x Natural Resource Managers (18F & 18M)
Yes for Youth to improve human-wildlife conflict monitoring and reporting of predator presence on the
Manyeleti Game Reserve border as well as the grazing camps bordering the open road to Timbavati. The
Eco-trainers and herders in turn share information with the livestock farmers and constantly build
awareness within the community about wildlife protection. Details on the training events are included in
the folder ‘01_Stakeholder consultation’. Less predation incidents have also been reported by Herd
Monitors since 2021 after the monitoring improved. This is attributable to improved herding practices andthe strategic use of bomas. Formal reporting on the reduced threats to wildlife according to the indicators
defined below will take effect from the next monitoring period using the data reported via Earth Ranger. In
general, the need has been identified to further strengthen the project’s monitoring capacity and refine themonitoring metrics. This will be a key focus during the next monitoring period(s).
Indicator
Vegetation diversity
Shannon-Weiner index (woody
biomass)
Shannon – Weiner Index(Herbaceous biomass)
Percentage IAP cleared tomaintenance level (Area at 5% /Total
area infested)
Wildlife conservation
Number of predation incidences
Number of human retaliatory killings
incidences

111
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

2016

2019

2020

2021

2.64

2.69

2.73

2.74

2.30

2.46

2.56

2.66

0
(Baseline
condition)

No dataavailable

No dataavailable

No dataavailable

No dataavailable
No dataavailable

No dataavailable
No dataavailable

No dataavailable
No dataavailable

No dataavailable
No dataavailable

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14
Livestock loss to predators with Ecorangers

No dataavailable

No dataavailable

No dataavailable

No dataavailable

5.3.2 Biodiversity Monitoring Plan Dissemination (B4.3)
Project monitoring reports will be shared as hard copies with the traditional authorities, in the communities
and in schools/youth centers where CSA provides internet access. A translated summary is planned to beprovided with this documentation.
In addition, Eco-rangers and/or CSA staff will present and discuss summaries of the documents in the
livestock committees as well as in the events of the Scouts. These presentations will take the form offocused feedback sessions on specific issues of particular interest to stakeholder groups such as soil,
grazing quality etc. This is already taking place in part during the weekly farmer meetings wheresummaries of the daily reporting are presented for discussion among the farmer cooperatives and noncompliance issues are raised.
The project monitoring report will also be published on the Verra website and made available to the wider
public for a public commenting period. CI will share this link as well with other project stakeholders fortheir information and input.
5.4 Optional Criterion: Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits
The project intends to claim Gold/Exceptional Biodiversity status.
5.4.1

Trigger Species Population Trends (GL3.3)
Trigger Species
With-project Scenario

6

African wild dog (Lycaon pictus)
The Greater Kruger National Park, which is directly adjacent to
the project area, contains around 35018 individuals of African
wild dog (Lycaon pictus), an endangered species. This is thelargest connected population in southern Africa. This species islargely threatened by persecution from landowners outside ofprotected areas. During the monitoring period, Eco-rangers haveengaged continuously with the communities, raising awarenesson the importance of wildlife, threats they face, and solutions to
reduce conflict between wildlife and people e.g., the practice ofkraaling to avoid predation incidents which are often the causeof retaliatory killings. The objective is to increase tolerance ofherders towards predators such as Wild Dogs (Lycaon pictus)
and improve the conservation of wildlife in general outside ofprotected areas. Eco- rangers also patrol communal rangelands
and have received training in identifying tracks of wildlife,
specifically predators to support neighboring nature reserveswith tracking wildlife that have crossed over the fence. This
supports immediate reporting to the applicable authorities ofwildlife outside protected areas and aims to prevent humanwildlife conflict which is the main threat to the Lycaon pictus
species in the project zone.

ADDITIONAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION

No additional project implementation information to be reported here.

18

Endangered Wildlife Trust112
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

VM0032, Version 1.0
Sectoral Scope 14

7

ADDITONAL PROJECT IMPACT INFORMATION

No additional project impact information to be reported here.

113
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

MONITORING REPORT:CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

8

APPENDICIES

8.1

Appendix 1: Project Activities and Theory of Change Table
Activity description

Rotational grazing with
Herding / Kraaling•••

Outputs

Outcomes

Impacts(short term)(medium term)(long term)

Reestablishment of
perennial grass cover on
grazing camps
Reduction of bare soil on
grazing camps
Protection of livestock frompredators••••
Provision of benefits
package (Livestock
market access, herd
health & fodder
supplementation)•••

Rangeland restoration
activities: Bush thinning,brush packing, gully
covering with brushes
and alien species clearing•

Awareness raising on
wildlife and natural
resource conservation•

114
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4

Relevance to project’s
objectives

Expected climate, community, and/or biodiversity•

Compliance with CAs
Healthier livestock herds
Improved livestock sales infoot-and-mouth red zone
(quantity, higher sales price)
Less area infested byinvasive species.
Reduction in size of erosion
gullies

Increased awareness on
biology and ecology ofespecially predators

•
•
•
•

•
•

•

Improved water
infiltration in soil
Increased biodiversity& activity of soil fauna
More availability ofgrazing resources forlivestock and lessfodder costs
Reduced predation
incidents•

Lower cost of
livestock production
Increased income
from livestock sales
Improved rangeland
conditions
Reduced competition
for indigenous
vegetation.
Reduced erosion
Habitats ofindigenous small
fauna are conserved.
Informed decision
making on rangelandand livestock
management.

•

•
•
•

•

•
•

•

Increased sequestration of
SOC
Buffer against drought &soil erosion
Sustainable & profitable
livelihoods
Reduced human-wildlife
conflict.

••

Sustainable & profitable
livelihoods
Improved food security via
better quality livestock for
local consumption•

Sustained biodiversity offlora & fauna
Restoration andrehabilitation of degradedlands.

••

Biodiversity conservation
Climate change
adaptation

Stable populations ofendangered species (flora& fauna)•

Biodiversity conservation•••

Climate change mitigation
Climate change
adaptation
Community wellbeing &livelihoods
Biodiversity conservation

Community wellbeing &Livelihoods
Climate change mitigation

MONITORING REPORT:CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3•

Increased environmental
awareness••

Weekly Boy/Girls Scout
meetings

Establishment of ICT &youth centers••

Increased awareness on
restoration, veld sanitation,
WASH

ICT training & Skills
development

Yes4Youth programme•

Local employment &capacity building

Promotion of various
gender development andincome generating
activities for women (e.g.
business development /Financial Literacy
trainings with local
partner-banks)•

Involvement of women,
youth, and disadvantaged
community groups incommunity decision making
Increased businessdevelopment andadministration skills of
women
Increase in green
businesses
Better money management
skills of community members

•

•

•
•

•

•

•
•

115
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4•••

Reduced wildlife
conflicts.
Sustainable wood /plant harvesting
Improvedconservation, veld
sanitation and healthhabits in children /households
Improved job
perspectives andmodern employability
Access to information
Work experience,skill development &future employment
prospects
Income generation
Improved financial
habitsGreen / climate
friendly businesses
Granting more voice
to women, youth, anddisadvantaged
community groups•••

Better livestock andhuman health
Improved integration of
livelihoods and naturalenvironment
Increased income &livelihoods••

Biodiversity conservation
Community wellbeing &Livelihoods•

Community wellbeing &Livelihoods
Climate change
adaptation••

Poverty reduction•

Community wellbeing &Livelihoods•

Financial empowerment of
women
Sustainable livelihoods•

Community wellbeing &Livelihoods
Climate change
adaptation••

MONITORING REPORT:CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

116
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4