CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

KRUGER TO CANYONS RANGELANDRESTORATION PROJECT

Document Prepared by Conservation South Africa in collaboration with unique land use GmbH

Project Title
VersionDate of Issue
Project Location

Project Proponent(s)Kruger to Canyons Rangeland Restoration Project01
16 -April-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
Project proponent

Prepared By

Validation Body

Project Lifetime

GHG Accounting Period

History of CCB Status

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

SCS Global Services
2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600
Emeryville
CA 94608
USA
www.SCSglobalServices.com
08 August 2018 – 07 August 2048; 30-year lifetime

08 August 2018 – 07 August 2048; 30-year lifetime

N/A

1

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
The K2C project seeks to achieve all climate, community, and biodiversity
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 of droughts,
and fires.

Gold Level Criteria

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 350 number of African Wild dog which is classified by IUCN as anendangered species.
Exceptional community benefits
The project is community-led. Participating communities havemanagement rights to land in the project area and rights to claim that theiractivities will cause the project’s benefits. The role of project proponent will
also be handed over to community structures once these are fully put inplace. The project creates jobs for unemployed youth who are one of mostvulnerable community groups.

Expected Verification
Schedule

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

August 2023

2

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Table of Contents
1
Summary of Project Benefits ................................................................................................... 4
1.1

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

1.2

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

2

General ....................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1

Project Goals, Design and Long-Term Viability ........................................................................... 8

2.2

Without-project Land Use Scenario and Additionality ............................................................... 32

2.3

Stakeholder Engagement .......................................................................................................... 34

2.4Management Capacity ............................................................................................................... 42

2.5

Legal Status and Property Rights .............................................................................................. 47

3

Climate ...................................................................................................................................... 51
3.1

Application of Methodology ....................................................................................................... 51

3.2

Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals..................................................... 65

3.3

Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 96

3.4

Optional Criterion: Climate Change Adaptation Benefits ........................................................ 131

4

Community ............................................................................................................................. 135
4.1

Without-Project Community Scenario...................................................................................... 135

4.2

Net Positive Community Impacts ............................................................................................. 137

4.3

Other Stakeholder Impacts ...................................................................................................... 141

4.4

Community Impact Monitoring ................................................................................................. 142

4.5

Optional Criterion: Exceptional Community Benefits............................................................... 143

5

Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................ 148
5.1

Without-Project Biodiversity Scenario ..................................................................................... 148

5.2

Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts ............................................................................................ 153

5.3

Offsite Biodiversity Impacts ..................................................................................................... 158

5.4

Biodiversity Impact Monitoring ................................................................................................. 158

5.5

Optional Criterion: Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits .............................................................. 160

5.6

References .............................................................................................................................. 163

Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. 165
Appendix 1: Project Activities and Theory of Change Table................................................................. 165
Appendix 2: SNAPGRAZE model version ............................................................................................ 167

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

3

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
1

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) that are described in Sections 2-5 of this document.
Unique Project Benefits

Outcome or Impact Estimated by the End of Project Lifetime

SectionReference

1.1

1) Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded rangelands to buffer against drought & soil
erosion

3.4.3

2) Improved livestock & human health

3.4.3

3) Reduced threats to protected tree species

5.2.1

4) Reduced human-wildlife conflict.

5.2.2

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

4

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Estimated by the End
of Project Lifetime

SectionReference

Standardized Benefit Metrics

Net estimated emission removals in the project area,
measured against the without-project scenario

2.88 tCO2e ha-1 yr-1

3.2.4

Net estimated emission reductions in the project
area, measured against the without-project scenario-0.04 tCO2e ha-1 yr-1
(emissions)

3.2.4

For REDD2 projects: Estimated number of hectaresof reduced forest loss in the project area measured
against the without-project scenario

N/A

N/A

For ARR3 projects: Estimated number of hectares offorest cover increased in the project area measured
against the without-project scenario

N/A

N/A

Number of hectares of existing production forest landin which IFM4 practices are expected to occur as aresult of project activities, measured against thewithout-project scenario

N/A

N/A

Number of hectares of non-forest land in which
improved land management practices are expected
to occur as a result of project activities, measured
against the without-project scenario

82,300ha

2.1.21
(2)

1,518

4.5.9

760

4.5.9

MetricTraining

Improved land
management

Forest1 coverCategory

GHG
emission
reductions
or removals

1.2

Total number of community members who are
expected to have improved skills and/or knowledge
resulting from training provided as part of project
activities.
Number of female community members who are
expected to have improved skills and/or knowledge
resulting from training as part of project activities

1 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 ofcrown 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 byslowing or stopping conversion of forests to non-forest land and/or reduce the degradation of forest land where forest
biomass is lost (VCS Program Definitions)
3 Afforestation, reforestation and revegetation (ARR) - Activities that increase carbon stocks in woody biomass (andin some cases soils) by establishing, increasing and/or restoring vegetative cover through the 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 increase carbon stockon forest lands managed for wood products such as saw timber, pulpwood and fuelwood (VCS Program Definitions)

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

5

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Estimated by the End
of Project Lifetime

SectionReference

CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Total number of people expected to be employed inproject activities,5 expressed as number of full-time
employees6

785

4.2

Number of women expected to be employed as aresult of project activities, expressed as number offull-time employees

393

4.2

Total number of people expected to have improved
livelihoods7 or income generated as a result of
project activities

18,000

4.2

Number of women expected to have improved
livelihoods or income generated as a result of project
activities

9,000

4.2

Total number of people for whom health services are
expected to improve as a result of project activities,
measured against the without-project scenario

N/A

N/A

Number of women for whom health services are
expected to improve as a result of project activities,
measured against the without-project scenario

N/A

N/A

Total number of people for whom access to, or
quality of, education is expected to improve as resultof project activities, measured against the withoutproject scenario

4,500 learners at
schools have access tohigh-speed internet

4.2.1

Number of women and girls for whom access to, or
quality of, education is expected to improve as resultof project activities, measured against the withoutproject scenario

2,200 female learners
at schools have accessto high-speed internet

4.2.1

Total number of people who are expected toexperience increased water quality and/or improved
access to drinking water as a result of project
activities, measured against the without-project
scenario

18,000Water

Education

HealthLivelihoods

Employment

Category

Metric5 Employed in project activities means people directly working on project activities in return for compensation(financial or otherwise), including employees, contracted workers, sub-contracted workers and community membersthat 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 the 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 meansof 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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

6

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Biodiversity
conservation

Well-being

Category

MetricEstimated by the End
of Project Lifetime

SectionReference

CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Number of women who are expected to experience
increased water quality and/or improved access todrinking water as a result of project activities,
measured against the without-project scenario

9,000

Total number of community members whose wellbeing8 is expected to improve as a result of project
activities

18,0004.2.3

Number of women whose well-being is expected to
improve as a result of project activities

9,000

4.2.3

Expected change in the number of hectares
managed significantly better by the project forbiodiversity conservation,9 measured against thewithout-project scenario

82,300 ha

5.2

Expected number of globally Critically Endangered
or Endangered species10 benefiting from reduced
threats as a result of project activities,11 measured
against the without-project scenario

350 individuals’ African
wild dog (Lycaon
pictus)5.1.2

8 Well-being is people’s experience of the quality of their lives. Well-being benefits may include benefits reported inother metrics of this table (e.g. Training, Employment, Livelihoods, Health, Education and Water), and may also
include other benefits such as strengthened legal rights to resources, increased food security, conservation of accessto areas of cultural significance, etc.
9 Managed for 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, e.g. enhancing
the status of endangered species
10 Per IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species
11 In the absence of direct population or occupancy measures, measurement of reduced threats may be used as
evidence of benefit

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

7

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 32
2.1

GENERAL
Project Goals, Design and Long-Term Viability

2.1.1 Summary Description of the Project (G1.2)
Conservation South Africa (CSA) supports livestock farmers to adopt and expand rangeland practices
that foster restoration and maintenance of healthy savannah ecosystems. The principal project action is
to shift livestock management from continuous grazing to planned rotational-rest grazing for cattle. Thisis done as a collective by the livestock farmers through adopting strategic herding and kraaling (practiceof keeping cattle or other livestock in an enclosure overnight for protection) practices that align with thegrazing plan as determined and implemented by the livestock farmers. Planned rotational-rest grazing,
also called season-long grazing, is known to improve grazing lands through increasing the recovery rate
and ground cover of sub-perennial and perennial grass species, which are more desirable forage.
Usually, one camp will be rested from grazing during the growing season while an adjacent area is open
to grazing. Camps may be rotated as agreed with communities through the Grazing Associations(Farmers Cooperatives); these associations are the drivers of the grazing systems within the landscapeand are composed of locally elected community members who own livestock.
The project is located on the communal rangelands of the Kruger to Canyons (K2C) Biosphere Reservein the Mpumalanga and Limpopo provinces of South Africa. The K2C biosphere reserve is a landscape ofsignificant global biodiversity stretching from the Kruger National Park in the east to the Blyde River
Canyon in the west and includes a remarkably diverse suite of land uses ranging from formal
conservation to peri-urban, urban, intensive commercial agriculture, subsistence agriculture, and livestock
farming land uses. The first project instance includes communal rangelands of the Mnisi andAmashangana tribal authority totaling 6432 ha. The project started in 2018 with the signing of the first
conservation agreement between the Ahitiriheleni and Nhlanganani grazing associations andConservation South Africa (CSA). In addition, foundational steps were made towards enhancing internal
governance of the grazing associations through capacity building, mentoring grazing associations on
good governance and formalizing a cooperative. The conservation agreements are the guiding framework
for the grazing plans and are negotiated with each grazing association to ensure each agreement is best
suited for the particular grazing association. The conservation agreements proposes a suite of benefits toeach grazing association to promote compliance of the grazing plans; these benefits may differ slightly
between each association. In partnership with Meat Naturally, the benefits are focused on supporting
improved livestock management in the form of market access for livestock, provision of fodder and/or
nutritional support, provision of eco-trainers and provision of animal production.
The baseline scenario (without project) in the communal rangelands is ongoing loss of soil organic carbon(SOC) due to low productivity and bare soil relative to reference sites, such as the Kruger National Park.
Unrestricted animal movements and high grazing intensities disrupt recovery time for grasses during thegrowing season, thereby reducing vegetation and seed production of perennial and palatable grass
species. This in turn results in relatively higher proportions of annuals vs. perennials and, eventually, baresoil. Unrestricted grazing is occurring due to a ‘tragedy of the commons’ where communal areas are overutilized for livestock grazing and knowledge of sustainable grazing practices has lapsed, largely due tothe legacy of Apartheid and the segregation of indigenous people into previous homelands and inequalityof land ownership. The lack of vegetation and high occurrence of bare soil leads to high run-off andmassive loss of topsoil during the rainy season. This causes localized flooding events instead of
infiltration into the soils and creates siltation which reduces river flows and affects fauna and flora
downstream in protected and other areas. At the same time, unfavourable herd structures with lots of
unproductive, old cattle cause high emissions for little to no extra beef produce.
Project activities will restore the ecosystem functioning of the rangelands thus enhancing the resilience ofcommunities that depend on the rangelands to the impacts of climate change. The project will also
contribute positively towards the livelihoods and long-term wellbeing of communities in the project area by
creating alternative sources of employment, building capacity in different skills as well as raising

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

8

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
awareness about conservation. This will also impact the project’s biodiversity objectives to conserve
endangered flora and fauna in the project zone while restoring vegetation biodiversity in the rangelands.
The project will sequester soil carbon by reducing bare soil and producing a natural shift from annual toperennial grass species as enabled by rotational grazing. Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions fromenteric fermentation will be reduced by changing the herd structure from older to younger animals.
The project will net sequester approximately 115,281 tCO2e/yr and 3,458,420 tCO2e total over 30 years
according to current estimates of project extent.
2.1.2

Project Scale
Project Scale
Project

X

Large project
2.1.3

2.1.4

Project Proponent (G1.1)
Organization name

Conservation South Africa

Contact person

Julia Levin

Title

Vice President, Africa, South Africa

Address

Forrest House, Ground Floor, Belmont Office Park, Belmont Road,
Rondebosch, 7700, South Africa

Telephone+2721 100 3950

Emailjlevin@conservation.org

Other Entities Involved in the Project

Organization nameMeat Naturally Pty
PartnerContact person

Nomusa Mashile

Title

K2C Meat Naturally Incentives Manager

AddressK2C Nodal Office, Zandspruit Bush and Aero Estate, R527 road,
Hoedspruit

Telephone+2772 470 0650

Emailnmmashile@conservation.org

Organization name

Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve Partner

Contact person

Marie-Tinka Uys

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

9

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Title

Executive Coordinator & Chief Operating Officer

Address
Telephone

K2C Biosphere Nodal Centre, Zandspruit Bush & Aero Estate, R527,
Hoedspruit, Limpopo, South Africa+2715 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+27714380147
Justicentimane26@gmail.com

Organization name

Mokgapeng Farmers’ Cooperative (Welverdiend A)

Contact person

Lion Thete

Title

Chairperson of the Cooperative

Address

P.O.Box 39; Hluvukani; 1363

Telephone+27723342867

Email

N/A

Organization name

Welverdiend B Farmers’ Cooperative

Contact person

Johnson Mlambo

Title

Farmers Organization Chairperson

Address

Welverdiend B, Stand Number 27, Hluvukani, 1363

Telephone+27762327049

Email

N/A

Organization nameNhlanganani Farmers’ Cooperative (Utah)

Contact person

Lucas Ubisi

Title

Farmers Organization chairperson

Address

Utah Stand number 10133; Hluvukani, 1363

Telephone+27728762821

Email

Lucasubisi67@gmail.com

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

10

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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

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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

11

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
2.1.5 Physical Parameters (G1.3)
Vegetation
The project area is broadly within the Savanna Biome of South Africa and comprises savanna andgrassland vegetation types (Figure 1) Granite Lowveld in the west (80% of survey points), Northern
Escarpment Dolomite Grassland (8%), Poung Dolomite Mountain Bushveld (3.3%), Legogote Sour
Bushveld (1.6% of survey points), Northern Escarpment Quartzite Sourveld (1.6%) and Origstad
Mountain Bushveld (1.6%) as per SA’s vegetation map (Mucina and Rutherford 2006). Tree canopy covervaries between 0 and 30% at most sites, reaching up to 45% in a few sites (2019 European Space
Agency (ESA) tree cover) with all trees in survey sites being below 5 m tall. Project activities will not alter
the land classification as they are not aimed at tree cover and will not involve conversion of grassland or
savannah to another land cover.

Figure 1: Vegetation types within the Kruger to Canyons (K2C) Biosphere where baseline sampling of vegetation andsoil occurred.

ClimateThe landscape has a temperate climate. Rain occurs in the summer months, and the winter months are
dry and generally free of frost, though sporadic frost may occur in bottomlands (Gertenbach 1983, Mucinaand Rutherford 2006). The mean monthly temperature and rainfall for the period 1979-2020 is displayedin Figure 2. The mean annual rainfall (MAP) of the area is 604mm (1979-2020 values from ERA-5
reanalysis data12, varying between ca. 750 mm in the west and 600 mm in the east.

12 Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) (2017): ERA5: Fifth generation of ECMWF atmospheric reanalyses of

the global climate. Copernicus Climate Change Service Climate Data Store (CDS), 11.04.2023.
https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/home

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

12

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
30

120

25

100

20

80

15

60

10

40

5

20

0

0

RAINFALL (mm)TEMPERATURE (°C)

CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

MONTHS
Rainfall (1979-2020)

Temperature (1979-2020)

Figure 2: Climate diagram showing the mean monthly temperature and rainfall in the project area from 1979-2020.

Landscape, geology & soils
The landscape is undulating with distinct uplands, ecotones and bottomlands and the altitude varies
between 350 and 500 meters above sea level (Gertenbach 1983). The geology of the area includes
granite and gneiss, parent material for soils. The soils vary in relation to position in the topography andalong the catenal gradient (Gertenbach 1983). The uplands are characterized by sandy soils (6-15% clay)
and the dominant soil formations are Hutton and Clovelly with Portsmouth/Swartfontein and
Denhere/Makuya respectively as the dominant series (Gertenbach 1983). Glenrosa soils can be expected
where slopes become steeper. Where convex topography changes to concave, conditions of temporary
water saturation occur and gleyed sandy soils are present (Cartref and Fernwood) (Gertenbach 1983).
The soils of bottomlands have become clay-rich because of the accumulation of clay in these areas overtime and are often sodium saturated (Gertenbach 1983). Dominant soil formations are Estcourt,
Sterkspruit, Swartland and Valsrivier (Gertenbach 1983). The frequent occurrence of dolerite intrusions in
the granite of this landscape sometimes obscures the catenary sequence described above. The soils on
the dolerite intrusions are usually much darker with higher clay content (Gertenbach 1983).
2.1.6

Social Parameters (G1.3)

A summary description of the main settlements, land ownership, population and ethnicity of the project
area are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Description of Social Parameters in the project area

Villages

Longitude

Latitude

Population

Dixie(Phungwe)Utah

24.6943 S

31.4741 E

405

Total
Area
(Ha)
1394

24.7037 S

31.4421 E

1530

2669

Welverdiend24.58 S31.3394 E

7601

5917

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Land ownership

Dominant
Ethnic Group

Mnisi Tribal
Authority
Amashangaan
Tribal Authority
Mnisi Traditional
Authority

Shangaan
SepediShangaan
SepediShangaan
Sepedi13

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Table 2: Percentage of ethnic groups in project area.

Ethnic groups in
Bushbuckridge Local
Municipality
Black African
ColouredIndian/Asian
White
Other

Percentage

99.5 %
0.1%
0.1 %
0.2 %
0.1%

The total project expansion will extend across the Bushbuckridge Local Municipality, which has a total
population of 541,248 of which 99.5 % are black Africans. Of those aged 20 years and older, 4.0% havecompleted primary school, 32.3% have secondary education, 25.7% have completed high school (grade12) 7.4% have some form of higher education and 18.7% of have had no form of schooling13.

Figure 3: Most prominent languages in the Bushbuckridge community is Xitsonga and Sepedi.

Figure 4: More than 75.3% of community members do not have access to internet in the project area.

13

StatsSA Census 2011: https://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=993&id=bushbuckridge-municipality

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

14

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Figure 5: Employment for those aged 15-64.

Figure 6: Settlement type, indicating that 96.2% is categorized as “Tribal/Traditional”.

2.1.7 Project Zone Map (G1.4-7, G1.13, CM1.2, B1.2)
The grouped project is located within the Kruger to Canyons (K2C) Biosphere within the Limpopo andMpumalanga provinces of South Africa (Figure 7). This is the larger project zone and includes all potential
project areas, including areas where community development activities are implemented. The entire K2C
biosphere is regarded as an area with High Conservation Value and is a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.
The project area for the first activity instance comprises Dixie (Phungwe), Utah and Welverdiendcommunal 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 over Mpumalanga and Limpopo

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

15

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
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

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

Figure 7: 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

Stakeholder Identification (G1.5)

CSA uses CI’s stakeholder mapping guide to identify and systematically analyze all actors who directly or
indirectly may affect or be affected by the project. The stakeholder mapping follows a six-step process
briefly described as follows:
1. Planning: This is started as early as possible in the project cycle. The most critical part of thisstep is defining the purpose of the stakeholder analysis – which goals are to be accomplished,which stakeholders will need to be consulted, who will use the information, and in which ways theresulting information will benefit the project.
2. Identifying stakeholders: The project implementation team lists all groups known to influence or
be impacted by the project at hand. Stakeholders are identified based on given categories in the

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

16

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

3.

4.

5.

6.

2.1.9

Stakeholder Analysis worksheet. This step provides an important basis from which to expand thenumber of known stakeholders as well as begin to analyse those listed.
Gathering information: In this step, data for the subsequent steps are collected from the identified
stakeholders in three main ways, (1) electronic communication – such as email or online surveys,(2) interviews – by phone or in person, and (3) focus groups with multiple stakeholders. This step
also proves useful in collecting and adding groups to the list of stakeholders by asking eachgroup to identify others who may have interest in or be impacted by the project.
Filling in stakeholder mapping worksheet: The questions in the worksheet are answered by the
project implementation team using input from prior steps. These include questions of stakeholder
rights, interests, conflicts, alliances, and overall relevance to the project.
Analysing the worksheet: Once information has been compiled on as many stakeholders as
possible, we again answer each question on the worksheet to re-evaluate the answers and reacha better understanding of the interests, positions, relevance, partnerships, and conflicts ofstakeholder groups.
Applying the results: The stakeholder analysis shapes the project design, reflecting the feedback
provided by stakeholders impacted by it. This step is ongoing and is revisited consistently as the
project progresses.
Stakeholder Descriptions (G1.6, G1.13)

The project proponent has identified the following stakeholders who need to be engaged at various levels:
Table 3: Stakeholders of the K2C Rangeland Restoration Project

Stakeholder

Rights, Interest and Overall Relevance to the Project

Conservation South Africa

Conservation South Africa (CSA) is the project proponent andleads the development of the project. CSA has been working inthree landscapes in South Africa namely, Namakwa, Kruger to
Canyons and Umzimvubu Catchment since 2010. CSA’s priorities
are driven through four pillars: Conservation, Climate Positive
Planning and Finance, Jobs for Nature, and Healthy African
Rangelands. Through the rangeland restoration model, CSA
engages with local communities to promote rotational grazing andtrain local farmers and eco-rangers in rangeland restoration. Thismodel is guided by conservation agreements and Herding for
Health principles. CSA has built a relationship with local farmers
and traditional authorities through the Herding for Health program
since 2017. CSA works within the Mnisi, Amanshangaan andJongilanga Traditional Authorities through a range of projects,
including:•••

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Promoting environmental education through the Scouts
project, securing reliable internet connections at schools
and youth centres;
Empowering local green businesses;
Providing work experience to youth through the Yes 4
Youth Jobs for Nature programme;

17

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3••

Meat Naturally Pty.

Kruger to Canyons Biosphere
Reserve*

Conservation International

Traditional Authorities:- Mnisi- AmaShangaan- Jongilanga- Ba pedi
Dinkwanyane

Community Farmers
Cooperatives(Mogapeng Cooperative,
Welverdiend B Cooperative,
Nhlanganani Cooperative,
Ahititirheleni Cooperative)
Bushbuckridge Local
Municipality
Ehlanzeni District
Municipality

Improving livestock health and market access inpartnership with Meat Naturally;
Rangeland Restoration, which is the anchor project for
CSA in the K2C landscape.

Provision of market access, training, and market readinessservices to farmers cooperatives in project sites, project partner aspart of an incentive package that is self-financed through themarket.
Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Region Non-Profit Company (K2C) is
the implementing agency managing the 2,474,700 ha (UNESCO)
Kruger to Canyons biosphere reserve since 2001. K2C is currently
running 12 projects with partners in the biosphere linking
sustainable development and biodiversity conservation including
expansion of protected areas and sustainable land management.
The Kruger 2 Canyons Biosphere undertake the bulk of thelandscape restoration efforts through their various Invasive Alien
Plants control projects in the areas. They also employ
Environmental Monitors and herd monitors in the villages who work
alongside the CSA eco-trainers.
Parent organization. Through CI technical support and funding is
made available to support the project VCS validate and verification
process.
Tribal authorities are the “custodians of the land”. They are the firststakeholders to be approached before an organization can start a
project with communities and communal lands.
Land Use Planning/management, prevailing leadership structure inproject sites, project partners and endorsement of CSA projects inthe communities.
Local communities in these traditional authorities will participate in
the project through conservation agreements.
Land users, Project beneficiaries, livestock farmers, andimplementers of conservation agreements.
Information trickles down from cooperative committee to all farmers
in the cooperative.
Mandated to implement Integrated Development Plan (land use
planning, Spatial Development Plan), Support of farmers
cooperatives in project sites
Drafting of Integrated Development Plan (no direct implementer ofproject)

SANParks BSP

Project Partner, invasive alien plants (IAP)/Bush Clearing in projectsites (no direct implementer of project)

Parastatals(Mpumalanga Tourism andParks Agency*, SANParks,
LEDET)DARDLEAManagement of state-owned protected areas adjacent to projectsites, Human-Wildlife Conflict management

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Project partner, support livestock farmers in project sites(Infrastructure maintenance, provision of livestock management
services, funding, disease control, market access)

18

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
University of Pretoria, Wits
Rural, University of
Mpumalanga, Southern
African Wildlife College
Department of Agriculture
through the Mpumalanga
State Veterinary Department
Thaba Chewu and Maruleng
Municipalities

Project partners, research, and disease control, implement Herdingfor Health programme.

Department of Forestry, Fish
and Environment

Passive stakeholder (no direct implementer of project)

French Development Agency(AFD)

AFD is a co-funder to CSA for the Pro-Nature Enterprises Project.

Animal husbandry and weekly diptank visits.

Passive stakeholder (no direct implementer of project)

2.1.10 Sectoral Scope and Project 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”.
2.1.11 Project Activities and Theory of Change (G1.8)
Summary: The project consists of implementing planned rotational-rest grazing for cattle, sheep, andgoats by collective herding and kraaling. This is achieved with community grazing cooperatives by meansof conservation agreements across project sites. Sustainability of project activities is enabled andincentivized through market-access opportunities for compliant producers, provided by our commercial
partner Meat Naturally Pty (MNP). Project activities are aimed at improving livelihoods, biodiversity, andclimate change adaptation and mitigation. The project takes place within the context of CSA’s rangeland
restoration programme which targets benefits for people and the natural environment (Figure 8). A
detailed theory of change can be made available to the validator on request. No native ecosystem has
been cleared to implement the project in the last 10 years. The area has been used as grazing land for as
long as living memory. See description in section 2.1.5. The project area does not fall within a jurisdiction
covered by a Jurisdictional REDD+ program.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

19

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Figure 8: Conservation South Africa’s overall rangeland restoration approach for increased climate resilience on
rangelands enables and provides context for the present project.

Grazing management
The project focuses on a shift in livestock management from continuous grazing to planned rotational-rest
grazing by collective herding and kraaling of cattle, sheep, and goats according to a grazing plan. Grazing
plans are developed with the support of Eco-trainers who have received training in regenerative land
management. Grazing plans ensure that selected camps are rested from grazing during the growing
season (November to April). During the rested period, disturbances are minimized, allowing theecosystem to recover. A schematic representation of the change in livestock management can be seen in
Figure 9 below. This is done within a framework provided by CI’s Herding for Health (H4H) Programme,
which promotes value-chain development with local communities, government partners, enterprise, andconservation agencies.

Figure 9: Change from continuous unrestricted grazing (left) to planned rotational-rest grazing (right). The large blue
arrow indicates the direction of change. Small blue arrows indicate animal movement. The yellow and green dashedlines demarcate grazed and un-grazed (seasonally rested) areas, respectively. The solid green triangle indicates a‘grass bank’ that may be rested for an entire year as drought forage at the discretion of the grazing association.
Short-term kraals used to protect animals will not result in more than 50% dung cover as per VCS VM0032 criteria.

Planned grazing management is expected to reduce grazing intensity on communal lands via
management of animal movement, restricting animals concentrating around water points and settlements

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

20

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
as well as the maintenance of a rotational-rest area and grass bank. This will lead to productivity anddiversity of perennial plant cover as well as increased carbon sequestration in the soil from plant litter anddung.

Figure 10: Herding for Health linkages of combined Kraaling and Herding

Implementation of the planned grazing is governed by the conservation agreement model. Using thisapproach, conservation agreements are signed by the community’s livestock farmers, who are part of theFarmers Cooperatives (grazing associations), and by the project proponent (CSA).

Figure 11: Conservation agreement model demonstrating how the change in resource use produces benefits, with afocus on mitigating threats to the ecosystem.

The agreement is discussed and drafted with the input of the farmers to ensure that the project also
draws from indigenous knowledge. Under the conservation agreements, livestock farmers agree to
implement sustainable grazing management while the project proponent undertakes to provide a suite ofagreed benefits. Benefits include a livestock-to-market mechanism provided by our commercial partner
Meat Naturally Pty (MNP). The MNP organizes mobile auctions that bring rural farmers and commercial
buyers together; provides livestock management training for herders, NGOs, and farmers; and organizes
mobile abattoirs, enabling increased market opportunities for farmers and providing NGOs and farming
communities with bulk purchasing power and access to critical farming equipment and vaccinations.
Fodder, ear-tagging for traceability, and ultimately favorable livestock prices are major incentives.
Improved forage quality (crude protein) and younger herd structures are also expected to reduce overall
livestock emissions via methane. Additionally, management of livestock via herding will also reduce
livestock-wildlife conflict, while the tracking of livestock movements (herding and livestock tagging) should
ameliorate restrictive disease control policies. Changes in fire management (frequency and seasonality)

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

21

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
are expected to become more important as fuel loads (grass cover and biomass) increase due to project
activities, and will be incorporated into grazing plans and agreements.

Figure 12: Example of the commitments under conservation agreements.

Yes 4 YouthThe facilitation of strategic herding and kraaling as per grazing management plans is done by skilled
herders that are recruited from communities, trained in critical skills, and redeployed to communities tofacilitate the implementation of best practices for rangeland and livestock management. Thus, the Yes 4
Youth program forms the basis of local job creation through the project. Yes 4 Youth is a government-led
program to offer job experience to one of the most vulnerable groups in South Africa society: unskilled,
low-educated, unemployed youth. The project offers 10 vacancies each year per available supervisor 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 the possibility to
become Eco-rangers after their contract ends (1 year). Eco-rangers are the mentors of the Yes 4 Youth.
Individual Eco-rangers qualify for further training to become Eco-trainers. Eco-trainers eventually move up
to fill other positions as advertised in the organization.
Bush thinning, brush packing, and alien species clearing
In collaboration with SANParks and K2C Biosphere, alien plant clearing teams were formed to engage inbush clearing and removal of invasive alien plants in the parts of the rangelands which are affected by the
species Lantana camara, Psidium guajava, and Agave sisalana. Brush packing involves pruning
branches in areas that are bush encroached and packing the branches over bare patches. The bush
thinning allows for better sun penetration and reduces competition from encroaching woody species on
the herbaceous stratum. The branches that have been pruned from the tree is use on bare patches of soil
to create a micro-climate which enables regrowth of grass and mitigates soil run off that may lead toerosion. In many respects, brush packing mimics elephant and other large herbivore behavior and impact
on ecosystem functioning. These species outcompete and inhibit the establishment of indigenous
species, leading to a reduction in biodiversity, loss of vigor in grass layer, and potentially modification ofsoil pH. Removal of invasive plant species is exclusively mechanical and is done by humans using handtools. The project targets the clearing of alien (exotic) vegetation infestation and bush encroachment to adefined maintenance level to promote palatable grass growth and keep the flora and fauna diversity
intact.
Awareness on wildlife conservation
The project also aims to reduce incidence of conflicts between herders and endangered wildlife species
by engaging Eco-rangers in community sensitization activities. Eco-rangers engage continuously with thecommunities, raising awareness on the importance of wildlife, threats they face, and solutions to reduce

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

22

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
conflict between wildlife and people. This is expected to increase tolerance of herders towards predatorssuch as Wild Dogs (Lycaon pictus) and improve the prospects for conserving wildlife in general outside ofprotected areas. Eco-rangers are also responsible for patrolling communal rangelands and have received
training in identifying wildlife tracks, specifically predators, to support neighboring nature reserves withtracking wildlife to have crossed over the fence. This supports rapid reporting of wildlife outside protectedareas to the relevant authorities and aims to prevent human-wildlife conflict.
Boy and girl scouts
The project establishes scout centers within local communities where boy and girl scout activities are
conducted once a week as an after-school activity for two hours. Here, children in the projectcommunities learn the value of wildlife, recycling, and conservation. This is used as a vector to raise
environmental awareness also at home. The scouts programme also educates youth on Water, Sanitationand Hygiene (WASH) through the CSA Veld Sanitation Guide.
ICT centers & skill development
Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) centers have been established by the project at
schools and youth centers in communities who form part of conservation agreements. These centers arefocused on providing reliable and fast internet connections and support youth with computer skills, e.g.,assisting youth with drafting their curricula vitae in an electronic format. Where funding is available, theproject plans to include bursaries/scholarships to youth in project communities.
Promotion of various gender-development and income-generating activities for women
The project also comprises an enterprise development component, where women-only workshops are
held, and community women are provided training in financial literacy and business skills. The focus isplaced on green retail businesses which are pro-nature. The women are also given support on regulatorycompliance issues for their small businesses.
Through a combination of the above activities, the project uses a sustainable, community- and enterprisedriven model to address the complexity associated with rangeland degradation, climate-change
vulnerability and greenhouse gas emissions, poverty alleviation and rural development in communities
within and adjacent to protected areas. Due to the CSA track record in the area, scaling up can be fasttracked. It will be possible to complete community consultation and include the remainder of the proposed
areas by 2030 if sufficient funding is available.
2.1.12 Sustainable Development
The project will contribute to underprivileged farming communities’ resilience to climate change by
restoring nature’s capacity to retain soil, provide fodder for livestock, replenish aquifers, store water, andreduce impacts of floods and fires. From South Africa’s National Development Plan 203014, 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 Plan15 which are:•

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.

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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

23

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3•

Ensure resources and Systems are in place to enable implementation of climate change
responses.

The project will measure its contribution to Sustainable Development through indicators of the SDGs,
particularly in outcomes 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), 13 (Climate Action) and 15 (Life on land).
Table 4: Sustainable Development Goals of the K2C Rangeland Restoration Project

SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENTGOAL

SUB-TARGET

INDICATORSSDG 6.3 Improvewater quality(6.3.2 - ambient
water quality)

Rangeland rehabilitation: spring repair
Ecosystem health: critical habitat
condition

SDG 6.4 Increasewater-use
efficiency andensuresustainable
withdrawals andsupply to reducewater scarcity

SDG 6.6 Protect
and restore waterrelated
ecosystems

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

WASH
education
project throughthe CSA Veld
Sanitation
Guide.

Rangeland rehabilitation: spring repair
Ecosystem health: critical habitat
condition

WASH
education
project throughthe CSA Veld
Sanitation
Guide.

Rangeland rehabilitation: spring repair
Ecosystem health: critical habitat
condition

Rangeland
rehabilitation:planned grazing
WASH
education
project throughthe CSA Veld
Sanitation
Guide.

Soil carbon stocks

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

Net ecosystem exchange. Net CO2

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing
SNAPGRAZE(modelled)

Number of youth (16-24 yrs) trained
formally (accredited), and informally(mentored, workplace learning,internship, primary health care session).

All activities

SDG 13 Combat
climate change

SDG 13b Combat
climate change
via education of
the youth, women,
and marginalized
communities

RELATEDPROJECT
ACTIVITIES24CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENTGOAL

SUB-TARGET

SDG15A. Increasefinancialresources toconserve &sustainably use
biodiversity andecosystems

SDG15.1
Conservation,
restoration &sustainable use ofterrestrial andinland freshwater
systems

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

INDICATORSRELATEDPROJECT
ACTIVITIES

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

All activities

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

All activities

Number of organisations trained

All activities

Number of direct beneficiaries inlandscapeAll activities

Number of jobs created

All Activities

Value of stock sales at auctions.

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Meat Naturally

Number of households supported fromstock sales and GED

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Meat Naturally

Meat Naturally Pty turnover (Rands)

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Meat Naturally

Number of Conservation Agreements individuals and entities

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

Area covered by Conservation
Agreements (hectares)

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

Compliant Conservation Agreements

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

Area of indigenous woody plant
encroachment reduced (hectares)

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

Grazing plans in place

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

Number of rest days in grazing plan

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

Total camps area (hectares)

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

25

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENTGOAL

SUB-TARGET

SDG15.3 Combat
desertification,
restore degraded
land and soil
SDG15.8 Preventand reduce
invasive alien
species

INDICATORSRELATEDPROJECT
ACTIVITIES

Productivity/greenness of rangelands(NDVI)

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

Change in % basal cover of herbaceous
layer

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

Plant biodiversity and composition.
Shannon Wiener index / species list

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

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

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Planned grazing

Number of gabions, micro-catchments

Rangeland
rehabilitation:
Erosion control
activity

Hectares of Alien vegetation infestation

Rangeland
rehabilitation

Hectares of Alien vegetation cleared tomaintenance level

Rangeland
rehabilitation

2.1.13 Implementation Schedule (G1.9)
The start of the landscape intervention was a facilitated meeting by Conservation South Africa to bring
together all stakeholders involved in rangelands and livestock in Utah, Dixie, and Welverdiend to develop
a concept note. The skill audit and visioning process described in 2.3.3 below was followed with thevillages. The concept was then developed into a Conservation Stewardship Program project. Following
the CSP conservation agreement process described in 2.4.4 leading to the signing of conservationagreements with three cooperatives in their villages in August 2018 marked the project kick-off. Planned
grazing was implemented in the initial Mnisi implementation sites covering 6432 ha of rangelands andengaging with 348 livestock farmers. The key conservation action, switching from unplanned, continuous
grazing to ecologically informed rotational grazing, was successfully implemented across the target
grazing areas. In addition, foundational steps were made towards enhancing internal governance of theFarmers Cooperatives (grazing associations), including democratic nomination and implementation of
new leadership, underpinned by the conservation agreement framework. Initial implementation was
funded by the Conservation Stewardship Program. These Mnisi sites will continue to be implemented andexpanded until 2024 by CSA with French Development Agency (AFD) funding as part of the Pro NatureEnterprise.
After successful validation/verification, the subsequent verifications are planned at five-year intervals toallow sufficient time for the accumulation of carbon removals, especially SOC. Community engagement
will be an ongoing part of the project as new areas will be continuously added.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

26

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Table 5: Milestones of the K2C Rangeland Restoration Project

Date
April 2015

Milestone(s) in the project’s development and implementation
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
Every 5 years from 2023
onwards

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 organisations
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
Verification of Monitoring Report by external auditors

2.1.14 Project Start Date
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).
2.1.15 Benefits Assessment and 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.
2.1.16 Differences in Assessment/Project Crediting Periods (G1.9)
There are no differences between the GHG emissions accounting, climate adaptive capacity andresilience, community, and/or biodiversity assessment and periods.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

27

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
2.1.17 Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals
The following table shows the estimated emission reductions or removals. Note that numbers arenegative to imply a GHG emission reduction or removal. Further explanations on the ex-ante calculation
can be found in chapter 3.2.4.
Table 6: Estimated GHG Reductions or Removals

Year
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
Total estimated ERs
Total number of crediting years
Average annual ERs

Estimated GHG emission
reductions or removals (tCO2e)-15508-15508-15508-15508-25554-35601-45647-55913-67390-79084-91019-102954-114889-126824-138759-150694-162628-174563-186498-198433-181073-181073-181073-181073-181073-169826-158580-147334-135841-122993-3,458,420
30-115,281

2.1.18 Risks to the Project (G1.10)
The risks as well as their mitigation strategy is presented in the table below. The main risk is a lack ofchanged 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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

28

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Table 7: Project Risks

RISK EVENT / ISSUE

Non-compliance of communal
farmers with agreed restoration
activities (planned grazing,
management of herd
characteristics)

Land ownership and Land rights

Climate change impacts areevident in the area andpredicted to increase throughlonger dry seasons andincreased temperatures.

Foot and Mouth Disease

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

DESCRIPTIONPOTENTIAL MITIGATIONSTRATEGY

Compliance of farmers depends
on short-term (2-yr)
conservation agreements (CAs),
which in turn depend on
incentives (auctions, fodder,training, etc) and farmer
willingness

Non-compliance means nobenefits (auctions, etc). The
well-established social
enterprise (Meat Naturally Pty,
MNP) provides a sustainable
market mechanism that has
proved to encourage goodcompliance with CAs. Extend
conservation agreement
renewable period to 5 years.

Land ownership is a complex
issue in communal systems,
meaning the land is state owned
and without an individualownership title deed but is rather
under the custodianship of the
Tribal Authorities andrecognised under theCommunal Land Rights Act 11(2004) and the Interim
Protection of Informal Land
Rights Act (IPILRA) of 1996.
The use of the land is decided
through the Tribal Authority andlocal municipal government
through consultation with
communities and community
structures. Therefore, change inland use from communal
rangeland to any other land use
is possible but unlikely.
Longer dry seasons andincreased temperatures arestressors for livestock
production in communal
rangelands. Here, people rely
heavily on rainfall and surface
water for livestock as well as
good grass production. Overutilization during growing
seasons can result in increased
risk during the dry periods.
The areas adjacent to theGreater Kruger fall within theFoot and Mouth Vaccination
zone. This is monitored by statevet services, and, if foot andmouth disease is detected in thearea, it can slow the progress ofcertain activities

Livestock ownership is part ofcultural practices. Therefore, theneed for communal land tograze livestock is entrenched
and not easily lost. Small
portions of the areas maychange in land use but not in
totality.

Planned grazing should accountfor extreme climatic predictions
to ensure that risk is mitigated.
An incentive for better quality
animals ahead of higher quantityof animals should beincorporated from the beginning
to reduce over utilization

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

29

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

RISK EVENT / ISSUEDESCRIPTION

Discrimination

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

Land Use Change

There is pressure from urban
areas, and some areas might beneeded for urbanisation andexpansion.

POTENTIAL MITIGATIONSTRATEGYAll CSA employees arefamiliarised with CSA’s nondiscrimination policies andfollow the principles of thesepolicies during all stakeholder
engagements. In addition, CSA
employees promote genderequality according to the gender
plan.
Support and work with local
authorities such as Traditional
Councils and Municipalities tomitigate land use change
impacts on important
ecosystems, such as therangelands.

2.1.19 Benefit Permanence (G1.11)
The project forms part of CSA’s efforts to implement community-led sustainable rangeland management
including local job-creation and value-chain improvements. Over the project lifetime, CSA intends to handover as much of the project ownership as possible to Farmers Cooperatives that demonstrate good
governance. This will be achieved by setting up a community-led governance and organizational structure(Figure 15) that can distribute the profits transparently and continue the function of delivering the benefits
derived from conservation activities long beyond the lifespan of this project.
Project activities implemented over the project lifetime (e.g., planned grazing periods as decided by the
livestock farmers, tagging and branding of cattle, market access through Meat Naturally offering fair
prices) should form communal habits and be adopted as prevailing practice over the next decade.
Witnessing higher income through better prices, improved cattle production and increased palatable
grass cover as a result of sustainable rangeland management, farmers should continue this beneficial
way of managing rangelands. This way, the benefits of the project for climate, community and biodiversity
permeate after the project. An example of success from the project is made by communities directly
benefitting from increased grass growth in rested camps, which reduced the number of additional fodders
purchased during the dry season. Livestock farmers have also seen additional benefits from improved
prices for their cattle per kg through the Meat Naturally interventions.
2.1.20 Financial Sustainability (G1.12)
The project costs follow four main categories: establishment costs, implementation costs, program
management costs and carbon accounting costs. These are summarized as:
Establishment Costs: The overall project establishment costs are approximately $369,000, the majorityof which will be incurred in 2022 and 2023. These costs include technical analysis, consultation
processes and costs associated with developing the PDD and project validation. The PDD is expected tobe submitted in the first half of 2023, with first expected validation and credit issuance in late 2023.
Implementation Costs: Implementation costs for the project average around $1,269,000 per year
throughout the life of the project, for a total cost outlay of approximately $38 million. Implementation costs
involve costs for Eco-rangers (i.e., community jobs), equipment, dedicated staff implementation functions,and the management of the community-owned entity that will distribute the community profits over the lifeof the project for project related activities.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

30

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Program Management Costs: Program management costs cover personnel costs for managing the
project, including technical advisory during project implementation and engagement with service
providers. These costs average $131,000 per year and aggregate to just over $4M over the life of project;some of these costs are embedded in the implementation costs.
Carbon Accounting Costs: This includes standard costs associated with issuance and registration ofcarbon credits and verification costs. While the project proponents have the option to choose thefrequency of verification, the financial model assumes verification is conducted every three years, with thefirst verification planned for 2023. Carbon accounting costs an average of $33,000 per year throughout
the life of the project, for a total of $1,000,000 over 30 years.
Commercial Model
The primary source of revenue in the financial model is through the sale of verified carbon credits
generated from the project. Over the 30-year lifespan of the project, the project is estimated to generatearound 3 million tons of verified carbon credits, net of carbon held in the buffer (15%). On an annual
basis, the project is expected to generate 115,281 tCO2e/year. The financial model assumes that the firstissuance of credits occurs in FY23. The first issuance of credits includes tonnage from year 2018-2022,
amounting to 54,914 tCO2e (including deductions of non-permanence risk and buffer for uncertainty).
Subsequent verification and issuance occur every three years. With regard to expected sales ofgenerated credits, this analysis does not account for an estimate variation in future demand for carbon
credits. The analysis assumes that an average quantity of credits generated is sold each year, with theexcess credits banked for subsequent years. This helps smooth project financial flows and ensures there
is sufficient cash flow over the course of the project’s life.
The start-up financing of the project including any gap-financing after the first issuance of credits isfunded by CI and AFD.
Table 8: Summary of financial model.

Description

12 Years
Aggregates

30-Year
Estimates

AnnualEstimates

Carbon (Tons) net

564,938

3,456,832

115,228

Carbon Value ($) @ $9.00, 6% increment$9,974,990$109,819,056$3,660,635

Establishment Costs$369,945$369,945$184,973

Implementation and Management Costs$6,725,530$38,086,567$1,269,552

Carbon Accounting Costs$418,002$1,011,386$33,713

Total Costs$7,513,477$39,467,899$1,488,238

Breakeven price

13.30

11.42

Breakeven Year

Year 1

Project has secured 80% or more of funding
needed to cover the total cash out before theproject reaches breakeven

Grant by CI

Note: The 12-year figures represent 12 years from the project start date of FY19, which would include 12
years of credits but only 8 years of actual costs incurred, due to backend credits.
2.1.21 Grouped Projects
1) Eligibility Criteria for Grouped Projects (G1.14)
New instances to this project are part of CSA’s scale-up plan and thus apply the same criteria and theoryof change as described in G1.8. Namely these criteria include:

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

31

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3•

Project activities include establishing conservation agreements with local communities with theconditions as shown in Figure 12.

•

The area consists of grasslands (savanna).

•

Lands are grazed and/or subject to fires in the baseline and/or project scenarios. Lands may be
used for different purposes, such as livestock production, conservation, hunting or tourism.

•

Livestock is kept within the project area, and the boundaries of the project area are enforced(mostly via herding and fencing).

•

There is no net increase in the density of, or time spent by, animals in confined corrals wheredung can pile up and begin to decompose anaerobically and result in CH4 and N2O emissions,such as an increase in the number of livestock aggregated (e.g., kept in corrals or pens) thatwould result in more than 50 percent of the ground area covered by dung.

•

Baseline emissions derived from livelihood-driven human impacts on aboveground woody
biomass (e.g., cutting for fuel wood, charcoal, or timber sales) must be deemed de minimis (i.e.,
not included in the cumulative 95 percent of total baseline emissions) and project activities cannot
significantly alter such livelihood-driven activities. This applicability condition was modified in anissued Errata and Clarifications to VM0032 and restated as “…must be deemed de minimis (notgreater than 5% of the total greenhouse gas benefit of the project)…”.

•The baseline scenario in terms of climate, community, and biodiversity is the same as describedin chapter 2.2.

•

Being in line with the additionality situation as provided in G 2.2 or chapter 3.1.5.

•

Being subject to the same processes for stakeholder engagement described in G3 and respect
for rights to lands, territories and resources including free, prior, and informed consent describedin G5.

•

Being monitored with the same methods and parameters as shown in this document.

2) Scalability Limits for the Grouped Projects (G1.15)
The project is planned to be scaled to around 83,200 ha. This is according to CSA’s ten-year plan andcorresponds to the area achievable within the traditional authority areas in which CSA is currently
working. The project needs to scale up similarly its capacities (management, staff) as its spatial scale
increases. However, this is no hard limit to scalability within the K2C biosphere reserve. Yes 4 Youth has
a constant stream of candidates for future Eco trainers, and existing staff can take over director roles.
Negative impacts on biodiversity with increased scale are unlikely because of the project’s largely positive
biodiversity impacts. Rangelands are defined by the Republic of South Africa. Thus, project activities canonly happen on rangelands, and land use conversion is not expected.
3) Risk Mitigation Approach for Grouped Projects (G1.15)
Not applicable because no scalability limits in the sense of the methodology apply.
2.2

Without-project Land Use Scenario and Additionality

2.2.1 Land Use Scenarios without the Project (G2.1)
The baseline scenario is the same as the conditions existing prior to the project initiation. The rangelandsin the project area have been degraded over time due to anthropogenic causes and continue to degrade.
This degradation is a result of population growth, political marginalization connected with the history of

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

32

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3South Africa, and unchanged livestock grazing and herding behavior. Such degradation is not a result of
any incentive to subsequently produce carbon credits. Section 3.1.4 provides more detailed information on
this baseline scenario.
2.2.2 Most-Likely Scenario Justification (G2.1)
Without the proposed carbon project, the most-likely scenario is the continuation of the baseline scenario.
This is due to a widespread lack of access to services, training, and infrastructure to support a change in
grazing practices. Since communities lack training in tourism/other sectors and keep livestock for cultural
reasons, it is not expected that they favor the conversion of rangelands from grazing purposes. Moreover,
the resident communities in the project area are highly dependent on water, natural- and grazing
resources (Figure 13) of the rangelands for their livelihoods. The increasing population and the effects ofclimate change in the project area are thus likely to worsen the degrading conditions in the absence of
incentives offered by the project. In addition, there is a cultural tendency to maintain a herd structure thatis unfavorable for climate change mitigation, i.e., less efficient forage to energy production with relatively
high methane emissions from older, larger (male) and less climate-adapted animals. The tendency tokeep older animals, including large bulls, arises because livestock represent personal wealth and status
and are integral to the ethnic groups in the project area. Section 3.1.5 shows further evidence on thejustification of this most-likely scenario.

Figure 13: Climate Vulnerability Assessment showing areas where farming communities have direct dependence onnatural resources including water, grazing, wood, and building materials. Source: Holness 201716

2.2.3 Community and Biodiversity Additionality (G2.2)
The additionality of the project is discussed in detail in section 3.1.5. The arguments provided there also
apply to community and biodiversity benefits since the project activities depend on the finance provided
by carbon credits. Extension services, Eco-rangers, vocational training for women, and other community
benefits are all provisions that are simply not available in the project area from other sources. The
financing through the carbon project would provide the necessary continuous and long-term financing
source to pay for these activities.

16

Stephen Holness 2017. Priority Areas for Ecosystem-based Adaptation to Climate Change in the Kruger to
Canyons Biosphere.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

33

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
In addition, biodiversity benefits are hampered by barriers due to social conditions and land-use practices.
Predator conflicts have also been reported within the project area, such as when wildlife leaves theprotected areas and enters the rangelands through damaged fences. This often results in retaliatory
killing of wildlife following an attack on livestock. Poaching is also a common problem, with occasional
conflict between law enforcement and poachers that are embedded in the communities. Without projectinterventions, such conflicts are expected to continue as worsening rangeland conditions deplete theresources on which communities within the area rely for their livelihoods.
The current population growth rate is high, and urbanization and development, especially to meetessential needs such as housing, can generate conflict if not correctly addressed. The regulation ofbuilding is the responsibility of the municipality via town planning, however, a lack of resources often
limits the enforcement of the legislation and unplanned development is taking place in the rangeland.
2.2.4 Benefits to be used as Offsets (G2.2)
There are no plans to use any community or biodiversity benefits as offsets.
2.3

Stakeholder Engagement

2.3.1 Stakeholder Access to Project Documents (G3.1)
The different stakeholders of interest will be able to access the complete documents and monitoring
reports of the project freely and within a means to which they have access. Hard copies will be left withthe 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 and CSA will share this link as well with other projectstakeholders 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 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.
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 and resources,
as well as their connections with other organizations. CSA then presents itself, checks for whichchallenges they can provide help and then explains how they will deliver this help through conservationagreements. This process is described in CSA’s field guide17 serving as the SOP on outreach. After theengagement team presents the conservation agreement idea (including costs, benefits, and risks, if any)and verifies that the stewards understand the intent, the representatives are given as much time as theyneed to communicate with their constituency and discuss the desirability of designing an agreement with
CSA. CSA confirms that the decision made reflects the sentiment of the wider resource user group, forexample through randomly selected focus groups or informal individual interviews (with representatives
from a variety of social groups). The objective of this step is to ensure that the resource users understand17

Supporting documents“CI_CSP-Field-Guide”

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

34

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
and consent to the proposition of proceeding to the next step, namely designing a conservationagreement. 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.
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 Stakeholders on Validation and 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
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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

35

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
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 Consultations (G3.4)
As described in sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 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 Consultations” 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
Eco-rangers who work directly with the farmers as well as by other CSA staff involved, e.g., in pro-naturebusiness development supporting other community members (oftentimes women) with compliance andbusiness-related questions. Feedback is also collected through project 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 and considered in the management plan as much as
possible. Continued stakeholder consultation according to the processes described in sections 2.3.3,
2.3.5, and 2.3.7 is expected as project expansion continues.
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 sections 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, and 2.3.7. In addition, astrong focus throughout this project has been placed on strengthening institutional capacity and decision
making of the participating farmer communities. This takes the form of formal training, as well as informalinteractions through attendance at weekly grazing association meetings. Meetings are organized andchaired independently of CSA, minutes taken by a nominated member, and CSA is requested to reportback 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 of

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

36

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
everyone'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. Neither the project, nor any agent of the project, will discriminate against any
person for any reason, including – but not limited to – gender, religion, nationality, tribe, or sexual identity.
CSA is committed to providing a workplace and programmes that are safe and free from all kinds ofharassment. CSA’s Code of Ethics as well as policies towards Harassment and Workplace violence andGender Policies are available under the supporting documents ‘CSA internal policies and processes’
folder.
2.3.12 Feedback and Grievance Redress Procedure (G3.8)
The project implements CI’s 6-step Accountability and Grievance mechanism as outlined below (Figure
14).

Figure 14: Overview of the Grievance redress mechanism for the K2C Carbon project

Submission
Stakeholders are encouraged to channel their grievances to the project proponents through formal
meetings (face to face or online) where possible. The minutes of such meetings are to be noted andarchived, and attendance registers taken. Alternatively, grievance redress is handled via a dedicatedemail account, phone calls, in writing or anonymously via an online Microsoft form.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

37

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Acknowledge
Receipt of the grievance is acknowledged and communicated in writing within 5 days after the grievanceis lodged through any of the above-mentioned channels.
Evaluation
Each grievance is then reviewed to understand whether a potential breach of CI’s environmental andsocial safeguards, principles, standards, or procedures has occurred. The mechanism then looks to
identify the root causes of the subject of the grievance and ensures that issues of non-compliance with
CI’s environmental and social safeguards are corrected.
Escalation
Where necessary the grievance is escalated to appropriate internal or external channels for resolution.
This process also considers traditional conflict resolution procedures by including relevant local
authorities where necessary.
Resolution
The resolution of grievances includes identifying recommendations and actions to reach a desirable
outcome from the situation. This could involve follow-up meetings or calls to ensure satisfaction andequity in addressing the grievance(s).
Feedback
After a resolution has been reached, the grievance is closed, and feedback is given to all parties involvedon the outcome.
The project team records and track grievances on live form on SharePoint. Records of grievances areavailable in supporting documents folder ‘Grievance Tracker_Form’. For additional information on the
project’s Grievance Mechanism, refer to Grievance Overview.ppt provided in the supporting socuments.
2.3.13 Accessibility of the Feedback and Grievance Redress Procedure (G3.8)
The Eco-rangers promote awareness of the feedback and grievance process during weekly farmer
meetings and other interactions. This way, direct stakeholders are made aware of the various channels
through which they can raise issues. The proponents will also promote external awareness of the
feedback and grievance process to larger audience of stakeholders via processes outlined in section
2.3.1.
2.3.14 Worker Training (G3.9)
The following training is provided to field staff implementing project activities:• 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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

38

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
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.
2.3.15 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 Eco
trainers 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.
2.3.16 Relevant Laws and Regulations Related to Worker’s Rights (G3.11)
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.
4.
Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA): This act provides forcompensation for employees who suffer injuries or contract diseases arising from their work.
5.
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.
6.
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).
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
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.
10.
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 and

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

39

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
policies 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.
2.3.17 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. 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 inconflict resolution, safe working practices, as well as the enforcement of requirements for safe handling ofequipment and other materials. All CSA employees are contracted under a medical aid scheme thatprescribes the minimum requirements for medical cover to ensure that each employee has access to an
accepted standard of medical treatment.
Table 9: Identified health and safety risks.
Project activity

Risk

Mitigation

OfficeSecurity

Office fire
Break-in / Theft
Injury while at office

•
•

•
•

•

TravelSecurity

Vehicle Accident•••

Each office has their keys held by the respective focal point, withspare keys held by 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 the office and to the prearranged rendezvous point outside of the building.
Fire-fighting equipment is available (this needs to be purchased)
The office first aid kit is stored in the kitchen cupboard in theboardroom and contains basic supplies to treat a patient during an
emergency.
If you are in the office at the time of the break in, attempt to leave theoffice and contact the police when safe to do so, do not confront
intruderConservation 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 theirlocal 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 backof pickups.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

40

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Project activity

Risk

Mitigation••

RangerPatrolling andConfrontations--

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••••Conservation South Africa hired vehicles must have the 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 event of a break
down (U/R0o Communications equipment – if travel is beyond 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 the hours of darkness,
except in exceptional circumstances (such as medical emergency)
authorized by the CEO of Conservation South Africa or Operations
Director.
Eco-rangers, must be deployed in locations with mobile coverage andhave 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 and monthly healthand safety meetings with teams will help to highlight concerns andcomplications. Typically, the type of issues being reported include
people not wearing PPE, drunken workers, community conflicts, etc.
Ensure all restoration workers are fully equipment with the correct
PPE prior to any restoration work may commence.
Whenever rangers observe livestock thieves or people suspected ofplanning these activities they must alert the police and local
community livestock committee, which will mobilize members of thecommunity to confront the thieves. The Eco Rangers should not
directly engage with the thieves who should be considered as being
armed and dangerous.
Collaboration with SANParks and authorities.
Introduction of alternative, sustainable livelihoods to discouragepoaching activities.
Do not engage directly with any suspected illegal poachers.
When budgeting for Eco rangers working in high-risk areas the
programs should budget to have the individuals vaccinated againstrabies.
Don’t make direct eye contact but shout at the animal look threatening
and confident.
Keep a safe distance form the wildlife and do not engage it and walkaway from it and report sighting to team members
Stay in the vehicle if you suspect wildlife in close proximity.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

41

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Project activity

HealthRisk-

Mitigation

Malaria
Typhoid•Should you be bitten follow the emergency response guidelines andcontact emergency services..

•

Take malaria precautions such as wearing long sleeves, insect
repellent, use 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 ona rolling boil for at least one minute before consuming or isform a clean source.
o Ensure fresh fruit and vegetables are cleaned in clean water.

•

2.4

Management Capacity

2.4.1

Project Governance Structures (G4.1)

Livestock farmers establish a Cooperative that forms the foundation for the governance of livestock
management and activities that contribute rangeland restoration through the support of Conservation
South Africa. Livestock Farmers Cooperatives ensure good governances through ensuring that the
Cooperative’s membership list is updated, registration certificate is obtained and properly archived, that abank account in the Cooperative’s name is opened and that each farmer in the Cooperative has madepayment to the Cooperative of an agreed membership fee. The Cooperative members also attend
monthly farmers meetings to ensure proper implementation of the grazing plan and compliance withconservation 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.
The governance and organizational model (Figure 15) 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 withCSA (or other legal entity as determined during the next stage of this project) as a conservation
action of planned grazing/resting in accordance with the Benefit Sharing Agreement andconditions outlined in the conservation agreement.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

42

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 32.

3.

Conservation South Africa will provide transparent governance and oversight of conservationagreements and financial transparency through the carbon project with all Farmers Cooperatives
and Traditional Authorities.
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; andcommunications).
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 and drafting / 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, andcarbon baseline calculation).

Figure 15: 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.

2.4.2

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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

43

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
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.
2.4.3 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.
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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

44

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
been working 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.
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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

45

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
background in spatial science and earth observation which is critical to the way CSA measures, tracks,
and reports on conservation Impact.
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 website18 . Further
details if needed can be made available to the validator.
2.4.5

Avoidance of Corruption and Other Unethical Behavior (G4.3)

CSA’s anti-corruption policy does not tolerate bribery, kickbacks, or corrupt acts of any kind or in any
circumstances from CSA staff, or its agents, consultants, grantees, vendors, or representatives of any
kind. Our policy ensures that CSA complies with all applicable anti bribery and anti-corruption laws andensures that any CSA gifts or payments given to government officials are proper, transparent, andappropriately documented. Members of CSA staff, and other persons acting on behalf of CSA or for its
benefit are required to comply with additional anti-corruption policies and procedures. In addition, as anaffiliate of CI, CSA subscribes to CI policies. These include robust controls to prevent, detect and respondto corruption, suspicions of corruption and poor financial management. Staff must abide by all applicableanti-bribery and anti-corruption laws. All CI staff in all countries are subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (“FCPA”).
Necessary steps have been taken to avoid corruption and other unethical behavior within the project.
These steps among others include:
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 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
18

2018-19 report here.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

46

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
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 and 2.4.3.
2.4.7

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 Statutory and Customary Property Rights (G5.1)
The Communal Land Rights Act 11 of 2004 and the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act(IPILRA) of 1996 are both laws that govern land rights in South Africa. As with this project, whereby it isprimarily on communal land the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996 (IPILRA) should
be applied (noting that the Communal Land Rights Act 11 (2004) was promulgated but subsequently
declared unconstitutional). IPILRA was intended to operate as a temporary instrument, however delays infinalizing new customary land statues (currently Communal Land Rights Bill) have resulted in it applying
indefinitely. The land of the project site is owned by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and
Rural Development (DALRRD) but the traditional authorities have a recognized right to use the land
under IPILRA, termed an “informal right to land” under IPILRA.

Figure 16: Map showing Traditional Authorities within the K2C Biosphere

Under the current insecure communal land rights system, communal land is generally administered by
Traditional Leaders and the land is either registered in the name of the State or it is unregistered and defacto the state is treated as the legal owner, in addition to a nested set of individual customary law rights
which also simultaneously apply to land. Under the Act an “informal right to land” is recognized. An

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

47

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
informal right to land includes the right to use, live on or access the land and includes a person’s rights totheir household plots, fields, and grazing land or other shared resources.
This insecure system is made tenable and weaky functional because IPILRA protects the most basic ofrights by preventing unjust dispossession of land. Section 2(1) of IPILRA provides that no one may be
deprived of their informal right to the land without their consent, unless in terms of the Expropriation Act
63 of 1975 or any other law that provides for the expropriation of land rights. Section 2(2) provides that“where land is held on a communal basis, a person may, subject to subsection (4), be deprived of suchland or right in land in accordance with the custom and usage of that community.” Lastly, Section 2(4)provides that:“the custom and usage of a community shall be deemed to include the principle that a decision to disposeof any such right may only be taken by a majority of the holders of such rights present or represented at a
meeting convened for the purpose of considering such disposal and of which they have been given
sufficient notice, and in which they have had a reasonable opportunity to participate.”
IPILRA regulates the 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
arrangements amounts to such disposal or deprivation, then implementation of the activity would require
formal consent form the community.
In relation to disposal, IPLRA defines an informal right to land as including “the use of, occupation of, oraccess to land” and a disposal of the land or a right in the land would, therefore, be a disposal of suchrights. In the present instance, the community is not disposing of its rights to use, occupy or access theland but is entering into conservation agreements (effectively, land management agreements) pertaining
to rangeland practices on the land.
The Traditional Authority under DALRRD has granted user rights to the Farmers Cooperatives (Grazing
Associations) and they are therefore the designated and rightful land users.
2.5.2 Recognition of Property Rights (G5.1)
The project proponent has signed conservation agreements with the Farmers Cooperatives (grazing
associations) who have the grazing rights designated by the Traditional Authorities to implement
rangeland restoration activities following an FPIC process described in section 2.5.3. All property rights
are fully supported and respected, and no property rights are transferred or infringed upon by the
implementation of rangeland restoration and associated activities of this project.
2.5.3 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)19 .
Engagement of Traditional Authorities was first done to introduce CSA and give a detailed overview on
the organization and projects as well as to seek permission and endorsement to engage livestock
farmers’ cooperatives, who are one of several groups using the rangeland. Traditional Authorities provide
the organization 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. Project activities are only limited todesignated grazing areas, and grazing plans are designed and implemented with the input ofconservation agreement signatories.

19

CI’s FPIC Guidelines here

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

48

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
The negotiations of the conservation agreements are done throughout continuous engagement with thegrazing associations, this process takes form through the initial planning of grazing areas with the supportof Eco-Trainers. Once farmers are in agreement of the grazing areas, the stewardship coordinatorpresents the draft conservation agreement to the grazing associations, this stage of the engagement
address the grazing management actions needed for the project and presents the benefits of theconservation agreement. The grazing association is allowed to negotiate the needed actions and thebenefits, as these differ between each grazing association. A draft conservation agreement is given to thegrazing association for review and input, once CSA and the grazing association agrees on all the clausesin the conservation agreement the conservation agreement is signed. 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 (see consolidated conservationagreement). Project activities are only limited to designated grazing areas, and grazing plans aredesigned and implemented with the input of conservation agreement signatories.
Consent letters, attendance registers and Conservation agreements are provided as supporting
documents for this section.
2.5.4 Property Rights Protection (G5.3)
Project activities are limited to designated grazing areas in project sites and do not involve any removal or
relocation of property rights holders. The Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (IPILRA) of 1996
regulates the 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 such disposal or deprivation, then implementation of the activity would require
formal consent from the community. 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 a disposal 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
management agreements) 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 theuse of land. Moreover, project activities are implemented directly by the land users. Consent to undertakeproject activities are requested from the tribal authority and Farmers Cooperatives (grazing associations)
during conservation agreements negotiation.
2.5.5 Illegal Activity Identification (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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

49

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
2.5.6 Ongoing Disputes (G5.5)
An ongoing three – year long court dispute exists in Dixie, where some farmers want to lease 700ha ofcommunal land to a tourism operation. This is currently being appealed and outcomes remain uncertain.
However, the risk of disrupting the project is minimal as the area in question constitutes only one percentof the total project area. The Background Information Document to this proposed development can bemade available to the validator.
2.5.7 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.
1.
National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998)
2.
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004)
3.
National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998)
4.
National Veld and Forest Fire Act (No. 101 of 1998)
5.
Communal Land Rights Act (No. 11 of 2004)
6.
Animal Protection Act (No. 71 of 1962)
7.
Carbon Tax Act (No. 15 of 2019)8.
Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act (No. 112 of 1991)
9.
Basic conditions of Employment Act ((No. 75 of 1997)
10.
Labour Relations Act (No. 24 of 1956)
11.
Employment Equity Act (No. 55 of 1998)
12.
Occupational Health and Safety Act (No. 85 of 1993)13.
Local Government Municipal Systems Act (No. 32 of 2000)
14.
Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (No. 31 of 1996)15.
Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act (No. 56 of 2003)
2.5.8 Approvals (G5.7)
Currently, no specific approvals are required from authorities for the implementation of a rangeland
management project in South Africa since the project does not involve infrastructure development or land
use changes and CSA engages with the land users directly. Nonetheless, the project has engaged
municipal and provincial stakeholders including those listed in section 2.1.8. CSA has signed a contract
with the Amashangana Tribal Authority and will sign a contract with the Mnisi TA as well, but
unfortunately the chief has passed away and there is a period of mourning. The Mnisi TA has, however,provided CSA with a letter of consent.
2.5.9 Project Ownership (G5.8)
In line with VCS Standard v4.4, CSA (the project proponent) is the project owner since they implement
the conservation agreement framework which incentivizes GHG emission reductions or removal activities.
CSA developed the rangeland restoration project in collaboration with local rangeland users to adapt andmitigate climate change. Conservation agreements were signed with the Farmers Cooperatives (grazing
associations - the legal land users) for the first activity instance (6,432 ha), which includes a legal
agreement to develop a carbon project with CSA as the project proponent. It is important to note that land
tenure and land rights are still complex matters in communal lands in South Africa. The Interim Protectionof Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996 (IPILRA) that governs the customary land tenure system does not
specifically confer ownership or allocate ownership of carbon credits or other environmental commodities
on the land nor does it regulate who would own a carbon credit if mitigation activities were to beundertaken on the land. However, Tribal authorities are the designated custodians of communal lands
through the Customary Land Rights Act 11 (2004), and rural farmers have land-use rights through the

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

50

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
tribal authorities. Conservation Agreements are proof of project ownership, aligned with reducing the nonrisk rating and Conservation International’s Safeguards, overarching legally binding agreements are in theprocess of being signed with the Amashangana and Mnisis Tribal Authorities that explicitly transfer
carbon rights to CSA insofar as these rights are vested within land rights through inference.
(”Conservation Agreements” in supporting documents).
2.5.10 Management of Double Counting Risk (G5.9)
The project currently has and will not seek any other credit from any other greenhouse gas accrediting
program. At the project start date, the VCS was the only standard that allowed carbon credits under
agricultural land management to adjust grazing.
2.5.11 Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits
Because the project involves grassland management, project credits are ineligible under existing
Emissions Trading programs.
2.5.12 Other Forms of Environmental Credit
The VCS is the only standard that allows carbon credits under agricultural land management to adjust
grazing. The project will not pursue other forms of environmental credit.
2.5.13 Participation under Other GHG Programs
The project will only be registered under the VCS 4.4 and CCBA 3.0 Standards.
2.5.14 Projects Rejected by Other GHG Programs
The project has not applied for or been rejected by any other greenhouse gas accrediting program.
2.5.15 Double Counting (G5.9)
Double counting on the voluntary market is avoided by having credits assigned on the VCS Registry,
which assigns each credit a unique serial number which is held in retirement when the credit is used tooffset greenhouse gas emissions.
3

CLIMATE

3.1

Application of Methodology

3.1.1 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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

51

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
3.1.2 Applicability of Methodology
This methodology applies to project activities that adjust the number, type and husbandry ofgrazing animals, adjust the frequency and intensity of planned or unplanned fires, and/or
introduce herbaceous grassland species as potential forage for grazing animals or to restore degradedsoils.
The project will meet the applicability conditions of VCS methodology VM0032 V1 as follows:•

The project area must be grasslands in the baseline and project scenarios. The project area isbroadly within the savanna biome of South Africa and comprises savanna and grassland vegetation
types such as Granite Lowveld in the west, Northern Escarpment Dolomite Grassland (8%), Poung
Dolomite Mountain Bushveld (3.3%), Legogote Sour Bushveld, Northern Escarpment Quartzite
Sourveld and Ohrigstad Mountain Bushveld, per South Africa’s vegetation map20. The mean annual
precipitation (MAP) of the area is 584 mm (1901-2020 values from Climate Hazards Group InfraRed
Precipitation Station data, CHIRPS), varying between ca. 750 mm in the west and 550 mm in theeast. Tree canopy cover varies between zero and 30% at most sites, reaching up to 45% in a few
sites (2019 European Space Agency (ESA) tree cover) with all trees in survey sites being below 5 mtall. Project activities will not alter the land cover classification, as they are not aimed at tree cover
and will not involve conversion of grassland or savanna to another land use, as would be prohibitedby the standard.

•Lands are grazed and/or subject to fires in the baseline and/or project scenarios. Lands may
be used for different purposes, such as livestock production, conservation, hunting or
tourism. All areas in the project are communal grazing lands subject to natural or controlled fire
regimes. Communal lands are part of the K2C Biosphere including rural people, ecotourism in privateand statutory nature reserves, game farms, plantations, and agriculture for crop production.
According to CSA social surveys, the main land use is livestock farming, and there are periodic fires,with fire incidence in the project area ranging between zero and six fires over the last 12 years (20012019 Moderate Resolution Imagine Spectroradiometer (MODIS)). The ESA Land Cover CCI v2.1.1
dataset for the period 2007-2017 was used to assess any land use change. The figures below
indicate that no land use change occurred in the first project instance boundaries during the period
2008-2017.

20

Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2011. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.
Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

52

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Area (ha)Land Cover Change 2008-2017 Dixie/Utah
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2008

2011

2014

2017

Year
Deciduous shrublandShrublandTree cover - broadleaved - deciduous - closed to open (>15%)
Mosaic natural vegetation (tree/shrub/herbaceous cover) (>50%) / cropland (<50%)
Cropland - rainfed

Figure 17: Land use history of Dixie/Utah based on ESA Land Cover CCI v2.1.1 from 2008-2017.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

53

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Area (ha)Land Cover Change 2008-2017 Welverdiend
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2008

2011

Year

2014

2017

Mosaic herbaceous cover (>50%) / tree and shrub (<50%)
Urban areas
Grassland
Deciduous shrublandShrubland
Mosaic tree and shrub (>50%) / herbaceous cover (<50%)
Tree cover - broadleaved - deciduous - closed to open (>15%)
Mosaic natural vegetation (tree/shrub/herbaceous cover) (>50%) / cropland (<50%)
Cropland rainfed
Figure 18 Land use history of Welverdiend based on ESA Land Cover CCI v2.1.1 from 2008-2017.

•

The project must be structured to keep livestock within the project area, and the project
proponent must be able to enforce the boundaries of the project area. The land tenure system ofcommunal grazing lands, supervised by an elder-based authority system, generally anchors community
members and their livestock within the project boundaries. In addition, this area is large enough topotentially supply sufficient grazing during wet and dry seasons, although fodder supplements are
currently supplied ad hoc as an incentive under conservation agreements. The first activity instancearea (Dixie, Utah, Welverdiend villages) are fenced and aware of their boundaries from grazing plans
and maps associated with conservation agreements, as well as fence signs indicating closure of camps.
Quarterly monitoring and presence of CSA staff in the current engagement area as well implementationof GPS cattle collars indicate that CA signatories have been largely compliant with CAs in the2020/2021 growing period. In the general K2C area, including some of the expansion area, 77% ofcommunal farmers interviewed aspired to use herding and kraaling as means to manage and protect
livestock in the area (internal monitoring).

•

The project must result in no net increase in the density of, or time spent by animals in confinedcorrals where dung can pile up and begin to decompose anaerobically and result in CH4 andN2O emissions, such as an increase in the number of livestock aggregated (e.g., kept in corrals
or pens) that would result in more than 50 percent of the ground area covered by dung. Livestocknumbers in general are not expected to change due to project activities. Livestock will be sold to market
via MNP with the aim of providing income to farmers but is not intended to foster destocking. Rather
farmers will be encouraged to improve their herd structure as older male animals are sold and younger(mostly female) animals and climate-smart breeds are brought in. No net increase (or decrease) inlivestock units implies there will be no net increase in the number of kraals (corrals or bomas) and thus
no net increase in dung deposition that exceeds the anaerobic threshold. Ad hoc feeding with fodder intimes of drought or dry periods will involve feeding on live grass, hay, or silage in-field rather than

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

54

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
feedlots and will thus not lead to increased kraaling. Any kraals will be overnight, short-term (7 days orless) or be moved before dung cover is 50%.
•

Baseline emissions derived from livelihood-driven human impacts on aboveground woody
biomass (e.g., cutting for fuel wood, charcoal or timber sales) must be deemed de-minimis (i.e.,
not included in the cumulative 95 percent of total baseline emissions) and project activities
cannot significantly alter such livelihood-driven activities. This applicability condition was
modified in an issued Errata and Clarifications to VM0032 and restated as “…must be deemedde minimis (not greater than 5% of the total greenhouse gas benefit of the project)…” There isfuelwood harvesting in the project area, but activities have resulted in increased woody biomass from
more trees in a relatively small height class (thus emissions from harvesting are near zero or negative).
An increase in younger trees in lower height classes due to wood harvesting is a concern and probably
exacerbates the existing woody plant encroachment due to climatic and herbivory changes. One of theK2C biosphere activities is to thin savanna tree canopies (through pruning, not tree removal) and use
this biomass to brush-pack eroded areas. Brush packs that are 1-3 years old have not yet resulted inincreased or decreased SOC. Thus, neither fuelwood harvesting, nor bush thinning and brush packing
will be prevented by the project and can be deemed de minimis activities. Fuelwood harvesters are
stakeholders that will be consulted as part of the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) process.
For projects that propose to modify grazing, the maximum individual project size is 3 million haor 5 percent of a country’s land area currently or potentially used to graze livestock, as judged
by national government land use inventories or other documentation. The project area
(82,300 ha) does not exceed the maximum allowable project size.

The methodology is not applicable under the following conditions:• Project activities that involve mechanical vegetation removal or soil tillage• The project area receives a net import of inorganic or organically derived fertilizer.
Neither of these conditions applies to the project area. Communal rangelands with a relatively highdensity of woody shrubs and trees do not allow for any mechanical operations. Also, fertilization with
imported fertilizers is not common for communal rangelands. In summary, the project meets all
applicability conditions of the methodology.
3.1.3 Project Boundary
There is only one major carbon pool, soil organic carbon, considered by the methodology, sincechanges in carbon stocks from changes in woody biomass are assumed to be negligible because of alack of fire in the baseline conditions and project scenarios and because people use a negligible
amount of woody carbon for fuel.
Pool
Soil organiccarbon (SOC)
Abovegroundnon-woodybiomass
Belowgroundbiomass

Selected(Y/N/O)

Explanation/justification
Y

Major sink for GHG covered by SGMAFG

N

Transient carbon pool with high carbon turnover; nostable sink.

N

Change in below ground woody biomass is assumed
to be negligible in the project. There is no tillage
allowed in the project scenario by applicability
conditions, fuel wood collection regime does notchange and there is little to no fire in the project. As
there is no threat to this carbon pool but rather an

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

55

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Abovegroundwoody biomass

N

Abovegroundnon-woody litterbiomass
Abovegrounddead woodbiomass
Wood productsN

improvement due to better shrub management in the
project, this carbon pool can be conservatively
excluded.
Project activities prevent intentional fires. Accidental
fires jumping over from neighboring areas are fought
when detected by community members, Eco-rangers,or herders.
Furthermore, change in woody biomass is assumed
to be negligible and conservatively excluded because
human harvesting of wood reduces abovegroundwoody carbon stocks by less than 5%. It is therefore
conservative to exclude this carbon pool fromaccounting.
In grasslands, litter exhibits high turnover, and is thus
a transient carbon pool.

N

Negligible in grasslands, particularly those with fireN

An optional pool for VCS ALM projects, it isconsidered negligible for untilled grasslands. There isno timber harvestingThis methodology has applicability conditions for no tillage and activities that do not include avoided
conversion of grasslands. Consequently, aboveground non-woody biomass, aboveground nonwoody litter biomass, and belowground biomass are considered negligible sinks because theyturn over considerably through the year, sometimes by as much as 100%. They may later be usedas potential parameters for soil carbon models because they influence the input of carbon to the soil, butthey conservatively do not represent significant, permanent GHG sinks or reservoirs in grasslands.

SourceGas

Included?

CO2

N

Respiration of animals is not accounted for.

CH4

Y

Target removal of methodology. Changes in herd
structure changes emissions from entericfermentation by livestock.

N2O

N

No increase in concentration of dung, and forage is
not fertilized (applicability conditions).

CO2

N

Balanced by CO2 uptake by plants

CH4

N

The project activities prevent intentional fires.
Accidental fires jumping over from neighboringareas are fought as well as possible if detected bycommunity members, Eco-rangers, or herders.
Furthermore, change in woody biomass is
assumed to be negligible or conservatively
excluded because human harvesting of wood
reduces aboveground woody carbon stocks by lessBaseline

Grazing
animals

Burningbiomass

Justification/Explanation

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

56

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
SourceGas

Included?

Justification/Explanation
than 5%. It is therefore conservative to exclude thiscarbon pool from accounting.

SoilemissionsN2O

N

As above, emission source can be conservatively
excluded since fires are rather reduced in the
project.

CO2

N

Assumed to be in balance with C inputs to SOC(SOC at equilibrium)

CH4N

Negligible since project is not in wetland

N2O

N

Negligible under applicability conditions

CO2

N

Balance with CO2 uptake by plants

Y

Target removal of methodology. Changes in herd
structure changes emissions from entericfermentation by livestock.

N

No increase in concentration of dung (applicability
conditions) and forage is low in N

N

Balanced by CO2 uptake by plants

N

Project activities prevent intentional fires.
Accidental fires jumping over from neighboringareas are fought as good as possible if detected bycommunity members, Eco-rangers, or herders.
Furthermore, change in woody biomass is
assumed to be negligible or conservatively
excluded because human harvesting of wood
reduces aboveground woody carbon stocks by lessthan 5%. It is therefore conservative to exclude thiscarbon pool from accounting.

N2O

N

Negligible under applicability conditions

CO2

Y

Accounted for in measured ΔSOC

CH4N

Negligible since project is not in wetlands

N2O

N

Negligible under applicability conditions

CH4
Grazing
animals
N2O
CO2

Project

CH4

Burningbiomass

Soilemissions

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

57

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
The physical boundary of the project is shown in the map below.

Figure 7: Project area boundary.

3.1.4

Baseline Scenario

Communal lands in the project area have been used for livestock grazing for at least 90 years. In 1934,
the Sabi Sand Wildtuin moved people out of the reserve into the current project area. With the advent ofapartheid in 1948, indigenous people were segregated into “homelands” and often restricted to the mostmarginal lands. This was intensified by the erecting of foot-and-mouth disease control fences in 1961.
Currently, the baseline scenario includes grazing practices that are largely unrestricted, continuous andwith little or no herding. This has detrimental effects on the productivity of the existing plants. The
herbaceous layer is dominated by tropical C4 perennial grasses, which have relatively high lignin andcellulose contents as well as large belowground root components favourable for soil carbon
sequestration. The lack of recovery time for grasses during the growing season reduces vegetation andseed production of perennial and other palatable grass species. This in turn results in a relatively higher
proportion of annuals vs. perennials and, eventually, bare soil. This effect can be seen in a NDVI-analysis
such as in the grazing camps of Welverdiend (Figure 19), as prescribed by VCS VM0032, grazing history
was demonstrated using NDVI.. While NDVI showed a deteriorating trend from 2009 until 2018, there is astark, sustained increase in NDVI with the introduction of rotational grazing and other project activities.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

58

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Figure 19 NDVI of Welverdiend grazing camps show a significant increase at the start of the project in 2018

The effect of rotational grazing on NDVI is significant. In Dixie, the NDVI of a rested camp (0) has been
compared with a camp that had livestock present (1) as seen in Figure 20. NDVI is significantly higher in
rested camps.

Figure 20 Validation Rested camps have a significant effect on NDVIThe lack of vegetation and high occurrence of bare soil leads to high run-off and loss of topsoil during therainy season. Poor infiltration into the soil results in localized flooding events and creates siltation,
reducing river discharge and affecting flora and fauna downstream in protected and other areas(Mararakanye & Sumner 2017). Fire is a natural disturbance in savanna and grassland, and fire

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

59

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
frequencies of 3 to 5 years in K2C are similar or less than those recommended for Greater Kruger
National Park (GKNP) due to relatively low fuel loads, and too frequent fires is not presently a threat.
Historical fire assessment
For the assessment of fire history, the MCD64A1 v061 MODIS/Terra+Aqua Burned Area Monthly L3
Global 500 m SIN Grid provided the basis for the data. The burned area map was adjusted to the project
area to determine the scope and frequency of fires in the period of 2007-2017. The final product is
depicted below.

Figure 21: Historical fire assessment for area of interest. Dataset utilized for analysis: MCD64A1 v061
MODIS/Terra+Aqua Burned Area Monthly L3 Global 500 m SIN Grid

It is worth noting that the fire occurrence had a strong seasonal tendency, correlating with the dry season(May-August) of the region. Furthermore, no fire events occurred after 2014 within the first instances. The
results of the analysis demonstrating the frequency of the fires within the period of 2007-2018 arepresented in Table 10.
Table 10 : Fire frequency and intensity (ha) within the project area from 2007-2017.
Year

Frequency of fire events

Burnt area (ha)

2007

2

10.33

2008

4

38.57

2009

21

863.172010

2

100.002011

24

1,485.05

2012

1

6.63

2013

10

236.582014

22

616.81

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

60

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
2015

-

-

2016

-

-

2017

-

-

Total

86

3,357.13

3.1.5 Additionality
The additionality analysis was conducted according to the VT0001 “Tool for the demonstration andassessment of additionality in VCS Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) project activities”,
adapted from the CDM “Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in A/R CDM Project
Activities” (Version 02). Following the stepwise approach, the initial task was to identify alternative land
use scenarios proposed to the VCS AFOLU project activity.
STEP 1. Identification of alternative land use scenarios to the AFOLU project activity
Scenario 1: Continuation of pre-project land use: Persistent, unmanaged grazing. Without the proposed
carbon project, livestock management will likely remain continuous grazing (no resting), resulting in lossof primary productivity and forage for livestock with continued loss of soil organic matter and carbon due
to soil erosion. Due to an ongoing population increase of 3.5% per year, there is a growing reliance on
free-ranging livestock (largely cattle) as a source of income, intensifying the “tragedy of the commons”
problem. Even though the project area falls within a UNESCO Biosphere reserve, it does not offer thelevel of protection nor funding to stop communal rangeland degradation. Degradation may in turn result inland abandonment, as well as land use change (LUC) and loss of biodiversity if the current native
vegetation is transformed to urban or agricultural land uses. Prior to the project initiation, there were
notable increases in soil erosion and loss of SOC, with topsoil flooding away during summer. This was
the effect of unpredictable droughts that led to an increase in soil trampling by livestock, as well as
increased evaporation, which leaves the soil bare and more prone to erosion after the next rains. Also,
our preliminary estimates of forage quality indicate that quality is low relative to reference sites; this would
result in relatively high emissions from enteric fermentation, adding to emissions in the without-project
scenario.
Scenario 2: Incorporating communal rangelands into private nature reserves / Eco-tourism:
Another potential land use scenario is the conversion of grazing lands to wildlife reserves for ecotourism.
This forms part of the Greater Kruger Strategic Development Plan, which was established in 202021.
There have been informal discussions with the Traditional authorities regarding the expansion of formal
protected areas into their communal rangelands. While this scenario may benefit wildlife, it is not assured
that local people would benefit, since they presently have little training in ecotourism or resources todevelop tourist facilities. Such a land use change could limit resource users’ access and amend
rangeland management strategies. While continuous grazing offers no potential for rangeland restorationand its attendant benefits, conversion to wildlife reserves has potential for emissions removals (Sitters etal. 2020) but would have to be carefully designed so that communities are involved and can reap abenefit. On the other hand, maintaining both livestock and wildlife on communal land could enable a mix
of income from carbon finance, livestock sales and ecotourism, while maintaining ecosystem andbiodiversity corridors.
Scenario 3: Conversion of communal rangeland to cropland. In the project region, there are examples ofcommunal rangelands that have been converted to croplands, typically subsistence cereal crops; this is
the most likely scenario in communal rangelands. Another possibility, which may be accompanied by achange in land tenure from communal land to private land, is the establishment of commercial fruitorchards and other cash crops. Fruit orchards especially could lead to carbon sequestration althoughthese orchards are monocrops with limited biodiversity benefits. Typically, irrigation and large capital
investment is required to establish fruit orchards, making them less likely, but still a possibility.
21

https://www.greaterkrugerlandscape.co.za

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

61

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Scenario 4: Project activities without VCS project registration. The project consists of implementing
planned rotational-rest grazing for cattle, sheep, and goats by collective herding and kraaling. This isachieved with community grazing cooperatives by means of conservation agreements across projectsites. Planned rotational-rest grazing, also called season-long grazing, is known to increase recovery andcover by perennial grass species while being more profitable and less labour-intensive compared tocontinuous or other grazing patterns. Usually, one camp will be rested from grazing during the growing
season while an adjacent area is open to grazing. Camps may be rotated as agreed with communities via
Farmers Cooperatives (Grazing Associations). Sustainability of project activities is enabled andincentivized through market-access opportunities for compliant producers, provided by our commercial
partner Meat Naturally Pty (MNP). Project activities are aimed at improving livelihoods, biodiversity,
climate change adaptation as well as mitigation.
SUB-STEP 1b Consistency of credible land use scenarios with enforced mandatory applicable laws andregulations;
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). In summary, below is a list of laws that are applicable to the project. All laws are strictly
adhered to.
1. National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998)
2. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004)
3. National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998)
4. National Veld and Forest Fire Act (No. 101 of 1998)
5. Communal Land Rights Act (No. 11 of 2004)
6. Animal Protection Act (No. 71 of 1962)
7. Carbon Tax Act (No. 15 of 2019)
8. Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act (No. 112 of 1991)
9. Basic conditions of Employment Act ((No. 75 of 1997)
10. Labour Relations Act (No. 24 of 1956)
11. Employment Equity Act (No. 55 of 1998)
12. Occupational Health and Safety Act (No. 85 of 1993)
13. Local Government Municipal Systems Act (No. 32 of 2000)
14. Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (No. 31 of 1996)
15. Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act (No. 56 of 2003)
Therefore, all plausible alternative land use scenarios of the VCS AFOLU project activity comply withmandatory legislation and regulations, taking into account their enforcement in the region or country and
EB decisions on national and/or sectoral policies and regulations.
STEP 2. Investment analysis;
Grant funding as provided currently by CI is supposed to be paid back and replaced by the carbon
funding. The project does not have any other income streams, and all potential profits from carbon credits
will be funnelled back to the project to finance the upscaling of the project either in size (new instances) orin quality (new services to farmers such as improved animal husbandry, market access and jobs createdlocally). Hence, the analysis does not include investment as a barrier, and the assessment of current
practices provide a better basis for additionality.
STEP 3. Barrier analysis;
SUB-STEP 3a. Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of the type of proposed project
activity

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

62

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Governance Barriers
Before the start of the project, a few of the livestock farming communities had pre-existing market-related
governance structures in place, such as livestock committees, cooperatives and dip tank committees(through which farmers organize information sharing, mandatory dipping of cattle, or develop contribution
systems to maintain or purchase resources that government is not able to provide). However, thesestructures were often not developed or well-known, as demonstrated in the Mnisi baseline survey (only
30% respondents confirmed the existence of a farming cooperative in their village), nor did they involve
planning of grazing activities. Without strong governance, project activities are unlikely to be implemented
and enforced on communal lands. Similarly, an expansion of private game or eco-reserves is unlikely, as
no alternative living space for communities exists.
Barriers due to prevailing practiceThere is no other similar carbon project known to the project proponent operational in the region. There isanother carbon project under VM0032 being developed in the Eastern Cape, but it has a different focus.
Holistic grazing combined with biodiversity and community benefits associated with the neighboring iconic
Kruger National Park is a challenge and has not been done before.
Barriers regarding skills and competences
Communal farmers in South Africa have been marginalized by the previous apartheid government, withlimited extension services, veterinary services, and market access. Unfortunately, much of this situation
has persisted due to poor economic conditions, and the uplifting of rural farmers is lower on government
priorities than are other activities. Training and skills development offerings for locals are rare. The
majority of livestock farmers in rural communal rangelands have had no formal training in animalhusbandry nor modern livestock farming.
Through the project, communities that farm livestock will receive training that not only enables sustainablegrazing and climate-smart animal husbandry practices, but also will support broader community
development objectives. Participants will have enhanced capacity to understand their role as a governing
body; approach and engage with local government as a valid stakeholder; make ecologically informed
decisions about how to manage their rangelands; and share lessons from their experience with otherfarmers cooperatives (grazing associations). Thereby, they can build a local community of practice andcultivate pride amongst themselves. Additionally, selected community members are formally trained as
herd monitors (also called Eco-rangers) 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 farmers cooperatives.
Women in the communities are trained in valuable skills, such as arts and crafts, recycling, clothesmaking, and retail business, which are potential sources of income. Diversified sources of income further
increase the resilience of communities to the impacts of climate change. Without the project activities,
unplanned grazing on the rangelands is expected to continue due to a widespread lack of access toservices, training, and infrastructure to support sustainable grazing practices.
Barriers due to local ecological conditions
Pressure from continuous grazing reduces the abundance of palatable perennial grass species. Thischange in species composition decreases the quantity and quality of forage available for livestock as well
as overall land productivity, potentially resulting in increased conflict within communities as they compete
for scarce forage resources. Continued depletion of soil cover and poor infiltration due to unplanned
grazing also negatively influence water quality and quantity in rivers and tributaries that flow through therangelands. This water is central to livestock alimentation as well as overall rangeland productivity. The
dry conditions in the area constrain cropland management. Irrigation is mostly necessary for crop
production, requiring associated technical know-how and investment. Both are typically absent fromdisadvantaged communities.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

63

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Barriers related to local tradition
There is a cultural tendency to maintain a herd structure that is unfavourable for productivity and climate
mitigation, i.e., older, larger male animals that have inefficient digestive systems leading to higher
methane emissions from enteric fermentation. The tendency to keep older animals, including large bulls,
arises because livestock represent personal wealth and status and are integral to the ethnic groups in the
project area. Furthermore, this barrier also makes a conversion to cropland unlikely. Communal
rangelands are key to sustain livestock herds. Livestock is mostly considered an asset more than anincome stream. Herds are managed to be maintained with small amounts of inputs. Croplands require
higher labor inputs and are unsuited to satisfy the cultural need for an “asset". In addition, while theincorporation of communal rangelands into private nature reserves potentially expands tourism andtherefore benefits wildlife, this would require a large reduction in livestock. Since livestock owner desire todemonstrate wealth via livestock, this stands as a barrier against the expansion of private nature
reserves.
Barriers relating to location, land tenure, ownership, inheritance, and property rights
Communal farmers and rangelands have a long history of degradation and marginalization in South
Africa. Communal farmers have very limited access to markets, extension services, and veterinary
services. Farming practices are subsistence-based, and there are very few opportunities to escape thispoverty trap. Furthermore, communal rangelands typically face the tragedy of the commons, asmentioned above.
In addition, due to proximity with the Greater Kruger National Park (GKNP), the project area is a red zone
for foot-and-mouth disease. This causes a barrier to market access, since livestock owners in this zone
can only sell meat locally to avoid the spread of the disease. Naturally, their market is smaller, and they
face higher risks and overhead costs. Before the project, farmers reported to only have one buyer(Makhona) for their cattle, who basically had a buying monopoly. Cattle prices reached only around 60%of the national price.
SUB-STEP 3b. Show that the identified barriers would not prevent the implementation of at least one of
the alternative land use scenarios (except the proposed project activity):
Scenario 1, the continuation of pre-project land use with continuous and unmanaged grazing, faces nosignificant barriers. Each family is free to acquire and herd livestock in the way that they choose, within
the broad constraints of seasonal shifts in the available grazing land. All other scenarios face a set of
barriers, as shown above.
STEP 4. Common Practice Analysis
Practicing rotational grazing with the aim of restoring rangelands and improving herd structure,
productivity, and market access is not common practice in communal rangelands in South Africa.
Communal rangelands in South Africa have a long history of degradation (Hoffman & Ashwell, 2001). On
communal lands, most pastoralists currently do not have sufficient resources and financial security to
manage planned grazing as is done through activities in the proposed project scenario. A lack of control
over fodder resources as a result of the 'tragedy of the commons' contributes to an inability to manage
fodder resources. Additional facilitation to implement a holistic herding approach – also considering theneeds of non-livestock owners, such as youth and women – with the necessary continuous extension andtraining via Eco-rangers is required to implement project activities. Financing for all of this is barely
existent in the landscape and thus not common practice. Therefore, the income from the proposed soil
carbon project for grassland management is essential for the implementation of the project activities.
3.1.6 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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

64

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
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 could
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 pasture 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 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.
3.2

Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals

3.2.1

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

Baseline annual emissions from grazing animals (tCO2e)

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

65

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
BNc
DMEF(Wc)
Wc
GWPCH4C
K
365
6.26 x 10-7

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:
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 11 Baseline livestock population by project instance yearly (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 12). The
proportion of each cattle class in the total herd has been similarly estimated by Meat Naturally and in
consultation with livestock owners.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

66

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Table 12: 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 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 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. BEM of any future project instances
will be calculated similarly.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

67

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Table 13 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
Animals

Methane Emissions
AnnualBaseline
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
methanein projectin project
mean of emissions
methaneanimals (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%

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

68

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Baseline Soil Organic Carbon
As outlined in the VCS VM0032 methodology (page 22), the total number of sampling stations n for the
project area under a modeled approach must be determined using an online calculator. Sampling stations
must be selected to encompass as much of the variability in these factors as possible to test that themodel is appropriate for use in the project area. In a modeled approach, the total number of samplingstations should be sufficient to ensure representation of the full range of soil carbon densities found on
the project area, so as to properly evaluate the model.
Sample size determination
Using the online calculator Free Statistics Calculator V 4.022, the anticipated effect size of changing
grazing management on soil carbon density was 0.2. The VM0032 methodology requires a minimum
power, corresponding roughly to required R2 of 0.8, which confers a p-value < 0.01. There are 8 predictor
variables in the SNAPGRAZE model. With these inputs, the calculator recommends the number ofsampling sites to be n = 83.
Initially, this number was almost doubled to give room for a post-stratification of the sample. In total, 162
plots have been sampled across the landscape in order to be representative of the project area (Figure22). Further information on the sampling design is also reflected and described in chapter 3.3.3.

Figure 22 Location of 162 soil sampling stations (kml in supporting documents)

Stratification

22

http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=1

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

69

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

The stratification is done by altitude. The western sample cluster of 46 samples in Figure 22 represents
the “Highveld”, the higher altitude, mountainous region of the project located near the Blyde River
Canyon. There, lower temperatures and higher precipitation is expected to impact soil characteristics andsoil carbon dynamics. The right sample cluster of 116 samples represents the “Lowveld”, which ischaracterized by lower altitude, rather flat terrain, and higher temperature. Measured soil carbon at the
sampling points in 2021 revealed that there is high variability of soil carbon stocks in the project area.
Correlations with sand content and community proved to be rather low further stratification was therefore
omitted. As shown below the model was calibrated to differences in livestock density, which proved to be
the main predictor of soil carbon dynamics at individual sampling points. This makes sense for large,
unmanaged grazing camps as present in the baseline. Livestock roams freely and tends to concentrategrazing (and even defecation) unforeseeably and randomly wherever there is the most palatable grass ineasiest reach. This is again then influenced by external factors of timing of livestock movements byherders. The soil carbon model validation was conducted for the lowveld stratum only.
Modeled approach: Soil Organic Carbon model
Baseline soil organic carbon for the proposed activity-based modeled approach, per the VM0032
methodology requires the measurement of the necessary model parameters to calibrate and validate themodel. The project will use 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 has 18 input parameters:•

MAP= Long-term mean annual precipitation•

MAT= Long-term mean annual temperature

•

Fire

= Average number of fires per year•CG

= Daily biomass consumption rate•

Density= Livestock stocking density

•

Edays

= Number of days within the growing season prior to grazing episode

•

Ddays

= Number of days of grazing episode

•

Fdays

= Number of days left in the growing season after the grazing episode

•

Gdays

= Total number of days in the growing season•

N= Number of paddocks per total grazing area•W

= Average animal body size (live weight)

•

Depth

= Depth of soil sampling

•

Sand

= Sand content in top 30 cm soil in %•APCorrection = Correction factor for the influence of annual vs perennial plant growthstrategies on belowground production•

LIGCELL= Lignin and cellulose content of livestock feed•R

= Maximum relative growth rate of grass biomass•SK= Steady state biomass in the absence of grazing

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

70

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3•

S0= Biomass condition at the onset of the growing season

Data / Parameter

MAPj,mData unit

mm/year

Description

Mean annual precipitation in stratum m at station j

Source of data

ERA 5 climate dataset23

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedFifth generation ECMWF re-analysis for the global climate andweather for the past 8 decades. Data is available from 1940
onwards. Best data source to use spatially explicit.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

ERA 5 and related data is collected daily to hourly which oversatisfies the methodology requirements: Annually if obtained fromgovernment sources or local weather stations, daily if collected on
the project area,

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedData collected form official weather stations or other official
sources

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions

Comments

A key variable that affects a number of processes driving SOC

Data / Parameter

MATj,mData unit°C

Description

Mean annual temperature in stratum m at station j

Source of data

ERA 5 climate dataset23

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedFifth generation ECMWF reanalysis for the global climate andweather for the past 8 decades. Data is available from 1940
onwards. Best data source to use spatially explicit.

23

https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/reanalysis-era5-land-monthly-means?tab=form[April 16, 2023]

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

71

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

ERA 5 and related data is collected daily to hourly which oversatisfies the methodology requirements: Annually if obtained fromgovernment sources or local weather stations, daily if collected on
the project area,

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedData collected form official weather stations or other official
sources

Purpose of data

A key variable that affects a number of processes driving SOC.
Baseline emissions

Comments

Data / Parameter

Fire

Data unit
Description

Numbers of fire per year

Source of data

Measured/Observed in the project area

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedEstimated based on observed fires as in Historical fire
assessment as shown in chapter 3.2.1

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Annually

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedAs in data source used.

Purpose of data

Influences the biomass at the onset of the growing season

Comments

Data / Parameter

CG

Data unit

g/animal/day

Description

Daily biomass consumption rate

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

72

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Source of data

Ritchie 2020

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedNot applicable, as value comes from literature source.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

StaticQA/QC procedures to be
appliedApplication of correct value

Purpose of data

A key variable that affects the grazing intensity

Comments

Data / Parameter

Density

Data unit

Animals/ha

Description

Livestock density in the project area

Source of data

Animal counts from the weekly dip tank procedures divided by thegrazing camp area combined with livestock density estimates atsampling stations based on typical local herd movement.
Category

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Cattle density

Value applied

1

no

0.01

2

light

0.2

3

medium

0.4

4

high

0.7

5

very high

1.2

Animal counts are done by the StateVet during weekly dip tankprocedures. These are supported by the Eco-Rangers.

73

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

WeeklyQA/QC procedures to be
applied

Double checks of StateVet records by Eco-rangers

Purpose of data

A key variable that affects the grazing intensity and dung-derived
SOC changes

Comments

Quantified data on livestock density is only available at thecommunity level since all cattle is joined at the dip tank events.
The resolution needed for the model however, is the level ofindividual sampling stations. Therefore, in the model adaptations
at these sampling stations needed to be made to account for local
livestock movements. These adaptations were documented
directly in the model and are based on consultations with thetechnical team of CSA. To ensure model consistency over the
project lifetime, this input parameter is fixed at each samplingstation for the duration of the project. It shall only be changed with
substantial changes in livestock numbers, which are not expected
for the project.

Data / Parameter

Edays

Data unit

days

Description

Number of days within the growing season prior to the grazing
episodeSource of data

Management plan

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedData estimated based on growing season

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

YearlyQA/QC procedures to be
appliedChecked by project administration

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

74

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Purpose of data

Determines the total biomass at the beginning of a grazing
episodeComments

Data / Parameter

Ddays

Data unit

days

Description

Number of days of grazing episode

Source of data

Management plan

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedData estimated based on growing season

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

YearlyQA/QC procedures to be
appliedChecked by project administration

Purpose of data

Determines the total biomass at the end of a grazing episode

Comments

Data / Parameter

Fdays

Data unit

days

Description

Number of days left in the growing season after the grazing
episodeSource of data

Management plan

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

75

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedData estimated based on growing season

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

YearlyQA/QC procedures to be
appliedChecked by project administration

Purpose of data

Determines the total biomass at the end of the vegetation period

Comments

A key variable that affects a number of processes driving SOC

Data / Parameter

Gdays

Data unit

days

Description

Length of the vegetation period

Source of data

NDVI analysis

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied

The length of the vegetation period has been assessed in theframe of the NDVI analysis as shown in chapter 3.1.4.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

YearlyQA/QC procedures to be
appliedChecked by project administration

Purpose of data

A key variable for plant aboveground and belowgroundproductivity

Comments

Data / Parameter

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

N76

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Data unit-

Description

Number of paddocks

Source of data

Management plan

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedIn the baseline scenario there is only one big paddock covering
the whole pasture area, since it is unrestricted and unmanaged
grazing. As soon as the grazing area is subdivided into camps (orpaddocks in the language of the model), this number increases.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

YearlyQA/QC procedures to be
appliedEco-rangers are present during meetings of the grazing
association and can report back on this number easily. In thebaseline scenario it is simply assured that this number is correctly
reported by the communities.

Purpose of data

Important to determine the livestock density in the project

Comments

In the project then, every village has two camps that alternate
between grazing and resting. Therefore n = 2.

Data / Parameter

W

Data unitkg

Description

Average animal body size (kg)

Source of data

Weekly dip tank inspections and cattle sale numbers

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied

Scaling happens typically at a sale event. Based on body
condition scoring, Eco-rangers can estimate monitor average bodyweight.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

WeeklyQA/QC procedures to be
appliedAssured by presence of Eco-rangers

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

77

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Purpose of data

Important to determine the livestock density in the project

Comments

Data / Parameter

Depth

Data unitcm

Description

Depth of soil sampling

Source of data

Measured in project area

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedSampling at each station according to stratum, soil taken at 30
cm, 4 sub-samples are taken at each station and mixed into asingle station sample for analysis.
Procedure followed described in Soil SOP

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

At least every five years

QA/QC procedures to be
applied-All monitoring staff that undertake soil sampling have received
training and refresher training for new field campaigns

Purpose of data

Determines the depth to which SOC is modeled

Comments

Default = 30. Can be adapted. In the project the modeled depth is
20 cm.

Data / Parameter

Sand

Data unit%

Description

Sand content in 20 cm topsoil

Source of data

Measured at the permanent sampling plots

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

78

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedMeasured using standard soil laboratory analysis

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Every 5 to 7 years

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedGood sampling practice assures data quality, as shown in the
Monitoring Plan (chapter 3.3.3)

Purpose of data

Influences microbial respiration and therefore modeled SOC
equilibrium

Comments

Data / Parameter

APCcorrection

Data unit-

Description

Correction factor for the influence of annual vs. perennial plant
growth strategies on belowground production

Source of data

Default value from Ritchie 2020

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedAs shown in data source

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording-

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedAs shown in data source

Purpose of data

Influences the belowground production

Comments

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

79

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Data / Parameter

LIGCELL

Data unit-

Description

Lignin and cellulose content of plant biomass/ livestock feed

Source of data

Measured at permanent sampling plots

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied

SOC is often closely related to inputs of these forms of carbon
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 from 67 sites in Welverdiend,
Dixie and Utah, whereby clippings of the three dominate species
were dried, weighed, and then subjected to a sulfuric acidhydrolysis method, as per the AnkomTechnology Corp
commercial digestion products.
The lignin cellulose data were captured in the K2C Carbon
LIGCELL_measured11112021 dataset and stored in the MEL
Database.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Measured in the beginning of the project

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedCollaboration with academic staff ensures quality of the sampling
and analysis results

Purpose of data

Key variable that influences the plant derived and dung derived
SOC change

Comments

Data / Parameter

R

Data unit-

Description

Maximum relative growth rate

Source of data

van der Plas, F., Zeinstra, P., Veldhuis, M., Fokkema, R., Tielens,E., Howison, R., & Olff, H. (2013). Responses of savanna lawnand bunch grasses to water limitation. Plant ecology, 214, 11571168.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

80

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedAs shown in source

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Once

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedDependent on source

Purpose of data

Influences the growth rate of grass biomass

Comments

Ecosystem specific value

Data / Parameter

SK

Data unit

g/m²

Description

Biomass in the absence of grazing

Source of data

Measured from grazing exclosures at permanent sampling plots

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedEco-rangers measure regularly during the year with pasturemeters the growth in exclosures and clip at the end of the year.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Annually

QA/QC procedures to be
applied

SOPs assure that measurements were taken according to plan.
Collaboration with academia assures quality.

Purpose of data

Model input to estimate the growth of biomass in the absence ofgrazing

Comments
Model version
The SNAPGRAZE model was developed by Mark Ritchie and published in 2020 (Ritchie 2020). The
output of the model is the soil organic carbon at equilibrium that will be achieved with the given input dataon climate, vegetation, soil, and cattle management. Although the paper was peer-reviewed, we foundsome errors in the equations of the paper. Therefore, the model version that was used for this project

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

81

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

deviates in some equations from the original description. A model version report is put into Appendix 2:
SNAPGRAZE model version. The model version for this project was constructed in the application
Microsoft Excel.
Model calibration
The parameters for soil and vegetation (sand content in % and lignin-to-cellulose ratio) of the
SNAPGRAZE model were entered. SNAPGRAZE was built as an extension of the SNAP model which
was developed using extensive data on plant growth and soil properties in the Serengeti National Park
(Ritchie 2014; Ritchie 2020). For climate data, the mean annual precipitation (MAP) and mean annual
temperature (MAT) from 2013 to 2017 were used. The fire frequency for the project area was analyzed
for the ten years prior to the project start. The formula for the daily cattle biomass consumption rate CG
was altered; in the paper, it has a factor of 2 to account for lactating cows, but this was eliminated since
the project does not include dairy cows. The maximum relative growth rate r was obtained from aliterature review and taken from van der Plas et al. (2013). The inputs for livestock density at eachsampling station are based on the total cattle size over the baseline period and estimation of grazing
history at individual sampling stations by herders and the technical team of CSA. Based on its location in
the landscape each sampling station within the project area was assigned to a livestock density category.
There are five categories ranging from no, light, medium, high and very high livestock density. The
livestock density calculated over the lowveld stratum based on cattle numbers from the diptank
inspections in all villages is 0.6 24. We assumed that livestock density at a certain sampling station can at
maximum only double to 1.2. Each livestock category was then given a value of 0.01, 0.2, 0.4, 0.7 and1.2.the applicable value was then applied for each sampling station in the model. The average assigned
cattle density over all sampling points had to be 0.6 in order to have the qualitative assignment of local
cattle density connected to the measured cattle density data of the Lowveld. This ensures that theclassification does not lead to an over- or underestimation of cattle density in the project area.
The model has two equations to calculate the microbial respiration in dependence of the soil organiccarbon density. An exponential function is sought to be applied in a low SOC range, as the second linear
function which is to be applied starting from 4600gC/m² h has a negative intercept below that value. The
switch between these functions is determined by the linear equation. Thus, if the linear function results ina predicted SOC equilibrium of < 4600 gC/m² then the exponential function is applied.
We conducted a Monte Carlo simulation of 1000 iterations with random input values within set value
ranges to test the range of the model output. The result is a normal distribution with a positive skew and amean of ~33.5 tC/ha which is in line with a predicted mean and distribution derived by ISRIC Soilgrids.
Files and data are provided in the supporting documentation for the project validation.
Model validation
The variance in measured SOC stocks across the landscape is large, due to complex topography,
underlying geology and biogeochemical heterogeneity (e.g. grazing and fire),. Furthermore, the resolutionof the model input variables differ, for example SOC is measured at the sub m2 resolution and rainfall
almost at a landscape level. This makes fitting a model predicting SOC at fine resolution challenging.
Other soil data sources such as ISRIC SoilGrids show a much narrower range of SOC across the project
area. For this reason the ISRIC SoilGrids data was used as a reference to validate measured sampling
plots and categorize sample plots. 25.
Due to this high variability in measured SOC stocks, the sample size for validation had to be reduced tothe minimum 83 from the 116 sites samples in the lowveld strata by removing most of the outliers. A value
was considered an outlier when it was one standard deviation away from the mean. Only 77 samples
were non-outliers. In order to achieve the minimum required total of 83 samples, six additional samples
were added to the total. To increase conservativeness of the model and subsequently the baseline model
run, these six additional samples were the next six samples from the upper range of outliers.
At each permanent sampling station four soil samples to a depth of 0 – 20 cm were taken within a 10 m
radius of the plot center. Deeper sampling proved to be difficult due to a higher compaction with
24 See supporting documentation – SNAPGRAZE Model; sheet “Raw data”
25 Supporting document – “Sampling_plots_validation”

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

82

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

increasing depth. Samples for each layer were pooled to form a composite sample which was then driedand sent to a laboratory to be analyzed for total organic carbon using the Walkley-Black method.
Furthermore, a bulk density measurement was taken at every sampling station using a cylinder with aknown volume. This sample was weighed to determine the soil bulk density.
The parameters measured to validate the model were:
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(year) = 0, i.e., at the start of the project or since the lastverification

Source of data

Measured in project area

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedTracked at the level of j = 1 to zm individual sampling stations ineach stratum because net removals will be based on
demonstrating how a soil carbon dynamic model, in this case
SNAPGRAZE, can successfully predict current SOC from pastconditions at individual stations.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Every model validation

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedThe organic carbon concentrations are measured in appropriate
academic or industrial laboratories with chemical automated,calibrated analytical machines.

Purpose of data

Baseline for performance-based removals based on increasing
SOC

Comments

Data / Parameter

BULKm,jData unit

g/cm³

Description

Bulk density

Source of data

Measured in project area

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedMeasured by taking a 20 cm soil core with a known volume ateach sampling station, spreading the contents on a flat surface toidentify and remove any stones or gravel, drying the soil core at
45°C to a constant weight, and weighing of the dried soil.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Every model validation

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

83

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedA consistent system of soil storage to prevent loss of mass prior to

Purpose of data

Necessary to convert proportion of SOC in soil to mass of
SOC/area.

weighing, accurate estimation of rock volume, paper and digitalarchiving, corroboration with literature values

Comments
The soil and vegetation parameters as well as the climate input parameters were entered into the
SNAPGRAZE model. The model was used to predict SOC stocks in 2021 based on the estimated historyof grazing. The predicted SOC stocks for every sampling station were then compared to the observed
SOC stocks at the same site. The results suggest that within the K2C project area, the model predicts
mean and individual SOC values with more than 90% accuracy.

Figure 23 Regression of observed SOC density at each of the survey sites versus the predicted SOC density from the
SNAPGRAZE model based on averages on mean annual precipitation and temperature, fire frequency, sand content,
sampling depth, plant relative growth rate, lignin to cellulose content in plant biomass, biomass in absence of grazing,annual to perennial grass ratio, livestock density and grazing history, and grazing management.

The SNAPGRAZE model results suggest that unsustainable rangeland management and overgrazing
have caused SOC losses in the past 30 years. It is assumed that the period of overgrazing started in theearly 1980s and that, based on the results from Lal (2004), SOC stocks had been at equilibrium for morethan 15 years at the time soil sampling and carbon density observations were conducted in 2021. As
required by the VCS VM0032 methodology, the model must generate a coefficient of determination R² >0.80 across all strata. The slope of the regression line must have a 95% confidence interval that includes
a slope gradient of 1 and include the origin as a y-axis intercept. Bias must be determined by evaluating
the percent bias of a simulation (carbon model) relative to observed data.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

84

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

𝑴𝑩𝑰𝑨𝑺 =

∑𝒏𝒋=𝟏(𝒀𝒐𝒃𝒔 − 𝐘𝐣𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝 )𝒋∑𝒏𝒋=𝟏 𝒀𝒐𝒃𝒔

𝒋

Where:MBIAS= Percent bias of carbon model predictions relative to observed datan

= number of sampling stations tested

Yobsj= observed SOC density at station j

Ypredj= SOC density predicted at station j

Bias of the model chosen for this methodology must be between -20% and +20%
The SNAPGRAZE model met all of these criteria (Table 14). The R² = 0.91 exceeds the required 0.80.
The slope of the regression is 1.07 (+- 0.02 SE) with a 95% confidence interval from 0.9959 to 1.14, thus
including 1.00. The y-axis intercept is -2.02 (+- 1.14SE) with a 95% confidence interval from -4.3 to 0.25
and thus includes the origin 0. The model bias MBIAS is -0.2% and therefore well below the criterion of
20%. These outcomes show that the SNAPGRAZE model meets the criteria for successful assessment ofcarbon stocks as prescribed in the VM0032 methodology.

Table 14 SNAPGRAZE model performance
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R

0.953373694

R Square0.908921401

Adjusted R Square

0.907796974

Standard Error

2.780625962

Observ ations

83

ANOVA
df

SS

MS

Regression

1

6250.001966

6250.001966

Residual

81626.2823399

7.73188074

Total

82

6876.284305

Coefficients
I ntercept
X Variable 1

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

-2.02221603
1.070840676

Standard Error
1.142769237
0.037664079

t Stat-1.769575138
28.43135144

F

Significance F

808.3417445 6.65171E-44

P-value

Lower 95%

0.080561511 -4.29596835
6.65171E-44 0.995900973

Upper 95%
0.251536291
1.14578038

85

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Furthermore, VM0032 requires that the predicted modeled mean baseline SOC and its 95% CI overlap
with the 95% CI of the observed baseline SOC. This analysis was performed and confirms the suitabilityof the model in the project area (Figure 24).

Figure 24. Predicted mean and 95% confidence intervals from Monte Carlo simulation (blue boxplot) for predictedbaseline SOC compared to observed mean SOC (with 95% CI). Note that the 95% confidence intervals overlap, as
required by the VM0032 methodology.

Estimation of baseline SOC
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 chapter 3.1.6, 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 formore 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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

86

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Where:
UBEM= Uncertainty in baseline methane emissions from grazing animals (%)

UBEMc= Uncertainty in baseline methane emissions from animals in category c (%)

BEMc= 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,𝑖
𝑆𝐸𝐵𝑁𝑐 = (𝐵𝑁𝑐 ) ×(𝑛 − 1)1⁄2
𝑆𝐷 (2

Where:SEBNc= Standard error of the harmonic mean of animal counts in category c

SD(1/Nc,i)= Standard deviation of the inverses of the count I of animals in category c

Nc,I= Animals in category c in census I (head)

BNc= Harmonic mean number of animals in category c (head) during the baseline period (head)n= Number of censuses

The 95 percent confidence interval-based uncertainty in the estimated number of animals in category c is:
𝑈𝐵𝑁𝑐 = 3.84 × 100 ×

𝑆𝐸𝐵𝑁𝑐
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 (%)

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

87

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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 results of this calculation for the first project instances following the above protocols are all presented
in Table 13. SOC emissions are 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 12) of each category as shown in the previous subchapter.
Project methane emissions from livestock enteric fermentation are calculated as shown below:
𝑃𝐸𝑀𝑡 = ∑𝑘𝑐=1(𝑃𝑁𝑐 ∗ 𝐷𝑀𝐸𝑓(𝑊𝑐 )) ∗ 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐶𝐻4 ∗ 365 ∗ 6.26 ∗ 10−7
where:PEMt
PNc
DMEf(Wc)
Wc
GWPCH4C
K
365
6.26 x 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

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. Current estimates shows that an increase from the baseline average of

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

88

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

29.2 tC/ha (107.16.0 t CO2e/ha) to a SOC equilibrium of about 44.9 tC/ha (164.78 t CO2e/ha) is possible.
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 have to 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 for each 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,t= Annual project removals due to changes in SOC stocks in stratum m in year t(tCO2e/ha)

Uncertainty in project emissions and removals

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

89

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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.
𝑈𝑃𝐸𝑀𝑐, = (𝑈𝑃𝑁𝑐2 + 𝑈𝐷𝑀𝐸𝑐2 )1⁄2
Where:
UPNc= Uncertainty in the project mean of animals in category c

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

90

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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

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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

= 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)

91

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3n= 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)

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 = 𝑈𝑃𝑅𝑆𝑡
For the ex-ante calculation below, we assume that even displacement leakage is 0. Fences around thegrazing camps as well as the presence of Eco-rangers should minimize events of cattle roaming outside
the project area to an insignificantly low level.
In addition, these areas outside of the project area, where displaced livestock could be moved, have beenused for unmanaged livestock grazing by the same communities in the past. Thus, reductions in SOC
stock through displacement leakage of livestock is not expected to have a significant leakage effect. It is

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

92

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

more likely that pressure on these out-of-project areas will be reduced through managed grazing within
the project areas, causing a positive spillover effect for grassland restoration.

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)

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

93

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Total project uncertainty is given by:
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)

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

94

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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

The following ex-ante estimate has been calculated based on the internal upscaling plan. It is assumed
that after 20 project years on a particular area the new SOC equilibrium is reached as modelled by
SNAPGRAZE. This explains the decrease in net GHG emission reductions or removals at the end of the
project. The estimated net GHG emission reductions or removals include also a deduction of a 10% nonpermanence risk buffer contribution, as well as a general deduction of 5% for uncertainty of prediction.26

Year

Estimated baseline
emissions or
removals (tCO2e)

Estimated projectemissions or
removals (tCO2e)

Estimated leakage
emissions tCO2e)

Estimated net GHG
emission reductions
or removals (tCO2e)

2019

3928

-182740-155082020

3928-182740-155082021

3928-182740-155082022

3928-182740-155082023

6473-301130-255542024

9017-419510-35601

2025

11562

-537890-45647

2026

14162

-658870-55913

2027

17069

-794110-67390

2028

20031

-931910-79084

2029

23054

-1072540-91019

2030

26077

-1213180-102954

2031

29100

-1353820-114889

2032

32123

-1494460-126824

2033

35146

-1635100-138759

2034

38169

-1775730-150694

2035

41191

-1916370-162628

2036

44214

-2057010-174563

2037

47237

-2197650-186498

2038

50260

-2338290-198433

2039

50260

-2155540-181073

2040

50260

-2155540-181073

26 Detailed calculations can be found in supporting documents → ex ante → K2C_Ex-Ante Estimate_2023

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

95

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

3.3
3.3.1

2041

50260

-2155540-181073

2042

50260

-2155540-181073

2043

50260

-2155540-181073

2044

50260

-2037160-169826

2045

50260

-1918780-158580

2046

50260

-1800400-147334

2047

50260

-1679420-135841

2048

50260

-1544180-122993

Total

963,199-4,118,620

0-3,458,420

Monitoring
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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

96

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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.

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 fromthe 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 than valueof 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

IPCC default values

Value applied

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3••

Cattle classes

•
•
•
•

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

Heifers (pre-reproductive females)

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

97

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3••
Justification of choice of dataor description of measurement
methods and procedures
applied100
Male calves
100
Female calves
Necessary to estimate emission factor for grazing animals using
allometric equations. Measurements must be taken in accordancewith the procedures described in Section 9.1.2 of the VM0032
Methodology.

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions
Calculation of project emissions

Comments

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 11

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

The number of animals in each census i are measured to
calculate the harmonic mean of the multiple counts i of ncensuses of animals in category c. The methodology requires
at least four measurements within the baseline period, with atleast two during the period 5-10 years prior to the project start.
However, data were not available for the entirety of therequired 10-year baseline period, and, therefore, amethodological deviation was taken. Cattle numbers of thebaseline are well recorded in a yearly count by State Veterinary
Services as of 2015. To estimate the harmonic mean of thecattle numbers in each category c, a dataset was used thatcovered each year in the period 2015-2018. Though it does notcover the entire 10-year baseline period, this is the mostaccurate dataset available, and, therefore better represents
baseline conditions than any other means proposed in themethodology. Animal numbers are likely to have declined inrecent years due to degradation of grasslands. Thus, by notaccounting the full 10-year period, the baseline estimate ofmethane emissions of cattle is rather underestimating. Cattle
numbers are counted at the end of January each year by theState Veterinary Services. The years 2015 to 2018 represent
the baseline. Measurements must be taken in accordance withthe procedures described in Section 9.1.2. of the VM0032
Methodology.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

98

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions

Comments

This document provides in Table 11 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
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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

99

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Purpose of data

Calculation of baseline emissions

Comments

Data / Parameter

SOC%j,m,0

Data unit

Dimensionless proportion expressed as a percent

Description

Source of data

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

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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

100

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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

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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

101

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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

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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

102

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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

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
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 fieldsurveillance 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 aboveground

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

103

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

biomass 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 growth

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 of opening andclosing 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 applied181

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

104

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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 of opening andclosing 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

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 of opening andclosing 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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

105

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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

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 threedominant 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 and stored 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 as shown
above
Calculation of baseline emissions

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

106

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

107

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

3.3.2

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 applied

To be determined. Total project area is around 80,300 ha.

Monitoring equipment

None

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedAreas will be determined from accurate GIS layers of classified
project area or from legal descriptions of property included in the
project area. Verification will be with Global Positioning Systems(GPS) with an accuracy of 10 m or less. Ground points may
include permanent sampling stations but also may include points
at defined stratum boundaries or along roads.

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

Projects must ensure that the following information in regard to theproject area of each stratum is provided within the relevant area ofthe project description:1) Map(s) of the locations of the permanent sampling plots
overlaid on a map of project strata.
2) Results of cluster analysis to determine project strata.
3) Table of all project strata, their description, and area, PAm
4) Results of analysis to determine the number of sampling units
and their allocation among strata

Project Animal Methane Emissions
Data / Parameter

PNc,tData unit

NumberDescription

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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

108

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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 based on VM0032 guidance.

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

AnnualValue appliedWill vary by community

Monitoring equipment

Pen and paper

QA/QC procedures to be
applied

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

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

109

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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

Comments

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 basis

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

110

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3of its ability to predict changes in soil carbon during the monitoring
period. This is expected to be every 7 years.
Value appliedWill 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
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

Comments

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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

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.

111

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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 appliedWill 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.

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

Comments

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 appliedWill vary by location and year

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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

112

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Data / Parameter

MAT

Data unit°C

Description

Mean annual temperature over the project area

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 appliedWill vary by location and year

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 appliedWill vary by year. Averaged over the project area.

Monitoring equipment

None

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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

113

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Purpose of data

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

Comments

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 appliedWill vary by location and year

Monitoring equipment

Soil auger; volumetric cylinder

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedCollaboration 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 then

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

114

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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 and year

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 appliedLong-term average

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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

115

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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

2-year average

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

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

Value applied

2-year average

Monitoring equipment

None

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

116

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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

Purpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

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

2-year average

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

Data / ParameternData unit
Description

Number of pastures per village

Source of data

Measured in project area

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

117

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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

Most conservative for calculation

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. Typically only 2 are defined but thisnumber can also be higher.

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

Average over the whole project area

Monitoring equipment

None controlled by the project proponent

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedPurpose of data

Calculation of project emissions

Comments

Estimated from measurements in project area combined withexpert estimates

Data / Parameter

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Livestock density

118

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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 sampling stations
is then estimated based on cattle movements for each samplingstations
Before each verification

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording
Value applied

Individual at each sampling station (recorded in model),Justification of choice ofdata 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 acamp 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., ecorangers) during
vegetation assessments

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

YearlyValue applied

0.291 if the project area is dominated by annuals. If not, default
factor of 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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

119

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Comments

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

Monthly

Value applied

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

Comments

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

120

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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 applied

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

Comments
3.3.3

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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

121

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Figure 25: 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); andsustainable 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 and

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

122

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

captured electronically in the MERL SharePoint. The data is collected according to the indicators listed inTable 15.
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 26: 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-groundstanding 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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

123

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Figure 27: Monitoring sites across project area.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

124

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Sampling Strategy: Spatial Analysis and Planning

Figure 28: Sampling Strategy

Monitoring of animal numbers

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

125

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

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 15: 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.
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 at

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

126

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

every 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 cattle were fitted with GPS collars for a period of 6months toto track animal movements in accordance to the grazing management plan. (Figure 29). Thisdata can support compliance monitoring of the grazing plans. Should the resources be made available
the project will seek to extend the collaring activities into other communities.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

127

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Figure 29. 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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

128

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Table 16: 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

Indicator and (unit)
1.1 Conservation Agreements (% of target 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 sold relative to target)
1.7 Self-sufficiency (% herd slaughtered relative totarget)1.8 Employment generation (% person days target)
1.9 Compliance (% of required ha LSU-1)
1.10 Plant species composition
1.11 Percentage IAP cleared to maintenance level(Area [ha] at 5% /Total area [ha] infested)
1.12 Skills development (% of target/ number ofpeople)1.13 Households supported (% of target/ number ofpeople)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)

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
AnnualAnnualAnnualStability
Stability
Stability
Reliability
Resil. & Adapt.
As above

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

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])2.5 Percentage IAP cleared to maintenance level(Area at 5% [ha]])2.6 Skills development (% of target)
2.7 Water security (table height / mm rainfall (m mm1)

All
Productivity

1600
Area (ha) TBD

Productivity
Ecosystem
Ecosystem

100
0
75

Ecosystem

100

Stability
Resilience

100
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡⁄𝑅𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙

2.8 Overall wetland restoration score (no unit)

All

700

Ecosystem
Ecosystem
Ecosystem

25%
100%
45 or 60 ha LSU-1
272
100%

Ecosystem

AnnualAnnualMonthly
AnnualQuarterly

Quarterly
AnnualAnnualAnnual

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

129

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Intervention
3.

Predator conservation-Skills development

4.

Disaster Risk
Reduction

5.

Sustainable
investments

6.

Social upliftment

OVERALL LANDSCAPE
SCORE

Indicator and (unit)
3.1 Livestock loss to predators (% of control
treatment / number of incidents)
3.2 Employment generation (% target persondays)
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 (nounit)
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 (nounit)
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 of community members)
6.4 Other employment generation (% target
households / number of employment
opportunities))
6.5 Overall skills development (% of target trained inintervention 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

Reference value *Frequency

Productivity

50

Quarterly

Productivity

TBD

Ecosystem

100

Stability
Stability

12
100

All

500

Stability
Ecosystem
Ecosystem/
Productivity
All
Stability
Stability
Stability
Stability
Stability

TBD
TBD
2
TBD
300
2

All

500

Stability

1

Stability
Stability
Productivity
Productivity

3
100
100
1000

Stability

100

Stability
Stability
Stability

1
1
1

All
ALL

800
3900

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Additive scores

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

130

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

3.3.4 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 share information from the monitoring activities with the support of themonitoring coordinator. The different stakeholders of interest will be able to access the complete
documents and monitoring reports of the project freely and through a means to which they have access;hard copies will be left with the traditional authorities in the communities and in schools/youth centerswhere 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.

3.4 Optional Criterion: Climate Change Adaptation Benefits
The proposed project seeks to be validated at the Gold Level for Exceptional Climate Change Adaptation
Benefits.
3.4.1 Regional Climate Change Scenarios (GL1.1)
Because climate models differ in their predictions of whether average annual rainfall will increase or
decrease, the expected climate change in the project area is uncertain. However, climate variability canbe expected to intensify regardless, in the form of more consecutive dry or wet years, more frequent
failed rainy seasons, and greater rainfall during the rainy season (Ziervogel et al., 2014). Looking at
model ensemble predictions for South Africa and the project area, there is a trend for increasing mean
temperature, depending on the CMIP6 scenario27. Figure 30 depicts the impact of climate change
scenarios SSP2-4.5 (orange) and SPP5-8.5 (red). The difference between the historical reference periodlack) and these scenarios is approximately 1°C independently of the climate change scenario since
SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 do not differ significantly.

Figure 30 Projected Climatology of Mean-Temperature for 2020-2039 South Africa (Reference Period: 1995-2014),
SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5, Model Ensemble

27

A new set of scenarios was developed for ScenarioMIP, the part of the World Climate Research Programme's (WCRP) international Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) that includes 21st century scenario runs. The updated Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) include different
socio-economic developments and trajectories of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (SSP2-4.5: The “Middle of the road” or medium
pathway and SSP5-8.5: “Fossil-fueled Development”). For further information on scenarios see https://www.dkrz.de/en/communication/climatesimulations/cmip6-en/the-ssp-scenarios?set_language=en [May 8, 2023]

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

131

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Source: The World Bank Group. 2021. Climate Change Knowledge Portal

Similarly, the temperature anomalies are depicting a comparable trend. The annual temperature increase
for the Mpumalanga province within the SSP2-4.5 Scenario is 0.67°C and 0.84°C for the SSP5-8.5
scenario.

SSP2-4.5

SSP5-8.5

Figure 31: Projected Mean-Temperature Anomaly for 2020-2039 (annual) South Africa; (Reference Period: 19952014), SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5; Multi-Model-Ensemble
Source: The World Bank Group. 2021. Climate Change Knowledge Portal

As described above, the precipitation anomalies show no clear indication of intensification or decrease.
Figure 32 shows this precipitation trend for 2020-2039 within scenarios SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5.

Figure 32 Projected Precipitation Anomaly for 2020-2039 South Africa; (Reference Period: 1995-2014), SSP2-4.5
and SSP5-8.5; Model Ensemble. Source: The World Bank Group. 2021. Climate Change Knowledge Portal

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

132

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

3.4.2

Climate Change Impacts (GL1.2)

Community Well-Being
The warmer temperatures under future climate conditions (SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5) described in the
scenario analysis above and the variation in time of rainfall are expected to lead to an intensification ofdrought periods. This would decrease the overall resource availability, which could lead to a livestock
capacity reduction (Lohman et al., 2012; Boone et al., 2018). Declines in forage availability and livestockmortality could lead to severe economic losses for livestock herding communities within the project zone.
A recent study (Vetter et al 2020) on the effect of drought on pastoral livestock communities in South
Africa showed that, during the nationwide 2014-2016 droughts, cattle farmers in the study area lost up to
43% of cattle herds when forage and water resources became too scarce. This impact was worse forsmaller farmers, as larger herds suffered lower mortality rates, suggesting that owners of larger herds hadgreater means to support their herds. Furthermore, studies in southern Ethiopia suggest that landdegradation, increased human population density, reduced herd sizes, and loss of key resources haveleft pastoralists increasingly vulnerable to repeated droughts and unable to recover fully in the periods
between successive droughts (Desta and Coppock 2002; Angassa and Oba 2013).
The most vulnerable groups in this case would be the poorest households directly depending on
rangeland resources in the project zone. In 2017, a vulnerability assessment was undertaken by Steven
Holness. for CSA, building on previous spatial analysis done in the Alfred Nzo District in the Eastern
Cape. The assessment focuses on identifying the location of the poorest people most dependent on
direct use of local natural resources in the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere. This study primarily draws on
analysis of 2011 census data to devise a social demand index for communities within the Kruger to
Canyons Biosphere. The data-driven social demand index consists of two composite indices, namely arevised poverty index (incorporating subindices of people who are not employed, a dependency ratio, low
income households, consumption, and access to services) and a local direct natural resource use
dependency index (incorporating sub-indices of access to piped water, dependency on the environment
for wood for cooking, dependency on the environment for wood for heating, and dependency on theenvironment for building materials). Figure 13 shows the areas with the highest direct resource
dependency within the project zone.
Biodiversity Conservation Status
The identification of vulnerable areas is essential to estimate the effect of climate change impacts on
biodiversity. To achieve this objective, two relevant provincial conservation plans, Mpumalanga
Biodiversity Sector Plan (2014) and Limpopo Conservation Plan v2 (2013), were integrated into a
coherent summary. These plans identify critical biodiversity areas and ecological support areas withinboth provinces.
Especially in these areas, the increased variability in water availability could intensify the competition
between wildlife and livestock. It is important to note that the project zone contains important water
catchments for rivers that feed into protected areas and provide water for thousands of households andcommunities. Changes to the river systems feeding GKNP have been evident since the 1960s, withrecords of progressive degradation in quantity and quality (Pienaar, 1970), from silt and other sedimenteroding into the river from cultivated lands as well as reduced river flows through water abstraction, flow
regulation via dams, and pollution (Pollard et al 2011). This trend is also negatively impacting theavailability and quality of forage (Lal et al., 2013).
3.4.3

Measures Needed and Designed for Adaptation (GL1.3)

Measures Needed
Prior to the project initiation, the effect of unpredictable drought periods in the project area led toincreased evaporation and soil trampling by livestock, leaving the soil bare and more prone to erosion
and runoff after subsequent rains and to hardening during the dry season. As a result, there were notable
increases in soil erosion, with topsoil flooding away during summer. Gully erosion and desertification has

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

133

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

also been exacerbated along drainage lines and well used cattle paths in the savanna areas. Moreover,the effect of localized flooding events creates siltation which reduces flow levels and affects fauna andflora downstream in the protected areas.
Rangeland management measures are therefore needed to buffer against unpredictable droughts andincrease water availability from surface water sources for people, flora, and fauna. Erosion control is alsoneeded to reverse land degradation trends in the rangelands, which could be worsened by changing
rainfall patterns (either too much or too little rain).
Measures Designed
The project activity of planned rotational-rest grazing is expected to improve soil cover (reduction of baresoil) and, therefore, enhance the water-holding capacity of the soil, providing a buffer against flooding andincreasing water availability during drought. Moreover, the abundance of perennial grass cover resulting
from this activity should ensure increased availability of fodder for livestock even during the dry season,
making the livestock and the livestock-farming communities more adaptable to the effects of climatechange.
The project also implements restoration activities in the grazing camps where severe erosion and bareground are found. Branches are collected from encroached bush through pruning and bush thinning andused to cover (brush pack) gully and sheet erosion sites. This also serves as a control measure for alien
invasive species which outcompete the indigenous vegetation.
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 and skills development trainings areorganized around the theme of green (climate friendly) businesses as a sustainable source of income
especially for women in project communities.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

134

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
4
4.1

COMMUNITY
Without-Project Community Scenario

4.1.1 Descriptions of Communities at Project Start (CM1.1)
The project is implemented on communal rangelands governed by tribal authorities stretching overMpumalanga and Limpopo Provinces. An overview of communities involved in the first instance of the
project is provided in Table 1; Section 2.1.6. The term ‘communities’ in this chapter refers to the villages
and settlements within the tribal areas where the project takes place. These communities comprisedistinct ‘community groups’ of livestock farmers, women, children, and youth.
Project sites (including proposed expansion sites) and participating villages fall under the ownership ofMnisi, Amashangaan, Jongilanga, Moletele and Bapedi Dinkwanyane Tribal Authorities. Tribal authorities
are the “custodians of the land”. They are governed by Chiefs, who usually have a representative within
the villages – a local headman called an “Induna”. The communities within this region are composed
mainly of farmers and pastoralist livestock herders who depend on the land for resources and livelihoods.
Households use the communal rangelands for agriculture, grazing lands and as a source of wood forhousehold energy. The most spoken languages here are Northern Sotho, followed by Tsonga and Zulu.
The entire project area has high levels of unemployment and low access to education, medical facilities,
and infrastructure. Household earnings are typically below the national minimum wage of R21.728 perhour (R3,200 monthly). Over 50% of respondents surveyed29 in the Mnisi tribal area earned less than
R2000 in a month. The primary source of income was government grants, and only 22% of households
had a member who has received tertiary education. Similarly, in Maruleng local municipality, 15%30 ofhouseholds earn below R1500.00 per month and about 33% of people live on grants. 89%31 of the
population in Maruleng is classified as rural, characterized by the prevalence of communal land tenure
and villages or scattered groups of dwellings; typically located in former homelands. Economically active
men in Maruleng tend to seek work outside of the municipality, while women are disproportionately likely
to be unemployed.
Due to an ongoing population growth in the project area, there is increasing reliance on free-ranging
livestock (largely cattle) as a source of income. Many community members also work within protectedareas in the tourism industry. For the ethnic groups in the project area, livestock are integral andrepresent personal wealth and status. The most common livestock kept are cattle, chickens, goats, andpigs. Cattle rearing especially is of significant cultural and financial value in the area. 57% of respondents
surveyed in the Mnisi baseline socio-economic survey keep their cattle for cultural reasons, 80% also
keep cattle for asset purposes and money, and 95% keep cattle for household consumption.
Before the project start, a few of the livestock farming communities had pre-existing market-related
governance structures in place such as livestock committees, cooperatives and dip tank committees
through which farmers organize information sharing, mandatory dipping of cattle, or develop contribution
systems to maintain or purchase resources that government is not able to provide. However, thesestructures were often not developed or well known as seen in the Mnisi baseline survey (only 30%
respondents confirmed the existence of a farming cooperative in their village), nor do they concern
planning of grazing activities.
4.1.2 Interactions between Communities and Community Groups (CM1.1)
Communities within each project site are positioned close to each other and therefore have strong ties toeach other, especially familial ties. Neighboring communities also share common languages and people
generally move freely between communities for both social (weddings, funerals, traditional events) andeconomic (livestock sales, market days, pension days) reasons.
The use of the communally owned land is decided through the Tribal Authority and local municipal
government through consultation with communities and community structures. Rangelands are utilized by
28 https://www.labour.gov.za
29 2018 Baseline Socio-economic Survey Report (in Annex)
30 Maruleng Integrated Development Plan 2021-2026
31 https://www.maruleng.gov.za

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

135

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

members of the communities under these governance structures and land users do not pay for the use of
the land.
Since Ehlanzeni District Municipality falls within a Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) vaccination zone,
weekly dipping and inspection of all cattle is mandatory and sale / movement of cattle to and from thezone is restricted. Areas of Maruleng and Thaba Chweu District Municipalities fall outside of the FMD
zone and therefore has no restriction on market, however the Maruleng and Thaba Chweu expansion
areas have minimal veterinary assistance, infrastructure or governance structures around dip tanks andcattle management. Livestock owners within a village utilize designated communal dipping tanks. The
larger project area has 106 dip tanks and 34 inspection crush pens that serve approximately 1,400
communal farmers/livestock owners.
4.1.3

High Conservation Values (CM1.2)
High Conservation Value

Tribal rangelands

Qualifying Attribute

The K2C biosphere region includes thousands of hectares ofrich palatable rangelands for communities. The most importantresource to the communities is a range of sensitive grass
species that normally covers the soil in this area for cattle
grazing. Cattle in the area provide food and revenue to local
farmers and communities. The households within thesecommunities also depend on the rangelands for agriculture andwood products, with many households cultivating food crops andharvesting Marula fruit in the savannah woodlands, along withwood for fuel and household furniture. Traditional healers fromlocal communities also utilize the roots, leaves, bark and otherfauna and flora harvested for traditional medicine.

Focal Area

Rangelands and grazing camps surrounding the villages ofWelverdiend, Utah, Dixie and other villages of future project
instancesHigh Conservation Value

Catchment areas for Rivers Olifants, Sabi and Sand

Qualifying Attribute

The entire project zone contains important parts of thecatchments for the Olifants, Sabi and Sand rivers. Thousands ofhouseholds, livestock, wildlife, and aquatic species indownstream communities of these water catchments depend onthem as a primary source for daily use. A Climate Vulnerability
Assessment (Figure 13) indicated a particularly highdependence of resident farming communities on water andgrazing resources in the project zone.

Focal Area

All grazing camps in the project area play a role in conserving
the water catchment areas. Specific importance however goesto grazing camps close to the major rivers or tributaries.

High Conservation Value

Buffer zone for protected areas

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

136

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

4.1.4

Qualifying Attribute

Project sites are in ecological buffer zones for protected areas.
These areas contain wildlife and plant species that are important
as a source of ecotourism to the surrounding communities.
Maintenance of buffer zones is important for climate resilience ofprotected areas in which many members of the communities are
employed in eco-tourism.

Focal Area

Rangelands directly bordering protected areas like theManyeletti Game Reserve, Sabi-Sands private nature reserve,
Timbavatti private nature reserve and the Kruger National Park

Without-Project Scenario: Community (CM1.3)

The most likely scenario without project activities is continued unplanned grazing on the rangelands
leading to degradation. As described in section 2.2.2, livestock farmers in the project communities lackaccess to veterinary support services, training, and infrastructure to support a change to sustainablegrazing practices. Per already observed trends, pressure from grazing would reduce the abundance of
perennial grass species which are palatable for cattle grazing.
In the baseline scenario, human – predator conflicts are reported when wildlife leaves (randomly orseasonally) the protected areas and enters the rangelands through damaged fences. This often results inretaliatory killing of wildlife following an attack on livestock. In addition, poaching is a common problem,with occasional conflict between law enforcement and poachers that are embedded in the communities.
Some villages in the project area are also red zones for Foot and Mouth Disease due to proximity with the
GKNP. Livestock owners in this zone can only sell meat in the same zone. Naturally, their market issmaller, and they face higher risks and overhead costs. Before the project, farmers reported to only haveone buyer (Makhona) for their cattle who basically had a buying monopoly. Cattle prices reached onlyaround 60% of the nationally estimated market price.
Without the project interventions, the situation as-is is expected to continue as worsening rangeland
conditions deplete the resources on which communities within the area greatly rely on for livelihood.
Decreasing quantity and quality of available livestock forage could result in increased conflict withincommunities as they compete for scarce forage resources on communal lands. Scarcity of forage could
also prompt increased encroachment into protected areas and exacerbate human-wildlife conflict as wellas the spread of diseases such as Foot and Mouth which are transmitted between livestock and wildlife.
4.2

Net Positive Community Impacts

4.2.1 Expected Community Impacts (CM2.1)
Through a visioning process, community members in the Mnisi pilot site (Utah, Dixie, Welverdiend) wereinvolved in developing a joint vision of success for the project and their desired outcomes. Similar visionsof success were highlighted in each village with the focus being healthy, productive cattle with sufficientwater and managed grazing lands (See Visioning Report in Supporting Documents). These inputs
informed the project design. Overall, the project is expected to have the following impacts on thecommunities:
Community Group

Livestock farmers in the project communities

Impact(s)Increased market access, income, and livelihoods sustainability

Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk

Livestock farmers will benefit through improved market accessand higher prices for their cattle. Project participants are alreadyreceiving close to national prices which is unheard of for rural
livestock farmers.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

137

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Moreover, through sustainable use of rangeland grazing
resources, livestock farmers are ensured adequate forage for
their cattle throughout the grazing season. Thus, theirlivelihoods are less susceptible to the effects of climate change.
Change in Well-being

Improved livestock income estimated at $6,968,553

Community Group

Unemployed youth in communities

Impact(s)Capacity development and job creation

Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk

Employment opportunities are directly created by the project(eco-rangers, bush thinning, environmental monitors, abattoirs,
handlers etc.) as well as indirectly through resulting
new/expanding enterprises.

Change in Well-being

Alternative income through job creation estimated at $6,860,096

Community Group

Women in communities

Impact(s)Skills development, indirect employment opportunities

Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk

Through the enterprise development component of the project,community women are trained in the following skills:- Financial literacy training.
- Green retail businesses, which are focused on pro-natureenterprises.
In addition, these women are given support on regulatorycompliance for their small-scale businesses; and accessemployment opportunities.

Change in Well-being

Alternative employment and income sources

Community GroupChildren and youth in communities

Impact(s)Education and skills development

Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk

Change in Well-being

Through boy and girl scout activities, children in the projectcommunities learn the value of wildlife, recycling, veld
sanitation/health, and conservation.
The project also promotes the establishment of Information,
Communication and Technology centers at schools and youth
centers in communities who form part of conservationagreements. These centers are focused on providing reliable
and fast internet connections and support youth with computer
skills, e.g., Assisting youth with drafting their curricula vitae in anelectronic format.
Where funding is available, the project plans to include
bursaries/scholarships to youth in project communities.
Increased skills development and access to internet

Community GroupHouseholds near and downstream of project areas

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

138

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Impact(s)Restored ecosystem conditions

Type of Benefit/Cost/Risk

Improved ground cover and infiltration in the project area will
influence water quality and quantity of rivers and tributaries thatflow through the rangelands. The restored rangelands underplanned grazing will also increase in biodiversity and act as acorridor between protected areas for many of the smaller fauna.
Finally, pruning and brush packing activities reduce theprevalence of invasive plant species which are harmful tolivestock and human health.

Change in Well-being

Increased resilience to climate change effects

Community Group

Wildlife guides

Impact(s)Improved livelihoods through alternative income sourcesType of Benefit/Cost/Risk

Project activities aimed at protecting wildlife on communal land
could enable potential job creation from increased ecotourism.

Change in Well-being

Additional ecotourism income

4.2.2 Negative Community Impact Mitigation (CM2.2)
Because the project activities are implemented on communal grazing lands, and are voluntary, there is arisk that livestock farmers, not part of the conservation agreements, may be stigmatized due to theimposition of other community members. CSA works to ensure this doesn’t happen by sensitizing thecommunal livestock farmers about tolerance, voluntary participation rights and conflict management
within the project. Increased awareness about resting camps through signs and engagements has beenpromoted. In addition, monitoring of resting camps including reporting of tracks and dung at the camp
gates has been increased.
Moreover, in cooperatives internally there are currently certain non-compliance repercussions in place,such as e.g., a R50.00 fee for not helping with fence fixing. Note this is an internal arrangement withingrazing cooperatives and not part of any conservation agreement. Typically, during cooperative or diptank meetings non-compliant farmers are additionally being called out and must publicly pay the fee.
Long-term 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.
4.2.3

Net Positive Community Well-Being (CM2.3, GL1.4)

Overall, the project has a net positive impact on the wellbeing of project communities compared to thewithout project scenario.
Livelihood & Employment- Participating producers have already experienced significant increases in household income from
improved animal quality and market access. This increase in household income has a cascading
effect in the local communities through available income for education, improved nutrition, andfood security.
- Selected community members are formally trained as herd monitors (also called Eco-rangers)and ‘Eco-trainers’ and are directly employed by the project to provide services to the members ofFarmers Cooperatives (grazing associations).

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

139

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3-

Trained community members support the project through community based monitoring of
ecosystem services and impact.
The project creates further options for ecotourism from increased wildlife, including those IUCN
listed species.

Training & Skills development- Through the project, communities farming livestock receive training that enable sustainablegrazing and climate-smart animal husbandry practices.
- Women in the communities are trained in green retail businesses which are potential sources ofincome.
- 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. This should lead in the long-term to more informed management of natural
resources, livestock and human health.
- Children in the project communities get increased exposure to technology, and internet toenhance learning and development.
- The project also promotes the establishment of Information, Communication and Technology
centers at schools and youth centers in communities who form part of conservation agreements.
These centers are focused on providing reliable and fast internet connections and support youth
with computer skills, e.g., Assisting youth with drafting their curricula vitae in an electronic format.
Climate adaptation- The project activities lead to reduced methane emissions through climate-smart herd structure,
which is sustained by market incentives.
- Rangeland management measures will increase water availability from surface water sources forpeople, plants, and livestock, providing buffering from drought.
- Restoration of grazing lands and improved forage quality will support climate resilience of
livestock and thus the communities of livestock farmers.
- Restoration activities taken to reverse trends of erosion and land degradation.
- Diversified sources of income further increase the resilience of communities to the impacts ofclimate change.
Governance- Farmers who are part of Farmers Cooperatives (grazing associations) receive governancetraining which enhances the understanding of their role as a governing body, builds institutional
administrative capabilities, the ability to approach and engage with local government as a valid
stakeholder; make ecologically informed decisions about how to manage their rangelands; andshare lessons from their experience with other Farmers Cooperatives (grazing associations).
Thereby they can build a local community of practice and cultivate pride amongst themselves.
Food security- As many households in the project area also rear livestock for domestic consumption29, improved
livestock quality should also lead to better nutrition and food security outcomes.
4.2.4 High Conservation Values Protected (CM2.4)
The project will not adversely affect any identified community HCVs. Rather, these will be protected andimproved under the project scenario. Rangelands within the K2C region will become more robust
following project activities which improve grazing management practices. Buffer zones for protected areas

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

140

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

will also be better managed, enabling greater adaptation of the flora, fauna and people depending onprotected areas. Finally, improved soil condition in project areas located in major river catchment areas isalso expected to have net positive effects on this High conservation value, compared to the withoutproject scenario.
4.3

Other Stakeholder Impacts

4.3.1 Impacts on Other Stakeholders (CM3.1)
Positive Impacts
The project will document and disseminate evidence reports and other communication materials including
lessons learnt reports, policy briefs, case studies to support policy makers and other stakeholders
interested in research activities in the project area.
This project stands out as a 'demonstration site', where other implementing agents wanting to enhance
rangeland restoration with communal livestock owners go to learn, to collaborate, to share.
Negative Impacts
Due to the project, SANParks may have less areas available within the project zone for potential
conversion to wildlife reserves for ecotourism. However, this is a marginal negative impact, as the K2C
rangeland carbon project will have wide ranging positive impacts whereas conservation area expansion
could further marginalize livestock farmers for relatively small gains in ecosystem integrity. This is further
minimalized by the encouraged inclusive conservation models that allow for co-existence of herbivorous
wildlife animals with herds.
Net impacts are further described in section 4.3.3.
4.3.2 Mitigation of Negative Impacts on Other Stakeholders (CM3.2)
A rigorous stakeholder engagement process described in 2.3.7, 2.3.9 was undertaken to ensure thatproject stakeholders are included in the project design and planning and mitigate any potential negative
impacts. Regarding the potential negative impact identified in section 4.3.1; the project mitigates this byincreasing awareness among livestock farming communities about wildlife conservation to reduce theoccurrences of human-wildlife conflicts. This in addition to increased income from project activities is
expected to reduce the likelihood or occurrence of wildlife poaching in the area even below the baseline.
Therefore, the stakeholder’s overall goals of wildlife conservation are rather re-enforced and not
negatively impacted by the project’s activities.
4.3.3 Net Impacts on Other Stakeholders (CM3.3)
The project has no 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 Farmers Cooperatives (grazing
associations). Livelihoods of 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

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Net positive impact through improved livelihoods of constituents141

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Ehlanzeni District
Municipality

Net positive impact through improved livelihoods of constituents

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

4.4

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

4.4.1 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.
1. A socio-economic household survey which is conducted every two years by CSA Eco-trainers
with the assistance of the project M&E officer and the Stewardship Coordinator. The survey
data is collected from a sample of participating farmers and tracks the following indicators:• Level of education of household members• Sources of household income (average household Income from livestock, agriculture
and tourism related activities that can be attributed to the project interventions will becompared with control data to account for other economic or climate-related
distortions).
• Proportion of household income spent on different categories such as education,
food, transport etc.
• Employment status and types of jobs of people in household• Household food production / agricultural practices• Household water collection sources• Number and types of livestock owned.
• Household uses of livestock (number sold, number used for consumption etc)
• Livestock management (how much is spent on feed, challenges to selling livestock,cattle dipping practices)• Opinions, preferences, and perceptions of farmers on rangeland conditions

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

142

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

2. Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Learning (MERL) reports which are compiled every
quarter from data collected by Yes4Youth, herders, Eco-rangers and CSA Eco-trainers via
weekly farmers’ meetings, key informant interviews and reports from project partners /stakeholders. This data is aggregated from various project communication channels including
WhatsApp and Microsoft Teams. The monitoring data is disaggregated into age groups andgender and recorded per indicator theme as per the project monitoring framework.
• Number of beneficiaries of the project• Number of jobs created directly (including eco-rangers, bush thinning, environmental
monitors, abattoirs handlers etc.) and indirectly (through employment created by
new/expanding enterprises) that can be attributed to the project interventions,• Number of livestock sales (data generated from project partners, Meat Naturally)• Turnover from livestock sales (data generated from project partners, Meat Naturally)• Number of households supported directly by project interventions.
• Number of people who received a.) formal and b.) informal training by the project(disaggregated by age groups)• Number of livestock dipped weekly in community dip tanks.
• Number of bursaries/scholarships granted to youth in project communities.
• Total bursaries (in Rands)• Number of graduates produced from the bursaries.
• Number of research papers published which can be directly attributed to the project.
4.4.2 Monitoring Plan Dissemination (CM4.3)
Project description documentation and monitoring reports will be shared as hard copies with thetraditional 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 the livestock committees aswell as in the events of the Scouts. These presentations will take the form of focused feedback sessions
on specific issues of particular interest to stakeholder groups such as soil, grazing quality etc. The projectmonitoring 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 for theirinformation and input. A summary of the monitoring report for the recent reporting period will be displayedin the community centers notice-boards.
4.5 Optional Criterion: Exceptional Community Benefits
This project seeks to be validated at the Gold Level for Exceptional Community Benefits.
4.5.1 Exceptional Community Criteria (GL2.1)
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., state
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 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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

143

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

With regards to the second criterion, the project zone has slightly less than 50% of households below thenational poverty line (45.4% in Bushbuckridge and 42.7% in Maruleng). Nonetheless, the project zone islocated within a low human development area of South Africa. In 2011, the poverty rate in Bushbuckridge
was at 67.9%. A 2013 socio-economic study ranked the municipality number 15 (out of 18 municipalities)
in Mpumalanga province for Human Development metrics; with a HDI score of 0.57. Households’ income
was ranked number 13 as per department of finance 2011 report with 79% of households earning lessthan the national minimum wage. Similarly, in Maruleng, about 83% of households earn less than theminimum wage.
4.5.2 Short-term and Long-term Community Benefits (GL2.2)
The project will generate numerous benefits for the participating livestock farmers and communities,
discussed at length in previous sections 4.2.1, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4. These benefits are summarized here.
The project will generate the following short-term community benefits:
Direct training & employment of youth
Empowerment of women with income-generating skills
Increased income from livestock sales
Better governing structures among livestock farmers
The project will generate the following long-term community 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 for 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.
4.5.3 Community Participation Risks (GL2.3)
Risks to community members for participating in project activities are few relative to those under thebaseline scenario and are discussed previously in section 4.2.2. Community meetings to discuss options
for grazing management allow individual herders to be aware of the benefits and risks of different grazing
management options. Community members, through the inclusive decision-making process, will haveample opportunity to express concerns, evaluate options, and choose to participate in grazing plans.
4.5.4

Marginalized and/or Vulnerable Community Groups (GL2.4)
Community Group 1
Net positive impacts

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Unemployed youth with no higher-level education
The most vulnerable group engaged by the project isunemployed youth, with no higher-level education. Throughthe Yes 4 Youth program integrated in project, youth within thecommunities are selected by the farmers to work as herders. 2
to 4 of these can be hired and trained as Eco-rangers (who will
mentor the next generation of yes 4 youth herders). The top
performers of these can progress to become Eco trainers and
go to the herding academy. The top performers of these areenvisioned to take over project activities and increase thereach of the project and maybe even take it to rangelands
outside of K2C. The salaries are sustained by the carbon
project.
The project also promotes the establishment of Information,
Communication and Technology centers at schools and youth

144

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Benefit accesscenters in communities who form part of conservationagreements. These centers are focused on providing reliable
and fast internet connections and support youth with computer
skills, e.g., Assisting youth with drafting their curricula vitae inan electronic format.
Where funding is available, the project plans to include
bursaries/scholarships to youth in project communities.
The youth selected for this program are selected through aparticipatory approach by the communities of farmers.

Negative impacts

CSA ensures the selection process is democratic and all youth
within communities are given the chance to participate in the
training activities. Hence, no negative impacts are expected tooccur.

Community Group 2
Net positive impacts

Children in project communities
The project conducts boy and girl scout activities within thecommunities as an after-school activity once a week for 2
hours. Here children in the project communities learn the valueof wildlife, recycling, veld sanitation/health, and conservation.
This is used as a vector to raise environmental awarenessalso at home.
Scout centers are established within local communities so thatthey are easily accessible since long distance transportation
could be a barrier. Whenever veld hikes are conducted,
transportation arrangements are made for participants who
require this. Activities are held after school for convenientparticipation. Finally, sessions are held in local languages toensure the understanding is not limited by any of theparticipants.
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

Benefit access

Negative impacts

Community Group 3
Net positive impacts

Benefit access

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Women in project communities
Through the enterprise development component of the project,community women are trained in the following skills:- Financial literacy training.
- Green retail businesses, which are focused on pro-natureenterprises.
In addition, these women are given support on regulatorycompliance for their small-scale businesses
Women-only workshops are held for selected skill
development trainings. In larger sessions involving male andfemale participants, women are encouraged to speak up andvoice their opinions. The project also ensures a fair selection

145

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

process for employment, so that men alone aren’t employed inproject activities.

Negative impacts

Sessions are held when women are mostly available, this isfacilitated by asking women and scheduling sessions at times
that suit most women attendees e.g., morning sessions whenchildren are mostly at school

Community Group 4
Net positive impacts

Elderly not in position of leadership
Through the enterprise development component of the project,elderly have improved income through higher market prices.
The support in herding provided by the projects also assists
elderly community members with livestock safety and support
with herd management.
Herders are assigned to support elderly livestock owners
through the Yes for Youth programme.
Eco-trainers support the herd management of elderly
community members’ cattle.

Benefit access

Negative impacts

Herd management is focused on supporting the elderly who
cannot always tend to their cattle or are not physically able to.

4.5.5 Net Impacts on Women (GL2.5)
The project will have the following direct and indirect impacts on women:• Women will be directly impacted through skills and business development training and support,
including with regulatory compliance for businesses.
• They will also have increased participation in the decision-making processes through stakeholder
meetings where women are particularly encouraged to speak up.
• Women benefit from the increased household income and food security through improved cattle
production and sales.
• Women are directly employed through the job opportunities created by the project.
4.5.6 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). Long term, both parties agree to explore the potential ofestablishing a Trust for the purposes of more specific sharing of the carbon revenue benefits. Community

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

146

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

members are involved in the process as discussed below in the following section. The benefit Sharing
Agreement can be made available to the validator.
4.5.7 Benefits, Costs, and Risks Communication (GL2.7)
Community members are involved throughout the project design and planning process as described in
sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 and 2.3.4. After the engagement team presents the conservation agreement
idea (including costs, benefits, and risks, if any) and verifies that the stewards understand the intent, therepresentatives are given as much time as they need to communicate with their constituency and discuss
the desirability of designing an agreement with CSA. CSA confirms that the decision made reflects thesentiment of the wider resource user group, for example through randomly selected focus groups orinformal individual interviews (with representatives from a variety of social groups). The objective of thisstep is to ensure that the resource users understand and consent to the proposition of proceeding to thenext step, namely designing a conservation agreement. In addition, a visioning process at the start of the
project was undertaken by community members to describe their desired outcomes and expected
benefits from the project. These were taken into consideration when proposing project intervention,
incentives, and benefit-sharing mechanisms. Concrete project activity plans are clearly decided in farmer
meetings through democratic decision-making processes. This includes the formulation of grazing plans,selection of herders and other project roles. Design and negotiation workshops have been successfully
facilitated with four Farmers Organizations in Mnisi area (two in Welverdiend and one each in Utah andDixie) who comprise the first project instance. In these negotiation workshops the costs and benefits are
explained to farmers by experienced facilitators. This is evidenced by the conservation agreements andbenefits sharing contracts under supporting documents .
4.5.8 Governance and Implementation Structures (GL2.8)
The governance and organizational model (Figure 15) is described in section 2.4.1. Individual livestock
farmers are involved through the Farmers Cooperatives (grazing associations). Representatives of theFarmers Cooperatives (grazing associations) sign conservation agreements with CSA when theirmembers agree to partake in the project activities. Organizational development of Farmers Cooperatives(grazing associations) is a strong aspect of this project. Moreover, CSA plans to transfer ownership of the
project in the future to the communities through a sustainable community-based structure which will be
set up.
4.5.9
-

-

-

Smallholders/Community Members Capacity Development (GL2.9)
Through the project, communities farming livestock receive training that enable sustainablegrazing and climate-smart animal husbandry practices.
Selected community members are formally trained as herd monitors (also called Eco-rangers)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 Farmers Cooperatives (grazing associations).
Farmers in Farmers Cooperatives (grazing associations) also receive governance training which
enhances the understanding of their role as a governing body, builds administrative capabilities,
the ability to approach and engage with local government as a valid stakeholder; makeecologically informed decisions about how to manage their rangelands; and share lessons fromtheir experience with other Farmers Cooperatives (grazing associations).
Women in the communities are trained in green retail businesses which are potential sources ofincome.
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.
Youth are supported with computer skills through the establishment of ICT centres at schools andyouth centres in communities.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

147

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
55.1

BIODIVERSITY
Without-Project Biodiversity Scenario

5.1.1 Existing Conditions (B1.1)
In short: Main threats to biodiversity include degradation of rangelands due to continuous unplanned
grazing, increasing density of alien plant species, unpredictable droughts, and increase of human-wildlife
conflicts.
The project zone is in the Kruger to Canyons (K2C) Biosphere reserve, a unique biodiversity hotspot.
Although this biosphere represents only 1.5% of South Africa’s total land surface, it contains nearly 75%
of all terrestrial bird species, 80% of all raptor species, 72% of all mammals, 50% of all butterflies and
50% of all frog species found in South Africa32.
Wildlife
The project area forms part of this biodiversity hotspot, located adjacent to fenced Nature Reserves.
Flagship predator species such as African wild dog, spotted hyena, lion, and leopard often enter therangelands through drainage lines or damaged fences. Elephants occasionally break through to thegrazing areas as well, although cases are becoming increasingly rare. In the baseline scenario, wildlifethat enter the rangelands are often subject to persecution and retaliatory killings by livestock farmers
following predation incidences. Poaching is also a significant threat to wildlife inside the protected areas.
These challenges have been identified as providing a major opportunity for this project to change
perceptions and educate communities about wildlife conservation both inside and outside protectedareas.
Vegetation
The three dominant grass species across the Mnisi pilot sites at the start of the project were Panicum
maximum, Digitaria eriantha and Uruchloa mosambicensis33. A healthy population of large marula trees(Sclerocarya birrea) provide much needed shade for people and livestock, while also acting as animportant food source. Vulnerable and endangered tree species in the project area are Balanites
maughamii, Boscia albitrunca, Combretum imberbe, Diospyros mespiliformis, Philenoptera violacea, andSclerocarya birrea)34. Threats to endangered tree species include wood harvesting and the encroachmentof alien species. Recent studies indicate that the communal rangelands adjacent to GKNP have 50%
more alien plant species density than inside the protected area (Swemmer & Mmmethi 2016). Lantana
camara, Psidium guajava, and Agave sisalana were the most abundant alien species found in the mostrecent assessment. L. camara outcompetes and inhibits the establishment of indigenous species and is
growing abundantly in many camps. With strategic bush thinning and pruning, this effect can becounteracted to keep the high floral and small-fauna diversity intact. Another concern is Parthenium
hysterophorus (famine weed), which invades grasslands and affects both livestock in the project area andwildlife further downstream in the parks. It can be an irritant for human skin and respiratory systems andthus also poses a health risk. Parthenium is entering the central and southern regions of Greater Kruger
National Park through water courses that pass through communal rangelands.
Ecosystem Services
The Kruger to Canyons Biosphere encompasses the catchment for critical rivers flowing into the GKNP,
and its wildlife is completely reliant on water flow from the upper catchment of Mpumalanga. These rivers
flows down the escarpment through degraded rangelands, into the national park, and continue eastwards
to Mozambique and the Indian Ocean Figure 33. The initial project implementation site (Mnisi) is locatedon rangelands within the Sabie (Sand) River catchment. The Sand River is an important tributary of theriver Sabie which flows into the central part of the GKNP, forming an important part of the park’s
32

https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/africa/kruger-to-canyon
Baseline vegetation assessment (Graeme 2016) in “Supporting documents”→ ”Biodiversity”
34 http://redlist.sanbi.org
33

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

148

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

ecosystem and the K2C biosphere reserve. Previous droughts within the region, as experienced in 20152016, have led to significant die-off of the park’s wildlife (Malherbe et al 2020) as well as cattle owned bymembers of downstream communities in the park’s buffer zones.
In the baseline scenario, the overutilization of rangelands by unmanaged livestock herds grazing freely
results in bare soil, which encourages erosion and runoff, especially during the rainy season, andhardening of soil during the dry season. This effect causes localized flooding events due to lack ofinfiltration into the soils and creates a siltation that reduces flow levels and affects fauna and flora
downstream in the protected areas. Gully erosion is also exacerbated especially along drainage lines
and well used cattle paths in the savanna areas.
Historically, conservation activities have been focused within the GKNP and not in the GKNP Buffer Zone,
landscapes bordering the extensive protected areas. However, the five perennial rivers that run through
GKNP all have their catchments outside of the protected area. Changes to the river systems feeding
GKNP have been evident since the 1960s, with records of progressive degradation in quantity and quality(Pienaar, 1970) from silt and other sediment eroding into the river from cultivated lands, as well as
reduced river flows through water abstraction, flow regulation via dams, and pollution (Pollard et al 2011).

Figure 33: River Catchments of the Greater Kruger National Park (Pollard et al 2011)

5.1.2 High Conservation Values (B1.2)
Threatened or Rare Ecosystems
The project zone forms part of the UNESCO-recognized K2C Biosphere Reserve Figure 7. The biospherecomprises 1 million hectares of protected areas, native rangelands, and agricultural lands across threemajor biomes (savanna, Afromontane forests, and grasslands). These rangelands, in which the project islocated, form an important ecological buffer zone for protected areas. The region has high conservation
value, being within the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Biodiversity Hotspot, which includes 55% of the

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

149

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
total terrestrial biodiversity of South Africa despite occupying only 1.5% of the country’s land area. Thishigh diversity includes several threatened and endangered species, including the largest remaining wild
populations of both black and white rhinos, which are currently experiencing extremely high andincreasing poaching rates; some 1,175 rhinos were poached in 2016 alone. The K2C Biosphere Reservealso forms part of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (GLTFCA), a conservation area
linking South Africa, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, covering approximately 3.5 million ha. It is one of thelargest conservation areas in the world.
Furthermore, the project zone includes areas recognized in the South African National Biodiversity
Assessment (2011) as priority areas for national biodiversity conservation (Figure 34). Additionally, parts ofthe project zone qualify as potential “other effective area-based conservation measure” (OECM) areas,according to Marnewick et al. (2021) (Figure 35). The term OECM (CBD 2018) refers to a, “geographicallydefined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positiveand sustained long-term outcomes for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem
functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant
values.”Figure 34: Biodiversity priority areas in South Africa (Driver et al; 2011)

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

150

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Figure 35: OECM case study assessment sites in the K2C Biosphere (Marnewick et al 2021)

Threatened Species
The Greater Kruger National Park, which is directly adjacent to the project area, contains more than 350
individuals35 of African wild dog (Lycaon pictus), an endangered species36; this is the largest connected
population in southern Africa. As they roam across their home ranges, wild dogs may leave the park andenter high-risk areas in the communal rangelands, where they can be caught in snares or catch diseases
from domestic dogs. The main threats to the species are conflict with humans and human activities,
infectious disease, and habitat fragmentation by barriers such as fences or roads, which prevent animals
from reaching other populations to breed. Due to their status as endangered species, African wild dog is a
trigger species for the project under the vulnerability criterium.

35

High Conservation Value

Communal Rangelands of K2C Biosphere

Qualifying Attribute

Serving as an important ecological buffer zone for protectedareas, the soil and vegetation in these rangelands are under
threat from unplanned/unmanaged grazing. This leads toecological and socioeconomic degradation through the loss ofsoil cover and productivity favoring less palatable and invasive
vegetation.

Focal Area

The grazing camps within the project area can be improved
through proper and integrated grazing management andrestoration of perennial grasses. This improves soil cover andsoil health as well as the health of close-to-nature flora andfauna.

Endangered Wildlife Trust

36 https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/12436/166502262#assessment-information

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

151

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

High Conservation Value

Catchment areas for Rivers Sand, Blyde, Olifants, and Sabie

Qualifying Attribute

These rivers flow through the GKNP and form an integral part of
the K2C biosphere. The region’s current drought has caused
massive die-off of the Park’s wildlife as well as cattle owned bymembers of downstream communities in the park’s bufferzones. Project activities that enhance soil cover and control
erosion will lead to increased water infiltration, and availability
from surface water sources for people, plants, and livestock
helping to raise the adaptive capacity against future drought
events.

Focal Area

Though all grazing camps in the project area play a role inconserving the water catchment areas, specific importance goesto grazing camps close to the major rivers or tributaries. Erosion
control measures and increased soil cover should have astronger effect the closer they are to waterbodies.

High Conservation Value

Populations of trigger species, including endangered andthreatened endemic large mammals

Qualifying Attribute

The project helps to reduce human-wildlife conflicts throughcontinuous awareness raising. Also, improved management ofgrazing camps, especially the resting of certain camps,
increases landscape permeability for these animals, improving
connectivity to other populations of African wild dog. Movementof wild dogs outside protected areas is monitored incollaboration with the Endangered Wildlife Fund Carnivore
Monitoring Project.

Focal Area

Especially rangelands near protected areas

High Conservation Value

Populations of endangered tree species

Qualifying Attribute

The project area contains at least 91 individuals33 from six
vulnerable and endangered tree speciesError! Bookmark notdefined.: Balanites maughamii, Boscia albitrunca, Combretum
imberbe, Diospyros mespiliformis, Philenoptera violacea, andSclerocarya birrea. Through community engagement efforts, theproject aims to support the conservation of these tree species in
the communal rangelands.

Focal Area

All rangelands in the project area play a role in the conservationof endangered tree species.

5.1.3 Without-project Scenario: Biodiversity (B1.3)
Without the proposed carbon project, the communal rangelands will likely remain under continuous
grazing, resulting in biodiversity losses such as reduced plant diversity (Biggs et al 2008), change ofnatural plant species composition; reduction in grazing quality; and favoring of annual over perennial

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

152

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

species (Rutherford, 2012). Improved changes in vegetation diversity also have proven effects on theabundance of soil fauna and herbivorous arthropods (Prendini et al 1996; Zhang et al 2022).
Furthermore, prolonged unmanaged grazing will lead to continued loss of topsoil and spread of invasive
alien species (O’Connor et al 2010). As rangeland conditions continue to degrade, further effects may
include increasing frequency of human-wildlife conflict as well as land abandonment, land use change(LUC), and loss of biodiversity, especially if current native vegetation is lost through conversion to urban
or agricultural land uses.
5.2

Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts

5.2.1 Expected Biodiversity Changes (B2.1)
The proposed changes in grazing management will increase forage availability and quality, not only forlivestock but also for wild ungulates with additional biodiversity benefits associated with ecosystemservices, such as improved water infiltration.
Baseline data from the project area that allows for comparison between areas subject to planned vs.
continuous grazing (Figures 35-37) suggest that project activities will increase the population sizes andbiodiversity of native vegetation. Thus, project activities will improve rangeland habitat for endangered
flora and fauna species of the savanna.
By employing Eco-rangers to engage in community sensitization activities, the project also aims to reducethe incidence of conflicts between herders and endangered wildlife species.
Biodiversity Element

Threatened and endangered species

Estimated Change

Reduced threats to endangered species outside of protected
areas

Justification of Change

The project employs Eco-rangers who continuously educate
communities and herders on managing human-predator
conflicts, which is one of the biggest threats to the Wild Dog
species. The presence of African wild dogs outside protectedareas will be monitored via tracking collars put in place by the
Endangered Wildlife Trust (existing data sharing agreement)
and reported to the relevant authorities. Conflict incidents will bemonitored via reports from Eco-rangers.

Biodiversity Element

Vegetation diversity and composition

Estimated Change

Justification of Change••

Higher number and diversity of perennial grasses
Stabilized population of protected tree species

The project introduces managed rotational grazing to enable
recovery time for perennial grass species. Through community
engagement efforts, the project also aims to propagate theconservation of protected tree species in the communal
rangelands.
This change is monitored through a comprehensive vegetationassessment and assessed via the Shannon-Weiner Index and acomprehensive species list every 1-5 yrs.

Biodiversity Element
Estimated Change

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

Invasive Alien Plant species
Invasive Alien vegetation cleared to maintenance level topromote palatable grass growth and keep the high flora andsmall fauna diversity intact.

153

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Justification of Change

5.2.2

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

Mitigation Measures (B2.3)

Improved Rotational Grazing
Through 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,and improved 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 have been formed to engage in bush clearing and removal of invasive alien plants in
the rangelands in collaboration with SANParks and K2C Biosphere. The first pilot was successful and will
be scaled with special focus on alien species that are harmful to livestock or wildlife health and thosewhich outcompete natural vegetation.

Figure 36: Areas where bush clearing has been implemented.

Detection and Prevention of Human-Wildlife Conflict
Designated Eco-rangers are responsible for patrolling communal rangelands and have received training
in identifying tracks of wildlife, specifically predators, to support neighboring nature reserves with wildlifethat have crossed the fence. This supports the immediate reporting of wildlife outside protected areas tothe applicable authorities and aims to prevent human-wildlife conflicts. The project also uses monitoring

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

154

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

systems from Endangered Wildlife Trust to identify African wild dog packs in danger from snares andhuman-wildlife conflict.
Community Engagement & Awareness
The Eco-rangers engage continuously with the communities, raising awareness on 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. This is expected to increase tolerance of herders towards predatorssuch as African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) and improve the prospects for conserving wildlife in generaloutside of protected areas. Communities also receive training on conservation, sustainable wood
harvesting and use of rangeland resources, e.g., protected trees.
5.2.3

Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts (B2.2, GL1.4)

The project’s core activities involve rehabilitation and restoration in native rangelands that are used as
production landscapes. Previous studies show that areas under high utilization (past and present) require
intensive management intervention to facilitate recovery (Ebrahim & Negussie, 2020). An effective shift
from the baseline livestock management approach of unmanaged, continuous grazing is therefore vital toenhance rangeland resilience, given the heavy utilization pressures. The project intervention of plannedrotational-rest grazing by collective herding is expected to have cascading impacts for the landscape.
Vegetation surveys were undertaken to establish baseline information on above-ground grass standing
crops and biodiversity indices of the four pilot intervention sites (Utah, Dixie and Welverdiend A & B).
Results from the pilot project period compared to the baseline indicate that rested areas show larger
grass tuft diameter and shorter distance between tufts, indicating the increase in grass cover andreduction of bare ground (Figure 37). The assessment also showed a mean increase in vegetation
diversity of herbaceous and woody vegetation in the pilot monitoring sites as measured by the ShannonWeiner index (Figure 38, Figure 39).

Figure 37: Changes in (a) mean distance to tuft and (b) mean tuft diameter recorded per herbaceous individual from2016-2021.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

155

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Figure 38: Changes in Mean Shannon-Weiner Index for (a) herbaceous and (b) woody vegetation.
Mean above-ground grass standing crop (AGGSC)
1200
AGGSC (kgha-1)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
2016

2019

2020

2021

Year
Figure 39: Changes in the mean above-ground grass standing crop (herbaceous vegetation).

Ecological principles indicate that we can expect increased water filtration in rangelands under planned
grazing due to increased vegetation cover and resulting decreased erosion (Figure 40). Reduced sheet
and gully erosion in rangelands under planned grazing during the pilot phase 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 showed soil loss in a higher
magnitude than the control (which also showed soil loss) (see report in “Erosion field data” in supporting
documents). This aspect will be monitored annually due to its importance in improving biodiversity andclimate adaptation in rangelands and adjacent protected areas.
Finally, through the removal of invasive species that outcompete and inhibit the establishment ofindigenous species, project activities will impact the restoration of natural habitats and prevent futureinvasive alien plant outbreaks caused by increased rainfall,, which puts both wildlife and livestock at risk
especially areas at the interface of protected areas.
In general, project activities maintain an effective buffer zone for wildlife protection and forage for wildlife,
including those with an IUCN endangered status. This is due to high levels of ecological infrastructure
present in the area, e.g., being a strategic water source area, the altitudinal gradients and largely intact
natural systems that allow for species migration to more suited habitat when needed.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

156

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Figure 40: Role of vegetation and soil cover in preventing erosion.

5.2.4 High Conservation Values Protected (B2.4)
The project will not adversely affect biodiversity HCVs because pressure on protected areas will decrease
under the project scenario by promoting the ecological functioning of buffer zones. Increased protection
from poaching and attacks are expected to benefit endangered or vulnerable endemic local populations ofcarnivorous lions, cheetahs, and wild dogs.
5.2.5 Species Used (B2.5)
No species are planted by the project.
5.2.6 Invasive Species (B2.5)
Not applicable, no species are planted by the project.
5.2.7 Impacts of Non-Native Species (B2.6)
The project will not introduce any non-native species into the project area, as re-seeding and planting are
not project activities; project activities merely adjust rangeland management via the way in which livestock
are herded and moved across the landscape.
5.2.8 GMO Exclusion (B2.7)
The project will not introduce any GMOs into the project area, as re-seeding and planting are not project
activities; project activities merely adjust rangeland management via the way in which livestock areherded and moved across the landscape.
5.2.9 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 outcompete and inhibit the establishment ofindigenous species. Selective removal of this species is exclusively mechanical, as removal is done by

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

157

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

humans using hand tools. There are likely few biological control options for potentially invasive shrub ortree species. If pesticides, herbicides, or biological control are an option, community members largely lackthe financial resources to apply them at a scale that would impact diversity.
5.2.10 Waste Products (B2.9)
Project activities do not involve generation of power, conversion of energy sources, or processing ofmaterials and so will not increase or produce waste products.
5.3

Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

5.3.1 Negative Offsite Biodiversity Impacts (B3.1) and Mitigation Measures (B3.2)
No negative offsite biodiversity impacts are foreseen due to the nature of project activities.
5.3.2 Net Offsite Biodiversity Benefits (B3.3)
Offsite biodiversity impacts can be predicted for the two adjacent national parks, as the project areas may
increase landscape connectivity and serve as “stepping-stones” for migration between them. Moreover,as stated in previous sections, the project area is located on rangelands that serve as a buffer zone forthe protected areas. This means that many of the project’s biodiversity benefits will also occur outside ofthe direct project sites. This includes the improvement of water infiltration in the overall catchment area aswell as erosion control from improved soil cover.
5.4
5.4.1

Biodiversity Impact Monitoring
Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (B4.1, B4.2, GL1.4, GL3.4)

Data Collection and 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 of vegetation andthe presence of invasive grass species as compared to the condition at project start.
(2) Reduced threats to threatened predator species (African wild dogs) outside of protected areas ascompared to the baseline scenario.
The former is monitored through annual vegetation assessments, which evaluate species richness andShannon-Wiener Diversity Index in response to the planned forage and grazing changes. The results ofannual assessments are compared against the baseline conditions. Data is collected at 75 sites acrossthe project area (Figure 41) by Sustineri (Pty) Ltd. Assessments are carried out according to the Multiple
Indicator Monitoring (MIM) method (Peel et al. 2005), which has been used to monitor rangelands acrossnumerous vegetation types (mainly those associated with savanna and grassland biomes) throughout the
Lowveld and surrounding regions of South Africa for the past 28 years (Sutherland and Peel 2011).

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

158

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Figure 41: Soil and Biodiversity Monitoring sites within the K2C Biosphere

The occurrence of predators in the project area is monitored using information from near-real-timetracking collars which monitor the movement of wild dogs from the protected areas into communal
rangeland. This is facilitated in partnership with the Endangered Wildlife Trust37 via data sharing
agreements using the Earth Ranger platform. Human-wildlife conflicts outside protected areas arerecorded via incidence reports from Eco-rangers.
Monitoring Indicators for Biodiversity
The key biodiversity indicators to be monitored are:Aspect recorded

Shannon-Weiner Diversity
Index
Percentage IAP cleared tomaintenance level

Procedure
Vegetation biodiversity
Evaluated for woody and herbaceous vegetation. The Shannon-Weiner
index considers both the richness (number of different species) and theevenness (relative abundance or proportion of each species) within acommunity. It provides a single numerical value that reflects thediversity of species present.
Area of IAP at 5% infestation (ha)/total area infested (ha)Threats to Wildlife

Number of predation
incidences
Number of human retaliatory
killings incidences

Number of human wildlife conflicts reported annually. All incidences tobe recorded depending on type e.g., injuries, kills, retaliatory kills. The
baseline to be established through Year 1.

37

As part of their carnivore conservation program, EWT monitors wild dog populations along the whole of theWestern Boundary of the Kruger National Park. Near-real-time 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.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

159

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Livestock loss to predatorswith Eco-rangers (% of control
treatment)
Climate adaptation
Gully profile(Length (m)/Height (m))

Water security(table height / mm rainfall (m mm-1)

Veld condition score38

To be estimated annually as a benchmark for the condition of thevegetation in relation to some functional characteristics, generally
sustained forage production and resistance to soil erosion. VCS iscalculated using the Ecological Index Method (Vorster 1982).

Above ground grass standingcrop

Determined via the Disc Pasture Meter (DPM) method used within plots
quarterly (50 drops per plot). Reported annually as average grass
Biomass Cover (kg. ha-1)

5.4.2

Biodiversity Monitoring Plan Dissemination (B4.3)

Project description documentation and monitoring reports will be shared as hard copies with thetraditional 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 continue to present and discuss summaries of the documents in the livestock
committees. These presentations take the form of focused feedback sessions on specific issues ofparticular interest to stakeholder groups. 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 aswell with other project stakeholders for their information and input.
5.5

Optional Criterion: Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits

The project qualifies for Gold Level certification, as it would provide globally exceptional biodiversity
benefits due to the occurrence of threatened species (African wild dog) in the project zone.
5.5.1

High Biodiversity Conservation Priority Status (GL3.1)

The Greater Kruger National Park, adjacent to the project area, contains at least 350 individuals of theAfrican wild dog (Lycaon pictus), an endangered species that qualifies as trigger species. This species isthreatened because of ongoing habitat fragmentation, conflict with human activities, and infectious
disease.

38

See guidelines here

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

160

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Figure 42: Distribution of African wild dogs outside of protected areas in South Africa (Lindsey & Davies‐Mostert2009)

5.5.2 Trigger Species Population Trends (GL3.2, GL3.3)
In the without project scenario, the population of African wild dogs would be likely to decline in bothprotected and community-managed areas based on the South Africa-wide survey of wild dogs referenced
by Lindsey & Davies‐Mostert (2009). The primary threat to wild dogs in South Africa is persecution bylandowners. Between 1996 and 2009, at least 81 wild dogs are known to have been killed by landowners
in South Africa, comprising as much as 84% of local populations occurring outside of protected areas(Lindsey & Davies‐Mostert 2009). Persecution by farmers is probably largely responsible for the failure ofwild dogs to expand to fill vacant potentially suitable habitat on game ranches. Within the same period,
the number of wild dogs has varied from 42 to 104 individuals in 7 to 21 packs and dispersing groups(Lindsey & Davies‐Mostert 2009). The authors reported ~104 individuals in nine resident packs and eight
dispersing groups occurring outside of protected areas, comprising ~28.2% of the national population.
Wild dogs outside of protected areas occur primarily on game ranches in areas of low human population
density and intact natural habitat close to source populations in areas with ≥203 mm of rainfall/year.
Primary foci of activity of wild dogs outside of protected areas include: the Central Lowveld (Hoedspruitarea); Limpopo Valley; and the Waterberg. The area of occupancy of wild dogs outside of protected areasis ~14,910 km2, comprising 37.3% of the geographic range of the species in South Africa.
Trigger Species

African wild dog (Lycaon pictus)

Population Trend at Start of
Project

Occasional sightings of scattered packs and/or dispersing
groups, conflict with livestock herders significantly reducing
population

Without-project ScenarioContinued population decline due to habitat degradation andclashes with herders without the presence of Eco-rangers

With-project Scenario

Awareness about wildlife conservation, the value of wildlife andmeasures to avoid human-wildlife conflict will be built among
local communities.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

161

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

The occurrence and movement of species outside protectedareas and around the project zone will be closely monitored anddegraded rangeland habitat will be restored through which
species can migrate. This is expected to reduce the major
threats to the species within the project zone.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

162

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

5.6

References

Angassa A, Oba G. 2013. Cattle herd vulnerability to rainfall variability: responses to two management scenarios insouthern Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production 45: 715–721.
Biggs R, Simons H, Bakkenes M, Scholes RJ, Eickhout B, van Vuuren D, Alkemade R (2008) Scenarios of
biodiversity loss in southern Africa in the 21st century. Global Environ Change 18:296–309
Boone RB, Conant RT, Sircely J, Thornton PK, Herrero M. Climate change impacts on selected global rangeland
ecosystem services. Glob Chang Biol. 2018 Mar;24(3):1382-1393. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13995. Epub 2017 Dec 22.
PMID: 29160927.
CBD (2018). Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (Decision 14/8).
https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf
Desta S, Coppock DL. 2002. Cattle population dynamics in the southern Ethiopian rangelands, 1980–97. Journal ofRange Management 55: 439–451.
Driver A., Sink, K.J., Nel, J.L., Holness, S., Van Niekerk, L., Daniels, F., Jonas, Z., Majiedt, P.A., Harris, L. & Maze, K.
2012. National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An assessment of South Africa’s biodiversity and ecosystems.
Synthesis Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria
Ebrahim, H. & Negussie, F. (2020). PARTICIPATORY RANGELAND MANAGEMENT IN AFRICA: A REVIEW.
Journal of Progressive Agriculture, Vol. 9 No. 1: April. 2018
G O'Connor , P Kuyler , K P Kirkman & B Corcoran (2010) Which grazing management practices are mostappropriate for maintaining biodiversity in South African grassland?, African Journal of Range & Forage Science,
27:2, 67-76, DOI:10.2989/10220119.2010.502646
Gertenbach, W.P.D. 1983. Landscapes of the Kruger National Park. Koedoe, 26: 9-121.
Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. science, 304(5677),
1623-1627.
Lal R, Lorenz K, Hüttl RRJ, Schneider BU, von Braun J (2013) Ecosystem services and carbon sequestration in thebiosphere. Springer, Dordrecht, p 464
Lindsey, P.A & Davies‐Mostert, H.T. (editors). 2009. South African Action Plan for the Conservation of Cheetahs andAfrican Wild Dogs. Report from a National Conservation Action Planning Workshop, Bela Bela, Limpopo Province,
South Africa, 17‐19 June 2009
Lohmann, D., Tietjen, B., Blaum, N., Joubert, D. F., & Jeltsch, F. (2012). Shifting thresholds and changing
degradation patterns: climate change effects on the simulated long‐term response of a semi‐arid savanna to grazing.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(4), 814-823
Mararakanye, N. and P.D. Sumner, Gully erosion: A comparison of contributing factors in two catchments in South
Africa. Geomorphology, 2017. 288: p. 99-110.
Marnewick, D & Stevens, C & Jonas, H & Antrobus-Wuth, R& Wilson, N & Theron, N.. (2021). Assessing theextent and contribution of OECMs in South Africa. Parks. 27. 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.PARKS-27-1DM.en.
Hoffman, T & Ashwell, A 2001. Nature divided: land degradation in South Africa, University of Cape Town Press,
Cape Town.
Mucina, L., Rutherford, MC. (eds), The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. 2006,
Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.
Peel, M. J. S., J. M. Kruger, and P. J. K. Zacharias. 2005. Environmental and management determinants ofvegetation state on protected areas in the eastern Lowveld of South Africa. African Journal of Ecology 43:352361.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2005.00590.x>.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

163

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
Pienaar, U.d.V. 1970. Water resources of the Kruger Park. African Wildlife 24 pp 180-191.
Pollard, S., Du Toit, D. &Biggs, H., 2011, River management under transformation: The emergence of strategic
adaptive management of river systems in the Kruger National Park’, Koedoe 53(2), Art. #1011, 14
pages.doi:10.4102/koedoe.v53i2.1011
Prendini, L., Theron, L. J., Van der Merwe, K., & Owen-Smith, N. (1996). Abundance and guild structure ofgrasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acridoidea) in communally grazed and protected savanna. African Zoology, 31(3).
https://doi.org/10.1080/02541858.1996.11448403
Ritchie, M.E., Plant compensation to grazing and soil carbon dynamics in a tropical grassland. PeerJ, 2014. 2: p.
e233.
Ritchie, M. E. (2020). Grazing management, forage production and soil carbon dynamics. Resources, 9(4), 49.
Rutherford, M.C., Powrie, L.W. Can heavy grazing on communal land elevate plant species richness levels in the
Grassland Biome of South Africa?. Plant Ecol 212, 1407–1418 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-011-9916-0
S Vetter, VL Goodall & R Alcock (2020) Effect of drought on communal livestock farmers in KwaZulu-Natal, South
Africa, African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 37:1, 93-106, DOI: 10.2989/10220119.2020.1738552
Sitters, J., et al., Negative effects of cattle on soil carbon and nutrient pools reversed by megaherbivores. Nature
Sustainability, 2020. 3(5): p. 360-366.
Holness Stephen 2017. Priority Areas for Ecosystem-based Adaptation to Climate Change in the Kruger to Canyons
Biosphere
Sutherland, W. J., and M. J. Peel. 2011. Benchmarking as a means to improve conservation practice. Oryx 45:56-59.
Swemmer L.K., Mmethi A.H 2016. Biodiversity for Society. A reflection on the diversity of direct local impacts(benefits and costs) of the Kruger National Park. SANParks Report. Kruger National Park, South African National
Parks, Muckelneuk, Pretoria
Vorster, M. 1982. The development of the ecological index method for assessing veld condition in the Karoo.
Proceedings of the Annual Congresses of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa 17:84-89.
Yakun Zhang, Sai Peng, Xinli Chen, Han Y.H. Chen, Plant diversity increases the abundance and diversity of soil
fauna: A meta-analysis, Geoderma, Volume 411, 2022, 115694, ISSN 0016-7061,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.115694.
Ziervogel, G., New, M., Archer van Garderen, E., Midgley, G., Taylor, A., Hamann, R., ... & Warburton, M. (2014).
Climate change impacts and adaptation in South Africa. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(5), 605620.

164

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
APPENDICES
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

•

•

•

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

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
Increased environmental
awareness

•
•
•
•

•
•

•

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

165

CCB & VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCCB Version 3, VCS Version 3••
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

•

•

•
•

•

•

•
•

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3•••

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

•

•

166

CCB + VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

Appendix 2: SNAPGRAZE model version
The SNAPGRAZE model as defined by (Ritchie 2020) was used with the following
modifications. Figure 5 in the paper depicts equations (20) and (22) from the paper:

However when we replot these functions they do not intersect and neither of them follows thegraph of the figure:We renamed (20) so that we make sure we see that it applies to SOC values > 4600 gC/m².
When plotted we see it does not follow the linear graph depicted in figure 5. Therefore, we
adjusted the constant (gradient) in front of SOCy:𝐷𝑀𝑅𝐸𝑆𝑃𝐻 = −0.579 + 0.00044 ∗ 𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑌
Modification: 𝐷𝑀𝑅𝐸𝑆𝑃𝐻 = −0.579 + 0.00036 ∗ 𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑌

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

(20)
(20‘)

167

CCB + VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
We renamed equations (21) and (22) to make sure we see that they apply for SOC values<4600gC/m² and when we compare them we see that the decimal digits change:
𝐿𝑁(𝐷𝑀𝑅𝐸𝑆𝑃𝐿 ) = −10.872 + 1.296 ∗ 𝐿𝑁(𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑌 )𝐷𝑀𝑅𝐸𝑆𝑃𝐿 = 𝑒 −10.18 ∗ 𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑌1.298

(21)
(22)

The paper does not explain the change of these values and therefore we suspect that thishappened by mistake. So, we changed the values in (22) to the original values from (21).
Modification: 𝐷𝑀𝑅𝐸𝑆𝑃𝐿 = 𝑒 −10.872 ∗ 𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑌1.296(22’)

This is what plotting (20’) and (22’) looks like:

DMRESPH and DMRESPL are required to calculate the SOCeq, as described in (23). It is valid:
𝑀𝑅𝐸𝑆𝑃 = 𝑊𝐸𝑇𝐷𝐴𝑌𝑆 ∗ (0.7 + 0.3 ∗ (𝑆𝐴𝑁𝐷)) ∗ 𝐷𝑀𝑅𝐸𝑆𝑃
100

With MRESP the ΔSOC can be calculated as depicted in (24):
𝛥𝑆𝑂𝐶 = 𝑃𝐷𝑆𝑂𝐶 + 𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑂𝐶 − 𝑀𝑅𝐸𝑆𝑃

By setting ΔSOC = 0, the above equation can be solved for the SOCY term in MRESP. We insert(20’) and rearrange (24) for SOCY:𝑊𝐸𝑇𝐷𝐴𝑌𝑆 ∗ (0.7 + 0.3 ∗ (CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

𝑆𝐴𝑁𝐷)) ∗ (−0.579 + 0.00036 ∗ 𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑒𝑞𝐻 ) = 𝑃𝐷𝑆𝑂𝐶 + 𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑂𝐶
100

168

CCB + VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑒𝑞𝐻 =𝑃𝐷𝑆𝑂𝐶 + 𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑆𝐴𝑁𝐷𝑊𝐸𝑇𝐷𝐴𝑌𝑆 ∗ (0.7 + 0.3 ∗ (∗ 0.00036
100 ))+ 0.579

Doing the same for (22’) results in:
𝑊𝐸𝑇𝐷𝐴𝑌𝑆 ∗ (0.7 + 0.3 ∗ (𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑒𝑞𝐿1.296 =𝑆𝐴𝑁𝐷)) ∗ 𝑒 −10.872 ∗ 𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑒𝑞𝐿1.296 = 𝑃𝐷𝑆𝑂𝐶 + 𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑂𝐶
100
𝑃𝐷𝑆𝑂𝐶 + 𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑊𝐸𝑇𝐷𝐴𝑌𝑆 ∗ (0.7 + 0.3 ∗ (𝑆𝐴𝑁𝐷∗ 𝑒 −10.872
100 ))1
𝑃𝐷𝑆𝑂𝐶 + 𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑂𝐶
𝑆𝑂𝐶𝑒𝑞𝐿 = ()1.296𝑆𝐴𝑁𝐷
𝑊𝐸𝑇𝐷𝐴𝑌𝑆 ∗ (0.7 + 0.3 ∗ (∗ 𝑒 −10.872
100 ))The modelled value of SOC, using the linear equation determines which of the two equations is applied(if(SOCeqH<4600; SOCeqL; SOCeqH))

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.3

169