010 - 03-VCS+CCB Katingan - VerReport - Final - 20201115

CCB & VCS VERIFICATION REPORT:
CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3
THE KATINGAN PEATLAND RESTORATION

AND CONSERVATION PROJECT
VCS+CCB VERIFICATION REPORT
Document Prepared By: Aster Global Environmental Solutions, Inc.
Project Title Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project
Version Report Version 01
Report ID VO17010.03
Report Title Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project VCS+CCB Verification
Report
Client PT. Rimba Makmur Utama (RMU)

Lt. 45, Menara BCA
Grand Indonesia, Jalan M.H. Thamrin No. 1
Jakarta, 10310, Indonesia
Contact- Dharsono Hartono, dharsono@ptrmu.com, +62 (0)21 2358 4777
Pages 67
Date of Issue 15 November 2020
Prepared By Aster Global Environmental Solutions, Inc.
Contact Aster Global Environmental Solutions, Inc. Office at: 3800 Clermont St. NW North
Lawrence, Ohio 44666; Phone: 330-833-9941; https://asterglobal.com/
Approved By Eric Jaeschke – Lead Verifier and Janice McMahon – Regional Technical Manager
Work Carried Lead Verifier – Eric Jaeschke; VVB Member –Richard Scharf; Internal Reviewer –
Out By Shawn McMahon; Indonesia Translator – Dwi Rosaria Widiyarini (Ms. Rosa);
QA/QC – Janice McMahon
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 1

Summary
Aster Global Environmental Solutions Inc. was contracted by PT. Rimba Makmur Utama, on 09 March
2020 to conduct the monitoring period verification (VCS: 01 January 2019 – 31 December 2019 - 1 year
and CCB: 01 Jan 2018 – 31 Dec 2019 - 2 years) of the Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation
Project [Validated Project Description (PD) dated 11 May 2016]. The Katingan Project follows the
framework of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) and is achieving
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reductions as well as tropical peatland forest protection and
conservation through payments for ecosystem services.
The goal of the project as described in the Monitoring Report (Section 2.1.1) include, “protect and restore
149,800 hectares of peatland ecosystems, to offer local people sustainable sources of income, and to
tackle global climate change – all based on a solid business model.”
The verification objective included an assessment of compliance with VCS Version 4, CCB Third Edition,
and all associated updates, the selected methodology (VM0007, v1.5), and the validated Project
Description (PD) The Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project dated 11 May 2016. Aster
Global (herein referred to as the Validation/Verification Body – VVB/Verification Team) assessed the
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission removals for the monitoring period/verification period verification
(VCS: 01 January 2019 – 31 December 2019 - 1 year and CCB: 01 Jan 2018 – 31 Dec 2019 - 2 years)
through Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) criteria. The project activities are categorized
as; Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), a combination of REDD+WRC 1
and ARR 2+WRC; specifically, as Avoiding Planned Deforestation (APD) and Reforestation (ARR), in
combination with Conservation of Undrained and Partially Drained Peatland (CUPP) and Rewetting of
Drained Peatland (RDP) activities.
The scope of the verification following Section 4.3.4 of ISO 14064-3:2006 included the GHG project
implementation; physical infrastructure, activities, technologies and processes of the GHG project; GHG
sources, sinks and/or reservoirs; types of GHGs; and time periods covered. The Katingan Peatland
Restoration and Conservation Project follows the framework of project activities listed above.
The criteria followed the verification guidance documents provided by Verra located at www.verra.org.
Unless otherwise indicated, the assessment was performed against the most recent version of the
relevant Verra guidance document as of August 2020.
A summary of all VCS findings (7 total) are included in Appendix B and CCB findings are included in
Appendix C. All findings were satisfied to a reasonable level of assurance and there are no restrictions
of uncertainty.
After review of all project information, procedures, calculations, and supporting documentation, Aster
Global confirms that the monitoring conducted by the project proponent, along with the supporting
Monitoring Report, are accurate and consistent with all aforementioned VCS Version 4 and CCB Third
Edition criteria, the validated PD, and the selected methodology (VM0007). Aster Global confirms that
1 Wetlands Restoration and Conservation

2 Afforestation, Restoration and Revegetation

The Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project Monitoring Report (v1.0 dated 29
September 2020) has been implemented in accordance with the validated PD.
Aster Global confirms all verification activities, including objectives, scope and criteria, level of assurance,
validated Project Description implementation, and project monitoring report adherence to VCS Version
4 (and all associated updates), and CCB Project Design Standards (Third Edition), as documented in
this report are complete. Aster Global concludes without any qualifications or limiting conditions that The
Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project Monitoring Report (v1.0 dated 29 September
2020) meets the requirements of VCS Version 4 (and all associated updates) and CCB Project Design
Standards (Third Edition) for the verification period/reporting period (VCS: 01 January 2019 – 31
December 2019 - 1 year and CCB: 01 Jan 2018 – 31 Dec 2019 - 2 years). In addition, Aster Global
asserts that the project complies with the verification criteria for projects set out in the Third Edition of
the CCB Standards to achieve Gold Level Distinction for Climate, Community, and Biodiversity.
The GHG assertion provided by PT. Rimba Makmur Utama and verified by Aster Global has resulted in
the GHG emissions reduction or removal of 5,677,812 tCO2 equivalents by the project during the
verification period/reporting period (VCS: 01 January 2019 – 31 December 2019 - 1 year and CCB: 01
Jan 2018 – 31 Dec 2019 - 2 years). This value is gross of the 10% (567,781 tCO2 equivalents) buffer
withholding based on the non-permanence risk assessment tool. This results in 5,110,030 tCO2
equivalents of credits eligible for issuance as VCUs.

Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Objective ....................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Scope and Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Level of Assurance ........................................................................................................................ 6
1.4 Summary Description of the Project ............................................................................................. 6
2 Verification Process ............................................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Audit Team Composition (Rules 4.3.1) ......................................................................................... 6
2.2 Method and Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Document Review ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Interviews ...................................................................................................................................... 9
2.5 Site Inspections ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.6 Resolution of Findings ................................................................................................................. 22
2.7 Eligibility for Validation Activities ................................................................................................. 23
3 Validation Findings ........................................................................................................................... 23
3.1 Participation under Other GHG Programs .................................................................................. 23
3.2 Methodology Deviations .............................................................................................................. 23
3.3 Project Description Deviations (Rules 3.5.7 – 3.5.10) ................................................................ 24
3.4 Minor Changes to Project Description (Rules 3.5.6) ................................................................... 25
3.5 Grouped Project (G1.13 – G1.15, G4.1) ..................................................................................... 25
4 Verification Findings ......................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Public Comments (Rules 4.6) ..................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Summary of Project Benefits....................................................................................................... 25
4.3 General ........................................................................................................................................ 26
4.4 Climate ........................................................................................................................................ 33
4.5 Community .................................................................................................................................. 40
4.6 Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................. 45
4.7 Additional Project Implementation Information ........................................................................... 48
4.8 Additional Project Impact Information ......................................................................................... 48
5 Verification Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 48
Appendix A: Documents received/reviewed .......................................................................................... 50
Appendix B: VCS NCRs/CLs/OFI Summary ........................................................................................... 52
Appendix C: CCB NCRs/CLs/OFI Summary ........................................................................................... 60

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
For this project, the verification objective was to ensure implementation of project activities and
project compliance with the VCS Program Guide, VCS Standard, AFOLU Requirements, CCB
Standards, selected methodologies, and the validated VCS Project Description (PD). Aster Global
assessed the GHG emission removals for the AFOLU project, specifically REDD, WRC and ARR.
1.2 Scope and Criteria
The scope of the verification 3 included the GHG project and baseline scenarios; physical
infrastructure, activities, technologies and processes of the GHG project; GHG sources, sinks
and/or reservoirs; types of GHGs; and time periods covered. The geographic verification scope is
defined by the project boundary, the carbon reservoir types, management activities, contract
periods and related. The scope of the project was outlined by the Project Proponent within the
Project Description dated 11 May 2016 and is re-defined as follows for the GHG project:
Baseline Scenario Degradation/deforestation-threats from expansion of

industrial pulpwood (acacia).
Activities/Technologies/Processes Protections of largely intact un-drained peat swamp forest-
utilizing VCS VM0007
Sources/Sinks/Reservoirs- REDD AGB emissions due to deforestation
AGB emissions due to degradation
AGB emissions due to uncontrolled burning
Sources/Sinks/Reservoirs - ARR AGB emissions due to uncontrolled burning
Sources/Sinks/Reservoirs - WRC Emissions from microbial decomposition of peat
Emissions from dissolved organic content (DOC)
Emissions from uncontrolled peat burning
GHG Type CO2, CH4, and N2O
Time Period Third Reporting Period
(monitoring/verification period) VCS: 01 Jan 2019 – 31 Dec 2019; 1 year
CCB: 01 Jan 2018 – 31 Dec 2019; 2 years
Project Boundary Project area consists of largely intact, un-drained peat
swamp forest; 149,800 hectares in Central Kalimantan
Province, Indonesia
GHG reduction and/or removal 5,710,352 tCO2e
This value is gross of the 10% (570,368 tCO2
equivalents) buffer withholding based on the non-
permanence risk assessment tool
3 Section 4.3.4 of ISO 14064-3:2006

The criteria followed the verification guidance documents provided by Verra located at
www.verra.org. Unless otherwise indicated, the assessment was performed against the most
recent version of the relevant Verra guidance document. These documents include the following:
• VCS Program Guide (v4. 19 September 2019)
• VCS Standard (v4, 19 September 2019)
• VCS Program Definitions (v4, 19 September 2019)
• AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool (v4, 19 September 2019)
• Program Validation and Verification Manual (v3.2, 19 October 2016)
• VM0007 (version 1.5)
• Validated PD and previous monitoring reports
• CCB Program Definitions (v3.0, June 2017)
• CCB Standards (Third Edition, v3.1, June 2017)
• CCB Program Rules (v 3.1 June 2017)
• Guidance for the Use of the CCB Standards, May 2014
1.3 Level of Assurance
The level of assurance was used to determine the depth of detail that the Verifier placed in the
Verification and Sampling Plan to determine if there are any errors, omissions, or
misrepresentations (ISO 14064-3:2006). Aster Global assessed the project’s implementation of
general principles, data collection and processing, sampling descriptions, documentation, ex post
calculations, etc., to provide reasonable assurance to meet the Project Level requirements of the
VCS Program. Based on the verification findings, a final evaluation statement reasonably assures
that the project GHG representations are materially accurate. The evidence used to achieve a
reasonable level of assurance is specified in subsequent sections of this report.
1.4 Summary Description of the Project
The project is located in the Katingan and Kotawaringin Timur districts, Central Kalimantan,
Republic of Indonesia, and is aimed at reducing and avoiding emissions related to Planned
Deforestation and Reforestation in combination with Conservation of Undrained and Partially
Drained Peatland and Rewetting of Drained Peatland activities. The project is developed and
managed by the ecosystem restoration concession holder P.T. Rimba Makmur Utama (P.T. RMU).
The goal of the project as described in the third Monitoring Report (Section 1.1) include, “protect
and restore 149,800 hectares of peatland ecosystems, to offer local people sustainable sources of
income, and to tackle global climate change – all based on a solid business model.”
2 VERIFICATION PROCESS
2.1 Audit Team Composition (Rules 4.3.1)
For VCS/CCB verifications, Aster Global maintains an experienced internal staff of Lead Verifiers,
in addition to Certified Foresters, Registered Professional Foresters. TWS Wildlife Biologists, M.S.
and PhD Forest Biometricians, Remote Sensing/GIS Specialists, and VCS approved AFOU
Experts in IFM, REDD, and WRC categories. Aster Global’s own Lead Verifiers and Project
Specialists (e.g. Trained Soil Scientists) conducted the verification activities, and a subcontractor
was included on the audit team for translation services (as applicable). Aster Global completes all
calculation/modeling review in-house with our team of forest biometricians. Aster Global has been
involved in 68 VCS verifications and 36 CCB verification, including a large number of methodology

assessments. Aster Global has a specialist on staff with 9 years of CCB experience who handles
all CCB components for project review. All Aster Global staff involved in the audit have ecological,
biodiversity, natural resources and forestry background to fulfill these requirements.
2.2 Method and Criteria
The verification assessed the Project’s compliance with VCS Version 4, CCB Third Edition, and all
associated updates, the selected methodology (VM0007, v1.5), and the validated Project
Description (PD) The Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project dated 11 May 2016.
Aster Global assessed the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission removals for the monitoring
period/verification period (VCS: 01 January 2017 – 31 December 2017 - 1 year and CCB: 01
November 2015 – 31 December 2017 - 2 years) through Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
(AFOLU) criteria, specifically; Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), a
combination of REDD+WRC 4 and ARR 5+WRC; as Avoiding Planned Deforestation (APD) and
Reforestation (ARR), in combination with Conservation of Undrained and Partially Drained
Peatland (CUPP) and Rewetting of Drained Peatland (RDP) activities. Aster Global assessed
whether the Project Proponent adequately addressed project emissions, unplanned reductions in
carbon stocks, and any possible leakage outside of the project boundary.
The non-permanence risk analysis was assessed for this verification. Further, following Section
2.1.2 of the VCS Validation & Verification Manual, V3.2, the objectives of the verification exercise
were to evaluate the monitoring report and assess:
• The extent to which methods and procedures, including monitoring procedures, have been
implemented in accordance with the validated project description. This includes ensuring
conformance with the monitoring plan.
• The extent to which GHG Emission Reductions or Removals reported in the monitoring
report are materially accurate.
The criteria followed the verification guidance documents provided by Verra. Unless otherwise
indicated, the assessment was performed against the most recent version of the relevant Verra
guidance document. Please also see Section 1.2 of this report.
In the verification process, there is a risk that potential errors, omissions, and misrepresentations
will be found; therefore, a risk-based approach was used to guide the collection of appropriate and
sufficient evidence to support a reasonable level of assurance. A risk-based approach means that
the verification team focused on items that might result in a material misstatement of the reported
GHG assertion.
A project specific Verification and Sampling Plan was developed to guide the verification auditing
process to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. The purpose of the Verification and Sampling Plan
4 Wetlands Restoration and Conservation
5 Afforestation, Restoration and Revegetation

was to present a risk assessment for determining the nature and extent of verification procedures
necessary to ensure the risk of auditing error was reduced to a reasonable level. The Verification
& Sampling Plan methodology was derived from all items in our verification process stated above.
Specifically, the sampling plan utilized the Verra guidance documents and ISO 14064-3. Any
modifications applied to the Verification and Sampling plan were made based upon the conditions
observed for monitoring to detect the processes with highest risk of material discrepancy.
A detailed field plan was developed to guide the verification site visit and is embedded within the
Verification & Sampling Plan. For the field sampling effort, direct measurement, observation,
interviews, and review of the monitoring period emission reductions in the key areas were
determined to be the greatest risk, followed by ground-truthing and review of project activities. Field
sampling and techniques were based on the project parameters/scope and best professional
judgment of the VVB to meet a reasonable level of assurance as directed by the professional
judgment of the Lead Verifier.
Because the biomass inventory (REDD) was validated and has not changed, inventory plots were
not selected for detailed review/re-measurement. For the peat component (WRC), monitoring
period stratification were assessed via GIS (Geographic Information System).
Fires did occur during this reporting period. Extensive review of all remote sensing data was
undertaken of the project area to aid the VVB in establishing a reasonable level of assurance
regarding confirming the reported areas of ex post disturbance (from the remote sensing-based
analysis) for the quantification of project emissions.
Please see Section 2.4 and 2.5 of this report for more details regarding the site visit as it was held
despite the COVID-19 global pandemic.
2.3 Document Review
A detailed review of all project documentation was conducted as part of the desktop verification
component to ensure consistency with, and identify any deviation from, VCS Program
requirements, CCB program requirements, the methodology (VM0007), and the validated PD.
Initial review focused on the validated PD and Monitoring Report (MR) relative to the field conditions
observed and interviews with project management staff. Project details, implementation status,
data and parameters, and quantification of GHG emission reductions and removals were
thoroughly examined. Key supporting documents were also reviewed. These included monitoring
data (i.e., remote sensing/Geographic Information System (GIS) data), Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs), financial analyses, boundaries, maps and aerial images, fire-specific
monitoring data, biomass and carbon calculation spreadsheets, CCB interview/survey results, and
responses to Clarification Requests (CLs).
The VCS AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool was used by the Project Proponent to assess overall
project risk. The VVB reviewed the Non-Permanence Risk Report provided with the verification
supporting documentation and confirmed that the Project adheres to the requirements set out in
the VCS AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool. Each risk factor was thoroughly assessed for
conformance. Any identified NCR and/or CL findings related to the AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk
Tool/Report are presented in Appendix B. The final score was calculated to be 10%.

For a listing of all documents received from the project proponents for this verification, please see
Appendix A.
2.4 Interviews
Interviews were performed during the verification site inspection and as part of the overall
verification process which was additional to that provided in the project description, monitoring
report and any supporting documents. The verification team met with individuals with various roles
in the project. This included a series of interviews with on-site and in-country staff that support the
mission of the project and other conservation objectives.
Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, the core Aster Global audit team was unable to travel to
Indonesia as was conducted in years 2017 (VCS), 2018 (VCS+CCB) and 2019 (VCS). However,
the site visit was performed in the conventional manner with interviews and observations performed
by Aster Global’s Indonesian subcontractor Ms. Rosa, of the project’s monitoring period activities
and features for both VCS and CCB.
The COVID-19 global pandemic caused careful consideration of safety protocols, communication,
and widespread awareness. The project proponents, technical consultants, and Ms. Rosa were
aware of safety risk and took key steps to mitigate risks including implementation of the PT. RMU
company-wide health and safety protocol. This included, for instance, COVID-19 testing for all
personnel traveling to project site, required social distancing, mask usage, and cleanliness
protocols.
Onsite interviews and informal discussions were conducted with PT RMU project staff, members
of Wetlands International, technical consultant Permian Global, members and leaders of the local
communities.
A video conference call via WhatsApp was performed on July 23/24 (2100-2230 EDT/ 800-930
Indonesia Jakarta time) to discuss a variety of topics. The participants included Eric Jaeschke from
Aster Global, Ms. Rosa (independent site visit contractor), Taryono Darusman (PT. RMU), Meyner
Nusawalo (Opo) (PT. RMU) and Herwin Herkuni (PT. RMU). Topics discussed included overall
forest protection and the fire brigade activities from the monitoring period, illegal logging protection
activities, biodiversity observations, fire brigade infrastructure and dynamics, and overall
impressions from the site visit.
Video conferencing from the top of a newly constructed 15-meter-high fire observation tower at the
East Post afforded views for the auditor of fire impacts totally approximately 300 hectares in the
project area. It was discussed that 5 new fire observation towers were constructed during the 2019
monitoring period.
Individual Affiliation Role

Taryono Darusman RMU General Field Manager
Meyner Nusalawo RMU Biodiversity Manager

(Opo)

Herwin Herkuni RMU Zone coordinator for Mendawai

Sub-district under the Forest
Protection Department
Dwi Rosaria Self Aster Global Subcontractor
Widiyarini
A GoTo meeting call was held with the PT. RMU senior management team on 29 July 2020 (900-
1000 EDT/ 2200-2300 Indonesia Jakarta time) and the Aster Global lead verifier. This was a higher-
level discussion of the project status from the monitoring period and a series of interviews where
project financials, mission, major initiatives, and related were discussed with the lead verifier.

Dharsano Hartono PT Rimba Makmur Utama Chief Executive Officer
(RMU)
Rezal Ashari RMU Chief Operating Director
Kusumaatmadja
Juan Chang Permian Global Head of Technical

Operations
Eva Pintado Permian Global GIS and Remote Sensing
Analyst
A GoTo meeting call was held with the PT. RMU staff 30 July 2020 (800-900 EDT/ 2200-2300
Indonesia Jakarta time), the Aster Global lead verifier and CCB specialist Richard Scharf. This was
a discussion pertaining primarily to the CCB review. A variety of questions were asked of project
staff where it was clarified that the public comment components, grievances, land disputes and
related were discussed with the audit team.

Kusumaatmadja
Big Antono RMU Database and IT Manager
Hirason Horuodono, RMU Business Development

Manager
Yusef F Hadiwinata RMU Community Development
Manager
Dwi Puji Lestari RMU Research and
Development Manager
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 10

Iis Leswarawati RMU Director of Administration

and Finance
Meyner Nusalawo (Opo) RMU Biodiversity Manager
Syane Luntungan RMU Communications Manager
Bellini Simangunsong RMU Public Health Specialist
Desra Arriyadi RMU R&D Team
Ibnu Fikri RMU Biodiversity Team
Ahmad Kasyful RMU Biodiversity Team
Mutia Rahwamati RMU Biodiversity Team

Operations
A GoTo meeting call was held with technical consultant Permian Global and the Aster Global lead
verifier on 06 August 2020. This was a discussion pertaining primarily to the GIS and remote
sensing review. A variety of questions were asked of project staff where it was clarified that the GIS
analysis workflow and methods remained the same from the previous year.

Kusumaatmadja
Eva Pintado Permian Global GIS and Remote Sensing
Analyst
Operations
2.5 Site Inspections
The verification site inspection followed the VVB’s prepared Verification and Sampling Plan process
and was conducted on 20-26 July 2020 by Ms. Rosa of the audit team. The verification site visit
was a required tool to help the VVB reach reasonable assurance for verification of monitoring period
reported elements. It also allowed the VVB to; understand application of the methodology on-site,
confirm the implementation of project activities, and to identify possible sources of error to focus
desktop verification efforts.
The objectives of the on-site inspections performed were to:
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 11

• Conduct a risk-based review of the project area and project activities to check that the
project adhered to the requirements of the VCS rules and the methodology during the
monitoring period
• Select data samples from ground measurements for verification purposes in order to
achieve a reasonable level of assurance and meet the materiality requirements of the
project following Section 4.1.2 of the VCS Standard
• Check that monitoring was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the validated
monitoring plan, the VM0007 methodology and VCS rules
An assessment of risk was considered for the site visit conducted by Ms. Rosa as follows:
Can the Site Visit
Item Results Achieve Reasonable
Assurance?
Identify Risk/Opportunity Due to the fact that the Aster Yes
that may affect effectiveness Global verification team has
visited the site for the last 3 years
and there are no significant
changes for the reporting period,
the risks are minimal. Ms. Rosa is
experienced in VCS projects
under the methodology and with
the project activities. Visitation of
all major project activities is
expected. Aster Global staff was
available and present for video
conference calls and to facilitate
communication. We believe the
site visit was very effective.
Does Aster Global and Ms. After discussions with the Ms. Yes
Rosa have proper tools for Rosa, the client and the audit
the site visit? team, all have the proper tools to
carry out the site visit. Notes,
photos and other evidence were
collected by Ms. Rosa in the field
for the core Aster Global audit
team.
Does Aster Global and Ms. After discussions with the Ms. Yes
Rosa have proper Rosa, the client and the audit
competencies for the site team, all had the proper
visit? competencies for the site visit.
A ground inspection was made by Ms. Rosa of the project area using accessible watercourses of
entry along the Mentaya River, Katingan River, and southern canal. The following villages were
visited, and interviews conducted for VCS and CCB elements: Seragam Jaya, Mentaya Seberang,
Basawang, Rawasari, Makarti Jaya, Babirah, Hantipan, Mandawai, Kampung Melayu, Tampelas,
Telaga, Perupuk, Jahanjang. The site visit ground inspection was performed to assess monitoring
efforts, including but not limited to, unplanned deforestation activities, unplanned degradation, and
community member feedback.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 12

The most likely access points for anthropogenic degradation (along watercourse access points)
within the Project Area and adjacent lands were discussed and toured as able to allow the VVB to
establish a reasonable level of assurance regarding the implementation of project activities, and to
further confirm the reported areas of ex post disturbance.
During the project site visit, a strong sample of CCB components of the project were assessed
including the full range of Community Based Development Activities which were active and
achieved during the monitoring period including but not limited to:
• Microfinance programs
• Business Units- “Badan Usaha Milik Desa” or BUMDesa
• Non-timber forest product development- for example rattan.
• Tree nurseries- Women-run nursery in Kampung Melayu village about the kelola sosial and
purchasing the tree seedling (Desa Parupuk)
• Coconuts- Interview a farmer who has benefited from project training. Interview women
who process coconut oil, etc. Visit the sugar training facility, interview students and former
students who are now producing sugar
• Agroforestry farming (Kelola)- new village forest initiative on the east side of the project
area.
• Biogas/Cattle- visit and interview those involved,
• Health Services- communities received some assistance in purchasing basic equipment
for healthcare centers
• Education Support
• Social forestry program, village forest facilitation
• Stakeholders and the grievance process
• Biodiversity benefits discussions, biodiversity surveys
• Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signing process- observations and discussions in
several villages where the process was both confirmed and progress is being made
towards signing
The following programs were observed on-site, audit team impressions are included:
Village Programs Audit Impressions
Mentaya MOU Consultation There is no MoU signed yet between the village and PT
Seberang and Agreement RMU. However, agreements are signed between PT
(consultation phase), RMU and each project activities. PT RMU facilitate
Health and sanitation, knowledge sharing for fire fighting activities.
Agroecology, Fire
prevention The farmers in Mentaya Seberang are doing the TBTK
method (Tanpa Bakar Tanpa Kimia/No Burn No
Chemical method), which is environmentally friendly. PT
RMU help assist the farmers by conducting training
annually, send farmers to do comparative study, giving
counselling/suggestion and provide a mentor during the
project implementation. PT RMU is also providing capital
for agricultural saving and loan program, which hopefully
will turn into a union/cooperatives someday. The loan
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 13

have a low loan interest. The loan money will support

the farmers who incorporated with TBTK group so they
will be able to fund their TBTK farm expenses, for
example to buy the seeds, to buy agricultural tools, etc.
Health and Sanitation Program is run mostly by women

in Mentaya Seberang Village and receive fund from PT
RMU with two main activities:
-POSYANDU (Pos Pelayanan Terpadu/Integrated
Service Posts (for health)). There are 3 category of
POSYANDU in Mentaya Seberang Village: 1. For
Pregnant women and Babies to toddler 2. For elderly
people 3. For Children and productive age. The support
given is in the form of financial funds per POSYANDU;
health equipment (tools to measure blood pressure,
cholesterol, body temperature, blood sugar, etc.);
additional food to prevent stunting in toddlers & children;
trainings and comparative study to other city in
Indonesia (last time the POSYANDU management went
to Depok city for comparative study) and uniform. During
the comparative study, they learned how to manage &
improve POSYANDU administration and it motivated
them to apply it at the Mentaya Seberang village's
POSYANDU to improve its performance.
Seragam MOU Consultation There is no MoU signed yet between the village and PT
Jaya and Agreement RMU because there is still resistance from other groups.
(consultation phase), However, agreements are signed between PT RMU and
Health and sanitation, each project activities.
Agroecology, Fire
prevention, The firefighter group was established around 2016
Environmental based on the advice from PT RMU and currently has
Education, Bamboo approximately 46 members who is doing the patrol in
Cultivation shift.
For farmers receiving sustainable agriculture training,

the farmers in Seragam Jaya are doing the TBTK
method (Tanpa Bakar Tanpa Kimia/No Burn No
Chemical method), which is environmentally friendly. PT
RMU help assist the farmers by conducting training,
send farmers to do comparative study, giving
counselling/suggestion and provide a mentor during the
project implementation. PT RMU is also providing capital
for agricultural saving and loan program, which hopefully
will turn into a union/cooperatives someday.
Health and Sanitation Program is run mostly by women

in the Seragam Jaya Village and receive fund from PT
RMU with one main activity-POSYANDU (please see
Mentaya Seberang details above).
At the moment there is no agreement between PT RMU

and the Bamboo Cultivation Program, as the program is
actually fostered by a local NGO (Yayasan Bambu
Lestari). The local NGO is the one who actually has a
cooperative relationship with PT RMU. The agreement
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 14

between bamboo program and the local NGO is only for

a year. The program activity is bamboo nursery
cultivation where later on the bamboo will be planted on
conservation land. Currently the program has planted
30,000 bamboo seedlings. Training also been given on
how to choose a good quality seedling, how to grow and
maintain the plant. This program hopes that in the future
will sign an agreement or MoU directly with PT RMU.
Basawang Coconut sugar Expectation of Basawang Village PT RMU keep
producer, Alternative assisting the village in doing the program activities and
crops (vanilla and assist the community in advancing their fields and
pepper) business. Palm sugar, vanilla, and cashew nut
production was observed where direct support from
RMU has improved livelihoods.
Rawasari Microfinance, Fire The village have signed MoU with PT RMU and the
fighter group, village is willing to renew an MoU when the existing is
Infrastructure expires.
There are 22 people involved/become the member of

firefighter program.
No agricultural program is running at the village yet, but

the topic already been discussed between PT RMU and
the local government about agricultural program.
Microfinance (Saving and Loans) Program: Benefits are

gained by the village through this program, the main
goals of this program is to help small business in the
village who lack in startup capital and for farmers who
want to develop their crop. But the loan is not only for
small business, but mostly people also get the loan for
private matters (like tuition fee for school, for daily
expenses, etc.). However, there is no trouble on loan
repayment up until today. The maturity date of the loan
is 10 months, there will be fine if the loan payment is
past the due date with interest. No training has been
given for this program, bookkeeping and management
training is urgently needed because the current
management does not have the knowledge, at the
moment they are learning by doing and guided by their
mentor from PT RMU.
The infrastructure program is in the form of funding, PT

RMU assisting the village in building the house of
worship (mosque and church). The house of worship in
Rawasari village are still under construction which
began in 2020 (outside of the current monitoring period
verification).
Expressed an interest to the audit team if PT RMU could

assist and suggest the people of what plants/crops that
ca be planted and what equipment that can be used to
clear the land without having to burn the land.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 15

Makarti Microfinance, Village- The village have signed MoU with PT RMU and the
Jaya own business village is willing to renew an MoU when the existing is
property, Fire fighter expires.
group, Infrastructure,
Environmental There are 70 people involved/become the member of
education firefighter program.
No agricultural program is running at the village yet, but

the topic already been discussed between PT RMU and
the local government about agricultural program.
Microfinance (Saving and Loans) Program: benefits

gained by the village through this program, the main
goals of this program is to help small business in the
village who lack in startup capital and for farmers who
want to develop their crop. But the loan is not only for
small business, but mostly people also get the loan for
private matters (like tuition fee for school, for daily
expenses, etc.). However, there is no trouble on loan
repayment up until today. Up until 27 June 2020 there
are around 170 people applied for the loan with the
maturity date of 10 months, there will be fine if the loan
payment is past the due date. No training has been
given for this program, bookkeeping and management
training is urgently needed because the current
management does not have the knowledge, at the
moment they are learning by doing and guided by their
mentor from PT RMU.
Expressed an interest to the audit team if PT RMU could

assist and suggest the people of what plants/crops that
ca be planted and what equipment that can be used to
clear the land without having to burn the land.
Babirah MOUs, Bumdes The village have signed MoU with PT RMU and the
(crossing boat), fire village is willing to renew an MoU when the existing
fighter group, expires.
Infrastructure
Sustainable agriculture training: is not an ongoing
program in Babirah Village.
BUMDES stands for Badan Usaha Milik Desa (Village-

owned Business Entity): PT RMU financially support
Babirah village BUMDES, the fund is used to buy boat
used as crossing boat between the village to the city
(Sampit) and the cost is cheaper compared to public
boat. The transport system is managed by BUMDES
and the profits go into BUMDES treasury as the village's
income.
The expectation of the people of Babirah is that PT RMU

will hire more local people from Babirah Village to
improve the village's economy.
Hantipan VCO and coconut oil The VCO program at Hantipan village begun in August
2019. Before that, a socialization about PT
RMU/Katingan Project was carried out by Yayasan
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 16

Puter in 2015 so the village is already familiar with PT

RMU/Katingan Project.
There is no MoU signed yet between the village and PT

RMU. However, agreements are signed between PT
RMU and each project activities.
Home industry (VCO and Coconut Oil): This program

activity run mostly by the women in Hantipan Village.
The activities receive support from PT RMU in the form
of fund (startup capital), trainings, workshop, and
mentoring. The women in Hantipan village are
participate in the making of virgin coconut oil and
coconut cooking oil at the home industry scale. The
products are then purchased by PT RMU to be
marketed to reach a wider market. This program activity
got a full support from PT RMU business development
division, started from the training on how to make a
high-quality product and how to package the products
according to sales standard. The product can also be
sold independently to interested buyers should they
have a better offer than PT RMU, the products are not
exclusively made for PT RMU.
The expectation of the Hantipan village is that PT RMU

can introduce the women to new product for their home
industry and give them training and assistance s what
PT RMU did with the VCO program.
Mendawai Fire prevention MoU has been signed between the village and PT RMU,
program, Village the village will be renew (extend) the MoU when the
forest initiative, current one is expires.
Microfinance,
Sanitation program The firefighter program is divided into 2: Firefighter for
the village and firefighter for the village forest initiative.
Fire fighters confirmed that training has been received.
Village Forest Initiative program in Mendawai Village

has done reforestation (±10 hectares) and a number of
comparative study (one of them to Sebangau Mulia
village) with financial support from PT RMU. The plant
seed for reforestation is given by PT RMU. Potential
survey of the VFI has been carried out involving the
people from Mendawai Village at VFI area. The fire
prevention program is also funded by PT RMU. Training
on bookkeeping and management is needed to improve
and support the operational of this program. Sharing
knowledge has been done a couple of times. The
government permit for the forest is still in process.
Microfinance (Saving and Loans) Program manage by

BUMDES (Badan Usaha Milik Desa/Village-owned
Business Entity): The savings and loan is held to help
the small business of the women in Mendawai village.
The requirements are a permission letter from the
husband, a proof that they are residents of the village by
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 17

providing a copy of identity card. So far, the program is

running very well, no bad credit.
PT RMU give financial support for education in the form

of incentive for teacher and uniform for the pre-school at
Mendawai Village.
The infrastructure program is in the form of financial

funding from PT RMU assisting the village in building
land toilet as replacement for the "above the river" toilet.
So far 15 land toilet has been built and the program will
continue until all household in the village has it. Waste
management has become s problem at the village, the
villagers indicated PT RMU can support and help the
village on how to deal with the waste management
problems.
Kampung Fire prevention MoU has been signed between the village and PT RMU,
Melayu program, the village will renew (extend) the MoU when the current
Communities' one is expires.
nursery, Transport,
Sanitation The fire prevention program received training from the
government and PT RMU on how to use the equipment.
More training is still needed for updates and the new
member because it is very important, especially practical
training where the training can be more adapted to the
situation at the (fire) location at Kampung Melayu
Village.
Communities' nursery Program: For this program, PT

RMU provide the seedlings and the village is the one
who manage and care for it, when the seedlings are
ready the village can sell it to PT RMU for reforestation
process within PT RMU's area, therefore the village has
sustainable income. A partnership permit is still on
process so that the partnership has a legal strength.
Transportation (School Boat): PT RMU provide a school

boat for the children in the village. The only school in
Kampung Melayu primary school, in order to get higher
education the students have to go to another village,
therefore PT RMU provide the school boat so it is easier
and cheaper for the children to go to school. The school
boat is managed by the village.

An expectation of the village is that if PT RMU can give

suggestion on what fruit/vegetables plant that is suitable
for their land that they can quickly harvest and sell or to
processed as a home industry material to improve their
income. PT RMU is expected to assist the village in
marketing of the product as well.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 18

Tampelas Village government, MoU has been signed between the village and PT RMU,
Village forest the village will renew (extend) the MoU when the current
initiative, fire one is expiring.
prevention program,
supporting household Village Government Program: For this program, PT
electricity, cattle RMU provides financial funding to the village but give
project the freedom to the village to manage the fund. Starting
from this year, some of the funding will be used to start a
cattle project, started with buying the land for the
cowshed then gradually it will be developed into cattle
farm so the village can have a sustainable income in the
future. PT RMU also assisting the planning for the cattle
project. Beside cattle project the fund is also use in
supporting household electricity. The village has no
electricity before, PT RMU assist them in electricity
supply.
Village Forest Initiative: A Ministrial decree letter has

been issued for the village forest with an area of 6,300
Hectares at Tampelas Village. Inspired by PT RMU,
Tampelas Village wants to be able to do carbon trade
business because the village can get financial benefits
while still preserving the environment and the forest. The
village also request PT RMU to assist them in the
process of carbon trading and has received assistance
from PT RMU in the fire prevention program.
Telaga Village government, MoU has been signed between the village and PT RMU,
Village forest the village will renew (extend) the MoU when the current
initiative, education one is expires.
program, MOUs
Regarding firefighting, the village has received trainings
on how to use the equipment and how to deal with fire.
Forest Initiative: There are 2 type of forest initiative in

this village: 1. Village forest (close to the village) 2.
Partnership Forest (side by side with PT RMU
concession area). Both forests are located far from each
other. A Ministrial decree letter has been issued for the
village forest while the partnership forest is still on
process with PT RMU, just need to sign an agreement
with PT RMU (delayed because of Covid -19 issue,
difficult to travel). The long-term plan for the forest
initiative is to be able to preserve the nature and
environment and to be able to operate like PT RMU
(carbon trading). The village want to protect the forest
and its surrounding environment.
Education: PT RMU help to facilitate the village school

with laptops including the electricity, desk & chair, and
the network. Because the students need to go online to
do the school test while it is not common to have
laptop/computer at home. PT RMU also organized
environmental education as extracurricular lessons,
taught by PT RMU staffs and sometimes guest teacher
also teach this subject.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 19

Health and Sanitation Program: POSYANDU stand for

Pos Pelayanan Terpadu/Integrated Service Posts (for
health). There are 3 categories of POSYANDU in Telaga
Village: 1. For Pregnant women and Babies to toddler 2.
For elderly people 3. For Children and productive age.
The support given is in the form of financial funds, health
equipment (tools to measure blood pressure,
cholesterol, body temperature, blood sugar, etc.);
additional food to prevent stunting in toddlers & children;
trainings and comparative study to other city in
Indonesia and uniform. During the comparative study,
they learned how to manage & improve POSYANDU
administration and it motivated them to apply it at the
Telaga village's POSYANDU to improve its
performance.
The expectation for Telaga village is that the partnership

forest agreement can be finalized soon.
Perupuk Community nursey MoU has been signed between the village and PT RMU,
the village will renew (extend) the MoU when the current
one is expires.
Communities' nursery Program: For this program, PT

RMU provide the seedlings and the village is the one
who manage and care for it, when the seedlings are
ready the village can sell it to PT RMU for reforestation
process within PT RMU's area, therefore the village has
sustainable income. The training is given for this
program on how to plant the seedlings, how to care and
manage it and it is very useful for them. The women
think they need more trainings to add more knowledge.

All the household at the village has the "land toilet" built
already (25 houses).
Jahanjang Village government, MoU has been signed between the village and PT RMU,
Community radio, the village will renew (extend) the MoU when the current
cattle project one expires.
Village Government Program: For this program, PT

RMU provides financial funding to the village but give
the freedom to the village to manage the fund. The
funding is currently used for cattle project, started with
buying the land for the cowshed then gradually it will be
developed into cattle farm so the village can have a
sustainable income in the future. PT RMU also assisting
the planning for the cattle project. The cows are not from
PT RMU but owned by the villagers. There are 43 cows
now at the cowshed, 10 cows have been so far. The
price is varied from IDR 10 to more than 15 million per
cow depend on the size. A grass chopper machine is
also provided by PT RMU to feed the cow. Proper
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 20

trainings on how to raise and care the cattle also training

on how to manage cattle farm is needed, because so far
it is only from knowledge sharing with PT RMU.
Elephant grass seed is also provided, so the farmer can
grow it as the cattle's feed. PT RMU has done the
training on how to grow and care the elephant grass.
The community radio is managed by PT RMU. This

radio is a means of communication and as information
sharing tool for Jahanjang village and the village around
regarding latest news updates (such as Covid-19),
information on social impacts, forest fires, health and
other general information that might be useful for the
village.
Village administration: PT RMU assists and teaches the

village government in management, how to make a
proper proposal, how to make a proper budgeting and
budget planning for the village's fund, how to manage a
good office administration.
PT RMU can assist the village in farming and processing

the local fish, because they cannot rely only on the fish
in the river. The population is getting higher, means
there is more people, while fish in the river is not
growing so much or that might be overfishing so the fish
will not be enough for the villagers in the future.
During the project site visit sampling was also undertaken for VCS elements to help the VVB reach
reasonable assurance for verification of monitoring period reported elements.
VCS activities observed on-site:

• Visitation of the central camp and southern canal area to observe general status: discussions
of fire staff, expansions, infrastructure
• “Drive-by” of deforestation and burnt areas, as logistically feasible (primarily confirmed via
remote sensing desktop-based review)
• Forest Protection – Discussed status of incursions and mitigations by patrols for illegal
logging and related
• Community member interviews on land usage, ownership, and conflicts
Desktop-based and GoTo Meeting topics for interviews with project staff 6:
• Interview project staff to gather information regarding monitoring of the project, evidence of
conformance with specific requirements of the methodology
• Discussion of concession held by the project and continued compliance
• Discussion of boundary demarcation
• Review and discuss possibility of illegal expansion of other concessions
• Confirmed organizational structure and operation
6 These meetings were held between the Aster Global audit team and project staff to capture review elements not
covered during the site visit
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 21

• Confirmed data management, compilation and storage
WRC (GHGWPS-WRC)
• Discussion of canal blocking/planned peatland re-wetting locations and plans
• Discussion of ditch expansion and/or new discoveries
• Discussion of peat and water level surveys and monitoring
REDD (ΔCWPS-REDD)
• Aboveground stock changes due to deforestation
• Discuss instances of period degradation/illegal logging, discussion of stump surveys,
transition/threshold from degradation to deforestation status
Burnt Areas
• Aboveground stock changes and peat oxidation due to uncontrolled burning
• General discussion of monitoring period fire incidences
• Discuss fire protection campaign, training, and associated monitoring efforts
General
• Discussion of accounting adjustments because of monitoring (degradation, deforestation)
• Leakage- discussion of concession allotments
• ARR (reforestation)- discussion of status of fire break plantations and nursery production
• Agroforestry- discussion of areas delineated
• Boundary - Discuss boundary demarcation progress
2.6 Resolution of Findings
During the verification process, there was a risk that potential errors, omissions, and
misrepresentations would be found. The actions taken when errors, omissions, and
misrepresentations were found included: notifying the client of the issue(s) identified and expanding
our review to the extent that satisfied the Lead Verifier’s professional judgment.
The process of resolution of findings involved one formal round of assessment by the VVB. Findings
were resolved during the verification by the Project Proponent implementing corrective actions such
as amending the Monitoring Report and calculations, as well as providing written responses. This
resulted in project documentation that was in conformance with the requirements of the VCS
Standard and CCB Third Edition for GHG projects.
Findings were characterized in the following manner:
Non-Conformity Reports (NCRs) were issued as a response to material discrepancies in a part

of the project and generally fell into one category:
• Non-conformity to a VCS or CCB guiding document listed in Sections 1.2 and 2.2 above
• Consistency among project documentation or calculations was lacking
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 22

• Mathematical formulae were incorrect
• Additional information was required by the VVB to confirm reasonable assurance for
compliance
Clarifications (CL) were issued when language within a project document needed extra
clarification to avoid ambiguity.
Opportunities for Improvement (OFI) were issued to the Project Proponents when an opportunity
for improvement was identified.
During the verification, seven (7) essential VCS findings were identified. Detailed summaries of
each VCS finding, including the issue raised, responses, and final conclusions, are provided in
Appendix B VCS NCRS/CLS/OFI SUMMARY. Please also see APPENDIX C: CCB
NCRS/CLS/OFI SUMMARY for all findings raised during the CCB review. All NCRs/CLs were
satisfactorily addressed.
2.6.1 Forward Action Requests
One Forward Action Request was raised at the previous monitoring period verification pertaining
to mechanisms in place to take due account of on-going stakeholder input. The progress of the
project was found to be strong in terms of taking due account of input received during stakeholder
consultation for appropriate adjustments of project implementation. The project continues outreach
activities to all stakeholders, regardless of land tenure and representation.
The audit team concludes that the previous Forward Action Request is satisfied. Further, no new
Forward Action Requests for future verifiers to consider were raised at this monitoring period
verification.
2.7 Eligibility for Validation Activities
Validation activities were not undertaken as part of the second monitoring period verification.
3 VALIDATION FINDINGS
3.1 Participation under Other GHG Programs
The verification team is not aware of project involvement in other forms of environmental credits
from its activities. The project has not been registered, and is not seeking registration, under any
other GHG programs. The Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project currently only
seeks carbon credits with the CCB label under the VCS program. This was confirmed through a
risk-based internet review and interview with project proponents. Therefore, the verification team
deems the project eligible to participate under the VCS Program.
3.2 Methodology Deviations
No methodology deviations were applied to the project during this monitoring period.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 23

3.3 Project Description Deviations (Rules 3.5.7 – 3.5.10)
At this verification, the project has not applied any new PD deviations, but three PD deviations
remain from previous monitoring periods. a) for use of the Advanced Land Observing Satellite
Phased Array L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar 2 sensor (ALOS PALSAR 2) to monitor forest
disturbances instead of multispectral Landsat imagery as described in the PD. b) Conservatively
apply most aggressive annual clearance values from Global Watch data for leakage assessment
when most recent data isn’t published yet. c) PRA assumptions for illegal logging PD deviation
applied at the first monitoring period (please see first Monitoring Report for details). Please see
points below where the appropriateness of these deviations was evaluated:
a) PALSAR 2 – forest disturbance detection

-The deviation does not impact the applicability of the methodology as the intent is to monitor forest
deforestation or disturbance which the new sensor provides
-Project additionality is not impacted
-The baseline scenario of acacia plantation conversion remains unaffected as the deviation affects
monitoring efforts
-Project remains in compliance with the methodology as PALSAR data is an improvement in
monitoring data for the period
-As satellite-based sensors often have a limited design lifespan the verification team also confirms
this change in disturbance monitoring data is appropriate for future verification periods where L
band radar satellite data are employed
b) Global Forest Watch data

-The deviation does not impact the applicability of the methodology as the intent is to monitor
concession clearing activities
-Project additionality is not impacted
-The baseline scenario of acacia plantation conversion remains unaffected as the deviation affects
leakage monitoring efforts
-Project remains in compliance with the methodology as applying the most aggressive annual
concession clearing value is the most conservative application of leakage monitoring data for the
period
-The VVB notes that following VM0007 accounting methods, monitored leakage must exceed
baseline leakage for inclusion in final emission reduction estimates
c) Degradation PRA
The project did not complete a Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) to evaluate degradation during
emission years 2012 and 2014 because the project assumed degradation took place. Please see
first Verification Report and first Monitoring Report for additional details. The emissions resulting
from the limited field survey following M-MON was included in the accounting for first monitoring
period, year 2015.
The VVB confirmed that an adequate description and justification has been included in the MR for
these PD deviations and they are appropriate.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 24

3.4 Minor Changes to Project Description (Rules 3.5.6)
The project for this monitoring period did not experience any changes (minor or significant) to the
project’s validated design and remains in compliance.
3.5 Grouped Project (G1.13 – G1.15, G4.1)
This section is not applicable as the project is not a grouped project.
4 VERIFICATION FINDINGS
4.1 Public Comments (Rules 4.6)
The public comment period was held from 27 July 2020 – 26 August 2020. No public comments
were received for this project as confirmed by viewing the project summary page on the Verra
website 7 “CCB Other Documents” Section as publicly posted. The period for VCS and CCB public
comment period on draft project documents has expired.
4.2 Summary of Project Benefits
Please see Section 1.4 of this report for a summary description of The Katingan Peatland
Restoration and Conservation Project.
The project seeks to reduce emissions in Indonesia by protecting and restoring 149,800 hectares
of peatland ecosystems. As stated in Section 2.1.1 of the Monitoring Report, “The Katingan
Project’s goal is to protect and restore 149,800 hectares of peatland ecosystems; to offer local
people sustainable sources of income; and to tackle global climate change – all based on a solid
business model.” Section 1 of the Monitoring Report describes unique project benefits including
climate, community and biodiversity, and standardized benefit metrics, including achievements
specific to metrics.
The climate impacts are described in the Monitoring Report as protection and restoration of a
unique peat swamp forest habitat. The avoided emissions claimed for climate impacts are
evaluated elsewhere in this review and allow the verification team to corroborate the claims.
Prior to the (CCB) verification site visit the verification team assessed the monitoring plan and the
reported community benefits reported by project proponents. A list of questions to guide interviews
on site were developed to confirm reported community benefits. The verification team confirmed
that reported community benefits are correct. Community members throughout the project zone
were confirmed to take part in various activities including participatory planning, coconut products,
fisheries and firefighting. It is clear to the verification team that these benefits are having a positive
impact.
The verification team was able to confirm that the successes of the project in restoration and
protection of the project area are inextricably linked to benefits in biodiversity. Net positive
7 https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/1477. Accessed 28 September 2020.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 25

biodiversity benefits can be expected from reducing deforestation and degradation impacts through
maintaining intact forest cover including native plant species and associated habitats.
The verification team concludes that through site visit observations, interviews and document
review that during this monitoring period, The Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation
Project has shown substantial climate, community and biodiversity benefits from avoided
emissions. The verification team was also able to confirm that the project has demonstrated that
the rights and needs of local communities have been appropriately addressed as well as important
biodiversity conservation issues.
4.3 General
4.3.1 Implementation Status (G1.9)
The project activities and Monitoring Plan, as described in the validated PD, have been fully
initiated. There are no remaining issues from the validation. As this is the fifth verification, activities
have been implemented, and the audit team observed progress during the verification site visit
compared to the previous verifications.
The verification team requested to visit examples of all activities during the various site inspections
and subsequently confirmed the implementation of items related to climate, community, and
biodiversity. Climate objectives achieved included avoiding the emission of 5,110,030 tCO2e.
For this period, the verification team confirmed the project has continued to build upon activities
conducted during the last monitoring period and introduce new activities as required. The
verification team witnessed on site on-going conservation and reforestation efforts focused on fire
prevention and awareness training and seedling nursery development. Community activities were
directly observed including ongoing support of community-based businesses, introduction of
coconut sugar operations, advancing the community participatory planning efforts, and funding
public health clinics. It was clear to the verification team that community objectives are to engage
with the communities in the project zone to improve access to healthcare and access to
employment and capacity building opportunities.
The existence of any material discrepancies between project implementation and the project
description was confirmed through the overall audit process including interviews and documentary
review. The implementation status of the monitoring plan and the completeness of monitoring,
including the suitability of the implemented monitoring system was confirmed through review of
VM0007 adopted procedures and comparison of monitoring results against the validated project
design.
No new methodology deviations relating to monitoring and/or measurement of GHG emission

reductions or removals were applied by the project developer/identified by the audit team during
this monitoring period verification (please see Section 3.2). No new PD deviations were applied
during this period, but they are listed in Section 3.3.
The GHG emission reductions generated by the project have not become included in an emissions
trading program other than the VCS program and it has not received or sought any other form of
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 26

environmental credit as confirmed through a risk-based review by the verification team (see Section
3.1).
Sustainable development contributions are applicable to this project although Indonesia has
achieved many Sustainable Development Goals. The project was confirmed to be actively
supporting many UN SDGs as reported in Table 1 of the monitoring report, through the site visit
interviews, and document review as part of the verification. The goals of the project activities,
protect and restore 149,800 hectares of peatland ecosystems; to offer local people sustainable
sources of income; and to tackle global climate change, are clearly and directly related to increasing
the well-being of the local communities. Verifiers can conclude that the project has been
implemented as described in the validated project description.
Please see Section 3.2 and 3.3 for descriptions of the Methodology Deviations and PD Deviations,
respectively.
4.3.2 Risks to the Community and Biodiversity Benefits (G1.10)
The monitoring report states that risks are being managed as planned in the PD and summarized
in Appendix 1. The risk assessment summary in Appendix 1 of the validated PD includes the risks
from management and financial viability as extremely low. Land tenure risks are also low since the
land belongs to the Indonesian government.
Risk to community engagement are extremely low and a net positive community impact is
expected. Natural risks include fire, but those risks are low. Most fires in peatlands are human-
caused and no natural fires in tropical peatlands are documented.
There is risk from anthropogenic fires. Fire patrols and firefighting measures are in place and
equipment for fighting peat fires is stored in the project zone. All communities visited had fire
patrolling/fire fighting teams who stated they were trained for the work. The audit team visited the
facility where equipment for forest fires and specialized equipment for forest fires was stored,
repaired and maintained. This is a prudent and reasonable step in the mitigation of the dominant
risk to the project.
4.3.3 Community and Biodiversity Benefit Permanence (G1.11)
The protected status of the forest and peatlands are expected to be maintained and extended
through either further concession licenses or under national ownership once it is recognized for its
biodiversity and carbon stocks.
Community benefits are designed to eventually be managed by the communities themselves,

without outside inputs, particularly training in alternative livelihoods and agricultural extension
training. Project proponents view the project as a potential showcase, setting an example for
sustainable land use management. Tours are offered to government agencies and other NGOs
interested in learning about project activities, so BMPs and lessons learned on the project can be
spread throughout the region.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 27

Auditors visited with community members and observed alternative livelihood programs and found
people were receptive to these activities, some of which are already successful. There is no reason
the communities wouldn’t continue them. Educational efforts and efforts to maintain the legally
protected status of the land will likely maintain at least some of the project’s benefits beyond the
project lifetime.
4.3.4 Stakeholder Access to Information (G3.1- G3.3)
The monitoring report and monitoring report summaries were made available at project field offices
and were also delivered to community leaders, with the expectation that community leaders would
disseminate the information further among the community.
Auditors found that in the case of the monitoring report for this monitoring period, the report and
summaries were distributed as described, and this was an improvement over the previous
monitoring period. Project management developed and/or revised a set of SOPs for dealing with
community members, including how to make people aware of meetings and important events, like
the verification comment period. The SOPs make specific provisions to ensure women and
underrepresented groups have an opportunity to participate in project activities and decisions,
including women-only meetings.
The project staff provides communities with relative and adequate information before making
decisions through their SOPs, which include a 1 – 2 month period to discuss agreements, and they
arrange inter-village visits to allow community members to evaluate activities that were enacted
elsewhere, before bringing them to their own villages.
In addition, the MOUs between the project and the communities are only for 3-year durations,
requiring the project to maintain good communications and good relations to renew MOUs in the
future. During the site visit, the audit team found that most people were informed as to the demands
asked of them by the project in return for following the terms of the MOUs.
4.3.5 Stakeholder Consultation (G3.4 – G3.5)
The monitoring report states that open, ongoing consultation and adaptive management is the
project’s central philosophy. Several instances of activities started by request of communities are
cited. Some activities were reduced or discontinued for the same reason.
Extensive meetings were held and documented over the two years of this verification period (list
provided in appendix 2 of the monitoring report). In no case during the site visit were villagers
saddled with project activities for which they had no interest. In all villages, either the community
members themselves or legitimate leaders were regularly consulted and kept informed of project
activities and events, according to interviews.
The site visit revealed that activities and interests of the communities differed by community and
geography.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 28

Due to the short duration of the project/community MOUs, the project essentially requires itself to
maintain continued communications, acceptable to the communities, or important support will be
lost.
4.3.6 Stakeholder Participation in Decision-making and Implementation (G3.6)
As part of the site visit the audit team confirmed that the project staff hold meetings in a variety of
locations. In addition, it was made clear that particular groups are targeted for inclusion in some
activities, however it was also observed that limited funding can limit the number of people able to
take part in some project activities. The audit team observed that project staff seem to regularly
visit all communities and those community members interviewed by the auditors seemed
appropriately informed and satisfied with activities with which they participated. The verification
team can conclude that the project has actively enable community participation in project
implementation.
4.3.7 Anti-discrimination (G3.7)
The audit team confirmed that the project has a staff handbook that includes, among other things
prohibition on harassment and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, sexual
orientation, national origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, marital status, veteran status or
any other protected status defined by law based on a review of documentation provided in a
clarification request. The staff handbook clearly defines and identifies harassment in line with
international norms. Staff members interviewed during the site visit confirmed that are required to
sign a document, indicating they received the staff handbook contained anti-harassment
information and understand its contents. The site visit and site visit interviews were conducted by
a woman and women interviewed by her during the site visit said they did not face any harassment
from the project or project’s representatives.
4.3.8 Stakeholder Feedback and Grievance Redress Procedure (G3.8)
Both the monitoring report and the original PDD includes a grievance procedure with all the steps
recommended by the CCB Standards, including first trying to amicably resolve the grievance, then
going to third party mediation before finally resorting to the legal system.
A record of all grievances appears in a table in Appendix 3 of the monitoring report. It describes
the nature of the grievance and how the grievance was resolved. Community members interviewed
during the site visit were generally satisfied with the project and the way it was being managed. All
knew who they need to speak with in order to file a grievance.
4.3.9 Worker Relations (G3.9 – G3.12)
The monitoring report was confirmed to include a list of trainings for both the staff and the
communities that took place during this verification period. In interviews, it was revealed that
orientation training is provided for new employees. While the majority of employees are men, a
number of women are also employed by the project. Women are represented in all employment
types, except for firefighting.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 29

A goal of the project is for communities to be self-sufficient, and training includes project
management, legal and administrative topics and financial planning and management. To ensure
capacity is not lost, internships, apprenticeships and work shadowing were indicated during site
interviews to train new individuals.
During the site visit it was confirmed that a staff manual is supplied to all staff and they have the
opportunity to raise questions or concerns. Staff members sign a statement that they have received
and understand the manual. The manual was confirmed to include the grievance process that
employees can use if unhappy with terms of employment. The verification team understands that
no staff have used the procedure, to date. In addition, the project is compliant with the social
security law, and makes payments on behalf of all employees.
The monitoring report states that the project provides employment opportunities to people in the
project zone, the wider region and Indonesia as a whole, without regard to gender, age, social class
or ethnicity, but priority goes to people living in the project zone. Staff members interviewed
described a hiring process very similar to the description in in the MR. Most staff are from local
communities. Staff are hired locally or from nearby Sampit. Vacancy announcements for jobs
requiring more skill may be advertised more widely. Site visit interview suggested that project
management preferentially hires from local communities and offers women the chance to fill
vacancies.
The monitoring report includes a list of the measures taken to address risks to worker safety,
including:
• Providing first aid kits, including anti-venom cream and insect repellent
• Providing navigation equipment, like GPS, compass and handheld transceivers.
• Enforcing the buddy system.
• Providing safety equipment
• Providing additional logistics (fuel, water/meals for 3 days, etc.)
• Providing training on safety procedures, communication, evacuation, shelter and on risks

inherent to field activities, like fire suppression.
The monitoring report goes on to promise the project will continue to provide training and safety
equipment. Both the monitoring report and site visit interviews indicate the project provides
sufficient safety training and equipment to staff and community fire patrols/brigades.
The verification team found that regular, nearly constant communications exist between the project
and community members, traditional and official leaders, and other stakeholders. Managers are
stationed in villages in the project zone, with locally hired staff. Regional government officials are
in regular contact with management. The Bogor staff is in daily contact with relevant national
government officials, as their offices are within driving distance of the Ministry of Forestry offices in
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 30

Jakarta. Communications between the project and stakeholders is effective and nearly constant in
many ways.
4.3.10 Management Capacity (G4.2 – G4.3)
The project proponent is PT Rimba Makmur Utama (PT. RMU). Other entities involved in the project
include:
• Yayasan Puter Indonesia (Puter), who is involved in community development activities.
• Wetlands International, who leads technical aspects of MRV related activities and the
provision of technical expertise in biodiversity, fire and land use management.
• Permian Global, who provides technical support on remote sensing, MRV methodology,
carbon marketing and management advice.
The management team was confirmed to include individuals with skills necessary to undertake all
project activities through interviews and the site visit. Project proponents and technical consultants
have experience in the development of carbon projects with the same project activities. Table 5 of
the monitoring report includes a list of project activities and the key skills required to implement
them. Activity categories range from ecosystem restoration and forest conservation to livelihood
development and community resilience.
The project employs staff with several decades in combined experience in implementing/managing
carbon projects. The project management and staff displayed competence, professionalism and
expertise in both technical and social aspects of project activities and overall project
implementation. Some project partners are well known in the field of carbon offset crediting.
Management capacity to satisfy Indicators G4.2 – G4.2 was confirmed through interviews and the
is most exhibited in the quality of the development of the project.
4.3.11 Commercially Sensitive Information (Rules 3.5.13 – 3.5.14)
Commercially sensitive information is listed in Section 2.4.6 of the monitoring report. The
verification team concludes that the listed information is appropriately categorized and was
respected in such manner during the audit process.
4.3.12 Rights Protection and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (G5.1-G5.5)
Indicator G5.1: At validation, the project proponent (PT RMU) was confirmed to be the sole
concession holder for the project area under two ecosystem restoration licenses. Table 6 of the
monitoring report lists the decrees and legal approvals leading to the concession licenses. At the
second VCS verification ESI 8 was shown the concession licenses. It was discussed that one of the
8 During the course of the fourth monitoring period VCS verification (01 January 2018 to 31 December 2018), the
audit team and ANSI Accreditation transferred from Environmental Services Inc. to Aster Global Environmental
Solutions, Inc. All staff remained the same in their capacity and the verification was completed under Aster Global
in accordance with VCS and ANSI rules.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 31

project activities is the creation of agreed upon, spatially accurate maps depicting the project area
and village lands. (Part of the participatory planning process.) An example of community mapping
is provided in Map 3 of the monitoring report. The project has entered into Memorandum of
Understandings (MOUs) with 22 villages in the project zone, a number of them (13) for the second
time as MOUs have 3-year terms. These MOUs include recognition of land rights on the part of the
project and the villages and were observed during this verification site visit. The verification team
confirmed that the project is actively mapping traditional village lands and has entered MOUs, which
include recognition of both signatory’s land claims, with the majority of villages. Community
members did not express any problems with the project’s land claims during the site visit.
Indicator G5.2: The monitoring report states the project has adopted FPIC principles in all
community consultation processes and will continue this approach through the project lifetime. The
majority of villages in the project zone have signed MOUs with the project developer that, among
other things, defines the project area and recognizes the lands traditionally claimed by the villages.
These are short-term agreements, and the villages visited during the site visit either signed their
second MOUs with the project or were about to complete negotiations and will be signing a second
one, indicating satisfaction with the MOU and the way the village had been treated by the project
and project staff.
Further, the project developers state they use FPIC principles in dealing with the project zone
villages, and observations and conversations with community members backs that claim up. In
addition, the fact that the villages are willing to enter into second MOUs with the project indicates
the community members believe they are being treated fairly by the project.
Indicator G5.3: Since the project area is owned by the Indonesian government no communities are
present in the project area. During the site visit, the audit team interviewed local communities and
traveled the project area and was unable to find evidence that any relocation took place as the
project area never contained any permanent human settlements. Further, it is highly unlikely there
were any settlements in the project area, as peat domes are not ideal human habitat. Remote
sensing review did not indicate any signs of settlements, aside from those identified.
Indicator G5.4: The monitoring report includes a list of grievances from local communities and
community members. Some of those grievances are regarding land. Most have been resolved or
the aggrieved party had not provided any evidence for the claim. There appear to be no long-
standing unresolved disputes or resource conflicts that could be exacerbated by the project. The
verification team was able to confirm that grievances regarding land were dealt with through the
grievance process.
Based on the above satisfaction of Indicators G5.1 – G5.5, the project has clearly protected the
rights of Indigenous Peoples, communities and other stakeholders in accordance to the third edition
of the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards and the validated project description.
4.3.13 Legal Status (G5.6)
The Monitoring Report Section 2.5.6.1 lists 50 different laws and regulations that are relevant to
project activities, as of the end of 2017, and states the project has been implemented in full
compliance with them. The list of the laws affecting the project and its activities was provided to the
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 32

verification team and assurances were made that the project is acting within these laws.
Compliance was confirmed to be achieved through targeted interviews during the site visit,
including with the project’s government liaison.
Indonesia has the beginnings of jurisdictional REDD registration requirements. As stated in Section
2.5.6.1 of the MR, "With the issuance of Ministry of Environment and Forestry no P70, P71, P72
and P73 in late December 2017, REDD projects within the jurisdiction of Indonesia should now be
registered with the newly created National Registry System." This system has not yet been formally
adopted as confirmed by discussions with the project's government liaison. The audit team
understands that compliance under VCS Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ Requirements (JNR)
may occur at a future verification event.
4.4 Climate
4.4.1 Accuracy of GHG Emission Reduction and Removal Calculations
Aster Global conducted an intensive review of all input data, parameters, formulae, calculations,
conversions, statistics and resulting uncertainties and output data to ensure consistency with the
VCS Standard, the validated PD, and VM0007. Data with associated conversion factors, formulas,
and calculations were provided by the project proponent in spreadsheet format to ensure all
formulae were accessible for review. The verification team recalculated subsets of the analyses to
confirm correctness and assess if data transposition errors occurred to achieve a reasonable level
of assurance and to meet the materiality requirements of the project, as required by the VCS
Standard. The project proponent also provided answers to questions on calculations to ensure the
verification team understood the approach and could confirm its consistency with VM0007 and the
PD.
An overview of the data and parameters monitored, along with verification team findings, are
included in the table below. This is not an exhaustive list of all MRV parameters that are available
for verification, but all were data checked as part of the comprehensive desktop review:
Whether methods
and formulae set
Data Unit / Accuracy of GHG emission Appropriateness
out in the PD
Parameter reductions and removals of default values
have been
followed
∆CWPS-REDD Verification team confirmed the net This parameter Not applicable.
GHG emissions in the REDD was reviewed and
project scenario up to year t* were re-calculated using
correct by recalculating and methods set forth in
checking input values. The value the methodology
was traced to the quantification of and the PD and
carbon stock changes for the confirmed followed.
baseline, project
emission/removals and, ultimately
net GHG emission reductions
during the monitoring period.
∆CLK- The net greenhouse gas This parameter Not applicable.
AS,planned emissions due to activity shifting was reviewed and
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 33

leakage for projects preventing re-calculated using

planned deforestation was methods set forth in
confirmed by the verification team the methodology
through an independent check on and the PD and
source data from Global Forest confirmed followed.
Watch. As NewR exceeds AdefLK,
leakage is negative and therefore
excluded from accounting and
therefore 0.
∆CLK-ME Net greenhouse gas emissions Not applicable. Not applicable.
due to market-effects leakage is
not applicable as project activities
do not include timber production
and therefore 0.
∆CWPS-ARR Net GHG emissions in the ARR Not applicable. Not applicable.
project scenario up to year t* was
found to be not applicable this
period as no ARR activities have
begun and therefore 0.
∆CLK-ARR Net GHG emissions due to Not applicable. Not applicable.
leakage from the ARR project
activity up to year t* is not
applicable as no displacement of
pre-project agricultural activities
(LK-ARR) is expected. The project
will be planting a relatively small
area in comparison to adjacent
communities’ agroforestry
activities. Further, the project is
actively facilitating community
forestry activities which are by
definition not leakage, therefore
set to 0.
GHGWPS-WRC Net GHG emissions in the WRC This parameter Default factors were
project scenario up to year t* was was reviewed and confirmed correctly
confirmed through sourcing of re-calculated using obtained from the
values from the validated PD. methods set forth in IPCC for Dissolved
Independent re-calculation was the methodology Organic Carbon
performed to confirm correctness and the PD and (DOC).
of values applied and confirmed. confirmed followed.
GHGLK-ECO Net GHG emissions due to Not applicable. Not applicable.
ecological leakage from the WRC
project activity up to year t are not
applicable this period. Ecological
leakage was not applicable as no
peat re-wetting activities occurred
during the monitoring period and
confirmed during the site visit and
therefore set to 0.
For this monitoring period the project acquired multispectral satellite imagery which was used to
monitor the project area and detect any land cover changes. The final selection of data sources
applied to the LU/LC change analysis for this period used PlanetLabs multispectral imagery.
PlanetLabs was confirmed to be a suitable data source to meet M-MON requirements.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 34

An accuracy assessment was not performed in a traditional sense for this monitoring period
because forest/nonforest was delineated manually as a component of the workflow. The accuracy
assessment requirements per M-MON are satisfied. The audit team found this approach to be
reasonable and independently confirmed accuracy assessment control points for correctness.
The audit team observed analysis methods during a remote sensing meeting with project
proponents for generation of the 2019 disturbance detection analysis results. It was confirmed that
analysis methods are in line with best practice for remote sensing. All data was confirmed to employ
the appropriate resolution following M-MON requirements. The verification team reviewed the
stratification analysis results independently and confirmed that data sources were found to be in
good agreement, evidenced visually.
Biomass burning occurred this monitoring period as three distinct, detected fires from the NASA
MODIS FIRMS data. The presence of these fires, and no others, was confirmed through an
independent ocular evaluation of the PlanetLabs high-resolution imagery and NASA MODIS
hotspot data. Aboveground biomass was appropriately accounted for from fires during 2019.
The project has continued to assume conservative decomposition of killed but un-combusted trees
from year 2015. Post-2015 fire detailed, high-resolution drone imagery was collected to confirm
field staff observations that aboveground trees were killed but did not combust. The VVB confirmed
this assessment from a series of drone flights conducted during the 2017 site visit. The methods to
determine proportion of biomass burnt and the associated accuracy assessment were reviewed
during the initial monitoring period. The VVB agrees with the initial verifier that a decay function,
adjusted by proportion of live trees detected in burnt areas, is an appropriate method for emissions
estimates of deadwood decomposition for burned areas where trees did not combust.
The project has monitored degradation through implementation of Participatory Rural Appraisal in
2019. The results of the survey indicated potential for illegal tree extraction which was subsequently
confirmed to occur and resulting in a formal degradation survey using methods from the previous
degradation survey. As of March 2020, the project was noted to have completed 120 plots. The
remaining 70 plots couldn’t be completed due to access restriction imposed by village officials
following the COVID 19 pandemic.
For this monitoring period the project elected to conservatively include degradation and forego a
T-SIG significance test. For all monitored project emissions included in accounting for this
monitoring period the project elected to forego a T-SIG significance test. It was conservatively
assumed that all emissions sources be included in carbon accounting.
Activity shifting leakage was confirmed correct through sourcing of the data from Global Forest
Watch. As noted in Section 3.2.3 of the Monitoring Report, tree cover loss was assumed a surrogate
for deforestation. As NewR exceeds AdefLK, leakage is negative and therefore excluded from
accounting. The audit team confirmed that this is reasonable. Project case leakage must exceed
baseline leakage to be included in carbon accounting for activity shifting leakage.
Ecological leakage was not applicable as no peat re-wetting activities occurred during the
monitoring period and confirmed during the site visit. No leakage following the displacement of pre-
project agricultural activities (LK-ARR) is expected as the project will be planting a relatively small
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 35

area in comparison to adjacent communities’ agroforestry activities. Further, the project is actively
facilitating community forestry activities which are by definition not leakage. ARR crediting is not
claimed this period, the project reports that ARR crediting is planned to start in 2020.
Uncertainty calculations for all project activities were reviewed at length as prescribed by the
methodology and confirmed to result in a correct estimate of uncertainty. No uncertainty deduction
was required for this monitoring period.
The methods and formulae set out in the PD for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions,
and leakage were confirmed to have been followed. The total end of the 2019 monitoring period
carbon stocks in all project activities for all relevant pools resulting from carbon stock changes were
correctly quantified. Analysis of project inventory data used appropriate formulas, conversions, and
parameters, supported by scientific literature. Where ranges of parameters exist, or other types of
formulaic uncertainty, appropriately conservative values were used in data analysis.
In conclusion, the quantification methods for GHG emission reductions and removals have been
performed correctly and in accordance with the validated PD and VM0007 v1.5.
4.4.2 Quality of Evidence to Determine GHG Emission Reductions and Removals
During this verification assessment, the evidence provided by the project proponent was sufficient
in both quantity and quality to support the determination of GHG emission removals reported by
the project. Throughout the verification, the project proponent demonstrated a commitment toward
conservativeness and took all measures appropriate to ensure the reliability of evidence provided.
The threshold for materiality with respect to the aggregate of errors, omissions and
misrepresentations relative to the total reported GHG emission reductions and/or removals was
met for this project as defined in the Verification Sampling Plan. Materiality is a concept that errors,
omissions and misrepresentations could affect the GHG reduction assertion and influence the
intended users (ISO 14064-3:2006). As defined by VCS Version 4, the materiality will be 1% for
this large project.
The evidence provided to determine emission reductions reported in the Monitoring Report included
values, notations, units and sources. This evidence has been cross-checked with supplied emission
reduction calculation spreadsheets. The procedure for data recording, transfer and final
transposition was also verified and found to be in compliance with the monitoring plan outlined in
the PD. The verification team confirmed through cross checks that adequate monitoring
mechanisms are in place where the required parameters need to be monitored.
The audit team was provided access to the project’s central database where monitoring data is
compiled for quantification steps and reporting. The database clearly organizes project methods
and data for efficiency. In addition, the audit team was provided access to the project’s cloud-based
file storage facility. These tools ensure accurate information flow for monitoring efforts. Section
3.1.3.1 of the Monitoring Report provides additional detail on project data management methods
and structure.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 36

Interviews conducted (oral evidence) are outlined in Section 2.4 above, and the final documents
received from the Project Proponent supporting the determination of GHG removals can be viewed
in Appendix A.
4.4.3 Non-Permanence Risk Analysis
The Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project Monitoring Report utilized the non-
permanence risk analysis tool, AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool, to assess risk according to
internal risk, external risk, natural risk, and mitigation measures for minimizing risk. The verification
team reviewed the Non-Permanence Risk Report following VCS AFOLU Requirements Section
3.7.3 and confirmed that the project adheres to the requirements set out in the VCS AFOLU Non-
Permanence Risk Tool. At all levels, the verification team evaluated the rationale, appropriateness,
and justifications of risk ratings chosen by the project proponent Each risk factor was thoroughly
assessed for conformance. Any identified NCR and/or CL findings related to the AFOLU Non-
Permanence Risk Tool/Report are presented in Appendix B.
The final score was calculated to be 10%. A brief review of each factor is found in the table below:
Risk Factor Rationale & Quality Conclusion
Internal Risks
The management team includes individuals with
skills necessary to undertake all project A risk rating of -4
activities. Project proponents have experience is appropriate
in the development of carbon projects with the given the rationale
Project Management
same project activities thus also lowering overall provided and all
internal risk. Other project management statements made
components were confirmed to have been are substantiated.
applied during the site visit.
Project proponents provided the verification
team appropriate and verifiable documentation
to prove project financial breakeven is less than A risk rating of 0 is
4 years from this risk assessment. Items appropriate given
presented to the verification team by project the rationale
Financial viability
proponents give reasonable assurance that the provided and all
risk rating for financial viability is appropriately statements made
set. Values were sourced from reputable are substantiated.
sources and calculations were confirmed
correct through data checks.
A comprehensive NPV analysis was provided to
substantiate the most profitable alternative A risk rating of 0 is
(acacia plantation) is like the project scenario. appropriate given
Opportunity Cost
The financial model was confirmed through the rationale
materials that substantiate NPV assumptions provided.
including but not limited to; capex, opex, and
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 37

commodity price changes. Literature sources

were found to be reputable (The World Bank,
The Bank of Indonesia). The verification team
traced key values in the NPV calculations
worksheet to confirm their source and
correctness.
Legal contractual agreements to address
A risk rating of 0 is
enforceability of carbon stock protection for the
appropriate given
Project Longevity project exist as the project holds licenses that
the rationale
cover the entire project lifetime. As such, the
provided.
value applied was appropriate.
Total Internal Risks 0
External Risks
For this Indonesian project, the ownership and A risk rating of 2 is
resource access/use are held by different appropriate given
Land Tenure
entities. The government owns the land, and the rationale
the project retains ownership rights. provided.
Extensive stakeholder consultation and
community institution building was confirmed
during the site visit. Consultation on
community needs was confirmed for those
A risk rating of -5
communities visited that are close to the
is appropriate
Community Engagement project area. The project, through
given the rationale
partnerships has strong intentions to improve
provided.
the social and economic well-being of local
communities. This requirement is further met
through Gold Level distinction for Community
under the CCB Standards Third Edition.
Verification Team confirmed the political risk
to be rated correctly for the average
governance score from the World Bank. A risk rating of 0 is
Central Kalimantan, Indonesia participates in appropriate given
Political Risk
the Governors’ Climate and Forest Taskforce the rationale
and Indonesia is working on REDD+ provided.
Readiness activities as confirmed through an
internet search.
Total External Risks 0
Natural Risks
The risk rating given for fire was justified by A combined
scientific research which supports the notion natural risk rating
Natural Risk
that fires in the project region are primarily of 2.0 is
anthropogenic and primarily affect drained appropriate given
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 38

peatlands. Natural fire incidence is low as the the rationale

elevated water table in undrained peatlands provided and all
prevents spreading. Previous fires in drained statements made
areas visited during the site visit were are substantiated.
confirmed to be anthropogenic. The
verification team agrees with this assessment
as being appropriate.
Verification Team agrees that the forests of

the project area have a high species diversity
and therefore resistant to catastrophic
disturbance caused by insect pests or forests
diseases.
Project proponents appropriately base risk of

extreme weather risk rating from the likelihood
of wind disturbance which could influence
carbon stocks.
Local geology (i.e. volcanos, fault lines) are

not active in the project area and the risk
rating was appropriately given as zero.
Total Natural Risks 2.0
Overall Risk Rating = 2%

Non-Permanence Risk Rating = 10%
In summary, project proponents have accounted for risk factors in a reasonable manner and have
reached an overall risk rating that encompasses all risks of non-permanence. The project has
applied the minimum Non-Permanence Risk Rating of 10%. As required, risk will be reassessed
and given risk scores at each verification period.
4.4.4 Dissemination of Monitoring Plan and Results (CL4.2)
The monitoring report describes dissemination of project monitoring plan and results in Section
3.1.4. An identical process is to be applied as for dissemination of other stakeholder materials. The
audit team interviewed community members, including village leadership during the site visit to
determine the extent of distribution of project materials to all stakeholders. Site visit interviews
suggested that project materials are being disseminated to village leadership and further
dissemination to community members and disadvantaged individuals.
4.4.5 Optional Gold Level: Climate Change Adaptation Measures (GL1.3)
The monitoring report adequately describes the likely regional climate change and associated
impacts to environmental, economic, and social components. Adaptation measures are sufficiently
described including for instance, Integrated fishery management, Restoration of peat swamp
ecosystems and reforestation, and Planning and designing of climate resilient infrastructural
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 39

development. The audit team confirmed that the most likely regional climate change for the project
zone has been correctly obtained from the SERVIR-based One-Stop portal (SERVIR). The
verification team confirmed SERVIR data to be correctly reported in the monitoring report following
the CCB Standards GL1.3.
4.4.6 Optional Gold Level: Climate Change Adaptation Benefits (GL1.4)
The monitoring report states the project had a net positive impact on all groups in the communities
and no HCVs were negatively affected. Community and biodiversity resilience to climate change
has been strengthened with the implementation of the project. Diversity in income opportunities
has been increasing, as has knowledge of agricultural and forestry practices. The audit team
concludes that most, if not all project activities would not be occurring under the ‘without project’
scenario. Access to resources would be lost, as would the ecosystem services provided by the
intact forest ecosystem. These well-being impacts would not have occurred in the ‘without-project’
scenario.
4.5 Community
4.5.1 Community Impacts (CM2.1)
The project seeks to involve women, and does so with several techniques, including women-only
meetings and alternating comments between male and female meeting participants and mixed
meetings. Women have participated in training sessions and microfinance.
As evidence, many women from the communities were interviewed, including those involved in
income generating activities, like coconut oil production. Some activities, like coconut sugar
production training, are taught to young people who are relatively poor, and their families derive
their incomes through illegal logging.
There is little doubt that some of the project activities have direct, positive impacts on all community
members, including women and poorer members of the communities. Other activities are being
tested and will be more widely spread if they are effective and the communities show a desire to
be involved in them.
4.5.2 Negative Community Impact Mitigation (CM2.2)
No negative community impacts were expected by the project from project activities and none were
detected. This is a reasonable expectation, given the nature of the activities.
Some activities are targeted toward high risk groups, like the young adults whose families are
involved in illegal logging. Other activities are small scale pilot projects that are intended to be
spread further in the communities when project funding allows.
The only possible negative impacts of the project would be on people whose livelihoods depended
on degrading the forest. Mitigation includes developing alternative livelihoods for those people. The
coconut sugar training efforts are specifically targeted toward those with illegal livelihoods.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 40

A project such as this one is literally designed around the protection of the community and
biodiversity HCVs provided by the project area.
4.5.3 Net Positive Community Well-being (CM2.3)
The positive community impacts include the conservation of the community-related HCVs, which
would have been eliminated under the ‘without project’ scenario, and the income generating
activities that are being tried in different parts of the project zone. The project has demonstrated
their efforts at including women and at-risk community members in their income generating project
activities.
A number of new income opportunities are being developed, and training for sustainable
agricultural practices are being taught and employed by community farmers.
Site visit interviews indicated that community members believed life has improved since the project
began, though to varying degrees, depending on the community. The feelings toward the project
are very positive.
All have benefited from increased fire protection and many have benefited from education
assistance and increased measures of social capital. Some have benefited from new income
opportunities.
4.5.4 Protection of High Conservation Values (CM2.4)
The community-related HCVs all depend on the maintenance of the intact peat swamp forest
ecosystem. The conservation and restoration of this forest is the purpose of the project, for both
community and biodiversity sustainability. It is essentially impossible for the project to negatively
effect community HCVs.
4.5.5 Other Stakeholder Impacts (CM3.2-CM3.3)
A project of this nature has few negative impacts on anyone. Offsite groups were identified during
the project design, but none were considered likely to be impacted by the project. The project zone
was drawn to include all stakeholders likely to be affected by the project.
It is difficult to imagine negative impacts to other stakeholders, outside the project zone, as a result
of conserving a remote forest ecosystem.
No negative impacts on offsite stakeholders are known.
4.5.6 Community Monitoring Plan (CM4.1, CM4.2, GL2.2, GL2.3, GL2.5)
The project uses an “MRV tracker,” that lists all parameters to be monitored, and frequency. The
monitoring report describes a community monitoring plan based on the measure of 5 livelihood
assets: human, social, financial, physical and natural capitals. The MRV community tracker was
updated, and is included in appendix 5, showing differences between the original tracker and the
new one. The new tracker is more specific, incorporating the known project activities that were not
known when the original tracker was developed.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 41

The monitoring report includes some quantification of community metrics, aimed at increasing
potential for income, increased food production and management of community lands, protection
of HCVs from fire, rewetting, etc. It includes mention of a small area of deforestation and another
area with increased risk of degradation, but they are not considered to have a significant impact on
community-related HCVs. The project area includes all three community-related HCVs, which are
dependent on an intact forest ecosystem with undrained peat. Measures taken to protect the forest,
and thereby the HCVs, have been mostly effective, though a small amount of degradation is still
occurring.
Community monitoring shows there has been a positive trend in these measures of livelihood
assets. More and more people are being trained in the sustainable livelihood activities initiated in
the project. Interviews with community members involved, during the site visit, confirm that more
people are being trained and that some of the alternative livelihoods have been adopted or are
under consideration of adoption by participants.
The monitoring report indicates that the marginalized groups identified were women, youth, the
elderly and community members with at-risk occupations. Some project activities are targeted
toward these at-risk groups, including coconut sugar and oil production.
Women are targeted for increased participation through women-only meetings and meetings where
comments alternate between men and women. Gender equality through women empowerment is
described as a key outcome from the provision of micro-finance.
The project is putting forth an effort to include at-risk groups in project activities, and the overall
effect is that at-risk groups are deriving a net positive impact from the project.
The monitoring plan is being followed with the same criteria for evaluation, plus new criteria that is
tailored to address the specifics of some of the alternative livelihood training that has been
implemented.
It is difficult to imagine negative impacts to other stakeholders, outside the project zone, as a result
of conserving a remote forest ecosystem.
4.5.7 Community Monitoring Plan Dissemination (CM4.3)
The community monitoring plan and monitoring plan summaries were distributed to community
leaders and local project offices, posted on the CCB website. Full copies were also available
electronically, by request.
The assumption was that community leaders would disseminate the information in the report to the
community population in a timely manner. Community leaders’ receipt of the documents and the
leaders that informed community members of their existence was confirmed through multiple
interviews with community members and community leadership.
The dissemination of project documentation includes community meetings, meetings with minority
groups, women, youth and the elderly.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 42

SOPs include instruction on the way the meetings are to be run, in order to encourage feedback
from all, including people who may not be socially inclined to make a public statement.
4.5.8 Optional Gold Level: Short-term and Long-term Community Benefits (GL2.2)
The project uses five key livelihood assets to measure community well-being: Human, social,
financial, physical and natural capitals as defined by the UK Dept. for International Development.
The monitoring report provided measures of these five assets, based on numbers of people
involved in various activities over the last two years.
For most criteria, there has been a positive trend in these measures of livelihood assets.
The monitoring report further states that monitoring results are evaluated by the community
members and project staff at meetings where they are discussed.
During the site visit, interviewees in the communities were eager to discuss their involvement with
project activities and were frank about whether they were interested in them and whether they
would continue with them.
The activities and numbers of beneficiaries listed do not appear to be overstated. Some
communities have high praise for the project and feel they have benefited significantly. Others like
the project and feel they have benefited, but the benefit only slightly improved lives in the
community. Auditors found these community interviews confirmed project claims.
4.5.9 Optional Gold Level: Smallholder/community member Risks (GL2.3)
There are essentially no risks the auditors can identify for community members to participate in the
project’s activities.
No one is forced to participate. The only activities prohibited are illegal logging, hunting and
collecting. Project activities, like sustainable agricultural training, do not require the trainee to adopt
the practices.
A physical risk exists for coconut sugar tappers, in that they must climb coconut trees, with the risk
of falling. The project provides training on climbing the trees and discourages tapping tall
specimens or other trees that are deemed difficult to climb.
In summary, project activities are low-risk for community participants, with the possible exception
of falling from heights when tapping coconut trees. That risk is both clear to participants and
effectively managed.
4.5.10 Optional Gold Level: Marginalized and/or Vulnerable Community Groups (GL2.4)
Identified marginalized community groups include women, youth, the elderly and community
members with at-risk occupations (mostly illegal loggers).
Coconut sugar production training targets youth from families who make their livings on illegal
logging. Coconut oil production training targets women. Young people are targeted for jobs and
other income producing opportunities when they conclude formal education.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 43

Interviews and observations during the site visit confirm that these at-risk populations are targeted
for these activities. In addition, several local young people have received field staff jobs, including
two women.
Barriers are addressed by directly approaching the targeted groups. In addition, there are women-
only meetings and meetings where comments are taken alternatively between men and women.
At this time, no negative impacts to any marginalized group is expected, except for families who
derive their income through illegal logging. This negative impact is mitigated through targeting the
young people who would go into illegal logging as a trade, for income-producing activity training.
Marginalized groups were identified and targeted for inclusion in project activities. Evidence can be
seen at the training sessions, by the people hired as field staff and through interviews with
participating community members.
4.5.11 Optional Gold Level: Net Impacts on Women (GL2.5)
The results of monitoring show that women received net positive benefits from the project and that
they were involved in decision-making, as described in several places in the report.
The site visit confirmed that women were involved in project activities and some activities were
specifically geared toward and run by women (coconut milk/oil production and sales, chickens).
There was no indication that women believed they lacked input.
The general feeling among all community members is that the project is a net benefit for their well-
being, ranging from a slight benefit to a more significant one.
4.5.12 Optional Gold Level: Benefit Sharing Mechanisms (GL2.6)
Site visit interviews and observations confirm that the project benefits are distributed based on
community-based decisions.
There is general satisfaction with the project in the local communities.
Benefit distribution is carried out, as described in the validated PDD.
4.5.13 Optional Gold Level: Governance and Implementation Structures (GL2.8)
The project’s governance and implementation structures enable full participation of community
members through strategic planning meetings and meeting structure and meeting location.
All implementation structures regarding community-related project activities involve discussions

with the community members involved.
During interviews, community members said all decisions were made mutually between the
community and the project. There was general satisfaction with the project and people believe they
are being treated fairly.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 44

4.5.14 Optional Gold Level: Smallholders/Community Members Capacity Development (GL2.9)
During the site visit, community members were able to show the auditor the demonstrable activities
they were involved in or for which they had received training.
In addition, some communities have visited other communities that have implemented project
activities they are considering, increasing social ties between communities.
It is clear that community members are increasing their knowledge of new potential income sources
and new techniques for agricultural activities.
4.6 Biodiversity
4.6.1 Biodiversity Changes (B2.1)
The monitoring report states that since the project seeks to protect an intact swamp forest from
conversion and drainage, maintaining the current high level of biodiversity is the best that can be
expected. There is little scope for increase due to natural limiting factors. Changes in biodiversity
are therefore limited to loss.
No significant change in biodiversity was detected during this verification period. Minimal
deforestation was detected, amounting to less than 0.01% of the project area, and some illegal
logging detected, as well. A total of approximately 1% of the project area has been affected by
illegal logging. Neither are expected to have any material effect on populations depending on a
wider area.
Camera trap surveys, hunter surveys and orangutan nest surveys are also used. Camera traps
indicate the continued presence of a wide range of species, the number of hunters is apparently
down and orangutan density remains high.
Monitoring habitat degradation and loss via remote sensing, coupled with on-ground surveys and
sampling techniques makes sense in this project. A member of the audit team sighted orangutan
nests and heard calls of gibbons during excursions into the forest and during the stay at Central
Camp. It is reasonable to assume wildlife populations and diversity have not changed significantly.
4.6.2 Mitigation Actions (B2.3)
There were no negative impacts on biodiversity or HCV attributes recorded, so no measures were
necessary to mitigate impacts, beyond the routine operation of the project.
4.6.3 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts (B2.2)
The project seeks to preserve an intact ecosystem, rich in biodiversity. The ‘without project’
scenario results in the nearly complete elimination of that ecosystem, and the wildlife it includes.
Verifiers reviewed remote sensing imagery and visited areas determined to be degraded. Several
orangutan nests were spotted, and the calls of gibbons were heard during the site visit.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 45

4.6.4 High Conservation Values Protected (B2.4)
The project zone includes all three biodiversity-related HCVs: vulnerable species in significant
concentrations, significant large landscapes with viable populations of most naturally occurring
species and threatened or rare ecosystems. The project’s goal is to protect and preserve these
HCVs.
Some degradation was reported and confirmed by verifiers, amounting to about 1% of the project
area. The degradation was caused by illegal acts and not by the project. Project activities are
designed to avoid HCV degradation and also replace the illegal livelihoods that cause degradation.
4.6.5 Invasive Species (B2.5)
Species used in planting efforts are native to the area. Several of these species were seen during
the site visit as part of the planting effort near the southern canal.
4.6.6 Impacts of Non-native Species (B2.6)
The project proponents state that no non-native species are used in the project, and the list provide
was confirmed. Species seen used in replanting efforts near the southern canal were all on the list.
4.6.7 GMO Exclusion (B2.7)
The project management’s word that no GMOs were used to generate GHG emissions reductions
or removals was accepted. This was confirmed through site visit observations on planting efforts
and discussions with project management.
4.6.8 Inputs Justification (B2.8)
The only fertilizers to be used will be organic, and they will be replacing chemical fertilizers and
burning stubble. There should be less impact than in the BAU approach of the communities. No
chemical pesticides or biological control agents are used in the project.
4.6.9 Negative Offsite Biodiversity Impacts (B3.1) and Mitigation Actions (B3.2)
It is not possible for a project of this nature to produce negative offsite impacts, other than those
cause by leakage.
4.6.10 Net Offsite Biodiversity Benefits (B3.3)
Net biodiversity impacts from a project that protects habitat within a project area is unlikely to be
anything but positive or neutral.
Biodiversity within the project zone is unquestionably impacted positively, especially over the
‘without project’ scenario. Activity shifting leakage is unlikely to affect an area greater than the area
under protection. With no detected negative offsite biodiversity impacts, net biodiversity impacts
are positive.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 46

4.6.11 Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (B4.1, B4.2, GL3.4)
Results of monitoring were reported, alongside monitoring results from previous monitoring
periods, according to the parameters described in the validated project description.
Habitat health is tracked through remote sensing, species surveys, hunter surveys and patrol data.
Verifiers visited degraded habitat identified by remote sensing. Species surveys could not be
repeated during the site visit, but excursions through the forest provided visual evidence of a
significant orangutan population (nests) and gibbon calls were heard at the central camp, near the
southern canal, confirming the presence of these endangered species.
The monitoring plan tracks the general health of the habitat on which the biodiversity-related HCVs
are dependent. Monitoring results are roughly similar through the years, though there has been an
increase in degradation due to illegal logging detected. It appears maintenance of the existing
habitat has been mostly effective.
The population trends of the endangered and critically endangered species found in the project
zone were reported, along with the key threats to those species. Population trends appear to be
stable, with some small losses due to logging, hunting and, in previous verification periods, fire.
The main threat to all the species is habitat loss, though some also face hunting pressure.
According to interviews with project staff and observations during the site visit, biodiversity
monitoring is being conducted as described in the validated project description.
4.6.12 Biodiversity Monitoring Plan Dissemination (B4.3)
As described elsewhere in this review, the verification team observed that dissemination of project
materials occurred consistently to leaders of the communities. In some cases, community
leadership did not further disseminate to others in the community. The action plan for monitoring
plan dissemination is also described under Indicators G3.1, G3.3, G3.5 and CM4.3. The verification
team believes that biodiversity monitoring results dissemination, in addition to other project
components, has a high potential to be improved upon by the next verification as evidenced by the
revised SOPs. If followed, the verification team believes it is likely that the revised SOPs will lead
to increased awareness of project to all interested community members, beyond leadership.
4.6.13 Optional Gold Level: Trigger Species Population Trends (GL3.3)
This Gold Level Indicator is applicable for the project. The main measure was confirmed during the
site visit which was to maintain the population status of each trigger species thereby avoiding the
conversion of their habitats and to continue to protect and patrol it for fires as a component in
project activities. The project was also confirmed to be monitoring for hunting pressure, which so
far has generally been light or nonexistent.
4.6.14 Optional Gold Level: Effectiveness of Threat Reduction Actions (GL3.4)
This Gold Level Indicator is applicable for the project. The effectiveness of threat reduction actions
was inherently confirmed through verification of the monitoring results for whether habitat is
shrinking or not. The main indicators of population trends of trigger species are the indicators that
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 47

threats to habitat are being addressed. The audit team confirmed that the monitoring plan includes
monitoring habitat through remote sensing, and collecting data on the number of hunters reported,
the number of species hunted and the number of individuals taken and fire data and species
surveys were also confirmed to be used.
4.7 Additional Project Implementation Information
No additional project implementation is relevant for reporting here as details on project

implementation are included in preceding sections
4.8 Additional Project Impact Information
The project has been able to demonstrate impacts to all CCB indicators as mentioned throughout
this report in addition to achieving CCB Gold Level. No further steps to verify additional monitoring
were warranted. The reported project impact information was sufficient and suitable for the
verification of the project’s CCB impacts.
5 VERIFICATION CONCLUSION
After review of all project information, procedures, calculations, and supporting documentation,
Aster Global confirms that the monitoring conducted by the project proponent, along with the
supporting Monitoring Report, are accurate and consistent with all aforementioned VCS Version 4
and CCB Third Edition criteria, the validated PD, and the selected methodology (VM0007). Aster
Global confirms that The Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project Monitoring
Report (v1.0 dated 29 September 2020) has been implemented in accordance with the validated
PD.
Aster Global confirms all verification activities, including objectives, scope and criteria, level of
assurance, validated Project Description implementation, and project monitoring report adherence
to VCS Version 4 (and all associated updates), and CCB Project Design Standards (Third Edition),
as documented in this report are complete. Aster Global concludes without any qualifications or
limiting conditions that The Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project Monitoring
Report (v1.0 dated 29 September 2020) meets the requirements of VCS Version 4 (and all
associated updates) and CCB Project Design Standards (Third Edition) for the verification
period/reporting period (VCS: 01 January 2019 – 31 December 2019 - 1 year and CCB: 01 Jan
2018 – 31 Dec 2019 - 2 years). In addition, Aster Global asserts that the project complies with the
verification criteria for projects set out in the Third Edition of the CCB Standards to achieve Gold
Level Distinction for Climate, Community, and Biodiversity.
The GHG assertion provided by PT. Rimba Makmur Utama and verified by Aster Global has
resulted in the GHG emissions reduction or removal of 5,677,812 tCO2 equivalents by the project
during the verification period/reporting period (VCS: 01 January 2019 – 31 December 2019 - 1 year
and CCB: 01 Jan 2018 – 31 Dec 2019 - 2 years). This value is gross of the 10% (567,781 tCO2
equivalents) buffer withholding based on the non-permanence risk assessment tool. This results in
5,110,030 tCO2 equivalents of credits eligible for issuance as VCUs.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 48

Monitoring period:
VCS: 01 January 2019 to 31 December 2019;
CCB: 01 January 2018 to 31 December 2019;

Verified GHG emission reductions and removals in the above verification period:
Year Baseline Project Leakage Deductions for Net GHG

emissions or emissions or emissions AFOLU pooled emission
removals removals (tCO2e) buffer account reductions or
(tCO2e) (tCO2e) (tCO2e) removals
(tCO2e)
2019 6,479,584 801,772 0 567,781 5,110,030
Total 6,479,584 801,772 0 567,781 5,110,030
Submittal Information
Report Submitted to: Verified Carbon Standard Association
One Thomas Circle NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20005
PT. Rimba Makmur Utama

Menara BCA, Fl. 45, Jl. MH Thamrin No. 1, Jakarta, Indonesia
Contact- Dharsono Hartono, dharsono@ptrmu.com, +62 (0)21
2358 4777
Report Submitted by: Aster Global Environmental Solutions, Inc.
3800 Clermont St. NW
North Lawrence, OH 44666
Aster Global Lead
Verifier Name and
Signature
Eric Jaeschke
Lead Verifier
Aster Global President
Name and Signature
Janice McMahon
President
Date: 15 November 2020
EJ/010_03-VCS+CCB Katingan_VerReport_Final_20201115.doc
K pf 11/15/20f
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 49

APPENDIX A: DOCUMENTS RECEIVED/REVIEWED
15 June 2020
• VCS_CCB_Katingan_Project_Monitoring_Report_2019.docx
• VCS_CCB_Katingan_Project_Monitoring_Report_2019.pdf
 Appendices
• MR_2018-2019_Appendix_2_and_3_Events & Grievances.docx
• MR_2018-2019_Appendix_5_Community_MRV_Tracker.docx
• MR_2018-2019_Appendix_6_Biodiversity_Species_List.docx
• MR_2019_Appendix_1_NPRA.docx
• MR_2019_Appendix_4_Climate_MRV_Tracker.xlsx
 Emission_Calculations
• Master_Spreadsheet_2019.xlsx
• Monitoring_Result_MR2019.xlsx
• Uncertainty_Calculation_MR2019.xlsx
 NPRA_Supporting_Documents
• MR_2019_NPRA_Political Risk_ World Bank Indicators.xlsx
• CONFIDENTIAL_DOCUMENTS
o Katingan Financial Model_60-Year Projection_Updated to end-
2019.pdf
o Katingan NPV Analysis_60-Year Projection_Updated to end-
2019.xlsx
o PGR_PGH_PGFI - 6th Amended and Restated
Agreement_Executed.pdf
30 June 2020
• 010_03_CCB-VCS_Katingan Field Plan Draft_RMU comment.docx
• 945_Surat Keterangan Perjalanan Ms. Rosa.pdf
• Project activity by village.xlsx
• Proposed VCS-CCB audit itinerary_20 - 26 July 2020.xlsx
20 July 2020
• Revised VCS-CCB audit itinerary_20 - 27 July 2020.xlsx
30 July 2020
• Planet mosaic q1 2020
o planet_2020_q1_projectedUTM49S.img
o Proyect_area.shp
05 August 2020
• AGB Stratification 2019
o 2019_AGB_stratification.shp
• SHP Intensive Reforestation 2019
o Area Intensive Reforestation 2019.shp
• Emission from deforestation MR 2019.xlsx
• Katingan_burntarea_2019_withsegiri_clipwithstrata_NRT_edit_110620_clip.shp
• PeatEmissions WPS RMU DSR 20200511.xlsx
• PLD_Strata.shp
• Uncertainty_Calculation_MR2019 (1).xlsx
06 August 2020
• 2020 Forest cover map Katingan area SV20200421_final.pdf
• 20102019_mosaic.tif
• PRA_Result_MR2019.xlsx
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 50

• SHP KMP Burn Area 2019(1)(1).zip
14 September 2020
• 1. General Guidelines Program Implementation.docx
• 2. Technical Guidelines Program Implementation.docx
• 3. Technical Guideline for Holding a Village-level Meeting.docx
• 4. Facilitation Guidelines for Technical Department Activities Meeting.docx
• Katingan Financial Model_60-Year Projection_Updated to end-2019.pdf
• Katingan Financial Model_60-Year Projection_Updated to end-2019.xlsx
• Katingan Project 1477 MR_Summary_English_2019.pdf
• Katingan Project 1477 MR_Summary_Indonesian_2019.pdf
• List of Recipients of MR Summaries and Flyers.xlsx
• Master_Spreadsheet_2019_rev_Rd 1 response.xlsx
• Response Katingan_CCB_Ver_Rd1.docx
• RMU Financial Audit 2018.pdf
• Scanned 2018 MoEF RMU Unit I Assessment Detailed Scoring.pdf
• Scanned 2018 MoEF RMU Unit I Assessment Summary.pdf
• Scanned 2019 MoEF RMU Unit II Assessment Detailed Scoring.pdf
• Scanned 2019 MoEF RMU Unit II Assessment Summary.pdf
• Scanned Stump Survey Plots 14i 22f 22i.pdf
• Statement of Auditor RMU Financial Audit 2019.pdf
• Synopsis of MoEF Assessment of RMU ERCs 2018-2019.docx
• VO17010_03_Katingan_verif_VCS_Findings_Rd1.xlsx
• VCS CCB Katingan_Project Monitoring Report_2019 Round1 Revision.docx
25 September 2020
• Company Regulation RMU_highres.pdf
28 September 2020
• VCS CCB Katingan Project Monitoring Report 2019 Final.pdf
• VCS CCB Katingan Project Monitoring Report 2019 Final.docx
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 51

APPENDIX B: VCS NCRS/CLS/OFI SUMMARY
Item Number 1
VCS Standard 3.1 General Requirements
VCS Version 4
Requirements
Document
19 September 2019,
(Section)
VCS Standard 3.1.3 Projects and the implementation of project activities shall not lead
VCS Version 4 to the violation of any applicable law, regardless of whether or not the law
Requirements is enforced.
Document
19 September 2019,
(Description)
Applicability to Y
Project
(Y or N/A)
Requirement Y
Met
(Y, N or Pending)
Evidence Used to MR
Assess (Location in
PD/MR or Supporting
Documents)
Aster Global Findings The Monitoring Report Section 2.5.6.1 lists 50 different laws and
regulations that are relevant to project activities, as of the end of 2019, and
states the project has been implemented in full compliance with them. The
list of the laws affecting the project and its activities was provided to the
verification team and assurances were made that the project is acting
within these laws. Compliance was confirmed to be achieved through
targeted interviews by the audit team with project staff. The project follows
an annual monitoring framework to maintain the two concession licenses
with reporting requirements to the government.
It is not believed that the project is doing anything illegal at this point. No
evidence of any illegal activities were observed by the auditors through a
risk-based review.
Round 1 CL: Please provide evidence of the project's ongoing compliance with the
NCR/CL/OFI annual government mandated concession-holding requirements. An
original scanned summary document and a short synopsis translated into
English is sufficient.
Round 1 Response from We are attaching scanned copies of MOEF assessment reports of RMU
Project Proponent performance and criteria againts the government mandated requirements
for the year 2018 and 2019. For each year there are two documents: 1.
Summary of the assessment along with final score, and 2. Complete
scoring sheet. RMU's ecosytem restoration concession unit 1 (the district
of Katingan side) was evaluated in 2018 while unit 2 (The District of
Kotawaringin Timur side) in 2019. We are attaching a short synopsis of
these documents in English.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 52

Aster Global Final The MOEF assessment reports were reviewed in response to the finding.
Findings The summaries and synopsis indicated that scoring under the Ministry of
Environment and Forestry was adequate for years 2018 and 2019 for
Katingan district and Kotawaringin Timur district respectively. In addition it
is clear to the audit team that the institutional knowledge of the RMU team
and regular reporting of the applicable laws for implemented project
activities demonstrates that project activities do not lead to the violation of
any laws. The item is addressed.
Item Number 2
VCS Standard 3.4 Project Documentation
VCS Version 4
Requirements
Document
19 September 2019,
(Section)
VCS Standard 3.4.3 The project proponent shall use the VCS Monitoring Report
VCS Version 4 Template or an approved combined monitoring report template available
Requirements on the Verra website, as appropriate, and adhere to all instructional text
Document within the template.
19 September 2019,
(Description)
Applicability to Y
Project
(Y or N/A)
Requirement Y
Met
(Y, N or Pending)
Evidence Used to MR
Assess (Location in
PD/MR or Supporting
Documents)
Aster Global Findings The project is using the most current version of VCS Monitoring Report
Template properly. However, some of the information contained in Section
2.1.4 appears to be out of date.
Round 1 CL: Please ensure the names of individuals involved in the project as
NCR/CL/OFI reported in Section 2.1.4 are up to date.
Round 1 Response from We have change the contact person of Permian Global from Nathan
Project Proponent Reneboog to Juan Chang in the revised Monitoring Report
Aster Global Final The contact person was confirmed changed in the updated Monitoring
Findings Report. The item is addressed.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 53

Item Number 3
Approved VCS Module c) Estimating land-use and land-cover (LU/LC) change data in cloud-
VMD0015, Version 2.1 obscured areas:
(20 November 2012),
REDD Methodological
Module: Methods for
monitoring of
greenhouse gas
emissions and removals
(M-MON), Sectoral
Scope 14
(Section)
(Description) As described in module BL-UP (Part 2, section 2.2.3) multi-date images
must be used to reduce cloud cover to no more than 10% of any image.
Applicability to Y
Project
(Y or N/A)
Requirement Y
Met
(Y, N or Pending)
Evidence Used to MR Section 3.3.3
Assess (Location in
PD/MR or Supporting
Documents)
Aster Global Findings Planetlabs imagery was used this period for the LU/LC change maps and
cloud cover was an issue for certain dates after the end of the monitoring
period. PALSAR 2 data is not susceptible to cloud cover issues but
PlanetLabs data is. It is not clear to the audit team how the M-MON
requirements regarding cloud obstructions were satisfied as cloud
percentages by image were not found to be reported.
Round 1 CL: Please clarify whether the multi-spectral imagery used for the
NCR/CL/OFI monitoring period change detection satisfied the cloud obstruction
requirements per M-MON. If warranted, please include reporting in the
monitoring report to support assertions.
Round 1 Response from 3 different PlanetLabs images were initially used to detect and quantify
Project Proponent changes in this monitoring period; a mosaic for the first quarter of 2020, an
image from 21st April 2020 and one from 12th May 2020. The main area
covered by cloud is not accessible, being in the north central part of the
project area, and therefore the possibility of any changes occurring there
are non-existent. Nonetheless, 2 other PlanetLabs images (12th June 2020
and 5th July 2020) that became available after the submission of the
Monitoring Report were processed in the same manner as the original
ones. This analysis confirmed that no disturbances happened during 2019
in that area. Including the new images, the total cloud free coverage of the
PA is 98.78% and therefore satisfies the requirements per M-MON. The
Monitoring Report narative on section 3.1.3.3.1 Remote Sensing has been
updated to include the list of new images used.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 54

Aster Global Final The audit team accepts this explanation for procurement of sufficient cloud
Findings free imagery as prescribed by M-MON. The MR Section 3.1.3.3.1 was
confirmed to include the extra detail to describe all imagery dates of
PlanetLabs obtained. The item is addressed.
Item Number 4
Approved VCS Module 5.2.2.1 Degradation through extraction of trees for illegal timber or
VMD0015,Version 2.1 fuelwood and charcoal
(20 November 2012),
REDD Methodological
Module: Methods for
monitoring of
greenhouse gas
(M-MON), Sectoral
Scope 14
(Section)
(Description) The first step in addressing forest degradation is to complete a participatory
rural appraisal (PRA) of the communities inside and surrounding the
project area to determine if there is the potential for illegal extraction of
trees to occur.
Applicability to Y
Project
(Y or N/A)
Requirement Y
Met
(Y, N or Pending)
Evidence Used to MR Section 5.3.1
Assess (Location in
PD/MR or Supporting
Documents)
Aster Global Findings A degradation survey was performed in late 2019, consisting of 222
individuals as described in the MR Section 3.2.2.2. The results of the
survey indicated potential for illegal tree extraction which itself was
confirmed during the site visit (as was the case for prior years). The project
has previously taken important long-term steps to try to curb illegal logging
in the project area. Table 53 in the MR reports "Number of incidence of
illegal logging" and it was noted that 2019 was left blank.
Round 1 CL: Please ensure Table 53 of the MR reports the monitoring period
NCR/CL/OFI logging incidences appropriately.
Round 1 Response from Illegal logging found in measured MR2019 stump plot is respecively 31
Project Proponent incidents in 2018 and 50 incidents in 2019 (8 out of the 50 was repeated
incident in the same area) brings the total of 73 incidents
The Monitoring Report has been updated to include the missing values in
Table 53
Aster Global Final Table 53 was found to be appropriately updated in the newly revised
Findings Monitoring Report. The item is addressed.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 55

Item Number 5
Approved VCS Module 5.2.2.1 Degradation through extraction of trees for illegal timber or
VMD0015,Version 2.1 fuelwood and charcoal
(20 November 2012),
REDD Methodological
Module: Methods for
monitoring of
greenhouse gas
(M-MON), Sectoral
Scope 14
(Section)
(Description) If the limited sampling does provide evidence that trees are being removed
in the buffer area, then a more systematic sampling must be implemented.
Applicability to Y
Project
(Y or N/A)
Requirement Y
Met
(Y, N or Pending)
Evidence Used to MIR Section 3.2.2.2.2; master_spreadsheet_2019.xlsx
Assess (Location in
PD/MR or Supporting
Documents)
Aster Global Findings a) More systematic sampling was performed as part of a continuous stump
inventory with established sampling locations. Stump survey plots could
not be visited due to the pandemic and therefore clarification is requested
on whether inventory SOPs underwent any significant changes for this
period.
b) Some plots were noted to have variable stump stocking as a result of

the re-visiting of stump plots, verifiers note there are procedures in place
to prevent double counting.
c) The verifier is requesting a random sample of 5 data sheets for the stump
surveys performed this monitoring period' 14-i, 22-f, 22-i, 11-j, and 10-i.
Round 1 CL: Please clarify if any significant changes occurred with respect to
NCR/CL/OFI Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for stump surveys. Please also
provide scanned plot data sheets as noted in the finding.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 56

Round 1 Response from a) No significant changes was made in the stump survey inventory SOP
Project Proponent used for MR 2019. Minor improvement was made in order to track the
stumps found within the plots.
b) The SOP already apply the double counting mitigaton in the re-visited
plots.
As directed by the SOP, surveyors will only count and measure the new
stumps (with no plastic label on it). By this, double counting can be avoided
c) We will share data sheets for plot 14-i, 22-f, 22-i along with this respond.
The datasheet for the plot 11-j, and 10-i are not available to share as these
plots were not surveyed (due to pandemic reason).
Aster Global Final The audit team reviewed the supplied plot data sheets for plots 14-i, 22-f,
Findings 22-i. The data sheets were found to be in good agreement with the entered
stump survey data used in quantification. No action is required by the
project proponents. The item is addressed.
Item Number 6
VCS Methodology Parameter
VMD0013 Version 1.1 9
March 2015
Estimation of
greenhouse gas
emissions from
biomass and peat
burning (E–BPB)
Sectoral Scope 14
(Section)
(Description) Ebiomassburn,i,t
Greenhouse gas emissions due to biomass burning as part of deforestation

activities in stratum i in year t of each GHG (CO2, CH4, N2O) (t CO2e)
Applicability to Y
Project
(Y or N/A)
Requirement Y
Met
(Y, N or Pending)
Evidence Used to Master_Spreadsheet_2019.xlsx
Assess (Location in
PD/MR or Supporting
Documents)
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 57

Aster Global Findings Fire was reported this period as confirmed by imagery review, remote
sensing demonstration, and site visit pursuits. However it appears as
though parameter Aburn,i,t is slightly discrepant for stratum "Burnt Forest"
and "Forest" as related to the shapefile results of fire monitoring.
Further, the audit team was unable to locate the source of the repeat burn
hectares "Subsidence from uncontrolled burning of peat (Fire) (cm) 2019"
(1st, 2nd, 3rd). Clarification is requested on where this calcuation takes.
Round 1 CL: Please clarify the correctness of values for parameter Aburn,i,t as
NCR/CL/OFI noted in the finding, providing updated calculations and reporting as
needed. Please also explain the process and clarify the location for
"Subsidence from uncontrolled burning of peat (Fire) (cm) 2019" (1st, 2nd,
3rd) within the "Fire_WRC_2019" tab of the master monitoring worksheet.
Round 1 Response from There was a last minute revision made on the area burnt in the project
Project Proponent area. Unfortunately, somehow, the revised version was not included in
the final GHG calculation.
The revision was only focused on the specific area of 7.72 Ha, previously
classified as “forest” and then revised as “burnt forest”. Therefore the “burnt
forest” increased from 789.54 Ha to 797.26 Ha (+7.72 Ha), and the “forest”
decreased from 83.96 Ha to 76.24 Ha (-7.72 Ha). No revision was made
for other classes.
We have updated the master spreadsheet and the Monitoring Report

based on the revision explained above.
Subsidence of uncontrolled burning is available file

PeatEmissions_WPS_RMU_DSR_20200830.xlsx already provided to
Auditor and available in the database.
Aster Global Final The audit team confirmed that calculations and their derivative components
Findings are correct. Hectares burnt in 2019 are appropriately included for
computations. The item is addressed.
Item Number 7
General General
(Description) General
Applicability to Y
Project
(Y or N/A)
Requirement Y
Met
(Y, N or Pending)
Evidence Used to Katingan Emission Calculations 2019 Master worksheet; MR Section
Assess (Location in 3.2.2.2.4
PD/MR or Supporting
Documents)
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 58

Aster Global Findings The VVB noted in review of the final estimated VCU calculations and
reporting that the VCS decimal guidance for reporting values was followed
appropriately. However, the audit team noted that a consistent decimal
convention did not appear to have been followed in calculation worksheets
where data is transcribed from different sources. An Opportunity for
Improvement (OFI) is issued but no action is required of the project
proponent.
The end of monitoring report section 3.2.2.2.4 requires a few grammatical

corrections.
Round 1 OFI: The proponent is suggested to maintain a consistent decimal

NCR/CL/OFI convention for project calculations.
Please ensure grammatical discrepancies are fixed throughout monitoring

report.
Round 1 Response from We have corrected the decimals in the update Monitoring Report
Project Proponent Document
We have corrected the grammatical errors in 3.2.2.2.4

Aster Global Final The action required for this element has been taken. The item is
Findings addressed.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 59

APPENDIX C: CCB NCRS/CLS/OFI SUMMARY
Summary of Verification Findings to Date
Criterion Required/ Conformance

Optional Y/N N/A
General Section
G1 Project Goals, Design & Long-Term Viability Required Y
G2 -Without-Project Land Use Scenario & Required Y
Additionality
G3 Stakeholder Engagement Required Y
G4 Management Capacity Required Y
G5 Legal Status and Property Rights Required Y
Climate Section
CL1 Without-Project Climate Scenario Required Y
CL2 Net Positive Climate Impacts Required Y
CL3 Offsite Climate Impacts Required Y
CL4 Climate Impact Monitoring Required Y
GL1 Climate Change Adaptation Benefits Optional Y
Community Section
CM1 Without-Project Scenario for Communities Required Y
CM2 Net Positive Community Impacts Required Y
CM3 Offsite Stakeholder Impacts Required Y
CM4 Community Impact Monitoring Required Y
GL2 Exceptional Community Benefits Optional Y
Biodiversity Section
B1 Without-Project Biodiversity Scenario Required Y
B2 Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts Required Y
B3 Offsite Biodiversity Impacts Required Y
B4 Biodiversity Impacts Monitoring Required Y
GL3 Exceptional Community Benefits Optional Y
Verification Non-conformance/Clarification Request
G3 Stakeholder Engagement
Indicator G3.1 - Describe how full The monitoring report states that the project publicizes
project documentation has been made documentation in Indonesian and English, through
accessible to Communities and Other appropriate means, including newsletters, workshops,
Stakeholders, how summary project meetings, notice boards and the project website.
documentation (including how to access
full documentation) has been actively A summary monitoring report was prepared.
disseminated to Communities in relevant
local or regional languages, and how The project holds regular stakeholder meetings,
widely publicized information meetings amounting to 375 during the monitoring period, attended
have been held with Communities and by thousands of people. A table summary of meetings
Other Stakeholders. was provided in Appendix 2, showing many meetings took
place on a variety of subjects.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 60

REPORT Guidance Language

Describe the steps taken to verify the project proponent provided stakeholders with access to
project information in accordance with G3.1 – G3.3, specifically:
• Full project documentation has been made accessible to communities and other
stakeholders.
• Relevant and adequate information about potential costs, risks and benefits to
communities has been provided prior to any decisions.
• Appropriate actions were taken to explain the verification process to communities and
other stakeholders.
Include details of documentation assessed and observations made during the site visit. Provide and
justify an overall conclusion as to whether the project provided appropriate access to information to
communities and other stakeholders.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance: Section 2.3.1 – 2.3.3 of the MR, cover page of MR,
Appendix 2 of the MR, site visit interviews with community
members.
Findings: The project website, found at https://katinganproject.com/
(URL in cover page did not work on 17 July 2020) did not
include current project documentation, but did include
documentation from the previous verification and
validation. No notification that the project is under
verification was found on the website.
The Verra website, itself, has not been updated with

current documentation.
During the site visit, most community members stated

they were aware of the new monitoring report, and knew
where they could find a copy if they wanted to read it.
Summary reports, in Indonesian and English, were not

provided to the auditors.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): The project documentation does not seem to be available
on the internet. Please provide a link to the
documentation, if it was updated for this monitoring
period.
Please provide copies of the Indonesian and English

language summary documents.
Date Issued: 25 August 2020

Project Proponent Response/Actions On 15 July there was a change in Katingan Project
and Date: personnel responsible for the MR preparation and during
the transition period we overlooked the fact that the
documents had not been uploaded to Verra website to
initiate a public review process. On 22 July Aster Global
informed us that the MR documents were not found on
Verra website and we immediately contacted Verra to
remedy the situation. We submitted the documents on 22
July and they were posted on Verra website on 26 July.
The same documents can be found on our website

http://www.katinganmentaya.com/resources/ under
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 61

Reports/Recent Reports. The website also provides link

to the Verra website.
We are attaching the copies of the Indonesian and

English language summary documents to this document.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: The Indonesian and English versions of the MR
summaries were provided.
As described by the project proponents, the project

documentation was posted to the Verra website on the 25
July 2020 (which was 26 July 2020 in Indonesia). This
oversight did not affect the distribution of the monitoring
report summary to local stakeholders, who were aware of
the report and site visit. Item closed.
Date Closed: 25 September 2020
Indicator G3.2 - Explain how relevant The MR lists efforts to keep community members
and adequate information about potential apprised of costs, risks and benefits. An SOP for project
costs, risks and benefits to Communities employees spells out the way employees are to work with
has been provided to them in a form they communities.
understand and in a timely manner prior
to any decision they may be asked to MOU agreements are worked out over 1-2 months. They
make with respect to participation in the are limited in duration, so communities can decide to opt
project. out at the end of the term.
Village members visit other villages where an activity is

already underway, so they can understand the full scope
of an activity before agreeing to it.
stakeholders.
other stakeholders.
Include details of documentation assessed and observations made during the site visit.
Provide and justify an overall conclusion as to whether the project provided appropriate
access to information to communities and other stakeholders.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance: Section 2.3.4 of the MR, nature of the MOU agreements,
discussions with community members during site visit.
Findings: The short terms of the MOUs ensure that the project must
abide by concepts of FPIC, or lose the support of the
community that has agreed to it.
Some communities visited were reviewing and revising

MOUs. Even when MOUs ran out many community
members continued project activities in the absence of the
formal agreements. The general attitude toward the
project was favorable in most communities.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 62

Community members mentioned visiting project activities

they visited in other communities in the project zone.
The SOP was not supplied.

Clarification Request (CL): Please provide an English language version of the SOP.
Project Proponent Response/Actions There are four SOPs available used for project staff’s
and Date: guidance when working with local communities (e.g.,
general SOP for community development program
implementation, technical SOP the community
development program implementation, technical SOP for
organizing meetings at village level, and technical SOP for
facilitating other department’s activity at village level). The
Indonesian version are available at the database.
We have translated the four SOPs to English and

attaching them to this report. The titles of these
documents are as follows:
1. General Guidelines Program Implementation
2. Technical Guidelines Program Implementation
3. Technical Guideline for Holding a Village-level
Meeting
4. Facilitation Guidelines for Technical Department
Activities Meeting
Evidence Used to Close CL: English translations of the SOPs were supplied to the
auditors.
The Technical Guidelines for Holding a Village-level

Meetings document describes its topic in great detail,
requiring that meeting participants know, in advance, the
topic and reasons for the meeting. This must be explained
in clear, easily understandable language.
The Technical Guidelines for Program Implementation

includes the specifics of spreading/disseminating
information to the community stakeholders, ensuring that
the information is received by all, but observing traditions
by informing leadership first.
The evidence shows the project is effectively

communicating the publication of project documentation
and project audits. Item closed.
Indicator G3.3 - Describe the measures The MR states that communities have been informed of
taken, and communications methods the current verification through newsletters, workshops
used, to explain to Communities and and notice boards. Regular planning meetings, village
Other Stakeholders the process for project representatives were all used to inform people of
validation and/or verification against the the auditor’s visit.
CCB Standards by an independent
Auditor, providing them with timely
information about the Auditor’s site
visit before the site visit occurs and
facilitating direct and independent
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 63

communication between them or their

representatives and the Auditor.
stakeholders.
other stakeholders.
Include details of documentation assessed and observations made during the site visit.
Provide and justify an overall conclusion as to whether the project provided appropriate
access to information to communities and other stakeholders.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance: Section 2.3.5 and 2.3.6 of the MR, discussions with
project management and staff, site visit interviews with
community members.
Findings: Community members who attended meetings said they
were informed of the site visit, verification and comment
period the day before the auditor’s arrival. They were all
aware of the monitoring report.
Community members were generally not clear about the

comment period and the purpose of the audit. For
example, most assumed the auditor worked for the project
and that the audit was internal, until told differently by the
auditor.
Clarification Request (CL): While they are very aware of project activities in which
they are directly involved, the community members seem
to be unclear on the purpose of the verification and
associated site visit. Is there a procedure that could be
devised and followed before each CCB verification and
comment period to inform stakeholders of the purpose of
verification and the periodic monitoring reports?
Project Proponent Response/Actions The socialization and distribution of MR summary and
and Date: flyers itself has been undertaken since July 1, 2020, few
weeks before the audit taken place. The meetings were
not only passing the document, but also informing the
community members about the audit process, the
purpose, as well as wrap up of the project activities during
monitoring period. In total 3,333 community members
have been visited and received the reports/flyers. In the
case where few people were not well informed about this
periodic monitoring activity, this was still possible because
we did not visit all the community members as there were
over 36,000 of people living in the project zone.
However, the project endeavors to design the

socialization and distribution of the report to reach as
many community groups as possible, started from village
officials to marginal groups (such as farmers, illegal
loggers, and women, see chapter 4.4.2). A list of
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 64

community members who received the MR summary and

flyer is attached in a spreadsheet titled “List of Recipients
of MR Summaries and Flyers”
Evidence Used to Close CL: It appears the project made efforts to explain all aspects
of the external verification. The explanation provided is
reasonable and it is very conceivable community
members were not clear on all points of recent
communications. Item closed.
Indicator G3.11 - Submit a list of all The monitoring report states that Indonesian labor law is
relevant laws and regulations covering governed by Labor Law 13 of 2003. It covers employment
worker’s rights in the host country. agreements, working hours, wages, leave, termination,
Describe measures needed and taken to discrimination and grievance procedures. There are also
inform workers about their rights. implementing regulations and decrees that flesh it out.
Provide assurance that the project meets
or exceeds all applicable laws and/or The project has collated and defined employment terms
regulations covering worker rights and, into a staff handbook, which was approved by the Ministry
where relevant, demonstrate how of Manpower for its compliance with the law.
compliance is achieved.
The staff manual is supplied to all staff and they have the
opportunity to raise questions or concerns. Staff members
sign a statement that they have received and understand
the manual.
The manual includes the grievance process that

employees can use if unhappy with terms of employment.
(No staff have used the procedure, to date.)
In addition, the project is compliant with the social security

law, and makes payments on behalf of all employees.
5.1.1 REPORT Guidance Language
4.3.9 Worker Relations (G3.9 – G3.12)
Describe the steps taken to verify the project proponent has taken actions and implemented
measures to ensure that the relationship between the project and workers meet the
requirements of G3.9 – G3.12. Include details of actions taken or measures implemented that:
• Build the capacity of the communities though job training and employment.
• Ensure people from the communities are given an equal opportunity to fill work
positions.
• Ensure the project is in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations
regarding worker’s rights and workers are informed of their rights.
• Inform workers of risks and how to minimize risk.
• Minimize workplace risk using best work practices.
Include details of documentation assessed and observations made on the site visit. Provide and
justify an overall conclusion as to whether the relationship between workers and the project upholds
the intent and design presented in the validated project description
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance: Section 2.3.15 of the MR, site visit interviews with project
employees.
Findings: Site visit interviews confirm that employees received the
staff manual and vouched for the fact that it included
information about their rights as employees. The manual
was provided to the auditors during the last verification
event.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 65

Clarification Request (CL): Please provide a copy of an English language version of

the current employee manual, for verification records.
Project Proponent Response/Actions The employee manual is available in Indonesia and
and Date: English version on the database. It was first uploaded on
30/06/2014.
We have uploaded it on the database for the auditor

(http://database.ptrmu.com/validation2020/) in section
2.3. The document is titled “Company Regulation
RMU_highres.pdf”
Evidence Used to Close CL: The employee manual was supplied, as requested, and it
included information regarding employees’ rights. Item
closed
G4 Management Capacity
Indicator G4.3 - Document the financial The monitoring report states that project financing
health of the implementing remains in place and secure, as demonstrated during
organization(s). Provide assurance that validation and previous verifications.
the Project Proponent and any of the
other entities involved in project design Project expenses and financing during this period have
and implementation remained as predicted and there has been an increase in
are not involved in or are not complicit in revenue.
any form of corruption such as bribery,
embezzlement, fraud, favoritism, The MR refers to appendix 1 for additional financial
cronyism, nepotism, extortion, and details. Appendix 1 is the risk report. No financial
collusion, and describe any measures information is included, other than the self-graded risk
needed and taken to be able to provide report.
this assurance.
The MR further states there is a strict non-corruption
policy. Strict contractual arrangements, routine field
inspections, documentation of expenses, procurement
procedures, etc., are subject to internal and external
audits. Audit reports are said to be available on request.
5.1.2 REPORT Guidance Language

4.3.10 Management Capacity (G4.2 – G4.3)
Describe the steps taken to verify the project proponent has taken actions and implemented
measures to ensure the capacity exists to implement the project over the project lifetime.
Include details of information provided or measures implemented that:
• Demonstrate the project possesses or is acquiring the key technical and
management skills required to implement the project successfully.
• Demonstrate the financial health of the implementing organization is adequate to
support project implementation, and in the case of grouped projects, the ability of
the implementing organization(s) to provide adequate financial support to new
project areas included in the project at this verification event.
• Provide assurance that the project is not complicit in any form of corruption.
Include details of documentation assessed and observations made on the site visit. Provide
and justify an overall conclusion as to whether the project has the capacity to implement the
project in accordance with the validated project description.
Evidence Used to Assess Conformance: Sections 2.4.4 and 2.4.5 of the MR, Appendix 1 of the
MR.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 66

Findings: Impressions during the site visit, interviews with project

management, employees and community members
indicate the project is run in a professional, non-corrupt
manner.
No budget or budget projections were provided. Internal

audits will need to be reviewed.
Non-conformance Request (NCR): Please provide an English language version of the audits
that cover the monitoring period. Please provide current
income and budget as well as projections into the future,
for the project.
Project Proponent Response/Actions We are attaching the audit report for 2018. We are
and Date: attaching the letter from the auditor stating that the audit
for 2019 has not been finalized. We are also attaching a
spreadsheet titled “Katingan Financial Model_60-Year
Projection_Updated to end-2019” with information
projections that we used for our NPRA analysis.
Evidence Used to Close NCR: The 2018 audit and financial model projection shows the
project was profitable in 2019, had sufficient cash flow to
run the project and is on track to meet financial
obligations. Item closed.
CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 67

010 - 03-VCS+CCB Katingan - VerReport - Final - 20201115

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

010 - 03-VCS+CCB Katingan - VerReport - Final - 20201115

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

010 - 03-VCS+CCB Katingan - VerReport - Final - 20201115

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCB & VCS VERIFICATION REPORT:

CCB Version 3, VCS Version 3

THE KATINGAN PEATLAND RESTORATION

Document Prepared By: Aster Global Environmental Solutions, Inc.

Project Title Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project

Version Report Version 01

Client PT. Rimba Makmur Utama (RMU)

Date of Issue 15 November 2020

Prepared By Aster Global Environmental Solutions, Inc.

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 1

1 Wetlands Restoration and Conservation

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 2

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 3

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 4

1.2 Scope and Criteria

Baseline Scenario Degradation/deforestation-threats from expansion of

3 Section 4.3.4 of ISO 14064-3:2006

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 5

1.3 Level of Assurance

1.4 Summary Description of the Project

2.1 Audit Team Composition (Rules 4.3.1)

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 6

2.2 Method and Criteria

4 Wetlands Restoration and Conservation

5 Afforestation, Restoration and Revegetation

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 7

2.3 Document Review

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 8

Individual Affiliation Role

Meyner Nusalawo RMU Biodiversity Manager

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 9

Herwin Herkuni RMU Zone coordinator for Mendawai

Individual Affiliation Role

Juan Chang Permian Global Head of Technical

Individual Affiliation Role

Taryono Darusman RMU General Field Manager

Hirason Horuodono, RMU Business Development

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 10

Iis Leswarawati RMU Director of Administration

Syane Luntungan RMU Communications Manager

Bellini Simangunsong RMU Public Health Specialist

Desra Arriyadi RMU R&D Team

Ibnu Fikri RMU Biodiversity Team

Ahmad Kasyful RMU Biodiversity Team

Mutia Rahwamati RMU Biodiversity Team

Juan Chang Permian Global Head of Technical

Individual Affiliation Role

2.5 Site Inspections

The objectives of the on-site inspections performed were to:

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 11

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 12

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 13

have a low loan interest. The loan money will support

Health and Sanitation Program is run mostly by women

For farmers receiving sustainable agriculture training,

Health and Sanitation Program is run mostly by women

At the moment there is no agreement between PT RMU

CCB v3.0, VCS v3.4 14

between bamboo program and the local NGO is only for