VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report

Verification Report:
Name of Verification company:

Date of the issue:

Scientific Certification Systems (SCS)

July 21, 2011

Report Title:

Approved by:

Verification Report: Boden Creek Forest Carbon
Project

Todd Frank

Client:Project Title:

Forest Carbon Offsets, LLC
Boden Creek Ecological Preserve

Boden Creek Ecological Preserve Forest
Carbon Project

Summary:This report documents the verification of avoided emissions for the Boden Creek Forest
carbon Project for the period from the project’s initiation in 2005 to 2010. The project
proponent is the Boden Creek Ecological Preserve, with support from Forest Carbon Offsets,
LLC. The project utilized the approved Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) methodology VM
0007 – “REDD Methodology Modules.” The project was both validated and verified by SCS.
This report documents verification activities. Verification of the project included anassessment of monitoring activities and data collected and evaluation of compliance to the
VCS standards and to the methodology selected. The verification process also involved anin-depth assessment of the ex-post calculation of VCUs generated by the project for thereporting period of 2005 (project initiation) through 2010.
The audit conducted by Scientific Certification Systems included desk reviews of the
project and supporting documentation, a site visit, and interviews with project proponents
and technical service providers. It also included field work in which a sample of forest
inventory plots were checked by the audit team. During the audit, an iterative exchange ofrequests for new information and corrections of non-conformances took place between theverifier and the project proponent. At this time, all nonconformities have been adequately
resolved. The auditors conclude that the project meets all relevant requirements of the
Verified Carbon Standard. SCS verified that the project generated 133,808 t CO2 equivalent
net emissions reductions during the present reporting period.

Work carried out by:

Number of pages:

Ryan Anderson (Lead Verifier)Zane Haxton (Verifier)
Percival Cho (Technical Expert)
Robert Hrubes (Technical Reviewer)

141

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report

1

Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

2

3
3
4
4
4

Review of Documents
Site Visit
Quantitative Analysis
Final Review and Report Drafting
Follow-up Interviews
Resolution of any material discrepancy

Verification Findings
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

4

Objective
Scope and Criteria
VCS project Description
Level of assurance

Methodology
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6

3

3

4
4
5
5
5
5
6

Remaining issues, including any material discrepancy, from previous validation
Project Implementation
Completeness of Monitoring
Accuracy of Emission Reduction Calculations
Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions
Management and Operational System

6
6
6
7
7
8

Verification conclusion

9

Appendix A: List of Findings

11

New Information Requests:

12

NIR 2011.1

12

Non Conformance Reports::

13

NCR 2011.2

132

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report

1

Introduction

1.1 Objective
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Evaluate the verification scope, including the GHG project and baseline scenario;
GHG sources, sinks, and reservoirs; and the physical infrastructure, activities,
technologies and processes of the GHG project.
Evaluate the monitoring plan and develop conclusions regarding the monitoring
methodology and the collection and archiving of data relevant to GHG emissions
estimation and baseline emissions.
Assess conformance of the proposed Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use(AFOLU) Project Elements with the VCS Standard and VCS Program Guidelines;
Evaluate the calculation of GHG emissions, including appropriateness of source, sink,and reservoirs; the correctness and transparency of formulae and factors used;assumptions related to estimating GHG emission reductions; and uncertainties.
Determine if there have been any significant changes to the project procedures orcriteria since the project validation.
Determine if there have been any significant changes in the project and baseline
emissions, removals, emission reductions and removal enhancements since theproject validation.
Develop conclusions based on verification standards, submitting any corrective
action requests, as applicable.

1.2 Scope and Criteria
SCS assessed the completeness of the Project Monitoring Report to ensure that all
requirements of the VCS standards and applicable methodology elements have beenaddressed. SCS assessed whether or not the Monitoring Report respects the principles of
the VCS standards.
The Project Design Document (PDD) was referenced during thisassessment, but was not itself assessed, as that task was performed during the validation
audit, which is documented in a validation report issued on June 24, 2011.
Assessment included but was not limited to evaluation of the project implementation,
monitoring, and the calculation of GHG emissions. SCS assessed whether the project itself
meets all of the requirements laid out in the VCS standards and is consistent with the PDD.
Criteria from the following standards and documents were used to assess the project:
•
•
•
•
•

•

VCS 2007.1
VCS Program Guidelines 2007.1
VCS Guidance for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Projects (AFOLU)
VCS Tool for AFOLU Methodological Issues
VCS Program Updates: Updates to the Tool for AFOLU Methodological Issues andGuidance for AFOLU Project: Insignificant Emissions Sources and Pools, Carbon
Pools, Avoided Planned Deforestation, Definition of Mosaic and Frontier
Deforestation, Market Leakage
Methodology: VM0007-REDD Methodology Modules

The assessment was performed using the client-supplied Monitoring Report, PDD, and othersupporting documentation.

3

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report

1.3 VCS project Description
As described in Section 1.5 of the PD, the Project consists of 3,980 ha of tropical forest
located in the Toledo District of Belize. The objective of the Project is to prevent conversionof the area to agricultural use. As described in Section 1.6 of the PD, the start date of the
project is January 1, 2005, and the crediting period extends from January 1, 2005 to
December 31, 2029. The report describes the verification of project GHG benefits over theperiod from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2010. As described in Section 1.15 of the PD,
the Boden Creek Ecological Preserve (BCEP) is the project proponent. BCEP has retained
Forest Carbon Offsets to “develop the strategy, implementation, and monitoring of the
carbon credits generated by this project.” Forest Carbon Offsets has contracted SCS toprovide validation services, and therefore Forest Carbon Offsets will be referred to as “theClient” hereafter.

1.4 Level of assurance
SCS provides reasonable assurance per section 7.3.1 of the VCS standard (“VCS 2007.1”) thatthe emission reduction estimations for the Boden Creek Forest Carbon Project areconservative and meet the VCS criteria and approved methodology, VM0007-REDD
Methodology Modules.
To ensure complete transparency, SCS has included any clarification or corrective actions
that were raised at the end of this validation report.

2

Methodology

2.1 Review of Documents
SCS received and reviewed the PDD and supporting documentation to assess initialconformance with the requirements of the VCS standard. Key factors that impact thereported emission reductions and removals were identified, and a Verification Plan was
created to focus on the critical elements presenting potential risk for errors. These elements
included inventory data collection and handling, evidence of conformance to themethodology, evidence of conformance to the monitoring plan, and implementation of
calculations.
The desk review resulted in findings associated with lack of documentation of the remotesensing imagery and methods applied in project monitoring and incorrectly reported
parameters. This report details the findings that led to one Non-Conformity Report (NCR)
and one New Information Request (NIR) that the project proponents had to respond to inorder to allow SCS to provide reasonable assurance that the emission reduction estimations
meet the requirements of the VCS and the selected methodology. The client’s satisfactory
responses are detailed, along with the verifier’s responses that lead to the closure of theidentified NCR/NIRs.
Finally the document was technically reviewed for completeness by an SCS auditor for
quality assurance purposes.

2.2 Site Visit
As part of a validation audit documented in a separate report, the auditors conducted an onsite audit of the project area on February 20-22, 2011. During the visit, the verification team4

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Reportinterviewed relevant personnel, toured the project area, and re-measured six carbon
inventory plots. The validation team was accompanied by local technical expert Percival Cho
during the site visit, as well as local tree identification expert Bonifacio Tut. As documented
in the validation report, available under separate cover, the site visit resulted in concerns
regarding the accuracy of carbon stock estimates that resulted from the carbon inventory
plots measured by the project proponent. These concerns led to issuance of an NCR during
project validation. In response to that NCR, the Project Proponent re-measured all plots. A
sample of seven of the re-measured inventory plots were checked for accuracy by Percival
Cho and Bonifacio Tut on May 23 and 24. That assessment indicated that the data collected
met the accuracy standards of the VCS. Although these visits were initially conducted insupport of project verification activities, the same inventory data is used in this first project
verification as that presented for validation. These site visits were critical to SCS’s ability toarrive at reasonable assurance that the project’s stated emissions removals are conservativeand in compliance with the requirements of the VCS standard and applicable methodology
elements.

2.3 Quantitative Analysis
The third step of the verification process focused on the quantitative analyses undertaken by
the Project Proponent to estimate the net greenhouse gas benefits of the project. Thisentailed generating carbon stock estimates from the field data collected by the audit teamand comparing it to estimates made by the project proponent. Additionally, calculations
made by the project proponent were reviewed by the audit team.

2.4 Final Review and Report Drafting
The last step in the verification process included a final review of the submitted data, anddrafting of the VCS Verification Deed of Representation and supporting Verification Report.
A draft Verification Deed of Representation and Report was completed based on the resultsof the verification assessment. The draft report was presented to an internal SCS Technical
Reviewer who determined the Verification Opinion to be justified given the evidence
presented. The report and opinions were then presented to the project proponent forreview and comment.

2.5 Follow-up Interviews
The following personnel were interviewed during the audit process:••••

Jeff Waldon, Forest Carbon Offsets: Interviewed during site visit and follow-up
phone discussions
Gabriel Thoumi, Forest Carbon Offsets: Interviewed during site visit
Verl Emrick, Conservation Management Institute: Interviewed during site visit
Kenneth Karas, Boden Creek Ecological Preserve: Interviewed during site visit

2.6 Resolution of any material discrepancy
Throughout the validation/verification process, there was an iterative exchange between
SCS and the Project Proponent to gather additional information for review and examination.
This exchange includes Findings—New Information Requests (NIR), Non-Conformity Reports(NCR) and Opportunities for Improvement (OFI)—that are issued by SCS to the Project
Proponent. The Project Proponent must respond to NIRs and NCRs in order for SCS to rendera verification opinion. At this time, all findings have been appropriately addressed by the
project proponent and subsequently closed by SCS.

5

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report
The Findings from the verification of the Boden Creek Project are compiled in Appendix A“List of Findings” to this report.

3

Verification Findings

3.1 Remaining issues, including any material
discrepancy, from previous validation
This is the first project verification. The verification was performed immediately following
project validation by the same audit team. All issues related to validation have been
resolved and are described in a validation report available under separate cover. As
described in the site visit section, above, the inventory data collected by the Project
Proponent was assessed during validation. This data is fundamental to verification, and theactivities described in the validation report allowed the audit team to attain reasonableassurance of the accuracy of that data for verification purposes.

3.2 Project Implementation
During the site visit and by review of project documents, SCS verified that the project had
been implemented as described in the validated project design document. We note that the
project has been validated under the CCBA standard as the VCS. The scope of thisverification audit was limited to assessment of the project against the VCS standard, and noactivities were conducted to verify whether the project has been implemented as describedin the CCB PD.
The PD describes a restrictive covenant attached to the property title to mitigate nonpermanence risks. This restriction, as described in the monitoring report, has not yet been
put into place. However, it is not required by the methodology.

3.3 Completeness of Monitoring
As described in section 3.3 of the validation report issued by SCS for the project, thefollowing parameters are required to be monitored by the approved VCS methodology andare applicable to the project:
Asp
N
DBH
AdefLK,i,t

Area of sample plots
Number of sample plots
Diameter at breast height of each tree in a sample plot
The total area of deforestation by the baseline agent or class of agent of theplanned deforestation in stratum i at time t

Project Forest Map showing the location of forest land within the project area at the
Cover
beginning of each monitoring period. If within the Project Area some forest
Monitoring Map land is cleared, the benchmark map must show the deforested areas at eachmonitoring event
Aburn,i,tArea burnt in stratum i at time t

ADefPA,i,t

Area of recorded deforestation in the project area in stratum i at time tAi
UBSL,SS

Total area of stratum i
Percentage uncertainty (expressed as 95% confidence interval as a percentage

6

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report

UP,SSof the mean where appropriate) for carbon stocks and greenhouse gas sourcesin the baseline case
Percentage uncertainty (expressed as 95% confidence interval as a percentageof the mean where appropriate) for carbon stocks and greenhouse gas sourcesin the project case

The parameters Asp, N, and DBH were obtained using a sample of forest inventory plots inthe project area, while AdefLK,i,t , Project Forest Cover Monitoring Map , Aburn,i,t , ADefPA,i,t,,and Ai parameters resulted from remote sensing analysis. The uncertainty parameters andall other parameters used by the methodology’s calculations are either given in themethodology, held constant over the life of the project (i.e. assessed at validation only), or
derived from these measurements. All monitoring required by the validated project
document and applicable methodology elements has been conducted.

3.4 Accuracy of Emission Reduction Calculations
SCS reviewed all ex-post calculations used to derive the estimate of the project’s net
emissions reductions. The project used the same framework for calculations that wasreviewed during project validation. No additional calculation errors were discovered by theaudit team during verification. Because there has been no observed deforestation in the
project area, the project is being validated and verified several years after its start date, andthe inventory data used in the present verification was available during validation, theverified ex-post net GHG benefits to date have not changed from the ex-ante estimates thatwere available at project validation.

3.5 Quality
Reductionsof

Evidenceto

Determine

Emission

Two main types of data were used to determine emission reductions: forest inventory data,
and remote sensing based estimates of forest cover. The quality of the forest inventory wasassessed during project validation with an on-site check cruise. The results of thatassessment are given in the verification report for the project, available under separate
cover. SCS was able to attain reasonable assurance that the inventory data upon which theemission reductions reported in the current monitoring report meet the accuracy
requirements of the VCS standard.
Two issues related to the forest inventory arise because the project is back dated to 2005:
First, the current monitoring period covers six years, while the methodology requires
monitoring of carbon stocks in the project area at least every five years. As back-dated
projects are clearly permitted by the VCS standard, the project’s start date meets therequirements of the VCS standard and the selected methodology, the methodology provides
no specific guidance on back-dated projects, and it is impossible to obtain data that would
allow for a five year monitoring period, SCS determined that a six year initial monitoring
period was permissible.
Second, the entire project area is accumulating biomass as it recovers from the hurricanethat occurred before the project start date. Under the selected methodology, ex-postchanges in carbon stocks that result from forest growth are to be accounted for as thedifference in measured biomass at two points in time. For the project, no reliable estimateof forest biomass at the time of the initiation of the project was available, as no inventory
had yet been conducted in the project area. The selected methodology does not provide
any guidance for estimating initial carbon stocks for a back-dated project. The Client has

7

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report
estimated the biomass for each year of the current monitoring period by subtracting an
estimated growth rate of 6% per year from the carbon stock that resulted from the 2011
inventory. This rate comes from a study of a similar forest in Mexico, and, based on
research conducted during project validation, appears to represent the best available
published data for the forest type. However, the appropriateness of this growth rate as wellas the adequacy of such a simple model is subject to high uncertainty. Nonetheless, morerobust and better validated models do not appear to be available for the region and forest
type applicable to the project area. The project, as validated, assumes eventual conversionof the entire project area to agriculture. The methodology does not permit crediting of
more avoided emissions from loss of biomass than the biomass stocks that result from aninventory of the project area. Consequently, any inaccuracies in the estimated growth rateaffect only the vintage of credits issued, and not the total number – the maximum avoided
emissions credited do not exceed those actually measured in the recent inventory.
Consequently, the audit team determined that the use of the estimated growth rate to backdate the inventory was a reasonably conservative approach to a situation not addressed by
the methodology. The estimated growth rate should not be required in future monitoring
periods, as data from multiple points in time will be available and thus should allow for
estimation of carbon stock accumulation in strict conformance with the methodology.
After the issuance of NIR 2011.1, SCS received the remote sensing data used in projectmonitoring. The audit team reviewed the Landsat image provided and verified thatappropriate methods had been applied and that the conclusions of remote sensing analysis
as described in the monitoring report are consistent with the original data.

3.6 Management and Operational System
The technical capacity of the project developer is appropriate for performing the monitoringtask. As described in Section 3.2 of the PD, it is intended that each permanent plot be remeasured on a yearly basis. Frequent monitoring should help to ensure that measurements
are taken to a high standard of quality. Section 3.4 of the PD states that “The overall plan isthat staff from BCEP will be trained by the Conservation Management Institute to measureeach permanent plot each year.” The verification team observed that permanent staff
employed by BCEP are very comfortable working in the forested areas of the property, and,with appropriate training, BCEP staff should be capable of performing yearly monitoring
duties. However, it is unclear who will be tasked with data entry, compilation of inventory
results, and remote sensing work. BCEP does not currently appear to have the technicalexpertise necessary to carry out these tasks. However, as otherwise documented in thisreport, it has been shown that the Conservation Management Institute has the capability tocarry out this more technical work.

8

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report

4

Verification conclusion

SCS was able to arrive at an opinion regarding the accuracy of the calculated emission
reductions and removals from the Boden Creek Ecological Preserve Forest Carbon Projectthrough a review of the Project Design Document and the supplementary documentation,
additional requested information, and a site visit. SCS confirmed the soundness of the data
regarding project eligibility, inventory procedures, baseline and project characterization,
methodologies related to the calculation of carbon stocks and GHG reductions andremovals. Through the risk based verification assessment, SCS has determined that the
Boden Creek Ecological Preserve Forest Carbon Project, developed by the Boden Creek
Ecological Preserve (project proponent), and Forest Carbon Offsets, LLC (project developer),is in conformance with the Voluntary Carbon Standard and meets the minimum quality
standard.
Furthermore, all issues identified during the verification were resolved and found to be inconformance with VCS standards. The monitoring report and data are considered accurate,transparent, and free of material misstatements. Therefore, SCS is able to issue a positive
verification opinion for the 166,506 metric tonnes of CO2e emission reductions andremovals by the project for the monitoring period from2005-2011. While all 166,506 VCUs
will be issued, 15% of the project’s CO2e net carbon stock changes (32,696 metric tonnes
CO2e) will be set aside in the VCS’s buffer pool. As such, the project will be issued a total of
133,808 VCUs for Emission Years 2005-2010. The VCUs in this Verification Report areconsistent with those claimed by the project proponent in the 2011 monitoring report.
Reporting period: From January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2010

Verified Emission Reductions In The Above Reporting Period:Year

Gross Emissions
Reductions

Leakage
Discount(t CO2e)

Uncertainty
Discount(t CO2e)Buffer Pool
Contribution(t CO2e)

Net VCUs to
Project(t CO2e)

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

(t CO2e)
7,935
14,87622,50930,89440,09850,195

236
485
760
1,062
1,394
1,758

2,248
4,227
6,403
8,793
11,417
14,295

6,383
11,961
18,092
24,82732,21940,326

TOTAL

166,506

5,695

47,383

1,551
2,915
4,416
6,067
7,879
9,869
32,697

133,808

Net emission reductions, after subtraction of buffer pool contribution: t CO2
equivalents: 133,808 tonnes CO2e.

Name: Ryan Anderson
Title: SCS Contractor
Company: Contractor to Scientific Certification Systems

9

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report
Date: July 21, 2011

Name: Todd Frank
Title: Greenhouse Gas Program Manager
Company: Scientific Certification Systems
Date: July 21, 201110

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report

Certification for a Sustainable World ™

Forest Project Verification
Appendix A: List of Findings
Verification under the Verified Carbon
Standard
Reporter/Member:
Forest Carbon Offsets
Project:
Boden Creek Ecological Preserve

11

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report

New Information Requests:
NIR 2011.1

Finding: Insufficient information about the remote sensing imagery used in the current
monitoring period was determined to evaluate whether it meets the requirements of themethodology. As required by page 13, Step 3, Documentation, of the M-Mon Module,
please report the following information about the remote sensing imagery used in thecurrent monitoring period:(part a):- Type, resolution, source and acquisition date of the remotely sensed data (and other data)used- geometric, radiometric and other corrections performed- spectral bands and indexes used (such as NDVI)- projection and parameters used to geo-reference the images- error estimate of the geometric correction- software and software version used to perform tasks- Definition of the classes and categories(part b):
Because imagery was manually interpreted, rather than classified using an automatedalgorithm, many of the elements listed of part (b) of Step 3 do not apply. However, toensure a consistent time series, the minimum mapping unit applied, definitions anddescriptions of all classes used, and any keys applied in interpretation should be included.
(part c):-Accuracy Assessment Technique used-coordinates and description of the ground truth data collected for classification accuracy
assessment-final classification accuracy assessment
Additionally, please provide a copy of the images analyzed.

Proponent Response: The following has been added to the monitoring report:
A Landsat 5 TM, 30 meter, satellite image from April 28, 2011 was downloaded from theUnited States Geographic Survey’s (USGS) Global Visualization Viewer (GloVis)(http://glovis.usgs.gov) for path 19, row 49. As the classification was a single-image photointerpretive process no additional preprocessing was deemed necessary for the
methodology. An NDVI was created for use as an ancillary dataset to aid the photointerpreter but was not used directly in the classification. Reprojection and georeferencing
was not necessary. The NDVI was created in Erdas Imagine 9.1. The landcover classification
and all additional analyses were done in ESRI’s ArcGIS 9.3.1. Landcover was classified asforest/nonforest. The nonforest class consolidated all landcover classes, excluding forest,
from the original landcover definitions used to define the project area.
Landcover was classified for the entire BCEP property through heads-up photointerpretation
in a softcopy environment using ESRI’s ArcGIS 9.3.1. Landcover was classified as either

12

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report
forest or nonforest using a Minimum Mapping Unit of one hectare. The nonforest classcombined the following classes from the original classification of the project area: cropland,grassland, riparian, settlements/clearing, and wetland. Classification was performed byexperienced photo interpreters familiar with Landsat imagery and possessing a priori
knowledge of Belizean landuse/landcover.
The accuracy assessment was performed using a high resolution satellite image from
RapidEye (5 meter, color-infrared image from March 10, 2011). A random set of verification
points was created in ArcGIS 9.3.1 using Hawth’s Tools(http://www.spatialecology.com/htools/tooldesc.php). Points within 30 meters oflandcover boundaries were removed. The resulting layer contained 50 nonforest and 99
forest points in the classified image.
The verification points were then compared to the high resolution image by a SME withextensive on-ground experience in the study area. The SME determined whether each point
was forest or nonforest based on the imagery, knowledge of the project area, and thedefinition of forest under the project scope. The classified points were then compared backto the landcover map and an error matrix was developed. The overall accuracy of theclassification was 96.6%.
Based on this analysis no reversals were detected.
Revised PDD, error matrix, accuracy assessment points attached. Images available if an ftp
site address is provided.
Auditor Response: The requested information has been provided. The audit team reviewed
the imagery itself to confirm that no material change in the forested area within the projectboundary was detected. Sufficient documentation of the image analysis process wasprovided to allow for consistent data collection and analysis in future monitoring events.
Calculations associated with error assessment were reviewed and determined to have been
applied appropriately. Error assessment was performed against high resolution imagery,
rather than on-the-ground observations. Though this is not in strict conformance with themethodology, it is a common remote sensing practice, and based on an independent reviewof the imagery provided, the simple forest/non forest classification scheme applied, andobservations from a recent site visit, the audit team is reasonable confident that the analysis
is materially accurate. The Proponent’s response adequately addresses the finding inaccordance with The VCS 2007.1 Protocol and selected methodology.

Non Conformance Reports::
NCR 2011.2

Finding:
The parameter SFiNC is expressed as a number of grams in project calculation
worksheets. Correct application of the tool requires the parameter to be expressed as aproportion.

Proponent Response: Spreadsheet and PDD are amended. See attached.

13

VCS 2007.1 – FCO – Boden Creek Ecological Preserve – Verification Report
Auditor Response: The parameter has been corrected. The Proponent’s response
adequately addresses the finding in accordance with The VCS 2007.1 Protocol and selected
methodology.

14