１ REDDプロジェクトの企画からPDDの作成に
向けて①
佐藤 裕隆
住友林業株式会社

平成25年度

２ REDDプロジェクトPDDの作成に向けて②
浦口 あや
コンサベーションインターナショナル

ＲＥＤＤプラスに係る森林技術者講習会
テキスト＜応用講習ｂ＞

３ GHGプロジェクトの審査とREDDプロジェクト～留意点ならびに課題点の共有～
仲尾 強
イー･アール･エム日本株式会社

４ REDDプロジェクトPDDの作成に向けて③
平塚 基志
三菱UFJリサーチ＆コンサルティング

５ VCSの概要について
宗像 和規
日本森林技術協会

６ VCS Project Description Template
REDD+プロジェクト概観の説明
鈴木 圭
日本森林技術協会

７ グループ別実習

８ PDD作成実習

９ 今後に向けて
松本 光朗
ＲＥＤＤ研究開発センター

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度

第１章

応用講習b

基礎講習

REDDプロジェクトの企画からREDDプロジェクトの企画
からPDDの作成に向けて①PDDの作成に向けて①

住友林業株式会社
佐藤 裕隆
1

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b2

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b3

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b4

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b5

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b6

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b7

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b8

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b9

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

10

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

11

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

12

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

13

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

14

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

15

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

16

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

17

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

18

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

19

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

20

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

21

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

22

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

23

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

24

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

25

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

26

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b27

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b28

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b29

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b30

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b31

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b32

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

33

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

34

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b35

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b36

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b37

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b38

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

39

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b40

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

41

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b42

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

43

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

44

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b45

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b46

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b47

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b48

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b49

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b50

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b51

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b52

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b53

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b54

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b55

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b56

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b57

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b58

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b59

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b60

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b61

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b62

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b63

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度応用講習b

第２章
REDDプロジェクトPDD
REDDプロジェクト
PDDのの作成に向けて②作成に向けて②コンサベーションインターナショナル
浦口あや
1

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b2

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b3

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b4

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b5

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b6

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b7

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b8

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b9

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

10

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

11

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

12

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

13

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

14

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

15

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

16

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

17

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

18

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

19

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

20

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

21

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

22

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

23

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

24

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

25

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

26

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b27

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b28

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b29

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b30

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b31

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b32

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

33

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

34

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b35

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b36

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b37

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b38

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

39

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b40

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

41

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b42

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

43

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

44

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b45

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b46

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b47

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b48

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b49

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b50

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b51

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b52

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b53

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b54

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b55

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b56

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b57

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b58

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b59

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b60

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b61

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b62

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b63

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b64

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b65

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b66

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b67

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

68

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b69

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度応用講習b

第３章
GHGプロジェクトの審査とGHGプロジェクトの審査とREDDプロジェクト
REDD
プロジェクト
留意点ならびに課題点の共有
イー･アール･エム日本株式会社
仲尾 強
1

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b2

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b3

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b4

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b5

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b6

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b7

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b8

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b9

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

10

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

11

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

12

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

13

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

14

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

15

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

16

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

17

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

18

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

19

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

20

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

21

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

22

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

23

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

24

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

25

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

26

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b27

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b28

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b29

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b30

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b31

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b32

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

33

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

34

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b35

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b36

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b37

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b38

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

39

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b40

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

41

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b42

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

43

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

44

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b45

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b46

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b47

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b48

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b49

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b50

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b51

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b52

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b53

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b54

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b55

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b56

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b57

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b58

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b59

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b60

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b61

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b62

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b63

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b64

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b65

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b66

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b67

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

68

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b69

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b70

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b71

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b72

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b73

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b74

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b75

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b76

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b77

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b78

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b79

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b80

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b81

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b82

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b83

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b84

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b85

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b86

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b87

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b88

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b89

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b90

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b91

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b92

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

93

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

94

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

95

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b96

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b97

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b98

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度応用講習b

第４章
REDDプロジェクトPDD
REDDプロジェクト
PDDのの作成に向けて③作成に向けて③三菱UFJリサーチ＆コンサルティング
平塚基志
1

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b2

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b3

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b4

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b5

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b6

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b7

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b8

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b9

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

10

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

11

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

12

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

13

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

14

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

15

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

16

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

17

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

18

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

19

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

20

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

21

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

22

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

23

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

24

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

25

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b

26

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b27

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成25年度 応用講習b28

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation-plus

応用講習b

平成2５年度第５章
VCSの概要について
一般社団法人 日本森林技術協会
宗像 和規

1

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

VCS とはVerified Carbon Standard （VCS)
・自主的炭素市場における温室効果ガス排出量削減・吸収プロ
ジェクト活動から発生するクレジットについて、しっかりとした品質を保証するための基準を提供することを目的とする。
・2005年に、NPO等によって設立された。
The International Emissions Trading Association （IETA）
World Economic Forum
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development（WBCSD）
The Climate Group2

REDD+

平成2５年度 応用講習b

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

VCS の組織構成
VCS協会（VCS Association）
VCS事務局（VCS Secretariat）

VCS委員会（VCS Board）

レジストリ（登記）の管理・運営等を担当認証基準の改定などを議論する場

AFOLUグループ（Agriculture,Forestry andOther Land Use）
農業・森林・その他の土地利用について技術的に支援
3

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

PDDからクレジット発行までの流れ
プロジェクト設計書の作成（PDD)

プロジェクトの妥当性確認（Validation)

プロジェクトの登録

VCSの様式に基づきプロジェクト設計書を作成（PDD)を作成する。
また、GHG排出量の定量化を行うため、VCSで承認された方法論を選択する。
第三者検証機関等により、プロジェクト設計書の妥当性確認 を行う。

第三者検証機関による審査を終え、VCS事務局にプロジェクトの登録を行う。

モニタリング報告書の作成

プロジェクト設計書の計画に従いモニタリングを実施する。
VCSの様式に基づきモニタリング報告書を作成する。

モニタリングの検証（Velification)

第三者検証機関等により、モニタリング報告書の検証を行う。

クレジットの発行・登録･管理

第三者検証機関による審査を終え、VCS事務局がクレジットの発行を行う。
クレジットは、VCS Program RegistryでVCS事務局が登録･管理を行う。

4

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

VCS のプログラム
・VCSのプログラムには、認証された温室効果ガスの排出量削減とクレジットを発行するため、プロジェクト開発を行う手順、規則、要件などが示されている。
・プロジェクトの実施者は、プログラム文書に記載され、（実施するプロジェクトに）該当する全ての規則と要件を満たさなければならない。
・プログラム文書は、VCSのWebサイトから入手できる。

http://www.v-c-s.org/

5

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

VCS のホームページ

VCSのホームページより
6

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

VCS のプログラム文書掲載されているプログラム文書の例
VCSプログラムガイドV3.5

包括的なVCSプログラムのドキュメント。
プロジェクトの登録、方法論、認証、検証機関の認定要件、レ
ジストリシステムの機能など、VCSプログラムのルールと要件を記載。

VCSスタンダードV3.4

方法論、検証、モニタリング手法など、プロジェクトを実施す
る上での要件を記載。また、AFOLU(農業、林業及びその他の土地利用)やODS(オゾン層破壊物質）など、方法論の要件を踏まえた特定の側面から詳しく解説。

AFOLUの要件V3.4

AFOLU分野における方法論を開発するための詳細な要件を記載。

AFOLU非永続リスクツール
V3.2

非永続リスクを評価するためのツール。プロジェクト実施者や、認証・検証機関が実施すべき具体的な手順を記載。

プロジェクトの説明V3.2

プロジェクトの説明（PD)のテンプレート

モニタリング報告書V3.3

モニタリング報告書のテンプレート

妥当性確認報告書V3.3

妥当性確認（Validation）報告書のテンプレート

検証報告書V3.3

検証報告書（Verification）報告書のテンプレート

7

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

VCS のプログラム文書

VCSのホームページより
8

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

VCS のプログラム文書「プロジェクトの説明」
文書（テンプレート）
データ

VCSのホームページより
9

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

VCS のプログラム文書「プロジェクトの説明」
文書（テンプレート）

10

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

VCS のプログラム文書「プロジェクトの説明」（PROJECT DESCRIPTION v3.2）目次
プロジェクトのタイトル
バージョン
発行日
作成者
問い合わせ
目次
１．プロジェクトの詳細
1.1プロジェクトの概要説明
1.2分野別の適用範囲及びプロジェクトの種類
1.3プロジェクトの提唱者
1.4プロジェクトに関与する他の存在
1.5プロジェクト開始日
1.6プロジェクトのクレジット期間
1.7プロジェクトの規模と温室効果ガス吸排出量の推定
1.8プロジェクト活動の説明
1.9プロジェクトの場所
1.10プロジェクト開始前の状況
1.11法律、法令及びその他の規制の枠組みへの準拠
1.12所有権およびその他のプログラム
1.12.1使用権
1.12.2排出権取引プログラムと他の拘束力のある制限
1.12.3その他の温室効果ガスプログラムへの参加
1.12.4環境クレジットの他のフォーム
1.12.5他の温室効果ガスプログラムによる拒否

1.12.6プロジェクトに関連する追加情報
的確性基準
リーケージの管理
営利上の機密情報さらに詳しい情報
2.方法論の適用
2.1タイトルと方法論の参照
2.2方法論の適用性
2.3プロジェクト境界
2.4ベースラインシナリオ
2.5追加性
2.6方法論の逸脱
3.温室効果ガスの吸排出量の定量化
3.1ベースライン排出量
3.2プロジェクト排出量
3.3リーケージ
3.4温室効果ガスの純排出削減量と吸収量4.モニタリング
4.1妥当性確認で使用可能なデータとパラメータ
4.2モニタリングのためのデータとパラメータ
4.3モニタリング計画
5.環境への影響
6.利害関係者の意見

11

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

VCS のプログラム文書「VCS Standard」
文書

12

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

VCS のプログラム文書「VCS Standard v3.4」 目次
1 はじめに
1.1バージョン
2 VCSプログラムに固有の問題
2.1VCSプログラムの範囲
2.2言語
2.3クレジットのタイミング
2.4原則
3 プロジェクトの要件
3.1一般的な要件
3.2複数のプロジェクト活動
3.3プロジェクト活動の複数インスタンス
3.4グループ化されたプロジェクト
3.5方法論の逸脱
3.6プロジェクト概要の逸脱
3.7プロジェクトの開始日
3.8プロジェクトのクレジット期間
3.9プロジェクトのスケール
3.10プロジェクト位置
3.11所有権とその他のプログラム
3.12プロジェクトバウンダリー
3.13ベースラインシナリオ

3.14追加性
3.15GHG排出削減量及び吸収量の定量化
3.16モニタリング
3.17記録と情報
3.18プロジェクトの説明
4 方法論の要件
4.1一般的な要件
4.2方法論の改訂
4.3適用条件
4.4プロジェクトバウンダリー
4.5ベースラインシナリオ
4.6追加性4.7GHG排出削減量及び吸収量の定量化
4.8モニタリング
5 妥当性確認及び検証の要件
5.1はじめ5.2一般的な要件
5.3妥当性確認及び検証のプロセス
付録1：文書の履歴

13REDD+

平成2５年度 応用講習b

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

VCS プロジェクトの適用範囲
・VCSの対象となるプロジェクトは、鉱業、製造業、産業廃棄物
処理、森林保全から再生可能エネルギーなどの多岐にわたる。
VCSの分野別の適用範囲
１．エネルギー産業（再生可能/不可)
２．エネルギー輸送
３．エネルギー需要
４．製造業
５．化学工業
６．建設
７．運輸
８．鉱業・鉱物生産

９．金属の生産
１０．燃料からの漏えい
１１．産業ガスからの漏えい
12．溶剤使用（AFOLU）
13．廃棄物の処理・処分
14．農業、林業および他の土地利用
15．家畜と肥料の管理

14

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

AFOLUプロジェクトの分類
・農業、林業および他の土地利用（AFOLU）プロジェクトは、以下のカテゴリーに分類される。

・植林、再植林及び緑化（ARR)
・農地管理（ALM)
・改善された森林管理（IFM）
・森林減少と森林劣化に由来する排出の削減（REDD）
・草原や潅木林への変換の防止（ACoGS）
・湿地の保全と再生（WRC）

15

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

AFOLUの要件
・VCSのAFOLU （Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use、
農業・森林・その他の土地利用）プロジェクトが対象となる。
・VCSのプログラム文書、「AFOLU Requirements」として取り纏められ、AFOLUグループで定めた基準と定義について記載
されている。
・プロジェクトは、原則的にプログラム文書の「VCS Standard」に沿って実施するが、AFOULで定めた基準（外部基準含）を踏まえて実施する。
「グッドプラクティスガイダンス」 （ＩＰＣＣ 2003）→炭素貯蔵量、ＧＨＧ吸排出量の定量化「ナショナルＧＨＧインベントリー ガイドライン」（ＩＰＣＣ 2006）→炭素プールの吸収量の定量化手順
16

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

AFOLUの要件
VCSのホームページより入手可
AFOLUの要件〔 Agriculture, Forestry and Other
Land Use (AFOLU) Requirements 〕

17

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

AFOLUの要件「AFOLUの要件」 （AFOLU Requirements v3.4）
目次
1．はじめに
2．AFOLUプログラムに固有の問題
2.1 AFOLU非永続性のリスクとプールされたバッファのアカウント
2.2 AFOLUリーケージアセスメント
3．プロジェクトの要件
3.1 一般的な要件
3.2 プロジェクトの開始日
3.3 プロジェクトのクレジット期間
3.4 プロジェクトの場所
3.5 その他の温室効果ガスのプログラ
ムによる参加3.6リーケージの管理、軽減及び計算
3.7 非永続性リスク
3.8 グループ化されたプロジェクト
4．方法論の要件
4.1 一般的な要件

4.2 対象となるAFOLUプロジェクトカテゴリ
4.3 プロジェクトバウンダリー
4.4 ベースラインシナリオ
4.5 ベースライン及びプロジェクト排出量/
吸収量4.6 リーケージ
4.7 温室効果ガス排出削減量及び吸収量の定量化
4.8 モニタリング
5．妥当性確認及び検証の要件
5.1 非永続性のリスク分析と市場のりー
ケージ評価
付録1：ドキュメントの履歴18REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

AFOLU 非永続リスクツール
・このツールは、 AFOLU （Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use、
農業・森林・その他の土地利用）プロジェクトに必要な非永続性のリスク分
析およびバッファ決定を行うための手順を提供する。また、このツールは、リスクを評価し、適切なリスク評価を決定するために、プロジェクト実施主体
や検証機関等に対する要求事項を定めている。
・評価されるリスクのカテゴリーは、「内部リスク」、「外部リスク」、「自然リスク」の３つに大別される。
・それぞれのカテゴリーでリスクが点数化され、総合評点によりプロジェクトの全リスク評価を決定する。これにより非永続リスクのバッファークレジットが徴収される。
内部リスク

外部リスク

プロジェクト管理
財政的実行可能性
機会コスト※
プロジェクト寿命

土地保有
コミュニティ関与
政治的リスク

自然リスク
火災
病害虫の発生極端な気象
その他の自然リスク※プロジェクトを実施しなかった場合に得られる利益。
19

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

AFOLU 非永続リスクツール「AFOLU Non-Permanence
Risk Tool 」文書

20

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

AFOLU 非永続リスクツール「AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool v3.2」 目次
1 イントロダクションとスコープ
1.1スコープ
2 リスク分析とバッファの決定
2.1ステップ1：リスク分析
2.2内部リスク
2.3外部リスク
2.4自然のリスク
2.5ステップ2：全体の非永続性のリスク評価とバッファの決定
付録1：文書の履歴

21REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

VCSにおけるISOの規定
・VCSは、ISO14064-2:2006、ISO14064-3:2006及びISO14065:2007に規定された要件に基づいて実施されている。
ISO14064-2:2006【温室効果ガス-第2部：プロジェクトにおける温室効果ガスの排出削減・吸収量の定量化、モニタリング及び報告のための規格並びに手引】
・温室効果ガス排出削減・吸収のためのプロジェクトに焦点
・プロジェクトのベースラインを決定するための要求事項等が規定

ISO14064-3:2006【温室効果ガス-第3部：温室効果ガスに関する主張の妥当性確認及び検証のための規格並びに手引】
・検証の計画、評価手順及び温室効果ガス報告書の評価の要求事項が規定
・独立第三者機関が温室効果ガス報告書の検証する際に用いられる。

ISO14065:2007【温室効果ガス：認定及びその他の承認形式で試用するための温室効果ガスの妥当性確認及び検証機関に対する要求事項】
・温室効果ガスの妥当性確認及び検証を行う機関に対する要求事項を規定

22

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

VCSの検証体制
・VCSでは、プロジェクトと独立した検証体制が品質保証の核・VCS事務局は直接検証作業を行わない。VCS協会に認定された第三者検証機関が実施する。全てのプロジェクトは、検証を受ける必要がある。
・VCSの検証機関は、CDM理事会に認定されたDOE（CDM
プロジェクトで検証を行う第三者検査機関）、ISO14065の審査機関、及びVCS事務局から認定された第三者検査機関が実施する。
「プロジェクトの説明」 →妥当性確認（Validation）→プロジェクト登録「モニタリング報告書」→検証（Verification）→クレジット発行

23

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

方法論について・ VCSの方法論は、それぞれのプロジェクトにおける温室効果
ガス削減効果を定量化するため、詳細な要件を設定したものであり、実際の温室効果ガスの削減効果を定量化するための手順や方程式が示されている。
・プロジェクトの実施者は、温室効果ガスの削減量を定量化するために、VCSで承認された方法論を選択して使用するとともに、選択した方法論に完全に従わなければならない。
・新たなプロジェクト開発において、既存の方法論がニーズを満たしていない場合、VCS協会に提案し、新たな方法論を開発することができる。

24

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

方法論について・ VCSのサイト上には、分野別に方法論が掲載されており、
AFOULプロジェクトについては、5つのREDDの方法論が示されている。
【方法論ID】
VM0004、VM0006、VM0007、VM009、VM0015
・また、各方法論を補完するために、モジュールとツールが掲載されている。
モジュール

特定のタスクを実行するために適用できる方法論の
構成要素

ツール

解析を行ったり、モジュールや方法論を選択・使用するためのガイドラインや手順

25

REDD+

平成2５年度 応用講習b

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

方法論について・ ＲＥＤＤプロジェクトに係る方法論
方法論

概 要

VM0004

Methodology for Conservation
Projects that Avoid Planned Land
Use Conversion in Peat Swamp
Forests

東南アジアの泥炭湿地林における計画的な土地利用転換を避ける保全プロジェクトのための方法論を示す。

VM0006

Methodology for Carbon
Accounting in Project Activities that
Reduce Emissions from Mosaic
Deforestation and Degradation

計画外の人為的なモザイク状森林伐採と劣化を減少させることを目的とする活動のための条件と炭素量計算方法を示す。

VM0007

REDD Methodology Modules

モジュール方式のREDD方法論であり、計画的な森林伐採、計画外の森林伐採、森林劣化というベースラインの状況に応じて適用させるモジュールを選択

VM0009

Methodology for Avoided Mosaic
Deforestation of Tropical Forests

熱帯林におけるモザイク森林伐採を防ぐ活動からの排出削減量を求めるための方法論

VM00015

Methodology for Avoided
Unplanned Deforestation

無計画な森林破壊を避けるための方法論を示す。
モザイク状と面的な伐採の両方に適応可能。
26

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

方法論について該当する分野を検索

VCSのホームページより
27

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

方法論についてVCSのホームページより
28

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

方法論についてVCSのホームページより入手可
方法論： VM0007（REDD Methodology Modules）

29

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

方法論について
モジュール
ツール

対応表

方法論： VM0007

30

REDD+

平成2５年度 応用講習b

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

方法論について
方法論：VM0007 目次
目

次

概

要

Ⅰ．一般的ガイダンス
適用範囲

方法論のフレームワークと適用範囲

定義

用語の定義

モジュールとツール適用するモジュールとツールの概説

適用条件「すべての活動タイプ」、「計画外の森林伐採」、「計画的な森林伐採」、「劣化」の適用条件

Ⅱ．純温室効果ガス排出量削減の評価
ST0．最適なVCS活動の識別ディシジョンツリーによる最適な活動タイプの識別ST1．プロジェクト境界の定義

地理的な境界、時間的な境界、炭素プール、温室効果ガスの排出源、リーケージの原因

ST2．追加性の実証

プロジェクトシナリオにおける追加性の実証

ST3．モニタリング計画の開発

モニタリング計画の策定方法の概説

ST4．べースラインの炭素ストックの変化と温室効果
ガス排出量の推計

推計手法に対応したモジュール

ST5．純温室効果ガス排出削減量の総推計

VCSバッファーの計算、不確実性の解析、検証済み炭素単位の計算

Ⅲ．事後モニタリング
TS1．モニタリング計画に沿ったモニタリング

主なベースラインドライバ、炭素ストック変化と温室効果ガス排出量、リーケージ

TS2．将来のクレジット期間のベースライン改訂

エージェント、ドライバの等の変化に伴いベースラインを改訂

IV．他のモジュールのパラメータ

関連するパラメータ一覧

31

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

環境及び社会的基準の認証
・ VCSは特定のプロジェクトの吸収量及び排出削減量を算出する手順を認証するものであり、環境及び社会面の認証には別の基準が必要となる。
・一例として、CCB （Climate, Community and Biodiversity)Standardsは、土地利用プロジェクトの温室効果ガス削減の効果、地域コミュニティー支援および生態系の保護における効果などを評価するものである。排出削減量の算出方法を認証するものではないため、VCS等との併用が勧められている。
VCS+CCBプロジェクトの説明テンプレート（VCS+CCB
Project Description Template）が用意されている。

32

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

ＶＣＳプロジェクトデータベース
・ ＶＣＳでは、認証が完了したプロジェクトは、ＶＣＳプロジェクト
データベースに掲載される。
・データベースには、プロジェクトに係る全ての情報が掲載されている。（クレジットの発行、プロジェクトの説明、モニタリング
報告書、妥当性確認報告書、検証報告書など）
・VCSデータベースは、以下のアドレスでアクセスし、検索・閲覧が可能。

http://www.vcsprojectdatabase.org/

33

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

ＶＣＳプロジェクトデータベース

プロジェクトを検索

該当分野を検索
VCSのホームページより
34

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

ＶＣＳプロジェクトデータベース

選択したプロジェクトのページ
VCSのホームページより
35

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

ＶＣＳプロジェクトデータベース「プロジェクトの説明」文書

VCSのホームページより
36

REDD+

Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-plus

平成2５年度 応用講習b

ＶＣＳプロジェクトデータベース

内容「プロジェクトの説明」文章
37

VCS Project Description Template, v3.2
Project Title
VersionDate of Issue
Prepared By
Contact
Table of Contents
1.Project Details
1.1 Summary Description of the Project
1.2 Sectoral Scope and Project Type
1.3 Project Proponent
1.4 Other Entities Involved in the Project
1.5 Project Start Date
1.6 Project Crediting Period
1.7 Project Scale and Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals
1.8 Description of the Project Activity
1.9 Project Location
1.10 Conditions Prior to Project Initiation
1.11 Compliance with Laws, Statutes and Other Regulatory Frameworks
1.12 Ownership and Other Programs
1.12.1Right of Use
1.12.2 Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits
1.12.3 Other Forms of Environmental Credit
1.12.4 Participation under Other GHG Programs
1.12.5 Projects Rejected by Other GHG Programs
1.13 Additional Information Relevant to the Project
Eligibility Criteria
Leakage Management
Commercially Sensitive Information
Further Information
2. Application of Methodology
2.1Title and Reference of Methodology
2.2 Applicability of Methodology
2.3 Project Boundary
2.4 Baseline Scenario
2.5 Additionality
2.6 Methodology Deviations
3. Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals
3.1 Baseline Emissions
3.2 Project Emissions
3.3 Leakage
3.4 Net GHG Emission Reductions and Removals
4. Monitoring
4.1 Data and Parameters Available at Validation
4.2 Data and Parameters Monitored
4.3 Monitoring Plan
5. Environmental Impact
6. Stakeholder Comments

プロジェクトのタイトル
バージョン
発行日
作成者
問い合わせ
目次
１．プロジェクトの詳細
1.1プロジェクトの概要説明
1.2分野別の適用範囲及びプロジェクトの種類
1.3プロジェクトの提唱者
1.4プロジェクトに関与する他の存在
1.5プロジェクト開始日
1.6プロジェクトのクレジット期間
1.7プロジェクトの規模と温室効果ガス吸排出量の推定
1.8プロジェクト活動の説明
1.9プロジェクトの場所
1.10プロジェクト開始前の状況
1.11法律、法令及びその他の規制の枠組みへの準拠
1.12所有権およびその他のプログラム
1.12.1使用権
1.12.2排出権取引プログラムと他の拘束力のある制限
1.12.3環境クレジットの他のフォーム
1.12.4その他の温室効果ガスプログラムへの参加
1.12.5他の温室効果ガスプログラムによる拒否
1.12.6プロジェクトに関連する追加情報
的確性基準
リーケージの管理
営利上の機密情報さらに詳しい情報
2.方法論の適用
2.1タイトルと方法論の参照
2.2方法論の適用性
2.3プロジェクト境界
2.4ベースラインシナリオ
2.5追加性
2.6方法論の偏差
3.温室効果ガスの吸排出量の定量化
3.1ベースライン排出量
3.2プロジェクト排出量
3.3リーケージ
3.4温室効果ガスの純排出削減量と吸収量4.モニタリング
4.1妥当性確認で使用可能なデータとパラメータ
4.2モニタリングのためのデータとパラメータ
4.3モニタリング計画
5.環境への影響
6.利害関係者の意見

地理的境界・プロジェクトエリア
・リーケージエリア（ベルト）・参照エリア
炭素プール
GHG排出源アクティビティ（活動）データ
排出係数

活動移動リーケージ
マーケットリーケージ
MRV
コンサバティブ
非永続性リスクとバッファークレジット不確実性

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
VCS Project Description Template
This template is for the development of VCS projects.
Instructions for completing the project description:
TITLE PAGE: All items in the box at the bottom of the title page must be completed using Arial 10pt, black,regular (non-italic) font. This box must appear on the title page of the final document. Project descriptions
may also feature the project title and preparers’ name, logo and contact information more prominently on
the title page, using the format below (Arial 24pt and Arial 11pt, black, regular font).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Instructions for completing the project description template are given under
the section headings in this template. All instructions must be followed, as set out in the VCS Standard.
Instructions relate back to the rules and requirements set out in the VCS Standard and accompanying
program documents. As such, this template must be completed in accordance with such documents, andthe preparer will need to refer to the VCS program documents and the methodology in order to complete
the template. It is also expected that relevant guidance, as it relates to the project and methodology, isfollowed. Note that the instructions in this template are intended to serve as a guide and do notnecessarily represent an exhaustive list of the information the preparer should provide under each sectionof the template.
All sections must be completed using Arial 10pt, black, regular (non-italic) font. Where a section is notapplicable, same must be stated under the section (the section must not be deleted from the final
document).
All instructions, including this introductory text, should be deleted from the final document.

v3.2

1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3

PROJECT TITLE
Logo (optional)
Document Prepared By (individual or entity)
Contact Information (optional)
Project Title
VersionName of project
Version number of this document

Date of Issue

DD-Month-YYYY this version of the document issued

Prepared By

Individual or entity that prepared this document

Contactv3.2

Physical address, telephone, email, website

2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Table of Contents
Insert table of contents

v3.2

3

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
1

PROJECT DETAILS

1.1

Summary Description of the Project
Provide a summary description of the project to enable an understanding of the nature of the
project and its implementation, including the following (no more than one page):
A summary description of the technologies/measures to be implemented by the project.
The location of the project.
An explanation of how the project is expected to generate GHG emission reductions or
removals.
A brief description of the scenario existing prior to the implementation of the project.
An estimate of annual average and total GHG emission reductions and removals.

1.2

Sectoral Scope and Project Type
Indicate the sectoral scope(s) applicable to the project, the AFOLU project category and activity
type (if applicable), and whether the project is a grouped project.

1.3

Project Proponent
Provide contact information for the project proponent(s). Copy and paste the table as needed.
Organization nameContact person
Title
Address
Telephone
Email

1.4

Other Entities Involved in the Project
Provide contact information and roles/responsibilities for any other entities involved in thedevelopment of the project. Copy and paste the table as needed.
Organization nameRole in the projectContact person
Title
Addressv3.2

4

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Telephone
Email

1.5

Project Start Date
Indicate, and provide justification for, the project start date, specifying the day, month and year.

1.6

Project Crediting Period
Indicate the project crediting period, specifying the day, month and year for the start and end
dates and the total number of years.

1.7

Project Scale and Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals
Indicate the scale of the project (project or large project) and the estimated annual GHG emission
reductions or removals for the project crediting period.

Project Scale
Project
Large projectYear

Estimated GHG emission
reductions or removals(tCO2e)Year A (eg, 2014)
Year B
Year C
Year...
Total estimated ERs
Total number of crediting years
Average annual ERs

1.8

Description of the Project Activity
Describe the project activity or activities (including the technologies or measures employed) and
how it/they will achieve net GHG emission reductions or removals.
For non-AFOLU projects:
Include a list and the arrangement of the main manufacturing/production technologies,
systems and equipment involved. Include in the description information about the age
and average lifetime of the equipment based on manufacturer’s specifications and

v3.2

5

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
industry standards, and existing and forecast installed capacities, load factors andefficiencies.
Include the types and levels of services (normally in terms of mass or energy flows)
provided by the systems and equipment that are being modified and/or installed and theirrelation, if any, to other manufacturing/production equipment and systems outside theproject boundary. Clearly explain how the same types and levels of services provided by
the project would have been provided in the baseline scenario.
Where appropriate, provide a list of facilities, systems and equipment in operation underthe existing scenario prior to the implementation of the project.
For AFOLU projects:
For all measures listed, include information on any conservation, management or planting
activities, including a description of how the various organizations, communities and otherentities are involved.
In the description of the project activity, state if the project is located within a jurisdiction
covered by a jurisdictional REDD+ program.

1.9

Project Location
Indicate the project location and geographic boundaries (if applicable) including a set of geodetic
coordinates. For grouped and AFOLU projects, coordinates may be submitted separately as a
KML file.

1.10

Conditions Prior to Project Initiation
Describe the conditions existing prior to project initiation and demonstrate that the project has notbeen implemented to generate GHG emissions for the purpose of their subsequent reduction,
removal or destruction.
Where the baseline scenario is the same as the conditions existing prior to the project initiation,
there is no need to repeat the description of the scenarios (rather, just state that this is the caseand refer the reader to Section 2.4 (Baseline Scenario).
For AFOLU projects, include the present and prior environmental conditions of the project area,
including as appropriate information on the climate, hydrology, topography, relevant historic
conditions, soils, vegetation and ecosystems.

1.11

Compliance with Laws, Statutes and Other Regulatory Frameworks
Identify and demonstrate compliance of the project with all and any relevant local, regional andnational laws, statutes and regulatory frameworks.

v3.2

6

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
1.12

Ownership and Other Programs

1.12.1 Right of Use
Provide evidence of right of use, in accordance with the VCS specifications on right of use.
1.12.2 Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits
Indicate whether the project reduces GHG emissions from activities that are included in anemissions trading program or any other mechanism that includes GHG allowance trading, andinclude details about any such programs or mechanisms. Where applicable, demonstrate that
GHG emission reductions and removals generated by the project will not be used for complianceunder such programs or mechanisms. Examples of appropriate evidence are provided in the VCS
Standard.
1.12.3 Other Forms of Environmental Credit
Indicate whether the project has sought or received another form of GHG-related environmental
credit, including renewable energy certificates. Include all relevant information about the GHGrelated environmental credit and the related program.
List all other programs under which the project is eligible to participate (to create another form of
GHG-related environmental credit).
1.12.4 Participation under Other GHG Programs
Indicate whether the project has been registered, or is seeking registration under any other GHG
programs. Where the project has been registered under any other GHG program, provide theregistration number and details.
1.12.5 Projects Rejected by Other GHG Programs
Indicate whether the project has been rejected by any other GHG programs. Where the project
has been rejected, provide the relevant information, including the reason(s) for the rejection andjustification of eligibility under the VCS Program.

1.13

Additional Information Relevant to the Project
Eligibility Criteria
For grouped projects, specify the eligibility criteria for inclusion of new instances of each project
activity.
Leakage Management
Where applicable, describe the leakage management plan and implementation of leakage andrisk mitigation measures.

v3.2

7

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Commercially Sensitive Information
Indicate whether any commercially sensitive information has been excluded from the public
version of the project description and briefly describe the items to which such information pertains.
Note - Information related to the determination of the baseline scenario, demonstration of
additionality, and estimation and monitoring of GHG emission reductions and removals (including
operational and capital expenditures) cannot be considered to be commercially sensitive andmust be provided in the public versions of the project documents.
Further Information
Include any additional relevant legislative, technical, economic, sectoral, social, environmental,
geographic, site-specific and/or temporal information that may have a bearing on the eligibility ofthe project, the net GHG emission reductions or removals, or the quantification of the project’s net
GHG emission reductions or removals.

2

APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY

2.1

Title and Reference of Methodology
Provide the title, reference and version number of the methodology or methodologies applied tothe project. Include also the title and version number of any tools applied by the project.

2.2

Applicability of Methodology
Demonstrate and justify how the project activity(s) meets each of the applicability conditions of
the methodology(s), and tools (where applicable) applied by the project. Address eachapplicability condition separately.

2.3

Project Boundary
Define the project boundary and identify the relevant GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs for the
project and baseline scenarios (including leakage if applicable).

SourceGas

Included?

Justification/Explanation

CO2
Source 1

CH4
N2O

Baseline

Other
CO2
CH4
Source 2

N2O
Other

v3.2

8

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
SourceGas

Included?

Justification/Explanation

CO2
Source 1

CH4
N2O

Project

Other
CO2
Source 2

CH4
N2O
Other

In addition to the table, provide a diagram or map of the project boundary, showing clearly thephysical locations of the various installations or management activities taking place as part of the
project activity based on the description provided in Section 1.8 (Description of the Project
Activity) above.
For non-AFOLU projects, include in the diagram the equipment, systems and flows of mass andenergy. Include the GHG emission sources identified in the project boundary.
For AFOLU projects, include in the diagram or map the locations of where the various measures
are taking place, any reference areas and leakage belts.

2.4

Baseline Scenario
Identify and justify the baseline scenario, in accordance with the procedure set out in the applied
methodology and any relevant tools. Where the procedure in the applied methodology involves
several steps, describe how each step is applied and clearly document the outcome of each step.
Explain and justify key assumptions, rationale and methodological choices. Provide all relevant
references.

2.5

Additionality
Demonstrate and assess the additionality of the project, in accordance with the applied
methodology and any relevant tools, taking into account of the following:
Where a project method is applied to demonstrate additionality and the procedure in theapplied methodology or tool involves several steps, describe how each step is appliedand clearly document the outcome of each step. Indicate clearly the method selected todemonstrate additionality (eg, investment analysis or barrier analysis in the case of the
CDM Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality). Where barrier analysis,or equivalent, is used to demonstrate additionality, only include the most relevant barriers.
Justify the credibility of the barriers with key facts and/or assumptions and the rationale.
Provide all relevant references.

v3.2

9

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Where a performance method is applied to demonstrate additionality, demonstrate that
performance can be achieved to a level at least equivalent to the performancebenchmark metric.
Where the methodology applies an activity method for the demonstration of additionality,
use this section to demonstrate regulatory surplus (only) and include a statement that
notes that conformance with the positive list is demonstrated in the Applicability of
Methodology section above.
Provide sufficient information (including all relevant data and parameters, with sources) so that areader can reproduce the additionality analysis and obtain the same results.

2.6

Methodology Deviations
Describe and justify any methodology deviations. Include evidence to demonstrate the following:
The deviation will not negatively impact the conservativeness of the quantification of
GHG emission reductions or removals.
The deviation relates only to the criteria and procedures for monitoring or measurement,
and does not relate to any other part of the methodology.

3

QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS

3.1

Baseline Emissions
Describe the procedure for quantification of baseline emissions and/or removals in accordancewith the applied methodology. Include all relevant equations, and explain and justify all relevant
methodological choices (eg, with respect to selection of emission factors and default values).

3.2

Project Emissions
Describe the procedure for quantification of project emissions and/or removals in accordance withthe applied methodology. Include all relevant equations, and explain and justify all relevant
methodological choices (eg, with respect to selection of emission factors and default values).

3.3

Leakage
Describe the procedure for quantification of leakage emissions in accordance with the applied
methodology. Include all relevant equations, and explain and justify all relevant methodologicalchoices (eg, with respect to selection of emission factors and default values).

3.4

Net GHG Emission Reductions and Removals
Describe the procedure for quantification of net GHG emission reductions and removals. Include
all relevant equations. For AFOLU projects, include equations for the quantification of net change
in carbon stocks.

v3.2

10

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Provide the ex-ante calculation (estimate) of baseline emissions/removals, projectemissions/removals, leakage emissions and net GHG emission reductions and removals in thetable below.
For data and parameters monitored, use estimates. Document how each equation is applied, in amanner that enables the reader to reproduce the calculation. Provide example calculations for all
key equations, to allow the reader to reproduce the calculation of estimated net GHG emission
reductions or removals.

Year

Estimatedbaselineemissions or
removals(tCO2e)Estimatedproject
emissions or
removals(tCO2e)Estimatedleakageemissions(tCO2e)Estimated net
GHG emission
reductions or
removals(tCO2e)Year A
Year B
Year C
Year...
Total

4

MONITORING

4.1

Data and Parameters Available at Validation
Complete the table below for all data and parameters that are determined or available atvalidation, and remain fixed throughout the project crediting period (copy the table as necessaryfor each data/parameter). Data and parameters monitored during the operation of the project areincluded in Section 4.2 (Data and Parameters Monitored) below.

Data / Parameter
Data unit

Indicate the unit of measure

Description

Provide a brief description of the data/parameter

Source of data

Indicate the source(s) of data

Value applied:

Provide the value applied

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

Justify the choice of data source, providing references whereapplicable. Where values are based on measurement, include a
description of the measurement methods and procedures applied(eg, what standards or protocols have been followed), indicate theresponsible person/entity that undertook the measurement, thedate of the measurement and the measurement results. Moredetailed information may be provided in an appendix.

Purpose of Data

Indicate one of the following:
Determination of baseline scenario (AFOLU projects only)

v3.2

11

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
Calculation of baseline emissions
Calculation of project emissions
Calculation of leakage
Comments

4.2

Provide any additional comments

Data and Parameters Monitored
Complete the table below for all data and parameters that will be monitored during the projectcrediting period (copy the table as necessary for each data/parameter). Data and parameters
determined or available at validation are included in Section 4.1 (Data and Parameters Available
at Validation) above.

Data / Parameter
Data unit

Indicate the unit of measure

Description

Provide a brief description of the data/parameter

Source of data

Indicate the source(s) of data

Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
appliedSpecify the measurement methods and procedures, any
standards or protocols to be followed, and the person/entity
responsible for the measurement. Include any relevant information
regarding the accuracy of the measurements (eg, accuracy
associated with meter equipment or laboratory tests).

Frequency ofmonitoring/recording

Specify measurement and recording frequency

Value applied:

Provide an estimated value for the data/parameter

Monitoring equipment

Identify equipment used to monitor the data/parameter including
type, accuracy class, and serial number of equipment, as
appropriate.

QA/QC procedures to be
appliedDescribe the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
procedures to be applied, including the calibration procedures
where applicable.

Purpose of data

Indicate one of the following:Calculation of baseline emissions
Calculation of project emissions
Calculation of leakage

v3.2

Calculation method

Where relevant, provide the calculation method, including any
equations, used to establish the data/parameter.

Comments

Provide any additional comments

12

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
4.3

Monitoring Plan
Describe the process and schedule for obtaining, recording, compiling and analyzing themonitored data and parameters set out in Section 4.2 (Data and Parameters Monitored) above.
Include details on the following:
The methods for measuring, recording, storing, aggregating, collating and reporting dataand parameters. Where relevant, include the procedures for calibrating monitoring
equipment.
The organizational structure, responsibilities and competencies of the personnel that will
be carrying out monitoring activities.
The policies for oversight and accountability of monitoring activities.
The procedures for internal auditing and QA/QC.
The procedures for handling non-conformances with the validated monitoring plan.
Any sampling approaches used, including target precision levels, sample sizes, sample
site locations, stratification, frequency of measurement and QA/QC procedures.
Where appropriate, include line diagrams to display the GHG data collection and management
system.

5

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Summarize any environmental impact assessments carried out with respect to the project, whereapplicable.

6

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Summarize relevant outcomes from any stakeholder consultations and mechanisms for on-going
communication.

v3.2

13

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VCS Version 3
APPENDIX X: <TITLE OF APPENDIX>
Use appendices for supporting information. Delete this appendix (title and instructions) where no
appendix is required.

v3.2

14

応用講習 b

グループ別実習の課題【手順】①

受講生をＡとＢ、2 つのグループに分ける。

②

グループごとに、配布したベリーズとケニヤの PDD を読み、下表に示す項目ごとに、2 つのプロジェクトの概要を記載し、それぞれの違いについてコメントする（下表参照）。

③

グループ別実習終了までに、模造紙や付箋紙等を用いて、下表を取り纏める（下図参照）。

③ グループ別実習後の総合討論で、各グループの代表者が、取り纏め内容を発表する。
【課題表】
項

目

ベリーズ PDD

ケニヤ PDD

コメント欄

・プロジェクト概要
・ベースライン・シナリオ
・GHG 削減方策（プロジェクト・アクティビティ）・モニタリング手法
・その他※「プロジェクト概要」については、PDD の「1. Project Description」の中から、面積、プロジェクト
期間、クレジット期間と推定総排出量、森林の概要等、比較できる項目について概要を記載する。

※「ベースライン・シナリオ」、「GHG 削減方策」、「モニタリング手法」については、記載されているページを探して概要を記載する。

※「その他」については、時間が余った場合、項目を自由に選択して概要を記載する。

※

箇条書きで簡潔に記載すること（概要のみで OK）。

作業イメージ（H24 の実習より）

The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary l VCS Project Description

This Project Document is Dated January 25th, 2011, and conforms
to the VCS PD Template dated 19th November 2007.

1

The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary l VCS Project Description

1.

Description of Project:

1.1 Project title
The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary

1.2 Type/Category of the projectThis project falls under VCS sectoral scope 14 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, under
project activities Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) and most
specifically Avoiding unplanned mosaic deforestation and degradation (AUMDD). This project falls
into this category by the definition provided in the VCS Program Update of May 24th 2010, by virtue ofthe fact that > 25% of the boundary of the Project Area is within 50m of land that wasanthropogenically deforested in the ten years prior to the project start date, as illustrated in the table
and map below.

2

The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary l VCS Project Description

Rukinga Landscape Configuration Analysis
Imagery date: 02‐06‐2003
Imagery source: Landsat 7 (ETM+)
Total Ranch Perimeter (km)Perimeter coincident with reference region (km)84.05338
42.8745

coincident ratio

51.00%

Coincident forest (px)Coincident non‐forest (px)

1034
1147

% deforested (coincident w/ reference region)
Total % deforested within 50m (Rukinga perimeter)

52.59%
26.83%

This is not a Grouped Project.

1.3 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the crediting
period including project size:
Rukinga Sanctuary (the project area) is 30,168.66 ha. The project is neither a mega nor a micro
project, as the estimated gross emissions reductions over the 30 year crediting period are 7,542,945
m.t. GHG or on average, 251,432 m.t. GHG per year.

1.4 A brief description of the project:Through a combination of Dryland Forest protection and extraordinary community sustainable
development activities, this project is estimated to avoid the emission of over 7 Million metric tonnesof CO2e which would have been emitted due to slash and burn deforestation over the 30 year project
life, or on average approximately 251,432 metric tonnes per year across the Carbon Pools of Aboveand Belowground Biomass (forest carbon), and Soil Carbon.
The Project Area is home to a fantastic diversity of mammals (over 50 species of large mammal,
more than 20 species of bats), birds (over 300 species) and important populations of IUCN Red List
species such as Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi), Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), Lion (Panthera leo) as
well as over 500 African elephants (Loxidonta africana) seasonally.
The project is clearly additional (under the project financial additionality tool ) and the Baseline far
from being hypothetical is an extension of actual deforestation that was occurring aggressively in thereference region immediately adjacent to the Project Area at the time Wildlife Works came on thescene, and that has been demonstrated clearly from historic satellite images.

1.5 Project location including geographic and physicalinformation allowing the unique identification and delineationof the specific extent of the project:
The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project is located in SE Kenya, in the Marungu Sublocation, Voi Division,
Taita Taveta District, Coast Province, Kenya, approximately 150 kms NW of Mombasa.
This Phase I PD covers all the land known as Rukinga Sanctuary which is all that 74,516 acres(30,168.66 ha) of land originally known as LR 12263, historically reduced by subdivisions 12263/1
and 12263/2 at dates prior to the start date of this project.

3

The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary l VCS Project Description

Rukinga is part of that land that forms a corridor of land (the Kasigau Wildlife Corridor) between the
Tsavo East National Park and the Tsavo West National Parks to the East of the Marungu range. The
Project Area and Reference Region are clearly delineated in the image below, and the shape files
representing the boundaries have been made available to the project validator. The land within the
project boundary has been tropical dryland forest1 for at least 20 years and has been a primary forest
since recorded times2.

1.6 Duration of the project activity/crediting period:
The Project Start Date and the Crediting Period Start Date are both January 1st, 2005.
VCS project crediting period: The VCS Project Crediting Period is January 1st 2005 thru Decemberst
31 2034.

1.7 Conditions prior to project initiation:
It was not difficult to identify the baseline scenario for this project which is rapid deforestation due tounplanned slash and burn agricultural expansion by subsistence farmers, as all the conditions of thebaseline were in place before the arrival of Wildlife Works and in fact even the Project Area itself was
beginning to be cleared before we arrived. There is little need for speculation as to what would
happen in the absence of our project if we ceased to protect the Project Area and ceased to provide
alternative livelihoods for the community, the pattern of deforestation would pick up right where it leftoff, but now accelerated by a much larger population base than was present when we arrived.
The Project Area had previously been used for grazing of cattle and for ecotourism. Both activities
failed due to lack of funds, because cattle ranching is difficult due to a fragile ecosystem and lack ofwater, which lead to the sale of the land to the current owners in 2000.
Aforestation of plantation species and agricultural activities cannot profitably be carried out in this sortof area due to a lack of water and a fragile ecosystem. Therefore we believe that we havedemonstrated through our activities to attempt many different economic activities and the activities
that preceded us that there are no credible alternative economic uses for this land that could competewith the Project financially, or provide financial sustainability that would protect it from slash and burnuse by the community.

1.8 A description of how the project will achieve GHG emission
reductions and/or removal enhancements:
Refer to Supporting Document - VCS Methodology PD Requirements Section 6.1.

1.9 Project technologies, products, services and the expectedlevel of activity:
Refer to Supporting Document - VCS Methodology PD Requirements Section 6.1.

1.10 Compliance with relevant local laws and regulations
related to the project:
It is our belief that Wildlife Works meets all local, National and International laws related to thisproject.
The laws that are relevant to this project are:1

UN IPCC, Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF, Table 3A.1.8;
Earliest record that has been located is dated 1895 which identifies the area as forested [Hobley 1895 – Upon aVisit to Tsavo and the Taita Highlands – The Geographical Journal 1895 Vol 5 No 6 pp 545-561]
2

4

The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary l VCS Project Description

EMPLOYMENT LAWS.

Export Processing Zone’s Act (Cap. 547)
As an Export Processing Zone Company we are exempted from the standard Labour Laws of Kenya,
and instead must conform to those laws that that have been deemed applicable to (General
Provisions of the Employment Act (Cap 226-229) or amended for EPZs as covered by the Export
Processing Zone’s Act (Cap. 547).
National Health Insurance Fund.
N.H.I.F was established on 12th July 1966 by an act of parliament Cap 255 of the Laws of Kenya, andbecome a state corporation on 15th February 1999 through an act of Parliament no.9 of 1998. The
objective of its establishment is to enable majority of Kenyans to access healthcare services at
supplemented costs. Contribution to the fund are compulsory for all persons whose income isKsh.1000/= and above. We physically go to the NHIF offices in Voi monthly to submit our monthly
payroll and have the NHIF amount calculated by them, we pay and they give us a receipt. We arealso subject to random checks with the NHIF inspector visiting our facility without notice andinspecting our books. We have never been found in violation of this act.

The National Social Security Fund act ,Cap 258, is a government fund established by the
National Social Security Fund Act,1965 ,For the benefit of the Members. It is a compulsory savings
scheme into which the employer pays a statutory contribution for every employee who is a member.
We physically go to the NSSF offices in Voi monthly to submit our monthly payroll on a NSSF form,
and we pay the monthly dues. We are subject to strict audit checks by the NSSF inspector who visits
our facility every two months and on passing the audit provides us with an official letter indicating weare in compliance. We have never been found in violation of this act.

Pay As you Earn(P.A.Y.E)
Section 37 of the Income Tax act.
The “Pay As You EARN” method of deducting income tax from salaries and wages applies to weekly
wages, Monthly salaries, annual salaries, bonuses, commissions, Directors fees (Whether the
director is resident or non-resident). Monthly we are required to go to the bank (Kenya Commercial
Bank = KCB) to pay the tax withheld from our employees wages and salaries, the bank takes one
folio from our KRA receipt book, and stamps the other two folios, one of which we then take to the
KRA office in Voi and give it to them.
The Factories and Other Places of Work Act
The Factories Act (Cap. 514) deals with the health, safety and welfare of an employee who works in afactory or other place of work. We have never been audited by this department in the Government as
it is very small and covers the whole country, however we have good reason to believe we are in fullcompliance with this act as a result of a third party audit of our factory and operations performed by
the independent NGO Verite,from the USA.

The Work Injury Benefits Act (Cap. 236) provides for ways through which an employee who isinjured when on duty may be compensated by the employer. We are required to maintain private
insurance to cover our responsibility under this act.
Regulation of Wages and Conditions of Employment Act (Cap. 229)
This act sets the conditions of work and the minimum wage guidelines. The EPZ Act supersedes thisact with regard to minimum wage and in fact the EPZ minimum wage guidelines are slightly higher
than the National Employment Act guidelines.
Labour Relations Act, 2007 (Acts No. 14)
This is the new version of the old Trade Unions Act and the Trade Disputes Act, revised to harmonize
the old Trade Acts with Kenya’s recent ratification of many of the elements of the ILO Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87). We are required toprovide our workers with the freedom of association. We are required to honor a dispute process aslaid out in the act. We currently have no collective bargaining agreement in place nor are we required
to do so. To the best of our knowledge none of our employees belong to any Trade Unions, and it isour belief that our employees do not at this time feel that the benefits of membership outweigh the5The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary l VCS Project Description

costs of dues which are born solely by them under the Act. We have never had a dispute with any
employee that resulted in any collective action, lock out etc. and we have no disputes at all at thistime, and we believe that we are in full compliance with this Act. To ensure that employees are awareof their rights under the Act, we have added the following language to all employment contracts
issued by Wildlife Works;“Wildlife Works, EPZ Ltd. acknowledges the importance of the recently enacted Labour Relations Act
2007, and therefore we wish to inform you that you are entitled to Freedom of Association, andspecifically to join the Kenya Textile Workers Union(KTWU) should you so choose. Should you
choose to join the KTWU, all membership dues and agency fees for the Union will be payable directly
by you.”CORPORATE LAWS.

Companies Act, (Law of Kenya Cap. 486);
We must remain a company in good standing, and are required to maintain our Corporate records
with The Registrar of Companies in Nairobi annually.

Bankruptcy Act (Cap. 53);
Lets hope this never applies to us.
LAND and ENVIRONMENT LAWS.

Environmental Management and Coordination Act (Act 8, 1999)
We were required to undergo an environmental audit by the National Environmental Management
Authority. We passed.
Registration of Titles Act:
The terms of the Title Deed by which Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd is the owner of Rukinga Ranch
are governed by this Act.
LOCAL DISTRICT LAWS.
County Council of Taita Taveta Rates are paid at the rate determined under the local By-Laws of ourDistrict.
It is confirmed that:
the project is in compliance with all national laws and license requirements relating toconservation projects in Kenya; andthere is no law mandating that the Land is a conservation area. It is noted that no category ofland use relating to conservation exists under Kenyan law. The current land use category for the
Rukinga Sanctuary project and other privately owned conservation projects is classified as
agriculture.

1.11 Identification of risks that may substantially affect the
project’s GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements:
The major risks that could have an impact on the project are:
Change in legislation – government expropriating the Land through compulsory purchase fordevelopment scheme; as the Government of Kenya is very supportive of our project and has norecent history of expropriation of private conservation lands this risk is very low. We will continue toseek international press for our project as keeping it in the spotlight ensures the Government remains
aware of the values it is providing to the country;Income - Risk that carbon market revenues do not eventuate or are less than adequate tosustain the project financially; our financial sustainability was modeled at very conservative Carbon
offset sale values, and we have a very well known project with high potential value in the marketplace

6

The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary l VCS Project Description

so the likelihood of this occurring is small, especially in light of existing offtake contracts for the life of
the project with BNP Paribas and Nedbank, two major international banks;Crop Failure - substantial and repeated crop failure in surrounding communities could lead toincreased poaching and use of trees for financial benefit; this is very likely and all of our alternative
economic development efforts are aimed at mitigating this risk, and we have demonstrated the ability
to prevent this risk from damaging the forest for almost ten years;
Invasion of cattle grazers due to famine in adjacent communities, or lack of grazing
elsewhere. However any influx of cattle only affects quantity of grass on Project Area and leads to no
significant change in carbon stock. Again this is possible especially as the Somalis have used land in
this area to feed and water their cattle over the years, sometimes with permission sometimes without,
however the increasing aridity in the area we believe will force the Somali’s to look elsewhere forrangelands. We will be using funds from the Carbon project to increase Ranger patrolling to better
protect the Project Area and Leakage Area from illegal incursions;Drought – drought is an increasing reality in this part of Kenya and we anticipate that with
Climate Change it will only worsen in the years covering the project crediting period. Drought
introduces two additional risks;Wildlife – drought obviously places a lot of stress on wildlife in the Project Area, and Leakage
Area. However many of the species living in this ecosystem are extraordinarily drought adapted, andhave no problem surviving in extended drought. For those that aren’t we plan to continue to provide
emergency water sources at Rukinga as we have for the past ten years;Cash crops – drought will make the survival of cash crops, such as jojoba, citrus trees etc.
more difficult but these high value cash crops will be planted sparingly and need much less water
than an entire field of maize, and are able to survive higher temperatures, provided they receive somewater, which the farmers will be in a position to provide to preserve the financial value of the crop;Fire – grass fires are common in the region due to the intense heat and dry conditions,although naturally occurring fires are extremely rare, so our strategy is to continue to educate thelocal population especially the youth about the dangers of burning fallows to improve grazing for theiranimals. Fires tend to burn the grasses and shrubs but move quickly and do not kill the trees whichhave become tolerant of grass fires.

1.12 Demonstration to confirm that the project was not
implemented to create GHG emissions primarily for the purposeof its subsequent removal or destruction.
The Baseline emissions case has nothing to do with the Project Proponent, who entered the scene
expressly to prevent the deforestation of the Kasigau Corridor.

1.13 Demonstration that the project has not created anotherform of environmental credit (for example renewable energy
certificates).
The project has not created another form of environmental credit, and as far as we know is not
eligible for any other form of environment credit.

1.14 Project rejected under other GHG programs (if applicable):
Not Applicable

7

The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary l VCS Project Description

1.15 Project proponents roles and responsibilities, including
contact information of the project proponent, other project
participants:
The Project Proponent for the Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary is
Wildlife Works Inc., a California Corporation in good standing. Wildlife Works Inc. acquired the carbon
rights from the landowner, Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd. after a process of Free Prior andInformed Consent, through a Carbon Rights Agreement/Easement that was approved by a full vote at
an AGM of the Shareholders at Rukinga on February 13th 2009, at which AGM the Shareholders
present were given an explanation of the potential of the Carbon project, a copy of which has been
provided to the Validator, and following which the Shareholders unanimously approved the pursuit ofthis opportunity by the Managing Director and majority shareholder of the land, Mike Korchinsky. Thisdecision was ratified again unanimously by an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders of
Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd on December 9th, 2009.
The carbon project is managed in the field in Kenya by Wildlife Works Carbon LLC, a joint venture of
Wildlife Works, Inc. and Colin Wiel Investments II, in return for which Wildlife Works Carbon LLC iseligible for a share of the proceeds from the sale of the carbon credits generated by the project.
Details of this arrangement are specified in the Membership Agreement of Wildlife Works Carbon
LLC, which was provided to the Validator.
Contacts:
Wildlife Works Inc.:
Founder & CEO – Mike Korchinsky
Tel: +1-415-332-8081
Fax: +1-415-332-8057
Email: mike@wildlifeworks.com
Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC.:
President – Mike Korchinsky

1.16 Any information relevant for the eligibility of the
project and quantification of emission reductions or removalenhancements, including legislative, technical, economic,
sectoral, social, environmental, geographic, site-specific andtemporal information.):Wildlife Works is working closely with the REDD Focal Point within the Government of Kenya toensure that any future REDD legislation considers Projects such as this in the design of sub-national
nesting rules. We do not believe there are any issues that could effect the eligibility of the project. All
information related to the quantification of emission reductions has been detailed in the appropriate
sections of the Supporting Document - VCS Methodology PD Requirements.

1.17 List of commercially sensitive information (ifapplicable):
The Carbon Rights Agreement between Wildlife Works, Inc. and Rukinga Ranching Company, Ltd
contains commercially sensitive information and has been excluded from the public version of the PD.
It was of course provided to the Validator during validation.
The Membership Agreement of Wildlife Works Carbon LLC between Wildlife Works, Inc. and Colin
Wiel Investments II contains commercially sensitive information and has been excluded from thepublic version of the PD. It was of course provided to the Validator during validation.

2

VCS Methodology:

8

The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary l VCS Project Description

2.1 Title and reference of the VCS methodology applied to theproject activity and explanation of methodology choices:
This project used the VM0009 Methodology for Avoided Mosaic Deforestation of Tropical Forests,
approved by the VCS for sectoral scope 14 on January 11th, 2011.

2.2 Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it
is applicable to the project activity:
VM0009 Methodology for Avoided Mosaic Deforestation of Tropical Forests was developed by the
Project Proponent based on their experience on this Project, and was developed to be especiallysuited to the slash and burn agricultural conditions found in this project, and the mitigation activities
conducted by the Project Proponent in this project. This project meets all of the applicability
conditions of the methodology.

2.3 Identifying GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs for thebaseline scenario and for the project:
Refer to Supporting Document - VCS Methodology PD Requirements Sections 5.3 and 5.4.

2.4 Description of how the baseline scenario is identified anddescription of the identified baseline scenario:
Refer to Supporting Document - VCS Methodology PD Requirements Section 6.1.

2.5 Description of how the emissions of GHG by source inbaseline scenario are reduced below those that would haveoccurred in the absence of the project activity (assessment
and demonstration of additionality):
Refer to Supporting Document - VCS Methodology PD Requirements Sections 6.1 and 7.

3

Monitoring:

3.1 Title and reference of the VCS methodology (which
includes the monitoring requirements) applied to the project
activity and explanation of methodology choices:
This project used the VM0009 Methodology for Avoided Mosaic Deforestation of Tropical Forests,
approved by the VCS for sectoral scope 14 on January Nth, 2011.
VM0009 Methodology for Avoided Mosaic Deforestation of Tropical Forests was developed by the
Project Proponent based on their experience on this Project, and was developed to be especiallysuited to the slash and burn agricultural conditions found in this project, and the mitigation activities
conducted by the Project Proponent in this project. This project meets all of the applicability
conditions of the methodology.

3.2 Monitoring, including estimation, modelling, measurement
or calculation approaches:
Refer to Supporting Document - VCS Methodology PD Requirements Sections 13.14.

9

The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary l VCS Project Description

3.3 Data and parameters monitored / Selecting relevant GHG
sources, sinks and reservoirs for monitoring or estimating GHG
emissions and removals:
Refer to Supporting Document - VCS Methodology PD Requirements Sections 13.14.

3.4 Description of the monitoring plan
Refer to Supporting Document - VCS Methodology PD Requirements Sections 13.14.

4

GHG Emission Reductions:

4.1 Explanation of methodological choice:This project used the VM0009 Methodology for Avoided Mosaic Deforestation of Tropical Forests,
approved by the VCS for sectoral scope 14 on January 13th, 2011.
VM0009 Methodology for Avoided Mosaic Deforestation of Tropical Forests was developed by the
Project Proponent based on their experience on this Project, and was developed to be especiallysuited to the slash and burn agricultural conditions found in this project, and the mitigation activities
conducted by the Project Proponent in this project. This project meets all of the applicability
conditions of the methodology.

4.2 Quantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for the baseline
scenario:
Refer to Supporting Document - VCS Methodology PD Requirements Section 8.

4.3 Quantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for the project:
Refer to Supporting Document - VCS Methodology PD Requirements Section 11.

4.4 Quantifying GHG emission reductions and removalenhancements for the GHG project:
Refer to Supporting Document - VCS Methodology PD Requirements Section 11.

5

Environmental Impact:

We were required to undergo an environmental audit by the National Environmental Management
Authority. We passed. Results provided for review by the Validator.

6

Stakeholders comments:

Stakeholder comments were solicited via public comment periods on the internet, and by postings on
local area notice boards. Copies of the public comments received were provided to the Validator.

7

Schedule:

A complete timeline of Project Activities was provided to the Validator. The overall Schedule for the
project is shown below. Project Start Date and Crediting Period Start Date are both January 1st 2005,
and Project end Date is December 31st 2034. Project Activities began on January 1st 2005, with anescalation of activities in 2009 after receipt of initial carbon project finance, costs prior to 2009 beingborn solely by the Project Proponent.

10The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project – Phase I Rukinga Sanctuary l VCS Project Description

historical reference period

project period

2034
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
Ve

Ve BR

Ve

Ve BR

Ve

project timeline (Ve = external verification year, BR = baseline re-evaluation year)

8

Ownership:

8.1 Proof of Title:
Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd has legal title to all of the land of the Project Area, known as
Rukinga Sanctuary. A copy of the title deed was provided for the Validator. Wildlife Works Inc.
acquired the carbon rights from the landowner, Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd. after a process ofFree Prior and Informed Consent, through a Carbon Rights Agreement/Easement that was approvedby a full vote at an AGM of the Shareholders at Rukinga on February 13th 2009, at which AGM the
Shareholders present were given an explanation of the potential of the Carbon project, a copy ofwhich has been provided to the Validator, and following which the Shareholders unanimously
approved the pursuit of this opportunity by the Managing Director and majority shareholder of theland, Mike Korchinsky. This decision was ratified again unanimously by an extraordinary general
meeting of shareholders of Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd on December 9th, 2009.

8.2 Projects that reduce GHG emissions from activities thatparticipate in an emissions trading program (if applicable):
Not Applicable

11

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Boden Creek Ecological Preserve
Forest Carbon Project
June 15, 2011

Forest Carbon Offsets LLC
600 Cameron Street
Alexandria, VA 22314, USA
Technical Contact: Jeff Waldon, Chief Technical Officer
Phone: +1 540-230-2854, Email: jeffwaldon@forestcarbonoffsets.net
Web: http://www.forestcarbonoffsets.net
1

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

1.0 Project Description
1.1 Project title
1.2 Type and category of the project
1.3 Estimated emission reductions over the crediting period
1.4 A brief description of project
1.5 Project location
1.6 Duration of the project activity/crediting period
1.7 Conditions prior to project initiation
1.8 Project description
1.9 Project technologies, products, services and the expected levelof activity
1.10 Compliance with relevant local laws and regulations related to theproject
1.11 Identification of risks
1.12 Demonstration to confirm that the project was not implemented
to create GHG emissions
1.13 Other forms of environmental credit
1.14 Project rejected under other GHG programs
1.15 Project proponents roles and responsibilities
1.16 List of commercially sensitive information
2.0 VCS Methodology
2.1 VCS methodology applied
2.2 Justification of the choice of the methodology
2.3 Identifying GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs for the baseline scenario and forthe project
2.4 Description of the identified baseline scenario
2.5 Strategy for reduction of GHG in the baseline scenario
3.0 Monitoring
3.1 VCS methodology applied to the project activity
3.2 Monitoring, including estimation, modelling, measurement or
calculation approaches
3.3 Data and parameters monitored
3.4 Description of the monitoring plan
4.0 GHG Emission Reductions
4.1 Explanation of methodological choice
4.2 Quantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for the baseline scenario
4.3 Quantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for the project
4.4 Quantifying GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements
for the GHG project
5.0 Environmental Impact
6.0 Stakeholders’ Comments
7.0 Schedule
8.0 Ownership
8.1 Proof of title
8.2 Projects that reduce GHG emissions from activities that participate
in an emissions trading program
9.0 Risk Analysis
9.1 Tool for AFOLU non‐permanence risk analysis and buffer determination
Literature Cited
Appendix A: Monitoring Plan
Cover Photo: Station #6 Boden Creek Trail, April 3, 3008 03:47h, jaguar likely pair (Miller and Miller 2008).

2

3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
6
6
7
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
13
15
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
20
22
23
23
24
25
25
25
25
25
29
32

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

1.0 Project Description
1.1 Project title
Boden Creek Ecological Preserve (BCEP) Forest Carbon Project (the “project”).
1.2 Type and Category of Project
AFOLU: Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
1.3 Estimated Emission reductions over the crediting period
The total predicted avoided emissions over 25 years exceeds 1.4 million mtCO2e
1.4 A brief description of the project
BCEP is located on 5,213 hectares of which 3,980 ha are considered the project area. The goal of the
project is to develop the project as a carbon sink by means of conserving and protecting the property
which will maintain the biodiversity values of the property and enhance the local economic environment
with sustainable livelihoods through private‐sector eco‐tourism. The climate objective is to avoid
emissions from deforestation during the project timeframe.
The project consists of protection of the property for the timeframe of the project through patrols,
outreach with and job creation for the local villages, and placing a restrictive covenant on the property
deeds for the life of the project. Belize Lodge and Excursions (BLE) is the contractor charged withrunning an ecotourism operation on the property. BCEP is the entity that owns the property and theentity charged with managing the property. BLE has an ecotourism contract for use of the property from
BCEP. Forest Carbon Offsets LLC (FCO) is an agent of BCEP to develop BCEP as a carbon finance project.
Conservation Management Institute at Virginia Tech (CMI) is a subcontractor hired to conduct technicalanalysis on behalf of FCO.
1.5 Project location
The property boundary consists of 5,213 ha of which 3,980 ha are considered the project area. The
project area is completely available for aquaculture, industrial logging and commercial agriculture (withthe exception of a one‐chain buffer around perennial streams) according to Belize’s national plans for
agriculture1 and aquaculture development 2 in the absence of finance from any carbon financing
mechanism. The project is situated at Latitude 16017’37” North and Longitude 88048’47” West in theToledo District, Belize 23 km north of Punta Gorda, Belize (Figure 1: General location of Boden Creek
Ecological Preserve). The project’s boundaries are defined by the 931 ha Pine Hill Mennonite
Community, the 7,516 ha Seven Hills Estate, the 2,192 ha Manatee Creek Parcel, the 3,866 ha Golden
Stream Parcel, and Indian Creek Village.

1

National Food and Agriculture Policy (2002‐2020). Available
at http://www.agriculture.gov.bz/PDF/Policy_Document.pdf accessed 1/21/2010.
2
National Aquaculture Zoning Plan for Belize: Schedule I (DRAFT). Available
at http://www.coastalzonebelize.org/reports/draft_nationa_aquaculture_policy.pdf accessed 1/21/2010.

3

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Boden Creek Ecological Preserve

Figure 1: General location of Boden Creek Ecological Preserve 33

Source: CIA World Factbook via the University of Texas (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/belize.html

4BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Figure 2: Project Area: Forest vs. Non‐Forest Map

1.6 Duration of the project activity/crediting period
•
•
•
•
•
•

Historical reference period January 1995 through December 2004
Funding secured for carbon project and developer signed September 2009.
Start of project 1/1/2005
Crediting period 2005 to 2029.
Baseline reset 2015 and 2025.
Project end date is December 31, 2029.

1.7 Conditions prior to project initiation
The property was purchased from the previous owner who was in the process of converting theproperty to a mix of agriculture (bananas and citrus primarily). The evidence on the ground of thishistory is self‐evident as a part of the property was cleared and remnant banana and orange trees arestill visible. The project started when the property was purchased (2000‐2004). The previous landownerreceived and seriously considered at least one other offer of purchase for conversion so the agent of
deforestation was determined to be a class of deforestation agent.
In 2001, a hurricane damaged the biomass on the property. In the period 2004 to 2008, the property
owner protected the property with investor funds and sought outside support for a carbon financing
project. In 2008/2009, FCO was contracted as an agent of the landowner to perform the due diligencerequired, collect and analyze the data, and prepare the documentation for the REDD project.

5

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

1.8 Project description
The major project activities are:
•
•
•
•
•

Partner with BLE to conduct ecotourism activities at the site to generate jobs for local people,
Control access to the site through regular patrols,Continue to conduct outreach with the local communities,
Place a restrictive covenant on the property, andMonitor results.

The project will use carbon financing to avoid the threat of conversion to citrus, pasture, and/or
aquaculture. A successful and financially stable BCEP will provide livelihoods both through managementof the property and through the ecotourism operations conducted by BLE. These livelihoods are badly
needed in the local communities. Financial stability means that the taxes can be paid, and all the otheractivities necessary to maintain and protect the property are sustainable. The primary activity for
management of the property is patrols and interaction with local communities. These activities ensure
the long term protection of the climate and biodiversity values of the project by preventing illegal
hunting and harvesting of timber. A substantial monitoring program will be undertaken by BCEP.
1.9 Project technologies, products, services and the expected level of activity
The primary technology employed to achieve the desired results is patrols of the property to prevent
incursions and illegal removal of biomass. The following activities will occur:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Rangers and patrols,
Assisting forest carbon data collection,
Assisting biodiversity data collection,
Ecotourism services,
Accounting,
Personnel management,
Maintenance, andRestrictive covenants.

Monitoring will occur regularly with verification audits no less frequently than every 5 years.
1.10

Compliance with relevant local laws and regulations related to the project

BCEP complies with all applicable local, district, and national labor standards. BCEP follows all applicable
environmental laws including the Belize Environmental Protection Act Chapter 328, Revised Edition
2000.4 Belize has the following relevant labor laws:
•
•
•
•
4

International Labour Organization Conventions Act,
Labour Act,
Labour (Subsidiary Laws),
Protection Against Sexual Harassment Act,See www.belizelaw.org.

6

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

•
•
•
•
•
•

Protection Against Sexual Harassment Commencement Act Order,
Public Safety Act,
Trade Unions Act,
Trade Unions Regulations,
Trade Unions and Employers Organizations (Registration, Status and Recognition) Act, andTrade Unions and Employers Organizations (Registration, Status and Recognition) Act(Commencement) Order.

The project team conducted an exhaustive law review for the PDD:
•

•

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

Belize Private Forests (Conservation) Act, Chapter 217, Revised Edition 2000.
• This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under theauthority of the Law Revision Act, Chapter 3 of the Laws of Belize, Revised Edition 1980 ‐1990.
Forests Act, Chapter 213, Revised Edition 2003.
• This is a revised edition of the Subsidiary Laws, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner
under the authority of the Law Revision Act, Chapter 3 of the Substantive Laws of Belize,
Revised Edition 2000.
Forest Fire Protection Act, Chapter 212, Revised Edition 2000.
Water and Sewage Act, Chapter 222.
• Defines riparian protection as “that the flow of the stream does not fall below the minimum
quantity necessary to secure the interest of public health and the protection of the rights ofriparian and other land‐owners.” (p. 46)
Water Industry Act, Chapter 222.
Belize Agricultural Health Authority Act, Chapter 211.
Fisheries Act, Chapter 210.
Timber Industry Act, Chapter 341.
Land Utilization Act, Chapter 188.
• The Minister may, for the better utilization of land, make regulations‐o to demarcate areas, water catchment areas or watersheds and prohibiting theclearing of any vegetation within those areas;o to provide for such other measures as may be required to prevent soil erosion;
restricting the construction of buildings within stipulated distances from the middle
line of any road or street;o to demarcate specific areas as special development areas and to stipulate the typeof development that will be permitted within those areas;o for the clearing of any forest or the felling of any trees; ando to provide for all such other things as may be necessary for the better carrying outof the provisions of this Part of the Act.
Citrus (Processing and Production) Act, Chapter 277.

From this analysis and based on personal communication with the Ministry of Natural Resources and theEnvironment and the Belize Forest Department, it is clear that the BCEP property could easily beconverted legally to a citrus plantation. The only caveat is that there should be a one‐chain riparianbuffer on either side of Golden Stream and Boden Creek (personal communication with the Ministry of
Natural Resources and Environment, Belize), even though this one‐chain buffer is not required by law.
There are no property disputes within the project area per personal communication with the Belize

7

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Forestry Department and the legal resources assisting with the claims of the 38 Mayan villages ofsouthern Belize.
1.11

Identification of risks

Political Risk
Risks to the project from instability in the Government or a change in leadership at BCEP or BLE are
considered minimal. In any case, BCEP has agreed to a restrictive covenant for the life of the project toensure permanence once carbon finance becomes available. The restrictive covenant is envisioned as acommitment by the landowner on the title to comply with the project plan over the life of the project.
The purpose of this restrictive covenant is (in the unlikely event that the land changes hands) to bind
any new owners to compliance with the CCB and VCS project plans e.g. no removal of forest, regularmonitoring, patrols, and outreach to the local communities.
Risk from Oil and Gas Development
To the best of FCO’s knowledge no oil or mineral resources occur on the project site and exploration formineral resources is not occurring nor is it expected to occur. If oil or gas is discovered on the site, itwould belong to the Government of Belize. Similar sites in Belize where oil extraction is taking place
have minimal above ground disturbance. Section 26 paragraph 6 of the National Petroleum Act states:“(6) Subject to this Act, where, in the course of conducting petroleum operations
pursuant to a contract, the rights of the owner or lawful occupier of any land are
disturbed or damage to any crops, trees, buildings, stock, works or other property
thereon is caused, the contractor is liable to pay the owner or lawful occupier fair andreasonable compensation in respect of the disturbance or damage according to therespective rights or interests of the owner or lawful occupier concerned. The amountof compensation payable shall be determined by agreement between the parties or if
the parties are unable to reach agreement or the agreed compensation is not paid,
the matter may be treated in accordance with the Arbitration Act.”
Based on this, the contractor for the Government extracting the oil would be responsible forcompensating the owner of the credits for any reversals suffered as a result of the oil extraction process.
Natural Risk
The greatest natural risk to the project is a direct hit by a hurricane. Hurricane Iris struck the project site
in 2001 resulting in a blow down of trees. Therefore, this area is currently in a state of ecologicalregeneration as is much of the Toledo District likewise impacted in this natural cycle.
Leakage Risk
Since the risk to the forest is determined to be a class of deforestation agents that convert land in Belize
to agricultural uses, and the most conservative agricultural use, from a carbon sequestration standpointis citrus development, a market leakage analysis was conducted following methodology module“Estimation of emissions from activity shifting for avoided planned deforestation (LK‐ASP)”. A reduction
in claimed avoided emissions was made to account for leakage risk.

8

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

1.12

Demonstration to confirm that the project was not implemented to create GHG emissions

No GHG emissions have been created by this project. The objective of this project is to avoid emissions.
1.13

Other forms of environmental credit

No other environmental credit has been created by this project. The co‐benefits of the project havebeen validated to the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity 2nd Edition Gold Standard at the projectlevel by SCS July 14, 2010. 5
1.14

Project rejected under other GHG programs

This is the first and only application for this project to a GHG program.
1.15

Project proponents roles and responsibilities

BCEP is the project proponent. BCEP has hired FCO to develop the strategy, implementation, andmonitoring of the carbon credits generated by this project. FCO has hired CMI Virginia Tech to collectinitial data, develop the monitoring protocol and conduct the baseline study for the monitoring
program. Supporting documents are available by contacting FCO. BLE is the partner actually conducting
the ecotourism enterprise. Decisions on implementation of the project activities are the responsibility of
the BCEP board. FCO will be a member of the BCEP board at least through 2014.
1.16

List of commercially sensitive information

Land titles, economic analysis, and inventory data.

5

CCB Website: http://www.climate‐standards.org/projects/index.html

9BCEP Forest Carbon Project

2.0 VCS Methodology
2.1 VCS methodology applied
VM0007 REDD Methodology Modules (http://www.v‐c‐s.org/methodology_rmm.html). In particular thefollowing methodology modules were used for this project:• REDD‐MF• M‐MON• T‐ADD• T‐BAR• X‐UNC• X‐STR• BL‐PL• LK‐ASP• CP‐AB• T‐SIG• E‐BB• A/R Methodological tool “Estimation of direct nitrous oxide emission from nitrogen fertilization”(Version 01) with correction for percentage of nitrogen in applied fertilizer (NCSFi)

2.2 Justification of the choice of the methodology
Based on the methodology and the reference for the methodology, VCS “Tool for AFOLU Methodological
Issues”, this project qualifies because of a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide from planned
deforestation in the project scenario. This methodology is applicable because:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Land in the project area qualified as forest at least 10 years before the project start date,No peat soils are present on the project site,
Project proponents can show ownership of the project site and ownership of the carbon rights forthe project area,
Baseline deforestation in the project area falls within the category of planned deforestation (VCS
category APD),
Baselines shall be renewed every 10 years after the start of the project except where triggers lead toa more frequent renewal,
No areas registered under the CDM or any other carbon trading scheme are included within the
project site. Validation under the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance for co‐benefits has
been disclosed,
The baseline condition is conversion of the property to a permanent deforested state of citrus
agriculture,
No reforestation is proposed for the project, andLeakage avoidance activities do not include either agriculture lands flooded to increase production,or intensifying livestock production.

10

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

The project is considered under the category “Avoided Planned Deforestation”. This project qualifies
because:•••Conversion of forest lands to a deforested condition is legally permitted,
Documentation is available to clearly demonstrate with credible evidence that the land would havebeen converted to non‐forest use if not for the REDD project, andPost deforestation land use does not include reforestation.

2.3 Identifying GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs for the baseline scenario and for the project
The approach to measuring carbon stock in the project was based upon the “Sourcebook for Land Use,
Land‐Use Change and Forestry Projects” (Pearson et al 2005). These methods comply with theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2006 Guidelines for National GHG Inventories for
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use.
Emrick and Dorr (2008) identified 10 general cover types at BCEP and created a preliminary vegetation
map using a 2003 Quickbird image that covered approximately 50% of BCEP. Two of the 10 types, Wet
Tropical Broadleaf Forest and Mixed Cohune/Tropical Broadleaf Forest, accounted for over 95% of theforested area at BCEP. Observations during subsequent field visits indicated that these boundaries
corresponded poorly to the forested vegetation types. As a result FCO concluded that accurately
mapping separate forest types in a young forest recovering from a series of disturbances would be
difficult if not impossible. Therefore FCO classified the entire forested area at BCEP as Lowland Broad
Leafed Wet Forest (Meerman and Sabido 2001).
Thus, for the purposes of assessing carbon stocks at BCEP, FCO classified the landscape into one of thesix Land Use Land Cover classes (Forest Land, Crop Land, Grass Land, Wetlands, Settlements and Other
Land) defined by IPCC (2006).
Carbon Pools
The carbon pools selected for measurements were the above ground tree (> 5cm diameter at breast
height) and below‐ground biomass. Non‐tree above ground and below ground biomass were either notmeasured (lianas), or measured and set aside for a future revision of the project (palms and cecropias).
Down or standing dead wood and leaf litter were also not measured. Omitting these potential carbon
pools resulted in a conservative estimation of carbon stocks. It was determined that some existing trees
may be harvested in the baseline scenario. These few trees were analyzed from the inventory data andfound to be insignificant. In the baseline scenario, emissions attributable to biomass burning wereanalyzed and included, as were avoided emissions from fertilizer use.

11

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Table 1: Carbon Pools and Sources of Emissions
Carbon pools
Included / Justification / explanation of choiceexcluded
Above ground
Included
Recovering secondary tropical forests have high growth / carbon
accumulation rates and rapidly fix key nutrients in the above andbelow ground biomass (Vitousek and Stanford 1986, Vitousek 1991,
Guariguata and Ostertag 2001, Hughes et al 1999).
Below ground
Included
Recovering secondary tropical forests have high growth / carbon
accumulation rates and rapidly fix key nutrients in the above andbelow ground biomass (Vitousek and Stanford 1986, Vitousek 1991,
Guariguata and Ostertag 2001, Hughes et al 1999).
Dead‐wood
Excluded
Excluded to be conservative and make the monitoring cost‐effective.
Harvested wood
Excluded
The standard practice in Belize for conversion of forest to
products
agricultural lands is to remove valuable timber species and thenbulldoze and burn the remaining trees. This pool was analyzed forsignificance and found to be de minimis.
Litter
Excluded
Excluded to be conservative and make the monitoring cost‐effective.
Soil organic carbon Excluded
Excluded to be conservative and make the monitoring cost‐effective.
Fuel Wood
Excluded
While some fuel wood collection was occurring prior to the projectCollection
and would presumably occur in the baseline scenario, an analysis
was conducted based on local population data and found that thispool is de minimis and therefore excluded.
Sources
Gas Included / Justification / explanation
excluded
Biomass
CO2 Excluded
CO2 emissions are accounted for by biomass changes in the above
burningground and below ground biomass pools.

Combustionof fossil fuels

Use offertilizers

CH4

IncludedCH4 emissions from land clearing and burning are included in thestock change model for the baseline. No biomass burning is
proposed as a project activity.

N2O

Included

N2O emissions from land clearing and burning are included in thestock change model for the baseline. No biomass burning is
proposed as a project activity.

CO2

ExcludedConservatively omitted from both the baseline and project
scenarios.

CH4

ExcludedConservatively omitted from both the baseline and project
scenarios.

N2O

ExcludedConservatively omitted from both the baseline and project
scenarios.

CO2

ExcludedConservatively omitted from both the baseline and project
scenarios.

12

BCEP Forest Carbon ProjectCH4

ExcludedConservatively omitted from both the baseline and project
scenarios.

N2O

Included.

The baseline scenario of citrus agriculture would utilize chemicalfertilizer.

2.4 Description of the identified baseline scenario
Prior to the start of the project, the previous owner was in the process of removing timber andconverting the property to a banana plantation. The baseline scenario therefore is considered to be acontinuation of that process of conversion. As far as is known, no written plan was produced for thisprocess by the previous landowner so proxy areas were analyzed to support a rate of conversion
consistent with current practice in the area.
Carbon financing will stabilize the protection and maintenance budget which includes patrols,monitoring, outreach to local communities, road maintenance, trail maintenance, and other activities.
Additionality Analysis
Per instructions from the methodology, the following analysis is offered of alternative baseline scenarios
according to the procedure presented in “VT0001 Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of
Additionality in VCS Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Project Activities”
This tool is applicable because a) the proposed project activities will not violate any Belizean law, and b)
the use of this tool results in identification of the most plausible baseline scenario of the several possible
baseline scenarios identified below.
Some of the alternative land uses are more likely and pose a much larger deforestation threat thanothers. The following is a “ranking” of the three most likely alternative land uses. Each alternative isconsidered legal in Belize.
1. Conversion to Agriculture (continuation of the preproject land use)
The most likely alternative land use scenario is the conversion to agriculture, and it is the most pervasive
driver for deforestation and land use change in the project area. Agricultural products could include
cattle, citrus, bananas, aquaculture, cacao, rice, and other products. The conversion of forestland in
Belize to agriculture is both a national and regional trend. The FAO (2003) estimated that by 1989
about 217,241 hectares, or about 10%, of the national land area had been converted from forest to
agricultural land. Furthermore, by the first half of the 1990’s 25,000 hectares of forested land werebeing lost yearly due to conversion to agricultural land (FAO 2003).
Suitability of soils for conversion to agriculture, particularly citrus were evaluated using the literature.
According to Baillie (1993) soils throughout the Project Area are derived from mudstones, sandstones
limestone deposits. Soils are moderately shallow clays that are fairly well drained. The soils areunderlain by flat‐bedded mudstones with some minor sandstones and limestones. Most soils are clay
and well‐drained while calcium and magnesium are present. The soils are moderately acidic.

13

BCEP Forest Carbon ProjectCitrus soils need 1) to be moderately acidic, 2) well‐drained, and 3) without a deficiency of calcium andmagnesium and soils in the project area meet all necessary criteria (Baillie 1993).
BCEP is bordered and in close proximity to several farms involved in the production of banana, citrus,
and cattle. The owner has indicated that some of these landowners expressed an interest in buying
portions of BCEP in order to expand their operations. Furthermore, the previous owners of BCEP
operated a citrus, banana and cattle operation on the project site which ceased only after the current
owner purchased the property (Bowen‐Jones 2001).
2. Purchase of the Land to Operate Ecotourism Lodges
One alternative land use would be the purchase of BCEP by a different owner to operate the ecotourism
lodges. The economics of the current operation, running the lodge system and supporting protection ofa large conservation area, is not sufficient, and it would be unlikely to change appreciably to allow a
different landowner to succeed.
Commercializing the value of the avoided CO2 emissions will provide the capital required to support the
management of the property as a conservation area independent of the ecotourism operation. There
are no other ecotourism operations in Belize with a large conservation area and no other outside
sources of income either through agriculture or external donors.
3. Purchase of the Land as a Conservation Area
There are privately owned protected areas in the area and throughout Belize. Most landowners, andthe landowner at BCEP, that own these properties are members of the Belize Association of Private
Protected Areas (BAPPA). Landowners purchase properties for conservation for a variety of reasons.
Some establish nonprofit companies to hold the property and some simply hold onto the property outof a desire to protect the biodiversity or other values of the site. There is no inherent financial income
stream from owning a private protected area while there are several required expenses. The initialpurchase price, annual taxes, maintenance, and protection from trespass are all expenses that can run
into the millions of dollars. Landowners that pursue this strategy are required to be relatively wealthyor have outside sponsors or pursue a strategy of income generation that is consistent with conservationsuch as ecotourism.
Analysis of Alternatives
The ecotourism operation is a separate entity. No financial resources are planned for transfer from theecotourism operation to the carbon project. At present the ecotourism operation is negative. No
income is expected from the carbon project. Simple financial analysis would indicate that without the
carbon income the financial situation will be negative. The baseline scenario of agriculture andparticular citrus is considered positive since it was underway at the time of the purchase of the project(Bowen‐Jones 2001) and the citrus industry is a healthy part of the Belizean economy (Tzul 2010).
Therefore at least one of the baseline scenarios is more profitable than the project scenario excluding
the carbon project income.
Financial plans for both the ecotourism operation and the carbon project will be made available to theauditors.

14

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Common Practice Analysis•••

The practice of converting land to industrial agriculture is commonplace in the region as indicated inTzul 2010, FCO’s land cover analysis, and observations on the ground.
Two other nearby properties owned by nonprofits are of similar size and are managed as protectedareas.
Both nearby properties are supported by an international donor base not available for the projectsite making the situations quite dissimilar. The essential difference between this project site andothers is that this project site has no external funding source on which to draw in the absence ofcarbon financing.

2.4 Strategy for reduction of GHG in the baseline scenario
The climate objective is to avoid emissions from deforestation during the project timeframe. The major
project activities are:
•
•
•
•
•

Partner with BLE to conduct ecotourism activities at the site to generate income for expenses ofmaintaining and managing the property,
Control access to the project site through regular patrols,Continue to interact with the local communities,
Place a restrictive covenant on the titles, andMonitor results.

The project will use carbon financing to avoid the threat of conversion to agriculture. A successful andfinancially stable BCEP will provide livelihoods both for management of the property and through theecotourism operations conducted by BLE. These livelihoods are badly needed in the local communities.
Financial stability means that taxes can be paid, and all the other activities necessary to maintain andprotect the property are sustainable.
The primary activity for management of the property is patrols and interaction with local communities.
These activities ensure the long term protection of the climate and biodiversity values of the project by
preventing illegal hunting and harvesting of timber. Employment within local communities makes local
communities stakeholders in protecting the property.
A substantial monitoring program will be undertaken by BCEP. The monitoring protocol and baseline
study are being designed and initially conducted by staff of CMI and FCO. CMI conducted the initialstudies at BCEP and both FCO and CMI have significant field experience in Belize.

15

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

3.0 Monitoring
3.1 VCS methodology applied to the project activity:
REDD Methodology Modules (http://www.v‐c‐s.org/methodology_rmm.html) particularly modules M‐
MON and LK‐ASP.
3.2 Monitoring, including estimation, modelling, measurement or calculation approaches
Purpose of Monitoring
The purpose of monitoring is to:••••

Revise the baseline in year 10 of the project,
Detect carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions,
Describe leakage of carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions attributable to leakage, andEstimate ex‐post net carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions.

Types of Data and Information to be Reported, Including Units of Measurement
The types of data and information to be reported are reproduced from the methodology in Appendix A.
Origin of the Data
The origin of the data will be from field observations made on an annual basis and verified by a 3rd party
auditor at least every 5 years.
Monitoring, Including Estimation, Modelling, Measurement or Calculation Approaches
The monitoring plan is reproduced in Appendix A.
Monitoring Times and Periods, Considering the Needs of Intended Users
The monitoring times will be during the dry season, typically December through April of each year. Eachpermanent plot will ideally be remeasured each year, but at least in the year prior to the verification
event. Monitoring reports will be produced for use by the 3rd party auditors at each verification event.
Monitoring Roles and Responsibilities
BCEP has responsibility for monitoring and has budgeted personnel and funds for this purpose.
Managing Data Quality
The data quality will be assessed at each verification event. The monitoring protocol is available forreview and includes a QA/QC component.

16

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

3.4 Data and parameters monitored
The monitoring protocol is reproduced in Appendix A.
3.5 Description of the monitoring plan
The monitoring protocol is reproduced in Appendix A. The overall plan is that staff from BCEP will be
trained by the Conservation Management Institute to measure each permanent plot each year. At
periodic intervals, no less frequently than every 5 years, the data will be summarized, written up withina monitoring report, and verified by a 3rd party auditor.

4.0 GHG Emission Reductions
4.1 Explanation of methodological choiceThis REDD Methodology Framework is applicable to project activities that fall within the AFOLU project
category “REDD” as defined in the VCS AFOLU Guidance document. By choosing the appropriate
modules on the basis of the applicability conditions mentioned in each of the modules, a project‐specificmethodology can be constructed. Prior to project initiation, the project site was being deforested. This
project avoids planned deforestation by means of the purchase of the property for the purpose ofprotecting it.
4.2 Quantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for the baseline scenario
In order to estimate potential carbon stock changes over the life of the project, a detailed description ofa plausible and realistic baseline scenario is required. Based upon FCO analysis of alternative land use
scenarios, the conversion to agriculture is the most likely land use in the baseline scenario. Of thevarious agricultural conversion options common in the area, citrus conversion is used as a likely, andmost conservative from a biomass perspective, choice for performing the calculations necessary todescribe the scenario.
Estimate of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Loss in the Baseline Scenario
In order to estimate GHG loss und the baseline scenario the following variables are required:
1. Area of forest available for conversion,
2. Baseline carbon stocks,
3. Forest growth/biomass/carbon accumulation annual rates,
4. Maximum carbon stocks for secondary tropical forest in Belize,
5. Deforestation/conversion rates,
6. Allocation of deforestation among agro‐ecosystems,
7. Carbon stocks in agro‐ecosystems,
8. Fate of commercial timber and long‐lived wood products,
9. Losses of biomass attributable to fuel‐wood collection,
10. Avoided emissions from fertilizer use,
11. Avoided emissions from biomass burning, and
12. Avoided emissions from transportation fuel use.

17

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

1. Area of forest available for conversion
Of the total area of the property, 5,213 ha, 3,980 ha is available for the project. A reduction of 1,233 ha
was made to account for land that was not forested at least 10 years prior to the start of the project plus
land that is within a 1 chain buffer of perennial streams. This figure is based upon Landsat TM data andrepresents the total forest areas minus a one‐chain buffer along perennial streams. An additional 228 haof forest was conservatively removed from the project (from the forest class) to account for thediscrepancy between the title acreage and the GIS boundary file.
2. Baseline Carbon Stocks
Baseline carbon stocks consisted of above ground biomass and below ground biomass. The mean
carbon pool in 2011 was based on field measurements conducted in 2009 and 2011 and independently
verified. The allometric equation for biomass prediction published in Chave et. al. (2005) for wet forest
stands (without Height) was used to predict above ground biomass. A factor of 50% was used to convert
biomass to carbon. The Chave et. al. equation requires the use of specific gravity for each species oftree (Zanne 2009). All trees were not identified to species as is commonly reported in the literature(Chave et. al. 2005) so a weighted average specific gravity for the site was developed based on thespecific gravity for known trees on all plots. That weighted average (.6253) was used for all trees thatwere not identifiable to species.
Below ground biomass was estimated based on above ground biomass using the equation found in
Pearson et al (2005).
An uncertainty level of 25.33% was calculated using module “Estimation of uncertainty for REDD project
activities (X‐UNC)”.
3. Forest Growth / Biomass/Carbon Accumulation Annual Rates
A critical factor in calculating changes in carbon pools under the baseline scenario is the recovery of theforest from the impact of Hurricane Iris. Recovering secondary tropical forests have long beenrecognized to have high growth/carbon accumulation rates and rapidly fix key nutrients in the aboveand below ground biomass (Vitousek and Stanford 1986, Vitousek 1991, Guariguata and Ostertag 2001).
Published rates of carbon accumulation and/or growth rates for young secondary Lowland Broad Leafed
Wet Forest specifically for Belize are not available. However, Guariguata and Ostertag (2001) in areview of neotropical forest succession studies, reported above ground biomass accumulation rates of
up to 100 t/ha over a 15 year period or a 6.7% accumulation rate /year.
Hughes et al. (1999) in a study conducted in the Los Tuxtlas region of Mexico, calculated mean yearly
above ground biomass accumulation for a series of different aged secondary tropical forests. This study
is particularly pertinent to carbon accumulation rates at BCEP because:•••

The general vegetation composition of the communities is similar to those of BCEP.
The ages of the forest stands used in their study encompass the age distribution of the forest at
BCEP over the entire project (i.e. space for time substitution).
Environmental variables (soils, bedrock geology, and climate) and land use history are similar to
BCEP.

18

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Using the data from Hughes et al (1999) the average annual above ground biomass accumulation rate
for secondary tropical forests of all ages was 6.3%/year. Because southern Belize has substantiallyhigher rainfall compared to the Los Tuxtlas region of Mexico the 6.3% rate was determined to be an
appropriate and conservative figure to estimate biomass accumulation within the project area.
4. Maximum Carbon Stocks for Secondary Tropical Forest in Belize
The published steady state maximum for carbon stocks in tropical forest in southern Belize is 318 C
tons/ha (Gibbs et al 2007).
5. Rate of Deforestation and Agricultural Conversion
Based on FCO analysis of proxy areas, the deforestation rate for the baseline scenario is considered tobe 10.8% Six proxy areas were selected using the methodology described in “REDD Methodological
Module: Estimation of baseline carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions from planned
deforestation (BL‐PL)”. An uncertainty level of 7.43% was calculated using module “Estimation of
uncertainty for REDD project activities (X‐UNC)”.
6. Allocation of Deforestation/Conversion among Agro‐Ecosystems
Under the baseline scenario, forest cover at BCEP would be converted to mixed agricultural uses. The
conversion of tropical forest to mixed agriculture (i.e. citrus / banana plantations, pasture) does not
result in a complete loss of carbon from the ecosystem. Each new agro‐ecosystem will fix carbon albeit
at a much lower rate compared to tropical forest. The one exception would be aquaculture wherecarbon fixation would be minimal. As opposed to citrus plantations, conversion to aquaculture will resultin a 100% loss of carbon from the ecosystem.
7. Carbon stocks in agro‐ecosystems
Of the terrestrial agro‐ecosystems citrus plantations fix the most carbon, so citrus conversion waschosen as the most conservative assumption. Based on the best available literature, we determined an
undeniably conservative estimate is 50% above the average found in Morgan et. al. (2006) or 141
kg/tree dry weight. Converting that weight to tons C/ha requires a presumption of tree density which isprovided in Spreen et. al. (2010) as 107 trees/acre at year 20. That estimate then works out to 37 tons
C/ha. Based on the literature, the other terrestrial agro‐ecosystems had substantially lower maximum
carbon stocks.
8. Fate of Forest Resources Lost to Agricultural Conversion (Long‐lived Wood Products)
The standard practice in Belize for conversion of forest to agricultural lands is to remove valuable timber
species and then bulldoze and burn the remaining trees. An analysis was conducted based on theinventory data and found that the available timber for a long‐lived wood products pool was de minimis.
9. Loss of biomass attributable to fuel‐wood collection
According to Estimation of baseline carbon stock changes and greenhouse gas emissions from planned
deforestation (BL‐PL), if pre‐project, unsustainable fuel wood collection was occurring within the projectboundaries, modules BL‐DFW and LK‐DFW shall be used to determine potential leakage. BCEP pre‐19

BCEP Forest Carbon Projectproject, limited fuel wood extraction was occurring on the portion of the property that is excluded fromthe above‐ground biomass carbon pool. Given the estimated 1997 populations of the two villages pre‐project at 751 (Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997) individuals, and after applying Tool for testing
significance of GHG emissions in A/R CDM project activities (Version 01) (T‐SIG), the impact on thiscarbon pool was determined to be de minimis. Therefore emissions from fuel wood collection are notincluded in the baseline scenario, and monitoring leakage from fuel wood collection is not included in
the monitoring plan.
10. Avoided emissions from fertilizer use
Avoided emissions from fertilizer use for the baseline was calculated using CDM A/R Methodologicaltool “Estimation of direct nitrous oxide emission from nitrogen fertilization” (Version 01). A low rate
recommended by the Belize Citrus Growers Association (Tzul 2011) is 3.3 lbs of fertilizer (19‐9‐19)/tree‐
year. This rate was determined to be indisputably conservative and was used to calculate an annual
application of .21 metric tons fertilizer/ha‐year application rate in the baseline scenario.
11. Avoided emissions from biomass burning
In the baseline scenario, land clearing would include piling and burning of biomass on the site. An
analysis of emissions from biomass burning was conducted to determine CH4 and N2O using module“Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning (E‐BB)”. Avoided emissions from CO2
release are omitted because they are accounted for by biomass changes in the above ground and below
ground biomass pools.
12. Avoided emissions from transportation fuel use
Emissions from transportation fuel use are conservatively omitted in both the baseline and project
scenarios.
4.3 Quantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for the project
GHG emissions and/or removals for the project are described for the same pools and variables as thebaseline scenario with the addition of activity shifting leakage which only applies to the project scenario.
1. Area of forest available for conversion
Same as baseline.
2. Baseline carbon stocks
Same starting point as baseline.
3. Forest growth/biomass/carbon accumulation annual rates
Since the forest is recovering from a hurricane event, a growth multiplier (6.3% per year) is used on anannual basis to estimate ex ante C stocks based on the literature (Hughes et al 1999). Given the phase of
growth that the forest is experiencing right now and for the life of the project, a more sophisticatedsigmoidal growth model is not warranted.

20

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

4. Maximum carbon stocks for secondary tropical forest in Belize
Same as baseline, 318 tons C/ha.
5. Deforestation/conversion rates
No reductions or removals are planned for the life of the project.
6. Allocation of deforestation among agro‐ecosystems
N/A, no conversion is allowed in the project.
7. Carbon stocks in agro‐ecosystems
N/A, no conversion is allowed in the project.
8. Fate of commercial timber and long‐lived wood products
No reductions or removals are planned for the life of the project.
9. Losses of biomass attributable to fuel‐wood collection
No reductions or removals are planned for the life of the project.
10. Avoided emissions from fertilizer use
No fertilization is anticipated as a project activity.
11. Avoided emissions from biomass burning
N/A, no conversion is allowed in the project. In the event of ex‐post fires occurring, the REDD
Methodological Module: Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning (E‐BB) Sectoral
Scope 14 will be applied.
12. Avoided emissions from transportation fuel use
Emissions from transportation fuel use are conservatively omitted in both the baseline and project
scenarios.
13. Activity shifting leakage
Leakage was determined using module “Estimation of emissions from activity shifting for avoided
planned deforestation (LK‐ASP)”.

21

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

4.4 Quantifying GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements for the GHG project
Total uncertainty was calculated according to module “Estimation of uncertainty for REDD project
activities (X‐UNC)” for the above ground biomass pool and the proxy area analysis to determine
deforestation rate by summing the uncertainty of each pool and subtracting 15% resulting in a
combined project uncertainty of 21.58%. This percentage of the claimed avoided emissions wasremoved. The other pools and calculations were determined from the literature and considered to be
undeniably conservative.
Table 2: Annual avoided emissions 2005 to 2029 in mtCO2e

Year

Project
EmissionsLeakage

Total
AvoidedEmissionsBaseline Emissions

Biomass
ChangeFertilizer
Use

Non‐CO2
Biomass
Burning

Uncertainty
Deduction

Risk
Buffer(15%)

Net Total

Total
Baseline
Emissions

2005

236

8,480

76

1,863

2,248

8,171

7,935

1,190

6,745

2006

485

17,449

152

1,988

4,227

15,362

14,876

2,231

12,645

2007

760

27,321

228

2,121

6,403

23,26922,5093,376

19,132

2008

1,062

38,180

304

2,264

8,793

31,95630,894

4,634

26,260

2009

1,394

50,112381

2,416

11,41741,49240,098

6,015

34,083

2010

1,758

63,213457

2,579

14,29551,95350,195

7,529

42,665

2011

2,158

77,585533

2,752

17,45063,42061,262

9,189

52,073

2012

2,503

90,002609

2,926

20,18473,35370,85010,62760,222

2013

2,947

105,940

685

3,110

23,67986,056

83,10912,46670,643

2014

2,217

79,706706

910

17,54863,77561,557

9,234

52,324

2015

1,924

69,170706

015,07854,79852,874

7,931

44,943

2016

2,045

73,528706

016,01858,21656,1708,426

47,745

2017

2,174

78,160706

017,01861,84859,674

8,951

50,723

2018

2,311

83,084706

018,08165,71063,3999,510

53,889

2019

2,457

88,319706

019,21069,81567,358

10,10457,254

2020

2,611

93,883706

020,411

74,17871,567

10,73560,832

2021

2,776

99,797706

021,68778,81676,041

11,40664,634

2022

2,951

106,085706

023,044

83,74780,796

12,11968,677

2023

3,137

112,768706

024,48688,98885,851

12,87872,974

2024

3,334

119,872706

026,01994,56091,225

13,68477,541

2025

3,544

127,424706

027,648100,482

96,938

14,541

82,397

2026

3,768

135,452706

029,381

106,777

103,010

15,45187,558

2027

4,005

143,986706

031,222

113,470

109,464

16,42093,045

2028

4,257

153,057706

033,179120,583

116,326

17,44998,877

2029

4,526

162,699706

035,260128,145

123,620

18,543105,077

Total

61,3412,205,273

14,722

22,929483,985

1,758,938

1,697,597

254,640

1,442,957

22

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

5.0 Environmental Impact
The Project does not anticipate any negative biodiversity impacts within the area surrounding the
Project. Offsite impacts will be positive since larger habitat and forest areas will improve the long‐termviability of fauna and flora populations offsite. Avoiding conversion to agriculture also avoids release of
sediment and agricultural chemicals into waterways and the Port Honduras Marine Sanctuary. If any
negative impact is identified, the BCEP team and the community representative will address suchproblems with fast and effective solutions. The issue will be discussed and mitigation actions will be
designed.
The Project is not expected to have negative social impacts on the communities surrounding the Project
area. It is not expected that the Project will negatively impact any of offsite communities. In the case ofany potential negative impacts, representatives of the impacted community will bring it to the attentionof the conflict resolution coordinator. No unmitigated social or economic impacts are expected from theProject.
According to personal interviews and official correspondence, Indian Creek Village has nevertraditionally used the BCEP property for hunting, medicinal plant collecting, or other activities. All
hunting has traditional occurred west and north of the village (Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997).
According to personal interviews and official correspondence, Golden Stream Village has never used the
BCEP property for hunting, medicinal plant collecting, or other activities (Toledo Maya Cultural Council
1997).
The Pine Hill Mennonite Community, a Kleine Gemeinde Mennonite community, is reclusive andinteracts minimally with others from outside their community. They have no record of using the BCEP
property for hunting or other activities. Currently, they receive from BCEP road access to their property
through BCEP property.
Project has been awarded Gold Level certification by the Cilmate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance.
An environmental impact statement is not required for the project. Environmental impacts of the
project are conservatively projected to be all positive for biodiversity, water quality, air quality, andclimate impacts.

6.0 Stakeholders’ Comments
BCEP has actively engaged local stakeholders in designing the project with various onsite consultations.
Members of the local communities are the primary employees of BCEP participating in permanent
sample plot measuring, setting up remote large mammal camera traps, setting up acoustic recording
devices, conducting forest patrols, educating other local community members about forest protection,and engaging in other knowledge transfer activities. Stakeholder involvement has been solicitedformally and informally since early 2010 so as to inform stakeholders about the project, to receive their
feedback, and to publicize the project for public comment.
•

Information posted on the website (http://www.belizelodge.com/home.html) since late February
2010.

23

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

•
•
•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•

Direct email and phone contact with economist Dr. Jim Bass.
Direct email and phone contact with Belize ecology specialists Dr. Miller and Mrs. Miller.
Held meeting with management representatives from TIDE, YCT, and Golden Stream Corridor andAlcaldes and representatives from Indian Creek and Golden Stream March 17, 2010, 5pm to 8pm.
Direct email and phone contact culminating in meeting with the Belize Association for Private
Protected Areas (BAPPA) on March 19, 2010 in Belize City, Belize.
Visited Indian Creek Village, and sharing the CCB Project PDD with the Indian Creek Village andhosted public meetings at Indian Creek Village and Golden Stream Village, April 10th, 2010. Indian
Creek Village meeting had 31 attendees with formal representation from the Indian Creek Village
Parent Teacher Association, primary school, water board, Chairman, Secretary, Vice President, andAlcalde. Golden Stream Village meeting had 9 attendees with formal representation including the
Alcalde, Chairmen, and others.
Displayed for all clients of BLE at Indian Creek eco‐lodge entrance point since late February.
Displayed and shared with all BLE employees and their community members through printed
materials and presentations with staff stakeholder meeting attended by 7 local women and 16 local
men and local men and local women in managerial positions on Wednesday March 17th, 2010 at
5pm.
The PDD was made available on the CCBA webpage and open to public comments(http://www.climate‐standards.org/projects/index.html) beginning February 12, 2010.
Public meetings held at Indian Creek Village and Golden Stream Village, April 10th, 2010.
Direct personal meetings with the Alcalde, Chairman, Secretary, and Vice President from the villagesof Indian Creek and Golden Stream.
Notification of Embassy of Belize, Ambassador A. Joy Grant, Mission to the European Comission andto the World Trade Organization, in person and via email.

The plan for continuing involvement by the local communities includes regular public meetings held in
the villages by a staff member of BCEP hired for that role. Public comments are available on the CCBA
web site.

7.0 Schedule
The project began in 2004 with the title transfer of the last parcel. The crediting timeframe of the
project extends from 2009 through 2029 (Table 3: BCEP Project Timeline) and final verification will takeplace the year after the project ends in 2029.
Table 3: BCEP Project Timeline
Milestone

2004‐
2009

2010

BCEP Formed, Project Start
Survey Work Conducted
Project Start
CCBA Project Validation
VCS Project Validation
Initial financing
Restrictive covenant

24

2011

2015

2020

2025

2029

2030

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Second Verification
Third Verification
Fourth Verification
Project End
Fifth Verification

8.0 Ownership
8.1

Proof of title

Forest Carbon Offsets, LLC has a legally binding agreement with the landowner which transfers
management of the environmental service rights of the property. The agreement also sets out the
obligations and responsibilities placed on the landowners for the duration of the project. BCEP follows
all applicable environmental laws including the Belize Environmental Protection Act Chapter 328,
Revised Edition 2000. 6 Belize ratified the Kyoto Protocol September 26, 2003. BCEP title proof isavailable if requested from the Department of Land and Surveys, Market Square, Belmopan, Belize(Table 4: BCEP land registry information).
Table 4: BCEP land registry information
Title
Block 131AHa
213

Block 131

2,882

Whitney block2,118

Total ha5,213

Registry
Surveyors Plan Book No.
7, Folio 75
Surveyors Plan Book No.
4, Folio 54
Entry No. 10573,
Register 15

Date Recorded
November 28,
2000
November 28,
2000
February 19, 2004.
December 31,
2008. Deed ofConveyance on
file.

Title Search Completed
August 5, 2009
August 5, 2009
August 5, 2009

8.2 Projects that reduce GHG emissions from activities that participate in an emissions trading
program
Not applicable.

9.1 Tool for AFOLU non‐permanence risk analysis and buffer determination
Population Surrounding the Project Area
The population density in the surrounding area is very low. It is < 50 people / km2. The Project’s
boundaries are defined by the 931 ha Pine Hill Mennonite Community, the 7,516 ha Seven Hills Estate,
the 2,192 ha Manatee Creek Parcel, the 3,866 ha Golden Stream Parcel, and Indian Creek Village for a
total of 14,505 ha. There are three communities located in the Project Zone. The communities are Indian6

See www.belizelaw.org.

25

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Creek Village, Golden Stream Village, and Pine Hill Mennonite Community. The population of threecommunities is roughly 1,250 individual (Table 5: Population surrounding the Project area 2008 midyear
population estimates). Population density is roughly 8.6 individuals per km2. Population density in thesurrounding area is very low risk.
Table 5: Population surrounding the Project area 2008 midyear population estimates

Indian Creek
Village
Golden Stream
Village
Pine Hill
Mennonite
Community

Total
447 (1997
estimate)
304 (1997
estimate)
500 (2010
estimate, pers.
communication)Male(no data available)

Female(no data available)% Toledo District
rural population~2%(no data available)(no data available)~1%(no data available)(no data available)

~2%

Fire
This ecosystem is a wet tropical system with a range of 90 mm/month in the dry season to 750
mm/month in the wet season. Fires in this system are rare events. A superb discussion of fire(Meerman and Sabido 2001) in Belize may be viewed at http://biological‐diversity.info/fire.htm. The
project area is in the lowest fire risk category.
The best practices for fire prevention in Belize are primarily excluding humans from the property
through patrols as is proposed in the project plan.
Hurricanes
The southern region of Belize has one of the lowest frequencies of hurricane landfall in the Caribbean
with an average of one landfall every 23 years (Lugo et al. 2000). Since the forest is recovering from
Hurricane Iris in 2001, and the trees are smaller and less prone to breakage, the risk of reversal as aresult of hurricanes is low for the life of the project.
Tool for AFOLU Non‐Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
The version of the tool used is dated 18 November 2008.
Table 6: Generic AFOLU project risk factors
Project risk
Risk of unclear land tenure and potential for disputes: Independent third‐party
title search has confirmed title is held by BCEP with no liens. See section 8.0
Ownership.
Risk of financial failure: BLE has proven track record of repaying loans toConservation International, The Nature Conservancy and the Ecologic
Development Fund. Project proponent manages eco‐tourism business that isdependent on protected forest for tourism income.
Risk of technical failure: FCO and CMI have proven long‐term track record of

26

BCEP risk
Low

Low

Low

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

designing, implementing, and monitoring high quality ecosystem management
projects and forest carbon projects.
Risk of management failure: FCO and CMI have proven long‐term track recordof designing, implementing, and monitoring high quality ecosystemmanagement projects and forest carbon projects.
Economic risk
Risk of rising land opportunity costs that cause reversal of sequestration
and/or protection: Project proponent manages eco‐tourism business that isdependent on protected forest for tourism income.
Regulatory and social risk
Risk of political instability: Belize has low regional political instability. The
project area does not include local communities. Local communities are notreliant upon the project area for essential food, fuel, fodder, medicines orbuilding materials where such resources are not readily available elsewhere, orwhere the project area includes areas of cultural, ecological, economic or
religious significance.
Risk of social instability: Belize has low regional social instability. The project
area does not include local communities. Local communities are not reliant
upon the project area for essential food, fuel, fodder, medicines or building
materials where such resources are not readily available elsewhere, or where
the project area includes areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious
significance.
Natural disturbance risk
Risk of devastating fire: BCEP has no recorded history of devastating fire.
Risk of pest and disease attacks: BCEP has no recorded history of pest anddisease attacks.
Risk of extreme weather events (e.g. floods, drought, winds): BCEP has
hurricane occurrence recorded roughly every 50 to 100 years.
Geological risk (e.g. volcanoes, earthquakes, landslides): BCEP has no recorded
history of geological risk.
Table 7: BCEP specific risks
Risk factor
Land ownership / land management typeLand owned by private conservation organization, BCEP, with a good trackrecord in forest conservation activities and able to obtain and enforce
nationally recognized legal protection of the land.
Technical capability of project developer
BCEP, CMI, and FCO have proven capacity to design and successfully
implement activities that are likely to ensure the longevity of carbon benefits(e.g., effectively managing protected areas).
Net revenues/financial returns from the project to all relevant stakeholders
Higher to pre‐project or similar to alternative land‐uses. Land owned byprivate conservation organization, BCEP, with a good track record in forest
conservation activities and able to obtain and enforce nationally recognized

27

Low

Low

Low

Very low
Very low
Low
Very low

BCEP risk
Very low

Very low

Very low

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

legal protection of the land.
Infrastructure and natural resources
Low likelihood of new road(s)/rails being built near the BCEP project boundary.
BCEP is bordered on two sides with protected areas. Land owned by private
conservation organization, BCEP, with a good track record in forest
conservation activities and able to obtain and enforce nationally recognizedlegal protection of the land.
No high‐value non‐forest related natural resources (oil, minerals, etc.) known
to exist within BCEP project area. Land owned by private conservation
organization, BCEP, with a good track record in forest conservation activities
and able to obtain and enforce nationally recognized legal protection of theland.
No hydroelectric potential within BCEP project area. Land owned by private
conservation organization, BCEP, with a good track record in forest
conservation activities and able to obtain and enforce nationally recognizedlegal protection of the land.
Population surrounding the project area
Decreasing or increasing, but with low population density(e.g., <50 people/km2). BCEP project area population is estimated to be lessthan <50 people/km2.
Incidence of crop failure on surrounding lands from severe droughts, flooding
and/or pests/diseases
Frequent (>1 in 10 years)
Project financial plan
Credible long‐term financial strategy in place (e.g., endowment, annuity‐
paying investments, and the like). Funding BCEP will fund investment trustwith annuity payment with guaranteed income for employees of BCEP for
lifetime of project.
BCEP has legal easement for ongoing protection tied to land title in place.

Overall Risk Rating
Overall risk rating is low, or 15%.

28

Very low

Low

Low

Very low

Low
Low

Very low

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Literature Cited
Baille, I. C., A. C. S. Wright, M. A. Holder, E. A. Fitzpatrick. 1993. Revised Classification of the Soils of
Belize. NRI Bulletin 59. Chatham, U. K. Natural Resources Institute. Last accessed electronically 4/1/11
athttp://www.greenstone.org/greenstone3/nzdl;jsessionid=67171466204CC488994391592762917F?a=d&d=HASHaa250f8d90a8
0dea58551b&c=hdl&sib=&ed=1&p.s=ClassifierBrowse&p.sa=&p.a=b&p.c=hdl

Bowen‐Jones, E. 2001. Belize Lodge Excursions Biodiversity Assessment. Fauna and Flora International.
Chave, J., C. Andalo, S. Brown, M.A. Cairns, J. Q. Chabers, D. Eamus, H. Folster, F. Fromard, N. Higuxhi, T.
Kira, J. P. Lescure, B. W. Nelson, H. Ogawa, H. Puig, B. Riera, and T. Yamakura. 2005. Tree allometry andimproved estimation of carbon stokcs and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145: pp. 87‐99.
Cherrington, E., E. Ek, P. Cho, B.F. Howell, B.E. Hernandez, E.R.Anderson, A.I.Flores, B.C. Garcia, E.
Sempris, D.E. Erwin. 2010. Forest Cover and Deforestation in Belize: 1980‐2010. SERVIR, Cathalac. 42 pp.
Chomitz, K.M., and D. A. Gray. 1996. Roads, Land Use, and Deforestation: A Spatial Model Applied to
Belize. The World Bank Economic Review 10.3: (487‐512).
Emrick, V.R. and J. Dorr. 2008. Preliminary Assessment of the Vegetative Cover Types and Habitat
Structure of the Boden Creek Reserve, Toledo District, Belize. Draft Report Virginia Tech Conservation
Management Institute. 12 pages.
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2003. Belize; Facing the Climate Change.
Central american series on forest and climate change. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/AD438E/AD438E00.HTM
Accessed 05 January 2010.
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2005. National Report : Belize. Latin
American Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper. http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/j4051b/j4051b00.htm
Accessed 06 January 2010.
Gibbs, H. K., S. Brown, J.O. Niles, J.A. Foley, and M. Herold. 2007. Monitoring and estimating tropicalforest carbon stocks: Making REDD. Environmental Research Letters 2(4), Institute of Physics Publishing,
Bristol, UK.
Guariguata, M.R. and R. Ostertag. 2001. Neotropical secondary forest succession: Changes in structuraland functional characteristics. Forest Ecology and Management 148: 185‐206.
Hughes, R.F., et al, 1999. Biomass, carbon, and nutrient dynamics of secondary forests in a humid
tropical region of Mexico. Ecology 80, 1892–1907.
IPCC. 2006. International Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Volume 4 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Last accessed 4/4/11 at http://www.ipcc‐
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html.

Levasseur, V. and Oliver, A. 2000. The farming system and traditional agroforestry systems in the Maya
community of San Jose, Belize. Agroforestry Systems 49: (275‐288).

29BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Lugo, A. E., et al. 2000. Effects and outcomes of Caribbean hurricanes in a climate change scenario.
Science of the Total Environment 262: 243‐251.
Meerman, J. and W. Sabido. 2001. Central American Ecosystems: Belize. Programme for Belize, Belize
City. 2 volumes 50 + 88 pp.
Miller, B. W. 2009. A Risk Assessment of the Bats of Belize, Phase I, in the context of the Selva Maya
Region. Neotropical bat project and the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund, Research Paper Report.
Number: 1‐236.
Miller, C. M. and Miller, B. W. 2008. Status Report on Belize Lodge & Excursions Property including
Boden Creek Ecological Reserve. 20 pp.
Moore, M.L. 2007. An examination of contributing factors to land use/land cover change in southern
Belize and the use of satellite image analysis to track changes. Master’s thesis, Iowa State University.
Morgan, K.T., J.M.S. Scholberg, T.A. Obreza, T.A. Wheaton. 2006. Size, biomass, and nitrogen
relationships with sweet orange tree growth. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 131(1): 149‐156.
Pearson T., S. Walker and S. Brown. 2005. Sourcebook for land use, land‐use change and forestry
projects. Winrock International and the BioCarbon Fund of the World Bank.
Spreen, T., P. Dwivdei, andn R. Goodrich‐Scheider. Estimating the carbon footprint of Florida orange
juice. Proceedings in Food System Dynamics 2010. Electronic publication http://centmapress.ilb.uni‐bonn.de/ojs/index.php/proceedings/article/view/42 last accessed 4/1/11.
Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997. Maya Atlas: The Struggle to Preserve Maya Land in Southern
Belize. Toledo Maya Cultural Council and Toledo Alcaldes Association. North Atlantic Books, PO Box12327, Berkeley, CA 94712. 151 pp.
Tzul, L.G. 2011. Citrus fertilization in Belize. Belize Citrus Growers Association. Last accessed 4/15/11
athttp://www.belizecitrus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=9&Itemid=46.
Tzul, L. G. 2010. Report of damage by Hurricane Richard to the Citrus Industry of Belize. Belize Citrus
Growers Association. 20 pp. Accessed December 14, 2010at http://www.belizecitrus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=180.
Vitousek, P. M. 1991. Can planted forests counteract increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide? Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 20:348–354.
Vitousek, P. M., and R. L. Stanford, Jr. 1986. Nutrient cycling in moist tropical forest. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 17:137–167.
Young, C. 2008. Belize's Ecosystems: Threats and Challenges to Conservation in Belize. TropicalConservation Science 1.1: (18‐33).

30

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Zanne, A.E., Lopez‐Gonzalez, G., Coomes, D.A., Ilic, J., Jansen, S., Lewis, S.L., Miller, R.B., Swenson, N.G.,
Wiemann, M.C., and Chave, J. 2009. Global wood density database. Dryad.
Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10255/dryad.235

31

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Appendix A: Monitoring Plan
The overall objectives of the monitoring plan are to detect any reversals in forest cover and to update
the growth rate assumption (Guariguata and Ostertag 2001, and Hughes et al. 1999) for baseline
renewal after 10 years. To accomplish this, a system of permanent plots has been established andremote sensing will be used to produce a forest/nonforest map. The plot data will be used as groundtruth for the mapping work as well as to confirm growth rate assumptions. The map will be produced
for each verification audit and the plots will be measured annually and a report of the results produced
for each verification audit. There may be years when all plots are not measured due to weather or otherfactors that cause remeasurement to be too costly or unsafe. In that case enough plots will bemeasured to support the required precision goals of the methodology or the verification audit will bedelayed until such time as enough plots can be remeasured to meet those guidelines.
Fuel wood collection was analyzed and considered de minimis prior to project start and is considered deminimis during the project and will not be monitored during the project.
All data collected as part of monitoring will be archived electronically on DVD (or similar media) in Excel
compatible spreadsheets or Arc/View compatible (.shp) files and kept at least for two years after theend of the project. All of the data will be monitored if not indicated otherwise in tables below.
Monitoring data will be collected annually, except in cases where some plots are inaccessible due tohigh water or other factor making access unsafe, and summarized for periodic 3rd party independent
audits. Audits will occur no less frequently than every 5 years. It is the responsibility of the landownerto conduct monitoring either utilizing contractors or in‐house staff.
Updating of Strata
The ex‐post stratification shall be updated if the following conditions occur:••

unexpected disturbances occurring during the crediting period (e.g. due to fire, pests, storms, ordisease outbreaks), affecting differently various parts of an originally homogeneous stratum; andunplanned forest management activities (illegal reversals) that affect the existing stratification.

Established strata may be merged if reason for their establishing said strata have disappeared.
Data and Parameters Monitored
The following parameters will be monitored during the project activity. These estimates shall be basedon measured or existing published data where possible and the project participants will retain aconservative approach: that is, if different values for a parameter are equally plausible, a value that does
not lead to over‐estimation of net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks will be selected. Field
measurements will be conducted by revisiting the permanent plots.
Procedures for calculating the impacts of changes in these parameters, selection of external data
sources (e.g. remote sensing data), post‐processing and accuracy assessment, and documentation will
follow approved VCS module VMD0015 Version 1.0 “Methods for monitoring of greenhouse gas
emissions and removals (M‐MON)”.

32

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Data / parameter:
Data unit:
Description:

Source of data:
Measurement procedures (if any):

Measurement Frequency

QA/QC Procedures
Any comment:

Data / parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Measurement procedures (if any):

Measurement Frequency

QA/QC Procedures
Any comment:

Project Forest Cover Monitoring Map
Ha
Map showing the location of forest land within
the project area at the beginning of eachmonitoring period. If within the Project Areasome forest land is cleared, the benchmark map
must show the deforested areas at eachmonitoring event
Remote sensing in combination with GPS datacollected during ground truthing
The minimum map accuracy should be 90% for
the classification of forest/non‐forest in the
remote sensing imagery.
If the classification accuracy is less than 90% thenthe map is not acceptable for further analysis.
More remote sensing data and ground truthing
data will be needed to produce a product thatreaches the 90% minimum mapping accuracy.
Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if
verification occurs on a frequency of less thanevery 5 years examination must occur prior toany verification event
Based on plot remeasurements.
If stratification is required in the future due to areversal, then new strata will be identified using
module X‐STR.
ADefPA,i,t
Ha
Area of recorded deforestation in the project
area at time t (if any occurs)
Remote sensing imagery
Head’s up delineation using GIS and landsat
imagery (or higher resolution) using multiple
images to get a cloud free image.
Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if
verification occurs on a frequency of less thanevery 5 years examination must occur prior toany verification event
Remeasurement of permanent plots.
This is presumed to be zero ex ante.

33

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Data / parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Measurement procedures (if any):

Measurement Frequency

QA/QC Procedures
Any comment:

Data / parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
Measurement procedures (if any):

Measurement Frequency

QA/QC Procedures
Any comment:

Data / parameter:
Data unit:
Source of data:
Description:
Measurement procedures (if any):

Aburn,i,tHa
Area burnt at time t (if any occurs)
Remote sensing imagery
Head’s up delineation using GIS and landsat
imagery (or higher resolution) using multiple
images to get a cloud free image.
Areas burnt shall be monitored at least every 5
years or if verification occurs on a frequency ofless than every 5 years examination must occur
prior to any verification event
Remeasurement of permanent plots.
This is presumed to be zero ex ante.

ADefLK,i,t
Ha
The total area of deforestation by the class ofagent of the planned deforestation at time t
Remote sensing imagery
Head’s up delineation using GIS and landsat
imagery (or higher resolution) using multiple
images to get a cloud free image or publisheddata.
Must be reexamined at least every 5 years or if
verification occurs on a frequency of less thanevery 5 years examination must occur prior toany verification event
Groundtruthing using GPS if necessary.
Ex ante, project proponents shall determine andjustify the likelihood of leakage based on
characteristics of the class of deforestation
agent.
CAB,tree,i,t CO2‐e ha‐1
Field measurements applied with allometricequation published in Chave et. al. (2005)
Carbon stock in aboveground biomass in trees in
the project case in stratum i
See field methods section.

34

BCEP Forest Carbon ProjectMeasurement Frequency

QA/QC Procedures:

Any comment:

Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if
verification occurs on a frequency of less thanevery 5 years examination must occur prior toany verification event
Independent 3rd party audit of fieldmeasurements utilizing remeasurement of asample of plots.
Key variable used to calculate with project carbon
stocks and year by year growth rate.

Data / parameter:
Data unit:
Source of data:

DBH,tree,i,cm
Field measurements

Description:

Diameter at 1.3 meters above the ground of eachtree on each plot
See field methods section.

Measurement procedures (if any):
Measurement Frequency

QA/QC Procedures:

Any comment:

Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if
verification occurs on a frequency of less thanevery 5 years examination must occur prior toany verification event
Independent 3rd party audit of fieldmeasurements utilizing remeasurement of asample of plots. Field observation sheets will
include DBH of each tagged tree for evaluation ofreasonableness of measurement based on
feasible growth rate.
Key variable used to calculate with project carbon
stocks and year by year growth rate.

Data / parameter:
Data unit:
Source of data:

species,tree,i,unitless
Field observations

Description:

Identify each tree to species or species groupwhenever possible.
See field methods section.

Measurement procedures (if any):
Measurement Frequency

QA/QC Procedures:Must be monitored at least every 5 years or if
verification occurs on a frequency of less thanevery 5 years examination must occur prior toany verification event
Independent 3rd party audit of fieldmeasurements utilizing remeasurement of asample of plots. Field observations sheets will

35

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Any comment:

include species of each tree tagged forreconfirmation in the field.
Key variable used to determine specific gravity to
calculate with project carbon stocks and year by
year growth rate.

Variables Used but not Monitored for Boden Creek Ecological Preserve Carbon Project
Variable
Carbon fraction of dry matter in t C t‐1 d.m:

Source of Data
Common practice 50% (Pearson et. al. 2005)

Average annual aboveground biomass
accumulation rate for secondary tropical forests of
all ages was 6.3%/year.

Using the data from Hughes et al (1999) the
average annual aboveground biomass
accumulation rate for secondary tropical forests of
all ages was 6.3%/year.
Default values in Table 2.6 of IPCC, 2006 (Annex 2).

Combustion factor for stratum i (vegetation type)Combustion Emission factor for stratum i for gas g‐ source of data

Defaults can be found in Volume 4, Chapter 2, ofthe IPCC 2006 Inventory Guidelines in table 2.5(see Annex 2: emission factors for various types ofburning for CH4 and N2O).
GIS coverages, ground survey data and/or remote
imagery (satellite or aerial photographs).
Updated country‐specific data when available. In
the meantime, IPCC.
IPCC default

Total area of stratum
Emission Factor for emissions from N inputs
The fraction that volatilizes as NH3 and NOX forsynthetic fertilizers
Mass of synthetic fertilizer nitrogen appliedadjusted for volatilization as NH3 and NOX
Nitrogen content of synthetic fertilizer type I
appliedPublished rates from Belize Citrus Growers
Association
Producers of synthetic fertilizer purchased andused as recommended by the Belize Citrus
Growers Association
GIS analysis plus consultation with experts

Proportion of available area for production ofcommodity that is currently forested
Total area of planned deforestation over the fixedbaseline period
Leakage factor for displacement of class ofplanned deforestation agents

GPS coordinates and/or Remote Sensing data
and/or legal parcel records.
GIS analysis

36

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Field Plot Methods
Sampling Framework
The sample size required to achieve the desired precision and confidence is 20 forest inventory plots.
However, to ensure that the full range of variability was captured in the ‘Forest Land’ – the Lowland
Broad Leafed Wet Forest ‐ class on the project site, a total of 31 forest inventory plots were allocated.
Plots were randomly allocated within the ‘Forest Land’ land‐use and land cover (LULC) class using
geographic information systems (GIS) and identified by specific XY coordinates (Table 8).
Table 8: UTM locations of forestry plots used to determine aboveground biomass (coordinates are in
WGS 84 zone 16)
Plot ID
X coordinate
Y coordinate
130722318010412310014

18043733306734

1805336430954617996655310373

18038946305126180021673070181803584830791818050479307806

1804326103065691801938113072391800066123101921803071133071401801838

14308038180542915305784180015616307517180571517309332

180243818

308703

180533419307561

180610820

307594

179986421304106180066322304949180005823308801

180444124

311735180304325

312012

1803278

37

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

26

312003

180241327

303676180172528

304951179916529302985180120330

306658179937431307121

1798628

Figure 3. Location of forest sample plots at BCEP.

Field Plot Measurements
The methods for measuring the carbon pools at BCEP were based on the Sourcebook for Land Use, Land‐
Use Change and Forestry Projects (Pearson et al 2005). Because destructive sampling was not practicalto measure above ground carbon stocks, published allometric equations were used to determine
aboveground biomass based upon the DBH of hardwood trees and the height of palms. The following
forest inventory techniques will be used to collect the appropriate data (Pearson et al 2005). All of the
31 plots have been monumented in the field and trees within each plot tagged and numbered. Data
collection is based on a nested circular plot design described in Pearson et al (2005). All trees 5 ‐ 20 cm
DBH will be tallied within a 4 meter radius of the plot center, all trees 20 ‐ 50 cm DBH will be tallied
within a 14 meter radius of plot center and all trees > 50 cm DBH will be tallied within a 20 meter radiusfrom plot center. If a tree splits into separate branches below breast height it is treated as multiple

38

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

trees. If the tree is growing irregularly, or fallen down, it is measured at 1.3 meters above the ground. If
the side branches of a fallen tree are large enough to be measured, DBH is measured from the ground.
Palms are selected for height measurements based upon the same criteria. Each tree will be named to
species with the help of the local guides, if possible. The DBH will be recorded and each tree will beplaced into one of the following height classes:(A) 0 ‐ 1 meter(B) 1 ‐ 3 meters(C) 3 ‐ 6 meters(D) 6 ‐ 10 meters(E) 10 ‐ 20 meters(F) 20 + meters.
Every tree tallied is tagged and given a unique ID number for future monitoring. If a tree is found on theplot without a tag, an effort will be made to determine if the tree lost its tag and can be identified or if it
was missed in previous measurement events and should receive a new tag. Regardless, every tree will
be tagged at every monitoring event and discrepancies noted in the database. Raw data will be enteredin a spreadsheet for data summaries and carbon calculations.
Plot Re‐measurement:
The following are detailed procedures for monitoring above ground biomass at BCEP. The following
supply list is recommended for re‐measurement of established forest monitoring points:
GPS (using WGS 84 Datum)
30 Meter Fiberglass Measuring Tape
Compass
Tree diameter at breast height (DBH) tape
Clinometer (percent scale)

Data Notebook
Writing Utensils
Machete for clearing
1.3m pole or stick (x2)
Fluorescent Orange Flagging

The following are the basic steps necessary to consistently measure aboveground biomass in forest
monitoring plots.
Step 1: Navigate to plot center using Global Positioning System (GPS), XY coordinates and appropriate
datum (table 8). The plot center should be conspicuously marked with bright colored flagging, and a
PVC or rebar center marker. Mark additional trees and plot center with brightly colored flagging (orange
or pink) to augment the remaining markings. Replace PVC as necessary.
Step 2: Fill out a data sheet by recording field crew members, date, plot number, slope, azimuth, andany additional notes on plot characteristics or vegetation.
Step 3: Starting from a due north position, begin measuring living trees within 4m of the plot center,measured to the face of the tree, with a minimum diameter of 5.0 cm at breast height (1.3m) using a
DBH tape or calipers. Examine each tree making sure it is still living, it is not a liana, and checking if it
has been tagged previously. Trees which are greater or equal to 5.0 cm and within 4m of the plot center
will be recorded. Continue measuring and recording all trees within 4.0m of plot center in a clockwise
direction around the center.

39

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

Step 4: Once all of the trees within the 4.0 m class have been measured, all trees greater than or equal
to 20.0 cm will be measured and recorded within 14.0 m of the plot center, starting due north andmoving in a clockwise direction.
Step 5: Once all of the 20.0cm trees have been measured within 14.0m of the plot center, any trees
within 20.0 m of the plot center greater than or equal to 50.0cm will be measured starting due north,and working in a clockwise direction. Figure illustrates the plot design.

Figure 4. Nested forestry plot design. 4m radius for trees measuring 5cm to < 20cm dbh
14m radius for trees ≥ 20cm to < 50cm dbh 20m radius for trees ≥ 50cm dbh.

Plot Measurement Best Practices
Careful and consistent measurements make it possible for others to replicate identical measurements.
Measurement of DBH
When measuring DBH, set a pole/stick cut to exactly 1.3m on the ground adjacent to the tree andmeasure the DBH at the top of the measuring stick. When using a DBH tape insure that the tape iswrapped around the tree without any folding or kinks. Measure trees with their natural angle, if a tree
is leaning wrap the tape around at the same angle. If a tree is growing straight the tape must be parallelto the ground. If a tree splits into separate branches below breast height it is treated as multiple trees,
and if the branch is the appropriate size it is tagged and recorded. If a tree is on a slope, DBH will bemeasured from the uphill side of the slope. If the tree is growing irregularly, or fallen down, the tree will
be measured where it reaches breast height. If the side branches of a fallen tree are large enough to bemeasured, their DBH will be measured from the ground, not 1.3m from the top of the downed tree.
In all cases the DBH tape should be directly against the bark around the entire circumference of the tree
being measured. Vines growing up a tree should be pulled away from the bark, and the DBH measured

40

BCEP Forest Carbon Project

underneath. If the vine cannot be manually pulled away it can be cut, or the tree diameter estimatedusing the reverse side of the DBH tape. It is important to leave the majority of vines intact to allow theplots to maintain similar growing conditions to surrounding stands. When applicable, measure above
other natural growths at breast height, including irregular tree growths, termite nests, fungal growths,
etc. If the natural growths extend out of reach measure just below growth. If the tree has buttresses
which would affect the diameter at breast height, measure above the buttresses. If the buttresses
extend out of reach, measure as high as possible while remaining accurate. Make a note of thebuttresses which can be corrected in later calculations.
Measuring Distance from Plot Center
When measuring the distance from the plot center have one crew member stand at the plot center withthe measuring tape zero set on a 1.3 m stick and pull the tape tight. Another crew member will pull thetape, allowing no bends due to trees or snags, and set the measuring end on a 1.3 m pole or stick. If any
part of the tree’s trunk is in at breast height the tree is considered in.
Previously Tagged Trees
Trees large enough to be recorded in each class will be inspected for previous tags. Trees which havebeen previously tagged will be recorded with the identification number, adjusted DBH, species (ifknown), and height (if applicable to the allometric equation). If the tree has not been tagged, they will
be tagged with an aluminum uniquely numbered tag and aluminum nail. In this case the new
identification number, DBH, species (if known), and height (if applicable to the allometric equation) arealso recorded. If the tree species is unknown attempt to identify the tree using any available resources.
If the tree cannot be correctly identified, the tree type will be recorded (e.g. hardwood, pine, palm, tree
fern, etc.).
Palms
At BCEP the most common palm is the cohune. Cohune palms in the early years of growth have no true
trunk, just a series of palm fronds which slough off as the tree grows. Thus it is impossible to tag young
trees for the purposes of monitoring. Thus only cohune palms old enough to have a true trunk will bemeasured for inclusion in the above ground biomass pool. Once the palm has aged to a point where
there is a true trunk at 1.3 m, the DBH is measured and the same rules apply for inclusion in the nested
plot design. If the palm is considered in, the height is measured.
Tree Height Measurements
To measure the height of a tree either use a distance range finder and follow the manufacturer’s
instructions, or use a clinometer. A clinometer can be used more accurately when standing further
away from an object. For this reason, it is recommended that the observer stand at least 15 m from thetree being measured. From a vantage point with a clear line of sight, measure and record angle to the
top of the trunk (not the leaves) and the base of the tree with a clinometer. Using a fiberglass
measuring tape, measure distance from tree to the observer using the 1.3 m poles for consistentmeasurements. The height can be calculated using simple trigonometry, the two angles, and the
distance to the tree (See Figure 5).

41

BCEP Forest Carbon ProjectOnce all of the trees have been measured and tagged, review data sheet to ensure no data points havebeen forgotten (slope, azimuth, tree measurements, etc.) and recheck plot for any trees missed. If
everything is checked, and the team agrees everything has been completed, all gear is collected and theteam continues to the next plot.

Figure 5. Measuring palm heights in the field with a clinometer.
At the end of each day a designated team member will check that there are completely filled out data
sheets for each plot inventoried. Completed data sheets will be stored in a portfolio case that is nottaken into the field.

Mapping Methods
Remote sensing methods will follow industry best practices using Landsat TM or higher resolution
imagery. Head’s up digitizing utilizing trained analysts will be employed to produce a forest/nonforest
map of the project area and if necessary the leakage area. A classification accuracy of 90% or better will
be achieved.
Areas burned, damaged by wind, or illegally cleared will be mapped using a combination of thesemethods plus ground surveys with a GPS.

42

The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project
Phase I – Rukinga Sanctuary

Project Document (PD) For Validation
Using the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) 2007.1 / Sectoral Scope 14
VM0009 Methodology for Avoided Mosaic Deforestation of Tropical Forests
Version 9
January 31st, 2011
In partnership with the Landowner

RukingaRanching Co Ltd.

Technical Assistance Provided by

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Acknowledgements
This Project Description was developed for the Kasigau Corridor REDD Project - Phase I, Rukinga
Sanctuary by Mike Korchinsky, Founder and CEO, Jeremy Freund, VP Carbon Development, and Jessie
Parteno at Wildlife Works. The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals andorganizations, without whom this effort would not have been possible:
Kyle Holland and Ryan Anderson, at EcoPartners for technical assistanceRob Dodson, VP African Field Ops, and the Wildlife Works Kenyan team, Jamie Hendriksen, Lara
Cowan, Laurian Lenjo, Hassan Sachedina, Patrick Kabatha, Eric Sagwe and the ranger team, Joel
Mwandiga and Mwololo Muasa and the plot sampling teamfor field support and for making this project such a success. Wildlife Works would like to extend sincere
thanks to all mentioned above, as well as the many other contributors to the project.
Asante Sana!

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 20102

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................... 2
Section 4 Applicability Conditions .............................................................................. 5
Section 5 Project Boundaries ...................................................................................... 7
Section 5.1 Spatial Boundaries ............................................................................................................. 7
Kasigau Corridor Phase I - Rukinga Ranch .......................................................................................... 7
The following table shows the landcover strata for Rukinga Ranch and their respective areas. Strata
sum to the total area for the Ranch, 30,168.66 ha. .............................................................................. 9Land Ownership .................................................................................................................................... 9
Section 5.2 Temporal Boundaries ......................................................................................................... 9
Section 5.3 Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................................................... 12
Section 5.4 Carbon Pools ..................................................................................................................... 12
Size Class Diameter Selection and Justification ................................................................................. 12
Section 5.5 Project Grouping ............................................................................................................... 13

Section 6 Baseline Scenario ...................................................................................... 14
Section 6.1 Obvious Agents and Drivers of Deforestation ............................................................... 14
List of Obvious Agents and drivers of deforestation ........................................................................... 14
Narrative describing why the agents of deforestation are evident ...................................................... 14
List of Project Activities designed to mitigate deforestation ................................................................ 16
A List of External Drivers of Deforestation (Covariates) Used in the Deforestation Model................. 22
Section 6.2 Participatory Rural Appraisal .......................................................................................... 22
Analysis of Agents of Deforestation .................................................................................................... 22
Analysis of Drivers of Deforestation .................................................................................................... 23
Section 6.3 The Reference Region ...................................................................................................... 23
Delineation of the Reference Area ...................................................................................................... 23
Narrative describing the rationale for selection of the reference region boundaries .......................... 23
Delineated boundaries ........................................................................................................................ 24
Infrastructure (roads, major markets, land tenure).............................................................................. 25
Defining the Reference Period ............................................................................................................ 26
Section 6.4 The Cumulative Deforestation Model.............................................................................. 28
Historic Imagery Used to Build the Cumulative Deforestation Model ................................................. 28
Sampling Deforestation to Build the Cumulative Deforestation Model ............................................... 28
Minimizing Uncertainty in the Cumulative Deforestation Model.......................................................... 34
Fitting the Cumulative Deforestation Model ........................................................................................ 34
Linear Prediction of Deforestation ....................................................................................................... 35
Estimating Uncertainty in the Cumulative Deforestation Model .......................................................... 37
Section 6.5 Soil Carbon Loss Model ................................................................................................... 37
Sampling Soil Carbon Loss ................................................................................................................. 37
Description of Soil Types .................................................................................................................... 44
Minimizing Uncertainty ........................................................................................................................ 46
Fitting the Soil Carbon Loss Model ..................................................................................................... 47
Predicting Soil Carbon Loss ................................................................................................................ 47
Estimating Uncertainty in the Soil Carbon Loss Model ....................................................................... 48
Section 6.6 Baseline Scenario for Selected Carbon Pools ............................................................... 48
Selecting the Proportion of Below Ground Biomass Removed from Large Trees.............................. 48
Selecting the Proportion of Wood Products ........................................................................................ 48© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 20103

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 6.7 Baseline Reevaluation ...................................................................................................... 49

Section 7 Additionality................................................................................................ 50
Section 8 Baseline Emissions .................................................................................... 52
8.1 Estimating Emissions from Above Ground Large Tree Biomass ............................................. 52
8.2 Estimating Emissions from Above Ground Small Tree Biomass ............................................. 52
8.3 Estimating Emissions from Above Ground Non-Tree Biomass................................................ 52
8.4 Estimating Emissions from Below Ground Large Tree Biomass ............................................. 52
8.5 Estimating Emissions from Below Ground Small Tree Biomass ............................................. 53
8.6 Estimating Emissions from Below Ground Non-Tree Biomass ................................................ 53
8.7 Estimating Emissions from Standing Dead Wood ..................................................................... 53
8.8 Estimating Emissions from Lying Dead Wood ........................................................................... 53
8.9 Estimating Emissions from Soil ................................................................................................... 53
8.10 Estimating Emissions from Wood Products ............................................................................. 53

Section 9 Project Emissions ...................................................................................... 54
9.0 Forest Fires ...................................................................................................................................... 54
9.1 Emissions from Burning ................................................................................................................ 54

Section 10 Leakage ..................................................................................................... 55
Section 10.1 Leakage Mitigation Strategies ....................................................................................... 55
Section 10.2 Delineation of the Leakage Area ................................................................................... 57
Section 10.3 The Leakage Model ......................................................................................................... 57
Sampling Deforestation and Degradation to Build the Leakage Model .............................................. 57
Fitting the Leakage Model ................................................................................................................... 61
Section 10.4 Estimating the Leakage Factor and Emissions from Leakage................................... 62

Section 11 Quantification of NERs ............................................................................ 63
Section 11.1 Determining Deductions for Uncertainty...................................................................... 63
Section 11.3 Ex-Ante Estimation of NERs .......................................................................................... 63

Section 13 Monitoring ................................................................................................. 65
Section 13.14 Monitoring of Carbon Stocks in the Project Area...................................................... 65
Summary of sampling procedures ...................................................................................................... 65
Field training ........................................................................................................................................ 66
Documentation of data quality assessment such as the results from a check cruise......................... 66
Map Showing Strata Boundaries and Plot Locations .......................................................................... 68
List of Plot Coordinates ....................................................................................................................... 70
Description of Plot size........................................................................................................................ 70
Documentation of Allometry ................................................................................................................ 70
Development of Allometry ................................................................................................................... 71
Estimated Total Carbon Stock, Standard Error and Sample Size for each Stratum and Pool ........... 83
Estimated Total Carbon Stock and Standard Error for Entire Project Area ........................................ 84
Monitoring of Deforestation in the Project Area .................................................................................. 85© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 20104

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 4 Applicability Conditions
For the Kasigau Corridor REDD Project the following conditions apply;The primary driver of deforestation is conversion of forest to cropland for annual crops, typicallymaize, as evidenced by the substantial conversion to maize in the Reference Area during theReference Period. The primary agents of deforestation are a growing population of local Taita andKamba people living in the Reference Area. Agriculture in the reference and leakage areas ispermanent and cultivation activities do not shift.

The land within the project area has been tropical dryland forest1 for at least 20 years and has been a
primary forest in its current state since recorded times2. The Project Area forest has an average
canopy of 39% and mature tree height of 5-10m, and therefore has qualified as forest as defined by
FAO 2010, or that of the definition of forest set by the residing designated national authority (DNA)(10% canopy, 4m height) for the project country for a minimum of 10 years prior to the project startdate (VCS, 2008)



No biomass is harvested for use in long-lived wood products in the project area under the with-project
scenario. Therefore, carbon sequestered in long-lived wood products under the project during any
monitoring period may be accounted for as zero.

The project is located in a semi-arid tropical region.

The primary agents of deforestation are local Taita and Kamba peoples, with a small minority of other
tribes who moved in during the El Niño rains of the mid 1990s, when the land was still sparsely
populated, or to work as herders for the former cattle operations. Tribal mobility for farm land in
Kenya is very low, as Kenya’s population is relatively high everywhere that leakage could potentiallyshift, and the population in the Reference Area outside of the Project Area, and the proposed Phase II
Project Area (see map in Section 6.3) is high. There exists no opportunity for the agents ofdeforestation to shift their activities outside the leakage area.

The project is not mandated by any enforced law, statute, or other regulatory framework.

The project area does not contain organic or peat soils. (see soils Map in section 6.5 below).



A reference area has been delineated meeting the requirements described in sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2of the methodology VM0009, 'Methodology for Avoided Mosaic Deforestation of Tropical Forests'(MED), including the minimum size requirement.



As of the project start date, historic imagery in the reference region exists with sufficient coverage tomeet the requirements of section 6.4.2 of the MED.



A wide range of project activities have been implemented to mitigate deforestation by addressing theagents and drivers of deforestation as described in section 10.1 of the MED.

The project start date and end date and crediting period are clearly defined (see Section 6.3).

1

UN IPCC, Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF, Table 3A.1.8;
Earliest record that has been located is dated 1895 which identifies the area as forested [Hobley 1895 – Upon aVisit to Tsavo and the Taita Highlands – The Geographical Journal 1895 Vol 5 No 6 pp 545-561]
2© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

5

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements
Wildlife Works (the Project Proponent) has access to the leakage area to sample forest degradation,
as evidenced by implementation of the leakage plots used to create the leakage model.

The lag period for the cumulative leakage model was estimated after the project start date but before
the end of the first monitoring period, and initial leakage plot measurements showed that no activityshifting leakage had occurred prior to the estimation of the lag period.

The project area does not include lands designated for legally sanctioned logging activities.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

6

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 5 Project Boundaries
Section 5.1 Spatial Boundaries
Kasigau Corridor Phase I - Rukinga Ranch
This Phase I Project Document covers 100% of the land known as Rukinga Sanctuary (see map below)
which is all that 74,516 acres (30,168.66 ha) of land originally known as Rukinga Ranch, LR 12263,
historically reduced by subdivisions 12263/1 and 12263/2 at dates prior to the start date of this project.
Project lands conform to the latest VCS definition of forest, with an average canopy cover of 39%, andmature tree height at 5-10m, and have been primary forest since historic times. A GIS database with
canopy measurements for Rukinga Ranch is available upon request.

Figure 1. Rukinga Ranch REDD Project and Reference Region Spatial Boundaries© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

7

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Figure 2. Rukinga Landcover Map, Classified from Landsat 7 ETM+ Acquired February , 2003

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 20108

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

The following table shows the landcover strata for Rukinga Ranch and their respective areas. Strata sum
to the total area for the Ranch, 30,168.66 ha.
Stratum

Area (ha)ag active
713.7
dryland forest strata 1+2
6,883.6
dryland forest strata 3
5,651.1
dryland forest strata 42,773.4
dryland forest strata 58,133.4
dryland forest strata 6
4,345.5
Grassland
1,610.9
montane forest
570.6
Total area:
30,168.7
Table 1. Landcover Strata area for Rukinga Ranch, Febrary 2003
Using these values, forested area for the Sanctuary at project start date is calculated as:
27,844 / 30,168.7 = 93% forested 10 years prior to project start date
Land Ownership
Rukinga Sanctuary is privately owned by Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd., the majority shareholder
being Mike Korchinsky, Founder & CEO of Wildlife Works. The leasehold on the title will be due forrenewal in 2038, and can then be renewed for either 33, 66 or 99 years under Kenyan law, at theleaseholder’s option. Wildlife Works has had a wildlife conservation and land management operating
agreement with Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd. since 2005, and more recently acquired the carbon
rights from the landowner, Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd. after a process of Free Prior and Informed
Consent (FPIC), through a Carbon Rights Agreement/Conservation Easement that was approved by a fullvote at an AGM of the Shareholders of Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd. on February 13th 2009. At that
AGM the shareholders were given a presentation - explaining in lay terms - the potential of the REDD
project, a copy of which has been provided to the validator. Following the presentation, the shareholders
unanimously approved the pursuit of this opportunity by the Managing Director and majority shareholderof the land. This decision was ratified again unanimously by an extraordinary general shareholder
meeting of Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd. on December 9th, 2009, at the request of the CCB
Validators, Scientific Certification Systems, Inc (SCS).

Section 5.2 Temporal Boundaries
The project was commenced on January 1, 2005. Since this time, Wildlife Works has been successfully
protecting Rukinga Ranch from agricultural encroachment (deforestation), wildlife poaching and forest
degradation. The Phase I Project is 30 years in length. The project will therefore end on December 31,
2035.
Wildlife Works took financial responsibility for all conservation activities within the Project Area as ofJanuary 1st 2005, as a result of the agreement between Wildlife Works and Rukinga Ranching Company,
Ltd., the landowner, a copy of which was provided to the Validators.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 20109

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Wildlife Works began conservation activities centered around our ecofactory prior to 2005, but all
activities were located outside the Project Area. The figure below illustrates the relationship between thecompanies involved with Rukinga Sanctuary.
The VCS rule for AFOLU projects starting after Jan 1 2002 states that there is no specific timerequirement for validation and verification. Language exists in the MED to clarify the type of project
activities that qualify a project for a historical project start date, and Wildlife Works fully conforms to these
MED requirements.
Wildlife Works will monitor the project every year, producing accurate and credible documentation for all
VCS required project accounting. Wildlife Works will validate the project once every 5 years throughout
the life of the project until the project end date.
Per VCS minimum requirements, a baseline revision will be performed once every 10 years, on January
1, 2016 and January 1, 2026. If the VCS standard regarding baseline revision periodicity changes in the
future, Wildlife Works will commit to performing baseline revisions whenever specified by the VCSA.

historical reference period

project period

2034
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
Ve

Ve BR

Ve

Ve BR

Ve

Figure 3. Project Timeline (Ve = verification year, BR = baseline re-evaluation year)
Rukinga Sanctuary is comprised of primary Acacia-Commiphora dryland forest, and therefore conforms to
the minimum requirement for project land to have qualified as "forest" (10 years per VCS 2007.1). The
landcover classification shown above in figure 2 was performed on ETM+ imagery acquired from theLandsat 7 satellite on February 6, 2003. As both dominant tree species in this ecosystem (Acacia andCommiphora) grow very slowly (some trees on Rukinga Ranch are estimated to be over 300 years old),
we make the assumption that Rukinga ranch was in virtually the same forest state in 1996 as it was in
2003.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201010

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201011

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 5.3 Greenhouse Gases
The dominant method of deforestation in the Kasigau corridor is conversion to subsistence agriculture byslash and burn techniques. As such, only Carbon Dioxide (CO2) was selected as a source for greenhousegas emissions in the project. Although Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) are also greenhousegases, they are conservatively excluded from this project, as neither of which are present to a significant
degree in the Kasigau corridor region.

Section 5.4 Carbon Pools
The following table indicates carbon pools required for consideration under the MED, including thosepools that are mandatory, optional and respective justification for selection under this project:

Required

Included in
Project?

Yes

Yes

Major pool considered

Yes

Yes

Major pool considered

Above-ground non-treebiomass

Optional

Yes

Major pool considered

Below-ground large
tree biomass

Optional

Yes

Major pool considered

Below-ground small
tree biomass

Optional

Yes

Major pool considered

Below-ground non-treebiomass

Optional

Yes

Major pool considered

No

No

Conservatively excluded

Standing dead wood

Optional

Yes

Major pool considered

Lying dead wood

Optional

No

Conservatively excluded

Soil

Optional

Yes

Major pool considered

Yes

Yes

May be a significant reservoir under thebaseline scenario

Pool
Above-ground large
tree biomass
Above-ground small
tree biomass

LitterLong-lived wood
products

Justification

Table 2: Carbon pools selected for inclusion in the project and respective justification
Size Class Diameter Selection and Justification
Expert knowledge of the agents of deforestation and cultural practices in the Kasigau corridor ecosystem
indicate that farmers invariably burn all stumps in the process of clearing land for agriculture, We
therefore do not differentiate large trees from small trees for this project, and assume that all stumps(below-ground large tree biomass) are burned during agricultural conversion. Credible evidence can beproduced through farmer polling and or interviews with Wildlife Works resident community liaison, Laurian
Lenjo, who has intimate knowledge of farming practices throughout the corridor, knows many farmers
personally, and advises Wildlife Works regarding issues such as this.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201012

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 5.5 Project Grouping
The Kasigau Corridor Phase I project is not a grouped project. Therefore, no supporting evidence is
supplied.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201013

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 6 Baseline Scenario
Section 6.1 Obvious Agents and Drivers of Deforestation
Wildlife Works staff and employees possesses an incredible depth of local knowledge regarding both theReference and Project Areas, as a result of direct involvement and integration with this community since1997. As such, it was considered unnecessary for us to conduct a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) todemonstrate a clear understanding of the principle driver of deforestation in the reference region. This isobserved as conversion of dryland forest to annual subsistence cropland by two main groups of local
agents during the historic Reference Period.
List of Obvious Agents and drivers of deforestation


Local farmers from the Taita Tribe (approximately 95% of local population according to the 1999
Kenyan census) deforesting for cropland.



Farmers from the Duruma Tribe (approximately 5% of local farmers – from 1999 Kenyan census)
deforesting for cropland.

Both of the aforementioned populations began aggressively converting land in the 1990s prior to Wildlife
Works' arrival in the area in 1997. After rendering it impossible to illegally farm private group ranch land,
immigration to the area virtually ceased, and in fact many Duruma families returned to their primary farms
at the Coast, while most Taita farmers remained, establishing themselves as the dominant projectcommunity.


Illegal charcoal trade – typically first element of degradation as it generates cash to fund theclearing of the land for subsistence farming.

Large scale Tribal mobility in Kenya today for access to cropland is very restricted, as Kenya is fairly
highly populated, certainly in areas of adequate rainfall for farming, and the traditional tribes in any given
area typically prevent the incursion of immigrants from outside.
Narrative describing why the agents of deforestation are evident
Wildlife Works contends that the reasons for the presence of the agents of deforestation is obvious.
Agricultural conversion has occurred adjacent to - and even into - the Project Area during the historicalreference period just prior to Wildlife Works’ arrival in the area in 1997, and continues in a heavy andvisible manner in the reference region today. Standing on the boundary of the Project Area, one can see
the stark contrast to the converted land outside the Project Area without effort. This makes thedeforestation process extremely evident. Forest degradation is in turn conspicuous judging by the amountof charcoal sale depots alongside the main Highway (A109) that leads from the Reference Region to theclosest major coastal city, Mombasa.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201014

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Looking back towards Rukinga Sanctuary from deforested area in the Reference Area.
Descriptions of agents and drivers including any useful statistics and their sources
Local Taita Farmers have traditionally farmed the fertile cloud forested hills of the Eastern Arc Mountains,
Kasigau, and Taita and Sagalla Hills. As their population exceeded the carrying capacity of the montane
land they relocated to the dryland Acacia-Commiphora forest that dominates the lower elevations of the
district. However, their traditional farming practices did not sustain, due to extremely low average rainfall.
After colonizing all available land with permanent water sources, they began to clear any available
unprotected land, hoping that the unpredictable rainfall would bless them with a crop. The larger blocks ofremaining land in the area outside of communally owned land protected by local administrations wereprivately held group ranches - designated as cattle carrying areas - for the communities of the hills in the
1970s. However, due to the remoteness of these areas and a lack of permanent water sources, theseareas were never been developed as cattle ranches, and remained as natural forest over the years until
the mid 1990s, when rainfall patterns initiated a population boom in the area. This boom was also
facilitated by the improvement of the main Mombasa highway (A109) and a local arterial road that runs
along the edge of the Rukinga project area.
Duruma farmers, originally from the Kenyan Coast, came to the area in the mid 1990s due to anomalous
El Niño rains, when there was still a very small Taita population living in the Dryland forested areas thatnow comprise the reference region. In many cases these Duruma families were lead by second wives ofa man whose primary family was at the Coast, and who farmed this area on squatter land, sending the
produce home to the primary family at the Coast. Because both of these agents of deforestation did notpossess legal land tenure, they never invested in the land, and chose to simply farm with no inputs until
the soil was depleted. They subsequently cleared more forest and began engaging in an annual depletion© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201015

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

cycle. Wildlife Works addressed this issue by creating a land cooperative, providing farmland for thoselandless farmers who were deforesting the area3.
List of Project Activities designed to mitigate deforestation
The Project Activities designed to mitigate deforestation include (in order of importance);
Wildlife Works Sustainable Development Initiatives
Wildlife Works has implemented a wide range of sustainable development initiatives at Rukinga over the
past ten years, and is committing to continue with a new range of innovative co-benefits for thecommunities that are in the Project Zone once the funding for the REDD project begins. These initiatives
collectively form the basis of Wildlife Works' deforestation mitigation strategy. An implementation
schedule for these Project Activities, complete with timelines and budgets, was shared with the Project
Validator.
Organic clothing factory3

Local history obtained through multiple conversations with community members over a period of 12 years.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201016

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Wildlife Works' core project has been the construction of an Ecofactory. We employed over 150 people
from the local community during construction, and now trained and employ young women from thecommunity to sew organic cotton clothing, which we export to the US and Europe for sale on the internet
and in fashion boutiques. First and foremost, we plan to continue the level of investment we have been
making for the past ten years in this Ecofactory.
In addition, going forward we have several new Project Activities in this area;Adding capacity – we plan to immediately rehire ten women previously trained by Wildlife Works
but let go due to lack of funding

Factory Expansion – we plan to complete a second production cell, capable of dyeing and screen
printing fabric so that we can manufacture finished goods completely within our complex without
having to send out for dye and print. We believe this will make our production capability much
more attractive to a wider range of customers, and reduce our production costs. The walls for thisproduction cell were built back when the first sewing cell was built, but it needs roofing, flooring,
electrification and importation of the dye and screen print equipment acquired by Wildlife Works in
the US. A full budget for this factory expansion was provided to the Validator.



Increase Fabric Inventory and Produce 2010 Collection – we have been unable to produce a new
fashion collection from Rukinga for the past two years due to lack of funding, so we plan to initiate
a new Collection immediately in 2010, once carbon funding is received. This new collection will
be sold online and will relaunch our brand into the international marketplace, now with 100% of
production being done in Rukinga. This is critical to our long term strategy to wean local people
away from agricultural employment that conflicts with wildlife, and to introduce elements ofsustainability to our model for post carbon finance in 20 years.

Organic Greenhouse
Widlife Works established an organic greenhouse to grow citrus trees, which we sell at a discount to local
farmers so that they may plant a tree for shade that has the added benefit of earning them income. We
use the funds from the citrus sales to fund the growth and distribution of free agroforestry species such as
Neem and Moringa Oliefera to local farmers, to meet their medicinal, nutrition and fuelwood needs. With
the financing from the Carbon project, we plan to initiate a number of new Project Activities in this area;

Wildlife Works Organic Greenhouse© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201017

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements
Expansion of our core greenhouse at Rukinga HQ to add a second shade house, doubling ourcapacity by adding two additional greenhouse workers from the local community. A full budget forthis activity has been provided to the Validator.

Establishment of 5 nurseries in the villages surrounding the Eastern and Southern boundary of
the Project Area and Kasigau Wildlife Corridor: Maungu, Itinyi, Sasenyi, Buguta, Makwasinyi.
Each nursery will utilize the same template and budget as for our own shade house (see above),and each nursery will employ an additional 2 members of the local community, totaling 10 new
employees. Each nursery will be responsible for working with their immediate community to planand implement a cash crop and implement fuelwood and construction pole strategy for that
community. They will plant the same combination of tree species currently being grown in ourown greenhouse. Once again, for the foreseeable future, the nurseries will provide agroforestry
species and native hardwood seedlings for free, while the sale of cash crop trees will contribute to
the budget. We will provide training in organic agroforestry and our organic Project Team Leader,
Joseph Mwanganda, will manage these new nurseries.



We will continue a project activity through which we provide relatively small amounts of elephantdung from the Rukinga Sanctuary to a local women’s group called the Imani Women’s Group.
Periodically and at their request, they can use the dung as a growing medium for theircommercial mushroom farm, which is housed in a small shed within the women’s groupcompound and provides a good income to the group, with little to no negative impact on
biodiversity or land use.



We will restart a 3 year reforestation project on the slopes of Mt. Kasigau, working closely with
the Kasigau Conservation Trust (KCT) to plant 20,000 indigenous hardwood trees over the next
three years in one of the Project Zone’s High Conservation Value (HCV) areas. This project aims
to replace trees taken out for charcoal or construction over the past years. We will be using thenursery built at Makwasinyi and Sasenyi (see above) as the base for propagating the seedlings ofthe indigenous trees in the first year, until Phase II of this project, at which time we plan to add an
additional 4 nurseries on the South and East sides of Mt. Kasigau. We will be providing financial
rewards to community members who plant those trees and protect them through two full years.
We are confident that this project will go a long way in restoring the habitat and conserving theendemic species in this region. Its model might hopefully be emulated in other parts of thecountry so as to stop the loss of forests in Kenya. We have involved the community in all facets ofthe project, from the formulation of this proposal, the monitoring and as indicated in its
implementation. This has ensured that the community has taken it up as its own initiative and will
see it through even in the absence of Wildlife Works, thus ensuring sustainability.

Dryland Farming scheme
Our most recent project involves working with the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) to
cultivate a climate appropriate plant called Jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis) that provides a cash crop
through its seeds and is also extremely drought tolerant, non invasive and has the added criticallyimportant benefit that it is not eaten by any wildlife, birds or even insects. It is therefore viewed as theultimate non-conflict crop. Wildlife Works is currently studying the impact of various levels of plantmaintenance and irrigation on plant seed and oil productivity, with the idea that we can provide local© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201018

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

farmers root stock to establish their own plants. They can then determine how much they can likely makeif they are willing to put a certain level of effort into the plant maintenance. There are three specific Project
Activities associated with this scheme;Complete our involvement in Phase I of the joint Research Project, taking place on the Jojoba
fields at our HQ which will end in 2010

Develop a full business plan on how to create a self sustaining venture to outplant jojoba in thesurrounding community farmland, providing the local farmers with a drought tolerant and nonconflict crop.



Source private funding to implement the Jojoba outplanting business plan, either from donors,
private investors, Government of Kenya, or some combination thereof.

Wildlife Works REDD Forest and Biodiversity monitoring
There are a number of specific Project Activities in the Kasigau area that Wildlife Works will complete
throughout the project lifetime;Continue daily ranger patrols to monitor of the health and vitality of the Project area – we havebeen performing daily patrols for almost fourteen years, and our rangers are very skilled at
identifying potential threats to the forest and biodiversity of the Rukinga Sanctuary.

Using Carbon finance, we have added a new permanent Ranger Station at the SoutEast end of
the Project area, furthest from our headquarters. This supports the addition of a full new sectionof 8 Wildlife Works Rangers, recruited and trained from the local community, along with a new
Team Leader promoted from within our existing force. This is primarily to prevent incursions ofillegal cattle from that direction, to make patrolling the far boundary easier, and to develop closer
working relationships with the Makwasinyi community.



We have made a significant investment in modernizing our patrol fleet, by purchasing three new
Toyota Land Cruisers, to reduce the carbon emissions from our patrol vehicles, and to reduce thecost of operating and maintaining them. Perhaps most importantly, we wish to ensure that wehave a reliable fleet to support constant patrol activities. We have thus retired our oldest patrol
vehicle, a 1980 Toyota Land Cruiser – HJ45 Diesel.



We will improve our ability to monitor the HCV species in Rukinga by adding a dedicated Ranger
Patrol, the HCV Ranger Team, which will be responsible for constant tracking and monitoring of
the HCV species. Unlike the general ranger teams that are patrolling geographic sectors of the
Project area, this dedicated team will be recruited from the existing ranger Patrols based on
tracking ability and biodiversity knowledge, and the 4 members of the patrol will be backfilled in
the geographic Ranger teams by hiring new rangers from within the community.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201019

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Wildlife Works ranger force team members
Additionally, to improve our monitoring of HCV species, we plan to establish a GIS center of
excellence at Rukinga HQ, for which we have hired one full time Kenyan GIS expert, and set up astate of the art GIS computer station. This individual is responsible for liaising closely with the
HCV Ranger Team, with the Ecotourism partner in the Project Zone, and with all Wildlife Works
ranger patrols to maintain daily sighting logs of the HCV species. They will also be responsible formonitoring those other species of ecotourism value, such as Elephant, Buffalo, Giraffe andCommon Zebra. A biodiversity database is being collected with recordings made from standard
daily ranger patrol sheets.



We will begin annual monitoring of our carbon inventory by revisiting 20% of our permanent fixedplots each year to resample the trees, shrubs and grasses, looking for degradation or
improvement in existing stocks. In addition we plan to acquire remote sensed imagery to prove
the absence of large scale deforestation or boundary incursion. Wildlife Works subsidized thepurchase of a gyrocopter by our VP African Operations, Rob Dodson, which he will use toperform periodic aerial monitoring of the project area and reference region.

We will investing in third auditors to verify project carbon inventories and project progress every
five years.

Ecotourism
Wildlife Works has located an ecotourism provider who now operates a safari camp in the center of the
Rukinga Sanctuary. This provides employment for safari guides and other service jobs, as well a market
for local produce. In the absence of REDD funding, and our continued protection of the biodiversity in the
project area, this business would likely lose its support.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201020

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Ecotourism Center at Rukinga - "Camp Tsavo"
The primary ecotourism tenant, called Camp Kenya, brings groups of young people to the camp from theUK who stay at the camp, but spend their days in the communities of the project area implementing
community projects, providing a significant benefit to the communities. Wildlife Works has negotiated for asecond partner, called EcoTraining, to come to Rukinga. They are a South African safari guide training
company, and have agreed to support the placement of local youth into their program, on a space
available basis, to be trained as Safari Guides at a very high quality level. As a project activity, we plan toprovide funding for two local youth per year to go through their program and be trained as safari guides.
Finally we plan to explore a second high end ecotourism retreat on Rukinga, to bring more jobs andincome to the Project. This effort will be self funded by outside investment partners, and represents asignificant capital expenditure.
School Construction and Bursary Scheme
When Wildlife Works arrived in the area, there were almost no schoolrooms, no books and no desks.
None of the necessary infrastructure for children to have a hope of a decent education exisited. We
began with a school building program, and over the years we have partnered with the community andvarious identified donors to build 18 classrooms throughout the district. We also build desks, and ouroriginal Kenyan manager Alice Ndiga launched a school bursary program, which she administers, called
the Kelimu Trust, that has sent over 65 local children through private high school, and several on tocollege.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201021

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements.
Old Kale School – no floor, no desks, one mud room New School block built by Wildlife Works
Once the Project Carbon funds start to come in we plan on two specific Project Activities in this scheme,
as outlined in the Project Implementation Schedule provided to the Validator;
Provide Wildlife Works direct funding to send 5 new students through four year secondary
schools program and on to three or four year College/University should they qualify – this is anannual commitment of $2000 in the first four years of Secondary School fees and between $5000
and $10000 a year in college/university fees.

Establish a Wildlife Works School Construction and Maintenance fund, by hiring a dedicated staff
person to manage the fund with project management skills and ability to write grant proposals,
and provide $10,000 per year in Wildlife Works funding above and beyond the compensation of
the fund manager to seed school construction and maintenance projects in the Project Zone. The
Fund Manager will work closely with the local District Education Officer, and the existing schoolboards in the area to determine which projects should receive funding each year.

Please note that this document outlines minimum levels of financial commitment to project activities, andfunding levels will be revisited as project financing becomes more clear based on carbon credit sales
each year.
A List of External Drivers of Deforestation (Covariates) Used in the Deforestation Model
We explored the most obvious covariate - population - and found that it did not significantly affect the
deforestation baseline rate. We ultimately decided to not use any covariates, basing deforestation on
historical information alone.

Section 6.2 Participatory Rural Appraisal
As a result of Wildlife Works extensive knowledge of the Reference Region and Project Area, we are
intimately familiar with the agents and drivers of deforestation and therefore we found it unnecessary to
perform a Participatory Rural Appraisal.
Analysis of Agents of Deforestation
This section is Not Applicable.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201022

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Analysis of Drivers of Deforestation
This section is Not Applicable.

Section 6.3 The Reference Region
Delineation of the Reference Area
The Reference Region for the Kasigau Corridor Phase I project was chosen to specifically address the
behavior of the local agents of deforestation as well as the drivers of deforestation for the ecoysystem.
Specifically, the area is comprised almost entirely of local inhabitants engaging in subsistence farming
practices. In the area that are not zoned for group ranch ownership, local agents practice slash and burnagriculture. This type of deforestation is prevalent and exclusive, as the dominant species (Acacia /Commiphora) are not commercially viable. For this reason, the main agents of deforestation, as describedin section 6.2.1 consist of local community members, and the primary driver, as will be tested in section
6.4, the Cumulative Deforestation Model, is population.
Narrative describing the rationale for selection of the reference region boundaries
The Reference region boundaries were chosen to address the behavior of the agents of drivers ofdeforestation in the Kasigau Corridor. The reference area is bounded by Tsavo West national park to thewest, Tsavo East national park to the Northeast, and group-owned ranches on all other boundaries. The
area is therefore bound on all sides by either protected areas or tracts owned by groups under agreementwith Wildlife Works for Kasigau Corridor Phase II Project. As such, unplanned deforestation will
necessarily occur within the delineated reference area.
The region was specifically chosen to embody a region that has seen deforestation of a nature typical forthis ecosystem. In fact, the area forms a corridor between the two aforementioned national parks, with
virtually no extraneous space. As such, Wildlife Works is confident that by studying the area delineated as
the reference region for this project, the culture and behavior of the agents and drivers of deforestation
will be completely captured.
Additionally the geographic qualities of the reference region are similar to those of Rukinga Ranch. Forest
type, soils, river density, and infrastructure are similar. The reference region does encompass the Taita
Hills area; Wildlife Works feels that it is not only appropriate, but necessary to include these hills in thereference area, as they have been subject to subsistence conversion to agriculture as much, if not to agreater extent, than the surrounding lowlands. It would be inappropriate to omit the hills simply due totheir elevation. The reference region was also chosen such that the agents of deforestation would, andare perfectly able, to act within its boundaries as an alternative to deforesting within Rukinga Ranch itself.
The following maps demonstrate the geographic features of the reference area that render it appropriate
for evaluating the baseline scenario for this project.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201023

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Delineated boundaries

Reference Area and Land Tenure Boundaries, Roads and Major Markets

Reference Area Slope© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

Reference Area Aspect24Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Reference Area Elevation

Reference Area Soil Classes

Reference Area Thematic Landcover
Infrastructure (roads, major markets, land tenure)
These characteristics are shown on the main maps of the reference region.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201025

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Defining the Reference Period
The reference period is defined by the following historic events;


Population in the Taita Hills began to exceed the carrying capacity of the fertile hill top lands inthe late 1980s, and families began to move down into the dryland forested areas.



Local lore has it that the Coastal Duruma first came to the Reference Area adjacent to the Project
Area in the early 1990s when they were promised land by a local Taita politician who had taken a
Duruma wife in return for their votes in local elections. The only problem was he promised themland he did not own that falls within the Reference Area for this project. The Duruma arepolygamists, and therefore the common practice was for a husband to bring his second or third
wives to the Project area to establish agricultural plots. The husband would leave them in thebush with their small children and return to the Coast where they would spend most of the timewith the family of the first wife. The husband would then return at harvest and claim a large
portion of the crop should there actually have been a crop, and would take it back to the Coastfamily. These single parent families were rarely successful at agriculture, but continued to clear
land aggressively hoping they would find the perfect location where the tragically localized rainfall
patterns would find their land. In the interim, the teenage males would snare animals for food, theDuruma being much more comfortable in the bush than Taita farmers.



El Niño Rains in the mid 1990s caused more landless families from both Taita and Coastal
Duruma communities to move to the area, as they could get successful maize harvests, and theland was still relatively under populated.



The main Nairobi - Mombasa highway that passes through the Reference Area (A109) fell into
horrible disrepair in the late 1990s, so the high volume of trucks that travel up and down the
highway from the main port of Mombasa to the interior of Kenya and beyond (as far as Zambia)
was forced to make frequent maintenance stops. As a result, small towns such as Maungu, whichis the town directly adjacent to Rukinga, sprang up along the highway.



There are no significant economic factors involved in selection of the Reference Period, as the
local population consists primarily of subsistence farmers, producing for their own consumption.



These factors lead to a reference period beginning in February, 1987, before which there wasvery little population and very low deforestation, and extending to the Project sart date, January
1st, 2005. Wildlife Works then located historical imagery covering as much of the reference area
as possible, both on a spatial and temporal basis. The following were found and used in building
the cumulative deforestation model (CDM).

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201026

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Figure 4. Historical imagery used for the Cumulative Deforestation Model (CDM).
It should be noted that the MED makes use of the post 2003 Landsat SLC-OFF imagery, that was in turnaccessible and useful in the deforestation analysis.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201027

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 6.4 The Cumulative Deforestation Model
Historic Imagery Used to Build the Cumulative Deforestation Model
The imagery located for the reference period provided 100% “double coverage” over the reference area.
Upon request, the valdiator will be shown a double coverage map to demonstrate this point. All images
were registered to within 10% RMSE. The line plot of the historic images confirms stationarity.

Figure 5. Line plot of historic images demonstrating stationarity.
Sampling Deforestation to Build the Cumulative Deforestation Model
Variance from the pilot sample (100 points) was collected and input to equation 6 to determine total
sample size for the CDM:
0.3126
1
2
1
2

1.96
0.01

0.3126 1.96
0.01

We chose to use an even 2000 samples, as it is conservatively greater than 1877. To support thecollection of data for the CDM, Wildlife Works developed an image classification protocol, and a gridclassification tool, which generates the dot grid overlaid on the historic imagery, and supports the analyst
in performing the deforestation analysis of each of the grid values over time. An excerpt of the image
classification protocol is provided below, and the full document was provided to the Validator.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201028

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements________________
Evaluating points
When classifying the points in the grids it is very important to evaluate the area around each point
to get a clear understanding of the land cover features and classification type, not just the area directly
under the point. Points will often land in transition areas so a thorough review must be done to evaluate
the relative proximity to the various land covers. The follow examples examine a range of land covers andfeatures in the images and how to classify them correctly.
Example 1: Forests
A. High density – This point is in the center of a forest. This forest is consistently deep green
and very little to no soil is visible.

B. Low density – This point is on a low density forest where a lot of soil can be seen. The dark
spots in the image are trees and the red area is soil visible between the trees.

C. Low density – This is another example of a low density forest.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201029

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

D. Shrub/grass land/naturally low vegetation – This point is on a non-forest area; however
this area has not been deforested. This is a very important distinction to be aware of; eventhough this area may not be forested it should still be classified as forest because the lack offorest was not caused by anthropogenic activities.

Example 2: Anthropogenic deforestation
The key to identifying anthropogenic deforestation versus land that is naturally non-forested or
low density forest is the identification of unnatural patterns in the landscape. These patterns look very
unnatural and include agricultural fields, mosaic deforestation and clear-cut area.
A.

Agricultural fields – This point is in an agricultural field. The distinct lines and structure of the
fields are common landscape characteristics of land that is used for agricultural activities.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201030

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

B. Mosaic Deforestation – This point is on a mosaic patch of deforestation. A common
characteristic of mosaic deforestation is random patches of cleared areas that usually start in adense area and become less dense and scattered as it spreads out.

The points in the grid can be classified to the appropriate land
cover type using the Grid Classification tool. For more
information about the Grid Classification tool see: Grid
Classification Tool User Manual.

__________
Excerpt from image classification protocol
The grid data was collected according to the procedure described in the MED and using the Grid
Classification Tool (shown above). The result of this data collection analysis for the Reference Area for alltime periods follows;© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201031

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

1987

1994

1999

2001

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201032

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

2003

2004

2005

Classification Legend

Figure 6. Data collected over the historical reference period used to fit the CDM© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201033

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Minimizing Uncertainty in the Cumulative Deforestation Model
To minimize interpretation errors while evaluating forest state in the images used to develop the CDM, animage interpretation protocol was developed and followed by all interpreters. This protocol includes thefollowing information;


Instructions in how to interpret images using a grid of points overlaid on each image.



A description of the set of thematic landcover classes used to interpret the points.

Common (typically encountered) types of land cover patterns and features, and instructions as to
how to recognize thematic classes using context.

How to interpret the forest state of an image, including potential pitfalls to be cognizant of.

After forest state interpretation was completed for all the images within in the historical reference period,
the data was independently checked for inconsistencies and systematic misinterpretation. This was
accomplished by using an algorithm that flagged any points that had an unlikely forest state transition
over the reference period (an example being a transition from non-forest to forest in less than 5 years).
These points were then re-evaluated by examining all images at each point (the temporal span) in orderto accurately identify and rectify any misinterpretations.
A total of 164 points out of 2000 were flagged for inconsistencies. A spreadsheet was used to evaluate
and track the forest state change over the reference period. The images were then re-interpreted for eachpoint and the errors were documented. After the points were reclassified, the check algorithm was run
again to ensure that all flagged forest state transitions had been corrected.
The following documents were made available to the validator:
Image Classification Protocol: Image Evaluation Protocol, 01/12/2011
List of flagged and rectified forest state transition: Grid Data RefArea flaggedPointsv2, 01/12/2011
Fitting the Cumulative Deforestation Model
Observations of forest state from the reference region and applicable covariate data sets were used to fit
the cumulative deforestation model using the free statistical program R. Population census data wereconsidered as covariates to deforestation throughout time, and these data were obtained for two census
districts near the project area – Sagalla and Kasigau – from the Kenya Census for 1989, 1999 and 2009.
A linear interpolation was used to estimate population between 10-year census dates. However, thesecovariates did not inform the model when compared to the model evaluated using only historicalobservations of deforestation. Four models were evaluated using AIC and their linear predictors, and arepresented in the table below.
Model
Forest State = Alpha + Time
Forest State = Alpha + Time + Sagalla
Forest State = Alpha + Time + Kasigau
Forest State = Aplha + Time + (Sagalla + Kasigau)

AIC
4
6
6
12

Table 3. Linear predictors considered and AICs.
The selected linear predictor, per equation 7 is

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201034

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

̂

1.0804558

0.0003792

where is the number of days since the project start date. This predictor was selected because it gave
the model with the lowest AIC. A graph of the selected model based on this linear predictor is given
below.

Figure 7. A plot of the selected logistical cumulative deforestation model.
Linear Prediction of Deforestation
A linear rate was selected to predict the cumulative deforestation for project accounting purposes.
According to the notation of equation 7, the selected rate is
0.031649
where is the number of days since the project start date, and y is proportion of area deforested. This
linear rate is conservative because it predicts less baseline deforestation than the cumulative
deforestation model, does not cross the CDM, and is at least 20 years in length. For the end date of thismonitoring period, the projected proportion of cumulative deforestation by the cumulative deforestation
model is 0.404, while the linear model is 0.1898, less than that predicted by the logistical cumulative
deforestation model.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201035

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

The following lists the proportion of cumulative deforestation for all monitoring periods to-date based on
this selected linear rate.
Monitoring Period
1Year Ending
2010

Cumulative Deforestation
0.1898

Table 4. List of cumulative deforestation by monitoring period.
A graph of the selected linear rate compared to the cumulative deforestation model from the project startdate to end date is presented below to illustrate that the linear rate is conservative.

Figure 8. A plot of the logistical cumulative deforestation model (a) and the selected linear rate (b).

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201036

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Estimating Uncertainty in the Cumulative Deforestation Model
Uncertainty in the cumulative deforestation model was quantified using equation 15 and 17. Equation 17
is calculated as1∈

0.3126732
where 0.1098263 is equal to



iJ

∈

0.1098263 1

0.1098263

wi oi .

Equation 15, the uncertainty in the deforestation model, is then calculated as
1.96
∑∈
√
1.96

0.3126732√8821

0.1098263

where 8821 is the number of state observations made to fit the cumulative deforestation model. The
uncertainty in the deforestation model is.

Section 6.5 Soil Carbon Loss Model
Sampling Soil Carbon Loss
Soil carbon was determined to be an important pool for this project and was measured using purposive
samples of farms in the reference area, most closely correlated to the original dryland forest conditions on
Rukinga Ranch. This was possible because Wildlife Works primary shareholders, and of course all
employees were in the region prior to the Project start date, so we were able to determine which farms
were converted from dryland forest conditions most similarly matching those inside the Project area, as
well as when they were converted.
We selected 25 soil sample locations outside of Rukinga’s boundary in farms(shambas), all at least 10
years since conversion to farm land with conversion as recently as 10 years and as distant as 40 years
ago. We also randomly selected 25 locations inside Rukinga in intact dryland forest.
This following is a table of the shambas that were sampled:
Name

Location

Plot Description

Sample Depth (cm)MzunguSasenyi100

Nemu

MarunguNzangi

Kulikila

Farm cleared 28 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize and green peas
Farm cleared 10 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 17 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

100
100

37

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Ndaro

Sasenyi

Ngome

SasenyiMazikoSasenyiJira M

SasenyiKazungu

Sasenyi

Kamau

Itinyi

WalterMarungu

KivuvaItinyiMwanjila

ItinyiMarungu
primary
J. Mkala

Marungu

Alima

Marungu

MwikaliLokichigio

Nicholus

Lokichigio

M. Ngele

Itinyi

Kibarangoma

Marungu

F. Kamau

ItinyiMwanyuma

Marungu

Chimanga

Mwagwede

MwaduleMwagwede

Lomitir

Lokichogio

M. Mtima

Marungu

Sasenyi

Farm cleared 35 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 37 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 26 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 40 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 30 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 12 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 10 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 20 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 10 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 40 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 40 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 10 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 20 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 10 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 13 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 13 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 16 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 14 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 17 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 17 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 18 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas
Farm cleared 17 yrs ago. Crops grown are
maize & green peas

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Table 4. List of soil samples in the reference region.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

38

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

The location of all the soil samples taken is shown below in a map of Rukinga Sanctuary and theimmediately surrounding reference area.

Figure 9. Soil samples in Rukinga and shambas in the reference region© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201039

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

For each plot location, soil was sampled to a consistent depth of 1m. We selected this depth due to theresults of a pilot study using a few test pits. Analysis showed that soil carbon loss was still significant
down to 1m. Farmers typically disturb the top 30cms with their ploughs, or with any farming practices theymight use to improve or deteriorate soil condition, but we had surmised that the deep root systems of thedryland forest would lead to high soil carbon at lower depths over time, and we thus chose to sample to a
1m depth.
Each sample was performed in two “lifts”, the first representing the top 30cm (Top Soil), the second from31-100cm (Sub Soil), by digging a 1m square pit and thoroughly mixing the soil removed from the pit ineach “lift” before extracting a sample in a bag for sending of to the independent Soil Laboratory in Nairobi.
Wildlife Works has been using the same soil sampling laboratory - in fact using the same analyst - forseveral years. The laboratory analyst / manager has agreed to speak with the Validator should theyrequire any/all of the following:

calibration recordscertification documentsa description as to how soil carbon is analyzed

All laboratory reports, depicting bulk density and soil carbon, have been provided to the Validator. The
process for soil sampling is illustrated in a soil sampling protocol standard operating procedure , which
serves as a training guide for the field sampling teams, and has also been provided to the Validator.
The following tables list soil data collected inside the project area and in the immediately surroundingreference area:
Reference area samples
SampleFarm

Soil Depth

Comments

CW019SA0290

MzunguTop Soil

CW019SA0291

MzunguSub Soil

CW019SA0292

Nemu

Top Soil

CW019SA0293

Nemu

Sub Soil

CW019SA0294

NzangiTop Soil

CW019SA0295

NzangiSub Soil

CW019SA0296

Ndaro

Top Soil

CW019SA0297

Ndaro

Sub Soil

CW019SA0298

Ngome

Top Soil

CW019SA0299

Ngome

Sub Soil

Sasenyi X0468880,Y9596995
Sasenyi X0468880,Y9596995
MarunguX0468956,Y9598235
MarunguX0468956,Y9598235
KulikilaX0465708,Y9590061
KulikilaX0465708,Y9590061
SasenyiX0469081,Y9595739
SasenyiX0469081,Y9595739
SasenyiX0469081,Y9595739
SasenyiX0469081,Y9595739© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

Bulk Density(g/cm3)
1.57

Carbon
(%)
0.64

1.42

0.52

1.43

0.80

1.36

0.55

1.31

1.34

1.29

0.64

1.53

0.51

1.38

0.17

1.57

0.32

1.36

0.27

40

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

CW019SA0300

MazikoTop Soil

CW019SA0301

MazikoSub Soil

CW019SA0302

Jira MTop Soil

CW019SA0303

Jira M

Sub Soil

CW019SA0304

Kazungu

Top Soil

CW019SA0305

Kazungu

Sub Soil

CW019SA0306

Kamau

Top Soil

CW019SA0307

Kamau

Sub Soil

CW019SA0308

WalterTop Soil

CW019SA0309

WalterSub Soil

CW019SA0310

KivuvaTop Soil

CW019SA0311

KivuvaSub Soil

CW019SA0312

Mwanjila

Top Soil

CW019SA0313

Mwanjila

Sub Soil

CW019SA0314

MarunguPrimary

Top Soil

CW019SA0315

MarunguPrimary

Sub Soil

CW019SA0316

J MkalaTop Soil

CW019SA0317

J MkalaSub Soil

CW019SA0318

Alima

Top Soil

CW019SA0319

Alima

Sub Soil

CW019SA0320

Mwikali

Top Soil

CW019SA0321

Mwikali

Sub Soil

CW019SA0322

Nicholus

Top Soil

CW019SA0323

Nicholus

Sub Soil© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

SasenyiX0468799,Y9595759
SasenyiX0468799,Y9595759
SasenyiX0468945,Y9595976
SasenyiX0468945,Y9595976
SasenyiX0468945,Y9596807
SasenyiX0468945,Y9596807
ItinyiX0469173,Y9598109
ItinyiX0469173,Y9598109
MarunguX0469162,Y9598058
MarunguX0469162,Y9598058
ItinyiX04770177,Y960141
5
ItinyiX04770177,Y960141
5
ItinyiX0470931,Y9602306
ItinyiX0470931,Y9602306
MarunguX0469404,Y9598889
1
MarunguX0469404,Y9598889
1
SasenyiX0469046,Y9597012
SasenyiX0469046,Y9597012
MarunguX0469173,Y9598113
MarunguX0469173,Y9598113
LokichiqioX0472927,Y9606132
LokichiqioX0472927,Y9606132
LokichiqioX0473454,Y9605990
Lokichiqio-

1.45

0.36

1.41

0.22

1.43

0.62

1.38

0.19

1.43

0.81

1.31

0.62

1.69

0.20

1.52

0.34

1.5

0.41

1.47

0.37

1.51

0.40

1.37

0.25

1.5

0.78

1.43

0.30

1.52

0.26

1.42

0.19

1.58

0.24

1.46

0.35

1.48

0.64

1.42

0.51

1.53

0.69

1.39

0.34

1.56

0.50

1.41

0.38

41

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

X0473454,Y9605990
CW019SA0324

M NgeleTop Soil

CW019SA0325

M NgeleSub Soil

CW019SA0326

Top Soil

CW019SA0328

Kibarangoma
Kibarangoma
F Kamau

CW019SA0329

F Kamau

Sub Soil

CW019SA0330

Top Soil

CW019SA0332

Mwanyuma
Mwanyuma
Chimanga

CW019SA0333

Chimanga

Sub Soil

CW019SA0334

MwaduleTop Soil

CW019SA0335

MwaduleSub Soil

CW019SA0336

Lomitir

Top Soil

CW019SA0337

Lomitir

Sub Soil

CW019SA0338

M Mtima

Top Soil

CW019SA0339

M Mtima

Sub Soil

CW019SA0327

CW019SA0331

Sub Soil
Top Soil

Sub Soil
Top Soil© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

ItinyiX0471145,Y9601747
ItinyiX0471145,Y9601747
MarunguX0469975,Y9600174
MarunguX0469975,Y9600174
ItinyiX0470939,Y9603447
ItinyiX0470939,Y9603447
MarunguX0468862,Y9598289
MarunguX0468862,Y9598289
MwaqwedeX0465293,Y9589662
MwaqwedeX0465293,Y9589662
MwaqwedeX0465633,Y9589944
MwaqwedeX0465633,Y9589944
LokichogioX0473367,Y9605797
LokichogioX0473367,Y9605797
MarunguX0469238,Y9598850
MarunguX0469238,Y9598850

1.33

0.47

1.57

0.15

1.57

0.56

1.5

0.28

1.59

0.51

1.5

0.26

1.54

0.42

1.29

0.51

1.56

0.52

1.38

0.55

1.34

0.91

1.28

0.76

1.51

0.44

1.45

0.35

1.55

0.43

1.44

0.35

42

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements
Samples inside Rukinga Sanctuary
Sample Number

Farm

Field

Comments

Carbon0‐30cm‐X0477067, Y9578494

Bulk
Density
1.38

CW019SA0239

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 75

CW019SA0240

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 75

31‐100cm‐ X0477067, Y9578494

1.21

1.70

CW019SA0241

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 53

0‐30cm‐ X473061, Y9584563

1.23

1.47

CW019SA0242

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 53

31‐100cm‐ X0473061, Y9584563

1.33

0.74

CW019SA0243

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 40

0‐30cm‐ X0465557, Y9587046

1.34

1.09

CW019SA0244

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 40

31‐100cm‐ Xx0465557, Y9587046

1.13

1.90

CW019SA0245

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 45

0‐30cm‐ X0475045, Y9586570

1.22

1.49

CW019SA0246

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 45

31‐100cm‐ X0475045, Y9586570

1.35

0.69

CW019SA0247

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 54

0‐30cm‐ X0475063, Y9584564

1.3

0.59

CW019SA0248

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 54

31‐100cm‐ X0475063, Y9584564

1.33

0.83

CW019SA0249

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 81

0‐30cm‐ X0473772, Y9575089

1.39

0.61

CW019SA0250

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 81

31‐100cm‐ X0473772, Y9575089

1.38

1.10

CW019SA0251

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 63

0‐30cm‐ X0477066, Y9582559

1.39

0.38

CW019SA0252

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 63

31‐100cm‐ X0477066, Y9582559

1.25

0.72

CW019SA0253

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 71

0‐31cm‐ X0479067, Y9580518

1.2

0.52

CW019SA0254

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 71

31‐100cm‐ X0479067, Y9580518

1.36

0.60

CW019SA0255

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 19

0‐30cm‐ X0477062, Y9592623

1.38

0.44

CW019SA0256

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 19

31‐100cm‐ X0477062, Y9592623

1.4

0.80

CW019SA0257

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 3

0‐30cm‐X0475059, Y9599984

1.33

0.40

CW019SA0258

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 3

31‐100cm‐ X0475059, Y9599984

1.42

0.85

CW019SA0259

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 56

0‐30cm‐ X0479048, Y9584582

1.37

0.65

CW019SA0260

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 56

31‐100cm‐ X0479048, Y9584582

1.21

1.28

CW019SA0261

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 23

0‐30cm‐ X0471146, Y9590615

1.3

0.65

CW019SA0262

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 23

31‐100cm‐ X0471146, Y9590615

1.25

1.05

CW019SA0263

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 24

0‐30cm‐ X0472402, Y9590858

1.25

0.69

CW019SA0264

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 24

31‐100cm‐ X0472402, Y9590858

1.35

0.98

CW019SA0265

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 10

0‐30cm‐ X0475077, Y9596669

1.34

0.52

CW019SA0266

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 10

31‐100cm‐ X0475077, Y9596669

1.4

0.72

CW019SA0267

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 48

0‐30cm‐ X481050, Y9586554

1.31

0.87

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

0.59

43

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

CW019SA0268

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 48

31‐100cm‐ X481050, Y9586554

1.34

0.65

CW019SA0269

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 22

0‐30cm‐ X0469113, Y9590709

1.38

1.13

CW019SA0270

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 22

31‐100cm‐ X0469113, Y9590709

1.52

0.55

CW019SA0271

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 112

0‐30cm‐ X0471958, Y9600245

1.44

0.35

CW019SA0272

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 112

31‐100cm‐ X0471958, Y9600245

1.33

0.78

CW019SA0273

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 76

0‐30cm‐ X0479067, Y9578494

1.22

0.54

CW019SA0274

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 76

31‐100cm‐ X0479067, Y958494

1.26

1.39

CW019SA0275

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 35

0‐30cm‐X0477031, Y9588676

1.21

1.19

CW019SA0276

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 35

31‐100cm‐ X0477031, Y9588576

1.29

1.12

CW019SA0277

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 82

0‐30cm‐ X0475085, y9574499

1.34

0.54

CW019SA0278

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 82

31‐100cm‐ X0475085, Y9574499

1.45

0.73

CW019SA0279

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 66

0‐30cm‐ X0469494, Y9580862

1.3

0.67

CW019SA0280

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 66

31‐100cm‐ X0469494, Y9580862

1.59

0.59

CW019SA0281

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 59

0‐30cm‐ X046129, Y9582521

1.5

0.48

CW019SA0282

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 59

31‐100cm‐ X0469129, Y9582521

1.36

1.07

CW019SA0283

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 90‐30cm‐ X0473253, Y9596819

1.39

0.62

CW019SA0284

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 9

31‐100cm‐ X0473253, Y9596819

1.45

0.47

CW019SA0285

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 84

0‐30cm‐ X0472093. Y9600367

1.36

0.44

CW019SA0286

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 84

31‐100cm‐ X0472093, Y9600367

1.28

0.81

CW019SA0287

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 63

0‐30cm‐ X0476903, Y9586364

1.24

0.51

CW019SA0288

Rukinga Ranch

Rukinga 46

31‐100cm‐ X0476903, Y9586364

1.26

0.98

Description of Soil Types
The dominant soil type within the Project Area is Red Laterite typical of this region of Kenya. There aresmall bands of black cotton soil that occur randomly within the project area but account for a tiny - and webelieve insignificant - element from the standpoint of the Project soil carbon pool. There are also areas
within the Project Boundary where Gneiss Islands, or rocky outcrops penetrate the soils to form small
rocky hills. These outcrops also represent a tiny and we believe insignificant portion of the land andtherefore were ignored from the standpoint of the Project soil carbon pool. A soil classification map was
obtained for the whole of Kenya4 from which the soil classification map for the Reference Area, and the
supporting data below, was produced:

4

Sombroek, W.G., Braun, H.M.H. and van der Pouw, B.J.A. (1982). Exploratory Soil Map and Agro-Climatic Zone
Map of Kenya, 1980. Scale: 1:1,000,000. Exploratory Soil Survey Report No. E1. Kenya Soil Survey Ministry ofAgriculture - National Agricultural Laboratories, Nairobi, Kenya.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

44

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Figure 10. Soil classes in the reference and project areas.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201045

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Figure 11. Soil type comparison between Rukinga and the reference area
Minimizing Uncertainty
Wildlife Works has developed a field protocol for sampling soil carbon and that document “Standard
Operating Procedure – Soils” was provided to the Validator.
The same team has been collecting soil samples for over one year in the project area and has collected
well over 100 soil samples during that time. Our VP African Field Operations, Rob Dodson, trained theteams in the proper procedures and conducts periodic audits. Wildlife Works has the utmost confidence inour soil sampling team, and they have produce consistently accurate results. Ultimately, provided© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201046

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

accuracy in field measurements, soil carbon uncertainty lies in the variance between plots and the qualityof the soil laboratory used to determine soil organic carbon levels. Wildlife Works has, and will continue touse, Crop Nutritional Services in Nairobi. "Cropnuts" is run by Jeremy Cordingley, who has extensive
training and experience in soil science and laboratory procedures. Jeremy conducts periodic calibration
exercises with his equipment, and has offered to speak to the Validators should the so desire.
Fitting the Soil Carbon Loss Model
The soil carbon loss model was fit by first estimating the asymptotic proportion of soil carbon loss. Per
equation 12 of the MED, the estimated asymptotic proportion is

ℓ

1

1

#
ℓ

1
ℓ

∈

224.01411.53.

where 224.01 is the estimated mean carbon stock (tonnes CO2e/ha) of shambas in the reference areaand 411.53 is the same for the project area. The default of 20% was selected for the mean rate of soil
carbon loss (based on a conservative value derived from Davidson and Ackerman, 1993). A mean rate of
20% decay is achieved by
0.55 , and the final model isℓ, , ,ℓ
ℓ
,

, ,

1
.

,
1

exp
.

,
exp
.

Predicting Soil Carbon Loss
The final soil model is displayed by equations 11 and 13 below. These equations show that upon
deforestation in the project area, soil carbon gradually decays from the stocks in the deforested areas.
Most soil carbon is lost in the 5 years after deforestation and the proportion of soil carbon lost asymptotes
at 0.456.

Figure 12. Equation 11 (general soil loss form) and Equation 13 (general carbon loss form applied at
Rukinga)© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201047

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Estimating Uncertainty in the Soil Carbon Loss Model
Per equation 19, the total estimated uncertainty in the soil carbon loss model is
1

1.96

∈

1.96

√25

79.48

224.01.
where 79.48 is the estimated standard deviation of soil carbon stocks (tonnes CO2e/ha) from thesampled shambas, 25 is the sample size and 224.01 is the estimated sample mean (tonnes CO2e/ha).

Section 6.6 Baseline Scenario for Selected Carbon Pools
Selecting the Proportion of Below Ground Biomass Removed from Large Trees
The Kasigau Corridor is semi-arid, and due to very low average annual rain fall, the Dryland Forest on
Rukinga Ranch and in the surrounding reference region is characterized by small to medium sized trees,
mostly Acacia ssp and Commiphora ssp. When farmers clear the forest for agriculture, stumps are always
removed if the cleared land is to be used for growing crops such as maize. This is because the land isusually tilled by ox-plough and stumps can present an impediment. Commiphora stumps rot away quite
quickly after the tree has been cut down but the acacia are often too hard to be cut with an axe or panga,so the farmers fell them by making a fire around the base of the tree. This eventually topples the tree andthe fire smolders into the stump and burns it down to below the surface of the soil. Stumps arecorrespondingly not visible from the cleared farm.
Our site management team and the majority shareholder of Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd, Mike
Korchinsky, have been in the area for almost 15 years and have not seen a single stump in a maize farm.
As a result we contend that it is common practice in this region to burn the stumps out, and therefore weselect 100% as the Proportion of below ground biomass removed from large trees.
Selecting the Proportion of Wood Products
There is no harvest of commercial timber from the project area in the Baseline, nor for wood carving,furniture etc. The only potential harvest of wood products under the baseline would be for building
materials for local village huts, e.g. the farmer might cut one or two trees for poles to build his home prior
to slash and burn of the remaining biomass for cropland preparation. There are approximately 200-300
trees per hectare in the dryland forest, and a typical small farm or “shamba” is 5 acres or 2.5 hectares,
representing 500-750 trees, so the one or two poles taken for hut construction per farm represent ademinimus amount of the above ground biomass of less than .5%. As not all farmers use locallyharvested poles for hut construction, and even for those that do, the poles represent a tiny amount ofbiomass as the huts are very small and grass thatched, we feel it is reasonable to ignore thesequestration of carbon in long lived wood products in the baseline scenario, and therefore suggest the
proportion of baseline emissions that are stored in long-lived wood products can be zero.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201048

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Figure 13. Local farmers house - Rukinga boundary

Section 6.7 Baseline Reevaluation
This PD was written at the time of initial validation and first monitoring period at the beginning of the
project. This section is not yet applicable. Wildlife Works understands that under certain circumstances in
the future as specified in VCS 2008a there may be reason to perform a Baseline Reevaluation before themandatory time frame of 10 years.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201049

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 7 Additionality
Within the Project Area, none of the proposed Project activities violate any law.
1. Identification of alternative land use scenarios
a. Continuation of the pre-project land use as private wildlife sanctuary:
Prior to the implementation of the REDD project on Rukinga, the Project proponents had
spent a significant and unsustainable amount of money over the last ten years financing
activities to attempt to protect the forest from destruction. Those activities provided nosignificant sources of income from the land to offset the land protection costs, andtherefore this project would eventually have failed financially if carbon funding were notmade available.
b. Uses a in the ten years prior to Project start date:
Cattle Ranching - When the current majority landowners acquired their interest in
Rukinga Sanctuary in 2000, the previous owners were operating a financiallyunsuccessful cattle ranching operation on the land. The area is too dry with nopermanent water for successful cattle ranching, and there was predation by lions on the
cattle at a rate that lead to the financial failure of the operation, and eventual sale of theland to the majority shareholder of Wildlife Works.
Ecotourism - The prior owners also had an ecotourism facility on the Project area, but asevidence that these activities were not financially viable on the land, the slash and burnclearing had reached within 200 meters of the ecotourism facility, causing it to fail andmove away.
c.

Slash and Burn Agriculture by subsistence farmers:
Prior to the Project Proponent taking over management of the land in 2005, local people
had begun to clear part of the Project area, and have systematically cleared the dryland
forest from a majority of the Reference area in order to provide land for annual crops.
This is evidently the most likely Baseline scenario, as it had been carried out routinely
throughout the Reference region, in clear violation of land laws.

2. Consistency of credible land uses with enforced mandatory laws and regulations:
All of the alternative land use scenarios above represent legal land uses, with the exception ofslash and burn agriculture, which essentially consists of squatting on privately owned land; illegal
under Kenyan law. However, there is overwhelming evidence that this law had beensystematically unenforced, as greater than 30% of the area of the administrative unit thatencompasses the project area had been deforested in the ten years prior to the Project start date.
Thus, all the land uses above are credible.
3. Investment Analysis – Simple Cost Analysis:
Physical protection of the Project area, and provision of deforestation mitigation activities, such as
school building, scholarships, ranger patrols, reforestation of deforested indigenous forests etc.
for the community cost the Project Proponent approximately $300-400,000 per year in the years© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

50

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

prior to implementation of the VCS AFOLU project. There exists no significant income to offset
these costs. In the absence of active protection, both physical and that created by partnering withthe communities to create economic alternatives, it is clear the land in the Project area would becleared aggressively for subsistence agriculture, as that was in fact what was already happening
prior to our arrival. Slash and burn agriculture faces no economic barriers, and is therefore once
again the most likely Baseline scenario.
4. Common Practice Analysis
It is common practice to protect wilderness in Africa, and to provide sustainable development
support for rural African communities, but that common practice is typically funded bygovernments or donor agencies, and not by financial return from the project activities. It is NOT
common practice for private companies that are not donor funded, such as the Project proponent
to protect forested wilderness in Africa for financial return, in the absence of AFOLU revenues.
The Project proponent’s Rukinga Sanctuary project is the first AFOLU Project Activity of its typein Kenya, and one of the very first in Africa.
Summary of Additionality Test
In summary;

the Kasigau Corridor REDD project is not the only credible alternative land use consistent with
enforced mandatory applicable laws,

one of those alternative land uses, that of Slash and Burn Agriculture is by far the most likely
baseline land use,

the Kasigau Corridor project passes the Investment Analysis Test as it is not a financially viable
land use without the AFOLU VCS project revenuesand the project activities are NOT common practice.

therefore it is additional under the rules of VT0001 Tool for the Demonstration of Additionality in VCS
AFOLU Project Activities.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

51

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 8 Baseline Emissions
Baseline emissions are calculated as the carbon pools measured in the project area, which are applied tothe cumulative deforestation model (determined by sampling historical imagery). The estimated emissions(tonnes CO2e) for each selected carbon pool in the project area for each year since the project start dateare shown in the following table. The total estimated baseline emissions for the first monitoring period are
1,450,329 tonnes CO2e. These emissions are based on the selected linear predictor of cumulative
deforestation. It should be noted that it is not mandatory to measure ex-ante carbon stocks in the project
area according to VCS standards. However, Wildlife Works chose to verify the project at the same time as
project validation, and therefore performed a full ex-ante carbon inventory. The spreadsheet 'NER
Analysis v4, 01/25/2011' provides complete GHG emission analysis for the entire project crediting period,
and was provided to the Validator.

Linear Model (%)
AGLT
BGLT
AGST
BGST
AGNT
BGNT
SDW
LDW
WP
SOIL
Total Emissions

2005
3.16%
50,776
20,310
0
0
8,556
3,422
0
0
0
119,709
202,774

2006
6.33%
50,776
20,310
0
0
8,556
3,422
0
0
0
155,515
238,580

2007
9.49%
50,776
20,310
0
0
8,556
3,422
0
0
0
166,225
249,2902008
12.66%
50,776
20,310
0
0
8,556
3,422
0
0
0
169,429
252,4942009
15.82%
50,776
20,310
0
0
8,556
3,422
0
0
0
170,387
253,452

2010
18.99%
50,776
20,310
0
0
8,556
3,422
0
0
0
170,674
253,739

Table 5. Baseline emissions by carbon pool and year.

8.1 Estimating Emissions from Above Ground Large Tree Biomass
See above summary table.

8.2 Estimating Emissions from Above Ground Small Tree Biomass
See above summary table – no distinction is made in this project between large and small trees; small
tree biomass is therefore included in the large tree pool.

8.3 Estimating Emissions from Above Ground Non-Tree Biomass
See above summary table – non-tree includes shrubs and grasses.

8.4 Estimating Emissions from Below Ground Large Tree Biomass
See above summary table.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

52

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

8.5 Estimating Emissions from Below Ground Small Tree Biomass
See above summary table – no distinction is made in this project between large and small trees; small
tree biomass is therefore included in the large tree pool.

8.6 Estimating Emissions from Below Ground Non-Tree Biomass
See above summary table – non-tree includes shrubs and grasses.

8.7 Estimating Emissions from Standing Dead WoodSee above summary table – standing dead wood was included in the large tree numbers. Lying deadwood was conservatively ignored (see below)

8.8 Estimating Emissions from Lying Dead Wood
While there are many lying dead trees in the ecosystem, termites are very active in this ecosystem. To
provide a conservative estimate of total aboveground biomass from trees, we have excluded this pool,
although in some plots the weight of lying dead wood is significant as a result of elephant damage.

8.9 Estimating Emissions from Soil
See above summary table

8.10 Estimating Emissions from Wood Products
The proportion of long lived wood products defined in section 6.6.10 was zero. Therefore, there are nomeasured negative emissions (sequestration) from this pool.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

53

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 9 Project Emissions
9.0 Forest Fires
There have been no significant forest fires in the Project area during the first monitoring period. The
Project proponent understands that should significant forest fires occur in the future during the Projectcrediting period, that we would be required to produce a map of the boundaries of the fire prior to thesubsequent monitoring period.

9.1 Emissions from Burning
There have been no events of woody biomass burning within the Project area. Wildlife Works' sustainablecharcoal project activity uses fingerling wood, sustainably harvested from indigenous trees outside theProject Area.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

54

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 10 Leakage
Section 10.1 Leakage Mitigation Strategies
Providing economic alternatives to the slash and burn agricultural practices that have devastatedso much of sub-saharan Africa:a) we built a factory on the edge of our project area where we train the local women how to
sew. We have employed many local people over the years, producing organic cotton
fashion which we sell locally and internationally. A pact with the community exists: if theyvalue the jobs, they agree to stop clearing the forest and damaging biodiversity, or wewill not be able to sell products, and they will lose their jobs. Our factory uses a small
amount of electricity generated from the National Grid, which in Kenya is 40%hydroelectric. We believe the emissions created by this power use are more than offset
by the reduction in emissions gained from our greenhouse and tree nurseries andreplanting schemes discussed below.
b) we established an organic greenhouse and nursery program to grow a variety of trees,
providing fuelwood, cash crops and medicinal/agroforestry species to the community.
Increasing agricultural productivity on existing farmland is viewed as the best way to stop
additional conversion. We plan to expand this activity to sponsor nurseries in each of themain villages surrounding our project upon receipt of carbon revenue from this project.
We havfe already initiated a reforestation activity with native hardwoods grown in our
nursery, and outplanted into previously deforested areas on community lands. We areclaiming no additional carbon emissions credits for this activity; it is simply an element of
our leakage mitigation strategy.
c) we have been working with the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) to explore
the potential of growing jojoba as a dryland cash crop that can withstand drought andpoor agricultural practices and still generate a cash crop on a high value per hectare
basis, again to improve food security by increasing agricultural productivity on existing ag
lands to reduce conversion pressure. We have completed a two year study and are readyto roll out a farmer outreach model.

Providing planned Farm land
The local population’s need for additional farm land was addressed by the establishment of a landcooperative on 5000 acres of what was still at that time Rukinga Ranch. This Sasenyi Valley landcooperative on land that had been cleared of forest prior to our arrival gave the community area
to expand into without needing to clear more forest. They were able to receive legal title for theirfarms, a first in this area of Kenya. This program has been fully implemented.

Expansion of our ranger patrols and implementation of community ranger groups to patrol the
leakage area
Unlike most REDD projects, Wildlife Works directly employs its own rangers to protect the forestfrom illegal incursion, deforestation and even damage to biodiversity. We have a 10 year trackrecord of physically protecting the land from all potential deforestation agents. Our success,where many other projects have failed in this regard, is due to our providing economic© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

55

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

alternatives to the community, preventing the requirement to clear more forest for agriculture.
This has created a partnering relationship with the community, and increased the effectiveness of
our rangers, even though they are not armed. They can draw heavily on support from theinfluential members of the local community. We believe that our presence in daily protection of
the forest has significantly reduced, if not completely eliminated, the threat of immigrant
populations from non forested areas of the Coast province in Kenya coming to the area in searchof unprotected land for slash and burn agriculture. Therefore, in addition to stopping the specificdeforestation of the project area, the project activities have reduced the population pressure thatwould have been seen under the baseline / without project scenario. We have more than doubled
our ranger force since the beginning of the REDD project.
Phase II:
We plan to implement a second phase of the Kasigau Corridor project, in which we will extend
our monitoring and protection to ALL of the remaining dryland forest in this region of Kenya,nearly 500,000 acres, to prevent slash and burn agriculture from moving into any of the adjacentforested lands privately owned by members of the community. We have entered into Carbon
Rights Agreements / Easements with the neighboring community land owners to execute thiscomponent of the strategy, and have already begun protection of their forests with additional
rangers and ranger posts. This program has been fully implemented.



Fuelwood and sustainable charcoal:a) We are establishing 5 organic greenhouse extensions within the Project area to produce
fuelwood and other agriforestry species for the local community. We aim to assist them inbecoming self-sufficient in fuelwood, without having to extract from any of the Project
area or other private dryland forest in the region. This activity is currently being
established.
b) A study carried out by Matthew Owen of the University of North Carolina, “Adaptation to
Rural Domestic Fuelwood Scarcity in Embu District, Kenya" showed that when fuelwood
is an abundant and free resource, it is used at a level far above necessity, and that when
it becomes a constrained resource, consumption can drop by as much as 50% without
loss of function to the community. This indicates that the amount of wood being
harvested for fuelwood from Rukinga can probably be replaced with far less fuelwood
grown in woodlots and community farms.
c) We have been developing a sustainable charcoal alternative to destructive bushcharcoal. We currently employ 12 people in the production of charcoal briquettes fromfingerling charcoal harvested from indigenous trees and shrubs, and using a cassava
flour binder. We believe we can substitute this carbon neutral charcoal into the local
economy with minimal subsidy to provide for the community’s fuel needs, with zeroleakage. Production testing has been completed for this activity. Sales tests are ongoing.
d) Our baseline analysis shows that the without project scenario would have seen the
Project area eventually cleared completely for farm land. As such, wood resources thecommunity may have extracted from the Project area would have been transient at best.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

56

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 10.2 Delineation of the Leakage Area
The leakage area, depicted in the map in section 10.3.2 below, was selected from forested areas as close
as possible to the Project area which are subject to the same agents and drivers of deforestation as the
project area, and that exhibit similar geographic characteristics (such as elevation, proximity to villages or
towns, forest type etc.) The MED requires that the leakage area be forested at the project start date.
Tsavo National Parks were excluded, as they fall under a different legal protection status. The mostobvious area with a high potential for leakage are the group-owned ranches with identical land ownershipsystem to the Project area. They are immediately adjacent to the project area, but were not selected forinclusion in the leakage area, as they are now being protected by Wildlife Works under Phase II of the
Kasigau Corridor REDD. The second criteria was accessibility by the agents of deforestation, as some of
the remaining forested land in the reference region is very remote and unlikely to suffer leakage. Soil
fertility or rainfall were not considered, as they are fairly constant across the Reference area.

Section 10.3 The Leakage Model
Sampling Deforestation and Degradation to Build the Leakage Model
Per the requirements of the MED, the leakage area was sampled prior to the first monitoring period, toestimate the lag period for the leakage model.
Equation [10], dependent on the standard deviation of the forested state observations, was used to
calculate the number of sample point locations required, and yielded a result of 38 locations within theleakage area
1.96
0.1
. 3126 1.96
0.1

38 equal sized 2 hectare square plots were then randomly located within the Leakage area, andcoordinates of the NE corner of each Leakage plot was given to the leakage plot sampling team. A
number of extra plots were generated to allow for inaccessibility in the field of certain plots. The rationale
behind the extra plots is that in this ecosystem, inaccessibility is limited to thick bush, where vehicles
cannot approach to a safe distance for the sampling teams to reach the location on foot to perform thesampling exercise. At Wildlife Works, safety for our employees is of primary concern, and if samplingteams walk too far in thick bush, they run the risk of encountering elephant or buffalo. As inaccessibility
always corresponds with thick primary vegetation, it can be assumed that the exclusion of theinaccessible points is a conservative measure of leakage, as they would undoubtedly have a factor of 0.
Note that the field leakage sampling done by Wildlife Works personnel was done prior to the MED being
finally validated, and at the time the Leakage Plot samples were taken, a 0% leakage factor was notencountered; the lowest factor was 0-20%. Again, we believe this leads to a conservative measure of
average leakage factor, and a conservative leakage lag period. Maps of the leakage area, showing thepermanent Leakage plots are shown below.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201057

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Figure 14. Leakage plots overlaid on a forest/non-forest map© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

58

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Figure 15. Leakage plots and corresponding coordinates© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

59

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

The Leakage Sampling team performed estimates of deforestation and degradation according to'Standard Operating Procedure Leakage', a copy of which was provided for the Validator. They made no
permanent marking of plots, and will simply return to the same NE corner coordinate each monitoring
period, and repeat the procedure in each subsequent period. Sampling results are summarized in thetable below. Leakage sampling was lead by Operations Manager Jamie Hendriksen, and supervised by
Rob Dodson, VP African Field Operations, our two most experienced staff members, as this was our firstever leakage area plot sampling effort. They will now be responsible for training other members of ourfield plot sampling team to perform this activity each required monitoring period, and for performing QA on
a selected sample of the Leakage Plots each monitoring period to ensure consistency in their evaluationof degradation for this first monitoring period.
Leakage Plot Coordinates
Plots Point X
Point Y
L01
462290.6 9566407.4
L02459730.6 9572807.4
L03458450.6 9583047.4
L04464850.6 9584327.4
L05405970.6 9589447.4
L06
407250.6 9589447.4
L07404690.6 9590727.4
L08405970.6 9592007.4
L09
404690.6 9594567.4
L10472530.6 9602247.4
L11457170.6 9603527.4
L12472530.6 9603527.4
L13486859.7 9593065.8
L14482453.6 9592769.8
L15485034.1 9591786.5
L16461010.6 9611207.4
L17448210.6 9612487.4
L18479344.8 9595139.2
L19457170.6 9618887.4
L20443090.6 9640647.4
L21441810.6 9648327.4
L22481307.2 9593867.3
L23481598.5 9594812.8
L24484344.9 9592969.2
L25484231.9 9593633.8
L26487579.8 9593521.9
L27486771.0 9594064.8
L28448401.6 9613947.0
L29446810.4 9609307.4
L30446012.1 9612379.7
L31449457.4 9613888.1
L32470359.3 9573125.2
L33471130.8 9572882.0
L34465491.1 9583961.7
L35465407.2 9584618.5
L36464821.6 9585006.8
L37470989.6 9573694.4
L38470380.8 9573910.4

Degradation % Dec, 2010
0‐20
41‐60
21‐40
0
0‐20
0‐20
0‐20
21‐40
21‐40
0‐20
61‐80
0‐20
0‐20
21‐40
41‐60
41‐60
21‐40
20‐40
0‐20
0
0
0‐20
21‐40
0‐20
21‐40
0‐20
0‐20
61‐80
61‐80
41‐60
21‐40
61‐80
41‐60
21‐40
21‐40
0‐20
41‐60
21‐40

value
1
3
2
0
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
1
0
0
1
2
1
2
1
1
4
4
3
2
4
3
2
2
1
3
2

Leakage Area Polygons
perimeter (m)10394.51227
2046.461795
4547.836483
7837.745452
17675.17905
8279.920827
10307.97126
9726.982167
18021.21369
7857.944337
8822.613995
68042.63615
32587.05298
38283.42394
8619.378165
9174.509654
Total Leakage area (ha)Rukinga forested area (ha)area (m2)2622654.416
221164.6479
522040.3724
2487550.251
3713644.272
1626170.571
3942253.055
2795240.98
13467407.77
2567239.308
4934017.422
255753249.1
29928113.67
56169524.54
3420972.65
4721327.05
38,88927,844

deg

value
0
0‐20
21‐40
41‐60
61‐80
81‐100

0
1
2
3
4
5

Table 6. Leakage plot evaluation results© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

60

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Fitting the Leakage Model
The leakage model was fit by first computing the proportion of cumulative deforestation and degradationin the leakage area as the average of observed factors. This proportion
is 0.3789, applied to equation
9 to compute the lag period aslog
log 0.3737

log 1
log 1

0.37371.08804558.
And the final leakage model per equation 8 is then
1

, ̂,

1

exp

1.08804558

0.0003792

0.4498The following is a plot of the leakage model for the leakage area compared to the cumulative
deforestation model.
1.2

1

0.8

0.6

cdm model
leakage model

0.4

0.2

0
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 16. Plot of the leakage model compared to the cumulative deforestation model over time (years).

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

61

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 10.4 Estimating the Leakage Factor and Emissions from Leakage
The estimated cumulative degradation and deforestation predicted by the leakage model is 0.343 which
necessarily matches that observed in the leakage area for the first monitoring period. Since this is thefirst monitoring period and the leakage model was parameterized after the project start date, the leakage
factor is zero. Likewise, for this monitoring period, the estimated emissions from leakage are zero.
During subsequent monitoring periods, the Leakage Plot Sampling teams will revisit the 38 two-squarehectare plots and perform the same SOP to determine the Leakage Factor evident at that time, and thatwill be used to determine whether or not Leakage has occurred during that monitoring period, per therequirements of the MED.Leakage measured for each monitoring period will be applied to net emission
reduction figures for that same period (i.e. adjustment for leakage is applied at the point of eachverification event following the first, which is used to only determine the leakage lag factor).

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

62

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 11 Quantification of NERs
Net Emissions Reductions (NERs) to date are quantified from the following components (tonnes CO2e)
with 290,066 and 1,160,263 tonnes CO2e to buffer pool and issuance, respectively.
Component
Estimated Baseline Emissions
Uncertainty Deduction
Project Emissions
Emissions from Leakage
Gross Total NERs
NERs to Buffer Pool (20%)
Net Total NERs

Value
1,450,3290001,450,329
290,066
1,160,263

Table 7. Components of NER calculations, allocation to buffer pool and total NERs to date.

Section 11.1 Determining Deductions for Uncertainty
Given the calculated, weighted quadratic average using equation 36, no confidence deduction is applied,
as total uncertainty falls below 0.15. The weighted quadratic average of quantified uncertainty, perequation 36, is22624568.9 ∙ 0.05941298
2624568.9 ∙ 0.0851
11842347.78 ∙ 0.1391
2 ∙ 2624568.9
11842347.78.
where the inputs are presented below.
Variable

Description
Total forest carbon stock at monitoring period [1]Value
2,624,568.9

Soil carbon stock within the project area at monitoring period [1]1,1842,347.8

Estimated uncertainty in the CDM at monitoring period [1]0.05941298

Estimated uncertainty of total carbon stocks at monitoring period [1]0.0851

Estimated uncertainty in the soil carbon model at monitoring period [1]0.1391

Table 8. Variables and values used to calculate the weighted quadratic average of uncertainty.

Section 11.3 Ex-Ante Estimation of NERs
Baseline emissions were projected over the life of the project to estimate net carbon benefit. An ex-anteestimate of the total gross NERs generated by the project is 7,542,945 tonnes CO2e.
The project activities described in detail in Section 10 Leakage and Section 6.1 Baseline Scenario
Overview, were specifically designed to mitigate deforestation and human-wildlife conflict, and therefore© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

63

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

by default serve to mitigate leakage and uphold project permanence. Wildlife Works is of the opinion thatthe project will suffer little to no leakage, due to our exceptional attention to leakage mitigation. However,in the absence of precedent for estimating ex-ante leakage emissions, Wildlife Works chose to use aconservative value of 20%. Applying this factor to gross NERs yields an estimate of total net NERs overthe project lifetime of:Ex

Ante NERs
Ex

7,542,945

Ante NERs

7,542,945 ∗ 0.20,,

This analysis is available as a spreadsheet and accounts for an estimate of 20% leakage from 2011
onwards, according to the MED. It includes project emissions and a total confidence deduction. A chartof the projected NERs over the life of the project is presented below. Actual leakage values will bemeasured empirically at each monitoring period, and will vary from these conservative ex-ante estimates.

Ex‐Ante NERs
300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,0000

Figure 17. Ex-Ante Calculation of NERs for the Project lifetime.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201064

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Section 13 Monitoring
Please also refer to the document entitled 'Section 13 Monitoring' (01/14/2011)

Section 13.14 Monitoring of Carbon Stocks in the Project Area
Summary of sampling procedures(See Standard Operating Procedure Biomass, 1/10/2011 and Standard Operating Procedure Soils,
1/1/2011 provided to the Validator for detailed procedures)
Rukinga Sanctuary is 30,169 hectares of varying density Acacia-Commiphora woodland/forest located in
the SE of Kenya. Altitudes on the sanctuary range from approximately 450m to 1,000m and theecosystem encompasses montane forest on the slopes of the higher elevations, through AcaciaCommiphora dryland forest at mid elevations and down to grassland dominated savannah at the lowest
elevations. In order to most accurately estimate the biomass of the sanctuary, with reasonable time andexpense, we divided the sanctuary into three major strata based on ecosystem type, as there is a highperceived variation in average biomass across the three strata pools, with larger trees in high density inthe montane forest strata, medium to large trees and lots of shrubs in the dryland forest strata andscattered trees, very few shrubs and heavy grass cover in the savannah grassland strata. Overall, we
used 9 strata, summing to the total land area, to depict landcover in Rukinga.
In order to most accurately estimate biomass in the sanctuary, with reasonable time and expense, we
divided the sanctuary into three major ecosystem types, as there is a high perceived variation in averagebiomass across these pools, with larger trees in high density in the montane forest strata, medium tolarge trees and lots of shrubs in the dryland forest strata and scattered trees, very few shrubs and heavy
grass cover in the savannah grassland areas. We ultimately used 9 strata, summing to the total landarea, to depict homogeneous patches of landcover in Rukinga.
It should be noted that our ex-ante monitoring was conducted in February and March 2009, the dry
season in this area. We believe this will yield an extremely conservative biomass estimates, as thedominant tree species enter into estervation to preserve moisture. During this season, the trees lose allleaf mass, and the perennial grasses senesce. Wildlife Works executive management supervised thedata collection teams at the initial plots, to ensure proper adherence to procedure.
It was determined that a systematic random plot sampling technique would best capture variability inlandcover, due to the high degree of perceived variation of type and density of trees and shrubs. A
systematic sampling method was used to overlay a 2km x 2km grid over the sanctuary and select sample
plot centers at the center point of each square (see figure 18 below). The upper left corner of the grid was
randomly positioned within its UTM 1km x 1km grid.
To sample soil, coordinates were provided to the soil plot sampling teams by our GIS team, at random
forest plot locations, and they sampled using the method illustrated in the 'Standard Operating Procedure
Soils' document provided to the validator. The following is an excerpt from the soil sampling procedure:
Step1 For a plot inside Rukinga, coordinates are provided to the soil plot sampling teams by our GIS
team, at random plot locations. The plot teams use their GPS to find the plot center.
Step 2. A one meter square is marked out on the ground, and digging commences.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

65

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Step 3. The soil from the top 30cms is piled together and the larger lumps are smashed with the back of ahoe.
Step 4. Whilst the soil is being dug from the sample pit, the tailings are thoroughly mixed so that thevarious layers are interspersed.
Step 5. The lower layer taken from 31cm-100cm is then piled on the other side of the pit and it too ismixed thoroughly.
Step 6. A sample is then taken from each of the mixed piles, bagged, and sent to the independent testinglab – CROP NUTRITION SERVICES, Nairobi Kenya.
If outside Rukinga, the location and name of the farm and any comments are recorded on the bag and in
the sampling notes, and Top Soil(0-30) and Sub Soil(31-100) are recorded for the respective samples.
Care should be taken not to include any large rocks or roots or other obvious organic matter in thesamples; mineral soil only.
Crop Nutrition Services performs standard bulk density and organic matter analysis of the soil samples
and returns the results in excel spreadsheets. The Bulk Density method used by the outside laboratory(Crop Nutrition Services) that performed the soil testing for the PD is an official FAO methodology formeasuring Bulk Density of disturbed soil samples. A copy of the FAO approved protocol was provided to
the Validators.
Field training
Field training was conducted in February, 2009 for the first tree plot sampling team. This team consistedof;

a local tree expert who was able to identify all the different acacia and commiphora species
encountered in the sampling - Joel MwandigaMike Korchinsky – CEO Wildlife Works

Rob Dodson – VP African Field Operations



Mwololo Muasa a Wildlife Works employee who would be the permanent team lead and data
recorder

Three casuals to assist with carrying equipment into the field and marking the plots

A driver

A ranger for security

The Standard Operating Procedures for Biomass and Soils were produced following refinement of the
field techniques by this initial team and two other teams have been trained using the procedure and byaccompanying our permanent team on their work, to ensure consistency in method.

Documentation of data quality assessment such as the results from a check cruise
Quality Control (QC) for Biomass plots was conducting using the following protocol;© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

66

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

1. An independent QC team not involved in the original plot sampling of each plot is given
coordinates for the plot centers for 5% of the original plots. The Independent QC team is also
given blank plot data recording sheets, plot radius for each carbon pool, a copy of the plot
sampling “Standard Operating Procedure – Biomass”, dbh tape, compass and long tape, andsent out to measure the plots as though they were doing it for the first time.
2. The QC team returns to headquarters with data sheets which are given to a third party
analyst, who are neither on the original nor the QC plot team, for comparison against theoriginal plot data sheets.
3. Any discrepancies are noted, and when all sheets have been compared, the two plot teams
are brought together with the VP African Field Operations or his deputy the Operations
Manager to discuss and explain any significant variances (±15%)4. The monitoring team lead is informed if more than 1 QC plot contains significant
discrepancies from the original data sheets, and further QC plots may be required toestablish the extent of the quality errors.
5. The Monitoring Team Lead and/or senior carbon staff makes a determination as to whether aplot needs to be revisited:
For a given plot, the number of trees that fall outside the ±15% threshold for change sinceoriginal measurement is counted. If greater than 10% of trees in that plot fall outside thethreshold, and QC has been performed on the plot within 1 year from original measurement,
the plot must be re-measured. If QC has been performed on a plot greater than 1 year after
original measurement, the threshold described above shall be relaxed to 15%.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201067

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Map Showing Strata Boundaries and Plot Locations

Figure 18. Stratification of the project area and carbon inventory plots© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

68

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Figure 18. Stratification of the project area and carbon inventory plots© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201069

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

List of Plot Coordinates
A list of plots and corresponding coordinates was provided to Validator, as it was determined to beinappropriately large for this document.
Description of Plot size
The following describe the biomass plots on Rukinga; 25m radius circle for large and small trees in Dryland Forest 8m radius circle for large and small trees in Montane Forest 15m radius circle for shrubs in Dryland forest 4m radius circle for shrubs in Montane Forest 1m x 1m x 4 square plots at each tree plot location for grasses
Documentation of Allometry
Living TreesAs this is the first project we have encountered calculating aboveground biomass for the species of tree
found in Acacia-Commiphora woodland, there exist no allometric equations available for calculating ABB
from DBH. As a result we were forced to develop our own method to determine appropriate allometry.
Select trees from dominant species found in repeated plots were harvested from test areas outside of the
Project area, and cut into pieces and weighed, for a range of dbh equating to the dominant ranges of dbh
found within the project area. This provided a wet weight total aboveground biomass for a range of tree
sizes from 10cm to 50cm dbh. A green to dry weight ratio was used to convert to dry weights.
A graph of dbh vs. wet weight was then plotted, as described in the spreadsheet'AllometricFormulasPower, 01/14/2011 ' provided to the validator.
ShrubsFor dominant shrub species a test plot was created from which two separate methods were produced;
For shrubs/small trees that can become very large, e.g. Cordia, Acacia ruficiens where the shrub is multistemmed from the ground, with between 2 and 15 stems, average stem diameter was calculated for arange of shrub sizes, by measuring all the stem diameters on the shrub and dividing by number of stems,
and then harvesting, bundling and weighing one representative stem of the average diameter from eachsize class. These classes are small, medium, and large, providing a standard stem weight by shrub sizeclass. The number of stems and size class for each shrub in the sample plot were then recorded, and a
shrub total aboveground biomass determined from multiplying the number of stems by the stem weight
for that class.
For Grewia, and others where the shrub has many stems, and is non-uniform in distribution of biomass
per stem, conservative weight averages were obtained for each size class through destructive harvesting,which was then applied to live sample plots without destructive harvesting requirements. A green to dry
weight ratio was then used to convert to dry weights.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201070

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Shrub Species

Size
Class
(S/M/L)

Cordia sinensis
Cordia sinensis
Cordia sinensis
Grewia sp.
Grewia sp.
Grewia sp.
Acacia ruficiens
Acacia ruficiens
Acacia ruficiens

S
M
L
S
M
L
S
M
L

Crown
DiameterRange<1m>1m <2m>2m

Crown
HeightRange

Average
Stem
Diameter(cm)<1m>1m <2m>2m
5
9
12Standard
Weight/Weight/stem
(kg)
3
15
33
1.5
4.3
9
23
43
131

Table 9. List of dominant shrub species and standard weights
Development of Allometry
The allometric equations for the project area, based on the aforementioned, field-collected destructive
harvest data, were produced for Wildlife Works by Ryan Anderson of EcoPartners. These equations
predict green weight(kg) as a function of DBH(cm), based on the data provided by Wildlife Works in the“AllometricFormulasEXP” spreadsheet. All equations have the form :The evaluation of goodness of fit is based on a cross-validation statistic, not R2. We reporting R2 as wellbecause people are used to seeing it, but we believe the cross validation statistic is a better indicator offit.
Destructive harvest in a wildlife conservation area is philosophically problematic, especially for trees oflarge diameter which are many decades if not hundreds of years old. As a result we harvested only a few
trees at large diameter. A consequence of this sample size is a tendency for the few large trees wesampled to have an overly large influence on the shape of the regression curve. When only one or twolarge trees are sampled, and they exhibit biomass much larger than the smaller trees, regression fit byleast squares tends to be highly influenced by those trees. This tends to lead to over estimation of
biomass for the smaller trees. For model fitting reasons, it is additionally problematic because (a) the
uncertainty in measuring the mass of a large tree is larger than a small, easily weighed tree, and (b) the
diameter-biomass relationship for large trees is inherently more variable than it is for small trees. The
consequence is that the model is heavily influenced by a few points whose response variable values are
known with little certainty.
To deal with the highly influential large points that have large variance, we used a weighted regression. A
discussion of this technique should be in any regression text, but we used “Applied Regression Including
Computing and Graphics” (Cook and Weisber g 1999, Wiley and Sons). The idea is that higher weight infitting the model should be given to those points that are known with greater certainty. We evaluatedweights individually for each model, and only used them in cases where the model residuals
demonstrated strong trends in variance. Weights were assumed to be proportional to either 1/BA or
1/BA2, where BA is basal area. In one unusual case (Lannea alata), the variance appeared higher for© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201071

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

small trees than large trees, so we weighted this regression with weights proportional to DBH. We notethat the weighting considerably reduced the cross-validated estimate of bias ( ).
Coefficients for each equation are below:
Species
Acacia bussei
Acacia hockii
Acacia nilotica
Acacia tortilis
Boscia coriacea
Boswellia neglecta
Commiphora africana
Commiphora campestris
Commiphora confusa
Lannea alata
Lannea rivae
Acacia sp.
Boscia sp.
Boswellia sp.
Commiphora sp.
Lannea sp.
All species (<35 cm DBH)

Weight
Type
None
None
None
None
1/BA
1/BA2
1/BA2
1/BA2
None
DBH
None
None
1/BA
1/BA2
1/BA
None
None

a

b

N

Max DBH

R2

3.37960.68501.36152.60600.2033
1.30250.62930.06774
0.11470.56030.14881.14210.2033
1.30250.10527
0.32880.34111.6416
2.18201.9513
1.61752.3647
1.8332
1.94562.81562.66342.10272.64211.99542.3647
1.83322.665442.32332.3016

8
17
10
9
15
18
17
17
18
17
22
44
15
18
52
39
166

18
23
23
20
34.2
37
24
40
23
17
16
23
34.2
37
40
17
34.2

.80
.93
.86
.85
.77
.40
.75
.83
.77
.85
.54
.85
.77
.40
.87
.62
.74

7.82
-2.46
14.83
0.13
7.30
13.87
13.17
13.0722.912
13.216
11.7
1.99
7.30
13.87
11.26
11.18
9.50

Table 10. Accuracy allometry coefficients for dominant species in Rukinga.
A summary of the cross validation statistics for species appears below. The black diamond is the meancross validated residual, expressed as a percent. The boxplots show the quartiles (.25, median, .75), andmaximum of the cross-validated residuals. The dashed lines indicate +/- 15%, the bias threshold allowedby the MED.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201072

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Species level:

Genus Level:© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201073

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

All species combined (<35 cm):

The figures below show the fitted model plotted for each species and the cross validated residuals plotted
as a function of DBH. In the plot of fitted models, light grey curves show the f(-i) models fit during crossvalidation.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201074

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201075

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201076

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201077

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201078

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201079

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Genus Level:

10

20

30

40

50
0
-50
0

10

20

DBH

DBH

CommiphoraCommiphora

30

40

30

40

150
100
50
-50

0

50
0

cross-validated error (%)

-50

1000

-100
-150

0

-150

-100

500

Green Weight

1500

100

150

2000

0

-100

-100

100

-50

0

cross-validated error (%)

400
200

300

Green Weight

500

50

600

700

100

Acacia100

Acacia

0

10

20

30
DBH

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

40

0

10

20
DBH

80

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Boscia

100
50
0
-50
-100

0

-100

200

-50

0

cross-validated error (%)

600
400

Green Weight

800

50

1000

100

1200

Boscia

20

30

40

0

10

20

DBH

DBH

Boswellia

Boswellia

30

40

30

40

0

10

20

30
DBH

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010

40

50
0
-50
-100

-100

100

200

-50

0

cross-validated error (%)

400
300

Green Weight

500

50

600

100

10

100

0

0

10

20
DBH

81

0
10
20

DBH
30

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 2010
40
200

40

100

200

2000

30

0

100

1500

20

0

cross-validated error (%)

1000

Green Weight

10

-100

-100

500
0

-200

-200

0

0

-150

-150

50

-100

-100

100

-50

-50

0

0

50

50

cross-validated error (%)

200

Green Weight
150

250

100

100

300

150

150

350

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

LanneaLannea

DBH
0

0

10

10

20
DBH

all
all

20

30
40

DBH
30
40

82

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Estimated Total Carbon Stock, Standard Error and Sample Size for each Stratum and Pool
The estimated total carbon stock, standard error and sample size for each stratum and each carbon poolis shown in the table below. This summary is based on the exhaustive field sampling procedures
explained in 'Standard Operating Procedure Biomass, 01/11/2011' and 'Standard Operating Procedure
Soils, 01/02/2011'.
StratumnArea (ha)Trees
CarbonMean(tCO2e/ ha)

ShrubsCarbonMean(tCO2e/ ha)

Herbaceous
CarbonMean(tCO2e /ha)

TotalStrataMean(tCO2e/ ha)

Total Strata
Carbon Stock(t C02-e)

ag active

12

713.7

67.98

23.08

2.88

172.24

122,925.5

dryland forest strata 1+2

266883.6

39.98

8.48

1.41

91.42

629,289.1

dryland forest strata 3

165651.1

40.75

2.45

0.99

81.01

457,776.5

dryland forest strata 4112773.4

47.51

3.04

0.77

94.09

260,949.1

dryland forest strata 5188133.4

46.23

2.30

2.14

92.89

755,520.4

dryland forest strata 6234345.5

35.87

7.26

2.36

83.39

362,368.4

grassland

41610.9

3.05

1.40

4.85

17.06

27,474.3

montane forest

3

57.1

45.56

33.45

0.00

144.868,265.6
2,624,568.9

Total:

30,168.66

Table 11. Total carbon stocks for trees, shrubs and herbaceous material for Rukinga Ranch
A detailed biometric database containing all carbon pool measurements for all plots for the project areavailable to the validators for perusal upon request in the 'Rukinga Carbon Trees Shrubs Grass v7,
01/14/2011' carbon pool database.
Standard errors of the total for each stratum is listed in the table below:
StrataFPC * a2 * var / n

Sample
Size
12

Mean
Stock

Variance

FPC

172.24106559.66

0.9974508238095.9

67143.41

dryland forest strata 1+2

26

91.42

4726.310.999

8607012582.3

92773.99

dryland forest strata 3

16

81.01

1348.43

0.999

2689881737.7

51864.07

dryland forest strata 4

11

94.09

1132.370.999

791212498.2

28128.5

dryland forest strata 5

18

92.89

752.861.000

2765646392.8

52589.41

dryland forest strata 6

23

83.39

3772.490.999

3094010378.6

55623.83

grassland

4

17.06

18.72

1.000

12139791.7

3484.22montane forest

3

144.8613667.31

0.990

14679751.0

3831.416

ag active

Standard
Error

Table 12. Standard Errors for each stratum for all carbon pools for Rukinga Ranch
Trees, shrubs, grass (forest)
Standard Error
95% interval
Error percentage

149942.73
293887.74
11.20%

Table 13. Combined standard error percentage for trees, shrubs and grass
A detailed standard error analysis for each carbon pool by stratum is available in the database 'Rukinga
Carbon Trees Shrubs Grass v7, 01/14/2011'© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201083

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

Soil Carbon measurements were not stratified, as test measurements were made using the strata foundin figure 10, and it was concluded that stratification did not improve measurement accuracy. Soil samples
were measured both inside Rukinga (the project area) and in the reference region at shambas (farms).
The table below shows a summary (means) for the soil organic carbon measured inside Rukinga Ranchand in the shambas in the reference region.
0-30cmbulk
density(g/cm3)

Carbon(%)

Soil
Carbon(t/ha)

Reference

1.50

0.55

Rukinga

1.32

0.70

31-100cm
bulk
density(g/cm3)

Carbon(%)

Soil
Carbon(t/ha)

24.44

Soil
GHG
equiv.
(t/ha)
89.63

1.41

0.38

27.38

100.401.34

0.92

total (1m)
Soil
Carbon(t/ha)

36.65

Soil
GHG
equiv.
(t/ha)
134.38

61.09

Soil
GHG
equiv.
(t/ha)
224.0184.85

311.13112.24411.53

Table 14. Mean Soil Carbon Stocks measured inside Rukinga and in the Reference Region
The % soil loss was determined as 0.456 (see section 6.5.5 - fitting the soil carbon loss model) and thecorresponding total carbon loss is determined by multiplying this percentage loss by the total carbon
stock measured inside Rukinga Ranch:
Rukinga Ranch
Mean Carbon Stock measured in Rukinga

411.53 t CO2eStandard Error of mean carbon stock

21.21 t CO2e

Percent Error at 95% confidence

0.10

Soil Crediting Area (conservatively reduced)

28,776.39 ha

Total soil carbon stock measured in Rukinga

11,842,347.78 t CO2e

Total Soil "loss"

5,396,221.82 tonnes

Table 15. Summary for soil carbon stocks in Rukinga Ranch
Standard error for soil stocks measured inside Rukinga Ranch are as follows:

Soil - Rukinga
total stocks
Se total
95% interval
Error percentage

11,842,347.78
610,218.21
1,196,027.68
10.10%

Table 16. Standard error percentage for soil
Details for the soil carbon loss model, including standard error analysis are available in the 'Rukinga 1m
Soil Analysis, 01/14/2011' spreadsheet.
Estimated Total Carbon Stock and Standard Error for Entire Project Area
The total carbon stocks for trees, shrubs and grass for Rukinga Ranch, above and below ground, is
2,624,569 tonnes CO2e.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201084

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – VCS PD Requirements

As it is assumed that soil carbon is not 100% depleted during the deforestation process, soil carbon
values are measured inside Rukinga Ranch as well as outside the ranch in the reference region at
deforested locations. The percentage soil carbon loss is multiplied by the total carbon stock inside
Rukinga to yield the carbon "loss" value, and is 5,396,222 tonnes CO2e.
The total monitored carbon stock for the Kasigau Corridor Phase I Project is:
8,020,791 tonnes CO2e
The total carbon inventory standard error across all pools is the quadratic sum of errors for all pools for all
strata:Total inventory error
total stocks
Se total
95% interval
Error percent

14,466,916.7
628,370.1775
1,231,605.548
8.51%

Table 17. Total Carbon inventory error
Monitoring of Deforestation in the Project Area
For future monitoring periods, Wildlife Works will measure any deforestation within the project area either
through intensification of biomass plots, or assessment of remotely sensed imagery. Any measured
deforestation will be directly applied to the project's net emissions totals (i.e. subtracted from emissions
reductions) for the with-project scenario. If the level of deforestation within the project area falls below thede minimus level as stated in IPCC 2006, it shall be excluded.

© Wildlife Works Carbon, LLC 201085

応用講習 b

グループ別実習の課題【手順】①

受講生をＡとＢ、2 つのグループに分ける。

②

グループごとに、配布したベリーズとケニヤの PDD を読み、下表に示す項目ごとに、2 つのプロジェクトの概要を記載し、それぞれの違いについてコメントする（下表参照）。

③

グループ別実習終了までに、模造紙や付箋紙等を用いて、下表を取り纏める（下図参照）。

③ グループ別実習後の総合討論で、各グループの代表者が、取り纏め内容を発表する。
【課題表】
項

目

ベリーズ PDD

ケニヤ PDD

コメント欄

・プロジェクト概要
・ベースライン・シナリオ
・GHG 削減方策（プロジェクト・アクティビティ）・モニタリング手法
・その他※「プロジェクト概要」については、PDD の「1. Project Description」の中から、面積、プロジェクト
期間、クレジット期間と推定総排出量、森林の概要等、比較できる項目について概要を記載する。

※「ベースライン・シナリオ」、「GHG 削減方策」、「モニタリング手法」については、記載されているページを探して概要を記載する。

※「その他」については、時間が余った場合、項目を自由に選択して概要を記載する。

※

箇条書きで簡潔に記載すること（概要のみで OK）。

作業イメージ（H24 の実習より）