VCS VERIFICATIONREPORT/
VERIFICATION STATEMENTKASIGAU CORRIDOR REDD
PROJECT PHASE I – RUKINGASANCTUARY
Verification Period:
01 January, 2005 to 31 December, 2010

REPORT NO. 2011-9042
REVISION NO. 01

DET NORSKE VERITAS

VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT

Date of first issue:

Project No.:

3 February, 2011

PRJC-285203-2011-CCS-USA

Approved by:

Organizational unit:

Miguel Rescalvo
Regional Manager. North Americal

Sustainability and Innovation
Climate Change Services USA

Client:Client ref.:Wildlife Works Inc.

Jeremy Freund

DET NORSKE VERITAS(U.S.A.) INC.
Climate Change &Environmental Services
One Bush Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: +1 415-318-3900
Fax: +1 415-318-3901
http://www.dnv.com

Assessment Status

Det Norske Veritas U.S.A, Inc. (DNV) has performed the verification of the emission
reductions reported for the “Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – Rukinga Sanctuary.”
The verification was performed on the basis of Voluntary Carbon Standard Association(VCSA) criteria for the VCS, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project
operations, monitoring and reporting. The verification consisted of the following four phases:a) desk review, b) site visit, c) follow-up interviews and the issuance of verification findings,
and d) the resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the verification report andverification statement.
In our opinion, the GHG emission reductions reported for the project in the monitoring report
02 February, 2011 are fairly stated. The GHG emission reductions were calculated correctlyon the basis of the approved VCS methodology VM0009 (version 1.0), and the monitoringplan contained in the VCS Project Design of 31 January, 2011 and meets all relevant VCS
2007.1 requirement
DNV is able to certify with a reasonable level of assurance that the emission reductions fromthe “Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – Rukinga Sanctuary” during the period 01
January, 2005 to 31 December, 2010 amount to 1 160 263 tonnes of CO2 equivalent after a
20% buffer pool deduction amounting to 290 066 tonnes CO2 equivalent.
Report No.:

Date of this revision:Rev. No.

2011-9042

3 February, 201101

Report title:

VCS Verification Report – Wildlife Works
Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I –Rukinga Sanctuary (1 January 2005 – 31
December 2010

Key words:

VCS
Verification
REDD
Wildlife Works

Work carried out by:

Sam Stevenson
Gordon Smith
Work verified by:

Guy Pinjuv
Misheck Kapambwe

No distribution without permission fromthe Client or responsible organizational
unit
Limited distribution
Unrestricted distribution

Page ii

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT

Abbreviations
AFOLU
Guidelines

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses section of Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2006

CAR

Corrective Action Request

CL

Clarification Request

CO2e

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

DNV

Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.) Inc.

EB

Executive Board

FAR

Forward Action Request

GHG

Greenhouse Gas(es)s

GPG
LULUCF

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Good Practice Guidance forLand-Use Land Use Change and Forestry

GWP

Global Warming Potential

MED

Methodology Element Documentation

NER

Net Emission Reduction

PD

Project Document

REDD

Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

VB

Verification Body

VCS

Voluntary Carbon Standard

VCSA

VCS Association

VCU

Voluntary Carbon Unit

WBCSDWorld Business Council for Sustainable Development

WRI

World Resources InstitutePage 1

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORTTABLE OF CONTENTS
1INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

2

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1
2.2
2.3

3

OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................................... 3
SCOPE AND CRITERIA................................................................................................................................... 3
VCS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 3
LEVEL OF ASSURANCE ................................................................................................................................. 4

REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION...................................................................................................................... 5
SITE VISIT .................................................................................................................................................... 5
REPORTING OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 6

VERIFICATION FINDINGS............................................................................................................................ 7
3.1
REMAINING ISSUES, INCLUDING ANY MATERIAL DISCREPANCY, FROM PREVIOUS VALIDATION OR
VERIFICATION ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
3.2
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................................................... 7
3.3
COMPLETENESS OF MONITORING................................................................................................................. 7
3.4
ACCURACY OF EMISSION REDUCTION CALCULATIONS ................................................................................ 9
3.5
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE EMISSION REDUCTIONS ............................................................... 10
3.6
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 10
3.7
AFOLU NON-PERMANENCE RISK ANALYSIS AND BUFFER DETERMINATION .................................................. 11
3.8
NET EMISSION REDUCTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 17

4

VERIFICATION CONCLUSION - CERTIFICATION STATEMENT..................................................... 18

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................... 19

Appendix A: Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests

Page 2

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT

1 INTRODUCTION
Wildlife Works, Inc. (Wildlife Works) has commissioned Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.),
Inc. (DNV) to carry out the verification of emission reductions reported for the “Kasigau
Corridor REDD Project Phase I – Rukinga Sanctuary” (the project) for the period 01
January, 2005 to 31 December, 2010. This report contains the findings from theverification and a verification statement for the verified emission reductions.

1.1 Objective
Verification is the periodic independent review and ex post determination by anaccredited verification body (VB) of the monitored reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions that have occurred as a result of the registered VCS project activity during adefined verification period.
A verification statement is the written assurance by a VB that, during a specific period intime, a project activity achieved the emission reductions as verified.
The objective of this verification was to verify and provide a verification statement ofemission reductions reported for the “Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – Rukinga
Sanctuary” (the project) for the period 01 January, 2005 to 31 December, 2010.

1.2 Scope and Criteria
The scope of the verification is:•

To verify that actual monitoring systems and procedures are in compliancewith the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan.

•

To evaluate the GHG emission reduction data and express a conclusion with areasonable level of assurance about whether the reported GHG emission
reduction data is free from material misstatement.

•

To verify that reported GHG emission data is sufficiently supported byevidence.

The verification shall ensure that reported emission reductions are complete and accurate
in order to be verified.

1.3 VCS Project Description
Title of project activity:
VCS registration No:
Baseline andmonitoring methodology

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – Rukinga
Sanctuary.
The verification report will be submitted together withthe validation report for the same project.
VM0009 (version 1.0).
Page 3

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT
Location of the project activity:
Rukinga Sanctuary, Kenya.
Project’s crediting period:
01 January, 2005 to 31 December, 2034.
Period verified in this verification: 01 January, 2005 to 31 December, 2010.
The “Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – Rukinga Sanctuary” has been developed
by Wildlife Works Inc. a project proponent based in California, USA. The project is
implemented on land known as the Rukinga Sanctuary, wholly owned by the Rukinga
Ranching Co., Ltd. The leasehold on the title will be due for renewal in 2038, at which
point it can be renewed once again for up to 99 years under Kenyan law.
The project proponent is Wildlife Works, Inc. and the project developer is Wildlife
Works Carbon LLC. DNV has confirmed that Wildlife Works, Inc. has the right to all
and any reductions generated during the period 1 January, 2005 – 31 December,2010./12/.
The project is 30 169 hectares with an average canopy cover of 39%, and with maturetree heights ranging from 5-10 meters, and therefore conforms with the latest VCS
definition of ‘forest’.
The main project activity is to prevent deforestation caused by subsistence farming
activities. The objective of the project activity is to prevent the conversion of forest to
cropland for annual crops, typically maize that ultimately results in net GHG emissions
into the atmosphere.
The project start date is 1 January, 2005, which is the date Wildlife Works assumed
financial responsibility for the project area and began specific GHG mitigation activities.

1.4 Level of Assurance
The verification report expresses a conclusion with a reasonable level of assurance about
whether the reported GHG emission reduction data is free from material misstatement.

2 METHODOLOGY
The verification of the emission reductions has assessed all factors and issues that
constitute the basis for emission reductions from the project. These include:• The emission reduction calculations and the relevant data records.
• The calibration of the Cumulative Deforestation Model and records for the
standard operating procedures for measurement.
• The management systems to support the project operation and monitoring.

Page 4

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT

Guy

Kapambwe

Misheck













Expert input

PinjuvTechnical review

GordonReporting

Smith

Site visit / Interviews

Last Name
Stevenson

Desk review

Role
Project manager(Trainee)
VCS Verifier /VCS REDD
AFOLU Expert
Technical
reviewer
AFOLU TechnicalArea Competence

First
Name
SamuelAdministrative

Table 1. Verification Team

Duration of Verification
Preparations:
4 January, 2011 to 9 January, 2011
On-site verification:
10 January, 2011 to 14 January, 2011
Reporting, calculation checks and QA/QC: 17 January, 2010 to 31 January, 2011

2.1 Review of Documentation
The basis for the verification has been the monitoring report (version 1.0 of 02 February,2011) from the project for the period 01 January, 2005 to 31 December, 2010 /1/, theVCS project document (VCS PD) /2/, and the approved VCS methodology applied by the
project, VM0009, version 1.0 /13/. The project proponent has provided the verificationteam with spreadsheets of all data necessary for verification of the emission reductions/4/ /5/ /6/ /7/ /8/ /9/ /10/ /11/.

2.2 Site Visit
During the site visit of 10 January, 2011 – 14 January, 2011, the following personnel
were interviewed or assisted the verification team:

Page 5

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT
Table 2. Participants at Project Site (Rukinga, Kenya)
Name
Mike Korchinsky
Jeremy Freund
Rob Dodson
Patrick Kabatha
Hassan Sachedina
Laura Crown

Position
President
VP, Carbon Development
General Manager
Biodiversity Specialist
VP, Conservation Enterprise
Office Manager

Organization
Wildlife Works, Inc.
Wildlife Works Carbon LLC
Wildlife Works, Inc.
Wildlife Works, Inc.
Wildlife Works Carbon LLC
Wildlife Works, Inc.

The interview topics included:• The data collection and recording and transcription.
• Sampling and stratification guidelines and procedures.
• The emission reduction calculations.
• The quality assurance and control processes.
During the site visit, the following tasks were completed: 1) the data presented in themonitoring report was assessed by reviewing the additional project documentation andrecords, 2) interviews were held with personnel on-site, 3) observation of establishedmonitoring and reporting practices was conducted by assessing the implementation of thestratification and sampling procedures. This enabled the verification team to assess theaccuracy and completeness of the reported monitoring results and to verify the correct
application of the approved VCS methodology (VM0009) and the determination of the
reductions in emissions.
Field observations by DNV reviewers included:• Wildlife Works field staff performing tree measurements, soil sampling, andquantifying deforestation and degradation on a leakage plot.
• Vegetation cover within much of the project area, both by walking on the groundand observing from high hills.
• Implementation of leakage mitigation activities.
• Ongoing deforestation in the reference area.

2.3 Reporting of Findings
A corrective action request (CAR) is issued, where:• Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found inmonitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is
insufficient.
• Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations ofemission reductions that will impair the estimate of emission reductions.
• Issues identified in a forward action request (FAR) during validation to beverified during verification have not been resolved by the project participants.
Page 6

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT
A clarification request (CL) shall be raised if information is insufficient or not clear
enough to determine whether the applicable VCS requirements have been met.
A FAR is issued for actions if the monitoring and reporting require attention and/or
adjustment for the next verification period.
Five CARs and one CL were identified. All outstanding issues have been closed, with theproper responses provided by the project proponent.

3 VERIFICATION FINDINGSThis section summarizes the findings from the verification of the emission reductions
reported for the project for the period 01 January, 2005 to 31 December, 2010.

3.1 Remaining Issues, Including any Material Discrepancy, from
Previous Validation or Verification
This is the first periodic verification. There are no remaining issues from the validation.

3.2 Project Implementation
During the site visit, by observing, reviewing operation records and interviewing relevant
staff (see Table 2.), DNV was able to verify that the project has been implemented andoperated as described in the VCS PD /2/ for the project.
The procedures to estimate the total carbon stock in selected pools within the project area
and the uncertainty of the estimate at a given point in time have been implemented
sufficiently. Allometric equations have been used appropriately and the soil sampling
methods are sufficient. Carbon stocks for all strata have been estimated as per therequirements of the methodology (VM0009).

3.3 Completeness of Monitoring
During the site visit, through observation, record review and interview, it could be
confirmed that the monitoring arrangement is in line with the monitoring plan in the VCS
PD /2/ and the applied VCS methodology /13/. All of the necessary parameters have been
properly monitored to ensure the emission reduction calculations. Details for all themeasured parameters are listed in Table 3.

Page 7

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT
Table 3 Assessment of All the Measured Parameters
Assessment/Observation
Data / Parameter:
Definition of project area boundary.
Vegetation cover stratification.

Biomass plot cover type stratification.

Tree/shrub diameter measurement.

Tree/shrub species identification.
Soil sampling depth.
Soil carbon proportion and bulk
density.
Historical forest state classification.

Leakage degradation and deforestation.

Observed control of land appears to match mappedboundaries.
Vegetation cover types observed when traveling the
project area were checked against mapped cover types
for general correspondence.
Cover types of a subsample of vegetation plots wereassessed using SPOT imagery and potential
discrepancies referred to project staff forchecking/correction.
Reviewers observed Wildlife Works staff making
measurements and then checked the measurements andassured that the measurements were within accuracy
requirements. Reviewers also checked a sample oforiginal tree measurements and found that, adjusting
for likely growth, recorded tree measurement data
corresponded to measurements made by DNV, with the
caveat that some trees were not relocated with certainty
as elephants had torn out a plot center monument.
Reviewers observed consistent species identification by
Wildlife Works staff.
Depth of soil sampling was measured and found to beconsistent with the protocol.
Soil carbon proportion and bulk density are measured
by a prominent laboratory in the region. Lab reports
were checked.
A subsample of historical forest state classifications
were checked by observing satellite imagery and foundto be reasonable.
Wildlife Works staff were observed making
degradation/deforestation assessments and the results
were reasonable. A sample of deforestation/degradation
data was field checked and the data appears plausible,
but exact checking was not possible as additional
deforestation appears to have occurred since the data
were collected.

Page 8

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT

3.4 Accuracy of Emission Reduction Calculations
The calculations of the emission reduction in the spreadsheet and the monitoring reportfor the monitoring period were checked by DNV and found to be correct, as detailed
below:• The project area was quantified using commercial GIS software that has beenshown to be reliable.
• Vegetation cover typing was performed using two different methods and any
differences were reconciled.
• Stratified sampling of vegetation cover types was performed. DNV independently
re-measured a subsample of tree measurements and, where trees could be
relocated, re-measurements corresponded to the data, adjusting for growth since
the original measurement (some trees would have been difficult to relocate
because elephants had removed plot center monuments and tree number tags, andthese trees were dropped from the re-measurement subsample).
• Sampling of soil carbon was performed, with carbon content and bulk density
measured for the 0-30 cm depth and 31-100 cm depth.
• Soil carbon and bulk density measurements were performed by an independent
laboratory.
• Destructive sampling was performed and weights of trees measured by species
and diameter, and this data was used to construct allometric equations that
estimate biomass as a function of species and diameter. Various groupings ofspecies and various equation forms were analyzed. Equations were selected that
had high R2 values and that give conservative estimates of biomass.
• Statistical analysis of the variability of vegetation and soil carbon stocks was
performed and sampling uncertainty was found to be less than +/- 15% of themean estimate with 95% statistical confidence, which is required by themethodology and VCS AFOLU guidance to avoid an uncertainty deduction.
• The reference area encompasses lands as similar as possible to project lands,
given that lands scheduled to be in Phase 2 of the project are not eligible forinclusion in the reference area.
• The baseline rate of deforestation and the logistic curve describing the rate of
deforestation through time were calculated from imagery spanning a 22-year time
period, and forest state was observed at 2 000 points using the written image
classification protocol.
• The project proponent searched for points that were classified as having more than
one change between forest and non-forest condition, the sequence of observations
was reviewed for each point, and inconsistencies were removed.
• DNV reviewed coding of software that calculates weights of each forest state
observation, and found that the calculation procedures conform to themethodology.
Page 9

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT• The logistic deforestation curve was calculated using commercial software thathas been shown to be reliable.
• Statistical uncertainty of the logistic deforestation curve was calculated and waswithin the required confidence level.
• The linear deforestation rate selected by the project proponent remains below thelogistic curve for the life of the project.
• Calculations that go from field measurements of soil and vegetation to per-hectare
carbon stocks were reviewed in detail.
• DNV found no significant project emissions to be included in the calculations.
• DNV performed an independent risk rating and selected the risk buffer proportion
used by the project.
• Calculations of net emission reductions were reviewed in detail and were found touse proper inputs and coefficients, and the calculations are being performed
correctly.
The transfers of data used in the calculation of emission reduction are checked byreviewing relevant documents /10/ /1/ /9//3/, with no remaining issues outstanding.

3.5 Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions
The project performed several kinds of project-specific measurements to ensure thatamounts and relationships used in calculations were appropriate to project lands. Treeand shrub biomass equations were developed from trees in the area, rather than using
equations developed elsewhere. Land cover image archives were searched and images
gathered and assessed such that each land cover observation point had data for vegetation
cover classification at a minimum of two different times.
Multiple strategies were used to obtain data quality and accuracy of numbers. Forest state
observations were performed by two staff that coordinated with one another to makeconsistent observations. Contractors with specialized expertise were engaged when the
project participants did not have necessary expertise on staff. Quality assurance andquality control procedures exist and were used to check and clean data. All calculations
were checked by a minimum of two people.

3.6 Management and Operational System
The quality assurance and quality control procedures in terms of sampling, stratification,
maintenance and data reporting are appropriate.
An independent Quality Control team not involved in the original plot sampling of eachplot is given coordinates for the plot centers for 5% of the original plots. The Quality
Control team returns to headquarters with the data sheets and this is analyzed by anPage 10

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT
analyst that has not been involved with the plots. If discrepancies are found, theMonitoring Team Lead and/or senior carbon staff determines whether a plot needs to berevisited.
The emission calculations and reporting are also completed properly with a third-party
specializing in the relevant services, such as soil sample analysis.

3.7 AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination
DNV conducted a risk rating of the project using the most recent VCS risk rating tool,
dated 18 November, 2008 /17/, as revised by program updates dated 13 April, 2010 and 8
September, 2010 /18/.
Table 4 Risk Rating: Risk Factors Applicable to All Project Types.
Project Risk
Risk of unclear land tenure andpotential for disputes.

Low
Rukinga Ranching Company, Ltd., owns clear
legal title to all of the land known as Rukinga
Wildlife Sanctuary, which is also all of the land
constituting the Project Area. The land isofficially titled by the Kenyan government.
There are 46 shareholders of Rukinga RanchingCompany, Ltd. The shareholders have twice
voted to approve the carbon project, includingtransferring rights to carbon credits to Wildlife
Works, authorizing sale of carbon credits, andagreeing to a specified division of carbon credit
revenues. The overwhelming majority of shares
are owned by Michael (Mike) Korchinsky, who
serves as Managing Director.
Mike Korchinsky is the majority shareholder of
Rukinga Ranching Co., Ltd and is also the major
shareholder in Wildlife Works, so it is unlikelythat this carbon agreement will be challenged.

Page 11

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT
Risk of financial failure.

Low

Risk of technical failure.

The land is owned free and clear by theshareholders. The main project costs are for staff.
Until the next scheduled verification of offsets,
these costs can be entirely paid through offset
revenues. Implementation of the sustainablecharcoal program can be paid for by revenue
from charcoal sales. Materials for the clothing
factor are paid for by sales of finished clothing.
School bursary costs are largely covered bydonations.
Low

Risk of management failure.

Wildlife Works has demonstrated technicalexpertise in several years of managing the
project lands, developing relationships withnearby communities, developing VCS Approved
Methodology VM0009, performing remotesensing analysis, and conducting carbon
inventories and baseline analysis.
Low
Wildlife Works is majority owned and managed
by Mike Korchinsky, a former management
consulting company owner, with nearly 30 yearsof experience at all levels of running enterprises.
Rob Dodson, Vice President of African Field
Operations has nearly 20 years in the role of Site
Manager, and is experienced in all dimensions ofrunning a professional business venture in the
African bush. DNV observed Mr. Dodson
managing project staff and interacting with local
community members and noted a high degree ofeffectiveness in achieving agreements andresults.

Page 12DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT
Economic Risk
Risk of rising land opportunity costs.

Low
The project is located two hours drive from thenearest major city. There is no water supply tosupport agriculture. The trees that can grow on
the property are not suitable for lumber or paper.
There are few prospects for any sort of economic
value of the land. Over the long term, there could
be value from the land for wildlife viewing andecotourism because of the proximity of Tsavo
National Park. However, this use would enhance,
not threaten, the carbon project.

Regulatory and social risk
Risk of political instability.

Low

Risk of social instability.

The project is located in Africa, but Kenya has
been one of the most stable democracies in SubSaharan Africa over the past 30 years, including
the most recent election, which was a nationalreferendum on a new Constitution.
Low
Kenya has no significant history of tribal
violence at any scale, and locally within the
Project Area there has never been any tribal orsocial unrest. The local economy appears to be
growing.

Natural disturbance risk
Risk of devastating fire.

Low
Grass fires are relatively common (3 in 10 years)
but always occur in the dry season when the fireload is very low, and always move through tooquickly to do any damage to the tree or shrub
biomass. DNV observed no evidence of standreplacing fires, and the wide spacing between
tree canopies means that forest crown fires
cannot spread.

Page 13

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT
Risk of pest and disease attacks.

Low

Risk of extreme weather events.

This ecosystem is extremely old and has a very
robust suite of pests and diseases. However, thetrees are very well adapted and have no trouble
growing despite the pests and diseases. The main
disturbance agent in the region is elephants. It is
likely that elephant-caused tree mortality limits
stress on remaining trees by limiting competition
for water and nutrients, and probably contributes
to the fact that there is little evidence of insectcaused tree mortality or disease. Given thesignificant human population in the area, we
think it is unlikely that the elephant population
could grow so large as to threaten the project
forest.
MediumGeological risk.

This area is prone to drought, but the natural
ecosystem is adapted to handle extended
drought, so no significant threat to the naturalforest occurs as a result of drought.
Low
The area is geologically stable and most of the
project area is flat.

Table 5 Risk Rating: Risk Factors Applicable to REDD projects.
Land ownership/land management
Privately owned land.

Low-Medium (Low)

Technical capability of developer.

A conservation easement is held by Wildlife
Works Carbon, LLC, which limits thelandowner, Rukinga Ranching Co. Ltd, fromtaking actions incompatible with conservation.
Very low
The project developer has more than a decade ofexperience implementing sustainable livelihood
activities in the region. The sustainable charcoal
program appears to have the possibility of being
financially self-sustaining.
Page 14

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORTNet revenues to stakeholders.

Low
Wildlife Works, Inc. is a conservation
organization. One third of its revenues are
dedicated to the shareholders of Rukinga
Ranching Co,. Ltd. The shareholders of Rukinga
Ranching Co., Ltd had never received any
financial distributions in the over 25 years ofland title ownership prior to the arrival of
Wildlife Works. They should receive over USD$1 million in royalties in 2011 alone.
One third of the revenues are dedicated tocommunity benefit projects, administered by
Wildlife Works. A significant component ofcommunity activities is building and operating
schools, and paying school fees. Education gives
local residents options other than subsistence
agriculture. The project also supports a local
women’s center, which is successful in obtaining
other grants for development activities.

Infrastructure and natural resources
Low likelihood of new roads.

Low
Kenya’s main highway passes very close to theproject area, and the route has been the country’s
main transportation corridor for a century. Thereis no reason to think that a new highway will bebuilt.

Population
Population increasing but population
density less than 50 people/km2.

Low
The population in the reference region is around50 people per km2 and is increasing. However,
the only other rating specified for areas withincreasing population is for areas with greaterthan 150 people per km2, so this project gets alow.

Page 15

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT
Incidence of crop failure
Frequent.

Medium-High (Medium)
Since the project start, there have been several
crop failures due to drought, but these crop
failures have not led to deforestation within the
project boundary. The project lands are just as ill
suited for farming as the lands outside the projectboundary. The local population relies oninternational food aid to avoid starvation.

Financial plan
Legal easement for ongoingprotection.

Very Low

VCS requires that projects be given the overall risk rating of the rating of the highest
rated risk factor. The highest risk rating of all the risk factors is “medium,” thus DNV
assigns the project a “medium” risk rating.
VCS specifies a risk buffer range of 10-30% for medium risk avoided unplanned mosaic
deforestation and degradation projects. VCS further specifies that the highest buffer
proportion shall be applied unless justification for a lower withholding percentage can bejustified. The “medium” ratings were given because of drought and crop failures.
However, ongoing drought and multiple crop failures have not resulted in encroachment
onto project lands. DNV believes that less than the maximum risk withholding isjustified. However, there remain risks from rising population and the long-term financial
future of protection of project lands. The project is very heavily dependent on offset
revenues. While this dependence makes the project additional, this dependence also adds
risk. If offset prices decline, demand for offsets declines, or the project fails to generate
more offsets because of leakage, it is not clear how project activities can be paid for.
However, until the next scheduled verification in five years, offset revenues at theexisting contracted sale price are sufficient to fund the project, and for this verification
period, DNV judges the financial risk to be low. Also, the project is scheduled to generate
substantial amounts of further offsets in coming years. If current risks increase or new
risks arise, VCS rules require verifiers to account for these higher risks at future
verification times.
To date, no REDD projects have received credits through VCS and there is no actuarialrecord on which to assign a reversal risk for this project. Because there are populationand long-term financial risks, and no track record of other projects, DNV does not thinkthe lowest risk rating, 10%, is justified. In the absence of data, DNV elects to double thelowest possible risk rating and assign the project a 20% risk buffer rating.

Page 16

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT

3.8 Net Emission Reductions
The project area, net of excluded developed areas (roads, watering facilities, and Camp
Kenya) is calculated to have 14 466 917 metric tonnes CO2e in biomass and the top meterof soil. Over the 30-year project life, the current baseline projects that just over half of
this carbon—7 542 945 metric tonnes CO2e—would be emitted as a result of
deforestation that likely would occur in the absence of the project.
Applying the calculated project baseline emissions, and the fact that recent assessmentshows no deforestation within the project boundary, avoided emissions are calculatedusing the inputs and methods stated in the project document, and achieved emission
reductions are as stated in Table 6. As per VM0009, leakage is measured post project
start date from the shifted leakage curve. As there is no shifted curve until the firstmonitoring period, there can be no leakage until the second monitoring period and thus
for this verification period, the leakage rate is zero.
Table 6 Net Emission Reductions (NERs), Metric Tonnes CO2e.
Year

NERs

2005

20% Buffer Withholding
NERs Issued
202 774
40 555162 2192006

238 580

47 716

190 8642007

249 290

49 858199 4322008

252 494

50 499201 9952009

253 452

50 690202 7622010

253 739

50 748202 991

Total

1 450 329

290 066

1 160 263

Page 17

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT

4 VERIFICATION CONCLUSION - CERTIFICATIONSTATEMENT
Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A) Inc. (DNV) has performed the verification of the emission
reductions that have been reported for the “Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I –Rukinga Sanctuary” for the period 01 January, 2005 to 31 December, 2010. The project
participants are responsible for the collection of data in accordance with the monitoringplan and the reporting of GHG emissions reductions from the project. It is DNV’s
responsibility to express an independent verification statement on the reported GHG
emission reductions from the project.
DNV conducted the verification on the basis of the monitoring methodology VM0009(Version 1), the monitoring plan contained in the validated VCS Project Document dated
31 January, 2011, and the monitoring report dated 02 February, 2011. The verification
included: a) checking whether the provisions of the monitoring methodology and themonitoring plan were consistently and appropriately applied, and b) the collection ofevidence supporting the reported data.
DNV’s verification approach draws on an understanding of the risks associated with
reporting of GHG emission data and the controls in place to mitigate these. DNVplanned and performed the verification by obtaining evidence and other information andexplanations that DNV considers necessary to give reasonable assurance that reported
GHG emission reductions are fairly stated.
The project proponent is Wildlife Works, Inc. DNV has confirmed that Wildlife Works,
Inc. has the right to all and any reductions generated by the Project during the period 1
January, 2005 – 31 December, 2010.
In our opinion the GHG emissions reductions of the “Kasigau Corridor REDD Project
Phase I – Rukinga Sanctuary” for the period 01 January, 2005 to 31 December, 2010 are
fairly stated in the monitoring report dated 02 February, 2011. The GHG emission
reductions were calculated correctly on the basis of the approved VCS methodology
VM0009 (version 1.0) and the monitoring plan contained in the validated VCS Project
Document of 31 January, 2011.
DNV is able to verify with a reasonable level of assurance that the emission reductions
from the “Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I – Rukinga Sanctuary” for the period
01 January, 2005 to 31 December, 2010 amount to 1 160 263 tonnes of CO2 equivalent
after a 20% buffer pool deduction amounting to 290,066 tonnes CO2 equivalent.
Page 18

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORTREFERENCES
Documents provided by the Project Participants that relate directly to the GHG
components of the project have been used as direct sources of evidence for the periodic
verification conclusions, and are usually further checked through interviews with key
personnel.
Following is the list of documentation that was assessed during the validation:
Documents Provided That Relate Directly to the Project
/1/

/2/

/3/
/4/
/5/
/6/
/7/
/8/
/9/
/10/
/11/
/12/

Wildlife Works Carbon Inc., VCS First Monitoring Report for Kasigau
Corridor REDD Project Phase I – Rukinga Sanctuary” Version 1, 2
February, 2011.
Wildlife Works Carbon Inc., VCS Project Document for Kasigau Corridor
REDD Project Phase I – Rukinga Sanctuary” with VCS template andsupporting document, Version 9, 31 January, 2011.
Logistic regression model for deforestation (as of 14 January 2011).
Field measurement protocol – Standard Operating Procedure Biomass (asof 14 January, 2011).
Field measurement protocol – Standard Operating Procedure Soils (as of 14
January, 2011).
Soil lab report of measured soil carbon concentrations (Rukinga 1m Soil
Analysis, 14 January 2011).
Forest Biomass Data (Rukinga Carbon trees Shrubs Gass v7.xlsm, 14
January, 2011).
Forest biomass sampling quality control comparisons (QC report.xlsx, 14January 2011).
Data used to develop tree biomass allometric equations(AllometricFormulasPower.xlsx, 14 January, 2011).
Rukinga return analysis v4.xlsx (27 January, 2011).
Grid Data RefArea flaggedPointsv2.xlsx (14 January, 2011).
“Carbon Rights Agreement” between Wildlife Works Inc. and Rukinga
Ranching Company – 15 Febuary, 2009.

Background documents related to the design and/or methodologies employed in thedesign or other reference documents are shown below.
Page 19

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORT
/13/
/14/

Approved VCS methodology: “VM0009 Methodology for Avoided
Mosaic Deforestation of Tropical Forests version 1.0” 11 January, 2011.
VCS Association, Voluntary Carbon Standard 2007.1, November 2008.

/15/

VCSA, VCS Sectoral Scopes (http://www.v-c-s.org/sectoral_scopes.html).

/16/

VCSA, Guidance for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Projects,
18 November, 2008.
VCSA, Tool for AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer
Determination, 18 November, 2008.
VCSA, Update to the VCS 2007.1: Tool for Non-Permanence Risk
Analysis and Buffer Determination, 8 September, 2010.
VCS VT0001 Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality
in VCS Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Project
Activities Version 1, 21 May, 2010.

/17/
/18/
/19/

Page 20

DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2011-9042, rev. 01
VCS PROJECT VERIFICATION REPORTAPPENDIX A
CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS, CLARIFICATION REQUESTSAND FORWARD ACTION REQUESTS

Page 21

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Table 7 Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification RequestsDraft report corrective action requests and requests
for clarifications

Summary of project participants’ response

CAR 1
The monitoring report must be a stand alone
document from the project documentation. (VCS
Program Normative Document: Double Approval
Process Version 1.1 Section 6.2.1)
Title page should be included with monitoring period(1 January, 2005 – 31 December, 2010), client name,date, name of project, and version number on front
cover.

Accepted.

CAR 2
The table of NERs and uncertainty calculations
should be updated in to reflect the amounts and final
calculations as verified.

Accepted and updated.
The table of NERs now matches the final calculations asverified.

CAR 3
Equations for baseline emissions are not properly
applied in the spreadsheet "Rukinga NER analysis
v4.xlsx". The incorrectly applied equations address
above and belowground biomass of trees and nontree vegetation, and soil. The incorrectly applied
equations are numbered in the methodology as
equations 21, 23, 24, 26, and 26. The error is thatwhen calculating 2006 emissions (column D in the
spreadsheet) cumulative emissions as of the priorperiod are not subtracted from the cumulativeemissions of the current monitoring period. The
terms in the equations that are missing from thecalculations are for monitoring period m-1 (for

Alternative Changes Applied

Final conclusion
CAR closed.

Monitoring report broken out as a standalone document.
The document is entitled ‘VCS Monitoring Report Version
1.0, 2 February, 2011.’

After discussing this CAR with the validators, it wasagreed that this CAR is not applicable. However, it leadto some clarifying language in the PD to ensure that a
conservative linear deforestation rate was used.

CAR closed.

The
projectbaselineisconstructed according to theapproved methodology. The
project proponent elected to use
the linear model baseline
alternative
provided
within
VM0009. As allowed by themethodology,
theproject
developer elected to be credited
accordingtoalineardeforestation rate that iscumulatively less than the logistic
model at all times within the

Page 1

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Draft report corrective action requests and requests
for clarifications
biomass) and i-1 (for soil). Numbers for these terms
must be added to the calculations. These terms
appear to be properly included and counted insubsequent years, in columns E through AG of the
spreadsheet. In the spreadsheet, this error ismanifested in cells D24, D25, D28, D29, and D33.

Summary of project participants’ response

CL 1
Please finalize all references to documents including
the title, version, and date.

Completed.

Final conclusion
project life.
CAR closed.

CL closed.

Page 2