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