Upload
nomadus
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 1/26
Environment and community based framework for designing
afforestation, reforestation and revegetation projects in the
CDM: methodology development and case studies
Pre-feasibility Study Report
Ecuadorian Coastal Site
María Belén Herrera, Luis Fernando Jara and Verónica VillavicencioProfafor
2007
www.joanneum.at/encofor
FUNDACIÓN CETEFORFUNDACIÓN CETEFOR
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 2/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 2
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................................2 LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................................3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................... 4
1. SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT IDEA.........................................................................................7
2. DEFINITION OF PROJECT BOUNDARIES.............. ............ .............. ............. ............ .............. 8
2.1. SPATIAL DELINEATION OF PROJECT AREA ........................................................................................8 2.2. SELECTED ACTIVITY........................................................................................................................8
3. BASELINE DEFINITION ...............................................................................................................9
3.1. ACTUAL LAND USE AND TREND OF LAND USE CHANGE ............ ............. ............ .............. 9 3.2. ACTUAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC SITUATION AND TREND....... ............ ............. .............. ......... 11
3.3. BASELINE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................11
3.4 BASELINE CARBON EFFECTS.............. ............ ............. .............. ............ ............. .............. ......... 12
4. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION POTENTIAL............. ............ .............. ............. .............. .. 12
4.1. LAND SUITABILITY MAP FOR SELECTED TREE SPECIES ............ ............. .............. ......... 12
4.2. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATION OF CARBON EFFECTS... ............ .............. ............. .............. .. 12
4.3. NET CARBON EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................16
5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS........... .............. ............. .............. ............ .............. ............. ............ ........ 17
6. INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.............. ............. ............. ............. ............ .............. ............. .............. .. 22
6.1. ISSUES AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL...................................................................................................22 6.2. ISSUES AT THE PROJECT LEVEL...................................................................................................... 23
7. SOCIAL ISSUES............. ............ .............. ............. .............. ............ .............. ............. ............ ........ 23
7.1. IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERISATION OF RELEVANT SOCIAL GROUPS.....................................23 7.2. POTENTIAL SOCIAL IMPACTS .........................................................................................................23 7.3. PLANNING OF SOCIAL PROCESSES (INCLUDING PARTICIPATION, COMMUNICATION AND LEAKAGE
AVOIDANCE ACTIVITIES) ..............................................................................................................................24
8. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.......... ............. ............ .............. ............ .............. ............. .............. .. 25 8.1. E NVIRONMENTAL RISKS ................................................................................................................ 25 8.2. E NVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS ..........................................................................................................26
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................... 28
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 3/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 3
List of Tables
Table 1: Land Use of Pedernales pre-selected area 4
Table 2: Average carbon stock of Pedernales 6
Table 3: Carbon storage on the project area 9
Table 4: Carbon storage of the baseline scenario 10
Table 5: Plantation establishment and maintenance costs for teak (Tectona grandis)
and mixed plantation with native species 11
Table 6: Timber revenues of Coastal area 11
Table 7: Validation, monitoring and verification costs 13
Table 8: Carbon benefits 13
Table 9: Costs and Benefits of 30-year project 14
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 4/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 4
List of Abbreviations
FACE Face Foundation
IWMI International Water Management Institute
SIGAGRO Sistema de Información Geográfica y Agropecuaria
ODEPLAN Vicepresidency Planning Office
SIISE Ecuadorian Social Indicators Integrated System
GIS Geographic Information SystemPROFAFOR Programa Face de Forestación del Ecuador S.A.
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 5/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 7
1. Summary of the Project Idea
The project is oriented to develop mixed reforestation with local species andmonospecific with one exotic species on a commercial scale. The expected results of the project are the mitigation of greenhouse gases effects in the atmosphere, particularlyCO2 (carbon dioxide), and to obtain sustainable benefits for all groups involved in the project.
The project involves a total area of about 42,000 ha. Reforestation will take place in anapprox. 3,000 ha of selected sites of pastures. The selected area belongs mostly to private owners. Reforestation will be established through multi–specific and uneven plantations. The production system will focus on commercial scale wood production,with a rotation length of 25 years.
The Profafor/Face program methodology will be applied, which includes a contract with
the land owner. The contract will specify the following parameters: the investor willcover establishment and management costs of the plantation and the Certified EmissionsReduction (CER´s) will belong to the investor. 100% of the timber will belong to theland owner. If at the end of the first rotation period (25 years) the owner decides not toreplant the contract area, the land owner must refund 30% of the stand wood net valueto the investor.
Currently, land use of the area are Savoya ( Panicum maximum) pastures for cattleraising (Zebu race), temporary crops, and emerging re-vegetation, as a result of agricultural or abandonment pastures (secondary forest). Laurel (Cordia aliodora),saman (Samanea saman), pachaco (Schizolobium parahybum), tagua (Microcarphas
pashitelephas), and some spots of shrub vegetation are the components of thesesecondary forests.
The project will serve as a CDM experience for Ecuador. Additionally, it will createstakeholder awareness of the need to be environmental friendly and conscientiousness innatural resource conservation.
Project baseline scenario is pasture. If the project wouldn’t develop, land use will be pastures, which has increased in the last years. Cultivated pastures in PedernalesMunicipality cover 61% of the total area (Agropecuary Census, 2000).
Total estimated net athropogenic GHG removals by sinks (tonnes of CO2e): 7,329,000
Total costs of plantation establishment and maintenance is USD$ 10,330,4421 Total carbon costs USD$ 533,578Total Revenue (excl. carbon credits, extraordinary incomes): USD$ 38,466,900Revenue of carbon credits: USD $ 19,453,908.
1 PROFAFOR, experience of previous plantation.
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 6/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 8
Net Revenues including carbon credits: USD $ 47,056,787
2. Definition of Project Boundaries
2.1. Spatial delineation of project area
The project area is located in Northern Manabí Province, within the Municipality of Pedernales, at the Eastern and Western part of the Pata de Pájaro protected forest. Thetotal surface of the pre-selected area is around of 42,000 ha.
The total project site is within the area formed by the following extreme UTMcoordinates2: North: 638215; 10004656; East: 638693; 10003620; South: 606607;9993798; West: 607126; 10009562.
The total site area has an altitude that varies from 100 to 300 masl and the majority of
the area is located on slopes from 25% to 55%.The area of influence is about one kilometer around the project site, excluding the protected forest Pata de Pájaro. The maximum altitude of the area of influence reaches400 masl and is similar in slope and land use as the area inside the project boundaries.
2.2. Selected activity
The project will be implemented in 70% of the area with teak (Tectona grandis) and30% of the area with native species such as “guayacan rosado” (Tabebuia rosea), “guayacan amarillo” (Tabebuia crysanta), “caoba” (Switenia macropylla), “caoba
veteado” (Platimiscium pinnatum), and “chuncho” (Cedrelinga cateniformis).
Seedling production will be in plastic containers in a forest nursery located near the site.Plantation density for mixed plantation (native species) will be 417 plants per hectarewith an initial planting distance of 6 x 4m. Plantation density for teak will be 625 plants per hectare (initial planting distance of 4 x 4m). Planting schedule will be 750 ha per year (70% of the area with teak and 30% of the area with native species), for the first 4years.
Plantation management will include weeding, fertilization and control, pruning,thinning, and selective cutting, besides fire prevention activities such as creating 3meter-wide firebreaks, which will have permanent maintenance.
Pruning will be carried out once the crowns start overlapping (age 4 – 8 - 12 yr), and branches will be collected and located on strips every 10 m. Thinning will be at year 10 – 20 yr, considering tree performance.
2 All the digital information is managed into a GIS environment, projection PSAD 56.
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 7/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 9
A surveillance and monitoring program will be developed and implemented to control plantation performance and prevent any type of forest fire, pests and diseases.Monitoring activities will begin in year 5 and will be carried out every five years. Theaim is to evaluate the plantation, understand the dynamic process of vegetation insideand outside the forest, prevent any plant health problems such as pests and diseases, andestablish a basis for optimising forestry treatment and controlling plantation growth.This consists of establishing permanent plots using randomly stratified sampling, with proportional distribution in the area.
Permanent plots will be rectangular of 500 m² (10x50m), with evaluation of naturalvegetation (“brinzal”, “latizal” and “fustal”)3 besides the trees planted inside each plot.Field information will be collected for each plot, with reference to generalcharacteristics such as land owner name, contract number, date of plantation, date of evaluation, number of plot, number of compartment, species, slope, person responsible,and average height. Later on, this information will be included in a database.
The products obtained will be sawn wood, which has a very attractive domestic andinternational market, fence poles and fuelwood.
The project didn’t include a harvest process; the wood will be sold at the plantation site(stand wood).
3. Baseline definition
3.1. Actual land use and trend of land use change
According to Ecopar Land Use Map4, the total project area has the following land usecategories:
3 Brinzal.- tree vegetation higher than 0,3m but less than 1,3m of total highLatizal.- tree vegetation higher than 1.3 m. and less than 10 cm of DBHFustal.- tree vegetation higher than 10 cm. of DBH
4 Segarra, P., Hofstede, R., Gavilanes, M., Aguirre, N., Delgado, S., 2000, Informe Técnico del Sistemade Información Geográfica para la determinación de zonas potenciales para reforestación en la cordilleraMache Chindul y su área de influencia. Land use map 1:100,000 scale, ECOPAR, PROFAFOR, Quito,Ecuador.
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 8/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 10
Table 1: Land Use of Pedernales pre-selected area.
Land Use Area
(ha)
Percentage
(%)Pasture (managed and natural) 16,566 40
Pasture with patches of forestry 7.,94 18 Natural vegetation 5,303 13Permanent crops (fruits, coffee,cocoa, banana)
3,980 10
Temporary crops 2,380 5.7Mangroves 108 0.2Shrimp pounds 12 0.02Areas covered with clouds 4,837 11Areas without classification(shadow, urban)
999 2
TOTAL 41,779 100
In general, pastures are the main land use of the Pedernales project area (58%). Theseareas are dedicated to livestock breeding for beef and recently it has double a purpose: beef and milk production. Most common cattle species are Brahman (locally named zebu) and Brown Swiss.
Property owners usually change land use from natural forest, natural vegetation or temporary and permanent crops to pastures because of economical reasons. The trendseems to continue because of the profitability of this activity, the daily income obtainedfrom milk sales and cultural practice of the people.
The common steps in order to achieve the establishment of pastures are5:
1. Elimination of low and shrub vegetation.2. Forest cutting.3. Burning residual material.4. Planting temporary or permanent crops associated with pastures, i.e.:
4.1 Maize (during 3 years approx.) or 4.2 Coffee or cacao (during 10 years approx.)
5. Maintenance of the pasture.
It takes two years from the elimination of low and shrub vegetation to plantingtemporary or permanent crops associated with pastures. These activities have been usedover the last twenty years. The most common cultivated pasture is saboya (Panicum
maximum).
The most interesting species for land owners within the project area (for agroforestry or plantation systems) are teak (Tectona grandis), mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla),amarillo (Centrolobium platinense), laurel (Cordia alliodora) and fernán sánchez(Triplaris cumingiana).
5 Field work questionnaries. July, 2005
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 9/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 11
3.2. Actual socio-economic situation and trend
The average number of family members in the project area is five. 30% of the people arestudying or have finished elementary school, 40% are studying or have finished high-
school or technical school (non-university level), 25% have finished or are studying atuniversity level, and the remaining 5% of the people do not have approved any officialeducation level.
According to interviews, 26% of the population has access to health services, buthospitals and specialized medical care are available only in Pedernales. In the area, thereis no sewer system available. In relation to public services, about 60% of the populationhas electricity, 57% has drinkable water, 9% has access to telephone services andmobile service is also available.
Main income sources come from cattle raising, aquaculture (swrimps cultivation),
permanent crops, plantations such as african palm, banana, coffee, and cocoa. Also, itcomes from different sources including working in diverse professional activities, publicadministration and real state.
Migration affects 45% of the population within the region. It is caused mainly byeducation opportunities, lack of labor, opportunities to increase their incomes andothers. Cities with more services and a bigger population like Guayaquil and other coastal towns are frequent destinations for migrant people from the Manabi region.
Due to shrimp production in nearby zones; people will immigrate to those placeslooking for employment sources in the future.
The average size of individual plots in the project area is 200 hectares but there are also properties bigger than 200 hectares (35%). 78% of the interviewed land owners areinterested in establishing plantation. Most of them (67 %) would prefer agroforestrysystems on the boundaries of their plots. About 33% of the land owners would beinterested in forest plantations within plots of 50 hectares.
3.3. Baseline description
Without the project the following scenarios will be presented:
A) Without project and constant or increasing beef price scenario.Land owners decide to maintain their pastures. Some will burn pastures annually(November to December) to keep them clean, growth and pests’ control, and then letthe cattle graze (January to April).
B) Without project and decreasing beef price scenario.Beef prices have dropped over the past ten years and some land owners have decidedto abandon their properties. Then fallow or young secondary forests appear as a
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 10/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 12
result of natural regeneration. Usually, areas are only abandoned for a maximum of three years. Then land owners decide to burn again and establish new pastures.
These two patterns have been occurring over the past 20 years.
3.4. Baseline carbon effects
Table 2: Average carbon stock of Pedernales
Type Average carbon*Pastures 3.5 to 5 tC/ha aboveground
1.9 to 2 tC/ha roots*5 tC/ha**
Secondary forest 100 tC/ha after 30 years**
*Field data november/2003
** Koning, F., Olschewski, R., Veldkamp, E., Benítez, P., Laclau P., López, M., Urquiza, M., Schlichter, T., 2002 .Evaluation of the CO2 sequestration potential of afforestation projects and secondary forests in two different climate zones of SouthAmerica, GTZ, TÖB, Eschborn.
The baseline is estimated at 5 tC/ha for pastures, including some shadow trees per ha(Palm et al., 2000; Benitez et al., 2001) mentioned in Koning et al., 2002.
This value is assumed over the total period of the project.
4. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential
4.1. Land suitability map for selected tree species
The Ecological and land suitability maps for the six proposed tree species are:
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 11/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 13
A- Scenario -1
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 12/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 14
B- Scenario 2
Zomer et al – IWMI. 2005, Prefeasibility Report – Costa Case Study (Draft), Issue/ Rev.No:0.5.
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 13/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 15
4.2. Preliminary estimation of carbon effects
According to the scenario proposed for the project, the next table shows the carbonequivalent storage on the area during 30 years project period.
Table 3: Carbon storage on the project area
Year
No.
Year
Accumulative
estimation of
anthropogenic
GHG removals by
sinks in tones of
CO2e
1 2007 3,668
2 2008 11,004
3 2009 23,415
4 2010 45,246
5 2011 69,014
6 2012 112,928
7 2013 170,997
8 2014 229,731
9 2015 348,397
10 2016 473,637
11 2017 599,011
12 2018 742,386
13 2019 850,992
14 2020 950,721
15 2021 1,055,549
16 2022 1,157,693
17 2023 1,267,887
18 2024 1,381,704
19 2025 1,494,425
20 2026 1,706,390
21 2027 1,940,704
22 2028 2,210,280
23 2029 2,522,944
24 2030 2,796,043
25 2031 3,111,032
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 14/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 16
26 2032 245,087
27 2033 1,736,356
28 2034 937,620
29 2035 45,246
30 2036 69,014
Figure 1: Accumulative estimation of anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks in
tones of CO2e
0
500.000
1.000.000
1.500.000
2.000.000
2.500.000
3.000.000
3.500.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
years after project start
C u m u l a t i v e c a r b o
n ,
t C O 2
.
Natives
Teak
Total
The figure shows the accumulative estimation of CO2e by sinks in the project lifetime.
4.3. Net carbon effects of the project
According to DSS tool baseline scenario the average carbon of a project scenario is asfollow:
Table 4: Net carbon effects of the project
Years
Estimation of
baseline net GHG
removals by sinks
(t CO2e)
Estimation of actual net GHG
removals by sinks (t CO2e)
Net carbon
effects of the
project
2007 13,751.25 3,668 -10,083.252008 13,751.25 11,004 -2,747.252009 13,751.25 23,415 9,663.752010 13,751.25 45,246 31,494.752011 55,005 69,014 14,0092012 55,005 112,928 57,9232013 55,005 170,997 115,9922014 55,005 229,731 174,726
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 15/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 17
2015 55,005 348,397 293,3922016 55,005 473,637 418,6322017 55,005 599,011 544,0062018 55,005 742,386 687,3812019 55,005 850,992 795,987
2020 55,005 950,721 895,7162021 55,005 1,055,549 1,000,5442022 55,005 1,157,693 1,102,6882023 55,005 1,267,887 1,212,8822024 55,005 1,381,704 1,326,6992025 55,005 1,494,425 1,439,4202026 55,005 1,706,390 1,651,3852027 55,005 1,940,704 1,885,6992028 55,005 2,210,280 2,155,2752029 55,005 2,522,944 2,467,9392030 55,005 2,796,043 2,741,0382031 55,005 3,111,032 3,056,0272032 55,005 245,087 190,082
2033 55,005 1,736,356 1,681,3512034 55,005 937,620 882,6152035 55,005 45,246 -9,7592036 55,005 69,014 14,009
5. Economic Analysis
The economic analysis was made using the financial DSS tool developed by Encofor project.
• Investments
There will be a contract or an agreement, where investor and land owner agree to use theland as a contribution to the project.
• Forest plantation costs
The following table summarizes the costs required for the establishment andmaintenance of plantation
Table 5: Plantation establishment and maintenance costs for teak (Tectona grandis)
and mixed plantation with native species
Activities USD $
Establishment 6,910,028
Maintenance 2,180,761Administration (9%) andunforeseen expenses (3%) 1,239,653Total 10,330,442
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 16/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 18
Teak plantation will be established in 70% of the area.
Mixed native species will be established in 30% of the area.
Establishment and maintenance costs include: labour, materials and tools, technicalassistance, transportation and equipment. Thinning and harvesting costs are not included
because the timber will be sold at the site (stand wood) and the buyer will cover all theexpenses (labour and tools). Labour is considered at USD 8/day, which is the minimumlegal wage established by law.
All the costs were based on the Profafor experience.According to the interviews land costs in the project area are as follows:
General average costs per hectare ranges from USD$ 500 to USD$ 600
• Timber revenues:
The project considers selling timber on the site (stand wood). According to the current
market, prices are:
Table 6: Timber revenues of Coastal area
Timber
Revenues
TypeVolume*
(m3/ha)
Teak
Volume*
(m3/ha)
Native species
Price**
(USD/m3)
Teak
Price**
(USD/m3)
Natives
Sawn wood First thinning - 11 - 25
Second thinning 50 85 50 50
Final harvest 100 100 70 80
Fence poles First thinning 9 10 20 17Second thinning 11 30 20 17
Final harvest 22 100 20 17
Lighting poles First thinning 36 - 25 -
Second thinning 18 - 25 -
Fuelwood First thinning 11 14 2 2
Second thinning - 50 - 2
Final harvest 6 176 2 2
*According yield tables** Asoteca expert information
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 17/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 19
Cumulative total timber volume at the end of a 25-year rotation of teak will be 708,1m3/ha6 (including thinning).
Cumulative total timber volume at the end of a 25-year rotation of native species will be858,6 m3/ha7 (including thinning).
• Validation, monitoring and verification costs
The costs of the project design, monitoring, verification and auditing are obtained fromPROFAFOR experience (2005). The following table shows the values:
Table 7: Validation, monitoring and verification costs
Activities Cost
Baseline Study, Monitoring Plan US$ 30,000
Monitoring US$ 37,500 *
Verification, validation and auditing US$ 45,500 **
*it considers US$ 8,000 every five years
** it considers US$ 13,000 of verification and validation in the first year and US$ 6,500 of auditing everyfive years. It considers costs for a rotation period of 25 years.
• Carbon benefits
The carbon benefits are expressed in the following table:
Table 8: Carbon benefits
YeartCER
(tCO2e)
Carbon tCER
Revenue
5 69,014 207,04210 473,637 1,420,91115 1,055,549 3,166,64720 1,706,390 5,119,17015 3,111,032 9,333,09630 69,014 207,042
*carbon price consider US$ 3,00 per credit
6 Profafor calculations based on: Chavez, E., Fonseca, W., 1991. Teca, especie de árbol de uso múltipleen América Central Turrialba, Costa Rica. Informe Técnico No. 179. 47p.
7Pofafor calculations based on: CATIE –FUNDECOR. 1994, Laurel (Cordia alliodora), especie de arbolde uso multiple en América Central, Costa RicaProfafor calculations based on: CATIE. 1991,
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 18/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 20
• Cash flow and IRR
The following table summarizes costs and benefits for the 30-year project.
Table 9: Costs and Benefits of 30-year project
Year
Project Costsexcl. Carbon
US$Carbon Costs
US$
ProjectRevenues
excl. CarbonUS$
Carbon RevenuesUS$
Net Revenues,including Carbon
US$
1 1,021,573 57,500 0 0 -1,079,073
2 1,059,745 0 0 0 -1,059,745
3 1,097,009 0 0 0 -1,097,009
4 1,316,353 0 0 0 -1,316,353
5 294,278 18,641 0 207,042 -105,877
6 267,533 0 0 0 -267,533
7 274,118 0 0 0 -274,118
8 288,230 0 0 0 -288,230
9 274,118 0 0 0 -274,118
10 287,693 42,918 684,975 1,420,911 1,775,275
11 274,118 0 684,975 0 410,857
12 288,230 0 684,975 0 396,745
13 274,118 0 684,975 0 410,857
14 214,982 0 0 0 -214,982
15 294,278 77,833 0 3,166,647 2,794,536
16 179,366 0 0 0 -179,366
17 224,390 0 0 0 -224,390
18 165,254 0 0 0 -165,254
19 224,390 0 0 0 -224,390
20 199,526 116,883 2,757,750 5,119,170 7,560,510
21 224,390 0 2,757,750 0 2,533,360
22 165,254 0 2,757,750 0 2,592,496
23 224,390 0 2,757,750 0 2,533,360
24 165,254 0 0 0 -165,254
25 185,414 201,162 6,174,000 9,333,096 15,120,520
26 165,254 0 6,174,000 0 6,008,746
27 165,254 0 6,174,000 0 6,008,746
28 165,254 0 6,174,000 0 6,008,746
29 165,254 0 0 0 -165,254
30 185,414 18,641 0 207,042 2,987
Total 10,330,442 533,578 38,466,900 19,453,908 47,056,787
Profit:
IRR on Capital (with CDM) 19. 5 %IRR on Capital (without CDM) 8. 8 %
Discount rate: 6%
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 19/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 21
The project needs a total capital of US$ 10,864,020.
Project costs include the establishment and maintenance of the plantation.Costs from the years 26 to 30 are related to monitoring, technical assistance andsurveillance of the project contract area.
• FinancingThe project will require financing in the first 10 years; an option could be a loan from a private bank with low interest rates, long term repayment and interest conditions; suchconditions might be found at the Interamerican Development Bank or KFW.
Risks associated to the project
Natural risks
Erosion process is the main natural risk of the project area, 95% of the land owners believe that their lands are moderate eroded.8
Forest fires originated by long and intense periods of drought; represent a risk for thestability of the plantation. 61 % of the land owners consider that forest fires are rarelyoccurred.
Another natural risk is forest pest and diseases which can affect the normal growth andyield of the plantation, especially for the monospecific plantation (teak).
The area is rarely affected by flooding but it is considered as a possible natural risk.
Human induced risks
Provoked fires are one of the human induced risks of the area and it becomes worse insummer time. It mostly obeys to agricultural practices in a way of pasture regenerationand ticks extermination.
Due to the fact that some pastures will be used for reforestation, there might be a risk of induced crops within the plantation.
No compliance of contract obligations due to the long period of the contract makesanother human induced risk. People in the area are not used to long-term projects and/or
incomes.
Market risks
Possible risks include wood price fluctuations, which are market-dependant (supply anddemand) and carbon price fluctuations on international markets.
8 Profafor, field work questionnaries (23 interviews). July, 2005
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 20/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 22
Meat and agricultural products price changes during certain periods over the length of the project. It might tempt people to reduce the area of forest plantations or to moveanimal grazing and breeding to other areas (secondary forest, natural forest) reducing the positive effects in the storage carbon, and consequently, the possibility to get therequired GHG credits for the project.
In any case, all risks can be avoided taking into account mitigation measures,appropriate information workshops and meetings with the local population. Alsoavoiding false expectations about prices and markets is a way to reduce negative effects.
Pre-feasibility studies are important and need support of good management andmonitoring activities during the entire project lifetime. Co-operation and teamwork among institutions and communities is also imperative to keep the project movingforward and being sustainable.
6. Institutional Issues
6.1. Issues at the national level
The Designated National Authority (DNA) of Ecuador has not defined the criteria andindicators for the following issues: sustainable development, environmental and socialimpact assessment, the Modified Genetic Organism (MGO), invasive introduced speciesand forest definition.
Legally, Article 266 of the State’s Political Constitution encourages afforestation andreforestation projects. Forest Law and the Conservation of Natural Areas and Wild Life(Cod. 2004-017, RO-S 418) regulate forest activities. Articles 12 to 19 states thatafforestation and reforestation on potential forest lands is obligatory and of publicinterest, and prohibit other uses. At the same time, Articles 54 mentions that no landtaxes will be paid to the rural property for forest lands covered with natural forests or cultivated, protective vegetation and those planted with timber species that fulfil theforest law regulations. Furthermore, Article 56 states, forest lands of private propertycovered with protected forest or permanent production forest and those withinforestation or reforestation plans won’t be affected by agrarian reform.
Another important regulation is related to the Environmental Management Law (No.37,RO/245, 1999), which regulates environmental issues. Article 20 specifies clearly thatall activities showing any environmental risk should count with a respective licensegranted by the Ministry of Environment. Compliance of the approved environmentalmanagement plan will be through environmental auditing.
The Ministerial Agreement No. 40/04 from Ministry of Environment (MoE) regulatesforest plantation management (pruning, thinning and final harvest). The MoE DistrictOffice, which will authorise a forest thinning, or harvest license should approve forest plantation operations. This will be base on a cutting plan presented by the forest owner.
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 21/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 23
The environmental forest authority at national and local level is the Ministry of Environment and MoE Forest District, respectively.
Pedernales Municipality as many other has elaborated a “Cantonal Development Plan”which gives a guide to territorial arrangement including land use proposal. The project
area is located in the influence area of the “Pata de Pájaro” Protected Forest.
All these administrative and legal instruments will be considered by the project.
6.2. Issues at the project level
In the administrative context, land belongs to private owners who have the authority for its management.
There is no presence of cooperatives or associations in the site.
Results of the interviews show that 100% of the interviewers have public deeds of their properties.
7. Social Issues
7.1. Identification and characterisation of relevant social groups
The project involves local private individuals/owners of the Ecuadorian coastal regionof Manabí.
Informal approaches to stakeholders through workshops and fieldwork questionnaireshave been carried out since 2004. At the moment, the level of participation of stakeholders is informative with the main purpose to evaluate and validate land usemaps, socio-economic information and other data gathered from secondary sources likesatellite imagery or national census.
Furthermore, local authorities such as the Municipality of Perdernales and the ForestDistrict office of the Ministry of Environment have been involved in previous activitiesof the project (workshops, meetings). They have known the project and had supported itwith information.
7.2. Potential social impacts
Project establishment will have positive socio-economic effects such as labour creation.An indirect effect of more jobs will be migration reduction. Wood sales will contributeto income diversification. Also, there is the advantage of rapid growth of valuable forestspecies.
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 22/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 24
People will learn about forestry and nursery maintenance, and it will constitute anexperience and development of local capacity.
The plantation will reduce the threat of land invasions. Lands will be occupied, producing and won’t be desolated and without protection.Plantation incomes could be invested in future benefits such as: education of thechildren, savings, investments, health and others.
Food security won’t be compromised in the area because the baseline is pasture.
7.3. Planning of social processes (including participation, communication and
leakage avoidance activities)
Communication
As it was mentioned before, stakeholders in the area are private owners, which speak Spanish.
The most important media of communication in the area is radio and in some placestelevision.
Communication with stakeholders has been done through key people or local leaders.
Profafor has very little experience in the area, since most of the plantations have beenestablished in the Sierra region and some in the northern area of the Coastal region. Nevertheless, workshops and training courses to introduce the Encofor project have
been well accepted.
Potential partners are people or entities who are directly or indirectly involved in the project: owners, NGO´s, public (Ministry of Environment, Provincial Government, andMunicipality Government) and private institutions (CORMADERA, ASOTECA), cattleassociations (Asociación de Ganaderos), and others.
In this case land owners are the most representative stakeholders.
Leakage identification and avoidance activities
There might be certain leakage caused by land use change (pastures to forest).Another possible leakage is people displacement to establish pastures in new areas. Itcould cause deforestation of natural forest or secondary forest in other places.
Plantation management activities such as pruning might cause leakage. It will be madethree times in a plantation lifetime, causing an estimated leakage value of 1,5 to 2 tC/ha.
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 23/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 25
Thinning will be made twice in a plantation lifetime (year 10 and 20 approx.), causingan estimated leakage of 4 to 5 tC/ha and 8 to 10 tC/ha9 respectively.
Activities like transportation of workers and materials, power saws and operator camps, petrol needs, including wood harvesting activities, could also cause carbon undesirableleakage. Mechanical spray of biological insecticides/fungicides for pests/diseasescontrol on the plantation can also cause carbon leakage.
Plantation management activities and monitoring activities will help to reduce possiblerisks. Thinning and pruning will be done with manual saws.Harvesting activities such as transportation, workers camp construction, use of power saws should be reduced to a minimum. Alternately, domesticated mules could be usedfor transportation.
To avoid pasture displacement, livestock could be managed by stabling systems and byusing improved livestock races.
8. Environmental Issues
8.1. Environmental risks
The project causes serious erosion risk (due to slopes, tree species choice,suppression of ground vegetation or any other reason)
The project causes serious risks of soil degradation, acidification, loss of fertility(due to tree species choice or any other reason)
WATER
The project has a significant risk of depleting or significantly lowering the groundwater table (due to tree species or any other reason)
The project has a significant risk of depleting or significantly lowering the baseflowin sources and water courses supplying local people and irrigated agriculture
9 PROFAFOR, expert knowledge information.
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 24/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 26
(e.g. due to tree species or any other reason)
The project will have an adverse effect on water quality (through the use of biocidesor fertilizers or any other reason)
VEGETATION
The site is unsuitable for tree growth as a consequence of drought, waterlogging,salinity, extreme slope, elevation, lack of soil or any other site factor The project has a significant risk of outbreak of pests or diseases (due to the use of exotic tree species or any other reason)The project has a significant risk of fire damage (due to the use of teak, thefrequency of dry spells, conflicts with other land use or any other reason)The project has a significant risk of frost damage (due to unadapted species choice
or any other reason)The project has a significant risk of windthrow (due to stand density and even-agedness or any other reason)The project has a significant risk of other damage (e.g. drought, flooding, hale,landslides or any other natural or anthropogenic cause)
BIODIVERSITY
The project will replace more or less undisturbed natural ecosystems (in or outside protected areas)The used species pose a significant risk of invasive spreading in the landscape
The project contributes to the fragmentation of native vegetation
The project is a risk for one or more endemic or endangered species (both fauna andflora)
8.2. Environmental benefits
SOIL
The project will contribute to soil improvement (organic matter, carbon content,water holding capacity, fertility)The project contributes to the reduction of soil erosion (e.g. by stabilization of
banks, sand dunes, slopes, etc.)
WATER
The project contributes to protect the headwaters of a catchment
X
XX
X
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 25/26
WP 1/2 Pre-feasibility Study Ecuadorian Coastal Site 27
The project contributes to flood risk reduction
The project contributes to baseflow regulation
The project contributes to improvement of water quality
VEGETATION
The project contributes to the restoration of bare or abandoned land
The project contributes to ecosystem adaptation to climate change
The project contributes to the stability of the ecosystem (resistance and/or resilience)
BIODIVERSITY
The project will restore forest of native or endemic species (both fauna and flora)
The project will reconnect fragmented forests (corridors)
The project will contribute to the protection or restoration of endangered or endemicspecies
For those positive environmental risks, some mitigation measures will be taken into
account such as:
In the case of fire damage risk due to frequent dry spells the considered mitigationmeasures are the following:
• Inclusion of firebreaks in the management plan, community people training andorganization of forest fire brigades.
• Use of special equipment to prevent and combat fires.
X
X
X
X
X
X
8/3/2019 Ecuador - Pedernales Prefeasibility_Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecuador-pedernales-prefeasibilityreport 26/26
References
CATIE-FUNDECOR. 1994, Laurel (Cordia alliodora), especie de árbol de usomúltiple en América Central, Costa Rica.
Corporación de Estudios y Publicaciones. 2004, Legislación Ambiental Forestal TomoIII, Codificación de la Ley Forestal y de Conservación de Áreas Naturales y VidaSilvestre. Quito, Ecuador.
Chavez, E., Fonseca, W., 1991. Teca, especie de árbol de uso múltiple en AméricaCentral Turrialba, Costa Rica. Informe Técnico No. 179. 47p.
Galloway, G., Alomoto, V., Maldonado, E., 1991. Estudio de algunas especiesforestales en la Región Costera del Ecuador. DESFIL/AID. 152p.
Koning, F., Olschewski, R., Veldkamp, E., Benítez, P., Laclau P., López, M., Urquiza,M., Schlichter, T., 2002. Evaluation of the CO2 sequestration potential of afforestation projects and secondary forests in two different climate zones of South
America, GTZ, TÖB, Eschborn.Registro Público, 1999. Ley de Gestión Ambiental. Ley No. 37. RO/ 245 de 30 de Julio
de 1999.
PROFAFOR. 2005, Plantation costs of Pedernales.
PROFAFOR. 2005, Results of the interviews applied in the pre-selected area of Pedernales.
Segarra, P., Hofstede, R., Gavilanes, M., Aguirre, N., Delgado, S., 2000, InformeTécnico del Sistema de Información Geográfica para la determinación de zonas
potenciales para reforestación en la cordillera Mache Chindul y su área de influencia.Land use map 1:100.000 scale, ECOPAR, PROFAFOR, Quito, Ecuador.
Vozzo, A., 2002, Tropical Tree Seed Manual, United States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service.
Zomer et al – IWMI. 2005, Prefeasibility Report – Costa Case Study (Draft), Issue/Rev.No.:0.5.