Pre-feasibility study for a CDM-AR project in the Cochabamba ...

Environment and community based framework for designing
afforestation, reforestation and revegetation projects in the
CDM: methodology development and case studies
Pre-feasibility study for a CDM-AR project
in the Cochabamba Tropics
Cochabamba, Bolivia
Anko Stilma
Rober Sejas
Fundacion Centro Tecnico Forestal (CETEFOR)
Casilla 6511, Cochabamba, Bolivia
Email: anko@cochabamba-bolivia.net
2007
FUNDACIÓN CETEFOR
www.joanneum.at/encofor

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT IDEA......................................................................................... 2
2. DETERMINING PROJECT BOUNDARIES................................................................................ 3
3. BASELINE FORMULATION ........................................................................................................ 5
3.1. ACTUAL LAND USE AND................................................................................................................. 5
3.2. TREND OF LAND USE CHANGE........................................................................................................ 6
3.3. ACTUAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC SITUATION AND TREND........................................................................ 9
3.3.1. Social structures ........................................................................................................................ 9
3.3.2. Incomes per family/sources of income...................................................................................... 9
3.3.3. Knowledge of the project and previous participation in decision-making................................ 9
3.4. BASELINE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................. 9
3.5. BASELINE QUANTIFICATION ......................................................................................................... 11
4. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION POTENTIAL ................................................................... 13
4.1. LAND SUITABILITY MAP FOR SELECTED TREE SPECIES ................................................................ 13
4.2. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATION OF CARBON EFFECTS......................................................................... 17
4.3. NET CARBON EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ....................................................................................... 19
4.4. LEAKAGE ...................................................................................................................................... 21
5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 22
5.1 COSTS.................................................................................................................................................... 22
5.1.1 Infrastructure, machinery and equipments .............................................................................. 22
5.1.2 Establishment and management costs ..................................................................................... 22
5.1.3 Thinning .................................................................................................................................. 23
5.1.4. Other operating costs (including taxes if any)......................................................................... 23
5.2. DATA ON REFORESTATION REVENUES ................................................................................................. 23
5.3. LAND PRICES / OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF LAND .................................................................................... 25
5.4. FINANCIALS.......................................................................................................................................... 25
6. INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ........................................................................................................... 28
6.1.1. Environmental policy .............................................................................................................. 28
6.1.3. land use policy......................................................................................................................... 28
6.1.4. Climate policy ......................................................................................................................... 29
6.2.1 POLITICAL DIVISION...................................................................................................................... 29
6.2.4. LAND TENURE............................................................................................................................... 29
6.2.5. LEGALLY AND SOCIALLY ACCEPTED ASSOCIATIONS PRESENT IN THE REGION, WHICH MIGHT
INTERACT WITH THE PROJECT...................................................................................................................... 30
7. SOCIAL ISSUES ............................................................................................................................ 31
7.3. PLANNING OF SOCIAL PROCESSES ......................................................................................................... 32
7.4. LEAKAGE AVOIDING ACTIVITIES........................................................................................................... 33
8. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ....................................................................................................... 35
8.1. ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS................................................................................................................ 35
8.2. ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS .......................................................................................................... 36
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................... 37
Prefeasibility report Chapare
1

Summary of the Project Idea
Proposed project area is within a settler’s area. This area has been destination for
migrants coming from High Valley and Altiplano regions of Bolivia since the 1930’s.
This tendency has been intensified in the last 20 years due to high rates of poverty, the
“coca boom” and deterioration of the mining and agricultural economic base that have
traditionally supported the Bolivian Highlands. Poor land-use leading to extensive
deforestation and over-harvesting of native forests has caused substantial deforestation,
and lead to several environmental problems, and a growing shortage of timber from
commercial native species. This has spurred interest by small farmers in the
conservation and sustainable management of the primary and secondary forests and
planting tree species in there farm. 95% of the land is private owned land, by
smallholders. Size of the land varies a bit, but the average land size is 20 hectares per
family (100 by 2000m).
An integrated farming system will be introduced by the proposed project. This farming
system aims to improve the efficiency of land use on the whole farm, considering the
current and future needs of the farmer family. Sustainable crop and forest production
will generate income on short-, mid-, and long term and will also guarantee food
security. The project strategy to carbon fixation will be reached using three intervention
approaches:
• Management of secondary forests by enrichment planting with native species
and application of silvicultural practices
• Reforestation in areas designated for that purpose within farmers’ parcels.
• Implementation of agroforestry systems,
There will be a strong focus on training, technology transfer and monitoring.
The traditional agricultural practices of slash and burn will lose importance by
introducing permanent agroforestry systems and nitrogen fixing species into the
cultivation cycle. Land used for annual crops will have a reduced fallow period, because
of the use of nitrogen fixing species (Inga sp., Mucuna pruriens and other leguminous
species). Land fertility is recovered much faster by leguminous species than by species
of natural fallow lands. Fallow land and secondary forests will be enriched with the aim
to make these areas economically productive and stock a bigger amount of carbon.
The project hopes to achieve a system with a more intensive integrated land use system
and overall producing a higher quantity of biomass. Additionally these activities will
benefit the conservation of primary forest still left on their farms. Besides, these
residual primary forests will be managed for wood and other forest products. Since
project is focused on the production of higher quantities of biomass within the farm, a
monitoring scheme should be developed, measuring carbon flows in the whole farm,
differentiating carbon stocks eligible under the CDM and stocks which can be
commercialized on a voluntary market. Tree species selection for specific sites will be
based on site evaluations and depends on proven suitability for the specific site
conditions and purposes of the trees species in the (agro) forestry systems (timber
production, shade, nitrogen fixing, etc). Principally native species will be used.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
2

1. Determining Project Boundaries
The area of influence is located in the Cochabamba Tropics, at the foot of the Andes
mountain range within the Amazon River basin (Figure 2.1). Within this area project
activities will be developed on different CDM-eligible sites owned by smallholders.
It ranges in elevation from 450 to 250 meters above sea level. In the early 1930s the
area was given the designation of “multiple use area” and has since been colonized by
migrants from the High Valley and the Altiplano regions of Bolivia.
Figure 2.1: Location of project area
Source: Zomer 2006
Currently there are 35,000 families that live within the 534,000 hectares of the Chapare
region. Figure 2.1 provide a map of communities located within the project area. The
area in which project activities will be developed is an area of 40.604 has and is
inhabited by 9,055 people (5092 male & 3963 female), living in a total of 2719
homesteads (FAO, 2004).
Figure 2.1: Map of communities within the area of influence
Prefeasibility report Chapare
3

Source: Zomer 2006
An integrated farming system will be introduced by the proposed project. This farming
system aims to improve the efficiency of land use on the whole farm, considering the
current and future needs of the farmer family. Sustainable crop and forest production
will generate income on short-, mid-, and long term and will also guarantee food
security.
The project strategy to carbon fixation will be reached using three intervention
approaches:
1. Management of secondary forests by enrichment planting with native species
and application of silvicultural practices
2. Reforestation in areas designated for that purpose within farmers’ parcels.
3. Implementation of agroforestry systems,
Exact project boundaries are not defined yet, since project activities will be developed
on several different farms, with a surface of approximately 1 to 5 has.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
4

2. Baseline Formulation
2.1. Actual Land Use and
The study area however is comprised by a heterogeneous mix of different landuse and
landcover types as shown in table 3.1 and figure 3.1.
Table 3.1: Landuse in the area of influence
Landuse Class Area (ha) Percent of total (%)
Water 1,370
3
Primary forest 5,598
14
Secondary forest 8,955
22
Cultivated agriculture 8,605
21
Pasture, bare soil, banana 4,794
12
Pasture 6,284
15
Banana 1,763
4
Palmheart 961
2
Pineapple 624
2
No data 1,650
4
Total
Source: Zomer 2006
40,604
100
The average small scale farmer in this area possesses a parcel that typically is narrow
but long in length (100 x 2000 meters). The average farm size ranges between 15 and 20
hectares.
Figure 3.1: spatial delineation of landuse classes.
Source: Miranda et al, 2001
Prefeasibility report Chapare
5

The most common agricultural landuses with in the area are:
- Cattle grazing for beef and milk production,
- Annual cropping (rice, maize, cassava),
- Perennial cropping (banana, palm heart, papaya, pineapple, citrus)
Each of these classes exhibit unique biomass accumulation curves through the course of
their rotations, as agriculture crops shift within the landuse system.
2.2. Trend of Land Use Change
Over the course of the past 30 years, the study area has dramatically changed. Settlers
moved into the area to establish small farms, and as a result huge areas of primary forest
were cut to make room for agricultural production Millington et al. (2003) observed that
the main Cochabamba–Santa Cruz road moved eastwards from Villa Tunari during the
1980s and 1990s, facilitating an increasing cultivation density. Forest fragmentation,
caused mainly by cultivation, increased rapidly from 1986 to 1993 but appears to
recover after 1993. However, it is not possible to make this generalization for all of
Chapare, as deforestation in many parts of the area continues to the present day. Rather,
the increase in the tree component in some parts of the landscape is due to tree and bush
crops (e.g. citrus, palmito and pimiento) which have been planted as alternatives to coca
as part of aid programs.
Areas around ivirgazama of which the project area is part was occupied mainly by semidirected
colonists from the mid-1970s onwards and was extensively cleared by 1986. To
the south of the main road, the area was mostly coca cultivation. For the area to the
north of the main road, the improvement of a single-track mule trail to a gravel road
improved access to the port at Puerto Villarroel. As the road was being constructed,
workers observed spontaneous colonization up to 300 m on either side of the road
(Republica de Bolivia, 1972). However, the major clearance of this area came after this
at the hands of directed colonists. Fragmentation of the woodlands to south of the road
decreased in the 1990s as coca eradication and alternative development programs were
introduced. In this sector, the forest area was also more- or-less constant, again
indicating a balance between clearances and maturing tree crop areas (Millington et al.,
2003).
These landcover changes, and a significant deforestation trend, are illustrated and
visually readily apparent in comparison of satellite imagery for three dates, i.e. from
1974 to 1990 to 2000 (Figure 3.2). Primary forest showed a strong rate of decline from
1974 to 2000, with secondary forest and area devoted to crops increasing significantly
over this time period (Figure 3.3). Satellite images used in the analysis of land cover,
and for further analysis described below, include:
Landsat 5 TM - May 24th, 1990
Landsat 7 +ETM - July 14th, 2000
Landsat MSS - July 1st, 1974
Prefeasibility report Chapare
6

Figure 3.2: Landcover changes from 1974 to 1990 to 2000
Source: Zomer 2006
i. Tree cover
Figure 3.3: Land cover changes since 1974
Source: Zomer 2006
Prefeasibility report Chapare
7

Tree canopy densities were calculated by Zomer 2006, for two dates - 1990 (May 24 th )
and 2000 (July 14 th ) from Landsat imagery using the software program Forest Canopy
Density (FCD) Mapper (ref). Both satellite images were acquired during the dry
season. The FCD output maps spatially delineating tree cover density in 1990 (Figure
3.4a) and 2000 (Figure 3.4b). Matching both maps resulted in an eligibility map for
CDM-AR projects (figure 3.4.c)
Figure 3.4: Tree canopy densities and eligibility
a.) Tree Canopy Density: 1990
c. Eligibility for CDM projects based on canopy
coverage percent
Source: Zomer 2006
Prefeasibility report Chapare
b.) Tree Canopy Density: 2000
Area for each canopy class
Canopy coverage
class (%)
1990 2000
0 – 25% 11,596 29% 10,669 26%
25 – 50% 3,198 8% 4,211 10%
50 – 75% 8,727 21% 11,101 27%
75 – 100% 17,076 42% 14,616 36%
Eligibility based on canopy coverage percent
Area
(ha)
Not eligible 22,657 56%
Eligible 1990 & Ineligible 2000 6,767 17%
Eligible 2000 & Ineligible 1990 5,945 15%
Eligible in both 1990 and 2000 5,239 13%
40,607
Almost 26,000 ha had a tree cover density greater than 50% in 1990, with little change
in this estimate to the year 2000. However, within this category, the area with the
highest canopy cover density (75-100%) declined significantly from 42% of the project
8

area to 36%, indicating that in addition to actual deforestation, processes of ongoing
forest degradation are also evident.
2.3. Actual socio-economic Situation and Trend
2.3.1. Social structures
The community organizational structure (syndicates) is strong; a high level of
community involvement is likely to be an important part of this project. Within the
families the patriarchal system prevails, decision making and representation towards the
community or other organizations is traditionally done by male.
In most communities schools were found.
2.3.2. Incomes per family/sources of income
Most cash income is generated by palmheart, banana production and pineapple
production. Total family income, out of agriculture is estimated in between 500 and 600
USD/year. During fieldwork no questions were asked about the income out of migratory
labour (UNAGRUP, 2005).
2.3.3. Knowledge of the project and previous participation in decision-making
Some of the interviewed have heard something about CDM-projects, mostly as
“oxygen-projects”. It was necessary to give some basic explanation about CDM-AR
projects, since the expectations were found very high. There exists knowledge in the
communities on tree-planting projects, since there were different forestry projects in the
area. There is strong awareness in the farmer’s organizations and within the
communities, that they should be involved in the decision making processes.
Final decisions about the location of the plantations have to be made by individual
landowners.
2.4. Baseline Description
The most plausible baseline scenario was defined through a step wise approach based
partly upon the approach used in the methodology ARNM0019-NMB (2006):
Step 1: A list of plausible alternative land uses is identified for the project area
Considering land-use policies, field surveys and interviews with stakeholders the
following land uses were identified:
• Status Quo: The project lands continue to be used for marginal shifting
agricultural purpose and pasture land.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
9

• Perennial crops: Shifting cultivation practices will change towards perennial
cropping like banana growing, palmheart, pineapple.
• Pasture land: Existing fallow land or land currently part of a shifting
cultivation system will become pasture land.
• Permanent Abandonment of Land: The project lands are abandoned by
agriculturalists, and are allowed to naturally revert fully to forest.
• Commercial Plantations: Establishment of wood plantations on farm lands for
commercial harvests.
• Loss of land: Land disappears do to flooding, changes of river courses, land
slides.
• Agroforestry: Land holders adopt agroforestry practices.
• Silvopastoral systems: Land holders adopt silvo pastoral systems
Step 2: A list of factors influencing land use systems in the region was identified,
like access to land, markets and expected market projections, processing plants
and future demand of these plants.
Interviews with stakeholders, land use surveys combined with social surveys, show that
similar lands in the vicinity are not being converted on a significant scale to either
commercial plantations or agroforestry systems.
A social and biophysical survey done during October 2005 until May 2006 in 75
different farms, figured out that there is a list of factors influencing land use and
farming systems in the area.
For farmers the following list of characteristics on land use is considered important:
1. Income within a relatively short period
2. Possibility to have direct access to capital in case of emergencies
3. Investments should generate an increase value of their land
4. Markets for products should be visible; farmers are more willing to invest if
clear markets exist for their products.
5. Access to markets should be relatively easy, preferable access should be
possible on an individual way, without intervention of much intermediary
stakeholders (middleman, community or producers organizations etc..).
6. Handling of products should be relatively easy
7. Constant and secure market is preferred over insecurity in markets.
8. Labour demand, and peaks in labour demand should be well related to labour
supply,
9. Relatively simple land use methods are preferred above more complex land use
methods.
10. Cost-benefits
Without project intervention, using specific strategies to solve the social and economic
needs mentioned above it is not very likely land holders will implement plantations by
themselves and do the continues management over the years, due to the following:
o Agroforestry activities can not compete with point 5,6,7,8,9,10 compared with
traditional land use systems.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
10

o Silvopastoral systems can not compete for point 8,9,10 compared with
traditional land use systems.
o Commercial forestry plantations cannot compete with point 1,2,5,8,9,10
compared with traditional land use systems.
At the other hand, technological and financial barriers limit the access of farmers to
either quality seed or the necessary skills for successful commercial timber or
agroforestry plantations; and the barrier due to market risks, of new income streams,
drives farmers to be conservative to maintain a constant income.
Step 3: Demonstrate that forest regeneration will not occur in the absence of
project activities
As described in 3.2 over the course of the past 30 years, the study area has dramatically
changed. Settlers moved into the area to establish small farms, and as a result huge
areas of primary forest were cut to make room for agricultural production. Total forest
area decreased and crop area increased
Livelihood analysis in the area showed that the process of extending the agricultural
frontier will continue. Farmers have a projection towards the extension of the
agricultural frontier and not towards reforestation, although they recognize the
environmental problems, deforestations causes and the benefits which could be obtained
from forestry. Other land uses respond better to the direct socio-economic needs of the
farmers than tree planting activities (Berger, 2006).
However seed sources do exist nearby for natural regeneration, constant agricultural
pressure prevents forest from re-establishing. Land pressure and economic necessity
eliminates the possibility that after the current agricultural cycle, land will be
abandoned rather than re-entering a new cycle. Agroforestry or forestry activities are no
reasonable alternatives without project intervention, since social and financial barriers
are too high.
2.5. Baseline Quantification
Zomer et al (2006), estimated carbon stock, based upon data from sample plots,
literature, and expert knowledge. In combination with the environmental and edaphic
factors, a spatially disaggregated map is derived of carbon baseline stock across the
area.
Zomer et al 2006, modeled the changes in carbon through a land use cycle, such as
annual cropping, or shifting agriculture and the average Carbon stock for each land use
type was predicted (table 3.1).
Prefeasibility report Chapare
11

Table 3.1: Estimated average Carbon Baseline of Landuse Types
Landuse type
Average carbon (tC/ha)
Water Not suitable for reforestation
Primary forest Not suitable for reforestation
Secondary forest Not suitable for reforestation
Cultivated agriculture 7.5
Pasture 5.5
Banana 12.0
Palm heart 18.6
Pineapple 6.3
Mix of pasture, bare soil & banana
Source: Zomer et al 2006
8.0
After that Zomer 2006 has calculated, the average carbon stock maintained in each land
use type, as estimated in the Afforestation and Reforestation Decision Support System.
This was then used to parameterize the spatial modeling of baseline within the LSM
spatial analysis. The resulting output map spatially delineates the baseline carbon stocks
within CDM-AR eligible areas, on a per pixel basis, based primarily upon landuse,
integrating management practices, landuse trends, and the biophysical limitations
imposed by climatic and environmental variables on vegetation growth.
Figure 3.5: Map of Predicted Average Baseline Carbon Stock
Carbon Baseline By Landuse Types
Source: Zomer et al, 2006
The average baseline carbon stock present over the proposed project area (reforestation
area) is 44.734 tC, which averages out 7,4 tC/ha.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
12

3. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential
3.1. Land Suitability Map for Selected Tree Species
Tree species selection for specific sites is based on site evaluations. Tree selection
depends on proven suitability for the specific site conditions and purposes of the trees
species in the (agro) forestry systems (timber production, shade, nitrogen fixing, etc).
Principally native species will be used.
Agroforestry: The variety of trees used will be pacay (Inga sp.), Cacao (Theobroma
cacao), Copoasu (Theobroma sp.), Café, Achiote , Chilijchii (Erithrina sp.), mixed with
trees planted for shade and wood production . Trompillo de altura (Guarea rusby),
Serebo (Schlizobium amazonicum),Tejeyeque (Centrolobium tomentosum),Verdolago
(Terminalia amazonica), and mara (Swietenia macrophylla), to increase agricultural
production, nitrogen fixing soil cover crops like mucuna puriens will be sown.
Silvopastoral Systems: Pacay (inga sp.), Tajibo (Tabebuia sp.), Paquio (hyminea
courbaril), Chilijchi (Erithrina sp.)
Plantations for sustainable wood production: Only native tree-species will be
planted, except for the Tectona Grandis, which will be planted only on a small scale.
The native tree species proposed for this project are: Guarea rugby, Schlizolobium
amazonicum, Centrolobium tomentosum, Terminalia amazonica, Dipteryx odorata and
Swietenia macrophylla.
Schzolobium amazonicum is considered as fast growing tree specie, with rotation
periods in between 10 to 15 year dependent on site quality. Guarea rugby and
Centrolobium tomentosum have rotation periods of approximately 25 years and the
species. Dipteryx odorata and Terminalia amazonica are considered as slow growing
tree species with rotation lengths of at least 35 years.
Based on field evaluations in species natural habitat and data from sample plots in
referencial plantations, the following set of requirements per tree species was defined.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
13

Table 4.1: Tree species requirements
Especies pH
Prefeasibility report Chapare
Tolerancia
libre
imperfecto
Maderas duras
Almendrillo Dipteryx odorata A - N f nt f f ne e nt
Almendrillo amarillo Dipteryx sp A - N f nt t f ne e nt
Verdolago negro de ala Terminalia amazonica N f nt nt t ne f f e nt
Especies semi duras
Mara Swietenia macrophylla A-N-C f t nt nt f f f f em rj
Trompillo de altura Guarea rusby f t nt t f f f nt e nt
Tejeyeque Centrolobium tomentosum f t nt nt f f nt e nt
Especies blandas
Serebo Schlizobium amazonicum A-N ne t t t ne ne ne ne nt e nt
MA=Muy acido r=require
A=Acido ne = no exigente
N=Neutro e = exigente
C=Calizos em = exigente cuando es ma
ej = exigente en cuando es joven
f = favorable tj = tolera cuando joven
t = tolera rj = require cuando joven
nt = no tolera
Fuente: Fundacion CETEFOR
Source: CETEFOR 2005
ntj = no tolera cuando joven
Drainage Textura
The ENCOFOR Land Suitability Model (LSM) was used to derive ecological suitability
maps for each prospective species, spatially modeling the performance of each
respective species within the landscape. Species growth requirements and baselines
estimates are based upon sample plots for these species in the Chapare region added
with information of these species for there natural habitat and expert knowledge.
Since soils are the most crucial factor in the Chapare region for tree growth, ecological
suitability is based on soil mapping. The map delineates soil types using the Fertility
Capability Classification (FCC) System. The FCC groups soils according to edaphic
criteria that directly influence interactions between nutrient availability and plant
growth. The project area is composed almost entirely of loamy soils. Some areas to the
north have a greater clay component, while the areas surrounding the central river bed
contain a greater sand component. The FCC map, figure 4.1, indicates soil textures but
also it indicates the deficiencies present in the soil.
muy pobre
Tol. Inund
Profundidad
arenosa
Franco
arcillosa
Fertilidad de suelo
14
Compactación de suelo
luz
sombre

Figure 6: Map of Soil Texture Classes
Source: (Montieth and Quiroga, 1993)
LaKe
Prefeasibility report Chapare
Loamy soils, presenting Aluminium saturation of the effective CEC, low potassium reserves and low cation Ex
capacity (CEC)
LCaK Loamy soils, presenting Aluminium saturation of the effective CEC, low potassium reserves
L'aK+S'''aKe
LaK+
L'aK
LaK
LgaK
LS'''aKg+S''aK
L'''aK
L''aK
Loamy soils, presence of gravel, soils are presenting Aluminium saturation of the effective CEC, low potassium re
Sandy soils, with high presence of gravel or coarse particles, Aluminium saturation>60%, low potassium reserves, low
Exchange capacity (CEC)
Loamy soils, soils are presenting Aluminium saturation >60% of the effective CEC, low potassium reserves and low
Exchange capacity (CEC).+
Loamy soils, presence of gravel, soils are presenting Aluminium saturation of the effective CEC, low potassium reserv
low cation Exchange capacity (CEC)
Loamy soils, soils are presenting Aluminium saturation >60% of the effective CEC, low potassium reserves and low
Exchange capacity (CEC).+
Loamy soils with soil or mottles
the effective CEC, low potassium reserves and low cation Exchange capacity (CEC)
Loamy soils over a Sandy layer, with high presence of gravel, soils are presenting Aluminium saturation of the effectiv
low potassium reserves and low cation Exchange capacity (CEC), with soil or mottles

Growth response scores are designated to each environmental condition for each
species. These scores are used to model the site-specific and species-specific suitability
of each 30m x 30m grid cell. The resulting ecological suitability maps (figure 4.2)
indicate the potential growth response (i.e., site index) of each species, on a particular
site. These growth response maps indicate how the environmental variables influence
growth for that species on a per pixel basis. In general, results show that S. amazonicum
did perform relatively well on soils with high aluminium content and low potassium
(LCaK), as the other species. All species present similar growth and productivity trends
across the soil environmental gradient; however T. amazonica showed suitability scores
consistently lower than the other species. The soil parameters excluded little area, only
those areas that were classed as “river bed” based on remote sensing analysis. These
layers were used to reduce growth potential using what was known of the trees’
physiology and environmental prerequisites. The resulting species-specific growth
response maps indicate the degree by which optimal growth is reduced. Ineligible areas,
i.e., unsuitable for reforestation, were excluded from the analysis, based upon the land
use map.
Figure 4.2: Ecological and land suitability maps for five proposed tree species.
a. Centrolobium tomentosum
b. Dipteryx odorata
c. Guarea rusby
Prefeasibility report Chapare
d. Schlizobium amazonicum
16

e. Terminalia amazonica
3.2. Preliminary Estimation of Carbon Effects
In the baseline estimation an area of 6.500, suitable for CDM-AR activities was taken
into account. Since in figure 3.4 was shown that eligible area was only 13% or 5.239
the area of influence will be extended, also because it is not likely to expect an adoption
rate of 100%. Since the whole Chapare region had a similar development in the prefeasibility
study existing data will be extrapolated. Later on in the feasibility stage the
project area will be defined on a detailed level.
The biomass production, wood volume, profitability, and carbon sequestration potential
of a project is dependent upon a variety of factors including silvicultural activities,
management regimes, and markets, among other factors (Zomer et al, 2006)
Per hectare carbon accumulation are calculated with the ENCOFOR AR-DSS and are
shown, in figure 4.3a and 4.3b, for the different tree species under the best possible
growth circumstances in the Chapare area.
However growth rates between the different species differ a lot, Carbon increase
doesn’t since it are the species with a low carbon content which grow fast and species
with a lower density are growing slower. Only in dipteryx odorata a significant
difference in C-accumulation is shown, since it has long rotations C-accumulation
continues over a longer time.
Figure 4.3a: Carbon Accumulation for all species in tn C/ha
Prefeasibility report Chapare
17

C (tn)
160,00
140,00
120,00
100,00
80,00
60,00
40,00
20,00
Prefeasibility report Chapare
Carbon accumulation for all species
0,00
2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076 2081 2086 2091 2096 2101 2106
Source: extracted from Zomer 2006
year
C.tomentosum D.odorata G.rusby Sch.parahybum T.amazonica
Figure 4.3b: Average Carbon Stock for all species in tn C/ha
C (tn)
90,00
80,00
70,00
60,00
50,00
40,00
30,00
20,00
10,00
Average C for all species
0,00
2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056
Year
2061 2066 2071 2076 2081 2086 2091 2096 2101 2106
Source: Extracted from Zomer 2006
C.tomentosum D.odorata G.rusby Sch.parahybum T.amazonica
In the LSM a correction on growth was made for different biophysical characteristics of
the area on pixel size. A scenario was run for a reforestation project of 6500 has with
different components and different species, as can be seen in table 4.2.
18

Table 4.2: Proposed surface and tree species distribution
Project component Proposed surface (has) Inicial stocking C. tomentosum D.odorata Guarea sp. Schizolobium sp. T.amazonica
Pure Forestry Plantations 2500 1111 30% 20% 10% 25% 15%
Agroforestry systems 2000 555 20% 15% 25% 40% 0%
Silvipastoral systems 2000 367 15% 15% 35% 25% 10%
Source: own
Based on this proposal projected Carbon accumulation was calculated for a 100 year
time period, using the LSM to correct tree growth and the DSS. Project C is shown in
figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4: Project C in tn
350.000
300.000
250.000
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000
Source: own
-
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97
3.3. Net Carbon Effects of the Project
Prefeasibility report Chapare
Silvi pastoral systems
Agroforestry systems
Pure plantations
Based on this proposal projected Carbon accumulation was calculated for a 100 year
time period, using the LSM to correct tree growth and the DSS- considering a average
baseline carbon of 7,4 tn/has (table 4.3 and figure 4.5)
19

Table 4.3: Net Carbon Flow (in tn C)
Year Project C arbon (tn)
C-Baseline (tn) Net C
TOTAL PFC TOTAL SAF TOTAL SILV Total C
1 -
-
-
-
1.500
-1.500
2 3.246
1.804
1.125
6.175
5.000
1.175
3 12.985
5.411
3.375
21.771
10.500
11.271
4 28.517
10.262
6.520
45.299
16.000
29.299
5 42.512
16.639
10.652
69.802
23.500
46.302
6 55.366
22.472
14.256
92.094
30.000
62.094
7 68.233
27.357
17.474
113.064
36.500
76.564
8 81.900
32.871
20.958
135.729
42.092
93.638
9 95.653
38.763
24.402
158.818
45.880
112.938
10 111.133
45.297
28.422
184.852
47.669
137.183
11 126.788
52.878
32.877
212.544
48.064
164.480
12 143.541
59.376
36.401
239.317
48.064
191.254
13 144.383
55.845
35.791
236.019
48.064
187.955
14 130.275
52.315
35.181
217.771
48.064
169.708
15 116.394
48.225
34.121
198.740
48.064
150.676
16 130.714
45.247
34.007
209.969
48.064
161.905
17 144.257
51.326
37.356
232.938
48.064
184.875
18 159.157
56.397
40.288
255.842
48.064
207.779
19 166.820
59.949
42.513
269.282
48.064
221.218
20 170.059
63.500
44.738
278.298
48.064
230.234
21 174.498
68.024
47.570
290.092
48.064
242.029
22 185.173
68.054
45.736
298.964
48.064
250.900
23 191.250
70.005
44.994
306.248
48.064
258.185
24 189.097
63.421
40.732
293.251
48.064
245.187
25 185.078
56.838
36.760
278.676
48.064
230.613
26 163.468
48.881
34.094
246.443
48.064
198.380
27 144.907
40.985
31.444
217.336
48.064
169.273
28 125.752
41.524
32.266
199.543
48.064
151.480
29 139.888
40.678
32.486
213.052
48.064
164.988
30 152.104
46.666
36.462
235.232
48.064
187.169
31 164.673
52.712
40.467
257.852
48.064
209.789
32 171.372
57.876
41.495
270.743
48.064
222.680
33 167.779
64.424
43.126
275.329
48.064
227.265
34 164.229
70.853
44.711
279.793
48.064
231.729
35 170.878
68.787
42.796
282.461
48.064
234.398
36 166.859
67.704
43.907
278.469
48.064
230.406
37 141.917
57.759
39.197
238.873
48.064
190.810
38 116.989
47.974
34.553
199.516
48.064
151.453
39 91.031
46.723
33.203
170.957
48.064
122.894
40 105.427
44.464
31.438
181.328
48.064
133.265
41 118.563
51.067
35.492
205.122
48.064
157.058
42 129.359
52.169
34.464
215.992
48.064
167.928
43 134.373
51.972
33.019
219.364
48.064
171.301
44 135.489
52.782
31.990
220.261
48.064
172.198
45 144.210
53.433
30.675
228.318
48.064
180.254
46 148.382
50.448
30.366
229.197
48.064
181.133
47 141.405
48.763
30.701
220.869
48.064
172.805
48 134.511
45.915
30.406
210.832
48.064
162.768
49 147.606
43.226
30.397
221.228
48.064
173.165
50 146.509
44.942
32.122
223.573
48.064
175.509
51 132.964
45.552
33.092
211.608
48.064
163.545
52 115.485
46.273
33.762
195.520
48.064
147.457
53 124.197
46.616
34.246
205.059
48.064
156.996
54 135.328
50.871
36.536
222.735
48.064
174.671
55 146.258
56.192
39.561
242.011
48.064
193.948
56 159.049
62.376
43.437
264.862
48.064
216.799
57 164.507
59.433
43.080
267.020
48.064
218.957
58 158.759
57.309
43.259
259.327
48.064
211.263
59 152.883
54.666
43.226
250.775
48.064
202.712
60 169.198
52.211
43.273
264.682
48.064
216.619
61 180.223
57.390
46.650
284.263
48.064
236.199
62 172.016
56.061
42.398
270.475
48.064
222.411
63 148.466
55.292
38.378
242.135
48.064
194.072
64 135.496
54.522
34.357
224.375
48.064
176.312
65 153.210
55.625
31.425
240.260
48.064
192.197
66 170.442
62.633
35.565
268.641
48.064
220.577
67 183.096
68.182
38.996
290.274
48.064
242.211
68 180.983
65.198
38.907
285.088
48.064
237.025
69 168.138
62.213
38.591
268.942
48.064
220.878
70 161.758
59.271
38.601
259.629
48.064
211.566
71 176.014
57.787
39.319
273.120
48.064
225.057
72
Source: own
174.394
57.445
38.427
270.266
48.064
222.202
Prefeasibility report Chapare
20

Figure 4.5: Carbon flow during the whole project period
300.000
250.000
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000
-
-50.000
-100.000
Source: own
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97
4.4. Leakage
Additional emissions
As a consequence of project activities there will be some additional fossil fuel
emissions. Since this will be minimal, no calculations for this are made in this stage of
project development.
Displacement
Project strategy will be to introduce a more efficient form of land use, agricultural
systems will be intensified as much as possible within the project boundaries:
• Agroforestry systems will be introduced to maintain the main level of
agricultural production within the project boundary. This does not necessarily
mean the same crops will be produced, there might be a shift form annual crops
to perennial crops, but production level from a financial and subsistence point of
few will be maintained or improved.
• Silvopastoral systems will be introduced together with high productive grass
species, by this carrying capacity of the area will improve so the number of
cattle estimated in the baseline can be maintained.
If as a result of the pre-feasibility study it appears that in spite agroforestry and
silvopastoral systems production capacity for crops and cattle is reduced, leakage
management areas will be introduced. This are areas used already for agricultural but
Prefeasibility report Chapare
21
Silvipastoral
Agroforestry
Pure plantations
Baseline

were production can be improved and intensified. Carbon flows in these areas will be
monitored as well to approve that leakage is managed on an adequate way.
4. Economic Analysis
5.1 Costs
5.1.1 Infrastructure, machinery and equipments
CETEFOR’s infrastructure can be used as far it concerns offices including basic office
equipment and part of its nurseries. The project is characterized by its reduced costs on
infrastructure, machinery and equipments. Most of the work is done manually and thus
almost no machinery will be bought. For supervision, education and transport of
materials, 2 vehicles will be bought and 5 motorcycles, if in some eventuality more
transport facilities are needed this will be rented, there will be reserved some expenses
for this within the budget, this can be the case during the planting season, when plants
have to be distributed. As far it concerns basic tools, there is considered the purchase of
machetes, spades etc.
5.1.2 Establishment and management costs
Reforestation costs are calculated on a per hectare base. Total establishment costs are
estimated to be 435 USD/ha. Main expanses are planting material 243 USD/ha and
labour 187 USD. Labour costs will be paid partly to the farmers participating in the
project. Another part will be considered as an inkind investment part of the farmers,
being co-investor they will receive there share of the benefits on the moment there will
be income out of the project.
No fertilization will be applied. However site selection and the planting period will
minimize the risk on pests and diseases, pest control might be necessary. CETEFOR has
experienced with pest control by ecological products, and will apply this in the
plantations if necessary. Since most products can be elaborated by the farmers
themselves, costs are relatively low.
After a few weeks, an evaluation of the plantation will be made. If mortality is over
20% replanting will be done. Weeding has to be done, after a few weeks and afterwards
at the start of the dry season, as part of this second weeding; all inflammable material
has to be extracted from the plantations, to lower fire risks. Total maintenance costs for
the first year are approximately 156 USD/ha.
Pruning will be done in the plantations once the canopy is closed, approximately after 3
years. After this it is repeated every year if necessary, until a height of approximately
6m. Pruning is especially necessary in centrolobium tomentosum plantations, in the
other species natural pruning might be sufficient, but if necessary pruning will be done
also.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
22

In table 5.1 the establishment and management costs per hectare per year are given,
these costs don’t include cost for land purchase or opportunity costs.
Table 5.1: Costs of a pure plantation in USD per ha
Establishment Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9>
445 156 184 86 90 70 70 70 70 20
Source: CETEFOR 2005
5.1.3 Thinning
The thinning regime differs per tree specie. Only the first thinning, has a cost since the
stems can only be used as fuel wood for own use. Cost and benefits are calculated for
standing wood, so there are no additional costs for the farmers. Since this is not a very
favorable commerce from a farmer’s point of few, CETEFOR will participate in wood
sale and farmers will be trained and skilled in marketing the wood products. In this
study we based our calculations on actual standing wood prices paid by forest
companies.
5.1.4. Other operating costs (including taxes if any)
Costs for fuel, transport and services is based mainly on CETEFOR-budgets and
expenses in similar projects.
Since among farmers and other stakeholders, not much knowledge of forestry activities
exists, promotion and education activities will be developed, this is a relatively high
cost.
It isn’t clear what will be the tax-regime for this projects, a decision has to be made, by
the government, if CER’s will be considered as a normal investment or as a special
investment with a special tax regime.
5.2. Data on Reforestation Revenues
Wood prices were calculated using current standing wood prices for the proposed treespecies
in primary forests (there is no timber production yet from plantations) and
prices of round wood sold in the sawn mills in Cochabamba and or Santa Cruz.
Prices for round wood in the saw mill was deduced by current transport costs, and
estimated exploitation cost. This price was compared with the actual standing wood
prices for the proposed species. In most cases there was a significant difference between
the calculated wood price using the price on the saw mill or the actual price for standing
wood. This is mainly due to marketing structures in which small scale forest owners
without capital and equipment do not have a good bargaining position. However the
project aims to improve this situation it is not very likely prices of standing wood will
be the wood price of round wood in Cochabamba or Santa Cruz deducted by harvesting
and transport costs. Therefore the average of the two wood prices is taken which are
shown in table 5.2.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
23

Table 5.2: average standing wood prices (USD/M 3 )
Species Thinning 1 Thinning 2 Thinning 3 Thinning 4 Harvest
Schizolobium parahybum 0,62 14,45 19,29 19,29 22,33
Guarea sp./ Centrolobium
tomentosum
Terminalia amazonia /
Dipteryx odorata
Source: own
Prefeasibility report Chapare
3,72 31,02 34,12 35,67 40,32
3,72 32,01 46,53 49,63 52,73
This will result in the following revenues for wood during the first 40 years of the
project:
Table 5.3: Revenues from wood products in USD
Year Revenues (USD) Year Revenues
0 0 31 2.021.620
1 0 32 2.021.620
2 0 33 577.606
3 3.741 34 0
4 22.205 35 7.838.620
5 31.309 36 12.193.408
6 388.852 37 12.193.408
7 1.220.681 38 3.483.831
8 1.808.799 39 0
9 1.536.839 40 0
10 653.023 41 0
11 1.008.935 42 3.741
12 1.919.830 43 22.205
13 2.204.310 44 31.309
14 1.198.763 45 388.852
15 227.584 46 1.220.681
16 0 47 1.808.799
17 0 48 1.536.839
18 1.567.060 49 653.023
19 2.437.649 50 1.008.935
20 2.437.649 51 1.919.830
21 696.471 52 2.204.310
22 0 53 1.198.763
23 0 54 227.584
24 0 55 0
25 4.168.498 56 0
26 6.484.331 57 1.567.060
27 6.484.331 58 2.437.649
28 1.852.666 59 2.437.649
29 0 60 696.471
30 1.299.613
Source: Own
Revenues from the sale of lCER’s are shown in table 5.4, a price of 5 USD per lCER is
considered.
Table 5.4: revenues from lCER’s
Year Revenues (USD)
2012 162.819
2017 1.225.895
2022 2.076.773
24

4.3. Land Prices / Opportunity Costs of Land
Land in the area is sold frequently so for land price the market price can be used.
Subdivision of ownership of existing parcels is not allowed. Land price per hectare was
calculated by dividing the total average price of the parcels by the number of hectares.
Average prices were obtained asking those land owners having there parcels for sale.
4.4. Financials
All costs and revenues are summarized ENCOFOR’s financial DSS, which can be
found in the annex 1 of this report. A summary of the general financial information, for
the whole project, can be found in table 5.5 and 5.6. Within the costs also the inkind
contribution of the local communities is provided, this includes the cost of labour
provided by the farmers and a land price of 200 USD per ha, which was found the
average land price in the area.
Table 5.5.: financial summary of proposed project
General Financial Information
Project Size (in ha) 6.500
Project Duration (in years) 60
Carbon Price (in USD) (iCER) 5
Information on Cost and Revenues
Total cost of project 13.503.403
Preparation costs 70.000
Establishment costs 4.864.325
Operating costs 7.764.768
Carbon costs and Forst Mngt Certification 874.310
Total Revenue (excl. carbon credits, extraordinary incomes) 99.346.951
Revenue of carbon credits 3.465.486
Source: own
As can be noted in table 5.3 total cost of the project is 13.503.403 USD of which almost
3.073.764 US$ is covered by the community for labour and land. Project proponent
CETEFOR itself is willing to invest 510.000 US$ and an additional 4.100.000 will be
financed by carbon and wood investors. 5.819.639 US$ are costs made later on in the
project and can be covered by project revenues. It is expected that revenues ofCER’s
are minimal 3.465.486 US$ considering a price for lCER’s of 5 USD/tnCO2e.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
25

Table 5.6: financial summary NPV and TIR with and without CDM
Discount rate 10% Discount rate 15%
NPV and IRR on Equity (WB=Project)
NPV (with CDM) 9.126.084 3.109.459
NPV (without CDM) 7.925.357 2.333.574
IRR on Capital (with CDM) 21,8%
IRR on Capital (without CDM)
NPV and IRR on Total Investment (Financing)
20,2%
NPV (with CDM) 2.696.516 -1.706.641
NPV (without CDM) 1.495.790 -2.482.526
IRR on Capital (with CDM) 12,4%
IRR on Capital (without CDM) 11,3%
Considering a total cost of the project of 13,5 million dollars, cost per ton CO2e is
19,20 USD, not considering a discount rate.
Risks
• Natural Risks
In some smaller parts of the area flooding may occur with a frequency of 1 to two times
a year, for a period of less than 5 days. In the site selection procedures this is taken into
account and trees resistant to flooding will be planted.
Drought occurrence: Presents no problems since there are no pronounced dry periods in
the area, affecting the development and growth of the trees, as can be seen in figures on
average monthly temperature,
Strong windfalls were reported in the area with a frequency of 1 to 2 times a year.
Plantation design, including wind breaks will avoid major damage to plantations and
infrastructure
Due to a proper site selection and good silvicultural management procedures, risk for
pest and diseases is minimized, since pest and diseases usually occur in stressed crops.
However, the project area will be routinely assessed for any pest and disease problems
that may arise. If pests or diseases appear, control will be done by using organic
products and only in worst case scenarios chemical control methods might be used as a
last resort and after careful consideration of the environmental impacts
• Human induced risks
Fire risk is low although measures have to be taken in case neighbouring farmers are
burning their parcels as part of their shifting cultivations system.
Illegal timber harvesting is a risk but this risk will be reduced by involving the project
participants in the decision making process. Social planning is highly important to avoid
illegal timber and to get the land owners involved in the protection of their plantations.
Contract failure between the farmer and CETEFOR is a risk but will be reduced due to
the social processes and planning schemes integrated part of the project (see 7.4)
Prefeasibility report Chapare
26

From a political side the project is supported on the different political levels, so no
problems are expected here.
• Market risks
As it concerns timber prices a very conservative approach was taken into account, as
described in paragraph 5.2. It is expected timber prices will raise due to timber shortage
in future and higher exploitation costs for timber harvesting from natural forests. Export
of wood products increase over the last years and it is expected this process will
continue, this means that national and timber prices might become closer to the
international timber prices which are much higher.
However a risk will be minimized, a buffer of 20% of the expected CER production will
be maintained, to be sure that project can comply with the compromises signed.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
27

5. Institutional issues
6.1 issues at the national level
5.1.1. Environmental policy
Forestry or land use policies and regulations
Bolivia’s forest development policy takes the principles of sustainable development as
guidelines for meeting socio-economic challenges, administering the natural heritage,
organizing technological updating and building institutions. This approach was
incorporated when formulating Forest Law 1700, which represented the country’s first
application of sustainability principles per sector. This law established the Forest Code,
which has the objective of regulating the sustainable use and protection of forests and
forest lands for the benefit of present and future generations, while coordinating such
activities with the country’s social, economic and environmental interests.
Forest development is enshrined in Bolivia’s Strategic Plan for Forest Development, a
component of the country’s General Plan for Economic and Social Development. The
objective is to consolidate efforts already carried out, making achievement of
sustainable forest management of all the country’s forests possible within a reasonable
timeframe and enabling the forests to contribute effectively to increasing the gross
domestic product and improving the people’s standard of living. It should be stressed
that the national dialogue promoted by the government has led to analysis of the present
problems and potential of the forestry sector, as a basis for proposing measures to
encourage private investment and activities to be carried out by the State.
Institutions and legislation
Under Bolivia’s new Forest Law, the institutional structure of the forestry sector is as
follows: the Ministry of Sustainable Development and the Environment is in charge of
implementing the Forest Code as national policy-making institution, the Forest
Supervisory Authority as regulatory institution and the National Forest Development
Fund as financial institution, while prefectures and municipalities provide support. The
Regulatory System for Renewable Natural Resources, also established by the Forest
Law and working with the Forest Supervisory Authority, has the objective of regulating,
controlling and supervising the sustainable use of renewable natural resources.
5.1.3. land use policy
Since 1996 land tenure is regulated by the National Institute on Land Reform, The law
on land reform (1715) was established in 1996 to improve the unclear land tenure
situations in the country. Since than more than 6 million hectares of land was titled, and
a lot of small land owners and indigenes groups received land titles and ensured its legal
status over their land.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
28

5.1.4. Climate policy
The Government of Bolivia has been one of the strongest supporters of the Kyoto
Protocol and proponent that all LULUCF activities were including under CDM for their
contribution to mitigating the effects of global warming, having participated from the
beginning in the UNFCCC trough the series of COP meetings. The Government has
moved forward in laying out clear policies and guidelines for GHG projects, seeking
investment, and facilitating project implementation by non-governmental organizations,
as proposed in the current project. This commitment has lead to direct private
investment in one of the largest CO2 sequestration project in the world (Noel Kempff))
and a growing portfolio of projects awaiting investment (including the current project).
Since 2002 there's a National Development Office, with a strong mission to reach the
full implementation and national participation on innovative mechanisms for the
mitigation of climate change which, at the same time, support poverty reduction and
sustainable development in the country.
Carbon legislation is in its last phase of development and will be approved soon, giving
legal security to investors.
6.2 issues at the project level
6.2.1 Political division
Study area is located in the department of Cochabamba within the jurisdiction of the
province Carrasco the municipality if Puerto Villarroel.
6.2.4. Land tenure
Project activities are implemented on lands owned by small land owners, organized in
syndicates. Not all land owners have legal titles for there land, land owners can
demonstrated there ownership in the following ways:
o Land is private owned, part of the land owners have legal titles submitted
by the Land Reform Institute (INRA), from 1996 or before 1996 by the
National Colonization Institute (Instituto nacional de colonización).
o Not all land holders have legal papers, proving ownership of their land.
In most cases there exist provisional titles, which still in process of
approval with the INRA.
o In some cases there are no official titles but it is the community which
has a foundation statement, including a map. Land distribution in those
cases is an internal process, land property in those cases can be certified
by the community,
o If land owner isn’t the first owner of the land in most cases a notarized
certificate exists on the purchase of the land
Prefeasibility report Chapare
29

6.2.5. Legally and socially accepted associations present in the region, which
might interact with the project
Considering its political representation, the most important social organization on
community level is the syndicate, formed by the representatives, normally the man, of
every family owning land in the community. Generally they meet monthly, taking
decisions on political issues, infrastructure, education, public services, communal works
and if necessary on land tenure issues. Levels of activism and local involvement in
community affairs are generally high. The syndicates are the centre of negotiations with
other organization levels, governmental organizations and non governmental
organizations.
Every community has its “syndicate”, which is member of a central, and via a
hierarchical structure to the federation of syndicates, as can be seen in figure 6.1.
Figure: 6.1: Communities representation
COMMUNITY SINDICATO
Apart from the syndicates there exist producers associations in most communities, these
associations were organized in the recent past by the alternative development program
for the region with the purpose to help the farmers with technical assistance, improving
production techniques, processing of agricultural products and marketing of these
products. The associations on community level are in most cases member of a union of
associations, the biggest one in the project area is UNAGRUP.
Relations between syndicates and associations are generally good since members of the
associations belong to the syndicates as well. Not all members of the syndicate are
necessarily member of the association, this depends on the nature of the association and
sometimes also on political differences within the community. It is recommended to
start working with the syndicates, since this is the entity in which major decisions are
taken.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
CENTRAL
FEDERACIONES
COORDINADORA DE LAS
FEDERACIONES DE
CAMPESINOS DEL TRÓPICO DE
COCHABAMBA
30

6. Social issues
7.1. Identification and characterization of relevant social groups
The principal stakeholders are the farmer and their communities, since they occupy the
area.
Considering the importance of syndicalism in Bolivia and particular in the project area,
the acceptance and coordination with the syndicates on different levels is of vital
importance.
However the political organization is of main importance, coordination with the other
organizations like producer’s organizations, and schools might be important as well,
since there structure is more focused on implementation of agricultural and forestry
activities.
• The CDM Project cannot be developed without the communities and their
organizations at the other hand there is a wide range of other institutions
implementing activities or influencing processes in the area.
Since the Cochabamba Tropics is a coca-growing area and since this is since the early
nineties a major concern for the international community, different bolivian
governments started with the eradication of the coca, first on a voluntary base and later
coca fields were destroyed by force. Since last year every farmer member of a syndicate
might legally establish 0,16 has of coca on his land. As part of the strategy to reduce
coca production in the area an alternative development program was started under the
coordination of the Vice ministry on alternative development its implementing agency:
PDAR.
During the last 15 years, several projects were implemented leading to the introduction
of cash crops, of which in surface pinapple, palmheart, and banana are among the most
important crops. In this context there was also implemented a agroforestry and forest
management project by FAO, introducing sustainable land use systems in the area. On
this moment there are several projects active in the area:
o CHF-International
o ARCO Project run by Chemoniques :
o FAO
o BTC
FAO is developing forestry and agroforestry activities, BTC (Belgium Technical
Cooperation) will start this year a project on reforestation in the Chapare area. There
should be a level of coordination with the FAO and BTC in the implementation of this
project. But also with the other projects, since the past showed us that their activities
resulted in various cases to an extension of the agricultural frontier which might
generate conflicts with the proposed CDM-project.
Since reforestation is recognized as an activity which will improve local economy and
environment in the strategic plans of the municipalities and the “mancomunidad” of
municipalities, coordination with these entities is important.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
31

7.2. Potential social impacts
• The CDM-AR activities will create employment in the area, especially at the
beginning labour requirement will be high, but also in the period between
establishment and harvesting a continuously demand for labour will exist. In the
harvesting period demand for labour will increase substantially and by that time it
should be interesting analyse the possibility of establishing a wood processing
industry.
• Labour will be provided by the local communities, part of this labour will be paid
other part is considered as an investment of the community in the project. However
since part of the labour will be paid income will increase considerable. At the other
hand project will have a component aiming to improve agricultural practices and
improving the access of agricultural products to markets, which will increase
income as well.
• Participation of the farmers and their communities is voluntary.
• Project will have a strong capacity building component, which wants to reach
equally men, women and children.
• Project is designed in such a way that food security will not be affected; areas
designated for subsistence agriculture are excluded. As far it concerns pasturing,
project will focus on improving this activity.
7.3. Planning of social processes
Important in planning and implementation of the project is the acceptance of the
project-proponent in the area. Until now CETEFOR was received very well. Also on a
more political level CETEFOR is well accepted. However for the appropriation of the
project by communities and also on a institutional level it is necessary to set up a good
and transparent communication system and reach the participation of communities and
other stakeholders in the planning and implementation phase of the project.
The project is discussed informally with the relevant stakeholders at pre-feasibility
stage in meetings with the communities and in interviews with individual farmers.
Project was not presented formally since this could raise high expectations, especially
within the communities.
To motivate farmers to participate in the project and change their actual land use
practices different approaches will be applied:
1. Participative approach
- During the design of the project farmers and their organizations have
participated, in the implementation of the project they will also participate
Prefeasibility report Chapare
32

- Farmers are well organized, during the implementation and consolidation phase
of the project farmers and there organization will play an active role in the
policies and strategies taken by the project.
- The project will have a high presence in the area, and a very close relation to
land owners.
2. Promotion and education
- Implementation of an intensive extension program to create awareness of the
advantages of the proposed land use practices among farmers.
- Implementation of an intensive training program to create the necessary
knowledge on the new land use practices among the farmers.
3. Economic incentives
- Promoted land use forms have a higher financial rate of return
- There will be established an economic incentive system, paying incentives for
forest land protected.
- An out-growers scheme, providing partial payments to farmers during
establishment and management of the forest plantations and sharing the benefits
when wood or other products can be harvested will be implemented.
Note: payments to farmers are made for plantations established and managed (per ha)
or forest conserved not for CER’s sold.
4. Legal mark
- Contracts will be signed with each land owner, making commitments about
project activities, which will be implemented on his land (including payments for
incentives)
- Contracts will be deposited within the Forest Super Intendancy (national
authority for control on forest activities), this will improve control on illegal
harvesting.
5. Farm visits (internal monitoring system)
- Fulfilment or eventually no fulfilment of conditions established in the contract
will be observed in an initial stage by frequent site visits of the project field
workers.
- Established or managed areas will be measured with GPS
7.4. Leakage avoiding activities
Displacement leakage is reduced to a minimum due to the implementation of labour
intensive and economic viable activities base on a more efficient land use system and
integrated farm planning. As a consequence traditional agricultural practices of slash
and burn will lose importance. Land used for annual crops will have a reduced fallow
period, because of the use of nitrogen fixing species (Inga sp., Mucuna pruriens and
other leguminous species). Land fertility is recovered much faster by leguminous
species than by species of natural fallow lands. Fallow land and secondary forests will
be enriched with the aim to make these areas economically productive and stock a
bigger amount of carbon. Additionally these activities will benefit the conservation of
primary forest still left on their farms and outside the farms.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
33

This will not only lead to Carbon sequestration under the CDM-AR rules, but project
pretends to implement land use systems resulting in higher overall stocks of carbon on
farm level, compared with the baseline.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
34

7. Environmental issues
7.1. Environmental risks
The following checklist was used at the pre-feasibility phase in order to avoid
significant environmental damage at the beginning or during the execution of the
project. All answers could be answered with no, considering the remarks made above.
SOIL
The project causes serious erosion risk (due to slope, 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 ground
water table (due to tree species or any other reason)
The project has a significant risk of depleting or significantly lowering the baseflow
in sources and water courses supplying local population and irrigated agriculture
(e.g. due to tree species or any other reason)
The project will have an adverse effect on water quality (through the use of biocides
or 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 conifer species,
the frequency 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 evenagedness
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 and
flora)
Prefeasibility report Chapare
35

7.2. Environmental benefits
The following checklist was used at pre-feasibility stage to define the environmental
benefits of the project, all issues can be answered with yes:
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
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 endemic
species
Prefeasibility report Chapare
36

8. Bibliography
Berger D. (2006). Livelihood analysis in the Cochabamba Tropics, CETEFOR,
Wageningen University, Cochabamba. NP
CETEFOR (2005). Plantaciones Forestales, boletin Técnico. CETEFOR.
FAO, (2004) Data base proyecto Jatun Sacha, Chimoré.
Miranda, F., M. Minto, J. Goítia, B. J, J. and A. Stilma (2002). INFORME DEL
ANÁLISIS MULTITEMPORAL DE IMÁGENES SATELITALES PARA LA
ESTIMACIÓN DE PERDIDA DE COBERTURA FORESTAL PRIMARIA Y
EVALUACIÓN DEL CAMBIO DE USO DE SUELO EN EL BOSQUE DE
USO MÚLTIPLE DEL TROPICO DE COCHABAMBA AÑOS 1993 - 2001.
Cochabamba, FAO.
Montieth, S. and A. Quiroga (1993). Mapeo de Suelos del Chapare con Sistema FCC.
Cochabamba, Development-Alternatives-Inc.
UNAGRUP (2005) Base de datos UNAGRUP. Ivirgazama.
Prefeasibility report Chapare
37