The Danube PES project
© M
ich
el R
og
go
/ W
WF
-Can
on
Webex meeting
Review of the project
Rayna Popova, WWF DCP
Bulgaria
Date 17 February 2014
Shorter title Secondary information can go here
XX-XX Month, Year
• Additional information can run
• Underneath if necessary
Structure of the presentation
PES Danube project – What will this project achieve?
Case study 1 – Public payments for reducing the
environmental impact of the Aquaculture sector and Fishieries
in Bulgaria
Case study 2 – “Rusenski Lom” sustainable tourism
Case study 3 – “Persina pilot” an example of market payments
in support to wetland restoration and cutting CO2 emissions
Next steps – (Swiss project?)
17 February 2014
Timeframe:
Jan 2010 – Dec 2014
Scope of the project:
Bulgaria, Romania,
Serbia and Ukraine
Overview of project
issues and progress THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
What will this project do?
To demonstrate and promote PES and other sustainable financing
schemes in the Lower Danube river basin;
Encourage related Sustainable Financing schemes (SF);
Demonstrate how national and local-level PES/SF schemes works;
Contribute to rural development and conservation in the Lower
Danube Basin in Romania and Bulgaria;
Promote the integration of PES/SF schemes in River Basin
Management Plans for the Danube, its sub-basins and other major
river basins;
To derive lessons of relevance for the Danube basin at large and for
other international watersheds;
Overview of THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Project progress Overview of project
issues and progress THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
• 3 private PES schemes in
Romania and Bulgaria effectively
reward provision of Danube-related
ecosystem services and are
integrated into Danube River Basin
and sub-basin management plans.
• 2 public PES schemes still in
progress.
• Capacity building and training in
PES/SFs for key stakeholders in
Romania and Bulgaria.
• Private sector involvement and
support for PES schemes
demonstrated.
• Information and experience
exchange for key stakeholders in
Danube and sub river basins.
• Experience exchange with
stakeholders in selected major river
basins.
• Best practices and lessons learned
are documented, distributed and
discussed with the conservation and
international community.
Fishery and aquaculture sector in
Bulgaria – Problems and Solutions ?
Problems:
High contamination of water in fish farms because of:
1.Use of agricultural fodder and organic left-overs of plant and animal origin;
2.Use of manure of animal and non-animal origin;
3.Contamination with nitrogen, nitrates, nitrites, hydrogen sulphide and
methane;
Solutions:
1.Use of fodder with high environmental indexes – granulated and extruded;
2.Decrease water contamination of nitrogen, nitrates and nitrites with 50%;
3.Decrease water contamination of hydrogen sulfide and methane with 30%;
Sustainable
Aquaculture THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Sustainable
Aquaculture THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Sustainable
Aquaculture THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Sustainable
Aquaculture THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
The schemes
PES
FUND
State aids
Buyers of ES:
Government
Accumulation
of funds from:
National
budget
(fees, penalties
in the fishery
sector)
Providers of ES:
Fishpond
managers
Allocation of
funds to:
Registered
operators, based
on volume and
costs on fish
feed
Sustainable
Aquaculture THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Operational framework
Society Fishpond manager
Public payment
Public good – water quality
Sustainable
Aquaculture THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Sustainable
Aquaculture THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Sustainable
Aquaculture THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Sustainable
Aquaculture THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Beneficiaries / Budget / Time line
Operators in the fishery
sector:
• Individuals
• Legal entities, including sole
proprietors
• 8 million BGN
• 2013-2020
Sustainable
Aquaculture THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Sustainable aquaculture scheme
The support is provided for transition from use of
conventional to environmental fodder (extruded and
granulated)
It aims at compensating farmers for additional costs
associated with the use of environmental fodder (extruded and
granulated), in comparison to the conventional one
The support will be granted on annual basis, in return of
invoices on fodder purchased, making also check of the
species and numbers of the fish bred, according to the
farmer’s registration.
Sustainable
Aquaculture THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
`
Rusenski Lom Pilot site
is:
Rusenski Lom Pilot site
is:
Rusenski Lom
pilot THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Profile of the site
Conservation values
• Nature park located in Northeast
part of Bulgaria
• The canyon-like valley of 4 rivers
• One of the 11 nature parks in
Bulgaria - 3,408 ha
• Part of 2 protected areas
• Important Bird Area – 200 sp.
• A rural area of 23 settlements
• A site of culture and history
Rusenski Lom
pilot THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Rusenski Lom
pilot THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Rusenski Lom
pilot THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Rusenski Lom
pilot THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Rusenski Lom
pilot THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
`
Main goal: attracting funds from users of natural capital in Rusenski
Lom Nature Park, in a fund whose resources will be spent specifically for
conservation activities
Subject: visitors control and biodiversity conservation to reduce the
negative impacts of the tourism on habitats and species.
Range: Rusenski Lom Nature Park
Responsible tourism in
Rusenski Lom
` ИНИЦИАТИВА ЗА ОТГОВОРЕН ТУРИЗЪМ В РУСЕНСКИ ЛОМ Тази концепция е разработена от WWF в България по проект „Насърчаване на плащания за екосистемни услуги в басейна на река
Дунав”, финансиран от Глобалния Екологичен Фонд чрез Екологичната програма на ООН
I. ОПЕРАТИВНА РАМКА НА ИНИЦИАТИВАТА
4. Manage the
revenue 1. Transmit of
materials for sale
2. Sale materials and / or
put an eco-charge rate
3.Account the
revenue in the
bank
5. Work to preserve the
natural benefits for
tourism in Ruse Lom NGO: Friends of
Rusenski Lom
BUSINESS PARTNERS
Hotels, guest-houses etc.
Tour operators, travel companies
USERS
Tourists, visitors
`
Found Monitoring Committee
Every year
propose
conservation
measures that
protect the
natural benefits
for the tourism
and discuss the
budget for next
year
Local
Authorities
Rotation of the
representative
Rusenski Lom
NP
Directorate
WWF
casting vote in
the first 5 years
After the different stakeholders sign the partnership agreement
Business Rotation of the
representative
Monitoring
Committee
NGO: Club Friends
or Rusenski Lom
NP
Accept / reject
the annual work
plan and budget.
Monitor the work
of the Club
Organize independent
control and monitoring
of the initiative
NGO
Rotation of the
representative
`
Rusenski Lom Pilot site
is:
Rusenski Lom Pilot site
is:
Persina pilot site THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Profile of the site
Conservation values
• Nature park - 21 762 ha, located in central
north of Bulgaria
• Protected area on the Danube of inland
marshes and flooded forests, including 24
islands, 3 reserves, 2 natural landmarks, 1
protected area – Kaikusha Marsh
• Natura 2000 site and IBA (Ramsar Convention)
– 170 bird sp. and 450 plant sp. 1/3 of them
directly related to water ecosystems
• Rural area including 3 municipalities within
approximately 27 000 residents
Why biomass from wetlands and
farmland residues?
• Easy to connect to other WWF programs, projects and activities in the
region; High value and available area; Climate change orientated solution,
with potential for up-scaling
• Self-sustaining economic solution for wetland management and
restoration that can also find political support
• Feasibilities studies show that in Bulgaria about 30% of straws, 65% of
cornstalks and 80% of other solid agricultural waste can be used for
energy production, an estimated 800,000 tons annually
• Approximate biomass production from existing protected wetlands in BG
(40,000 ha), respecting the biodiversity needs (cut only 20% per year) an
estimated 24,000 tons annually in production of pallets and briquettes
Persina pilot site THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Benefits from the Persina scheme
Environmental Benefits
• Sustainable management and use of biomass from wetlands and
farmlands in about of 7,100 ha (incl. model area of 150 ha protected areas –
‘’Kaikusha‘’ marsh)
• Reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere associated with stubble burning and
decomposition of biomass in the fields / wetlands
• Improvement of the water regime of ‘’Kaikusha‘’ marsh and restoration of
its regulatory functions with respect to water, maintenance of fish stocks,
fixation of CO2, maintenance of the biological diversity
• Improvement of soil fertility on more than 5,000 ha of agricultural land
• Improvement of water quality on more than 2,000 ha wetlands
Persina pilot site THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
• Creation of business interest in the use of biomass by generating
revenue from the sale of pellets and briquettes
• Creation of economic opportunities for land users to utilize residues in
farmlands as a source of additional income, also covering the costs of
collection and transportation of residues
• Offering an alternative to the local population to shift from fossil fuels
as coal and firewood consumption to pallets and briquettes and reduce
the energy costs in the housholds by an average of 30%.
Persina pilot site THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Benefits from the scheme
Economic Benefits
• Green jobs – new employment opportunities for the local population by
involving local people in the processes of extraction and processing of
biomass
• Creation of jobs indirectly as an additional source of revenue for
collection and transportation of raw materials
Persina pilot site THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Benefits from the scheme
Social Benefits
The Scheme
Persina pilot site THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
euro
Providers of
ES:
Farmers
Buyers of
provisioning ES
(biomass):
Producers of
pellets/ briquettes
biomass
Users of regulating ES
Amount of biomass production by the most typical species (plants)
in Kaikusha marsh per m2 = (150 ha)
P g/m2/y D g/m2/y B g/m2/y Area ha Tons
Phragmites
(reed) 802 521 280 120 336
Typha (bulrush) 955 620 334 21 70
Schoenoplectus
(sedge) 890 578 311 9 28
Average grams per
m2 ~ 873 ~ 563 ~ 299
Average tons per
hectare 8,7 5,6 2,9 150 = 436 t
Production (P); Decomposition (D); Biomass accumulation (B)
Total average of 2,9 tones biomass per/ha/year = 436 tons per Kaikusha marsh
Comparative financial value of biomass yield from Kaikusha marsh
in two versions:
29 May 2012 - 23 Presentation to the Third PSC
option 1 Processing of 1 ton of
biomass in the village
Lesidren (150 km)
option 2 Processing of 1 ton
of biomass in
Belene town (20 km)
Leva per ton Leva per ton
Production of biomass 40,00 lv. 40,00 lv.
Primary processing (baling) and transport 120,00 lv. 30 lv.
Processing of biomass supply and delivery 200,00 lv. 200,00 lv.
Labor 100,00 lv. 100,00 lv.
Value of the pallets 460,00 lv. 370,00 lv.
Market value of conventional pellets 400,00 lv. 400,00 lv.
Reserve / Balance + 40,00 lv. - 30,00 lv.
Cut only 20% of Kaikusha marsh
biomass per year = 88 t
40,480 lv.
~ 20 000 EURO
32,560 lv.
~ 16 000 EURO
Amount of sequestered carbon by the most typical
species (plants) in Kaikusha marsh per m2 = (150 ha)
29 May 2012 - 24 Presentation to the Third PSC
P gC/m2/y D gC/m2/y RgC/m2/y Area ha
Carbon
“R” per
ton per
species
Phragmites
(reed) 105 68 37 120 204
Typha (bulrush) 201 131 70 21 15
Schoenoplectus
(sedge) 161 105 56 9 6
Total C 467 304 163 150 240
Production (P); Decomposition (D); Refractory carbon accumulation (R)
Total average of 1,6 tones /ha/year = 240 tons Carbon sequestration in Kaikusha marsh - 25 E per ton is additional 6000 Euro per ETS schemes per year
Volumes of biomass derived from different farm
lands in the pilot site area, incl. wetlands
29 May 2012 - 25 Presentation to the Third PSC
•Type of culture Sown
area
ha
Average
yield per
ha - ton
Overall biomass
production -
tons
Biomass average
yield in sustainable
nature way (by 30%,
65%, 80%, 20%)
Wheat and barley 1400 4 5600 1867 t
Corn 2650 7 18550 12057 t
Sunflower 1027 2,5 2567 2053 t
Reed 2000 2,9 5800 1160 t
Total of area and
productions
7077 32 517 17137 t
Total market price
of pallets 370 lv.
per ton, per year
6 340 690 lv.
~ 3 120 000 Euro
Comparison table of prices of heat from different fuel
types allows automation of the heating process
29 May 2012 - 26 Presentation to the Third PSC
Persina pilot site THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
No Type of the fuel Calorific value Efficiency
Price of the fuel
(by 2010)
Price per
1 KW
1 Diesel 11,67 KW/liter 88% 2.07 lv/liter 0.204
2 Electricity 1 KW 100% 0.173lv/kw 0.173
3 Nature gas 9,89 KW/m3 90% 0.9349lv/m3 0.105
4 Wooden chips 4.9/KW/kg 90% 0.36lv/kg 0.081
5
Pallets from
wetlands and
agriculture
waste 5.16/KW/kg 90% 0.28lv/kg 0.063
Test results of the Reed energy value -
Independent laboratory analysis – Sofia
29 May 2012 - 27 Presentation to the Third PSC
Persina pilot site THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
No Name of indicators Unit of
quantity
Standardized
methods,
validated
internally lab
Results form
tasting
Norm
DIN 51731
1. Moisture % DIN 51718 5,1
±0,2
12 max
2. Specific heating value kcal/kg DIN 51900 - -
2.1 Working fuel kcal/kg DIN 51900 4346
±25
4181- 4657
2.2 Working fuel KJ/kg DIN 51900 18196
±90
17500- 19500
3. Sulfur content of dry
mass
% DIN 51724 0,056
±0,003
0,08 max
4. Balance after
incineration / ash / dry
weight of
% DIN 51719 5,5
±0,1
1,5 max
5. Extraction of volatile
substances on dry
weight
% DIN 59700 78,2
±0,2
-
Cost and benefit analysis and financial indicators show that the
investment is effective and the idea could be realized in a big scale
29 May 2012 - 28 Presentation to the Third PSC
Persina pilot site THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
• Net Present Value > 0
• Internal Rate of Return ~ 68%
• Profitability Index 6,3%
• Payback period – 2 years
Presentation to the Third PSC
Conclusion for wetlands
• The highest - productivity ecosystems
• Opportunities for additional income for local people
• Diverse benefits, including all
• Local energy source
• Decision to costly problems such as floods and construction of
treatment plants for domestic wastewater in in small settlements
• Highest absorbability of C02
Persina pilot site THE DANUBE PES PROJECT
Conclusion for wetlands
29 May 2012 - 29
Shorter title Secondary information can go
here
XX-XX Month, Year • Additional information can run
• Underneath if neccessary
Lessons learnt
Development of the scheme in a big scale requires double
efforts because of the unknown and no popular topic
Political goals and plans in Bulgaria do not focus on wetland
restoration through well developed political and economic
framework
It is necessary to ensure multiple sources of income
Carbon financing from the ETS could be additional profit but is
not implemented for the moment in a small scale
Support by national and local institutions is highly necessary!