Forest list archive: msg00061

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

WORLD RECORD ON TEAK YIELD



o
o
           ________________________________________

                  WORLD RECORD ON TEAK YIELD:

                      TRUTH OR TRICKERY ?
           ________________________________________

                      Julio Cesar Centeno


  In a report recently released in The Netherlands, a world record on
  the production of commercial teak timber is reported, at the
  plantations established by the company Flor y Fauna in Costa
  Rica. The oldest of these plantations is only seven years of age. The
  Centro Cientifico Tropical of Costa Rica [CCT], based on
  information supplied by Flor y Fauna, has concluded:

  --- "the average growth-results of the plantations are higher than
  ever recorded in scientific literature in or outside Costa Rica"

  --- "the expected yield figures, within a reach from some 400 M3
  and 800 M3, are in accordance with the present growth
  developments".

  The figures refer to the expected production of commercial timber
  per hectare, in teak plantations with a projected 20 year rotation
  period. The figures are equivalent to a mean-annual-increment
  [MAI] of 20 to 40 cubic meters per hectare per year.

  The report was commissioned by Flor y Fauna. I have had the
  opportunity to review an abridged version of the report [9], collated
  from parts of the original, and apparently distributed to the media
  by the Dutch insurance company OHRA, at a press release on
  March 04, 1996. This posting is motivated by its unusual nature
  and findings.

  BACKGROUND

  Flor y Fauna is a Dutch owned company, which has established
  approximately 3000 hectares of teak plantations in the province of
  Alajuela, Northern Costa Rica, starting in 1989. Flor y Fauna sold
  the economic ownership of the timber to be produced from most of
  its plantations to the insurance company OHRA, who in turn sold
  it to over 13,000 individual Dutch investors, tied to life insurance
  policies.

  I carried out an evaluation of this investment scheme in 1993,
  following a request by the World Wide Fund for Nature [1]. I was
  supplied with documentation from the firm Van Rossum & Van
  Veen, a representative of Flor y Fauna, according to which it was
  OHRA's policy to guarantee investors the return of their net
  premiums paid, at the end of the 20 year cycle. According to Van
  Rossum & Van Veen, the guaranteed return might also include a
  small interest allowance "...of some 1.5 percent annually".

  It is argued that what has been placed in the market is an
  insurance product. Nevertheless, it is also clear that the life
  insurance policies are indivisibly tied to the investment in the teak
  plantations. They have also been publicly promoted and advertised
  with the character of an investment product.

  The insurance product seems now to have a guaranteed minimum
  internal rate of return of only 0.5 percent. But these policies were
  marketed with specific reference to far higher rates of return,
  turning them into particularly attractive financial investments.
  According to documentation provided by Van Rossum & Van Veen
  to WWF, Flor y Fauna promised investors internal rates of return
  from 16 to 22 percent [1]. In its sales brochures, OHRA promised
  investors rates of return from 15 to 25 percent.

  These rates of return were based on unrealistic projections of
  timber yields, and exaggerated expectations on the prices at which
  the timber could be sold [1].

  Flor y Fauna has been involved in legal complications and public
  scandals, due partly to its exaggerated claims on expected rates of
  return. The insurance company OHRA, Flor y Fauna and WWF-
  Netherlands encouraged the Dutch public to invest in these teak
  plantations, partly based on the claim that average timber yield
  would range from 40 to 48 cubic meters per hectare per year. At
  the time of my evaluation of this case, the company expected to
  harvest an average of 800 to 960 cubic meters of commercial
  timber per hectare, under 20 year cycles [1].

  These projections have been the cause of serious problems for the
  company since 1993. Flor y Fauna has been taken to a court of
  law, where it presented a document stating that it was not
  imaginary that OHRA's wildest dream [960 M3 per hectare] might
  be surpassed by a factor of 2, with production reaching over 1810
  cubic meters per hectare, equivalent to a mean annual increment
  of over 90 cubic meters per hectare per year [5].

  More recently the case has been brought to the attention of the
  Code of Ethics Committee on Advertising of The Netherlands,
  partly due to the false public claim that Flor y Fauna's teak
  plantations have been certified as "well managed" by the Forest
  Stewardship Council.

  A report by the Ministry of Agriculture has been repeatedly
  presented as evidence that the company's projections were, in fact,
  rather conservative [6]. According to this report, the minimum
  expected yield should be 53 M3 per hectare per year. The Dutch
  Parliament has questioned the Ministers of Agriculture and
  Finance about the validity of such projections, and their
  implication to investors.

  Flor y Fauna has had serious difficulties to substantiate its
  projections on financial returns promised to investors. Teak is a
  high-quality tropical timber, which has been grown in plantations
  for over a hundred years. In tropical America, on good soils, with
  favorable environmental conditions, and under good management,
  the production of commercial timber is known to safely range
  between 12 and 18 cubic meters per hectare per year, in the form
  of logs. There are plenty of references in scientific and technical
  literature, and information from commercial plantations
  throughout the tropics, supporting the safety and validity of this
  range. Exceptional cases have been reported where timber
  production has reached 20 to 30 percent above the high end of this
  range, during the first years of the rotation.

  Flor y Fauna's teak plantations have been officially endorsed by
  the World Wide Fund for Nature [WWF-Netherlands]. This
  endorsement has provided exceptional credibility to the operation
  within the public opinion. In 1993, the World Wide Fund for
  Nature asked me to visit the plantations, and prepare an analysis
  of its economic dimensions. The final report was presented in
  December of 1993, after Flor y Fauna, OHRA and WWF-
  Netherlands were given the opportunity to question its findings,
  and provide evidence to support their allegations [1]. One of its
  conclusions, relevant to the present discussion, reads:

  "The expected yields are unjustified, reverting in equally
  unjustified expectations on the financial returns to be obtained.
  Investors are led to believe they will receive returns which are
  highly unlikely. This may be considered fraud".

  The fundamental findings of the 1993 report are [1]:

  a] Individual investors in the Teakwood project were led to believe
  they would receive highly unlikely rates of return.

  The rates of return projected by Flor y Fauna were based on two
  fundamental variables:

  - The yield of timber the plantations could provide.

  - The Price at which the timber from these plantations could be
  sold in the form of logs.

  b] Rates of return were based on the unrealistic assumption that
  the plantations would produce from 40 to 48 cubic meters per
  hectare per year during the 20 year rotation period established for
  the project.

  Many investors seem to have signed contractual agreement at the
  time this claim was effective.

  c] Flor y Fauna based its rates of return on equally unrealistic
  projections of the prices at which teak logs of 12, 16 and 20 years
  of age may be sold. At the time of my assessment, the company
  expected as much as 830 US dollars per cubic meter of 8 year old
  poles, and 2,100 dollars per cubic meter of 20 year old logs.

  d] The risk of failing to achieve projected returns was largely
  transferred to individual investors.  Two thirds of all returns to
  investors depend on production and prices at the very end of the 20
  year cycle. While returns to Flor y Fauna and OHRA depend only
  about 10 per cent from such a harvest.

  Flor y Fauna and OHRA seem to have partly recognized the
  validity of these findings, since the yield range has been
  significantly reduced. Expected yields seem to now range from 20
  to 40 cubic meters per hectare per year. The average expected yield
  has been drastically reduced, from 44 to 30 M3/ha-yr, but remains
  unrealistic. Investors are still led to believe they might receive
  highly unlikely rates of return.

  Parallel to the reduction of the average expected yield, there has
  been an unusual and significant increase in the range of such
  values. Originally the range was equivalent to 20 per cent of the
  lower estimate. But now it has grown to 100 percent of the lower
  estimate. The latest yield estimates seem to range between "some
  400 and 800 M3" per hectare, equivalent to mean annual
  increments of 20 to 40 M3/ha-yr [9].

  These values might not have been different if they were due to
  possible financial and legal implications. Investors were promised
  they should expect rates of return based on a minimum yield of 40
  M3 per hectare per year. Deviation from such figures at this stage
  could lead to legal complaints, implications of fraud, and possible
  huge financial returns to investors. This problem seems to have
  been dealt with by simply sinking the original lower estimate [40
  M3/ha-yr] to half its original value, making it barely touch the
  higher end of normal yield estimates for teak. While at the same
  time, holding the upper end of the new yield range within promised
  estimates. The result is a highly distorted and exaggerated range
  of yield values, which reflects the insecurity and lack of reliability
  in what is, in fact, offered.

  At least three-quarters of the range of Flor y Fauna new yield
  projections are still beyond what should be expected from teak in
  the tropics, even considering the best soil, climatic and
  management conditions registered to date in actual practice.

  One of the most recent reports on yields from teak plantations in
  Costa Rica was published by CATIE [Centro Agronomico Tropical
  de Investigacion y Ensenanza] in 1995 [7], based on information
  collected by CATIE itself, from 24 different sites in the province of
  Guanacaste. The province of Alajuela, where Flor y Fauna's
  plantations are established, is contiguous to Guanacaste, in
  northern Costa Rica.

  CATIE is one of the most respected and credible forestry and
  agriculture research institutions, not only in Costa Rica, but in
  Latin America. It has solid international links, among others a
  structural cooperation with the Agricultural University of
  Wageningen in the Netherlands. Its report concludes in a
  statistically significant mean-annual-increment of 12 to 18 cubic
  meters per hectare per year, as is normally the case.

  Another recent report on teak was published by the Ministry of
  Forestry of Myanmar and the Food and Agricultural Organization
  of the United Nations, FAO, and refers to a paper presented at the
  second regional seminar on Teak, which took place in early June,
  1995 in Yangon, Myanmar [8]. Productivity for plantations 40 to 80
  years of age was found to be between 8 and 10 cubic meters per
  hectare per year.

  OBSERVATIONS ON THE REPORT PRESENTED BY THE
  CENTRO CIENTIFICO TROPICAL OF COSTA RICA.

  It is mentioned on the cover page that the work leading to the
  report is partially based on a one-day visit to the plantations,
  which took place on february 21st, 1996, plus three day of
  "discussions". By the time of the one-day visit, Flor y Fauna had
  planted approximately 3,000 hectares in Costa Rica.

  The report reiterates that the data used to come to conclusions was
  provided by Flor y Fauna. This is corroborated in Table 2, where
  the dates on which the measurements where taken are all previous
  to the date of the one-day visit mentioned on the cover page [9].

  Flor y Fauna is an obviously interested party, under significant
  pressure to produce evidence to support its allegations. Particularly
  in such cases, information is normally gathered and processed by
  an independent third party. The conclusions of a report based on
  information supplied by the company should thus be taken with
  extreme caution. This is specially so with regard to information
  related to the fundamental issues on which Flor y Fauna is being
  questioned. One such issue is growth rates.

  The data on which conclusions seem to have been based is
  presented in Table 2 of the report [9].  As presented, it is
  statistically meaningless, since there is no information on the
  variance, or the standard error, of the data used. Without these
  variables, it is difficult to attach credibility to the average figures
  presented, for they could well include large statistical errors.

  There is no information on how Flor y Fauna produced these data,
  what sampling method was used, what sort of variation is inherent
  to the data collected, how significant are the results.

  Under such circumstances, and given the serious controversy in
  which Flor y Fauna is involved, to base a report on uncertain
  information supplied by the company itself is a perilous adventure
  with limited credibility.

  The CCT reports highlights, as one of the reasons for the high
  expected yields, that the plantations of Flor y Fauna are located in
  a "Wet Atmospheric Association, and during some years it is quite
  possible that in the area it does not occur any effective dry period"
  [9]. When this occurs, growth may be enhanced, but the quality of
  the timber is affected. To produce high quality teak, there is a need
  for a dry period of 3 to 5 months. A dry month means less than 50
  mm precipitation. When a dry period is not present, the quality of
  the timber tends to be poor in terms of color, texture and density.
  The possibility that timber from 12 to 20 year-old trees, with these
  characteristics, will be sold for the unusually high prices projected
  by Flor y Fauna, approaches a fantasy.

  PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

  There are two fundamental conclusion from the abridged CCT
  report I've had the opportunity to review. The first is that the
  reliability of the data on which the conclusions are founded is
  extremely questionable.

  The data was collected by the interested party involved, Flor y
  Fauna, which in turn is badly in need of evidence to support its
  allegations on growth rates. These allegations have drawn the
  company into a legal, financial and political storm. Considering
  this scenario, and the history of false claims which has paved the
  development of this project, the credibility of the information
  supplied by Flor y Fauna could be legitimately questioned. One
  such false claim indeed is the public allegation that the plantations
  have been certified as "well managed" by the Forest Stewardship
  Council.

  During the last two years, and as far as I am aware, the only one
  piece of evidence used by Flor y Fauna and OHRA to support their
  allegation about growth rates was a report by the Ministry of
  Agriculture of The Netherlands [6]. This report has been
  introduced as evidence in a court of law, to the Code of Ethics
  Committee on Advertising, and even to the Dutch Parliament.

  It is now well understood that this report is based on seriously
  flawed method of collecting and processing statistical information
  [3]. It is plagued with technical errors of such fundamental nature
  that a case of forged evidence could be made based upon it. Its
  credibility has been suddenly pulverized.

  This seems to have left Flor y Fauna and OHRA in an extremely
  perilous position, having lost their only platform of technical
  support for their allegations on growth rates. They are seemingly
  under urgent pressure to produce some other piece of evidence.
  The report commissioned by Flor y Fauna from CCT may provide a
  temporary relief to this situation.

  There are three fundamental points of controversy: the yield which
  may be obtained from the plantations, the price at which teak logs
  of 12, 16 and 20 years of age may be sold, and the consequent rates
  of return to investors. The CCT report makes no reference to rates
  of return, or to the prices at which the production from the
  plantations may be sold. The relevance of its conclusions on yield
  projections are seriously under question.

  Almost simultaneous with the CCT report, OHRA released a
  summary of a financial analysis by KPMG Accountants, dated
  February 27, 1996. I will make further reference to this analysis in
  a future article.  At this stage, it is important to highlight that this
  report avoids the discussion of the three fundamental variables
  mentioned above. KPMG has wisely kept a distance from the
  allegations on yield, prices and rates of return, the three issues at
  the core of the debate, clearly distancing itself from any form of
  endorsement of such projections.

  According to the KPMG report, expected returns to investors in
  OHRA's Teakwood project now range from 11 to 23 percent. This is
  significantly lower than originally projected. Nevertheless, KPMG
  does not give an opinion on the actual sales proceeds in years 12,
  16 or 20, or on the validity of OHRA's expected rates of return.

  CLOSING REMARKS

  OHRA has sent a letter to my lawyer in The Netherlands, Bernard
  Tomlow, threatening to take legal action if I do not refrain from
  making critical comments about their teak business. OHRA seems
  particularly sensitive to the findings of my report on Flor y Fauna
  [1], and to my consistency in defending them. Its approach to deal
  with this issue is not to present credible arguments to support its
  allegations, or to encourage a healthy and objective debate on the
  subject, but to impose forced silence through legal actions. So far,
  neither OHRA nor Flor y Fauna have provided any evidence to
  justify modifications of the fundamental findings of the report.

  OHRA has publicly released reports and press statements which
  make questionable and distorted references to the findings of my
  report. At the same time, it pretends to curtail the right to defend
  my point of view.

  I do not plan to renounce to the right of free speech, specially in a
  case where thousands of Dutch citizens may have been lured into
  making investments, through misleading and inaccurate
  information. I have nothing to gain in this debate, but to let those
  people know, and so many others who have invested in similar
  ventures, that someone is willing to defend the technical and
  ethical dimensions of a forestry project in the tropics. To allow
  these irregularities to continue, without raising a responsible
  warning to all parties involved, is to endorse what I consider to be
  a seriously flawed operation, bordering on fraud. This is
  furthermore a forestry project, involving a professional
  responsibility in my area of competence, a responsibility I am not
  willing to elude.

  There is an urgent need to develop plantations in the tropics, and
  to encourage private investment in such initiatives. Tree
  plantations may create jobs, wealth, and foreign exchange in
  countries under severe economic and social limitations. They may
  contribute to the alleviation of poverty, and of the related pressure
  on tropical forests. Nevertheless, we must make sure that such
  initiatives fall within acceptable technical and ethical limits, to
  ensure their success and multiplication in the future. Projects such
  as Flor y Fauna's may discourage further private investments in
  plantation in tropical countries, thereby preventing the alleviation
  of the unsustainable pressure on their natural forests, and on their
  unique biological, ecological and strategic value.
   _________________________________________________________

  REFERENCES

  1. Centeno, JC: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FLOR Y FAUNA'S
  TEAK PLANTATIONS IN COSTA RICA, December 22, 1993.

  2. Centeno, JC: TEAK CONTROVERSY FLARES UP IN THE
  NETHERLANDS. Internet posting, February 05, 1996.

  3. Centeno, JC: TEAK STING? Internet posting. February 19,
  1996.

  4. Centeno, JC: BLASTING THE FSC IN THE NETHERLANDS.
  Internet posting. March 1996.

  4. F.H.J. van Schoonhoven [Flor y Fauna]: MEMORANDUM OF
  ORAL PLEADING. December 7, 1993.

  5. Ministry of Agriculture of The Netherlands: DE TEAK-
  PLANTAGES VAN FLOR Y FAUNA S.A. IN COSTA RICA,
  December 28, 1993.

  6. RENDIMIENTO Y CALIDAD DE SITIO PARA Gmelina arborea,
  Tectona grandis, Bombacopsis quinata y Pinus caribaea EN
  GUANACASTE, COSTA RICA. CATIE, Informe Tecnico 256, Costa
  Rica, 1995.

  7. Ministry of Forestry of Myanmar and FAO: THE SECOND
  REGIONAL SEMINAR ON TEAK. 29 May - 3 June 1995. Ynagon,
  Myanmar. Resource Paper No. 2: Overview Problems in Teak
  Plantation Establishment. Dr. Apichart Kaosa-ard, Chiangmai
  University, Thailand.

  8. Centro Cientifico Tropical: TECHNICAL AUDITING OF THE
  GROWTH AND YIELD PROJECTIONS FOR Tectona grandis
  PLANTATIONS ESTABLISHED BY FLOR Y FAUNA S.A., Second
  Preliminary Report. Abridged version, 7 pages. Costa Rica,
  February 26, 1996
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Julio Cesar Centeno is a forestry specialist from Venezuela from
  whom WWF requested an economic analysis of Flor & Fauna's teak
  plantations in 1993. He was one of the key negotiators of the
  International Tropical Timber Agreement, UNCTAD, Geneva,
  serving as spokesman for tropical countries. He served as forestry
  advisor to the Secretariat of the United Nations Conference for
  Environment and Development [UNCED 92], and as Director of the
  Latinamerican Forestry Institute between 1980 and 1990. He was
  invested by Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands with the Golden
  Ark Award for his work in the forestry sector. He serves as a
  member of the Governing Board of SGS-Forestry in Oxford, United
  Kingdom, and as acting vice-chairman of the TROPENBOS
  Foundation in The Netherlands.

  Fax: INT + 58-74-714576
  E-mail: jcenteno@ciens.ula.ve
  _________________________________________________________

  March 12, 1996




[Metla] [Main Index] [Thread Index]

Mail converted by MHonArc 1.1.0