FINANCING PLAN (IN US$):



PROJECT Development and Preparation

Request for Project Preparation Grant (PPG)

GEFSEC Project ID: 2778

IA/ExA Project ID: 3515

Project Type: Full-sized Project

Country: Brazil

Project Title: Energy Generation at Sugarcane Mills Using Trash and Bagasse

GEF IA/ExA: UNDP

other project Executing Agency(ies): CTC – Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira

Duration (Project Preparation): 6 months

GEF Focal Area: Climate Change

GEF Focal Area Strategic objectives: Promote on-grid electricity from renewable sources

GEF Operational Program: OP 6

PIF Approval Date: December 15, 2006 (As per GEFSec CEO official communication to Council)

Estimated Starting Date (Project Preparation): March 2007

Estimated WP Entry Date: November 2007

Estimated Starting Date (project): January 2008

| This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for Project Identification Form |

|(PIF). |

| |

|[pic] |

|Frank Pinto |Project Contact Person |

|Executive Coordinator |Oliver Page |

|UNDP/GEF |UNDP/GEF Regional Technical Adviser |

|Date: 21 March 2007 |Tel.:+507 302 4548 |

| |e-mail: oliver.page@ |

*

|Financing Plan (US$ m) |

| |PPG** |Project* |Total |

|GEF |0.200 |7.800 |8.000 |

|Co-financing: |(details provided in Section C : |

| |Table d) co-financing) |

| GEF IA/ExA | | | |

| Government | |3.000 |3.000 |

| Others |0.600 |59.800 |60.400 |

|Co-financing Subtotal |0.600 |62.800 |63.400 |

|Total |0.800 |70.600 |71.400 |

* For multi-focal area projects, indicate agreed split

between focal area allocations: N/A

** No agency fees will be provided for implementation of

Project Preparation Grants.

Record of endorsement on behalf of the Government:

|Carlos Eduardo Lampert Costa |Date: April/04/2005 and re-endorsement on September/22/2006. |

|Ponto Focal Operacional do GEF no Brasil | |

|Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão - SEAIN | |

| | |

PART I - Project Information

A - Project Summary

All sugarcane mills and distilleries in Brazil are self sufficient in energy. Mechanical, electric and thermal energy is generated using bagasse as fuel to run the boilers that provide pressurized steam and then run turbines to get mechanical power and turbo-generators to produce electricity. The low pressure steam provides the necessary thermal energy for the process.

Most of these sugarcane mills generate power sufficient only for their own needs during the harvesting season (6 to 7 months), operating at 22 bar boiler pressure and 300oC steam temperature. However, privatization of the energy sector, changes in regulations and an increase in energy selling prices have induced several sugarcane mills to invest in high pressure boilers and high steam temperature (usually 65 bar/480oC), making it possible for them to export considerable amount of energy to the grid.

The objective of the project is to increase the export of electricity generated through renewable sources to the grid. This will be achieved by promoting the use of trash (sugarcane tops and leaves) as additional fuel to bagasse in the sugar mills. This will displace fossil fuel electric plants that would be implemented to produce the corresponding electricity, therefore avoiding CO2 emissions.

The project will implement trash recovery and use systems to generate electricity in at least 3 sugarcane mills, as an initial step to promote the replication of the technology to other sugarcane mills during project implementation or in the near future. Electric power will be generated in conventional systems - boiler/steam-turbine systems – preferably high pressure boilers (65 bar or above) and CEST – condensing, extraction steam turbines) with the use of sugarcane trash as a supplementary fuel to bagasse, making possible with this extra fuel to generate more electricity. The extra electricity can be generated during the harvesting season (6 to 7 months) or can be year round generation (season and off-season), if selling price and operational conditions indicate its feasibility

In addition to the technical aspects, the project will also promote the implementation of a market environment conducive to generation of electricity with bagasse and trash. This will include in-depth analysis and barrier removal with regards to the energy regulatory framework, energy pricing policies, and project financing conditions. Ultimately, the project will address all the components in the energy supply chain to promote the technical and economic viability of using sugar cane trash as an energy source.

The strategy and outcomes of the project can be summarized as:

1. Demonstration of technical and economic viability trash recovery and use as fuel through feasibility studies and business plans. CTC, MCT and FINEP will ensure technical development while GEF funds will be used to partially finance feasibility studies and business planning, as well as market development activities. This includes,

• Demonstration of technical viability of trash use taking into account detailed data of the candidate mills.

• Demonstration of economic viability of trash use through detailed financial simulation and corresponding business plans.

• Investment in at least 3 mills, including securing financing. It is expected that financial calculations will justify investment in trash use. However, should an incremental cost in investment not be covered by electricity sale price, MCT and FINEP will co finance the investment.

• Acquisition of new technology for harvesting, transporting, cleaning, and shredding, as well as power generation equipment.

2. Establishment of policy and regulatory environment for exporting renewable energy generated at sugar mills to the grid.

• Promotion of regulatory framework that encourages biomass based renewable energy projects, anchored on technical-economic information and interaction with sugarcane mills, energy commercialization and distribution companies, regulatory and government entities.

• Generation of secure market for electricity generated in sugar mills, including structuring of PPAs.

3. Monitoring & evaluation, dissemination and replication

• Continuous monitoring and adaptive management measures as necessary.

• Dissemination of project’s results at three levels: i) detailed feasibility and financial results involving CTC members, manufacturers, consumers and lending institutions, ii) the sugar industry at regional level will be kept abreast of project developments iii) the industry worldwide to be kept informed through participation of CTC and of the investing sugar mills in world events, project publications, and web based dissemination

• Support replication of project to 5 new sugar mills. Based on the on the ground experience and on dissemination activities, CTC will identify 5 additional sugarcane mills to support their project development.

B - country ownership

1. country eligibility

Brazil is eligible for GEF financing since it signed the UNFCCC on June 4th, 1992, which was ratified by Congress, in accordance with the National Constitution, by means of the Decree no.1 of February 28th, 1994. The Convention entered into force for Brazil on May 29th, 1994, 90 days after its ratification by the National Congress.

2. country drivenness

In 1995 a privatization process started in the energy sector in Brazil, with the purpose of attracting private investments. Nevertheless, the low electricity tariffs discouraged large private investments. The lack of investments, associated with a lower than average rainfall in 2001 (hydropower share is above 80%) resulted in a power shortage and in a rationing regime that lasted for almost a year. After this crisis, the government took some actions to increase the generation of renewable electricity as a national priority, among them:

• Government approval of Federal Law No. 10438, on April 26, 2002, creating a market reserve for wind power, small hydro plants (up to 30 MW) and biomass. This law created the PROINFA – (Incentive to Alternate Sources Program). A quota of 3300 MW was set until 2006, divided among wind power, small hydro and biomass, setting prices for each of them; unfortunately, the price defined for sugarcane biomass was not attractive, and the quota of 1100 MW for biomass was not achieved.

• TUSD and TUST (Tariffs for Use of the Distribution and Transmission System) were reduced to 50% in the case of renewable electricity. This benefit is only applied for installed capacity up to 30 MW. The majorities of the new mills that are investing in energy generation are above this limit and are not going to get this benefit.

• Recent decrees have allowed great electrical consumers (at least 3 MW and 69kV) to become free from electric utilities and these consumers can be connected to the grid system in 13.8kV, if they buy energy from renewable sources.

Despite the regulations set to promote renewable energy, it was the establishment of a general regulation concerning the purchase of electricity by commercialization companies only through auctions organized by the government, separated for new[1] and for old[2] energy, which had the most effect on promoting energy generation at sugarcane mills. After that, prices for the new energy reached a more consistent value.

Presently the demand for electricity is increasing around 5 % per year, even with the low economic growth in the country (2.5% per year), and electricity generation projects are still not meeting the growing demand. Implementation of large hydropower plants is increasingly complicated due to difficulties with environment licenses, the huge investment requirements and need for long distance transmission lines. The plans to install thermal natural gas fired plants had a strong drawback after the problems experienced with natural gas supply from Bolivia.

On the other hand, the sugarcane sector is undergoing a huge expansion based on the increase in the demand for ethanol. Besides the petroleum high prices, ethanol had a big push with the flexible-fuel cars (that can run on gasoline and ethanol) and today these cars account for more than 80% of the new cars sold in the country. More than 20 new sugarcane mills and distilleries are under implementation and more than 40 under planning. Better prices for new electricity are stimulating these new plants to invest in electricity generation, for which the only fuel used today is the bagasse.

These new mills and some of the existing mills that are already selling electricity to the grid are willing to even increase the amount of energy sold if they could have more fuel available. Trash[3], under the appropriate conditions, can be the right renewable alternative.

In the past years, some sugarcane mills have recovered trash for some harvesting seasons, usually using hay harvesters or balling, but at the end, usually due to high producing costs and operational problems, they stopped.

This scenario of electricity demand, clear government interest in renewable electricity, and ethanol industry growth with a willingness to invest in energy generation, added to the positive results obtained by CTC in studying the trash recovery alternative of bringing trash with the cane, have created favorable conditions for the implementation of the project.

c - Financing

a) Estimated project cost

|Project Components/Outcomes |Co-financing ($) |GEF ($) |Total ($) |

|1. Technical developments, feasibility studies, market development |4,000,000 |5,800,000 |9,800,000 |

|support, matching services including deal-closing support for 10 mills and| | | |

|implementation technical support for 3 mills. | | | |

|2. MCT/FINEP additional equipment financing of up to US$ 1 million for |3,000,000 | |3,000,000 |

|investment per mill, if necessary. | | | |

|3. Implementation of projects and investments in equipment directly |19,800,000 | |19,800,000 |

|related to trash recovery and processing – incremental (US$ 6,600,000 per | | | |

|sugarcane mill, considering 3 units). | | | |

|4. Investments and costs related to equipment such as new boilers, needed|36,000,000 | |36,000,000 |

|to make the trash use option viable in terms of steam production (average | | | |

|of US$ 12,000,000 per mill, considering 3 mills). | | | |

|5. Project results information dissemination. | |1,100,000 |1,100,000 |

|6. Monitoring and evaluation. | |550,000 |550,000 |

|7. Project management budget/cost | |350,000 |350,000 |

|Total project costs |62,800,000 |7,800,000 |70,600,000 |

b) Co-Financing (provide details of all the co-financing sources for the entire project)

|Name of Co-financier (source) |Classification |Type |Amount |

| | | |Confirmed ($) |Unconfirmed ($) |

|MC/FINEP |Nat’l Gov’t |in cash | |3,000,000 |

|SUGAR MILLS |Private Sector |in cash |6,600,000 |13,200,000 |

|SUGAR MILLS |Private Sector |in cash |12,000,000 |24,000,000 |

|CTC |NGO |in kind |3,750,000 | |

|Manufacturers |Private Sector |in kind |150,000 |100,000 |

|Total co-financing | | |22,500,000 |40,300,000 |

D - Timetable for the project

| |Starting Date |Completion Date |

|Preparation |March 2007 |August 2007 |

|Implementation |January 2008 |December 2012 |

E - Institutional Coordination and Support

1) Core Commitments and Linkages

This project is in line with the Country Programme Document (CPD) for Brazil 2007-2011 that establishes that UNDP/Brazil will continue to play a major role enhancing sustainable development and the deployment of renewable energy. In addition, it is in line with the Multi-year Funding Framework for 2004-07 Goal 3 on Energy and Environment for Sustainable Development, outcome 3.3 on Access to Sustainable Energy Services that envisages the introduction of low emissions energy technologies, in particular renewable energy, into the national energy matrix.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE A CONTINUATION OF EFFORTS CARRIED OUT THROUGH OTHER UNDP/GEF ENERGY PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES WORLDWIDE, ESPECIALLY TWO PROJECTS IN BRAZIL BRA/96/G31 - BIOMASS POWER GENERATION: SUGAR CANE BAGASSE AND TRASH AND BRA/92/G31 - BIOMASS INTEGRATED GASIFICATION/GAS TURBINE, AND IT WILL BUILD ON THE LESSONS LEARNED AND KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPED DURING THEIR EXECUTION.

2) Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration between and among Implementing Agencies, Executing Agencies, and the GEF Secretariat, if appropriate.

This project will coordinate activities and dissemination of best practices with other projects on the use of renewable energy in the region, in particular those financed by the GEF to UNDP and other Implementing and Executing Agencies, such as the IFC/World Bank project on EFCC Advanced Technology Cogeneration Project for the Costa Pinto Sugar Refinery in Piracicaba/SP, Brazil. Coordination with this project will be facilitated by the relationship between COSAN and CTC and through direct contact with the World Bank and IFC at the time of project implementation.

3) Implementation/Execution Arrangements

The project will be implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and executed by Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira (CTC), which has successfully worked with UNDP Brazil and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT) in Project BRA/96/G31.

CTC – Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira is a Civil Society Organization of Private Interest (OSCIP) that works as a Private Development Organization. It was created in 1978 as CTC - Centro de Tecnologia Copersucar with the main purpose of providing technology to Copersucar member mills. In August 2004 the center was opened to other mills interested in sharing the technology and the means to maintain the centre, with a change to CTC - Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira. It now has 142 associated companies, including 125 sugarcane mills (108 operating and 17 being installed) and 17 sugarcane growers associations (with 12.000 growers) totaling 215 million tons of cane and a planted area of 2,400 thousand hectares (representing 46% of the produced cane in Brazil), with a budget of US$ 20,000,000 per year and a total of 310 employees (72 engineers, 64 technicians, 150 field workers, 24 operation and administrative). CTC has been dedicated since its creation to all the activities related to sugarcane varieties development, equipment and processes for sugarcane production, ethanol and sugar processing, and energy production, through the development and implementation of technologies and projects.

CTC has, for several years, worked closely with international cooperation agencies such as Winrock International, European Commission, the World Bank and, in particular, UNDP. Besides participating at the implementation of the Biomass Power Generation project, it also assisted UNDP Cuba in developing the basis for project Proposal for feasibility study, T26-01 – Sugarcane biomass for power generation in Cuba. As CTC joins in the same organization a wide range of specialists dealing with all the aspects of sugarcane breeding, sugar and ethanol production and energy generation, it has been able to facilitate processes that would have otherwise been very difficult to carry out. The straightforward contact with the associated mills and long history of work with a wide range of sugarcane mills turn to be a facilitating factor for project execution. The implementation of the proposed full- size project will be build upon the know-how and experience that CTC has obtained during its almost 30 years of existence in the research and development activities related to sugarcane breeding, production, processing and the execution of the above-mentioned projects.

The implementation of the project will also depend on the commitment assumed by the selected sugarcane mills. Besides the fact that the selected sugarcane mills will be the great investors and also beneficiaries of the funds allocated by GEF to the project, they will participate in the technical discussions and decisions since the proposed changes will have direct impact on mills’ operations. Coordination and administration of operational activities, necessary infield labor, maintenance, supplies and several other activities participation will be demanded and should be offered by the participating sugarcane mills involved in the implementation project. The selection process for choosing the sugarcane mills with contacts, project intention discussions and information exchange is already initiated. However, the commitment of the selected sugarcane mills can only be requested after PPG studies are undertaken and process and economic feasibility studies demonstrate viability of the project. Besides that, a power purchase contract intention or even its signature should be carried on during this process, if the energy is to be supplied to the grid, to guarantee further investments.

PART II - Project Preparation Grant (PPG)

A - Justification

The potential of trash use as a supplementary fuel has not been yet successfully developed to date. The general perception within the sugarcane sector is that trash recovery and processing is technically complicated, and that economic feasibility has not been reached yet. CTC has been working in the technology involved in this subject since 1991, in several projects, including GEF Project BRA/96/G31. This has led to the alternative of bringing trash with the cane to the mill site. The technology is under final development but is highly promising in terms of its technical and financial viability.

Project preparation activities are necessary to consolidate and summarize the existing information at CTC and to finalize technical and economic studies that confirm the feasibility of the project. Such activities will allow sugarcane mills and GEF to have a more clear view of the technical and economic aspects of the project, thus allowing for a well informed decision regarding the viability and risks of implementing the project. This analysis will be based on data obtained from field and factory trials that are already being carried out by CTC, an energy balance assessment, and equipment requirements (quantity, investment, operational capacity and costs).

In addition, a preliminary assessment of energy market and regulatory framework will be carried out to identify potential barriers associated with the sale of biomass based renewable energy to the grid. This will feed in to the project design, and together with the technical and economic feasibility information, will compose the GEF project proposal to be prepared during this preparation phase. Furthermore, project preparation activities are crucial to secure the commitment of stakeholders in implementing the project and, in particular, to secure co-financing from interested sugar mills.

B – Description of Proposed Preparation Activities

Proposed preparation activities:

1. TECHNICAL DATA COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS

4 Finalize data analyses of initial trials being carried on by CTC and the project technical concept. Field trials and technology development dedicated to the project have been carried out by CTC in the last months as preparation activities for the Full-sized project, and have been considered as part of PDF co-financing.

5 Describe activities involved in the trash recovery and processing. Summarize technology achievements and results of preliminary field and factory trials already carried out.

6 Define further activities that should be carried out during Full size project to evaluate and improve technology, equipment and processes.

7 Based on a sugarcane mill case study, an energy balance will be performed to define de amount of trash needed, definition of the industrial equipment and total electricity exported to the grid. Trial data, CTC data bank and former experience will be used in estimating equipment performance, perform initial analysis of the operation to quantify necessary equipment to recover and process trash (field and factory) and basic specification of the industrial equipment to generate electricity (boilers, turbo-generators, etc.).

2. Economic feasibility analysis

9 Perform preliminary economic analysis estimating trash cost, energy cost, with sensitivity analysis for energy selling price.

3. Policy/regulatory analysis and engagement of energy government institutions

11 Perform preliminary analysis of the current energy market and associated regulatory framework. Identify barriers to be removed in order to promote biomass based renewable energy projects and ensure the delivery of significant amount of energy to the grid.

4. Selection of sugarcane mills and securing project co-financing

13 Dissemination of the results of the Preparation Activities (items 1 and 2) will be carried out to get interested sugarcane mills committed in participating of the full-sized project. Sugarcane mills with real conditions and good perspectives in investing in a trash recovery project (at least 3) will be selected to ensure involvement from the beginning of full-sized project, obtaining main characteristics of the mill, such as present field and factory profile, sugarcane harvesting logistics, perspectives for trash use, trash and bagasse availability, etc.

5. Drafting of ProDoc and Executive Summary.

15 Based on the studies, discussions with interested sugarcane mills and information gathered during Preparation Activities, the original plan for GEF project (activities and financing plan) will be reviewed. All activities involved in this project implementation will be defined and their costs estimated, including: regulatory framework actions, technology evaluation and improvement, project design, project implementation, administration, and monitoring and dissemination.

16 Produce a project proposal incorporating all Preparatory Activities information and an Executive Summary to be submitted for approval of the sugarcane mills board and subsequently the GEF. In addition to complying with GEF project submission requirements, this document will be used to engage sugarcane mills and other stakeholders in the project and secure their co-financing commitment.

C– Outputs from Preparation Activities

The main outputs are:

1. DEFINITION OF THE STATUS OF CURRENTLY MOST PROMISING TECHNOLOGY FOR TRASH RECOVERY AND ENERGY GENERATION AT SUGARCANE MILLS

ESTABLISHMENT OF A TECHNICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY SOUND ALTERNATIVE FOR TRASH RECOVERY, HANDLING AND USE (PROCESSES AND EQUIPMENT). DETERMINATION OF TRASH AND ENERGY COSTS BASED ON A REAL CASE STUDY. INDICATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO BRING DOWN COSTS, NECESSARY INNOVATIONS AND NEW EQUIPMENT. PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDIES WITH ENERGY COSTS AND FINANCIAL RETURN ESTIMATION BASED ON SALE PRICES.

2. COMMITMENT OF SUGARCANE MILLS FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

DISSEMINATION OF THE TRASH RECOVERY CONCEPT AND REAL CASE ANALYSIS DATA IN SEMINARS AND MEETINGS. RECEIVE SUGARCANE MILLS POINT OF VIEW AND DISCUSS NECESSARY ACTIONS REGARDING REGULATIONS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR, FINANCING POLICIES AND EVEN ADJUSTMENTS IN THE TECHNOLOGY AND STRATEGY OF THE PROJECT. GET MILLS INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT AND KNOW THEIR NEEDS WITH REGARDS TO BROKERING CONTRACTS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR.

3. LEGAL AND REGULATORY BARRIER ANALYSIS DEFINED WITH INVOLVEMENT OF ENERGY GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

THE INVOLVEMENT OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS IN THE DISCUSSIONS WILL MAKE THEM MORE AWARE OF THE ISSUES FACED BY SUGARCANE MILLS REGARDING TRASH RECOVERY AND THE BENEFITS IN PRODUCING THIS RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY. THIS WILL PAVE THE WAY FOR THE PROJECT TO BE INVOLVED IN SHAPING MORE ADEQUATE REGULATIONS AND FINANCING CONDITIONS THAT PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO THIS KIND OF ENERGY GENERATION.

4. PROJECT DOCUMENT

PREPARE A DOCUMENT AND EXECUTIVE PLAN WITH ACTIVITIES, TIME-SCHEDULE AND NECESSARY RESOURCES (GEF GRANTS AND CO-FINANCING), AND MEETING ALL GEF REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECT SUBMISSION.

D – Implementation Plan for Preparation Activities

|Duration of PPG (in months) |

|Activities |PPG-Months |

| |2 |4 |6 |

|1. Data compilation and analysis, including energy balance | | | |

|2. Economic feasibility analysis | | | |

|3. Policy/regulatory analysis and engagement of energy government institutions | | | |

|4. Selection of sugarcane mills and securing project co-financing | | | |

|5. Drafting of ProDoc and Executive Summary | | | |

E – Budget

a) Total Project Preparation Budget (no IA/ExA staff cost to be funded out of PPGs)

|Activities |Co-financing ($) |GEF ($) |Total ($) |

|1. Technical data compilation and analysis |550,000* |60,000 |610,000 |

|2. Economic feasibility analysis |20,000 |55,000 |75,000 |

|3. Policy/regulatory analysis and engagement of energy gov’t inst’s. | |25,000 |25,000 |

|4. Selection of sugarcane mills and securing project co-financing |10,000 |20,000 |30,000 |

|5. Drafting of ProDoc and Executive Summary |20,000 |20,000 |40,000 |

|13. PPG management cost** | |20,000 |20,000 |

|Total PDF budget/cost |600,000 |200,000 |800,000 |

* Includes Field trials and technology development dedicated to the project that have been carried out by CTC after GEF Pipeline entry on January 2006as preparation activities for the Full-size project.

**This item is the aggregate cost of project management; breakdown of the aggregate amount is presented in the table in b)

b) Preparation management budget/cost[4]

|Component |Estimated Staff | |Other Sources ($) |Project Total ($) |

| |weeks |GEF ($) | | |

|Personnel* (CTC) |30 |20,000 | |20,000 |

|Total |30 |20,000 | |20,000 |

• Local and international consultants in this table are those who are hired for functions related to the management of project. For those consultants who are hired to do a special task, they would be referred to as consultants providing technical assistance. For these consultants, please provide details of their services in c) below:

Project preparation management

|Component |Description of role and competence |

|Personnel (CTC) |Responsible for project preparation activities conducted by CTC. Experience with sugarcane |

| |harvesting, transport and energy field and coordinating GEF project BRA/96/G31. Presently |

| |responsible for the area of Energy Research &Development in CTC. |

c) Consultants working on technical assistance components:

|Component |Estimated Staff Weeks |GEF($) |Other Sources ($) |Project Total ($) |

|Personnel (CTC) |200 | |270,000*** |270,000 |

|Local consultant |100 |120,000 | |120,000 |

|International consultant | 30 |60,000 | |60,000 |

|Total | |180,000 |270,000 |450,000 |

*** Includes Field trials and technology development dedicated to the project that have already been carried out by CTC as preparation activities for the Full-sized project. The estimated staff weeks includes this previous time spent after GEF Pipeline entry in January, 2006.

Consultants providing technical assistance

|Component |Description of role and competence |

|Personnel (CTC) |Responsible for field trials, collection of project data, development of feasibility analysis, |

| |and provision of information for sugarcane mills selection. A broad team with various |

| |competences and large experience in the sugarcane sector, including agronomy, harvesting, trash |

| |collection, cane reception, trash processing, energy generation at the mill, economy and so on. |

|Local consultants |Responsible for defining inputs to project definition, analysis of project data, assisting the |

| |development of feasibility analysis, negotiations with sugarcane sector, analysis of energy |

| |regulatory framework, provide information for sugarcane mills selection. Also responsible for |

| |collecting the necessary information and supporting PRODOC execution. Necessary to have a broad |

| |knowledge of energy, be aware of the energy situation of the country and sugarcane sector |

| |(demands and regulations). Be familiar with GEF procedures and demands and provide information |

| |for PRODOC execution. |

|International consultant |Responsible for provision of high level technical assistance to the national project team. The |

| |main purpose of this consultancy is to ensure that the project is designed in accordance to the |

| |latest international experiences and development is the technical aspects of generation with |

| |sugar cane bagasse and residues. The international consultant will also assist in the |

| |definition of the project strategy and main outcomes, as well as the development of a logical |

| |framework and incremental cost analysis. Necessary to be a top level expert in biomass/biofuels,|

| |well respected in the Brazilian and international energy sector, and acquainted of GEF |

| |procedures and demands. |

d) Detailed PPG co-financing (as part of total budget)

|Co-financing Sources for Project Preparation Grant (PPG) |

|Name of Co-financier (source) |Classification |Type |Amount |

| | | |Confirmed ($) |Unconfirmed ($) |

|CTC – Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira |Exec. Agency |in kind |270,000 | |

|Usina Equipav (sugarcane mill) |Private sector |in cash |330,000 | |

|Subtotal co-financing |600,000 | |

F – Response to Reviews

1) Convention Secretariat

2) Other Implementing Agencies/Executing Agencies

Annex 1. Total Budget and Work Plan

|Award ID: |tbd |

|Award Title: |PIMS 3515/CC/PDFB: Brazil Energy Generation |

|Business Unit: |tbd |

|Project Title: |Brazil: Energy Generation at Sugarmills using Trash and Bagasse |

|Implementing Partner (Executing Agency) |Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira (CTC) |

GEF Outcome/Atlas Activity |Responsible Party/

Implementing Agent |Fund ID |Donor Name[5]

|Atlas Budgetary Account Code |ATLAS Budget Description |Amount Year 1 (USD) |Amount Year 2 (USD) |Amount Year 3 (USD) |Amount Year 4 (USD) |Total (USD) |See Budget Note: | |OUTCOME 1:

FSP prepared and submitted to the GEF |CTC |62000

|GEF

|71200 |Intern. Consultants |60,000 |- |- |- |60,000 |N/A | | | | | |71300 |Local Consultants |120,000 |- |- |- |120,000 |N/A | | | | | |72100 |Contractual services |- |- |- |- |- | | | | | | | |Total Outcome 1 |180,000 |- |- |- |180,000 | | |Project management unit

|

CTC |62000

|GEF

|71200 |Internal Consultants |- |- |- |- |- | | | | | | |71300 |Local Consultants |20,000 |- |- |- |20,000 |N/A | | | | | |71600 |Travel |- |- |- |- |- | | | | | | |72500 |Office Supplies |- |- |- |- |- | | | | | | |74500 |Miscellaneous |- |- |- |- |- | | | | | | | |Total Management |20,000 | | | |20,000 | | | | | | |PROJECT TOTAL |200,000 | | | |200,000 | | |

Summary of Funds: [6] | | | | | |Amount Year 1 (USD) |Amount Year 2 (USD) |Amount Year 3 (USD) |Amount Year 4 (USD) |Total (USD) | | | | | |GEF | |200,000 |- |- |- |200,000 | | | | | |Donor 2 |Private Sector |330,000 |- |- |- |330,000 | | | | | |Donor 3 in-kind |CTC |270,000 |- |- |- |270,000 | | | | | |TOTAL | |800,000 |- |- |- |800,000 | |

-----------------------

[1] New energy: energy to be produced in the future, with auctions defining starting date of generation (3 or 5 years ahead, for example).

[2] Energy already produced by established plants.

[3] Trash: the leaves and tops left in the field after unburned sugarcane harvesting

[4] For all consultants hired to manage project or provide technical assistance, please attach a description in terms of their staff weeks, roles and functions in the project, and their position titles in the organization, such as project officer, supervisor, assistants or secretaries.

[5] Only cash co-financing actually passing through UNDP accounts should be entered here and in Atlas. Other co-financing should NOT be shown here.

[6] Summary table should include all other co-financing (cash and in-kind) that is not passing through UNDP.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download