Project Description
For this analysis the Camisea project is separated into three components, upstream, downstream, and distribution, they are defined as follows:
| Upstream Component |
 Block 88 (Geo-seismic surveying and extraction) |
| Malvinas processing plant |
| Fractionation plant in Paracas Bay |
| Downstream Component |
| Natural gas and liquified natural gas pipelines that run from Camisea fields to “Upstream” fractionation plant |
| Natural gas pipeline that continues north along coast to Lima City Gate |
| Distribution Component |
| Approximately 60km of pipeline in Lima and Callao |
Methodology
The steps used to estimate the ecological services were:
| 1) Identify Pipeline Route |
| 2) Define impacted biomes and areas |
| 3) Estimate relative ‘health’ or ‘condition’ before and after |
| 4) Assign values |
Three primary scenarios were developed as part of the ecosystem services valuation. The first scenario evaluated pre-pipeline conditions, and was performed to estimate ‘baseline’ conditions that existed in the region before pipeline construction commenced. The second scenario evaluated the reduction is ecosystem goods and services in the area immediately impacted by pipeline construction. The third scenario evaluated broader impacts from the project over a wider geographic scale.
A fourth scenario was also developed to examine the impacts in the area immediately surrounding Block 88. The purpose of this smaller evaluation was to provide data for comparison to a report issued by Pluspetrol Peru Corporation in 2004. That report forms the basis for compensation to native communities impacted from the Camisea project.
For additional details on the methodology used in the ecosystem services valuation, please follow the link to the presentation above.
Results
Our evaluation of ‘baseline’ or ‘before’ conditions indicates a broad range of values for ecosystem goods and services. Direct and short-term impacts from construction-related activities are estimated to reduce baseline values by approximately 3%. Indirect and longer-term impacts associated with the Camisea project are estimated to further degrade ecological goods and services by approximately 59% from background conditions. The spreadsheets used in these calculations - and the associated land area, land cover, and ecosystem health estimates - may be reviewed via the following links:
Camisea Ecosystem Services Valuation Before Scenario
Camisea Ecosystem Services Valuation After Scenario Direct Impacts
Camisea Ecosystem Services Valuation After Scenario Indirect Impacts
The Pluspetrol compensation plan evaluated an area of approximately 92,000 ha, and estimated almost $2 million dollars in lost goods and services resulting from the project. However, this report focused primarily on means of subsistence and production, and general ‘quality of life’ concerns. Our own analysis of the Block 88 area produced a similar estimate of impacted land area (approximately 55,000 ha), but differed significantly in terms of dollars values ($130 million to $1.2 billion dollars) than the Pluspetrol study. Our analysis of the Block 88 area may be reviewed via the following link:
Camisea Ecosystem Services Valuation After Scenario Block 88 Only
The following table summarizes the results of the three primary evaluations, covering baseline conditions, direct impacts from construction, and indirect impacts from potential ecosystem degradation in the longer-term.
| Scenario: | Before | After Short-Term | After Short-Term | After Long-Term | After Long-Term |
| (Pre-Project Valuation) | (Reduced Value) | (% Devaluation) | (Reduced Value) | (% Devaluation) | |
| Min $ | $21,926,395,490 | $656,412,083 | 3% | $12,986,486,507 | 59% |
| Max $ | $205,375,457,579 | $6,149,989,897 | 3% | $121,241,363,066 | 59% |
| Note: Values are in whole dollars (US$) | |||||
Limitations
This evaluation should be seen as a preliminary effort in what will hopefully become an ongoing assessment. There are several limitations that this analsyis faced, including:
| 1) The diffiulty in finding useful maps that had sufficient detail and scale |
| 2) Predicting settler/invasive species colonization/future gas spills |
| 3) Limited info on ecosystems/land use |
| 4) High subjectivity in spatial/temporal limits for projections |
| 5) Subjectivity in assessing level of ecosystem function |
Recommendations for future updates
| Better land use/land cover estimates |
| More information on ecosystem degradation |
| Partnership with Peruvian university |
| Use additional information to improve accuracy of the final values |
| Revise trial valuation spreadsheet categories to use as template for future oil/gas projects |