![[Print icon]](/images/print-16x16.png)
Print
Rating system commercial reforestation projects
The total rating is divided into two main parts:
And a supplemental part:
Purpose of this rating
The rationale for the differentiation between financial security and ecological quality, is the goal of establishing a clear formula in the market that combines these values inseperably, in such a way that the investor can be sure of both aspects. The investor must be able to expect a decent profit with a sufficient measure of certainty, while at the same time being sure that by this investment he is bringing about a measurable ecological improvement on a lasting basis. Market research shows there is a gigantic market for this type of product laying dormant and struggling to wake up and find an outlet. Until now, this outlet has never been realized. The general idea is that the more the environment is violated, the lower the costs and the higher the profits that can be made. In spite of all the "green" investment funds that have emerged during the last decade, there are still no clear examples available for the investing public to combine the two values of financial profit and ecological profit in a convincing way. To date, the profits realized from those "green" have been in general very low, whereas the "green" aspects are, at best, doubtful. If the above-mentioned goal will be reached, this situation will change drastically.
Weight of financial and ecological parameters
Since, at this moment, profitability is the most pressing and debated aspect of the (teak) reforestation projects, the financial parameters are given 18 % more weight than the ecological parameters. The ecological parameters can, in principle, be upgraded afterwards - albeit at considerably higher costs - whereas the financial parameters must be healthy from the start in order for the project to not fail. In due time, when the reforestation branch is more mature and professional and the average project is financially more stable, the ecological parameters will probably be given the same weight.
Specific situations
The rating category "specific situations" (S) is utilized in case some important aspects, that are not covered by the existing rating scheme and that are idiosyncratic for the plantation in question, have to be taken into account. Such special aspects can be either positive or negative.
Rating scale
To avoid suggesting an accuracy that is unrealistic, the (sub and final) results are translated to a 5-point scale as follows:
| Total Rating | Table indication | In words | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | ≤ rating result ≤ | 100 | + + | Good |
| 60 | ≤ rating result < | 80 | + | Sufficient |
| 40 | < rating result < | 60 | o | Average |
| 20 | < rating result ≤ | 40 | - | Insufficient |
| 0 | ≤ rating result ≤ | 20 | - - | Bad |
Disagreement about ratings
As is usual in the case of ratings, ratees may have different opinions from the rater. In such cases the plantations are invited to provide Sicirec with additional information that may cause the ratings to be adjusted.