FCCC/SB/2000/XX English Page 1 CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM SIMPLIFIED PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FOR SMALL-SCALE PROJECT ACTIVITIES (SSC-CDM-PDD) Version 02 CONTENTS A. General description of the small-scale project activity B. Baseline methodology C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period D. Monitoring methodology and plan E. Calculation of GHG emission reductions by sources F. Environmental impacts G. Stakeholders comments Annexes Annex 1: Information on participants in the project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Minutes of the Stakeholder Meeting
Transcript
FCCC/SB/2000/XX English Page 1
CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM
SIMPLIFIED PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FOR SMALL-SCALE PROJECT ACTIVITIES (SSC-CDM-PDD)
Version 02
CONTENTS
A. General description of the small-scale project activity B. Baseline methodology C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period D. Monitoring methodology and plan E. Calculation of GHG emission reductions by sources F. Environmental impacts G. Stakeholders comments Annexes Annex 1: Information on participants in the project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Minutes of the Stakeholder Meeting
2
Revision history of this document
Version Number
Date Description and reason of revision
01 21 January 2003
Initial adoption
02 8 July 2005 • The Board agreed to revise the CDM SSC PDD to reflect guidance and clarifications provided by the Board since version 01 of this document.
• As a consequence, the guidelines for completing CDM SSC PDD have been revised accordingly to version 2. The latest version can be found at <http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents>.
3
SECTION A. General description of the small-scale project activity A.1. Title of the small-scale project activity: >> Bondoc Realty Methane Recovery and Electricity Generation Project Version 2 Completed 04 June 2007 A.2. Description of the small-scale project activity: >> The Bondoc Realty Methane Recovery and Electricity Generation Project (hereafter, the “Project”) developed by Philippine Bio-Sciences Co., Inc. (hereafter referred to as the “Project Developer” or “PhilBIO”) is an anaerobic digestion (AD) swine wastewater treatment project at the Bondoc Realty farrow to finish swine farm located in the Candelaria, Philippines (hereafter referred to as the “Host Country”). The Bondoc farm operation currently employs normal scraping and hose down cleaning of waste. The farm manages waste with a series of concrete lagoons (oxidation ponds). This material degrades anaerobically in the facility’s lagoon system producing significant amounts of methane. The Project Developer will implement a turnkey ‘covered in-ground anaerobic reactor’ (CIGAR) that will utilise organic material currently treated in the wastewater ponds to produce biogas. The CIGAR system will treat organically laden waste-water to reduce the amount of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) it contains prior to the waste water reaching the main pond system. The biogas produced in the project’s anaerobic digester will be used to generate electricity for use on site. Currently the farm relies on electricity from Meralco, the electricity distributor in Luzon, but with the implementation of the project activity, that electricity will henceforth be supplied by renewable biogas utilised in generators to produce electricity. No emissions reductions will be claimed in the project activity from displacing grid electricity. Development of the Project will directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced by the release of methane from the concrete lagoons, and will reduce carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions from the Luzon grid. The methane emissions were calculated ex-ante using the IPCC 2006 Tier II approach to calculate the amount of raw material that would decay anaerobically in the absence of the project activity. The project is predicted to reduce emissions by 1,785 tons of CO2 equivalent per year. The Project is helping the Host Country fulfil the sustainable development goals outlined in Philippine Agenda 21. The Project will act as a clean technology demonstration project within the wastewater management sector, which could be replicated across the Philippines and the region;
4
• The project is an important capacity building activity, demonstrating the use of a new financial mechanism for funding of the renewable energy and waste management sector via the CDM;
• The project increases diversity and security of energy supplied through energy self sufficiency;
• The project will result in significant reduction in levels of BOD, COD and TSS and in turn will result in cleaner effluents. These effluents can be recycled on-site or off-site as irrigation water thereby benefiting the adjoining communities. Benefits shall also accrue to the communities in terms of cleaner water ways;
• The project will make the farm more competitive and thus ensure long term employment to the local residents, and will be a source of local taxes for the LGU which in turn will improve delivery of basic services to the community;
• The multiplier effect of this investment is likely to bring additional benefits, such as employment opportunities, particularly in the agro-industrial sector;
• The project will make use of methane rich biogas through a closed loop process, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and,
• The project will improve local air quality and significantly reduce odour, which in turn will directly benefit the adjoining communities.
A.3. Project participants: >> Please list project participants and Party(ies) involved and provide contact information in Annex 1.
Information shall be indicated using the following tabular format.
Name of Party involved (*)
((host) indicates a host
Party)
Private and/or public entity(ies)
Project participants (*) (as applicable)
Kindly indicate if the Party involved
wishes to be considered as project
participant
The Philippines (host)
Bondoc Realty Farm No
The Philippines (host)
Philippine BioSciences Co., Inc. (PhilBIO)
No
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland
EcoSecurities Group Ltd
No
United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland
EcoSecurities Group Plc
No
(*) In accordance with the CDM modalities and procedures, at the time of making the CDM-PDD public at
the stage of validation, a Party involved may or may not have provided its approval. At the time of
requesting registration, the approval by the Party(ies) involved is required.
Note: When the PDD is filled in support of a proposed new methodology (forms CDM-NBM and CDM-NMM), at least the host Party(ies) and any known project participant (e.g. those proposing a new methodology) shall be identified. A.4. Technical description of the small-scale project activity: >>
5
The ‘covered in-ground anaerobic reactor’, or ‘CIGAR’, breaks down organic contaminants through a three-step biological process where wastewater is treated in the absence of oxygen. The wastewater is stored in the reactor for at least 30 days where specialized bacteria consume the waste and release methane that is utilised as biogas for on-site electricity generation (see figure 1).
Figure 1: CIGAR pond reactor1 HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) liners and covers are used to provide a ‘gas seal’ to prevent leachate from escaping to the underground aquifer and to prevent methane from escaping to the atmosphere. The CIGAR system is covered 100% of the time with 1.0mm HDPE liners. This process results in at least 95% destruction of harmful BOD, and 80% reduction of COD. Suspended solids, dissolved solids and color are all improved in the CIGAR. Longer retention time (number of days in the CIGAR) at 35 degrees Celsius kills off all pathogenic material. Methane gas makes up at least 60% of the biogas by volume. In the CIGAR for the Project the average biogas off-take is predicted to be approximately 1,100 cubic meters per day. The biogas will be used to generate electricity for the farm through a 100 KW generator. The project uses CIGAR anaerobic digestion technology utilizing HDPE, a high quality, resilient plastic with a long history of durability in sunlight and rainy weather. The product, HUITEX from Taiwan, is made from carbon black resins from Chevron Singapore. The power plant is a combination of a quality power train engine from a 100 KW Stamford Electric Generator. A.4.1. Location of the small-scale project activity: >> A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies): >> The Philippines A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: >> Quezon Province A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc: >> Candelaria A.4.1.4. Detail of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this small-scale project activity(ies):
1 Source: “Cost Estimation of Biogas Plants in Piggeries: A Manual for Hog Raisers”, prepared by the Development Bank of the Philippines.
6
>> The project is located in the municipality of Candelaria, in the province of Quezon in the Philippines. The address of the project is: Bondoc Realty Farm, Brgy. Taguan, Candelaria , Quezon, the Philippines. The GPS coordinates of the farm are: N 13°55’77 and E 121°23’84. A.4.2. Type and category(ies) and technology of the small-scale project activity: >> The category for the project activity according to the UNFCCC’s published “Appendix B - Indicative Simplified Baseline and Monitoring Methodologies for Selected Small-Scale CDM Project Activities” is:
• Type III.D (reference AMS-III.D version 11) – “Methane recovery” – for the methane recovery component of the project activity.
The project conforms to project category III.D since the project both reduces anthropogenic emissions by sources, and results in emission reductions lower than 60,000 tCO2e annually. A detailed discussion of the technology of the project activity can be found in Section A.4. A.4.3. Brief explanation of how the anthropogenic emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHGs) by sources are to be reduced by the proposed small-scale project activity , including why the emission reductions would not occur in the absence of the proposed small-scale project activity, taking into account national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances: >> In the absence of the project activity, fugitive emissions of methane from the pond system and direct emissions from the Luzon power grid would continue unabated2. The project will engineer a more sustainable waste treatment solution that dramatically reduces fugitive methane emissions, and makes available carbon neutral biogas for electricity generation. Under the business as usual scenario there would be continuing release of methane from the pond system and continued emissions production from the power grid. The current market situation and common practice in the industry is discussed in greater detail in Section B.3. It is unlikely that anaerobic digestion projects would be developed in the Host Country in the absence of the CDM project activity due to unfavourable market conditions and the existence of significant technological and market barriers for such projects. To date there has been limited development of such projects in the Host Country, and the majority of installations have been implemented as CDM projects. In addition, the proposed project activity faces significant barriers to investment that drives a continuation of the prevailing business practice in the Host Nation. These barriers are discussed and further elaborated in Section B. A.4.3.1 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period: >> Please indicate the chosen crediting period and provide the total estimation of emission reductions as well as annual estimates for the chosen crediting period. Information on the emissions reductions shall be indicated using the following tabular format.
2 Reduced grid emissions are a co-benefit, but the project will not credit for the renewable energy component.
7
For type (iii) small-scale projects the estimation of project emissions is also required. Years Annual estimation of emission reductions in
*After the initial 7-year crediting period, the baseline will be reassessed, generating a new estimate of emissions reductions yet to be determined.
Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e) 12,492 Total number of crediting years 7 (renewable up to 21 years) Annual average over the crediting period of estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e)
1,785
A.4.4. Public funding of the small-scale project activity: >> The project has not received and is not seeking public funding. A.4.5. Confirmation that the small-scale project activity is not a debundled component of a larger project activity: >> Based on the information provided in Appendix C of the Simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale clean development mechanism project activities, this Project is not a debundled component of a larger project activity since the project participants have not registered nor operated another project in the region surrounding the project boundary. SECTION B. Application of a baseline methodology: B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline methodology applied to the small-scale project activity: >> Project activity type III.D (reference AMS-III.D version 11) - Methane recovery. B.2 Project category applicable to the small-scale project activity : >> The category for the project activity according to Appendix B of the UNFCCC’s published simplified procedures for small-scale activities is:
Type III: Other Project Activities
Category III.D.: Methane recovery in agricultural and agro industrial activities
The simplified baseline and monitoring methodology AMS III.D., version 11, 23 December 2006, is applicable. For more information about the methodology, please refer to the following website:
This selection is appropriate because the alternative to the project activity would be to continue with the business as usual scenario. The farm would continue to manage waste water through the existing anaerobic pond system, and would continue to rely on the Luzon power grid exclusively for electricity. • Methane Recovery (AMS-III.D, version 11) For the methane recovery component of the project activity, the baseline has been calculated according to project activity type III.D (version 11), which states: “The emission baseline is the amount of methane that would be emitted to the atmosphere during the crediting period in the absence of the project activity. For each year during the crediting period, emissions are calculated as specified in paragraph a and paragraph b below and lower of the two values is used:
(a) Actual monitored amount of methane captured and destroyed by the project activity. (b) The methane emissions calculated ex ante using the amount of the waste or raw material that would decay anaerobically in the absence of the project activity, with the most recent IPCC tier 2 approach (please refer to the chapter ‘Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management’ under the volume ‘Agriculture, Forestry and other Land use’ of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories).”
B.3. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered small-scale CDM project activity : >> The Project qualifies to use simplified methodologies and results in emission reductions lower than 60,000 tCO2e annually. MARKET SITUATION & NATIONAL POLICIES: The Philippines has approximately 5 million farms and over 8 million pigs, and it has been estimated that the amount of livestock manure produced is 28,960 tonnes per day or 10.1 million tonnes per year. The bulk of the pig population comes from the smallholder farm which accounts for about 85% of the total hog inventory. According to the Philippine Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, the livestock industry grew by about 3 percent in 2003, with the hog sector as the major contributor. Hog production represents about 80 percent of the total Philippine livestock industry. In 2003, the swine sector grew by 4 percent. Due to continued strong domestic consumption of pork, hog production will likely continue to grow at a rate of 3 to 4 percent in 2005 and beyond despite increased feed cost in the world market. Filipinos are large consumers of swine meat and are known to generally prefer pork to chicken or beef.3 The industry faces a number of obstacles including the spread of economically devastating diseases, high marketing and transaction costs, erratic supply of imported feed ingredients, supplements and biologics, and the limited availability of genetically superior breeding stock.4 3 Moog, F. A. , “Promotion and utilization of polyethylene biodigester in smallhold farming systems in the Philippines”, Research Division, Bureau of Animal Industry, Manila, Philippines, 1997 4 Abuel-Ang, Pia, “Philippines Livestock and Products Annual 2004”, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, September 2004
9
The main regulatory agencies that monitor the industry are the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) and the National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC) under the Philippine Department of Agriculture. Environmental regulations are monitored and enforced by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The primary environmental laws applicable to the project are the Clean Water Act (2003) and the Clean Air Act (1999). ADDITIONALITY: According to Attachment A to Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for CDM small-scale project activities, evidence as to why the proposed project is additional is offered under the following categories of barriers: (a) investment barrier, (b) technological barrier, and (c) prevailing practice. a) Investment Barrier Small swine farms, such as the Bondoc Realty farm, have a difficult time securing financing for the implementation of biogas waste water management projects. The following factors contribute to the investment barrier which these projects face:
• Perceived Risk - Most local banks are not interested in these projects primarily because of lack of knowledge and experience with the technology.
• Current Practice - The current pond based treatment method is considered standard operating practice in the Philippines and the region for wastewater treatment. Moreover, for the Project Owner the current pond system (business as usual scenario) is extremely financially attractive, given that it works to required specification and requires virtually no management input to achieve the key parameters. All required land is appropriated and the current system has sufficient capacity to handle additional waste.
• Lowest Cost - The current system represents the lowest cost option, with the only cost being the opportunity cost of alternative land use.
The inclusion of CER revenues has therefore become an important part of the Project Owner and Project Developer’s implementation and financing strategy. (b) Technological Barrier: The predominant and known technology for piggery waste water management in the Philippines is through a series of lagoons (oxidation ponds).5 Biological treatment of wastewater to produce biogas is a new and relatively unknown technology in the host country. The lack of available knowledge and confidence in the technology, especially among small privately owned swine farms, makes this type of development difficult to establish. As a result, most swine farm owners view this technology as risky and prefer to maintain their farms in the traditional fashion. This risk is reflected in the fact that there were fewer than ten projects of this type in the host country when this project was started. Moreover, many farmers are concerned that a bio-digester project is too complex to operate and maintain. The anaerobic digestion and biogas system utilized in the project scenario is quite different than previous experience in the Philippines. The project scenario represents a more technologically advanced alternative to the business as usual scenario, and one that carries higher perceived risk.
5 “Cost Estimation of Biogas Plants in Piggeries: A Manual for Hog Raisers”, prepared by the Development Bank of the Philippines.
10
Anaerobic digestion systems are perceived as relatively high risk, being based upon the function of a biological system that is neither 100% characterised, nor performance guaranteed. The biological system is at constant risk of chemical shocks that can wipe out the anaerobes and biological activity (and subsequently the waste management and energy production regimes, which are both key to commercial operations). AD systems require constant and ongoing precise management of a variety of elements, including water flows, pH levels, etc. In general, they are perceived as a risky solution. Overall, the project scenario involves higher perceived risks due to the performance uncertainty and a low market share of the new technology. (c) Prevailing Practice: The CIGAR technology utilized in the project activity is not common practice in the Philippines and represents a higher risk alternative to the business as usual scenario. At present, pond treatment is standard practice in the Philippines and the region for swine farms. There is little experience of utilising aerobic or anaerobic technologies in a Philippine context, and therefore these are not considered a high management priority. The highest priority for most in the sector is the management of their waste discharges to simply maintain compliance with local regulation. From the operator’s perspective, the existing lagoon system is a cheap and sufficient way to clean the waste water. SUMMARY: The current and expected practice in the host nation, which relies almost exclusively on pond based waste water treatment facilities for piggeries, as well as the combination of lack of access to financing and perceived risks of the selected technology, clearly demonstrate that the Project is additional and therefore not the baseline scenario. The prohibitive barriers that exist in the Philippines are confirmed by the observed trend in current piggery waste water management practices. The barrier analysis above clearly demonstrates that the most plausible baseline scenario is the prevailing practice of pond systems. The most significant barriers facing the project activity are technology unfamiliarity, perceived risk of the technology and the relative lack of investment interest among the key business constituency. B.4. Description of how the definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology selected is applied to the small-scale project activity : >> The project boundary is defined in AMS-III.D. version 11, paragraph 4: “The project boundary is the physical, geographical site of the methane recovery facility.”
• The project installs a methane recovery system which includes: an anaerobic digester, associated piping, and a genset. Therefore these elements constitute the project boundary, as illustrated below.
11
Figure 1. Project Boundary under AMS.III.D.
B.5. Details of the baseline and its development: >> SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period: C.1. Duration of the small-scale project activity : >> C.1.1. Starting date of the small-scale project activity: >> 16/10/2004 C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the small-scale project activity : >> 21y-0m C.2. Choice of crediting period and related information: >> C.2.1. Renewable crediting period: >> C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period: >> 01/08/2007 C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: >> 7y-0m C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: >>
12
C.2.2.1. Starting date: >> C.2.2.2. Length: >> SECTION D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan: >> D.1. Name and reference of approved monitoring methodology applied to the small-scale project activity : >> Monitoring the amount of methane used as fuel or combusted as described in Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities. The approved monitoring methodologies applied to this project are as follows: AMS-III.D version 11 – (9) The amount of methane used as fuel or combusted shall be monitored, using flow meters and analysing the methane content of the combusted gases either online, or with samples taken at least quarterly, and more frequently if the results show significant deviations from previous values and, (11) Flow meters, sampling devices and gas analysers shall be subject to regular maintenance, testing and calibration to ensure accuracy. D.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the small-scale project activity: >> The methodology was selected as suggested by the Simplified Monitoring Methodologies for small-scale CDM projects. Measuring the amount of methane recovered and metering the amount of electricity generated are the most appropriate methods of monitoring the project activity.
D.3 Data to be monitored: >> (The table below specifies the minimum information to be provided for monitored data. Please complete the table for the monitoring methodology chosen for the proposed project activity from the simplified monitoring methodologies for the applicable small-scale CDM project activity category contained in appendix B of the simplified M&P for small-scale CDM project activities. Please note that for some project categories it may be necessary to monitor the implementation of the project activity and/or activity levels for the calculation of emission reductions achieved. Please add rows or columns to the table below, as needed) ID number
Data type Data variable
Data unit
Measured (m), calculated (c) or estimated (e)
Recording frequency
Proportion of data to be monitored
How will the data be archived? (electronic/ paper)
For how long is archived data to be kept?
Comment
1 Electricity Generation of the Project
E KWh M Continuous 100% Electronic and paper
Crediting period plus 2 years
Electricity will be metered through the use of an electricity meter supplied by Power Logic.
2 Electricity use of the Project Activity
Ep KWh C Monthly 100% Electronic and paper
Crediting period plus 2 years
Biogas is expected to cover all electricity consumption. The only project-associated equipments are 0.25HP blowers used to direct the collected biogas to the gas handling system. This requires less than 50kWh a month and will easily met by the biogas electricity generation. If and only of there is an installation of additional on-site equipment with significant electricity consumption as part of the project activity, that consumption will be monitored and accounted for as project emissions where is it greater than renewable electricity generated. It will be either metered or estimated based on known equipment consumption and running hours.
Biogas will be monitored through the use of a thermal mass flow meter supplied by Fluid Components International of the United States.
4 Methane content of biogas
CCH4 % M Quarterly (more often, if necessary)
Sample Electronic and paper
Crediting period plus 2 years
The methane content of the combusted gas will be analysed with quarterly samples using a portable gas analyzer. In the event that the methane content of the quarterly samples varies significantly, more frequent samples will be taken.
5 Number of Tears
T Number
M Daily 100% Electronic and paper
Crediting period plus 2 years
Monitoring plan requires that site staff inspect the system daily for tears. These are noted in service records.
Two other activities on site will be monitored closely:
1. Digester cover and associated system piping will be checked daily for leaks and tears. If these are found they will be repaired promptly, typically within a few hours and within two days maximum.
2. Sludge which collects are the bottom of the CIGAR will need to be removed after approximately 10 years. The farm manager has been educated regarding this requirement and options for proper disposal of sludge. Sludge disposal will likely be on fields as fertilizer, and disposal and will be monitored to ensure proper disposal of sludge. Sludge disposal will likely be on fields as fertilizer, and disposal and will be monitored to ensure proper, non-anaerobic disposal..
D.4. Qualitative explanation of how quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are undertaken: >> Data Uncertainty level of data
(High/Medium/Low) Explain QA/QC procedures planned for these data, or why such procedures are not necessary.
D.3.1 Low D.3.3 Low
Meters will be subject to regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure accuracy.
D.3.2. Low Electricity requirements of installed equipment are well understood by project contractors and their hours of use will be apparent.
D.3.4 Low The methane content of the combusted gas will be analysed with quarterly samples. In the event that the methane content of the quarterly samples varies significantly, the methane concentration will be measured with greater frequency. A gas analyzer will be used to sample the biogas and measure the CH4
fraction of biogas. D.3.5. Low Site staff monitors the system daily for leaks and tears. These
are easily identifiable and do not require QC procedures. Site staff records backup fuel consumption
A monitoring team will make regular site audits to ensure that monitoring and operational procedures are being observed in accordance with the monitoring plan and monitoring protocol. D.5. Please describe briefly the operational and management structure that the project participant(s) will implement in order to monitor emission reductions and any leakage effects generated by the project activity: >> Shift Operator � Shift Manager � Farm General Manager The farm owner will be responsible for operations, maintenance, and monitoring (OMM), as well as responsible for monitoring biogas production and electricity generation as part of standard operating procedure for the project activity. EcoSecurities has developed a monitoring workbook that the farm owner will use to input all required monitoring data. Both electronic and paper copies will be kept for back-up purposes, and transferred to EcoSecurities on a monthly basis. Additionally, calibration and maintenance records of the flow meter and gas analyzer will be maintained.
The OMM personnel will be skilled technicians, and any additional training required to ensure accurate and effective monitoring will be provided by EcoSecurities’ monitoring experts prior to start of crediting. This training will include equipment operation, data monitoring and recording (including how to reconcile any adjustments and/or data uncertainties), reporting, internal audits of GHG project based operational requirements, operation, calibration, maintenance, and emergency procedures, project performance review, and corrective actions. Calibration of required equipment will be performed by the technology provider or a trained representative. Procedures will be implemented prior to the start of crediting. As per the methodology AMS-III.D version 11 paragraph 8 no leakage calculation is required.
D.6. Name of person/entity determining the monitoring methodology: >> Jenna Goodward of EcoSecurities; Contact at +1 212 356-0175 or [email protected] EcoSecurities Group plc is a project participant. SECTION E.: Estimation of GHG emissions by sources: E.1. Formulae used: >> E.1.1 Selected formulae as provided in appendix B: >> AMS-III.D (v.11): Annual methane capture from biogas multiplied by the global warming potential (GWP) of methane (21 tCO2 / tonne methane), and, where lower: Methane emissions calculated ex ante using the amount of the waste or raw material that would decay anaerobically in the absence of the project activity, with the most recent IPCC tier 2 approach.
E.1.2 Description of formulae when not provided in appendix B: >> E.1.2.1 Describe the formulae used to estimate anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs due to the project activity within the project boundary: >> For AMS-III.D (version 11), projects should consider the following sources of project emissions: (i) Methane not captured by the project and released to the atmosphere; (ii) Methane captured and not flared (e.g. physical leakage, flare inefficiency, flare availability); (iii) CO2 emissions from combustion of non-biogenic methane; (iv) CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels or electricity for the operation of the facility; (v) The aerobic treatment and/or proper soil application of the sludge leaving the digesters in the project activity shall also be ensured and monitored. If the sludge is treated and/or disposed anaerobically, the resulting methane emissions shall be considered as project emissions. (i). Methane not captured by the project and released to the atmosphere, will be quantified as such: Project emissions in this category include potential leakage from tears in the cover of the system, which would result in some of the methane produced in the CIGAR not being captured. The CIGAR is inspected daily for tears by farm staff. Tears will be monitored, and for each tear project emissions will be calculated representing the average loss of biogas over a two-day period (maximum time to repair a tear). Leakage of methane possible through HDPE liners is negligible according to a study by Stark and Choi (2005)6, who studied methane leakage under laboratory conditions which were significantly more conducive to leakage than the project (100% CH4, very high pressure) and found that the the migration of CH4 through a HDPE geomembrane is on average around 302 ml (STP)/m2*day. The cover and liner are to be installed by PhilBio, which is ISO-9001 certified for HDPE cover and liner installation. In the ex-ante calculations, assuming one tear per year, PEAd- estimate is based on the Tier II baseline. In the ex-post calculations, it will be based on actual tears recorded.
Parameter Value Unit Comment/Source GWPCH4 21 tCO2e/tCH4 GWP of methane / IPCC DCH4 0.00067 t/m3 Density of methane at normal
conditions: temperature (20 ºC) and 1 atm pressure / ACM0010
LFAD 972.6 m3 Average amount of methane captured over two days in the
6 Stark, T.D. and H. Choi. “Technical Note: Methane Gas migration through geomembranes”. Geosynthetics International, 2005, 12, No. 2.
crediting period; Ex-ante it is calculated based on the daily methane predicted in the Tier II baseline times two. This figure will be based ex-post on Vf and CCH4 as calculated in the baseline calculation.
T 1 Number of tears in crediting period
Ex-post calculation will use monitored value for T.
PE AD,y 13.68 tCO2e/yr To be taken as project emissions where the IPCC Tier II calculations of methane generating potential are lower than the baseline based on biogas generation.
(ii) Methane captured and not flared (e.g. physical leakage, flare inefficiency, flare availability); There is no flare installed in the project, so this section refers to leakage from the biogas piping system and incomplete combustion of biogas by the generator. Methane emissions from the piping system are unlikely, but given that the pipeline is 150 meters long, it is conservative to monitor them and account for project emissions should a leak be found. Leaks will be treated equivalent to a tear, as described above in section (i). A 90% default is adopted for the combustion efficiency of the generator, which is conservative given that manufacturer’s defaults for this type of genset are typicall in the range of 97-99%. Therefore project emissions from methane captured and not combusted are as follows:
Parameter Value Unit Comment/Source
GWPCH4 21 tCO2e/tCH4 GWP of methane / IPCC
CCH4 60% % Ex-ante this is excluded (see note below) / 60% is the estimate from the project developer, however the value to be used ex-post will be based on monitored data.
DCH4 [use ex-post] 0.000715 t/m3 Density of methane at normal metered conditions: temperature (0 ºC) and 1 atm pressure (these are the conditions the meter normalises to). [use ex-post in relation to the biogas baseline which is metered]
DCH4 [use ex-ante] 0.00067 t/m3 Density of methane at normal conditions: temperature (20 ºC) and 1 atm pressure / ACM0010 [use ex-ante in relation to the Tier II baseline which is methane at 20 C]
V f 142,005 m3 For ex-ante calculations the Tier II methane predictions are substituted for Vf. In project scenario Vf will correspond to the metered biogas).
Note that since the methane predicted by the Tier II calculations is used in lieu of metered biogas for Vf in the ex-ante calculation, it is not multiplied by CCH4 (concentration of methane in the biogas) because Tier II predicts methane, not biogas. (iii) CO2 emissions from combustion of non-biogenic methane; The project activity will not involve, or indirectly result in, combustion of non-biogenic methane. (iv) CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels or electricity for the operation of the facility; There will be zero project emissions of this nature because the very small power needs for operation of the equipment associated with the CIGAR will be met entirely with renewable biogas. The only project-associated equipments are 0.25HP blowers used to direct the collected biogas to the gas handling system. This requires less than 50kWh a month and will easily met by the biogas electricity generation. If there is an installation of additional on-site equipment with significant electricity consumption as part of the project activity, that consumption will be monitored and accounted for as project emissions where it is greater than renewable electricity generated. Consumption will be either metered or calculated based on known equipment consumption and running hours. (v) The aerobic treatment and/or proper soil application of the sludge leaving the digesters in the project activity shall also be ensured and monitored. Sludge disposal will be monitored as described in monitoring section above to avoid project emissions from anaerobic breakdown of sludge. E.1.2.2 Describe the formulae used to estimate leakage due to the project activity, where required, for the applicable project category in appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities
>> For AMS-III.D: As per the Simplified Procedures for SSC Project Activities AMS-III.D paragraph 8, no leakage calculation is required. E.1.2.3 The sum of E.1.2.1 and E.1.2.2 represents the small-scale project activity emissions: >> Project emissions + Leakage = Project Activity Emissions
and, Ly = 0 Therefore;
Project Emissions
Project Emissions from Digester Leakage 13.7 tCO2e/yr
Project Emissions from Incomplete Combustion 200 tCO2e/yr
Project Emissions from Heat and Electricity 0 tCO2e/yr
Total Project Emissions 213 tCO2e/yr E.1.2.4 Describe the formulae used to estimate the anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs in the baseline using the baseline methodology for the applicable project category in appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities: >> According to AMS-III.D.v11, baseline fugitive methane emissions are calculated ex-ante using guidance from ACM0010 and the IPCC 2006 Tier II approach to calculate the amount of raw material that would decay anaerobically in the absence of the project activity. They will be compared to the actual amount of methane captured and destroyed by the project activity, and the lower of the two will be taken as the baseline figure.
DCH4 0.00067 t/m3 Density of methane at normal conditions: temperature (20 ºC) and 1 atm pressure / ACM0010
Annual methane conversion factor (MCF) for an anaerobic lagoon / IPCC 2006
MCFj 0.8
table 10.17, chapter 10, volume 4
Maximum methane producing potential of the volatile solid generated /
Bo 0.45 kg CH4/Kg VS
Default from IPCC 2006 Tier II
Nbreeding 624 head Number of animals of breeding type for the year y / Site data in the form of a pig census form filled out by farm manager and provided on June 3, 2007.
Annual volatile solid for breeding livestock type entering AWMS /
VSbreeding 186.9 Kg VS/head*yr
Default from IPCC 2006 Tier II scaled with site data as described below
Nmarket 3,385 head Number of animals of market type for the year y / Site data in the form of a pig census form filled out by farm manager and provided on June 3, 2007.
Annual volatile solid for market livestock type entering AWMS /
VSmarket 82.1 Kg VS/head*yr
Default from IPCC 2006 Tier II scaled with site data as described below
MSBl,j 100% Fraction of manure handled in system j / Site data
And where: VSLT,y was determined by scaling default IPCC values as per guidance in ACM0010, equation (4). VSdefault was used to adjust for a site-specific average animal weight as shown here:
kg/head Average animal weight of a defined population at the project site in kg / Site data in the form of a pig census form filled out by farm manager and provided June 3, 2007.
Wdefault_market 50.00
kg/head Default average animal weight of a defined population in kg from where the data on VSdefault is sourced
Default value for the volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a defined livestock /
VSdefault_market 0.30
Kg VS/head*day
IPCC default value, function of site genetics
VSmarket,y 82.08
Kg VS/head*day
Adjusted volatile solid excretion per year on a dry-matter basis for market swine at the project site in kg-dm/animal/yr
Wsite_breed 220.40
kg/head Average animal weight of a defined population at the project site in kg / Site data in the form of a pig census form filled out by farm manager and provided June 3, 2007.
Wdefault_breed 198.00
kg/head Default average animal weight of a defined population in kg from where the data on VSdefault is sourced
Default value for the volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a defined livestock /
VSdefault_breed 0.46
Kg VS/head*day
IPCC default value, function of site genetics
VSbreed,y 186.90
Kg VS/head*day
Adjusted volatile solid excretion per year on a dry-matter basis for breeding swine at the project site in kg-dm/animal/yr
VSLT,y is calculated using exactly the same equations and sources for both market swine and breeding swine.
The ex-post baseline corresponds to the lower of either: the baseline based on Tier II calculations and made ex-ante, or the baseline based on metered biogas production. The latter is to be calculated as follows:
Where:
FM baseline: Baseline fugitive methane emissions (t CO2e / year) CCH4: Methane content of captured biogas (tonne / year) DCH4
: Density of methane (tonne/m3) Vf: Biogas captured, GWPCH4: Global warming potential of methane (tCO2 / tonne methane)
Baseline Determination The baseline is the lower of the baselines predicted by the Tier II approach and the biogas-based one, therefore the baseline predicted ex-ante is determined here as below. In each verification period the baseline will be determined as such, using monitored data to calculate the biogas baseline.
Baseline Emissions from Methane
Baseline Source Value Units
Baseline Emissions from IPCC defaults
1,998 tCO2e/yr
Baseline Emissions from biogas production N/A tCO2e/yr
Total Baseline Emissions
1,998 tCO2e/yr
E.1.2.5 Difference between E.1.2.4 and E.1.2.3 represents the emission reductions due to the project activity during a given period: >> Total emissions reductions = Total baseline emissions - Total project emissions Therefore, total emissions reductions from the project activity are predicted to be:
E.2 Table providing values obtained when applying formulae above: >> For the IPCC Tier II Baseline corresponding to AMS.III.D.v11 Paragraph (6), section (b):
Reference Description Value - Breeder
Value -
Market Unit Source
GWPCH
Global warming potential of methane
21 tCO2/tCH4 Approved Global Warming Potential for CH4
DCH4 CH4 density 0.00067 t/m3 ACM0010
DCH4
CH4 density at conditions used by the meter to
normalise biogas flow metered: 0 ºC and 1 atm
pressure. For use in calculating
PE_CH4,IC and FMBaseline ex-
post only.
0.00072 t/m3 Standard Conditions
MCFj
Annual methane conversion factor for the baseline
AWMS (anaerobic
lagoon)
0.80 IPCC2006 table 10.17, chapter 10, volume 4
Bo,LT
Maximum methane producing
potential of the VS generated
0.45 m3CH4/kg_dm
IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories volume 4, chapter 10
NLT
Number of animals of type
LT for year y 624 3,385 # Site data; Farm Management
Calculated by scaling default IPCC values to adjust site-
specific average animal weights using values below
and Equation (4) of ACM0010
MS%Bl, j
Fraction of manure handled
in system j 100% % Farm Management Personnel
Wsite
Average animal weight of a
defined population at the
project site
220.40 37.48 kg Site Data; Farm Management filled out swine census form.
Wdefault
Default average animal weight of a
defined population
198 50 kg IPCC 2006
VSdefault
Default value for the volatile solid excretion basis for a defined
livestock population
0.46 0.30 kg-dm/animal/day IPCC 2006
ndy
Number of days in year y where the treatment
plant operational
365 # Farm Management Personnel
T
Annual average temperature in
Philippines (Cels.) 28 °C
www.weatheronline.com.uk The justification of the use of IPCC defaults corresponding to Western Europe for Bo and VS defaults is that:
• The genetic source of the production operations livestock originate from an Annex I Party, The pigs are Landrace, Yorkshire, and Duroc swine, which are genetic strains originating from Western Europe, specifically England and Sweden.7
• The farm uses formulated feed rations (FFR) which are optimized for the various animal(s), stage of growth, category, weight gain/productivity and/or genetics, The host farm employs an animal nutritionist and formulates its feed based on age and stage of growth meeting or exceeding the U.S. National Res. Council recommendations, as evidenced by questionnaire completed by the farm owner and presented on April 26, 2007.
• The use of FFR can be validated (through on-farm record keeping, feed supplier, etc.), The use of FFR can be validated by examining information provided by farm manager or on-site feedmill production and feeding records;
7 “Tips on Swine Raising Introduction”. Pamphlet published by the Philippines Livestock Development Council, Department of Agriculture. http://www.ldc.da.gov.ph/pdf_files/Brochures/swine.pdf
• The project specific animal weights are more similar to developed country IPCC default values, The actual weights of swine on-site are much closer to default weights for developed countries than for Asia.
For Project Emissions : Parameter Value Unit Comment/Source
GWPCH4 21 tCO2e/tCH4 GWP of methane / IPCC
DCH4 0.00067 t/m3 Density of methane at normal conditions: temperature (20 ºC) and 1 atm pressure / ACM0010
LFAD 972.6 m3 Average amount of methane captured over two days in the crediting period; Ex-ante it is calculated based on the daily methane predicted in the Tier II baseline times two. This figure will be based ex-post on Vf and CCH4 as calculated in the baseline calculation.
T 1 Number of tears in crediting period
Ex-post calculation will use monitored value for T.
PE AD,y 13.68 tCO2e/yr To be taken as project emissions where the IPCC Tier II calculations of methane generating potential are lower than the baseline based on biogas generation.
Parameter Value Unit Comment/Source
GWPCH4 21 tCO2e/tCH4 GWP of methane / IPCC
CCH4 60% % Ex-ante this is excluded (see note below) / 60% is the estimate from the project developer, however the value to be used ex-post will be based on monitored data.
DCH4 [use ex-post] 0.000715 t/m3 Density of methane at normal metered conditions: temperature (0 ºC) and 1 atm pressure (these are the conditions the meter normalises to). [use ex-post in relation to the biogas baseline which is metered]
DCH4 [use ex-ante] 0.00067 t/m3 Density of methane at normal conditions: temperature (20 ºC) and 1 atm pressure / ACM0010 [use ex-ante in relation to the Tier II baseline which is methane at 20 C]
V f 142,005 m3 For ex-ante calculations the Tier II methane predictions are substituted for Vf. In project scenario Vf will correspond to the metered biogas).
Note that since the methane predicted by the Tier II calculations is used in lieu of metered biogas for Vf in the ex-ante calculation, it is not multiplied by CCH4 (concentration of methane in the biogas) because Tier II predicts methane, not biogas. SECTION F.: Environmental impacts: F.1. If required by the host Party, documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity: >> The host country does not require an analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity. However, the farm was issued an environmental compliance certificate (ECC) on May 14, 2004 and has a valid Permit to Discharge. It should be noted, further, that the project activity generates considerable environmental benefits. The CIGAR system decreases GHG emissions through two significant avenues. Prior to the project activity, Bondoc relied on Meralco for electricity generation. With the implementation of the project activity, biogas collected from the degradation of swine-farm waste is used for electricity generation, thus eliminating the demand for electricity from the grid. In addition to directly reducing the emission of GHGs by eliminating a source of fossil fuel combustion, the project activity captures methane (CH4) from an industrial source, preventing its release into the atmosphere. Methane is an extremely potent GHG whose greenhouse warming equivalent is 21 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2).
In addition to reducing GHG emissions, this closed system of energy production produces considerable improvements for waste management at Bondoc farm. Wastewater discharge from piggeries can be hazardous to aquatic ecosystems. The extent to which wastewater discharge threatens aquatic ecosystems depends on the amount of organic material and solid material contained within the wastewater as measured by biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD, suspended solids, and color indicators. The CIGAR system, owing to its anaerobic digestion properties, reduces COD by approximately 80%, destroys approximately 95% of harmful BOD, diminishes suspended solids, and improves the color quality of the wastewater. SECTION G. Stakeholders’ comments: G.1. Brief description of how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: >> The comments of stakeholders were articulated in the Stakeholder Consultation Meeting conducted on December 1, 2005 in Bukal Sur, Taguan, Candelaria, Quezon. There were 23 participants in the stakeholder consultation including the following:
• Mr. Melvin Fabrero the Farm Manager of Bondoc Realty, • Roland Riofrir and Anthony Laroza of PhilBIO, • Alan Silayan of EcoSecurities • Representatives of the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office, • Representatives from the barangay Local Governance Unit, and • Residents living near the farm
Comments were solicited in a question and answer session after the presentations made. They were answered at the meeting by PhilBio and EcoSecurities representatives, and a transcript record of such was made. (See Annex 3) G.2. Summary of the comments received: >> The stakeholders at the meeting for brought up questions and concerns about the following issues:
• Design of the CIGAR and biogas system; • Possibility of overflow or leaks of methane gas; • Procedures when the CIGAR requires removal of sludge; • Effluent odor and disposal; and • Capital costs of the system.
G.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: >>
SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS AND RESPONSES/RECOMMENDED MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES
Issues Raised Response/Recommended Measures to Address
the Issues Stakeholders had an interest in the procedure in case the CIGAR becomes filled with solids.
PhilBio will de-seal a portion of the CIGAR and siphon the sludge which can be used as organic fertilizer.
There were questions about the possibility of CIGAR overflow.
Effluent may occasionally overflow [through a pipe that channels the water into a secondary lagoon] but solids will remain settled at the bottom of the CIGAR
There was a question regarding the possibility for the methane gas to go out through influent canal or effluent canal.
This is not a concern since methane is a low pressure gas and the system’s pipes are engineered and designed for that purpose.
How are gas leaks ensured against? PhilBio guarantees that the CIGAR is leak proof and does a proper leak test after installation.
It was asked whether the effluent would be odor-free.
The effluent still has a slight odor, but it can still be used for washing pig pens and in fish ponds.
Personal E-Mail: [email protected] Organization: Philippine Bio-Sciences Co., Inc. Street/P.O.Box: F. Ortigas Jr. Ave. (formerly Emerald Ave.) Ortigas Center Building: Strata 100 Bldg. 19th Floor, Unit C City: Pasig City State/Region: Postfix/ZIP: 1605 Country: Philippines Telephone: +63 2638 2074 FAX: +63 2631 2044 E-Mail: [email protected] URL: http://www. philbio.com.ph Represented by: CEO Title: Salutation: Last Name: Stewart Middle Name: First Name: Samuel West Department: Mobile: 0917 837 9016 Direct FAX: Direct tel: Personal E-Mail: Organization: Bondoc Realty Farm Street/P.O.Box: Brgy. Taguan Building: City: Candelaria State/Region: Quezon Postfix/ZIP: Country: Philippines Telephone: FAX: E-Mail: URL: Represented by: Title: Salutation: Last Name: Wonkyu Middle Name: First Name: Park Department: Mobile: Direct FAX: Direct tel: +63.042-585-3175 Personal E-Mail:
ANNEX 3: STAKEHOLDERS MEETING – MINUTES OF MEETING
Summary The forum started with a presentation on the CIGAR biogas technology.. Succeeding
presentations gave participants an overview of the issues concerning climate change,
mitigation of greenhouse gases, CDM, and its process, benefits and what CDM aims to
achieve. It was stressed out that the CIGAR biogas projects developed by PhilBIO can
be considered for CDM because these projects:
• reduce GHG emission
• displace grid-fed electricity
• improve environmental performance of the farm, as the CIGAR reduces : odor,
discharges of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand
(COD) in the wastewater and fire hazards
• utilize sustainable energy; biogas is an indigenous fuel that can be used to
benefit the economic performance of the hog farmers
• contribute to the sustainable development goals of the Philippines
The financial benefits of CDM were also elaborated, particularly the benefits of carbon
cash flow for improvement of capital structure, direct application for debt service and
for reduction in the cost of project capital.
The meeting served as an opportunity for stakeholders and other interested hog
farmers to ask or comment on the activities of Bondoc Realty’s CIGAR Biogas Project
as it is being proposed for CDM. After the presentation, participants raised their
questions and concerns in an open forum. Open Forum Question and Answer Session Minutes: Question: What is the design of the your wastewater collection?
Answer: Pig waste enters into the CIGAR Digester, passing through the influent
canal, the natural bacteria in the CIGAR will breakdown the waste with
biogas as the by-product, the treated water goes out through the
effluent canal.
Question: Where does the liquid go then?
Answer: (with a diagram) PhilBIO’s standard design of a CIGAR has a lining in it,
this will prevent seepage. The waste water will go through
aeration lagoons before it is finally discharged.
Question: Is there any possibility that a CIGAR will be full of pig waste and it will
overflow?
Answer: Yes, it will be filled with pig waste and in fact, it will overflow [through
a pipe that channels the water into a secondary lagoon]. But rest
assured that the solids that have settled in the bottom will remain
there. The overflow or effluent is actually the partially treated water.
