CDM Umbrella Guidelines for MSW in China

Transcription

CDM Umbrella Guidelines for MSW in
China
0011691
Draft Final Report
February 2004
www.erm.com
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
CDM UMBRELLA METHODOLOGY FOR MSW PROJECTS IN CHINA
1
CONTENTS
1
DEFINITIONS
2
AIM OF THE GUIDELINES
12
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
AUDIENCE FOR THE GUIDELINES
AIM OF THE GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT DEVELOPERS
AIM OF THE GUIDELINES FOR THE CARBON FUND PERSONNEL
ORGANISATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
12
12
13
13
3
BACKGROUND SECTION
14
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
14
16
28
35
3.6
3.7
3.8
OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENT WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MSW TECHNOLOGIES
OVERVIEW OF MSW SITUATION IN CHINA
CALCULATING GH EMISSIONS
IMPACT OF DIFFERENT MSW MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES ON CHINA’S CO2
EMISSIONS
BACKGROUND ON THE CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM
CDM MSW IN CHINA
KEY STEPS OF THE MSW UMBRELLA APPROACH FOR CHINA
4
GUIDELINES SECTION
67
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
ORGANISATION OF THE GUIDELINES
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BOUNDARIES
SECTOR AND POLICY CONTEXT
PROJECT ELIGIBILITY ANALYSIS IN RELATION TO CDM
BASELINE STUDY FOR MSW PROJECTS IN CHINA
DURATION OF THE PROJECT ACTIVITY AND CREDITING PERIOD
CALCULATING BASELINE EMISSIONS AND EXPECTED PROJECT’S EMISSION
67
67
69
76
79
91
40
46
59
65
93
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MSW PROJECT VERIFICATION AND MONITORING PLAN 98
NON GHG ISSUES
101
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING RISKS
103
NEXT STEPS
103
REDUCTIONS
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
3
1
DEFINITIONS
Additionality: According to Kyoto Protocol Article 12 on the Clean
Development Mechanism and Article 6 on Joint Implementation (JI), Certified
Emissions Reductions (CERs) and Emissions Reduction Units (ERUs) will be
awarded to project-based activities provided that the project activities achieve
reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are ‘additional to those that
would have occurred in the absence of the project activity’. Environmental
additionality requires that emission reductions represent a physical reduction
or avoidance of emissions over what would have occurred under a business as
usual scenario specific to the project and location under consideration’.
Anaerobic Digestion (AD): Anaerobic digestion is the microbiological
degradation of organic material under anaerobic conditions resulting in the
generation of a methane-rich biogas. A number of more recently built AD
plants in Europe that take mixed MSW or source-separated organic waste
consist of a two-step system. The anaerobic digestion phase is generally
followed by the addition of compostable bulking material (eg large pieces of
wood screened out before the process) and a second aerobic maturation phase
of equal time or longer. The resulting product is compost whose quality
mainly depends on the feedstock.
Attributable: See ‘measurable and attributable ‘.
Baseline: The baseline for a CDM project activity is the scenario that
reasonably represents the anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse
gases that would occur in the absence of the proposed project activity. A
baseline shall cover emissions from all 6 greenhouse gases, sectors and source
categories listed in Annex A (of the Kyoto Protocol) within the project
boundary. The forecast emissions are obtained using a business as usual
scenario, often referred to as the ‘baseline scenario’: expected emissions in the
absence of the proposed emission reduction activities. This baseline scenario
takes into consideration the economic, financial, technological, regulatory and
political circumstances of the project.
Baseline approach: A baseline approach is the basis for a baseline
methodology. The CDM Executive Board agreed that the three approaches
identified in sub-paragraphs 48 (a) to (c) of the CDM modalities and
procedures are the only ones applicable to CDM project activities. They are:
Existing actual or historical emissions, as applicable; or Emissions from a
technology that represents an economically attractive course of action, taking
into account barriers to investment; or The average emissions of similar
project activities undertaken in the previous five years, in similar social,
economic, environmental and technological circumstances, and whose
performance is among the top 20 per cent of their category.
Baseline methodology: A methodology is an application of an approach as
defined in paragraph 48 of the CDM modalities and procedures, to an
3
individual project activity, reflecting aspects such as sector and region. No
methodology is excluded a priori so that project participants have the
opportunity to propose a methodology. In considering paragraph 48, the
Executive Board agreed that, in the two cases below, the following applies: (a)
Case of a new methodology: In developing a baseline methodology, the first
step is to identify the most appropriate approach for the project activity and
then an applicable methodology; (b) Case of an approved methodology: In
opting for an approved methodology, project participants have implicitly
chosen an approach.
Baseline - approved methodology: A baseline methodology approved by the
Executive Board is publicly available along with relevant guidance on the
UNFCCC CDM website (http://unfccc.int/cdm) or through a written request
sent to [email protected] or Fax: +(49-228) 815-1999.
Baseline - new methodology: Project participants may propose a new
baseline methodology established in a transparent and conservative manner.
In developing a new baseline methodology, the first step is to identify the
most appropriate approach for the project activity and then an applicable
methodology. Project participants shall submit a proposal for a new
methodology to a designated Operational Entity by forwarding the proposed
methodology in a draft Project Design Document Project Design Document
(CDM-PDD), including the description of the project activity and the
identification of the project participants. The proposed new methodology will
be treated as follows: If the designated Operational Entity determines that it is
a new methodology, it will forward, without further analysis, the
documentation to the Executive Board. The Executive Board shall
expeditiously, if possible at its next meeting but not later than four months
review the proposed methodology. Once approved by the Executive Board it
shall make the approved methodology publicly available along with any
relevant guidance and the designated Operational Entity may proceed with
the validation of the project activity and submit the Project Design Document
for registration. In the event that the COP/MOP requests the revision of an
approved methodology, no CDM project activity may use this methodology,
until the revisions requested by the COP/MOP have been made and
approved. The project participants shall revise the methodology, as
appropriate, taking into consideration any guidance received.
CDM Executive Board (EB) - The CDM Executive Board is comprised of ten
members, five representing each of the UN Regional Groups, two representing
Annex B countries (countries that have committed to emission reduction
targets through the Kyoto Protocol), two representing non-Annex B countries
(countries that have not committed to emission reduction targets through the
Kyoto Protocol) and one representing small island developing states. It is
responsible for supervising the CDM including making recommendations on
procedures, accreditation of Designated Operational Entities, regional
distribution of projects and accreditation of DOEs. In addition, the EB
publicizes information as part of the CDM and acts as a record keeper for
4
CDM projects. China currently has an alternate member of the EB, Mr Lu
Xuedu.
Certification: Certification is the written assurance by the designated
Operational Entity that, during a specified time period, a project activity
achieved the reductions in anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse
gases (GHG) as verified.
Certified Emission Reductions (CERs): A certified emission reduction or
CER is a unit issued pursuant to Article 12 and requirements thereunder, as
well as the relevant provisions in the CDM modalities and procedures, and is
equal to one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, calculated using
global warming potentials defined by decision 2/CP.3 or as subsequently
revised in accordance with Article 5 of the Kyoto Protocol. CERs are the
official unit for carbon reductions from CDM projects and can only be created
through the certification process for CDM projects carried out by the DOEs
and recognised by the CDM Executive Board. CERs can be used by Annex B
countries for compliance with quantified emission limitation and reduction
commitments under Article 3 or the Kyoto Protocol.
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): The CDM was established by
Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol and refers to climate change mitigation
projects undertaken between Annex 1 countries and non-Annex 1 countries.
This mechanism has two purposes: to assist Parties not included in Annex I in
achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the ultimate
objective of the Convention, and to assist Parties included in Annex I in
achieving compliance with their quantified emission limitation and reduction
commitments under Article 3 of the Protocol. The emissions reductions
obtained through a CDM project must be independently certified. Emission
reductions from CDM projects must be real, measurable and long-term.
Participation by non-Annex I countries in CDM is voluntary, and each CDM
project must be approved by the host country and by the CDM Executive
Board (EB), a body of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). Each non-Annex I country has the prerogative to determine the
sustainable development criteria for CDM projects within that country.
Conservative: see ‘Transparent and conservative’.
Crediting period: The crediting period for a CDM project activity is the
period for which reductions from the baseline are verified and certified by a
designated Operational Entity for the purpose of issuance of Certified
Emission Reductions Certified Emission Reductions (CERs). Project
participants shall choose the starting date of a crediting period to be after the
date the first emission reductions are generated by the CDM project activity. A
crediting period shall not extend beyond the operational lifetime of the project
activity. The project participants may choose between two options for the
length of a crediting period: (i) fixed crediting period or (ii) renewable
crediting period, as defined in paragraph 49 (a) and (b) of the CDM Modalities
and Procedures.
5
Crediting period – fixed (also fixed crediting period): ‘Fixed Crediting
Period’ is one of two options for determining the length of a crediting period
for a CDM project. In the case of this option, the length and starting date of the
period is determined only once for a project activity, with no possibility of
renewal or extension once the project activity has been registered. The length
of the fixed period can be a maximum of ten years for a proposed CDM
project activity. (paragraph 49 (b) of CDM modalities and procedures).
Crediting period – renewable (also renewable crediting period): ‘Renewable
crediting period’ is one of two options for determining the length of a
crediting period of a CDM project. In the case of this option, a single crediting
period may be of a maximum of seven years. The crediting period may be
renewed at most two times (maximum 21 years), provided that, for each
renewal, a designated Operational Entity determines that the original project
baseline is still valid or has been updated taking account of new data, where
applicable, and informs the Executive Board accordingly (paragraph 49 (a) of
the CDM modalities and procedures). The starting date and length of the first
crediting period has to be determined before registration.
Degradable Organic Carbon (DOC)(1): DOC is the organic carbon that is
accessible to biochemical decomposition. It is based on the composition of
waste, and can be calculated from a weighted average of the carbon content of
various components of the waste stream. See Section 3.4 for equation.
Designated National Authority: Countries participating in the CDM are
required to designate a National Authority (DNA) for the CDM. The DNA
carries out two types of functions: a regulatory function and promotional
functions. The regulatory function is a prerequisite for the CDM project
validation and certification process in the country in question and must be
performed by all DNAs in order to comply with international regulations.
This function involves a national evaluation and approval process and
includes the annual reporting of activities. The national evaluation and
approval process must assess whether potential projects contribute to
sustainable development in the host country and to ensure that projects being
implemented within its territory pursue the objectives of the CDM in a
manner coherent with relevant national policies and strategies. The national
evaluation should also assess whether projects will result in real, measurable
and long-term benefits related to mitigation of climate change. Based on these
national evaluation criteria, the DNA approves CDM projects, on a project-byproject basis, in its country for registration by the CDM EB and for
implementation by the project participant. The promotional functions involve
capacity building and marketing. These are optional functions and do not
have any international regulations. A National Authority may choose to
design these functions unilaterally to fit the country’s needs associated with
the CDM projects in that country.
Designated Operational Entity: A Designated Operational Entity under the
CDM is either a domestic legal entity or an international organization
(1) IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2001)
6
accredited and designated by the Executive Board (EB) as qualified to validate
proposed CDM project activities as well as verify and certify reductions in
anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases (GHG). A designated
Operational Entity shall not perform validation or verification and
certification on the same CDM project activity. Upon request, the Executive
Board may however allow a single DOE to perform all these functions within
a single CDM project activity. Until today, the CDM Executive Board has not
accredited and recommended for designation any entity. The Board is in the
process of considering 17 applications, who are known in the interim as
Applicant Entities. COP, at its eight session, decided that the Executive Board
may designate on a provisional basis operational entities (please refer to
decision 21/CP.8).
Fixed Crediting Period: See crediting period – fixed.
Fraction dissimilated DOC (DOCF)(1): DOCF is an estimate of the fraction of
DOC that is degraded and converted to landfill gas. Experimental values in
the order of 0.5-0.6 (including lignin C) have been used in the Netherlands
(Oonk and Boom, 1995) and demonstrated to give reliable estimates of landfill
gas generated and recorded in the Netherlands. A DOCF of 0.77 should be
used only when lignin C is excluded. As it is good practice to use a value of
0.5-0.6 (including lignin C) as the default, this report assumes DOCF to be an
average of 0.55.
Host Party: A Party not included in Annex I to the Convention on whose
territory the CDM project activity is physically located. A project activity
located in several countries has several host Parties. At the time of CDM
project registration with the CDM Executive Board, a host Party shall meet the
requirements for participation as defined in paragraphs 28 to 30 of the CDM
Modalities and Procedures.
Issuance of certified emission reductions: Issuance of CERs refers to the
instruction by the Executive Board to the CDM registry administrator to issue
a specified quantity of CERs for a project activity into the pending account of
the Executive Board in the CDM registry, in accordance with paragraph 66
and Appendix D of the CDM modalities and procedures. Upon issuance of
CERs, the CDM registry administrator shall, in accordance with paragraph 66
of CDM modalities and procedures, promptly forward the CERs to the
registry accounts of project participants involved, in accordance with their
request, having deducted the quantity of CERs corresponding to the share of
proceeds to cover administrative expenses for the Executive Board and to
assist in meeting costs of adaptation for developing countries vulnerable to
adverse impacts of climate change, respectively, in accordance with Article 12,
paragraph 8, to the appropriate accounts in the CDM registry for the
management of the share of proceeds.
Leakage: Leakage is defined as the net change of anthropogenic emissions by
sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) which occurs outside the project
boundary, and which is measurable and attributable to the CDM project
activity.
7
Measurable and attributable: In an operational context, the terms measurable
and attributable in paragraph 51 (project boundary) of the CDM modalities
and procedures should be read as ‘which can be measured’ and ‘directly
attributable’, respectively to the specific CDM project activity in question.
Methane Correction Factor (MCF)(1): The MCF reflects the lower methanegenerating potential of unmanaged sites. It recognises that some developing
countries or countries with economies-in-transition may have a minimal
number of well-managed waste disposal sites, with the majority of sites less
well-managed or unmanaged, often shallow and with lower methane
generating potential.
Monitoring: The systematic measurement of a CDM project’s performance
and record keeping of performance-related indicators relevant in the context
of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) and project agreements (World Bank Prototype
Carbon Fund definition).
Monitoring methodology: A monitoring methodology refers to the method
used by project participants for the collection and archiving of all relevant
data necessary for the implementation of the monitoring plan. Relevant data
will include all data necessary for determining the baseline, measuring
anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) within the
project boundary of a CDM project activity and leakage, as applicable.
Monitoring methodology - approved: A monitoring methodology approved
by the Executive Board and made publicly available along with relevant
guidance.
Monitoring methodology - new: Project participants may propose a new
monitoring methodology. In developing a monitoring methodology, the first
step is to identify the most appropriate methodology bearing in mind good
monitoring practice in relevant sectors. Project participants shall submit a
proposal for a new methodology to a designated Operational Entity by
forwarding the proposed methodology described in a draft Project Design
Document (CDM-PDD), including a description of the project activity and
identification of the project participants. A new proposed methodology will
be treated as follows: If the designated Operational Entity determines that it is
a new methodology, it will forward, without further analysis, the
documentation to the Executive Board. The Executive Board shall
expeditiously, if possible at its next meeting but not later than four months,
review the proposed methodology. Once approved by the Executive Board it
shall make the approved methodology publicly available along with any
relevant guidance and the designated Operational Entity may proceed with
the validation of the project activity and submit the Project Design Document
for registration. In the event that the COP/MOP requests the revision of an
approved methodology, no CDM project activity may use this methodology
until the revisions requested by the cOP/MOP have been made and approved.
The project participants shall revise the methodology, as appropriate, taking
into consideration any guidance received.
8
Municipal solid waste (MSW): MSW is defined to include refuse from
households, non-hazardous solid waste from industrial, commercial and
institutional establishments (including hospitals), market waste, yard waste
and street sweepings. MSW management encompasses the functions of
collection, transfer, treatment, recycling, resource recovery and disposal of
municipal solid waste. (UNDP/UNCHS/WB 1996)
Operational lifetime of a CDM project activity: It is defined as the period
during which the CDM project activity is in operation. No crediting period
shall end after the end of the operational lifetime (calculated as from starting
date).
Party: In this glossary, the term ‘Party’ is used as defined in the Kyoto
Protocol: ‘Party’ means, unless the context otherwise indicates, a Party to the
Protocol. ‘Party included in Annex I’ means a Party included in Annex I to the
Convention, as may be amended, or a Party which has made a notification
under Article 4, paragraph 2(g), of the Convention.
Project activity: A project activity is a measure, operation or an action that
aims at reducing greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. The Kyoto Protocol and
the CDM modalities and procedures use the term ‘project activity’ as opposed
to ‘project’. A project activity could, therefore, be identical with or a
component or aspect of a project undertaken or planned. The definition of a
specific ‘project activity’ is the basis for calculating baselines and additionality
under the CDM.
Project boundary: The project boundary shall encompass all anthropogenic
emissions by sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) under the control of the
project participants that are significant and reasonably attributable to the
CDM project activity. The Panel on methodologies (Meth Panel) shall develop
specific proposals for consideration by the Executive Board on how to
operationalize the terms ‘under the control of’, ‘significant’ and ‘reasonably
attributable’, as contained in paragraph 52 and appendix C, paragraphs (a)
(iii) and (b) (vi) of the CDM modalities and procedures. Pending decisions by
the Executive Board on these terms, project participants are invited to explain
their interpretation of such terms when completing and submitting a Project
Design Document (CDM-PDD).
Project participants: In accordance with the use of the term project
participant in the CDM modalities and procedures, a project participant is
either a Party involved or, in accordance with paragraph 33 of the CDM
modalities and procedures, a private and/or public entity authorized by a
Party to participate, under the Party’s responsibility, in CDM project activities.
Project participants are Parties or private and/or public entities that take
decisions on the allocation of CERs from the project activity under
consideration: At registration, a statement signed by all project participants
shall be provided clarifying the modalities of communicating with the
Executive Board and the secretariat, in particular with regard to instructions
regarding allocations of CERs at the point of issuance. In common commercial
9
terms, ‘project participants’ are the developers, co-developers, investors
and/or sponsors of a specific project activity under the CDM.
Registration: Registration is the formal acceptance by the Executive Board of
a validated project activity as a CDM project activity. Registration is the
prerequisite for the verification, certification and issuance of CERs related to
that project activity.
Renewable crediting period: See Crediting period - renewable
Stakeholders: Stakeholders mean the public, including individuals, groups or
communities affected, or likely to be affected, by the proposed CDM project
activity or actions leading to the implementation of such an activity.
Starting date of a CDM project activity: The starting date of a CDM project
activity is the date at which the implementation or construction or real action
of a project activity begins. Project activities starting as of the year 2000 (1
January 2000) and prior to the adoption of decision 17/CP.7 (10 November
2001) have to provide documentation, at the time of registration, showing that
the starting date fell within this period.
Transparent and conservative: Establishing a baseline in a transparent and
conservative manner (paragraph 45 (b) of the CDM modalities and
procedures) means that assumptions are made explicitly and choices are
substantiated. In case of uncertainty regarding values of variables and
parameters, the establishment of a baseline is considered conservative if the
resulting projection of the baseline does not lead to an overestimation of
emission reductions attributable to a CDM project activity (that is, in the case
of doubt, values that generate a lower baseline projection shall be used).
Validation: Validation is the process of independent evaluation of a project
activity by a designated Operational Entity against the requirements of the
CDM as set out in decision 17/CP.7 its annex and relevant decisions of the
COP/MOP, on the basis of the Project Design Document (CDM-PDD).
Validation of a project by the DOE must occur before a project is reviewed by
the DNA in the project’s Host Country and before registration occurs by the
EB.
Verification: Verification is the periodic independent review and ex post
determination by a designated Operational Entity of monitored reductions in
anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) that have
occurred as a result of a registered CDM project activity during the
verification period. There is no prescribed length of the verification period. It
shall, however, not be longer than the crediting period. In practice, verification
is expected to be carried out on an annual basis, since project participants will
be keen to receive CERs annually.
Verification Report: A report prepared by an Operational Entity, or by
another independent third party, pursuant to a Verification, which reports the
10
findings of the Verification process, including the amount of reductions in
emission of greenhouse gases that have been found to have been generated.
A glossary of terms and abbreviations can be found in Annex A.
11
2
AIM OF THE GUIDELINES
The aim of these Municipal Solid Waste Clean Development Mechanism’s
(CDM) ‘umbrella’ guidelines is to provide a standardised approach for project
developers to develop municipal solid waste projects in China under
applicable international and Chinese CDM rules and procedures.
2.1
AUDIENCE FOR THE GUIDELINES
The audience for these guidelines is twofold:
2.2
•
Project developers in China seeking to develop municipal solid waste
(MSW) CDM projects in co-operation with the World Bank Carbon
Finance team.
•
World Bank personnel to help them estimate and evaluate MSW projects
from China introduced by project developers in a standardised, fast-track
framework.
AIM OF THE GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT DEVELOPERS
The aim of the present guidelines is to provide help to project developers in
China seeking to develop MSW projects under the CDM and willing to
introduce these projects to the PCF. The guidelines offer an ‘umbrella’
approach under which eligible MSW projects in China can be handled by the
Bank in a common manner that serves to expedite project evaluation and
approval for valid projects. The umbrella guidelines offer advice on
developing a concise methodology that will help reduce transaction costs,
regulatory delay and uncertainty surrounding project approvals, as long as
the guidelines are effectively followed.
The procedure to develop an eligible CDM project is complex and requires a
detailed analysis of the project characteristics and potential to comply with all
the CDM rules. Thus, this umbrella guideline proposes a standardised
approach for project developers, aiming to simplify a difficult process while
ensuring that all the key issues required to assess whether a project complies
with the CDM rules are included in the project’s CDM analysis, and leading to
the development of a document describing the project and its potential for
CDM approval -- the Project Design Document (PDD)1.
1 The Project Design Document, PDD, is a template document developed by the CDM executive Board that every project
developer should fill in for its project to be assessed as a CDM project. A copy can be found on the CDM web site:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/
12
2.3
AIM OF THE GUIDELINES FOR THE CARBON FUND PERSONNEL
The guidelines will also simplify the MSW project revision process for the
World Bank Carbon Fund personnel by ensuring that a standard approach has
been followed by the project developers and by ensuring that project
developers are aware of all the key issues that they need to address.
2.4
ORGANISATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
The report is divided in two main sections.
The background section provides information to set the scene for the use of
Carbon Credits for municipal waste management in China (Section Error!
Reference source not found.). It includes a review of municipal solid waste
(MSW) technologies and their environmental impacts, an overview of MSW in
China; the general principles of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM);
and introduces the key steps of the MSW CDM Umbrella approach
methodology.
The second section of this document (Section 4), the guideline section, provides
recommendations to project developer for each step of the MSW CDM
Umbrella methodology.
13
3
BACKGROUND SECTION
The aim of this background section is to set the scene for the use of Carbon
Credits for municipal waste management in China.
3.1
OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENT WASTE DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES
In this report, four specific techniques of MSW management are considered:
landfilling, anaerobic digestion, composting and vermicomposting. Thermal
MSW management techniques, such as incineration, are not covered.
3.1.1
Landfill/Landfill Gas
The traditional method of disposing of waste in many countries of the world
is to simply deposit the waste on a designated (unused) area of land. When
undertaken in an uncontrolled way, as is the case in many developing
countries, the result is an ‘open dump’. Open dumps give rise to a number of
potential health and environmental problems including the spread of disease
by flies, rats and other vectors, pollution of surface waters and, as the waste is
frequently set on fire by scavengers, and air pollution.
In order to overcome these particular problems, more advanced forms of
disposing of waste to land have been developed. The first stage of upgrading
from open dumps is to apply a degree of control to the actual operation of
depositing the waste – by working in controlled areas and covering the waste
to prevent windblown litter, fires and scavenging by animals. The most
sophisticated forms of disposing of waste to land, known as sanitary
landfilling, involve extensive civil engineering, to contain the wastes and
isolate them from the surrounding environment, the use of dedicated plant
and equipment to place and compact the waste, and extensive control and
monitoring of the whole process of waste deposition and subsequent
degradation of the waste once in place.
Once deposited, waste tends to decompose or degrade by a combination of
physical, chemical and biological processes. In particular, the organic
components of the waste, such as food wastes, wood and paper, are broken
down by the biochemical action of microbes. Where there is a supply of air,
these processes are aerobic resulting, ultimately, in the generation of carbon
dioxide. This is happens when waste is composted, by placing it in windrows
for example.
In the case of most landfills, however, as the air trapped within the deposited
waste is used up and/or displaced by the generation of carbon dioxide, the
conditions gradually become anoxic and then anaerobic degradation processes
start to dominate. The ultimate product from the anaerobic degradation of
organic matter is a ‘biogas’ or ‘landfill gas’ (LFG) which comprises mainly
14
carbon dioxide and methane in approximately equal proportions together
with a great many higher organic compounds present at trace levels.
Landfill gas can give rise to a number of potential health and safety hazards,
primarily due to its flammable (explosive in confined spaces) nature.
Conversely, landfill gas also represents a potential source of energy and, in the
right circumstances, may be captured and used as a fuel, thereby replacing
fossil fuels. It can be used directly, such as a boiler fuel or for the firing of
bricks, or can be used to power internal combustion or gas turbine engines for
the generation of electricity.
Of recent concern has been the potential impact of landfill gas on the global
environment because of its global warming potential. In particular, methane
is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of global warming.
Thus, there is a definite environmental benefit of capturing and burning the
gas in a flare because the methane is thereby converted to carbon dioxide. If
the gas can be captured and utilised, there is the double benefit of converting
the methane to carbon dioxide and also displacing the use of another fuel,
which would otherwise have been burnt and created additional carbon
dioxide.
3.1.2
Anaerobic Digestion
An alternative means of treating organic waste is to digest it in
purposely-designed Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plants. The same processes
occur in an AD plant as occur in a landfill site but, because the process
conditions can be more carefully controlled, the conversion of organic matter
to biogas is more efficient and occurs more quickly. It is also easier to ensure
that all the gas is captured. Conversely, because the process involves a lot
more sophisticated plant and equipment, it is a lot more expensive than
landfill. Part of the cost is offset by the income from selling excess electricity
from a ‘renewable’ source to the grid.
The residues from the process must also be disposed. Depending on the
source of the waste material accepted by the AD plant, it may be possible to
compost the residues and then use them as a soil improver (see below). If a
mixed source of waste is used, however, the level of contamination may be too
high so the residues may need to be landfilled directly or aerobically
composted and then landfilled. In either case, there will be a residue of
organic material and/or a reject stream that will each contain organic material
that will degrade further when landfilled. Thus, there will still be a potential
for landfill gas generation and release to atmosphere if it is not captured,
although the total volume of gas escaping to atmosphere is likely to be much
less than in the case of the landfilling of untreated waste.
15
3.1.3
Composting
Composting comprises the aerobic treatment of organic waste to produce a
humus-like material that may be used as a soil conditioner. A continuous
supply of oxygen is essential to ensure that the process continues and that
pockets of the waste do not go anoxic which would result in emission of
methane and malodours. Keeping the waste aerated may be achieved by
placing it in rows or small heaps and physically turning it regularly, or by
employing more sophisticated plant and equipment to force air through the
waste.
In order to get a good quality end product, free from contaminants that might
adversely affect its suitability as a soil improver (and hence its value), it is
important that only appropriate wastes are used as the feedstock. Although
mixed wastes may be used and screened prior to the composting process, it is
very difficult to ensure a good final product quality without restricting the
source of the waste. Typically kitchen and garden wastes provide the best
feedstock. Thus, composting can never be regarded as the sole solution for
treating municipal solid waste (or even all the organic components of MSW)
and it can only be used in combination with other waste management
techniques such as recycling, incineration and/or landfilling.
3.1.4
Vermicomposting
A variation of ‘standard’ composting is the process of vermicomposting
whereby instead of relying solely on the action of aerobic microbes, the
organic material is broken down by the natural digestion process of redworms
and earthworms. Since the worms consume the waste, the organic material is
converted into body mass, as the worms grow and multiply, and worm
castings, which can be used in place of chemical fertilizers. The worms
themselves may also be utilised as fish bait or animal feed. The disadvantages
compared with conventional composting are that the process is relatively new
and conditions need to be carefully controlled, and there can be problems with
fly infestation in warmer climates.
3.2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MSW TECHNOLOGIES
The following section provides further details about the different MSW
technologies, introduced in Section 2.1.1 and assesses their environmental
impacts.
3.2.1
Landfill Gas Recovery
Development of the Technology
The rate at which landfill gas is generated by a landfill site, and the amount of
gas that is available for utilisation, are dependent on a number of factors. The
most important of these are as follows:
16
•
the rate at which waste is being deposited and the amount of waste
already in place;
•
the waste composition – in particular the amount and type of the
degradable organic matter present in the waste;
•
moisture content of the waste;
•
chemical composition and physical properties of the waste;
•
climate/meteorological conditions at the landfill site – in particular
ambient temperatures and levels of incident rainfall;
•
the geometry of the landfill site and the way in which it is filled; and
•
the timing and method of collecting gas from the waste.
All the above factors have a particular impact on either the rate of gas
generation or the efficiency at which gas can be collected for utilisation.
Clearly, the larger the volume of waste in place and the higher the rate of
waste deposition, the higher is the potential rate of gas generation.
The landfill gas is generated from the degradation, under anaerobic
conditions, of the organic components within the waste. Thus, if there is a
high percentage of readily degradable organic materials (such as food waste)
there will tend to be large volumes of gas that are generated more quickly
than if the organic material is less readily degradable (such as paper and
wood). However, if the initial stages of degradation result in conditions in the
waste becoming too acidic, this may inhibit the action of the methanogenic
(methane forming) bacteria.
In general, the higher the moisture content and the higher the ambient
temperature, then the more rapid will be the degradation of the waste and the
higher the rate of landfill gas generation. The physical properties of the waste
(such as density) and the way the site is operated can effect the moisture
content by affecting the ingress of rainwater or its movement through
different parts of the waste. At some sites leachate is collected from the base
of the site and recirculated through the waste to ensure as much mixing of
nutrients, bacteria and moisture as possible.
Clearly, the geometry of the site and the way it is operated can influence the
ease with which gas is captured. Ideally a site is operated in phases, each of
which is rapidly filled and into which wells are then installed to extract the
gas. Alternatively, for deeper sites, it may be necessary to build the wells up
with the waste and to start extracting the gas before final waste levels are
reached. If the wells are not installed quickly enough then some of the gas
17
will be ‘lost’ thereby resulting in emission of greenhouse gases (methane and
carbon dioxide) directly to atmosphere and reducing the potential for energy
generation.
Inevitably it is impossible to capture all of the gas because there tends to be an
exponential decay to the gas generation curve and, after a certain period, it is
no longer commercially viable to collect the small quantities of gas still being
generated. At the most efficient sites, it is estimated that approximately 70%
of the total gas that is generated is collected and utilised.
Theoretical Calculation of Landfill Gas Generation
As discussed above, the rate at which landfill gas is generated is dependent on
a number of inter-related factors. This makes the theoretical calculation of
landfill gas generation rates very difficult.
A number of models have been developed to estimate the rate of gas
generation such as the US EPA first order decay model equation, presented in
the US EPA manual ‘Turning a Liability into an Asset: A Landfill Gas to
Energy Handbook for Landfill Owners and Operators’ (December 1994).
Section II of the email describes the following equation:
LFG=2LoR(e-kc-e-kt)
Where
LFG = total landfill gas generated in current year (cf)
Lo = theoretical potential amount of landfill gas generated
(cf/lb) (theoretical maximum yield i.e. the total amount of
landfill gas that one pound of waste is expected to generate
over its lifetime [cubic feet per pound of refuse] – based on
expert estimates for given technology).
R = waste disposal rate (lb/year)
t = time since landfill opened (years)
c = time since landfill closed (years)
k = rate of landfill gas generation (1/year)
Other, more sophisticated, models have also been developed which seek to
take into account some of the other factors affecting landfill gas generation
and capture efficiency. One of the most comprehensive of these is the GasSim
model, recently developed on behalf of the UK Environment Agency. This
model defines rate constants for three types of degradable waste – rapidly,
moderately and slowly degradable waste and takes account of waste moisture
content.
Key Risk Factors in LFG to Energy Projects
There are a number of risks in implementing any landfill gas to energy project
relating to the following factors:
18
•
•
•
the generation rate and availability of the LFG;
the technology used to collect and utilise the LFG; and
the potential source(s) of project revenue.
As discussed above, the rate of landfill gas generation is dependent on a great
many inter-related parameters and, as such is quite difficult to predict. There
is therefore a risk that the amount of gas available for energy generation in
future years is less than that predicted by whatever model is used.
Even if the rate of gas generation is predicted reasonably accurately, there will
be a risk in terms of how much gas is collected and utilised. In particular,
landfill gas is very corrosive and the design and operation of utilisation
equipment must take this into account. Inevitably, a certain amount of
‘downtime’ of the utilisation equipment will occur for routine maintenance. If
there are unexpected breakdowns or if more extensive maintenance is
required the availability of the utilisation plant may be less than planned.
Finally there is a risk in terms of the revenue that is obtained from the sale of
the energy generated from the landfill gas. This will depend on market forces
within the energy sector as well as any local or national subsidies that might
be available.
Positive Environmental Impacts
Landfill gas (LFG) consists of approximately 50% methane (CH4), 50% carbon
dioxide (CO2), and less than 1% trace compounds(1)(2). When LFG is captured
and burned, the CH4 fraction is converted to water vapour and CO2, whose
Global Warming Potential (GWP) is assumed to be 21 times less than that of
CH4(3).
LFG contains over 150 trace components that can cause local and global
environmental effects such as odour nuisances, stratospheric ozone layer
depletion, and ground-level ozone depletion(4)(5). High temperature flaring
destroys the main trace constituents that are responsible for odour emissions
from landfills (1) and combustion of LFG is said to remove the risks of toxic
effects on the local community and local environment (4).
The recovery of LFG prevents its uncontrolled accumulation inside the
landfill, which sometimes leads to LFG migration and the potential for
dangerous methane concentrations(6) inside buildings, risk of fires and/or
explosions (4).
(1) The World Bank (2003) Handbook for the preparation of landfill gas to energy projects in Latin America and the
Caribbean
(2) Revised 1996 IPPC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual - Chapter 6 Waste
(3) IPPC (1995)
(4) EcoSecurities Ltd (2002) Evaluation of the emission reductions potential of the NovaGerar Landfill Gas to Energy Project
(5) Grontmij Climate & Energy (2003) Ho Chi Minh City Landfill Project
(6) ICF Consulting (2000) Liepaja Regional Solid Waste Management - Monitoring and Verification Protocol
19
Due to LFG’s relatively high CH4 content, it is considered a low/medium
grade fuel(1). Using LFG for the production of electricity is environmentally
more beneficial than flaring because not only is the CH4 converted into CO2,
but LFG also replaces the use of fossil fuel and, hence results in reduced
overall atmospheric pollution and reduced CO2 emission.
Where methane is used for electricity generation, operational practices at the
landfill are sometimes improved thus contributing to sustainable
development (4). Specifically for landfills, a more sustainable operation means
accelerating waste stabilisation such that the landfill degradation processes
occur more rapidly. This also ensures that both leachate and methane are
more carefully managed and controlled.
Negative Environmental Impacts
The flaring of LFG releases CO2, a recognised GHG, to the atmosphere.
At least 15-30% of LFG from waste degradation is always released to the
atmosphere(1)(2), because it is technologically not feasible to collect all of the
gas produced in the landfill. Some (approximately 10%) of this methane will
be oxidised to CO2 by microbes in the cover soils placed on top of the waste
but the remainder will be emitted unchanged to the atmosphere.
Combustion of LFG for electricity generation can also result in the release of
organic compounds and trace amounts of toxic materials, including mercury
and dioxins(1)(2). These emissions are also viewed as significantly less harmful
than the continued uncontrolled release of LFG.
LFG electricity generators can produce emissions of nitrogen oxides that vary
widely from one site another, depending on the type of generator and the
extent to which steps have been taken to minimise such emissions(2).
There may be some increase in noise from the site associated with energy
recovery, although the engines can be housed to reduce noise emissions(1)(2),
and these impacts are likely to be marginal given the noise typically associated
with operations at landfills.
Placement of energy recovery facilities at the landfill site may also increase the
visual presence of the site, however, again the impacts are expected to be
marginal given the visual intrusion associated with the waste disposal
operations anyway(1) (2).
(1) Grontmij Climate & Energy (2003) Ho Chi Minh City Landfill Project
(2) EcoSecurities Ltd (2002) Evaluation of the emission reductions potential of the NovaGerar Landfill Gas to Energy Project
20
3.2.2
Composting
Development of the Technology(1)
There are a number of different established composting methods, each with
associated environmental impacts. Open systems consist of placing the
mixture of raw materials in long narrow piles, or windrows, which are turned
mechanically on a regular basis for aeration. Turning the material alone does
not necessarily ensure consistent oxygenation. For this reason, the material
must be turned frequently and the height of the piles should not exceed 3m.
In forced aerated static piles, a blower provides air to the composting material
and no turning of the material is required once the pile has been formed.
There are two methods used to oxygenate the piles in forced aeration systems,
these are as follows:
•
•
bottom suction, which draws air through the pile by the imposition of
negative pressure; and
bottom blowing, which is blows air through the pile (positive pressure).
In-vessel composting refers to a group of methods that enclose the composting
material within a building, container or vessel. There are a number of
in-vessel composting methods with different combinations of vessels, aeration
systems and turning mechanisms. The most commonly used methods are
continuous vertical reactors and horizontal reactors.
Continuous vertical reactors usually require material to be loaded through the
top of the reactor and discharged from the bottom, with oxygenation provided
by forcing air up through the composting mass. Although these composting
systems can handle large quantities of material, the height of material is
extremely critical in terms of ensuring adequate ventilation.
In horizontal reactors, the material is arranged along the length of the unit and
the depth is kept below a maximum of two or three meters. The ability to
control the process more effectively means that the temperature can be
regulated more efficiently and the composting material can be more uniformly
oxygenated.
Composting involves the aerobic decomposition of organic material in the
waste whereby the degradable part of organic carbon is converted to and
emitted as CO2. Provided that the waste is kept fully aerated there should be
no emissions of CH4. Thus all of the degradable carbon is emitted as CO2 and
the release of CH4, which occurs when waste is landfilled, is avoided.
(1) Biocycle (1997) What are the similarities and differences in composting systems that can be operated in open or in-vessel
systems - with or without worms? Tanya Vece, April, pages 57-59.
21
The visual impact of composting facilities, even large-scale ones, is relatively
low since these plants are usually reasonably low structures, if any building is
present at all. In-vessel composting may be an exception to this.
Composting stabilises waste in controlled conditions and faster than the
anaerobic decomposition that occurs in landfills.
The product resulting from composting of source separated organic waste is
generally of high quality and is used to improve soil structure and nutrient
content. On soils where it is applied, this tends to lead to increased plant
growth, replacement of organic matter, reduced usage of fertilisers, decreased
run-off, etc.
The composting process stabilises the volatile organic materials of organic
waste.
Compared with LFG utilisation or AD with utilisation of gas, no use is made
of the energy potential of the carbon released to the atmosphere.
Concerns have recently been expressed regarding the potential health impacts
associated with the creation of bio-aerosols and the emission of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from open composting piles/windrows.
Similarly, odour emissions may give rise to a local nuisance. These negative
impacts may be overcome by the use of in-vessel composting although these
techniques tend to be much more complex and expensive.
As noted above, if source-segregated waste is used, a high quality end product
can be produced which has a relatively high value. The alternative to using
source-segregated waste is to pre-heat mixed MSW to screen out as many of
the unwanted components as possible. Inevitably, this approach is not as
effective at avoiding unwanted materials and the final produce is likely to be
contaminated with glass, plastics and other materials. This lower quality
compost will have a much lower value but may still find a use in road
construction, as landfill cover etc.
3.2.3
Anaerobic Digestion
The first anaerobic digestion (AD) systems were developed on the basis of a
mixed waste feedstock and, as a result, were mostly dry fermentation systems
because of the high-solids content of the organic fraction coming from MSW.
As source-separate collection of biowaste was implemented, further systems
were developed that were more suitable for the wet organic fraction obtained
in source separate collection.
(1) Internal Report
22
In the last five years, facilities have been built in the range of 50 000 –
100 000t/yr (compared to 10 000 - 20 000 t/yr facilities built 10-15 years ago),
indicating the relative maturity of the technology. In addition, more complex
organic fractions derived from rest/ grey waste or mixed waste is being
treated through anaerobic digestion.
Recent developments show an increase in integrated projects in which
anaerobic digestion of one fraction of the waste stream is combined with
aerobic composing of the organic wastes. In these plants, the digested residue
of the anaerobic plant is subsequently mixed with an organic fraction that still
needs to be composted. The digested residue provides the moisture with the
fresh organic fraction providing the necessary structure to the mixture in
order to enable efficient aeration during the composting process.
Initially, all plants were operating at mesosphilic temperatures, but after
thermophilic operation was proven feasible on a large scale, over 10 years ago,
the total capacity in either temperature range has been increasing at about the
same rate. For dry and wet fermentation, both types of systems have been
applied and each represents about 50% of the total capacity in Europe.
In 2002, two-phase plants only represent about 10% of the available capacity.
The additional investment required, as well as additional need for process
control, do not seem to compensate the expected benefits. Co-digestion has
also proven to be more cumbersome than expected and remains limited to
around 5% of the total capacity. Regulations and standards, as well as
economics, make it apparently difficult to combine different substrates on a
practical scale.
The methane-rich biogas that is produced is typically used for electricity
generation. This avoids the burning of fossil fuel and related atmospheric
pollution.
AD stabilises waste under controlled conditions and more quickly than the
‘natural’ decomposition that occurs in landfills.
There is no escape of biogas from the anaerobic digestion to the atmosphere
because the process occurs in closed silos (called digesters). Therefore, the
collection rate of biogas generated in AD plants is 100%, so there is no residual
release of CH4 to the atmosphere as occurs on landfill sites and no CO2
emissions as for composting(1).
(1) Personal correspondence with Luc de Bare based on practical experience in working in the waste treatment/consultancy
industry
23
Emissions of VOCs can also be controlled so that these should be no health
risks or odour problems in the vicinity of the plant (1).
The compost product resulting from anaerobically digested and aerobically
matured (ie AD is a two phase process in more recent plants) source-separated
organic waste tends to be of adequate quality to be used to improve soil
structure and nutrient content. On soils where it is applied, this tends to lead
to increased plant growth, replacement of organic matter, reduced run-off, etc.
The visual impact of an AD plant is comparable to other waste management
treatment plants. Moreover, it is assumed that the visual impact of
incinerators is greater and the visual impact of composting plants is smaller in
comparison to an AD facility.
The compost product resulting from anaerobically digesting non-segregated
MSW tends to be of lower quality in comparison to conventional compost. As
for the compost made from non-segregated MSW, it tends to be used in road
construction, as landfill cover etc. If the product from the anaerobic digestion
stage is not composted, the only alternative may be to landfill it. In the case
there will be further degradation of the organic material with subsequent
generation and release of (some) methane to the atmosphere.
3.2.4
Vermicomposting
Traditional open systems of vermicomposting have been based on beds or
windrows on the ground. Recently, there has been increased interest in the
development of in-vessel vermicomposting systems. Some systems have used
bins or larger containers, often stacked in racks. Nevertheless, container and
small-scale methods are more widely used. However, there are a number of
drawbacks when these small-scale methods are applied on a larger scale,
including the following issues:
•
•
•
considerable handling and lifting machinery;
problems adding water; and
difficulties additional layers of material inputs.
Batch reactors (containers raised on legs above the ground) have proved a
more promising technique as they allow feed-stock to be added at the top
from modified spreaders or mobile gantries and collected mechanically at the
bottom through mesh floors using breaker bars. Such methods have been
developed and tested at the National Institute for Agricultural Engineering in
(1) Environment Agency (2000) Life Cycle Inventory Development for Waste Management Operations: Composting and
Anaerobic Digestion
(2) Biocycle (1997) What are the similarities and differences in composting systems that can be operated in open or in-vessel
systems - with or without worms? Tanya Vece, April, pages 57-59.
24
Silsoe, England and are currently used in several places in the US. They range
from relatively low technology systems using manual loading and collection,
to completely automated and hydraulically driven continuous flow reactors.
These reactors can process three feet deep layers of suitable organic waste in
less than 30 days as the waste is continuously turned and mixed by the
burrowing worms. Worms multiply quickly; under optimum conditions eight
worms can produce 1500 new worms within six months. Worm castings
contain high concentrations of nitrates, potassium, calcium, phosphorous, and
magnesium. The actual worms are also high in protein and are often sold as
fish bait or used to supplement animal feed.
Successful composting and vermicomposting require adequate processing
systems and control criteria. For example, source separating the organics from
the waste stream before being fed to the worms can reduce problems
associated with potential heavy metal contamination.
Vermicomposting avoids the release of CH4 in comparison to the emissions of
untreated LFG.
The visual impact of vermicomposting facilities, even large-scale ones, is very
low since these plants are usually reasonably low structures, if any building is
present at all.
Due to much lower temperatures and nitrogen losses, vermicompost is likely
to contain higher levels of nitrogen than windrow compost. The product
resulting from composting source separated organic waste is generally of high
quality and is used to improve soil structure and nutrient content. On soils
where it is applied, this tends to lead to increased plant growth, replacement
of organic matter, reduced usage of fertilisers, decreased run-off, etc.
Vermicompost can supply a suitable mineral balance, improve nutrient
availability and act as complex-fertilizer granules. It can also provide a great
reduction in waste bulk density(1). Vermicomposting may bring about a
greater decrease of bioavailable heavy metals than in the composting process
and there is also evidence to suggest that the final product may contain
hormone like compounds that accelerate plant growth(2).
It is generally accepted that the thermophilic stage during the composting
process eliminates populations of pathogenic micro-organisms, but research
suggests that pathogens are also eliminated during vermicomposting as the
use of earthworms increases and accelerates this nitrogen mineralisation rate.
Nevertheless, Langouche (1998) reports that heavy metal accumulation can
occur in earthworm tissue, and that pathogens may survive in the worm
(1) BioCycle (1997) What are the similarities and differences in composting systems that can be operated in open or
in-vessel systems – wit or without worms. Researched by Tanya Vece, April, pages 57-59.
25
castings since high process temperatures are not achieved to kill pathogenic
micro-organisms.
Leachate from vermicomposting operations is often regarded as beneficial in
the sense that when collected it can be used a liquid fertiliser, sometimes
know as ‘worm tea’(1).
As with all processing operations, vermicomposting has the potential to cause
pollution, particularly in relation to the leachate from outdoor processing beds
and in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Research in vermicomposting has
not yet been developed to the same level as for composting, but is necessary to
know and understand the whole process better, in order to make it more
efficient and to be able to control potential environmental impacts(2).
Open-air vermicomposting beds covered by only permeable sheeting allow
rainfall to percolate through the waste applied to the surface of beds,
earthworm casts and then through the bedding material. The rainfall may
dissolve and suspend organic material, which will mix with any liquid
seepage coming from the waste, and create a leachate(3). In open-air systems
this leachate has the potential to percolate into the soil beneath beds and also
to pollute watercourses. Nevertheless, research suggests that leachate from
vermicomposting beds has low Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) levels even
compared with the later stages of composting and consistently low levels of
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), suggesting that vermicomposting leachate
would be less polluting than leachate from composting sites(4).
Nitrous oxide emissions from vermicomposting is a potentially serious and, as
yet, not fully researched problem. The ranges of nitrous oxide fluxes in
vermicompost are 100-1000 times higher than in garden soil. Research
identified vermicomposting as one of the most significant point sources of
nitrous oxide emissions yet discovered(5).
Emissions of bio-aerosols and VOCs are other potential adverse health and
environmental impacts. Compared with LFG utilisation or AD with
utilisation of gas, no use is made of the energy potential of the carbon released
to the atmosphere.
(1) Integrated Waste Systems Open University and Urban Mines Ltd () Vermicomposting trial at the Worm Research
Centre
Centre, page 58.
Centre, page 59.
Centre, page 60.
26
Although visual impacts of vermicomposting are low, the traditional open
systems, which are based on beds or windows on the ground contain
materials up to 18 inches deep, require large areas of land for large-scale
production and process organic waste relatively slowly(1).
3.2.5
Integrated MSW Management
The concept of an integrated waste management system promotes the use of a
range or combination of waste management options in an interconnected
system to enable waste to be channelled via different treatments as economic
or environmental conditions change. An effective waste management system
needs to retain the flexibility to design, adopt and operate its systems in ways
which best meet social, economic and environmental conditions, which will
inevitably change over time and vary by geography.
The interactions between various operations in any waste management
system require that the whole waste management system be considered in a
holistic way to ensure that the overall environmental impacts of the system
are understood, and that the system operates economically efficiently.
Therefore, achieving an economically and environmentally sustainable waste
management system is only likely if it is integrated, market-orientated and
flexible.
A holistic approach recognises that all disposal and treatment options could
have a role to pay as the overall objective is to optimise the whole system,
rather than promote a single waste management treatment method.
Furthermore, Landfill is the only method that can handle all waste alone, since
recycling, composting and incineration all leave some residual material that
needs to be finally disposed of. The combination of treatment methods
employed in a system will differ according to the quantities and composition
of the waste to be dealt with, the geographic differences in the availability of
some treatment/disposal options and in the maturity of markets for products.
Establishing the preferred system for a region will also be dependant on the
economic costs of treatment facilities and the minimisation of associated
environmental impacts to an acceptable level.
3.2.6
Transport
In order to select the best practical environmental option (BPEO) for managing
waste in a defined geographical area, environmental impacts and benefits of
the treatment facilities themselves are not the only aspects need to be
considered. Other issues such as transport, financial costs and revenues,
health effects, policy and legislation, and public acceptability must be taken
into account. From these issues, transport is frequently a determining factor
in choosing the best option, because the atmospheric pollution caused by road
transport is an important impact in site/treatment selection.
27
3.3
OVERVIEW OF MSW SITUATION IN CHINA
In the last decades, China’s economic development has focused on three areas
on the eastern coastline of China, which are known as Beijing-Tianjing
Development Area, Yangtze Delta Development Area and Pearl Delta
Development Area respectively. The major cities in Yangtz Delta
Development Area include Shanghai, Hangzhou, Suzhou and Nanjing etc.
The major cities in Pearl Delta Development Area include Guangzhou and
Shenzhen etc. In addition, during the past five years, substantial progress has
been made in the economic development of the western areas of China,
especially in cities like Chongqing and Chengdu, due to the promotion of the
‘Western Development Programme’.
3.3.1
Waste Generation
According to a study undertaken by the World Bank in 1999(1), urban MSW
generation of China was approximately 0.79 kg/capita/day in 1999 and
expected to be 0.9 kg/capita/day in 2025.
According to the Chinese Annual Environmental Report 2002, the quantity of
municipal solid waste (MSW) collected in 2002 was approximately 136.4
million tonnes. China had a population of approximately 1.29 billion in 2002.
Commissioned by the Ministry of Construction, a MSW survey(2) was
undertaken by Beijing Zhonglian Environmental Engineering Co, Ltd in 1996.
This survey selected 258 representative cities, out of a total of 640 cities in
China, for study. These 258 cities include three autonomous municipalities, 16
vice province level cities, 153 region level cities and 86 county level cities. It is
worth noting that Chongqing was a vice province level city in 1996 and was
approved as an autonomous municipality by the State Council in 1997.
Waste generation in different areas and cities from the survey are summarized
in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 respectively.
Table 3.1
Waste Generations in Different Area in 1996(2)
Area
East*
Middle*
West*
Urban
population
(million people)
70.53
39.77
17.19
Annual MSW
generation quantity
(million tonnes)
24.22
15.47
5.44
Annual MSW
generation quantity
per capita (kg)
453.57
400.27
328.72
Daily MSW
generation quantity
per capita (kg)
1.24
1.09
0.90
Note: *The report of this survey does not clarify how these three areas were classified, but
based on a common sense approach, the best guess is as follows: the east area should include
the provinces along the east coast line and three provinces in the northeast of China; the middle
area probably consists of Provinces from Guangxi northwards up to Shan’xi; the remaining area
is considered as within the west area.
(1) Urban Development Sector Unit, World Bank (1999) What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia
(2) Science and Technology Division, Ministry of Construction, PRC (1998) Strategic Research for Sustainable Development
of MSW Disposal in China
28
Table 3.2
Waste Generation in Different Cities in 1996(2)
Category
Autonomous
Municipalities
Vice-provincial
level city
Regional level city
County-level city
Urban
population
(million
people)
22.63
Annual MSW
generation
quantity (million
tonnes)
10.87
Annual MSW
generation
quantity per capita
(kg)
480.37
1.32
36.57
13.78
376.75
1.03
58.93
7.26
20.53
3.19
348.41
439
0.95
1.2
Daily MSW
generation quantity
per capita (kg)
Also according to this study, urban MSW generation in China is expected to
be 153 million tonnes in 2005 and 181 million tonnes in 2010.
Table 3.3 summarises the MSW collection quantities in major cities in China
from an article(1) published on the Chinese New Energy Website. The
population of these cities accounts for approximately 15% of the total
population of the country.
Table 3.3
MSW Generation in Major Cities of China in 1995(2)
City
Autonomous municipalities
Beijing
Shanghai
Tianjin
Chongqing
Vice province level cities
Hangzhou
Guangzhou
Nanjing
Chengdu
Harbin
Wuhan
Shenyang
Ji’nan
Changchun
Xiamen
Xi’an
Shenzhen
Ningbo
Dalian
Dingdao
Regional level province capital
cities
Total population Urban
(million people) population
(million people)
Annual MSW
generation quantity
(million tonnes)
10.70
13.01
8.95
15.20
6.97
9.22
5.08
4.06
4.40
3.72
1.80
0.95
5.98
6.47
5.22
9.72
5.34
7.10
6.67
5.42
6.67
1.21
6.48
0.99
5.26
5.35
6.85
1.91
3.95
2.59
3.01
3.19
4.07
4.15
2.22
4.15
0.53
2.56
0.75
1.15
2.50
2.49
0.65
1.55
0.77
0.88
2.06
1.66
2.33
0.56
2.33
0.24
0.70
0.48
0.25
0.77
0.68
(1) http://www.newenergy.org.cn/energy/biomass/source/laji/fenbu.htm#top
(2) http://www.newenergy.org.cn/energy/biomass/source/laji/fenbu.htm#top
29
City
Total population Urban
(million people) population
(million people)
8.46
1.78
4.11
1.22
5.62
1.40
3.95
1.53
5.84
1.84
5.63
1.60
2.73
1.03
0.48
0.39
1.68
1.15
3.75
1.56
0.38
0.13
2.71
1.43
1.09
0.66
0.89
0.48
1.21
0.53
Shijiazhuang
Hefei
Fuzhou
Nanchang
Zhengzhou
Changsha
Nanning
Haikou
Guiyang
Kunming
Lasa
Lanzhou
Xining
Yichuan
Xiamen
Annual MSW
generation quantity
(million tonnes)
0.51
0.22
0.44
0.46
0.58
0.63
0.29
0.25
0.45
0.42
0.06
0.55
1.03
0.17
0.24
Table 3.4 provides information on MSW production of China’s major cities and
how the MSW is handled. Information on MSW data for other Autonomous
municipalities, vice province level cities and Regional level province capital
cities is provided in Annex 1.
Table 3.4
Review of MSW in China Major Cities
City
Beijing
Summary of MSW facilities
Beijing is the capital city of China. According to the Fifth National Population
Census conducted in 2000, Beijing has a population of 13.57 million people.
Beijing’s estimated annual emissions growths for 1985-1998 is 3.9% while
economic growth was about 15%. In 90's (1990-98) however, it is estimated that
the annual growth of emissions are around 2% for Beijing despite the fact that
economic growth rates are over 15%, showing a decoupling of economic growth
and GHG emissions(2).
Beijing has 17 waste treatment/disposal facilities. In 2002, these 17 facilities
received on average, 8,800 tonnes per day, which accounts for 70% of the total
waste generation of Beijing.
6 are large-scale sanitary landfill sites,
3 are small-scale sanitary landfill sites,
2 composting sites,
2 small-scale incinerators and
4 large waste transfer stations.
The remaining 30% tends to be generated in the rural and peri-urban areas and is
dumped in uncontrolled landfills or dumping sites
30
City
Shanghai
Hangzhou
Suzhou
Chongqing
Summary of MSW facilities
Shanghai is located at the centre of the Yangtz Delta Development Area.
According to the Fifth National Population Census conducted in 2000, Shanghai
has a population of 16.73 million, of which permanent registered residents
account for 13.22 million. The urban area of Shanghai primarily comprises of two
parts, ie Puxi Old Area and Pudong New Development Area. In 2000, Puxi Old
Area had a population of about 5.69 million people whilst Pudong New Area
had a population of 2.40 million people.
Shanghai’s estimated annual emissions growth for 1985-1998 is 12.3% while
economic growth was about 15%. Similarly to Beijing, however, the annual
growth of emissions was about 5% despite the fact that economic growth rates
are over 15%(2).
According to the Shanghai Environmental Quality Report 2000, the MSW
collection quantity in Shanghai was 5.01 million tonnes in 2000.
Shanghai has 2 landfills treating 4900t/day(1).
Hangzhou is the capital city of Zhejiang Province. Hangzhou has a population of
5.98 million, of which the urban population accounts for 1.43 million.
The statistical data for the MSW generation from 1991 to 1995 indicated that the
increasing rate of MSW generation in Hangzhou is approximately 10% per year.
The total amount of waste generated in Hangzhou urban area was about 0.65
million tonnes in 1995
Hangzhou has one major landfill, the Hangzhou Tianziling Landfill.
Suzhou is one of the major cities in the Yangtz Delta Development Area
In 2000 the estimated population of Suzhou was 1.17 million generating 0.45
million tonnes of MSW. It is projected that the population will increase to 1.64
million in 2010 generating 0.69 million tonnes of MSW.
Chongqing is one of four autonomous municipalities in China (the remaining
three are Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjing). The total population in the urban areas
of Chongqing was estimated to be 3.12 million in 1996, rising to 5.5 million by
2020. Per capita waste generation has been assumed to rise from
0.95kg/capita/day in 1996 to 1.22 kg/capita/day in 2020. By 2020 it is expected
that about 20% of wastes generated will be recovered for recycling, leaving the
remainder requiring treatment and disposal. (1996 figures were the most recently
available at the start of the study).
Note 1: The table has been compiled with available information and is not a comprehensive
description of the situation in China
Note 2: Based on Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management Sector by Eui-Yong YOON and
Sunghan JO – IGES
Source: ERM China
3.3.2
Review of MSW Technologies Used in China
Waste Composition
According to a presentation from Municipal Construction Research Institute,
Ministry of Construction, a typical MSW composition of Chinese autonomous
municipalities is 60.2% organic waste, 12.74% inert waste, 9.51% plastic, 8.11%
paper, 2.89% glass, 1.91% textile, 0.87% metal and 3.92% other wastes(1).
According to the Strategic Research for sustainable development of MSW disposal in
China (1998), the average waste composition of China is summarised in Table
3.5.
(1) Xu, W.L. (2003) Presentation: Current Status and Countermeasures of MSW Disposal in China, Municipal Construction
Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, PRC
31
Table 3.5
The Average Composition of Urban MSW in China (%)
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Kitchen
waste
34.41
36.65
34.37
34.73
33.58
36.25
Paper
Plastic Textile Wood
3.09
3.19
3.91
3.81
3.75
3.79
3.09
3.41
3.95
4.34
4.64
5.21
1.81
1.96
2.00
2.07
2.95
2.69
2.65
2.89
3.55
3.09
3.19
3.14
Fruit
peel
10.15
10.57
10.67
11.78
12.15
12.24
Metal
Glass
1.48
1.58
1.64
1.60
1.46
1.41
2.60
2.28
2.28
2.45
2.64
2.85
Sand&
stone
29.78
29.29
30.56
28.44
27.43
25.48
Other
19.23
15.99
14.13
15.95
12.92
12.83
Landfill Gas Management
Landfill, to varying standards, is currently the predominant means of waste
disposal in China. According to the research carried out in China by ERM,
landfill gas management is in its infancy in China. Currently most waste is
dumped in uncontrolled landfills or on open ground. Where municipal
authorities (mainly in the cities) have developed recognisable landfills, most
will vent any methane generated directly to the atmosphere. It should be
noted that many of these landfills will not use modern compaction equipment
and hence much of the decomposition is likely to take place aerobically.
According to ERM’s knowledge, less than 5% of recognisable landfill sites in
China have landfill gas collection and flaring schemes and even less have gas
utilization facilities.
China’s first landfill gas-to-energy facility was built at Hangzhou Tianziling
Landfill in 1998. In recent years, landfill gas utilization, especially for power
generation, has drawn more and more government attention. With the aid of
the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the State Environmental Protection
Administration (SEPA) (government agency has similar factions as US EPA)
has developed a ‘National Action Plan for Municipal Solid Waste
Management’(1) which was published in October 2002. According to this plan,
landfill gas utilisation in China will be developed in three stages, which are
described as follows:
• Stage 1 (1997~2002): with the financial aid of GEF, three pilot projects have
been developed for landfill gas utilization at three landfill sites, which are
located in Nanjing, Ma’anshan and An’shan respectively.
• Stage 2 (2002~2007): Plan to establish or upgrade 30 new or existing landfill
sites with landfill gas utilization facilities.
• Stage 3 (2007~2015): Large-scale promotion of landfill gas utilization
technology (ie power generation or production of domestic fuel) and
establish 300 facilities of this kind by 2015.
(1) http://news.rednet.com.cn/Articles/2002/10/369405.htm
32
By the end of 2003, there were three landfill gas-to-energy facilities in China,
located in Hangzhou, Guangzhou and Nanjing respectively, see Table 3.6.
Moreover, in response to this National Action Plan, many cities have planned
to establish landfill gas collection and utilization facilities at their municipal
landfill sites. The forthcoming projects include Guangzhou Xingfeng Landfill
and Shanghai Laogang Landfill Phase III.
Table 3.6
Existing Landfill Gas Recovery Projects in China
Project Name
City
First LFG recovery in China
Hanghzou
Hangzhou
Tianziling landfill,
in JIangsu province
Province
Characteristics
Energy generation Status
Total
Investment
Jiangsu
LFG to energy
project
Yes,
2x 970 kW engine
sets
- Landfill:
RMB 85
million
-Power
generation:
3.5 million
US$
First 3 projects under the MSW national Action Plan
Nanjing Shuige
Nanjing
Jiangsu
LFG to energy
landfill
project
An’Shan Yang’ergu An’Shan
Landfill
Ma’anshan landfill
Liaoning
Ma’anshan An’Hui
Yes,
capacity 1.25 MW
Plus planned
future expansion,
for ultimate total
of 5.2 MW.
LFG utilisation Yes,
project includes - LFG-generated
power
power is
generation and consumed on site
LFG
- Purified and
purification and compressed LFG is
pressurization
supplied to local
public vehicles as
fuel
LFG collection Yes,
and clinical
Incinerator
waste
incineration
facility.
Prospective projects planned under the MSW National Action Plan
Guangzhou
Guangzhou Guandong
LFG recovery
No confirmed
Xingfeng Landfill
project
report, but
in Guandong
possibility of
province
maximum capacity
of 10 MW
Began to
operate in
October 1998
Operation
began July
2003
-landfill:
RMB 18
million
- Power
generation:
NA
The formal
- Landfill:
operation
RMB 73
commenced in million
August 2003
-Power
generation:
NA
Expected to be - Gas
completed end collection
of 2003.
and
incinerator:
RMB 6
million
yuan
Some biogas
collection
running in Jan
2004.
- Landfill:
NA
- Power
generation:
NA
33
Project Name
City
Province
Characteristics
Energy generation Status
Shanghai Laogang
Landfill Phase III,
and Phase IV
Shanghai
N/A
(Shanghai is
a
municipality
directly
under the
Central
Government)
LFG
managementFirst franchise
LFG project
No report of LFG
utilization for
electricity
Jiangsu
LFG to energy
project.
The generation
units will be
developed and
operated by
domestic
companies
LFG
management
Yes, LFG power
generation
facilities
2 sets of
generation units of
970 KW.
Construction
started in Nov
2003.
Plant expected
to be
commission in
first quarter of
2004
Reported that LFG Landfill Phase
electricity
I was finished
generation
in 2003
facilities will be
£ other phases
established in the to be finalised
Landfill
by 2005
Expected
power
generation half
year after
commissioning
- Landfill:
-Power
generation:
Power
generation
plant: RMB
20 Million
LFG to energy
project,
currently
screened for
their potential
as one CDM
project by the
Chinese
Renewable
Energy
Industries
Association
(CREIA).
PIN has been
written,
Yes,
- Guangzhou
Datianshan
originally
equipped with 1
set of generators
970 KW. It will be
equipped with two
new sets of
generators of 970
KW.
- Guangzhou
Likeng, to be
equipped with
three sets of
generators with
capacity of 970
KW.
- Zhongshan to be
equipped with two
sets of generators
with capacity of
970 KW.
- Landfill:
NA
-Power
generation:
NA
Other MSW projects
Taohuashan
Wuxi
Landfill in Wuxi,
Jiangsu province
Er’feishan in
Wuhan, Hubei
province
Wuhan
Hubei
Projects currently screened for CDM
‘Landfill Gas
Guangzhou Guandong
Generation Project and
of Guangdong
Zhongshan
Province’.
- Guangzhou
Datianshan landfill
- Guangzhou
Likeng landfill
- Zhongshan
landfill
Phase III
finalised
Phase IV
planned to
start in 2004
Construction
planned to
start from
March 2003
and finish in
December 2003
The projects
have not bee
started yet.
Total
Investment
- Landfill
phase IV:
RMB 0.9
billion
- Power
generation:
NR
- Landfill:
RMB 139.6
million –
includes 9.4
million euro
loan from
the
Netherlands
government
-Power
generation:
NR
Note: The table has been compiled with available information and is not a comprehensive
description of the situation in China
Source: ERM China, January 2004
34
Composting
There are in total 35 cities in China adopting composting technologies for
MSW treatment. Due to market constraints, composting facilities in China
tend to be small scale.
The composting technologies used including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
natural ventilated static pile (37%);
forced ventilated static pile (5%);
windrow with mechanical turning (33%);
high temperature aerobic fermentation (15%);
in-vessel composting (4%); and
others (6%).
Overview and Potential of Anaerobic Waste Digestion Technologies in China
Anaerobic digestion is currently not used for MSW disposal in China,
although it has been recognised as a potential solution for organic MSW
disposal, given the high organic content of waste in China. ERM could find
no evidence that suppliers are actively promoting AD technology to the China
MSW sector.
Small-scale anaerobic digestion is however used in rural areas in China for
agricultural waste. Since the 1970s, China has been promoting the use of
underground, individual household scale, anaerobic digesters to process rural
organic wastes (farm wastes) and in 1993 there were approximately 5 000 000
households using anaerobic digesters in China. The digesters produce biogas
that is used as an energy source by the households, and produces a
soil-enhancer that is used in agricultural production(1).
3.4
CALCULATING GH EMISSIONS
3.4.1
Landfill Gas
Baseline 1: No LFG Capture/Recovery
The following two equations are used for the calculation of landfill gas
emissions in this report(2). The determination of annual CH4 emissions for a
defined geographical area can be calculated from Equations 1 and 2:
EQUATION 1
Methane emissions (Gg/yr)
= (MSWT x MSWF x MCF x DOC x DOCF x F x 16/12 - R) x (1-OX)
(1) Paul, J. H., 1994, Anaerobic Digestion in Rural China, City Farmer, http://www.cityfarmer.org/biogasPaul.html
(2) Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Material
35
Where
MSWT = total MSW generated (Gg/yr)
MSWF = fraction of MSW disposed to solid waste disposal sites
MCF = methane correction factor (fraction – default is 0.8 for unmanaged, deep landfill sites)
DOC = degradable organic carbon (fraction)
DOCF = fraction DOC dissimilated
F = fraction of CH4 in landfill gas (default is 0.5)
R = recovered CH4 (Gg/yr)
OX = oxidation factor (fraction - default is 0.1 for well-managed landfill sites)
Using the values in Table, the DOC content of an ‘area’s’ waste could be
calculated as shown in Equation 2.
EQUATION 2
Per cent DOC (by weight)
= 0.4 (A) + 0.17 (B) + 0.15 (C) + 0.30 (D)
Where
A = per cent MSW that is paper and textiles
B = per cent MSW that is garden waste, park waste or other non-food organic
putrescibles
C = per cent MSW that is food waste
D = per cent MSW that is wood or straw
Figure 3.1
Baseline 1
Based on a typical waste composition for Shanghai
1 tonne of MSW to LF
= 0.13 t DOC
CO2
0.072 * 0.5 * 1.1
= 0.039 t C
100% fugitive emissions
= 0.13 t DOC * 0.55 t DOCF
= 0.072 t C
CH4
0.072 * 0.5 * 0.9
= 0.032 t C
In accordance with CDM methodology,
only the CH4 emissions from landfill
count towards anthropogenic GHG
emissions.
Thus for CDM purposes total GHG
emissions equal
0.032 * 21 / 0.27 = 2.46 t CO2e
Total emissions
= 0.039 + (0.032 * 21)
= 0.715 t Ce
Total CO2e
= 0.715 t / 0.27
= 2.62 t CO2e
Scenario 1: LFG Flaring
A capture rate of 70% of all LFG produced is assumed based on two ranges of
capture rates. WISARD assumes a capture rate of 54-78%(1), whereas another
(1) Environment Agency (2002) Life Cycle Inventory Development for Waste Management Operations: Composting and
Anaerobic Digestion
36
source suggests a rate of 50-60%(1). The remaining 20% of all LFG captured is
flared.
Figure 3.2
Scenario 1: Landfill Gas Flaring
70% LFG
captured & flared
= 0.13 t DOC
30% fugitive
emissions
CO2
(See baseline 1)
CO2
= 0.072 * 0.7
= 0.050 t C
Total Ce
= 0.050 + 0.21
= 0.26 t Ce
CO2
(See baseline 1)
CH4
(See baseline 1)
In accordance with CDM methodology, only
the CH4 emissions from landfill count
towards anthropogenic GHG emissions.
emissions equal
0.072 * 0.5 * 0.9 * 21 * 0.3 / 0.27 = 0.74 t CO2e
CO2e
= 0.715 * 0.3
= 0.21 t Ce
Total CO2e
= 0.26 / 0.27
= 0.96 t CO2e
Scenario 2: LFG Utilisation
The utilisation rate for electricity production is assumed to be 50% of all LFG
produced. This is slightly higher than the maximum figure of 40% assumed
by WISARD, which models just one size of energy utilisation plant. It is
within the range of 43-51% from the other source. We consider that it is
realistic to be able to use 50% of LFG for power generation because at different
stages in the life of a landfill a combination of different size engines could be
used to maximise electricity production.
It is assumed that the conversion efficiency of the electricity generators is
approximately 30% and that 5% of the power generated at landfill sites is used
on the landfill site by the landfill gas extraction system (pumps) and the
generation system itself(2).
Each 1 MWe unit requires approximately 650 m3 (LFG) x h-1 at 50% CH4(3). The
total amount of methane produced in the utilisation phase of the LFG
production is divided by the requirements of each 1 MWe unit installed, and
any excess is flared. Hence, 650 x 0.5 = 325 m3 of CH4 is necessary to generate
1 MWh. The standard conversation fro methane assumed is
0.00068 tonne/m3 CH4(4).
(1) Personal correspondence with R. Gregory based on work undertaken while developing GasSim model for Environment
Agency
(2) Personal communication with Renewable Power Systems
(3) Environment Agency (2000) Life Cycle Inventory Development for Waste Management Options: Landfill
(4) ICF Consulting (2000) Liepaja Regional Solid Waste Management - Monitoring and Verification Protocol
37
According to the ‘China Climate Change Country Study’ written by Research
Team of China Climate Change Country Study in 2000, the emissions factor
for ‘Energy conversion and Energy Industry’ (including thermal plants, heat
plants, etc) in China in 1990 is 82.6 t CO2e/tJ. As 1 kWh = 3.6 * 106 J, the
emissions factor shall then be 2.97 * 10-4 t CO2e/kWh.
Figure 3.3
Scenario 2: LFG Utilisation
70% captured
emissions
CO2e
0.072 * 0.5
= 0.035 t C
50% converted
to power
CO2
0.072 * 0.2
= 0.014 t C
20% flared
(See scenario 1)
= 0.13 t DOC
CO2
30% fugitive
emissions
(See baseline 1)
CH4
Total Ce
0.035 + 0.014 + 0.21
= 0.26 t Ce
CO2e
0.21 t Ce
(See scenario 1)
(See baseline 1)
emissions.
emissions from the landfill equal
0.072 * 0.5 * 0.9 * 21 * 0.3 / 0.27 = 0.74 t
CO2e
Total CO2e
0.26 / 0.27
= 0.96 t CO2e
CO2e - Offset
0.96 t – 0.063 t
= 0.90 t CO2e
Tonnes of CO2e offset per tonne of waste landfilled:
0.07 * 0.5 = 0.035 t C as CH4 utilised
0.035 t C * 16/12 = 0.047 t CH4
0.04 / 0.00068 = 68.63 m3 CH4
68.63 m3 CH4 / 325 m3 CH4 per MWh = 0.21 MWh
0.21 MWh * 0.297 t CO2e per MWh = 0.063 t CO2e
saved
Net CO2e = 0.74 – 0.063 = 0.68 t CO2e
3.4.2
Anaerobic Digestion and Composting
Baseline 2: Landfill of Organic Rich MSW
The waste input for AD and composting facilities tends to be organic rich
waste because that leads to the best end product, ie compost. Therefore,
source-segregation of the organic rich fraction of MSW is required in order to
collect the most appropriate waste stream for these waste treatment
technologies. Consequently, the CO2e emissions from these technologies are
best compared to a different baseline from the one used in the previous
section. The new baseline consist of landfilling the same waste stream than is
treated in AD and composting plants, so that one can compare the emissions
from treating this waste stream more accurately.
38
Figure 3.4
Baseline 2
This baseline is used for source-separated waste as used in composting or
anaerobic digestion
1 t of organic rich MSW
(0.125 * 0.4) + (0.859 * 0.15) + (0.016 * 0.3)
= 0.18 t DOC
100% fugitive emissions
= 0.18 t DOC * 0.55 t DOCF
= 0.10 t C
CO2
0.10 * 0.5 * 1.1
= 0.056 t C
CH4
0.10 * 0.5 * 0.9
= 0.046 t C
only the CH4 emissions from landfill count
emissions equal
0.046 * 21 / 0.27 = 3.54 t CO2e
Total Ce
0.056 + (0.046 *
21)
= 1.01 t Ce
Total CO2e
= 1.01 t / 0.27
= 3.71 t CO2e
Scenario 3: Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Rich MSW
Figure 3.5
Scenario 3: AD of Waste
100% captured CH4
converted to power
= 0.35 t DOC
100 % capture
of CH4
emissions.
Thus for CDM purposes there are no
GHG emissions from anaerobic digestion.
CO2 emissions from
power generation &
composting residue
Total CO2e
= 0.44 t CO2e
CO2e - Offset
0.44 t – 0.055 t
= 0.39 t CO2e
Tonnes of CO2e offset per tonne of waste digested:
100 m3 biogas per tonne input
100 * 0.6 = 60 m3 CH4
60 m3 CH4 / 325 m3 CH4 per MWh = 0.18 MWh
0.18 MWh * 0.297 t CO2e per MWh = 0.055 t CO2e
saved
Net CO2e = 0 – 0.055 = -0.055 t CO2e
Scenario 4: Composting of Organic Rich MSW
According to a report undertaken for the US EPA(1), the best reduced models
expected to adequately estimate CO2 yields on a per dry kilogram of MSW
mixture basis (in g C/dry kg).
EQUATION 3
gram of carbon / per dry kilogram of MSW
(1) United States EPA (2003) A Laboratory Study to Investigate Gaseous Emissions and Solids Decomposition During
Composting of Municipal Solid Wastes
39
Y = (217.4 * FP) + (237.3 * FY) + (370.5 * FF)
Where
Y = amount of CO2 emitted in g C emitted per dry kg of MSW mixture
FP, FY and FF = dry fractions of mixed paper, garden waste and food waste,
respectively, in the mixture, with each of the FP, FY, FF values
ranging from 0 to 1 and with FP+FY+FF always equal to 1.
Figure 3.6
Scenario 4: Composting of Waste
100% fugitive
emissions
Total C
(0.217 * 0.125) + (0.237 * 0.016) + (0.371 * 0.859)
= 0.349 t C / 0.27
= 1.28 t CO2
CO2
only the CH4 emissions from landfill count
Thus for CDM purposes there are no GHG
emissions from composting.
Table 3.7
Summary of Estimated Savings in GHG Emissions for the Different Waste
Management Technologies (compared with landfilling with no gas recovery)
Scenario
Waste Management
Option
1
Landfill with LFG
flaring
Landfill with FLG
utilisation
Anaerobic digestion
(a)
Composting (a)
2
3
4
Baseline GHG
Strategy GHG
Potential saving in
emissions
emissions
GHG emissions (b)
(t CO2e / t waste) (t CO2e / t waste) (t CO2e / t waste)
2.46
0.74
1.72
2.46
0.68
1.78
3.54
-0.055
3.60
3.54
0
3.54
Notes: (a) Assumes source segregation of waste – t CO2e quoted per tonne of the organic rich
source-separated waste
(b) No account taken of any additional emissions as a result of increased transport or
other effects.
3.5
IMPACT OF DIFFERENT MSW MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES ON CHINA’S CO2
EMISSIONS
3.5.1
Landfill Gas Recovery
Landfill Gas Recovery Potential for the Whole of China
The same assumptions for landfilling of waste, methane generation, capture
and utilisation are used as in Section 3.4.1. The most recently available MSW
40
composition data(1) was used for the Chinese autonomous municipalities. The
fraction called ‘organic waste’ was subdivided according to the less recent
national composition figures(2) to allow a more accurate calculation of the
DOC (see Section 3.3.2). Table 3.8 summarises the composition data used in the
calculations below.
Table 3.8
Typical MSW Composition of Chinese Autonomous Municipalities (%)
Years
Organic waste
Inert
Kitchen Fruit Wood waste
waste
peel
1996& 43.9
13.0
3.3
12.74
2003
Plastic Paper
Glass
Textile Metal
Other
wastes
9.51
2.89
1.91
3.92
8.11
0.87
From Eq. 2:
DOC = [0.4 * (0.0811 + 0.0191)] + (0.17 * 0)+ (0.15 * 0.569) + (0.30 * 0.033)
= 0.135 t DOC /t waste
From Eq. 1:
Methane generated form landfilled waste:
(136 400 000(3) x 1 x 0.8(4) x 0.135 x 0.55(5) x 0.5(3) x 16/12 - 0) x (1 - 0.1(4))
= 4 861 296 tonnes of CH4/year
Potential total methane production:
4 861 296 tonnes of CH4 / 0.00068 = 7 148 964 706 m3 of CH4
Therefore, methane available for power generation:
7 148 964 706 m3 x 0.5 = 3 574 482 353 m3 of CH4
Potential energy production from LFG produced in China, assuming 30%
conversion efficiency and 5% used on site:
3 574 482 353 m3 of CH4 / 325 m3 of CH4 (MWh)-1 * 0.95
= approximately 10 500 000 MWh/yr
Clearly this is a purely theoretical figure as it includes waste generated by
small towns and villages, which will not be deposited in sites large enough to
warrant the installation of LFG recovery systems.
Shanghai (autonomous municipality)
According to a recent study(1), the average MSW composition in Shanghai in
1999 is summarised in Table 3.9.
(1) Xu, W.L. (2003) Presentation: Current Status and Countermeasures of MSW Disposal in China, Municipal Construction
Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, PRC
(2) Strategic Research for sustainable development of MSW disposal in China (1998)
(3) Shanghai Environmental Quality Report 2000
(4) Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Material (assumed on basis of
improved landfill management compared to baseline)
41
Table 3.9
A Summary of MSW Composition in Shanghai (1999)
Composition Paper
Percentage (%) 8
Plastic
14
Wood
1
Textile
3
Food waste
55
Metal
1
Glass
4
Other
14
From Eq. 2:
DOC = [0.4 * (0.08 + 0.03)] + (0.17 * 0)+ (0.15 * 0.55) + (0.30 * 0.01)
From Eq. 1:
Methane generation potential:
(5 010 000(2) x 1 x 0.8(3) x 0.130 x 0.55(4) x 0.5(3) x 16/12 - 0) x (1 - 0.1(4))
= 171 943 tonnes/year of CH4
171 943 tonnes of CH4 / 0.00068 = 252 857 353 m3 of CH4
Therefore, methane available for power generation:
252 857 353 m3 x 0.5 = 126 428 676 m3 of CH4
Potential energy production from LFG produced in Shanghai, assuming 30%
126 428 676 m3 of CH4 / 325 m3 of CH4 (MWh)-1 * 0.95
= approximately 370 000 MWh/yr
Hangzhou (vice province level city)
The typical waste composition for Hangzhou is summarised in Table 3.10.
Table 3.10
MSW Composition of Hangzhou City (Urban Area)(5)
Composition
Kitchen
waste
Percentage (%) 25
Organic content
Paper Plastic Fibre, grass Glass
and wood
3
1.5
1.5
2
Inorganic content
Metal
Inert waste
2
65
From Eq. 2:
DOC = [0.4 * (0.03 + 0)] + (0.17 * 0.015) + (0.15 * 0.25) + (0.30 * 0)
(1) Yoon, E.Y., Jo, S.H. (2002) MSW Management and Energy Recovery, The International Workshop on Policy Integration
towards Sustainable Urban Energy Use for Aisa Cities
(2) Shanghai Environmental Quality Report 2000
(5) http://www.newenergy.org.cn/energy/biomass/case/shenghua/hangzhoutianzi.htm#top
42
From Eq. 1:
= (650 000(2) x 1 x 0.8(3) x 0.052 x 0.55(4) x 0.5(3) x 16/12 - 0) x (1 - 0.1(4))
= 8923 tonnes/year of CH4
8923 tonnes of CH4 / 0.00068 = 13 122 058 m3 of CH4
Therefore, methane available for electricity generation:
13 122 058 m3 x 0.5 = 6 561 029 m3 of CH4
Potential energy production from LFG produced in Hangzhou, assuming 30%
6 561 029 m3 of CH4 / 325 m3 of CH4 (MWh)-1 * 0.95
Suzhou (regional level province city)
A summary of current status (1995-2000) and future estimation (2005-2020) of
MSW composition in Suzhou is presented in Table 3.11. For the subsequent
calculations the figures for 2000 are used.
Table 3.11
MSW Composition of Suzhou City (Urban Area)(1)
Year
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Organic
Kitchen waste
58.30
66.03
57.72
53.32
50.57
49.61
Inorganic
Briquette ash, dumped
soil
19.63
3.00
3.20
2.88
2.59
2.46
Paper
Plastic
Recyclable
Metal Glass
7.91
7.00
11.20
14.56
17.47
19.22
7.17
11.00
12.65
13.28
12.75
12.70
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.68
2.50
3.75
3.94
3.66
3.30
Fibre,
wood, etc
5.02
10.19
11.21
11.77
12.71
12.46
From Eq. 2:
DOC = [0.4 (0.07 + 0)] +(0.17 * 0) + (0.15 * 0.6603) + (0.30 * 0.1019)
From Eq. 1:
= (450 000(2) x 1 x 0.8(3) x 0.158 x 0.55(4) x 0.5(3) x 16/12 - 0) x (1 - 0.1(4))
= 18 770 tonnes/year of CH4
(1) Pan, W., Current status of MSW management in Suzhou and countermeasures, Environment and Sanitation 2001 Issue 2
(2) Internal Report
(3) Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Material
43
18 770 tonnes of CH4 / 0.00068 = 27 602 941 m3 of CH4
Therefore, methane available for electricity generation:
27 602 941 m3 x 0.5 = 13 801 470 m3 of CH4
Potential energy production from LFG produced in Suzhou, assuming 30%
13 801 470 m3 of CH4 / 325 m3 of CH4 (MWh)-1 * 0.95
Table 3.12 summarises the potential power generation from landfilling all of
the MSW in three different Chinese cities. These are just rough maximum
estimates because it is highly unlikely that 100% of the waste would be sent to
landfill in any of those cities. A fraction of it may be incinerated or composted
for instance.
Table 3.12
Potential Energy Production from LFG in the Whole of China and in Three
Different Types of Cities
Potential energy
production (MWh/yr)
3.5.2
China
Shanghai
Hangzhou
Suzhou
10 500 000
370 000
19 000
40 000
Integrated MSWM System for Shanghai
As an example of what could be achieved if a city decided to implement a
comprehensive CO2 emissions reduction programme, based on an integrated
solid waste management (SWM) strategy, the following case study was
developed.
The assumed SWM strategy presented here consists of:
•
•
composting 10% of the all MSW (organic rich fraction); and
sending the remaining 90% to landfill, where LFG is recovered and
utilised for energy production.
It should be noted that composting 10% of the MSW of a city is an ambitious
target considering the requirements for source separation of the organic
fractions. The other assumptions remain the same as used in above scenarios
(see Section 3.4).
Baseline: all MSW is Landfilled without LFG Recovery
Emissions of tonnes of C per year (as CH4)
From Eq. 1:
44
(5 010 000 x 1 x 0.8(1) x 0.124 x 0.55(2) x 0.5(3) - 0) x (1 - 0.1(4))
= 123 006 t/yr of C (as CH4)
Ce emissions:
123 006 t/yr of C (emitted as CH4) * 21
= 2 583 116 t/yr of Ce
CO2e emissions from landfilling counted in accordance with CDM
methodology:
2 583 116 t/yr Ce / 0.27 = approximately 9 470 000 t/yr of CO2e
Integrated SWM Programme for Reducing Potential CO2e Emissions in Shanghai
Amounts of Waste in Different Waste Streams
Amount of MSW to be landfilled: 5 010 000 * 0.9 = 4 509 000 t
Amount of organic rich material to be composted: 5 010 000 * 0.1 = 501 000 t
Since composting of organic rich waste emits only CO2, no emissions are
counted in accordance with the CDM methodology.
Waste Compositions
Organic rich fraction: 0.08 (paper) + 0.01 (wood) + 0.55 (food waste) = 0.64
Percentages of threes waste types in organic rich material
Paper: 0.08 / 0.64 = 0.125
Garden waste (wood): 0.01 / 0.64 = 0.016
Food waste: 0.55 / 0.64 = 0.859
DOC value of organic rich material to be composted
(0.4 * 0.125) + (0 * 0.17) + (0.15 + 0.859) + (0.3 + 0.016) = 0.184 DOC
DOC value of remaining MSW to be landfilled
Total amount of degradable organic carbon:
5 010 000 t * 0.13 DOC = 651 300 t DOC
Amount of degradable organic carbon to be composted:
501 000 t * 0.184 DOC = 92 009 t DOC
DOC value for remaining MSW to be landfilled:
(651 300 – 92 009) / 4 509 000 = 0.124 DOC
From Eq. 1:
0.3 x (5 010 000 x 0.9 x 0.8(3) x 0.124 x 0.55(4) x 0.5(3) - 0) x (1 - 0.1(4))
= 33 211t/yr of C (as CH4)
Ce emissions:
33 211 t/yr of C (emitted as CH4) * 21
45
= 697 441 t/yr of Ce
CO2e emissions from reduction programme counted in accordance with
CDM methodology:
697 441 t/yr Ce / 0.27 = approximately 2 600 000 t/yr of CO2e
Emissions due to power generation from fossil fuels (energy otherwise
provided by utilising LFG):
0.297 t CO2e/MWh(3.4.1) * 370 000 MWh/yr(3.5.1)
= approximately 109 890 t/yr CO2e
Total CO2e saved from reductions programme
9 471 434 t/yr CO2e +109 890 t/yr CO2e - 2 557 287 t/yr CO2e
= approximately 7 000 000 t/yr CO2e
3.6
BACKGROUND ON THE CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM
This section provides a summary of the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) definitions relevant to determine the potential eligibility of specific
MSW projects in China by earning carbon credits under the CDM. To be
recognised as a CDM project there are a set of specific rules and conditions
that project activities need to follow. This section provides an overview of
these rules and what steps project developers need to take to ensure that they
comply with these rules.
3.6.1
What is the CDM – general principles
The negotiations on Climate Change have led to the adoption of a Framework
Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, adopted at the first Earth Summit
in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Convention sets out a plan of action to stabilise
the concentrations of greenhouse gases emitted by human action in the upper
atmosphere to a level that would prevent it from ‘dangerous’ interference
with the global climate system. The UNFCCC came into force on 21 March
1994 and contained various reporting obligations. Its aim was for developed
countries and countries making the transition to a market economy (Annex I
Parties) to reduce their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.
To achieve the objectives of the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol to the
Convention was agreed and signed in December 1997. The Kyoto Protocol
commits developed countries to achieve emission limitation and reduction
commitments set as a percentage of their 1990 emissions by 2008-2012.
The CDM is one of the mechanisms developed under the Kyoto Protocol. Its
two key goals are:
•
To assist developing countries to achieve sustainable development
46
•
To provide developed countries with flexibility for achieving their
emission reduction targets, by allowing them to take credits from
emission reduction projects undertaken in developing countries.
The CDM is a mechanism by which emission reductions achieved by projects
which take place in countries that do not have Annex B commitments under
the Kyoto Protocol can be credited and sold as Certified Emission Reductions
(CER) in the GHG market to help countries with a commitment under the
Kyoto Protocol to achieve their objectives. Project developers therefore have
opportunities to use the value of Certified Emission Reductions from projects
as an additional revenue stream for investments, by virtue of the market
created by the demand for credits in Annex I countries. Box 3.1 illustrates the
concept of CERs.
Box 3.1
CDM emissions reductions1
C O2 e q u i v a l e n t s
C D M & JI
E m is s io n B a s e lin e
A c tu a l e m issio n s
v e r if ie d e m is s io n r e d u c tio n s f r o m b a s e lin e
a r e “ C e r tif ie d E m is s io n R e d u c tio n s ”
o r “ E m is s io n R e d u c tio n U n it s ”
2000
2005
2010
Source: ERM, 2002.
Credits for Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) in developing countries
could be valid from investments made from the beginning of 2000, which
makes this the most important of the Kyoto Mechanisms in the period up to
2008.
The CDM Executive Board, which was appointed at the 7th Conference of the
Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP 7) and began its work in November 2001, is
tasked with setting these CDM rules. It is responsible for approving
methodologies for baselines, monitoring plans and project boundaries,
accrediting operational entities, and developing and maintaining the CDM
registry.
3.6.2
CDM project cycle
The CDM project cycle consists of an initial project concept and design,
monitoring, verification, and certification. A number of different of legal
entities and organisations will be involved in the project cycle for CDM
1
The CDM and Joint Implementation emissions reductions are based on similar principles.
47
projects: project developers, national authorities such as the host
governments’ Designated National Authorities, accredited independent
Operational Entities (i.e. an independent third party), and the UNFCCC CDM
Executive Board. Figure 3.1 illustrates and explains each step of the CDM
project cycle and the key actors involved.
48
Figure 3.1
CDM project Cycle
Project Design
Description of project and estimation of carbon
flows
Host country
approval
Validation of project design by
an Operational Entity
Registration with the appropriate
regulatory body
Monitoring by project investors
Verification by an Operational Entity
Certification by an Operational Entity
Issuance of Credit by the Executive
Board
Project Design
At the design phase a project developer defines the project
boundaries and lifetime, establishes its CDM eligibility, estimates
baseline emissions, total project emissions and emission reductions
expected over the project lifetime.
Validation
Confirmation that the project is in conformance with the Kyoto
Protocol modalities and rules, with the rules under a specific
scheme, and with the host country rules.
Registration
Register the project with the CDM Executive Board.
Monitoring
Ongoing (annual) estimates of actual emissions from the project.
Verification
Independent verification that emission reductions or enhanced
sequestration is additional to baseline.
Certification
Written assurance of the emission reductions or enhanced
sequestration.
Issuance of Credits
The CDM Executive Board issues Certified Emissions Reductions
(CERs).
Source: ERM, UNFCCC website, 2002.
49
3.6.3
Project Design
The first step in setting up a CDM project is the project design. For a project to
be recognised as a CDM project, a specific evaluation of the project
additionality, baseline, and an estimation of emission reduction must be
carried out. The greenhouse-gas related aspects of the project must be
described in a Project Design Document (PDD) provided in template form by
the CDM Executive Board of the UNFCCC1. The project developer and
advisors (consultants) on climate change usually carry out the project design.
The key steps for CDM project design are summarised below. They are further
explained in the Guidelines section.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.6.4
Describe the project and its boundaries, and analyse the sector of the
project activity
Ensure that the project satisfies the sustainable development priorities
of China
Determine the project baseline and the additionality criteria – Baseline
Study
Estimate the project’s expected emissions and accounting for leakages
Determine the crediting period during which emission reductions will
be achieved and credited
Calculate the expected emission reductions
Develop a Monitoring and Verification plan, and
Stakeholder consultation and environmental and social impacts
assessment of the project
Validation and Registration
The purpose of this phase is to validate a project and its baseline and
monitoring and verification plan as eligible under CDM, and subsequently
register it with the CDM Executive Board.
The CDM Executive Board, set up at COP7 in 2001, is responsible for
supervising the CDM, it’s role includes approval of methodologies for
baselines, monitoring plans and project boundaries, accreditation of
operational entities, and development and maintenance of a registry for CERs
that are sold under the CDM.
Any project under the CDM must support the sustainable development
process of the host country, as well as achieve emissions reductions that are
additional to those that would otherwise occur in the absence of the project
activity. An official independent verifier (i.e. an Operational Entity registered
with the relevant authority - in the case of the CDM, this is the CDM Executive
Board) will review the project. If the proposal is in conformance with the
1 Project Design Document templates can be obtained in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish on
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents.
50
Kyoto Protocol rules of the CDM, the Operational Entity will declare that the
project is eligible under CDM rules (i.e. validate the project). Once the
validation is complete, the validation opinion is submitted to the Executive
Board for registration of the project as a CDM project.
The project developer may propose a new baseline and/or monitoring
methodology, or use an existing approved methodology. The process by
which Monitoring and Verification methodologies are approved or rejected by
the Executive Board can be described as follows:
• A project may only use Monitoring and Verification methodologies which
have been approved by the CDM Executive Board (EB) and are included in
the ‘repository of approved methodologies’. These methodologies are made
publicly available along with any relevant guidance.
• If no approved methodology exists in the repository, the Operational Entity
(OE) must decide upon a new methodology, and get it approved by the
Executive Board.
• If the new methodology is approved, it is included in the ‘repository of
approved methodologies’, and the project is registered as a CDM project
activity. However, if the new methodology is rejected, the project cannot go
ahead as a CDM project activity.
If the Operational Entity proposes to use an approved methodology, it
submits a request for the project’s registration, which is then reviewed by the
Executive Board, and subsequently accepted and registered as a CDM project
activity, or rejected.
Validation and verification for CERs generated as a result of MSW and
Landfill Gas to energy projects are primarily concerned with assessment of the
project baseline, additionality, and measuring and monitoring issues. MSW
projects have one very significant advantage over many projects or actions
that may tend to yield emission reductions, that being that they are readily
and easily verifiable using actual recorded data for both the measured flows
and characterization of the LFG fuel that has been used.
3.6.5
Operational Entity
An Operational Entity is an organisation (e.g. domestic legal entity or
international organization) authorised1 by the CDM Executive Board to
validate greenhouse gas mitigation projects, and to verify and certify emission
reductions. Separate Operational Entities are likely to carry out the validation
and verification/certification to avoid conflict of interest. Although this is not
a specific requirement of the Kyoto Protocol, it has become a requirement of
World Bank Carbon Funds’s projects, which applies similar principles.
1This authorisation is done through a process called accreditation, in which an Entity submits a request for accreditation to
the CDM Executive Board, which, in turn, checks that this Entity fits the requirements for Operational Entities set by the
UNFCCC.
51
Until today, the CDM Executive Board has not authorised (i.e. accredited and
designated) any Entity to become and Operational Entity. However, the CDM
Executive Board is in the process of considering 17 applications for
Operational Entities1, referred to as Applicant Entities on the interim basis.
3.6.6
General GHG Monitoring Considerations
Once a project has been registered by the CDM Executive Board, the project’s
GHG emissions are monitored throughout the project duration. Monitoring
relates to the regular measurement, assessment and recording of GHG
emission reductions by the emission reduction project. It is carried out by the
project investors (i.e. Project Participants), who may choose to refer to another
company to carry out this task.
3.6.7
Validation, Verification and Certification of Emissions Reductions
Validation is an independent assessment of the project methodologies and
performance, carried out by an Operational Entity (i.e. independent verifier).
It provides independent assurance that expected emission reductions will be
achieved from an emission reduction project according to a specified set of
rules, during a specified period.
In order to generate credits through the CDM projects, all projects must have
their emission reductions independently verified before they can be claimed:
this serves as the basis for certification. In other words, once the project’s
emissions reductions have been verified and certified by the appropriate
authority, the CDM Executive Board awards Certified Emission Reductions
(CERs) (Figure 3.1) to the project developers. Certification gives assurance
that the reductions have been achieved under the conditions laid out by the
Kyoto Protocol and the CDM Executive Board (which are the conditions
necessary for the certificates to have value for Parties to the Protocol).
The operation of CDM may be described as follows: A legal entity invests in a
project, which results in emissions reduction in a non-Annex I country. Once
the emissions reductions occur, these are certified: the project generates CERs.
In other words, CERs will be awarded to CDM projects following official
"certification" of reductions by an independent third party certifier.
3.6.8
Underlying principles for CDM projects
When developing a CDM project, it is essential that the project developers
ensure that a series of key principles are satisfied, in order to increase the
robustness of the project and reduce the risks associated with the CDM
aspects of the project.
1
For a list of these Entities and updates on the stage of their applications, see http://cdm.unfccc.int/DOE/CallForInputs
52
The key principles that all CDM project activities are required to comply with
were agreed in two decisions1 of the Marrakesh Accords2.
Every project developer should ensure that the CDM project management
complies with the key principles described below. This is a particularly
important issue as the Designated Operational Entity will use these principles
to validate and verify the project. These principles are:
Accuracy: The relative measure of the exactness of relevant performance
indicators. This should enable performance indicators and emission reduction
estimates to be calculated as accurately as possible, i.e. by use of statistical
techniques in order to reduce uncertainties and arrive at confidant numbers
for emission reductions.
Completeness: The project documentation and the scope of validation should
cover all relevant greenhouse gases, sources and sinks, – if affected by the
project activities. It should also include other indicators of project compliance,
e.g. leakage effects or project effects beyond the chosen project boundaries, as
appropriate.
Comparability: Methods for estimation of emissions [and removals] should be
comparable between the project baseline(s) and the project. This should enable
comparison of the PCF project with the relevant baseline scenario(s) and
subsequent determination of the selected baseline's applicability.
Consistency: The project documents should address comparable key
indicators which enable consistent review of project performance over time.
To the extent possible, the methodologies and measurements identified in the
baseline study should also be addressed and made verifiable via the
Monitoring and Verification Protocol.
Cost-effectiveness: The amount of costs and effort necessary to document,
validate, monitor, report and verify a GHG project should be made dependent
on the attained uncertainties and the amount of predicted emission
reductions, i.e. by use of a risk-based assessment approach.
Reliability: For the estimation of emission reductions from the project the
most realistic and likely operational characteristics and most likely
development relevant to the project shall be chosen as reference for projected
These decisions are Decisions 15/CP.7 (Principles, nature and scope of mechanisms pursuant to Articles 6, 12 and 17 of
the Kyoto Protocol) and Decision 17/CP.7 (Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in
Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol).
1
The Marrakesh Accords were agreed during the 7th conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in Marrakesh in 2001,
among other issues this document specifies the modalities for the implementation of the CDM mechanism. See the
UNFCCC web site for a copy of the Marrakesh accords:
http://maindb.unfccc.int/library/?database=document>document&screen=detail&mode=&language=en&%250=6000018
55
2
53
emissions and baseline. This also implies that the project’s crediting time must
be conservative.
Validity: For the estimation of emission reductions from the project it is
crucial that factors or indicators used for baseline determination and the use of
operational characteristics give opportunity for real measurements of
achieved emission reductions. The baseline and operational characteristics
used in the project documentation must therefore be based on factors or
indicators that provide a plausible picture of the business a usual scenario,
and being reflected in subsequent monitoring and reporting of the project
operations.
Transparency: Transparency is an imperative for all involved parties in a PCF
validation process, and will be a significant means to create credible emission
reductions.
3.6.9
Sustainable development Requirements
Among the purposes of CDM project activities, one of the main objectives
stated by the UNFCCC is ‘to assist Parties not included in Annex I in achieving
sustainable development’, see Box 3.2.
Box 3.2
Purposes of CDM project activities
(a) To assist Parties not included in Annex I in achieving sustainable development and in
contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention;
(b) To assist Parties included in Annex I in achieving compliance with their quantified emission
limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3.11, 12, 13, 19; and
(c) To assist developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of
climate change to meet the costs of adaptation by ensuring that a share of the proceeds of each
project is assessed for this purpose
Source: UNFCCC, 1999
Article 12 of the Protocol requires that CDM project activities contribute to
sustainable development in host countries, but does not define ‘sustainable
development’ as it is the host country’s prerogative to confirm whether a
CDM project assists in achieving sustainable development. This was further
confirmed in the Marrakesh Accords
The Kyoto Protocol ascribes the responsibility for determining the procedures
for approving CDM projects to host countries (i.e., developing countries).
Without such approval, projects cannot be submitted to the CDM Executive
Board. Therefore developing country governments wishing to host CDM
projects must set up these procedures. Each national government will define
its own sustainable development priorities. In order to do so, each host
54
country is required to set up a Designated National Authority, which will be
in charge of setting these requirements
Thus, the project developer needs to gain an approval from the Designated
National Authority that his project assist the sustainable developments
objectives of China and that his project complies with the Chinese CDM rules.
This approval must be given in the form of a written document
3.6.10 Additionality and Baseline issues for CDM projects
The concept of additionality is the key indicator that was developed to ensure
the environmental integrity of the clean development mechanism and
ultimately of the Kyoto Protocol.
The additionality criterion is also the foundation of generating emission
reductions (ERs) through CDM projects. Art. 12, 5 (c) Kyoto Protocol requires
that ‘Reductions in emissions […] are additional to any that would occur in
the absence of the certified project activity’.
The Marrakesh accords in the definition of the rules for CDM provides, in line
with the Kyoto protocol definition, the official definition of the additionality
concept, see Box 3.3.
Box 3.3
Marrakesh Accords definition of Additionality concept
Definition of Additionality concept
‘A CDM project activity is additional if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases
by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the
registered CDM project activity.’
Source: UNFCCC The Marrakesh Accords & The Marrakesh Declaration (Decision
17/CP.7, #43)
Additionality, thus requires that emission reductions represent a physical
reduction or avoidance of emissions over what would have occurred under a
business as usual scenario specific to the project and location under
consideration. It means that a project developer needs to ensure that their
projects will reduce emissions below what would have happen if the projects
were not to be implemented. This means that he needs to estimate what
would happen in the future if the project would not happen -- this is called the
baseline scenario.
Estimating the future is not a straightforward task; thus, rules have been
agreed in the Marrakesh Accords as to what are acceptable methodologies to
asses these future scenarios, see Box 3.4.
55
Box 3.4
Marrakesh Accords Baseline Methodologies
Criteria for CDM baseline methodology
In choosing the baseline methodology, participants shall select from among the following
approaches the one deemed more appropriate for the project activity and justify their choice:
a) Existing or actual emissions, as applicable; or
b) Emission from a technology that represents an economically attractive course of action,
taking into account barriers to investment; or
c) The average emissions of similar project activities undertaken in the previous 5 years, in
similar social, economical, environmental and technological circumstances and whose
Source: UNFCCC The Marrakesh Accords & The Marrakesh Declaration Decision 17/CP.7, #48
Still, some questions have arisen as to how to interpret the additionality
requirements and how to implement these baseline approaches to specific
projects. This is especially important as the baseline also affects the
commercial attractiveness of a project to investors. If the baseline is too tough,
investors may be discouraged unnecessarily, but if too lenient, then the
environmental objective of the Kyoto Protocol may not be met.
The CDM Executive Board (at its 10th session) has provided examples of tools
that may be used to demonstrate that a project activity is additional and
therefore not the baseline scenario1, these include, among others:
a) A flow-chart or series of questions that lead to a narrowing of potential
baseline options;
b) A qualitative or quantitative assessment of different potential options
and an indication of why the non-project option is more likely; and/or
c) A qualitative or quantitative assessment of one or more barriers facing
the proposed project activity (such as those laid out for small-scale
CDM projects); and/or
d) An indication that the project type is not common practice (e.g. occurs
in less than [<x%] of similar cases) in the proposed area of
implementation, and not required by a Party’s legislation/regulations.
It is very useful to review how project developers have dealt with the
additionality requirement in the past. Most recently the CDM Executive Board
has approved or issued final recommendations for approval of four Municipal
Solid Waste baseline methodologies. Thus it is particularly interesting to
assess how these projects have interpreted and implemented the additionality
issue, since they have succeeded in obtaining CDM EB approval. The baseline
studies for these projects are summarized in Annex B .
The analysis shows that each project has interpreted additionality in a very
different way. The main justification for their choice lies in the analysis of the
specific situation of the Host Country and the region where the project will be
implemented. It rests in the hands of the project developers to define which
1 The Executive Board recommendations also state that the tool used in order to demonstrate additionality does not need to
be linked to one of the three baseline approaches of paragraph 48 of the CDM modalities and procedures.
56
additionality criteria and baseline approach is the more appropriate for its
project activity and to justify their choice in a clear and transparent way.
See section 3.7.3 on CDM additionality issues in China to see how the
additionality issue will affect MSW projects in China
3.6.11 Leakage
Leakage is the unplanned, indirect emission of CO2, resulting from the project
activities. It occurs if emission reductions from a project are offset by increases
in emissions elsewhere. It is important to ensure that the project boundaries
are defined such that leakage is not a significant problem, or that emission
estimates take leakage into account. Thus, the CDM rules require that each
CDM project's management plan must address and account for potential
leakage.
One example of leakage for a MSW project could be the emissions resulting
from generating the electricity used to pump the landfill gas in the additional
collection equipment. In this example, the GHG emissions from this electricity
would have to be substracted from the GHg reduction achieved by the project
activity. Is no data is available to calculate or estimate the leakage, and
uncertainty analysis should be done, and an adjustment factor, taking account
of that uncertainty, should be applied to the project’s emission reductions.
3.6.12 Proceeds of the project and funding
Finally, funding for CDM projects must not come from a diversion of official
overseas development assistance (ODA) government funds. The project
developer needs to confirm that this will not be the case and provide verifiable
information on the sources of the project funding for the Operating entity to
validate this claim.
Two standard rules apply to the proceeds from ALL CDM project activities, as
defined in the Marrakesh accords:
• Some of the proceeds from carbon credit sales from all CDM projects
will be used to cover administrative expenses of the CDM (the exact
proportion of that is still to be decided by the CDM executive Board
and/or the COP/MOP).
• Two percent of the carbon credits awarded to a CDM project will be
allocated to a fund to help cover the costs of adaptation in countries
severely affected by climate change (the 'adaptation levy').
The project developer must take these financial issues into account when
defining the project financial plan.
57
3.6.13 Case of small scale CDM projects
The sections above show that a detailed stream of monitoring, reporting,
verification, certification and approval processes surrounds the development
of a CDM project. The most important difference between small and large
projects lies in their ability to absorb transaction costs associated with these
processes, as small projects cannot absorb the same amount of transaction
costs as large projects.
Because of this, the Executive Board has developed simplified methodologies
for the development of small-scale CDM project activities. The Executive
Board clarified the rules for smaller projects at its seventh meeting in January
2003. The rules for small scale projects are available on the UNFCCC website:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents1.
The rules recognise three overall types of small-scale CDM projects that are
allowed to follow the simplified modalities:
•
Type (i) project activities: renewable energy project activities with a
maximum output capacity equivalent to up to 15 megawatts (or an
appropriate equivalent) (decision 17/CP.7, paragraph 6 (c) (i))
•
Type (ii) project activities: energy efficiency improvement project
activities which reduce energy consumption, on the supply and/or
demand side, by up to the equivalent of 15 gigawatt hours per year
(decision 17/CP.7, paragraph 6 (c) (ii))
•
Type (iii) project activities: other project activities that both reduce
anthropogenic emissions by sources and directly emit less than 15
kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually (decision 17/CP.7,
paragraph 6 (c) (iii)).
Box 3.5 re-iterates the necessary steps for developing a CDM project activity
and highlights the areas of simplification which apply to small scale CDM
projects.
Box 3.5
Simplifications for small-scale CDM project activity
The CDM project cycle provides for differentiation between CDM project activities and
CDM small-scale project activities. The following steps describe the areas of simplifications
which apply to small-scale CDM projects.
1. Design the project activity:
In order to propose a CDM project activity, the project developer is required to submit
information on their project using the Project Design Document template developed by
the CDM Executive Board.
1 The rules for small scale projects can be found in English at
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents/AnnexII/English/annexII.pdf and in Chinese at
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents/AnnexII/Chinese/ann_II_ch.pdf
58
2.
For the small-scale CDM project activity, a simplified project design document1 was
issued by the Executive Board, reflecting the simplified modalities and procedures
(simplified M&P) for small-scale CDM project activities.
Baseline and monitoring methodology:
The project developer may propose a new baseline and/or monitoring methodology,
or use an existing approved methodology.
Small-scale projects may make use of the Simplified Baseline and Monitoring
Methodologies, available. The areas of simplification include:
3.
4.
5.
- Baseline: The document gives clear instructions for identification of the
baseline for each of the thirteen project categories.
- Monitoring: Monitoring requirements are simplified to reduce monitoring
costs. An overall monitoring plan that monitors performance of activities on a
sample basis may be proposed for bundled project activities
- Additionality: Project proponents shall use a predefined list of barriers to
demonstrate that their project would not have happened otherwise (see
Annex II).
- Project Boundary: The Project boundary is limited to the physical project
activity.
- Leakage: The requirements for leakage calculation are simplified and
specified for each project category.
Validation of the CDM project activity:
The Project Design Document is then evaluated by a designated Operational Entity
(independent evaluation) against the requirements of the CDM set out in Decision
17/CP.7 (Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in
Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol).
Whereas under ‘regular’ modalities and procedures for CDM project activities, a
designated Operational Entity may not both validate a project activity and verify
and certify its emission reductions. In the case of small-scale CDM projects, a single
designated Operational Entity should validate, verify, and certificate a small-scale
CDM project activity or bundled small-scale CDM project activities.
Registration of the CDM project activity:
Registration is the formal acceptance by the Executive Board of a validated project as
a CDM project activity.
Certification and verification of the CDM project activity:
A single designated Operational Entity should validate, verify, and certificate a
small-scale CDM project activity or bundled small-scale CDM project activities.
Whereas this is seen as a conflict of interest in a regular CDM project, it is a
necessary simplification for the small-scale CDM project.
Source: ERM, based on UNFCCC documents, January 2004
3.7
CDM MSW IN CHINA
3.7.1
Specific CDM Characteristics of China
Background
China’s climate change policy is embedded in its economic and sustainable
development strategies. China clearly claims itself as a low-income
developing country with a large population and takes economic development
and poverty elimination as its top priorities. But the Chinese government has
confirmed that Climate Change is a potential threat to the future.
1 Both the CDM project design document and the small-scale CDM project design document can be found on
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents/index.html
59
Considering the demand for GHG emission reductions by developed
countries and the relatively low GHG emission per GDP in China, the Chinese
Government now has a very positive attitude towards CDM projects. Related
regulations and policies for CDM in China are now in the early stages of
development , (see below).
The viewpoints of the Chinese government on climate change could be
summarised as following:
•
•
•
•
Recognizs the potential impact of GHG emissions, although
knowledge on the issues needs to be better understood.
Most of the GHG emissions are caused by the developed countries.
The most important aim and work for developing countries are to
develop their own economies.
Chinese government has decided to develop CDM projects positively.
The CDM projects developed in China must comply with the requirements by
the Chinese Government. They are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The projects must comply with Chinese laws and regulations, and
contribute to the Sustainable development of Chinese society
The projects should not require China to bear any new obligations which
are not included in the Kyoto Protocol
The projects must be approved by Chinese government
The fund for CDM projects must be extra to those under current
obligations
The projects should promote the transfer of advanced technologies, which
are beneficial to the environment.
The project should provide real, measurable GHG emission reduction
The preferred major areas for CDM projects in China are Energy Efficiency
(EE) and Renewable Energy (RE); biomass power generation with solid waste
could be included in this area. Other eligible areas could include industry
production procedure, energy replacement, etc. Currently, there are no
particular requirements on the scale of a CDM project in China.
Environmental or social criteria
There are no particular environment or social laws and regulations special for
CDM projects except for current ones. The CDM projects have to comply with
current laws and regulations in China.
Designated National Authority and Institutional framework
The Chinese Government has confirmed to develop an efficient, transparent
and simple managing system for CDM. The current institutional structure for
CDM projects is as follows:
60
•
National Coordination Committee on Climate Change
The National Coordination Committee on Climate Change is a crossministries body. It is responsible for deliberation and coordination on
climate related policy issues, standards and activities, negotiations with
foreign parties.
•
Validation board for CDM projects
The Validation Board comprises the National Development and Reform
Commission, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, SEPA, China Meteorological Administration, Ministry of Finance
and Ministry of Agriculture. The responsibilities of the Board are mainly
to validate the CDM projects, especially on the predicted GHG emission
reduction.
•
National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)
NDRC is appointed as the Designated National Authority for China. It is
responsible to approve CDM Projects together with Ministry of Science
and Technology and Ministry for Foreign Affairs. It is also responsible for
publicizing related certification documents on the behalf of Chinese
government.
•
CDM Project Managing Centre
The CDM Project Managing Center is under construction. Its major
responsibility will be to accept the applications for CDM projects; organize
the pre-verification procedure for CDM projects; report to the Validation
Board of the Projects and execution status, establish the information
system for CDM projects, etc.
Before the establishment of the Managing Center, the Office of National
Coordination Committee on Climate Change will be responsible for
handling the application of CDM projects and organize verification of the
Projects.
The current approval and operation procedure for CDM projects development
are the following. It has to be noted that all CDM projects have to go through
the normal project approval procedure besides the CDM approval procedures.
1. The CDM project executing parties (Cities officials, Chinese enterprises
or Chinese holding enterprises) apply to the Office of National
Coordination Committee on Climate Change and provide their PDD
documents.
2. The National Development and Reform Commission will then
organize related Departments from Chinese government to examine
the applied project.
61
3. The National Development and Reform Commission will publicize
those approved projects and notify the executing parties at the same
time.
4. The executing parties will then invite Operational Entity to evaluate
the PDD independently and report those validated projects to CDM
Executive Board for registration
5. After getting the approval for the Executive Board, the executing
parties shall report to the National Authority.
China sustainable development criteria
Chinese government has approved China's Agenda 21, the White Paper on
China's Population, Environment, and Development in the 21st Century, as
the guide document for the sustainable development. In Chapter 19 Environmentally Sound Management of Solid Wastes, Article C on
Environmentally Sound Management of Municipal Solid Wastes, an aim is set
that by the year 2010, all cities should have municipal refuse landfill sites or
incinerating plants, which should meet environmental requirements, ensuring
the disposal of all garbage. The safe disposal and recycling of urban refuse
should be promoted in accordance with local conditions. The primary options
for the safe disposal and recycling of MSW are sanitary landfill and
composting, although some cities might employ incineration.
The Science and Technology Outline for Sustainable Development (2001 –
2010) published by Ministry of Science and Technology mentioned that the
priority areas for environmental pollution control include developing
technology and equipment for urban refuse treatment, disposal and recycling.
According to the Office of National Coordination Committee on Climate
Change, the general criteria of Substantial Development is that CDM projects
shall comply with and support the prior development areas in the Substantial
Development strategy of National and Local governments, especially those
priority technology development areas in the 10th Five Year Plan.
In particular, the sustainable development criteria could be summarised as
follows:
• Be beneficial for the transfer of technology and special knowledge
• Provide environment benefits
• Enhance the health of the public and workers
• Provide social benefits
• Provide external social benefits, like reduce the reliance on foreign
technologies
The Office mentioned that whether a CDM project fits with the criteria, will be
judged through approval by the Government, evaluation by the Experts or
62
asking stakeholders comments. Thus, the analysis will be done on a project by
project basis.
3.7.2
Concept for a MSW CDM Umbrella project in China
One of the main problems associated with the development of CDM projects
is the cost associated with the various requirements to demonstrate that the
projects are in compliance with the CDM rules - these are known as
transactions costs.
In order to reduce these transaction costs, various options have been proposed
over time. One of these options is to develop standardised baselines for certain
types of project activities, another is to bundle small-scale projects together so
as to share the transaction costs. Based on these ideas, the concept of
developing an Umbrella project under which a series of projects of the same
type could be utilised for MSW projects in China has emerged.
The first example of such an Umbrella project has been implemented in Costa
Rica for small-scale renewable energy projects. A total of 7 small-scale
renewable energy projects (Hydro and wind projects) were identified, and the
PCF and the Joint Implementation Office of Costa Rica (OCIC) set the
framework for the umbrella project for renewable energy sources. Under this
framework, the PCF has the opportunity to consider purchasing ERs from a
number of small, renewable energy projects. The umbrella project has been
implemented; to date three projects under the umbrella have been undertaken.
Under the Costa Rica Umbrella project, one sectoral baseline common to all
the projects was developed; one rule to assess the project’s additionality was
defined; and one set of guidelines was provided on how to apply the sectoral
baseline to all the projects. However, every project under the Umbrella
remains independent from the other sub-projects and has to demonstrate
independently that it complies with the CDM and the Umbrella requirements,
obtaining final approval in its own right in each project case.
The rules used to assess the sectoral baseline (which will be applied on a
project by project basis) and the project additionality are defined as:
•
•
The sectoral baseline is calculated for the sectoral Costa Rican and
Central American integrated power system. A financial analysis is
applied to determine the operating margin (or dispatch margin) using
dispatch information, and the build margin (system expansion) using
expansion planning information for the integrated power system.
A proposed project is considered additional if the kWh generation
costs clearly exceed the long-term marginal generation costs of the
integrated power system when the sectoral baseline is applied to the
given project.
63
Based on this experience, the PCF has identified a similar opportunity in
China for Municipal Solid Waste projects and is proposing to develop a
similar Umbrella approach for MSW projects for China.
3.7.3
Additionality issues and CDM strategy for Municipal solid waste projects in
China –
Following on the description of MSW in China (section Error! Reference source
not found.) and the CDM requirements (section 3.6), it is important to assess
how the issues of additionality and baseline methodologies will apply to
MSW projects in China. This raises the question of which MSW projects will
be additional in China and which baseline approaches and methodologies to
use to demonstrate this additionality.
Based on the difficulties associated with the definition of additionality and the
selection of a baseline approach, project developers are recommended to
always start by carrying out a pre-feasibility study to assess whether their
project has the potential to be considered as additional, this should be done in
parallel with a sectoral context analysis (more details in the guidelines, section
4.3 ).
This pre-feasibility study should assess the existing policies requirements for
MSW, the common practice for MSW technologies in the province or cities
where the projects will be implemented and what barriers might exist to slow
down this implementation.
Moreover, taking into account the size of China, and the different progress in
MSW practices, it would be reasonable to distinguish project baselines
between different Chinese provinces, provincial-level bodies and Vice
Provincial Level Cities according to their common and projected practices.
ERM’s study has shown that China's largest cities have already started
improving landfill management as part of their modernisation and best
practices. This has taken place through the development of the National Action
Plan for Municipal Solid Waste Management, published in October 2002, and
through the White Paper on China's Population, Environment, and Development in
the 21st Century, recommending that all cities should have municipal refuse
landfill sites or incinerating plants and that the primary options for the safe
disposal and recycling of MSW are sanitary landfill and composting.
The implementation of the action plan is still in its early stages, with three
landfill gas-to-energy facilities in China, located in Hangzhou, Guangzhou
and Nanjing respectively, implemented by end 2003. However, the
recommendations of the plan will have to be included in the additionality
analysis and an assessment will be needed to identify the barriers that might
stops its implementation.
For more details see Section 4.4.1.
64
3.8
KEY STEPS OF THE MSW UMBRELLA APPROACH FOR CHINA
3.8.1
Step by Step MSW umbrella project methodology
The MSW Umbrella methodology provides a standard approach for project
developers willing to develop MSW projects in China. The methodology
provides guidelines to ensure that the MSW projects are in compliance with
the CDM rules and the PCF requirements under one Umbrella.
The guidelines provide a step by step approach that project developers must
follow to develop project idea notes and project design documents for MSW
projects in China under the MSW Umbrella project. The guideline provides
advice on the main steps that need to be followed:
• Project description and definition of project and baseline boundaries
• Assessment of the project compliance with additionality, Sustainable
Development and funding rules
• Baseline study:
o Advice on the baseline methodologies that can be used under the
MSW umbrella to choose and if necessary develop the relevant
sectoral baseline representing the baseline scenario for a given
project in the region where it will be implemented,
o Advice on how to apply the sectoral baseline to the MSW project
and assess whether the project is additional compared to the
sectoral baseline,
• Project emissions calculation
o Advice on the methodologies that should be used to calculate the
project expected emissions and the expected emission reductions,
• Definition of the Duration of the project activity and the project crediting
period for emission reductions,
• Development of a Monitoring and Verification Plan
o Recommendations on how to develop a robust Monitoring and
Verification plan to demonstrate the project performance over time,
and
• A review of the various non-GHG issues that need to be assessed such as
environmental and social issues, but also risk assessments and contractual
issues.
65
GUIDELINES
SECTION
66
4
GUIDELINES SECTION
4.1
ORGANISATION OF THE GUIDELINES
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) guidelines for Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) projects in China under the Umbrella approach based on the
following step by step approach:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project description and definition of project boundaries
Assessment of project compliance with additionality, sustainable
development and funding rules
Additionality requirements
Baseline study:
o Advice on the choice of baseline approaches and methodologies
that are the more relevant to identify the baseline scenario for a
given project in the region where it will be implemented,
o Advice on how to apply the baseline to the MSW project and assess
whether the project is additional compared to the baseline,
Project emissions calculation
o Advices on the methodologies that should be used to calculate the
project expected emissions and the expected emission reductions,
Definition of the duration of the project activity and the project crediting
period for emission reductions,
Estimation of expected emission reductions
Development of a Monitoring and Verification Plan
o Recommendations on how to develop a robust Monitoring and
Verification plan to demonstrate the project performance over time,
and
A review of the various non-GHG issues that need to be assessed such as
environmental and social issues, as well as risk assessments and
contractual issues.
Each step is analysed in the sections below and advice for project developers
on how to implement them is provided.
4.2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BOUNDARIES
The first step in the development of a CDM project design is to provide a
description of the project activity.
The initial project description, required in the first section of the Project
Design Document (Section A.2), typically consists of a description of:
•
The current situation of the activity;
67
•
The proposed project and its expected outcome (e.g. upgrade of the
collection system efficiency; projected annual electricity production;
predicted emission reductions over the lifetime of the project);
•
How emission reductions will be achieved, which may include where the
energy displaced comes from;
•
The local social and environmental impacts of the project with the aim to
demonstrate that the project complies with the sustainable development
criteria set by the host country. Some examples of MSW project benefits
include the economic benefits of utilising revenues generated by LFG
products sale; the social benefits of mitigating LFG migration and odour
concerns;
Following the initial project description a technical description of the project
activity is required (Section A.4). It should provide precise technical
information for the following aspects of the project:
•
Project location: A description of the location of the project activity with
regards to significant developments (e.g. neighbouring residential areas,
densely populated areas, commercial developments, proximity of electric
power transmission lines, etc.). The physical and technical boundaries of
the project should also be mentioned here. In terms of physical
boundaries, it is recommended to describe the size of the landfill, the
surrounding topography, adjacent land uses, ambient meteorological
conditions and the site characteristics that impact LFG generation and
collection. In addition, when the project also includes on-grid energy
generation from LFG, the physical boundaries will also include the
regional or even national electricity grid;
•
Project technology: The technology to be employed by the project activity.
For example, in the case of a landfill gas to energy project, this will include
a description of the landfill gas collection system and a description of the
energy generation technology (e.g. modular reciprocating engine facility).
For example, a typical LFG collection system is composed of an LFG
collection field (wells and trenches); collection piping (laterals, subheaders,
headers, etc); a condensate drop out and disposal system; a blower system
and related appurtenances; possibly an LFG flare;
•
Expected emission reductions: An explanation of how emissions will be
reduced by the proposed CDM project activity. This involves an analysis
of the current situation. Essentially, this section sets the background for
the choice of the baseline approach. The following step consists in showing
that the proposed project will create real, verifiable, net GHG emission
reductions.
•
Environmental and social impacts: A description of potential local impacts
of LFG would be recommended: these include the odour, combustible and
explosive nature of methane, LFG migration in air and groundwater, GHG
68
emissions to the atmosphere. It is crucial for the project development
document to illustrate a thorough understanding of existing and
forthcoming regulatory requirements in the region of the proposed CDM
project. For example, the main issues in the development of solid waste
policy include the reduction of wastes; maximisation of waste reuse and
recycling; promotion of healthy environmental waste deposition and
treatment and extension of waste services.1
The CDM project development document then calls for a list of project
participants (Section A.3 of the PDD template). The project sponsors, technical
advisors (most likely consultants and the Operational Entity) and the CDM
project facility (e.g. PCF) need to be named here. In some cases, the host
country governmental authority in charge of reviewing the project may also
be listed (i.e. the Designated National Authority).
As part of the project description, the project developer should provide a clear
description of the sources of the project funding, and demonstrate that no
overseas development aid funding is included.
4.3
SECTOR AND POLICY CONTEXT
Once the project developer has provided a clear description of the project and
its boundaries he needs to carry out a detailed analysis of the project’s sector
of activities. MSW projects can have two components, the MSW management
component, such as landfill or anaerobic gas flaring, and the gas utilisation as
an alternative energy source, such as electricity production or transport fuel.
In each case the project developer needs to analyse each sectors that will be
affected and that will affect his project.
The sector analysis should include an assessment of the common practice of
the sector and a policy analysis of all relevant programme, regulations and
laws that will affect the sector in the future.
China administrative arrangement is very specific and it must be taken into
consideration in the sector, the administrative arrangements are summarised
in Table 4.1.
1 World Bank Handbook for the preparation of landfill gas to energy projects in Latin America and the Caribbean, Draft,
Oct 2003.
69
Table 4.1
China administrative arrangement
Provinces and Provincial Level Bodies
•
•
23 Provinces (including Taiwan)
9 other provincial-level bodies encompassing
o
5 autonomous regions (i.e., minority areas such as Tibet and Inner Mongolia)
o
Directly administered cities (Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai and Chongqing).
Vice Provincial Level Cities
In addition, eleven provincial capitals and four ‘Specially Listed Planning’ cities are treated as "Vice Provincial Level Cities",
which have more economic independence from the national government than other cities.
•
11 provincial capitals, Hanghzou, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Nanjing, Chengdu, Harbin, Wuhan, Shenyang, Ji’nan,
Changchun, Xiamen and Xi’an.
•
‘Specially Listed Planning’ cities, Shenzhen, Ninbgo, Dalian and Qingdao
Source: ERM China, Nov 2003
4.3.1
Sectoral context for the MSW management component of the project
All the MSW projects will have to start by assessing the MSW sector in the
provinces and cities where they plan to implement their project. They will also
have to analyse the national MSW sector and see if this will in any way affect
or be affected by their project.
There are two key policy documents related to MSW management in China.
The White Paper on China's Population, Environment, and Development in the 21st
Century, as the guide document for the substantial development sets an aim
that, by the year 2010, all cities should have municipal refuse landfill sites or
incinerating plants, which should meet environmental requirements, ensuring
the disposal of all garbage. The primary options for the safe disposal and
recycling of MSW are sanitary landfill and composting, although some cities
might employ incineration.
The National Action Plan for Municipal Solid Waste Management 1 developed by
the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) and published in
October 2002. The MSW National Action Plan provides requirements for
landfill gas recovery with utilisation of the landfill gas, and no requirements
for composting or anaerobic digestion.
Landfill gas recovery
The MSW National Action Plan will have to be taken into account when
analysing the criteria for baseline and additionality of MSW projects in China,
see section 4.4.1 below.
In assessing the National Action Plans implications, it is important to
understand the nature of such a plan in China and the status of the plan
implementation. Based on a reading of the full text of the Action Plan, and
similar actions plans in China, the MSW plan sets ‘recommendations’ to cities
and provinces, it is not equivalent to a mandatory regulation.
1
http://news.rednet.com.cn/Articles/2002/10/369405.htm
70
The plan have identified that there were over 1,000 municipal refuse disposal
sites in China in 2000, in which 70% were open dumps, amounting to about
700 sites. By 2015, if sanitary landfill technology and land fill gas recovery
technology are adopted in 100 cities in the developed regions of China, and
each city builds three landfills on average, the ratio of sanitary landfill and
landfill gas recovery to the whole municipal refuse generation will be 50%.’
According to the plan, landfill gas utilization in China will be developed in
three stages, which are described as follows:
•
Stage 1 (1997~2002): with the financial aid of GEF, three pilot projects have
been developed for landfill gas utilization at three
landfill sites, which are located in Nanjing ,
Ma’anshan and An’shan respectively
•
Stage 2 (2002~2007): Plan to establish or upgrade 30 new or existing
landfill sites with landfill gas utilization facilities.
•
Stage 3 (2007~2015): Large-scale promotion of landfill gas utilization
technology (i.e. power generation or production of
domestic fuel) and establish 300 facilities of this kind
by 2015. 12
In line with the action plan objectives by the end of 2003 there were three
landfill gas-to-energy facilities in China, located in Hangzhou, Guangzhou
and Nanjing respectively. Moreover, in response to this National Action Plan,
many cities have planned to establish landfill gas collection and utilization
facilities at their municipal landfill sites. The forthcoming projects include
Guangzhou Xingfeng Landfill and Shanghai Laogang Landfill Phase III. Each
of these project is summarised in Table 4.2.
According to the responsible office in SEPA the 3 pilot projects in the Action
Plan have been implemented successfully and will be finalized by 2004.
However, no further developments have been announced publicly as part of
the plan.
A key issue for the implementation of the plan is the barriers that exist in
various provinces and cities that hinder the implementation of the plan
recommendations. Such barriers will include:
•
•
•
Institutional barriers: lack of special organization appointed to be in
charge of the LFG recovery and lack of practical incentive policies;
Economic barriers: lack of investment;
Technical barriers: lack of experience on manufacturing, installing and
operation of LFG recovery equipments.
Regarding the economic barriers and the lack of investment the Action Plan
emphasizes the importance to construct multiple financial channels to
implement it, especially international assistant (e.g. GEF, ODA) and private
participation. It specifies several possible investment sources including:
71
•
•
•
•
•
Government financial budget for MSW management
Bilateral assistant or ODA financial support
Global Environmental Fund (GEF) grant financing
National Development Bank and commercial banks, and
Private investment
Thee first three projects under the plan were co-funded by the GEF. It would
be interesting to assess whether the additional project finance brought by
CDM credits could be considered as one of the investment sources in the Plan.
More information can be obtained from the Foreign Economic Cooperation
Office of SEPA.
A summary of existing landfill gas projects in China, both under the plan and
other projects, is provided in table 4.2. Annex C provides a more detailed
description of these projects.
Table4.2
Existing Landfill Gas recovery projects
Project
Name
City
Province Characteristics
Energy
generation
Status
Total
Invest
Yes,
2x 970 kW engine
sets
Began to
- Landfill:
operate in
RMB 85
October 1998 million
-Power
generation:
3.5 million
US$
Yes,
capacity 1.25 MW
Plus planned
future expansion,
for ultimate total
of 5.2 MW.
Yes,
- LFG-generated
power is
consumed on site
- Purified and
compressed LFG
is supplied to
local public
vehicles as fuel
Yes,
Incinerator
Operation
began July
2003
First LFG recovery in China
Hanghzou
Tianziling
landfill, in
JIangsu
province
Hangzhou
Jiangsu
LFG to energy
project
First 3 projects under the MSW national Action Plan
Nanjing
Shuige
landfill
Nanjing
Jiangsu
LFG to energy
project
An’Shan
Yang’ergu
Landfill
An’Shan
Liaoning
LFG utilisation
project includes
power generation
and LFG
purification and
pressurization
Ma’anshan
landfill
Ma’anshan
An’Hui
LFG collection
and clinical waste
incineration
facility.
The formal
operation
commenced
in August
2003
-landfill:
RMB 18
million
- Power
generation:
NA
- Landfill:
RMB 73
million
-Power
generation:
NA
Expected to
- Gas
be completed collection
end of 2003. and
incinerator:
RMB 6
million yuan
72
Prospective projects planned under the MSW National Action Plan
Guangzhou Guandon
g
LFG recovery
project
Shanghai
N/A
LFG
managementFirst franchise
LFG project
Taohuashan Wuxi
Landfill in
Wuxi,
Jiangsu
province
Jiangsu
Er’feishan in Wuhan
Wuhan,
Hubei
province
Hubei
LFG to energy
project.
The generation
units will be
developed and
operated by
domestic
companies
LFG management
Guangzhou
Xingfeng
Landfill in
Guandong
province
Shanghai
Laogang
Landfill
Phase III,
and Phase
IV
- Landfill:
NA
- Power
generation:
NA
- Landfill
phase IV:
RMB 0.9
billion
- Power
generation:
NR
No confirmed
report, but
possibility of
maximum
capacity of 10 MW
No report of LFG
utilization for
electricity
Some biogas
collection
running in
Jan 2004.
Yes, LFG power
generation
facilities
2 sets of
generation units
of 970 KW.
Construction
started in
Nov 2003.
Commission
expected in
first quarter
of 2004
- Landfill:
-Power
generation:
Power
generation
plant: RMB
20 Million
Reported that
LFG electricity
generation
facilities will be
established in the
Landfill
Landfill
Phase I was
finished in
2003
3 other
phases to be
finalised by
2005.
Expected
power
generation
half year
after
commissioni
ng
- Landfill:
RMB 139.6
million –
includes 9.4
million euro
loan from
the
Netherlands
government
-Power
generation:
NR
Phase III
finalised
Phase IV
planned to
start in 2004
Other MSW projects
Projects currently screened for CDM.
Construction - Landfill:
- Guangzhou
NA
planned to
Datianshan
-Power
start from
originally
generation:
March 2003
equipped with 1
and finish in NA
set of generators
970 KW. It will be December
2003
equipped with
The projects
two new sets of
generators of 970 have not bee
Guangzhou
started yet.
KW.
Datianshan
- Guangzhou
landfill
Likeng, to be
equipped with
Guangzhou
three sets of
Likeng
generators with
landfill
capacity of 970
- Zhongshan
KW.
landfill
- Zhongshan to be
equipped with
two sets of
generators with
capacity of 970
KW.
Note: The table has been compiled with available information and is not a comprehensive description of the
situation in China
‘Landfill
Gas
Generation
Project of
Guangdong
Province’.
Guangzhou Guandon
g
and
Zhongshan
LFG to energy
project, currently
screened for their
potential as one
CDM project by
the Chinese
Renewable
Energy Industries
Association
(CREIA).
PIN has been
written,
73
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion is currently not used for MSW disposal in China,
although it has been recognised as a potential solution for organic MSW
disposal, given the high organic content of waste in China.
Small-scale anaerobic digestion is however used in rural areas in China for
agricultural waste. Since the 1970s, China has been promoting the use of
underground, individual household scale, anaerobic digesters to process rural
organic wastes (farm wastes) and in 1993 there were approximately 5,000,000
households using anaerobic digesters in China. The digesters produce biogas
that is used as an energy source by the households, and produces a soilenhancer that is used in agricultural production. 1 . Further analysis should be
carried out to ascertain the total amount of waste handled in this way in
China, however, data is not easily available, and it can be estimated that this
represent a non significant amount compare to China total waste production.
It can thus be reasonably estimated that anaerobic digestion technologies
should not be part of the sectoral baseline for MSW management projects in
China. This assumption should be revised, during the first baseline revision
period.
Composting
There are in total 35 cities in China adopting composting technologies for
municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment. The Chinese government and
research institutes have developed and promoted certain composting methods
and equipment for the disposal of MSW. However, there are still a series of
technical and market constraints for the further application of composting
techniques and due to these constraints composting facilities in China tend to
be small scale. The composting facilities of major cities are described Table
3.6..
Table 4.3
Composting facilities in major cities in China
Location
Disposal capacity
(t/d)
Maximum temperature
(.C)
Operation cost
(RMB Yuan/t)
Wu Xi
Hangzhou
100
15
65
70
18
8~16
Wuhan
100
65
7
Shanghai
300
70
13
Tianjing
50
70
13
Source: Appendixes of National Action Plan
According to the appendixes of the MSW Action Plan, these constraints are:
•
Technical constrains
1
Paul, J. H., 1994, Anaerobic Digestion in Rural China, City Farmer,
http://www.cityfarmer.org/biogasPaul.html
74
•
•
•
The lack of a separate collection for refuse has caused difficulty to
conduct composting. The evidence of presence of glass, metal and
plastics will greatly affect the quality of the compost.
Inefficient composting equipment. Certain technical problems made it
difficult to ensure that the composting equipment was able to operate
continuously and in a stable manner. This has reduced the composting
effects.
Market constrains
• There market demand for the composting products is very limited. In
China, farmers have not realized the advantage and the importance of
using organic fertilizer. Currently chemical fertilizers are preferred
compared to organic fertilizers alternatives due to the apparent
efficiency that the chemical fertilizer seems to bring.
The argument made for anaerobic digestion can be made again in view of the
limited usage of the technology. Thus it is reasonable to assume that
composting and vermin-composting technologies do not need to be included
in the baseline methodologies for MSW projects in China.
This does not preclude Anaerobic Digestion and Composting projects to be
developed as CDM projects, but the additionality criteria for these projects
will be based on a comparison with landfill gas practices as the sectoral
baseline for MSW management projects in China.
4.3.2
Sectoral context for the Gas usage component of the project
There are a series of options available for using the gas generated by MSW
treatment, depending on the usage planned the project developer will have to
analyse the sectors that his project will affect.
A series of options have been identified and are provided as examples with
the type of sectoral analysis that needs to be carried out in each case. This list
is not exhaustive and is given only as an indicative example of the type of
studies a project developer needs to carry out to have a clear picture of the
sector that his project will be affecting:
1. Grid connected electricity generation
• need to analyse the regional or National electricity sector
2. Off-grid electricity generation
• need to analyse the type and origin of the electricity that will be
displaced by the electricity generated by the sub-project
3. Use of gas as fuel transport alternative
• Need to analyse the transport sector and what types of fuel are
being used and that will be displaced by the gas
Table 4.2above shows how the various options have been implemented in the
existing MSW management projects in China.
75
4.4
PROJECT ELIGIBILITY ANALYSIS IN RELATION TO CDM
4.4.1
Additionality
The CDM additionality criteria means that a project developer needs to ensure
that his project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions below what would have
happen in the absence of the project activity. This means that he needs to
estimate what would happen in the future if his project would not be
implemented, this scenario is called the baseline scenario. The Marrakech
accords, in the definition of the rules for CDM, provide the definition of the
additionality concept, in line with the Kyoto protocol definition, see Box 4.1.
Box 4.1 Marrakech Accords definition of Additionality concept
Definition of Additionality concept
‘A CDM project activity is additional if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are
reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity.’
Source: UNFCCC The Marrakech Accords & The Marrakech Declaration (Decision 17/CP.7, #43)
In this Umbrella approach we recommend that as the first step of the CDM
design, and before starting any complex analysis, the project developers need
to carry out a pre-feasibility study to assess whether their project has the
potential to be considered additional. In light of the difficulty to interpret the
additionality criteria, the CDM Executive Board1 has provided examples of
tools that may be used to demonstrate that a project activity is additional and
therefore not the baseline scenario, these include, among others:
e) A flow-chart or series of questions that lead to a narrowing of potential
baseline options;
f) A qualitative or quantitative assessment of different potential options
and an indication of why the non-project option is more likely; and/or
g) A qualitative or quantitative assessment of one or more barriers facing
the proposed project activity (such as those laid out for small-scale
CDM projects); and/or
h) An indication that the project type is not common practice (e.g. occurs
in less than [<x%] of similar cases) in the proposed area of
implementation, and not required by a Party’s legislation/regulations.
In the pre-feasibility study the project developer will have to assess how to
best demonstrate the additionality criteria in view of the specific
circumstances of the project and through the additionality tools recommended
above.
1 The recommendation was made at the 10th session of the CDM EB. The Executive Board recommendations also state that
the tool used in order to demonstrate additionality does not need to be linked to one of the three baseline approaches of
paragraph 48 of the CDM modalities and procedures.
76
For each project, the additionality analysis will have to take into account the
MSW policies and recommendations in China, and there will be a need to
carry out an analysis of existing barriers that might hinder the development of
MSW management projects in specific cities and provinces. In light of the
diversity of situation in different provinces and cities an argument could also
be made for making a distinction between provinces and capital cities,
depending on their MSW practices, and any barriers hindering MSW project
implementation. Following the additionality tools proposed by the CDM EB,
the project developer also has the option to assess, qualitatively or
quantitatively, different potential options, or to provide and indication of why
the non-project option is more likely.
ERM’s study has shown that China's largest cities have already started
improving landfill management as part of their modernisation and best
practices. This has taken place through the development of the National Action
Plan for Municipal Solid Waste Management, published in October 2002. As
noted, the action plan sets recommendations for MSW management in China,
and is not a mandatory policy.
Moreover, a series of barriers have been identified that might hinder the
implementation of the plan recommendations, in particular investment
barriers should be analysed. The Plan emphasizes the importance to construct
multiple financial channels to implement its recommendations, especially
international assistant (e.g. GEF, ODA) and private participation. The case
could be made to SEPA and the Designated National Authority that the
additional finance from CDM credits could be part of this multiple financial
channel.
The development of MSW management projects in China is in its early phase,
with only a series of landfill gas-to-energy facilities identified for all of China
(see table ). Among which three, located in Hangzhou, Guangzhou and
Nanjing, respectively, were implemented under the MSW national action plan
by end 2003.
The additionality issues, and various additionality criteria options, for MSW
projects in China are summarised in Box 4.2
Box 4.2
Additionality issues for MSW CDM projects in China
Provincial and Cities differences: In view of the size of China and the major differences
between provinces and cities, there could be an argument for the baseline differentiate among
provinces and cities, by emphasising specific barriers that might exist in on province, or by
common MSW technologies in the region.
National policy context: National Action Plan for Municipal Solid Waste Management
The MSW National Action Plan sets recommendations for landfill gas recovery and gas
utilisation in China. The plan provides recommendations and is not a mandatory regulation,
however, it will have to be taken into account when defining the project additionality. In the
existing CDM experience there have been examples of policy recommendations that have made
the demonstration of additionality more difficult and required from the project developer to
77
provide strong and convincing evidence of the claims for additionality. To address this issue,
an analysis of the barriers that might hinder the implementation of the plan recommendations
is recommended. Among those barriers, investment barriers should be analysed with particular
attention.
Barriers Analysis: additionality will be influenced by the analysis of barriers which might exist
in different provinces and cities across China that could hinder the development of improved
MSW projects. Such barriers could include:
•
Investment barriers: lack of available investment for MSW projects without CDM
•
Policy, legislation and planning barriers: such as grid connection policies for biomass
power plants
•
Institutional barriers: difficulties in coordination among different government
departments in developing MSW treatment projects
•
Project financial barriers, operational economic barriers: Electricity purchase price or
Tax issues
•
Technology and equipment availability barriers
•
Environmental barriers: Waste produced by the MSW treatment projects
Critical mass: Over time, there will only be a certain amount of MSW management and energy
production projects using similar technologies that will be considered additional in each region
as, over time, additionality for this type of technology will be more difficult to defend.
However in light of the current status of MSW in China and the size of the country, it is
expected that it will take a long time before the use of efficient MSW technologies, such as
managed landfills, anaerobic digestion or composting, will become common practice. Thus, the
baseline is not likely to shift during at least a decade during which the investors would buy the
carbon offsets1.
Source: ERM, January 2004
The issue of additionality is considered in parallel with the Sectoral Baseline in
section 4.5 below.
4.4.2
Chinese Sustainable Development definition
As explained in the CDM description, to comply with CDM rules the project
needs to demonstrate that it will promote the sustainable development
objectives of China.
According to the Office of National Coordination Committee on Climate
Change, the general criteria of Substantial Development is that CDM projects
shall comply with and support the prior development areas in the Substantial
Development strategy of National and Local governments, especially those
priority technology development areas in the 10th Five Year Plan. In
particular, the criteria could be concluded as following:
•
•
•
Be beneficial for the transfer of technology and special knowledge;
Provide environment benefits;
Enhance the health of the public and workers;
1 There are no explicit criteria stating what number of similar projects must first take place before reaching the threshold for
the additionality criteria, this is a matter of argument for each project developer in each region and each project type. No
simple answer is possible.
78
•
•
Provide social benefits;
Provide external social benefits, like reduce the reliance on foreign
technologies.
The analysis will be done on a project by project basis and the decision of
whether a CDM project fits with the criteria will be judged through approval
by the Government, evaluation by the Experts or through stakeholders
comments.
The project developer needs to receive a written approval from the Chinese
authorities, the Designated National Authority, ensuring the project is in line
with China sustainable development objectives and with CDM rules for CDM.
4.4.3
Sources of Funding
The project developer needs to confirm that the project funding will not
involve official development assistance (ODA) funds and provide verifiable
information on the sources of the project funding for the Operating entity to
validate this claim.
4.5
BASELINE STUDY FOR MSW PROJECTS IN CHINA
4.5.1
Issues on MSW baselines determination
The baseline study, the baseline determination analysis recommended below,
should only be undertaken if the pre-feasibility determination of additionality
and sustainability (sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2) for the project is positive.
After having clearly described the project and analysed the context of the
project’s sector of activities, the project developer needs to select the
appropriate baseline approach and methodology that will allow him to
calculate the baseline scenario that apply to his project. The key question the
project developer needs to answer when it chooses and develops the baseline
scenario, is ‘what would have happen if his project were not to take place?’.
This is linked to the additionality concept introduced in section 4.4.1, which
required that the project reduces greenhouse gas emissions below the baseline
scenario.
One must distinguished between two important steps in the baseline design:
the baseline approach and the baseline methodology.
•
The baseline approach is the basis for a baseline methodology. The
three approaches identified in sub-paragraphs 48 (a) to (c) of the CDM
modalities and procedures (see Box 4.3). are, according to the CDM EB, to
be the only ones applicable to CDM project activities;
•
While a baseline methodology is the application of an approach as
defined in paragraph 48 of the CDM modalities and procedures, to an
79
individual project activity, reflecting aspects such as sector and region. No
methodology is excluded a priori so that project participants have the
opportunity to propose a methodology or to use an approved one.
Box 4.3
Marrakesh Accords Baseline Methodologies
Paragraph 48: Criteria for CDM baseline methodology
In choosing the baseline methodology, participants shall select from among the following
approaches the one deemed more appropriate for the project activity and justify their choice:
a) Existing or actual emissions, as applicable; or
b) Emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive course of action,
taking into account barriers to investment; or
c) The average emissions of similar project activities undertaken in the previous 5 years, in
similar social, economical, environmental and technological circumstances and whose
Source: UNFCCC The Marrakesh Accords & The Marrakesh Declaration Decision 17/CP.7, #48
There are two options to develop the baseline study. The first option is to use
a methodology approved by the CDM EB. In this case, projects’s participants
have implicitly chosen an approach, as it is defined in the approved
methodology.
The baseline methodologies for MSW projects approved by the CDM EB
include1:
• ‘Greenhouse gas emission reductions through landfill gas capture and
flaring where the baseline is established by a public concession contract’
AM0002 - Salvador Da Bahia landfill gas project
o Approach used: ‘Emissions from a technology that represents an
economically attractive course of action, taking into account
barriers to investment.’ (Art 48b)
•
‘Simplified financial analysis for landfill gas capture projects’ AM003 –
Based on NM0005-rev: Nova Gerar Landfill gas to energy project in Brazil
o Approach used for MSW management and for generation of
electricity components: ‘Emissions from a technology that
represents an economically attractive course of action, taking into
account barriers to investment.’ (Art 48b)
•
‘Cost and Investment Analysis for Electricity Auto-Generation’ (e.g. by
municipalities) – Based on based on NM0010-rev, Durban landfill gas to
electricity project in South Africa
o Approach used: ‘Emissions from a technology that represents an
barriers to investment’ (Art 48b). A cost based analysis investment
analysis is used to determine the baseline scenarios.
1 The methodologies can be found on the UNFCCC web site at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/approved and
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/process?cases=A
80
•
‘Cerupt methodology for landfill gas recovery’ – Based on NM0021: Onyx
gas recovery project, Brazil
o Approach used: Emissions from a technology that represents an
barriers to investment (Art 48b)
A summary of these methodologies is provided in Annex B . The project
developer should also check the UNFCC CDM web site to verify if any new
methodology that might be more relevant to his project has been approved by
the CDM Executive Board. Currently, other MSW methodologies that are
being reviewed include1:
•
•
NM0022: Methane capture from swine manure treatment Peralillo
NM0032: Municipal Solid Waste Treatment cum Energy Generation,
Lucknow, India
The second option, if none of the approved methodologies apply to the
project, is to develop a new methodology for the project. In this case, the first
step in the baseline study is to select the baseline approach among the three
proposed in paragraph 48 (see box 4.3), and once this is done to develop the
new methodology according to the CDM Executive Board requirements, Box
4.4.
Developing a new methodology can be a stand-alone process which must be
completed on the critical path of project development, for the first MSW CDM
projects in China. The requirements for developing a new methodology are
provided by the CDM Executive Board, Box 4.5 gives a summary of the main
requirements.
1
The methodologies can be found on the web sit: http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/process?cases=B
81
Box 4.4
Steps for developing a new baseline methodology
Main steps in developing a new baseline methodology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
4.5.2
Title of the proposed methodology:
Description of the methodology:
2.1. General approach (Please check the appropriate option(s))
o
Existing actual or historical emissions, as applicable;
o
Emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive course of action,
taking into account barriers to investment;
o
The average emissions of similar project activities undertaken in the previous five years, in
similar social, economic, environmental and technological circumstances, and whose
2.2. Overall description (other characteristics of the approach):
Key parameters/assumptions (including emission factors and activity levels), and data sources
considered and used:
Definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology:
Describe and justify the project boundary bearing in mind that it shall encompass all anthropogenic
emissions by sources of greenhouse gases under the control of the project participants that are significant
and reasonably attributable to the project activity. Please describe and justify which gases and sources
included in Annex A of the Kyoto Protocol are included in the boundary and outside the boundary.
Assessment of uncertainties:
Indicate uncertainty factors and how those uncertainties are to be addressed
Description of how the baseline methodology addresses the calculation of baseline emissions and the
determination of project additionality:
Description of how the baseline methodology addresses any potential leakage of the project activity:
Leakage is defined as the net change of anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases which
occurs outside the project boundary and which is measurable and attributable to the CDM project
activity.
Criteria used in developing the proposed baseline methodology, including an explanation of how the
baseline methodology was developed in a transparent and conservative manner:
Assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the baseline methodology:
Other considerations, such as a description of how national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances
have been taken into account:
Choice of appropriate baseline approaches and methodology for MSW
projects in China
Based on the MSW context analysis in China, it has been establish that it is
reasonably to estimate that anaerobic digestion and composting technologies
should not be part of the baseline for MSW management projects in China.
This assumption should be revised, during the first baseline revision period.
This does not preclude Anaerobic Digestion and Composting projects to be
developed as CDM projects, but the additionality criteria for these projects
will be based on landfill gas practices as the alternatives scenario for MSW
management projects in China.
This section provides recommendation to project developers on how to choose
the baseline approach appropriate to their project and the methodology to
calculate the baseline adapted to their project characteristics.
As mentioned above, there are two main options for the baseline study, a
project developer can either use a methodology that has been approved by the
CDM Executive Board, or he can develop and propose a new methodology to
the CDM Executive Board. In both cases, when developing the baseline study,
the project developer must ensure that he provides clear and transparent
82
reasons for his choice and that he justifies the approach and methodology that
he chooses to apply.
A distinction should be made between the different possible types of MSW
projects. The proposed approach is schematised in the chart flow below.
Figure 4.1
Flow Chart of Baseline for CDM MSW projects in China
China MSW Context
Sector and Policy Context
MSW National Action Plan
Common practice
LFG with no partial recovery
of gas
LFG recovery and electricity
generation recovery
Barriers
LFG recovery with alternative
energy recovery
Baselines and additionality APPROACH
Emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive course of action, taking into account barriers
to investment (option 48 b)
Baselines and additionality METHODOLOGY
Project baseline and
additionality
methodology 1
additionality
methodology 2
additionality
Methodology 3
additionality
Methodology 4
Approved methodology
“Cerupt methodology for
landfill gas recovery”
(NM0021) - Using barriers
analysis and common
practice in the province as
reference
Approved methodology
“Simplified financial
analysis for landfill gas
capture projects” (based
on NM0005-rev) - with
20% discount factor
“Cost and Investment
Analysis for Electricity
Auto-Generation” (e.g. by
municipalities) – powerpurchase agreements
New methodology
Applying baseline and additionality methodology to Project types
Project Type I Landfill Gas
LFG recovery
Emission
reductions
calculation MVP
LFG & Power
purchase
agreement
Emission
reductions
calculation MVP
Project Type II
Anaerobic Digestion
LFG &
Electricity
generation
Emission
reductions
calculation MVP
LFG &
Transport
fuel
Emission
reductions
calculation MVP
Biogas &
Electricity
generation
Emission
reductions
calculation MVP
Biogas &
Power
purchase
agreement
Emission
reductions
calculation MVP
Biogas &
Transport
fuel
Emission
reductions
calculation MVP
Project Type III
Composting Vermicomposting
Emission reduction
calculation - MVP
Waste
management
Emission
reductions
calculation MVP
MSW management baseline study
In view of the existence of MSW policy requirements in China (section 4.3), the
differences of MSW management practices in various provinces and cities, and
the early stage of implementation of efficient MSW management approaches
83
in China, under this MSW umbrella approach, it is recommended to use for
the baseline the approach 48b:
•
Emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive
course of action, taking into account barriers to investment.
Having selected the baseline approach, a series of options for MSW baselines
methodologies are available under the Umbrella approach. The simplest
option, if applicable, is to select one of the methodologies approved by the
CDM EB (see Annex B). However, the approved methodologies are specific to
given project characteristics, thus a series of approved methodologies relevant
to the MSW situation in China have been selected. The project developers will
have to choose among these which is more relevant to the type of project
being developed.
For new landfill gas projects, or for those projects where no partial capture of
LFG is taking place in an existing landfill, the methodology recommended
under the umbrella approach is:
•
‘Cerupt methodology for landfill gas recovery’ - Based on NM0021:
Onyx gas recovery project, Brazil
For those projects based on existing landfills where methane is already
partially captured, or if the project is planning to generate electricity, it is
recommended to follow the approved methodology:
•
‘Simplified financial analysis for landfill gas capture projects’ - based
on NM0005-rev: Nova Gerar Landfill gas to energy project in Brazil
In the very specific case of a project generating electricity under a power
purchase agreement the following methodology can be envisaged:
•
municipalities) – Based on based on NM0010-rev, Durban landfill gas
to electricity project in South Africa.
If none of these methodologies apply, the project developer will have to
envisage developing a new methodology. In particular, no approved baseline
methodology exists for the utilization of land fill gas, or anaerobic gas as
alternative transport fuel. Similarly no approved baseline methodology exists
for composting project. For such types of projects a new methodology will
have to be developed.
Cerupt methodology for landfill gas recovery
This methodology is designed specifically for landfill gas recovery projects,
and foresees the determination of a baseline in those cases where no capture of
LFG is foreseen. This methodology does not provide guidance for projects where
methane is partially captured in the baseline scenario.
84
As a starting point, the methodology assumes that it is accepted for LFG CDM
projects to use the volume of the LFG actually captured as a conservative
indication of the volume of gas(es) that would have been emitted without the
project, and a financial economic test is used to determine whether this
baseline may be applied. It calculates avoided GHG emissions ex post by
measuring the captured methane.
This methodology emphasizes the use of economic and financial criteria to
determine whether the proposed project activity is additional and next a key
factor analysis to establish the baseline scenario and calculate baseline
emissions. Sequence in the analysis is:
•
•
determine project additionality.
determine baseline scenario.
The methodology recommends using economic and financial criteria to
determine whether the proposed project activity is additional, while it also
investigates the regulatory framework to see whether any future legal
obligation would enforce the project to take place anyway, it analyses the
common MSW practice in the host country, Brazil in this case, and it assesses
the project barriers. This approach covers the additionality issues for MSW in
China identified in Section 4.4.1.
In the CERUPT methodology the Project additionality is determined in three
steps:
•
•
•
Step 1: Assessment of legal requirements.
Step 2: Assessment of economic attractive courses of action.
Step 3: Assessment of barriers and common practice.
In Step 1, the methodology recommends to carry out a policy context analysis,
and stipulates that an LFG recovery project is not additional if it complies with
any existing or foreseeable – at least for the duration of the crediting time –
legislation. To carry out this analysis refer to the policy context analysis in
Section 4.3.
In Step 2, the baseline methodology prescribes to develop several economic
alternatives for the particular landfill site in order to determine what would
have the most logical course of action to determine the additionality.
For MSW projects in China, the following alternative scenarios are proposed:
1. Reference scenario 1: open landfills without gas recovery, based on the
assumptions that 70% of the existing landfill sites in China in 2000
were open dumps
2. Reference scenario 2: for existing landfills, BAU situation describing
local specific situations with or without energy recovery
85
3. Scenario 3: landfill gas recovery with utilization of the gas as
recommended in the MSW national action plan.
4. Scenario 4: Composting of municipal solid waste to partially replace
the current landfilling operation
5. Scenario 5: Construction and operation of anaerobic digestion plant
with or without gas utilization
6. Scenario 6: Construction and operation of a waste incineration facility
to partially replace the current landfilling operation
The project developer will have to choose which among these scenarios are
realistic in the circumstances of the specific project and develop a detailed
scenario analysis for them. These scenarios must then be compared by
making a long term cost calculation, assuming no or little income from
electricity generation.
In case income from electricity generation is considerable, IRR calculation
should be used (or refer to following recommended methodology ‘Simplified
financial analysis for landfill gas capture projects’). If the economic or financial
analysis shows that the proposed CDM project activity has higher cost, i.e.
lower IRR than one of the other scenarios, it is considered to be additional.
The application of the methodology to the gas project in Brazil, for which the
methodology was developed, identified the following alternative scenarios:
•
•
Reference scenario 1: LFG is vented to reduce the risk of explosions. The
LFG is emitted into the atmosphere. This is required by law.
Scenario 2: Extract and use the LFG as a fuel for a separate leachate
evaporation installation and flare excess LFG
Based on the additionality analysis, the baseline scenario identified for the
particular landfill site is to vent the LFG, the economic alternative 1. On that
basis, the project developer has developed a first order decay model to
estimate the production of LFG and consequently to estimate the amount of
CERs.
In Step 3, a barriers analysis is carried out. In particular, in cases where the
CDM project activity raises income from electricity generation, financial
analysis might point out that the project scenario has higher IRR than one of
the other scenarios. However, situations exist that justify that ‘the proposed
CDM project activity’ is additional even if it is the most attractive course of
action based on the economic or financial analysis. This methodology
identifies two procedures to determine that without the ability to register
under the CDM, the proposed project activity would be, or would have been,
unlikely to occur.
Barriers to investment can require that the risks of the proposed project be
mitigated by relying on benefits related to registration of the proposed project
activity under the CDM. Such barriers can be identified in countries where no
86
developed markets exist. Barriers must be clearly identified, justified, and
documented. Possible barriers are:
a.
Investment barrier: the absence of access to capital in undeveloped
markets to finance the proposed project activity would have led to
higher emissions;
b.
Technological barrier: a less technologically advanced alternative to the
project activity involves lower risks due to the performance uncertainty
or low market share of the new technology adopted for the project
activity and so would have led to higher emissions;
c.
Barrier due to prevailing practice: prevailing practice or existing
regulatory or policy requirements would have led to implementation of
a technology with higher emissions;
d.
Other barriers: without the project activity, for another specific reason
identified by the project participant, such as institutional barriers or
limited information, managerial resources, organizational capacity,
financial resources, or capacity to absorb new technologies, emissions
would have been higher.
In case the project scenario is economically the most attractive course of action
compared to the other scenarios, the second approach recommended under
step 3, is to assess the common practice for MSW in the region were the
project will be implemented. The methodology recommends that a project that
is economically the most attractive course of action can be additional if there is
an indication that the project type is not common practice (e.g. occurs in less
than 5 percent of similar cases) in the proposed area of implementation, and is
not required by recent/pending legislation/regulations.
The baseline scenario is the scenario that is most likely to occur in absence of
the proposed project. I.e. from the above analysis it is either:
•
•
the scenario with the lowest cost / highest IRR.
the scenario that would occur after considering common practice or the
barriers to investment.
Simplified financial analysis for landfill gas capture projects
For those projects planning to generate electricity, the following approved
methodology is recommended:
•
‘Simplified financial analysis for landfill gas capture projects’ (with 20%
discount factor) - based on NM0005-rev: Nova Gerar Landfill gas to
energy project in Brazil.
The methodology assumes that the business-as-usual scenario is the only
other plausible alternative scenario to the propose project activity, and
requires the application of a 20% discount factor to ensure the
conservativeness of the baseline and to account for any changes in regulations
during the first crediting period of the project.
87
The methodology is applied in two steps:
•
Step 1: Additionality is assessed by analysing the economic attractiveness
of the project alternative without the revenue from carbon credits using an
IRR calculation and comparing the results with a reasonable expected
return on investment in the host country. The project is additional if the
project IRR is clearly and significantly lower than the IRR in the host
country.
•
Step 2: The baseline scenario is determined based on an analysis of
current practices and current and foreseeable regulations in the waste
management sector, or the business as usual situation.
The IRR calculation must be conservative and use the incremental investment
as well as operation, maintenance and all other costs of upgrading the BAU
scenario to the proposed project activity, and it must include all revenues
generated by the project activity except carbon revenues. An IRR is calculated
conservatively, if assumptions made tend to result in a rather higher than a
lower IRR.
The baseline scenario is defined as the most likely future scenario in the
absence of the proposed CDM project activity. Establishing this future
scenario requires an analysis and comparison of possible future scenarios
using a comparison methodology that is justified for the project
circumstances.
The alternative scenarios identified for MSW projects in China as the same as
those under the CERUPt Methodology:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reference scenario1: open landfills without gas recovery, based on the
assumptions that 70% of the existing landfill sites in China in 2000 were
open dumps
Reference scenario 2: for existing landfills, BAU situation describing
local specific situations with or without energy recovery
Scenario 3: landfill gas recovery with utilization of the gas as
recommended in the MSW national action plan.
Scenario 4: Composting of municipal solid waste to partially replace
the current landfilling operation
Scenario 5: Construction and operation of anaerobic digestion plant
with or without gas utilization
Scenario 6: Construction and operation of a waste incineration facility
to partially replace the current landfilling operation
In order to select which are the plausible scenarios that provide an alternative
to the proposed project, an analysis of existing legislation and common
practice in the region is carried. The alternative scenarios which are found to
be un-realistic are excluded. The scenario selection should be clearly justified,
and the MSW policy and sector’s context analysis should be used to justify
this choice. This methodology assumes that after the selection, the business-asENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
88
usual scenario is the only other plausible alternative scenario to the propose
project activity. This will have to be demonstrated for the MSW project in
China.
The two plausible scenarios must then be analysed and compared through a
financial analysis, the aim is to determine whether the project is an
economically attractive course of action compared to the BAU situation. If it
can be proven that the project is not an economically attractive course of
action, the only remaining plausible baseline scenario is Alternative 1, i.e. the
continuation of the status quo (BAU) without any LFG treatment.
The methodology assumes that the main potential financial returns derived
from the collection of gas is the sale of electricity, the feasibility of this type of
project is, thus, dependent on factors related to energy sector and to the
decentralisation of electricity generation. A sectoral analysis of the energy
sector is required to identify the characteristic of the energy grid and factors
that will affect the project financial performance. This will include analysing
the sources of energy production, the projected expansion plans, historical
tariffs, agreements for selling electricity to the grid and associated risks,
Having identified the BAU situation as the baseline scenario, the methodology
recognises that the main determinants of this baseline are landfill regulations
applicable to the site and the economics of landfill gas utilization.
Furthermore, the methodology recognises that it is possible that future
regulatory requirements for landfills in Brazil will necessitate some level of
LFG collection in the baseline scenario. If this occurs, the future baseline
scenario will include compliance with such regulations.
Thus, in the interests of conservatism, and to enhance the environmental
integrity of the proposed project, the methodology requires that all emission
reductions arising from the project shall be discounted by 20%.
The project crediting time is proposed to be 3 times 7 years, and it is
anticipated that by discounting emission reductions by 20% the project will
account for any regulatory changes, or improvements in waste management
practice over the first 7 years of the project. The baseline assumptions will
then be revisited every 7 years to ensure that the assumptions made in the
baseline scenario still hold true, or they will be revised accordingly. Through
this approach the methodology captures the introduction of host country
legislation regarding the collection and flaring of landfill gas, or the
improvement of the best practice benchmark.
The application of the methodology to the NovaGerar Brazilian project
identified the alternatives scenarios for the Brazilian landfills as:
•
Alternative 1: The landfill operator could continue the current business as
usual practice of not collecting and flaring landfill gas from his waste
89
•
•
operations. In this case, no power would be generated at the sites and the
power system would remain unaffected.
Alternative 2: The landfill operator would invest in some LFG collection
and flaring but not in power generation. The power system would remain
unaffected.
Alternative 3: The landfill operator would invest in power generation from
LFG (the proposed project activity). The operation would marginally
reduce the generation of power for other grid-connected sources.
The comparison analysis identified the baseline scenario as the continued
uncontrolled release of landfill gas to the atmosphere, similarly to most
landfills in Brazil. The results of the financial analysis conducted clearly show
that that implementation of this type of project is not the economically most
attractive course of action, thus, the analysis concludes this kind of project is
not part of the baseline scenario, and the NovaGerar Project is additional.
Cost and Investment Analysis for Electricity Auto-Generation
For projects planning to generate electricity under a power purchase
agreement, ensuring a pre-determined electricity price, the following
approved methodology can be used:
•
electricity project in South Africa.
The methodology is a simplified application of investment analysis based on
current and future electricity prices paid by the decision maker. However, it
has very restrictive requirement for its application and the project developers
will have to ensure that they comply with all the conditions before
implementing this methodology. The methodology is only valid to determine
the most likely baseline scenario under the following conditions:
A) The set of plausible alternative scenarios is comprised of two alternatives
only:
(1) the proposed auto-generation of electricity, and
(2) the BAU scenario or an investment option unrelated to power
generation.
B) Purchase of a significant amount of electricity by the project proponent
from electricity suppliers (e.g. national utility) at predetermined electricity
prices, e.g. a power purchase agreement.
C) The baseline and monitoring methodologies are complementary in the
sense that monitoring identifies relevant elements of the baseline scenario
that are not (fully) determined ex ante and described for the baseline
scenario, such as future regulations and electricity prices.
Under these assumptions, the project would not be implemented and thus is
additional if the auto-generation costs exceed expected market prices.
90
The baseline methodology requires limited specific information, the
correctness of which is to be confirmed by a Designated Operational Entity.
Moreover, it does not require information on emissions factors and activity
levels as well as future regulation, as these can be monitored in real time or
calculated ex post during project operation, nor does it include a barriers
analysis. The information required is at least:
•
•
•
4.6
Conservative cost calculation for the proposed project (as explained
above). Data sources: Project proponent, feasibility study, and other
relevant project planning information.
Information on power prices paid by the auto-generator. Data sources:
PPAs, market data.
Information on key factors with an impact on future electricity prices
(unless directly monitored), such as power sector conditions, system
expansion options, LRMC, technologies. Data source: National utility or
sector planning authority, information from technology suppliers,
independent experts, planned power projects in the country etc.
DURATION OF THE PROJECT ACTIVITY AND CREDITING PERIOD
As an important aspect of the project description the project developer needs
to describe the expected duration of the project. This has a direct implication
on the length of time emission reduction credits will be generated. The time
period during which the project is expecting to be credited with emission
reduction is called the crediting period.
The crediting period is ‘the period for which reductions from the baseline are
verified and certified by a designated Operational Entity for the purpose of issuance of
Certified Emission Reductions (CERs).’1
It is up to the project developer to determine this crediting period, according
to certain rules and criteria laid out by the CDM Executive Board:
•
•
•
1
The starting date of a crediting period needs to be after the date the
first emission reductions are generated by the CDM project activity.
A crediting period cannot extend beyond the operational lifetime of
the project activity.
The project participants may choose between two options for the
length of a crediting period: it may be a fixed crediting period (for 10
years) or a renewable crediting period (baseline revised every 7 years,
up to two times). This is in line with the Marrakesh accords
requirements, see Box 4.5.
Glossary of terms used in the CDM project design document,
91
Box 4.5
Marrakech Accords requirements for Crediting Period
Criteria for CDM baseline methodology
Project participants shall select the crediting period for a project activity from on of the two
alternatives
•
A maximum of 7 years which may be reviewed at most two times, provided that the
validity of the original baseline or updated baseline is assessed by an OE.
•
A maximum of 10 years with no option of renewal
Source: UNFCCC The Marrakesh Accords & The Marrakesh Declaration (decisions 48/Add2)
In the case of a ‘fixed crediting period’, the length and starting date of the
period is determined once for a project activity with no possibility of renewal
or extension once the project activity has been registered. The length of the
period can be a maximum of ten years for a proposed CDM project activity.
In the case of a ‘renewable crediting period’, a single crediting period may be
of a maximum of seven years. The crediting period may be renewed at most
two times (maximum 21 years), provided that, for each renewal, a designated
Operational Entity determines that the original project baseline is still valid or
has been updated taking account of new data, where applicable, and informs
the Executive Board accordingly.
The project developer must be aware that the starting date and length of the
first crediting period has to be determined before registration of the project as
a CDM project with the Executive Board.).
Moreover when defining crediting period there are four main types of
variation over time 1 that can be considered.
1. Constant or no revision baseline: parameters do not vary over crediting
lifetime, which values are set on the project start date;
2. Time-varying, no revision baseline: parameters vary over crediting lifetime
according to calculations agreed at the start of the project date;
3. Constant, periodic revision baseline: parameters do not vary during the
periods, but values are revised at given times in the project life time, the
length of the period may be or may not be equal;
4. Time-varying, periodic revision baselines: parameters may vary over given
periods according to calculations agreed at the project start date, the
parameter variation can change and be re-agreed upon at the beginning of
each new period.
When deciding which option to choose, it is important to note that at each
renewal period, the baseline will have to be revalidated by an Operational
Entity. CDM project activities opting for a renewable crediting period could
obtain CERs from the project for a longer period of time. However, as the
baseline needs to be reviewed and go through a new validation process, the
project runs the risk of having its baseline reviewed or not re-approved. The
project developer needs to take into account the possibility of the revision of
the baseline and the impacts it could have on the amount of expected emission
1
Guidance for UK Emission Trading Projects, UK DTI, April 2002
92
reduction in the revised periods. It should also assess the risks of the project
not being considered additional in the following crediting periods.
4.7
CALCULATING BASELINE EMISSIONS AND EXPECTED PROJECT’S EMISSION
REDUCTIONS
At this stage having identified the project baseline, the general approach is to
estimate the baseline emissions and the project’s emissions. This will then
allow calculating the expected emissions reductions as the difference between
the baseline and the projects emissions and taking .
ER = (Baseline emissions – projects emissions) - leakages.
However, in MSW management projects there is a specific aspect that
simplifies this calculation, as it can be assumed that project emissions from
conversion of methane from organic source into CO2 can be considered nil,
this is explained in the paragraphs below .
For Landfill gas facilities it is agreed that the destruction of methane in flares
and engines will lead to a conversion of methane emissions to CO2 emissions.
In anaerobic digestion installation the methane produces is converted in CO2
in the energy generator. While in composting installations only CO2 emissions
are emitted.
In all these cases, the methane or the CO2 originates from organic material
that can be classified as biomass, and the CO2 emissions originating from
biomass forms part of the natural organic CO2 cycle. Thus, the CO2 emissions
resulting from the flaring or electricity generation of this methane, or from
composting, do not contribute to climate change, and as such do not have to
be accounted for as project emissions. This means that for MSW projects
involving transformation of organic material, project emissions are nil.
Treatment of project emissions as nil under these conditions was assumed in
two baseline methodologies which have been approved by the CDM
Executive Board1.
Thus for all projects that utilize or flare the landfill gas recovered, the
calculation of project emission reductions (ER) is equal to the baseline
emissions minus nil. In practice this will equivalent to the amount of LFG
extracted from the landfill.
ER = (Baseline emissions – 0) - leakage.
In case the energy generation displaces other energy sources, emission
reductions from these sources will have to be accounted for separately, and
added to the emission reductions from methane recovery.
1 ‘Simplified financial analysis for landfill gas capture projects’ with 20% discount - based on NM0005-rev: Nova Gerar
Landfill gas to energy project in Brazil and • ‘Cost and Investment Analysis for Electricity Auto-Generation’ (e.g. by
municipalities) – Based on based on NM0010-rev, Durban landfill gas to electricity project in South Africa.
93
This section provides recommendations on how to estimate the baseline
emissions for the various baseline methodologies proposed and how to take
into account potential leakages. These methods can be used to calculate a
gross estimate of the expected baseline emissions; however, it might be
necessary to use more specific parameters from the project to calculate a more
accurate estimation of the baseline emissions.
4.7.1
Landfill gas recovery without energy generation
After the completion of the landfill gas project, the baseline emissions can be
determined ex post by monitoring the amount of LFG extracted. During the
baseline study, an estimation of baseline emissions ex ante is necessary to
assess the expected emission reductions.
To calculate the expected emissions from the landfill gas operations we
recommend using the IPCC formulas provided in the ‘Revised 1996 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories’. . The IPCC Equations
for calculation of emissions from landfill gas operations provided below use
default values for parameters defining landfill gas characteristics, however, if
the project developer can supply specific factors for those parameters based
on their project characteristic, those should be given preference. This approach
is used in the baseline methodology ‘Cerupt methodology for landfill gas
recoverynt regional baseline study’.
A first model decay1 is recommended for the estimation of methane to be
emitted through time:
Qx = L0.R.(e-ke-ekt) (equation 1)
In which
Qx = total methane released in year x (m3/yr)
L0 = theoretic potential amount of methane generated (m3/ton). This
amount is dependent on the composition of the waste and may
vary from less than 100 to over 200 m3/ton.
R = waste disposal rate (ton/yr)
t= time since landfill opened (yrs)
c= time since landfill closed (yrs)
k = rate of landfill gas generation (yr-1). Values may range from less
than 0.005 to 0.4 per year. Higher k values are associated with
greater moisture content.
In case of an existing landfill, the current amount of methane emitted from the
landfill can be estimated by measuring the methane flow on several locations
and extrapolating these data tot the total landfill. Using these data, a more
accurate estimate of k can be made.
1
1 Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas inventories: Reference Manual, Chapter 6, Waste
94
To determine the project emission reductions, it is first necessary to estimated
how much of the emitted methane will be recovered. The rate of landfill gas
recovery generally ranges between 50 and 90 percent of the total emission,
according to the Cerupt approved methodology1. A description should be
given on how this rate is determined, as it is strongly dependent on the
technologies used and the way the landfill will be filled. The following
formulae are used to estimate the greenhouse gas emission in the project
situation:
Qc= E x Qx (equation X)
In which
Qc = total methane recovered in year x (m3/yr)
E = extraction efficiency (%)
Qp= Qx- Qc (equation x)
Qp = total methane emitted in project situation in year x (m3/yr)
Qc = total methane recovered in year x (m3/yr)
To calculate the methane emissions expressed in tonnes per year the following
formula is used.
M = (0.016 x Qx)/22.4 (equation 2)
In which
M = methane emissions (ton/yr)
0.016 = molecular weight methane (ton/kmol)
22.4 = molecular volume at 0 °C( m3/kmol) (to be adapted for different
temperatures)
Qx = total methane generated in year x (m3/yr)
The greenhouse gas emissions are calculated as follows:
GHGb = 21 x M (equation 3)
In which
GHGb = Baseline GHG emissions (ton CO2e/yr)
21= GWP of methane (ton CO2e/ton methane) 2
1‘Cerupt
2
methodology for landfill gas recovery’ - Based on NM0021: Onyx gas recovery project, Brazil
2 Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas inventories.
95
M= methane emissions in baseline situation (ton/yr)
An upgrade of this first order decay model is preferred if available, making
use of site-specific characteristics, e.g. temperature in landfill, waste
composition, landfill depth etc.
4.7.2
Landfill gas with energy recovery
The annual CO2 emissions displaced by the project through methane
combustion to generate electricity and flares can be calculated using the
following approach1, recommended by the ‘Simplified financial analysis for
landfill gas capture projects’ approved baseline methodology. The approach
first estimates the methane combustion in electricity generators, and the
methane combustion from flares.
The projected expected emission reductions from the projects can then be
estimated directly as they are equal to the landfill gas recovered and used for
electricity generation and flaring.
The annual CO2 emissions displaced by a LFG project through methane
combustion to generate electricity and flares can be calculated using the
following approach2, recommended by the ‘Simplified financial analysis for
landfill gas capture projects’ approved baseline methodology. The approach
estimates the methane combustion in electricity generators, and the methane
combustion from flares.
STEP 1 – Methane combustion in generator
Eme = (Elec x HR) x conversion factor x GWPCH4
In which:
Eme = displaced emissions from electricity generation (tonnes CO2
equivalent)
E = metered gross annual (aggregated from monthly readings)
electricity produced by the project (MWh)
HR = generator heat rate (GJ/MWh)
Conversion factor = Convert GJ to equivalent tonnes of methane (using
factors 0.0357 GJ/m3 CH4 and 0.000679 tCH4/m3CH4) (tonnes of
CH4)
GWPCH4 = Global Warming Potential of methane (21 tCO2e)
STEP 2 – Methane combustion in flares
Emf = Vf x CH4 f x Eff f x conversion factor x GWPCH4
Landfill gas to energy project in Brazil
Landfill gas to energy project in Brazil
96
In which
Emf = Annual emission reductions due to methane combustion in
flares (tonnes of CO2 equivalent)
Vf = Volume of landfill gas channelled to flares (m3)
CH4 f = methane fraction of landfill gas ( readings from the gas
analyser)
Eff f = flare efficiency (98 %)
Conversion factor = volume: mass conversion factor (0.00067899 tCH4
= 1m3 CH4) (tonnes of methane)
GWPCH4 = Global Warming Potential of methane (21 tCO2e)
The total emission reductions (in tonnes of CO2 equivalent) from the project
are the summation of results from Step 1 and Step 2.
ER = Step 1 + Step 2
Moreover, the baseline methodology applies a discount factor of 20% to
account for the implementation of regulatory requirements or improvements
in waste management practices over the first 7 year crediting period. If this
methodology is choosen as the baseline methodology, the total amount of
estimated emission reductions will then be:
ERdiscounted = (Results of Step 1 + Step 2) –20%
In case other significant greenhouse gas emissions arise within the selected
project boundary, e.g. from the use of fuel for the ignition of a flare, these have
to be calculated as well.
4.7.3
Emissions from Energy recovery
If the methane is used for the production of electricity, or as an alternative
energy source, additional emission reductions will be the result of, mostly offsite, displaced energy. It is possible that the project will displace the power
from other existing power plants, or that the project will make an investment
in a new power plant unnecessary, or that it will displace fossil fuels use in
cars..
The greenhouse gas emissions achieved through displacement of grid
electricity can be estimated by multiplying the amount of kWh injected into
the grid by an appropriately conservative carbon emission rate, measured as
kgCO2/kWh. For a gross estimate of the emission reductions from displaced
electricity project developers can use the 1990 emission factor for the Chinese
‘Energy conversion and Energy Industry’ , provided in the "China Climate
Change Country Study" written by the research team of China Climate
Change Country Study in 2000, the factor is:
China electricity emission factor = 2.97 x 10-4 tCO2eq/kWh.
97
However, a detailed an analysis of the regional and national electricity grid
will be required to assess the type of electricity generation that is being
displaced, and to determine the project expected emission reductions.
If the methane is used as an alternative energy source, such as transport fuel, a
methodology for calculating the displaced emission will have to ebe
developed on a project by project basis in line with the project characteristics.
4.7.4
Leakages
Leakage is the unplanned, indirect emission of CO2, resulting from the project
activities. It occurs if emission reductions from a project are offset by increases
in emissions elsewhere. The project developer needs to describe the formulae
used to estimate leakage due to the project activity, (for each gas, source,
formulae/algorithm, emissions in units of CO2 equivalent), or that no
increased in emissions are discernable other than those targeted and directly
monitored by the project.
It has been estimated that for landfill gas recovery projects, no leakage risks
are identified during the landfill operation, as landfill operation is considered
a closed system that does not influence off-site emissions. This has been
approved by the CDM Executive Board1 and should be use as an argument by
the project developers.
The only GHG emissions outside the project boundaries will occur during the
construction of the LFG collection and utilization system. These emissions are
however insignificant and would likely also occur if alternative landfill gas
management or power generation capacity were to be constructed at
alternative sites.
4.8
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MSW PROJECT VERIFICATION AND MONITORING PLAN
All CDM project activities must have a Monitoring and Verification Plan, to
ensure that the project meets the requirements that the emission reductions
must be real, additional and verifiable (Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol).
The purpose of the monitoring plan is to define a standard against which the
project will be continuously evaluated and audited. The key overarching
project performance indicators to monitor and verify in a CDM project activity
are the GHG emission reductions and the conformance with the relevant CDM
criteria.
The monitoring plan must provide the requirements and instructions for:
1
‘Cerupt methodology for landfill gas recovery’ – Based on NM0021: Onyx gas recovery project, Brazil -
98
•
•
•
Establishing and maintaining the appropriate monitoring system for GHG
emissions reduction estimation and environmental impacts.
Preparing the necessary measurement and management operations.
Preparing for the requirements of an independent, third party audit.
First, the project monitoring plan should define the project boundaries
affecting the monitoring of the project emissions reductions. These may be the
geographical boundaries (e.g. size of landfill sites, amount of MSW waste,
composition of MSW, emission from electricity generation, indirect emission
from use of gas, leakages, etc.); technical boundaries (e.g. introduction to
activities proposed by each project); time boundary (i.e. justification of the
choice of crediting period). The plan should also contain a justification of the
choice of monitoring methodology and its adequacy for the project being
monitored. Table 4.4 provides recommendations for data gathering.
Table 4.4 Examples of data to be included in the MVP for MSW projects
Type of data
Waste
characteristics1
Emissions data
Data required
Landfill volume consumed
Possible methodology
Annual topographic surveys.
Waste input
Weighed on calibrated scales.
Waste composition
Waste classified according to
its composition.
Measured by flow meter.
Flare gas: gas flow (m3/hr); combustion
temperature (ºF)
Percentage methane in LFG (%): concentrations of
CH4, CO2, CO measured in gas extraction wells
Measured by gas quality
analyser.
Refuse wells: well pressure (Pa); well flow (m3/hr);
LFG concentration of CH4 & CO2 (%)
Gas extraction wells
monitoring.
Leachate evaporatoration: gas flow (m3/hr); steam
temperature (ºF); leachate volume (m3/hr)
Totalising meter.
Flare efficiency (%)
Generator heat rate (GJ/MWh)
Gas flow measured prior and
subsequent to the flare.
LFG collected by control group (%)
Above ground piping and wellheads.
Electricity
generation (if
relevant)
Revision of baseline
(if relevant)
1This
Gross electricity produced (MWh)
Projects annual power sales
Whether sufficient gas collection wells are in place;
depth of the wells in relation to the depth of the
sites; number of gas collection wells operating
satisfactorily/ not operating (i.e. gas flowing);
number of flares operating satisfactorily (i.e.
burning LFG); whether sites apply suction to the
wells; whether the site is appropriately capped;
Visual inspections ensuring
their integrity.
Average annual emission rate
for grid electricity
Information provided by
expert advisors at every
baseline revision.
data can be compared with the landfill phasing assumptions used in the LFG production model.
99
efficiency of the flares used.
Amount of GHG flaring taking place (common
industry practice at that point in the future) within
control group companies.
Control group could be
formed and surveyed at each
baseline revision point.
Energy use of collection system.
Pumping equipment metered.
‘Significant" and "reasonably attributable’
increased emissions outside the project boundary,
and environmental impacts of the project (if
appropriate).
Auditing and
Quality assurance and control procedures for the monitoring process;
verification
Procedures for the periodic calculation of the reductions of anthropogenic emissions
standards
of the proposed CDM project activity (by sources), and for leakage effects;
Documentation of all steps involved in the calculations of emission reductions.
Source: ERM, based on approved methodologies from CDM EB, January 2004.
Leakage estimation
The monitoring plan also requires to describe the means by which relevant
data will be collected (i.e. methods of measurement and calibration methods,
explanations of how to deal with missing data) and archived (electronic
spreadsheets, paper format); the frequency of data collection; how long the
data will be archived for; how future leakage may be assessed and estimated;
what the control procedures are, and how quality control for the monitoring
process is dealt with; how the data on non greenhouse gas environmental
impacts will be collected and archived.
The monitoring plan must be designed to enable project managers and
operators to meet international auditing and verification standards. The
monitoring plan should provide a methodology for GHG data management,
control and reporting systems (e.g. instructions, procedures, record keeping
systems, assumptions, technical equations, models and other means that
support complete, accurate and conservative CER estimates). It should also
clearly identify the frequency of, responsibility and authority for monitoring,
measurement and data recording activities and sufficiently describes quality
control/ quality assurance/ management control procedures.
The project developer may use an existing monitoring plan which has been
approved by the CDM Executive Board. To date, only four methodologies for
MSW projects have been approved and are available on the UNFCCC
website1, see Annex B for a summary of these approved Monitoring and
Verification plan.
If no existing approved methodology applies to the CDM project activity
proposed, the project developer must design a new methodology. The
methodology must be validated by an Operational Entity who will propose it
to the CDM Executive Board for approval as a new approved methodology.
The plan needs to include a provision for the validation of the project baseline
and monitoring plan and the verification of the project activities. The
verification process must lead to the conclusion that GHG reductions from the
1These are available on http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/process?cases=A. All three methodologies have been
approved, although the last two listed here have not yet been formatted nor assigned an approved methodology reference
number.
100
project are real and credible to the buyers of the Certified Emissions
Reductions (CERs). The verification aims to verify that the actual monitoring
systems and procedures are in compliance with the monitoring plan; evaluate
that the GHG emission reduction data has a sufficient level of accuracy; and
that reported GHG emission data is sufficiently supported by evidence (i.e.
monitoring records).
Several guidelines can be referred to when developing the monitoring and
verification plan. In particular, the GHG protocol and the forthcoming PCF /
IETA CDM and JI Validation and Verification Manual (VVM)1 are
recommended.
Finally, the monitoring plan will have to be approved by the CDM Executive
Board as part of the Project Design Document or the new baseline
methodology.
4.9
NON GHG ISSUES
4.9.1
Assessing environmental impacts
The CDM Project Design Document needs to include documentation on the
analysis of environmental impacts. For this, an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) of the project is needed. The EIA will be carried out
according to the host country laws. In this context, the expert advisor needs to
determine the environmental impacts of the project, as well as the stakeholder
concerns it will generate.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in open dumps are likely to result in the
following problems:
•
•
•
•
Contaminated leachate and surface run-off from landfills can affect downgradient ground and surface water quality affecting the local environment.
The uncontrolled release of landfill gas can also impact negatively on the
health of the local environment and the local population and lead to risks
of explosions in the local surroundings.
The uncontrolled release of landfill gas results in odour emissions leading
to adverse conditions with regards to the quality of life in the area of the
landfill.
Release of LFG to the atmosphere, including significant volumes of
methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG).
Properly managed landfill sites greatly reduce the environmental health risks
and the potential for explosions. MSW projects are also expected to have a
small positive impact on employment in the local areas, as additional staff will
be required to run and manage the new operation. Other possible economic
benefit includes the diminished dependency on grid- supplied electricity and
better management of the landfill.
1
Background information on the manual can be found on http://www.ieta.org/VVM/VVM.htm
101
4.9.2
Assessing stakeholders concerns
A final requirement of the Project Design Document phase is that local
stakeholders be invited to comment on it. Indeed, the CDM Project Design
Document includes a section on stakeholder comments where a brief
description of the process for gathering the comments; a summary of the
comments received; and a report on how due account was taken of any
comments received are required. Stakeholders include individuals,
communities or other groups who may be affected by the project (e.g. NGOs:
the Marrakesh Accords specifically refer to ‘accredited NGOs’).
Stakeholder input is a critical part of the CDM project. In order to keep the
project transparent, the CDM PDD requires that project developers: invite
local stakeholders to comment on the project design document; provide a
summary of the comments received; and review comments received and
provide a report, demonstrating how relevant concerns were addressed. This
report has to be submitted for validation by the designated operational entity.
It is important to note that this local stakeholders consultation process is
distinct from the invitation for comments from stakeholders by the designated
Operational Entity, during the project validation phase (see section 3.3.2). At
that time, international stakeholders, such as NGOs, have an opportunity to
provide their comments regarding the specific CDM components of the
activity. In contrast to local stakeholders, the international stakeholders are
not actively approached for the stakeholder comments of the PDD. They are
simply given the opportunity to review the Project Design Document on the
web.
Incorporating two rounds of stakeholder consultations is intended to promote
democratisation of the CDM process and allow both local and international
stakeholders to express their concerns regarding the efficacy and
appropriateness of the selected projects.
In host countries with a clear project planning process in place, a project
developer can follow that country ’s established guidelines for public
consultation and participation. However, the project developer is advised to
check with the designated national authority whether the existing rules apply
to the project type and the CDM process.
Project developers are also advised to verify the rules for public consultation
discuss with the relevant authorities and invite comments from civil society
on the project design document. In cases where the public consultation
procedures are not established, the project developer should design its own
consultative exercise.
Annex B provides examples of how stakeholder comments from the
Environmental Impact Assessment are gathered and used in methodologies
that have been approved by the CDM Executive Board.
102
4.10
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING RISKS
There are a number of risk factors related to MSW management projects and
carbon finance. These risk factors can focus on either the generator of the
emission reduction credits or the purchaser of the credits. It is recommended
that a risk assessment is carried out in the early stages of the project, to ensure
the smooth development of the CDM project design and avoid any unwanted
surprise at later stages.
The potential sources of risk that shall be review for MSW projects include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.11
Technology Risk
Risk related to testing new methodologies and ensuring adequate
performance
Market Risk
o Waste collection
o Power Sale
o Manure Sale
Regulatory Risk
Baseline Risk (revision after end of crediting period is appropriate)
Environmental and Social Risks
Sponsors risks
o Time issues related to both obtaining contracts and validation
of the emission reductions;
o Term length of contracts insufficient for project to be
economical;
o Value of emission reductions over time;
o Potential liabilities for projects not achieving sufficient emission
reductions;
Scientific accuracy of project selection, monitoring and controlling.
NEXT STEPS
4.11.1 Initial steps in CDM project design
Before assessing whether a project has a potential to be eligible as a CDM
project in China, the project developer should carry out a series of initial steps
to assess that the key actors on CDM in China will support the project and that
the projects fits within the CDM rules for China. The main national contact is
the Designated National Authority.
As a first step, the project developers should always contact the Designated
National Authority (DNA) for China, which will be able to provide them with
up to date information on the latest CDM decision made by the Chinese
government and by the international community under the Kyoto Protocol. It
is also important to ensure the support of the DNA who will be the body that
103
will have to provide the project developer with the approval that the project
complies with the Chinese requirements for CDM and that it will contribute to
the Sustainable Development objectives of China.
The project developer would also want to assess the state of the market and
who are the potential buyers of the emission reductions generated by the
project, the Certified Emission Reductions (CER). This umbrella methodology
is specifically made to provide input to project developers willing to work
with the World Bank PCF; thus, contact details for the Bank and PCF are
provided. However, there are other potential buyers in the market that the
project developer can engage with.
Finally, the project will have to be validated and verified by a recognised third
party, a designated operating entity (DOE), the project developer is not
require to engage with the DOE at the start of the project but must plan for
this important step at the start of the project.
China Designated National Authority
The National Development and Reform commission is the China Designated
National Authority (details in section 3.7). The National Coordination
Committee on Climate Change lays in the Department of Territorial
Economics of the Commission.
Detailed contacts are the following:
Mr. Gao Guangsheng,
Head of the National Coordination Committee on Climate Change
No. 38, Yue Tan South Road, West City District, Beijing,
Tel: +86 010 68501705
The WB Carbon Funds
If a project developer is willing to introduce its project with the World Bank
Carbon Funds, the project developer must at an early stage sent a project idea
note (PIN) to the PCF providing a quick summary of the project description
and its potential as CDM project and potential emission reductions. The
project developer should ask for feedback to assess whether the PCF is
interested in the project as a potential source of emission reduction credits.
This project idea note should be sent to :
Carbon Trust
(Please provide contact detail if relevant)
Designated Operating Entity
Until today, the CDM Executive Board has not accredited and recommended
for designation any entity, however it is in the process of considering 17
applications (called Applicant entities AE). It is recommended that the project
developer should select as a third party validator among the applicant entity.
A list of such applicant entities can be found on the UNFCCC web site:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/DOE/CallForInputs
104
4.11.2 Development of Project Design Document
The final objective for the project developer is to develop a Project Design
Document (PDD) as requested by the CDM Executive Board. The PDD
template electronic version can be found, in Chinese and English, on the
UNFCCC CDM web site at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents .
In order to complete the PDD the project developer will have to develop the
following studies and reports in line with the recommendations of these
guidelines:
•
•
•
•
•
Sectoral and policy assessment.
The Baseline Methodology Study.
The Monitoring and Verification Plan.
The analysis of non-GHG issues, including environmental and social
impacts assessment (EIA and SIA) and stakeholder consultation.
Project financial analysis with and without the emission reductions credits.
4.11.3 Contractual issues
The final step for the CDM project is to establish a contract for selling the
CERs. Contracts are required to establish agreements between all parties
participating in the project. As part of engaging in any type carbon trading
activities, contracts need to be established between:
•
•
•
•
all parties involved in carrying out the emission reducing project.
the carbon fund or any other entity providing funds to finance the project
and the project participants.
the DOE selected to evaluate, validate and verify the emission reductions
produced by the project and the project participants.
the CDM funding entity and the project participants (upon registration of
the funding).
The details of these agreements should be established in project contracts. The
five legal documents currently used by the PCF in its emission reduction
purchase transactions are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
•
Letter of Project Endorsement or No Objection (LoE);
Letter of Intent (LoI);
Letter of Approval (LoA);
Emission Reductions Purchase Agreement (ERPA); and
Host Country Agreement (HCA) – note that this is only required for Joint
Implementation (JI) projects.
The LoE is written from the project's host country (Host Country) to the
World Bank acting as Trustee for the PCF (Trustee). The LoE is a unilateral
endorsement by the Host Country of the Project and is usually sought by
the PCF once a potentially viable project has been identified. The purpose
105
of the LoE is to minimize the risk to the PCF that a Host Country may later
determine that the project is not in line with its sustainability criteria and
(or for other reasons) refuse to issue a LoA. In circumstances where a LoA
has already been granted, or will be available within a very short period of
time, the Trustee may waive the requirement for the LoE.
•
The LoI is the first written document signed between the Project Entity
and the Trustee. The LoI is primarily a letter of exclusivity, which provides
the PCF the exclusive rights to negotiate the terms of purchase of emission
reductions from the Project Entity. If the Project Entity unilaterally
withdraws from the negotiations, the LoI requires it to repay a capped
amount of project preparation costs.
•
The LoA is a formal letter from the Host Country in which the Host
Country grants formal approval of the project for the purpose of Article 12
of the Kyoto Protocol. One of the key requirements of the LoA is the
confirmation that the project contributes towards the Host Country's
sustainable development. The LoA is required by the Kyoto Protocol and
is therefore critical in the acceptance of the project by the UNFCCC.
•
The ERPA is the principal legal document governing the purchase and
sale of emission reductions by the PCF. Under the ERPA, the project entity
agrees to sell all rights, title and interests in and to all, or a specified part
of, the greenhouse gas reductions generated by the project. The group of
rights, title and interests is defined as the "Emission Reductions" (or ERs).
The Trustee agrees to pay the specified purchase price on delivery of the
verification report verifying the number of greenhouse gas emission
reductions produced. In addition to the key purchase and sale provisions
within the ERPA are a number of sections relating to various obligations,
representations and warrantees as well as conditions precedent the
disbursement of funds which cover activities such as the successful
implementation of the project and management of identified project risks.
•
The HCA is required for JI projects only, and is entered into between the
Host Country and the Trustee. Within the HCA, the Host Country agrees
to transfer the amount of Protocol.
4.11.4 Project implementation, monitoring and verification
After finalisation of the project CDM design, the validation of the project
baseline and Project design document, the project implementation can go
ahead including the implementation of the monitoring and verification plan.
106
Annex A
Glossary of Terms and
Abbreviations
AD
Anaerobic Digestion, see Definitions (section 1).
Adaptation
adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or
changing environment. Adaptation to climate change
refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in
response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their
effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial
opportunities.
Additionality
see Definitions (section 1).
Adverse effects
potential negative effects of climate change as well as
the impact of the implementation of response
measures. Such effects or impacts include sea level
rise, change in precipitation or other weather patterns,
and reduced demand for fossil fuels or other energy
intensive products. Impacts of climate change can be
positive as well as negative.
Annex I Countries
Annex I to the UNFCCC lists all the countries in the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) in 1990, plus countries with
economies in transition, Central and Eastern Europe
(excluding the former Yugoslavia and Albania). By
default the other countries are referred to as NonAnnex I countries. Under Article 4.2 (a & b) of the
Convention, Annex I countries commit to returning
individually or jointly to their 1990 levels of GHG
emissions by the year 2000.
Annex II Countries
Annex II to the Climate Convention lists all countries
in the OECD in 1990. Under Article 4.2 (g) of the
Convention, these countries are expected to provide
financial resources to assist developing countries
comply with their obligations such as preparing
national reports. Annex II countries are also expected
to promote the transfer of environmentally sound
technologies to developing countries.
Annex B Countries
Annex B in the Kyoto Protocol lists those developed
countries that have agreed to a commitment to control
their greenhouse gas emissions in the period 2008 –12,
including those in the OECD, Central and Eastern
Europe and the Russian Federation. In addition to
Annex B, Annex I includes Turkey and Belarus, while
Annex B includes Croatia, Monaco, Liechtenstein and
Slovenia.
Anthropogenic Emissions GHG emissions associated with human activities.
These include burning of fossil fuels for energy,
deforestation and land-use changes.
Articles 4.8 & 4.9
adverse impacts of climate change, the impact of
measures taken to respond to climate change, and
A1
compensation for these impacts is referred to in
Articles 4.8 & 4.9 of the Convention. This issue is also
addressed under Article 3.14 of the Kyoto Protocol.
Article 12
Kyoto Protocol provisions on transfers of certified
emission reductions from CDM projects in developing
countries to industrialised countries.
Assigned Amount
quantified national emission limits for industrialised
countries under the Kyoto Protocol.
Attributable
AE
Applicant Entity, see Definitions (section 1).
Baseline
also baseline approach; baseline methodology;
baseline approved methodology and new
methodology: see Definitions (section 1).
Biomass
the total dry organic matter or stored energy content of
living organisms. Biomass can be used for fuel directly
by burning it (e.g. wood), indirectly by fermentation to
an alcohol (e.g. sugar) or extraction of combustible oils
(e.g. soybeans).
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand
BPEO
Best Practical Environmental Option
Capacity Building
process of constructive interaction between developing
countries and the private sector to help them develop
the capability and skills needed to achieve
environmentally sound forms of economic
development. Under current negotiations, capacity
building should assist developing countries to build,
develop, strengthen, enhance and improve their
capabilities to achieve the objective of the Convention
and their participation in the Kyoto Protocol process.
CDM
Clean Development Mechanism, see Definitions
(section 1).
CER
Certified Emission Reduction Units see Definitions
(section 1).
Certification
Climate System
the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere
and geosphere and their interactions.
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
CO2, CH4, N2O
greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, and
nitrous oxide.
A2
HFC, PFC, SF6
the “new” greenhouse gases: hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride.
CO2 equivalent
the unit for an amount of greenhouse gases taking
into account their relative radiative forcing potential
(i.e. their contribution to global warming over a
specified year time frame).
Commitment period
the period for which industrialised countries’ national
quantified emission commitments have been set
under the Kyoto Protocol: 2008 to 2012.
Conservative
see ‘transparent and conservative’, Definitions
(section 1).
COP
Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC.
COP/MOP
COP that serves as the Meeting of the Parties to the
Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC.
Crediting period
DNA
Designated National Authority, see Definitions
(section 1).
DOE
Designated Operational Entity, see Definitions
(section 1).
Earth Summit
held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, where the UNFCCC was
signed by more than 150 countries.
EB
CDM Executive Board that will oversee the operation
of the CDM, see Definitions (section 1).
ERUs
Emission Reduction Units, obtained through Joint
Implementation projects and unit of trade in
emissions trading systems.
GEF
Global Environmental Facility, a joint funding
programme established by developed countries to
meet their obligations under various international
environmental treaties. GEF serves as the interim
financial mechanism for the UNFCCC, in particular to
cover the cost of reporting by non-Annex I countries.
GHG
Greenhouse gas(es)
GWP
Global Warming Potential, time-dependent index
used to compare the radiative forcing, on a mass basis,
of an impulse of a specific greenhouse gas, relative to
that of CO2 (GWP of CO2 is defined as 1). Gases
included in the Kyoto Protocol are weighted in the
first commitment period according to their GWP over
A3
a 100-year time horizon, as published in the 1995
Second Assessment Report of the IPCC.
Host Party
JI
Joint Implementation, projects that limit or reduce
emissions or enhance sinks among developed
countries (Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol). As JI occurs
between Annex B countries (who have emissions caps),
no new emissions units are generated (unlike the case
with projects under the CDM).
Kyoto Mechanisms
Procedures that allow Annex 1 Parties to meet their
commitments under the Kyoto Protocol based on
actions outside their own borders. As potentially
market-based mechanisms they have the potential to
reduce the economic impacts of greenhouse gas
emission-reduction requirements. They include Joint
Implementation (Article 6), the Clean Development
Mechanism (Article 12) and Emissions Trading
(Article 17).
Kyoto Protocol
Protocol under the UNFCCC, which strengthened
industrialised Parties climate change commitments.
Agreed in Kyoto (Japan) December 1997.
LFG
Landfill Gas
Legal entities
firms, organisations or individuals; any entities other
than Parties.
Leakage
Monitoring
also monitoring methodology (approved/new), see
Definitions (section 1).
MSW
municipal solid waste, see Definitions (section 1).
NGO
non-governmental organisation.
OE
Operational Entity: an accredited third party who is
competent and authorised to verify emissions.
PP
Project Proponent: the entity that develops a CDM
project.
Operational lifetime
Party
Project activity
Project boundary
A4
Project participants
Registration
Sinks
any process or activity or mechanism which removes
a greenhouse gas or a precursor from the atmosphere.
SWM
Solid Waste Management
Stakeholders
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, agreed in Rio June 1992 (see Earth Summit).
Validation
Verification
VOC
also Verification Report, see Definitions (section 1).
Volatile Organic Carbon
A5
Annex B
Summary of baseline
methodologies approved by
the CDM Executive Board
This Annex reviews and summarises four CDM projects which baseline
methodology has either been approved or has received a positive
recommendations by the CDM executive board, these are:
•
•
•
•
Table 1
“Greenhouse gas emission reductions through landfill gas capture and
flaring where the baseline is established by a public concession contract”
AM0002 - Salvador Da Bahia landfill gas project
“Simplified financial analysis for landfill gas capture projects” AM003 –
Based on NM0005-rev: Nova Gerar Landfill gas to energy project in Brazil
“Cost and Investment Analysis for Electricity Auto-Generation” (e.g. by
electricity project in South Africa
“Cerupt methodology for landfill gas recovery” – Based on NM0021: Onyx
Greenhouse gas emission reductions through landfillgas capture and flaring where
the baseline is established by a public concession contract
Step of CDM
Description
Study
Name and Reference of approved methodology applied to the project activity
Methodology
Greenhouse gas emission reductions through landfill gas capture and flaring
based on
where the baseline is established by a public concession contract (AM0002)approved MSW based on Salvador Da Bahia landfill gas project (NM0004)
project.
Project activity
Project activities that reduce GHG emissions through Landfill Gas capture
and flaring where the baseline is established by a public concession.
Baseline and additionality approach and methodology
Additionality
It is ensured if the amount of methane flared is greater than the required
quantity flared in the contract, the baseline and additionality criteria is thus
defined in the contract.
Baseline
Based on “Emissions from a technology that represents an economically
approach
attractive course of action, taking into account barriers to investment.” (dec.
48b).
Baseline
The baseline is defined as a requirement to demonstrate that the amount of
methodology
methane to be flared reflects performance “amongst the top 20 % in the
previous five years for landfills operating under similar social, economic,
environmental and technological circumstances” in South Africa
Emission projection are measure using decay model
Calculation of project’s emission reductions
Calculation of
Direct measurement of the amount of landfill gas captured and destroyed at
Emission
the flare platform. The monitoring plan provides for continuous
Reductions
measurement of quantity and quality of LFG burned.
Baseline
revision
Conversion factors used to calculate the baseline will be updated as
reporting guidelines are modified and as more scientific information
becomes available.
Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity; how this data
will be archived.
Data
•
Quantity of waste actually received at the landfill (monitored
directly at the weigh bridge).
requirements
•
Quantity of methane actually flared (amount of landfill gas
collected, in m3, percentage of landfill gas that is methane, flare
B1
•
Data Archiving
working hours, methane content of flare emissions analysed
quarterly)
To estimate leakage the electricity used by the pumping equipment
for the collection system needs to be metered.
Electronic spreadsheets (daily), paper (monthly). Also annual archiving of
data on electronic spreadsheets and paper. Data will be archived for the
duration of the project lifetime.
Significant potential sources of emissions reasonably attributable to the project activity and
not included in project boundary. Identification of if and how data will be collected and
archived.
Emissions
The total amount of electricity used for gas pumping will be continuously
outside project
measured and archived electronically (daily) and on paper (monthly).
boundary
The GHG emissions per kWh of electricity used will then be calculated and
estimated annually and archived on paper.
Relevant data necessary for determining baseline of anthropogenic emissions by sources of
GHG within project boundary. Identification of if and how data will be collected and
archived.
Conversion
Baseline is determined as the contractual amount of gas to be collected and
Factors.
burned.
The baseline calculation requires data on factors used for
•
converting methane to carbon dioxide equivalents and
•
to estimate mass of methane (tonne) from volume of methane (m3).
Quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures being undertaken for data
monitored.
Quality control QA/QC procedures for the data collected will be included in Landfill ISO
and Quality
9000/14000 certification scope.
assurance
practices
The monitoring plan will also use an approved methodology for
determining the emission factor for the electricity consumed.
Stakeholders comments
Following an official announcement in three local newspapers, a public presentation
Stakeholders
and meeting with local stakeholders was organised. The meeting was recorded on
comments
video. It included the project developers, the press, NGOs, public authorities, private
methodology
sector and universities. During this presentation, an agreement was signed between
the project developer and a University aiming to develop a project entitled “Landfills
and Climate Change- how to improve biogas management”. A meeting with the
press resulted in the publications and presentations of the project were also diffused
in a local newspaper, a television channel and a broadcasting station. The project
developer also posed material on its website. Two other public presentations were
carried out and consultants carried out an independent technical review.
The only comments received were technical comments from the independent
consultants: these will be presented to the validator and the project will be modified
to include the comments of the consultants and the validator.
Table 2
Simplified financial analysis for landfill gas capture projects
Step of CDM
Description
Study
B2
Methodology
based on
approved MSW
project.
Project activity
Simplified financial analysis for landfill gas capture projects (AM0003: ) based on Nova Gerar Landfill gas to energy project in Brazil (NM0005-rev)
Project activities that reduce GHG emissions through Landfill Gas capture
and flaring
Baseline and Additionality approach and methodology
Additionality
•
IRR to low to justify project activity. The additional value derived from
the sale of carbon credits appears to increase the project’s financial
returns to a level sufficient to justify the inherent risks associated with
long-term investment decisions and capital allocation for landfill gas
collection systems and electricity generation equipment.
•
Not required by policy: An analysis of Brazilian regulations and policy
and demonstration that the project clearly exceeds the requirements of
Brazilian regulations
•
Not a common practise: Analysis of the current market for electricity
production and demonstration that given that there isn’t a single landfill
site in Brazil generating electricity, this is seen as ‘unproven’ technology
by local investors
Baseline
The baseline approach is based on on “emissions from a technology that
approach
represents an economically attractive course of action” (para 48b)., the
baseline study analysed historical series of landfill management and landfill
gas utilisation in Brazil, based on the historical patterns of utilisation (or, in
fact, non utilisation) of landfill gases in Rio de Janeiro and Brazil as a whole.
Baseline
MSW component:
methodology
•
Based on this assumption the baseline scenario for MSW management is
landfill without any gas collection or utilisation schemes in place, with
LFG emissions discounted for possible future regulation.
•
A discount factor of 20% of total emission is apply to take into account
possible regulations
Electricity generation Factor
•
The baseline study is based on the future electricity generation scenario
in Brazil and the carbon intensity of the Brazilian grid electricity system,
based on the Brazilian Government’s recent push to reduce reliance on
hydropower and increase the use of natural gas for security of electricity
supply.
Calculation of
Direct measurement of the amount of landfill gas captured and destroyed at
Emission
the flare platform: every ton of methane collected and destroyed equals one
Reductions
ton of methane not released to the atmosphere, thus one ton of methane
emission reduced. This means that the calculation of emissions reductions
does not rely on information about the baseline emissions.
However, if certain collection and treatment of LFG is already part of the
baseline and information on the efficiency of the collection system is
available, the calculation of emissions reductions can be corrected by
applying an Adjustment Factor.
Adjustment
Factor
In the interest of making a conservative claim of emissions reductions, the
monitoring plan proposes to reduce directly monitored Emissions
Reductions by an ‘effective adjustment factor’ (e.g. 20%). This factor is
deduced from the amount that would have been flared in the absence of the
projects, based on regulatory requirements at the time of the inception of the
project, or at the time of revision of the baseline (i.e. end of crediting
periods).
Baseline
revision
Revision of the Adjustment Factor:
In order to account for the implementation of new regulatory requirements
and improvements in waste management practices in the host country, a
control group will be formed and surveyed at each baseline revision point.
The survey will determine the amount of GHG flaring taking place as part of
common industry practice at that point in the future, within the companies
B3
of the control group.
At every baseline revision the expert advisors will provide information on
the following:
•
Whether sufficient gas collection wells are in place;
•
depth of the wells in relation to the depth of the sites;
•
number of gas collection wells operating satisfactorily (i.e. gas
flowing);
•
number of gas collection wells not operating;
•
number of flares operating satisfactorily (i.e. burning LFG);
•
whether sites apply suction to the wells;
•
whether the site is appropriately capped (to avoid venting);
•
efficiency of the flares used.
In addition, after the first two crediting periods, the expert advisor will
determine whether electricity generation has become the most attractive
course of action.
will be archived.
Data
Emissions reductions are directly monitored and calculated using:
requirements
•
Flow of landfill gas to flares (m3)
•
Gross electricity produced (MWh)
•
Generator heat rate (GJ/MWh)
•
Flare efficiency (%)
•
Percentage methane in LFG (%)
•
LFG collected by control group (%)
Data Archiving
Electronic spreadsheets
Significant potential sources of emissions reasonably attributable to the project activity and not
included in project boundary. Identification of if and how data will be collected and archived.
Emissions
Emissions from construction of LFG collection and utilisation system will
outside project
not be monitored. These emissions are considered insignificant and would
boundary
occur if an alternative power generation facility was constructed.
GHG within project boundary. Identification of if and how data will be collected and archived.
Not applicable, as the project directly monitors and calculates emissions
reductions.
monitored.
Quality
Daily monitoring records; gas field monitoring records; routine reminders
assurance
for site technicians; site audits; outstanding work notice; permit to work
practices
scheme; service sheets; calibration of measurement equipment; corrective
actions; preparation of an Operation Manual.
Consultation process based on meetings and interviews, targeting five interest
Stakeholders
groups: public sector; NGOs, private sector; an international climate change
comments
organisation (IETA) and scavengers. Other interest groups have been contacted by
methodology
telephone or mail. All groups have been asked for their comments or no-objection
regarding the technical, environmental and social issues. Scavengers were
interviewed and their socio-economic situation was analysed, with the aim of
reintegrating them in the landfill operations.
All organisations have agreed with the project concept and most of them emphasized
the environmental importance of the landfill, compared to the existing situation in
Brazil.
All comments received in the context of the environmental licensing and Operation
permits processes have been included into the project. The documentation is publicly
available, on request. The project is publicly available at the project sponsor and the
World Bank websites.
B4
The fuel resource recovery is essentially a second activity on the waste management site. The methodology described
in Table 4.4 may be combined with the methodologies described above. Indeed, in the case of a MSW project
involving LFG capture and utilisation, the project monitoring plan is likely to include two methodologies. This is the
case of the Durban, South Africa Landfill to Gas Electricity Project: the methodology described in Table 4.3 is
combined with the following methodology (Table 4.4).
Table 3
Cost and Investment Analysis for Electricity Auto-Generation
Step of CDM
Description
project design
Methodology
“Cost and Investment Analysis for Electricity Auto-Generation” (e.g. by
based on
approved MSW electricity project in South Africa):
project.
Project activity
Displaced grid electricity
Additionality
The project is additional if the cost of power generation is higher than the
electricity tariff and the electricity system long-run marginal cost.
Baseline approach:
Baseline
The baseline is determined using a cost based investment analysis to
approach
demonstrate that the baseline scenario represents “emissions from a
technology that represents an economically attractive course of action,
taking into account barriers to investment.” (Art. 48b).
Baseline
•
MSW management component: The only plausible baseline scenario
under this assumption is the business-as-usual (BAU) situation, or the
methodology
continuation of landfilling of MSW and compliance with all relevant
regulations, including partial flaring of landfill gas collected for safety
reasons, and no generation of electricity from the landfill gas produced
in the landfill
•
Electricity generation component: the baseline selected is the emission
rate for the South African electricity Grid based on current power grid
characteristics and current projections for future power generation.
Calculation of
GHG emissions achieved through displacement of grid electricity can be
Emission
estimated by multiplying the amount of kWh injected into the grid by an
Reductions
appropriately conservative carbon emission rate, measured as kgCO2/kWh,
for the national grid.
This methodology has low transaction costs, as it only involves
computations based on data routinely collected by the project operator.
Baseline
revision
Baseline is based on annual average emission rates of the national grid: these
are updated each year, in Eskom’s (national grid operator) annual reports.
will be archived.
Data
Only data routinely collected by the project operator:
requirements
•
Average annual emission rate for grid electricity
•
Projects annual power sales
CDM project’s emissions reductions from displacement of grid electricity
will be calculated by multiplying annual power sales from the project by
average emission rate for that year.
Data Archiving
Electronic spreadsheets, data will be aggregated monthly and yearly.
B5
archived.
Emissions
No such emission sources have been identified.
outside project
boundary
archived.
Annual average emission rate, as derived from Eskom annual reports.
monitored.
Quality
Quality assurance procedures involve calculation of emission reductions
assurance
using two different methods and two partially different sets of monitored
practices
variables. See monitoring plan methodology described in Table 4.3.
Local municipality calls for regular meetings of a Monitoring Committee. The
Stakeholders
proposed CDM project was discussed in one of these meetings: the environmental
comments
and social impacts of the project were described and discussed. Also, the
methodology
environmental and social specialists carrying out the IEA are in contact with the
Councellor and community representatives of the area.
The comments received are summarised in the PDD, which also directs attention to
the CDM Watch website which posts some of the individual and NGO comments.
Finally, the PDD reports describes how account of the comments received is taken.
The comments will be addressed through public meetings, the specialists performing
the IEA will be working with community members, and the carbon purchaser will
fund an additional project or program selected by the local lower income
communities living near or working at the landsite.
Table 4
Cerupt methodology for landfill gas recovery
Step of CDM
Description
project design
Methodology
“Cerupt methodology for landfill gas recovery” – Based on NM0021: Onyx
based on
approved MSW
project.
Project activities that reduce GHG emissions through Landfill Gas capture and
Project activity
flaring:
•
Installation of a landfill gas recovery network over the future
disposal areas of the site;
•
Optimisation of the landfill gas extraction system (Drilling of
additional extraction wells, interconnection of horizontal drains);
•
Increase in flaring capacity;
•
Implementation of a landfill gas fueled power generator to supply
onsite
This project does not envisage to feed electricity to the grid.
Additionality
The methodology uses economic and financial criteria to determine whether
the proposed project activity is additional, it also investigates the regulatory
framework to see whether any future legal obligation would enforce the
project to take place anyway, the common MSW practice in Brazil and it
assesses the project barriers
Baseline approach:
B6
Baseline
approach
Baseline
methodology
Emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive
course of action, taking into account barriers to investment (Art 48 b)
Baseline methodology:
Economic alternatives identified:
•
Reference scenario LFG is vented to reduce the risk of explosions. The
LFG is emitted into the atmosphere. This is required by law.
•
Extract and use the LFG as a fuel for a separate leachate evaporation
installation and flare excess LFG
Based on the additionality analysis, the baseline scenario for this particular
landfill site is to vent the LFG, the economic alternative 1.
ONYX has developed a first order decay model to estimate the production of
LFG and consequently to estimate the amount of CERs
Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity
Calculation of
Direct measurement of landfill gas amount and composition recovered for
Emission
combustion: gas flow and concentrations of CH4, CO2, CO measured in gas
extraction wells, prior to the evaporator unit and prior to the flare. Visual
Reductions
inspections of above ground piping and well heads to ensure their integrity.
Measures will also be made for:
•
Landfill volume consumed :
o Annual topographic surveys are conducted to determine the
consumed and remaining landfill volume. This data will be
compared with the landfill phasing assumptions used in the
LFG production model.
•
Waste input :
o All waste entering the site is weighed on calibrated scales. The
annual waste input will be compared with the assumed input
used in the model.
•
Waste composition
o Waste accepted at the SASA landfill must be classified
according to its composition. This will enable review of the
model assumptions. This information is maintained onsite.
This will enable review of the model assumptions concerning
waste types and associated carbon content.
Baseline
The baseline has a 10-year fixed crediting period; it will not be revised.
revision
will be archived.
Data
Emissions reductions are directly monitored and calculated using data from:
requirements
•
Refuse wells (well pressure, Pa; well flow, m3/hr; LFG
concentration of CH4 & CO2, %);
•
Leachate evaporator (gas flow, m3/hr; steam temperature, ºF;
leachate volume m3/hr);
•
Flare (gas flow, m3/hr; combustion temperature, ºF);
•
Well and pipe inspected for integrity.
Data Archiving
Electronic spreadsheets: daily and continuous monitoring.
archived.
Emissions
Boundaries exclude:
outside project
•
Emissions from the transport of waste to the site
boundary
•
transportation of the leachate, as they are not significant compare to
the baseline
Occurrence of leakage is unlikely. No data will be collected.
archived.
Conversion
Data not required, as all combusted landfill gas is considered emission
Factors.
reductions.
B7
monitored.
Quality control QA/QC procedures for the data collected will be included in Lanfill ISO
and Quality
14001 certification scope.
assurance
practices
QA/QC procedures are planned for all data. In refuse wells, the monitoring
data will be used immediately by the technician to adjust well vacuum.
Other data will be reviewed as part of daily monitoring.
SASA invited local stakeholders for a meeting where they discussed the Kyoto
Stakeholders
Protocol Concepts and SASA’s Landfill Gas Recovery Project. No comments were
comments
received.
methodology
Since 1999, the “Open House “ program, a 2-hour site tour showing the facility and
explaining activities developed by SASA has been developed. Most of the
stakeholders invited to the meeting had participated in this program
B8
Annex C
Summary Municipal Solid
Waste Projects in China
This Annex reviews and summarises existing municipal solid waste projects
in China (January 2004).
Existing Landfill Gas recovery projects in China
Location
Description
Hanghzou Tianziling
landfill, in JIangsu
province
First landfill gas-to-energy facility built at Hanghzou Tianziling Landfill in 1998
Landfill description:
•
Total investment: RMB 85 million
•
Area: 46 hectares
•
Capacity: 6 million m³
•
Designed operation limit: 13 years
•
Commencement of operation: 1991
•
Occupied capacity (until 2002): approx. 5 million tonnes
•
Estimated date of closure: end of 2003
The power generation systems began to operate in October 1998, which was invested by
American Huimin Group with a total investment of 3.5 million US dollars. This power
generation system comprises of two 970 kw engine sets.
The lifetime of landfill gas generation is approximately 20~30 years and the power
generation facility’s life time is estimated to be 20 years.13
Under the National Action Plan for Municipal Solid Waste Management, three pilot projects were developed for
landfill gas utilisation at three landfill sites during 1997~2002 with the financial aid of GEF (Global environmental
fund).
Nanjing Shuige landfill is the first pilot project under the National action plan.
Nanjing Shuige
landfill, in Jiangsu
province
•
•
Area: 36 hectares
•
Capacity: 2.4 million m³
•
•
•
Leftover capacity (until 2002): approx. 2.5 million tonnes
•
Average daily treatment quantity: 1,200 tonnes &
An’Shan Yang’ergu
Landfill, in Liaoning
province
Ma’anshan landfill, in
An’Hui province
The construction of LFG power generation facilities was completed in May 2002. The trial
operation commenced on May 15 2002. The formal operation started in July 25 2003. The
current capacity of the power generation systems is 1.25 MW, which can generate
electrical power 30,000 kwh per day and 8.7 million kwh. In addition, the Nanjing site
has reserved the place for three engines set for future expansion. The planned ultimate
capacity for power generation is 5.2 MW.
An’Shan Yang’ergu Landfill is the second pilot project under the National Action Plan for
Municipal Solid Waste Management
•
•
Area: 45 hectares
•
Capacity: 9 million tonnes
•
Designed daily treatment capacity: 800~1,000 tonnes
•
•
•
LFG utilization period: 30 years
LFG utilisation project includes power generation and LFG purification and
pressurization. The LFG-generated power is consumed by Yang’eryu Landfill site to run
their electrical equipments. As a clean energy, the purified and compressed LFG is
supplied to local public vehicles as fuel. The construction of LFG utilization facilities was
completed in March 2003. The formal operation commenced in August 2003.
The third pilot project, Ma’anshan LFG Utilisation Project was finally launched in 2003.
In this project, LFG will be used as fuel for clinical waste incineration facility. The
construction of the LFG collection and clinical waste incineration facility is expected to be
completed at the end of 2003.
Project description
•
an investment of RMB 6 million yuan.
•
The incineration facility will occupy a total area of 430 m2.
•
The proposed treatment capacity of clinical waste incinerator will be 6 tonnes
per day.
C1
Prospective Landfill Gas recovery projects in China under the MSW National Action Plan
Location
Description
Prospective projects planned under the National Action Plan for Municipal Solid Waste Management include the
following two landdfills
Xingfeng Landfill was commissioned in 2002 with the disposal capacity of 2000 tons per
Guangzhou Xingfeng
day. It is designed and operated by ONYX, a French company. Xingfeng Landfill Phase II
Landfill in Guandong
was placed into operation in the end of 2003 and Phase III is under constructing and is
province
predicted to be finished in 2004.
Shanghai Laogang
Landfill Phase III, and
Phase IV
ONYX has also signed a contract with the local government to develop an LFG recovery
project at the Xingfeng Landfill project, for power generation. Although certain biogas
collection system has been established in the Landfill, there is no confirmed report on
existing utilization of LFG for electricity generation. In theory, LFG produced in
Xingfeng Landfill could be used for electricity production for at least 20 years and with
the maximum capacity of 10 MW.
Phase III of Shanghai Laogang was commissioned in 2001 and is now finished. Phase IV
is planned to start in 2004 as a major project in Shanghai’s second round of “Three Year
Environmental Protection Plans”. Solid Waste Disposal and Utilization is one of the six
focus areas of the second round of “the plan.
Phase III description:
•
Area: 3.3 Km2
•
•
Average daily treatment quantity: 7,500 tonnes
Phase IV description:
•
Total investment: RMB 0.9 billion
•
Area: 361 hectares
•
•
Commencement of construction: 2004
•
Average daily treatment quantity: 4,900 tonnes
The actual disposal quantity of Phase III has achieved 9,000 tons/day, representing 120%
of the designed capacity. Phase IV will be invested, designed, constructed and operated
by a project company (including ONYX) with the franchise offered by the Government.
The franchise will last for 20 years and the project will be transferred to Shanghai
municipal government for free after the franchise has expired. It is the first franchise
project in the MSW field.
ERM have not found any reports on LFG utilization for electricity generation in this
Landfill.
Other MSW Landfill Gas recovery projects in China
Location
Description
Other MSW projects
Taohuashan Landfill in The disposal amount of municipal solid waste at Taohuashan Landfill is more than 1400
Wuxi, Jiangsu province tons. According to experts, the biogas produced in the Landfill could be used for 25 to 30
years.
Er’feishan in Wuhan,
Hubei province
The construction of LFG power generation facilities at Taohuashan Landfill was started in
November 2003. The total investment of the LFG power generation plant is RMB 20
Million with 2 sets of generation units of 970 KW. The generation units will be developed
and operated by domestic companies. It is predicted that the power plant will be
commissioned in the first quarter of 2004 and the electricity generation could achieve 16
GWh per year with a firedamp consumption of about 10 million m3.
Er’feishan Landfill Phase I was finished in 2003 with a disposal rate of 800 tons per day.
On the completion of the other 3 phases by 2005, the disposal rate will achieve 1200 tons
per day. The total investment of the Landfill will be RMB 139.6 million, which includes a
9.4 million euro loan from the Netherlands government. It is reported that LFG electricity
generation facilities will be established in the Landfill and will start to electricity
generation half a year after commissioning.
Proposed CDM Landfill Gas recovery projects in China
C2
Location
Description
LFG projects in three Landfills in Guandong province are currently being prepared to bedeveloped as One CDM
project.
The projects were planned to start from March 2003 and finish in December 2003. CREIA(Chinese Renewable
Energy Industries Association) are preparing to compile the projects as CDM projects
Guangzhou Datianshan Guangzhou Datianshan landfill occupies an area of 16000 m2. The quantity of waste is
landfill, Guandong
4.20 million tons. It produce methane with 0.24 million m3. It is originally equipped with
province
one set of generators with 970 KW capacity, and will be equipped with two new sets of
generators with 970 KW.
Guangzhou Likeng
landfill, Guandong
province
Guangzhou Likeng landfill occupies an area of 13000 m2. The quantity of waste is 4.00
million tons. It produces 0.20 million m3 of Methane. It will be equipped with three sets
of generators with capacity of 970 KW.
Zhongshan landfill,
Guandong province
Zhongshan landfill occupies an area of 1 hectare. The quantity of waste is 3.20 million
tons. It will be equipped with two sets of generators with capacity of 970 KW.
Note: The table has been compiled with available information and is not a comprehensive description of the situation
in China
C3

CDM Umbrella Guidelines for MSW in China

Transcription

Similar documents

Annex 1

Spring 2015 - University of St. Thomas

Vladimir Avila-Reese Instituto de Astronomía, UNAM

LOG ON - Creflo Dollar Ministries

When it absolutely, positively has to work

NYU Silver Hosts East China Normal University for a Research

Wind Future in Asia Report - innovative wind energy, inc.

Benefit-Cost Analysis

Thesis - ResearchSpace Home - University of KwaZulu

To the Sea - Jack Johnson

The Comeback of the Electric Car?