Rocky Farms Methane

8/6/2019 Rocky Farms Methane

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rocky-farms-methane 1/33

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-SSC-PDD)

Version 03 - in effect as of: 22 December 2006

CONTENTS

A. General description of the small scale project activity

B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period

D. Environmental impacts

E. Stakeholders’ comments

Annexes

Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the proposed small scale project activity

Annex 2: Information regarding public funding

Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring Information

Annex 5: Project Timeline





2

Revision history of this document

VersionNumber

Date Description and reason of revision

01 21 January

2003

Initial adoption

02 8 July 2005 • The Board agreed to revise the CDM SSC PDD to reflect

guidance and clarifications provided by the Board since

version 01 of this document.

• As a consequence, the guidelines for completing CDM SSC

PDD have been revised accordingly to version 2. The latest

version can be found at

<http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents>.

03 22 December

2006

• The Board agreed to revise the CDM project design

document for small-scale activities (CDM-SSC-PDD), takinginto account CDM-PDD and CDM-NM.





3

SECTION A. General description of small-scale project activity

A.1 Title of the small-scale project activity:

>>

Rocky Farms, Inc. Methane Recovery and Electricity Generation Project

Version 3

29 September 2008

A.2. Description of the small-scale project activity:

>>

The Rocky Farms, Inc. Methane Recovery and Electricity Generation Project (hereafter, the “Project”)

developed by developed by Rocky Farms, Inc (hereafter referred to as the “Project Developer” or “Rocky

Farms”) with technology provided by Philippine Bio-Sciences Co., Inc. (PhilBIO) is an anaerobic

digestion (AD) swine wastewater treatment project at the Rocky farrow to finish swine farm located in

Sitio Kalantas, Quisao, Pililla, Rizal, Philippines (hereafter referred to as the “Host Country”). The project is hosted by Rocky Farms Inc.

Rocky Farms’ waste management operations involve scraping and hosing down its animal waste with

fresh water. The wastewater is then channelled to a series of concrete lagoons (oxidation ponds). The

animal waste material from the farm degrades anaerobically in the farm’s lagoon system producing

significant amounts of methane.

The Project Developer will install a covered in-ground anaerobic reactor that will promote rapid

anaerobic decomposition of organic materials in the wastewater and capture the generated biogas. The

anaerobic reactor system also treats the organically laden wastewater to reduce the amount of Chemical

Oxygen Demand (COD) and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) contained prior to the wastewater

reaching the main pond system. The biogas produced in the project’s anaerobic digester will be used to

generate electricity for use on site. Currently the farm relies on electricity from the Luzon grid. With the

implementation of the project activity, electricity will be generated from the renewable biogas and will

displace the grid electricity. No emissions reductions will be claimed in the project activity from

displacing grid electricity as the amount of emission reductions is not significant.

Development of the Project will directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions produced by the release of

methane from the lagoons and carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the generation of grid electricity.

The Project is helping the Host Country fulfil the sustainable development goals outlined in Philippine

Agenda 21.





4

• The project at Rocky Farm is the first of its kind and will act as a clean technology demonstration

project within the wastewater management sector, which could be replicated across the Philippines

and the region;• The project is an important capacity building activity, demonstrating the use of a new financial

mechanism for funding of the renewable energy and waste management sector via the Clean

Development Mechanism (CDM);

• The project increases diversity and security of energy supplied through energy self sufficiency;

• The project will result in significant reduction in levels of biological oxygen demand, chemical

oxygen demand and total suspended solids (TSS) and in turn will result in cleaner effluents. These

effluents can be recycled on-site or off-site as irrigation water. Benefits shall also accrue to the

communities in terms of cleaner water ways.

• The project will make the farm more competitive and thus ensure long term employment to the local

residents, be a source of local taxes for the Local Government Units (LGU) which in turn will

improve delivery of basic services to the community;

• The multiplier effect of this investment is likely to bring additional benefits, such as employmentopportunities, particularly in the agro-industrial sector;

• The project will make use of methane rich biogas through a closed loop process, thereby reducing

greenhouse gas emissions; and,

• The project will improve local air quality and significantly reduce odour, which in turn will directly

benefit the adjoining communities.

A.3. Project participants:

>>

Name of Party involved

(*) ((host) indicates a

host Party)

Private and/or public entity(ies)

Project participants (*)

(as applicable)

Kindly indicate if the

Party involved

wishes to be

considered as project

participant

The Philippines (host) Rocky Farms, Inc. No

United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern

Ireland

EcoSecurities Group Plc.

EcoSecurities Group Limited No

(*) In accordance with the CDM modalities and procedures, at the time of making the CDM-PDD

public at the stage of validation, a Party involved may or may not have provided its approval. Atthe time of requesting registration, the approval by the Party(ies) involved is required.





5

A.4. Technical description of the small-scale project activity:

The ‘covered in-ground anaerobic reactor’, or ‘CIGAR’, breaks down organic contaminants through a

three-step biological process where wastewater is treated in the absence of oxygen. The wastewater isheld in the reactor for at least 30 days where specialized bacteria consume the waste and release methane

that is utilised as biogas for on-site electricity generation (see figure 1).

Figure 1: CIGAR pond reactor 1

The project uses CIGAR anaerobic digestion technology utilizing 1.0mm High Density Polyethylene

(HDPE) as a flexible membrane liner. HDPE is an essentially impermeable, resilient plastic which has

high durability in sunlight and rainy weather. It is produced by HUITEX from Taiwan.

HDPE liners and covers are used to provide a gas seal to prevent methane from escaping to the

atmosphere and prevent leachate from escaping to the underground aquifer. The CIGAR system is sealed

100% of the time and results in at least 95% destruction of BOD, and 80% reduction of COD. Suspended

solids, dissolved solids and colour are all improved in the CIGAR. The long retention time of at least

thirty days in the CIGAR at approximately 35 degrees Celsius reduces pathogenic material.

Methane gas makes up at least 60% of the biogas by volume. The biogas will be used to generate

electricity for the farm through a 60kW generator. This electricity will partially displace the grid supply

and the maximum renewable electricity generation is less than the total farm requirements.

A.4.1. Location of the small-scale project activity:

>>

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

>>

The Philippines

A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: >>

Rizal

1 Source: “Cost Estimation of Biogas Plants in Piggeries: A Manual for Hog Raisers”, prepared by the Development Bank of the Philippines.





6

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:

>>

Sitio Kalantas, Pililla

A.4.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the

unique identification of this small-scale project activity :

>>

The project is located in the municipality of Quisao, in the province of Rizal in the Philippines. The

address of the project is: Rocky Farms, Inc., Sitio Kalantas, Quisao, Pililla, Rizal, Philippines

The GPS Coordinates are: N 13° 55.775', E 121° 23.844'

A.4.2. Type and category(ies) and technology/measure of the small-scale project activity:

>>

The category for the project activity according to the UNFCCC’s published “Appendix B - Indicative

Simplified Baseline and Monitoring Methodologies for Selected Small-Scale CDM Project Activities” is:

Type III.D (reference AMS-III.D, version 13, EB 33) – “ Methane recovery in agricultural and agro

industrial activities”.

Sectoral Scope 15: Agriculture

This project category comprises methane recovery and destruction from manure and wastes from

agricultural or agro-industrial activities that would be decaying anaerobically in the absence of the

project activity by installing methane recovery and combustion system to an existing source of methane

emissions.

A.4.3 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:

>>

Years

Annual estimation of

emission reductions over the

chosen crediting period

2009 3,201

2010 3,201

2011 3,201

2012 3,201

2013 3,201

2014 3,201

2005 3,201

Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2)

22,407

Total number of crediting years 7 (renewable up to 21 years)

Annual average over the crediting period

of estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2)3,201





7

A.4.4. Public funding of the small-scale project activity:

>>

The project has not received and is not seeking public funding.

A.4.5. Confirmation that the small-scale project activity is not a debundled component of a

large scale project activity:

Based on the information provided in Appendix C of the Simplified modalities and procedures for small-

scale clean development mechanism project activities, this Project is not a debundled component of a

larger project activity since the project participants have not registered nor operated another project in

the region surrounding the project boundary.

SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the

small-scale project activity:

>>

• Project activity type III.D (reference AMS-III.D version 13) -Methane recovery in agricultural

and agro industrial activities.

B.2 Justification of the choice of the project category:

>>

The simplified baseline and monitoring methodology AMS III.D., version 13, EB 33, Methane recovery

in agricultural and agro industrial activities, is applicable.

The project conforms to project category III.D since the project reduces anthropogenic emissions bymethane recovery and destruction from manure from agricultural or agro-industrial activities that would

be otherwise be decaying anaerobically. This selection is appropriate because the alternative to the

project activity would be to continue with the business as usual scenario. The farm would continue to

manage waste water through the existing anaerobic lagoon system and would continue to rely exclusively

on the power grids for electricity. The implementation of project activity results in emission reductions

lower than 60,000 tCO2e annually.

B.3. Description of the project boundary:

>>

According to AMS.III.D., the project boundary is the “physical geographical site of the methane recovery

facility”. As such, the project boundary encompasses the anaerobic digester, the biogas network that

carries captured methane to the generator, and the generator.





8

Figure 2. Project Boundary under AMS.III.D.

B.4. Description of baseline and its development:

>>

As specified in Appendix B:

• The appropriate baseline for project category Type III.D (AMS-IIID, version 13) is found in

paragraph 7.

Methane recovery in agricultural and agro industrial activities (AMS-III.D, version 13)

For the methane recovery component of the project activity, the baseline has been calculated

according to project activity type III.D (version 13), Paragraph 7 which states:

“The baseline scenario is the situation where, in the absence of the project activity, biomass and

other organic matter are left to decay anaerobically within the project boundary and methane is

emitted to the atmosphere. Baseline Emissions (BEy) are calculated ex ante using the amount of

raw waste material that would decay anaerobically in the absence of the project activity, with the

most recent IPCC Tier II approach (please refer to the chapter ‘Emissions from Livestock and

Manure Management’ under the volume ‘Agriculture, Forestry and other Land use’ of the 2006IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories).”

The project complies with this activity type as, in the absence of the project activity, organic

matter from swine wastewater is left to decay anaerobically within the project boundary in

anaerobic lagoons. The methane generated from is subsequently freely released to the

atmosphere.





9

• Date of completing the final draft of this baseline section (DD/MM/YYYY): 30/08/2007.

The baseline study was prepared by:Mr. Oman Singh, EcoSecurities Ltd.

Tel: +60 3 2282 0612/32

E-mail: [email protected]

B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below

those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered small-scale CDM project activity:

MARKET SITUATION & NATIONAL POLICIES:

The Philippines swine inventory as of January 1, 2007 was estimated at 13.5 million head, up by 3.16 %compared to previous year's level About 73 % of the total inventory came from backyard farms while

27% was from commercial farms. According to the Philippine Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, the

swine industry, which accounted for 81 % of total livestock production registered a 3.66 % growth in

2006. Filipinos are large consumers of pork with an annual per capita consumption of 13.88 kg excluding

offals and processed meat and volume of imports grow yearly, with 2006 recording an increase of

13.6%.2

The industry faces a number of obstacles including the spread of economically devastating diseases, high

marketing and transaction costs, erratic supply of imported feed ingredients, supplements and biologics,

and the limited availability of genetically superior breeding stock.3

The main regulatory agencies that monitor the industry are the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) and the

National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC) under the Philippine Department of Agriculture.Environmental regulations are monitored and enforced by the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (DENR). The primary environmental laws applicable to the project are the Clean Water Act

(2003) and the Clean Air Act (1999).

ADDITIONALITY:

According to Attachment A to Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for CDM small-

scale project activities, evidence as to why the proposed project is additional is offered under the

following categories of barriers: (a) investment barrier, (b) technological barrier, and (c) prevailing

practice.

a) Investment Barrier

2 Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, Department of Agriculture, Philippines, “Swine Industry Performance Report Jan - Dec 2006” <http://www.bas.gov.ph>

3 Abuel-Ang, Pia, “Philippines Livestock and Products Annual 2004”, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, September 2004





10

Small swine farms have a difficult time securing financing for the implementation of biogas waste water

management projects and, when they are able to secure financing, the interest rates tend to be high at an

average of 15.6%.4 The following factors contribute to the investment barrier which these projects face:

• Perceived Risk - Most local banks are not interested in these projects primarily because of lack of

knowledge and experience with the technology. Most small farmers perceive they are not eligible

or unable to obtain attractive terms in loans and differential access to credit is revealed in the

lower incidence of borrowing for production purposes by smallholders (4-10%) compared to

large-scale farms (24-27%). This is reinforced by the relatively high percentage of smallholders

who do not attempt to borrow from a bank because they perceive their chances of being granted a

loan as being low (31%).4

• Current Practice - Eighty percent (80%) of the backyard and commercial farms deposit their

waste products in nearby creeks and rivers. From consultations conducted in a study, the waste

management option that farms would most likely adopt is composed only of wastewater

reduction/minimization and disposal. Waste treatment and recycling/reuse are not included in

their options since they see waste treatment strategy as an additional expense.5 The current

oxidation pond based wastewater treatment method is considered standard practice in the

Philippines and the region only due to compliance reasons. Moreover, for the Project Owner, the

current pond system (business as usual scenario) is attractive, given that it works to required

specification and requires virtually no management input to achieve the key parameters. All

required land is appropriated and the current system has sufficient capacity to handle additional

waste.

• Lowest Cost - The current system represents the lowest cost option, with the only cost being the

opportunity cost of alternative land use.

The inclusion of CER revenues has therefore become an important part of the Project Owners and

Project Developers implementation and financing strategy.

(b) Technological Barrier:

The predominant technology for piggery wastewater treatment in the Philippines is through a series of

lagoons (oxidation ponds).6 Biological treatment of piggery wastewater to produce biogas is a new and

relatively unknown technology in the host country. The lack of available knowledge and confidence in

the technology, especially among small swine farms, makes this type of development difficult to

establish. As a result, most swine farm owners view this technology as risky and this risk is reflected in

the fact that there were fewer than ten swine anaerobic digestion projects in the host country when this

project was started. Moreover, many farmers are concerned that a bio-digester project is too complex to

operate and maintain. The anaerobic digestion and biogas system utilized in the project scenario is quite

different than previous experience in the Philippines. The project scenario represents a more

technologically advanced alternative to the business as usual scenario, and one that carries higher

perceived risk.

4 Christopher L. Delgado,, et al., “Policy, Technical, and Environmental Determinants and Implications of the Scaling-Up of Livestock Production in Four Fast-Growing

Developing Countries: A Synthesis” <htt p://www.fao.or g/wairdocs/lead/x6170e /x6170e00.htm>

5 Ma. Angeles O. Catelo, et al., “Backyard And Commercial Piggeries In The Philippines: Environmental Consequences And Pollution Control

Options”

6 “Cost Estimation of Biogas Plants in Piggeries: A Manual for Hog Raisers”, prepared by the Development Bank of the Philippines.





11

Anaerobic digestion systems are perceived as relatively high risk, being based upon the function of a

biological system that is neither 100% characterised, nor performance guaranteed. The biological system

is at constant risk of chemical shocks that can wipe out the anaerobes and biological activity (andsubsequently the waste management and energy production regimes, which are both key to commercial

operations). AD systems require constant and ongoing precise management of a variety of elements,

including water flows, pH levels, etc. In general, they are perceived as a risky solution. Overall, the

project scenario involves higher perceived risks due to the performance uncertainty and a low market

share of the new technology.

(c) Prevailing Practice:

The Rocky farms project is the very first prototype CIGAR anaerobic digester project in the Philippines

and it’s the first-of-its-kind in Philippines. It was part of CDM capacity building in Philippines and was

first considered for CDM as early as 1999.7 Use of the CIGAR technology utilized in the project activity

is not common practice in the Philippines and represents a higher risk alternative to the business as usual

scenario. The minimization of wastewater is considered most desirable for pig farms and wastewater

treatment with a lagoon system would be considered if there is available space, although the lagoon

system is not profitable at all.5 There is little experience of utilising aerobic or anaerobic technologies in

Philippines. The highest priority for commercial farms is the management of their waste discharges to

simply maintain compliance with local regulation. From the project farm operator’s perspective, the

existing lagoon system is a cheap and sufficient way to clean the waste water.

SUMMARY:

The current and expected practice in the host nation, which commercial farms rely almost exclusively on

lagoon based treatment facilities for piggeries wastewater management, as well as the combination of

lack of access to financing and perceived risks of the selected technology, clearly demonstrate that the

Project is additional and therefore not the baseline scenario. The prohibitive barriers that exist in thePhilippines are confirmed by the observed trend in current piggery waste water management practices.

The barrier analysis above clearly demonstrates that the most plausible baseline scenario for wastewater

treatment is the prevailing practice of lagoon systems.

B.6. Emission reductions:

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices:

>>

Emissions Reductions:

According to AMS.III.D. (version 13), Baseline emissions are calculated ex ante using the amount of the

waste or raw material that would decay anaerobically in the absence of the project activity, with the most

7Alberto R. Dalusung III, “Capacity Building in Clean Development Mechanism Project Activities”, Final Report,

September 1999, Under contract no. GLO/98/G55 with UNDP.





12

recent IPCC tier 2 approach. The actual emission reduction achieved by the project during the crediting

period will be calculated using the amount of methane recovered and destroyed by the project activity

and the maximal yearly emission reduction is limited to the yearly methane generation potential

calculated in the PDD for that year.

Hence, for ex-ante emission reduction calculations:

Total emissions reductions = Total baseline emissions - Total project emissions

In paragraph 6, of AMS III D, version 13; Project emissions are defined as:

“Project Emissions consists of CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels or electricity for the operations

of the facility”

The only project-associated equipments are 0.25HP blowers used to direct the collected biogas to the gashandling system. This consumption will be met by the biogas electricity generation as it would only run

when the biogas generator is running. Since all the biogas collected will be utilised for energy generation,

there will be zero project emissions of this nature because the minimal power needs for operation of the

equipment associated with the CIGAR will be met entirely with renewable biogas.

Project emissions from energy generation will be taken into account where a 90% combustion efficiency

of biogas generator is applied. This approach is conservative as typical ‘combustion efficiencies’ of

internal combustion engines exceeds 95%.

Thus the total project emissions: PEy equals to project emissions from energy generation PECH4_IC,y.

B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation:

Data / Parameter: Swine Level (Number of Swine)

Data unit: Head of Swine

Description: The number of swine in the facility (breeding and non-breeding) will determine

the amount waste generated, the facility design, and digester design

Source of data used: In house data from the farmers

Value applied: 879 (Breeding), 5746 (Market)

Justification of the

choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied :

The numbers of swine will be the basis of emissions reductions calculations

based on the IPCC 2006 Tier II approach.

Any comment:





13

Data / Parameter: Average Weight of Swine

Data unit: Kg

Description: The average weight of swine (breeding and non-breeding) will determine the

amount waste generated, the facility design, and digester designSource of data used: In house data from the farmers

Value applied: 200.55 (Breeding), 40.12 (Market)

Justification of the

choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied :

The average weights of swine will be the basis of emissions reductions

calculations based on the IPCC 2006 Tier II approach.

Any comment:

B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:

>> Total Emissions reductions from AMS IIID, v 13 are calculated ex ante:

Emission Reductions = BEy - PEy

BECH4,y 3,557 tCO2e/yr

PEy 640 tCO2e/yr

ER 5,761 tCO2e/yr

Total Baseline Emissions are calculated ex ante as follows:

BEelec/heat,y is zero as no emissions reductions being claimed from displacing Grid Electricity.

Since there are no foreseeable project emissions as described in Section B.6.1; total baseline emissions

will be equivalent to:

BECH4,y 3,557 tCO2e/yr

BEelec/heat,y 0.0 tCO2e/yr

BEy 3,557 tCO2e/yr





14

Parameter Value Unit Source/Comment

GWPCH4 21

DCH4 0.00067 t/Nm

3

ACM0010

Breeding swine


MCF j 0.8

Annual Default from IPCC 2006

Tier II

Bo 0.45 kg CH4/Kg VSDefault from IPCC 2006 Tier IIfunciton of genetics

N breeding 879 head Site data

VS breeding 203.3 Kg VS/head*yr

Default from IPCC 2006 Tier II

and site data

MS breeding 100% Site data

Σ breeding_BE 64,342.2

VSbreeding

VSLT,y was determined by scaling default IPCC values as per guidance in ACM0010,

equation (4). VSdefault was used to adjust for a site-specific average animal weight as shown

here:


Wsite_breeding 200.5460751 kg/head

weighted average of sow and

boar weights from site data

Wdefault_breeding 180 kg/head

IPCC default value, function of

genetics

VSdefault_breeding 0.5

Kg

VS/head*day

IPCC default value, function of

genetics

nd breeding 365 days/yr treatment plant is operational





15

VSbreeding 203.3

Kg

VS/head*day

Market Swine


MCF j 0.8 %Annual Default from IPCC 2006

Tier II

Bo 0.45 kg CH4/Kg VSDefault from IPCC 2006 Tier II

funciton of genetics

Nmarket 5,746 head Site data

VSmarket 91.1 Kg VS/head*yr Default from IPCC 2006 Tier II

and site data

MSmarket 100% Site data

Σmarket_BE 188,496.9

VSmarket

VSLT,y was determined by scaling default IPCC values as per guidance in ACM0010,

equation (4). VSdefault was used to adjust for a site-specific average animal weight as shown

here:


Wsite_market 40.12339018 kg/head

weighted average all swine

subcatories based on weight

from site data

Wdefault_market 45 kg/headIPCC default value, function of

genetics

VSdefault_market 0.28 KgVS/head*day

IPCC default value, function of genetics

ndmarket 365 days/yr treatment plant is operational

VSmarket 91.1

Kg

VS/head*day





16

BECH4,y 3,557.4 tCO2e/yr

Project Emissions from biogas combustion in generator

The only associated project emissions are from biogas combustion, thus

PEy = PE CH4_IC, y

Equivalent to :

PE CH4_IC,y = BE CH4,y * (1- f genset_ )


BECH4,y 3557 calculated

f genset 90% from EPC provider

PECH4_IC,y 356 tCO2e/yr

PEy 356 tCO2e/yr

Ex-Post Baseline

The ex-post baseline corresponds to the lower of either: the baseline based on Tier II calculations and

made ex-ante, or the baseline based on metered biogas production. The latter is to be calculated as

follows:

Where:MD y: Methane captured and destroyed by the project activity in the year “y” (t CO2e)

BGburnt, y: Biogas flared or used as fuel in the year “y” (m3)

wCH4, y:: Methane content in biogas in the “y” (mass fraction)

DCH4, y : Density of methane at the temperature and pressure of the biogas in the year “y”

(tonnes/m3)

GWP CH4: Methane global warming potential (21)

MD y = BGburnt,y * wCH4,y * DCH4,y* GWP CH4





17

Baseline Determination

The baseline is the lower of the baselines predicted by the Tier II approach and the biogas-based one. Ineach verification period the baseline will be determined as such, using monitored data to calculate the

biogas baseline.

As per the methodology AMS-III.D version 13 paragraph 9, no leakage calculation is required.

B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:

>>

Years

Estimation of

baseline

emissions

(tonnes of CO2

e)

Estimation of

project activity

emissions

(tonnes of

CO2e)

Estimation of

emission

reductions

(tonnes of CO2

e)

2009 3,557 356 3,201

2010 3,557 356 3,201

2011 3,557 356 3,201

2012 3,557 356 3,201

2013 3,557 356 3,201

2014 3,557 356 3,201

2015 3,557 356 3,201

Total (tonnes of CO2) 24,902 2,492 22,407





18

B.7 Application of a monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:

B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored:

Data / Parameter: BG burnt,y (fuelled)

Data unit: Nm3 (Normal Cubic Meters at 0° C and 1.01325bar)

Description: Biogas used as fuel

Source of data to be

used:

Project developer

Value of data As measured

Description of

measurement methods

and procedures to be

applied:

The amount of biogas used as fuel in the generator will be monitored

continuously with a cumulative thermal flow meter and recorded daily.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

The meter will be maintained and calibrated regularly in line with

manufacturer’s recommendations.Any comment: The thermal flow meter is normalised, thus temperature and pressure do no need

to be monitored separately.

Data / Parameter: wCH4,y,

Data unit: %

Description: Methane content of Biogas


used:

Project Developer

Value of data 64

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

The methane content of the gas to be combusted will be analysed and recorded

monthly with a portable gas analyser.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

The gas analyzer will be maintained and calibrated regularly in line with

manufacturer’s recommendations.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: EGgenerated

Data unit: kWh

Description: Electricity generated on site


used:

Project developer

Value of data 525,600

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Renewable electricity generated from biogas generator will be monitored

continuously with a cumulative electricity meter and recorded daily.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

Meter will be maintained and calibrated regularly in line with manufacturer’s

recommendations.

Any comment:





19

Data / Parameter: ηgenset

Data unit: %

Description: Combustion efficiency for biogas genset

Source of data to beused:

Project developer

Value of data 90%

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

A 90% default value is be used and continuous check of compliance with the

manufacturer’s specification will be done.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

The biogas genset will be maintained and serviced regularly in line with

manufacturer’s recommendations.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: Monitoring of Sludge Application

Data unit:Description: Removal and application of sludge leaving the reactor.


used:

Project developer

Value of data

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

The sludge that accumulates at the bottom of CIGAR will be removed and dried

in an aerobic manner to be used as fertilizer. Proper soil application of the sludge

aerobically will be done to ensure there is negligible methane from anaerobic

conditions.

QA/QC procedures to

be applied:

Any comment: Sludge removal will be done after an estimated 10 years of operation. In any

event there is removal and soil application of sludge; the process will be

monitored to ensure the conditions are aerobic.

B.7.2 Description of the monitoring plan:

>>

This section details the steps taken to monitor on a regular basis the GHG emissions reductions from the

project.

The Monitoring Plan for this project has been developed to ensure that from the start, the project is well

organised in terms of the collection and archiving of complete and reliable data.

Prior to the start of the crediting period, the organisation of the monitoring team will be established.Clear roles and responsibilities will be assigned to all staff involved in the CDM project. The Project

Developer will have a designated a person on site that will be responsible for monitoring emissions

reductions of the project activity. Staff will receive some basic CDM training to ensure that they

understand the importance of complete and accurate data and records for CDM monitoring. In addition to

these qualified personnel will be designated to handle and operate equipment and machinery at the

project site.





20

A formal set of monitoring procedures will be established prior to the start of the project. This will

ensure that high quality data is obtained. Specifically, data and records will be checked prior to being

stored and archived. Data from the project will be checked to identify possible errors or omissions.All data required for verification and issuance will be kept for at least two years after the end of the

crediting period or the last issuance of CERs of this project, whichever occurs later. Data will be

archived electronically and data backup will be maintained. Paper data back up will also be available.

All equipment will be calibrated and maintained in accordance to the manufacturer’s recommendations to

ensure accuracy of measurements. Records of calibration and maintenance will be retained as part of the

CDM monitoring system. A final data check and on-site inspection will be done by EcoSecurities prior to

any verification.

The ex-post emissions reductions in any year are limited to the yearly methane generation potential as

calculated ex-ante. The sludge that accumulates at the bottom of CIGAR will be removed after

approximately 10 years of operation and dried in an aerobic manner to be used as fertilizer.

B.8 Date of completion of the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology and the

name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies)

>>

• Date of completing the final draft of this baseline and monitoring section (DD/MM/YYYY):

29/02/2008.

The baseline and monitoring study was prepared by:

Mr. Oman Singh, EcoSecurities Ltd.

Tel: +60 3 2282 0612/32

E-mail: [email protected]





21

SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period

C.1 Duration of the project activity:

C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity:

>>

01/03/2000

C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:

>>

25y-0m

C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information:

C.2.1. Renewable crediting period

C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period:

>>

01/01/2009 or on the date of registration of the CDM project activity, whichever is later.

C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period:

>>

7y-0m

C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:

C.2.2.1. Starting date:>>

Not Applicable

C.2.2.2. Length:

>>

Not Applicable





22

SECTION D. Environmental impacts

>>

D.1. If required by the host Party, documentation on the analysis of the environmental impactsof the project activity:

>>

The host country does not require an analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity.

However, the farm has been issued an environmental compliance certificates (ECC) and have valid

Permits to Discharge.

It should be noted, further, that the project activity generates considerable environmental benefits. The

CIGAR system decreases GHG emissions through two significant avenues. Prior to the project activity,

the farm relied on local grids for electricity generation. With the implementation of the project activity,

biogas collected from the degradation of swine-farm waste is used for electricity generation, thus

eliminating the demand for electricity from the grid. In addition to directly reducing the emission of

GHGs by eliminating a source of fossil fuel combustion, the project activity captures methane (CH4)from an industrial source, preventing its release into the atmosphere.

In addition to reducing GHG emissions, this closed system of energy production produces considerable

improvements for waste management at the farm. Improperly managed and insufficiently processed

wastewater discharge from piggeries can be hazardous to aquatic ecosystems and can pollute waterways.

The extent of pollution depends on the amount of organic material and solid material contained within

the wastewater as measured by biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD),

suspended solids, and colour indicators. The CIGAR system, owing to its anaerobic digestion properties,

reduces COD by approximately 80%, reduces approximately 95% of harmful BOD, diminishes

suspended solids, and improves the colour quality of the wastewater. The closed cell CIGAR technology

also eliminates foul odour that is a significant concern to nearby populations.

D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host

Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental

impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party:

>>

There are no foreseeable significant environmental impacts considered significant by the project

participants. Section D.1 elaborates the sustainable development and positive contributions of the project

to waste management and energy generation in the farm.





23

SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments

>>

E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: >>

The comments of stakeholders were articulated in an open forum conducted at Brgy. Tumana, San

Ildefonso, Bulacan on December 12, 2005.

The participants in the stakeholder consultation open forums consisted (but were not limited) of the

following:

• Representatives from the Provincial Government Development Unit,

• Representatives from the Barangay Local Governance Unit, and

• Residents living near the farm.

• Representatives of the Environment & Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of

Environment & Natural Resources (DENR)• Other Swine Farm owners

The stakeholder consultations commenced with the brief introduction of Cargill Environmental Finance,

EcoSecurities Philippines and Infratex by Mr. Arnold S. Bufi of EcoSecurities. Arnold also introduced

the participants from the host Barangay, representatives from the municipality of Sta. Maria, and other

stakeholders. After the brief introduction, Mr. Arnold S. Bufi of EcoSecurities Philippines also

presented the clean development mechanism (CDM) concept, the motivation for the project, the Kyoto

Protocol and the proposed methane recovery project for Rocky Farm. After the presentation, an open

forum was carried out to elicit comments and issues from the various stakeholders.

E.2. Summary of the comments received:

>>

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS AND RESPONSES/RECOMMENDED MEASURES

TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES

Issues Raised Response/Recommended Measures to Address the Issues

Interest on the part of community

members to pipe biogas to their

homes or fill the biogas into tanks

from Rocky Farm.

PhilBio staff explained that they discourage their clients from

doing so because it is a fire hazard and there may be regulatory

issues involved. For storage in tanks, it requires specialized

equipment to put the biogas into cylinder tanks.

Local residents wanted to know howthey would see the sustainable

development benefits of the project.

PhilBio staff explained that the project will reduce air andwater pollution, and will result in odour reduction and climate

protection.





24

E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:

>>

All questions were answered and addressed in full. Where applicable, and where the comments were of

specific concern to the stakeholders, due account was taken; and a summary of issues and concerns, andresponses/ recommended measures to address these issues were provided. They are tabled as in section

E.2.





25

Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

Organization: Rocky Farms, Inc.

Street/P.O.Box: Circumferential Road

Building:

City: Antipolo City

State/Region: Rizal

Postfix/ZIP:

Country: Philippines

Telephone:

FAX:

E-Mail:

URL:

Represented by:Title:

Salutation: Mr.

Last Name: Ileto

Middle Name:

First Name: Jeffrey

Department:

Mobile:

Direct FAX:

Direct tel: +632 697 1708

Personal E-Mail:

Organization: EcoSecurities Group Plc.Street/P.O.Box: 40 Dawson Street

Building: -

City: Dublin

State/Region: Dublin

Postfix/ZIP: 02

Country: Ireland

Telephone: +353 1613 9814

FAX: +353 1672 4716

E-Mail: [email protected]

URL: www.ecosecurities.com

Represented by:

Title: Company SecretarySalutation: Mr.

Last Name: Browne

Middle Name: -

First Name: Patrick

Department: -





26

Mobile: -

Direct FAX: -

Direct tel: -

Personal E-Mail: [email protected]

Organization: EcoSecurities Group Limited.

Street/P.O.Box: 40/41 Park End Street

Building: 1st Floor Park Central

City: Oxford

State/Region:

Postfix/ZIP: OX1 1JD

Country: United Kingdom

Telephone: +44 (0) 1865 202 635

FAX: +44 (0) 1865 251 438

E-Mail: [email protected]

URL: www.ecosecurities.com

Represented by:

Title: Director

Salutation: Mr.

Last Name: Fernando

Middle Name: -

First Name: Adrian

Department: -

Mobile: -

Direct FAX: -

Direct tel: -

Personal E-Mail: [email protected]





27

Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

- Not applicable -





28

Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION

Parameters Used in Baseline Calculations.

Parameter Value Unit Comment/Source

GWPCH4 21 tCO2e/tCH4 GWP of methane / IPCC

DCH4 0.00067 t/Nm3 Density of methane at normal conditions:

temperature (20 ºC) and 1 atm pressure /

ACM0010

Annual methane conversion factor (MCF) for an

anaerobic lagoon / IPCC 2006

MCF j 0.8

table 10.17, chapter 10, volume 4

Maximum methane producing potential of the

volatile solid generated /

Bo 0.45 kg CH4/Kg VS

Default from IPCC 2006 Tier II

N breeding 879 head Number of animals of breeding type for the year y

/ Site data in the form of a pig census form filled

out by farm manager for year 2007

Nmarket 5,746 head Number of animals of market type for the year y /

Site data in the form of a pig census form filled

out by farm manager for year 2007.

MSBl,j 100% Fraction of manure handled in system j / Site data

Wsite_market 40.1 kg/head Average animal weight of a defined population at

the project site in kg / Site data in the form of a

pig census form filled out by farm manager for

year 2007

Wdefault_market 45 kg/head Default average animal weight of a defined

population in kg from where the data on VSdefault is

sourced

VSdefault_market 0.28 Kg

VS/head*day

Default value for the volatile solid excretion per

day on a dry-matter basis for a defined livestock /

IPCC default value, function of site genetics

VSmarket,y 91.1 Adjusted volatile solid excretion per year on a

dry-matter basis for market swine at the projectsite in kg-dm/animal/yr

Wsite_breed 200.5

kg/head Average animal weight of a defined population at

the project site in kg / Site data

Wdefault_breed

180

kg/head Default average animal weight of a defined

population in kg from where the data on VSdefault is

sourced





29

VSdefault_breed 0.5 Kg

VS/head*day

Default value for the volatile solid excretion per

day on a dry-matter basis for a defined livestock /

IPCC default value, function of site genetics

VS breed,y 203.3 Adjusted volatile solid excretion per year on adry-matter basis for breeding swine at the project

site in kg-dm/animal/yr

f genset 90 % Combustion efficiency of generator. Inclusion of

this value is very conservative and typical

combustion efficiencies for internal combustion

engines exceed 95%.

Default IPCC values for Swine.

Breeding Animals

Genetics Avg Mass (kg) Bo (kgCH4/kgVS) VS (kg/h*day)

US 198 0.48 0.5

Western Europe 198 0.45 0.46

Eastern Europe 180 0.45 0.5

Oceania 180 0.45 0.5

Latin America 28 0.29 0.3

Africa 28 0.29 0.3

Middle East 28 0.29 0.3

Asia 28 0.29 0.3

Indian Subcontinent 28 0.29 0.3

Source: Table 10A-8 IPCC 2006 Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management

Market Animals

Genetics Avg Mass (kg) Bo (kgCH4/kgVS) VS (kg/h*day)

US 46 0.48 0.27

Western Europe 50 0.45 0.3

Eastern Europe 50 0.45 0.3

Oceania 45 0.45 0.28

Latin America 28 0.29 0.3

Africa 28 0.29 0.3

Middle East 28 0.29 0.3

Asia 28 0.29 0.3Indian Subcontinent 28 0.29 0.3

Source: Table 10A-7 IPCC 2006 Emissions from Livestock and Manure

Management





30

Manure Management System MCFs

Average Annual Temp MCF anaerobic Lagoon (%)

28 80%

Source: Adapted from Table 10A-8 IPCC 2006 Emissions from Livestock and Manure

Management

Temperature Data

Name City/

Municipality

Province Annual

average

Temp (˚C)

Measured

Where?

Aprox. Distance

from

measurement

point to province(km)

Source

Rocky

Farm

Pililla Rizal 28.3 Cabanatuan 44.9 weatheronline.co.

uk

Pig Census as Returned from Farm Management Personnel on Site:

Census 2007

Type of Pig

Average Weight

of that type Average Number

Breed/Genetic

Source

Feed

Formulation

Suckling 7 1137 Booster feed

Prestarters 15 1065 Prestarter feed

Starters 25 1087 Starter feed

Growers 60 1078 Grower feed

Finishers 80 1268 Grower feed

Gilts 120 111 Gilt feed

Sows 200 855

Gestation &

Lactation

Boars 220 24

Largewhites,

Australia

Gestation





31

Annex 4

MONITORING INFORMATION

Please Refer to Section B.7.





32

Annex 5

PROJECT TIMELINE

No. Event Date

1.

Rocky Farms project which is the very first prototype biogas

to energy CIGAR project by Philbio in the Philippines, was

part of CDM capacity building programme as documented in a

published UNDP report8.

September, 1999

2.

Rocky Farms project activity start date was 1st

March 2000,

which was the earliest date where expenditure (pre-payment)

related to the project was incurred.

March 1, 2000

3.CDM advisory services agreement between Ecosecurities and

Philbio for CDM development of Philbio’s projects. March 4, 2002

4.

Philbio actively replicates a large number of pig farm AD

projects in Philippines after Rocky Farms with a prospect of

implementing CDM, of which 9 have been registered as CDM

projects. The Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (DENR) was designated as the Designated National

Authority (DNA) on June 25 2004. Rocky Farms project was

continually featured as a model CDM project in capacity

building workshops and presentations. Subsequently a ‘CDM

Country Guide in the Philippines’ was published by the

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies in 2005; the

guide lists Rocky Farms as a potential CDM project.

2002-2005

5

Eight Philbio projects held a common Stakeholder

Consultation for CDM.

• Rocky Farm in Rizal Province

• Red Dragon I and Red Dragon II (E-pig) Farms in San

Fernando and Magalang, Pampanga

• Sto. Domingo Farm in Tarlac City

• Superior Farm in Tarlac City

• Lanatan Farm in Balayan, Batangas

• Jhon & Jhon Farm in Binangonan, Rizal

• Joliza Farm in Sta. Maria, Bulacan

October 7, 2005

6.Rocky farms project activity PDD completion date under

methodology AMS III.D. ver 6, and sent for Host Nation LOAOctober 20, 2005

7.Rocky farms project activity published for Global Stakeholder

Consultation, under methodology AMS III.D. ver 6October 25, 2005

8Alberto R. Dalusung III, “Capacity Building in Clean Development Mechanism Project Activities”, Final Report,

September 1999, Under contract no. GLO/98/G55 with UNDP.





8.Additional documents submitted for Host Nation LOA as

required by the DNA.December 7, 2005

9. Rocky Farms held an individual Stakeholder Consultation for CDM.

December 12, 2005

10.

Letter from Philbio to Rocky requesting additional documents

and clarifications for the DNA. Request made by the DNA

based on a CDM steering committee meeting which convened

6th March 2006.

May 4, 2006

11.Letter from the DNA to Philbio on submission of supporting

documents.February 12, 2007

12.Entire project activity documents re-submitted for Host

Nation LOA as required.March 20, 2007

13.Follow-up letter to the DNA on the status of the LOA.

June 7, 2007

14.

Host Nation LOA dated April 25, 2007 obtained.

Project unable to be re-submitted for validation under AMS

III.D. ver 11 due to expiry in methodology.

June 10, 2007

15.Rocky PDD, under the latest version of methodology AMS

III.D. ver 13, submitted for validation.September 5, 2007

16.Published for Global Stakeholder Consultation under

methodology AMS III.D. ver 13.September 7, 2007

17.Validation site visit conducted by DNV for project activity

under current methodology AMS III.D. ver 13.October 10, 2007

18.Project activity subsequently in validation up to latest revision

of this PDD dated 30th

September 2008.

November 2007 to

September 2008