Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Composting Project in Ikorodu, Lagos ...

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

page 1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD)

Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006

CONTENTS

A. General description of 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 project activity

Annex 2: Information regarding public funding

Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring plan



page 2

SECTION A. General description of project activity

A.1. Title of the project activity:

Title: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Composting Project in Ikorodu, Lagos State

Version: 1.3

Date: 03/08/2010

A.2. Description of the project activity:

Brief description of project activity and baseline:

The project activity involves production of high quality compost from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) by

using advanced composting technology. The compost facility would processes 1500 tonnes of solid waste

per day. The Project Proponent (PP), EarthCare Nigeria Limited (ENL) in collaboration with its

technology partner EarthCare Technologies Inc (ECTI) is developing a world class composting facility

in Lagos, Nigeria with an aim to provide environment friendly waste disposal option and produce high

quality compost for use in Nigerian farms.

Solid Waste Management sector in Nigeria, is highly neglected and the common practice is to dump the

waste in landfills. In the absence of the project activity, the MSW would have been diverted to ordinary

unmanaged landfills, resulting in methane emissions due to development of anaerobic conditions.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and its mitigation is major focus of global efforts in fighting the

current climate change problem. The project proponent has sought to rectify this situation, by importing a

highly successful technology that, in addition to treating waste, would also provide high quality compost

to Nigerian farmers for use in agriculture and horticulture. The compost produced in the site is a proven

grade A manure and would be sold under the name of Compost Plus which is proven to improve the

fertility and texture of the soil and favors growth of friendly microorganisms that aid agriculture and

resist disease causing bacteria. This manure is free from the adverse effects of chemical fertilizers like

ground water contamination and is full of micronutrients that are absent in chemical fertilizers.

The primary objectives of the project can be summarized as:

i. Production of high quality compost for sale to Nigerian farmers providing them an environment

friendly and cost effective alternative to chemical fertilizers.

ii. To aid the global efforts in fighting the current climate change problem by curtailing methane

emissions from MSW dumped in landfills in the city Lagos

iii. Help Nigerian people in general by improving soil quality and crop yield thus strengthens the

food security

iv. Contribute to sustainable development of the region

The contribution of project activity to sustainable development:

The impact of the project activity on sustainable development of the area has been discussed below in

four categories:

Social well being:



page 3

The use of excellent compost produced in the facility will aid the Nigerian farmers in increasing

productivity and will help fight the Nigerian government achieve the goal of self sufficiency in food

production1.

Economic well being:

The project activity in its full scale operation, would employ over 90 skilled and unskilled workers in the

facility. Indirect employment is also generated in supporting functions of the project (drivers, garbage

collectors, equipment providers etc.) also helping in the efforts to control unemployment2. In addition, the

business generated for service providers is also expected to positively impact the local economy. The

success of this project activity will mean, more such projects coming up in future, generating more

employment for the Nigerian population.

The increased production due to the use of compost will improve the profitability of the Nigerian farmers

leading to a better economic outlook for the agriculture dependent. As economic and social issues are

more or less interlinked, all such economic benefits are also expected to bring social benefits.

Environmental well being:

This project activity will contribute to effective MSW management in Lagos region. Moreover, success of

this project will mean more investment in clean waste management technologies in the future, that would

bring significant improvement to MSW management scenario in the region.

The project uses aerobic treatment for biological waste to produce compost thus avoiding the methane

that would otherwise have been released to the atmosphere. Also, effective waste management practices

mean less garbage in and around the city centre leading to an improved hygiene and environment for the

general population3.

Technological well being:

Although, the technology employed in this project is state of the art and has already been proven in varied

conditions in the US, China, Vietnam and Malaysia. But it is a “first-of-its-kind” project in Nigeria. The

successful implementation of this project will boost investors‟ confidence, bringing more investment to

the neglected sector of Solid Waste Management in Nigeria.

A.3. Project participants:

Name of Party involved (*)

((host) indicates a host Party)

Private and/or public entity(ies)

Project participants (*)

Kindly indicate if the party

involved wishes to be

1 “Nigeria: Global Food Crisis - World Bank Ready to Assist Nigeria”

http://allafrica.com/stories/200804160205.html

2 “Unemployment in Nigeria” http://www.economywatch.com/unemployment/countries/nigeria.html

3 The Lagos city with an estimated population of 12 million is one of the most populous African city. The city is the

industrial and commercial hub of Nigeria and due to continued migration from other parts, its population is

expected to grow to over 22 million by 2015 making it one of the world’s largest cities. This continued unplanned

expansion is expected to put enormous strain on the almost nonexistent MSW management infrastructure. According

to a study conducted by the Economic Intelligent Unit (EIU), Lagos was ranked as the fifth worst in terms of

Livability amongst the largest 139 cities in the world. It is estimated that 70% of all patients arriving at Lagos

hospitals are woman and children and 50% of their problems can be traced back to environmental waste related.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200804160205.html

http://www.economywatch.com/unemployment/countries/nigeria.html



page 4

(as applicable) considered as project

participant (yes/no)

Nigeria

(Host Party)

EarthCare Nigeria Ltd.

(Private Party)

No

Portugal International Bank for

Reconstruction and

Development as the Trustee for

the Carbon Fund for Europe

(CFE)

Yes

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

at the stage of validation, a Party involved may or may not have provided its approval. At the time of

requesting registration, the approval by the Party(ies) involved is required.

A.4. Technical description of the project activity:

A.4.1. Location of the project activity:

Federal Republic of Nigeria

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

Nigeria

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

Lagos

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc.:

Odogunyan

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

unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page):

The project activity is located Odogunyan in Ikorodu Local Government Council of Lagos State. The

project site is well connected with Lagos city by road. The nearest airport is Murtala Muhammed

International Airport Lagos at 55 km from project site. The following maps show the location of the

proposed project activity (Fig. a.1):



page 5

Fig. a.1. Maps showing the location of project



page 6

The latitude and longitude of the sites are;

Latitude: 06039‟06”

Longitude: 03032‟06”

Physical address of the project site:

EarthCare Nigeria Limited

EarthCare Road, Flower Bus Stop Ikorodu - Shagamu Express Road

Odogunyan, Ikorodu

Lagos State, Nigeria

West Africa.

A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity:

The project activity is a large scale potential CDM project under the Sectoral Category 13: Waste

Handling and Disposal.

A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity:

Technology:

Composting is a biological process for decomposition of the organic fraction of MSW (OFMSW) to

carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapour, ammonia (NH3), stable humus like materials and compost by

microorganism in a warm, moist and aerobic environment. The decomposition process is represented by

the following equation (Tchobanoglous et al., 1993)4:

The composting process to be adopted in this project is the unsheltered windrow system and will consist

of a number of compost pads, a processing unit and a wastewater collection pond. The process of open

windrow aerobic composting is a simple biological process in which Organic Fraction of municipal

(OFMSW) converts into valuable resource- nutrient rich compost. The compost is a stabilized product,

the soil application of which leads to the following positive impacts on the soil - improved soil structure,

improved nutrient content of the soil, improved moisture retention capacity of the soil, and improved

agricultural productivity of the soil. Aerobic composting process is an environment friendly process with

no harmful by products formation during the entire process.

4 Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S.A., 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management, Engineering Principles

and Management Issues, McGraw Hill International Edition. McGraw-Hill Companies, Singapore.

Proteins

Amino acids

Lipids

Carbohydrate

Cellulose

Lignin

Ash

+

O2

+

Nutrient

+

Microorganism

s

Compost

+

New cells

+

CO2, H2O, NO3-, SO4

-

+

Heat



page 7

Earthcare Nigeria Composting processes:

The process flow diagram of ENL composting facility is as given below. The entire process can be

divided into following three stages.

Stage 1: Receipt and Weighing of MSW:

The number of trucks, quantity of garbage arriving and compost leaving the ENL composting facility is

recorded. The records include truck identification numbers, weight of the garbage or compost, the

manifest number and other relevant data. The system is equipped with state of the art weighing scale and

computers for record keeping and is manned by operators and security personnel.

Bagged Compost

Water

Dry and Liquid Inoculants

Left overs

Used in roadconstruction and

as fillers

Aerobic composting process

Collection and transportation of MSW

MSW receipt and weighing at project site

Grinder / Shredder

Windrow formation

Stabilized compost

Screener

Storage of screened product i.e., Compost

Fig. a.2 Flow diagram of Composting Process

Stage 2: Windrow Composting:

In this step garbage is unloaded in the shredding area, where it is shredded in pieces < 7 cm for efficient

composting due to increased surface area and uniformity. A discharge conveyor loads the shredded

garbage in dump trucks for transport to active compost site. This is a continuous operations and

provisions of hopper /push wall has been made to maintain continuous operation even in the absence of

loading and unloading trucks.



page 8

The dump trucks unload the shredded material in the active composting row under the supervision of

compost technicians. The rows are formed from successive unloading of shredded garbage. Before

starting a compost row, the ground is treated with polymer and portland cement for strength, durability

and reduced permeability to prevent leachate permeation. A tiller is used to cut a trench in the row for

addition of water for optimal moisture level in the shredded material. The water added to the trench is

derived from a pond that has been constructed in the premises for rainwater storage (as well as occasional

leachate generated in the compost plant) and has been designed in such a way that all rainwater drains

into the pond. During the moisture addition step, dry and wet inoculants are also added for increased rate

of compost formation. The inoculants are proprietary mix of chemicals that accelerate degradation of

organic waste and speed up the decay of oily and greasy waste that impede organic decay. These

inoculants are added using dry spreader unit and liquid spray unit for uniformity throughout the row.

Once the inoculants have been added and proper moisture levels have been reached, the final finishing of

the rows is completed. In the monitoring stage of the composting process, daily sampling is done and

readings are taken for governing parameters like temperature, moisture, CO2 and O2. Daily reports are

generated for each row and suitable steps are taken by the site managers and compost technicians to

maintain optimum conditions. Daily reports also inform the site managers when composting in a

particular row is complete.

Stage 3 Preparation of final compost:

After the completion of composting in a particular row, the finished compost is taken for testing and

graded for the presence of heavy metals, pathogens and soil nutrients according to national and USEPA

standards. Once quality has been established the compost is established, it is loaded on dump trucks and

transported to the bagging area. The finished compost is screened for gravels or particles larger than 6.35

mm. The „overs‟ are screened and conveyed outside the bagging plant where upon accumulation it is

transported to be used as construction material or layering in composting plant. The fine compost is

either sold in bulk or packed in bags of 25 kg each. The ENL bagging unit is managed by four

professionals and has a capacity of 4800 bags per day.

A.4.4. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:

Years Estimation of annual emission

reductions in tones of CO2e

20105 18,054

2011 187,655

2012 241,654

2013 278,617

2014 304,109

2015 321,863

2016 334,385

20176 286,132

Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e) 1,972,468

Total number of crediting years 7

Annual average of estimated reductions over 281,781

5 For 2 months duration starting November 1, 2010 (Start of Crediting Period) to December 31, 2010

6 For 10 months duration starting January 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017



page 9

the first crediting period (tonnes of CO2e)

A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:

No Public Funding for the project activity has been provided.

SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

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

project activity:

Following approved baseline & monitoring methodology is applied;

a) AM0025 “Avoided emissions from organic waste through alternative waste treatment

processes”

- Reference: Version 11, EB 44

Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal

site

- Reference: Version 05, EB 55

Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality

- Reference: Version 05.2, EB 41

Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system

- Reference : Version 02 , EB 50

B.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project

activity:

Applicability criteria of the methodology AM0025 and the suitability of project activity are discussed in

following table;

Table: Applicability justification the methodology AM0025

S.No. Applicability Criteria Project Status

1 The project activity involves one or a

combination of the following waste treatment

options for the fresh waste that in a given

year would have otherwise been disposed of

in a landfill:

A composting process in aerobic

conditions;

Gasification to produce syngas and its

use;

Anaerobic digestion with biogas

The project activity involves the commissioning

new facility for fresh waste treatment i.e.,

composting process in aerobic conditions. In the

absence of the proposed facility the fresh waste

would have been disposed of in a landfill in a

given year. Therefore the project activity meets

the applicability criterion.



page 10

collection and flaring and/or its use;

Mechanical/thermal treatment process

to produce refuse-derived fuel

(RDF)/stabilized biomass (SB) and its

use. The thermal treatment process

(dehydration) occurs under controlled

conditions (up to 300 degrees Celsius).

In case of thermal treatment process,

the process shall generate a stabilized

biomass that would be used as fuel or

raw material in other industrial

process. The physical and chemical

properties of the produced RDF/SB

shall be homogenous and constant over

time;

Incineration of fresh waste for energy

generation, electricity and/or heat. The

thermal energy generated is either

consumed on-site and/or exported to a

nearby facility. Electricity generated is

either consumed on-site, exported to

the grid or exported to a nearby

facility. The incinerator is rotating

fluidized bed or hearth or grate type.

2. In case of anaerobic digestion, gasification

or RDF processing of waste, the residual

waste from these processes is aerobically

composted and/or delivered to a landfill

The proposed project activity does not involve

anaerobic digestion, gasification or RDF

processing of waste treatment technology.

Therefore, this criterion is not applicable for

proposed project activity.

3. In case of composting, the produced compost

is either used as soil conditioner or disposed

of in landfills;

The produced compost will be used as a soil

conditioner. Therefore, proposed project activity

meets the applicability criterion.

4. In case of RDF/stabilized biomass

processing, the produced RDF/stabilized

biomass should not be stored in a manner

that may result in anaerobic conditions

before its use;

In the proposed project activity RDF processing

is not involved. Therefore, this criterion is not

applicable for project activity.

5. If RDF/SB is disposed of in a landfill, project

proponent shall provide degradability

analysis on an annual basis to demonstrate

that the methane generation, in the life-cycle

of the SB is below 1% of related emissions. It

has to be demonstrated regularly that the

characteristics of the produced RDF/SB

should not allow for re-absorption of

moisture of more than 3%. Otherwise,

monitoring the fate of the produced RDF/SB

is necessary to ensure that it is not subject to

No RDF/SB disposal will be implied to the

proposed project activity. Therefore, this

criterion is not applicable for project activity.



page 11

anaerobic conditions in its lifecycle;

6. In the case of incineration of the waste, the

waste should not be stored longer than 10

days. The waste should not be stored in

conditions that would lead to anaerobic

decomposition and, hence, generation of

CH4;

No incineration of the waste will be implied in

the project activity. Therefore, this criterion is

not applicable for project activity.

7.

The proportions and characteristics of

different types of organic waste processed in

the project activity can be determined, in

order to apply a multiphase landfill gas

generation model to estimate the quantity of

landfill gas that would have been generated

in the absence of the project activity;

The proportions and characteristics of different

types of organic waste processed in the project

activity can be determined routinely as per the

procedure and frequency mentioned in

monitoring section in order to apply a

multiphase landfill gas generation model to

estimate the quantity of landfill gas that would

have been generated in the absence of the

project activity. Therefore, proposed project

activity meets the applicability criterion.

8. The project activity may include electricity

generation and/or thermal energy generation

from the biogas, syngas captured,

RDF/stabilized biomass produced,

combustion heat generated in the

incineration process, respectively, from the

anaerobic digester, the gasifier,

RDF/stabilized biomass combustor, and

waste incinerator. The electricity can be

exported to the grid and/or used internally at

the project site. In the case of RDF produced,

the emission reductions can be claimed only

for the cases where the RDF used for

electricity and/or thermal energy generation

can be monitored;

The project activity does not include electricity

generation and/or thermal energy generation

from the biogas, syngas captured,

RDF/stabilized biomass produced, combustion

heat generated in the incineration process,

respectively, from the anaerobic digester, the

gasifier, RDF/stabilized biomass combustor,

and waste incinerator. Therefore, this criterion

is not applicable for project activity.

9. Waste handling in the baseline scenario

shows a continuation of current practice of

disposing the waste in a landfill despite

environmental regulation that mandates the

treatment of the waste, if any, using any of

the project activity treatment options

mentioned above;

Waste handling in the baseline scenario shows a

continuation of current practice of disposing the

waste in a landfill (refer section B.4) as there is

no environmental regulation that mandates the

treatment of the waste. Therefore, proposed

project activity meets the applicability

criterion.

10. The compliance rate of the environmental

regulations during (part of) the crediting

period is below 50%; if monitored

compliance with the MSW rules exceeds

50%, the project activity shall receive no

further credit, since the assumption that the

policy is not enforced is no longer tenable;

During (part of) the crediting period, there is no

relative environmental regulation in host

country. Therefore, this criterion is not


11. Local regulations do not constrain the This criterion is not applicable for project



page 12

establishment of RDF production

plants/thermal treatment plants nor the use of

RDF/stabilized biomass as fuel or raw

material;

activity.

12. In case of RDF/stabilized biomass

production, project proponent shall provide

evidences that no GHG emissions occur,

other than biogenic CO2, due to chemical

reactions during the thermal treatment

process (such as Chimney Gas Analysis

report);

This criterion is not applicable for project

activity.

13. The project activity does not involve thermal

treatment process of neither industrial nor

hospital waste.

The project activity does not involve thermal

treatment process of neither industrial nor

hospital waste. This criterion is not applicable

for project activity.

14. In case of waste incineration, if auxiliary

fossil fuel is added into the incinerator, the

fraction of energy generated by auxiliary

fossil fuel is no more than 50% of the total

energy generated in the incinerator.

The project activity does not involve

combustion of fossil fuels. This criterion is not


Conclusion:

The project activity meets the applicability criteria of approved methodology AM0025.

B.3. Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary:

The spatial extent of the project boundary is the site of the project activity where the waste is treated. This

includes the composting facility and the landfill site.

MSW Generation

MSW shoritng & shredding

MSW residue Landfill

MSW Compostingprocess

Compost

Onsite electricity consumption

Onsite fossil fuel consumption

Electricity from grid

Fossil fuel

End User



page 13

Fig. b.1 Diagram to show the project boundary

The greenhouse gases included in or excluded from the project boundary are shown in Table

below.

Table: Emissions sources included in or excluded from the project boundary

Source Gas Included Justification / Explanation

Base

lin

e

Emissions from

decomposition of

waste at the landfill

site

CH4 Yes The major source of emissions in the baseline.

N2O No

N2O emissions are small compared to CH4

emissions from landfills. Exclusion of this gas is

conservative.

CO2 No CO2 emissions from the decomposition of

organic waste are not accounted.

Emissions from

electricity

consumption

CO2 Yes Electricity may be consumed from the grid or

generated onsite in the baseline scenario

CH4 No Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.

N2O No Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.

Emissions from

thermal energy

Generation

CO2 Yes If thermal energy generation is included in the

project activity.



Pro

ject

act

ivit

y

On-site fossil fuel

consumption due to

the project activity

other than

for electricity

generation

CO2 Yes May be an important emission source.

CH4 No Excluded for simplification. This emission

source is assumed to be very small.

N2O No Excluded for simplification. This emission

source is assumed to be very small.

Direct emissions

from the waste

treatment processes.

N2O Yes May be an important emission source for

composting activities.

CO2 No CO2 emissions from the decomposition of

organic waste are not accounted.

CH4 Yes The composting process may not be complete

and result in anaerobic decay.

Emissions from

on-site electricity

use

CO2 Yes Electricity may be consumed from the grid or

generated onsite



Emissions from

wastewater

Treatment

CO2 No Not applicable

CH4 No Not applicable

N2O No Not applicable

B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified

baseline scenario:



page 14

The scenarios given in the approved AM 0025 are discussed below to identify the most plausible baseline

scenario:

Procedure for the selection of the most plausible baseline scenario:

Step 1: Identification of alternative scenarios

To identify all realistic and credible baseline alternatives step 1 of the latest version of the “Tool for

demonstration and assessment of additionality (version 05.2); EB 39 is applied. Methodology AM 0025

further delineates that in doing so, relevant policies and regulations related to the management of landfill

sites should be taken into account. Such policies or regulations may include mandatory landfill gas

capture or destruction requirements because of safety issues or local environmental regulations. Other

policies could include local policies promoting productive use of landfill gas such as those for the

production of renewable energy, or those that promote the processing of organic waste. In addition, the

assessment of alternative scenarios should take into account local economic and technological

circumstances. Realistic and credible alternatives to the project activity(s) that can be (part of) the

baseline scenarios are identified through the following sub-steps:

Sub-step 1a. Define alternatives to the project activity:

As per AM 0025 following alternatives for the disposal/treatment of the fresh waste in the absence of the

project activity, i.e. the scenario relevant for estimating baseline methane emissions, to be analysed

should include;

M 1: The project activity (i.e. composting of waste) not implemented as a CDM project:

This alternative involves processing of waste in a composting plant as envisaged in the project with the

objective of producing compost which could be sold in the market to earn returns on investment.

Successful implementation of the composting plant requires substantial capital investment and high

operation and maintenance costs. In addition, continuous monitoring of the processes is required to

maintain the quality of compost that could be sold in the market. The option therefore requires skilled and

trained manpower. In this option, the project sponsors, in the absence of CDM, would rely only on the

sale of compost - a product which does not enjoy ready-made markets in the developing economies, and

more so in Nigeria. As per the guidance of the methodology this is considered as a plausible baseline

scenario.

M 2: Disposal of the waste at a landfill where landfill gas captured is flared:

There are three active landfills; Olusosun, Abu-Egba and Solus in Lagos state. None of these sites have

the landfill gas capture facility7. Currently, no landfill site is equipped with landfill capture and flaring

facility in Nigeria. In addition, at present there are no regulatory requirements in the country to collect

and flare or utilize landfill gas.

Instalment of landfill gas collection and combustion facilities requires huge investment without any

commensurate monetary benefits. Therefore, installation of the landfill gas capture and flaring facility

would also face the financial and technical barriers similar to the project activity. Therefore this

alternative is not the plausible baseline scenario.

M 3: Disposal of the waste on a landfill without the capture of landfill gas:

7 The study for construction of an Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) in Lagos City, Lagos City,

Volume 03, May 2002. Waste management practice in Lagos State, Federal Ministry of Environment.



page 15

This is the business as usual scenario. Currently, all waste is collected by the various agencies,

transported to the designated landfill sites. As mentioned in previous section, these facilities are not

equipped with landfill gas capture measures. The current practice is the common practice and does not

face any technological or investment barriers like the other options described above. It is economically

the most feasible option. Therefore this alternative is a realistic and credible baseline alternative.

The proposed project does not involve power or heat generation therefore, the baseline scenarios of

power/heat generation or energy export are not applicable.

Outcome of Step 1a: Identified realistic and credible:

Out of the identified scenarios (M1, M2 and M3), scenario M2 was dropped from any further

consideration as it was not considered realistic. The two realistic and credible scenarios that have been

subject to further assessment include M1 and M3.

Sub-step 1b. Consistency with mandatory laws and regulations:

The two alternatives M1 and M3 are consistent with the laws and regulations in Nigeria. None of these

options are mandated by law. Therefore both the alternatives have been further considered for the purpose

of determining the baseline scenario.

Step 2: Identify the fuel for the baseline choice of energy source taking into account the national and/or

sectoral policies as applicable.

The proposed project activity does not deal with fuel, so this step is not applicable.

Step 3: Step 2 and/or Step 3 of the latest approved version of the “Tool for demonstration and assessment of

additionality” shall be used to assess which of these alternatives should be excluded from further

consideration (e.g. alternatives facing prohibitive barriers or those clearly economically unattractive).

As per the guidance of the methodology both the alternatives M1 and M3 have been subject to barrier

analysis for the purpose of determining the baseline.

Alternative M1 which represents the project without CDM is a first of its kind activity and consequently

faces the following barriers – (i) barriers due to prevailing practice, (ii) investment barriers, (iii) market

barriers and (iv) technological barriers - , as discussed in details in section B.5. On the contrary,

alternative M3 represents the current situation on the ground i.e., disposal of waste on landfill without the

capture of landfill gas, and does not face the barriers that are faced by alternative M1. Therefore

alternative M1 is eliminated from being considered as a baseline scenario. Therefore alternative M3 is the

only realistic and credible baseline alternative.

Step 4: Where more than one credible and plausible alternative remains, project participants shall, as a

conservative assumption, use the alternative baseline scenario that results in the lowest baseline emissions

as the most likely baseline scenario. The least emission alternative will be identified for each component of

the baseline scenario. In assessing these scenarios, any regulatory or contractual requirements should be

taken into consideration.

Only one alternative M3, i.e., current practice is identified as the baseline scenario by Step1 to Step 3, so

the Step 4 is not applicable.



page 16

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 CDM project activity (assessment

and demonstration of additionality):

Additionality of the project activity is determined based on Tool for the demonstration and assessment

of additionality (version 05.2); EB39.

This tool provides a step-wise approach to demonstrate and assess additionality of the project activity as

shown in the flowchart given below. These steps include:

Identification of alternatives to the project activity;

Investment analysis to determine that the proposed project activity is either: 1) not the

most economically or financially attractive, or 2) not economically or financially

feasible; and/or

Barriers analysis;

Common practice analysis

Figure b.2: Flowchart to assess the additionality of the project activity

Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and regulations:

Sub-step 1 a. Defines alternatives to the project activities:



page 17

As discussed in section B.4, alternatives to the project activity are as follows;

M 1: The project activity (i.e. composting of waste) not implemented as a CDM project

M 2: Disposal of the waste at a landfill where landfill gas captured is flared

M 3: Disposal of the waste on a landfill without the capture of landfill gas

Outcome of Step 1a: Identified realistic and credible:

As explained in section B.4, installation of landfill gas collection and combustion facilities requires huge

investment without any commensurate monetary benefits. At present, Nigeria does not have any such

operational facilities, and hence no experience on these kind of projects. Therefore, the option of

installation of the landfill gas capture and flaring facility (M2) is not considered a realistic option.

Option M3 – disposal of solid waste in a landfill without any capture of landfill gas - represents the

current situation on the ground in Nigeria, and hence is considered a realistic option.

Therefore, the two options that merit further assessment are Option M1 and M3.

Sub-step 1b: Consistency with mandatory laws and regulations:

Both the options M1 and M3 are consistent with the mandatory laws and regulations. Thus both the

options M1 and M3 have been subject to further analysis for the purpose of demonstrating additionality of

the project.

The Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality stipulates that either Step 2 (Investment

Analysis) or Step 3 (Barrier Analysis), or both can be selected to demonstrate additionality. As the Project

is first of its kind project in the country and the barriers faced are clearly evidenced (as explained in the

subsequent sections) , the PP has applied only the barrier analysis (Step 3) to demonstrate the project‟s

additionality.

Step 3: Barriers analysis This Step is used to determine whether the proposed project activity faces barriers that:

(a) Prevent the implementation of this type of proposed project activity (Option M1 in this case);

and

(b) Do not prevent the implementation of at least one of the alternatives (Option M3 in this case).

Sub-step 3a: Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of the proposed CDM project activity:

According to the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality under this section, PP

needs to;

Establish that there are realistic and credible barriers that would prevent the implementation of the

proposed project activity from being carried out if the project activity was not registered as a CDM

activity.

Identified barriers should be justified in line with “Guidelines for objective demonstration and

assessment of barriers” Annex 13, EB 50.

The PP has opted to use the following barriers- (i) barrier due to prevailing practice, (ii) investment

barrier, (iii) market barrier and (iv) technological barrier to justify the additionality of the project.

The project is first-of-its-kind project in Nigeria



page 18

.

i. Barriers due to Prevailing Practice

The prevailing practice for municipal solid waste disposal in Nigeria is to dispose the solid waste in

landfills. This is clearly evidenced in the fact that even the larger cities including Lagos and Abuja

dispose off their wastes in the landfills. All the waste generated in Lagos is disposed off in 3 large

landfills – Olushosun, Abulegba and Solus.

Alternative methods of disposal of solid wastes are yet to gain popularity in the African countries

including Nigeria. Alternative methods of waste disposal such as composting, anaerobic digestion etc.,

involve heavy capital investments, and require dedicated project management that involves managing the

technology, managing the process and moreover managing the product - all of which pose challenges.

This is also confirmed by a study undertaken by the United Nations8 which states that, even though the

organic content of the MSW in the typical African city may exceed 70% (wet basis), centralised

composting, anaerobic digestion, and gas recovery are not significant components of African

MSWM practice. In most African cities, MSW is disposed of near the perimeter of the city, within

easy reach of vehicles and collection crews. The waste collection and disposal services are provided

largely by the public agencies, and the role of the private sector is mostly limited to collection of

wastes, which does not involve significant capital investment and the revenue is linked to the tonnage

of waste collected and transported to the landfills, which does not involve any technical

sophistication.

The same study by the United Nations referred above also mentions that few composting plants that

were set up in African cities have been reported to be financially unsuccessful, plagued by

mechanical problems, and ultimately closed. Given these issues and challenges of alternative

methods of disposal, and the fact that there are no mandatory requirements to go for advanced

disposal options, disposal of wastes in the landfills remains the prevailing practice and act as a barrier

for adoption of any new technology including composting. This is clearly evidenced in the fact that the

proposed composting project by ENL is the first of its kind not only in Lagos, but also in the whole of

Nigeria.

Another prevailing practice that acts as a barrier to adoption of alternative waste disposal methods

particularly composting is the practice of waste collection. Lagos, like most of the other Africa cities,

does not have any system for segregation of wastes. The solid waste infrastructure (collection, transport

and disposal) in Lagos is managed by LAWMA through a large number of private operators, who are

primarily responsible for collection and transport of waste to the disposal sites. Source segregation of

waste is not practiced in Lagos and the operators are paid based on tonnage of waste hauled rather than

the type of waste hauled. As a result, the waste that is available for composting is of mixed type and the

composting plants have to be designed to be able to process mixed waste threatening the quality of

compost and its acceptability and marketability. The prevailing practice of mixed waste collection thus

acts as a barrier for commercial and sustainable composting.

ii. Investment barriers

8 http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/spc/Solid_Waste_Management/SWM_Vol-II.pdf



page 19

For alternatives undertaken and operated by private entities: Similar activities have only been

implemented with grants or other non-commercial finance terms. Similar activities are defined as

activities that rely on a broadly similar technology or practices, are of a similar scale, take place in a

comparable environment with respect to regulatory framework and are undertaken in the relevant

country/region.

No private capital is available from domestic or international capital markets due to real or perceived

risks associated with investment in the country where the proposed CDM project activity is to be

implemented, as demonstrated by the credit rating of the country or other country investments reports of

reputed origin.

As per “Guidelines for objective demonstration and assessment of barriers” Annex 13, EB 50, while

demonstrating barriers related to the lack of access to capital, technologies and skilled labour, the

Project Proponent should provide information on nature of companies and entities involved in the

financing and implementation of the project.

As the project is first-of-its-kind in Nigeria, similar activities are not available for comparison as

required by the tool to demonstrate additionality of projects undertaken by private entities. The

investment barriers being faced by the project activity are discussed in terms of lack of access to long

term capital..

Lack of access to long term capital

Nigeria‟s economy is primarily driven by abundant petroleum resources and the petroleum sector is

responsible for 99% of export and 85% of revenue generation in the country. So far, industrial

development in other sectors has been negligible. Due to instabilities in the past and easy opportunities

available in the petroleum sector, banks and other financial institutions are not keen on provide loans to

new business. According to the World Bank - Long-term finance is very rare and only the most

creditworthy have access to it. Less than 16 percent of the sample reported having loans of more than one

year in term, mainly medium and large firms. Service sector companies such as hotels have better access

to long-term loans because of collateral availability. If entrepreneur’s finance long term investments by

short term debts, project risk increase sharply and failure rates increase substantially.9

The following table demonstrates the state of availability of finance to enterprises in Nigeria.

Table: Statistics on availability of finance to enterprises in Nigeria10

Parameter Value

% of Firms Identifying Access/ cost of Finance as a Major Constraint 53.1

% of Firms Using Banks to Finance Investments 2.7

Internal Finance for Investment (% of firms) 92.8

Value of Collateral Needed for a Loan (% of the Loan Amount) 138.8

9 An assessment of Private sector in Nigeria (pages 15 & 92) –

www.worldbank.org/EXTAFRSUMAFTPS/Resources/ICA005.pdf

10 Nigeria – 2007 Enterprise Survey – based on survey of 1891 enterprises from all sectors in Nigeria

https://www.enterprisesurveys.org/documents/EnterpriseSurveys/Reports/Nigeria-2007.pdf

http://www.worldbank.org/EXTAFRSUMAFTPS/Resources/ICA005.pdf

https://www.enterprisesurveys.org/documents/EnterpriseSurveys/Reports/Nigeria-2007.pdf



page 20

The data provided in the above table clearly demonstrates the issue of limited availability of bank finance

to enterprises for investments. The value of collateral required for loan is approx. 140% of the loan

amount. The situation is expected to be even worse for new companies entering into new business areas

as they normally do not possess enough assets during the start up period to use as collateral as needed by

the banks. The owners of these kind of firms generally end up either using their personal properties as

part of their equity increase exercise and/or raise the money using short term loans, normally at higher

interest rates. These short term loans are often provided with a line of credit with no guarantee that the

lender will renew the same once the line is matured. This forces the companies again to look for other

lenders. Approval of the short term loans, in some cases, required the sponsors to pledge their personal

properties.

ENL, the project promoter, being new company venturing first time into the MSW composting business

has faced the barriers described above. The sponsors of ENL are individuals from different fields of

expertise and do not have any prior experience with implementation of waste management projects. The

ownership of the company as of December, 2007 is summarized in the table below.

Sl. No. Name Company /

Individual

Shares

(Naira)

% Shareholding

1 Gen. Theophilus Danjuma Individual 40,000,000 21.05

2 Dr. Benjamin Ohiaeri Individual 80,000,000 42.11

3 Hon. Olawale Oshun Individual 39,985,000 21.04

Total 190,000,000 100%

For ENL, the problem of accessing long term loan for the composting project is even worse as the project

is of first of its kind in the country and the banks and financial institutions do not have any prior

experience of dealing with such projects. The prevailing attitude of the investors/ banks and other

financial institutions towards a new business area strangled the arrangements of long term financing for

the project. The uniqueness of the project could not win the confidence of the financial institutions. The

sponsors could only secure short term debts11

to execute the project. As of December, 2007, the company

could raise only Naira 837,036,091, as short term loans from the banks, which represents only 53.7 % of

the total investment required for the project. The remaining 46.3% of the total investment had to be raised

in form of equity and shareholders‟ loan. Generally, projects are financed at a debt equity ratio of 70: 30.

The fact that the company could raise only 53.7% of the capital from the banks as short term loans,

clearly confirms the barrier with regard to access to long term capital from the banks.

With uncertain market conditions for compost, which is documented to be a major factor for failure of

many compost plants in the developing countries, implementing a compost project with high cost short

term borrowings is even considered riskier for the sponsors, as there is no guarantee for secured revenues

from the project.. In such difficult environment, the sponsors of ENL have decided to proceed with the

project implementation risking their own capital and personal properties along with paying higher interest

rates on short term loans considering the potential upsides possible from sale of carbon credits from the

project.

The potential of the project to earn additional revenues through sale of carbon credits was recognized

early in May, 2005. Faced with the challenge of accessing long term loan from commercial banks, the

shareholders decided to bring in more capital into the project, in form of shareholders loans, and short

11 Supportive Documents are provided to DoE during validation .



page 21

term loans pledging their personal properties, based on the consideration that the project could ultimately

benefit from CDM12

.

The financial struggle of the project continues even today. Considering the CDM benefits, the sponsors

have been able to set up the plant and start operation although with a smaller processing capacity.

iii. Market Barrier:

The success of a compost project largely depends on the size of the regional compost market. Although

compost is a highly effective soil conditioner, which can reduce the need for chemical fertilisers,

unfortunately, it does not enjoy a ready-made market. A number of factors account for this fact,

including:

Lack of awareness and knowledge on how, how much and when to use compost;

Misunderstanding about what compost is (e. g. expecting it to behave in the same way as a

chemical fertiliser);

Concerns about the quality of compost made from organic urban waste –sometimes based on

negative associations or past experience;

Inclination of many farmers to focus on optimising their yield within a short time;

Competition with chemical fertilisers,

High transport costs relative to product value, as compost is often produced far from its market;

Unfair regulations and policies (e. g. subsidies for chemical fertilisers) hindering the composting

approach.

Revenue from sales of compost is particularly important in low and middle-income countries where

subsidy and tipping fees are much less readily available than in Europe or the United States. In Europe,

composting plants charge a fee to all commercial enterprises dumping waste (e. g. tree surgeons and

gardeners), which is slightly lower than the cost of dumping waste in landfills. This is backed up by

legislation, which encourages (or makes compulsory) the recycling of „green waste‟. Therefore, in some

cases compost can be given away free because tipping fees cover all costs. Few such situations exist in

low and middle-income countries, so costs need to be covered by sales. Absence of a ready-made market

hinders the sale and thus acts as a prohibitive barrier. Absence of ready-made market is reported to be

one of the significant reasons for failure of compost facilities by United Nations Environment

Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics 13

“…..Finished compost can become, but is not automatically, a valuable commodity: its value depends on

external demand for soil enhancers, on perceptions of its value, on its quality, and on its accessibility to

potential users in the immediate vicinity...”

12 Ref: Minutes of Board meeting, 18th May, 2005

13 http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/ESTdir/Pub/MSW/SP/sp4/sp4_1.asp



page 22

Lack of market for sale of compost has been well documented to be one of the major barriers to

composting activities in the low and middle income countries in the report titled “Marketing of Compost

– A Guide for Compost Producers in Low and Middle Income Countries14

”.

Prior to the project activity, composting as a technology to manage MSW was non-existent in Nigeria.

Market for compost therefore did not exist. The project sponsors face the challenge of not only producing

high quality compost, but also of creating demand and market for compost with additional costs allocated

for the same.

The potential of the project to earn additional revenues through sale of carbon credits was recognized as

an upside to the investment15

and the sponsors decided to pursue the project based on the consideration

that they could ultimately benefit from the CDM revenues.

iv) Technological Barriers:

Lack of infrastructure for implementation and logistics for maintenance of the technology

Risk of technological failure: the process/technology failure risk in the local circumstances is

significantly greater than for other technologies that provide services or outputs comparable to

those of the proposed CDM project activity, as demonstrated by relevant scientific literature or

technology manufacturer information

The particular technology used in the proposed project activity is not available in the relevant

region.

Nigeria does not have an existing framework for safe disposal of Solid waste. The project is a first-of-its-

kind activity and consequently faces several technological barriers, as mentioned below:

The proposed CDM project would introduce a new technology for processing of solid wastes in Nigeria

for the first time. The fact that Nigeria does not have any solid waste composting facilities of equivalent

scale as of the project, the experience in operating large scale compost plants is limited. The successful

composting process depends on quality of MSW. MSW in developing countries, such as Nigeria has high

organic content and is highly suitable for composting. However, due to lack of source segregation,

presence of inert like sand, gravel and plastics in the waste makes the composting process less efficient16

.

As reported by United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and

Economics

“....composting has the distinction of being the waste management system with the largest number of

failed facilities worldwide. In cities of developing countries, most large mixed-waste compost plants,

14

http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/sandec/publikationen/publications_swm/downloads_sw

m/marketing_compost_low.pdf

15 Ref: Minutes of Board meeting, 18th May, 2005

16 Benefits and constraints of composting http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-103817-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html#tab8.1

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-103817-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html#tab8.1



page 23

often designed by foreign consultants and paid for by aid from their home countries, have failed or

operate at less than 30% of capacity..17

”

In future, with development and improvement in lifestyle of local populace, quantity of inert in

the waste is expected to increase. The composting technology in this case comes from the United

States and also involves the use of a proprietary inoculants in the composting process. The

technology and the whole composting process is required to be adapted to work in Nigeria with

the quality of feed stock available.Being, the first of its kind project in the country, the risk of

technology failure was perceived to be high. In order to address the risk, the sponsors had to

make the technology supplier accountable for its performance in the technology licensing

agreement. The need for proper training, and handholding has been included in the technology

licensing agreement.

Outcome of step 3(a):

It is obvious from above discussion that the identified barriers would have prevented implementation of

project without CDM benefits.

Sub-step 3 b: Show that the identified barriers would not prevent the implementation of at least one of

the alternatives (except the proposed project activity):

The barriers identified above do not prevent disposal of waste in unmanaged landfills, which represents

the current practice on ground. Lagos presently has 3 large unmanaged landfills (Olushosun, Solus and

Abulegba) and all the waste collected in Lagos are disposed in these three unmanaged landfills. The

barriers identified above do not affect this option.

Step 4. Common practice analysis:

The project activity is “first-of-its-kind” in Nigeria. Therefore this step is not applicable.

Above discussion demonstrates that the project faces several barriers and therefore is not a business-as-

usual case and is additional. In addition, the CDM registration of the proposed project, which will be a

first of its kind in Nigeria, will serve as a model for other projects and promote the dissemination of

sustainable waste management practices all across the region.

CDM Consideration:

As per the GUIDANCE ON THE DEMONSTRATION AND ASSESSMENT OF PRIOR

CONSIDERATION OF THE CDM –

(a) The project participant must indicate awareness of the CDM prior to the project activity start date,

and that the benefits of the CDM were a decisive factor in the decision to proceed with the project.

Evidence to support this would include, inter alia, minutes and/or notes related to the consideration of the

decision by the Board of Directors, or equivalent, of the project participant, to undertake the project as a

CDM project activity.

(b) The project participant must indicate, by means of reliable evidence, that continuing and real actions

were taken to secure CDM status for the project in parallel with its implementation. Evidence to support

this should include, inter alia, contracts with consultants for CDM/PDD/methodology services, Emission

Reduction Purchase Agreements or other documentation related to the sale of the potential CERs

17 http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/ESTdir/Pub/MSW/SP/sp4/sp4_1.asp



page 24

(including correspondence with multilateral financial institutions or carbon funds), evidence of

agreements or negotiations with a DOE for validation services, submission of a new methodology to the

CDM Executive Board, publication in newspaper, interviews with DNA, earlier correspondence on the

project with the DNA or the UNFCCC secretariat;

Following milestones demonstrate the serious consideration of CDM benefits by ENL in implementation

of the project under discussion-

Date Event Details

Jan 2005 Allotment of the

Project Site

In January 2005, the Lagos State Government allocated the

project site to ENL to develop the composting facility.

May 2005 CDM consideration Representative of State Government of Lagos advised board

members of ENL to take advantage of CDM to cover up the

perceived risks of the project and to liaise with its Technical

Partners to seek ways of benefiting from the CDM programme

under the Kyoto protocol.18

July, 2005 Purchase Order for

Equipments Placed

Purchase of Equipments by ENL (Defined as the Project Start

Date as per the CDM guidance )

Sep 2005 EIA start ENL initiated EIA process to get environment license from

State/ National agencies.

Sep 2006 Authorization of

Carbon Credit

Progarmme

ENL authorised ECTI to continue research and prepare all

relevant documents on behalf of ENL for accessing carbon

credits. ECTI representative informed the company‟s director

that application for carbon credit programme would require

upfront cost and that was a hurdle in moving ahead. ECTI was

directed to explore alternative business models to move

forward.

October 2006 EIA Approval ENL received EIA approval for their project

August 2007 Meeting with World

Bank team

ECTI representatives, on behalf of ENL , had a meeting with

World Bank to discuss the CDM opportunities

Nov 2007 Meeting with World

Bank team

ENL had meeting with representative of World Bank to discuss

collaboration on CDM

Nov 2007 PIN submission On behalf of ENL, ECTI submitted Project Idea Note (PIN) to

the World Bank

Nov 2007 Approval of Carbon

finance proposal by

World Bank

The PIN was approval by World Bank

Sep 2008 Contract with CDM

consultant

Consultants were hired to prepare the PDD

October 2008 Site Visit by WB

and CDM consultant

Site visit by CDM Consultant

April 2009 Webhosting for GSP PDD webhosting for GSP on UNFCCC website

June 2009 HCA approval Letter of Approval by Host Country

18 Minutes of Board meeting dated 18/05/2005.



page 25

The above information demonstrates that ENL started the project registration process along with the

implementation of project.

B.6. Emission reductions:

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices:

Emission reduction is estimated following the approved methodology AM0025. The estimation of

baseline emission, project emission and leakage emission are described below.

Project emission:

As per the approved Methodology AM 0025, the project emissions in the year y are:

PEy = PEelec,y + PEfuel, on-site,y + PEc,y + PEa,y + PEg,y + PEr,y + PEi,y +PEw,y ……………….(1)

Where;

Parameter Details

PEy Project emissions during the year y (tCO2e)

PEelec,y Emissions from electricity consumption on-site due to the project activity in year y

(tCO2e)

PEfuel, on-site,y Emissions on-site due to fuel consumption on-site in year y (tCO2e)

PEc,y Emissions during the composting process in year y (tCO2e)

PEa,y Emissions from the anaerobic digestion process in year y (tCO2e)

PEg,y Emissions from the gasification process in year y (tCO2e)

PEr,y Emissions from the combustion of RDF/stabilized biomass in year y (tCO2e)

PEi,y Emissions from waste incineration in year y (tCO2e)

PEw,y Emissions from wastewater treatment in year (tCO2e)

The project activity does not include anaerobic digestion, gasification, combustion of RDF/stabilized

biomass, incineration of MSW or the wastewater treatment. Therefore, emissions from these sources

(PEa,y, PEg,y, PEr,y, PEi,y, and PEw,y) will not be considered in further discussion.

Emissions from electricity use (PEelec,y):

Project activity involves electricity consumption, CO2 emissions are calculated as follows:

PEelec,y = EGPJ,FF,y * CEFelec ………………………………………………………………(2)

Where;

Parameter Details

PEelec,y Emissions from electricity consumption on-site due to the project activity in year y

(tCO2e)

EGPJ,FF,y Amount of electricity generated in an on-site fossil fuel fired power plant or consumed

from the grid as a result of the project activity, measured using an electricity meter

(MWh)

CEFelec Carbon emissions factor for electricity generation in the project activity (tCO2/MWh)

Emissions from fuel use on-site (PEfuel, on-site,y)



page 26

As per the AM 0025 the project proponent shall account for CO2 emissions from any on-site fuel

combustion (other than electricity generation, e.g. vehicles used on-site, heat generation, for starting the

gasifier, auxiliary fossil fuels need to be added into incinerator to increase the temperature of the

incinerator, etc.). Emissions are calculated from the quantity of fuel used and the specific CO2 emission

factor of the fuel, as follows:

PEfuel, on-site,y = Fcons,y * NCVfuel * EFfuel………………………………………………(3)

Where;

Parameter Details

PEfuel, on-site,y Emissions on-site due to fuel consumption on-site in year y (tCO2e)

Fcons,y Fuel consumption on site in year y (l or kg)

NCVfuel Net caloric value of the fuel (MJ/l or MJ/kg)

EFfuel CO2 emissions factor of the fuel (tCO2/MJ)

Emissions from composting (PEc,y):

Emissions from composting are calculated as follows;

PEc,y = PEc,N2O,y + PEc,CH4,y ……………………………………………………………(4)

Where;

Parameter Details

PEc,y Emissions during the composting process in year y (tCO2e)

PEc,N2O,y N2O emissions during the composting process in year y (tCO2e)

PEc,CH4,y Emissions during the composting process due to methane production through anaerobic

conditions in year y (tCO2e)

N2O emissions:

During the storage of waste in collection containers, as part of the composting process itself, and during

the application of compost, N2O emissions might be released. Based upon Schenk and others, a total loss

of 42 mg N2O-N per kg composted dry matter can be expected (from which 26.9 mg N2O during the

composting process). The dry matter content of compost is around 50% up to 65%.

Based on these values, project participants should use a default emission factor of 0.043 kg N2O per tonne

of compost for EFc,N2O and calculate emissions as follows:

PEc,N2O,y = Mcompost,y * EFc,N2O * GWPN2O ………………………………………………(5)

Where;

Parameter Details

PEc,N2O,y N2O emissions from composting in year y (tCO2e)

Mcompost,y Total quantity of compost produced in year y (tonnes/a)

EFc,N2O Emission factor for N2O emissions from the composting process (tN2O/t compost)

GWPN2O Global Warming Potential of nitrous oxide, (tCO2/tN2O)

CH4 emissions:

During the composting process, aerobic conditions are neither completely reached in all areas nor at all

times. Pockets of anaerobic conditions – isolated areas in the composting heap where oxygen



page 27

concentrations are so low that the biodegradation process turns anaerobic – may occur. The emission

behaviour of such pockets is comparable to the anaerobic situation in a landfill. This is a potential

emission source for methane similar to anaerobic conditions which occur in unmanaged landfills. The

duration of the composting process is less than the duration of the crediting period. This is because of the

fact that the compost may be subject to anaerobic conditions during its end use, which is not foreseen that

it could be monitored. Assuming a residence time for the compost in anaerobic conditions equal to the

crediting period is conservative. Through pre-determined sampling procedures the percentage of waste

that degrades under anaerobic conditions can be determined. Using this percentage, project methane

emissions from composting are calculated as follows:

PEc,CH4,y = MBcompost,y * GWPCH4 * Sa,y………………………………………………(6)

Where;

Parameter Details

PEc,CH4,y Project methane emissions due to anaerobic conditions in the composting process in year

y (tCO2e)

Sa,y Share of the waste that degrades under anaerobic conditions in the composting plant

during year y (%)

MBcompost,y Quantity of methane that would be produced in the landfill in the absence of the

composting activity in year y (tCH4). MBcompost,y is estimated by multiplying MBy

estimated from equation 9 by the fraction of waste diverted, from the landfill, to the

composting activity (fc) relative to the total waste diverted from the landfill to all project

activities (composting, gasification, anaerobic digestion and RDF/stabilized biomass,

incineration)

GWPCH4 Global Warming Potential of methane (tCO2e/tCH4)

Calculation of Sa,y:

Sa,y is determined by a combination of measurements and calculations. To determine the oxygen content

during the process, project participants shall measure the oxygen content according to a predetermined

sampling scheme and frequency. These measurements should be undertaken for each year of the crediting

period and recorded each year. The percentage of the measurements that show oxygen content below 10%

is presumed to be equal to the share of waste that degrades under anaerobic conditions (i.e. that degrades

as if it were landfilled), hence the emissions caused by this share are calculated as project emissions ex-

post on an annual basis:

Sa,y = SOD,y / Stotal,y…………………………………………………………………………...(7)

Where:

Parameter Details

Sa,y Share of the waste that degrades under anaerobic conditions in the composting plant

during year y (%)

SOD,y Number of samples per year with an oxygen deficiency (i.e. oxygen content below 10%)

Stotal,y Total number of samples taken per year, where Stotal,y should be chosen in a manner that

ensures the estimation of Sa,y with 20% uncertainty at a 95% confidence level.

Baseline emission:

Baseline emissions are calculated as follows:



page 28

BEy = (MBy - MDreg,y) + BEEN,y ……………………………………………………………(8)

Where,

Parameter Details

BEy Baseline emission in the year y (tCO2/year)

MBy Methane produced in the landfill in the absence of the project activity in year y(tCO2/year)

MDreg,y Methane that would be destroyed in the absence of the project activity in year

y(tCO2/year)

BEEN,y Baseline emissions from generation of energy displaced by the project activity in year y

(tCO2/year). It is not applicable to the project activity. Hence, this is assumed to be 0.

Adjustment Factor (AF):

In cases where regulatory or contractual requirements do not specify MDreg,y, an Adjustment Factor (AF)

shall be used and justified, taking into account the project context. In doing so, the project participant

should take into account that some of the methane generated by the landfill may be captured and

destroyed to comply with other relevant regulations or contractual requirements, or to address safety and

odour concerns.

MDreg,y = MBy * AF………………………………………………………..……………...(9)

Where;

Parameter Details

AF Adjustment Factor for MBy (%)

The parameter AF shall be estimated as follows:

1. In cases where a specific system for collection and destruction of methane is mandated by

regulatory or contractual requirements, the ratio between the destruction efficiency of that system

and the destruction efficiency of the system used in the project activity shall be used;

2. In cases where a specific percentage of the “generated” amount of methane to be collected and

destroyed is specified in the contract or mandated by the regulation, this percentage divided by an

assumed efficiency for the collection and destruction system used in the project activity shall be

used.

The „Adjustment Factor‟ shall be revised at the start of each new crediting period taking into account the

amount of GHG flaring that occurs as part of common industry practice and/or regulation at that point in

the future.

Rate of compliance:

In cases where there are regulations that mandate the use of one of the project activity treatment options

and which is not being enforced, the baseline scenario is identified as a gradual improvement of waste

management practices to the acceptable technical options expected over a period of time to comply with

the MSW Management Rules. The adjusted baseline emissions (BEy,a) are calculated as follows:

BEy,a = BEy * ( 1 – RATE, Compliance

,y)……………………………………………… ..(10)

Where;

Parameter Details



page 29

BEy,a CO2-equivalent emissions as determined from equation

RATE, Compliance

State-level compliance rate of the MSW Management Rules in that year y. The

compliance rate shall be lower than 50%; if it exceeds 50% the project activity shall

receive no further credit.

In such cases BEy,a should replace BEy in Equation (10) to estimate emission reductions.

The compliance ratio RATECompliance

y shall be monitored ex post based on the official reports for instance

annual reports provided by municipal bodies.

Methane generation from the landfill in the absence of the project activity (MBy):

The amount of methane that is generated each year (MBy) is calculated as per the latest version of the

approved “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal

site Version 05” considering the following additional equation:

MBy = BECH4, SWDS, y…………………………………………………………………(11)

Where;

Parameter Details

MBy Methane emission in the year y

BECH4, SWDS, y Methane generation from the landfill in the absence of the project activity at year y,

calculated as per the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal

of waste at a solid waste disposal site Version 05”. The tool estimates methane

generation adjusted for, using adjustment factor (f) any landfill gas in the baseline

that would have been captured and destroyed to comply with relevant regulations or

contractual requirements, or to address safety and odor concerns. As this is already

accounted for in equation 10, “f” in the tool shall be assigned a value 0.

The amount of methane that would in the absence of the project activity be generated from disposal of

waste at the solid waste disposal site (BECH4,SWDS,y) is calculated with a multi-phase model. The

calculation is based on a first order decay (FOD) model. The model differentiates between the different

types of waste j with respectively different decay rates kj and different fractions of degradable organic

carbon (DOCj). The model calculates the methane generation based on the actual waste streams Wj,x

disposed in each year x, starting with the first year after the start of the project activity until the until the

end of the year y, for which baseline emissions are calculated (years x with x = 1 to x = y).

In cases where at the SWDS methane is captured (e.g. due to safety regulations) and flared, combusted or

used in another manner, the baseline emissions are adjusted for the fraction of methane captured at the

SWDS.

The amount of methane produced in the year y (BECH4,SWDS,y) is calculated as follows:

BECH4,SWDS,y= φ*(1-f) *GWPCH4.(1-OX) *16/12*F*DOCf* MCF*

Y

x j1

Wj,x*DOCj*e-kj.(y-x)

*(1-e-

kj)…………………………………………..(12)

Where,

Parameter Description



page 30

Φ Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties (0.9)

F Fraction of methane captured at the SWDS and flared, combusted or used in another

manner

GWPCH4 Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane, valid for the relevant commitment period

OX Oxidation factor (reflecting the amount of methane from SWDS that is oxidised in the

soil or other material covering the waste)

F Fraction of methane in the SWDS gas (volume fraction) (0.5)

DOCf Fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) that can decompose

MCF Methane correction factor

Wj,x Amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the SWDS in the year x (tons)

DOCj Fraction of degradable organic carbon (by weight) in the waste type j

kj Decay rate for the waste type j

j Waste type category (index)

x Year during the crediting period: x runs from the first year of the first crediting period

(x = 1) to the year y for which avoided emissions are calculated (x = y)

Y Year for which methane emissions are calculated

Where different waste types j are prevented from disposal, determine the amount of different waste types

(Wj,x) through sampling and calculate the mean from the samples, as follows:

Wj,x = Wx .

z

xjPnz

n

1

,,

……………………………………………………………………..(13)

Where,


Wj,x Amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the SWDS in the year x (tons)

Wx Total amount of organic waste prevented from disposal in year x (tons)

Pn,j,x Weight fraction of the waste type j in the sample n collected during the year x

Z Number of samples collected during the year x

Leakage: The sources of leakage considered in the methodology are CO2 emissions from off-site transportation of

waste materials in addition to CH4 and N2O emission from the residual waste from the anaerobic

digestion, gasification processes and processing/combustion of RDF. Positive leakage that may occur

through the replacement of fossil-fuel based fertilizers with organic composts are not accounted for.

Leakage emissions should be estimated from the following equation:

Ly = Lt,y + Lr,y + Li,y + Ls,y …………………………………………………………...(14)

Where;


L,y Leakage emission

Lt,y Leakage emission from increased transport in the year y (tCO2e)

Lr,y

Leakage emissions from the residual waste from the anaerobic digester, the gasifier, the

processing/combustion of RDF/stabilized biomass, or compost in case it is disposed of in

landfills in year y (tCO2e)

Li,y Leakage emissions from the residual waste from MSW incinerator in year y (tCO2e)



page 31

Ls,y Leakage emissions from end use of stabilized biomass

Emissions from transportation (Lt,y):

The project may result in a change in transport emissions. This would occur when the waste is transported

from waste collecting points, in the collection area, to the treatment facility, instead of to existing

landfills. When it is likely that the transport emissions will increase significantly, such emissions should

be incorporated as leakage. In this case, project participants shall document the following data in the

CDM PDD: an overview of collection points from where the waste will be collected, their approximate

distance (in km) to the treatment facility, existing landfills and their approximate distance (in km) to the

nearest end user.

For calculations of the emissions, IPCC default values for fuel consumption and emission factors may be

used. The CO2 emissions are calculated from the quantity of fuel used and the specific CO2-emission

factor of the fuel for vehicles i to n, as follows:

Lt,y = n

i

NO vehicles,i,y* DTi,y* VFcons,i*NCVfuel*Dfuel*EFfuel …………………………..(15)

Where;


Lty Leakage emission from transportation in the year y

NOvehicles,i,y Number of vehicles for transport with similar loading capacity

DTi,y Average additional distance travelled by vehicle type i compared to baseline in year y (km)

VFcons Vehicle fuel consumption in litres per kilometre for vehicle type i (l/km)

NCVfuel Calorific value of the fuel (MJ/Kg or other unit)

Dfuel Fuel density (kg/l), if necessary

EFfuel Emission factor of the fuel (tCO2/MJ)

For transport of compost to the users, the same formula applies.

Emissions from residual waste from anaerobic digester, gasifier, and processing/combustion of

RDF/stabilized biomass or compost in case it is disposed of in landfills (Lr,y)

The residual waste from project will not be dumped in landfills but will be used as a construction and or

road filling. Hence, Leakage from residual waste produced in the project will be negligible. However, the

end use of the residual waste will be monitored and leakage emission from residual waste delivered to

landfill (if any) will be estimated ex post CH4 emissions are estimated using estimated weights of each

waste type (Aci,x).

Leakage Emissions from the residual waste from MSW incineration (Li,y) and Off-site Emissions from end

use of the stabilized biomass (Ls,y)

Leakage emissions from these sources are not applicable for the project activity.

Emission Reductions:

To calculate the emission reductions the project participant shall apply the following equation:

ERy = BEy – PEy – Ly …………………………………………………………………….(16)

Where;



page 32


ERy Emissions reductions in year y (t CO2e)

BEy Emissions in the baseline scenario in year y (t CO2e)

PEy Emissions in the project scenario in year y (t CO2e)

Ly Leakage in year y (t CO2e)

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

Data / Parameter: Φ

Data unit: Factor

Description: Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties

Source of data used: Methodological tool of UNFCCC CDM

Value applied: 0.9

Justification of the

choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures actually

applied :

Oonk et el. (1994) have validated several landfill gas models based on 17

realized landfill gas projects. The mean relative error of multi-phase models

was assessed to be 18%. Given the uncertainties associated with the model and

in order to estimate emission reductions in a conservative manner, a discount of

10% is applied to the model results.

Any comment: Default Value as per “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from

disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site” Version 05, EB 55

Data / Parameter: OX

Data unit: Factor

Description: Oxidation factor (reflecting the amount of methane from SWDS that is oxidized

in the soil or other material covering the waste)

Source of data used: Methodological tool of UNFCCC CDM

Value applied: 0


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

The landfills where the waste would be disposed in the absence of the project

activity are not covered with oxidizing material. Therefore a value of 0 is

applied for oxidation factor.

Any comment: As per “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at

a solid waste disposal site” Version 05, EB 55, for landfills which are not

covered with soil or any other material, the value 0 should be used for oxidation

factor.

Data / Parameter: F

Data unit: -

Description: Fraction of methane in the SWDS gas (volume fraction)

Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Value applied: 0.5


choice of data or

description of

The factor reflects the fact that some degradable organic carbon does not

degrade, or degrades very slowly, under anaerobic conditions in the solid waste

disposal site. A default value of 0.5 is recommended by IPCC, as no local



page 33

measurement methods


applied :

data was available

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: DOCf

Data unit: -

Description: Fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) that can decompose

Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Value applied: 0.5


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

Default Value as per “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from

disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site” Version 05, EB 55

Any comment: -

Data / Parameter: MCF

Data unit: -

Description: Methane correction Factor

Source of data used: IPCC 2006 guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Value applied: 0.8


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

For unmanaged solid waste disposal sites – deep and/or with high water

table. This comprises all SWDS not meeting the criteria of managed SWDS and

which have depths of greater than or equal to 5 meters and/or high water table at

near ground level. Latter situation corresponds to filling inland water, such as

pond, river or wetland, by waste. Presently, there are three existing landfills

Olusosun, Abu-Egba and Solus in Lgaos. These landfills are unmanged and

having depth more than 5 meter. In the project activity, wast will be diverted

from these landfills. Therefore MCF value 0.8 is applicable for the project

activity as per “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of

waste at a solid waste disposal site” Version 05, EB 55.

Any comment: The methane correction factor (MCF) accounts for the fact that unmanaged

SWDS produce less methane from a given amount of waste than managed

SWDS, because a larger fraction of waste decomposes aerobically in the top

layers of unmanaged SWDS

Data / Parameter: DOCj

Data unit: % (wet weight)

Description: Fraction of degradable organic carbon (by weight) in the waste type j

Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (adapted from

Volume 5, Tables 2.4 and 2.5)

Value applied:

Apply the following values for the different waste types j:

Waste type j DOCj



page 34

(% wet waste)

Wood and wood products 43

Pulp, paper and cardboard (other than sludge) 40

Food, food waste, beverages and tobacco

(other than sludge)

15

Textiles 24

Garden, yard and park waste 20

Glass, plastic, metal, other inert waste 0


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

Default values are taken from “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided

from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site Version 05”

Any comment: According to the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping

waste at a solid waste disposal site Version 05”, if a waste type, prevented from

disposal by the proposed CDM project activity, can not clearly be attributed to

one of the waste types in the table above, project participants should choose

among the waste types that have similar characteristics that waste type where

the values of DOCj and kj result in a conservative estimate (lowest emissions),

Data / Parameter: Kj

Data unit: Factor

Description: Decay rate for the waste type j


Volume 5, Table 3.3)

Value applied: Apply the following default values for the different waste types j

Waste type j Tropical (MAT>20°C)

Wet MAP> 1000mm)

Slo

wly

deg

radin

g Pulp, paper, cardboard (other than sludge),

textiles

0.07

Wood, wood products and straw 0.035

Moder

ate

ly

deg

radin

g

Other (non-food) organic putrescible

garden and park waste

0.17

Rapid

ly

deg

radin

g Food, food waste, sewage sludge,

beverages and tobacco

0.40

NB: MAT – mean annual temperature, MAP – Mean annual precipitation, PET – potential evapotranspiration. MAP/PET is the ratio between the mean annual



page 35

precipitation and the potential evapo-transpiration.


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

MAP and MAT values for Lagos is as follows;

MAP: 150619

mm

MAT: 270C

20

Hence, Lagos lies in tropical area, hence conservative value for MAP and MAT

as proposed by the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from

dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site Version 05” is applicable.

Any comment: Document in the CDM-PDD the climatic conditions at the SWDS site (temperature,

precipitation and, where applicable, evapotranspiration).

Data / Parameter: EFc,N2O

Data unit: tN2O/tonnes of compost

Description: Emission factor for N2O emissions from the composting process

Source of data used: AM 0025

Value applied: Ex-ante fixed


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

Default value of 0.043kg-N2O/t-compost, recommended in approved

methodology AM0025.

Any comment: -

Data / Parameter: NCVfuel

Data unit: TJ/Gg

Description: Net calorific value



Value applied: 43.33


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

Default value of IPCC is used as no authentic local source, or project specific

values are available to PP.

Any comment: -Ex ante fixed

Data / Parameter: EFfuel

Data unit: tCO2/MJ

Description: Emission factor for diesel fuel




19 http://www.climate-charts.com/Locations/n/NI65201.php#data

20 http://www.climate-charts.com/Locations/n/NI65201.php#data

http://www.climate-charts.com/Locations/n/NI65201.php#data

http://www.climate-charts.com/Locations/n/NI65201.php#data



page 36


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

Default value of IPCC is used as no authentic local source and/ or project

specific values are available to PP.

Any comment: Ex ante Fixed

Data / Parameter: Dfuel

Data unit: Density of diesel fuel

Description: Kg/l

Source of data used: http://www.simetric.co.uk.htm



choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

Default value

Any comment: Ex ante fixed

Data / Parameter: AF

Data unit: Factor

Description: %

Source of data used: Reports published by local, national authority and researchers

Value applied: 0


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

At present, there is no regulatory mandate for MSW disposal and treatment

exist in Nigeria.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: GWPCH4

Data unit: -

Description: Global Warming potential (GWP) of methane

Source of data used: Decisions under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol (a value of 21 is to be

applied for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol).

Value applied: 21


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

-

Any comment: -

http://www.simetric.co.uk.htm/



page 37

Data / Parameter: CEFelec

Data unit: tCO2/MWh

Description: Emission factor for the production of electricity in the project activity

Source of data used: Official utility documents

Value applied: 0.63


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

Calculated according to the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an

electricity system”, according to data from captive power plant. Please refer

Annex 3.

Any comment: Ex-ante fixed

Data / Parameter: VFcons

Data unit: l/km

Description: Vehicle fuel consumption for vehicle type i

Source of data used: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools



choice of data or

description of

measurement methods


applied :

Any comment: Ex-ante fixed

B.6.3. Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:

As described in section B.6.1, the emission reductions are calculated according to methodology AM0025,

“Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” and “Tool to determine methane

emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site” therein. The ex-ante calculation of

emission reductions are completed with the following steps:

Project emission:

The project emissions in year y for the composting process, calculated as follows;

Emissions from electricity use (PEelec,y):

Project activity involves electricity consumption, CO2 emissions are calculated as follows:

Parameter Details Unit Values

EGPJ,FF,y Amount of electricity consumed from the grid as a result of the

project activity, measured using an electricity meter in a year (in

12 months) y

MWh 20

CEFelec Carbon emissions factor for electricity generation in the project

activity*

tCO2/

MWh

0.63

PEelec,y Emissions from electricity consumption on-site due to the (tCO2e) 13

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools



page 38

project activity in year y

Emissions from fuel use on-site (PEfuel, on-site,y)

CO2 emissions from vehicles used on-site are calculated from the quantity of fuel used, as follows:


Fcons,y Fuel consumption on site in year (in 12 months) y Liters 603953

NCVfuel Net caloric value of the fuel MJ/kg 43330

Density Kg/l 0.00885

EFfuel CO2 emissions factor of the fuel tCO2/MJ 74.1*10-6

PEfuel, onsite,y Emissions on-site due to fuel consumption on-site in year y tCO2e 1716

.

Emissions from composting (PEc,y):

Emissions from composting are calculated as follows;

N2O emissions

N2O emissions are calculated as follows:

PEc,N2O,y = Mcompost,y * EFc,N2O * GWPN2O ………………………………………………(5)

Where;


Mcompost,y Total quantity of compost produced in year (in 12 months) y tonnes/a 191625

EFc,N2O Emission factor for N2O emissions from the composting process tN2O/t

compost

4.3*10-5

GWPN2O Global Warming Potential of nitrous oxide tCO2/tN2

O

310

PEc,N2O,y N2O emissions from composting in year y tCO2e 2554

CH4 emissions:

Project methane emissions from composting are calculated as follows:

Year Sa,y MBcompost,y GWPCH4 PEc,CH4,y

201021

2% 948 21 398

2011 2% 9542 21 4007

2012 2% 12165 21 5109

2013 2% 13961 21 5864

2014 2% 15200 21 6384

2015 2% 16063 21 6746

2016 2% 16671 21 7002

201722

2% 14256 21 5988

Project emission:

21 For 2 months duration starting November 1, 2010 (Start of Crediting Period) to Dec 31, 2010




page 39

Year PEelectricity,y PEfuel,onsite,y PEc,y PEy

201023

2 286 824 1112

2011 13 1716 6562 8291

2012 13 1716 7664 9393

2013 13 1716 8418 10147

2014 13 1716 8938 10667

2015 13 1716 9301 11029

2016 13 1716 9556 11285

201724

11 1430 8116 9557

Baseline emission:

Baseline emissions are calculated as follows:

Adjustment Factor (AF):

Adjustment factor is calculated as follows;


AF Adjustment Factor for MBy (%) % 0

Rate of compliance:

The adjusted baseline emissions (BEy,a) are calculated as follows:


RATE, Compliancey

State-level compliance rate of the MSW Management

Rules in that year y.

- 0

BEy,a CO2-equivalent emissions

Methane generation from the landfill in the absence of the project activity (MBy):

The amount of methane produced in the year y (BECH4,SWDS,y) is calculated as follows:

Parameter Description Unit Values

Φ Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties - 0.9

F Fraction of methane captured at the SWDS and flared,

combusted or used in another manner

- 0

GWPCH4 Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane, valid for the

relevant commitment period

- 21

OX Oxidation factor (reflecting the amount of methane from SWDS

that is oxidised in the soil or other material covering the waste)

- 0

F Fraction of methane in the SWDS gas (volume fraction) - 0.5

DOCf Fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) that can

decompose

- 0.5

MCF Methane correction factor - 0.8





page 40

Wj,x Amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the

SWDS in the year x (12 months)

Tons/yr 547500

DOCj Fraction of degradable organic carbon (by weight) in the waste

type j

- Given in

Annex 5

kj Decay rate for the waste type j - AM 0025

j Waste type category (index) - AM 0025

x

Year during the crediting period: x runs from the first year of

the first crediting period

(x = 1) to the year y for which avoided emissions are calculated

(x = y)

- 2010

Y Year for which methane emissions are calculated (first crediting

period)

- 2017

Where different waste types j are prevented from disposal, determine the amount of different waste types

(Wj,x) through sampling and calculate the mean from the samples, as follows:

Summary of baseline emission:

Year Baseline emission

201025

19.904

2011 200,372

2012 255,473

2013 293,191

2014 319,203

2015 337,320

2016 350,097

201726

299,378

Total (tonnes of CO2e) 2,074,938

Leakage:

1. Emissions from waste transportation (Lt,y,w):

Parameter Description Unit Values

MSW Compost

Total operational days Days 365 365

Truck capacity Tons/trip 4 4

Quantity Tons/day 1500 525

NOvehicles,i,y Number of vehicles for transport with similar

loading capacity

- 136,875 47,906

DTi,y Average additional distance travelled by vehicle Km 20 150





page 41

type i compared to baseline in year y (km)

VFcons Vehicle fuel consumption in litres per kilometre for

vehicle type i (l/km)

l/km 0.15727

0.157

NCVfuel Calorific value of the fuel MJ/Kg 43.33 43.33

Dfuel Fuel density kg/l 0.885 0.885

EFfuel Emission factor of the fuel tCO2/MJ 74.1 74.1

D Total days No of Days 365 365

Lty Leakage emission from transportation in the

year y (in 12 months)

tCO2 1,221 3,206

2. Emissions from residual waste from compost in case it is disposed of in landfills (Lr,y) The residual waste from project will not be dumped in landfills but will be used as a construction and or

road filling. Hence, Leakage from residual waste produced in the project is considered to be zero.

However, the end use of the residual waste will be monitored and leakage emission from residual waste

delivered to landfill (if any) will be estimated ex post. CH4 emissions shall be estimated using estimated

weights of each waste type (Aci,x). The composition analysis of the compost rejects will be done as per

the Annex 4.1.

For the purpose of PDD, residual waste to be disposed in landfill is considered zero. Further, it is assumed

that the compost rejects/ residue will have the similar composition as of original input MSW as follows:

Table: Composition of compost rejects/ residue

Fraction Type % fraction

Vegetables & food waste 85%

Paper 4%

Textiles 1%

Garden Waste 0%

Wood & wood products 0%

Emission is calculated using equation 12. Calculated emissions are given in table below.

Table: Summary of Leakage

Year Emissions from waste

transportation (Lt,y,w)

Emissions from

residual waste from

compost in case it is

disposed of in

landfills (Lr,y)

Total

201028

738 0 738

2011 4427 0 4427

2012 4427 0 4427

2013 4427 0 4427

2014 4427 0 4427

27 CO2 emissions from transport or mobile sources. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative.

The Diesel light truck value in Table 4. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools.


http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools



page 42

2015 4427 0 4427

2016 4427 0 4427

201729

3689 0 3689

Total (tonnes

of CO2e)

30,989

0 30,989

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

Year Estimation of

project

activity

emissions

(tCO2 e)

Estimations of

baseline emissions

(tCO2 e)

Estimation of

leakage

(tCO2 e)

Estimation of

overall emission

reductions

(tCO2 e)

201030

1112 19,904 738 18,054

2011 8,291 200,372 4427 187,655

2012 9,393 255,473 4427 241,654

2013 10,147 293,191 4427 278,617

2014 10,667 319,203 4427 304,109

2015 11,029 337,320 4427 321,863

2016 11,285 350,097 4427 334,385

201731

9,557 299,378 3689 286,132

Total (tonnes

of CO2e) 71,480

2,074,938

30,989

1,972,468

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

B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored:

Data / Parameter: EGPJ,FF,y

Data unit: MWh

Description: Amount of electricity consumed from the grid as a result of the project

activity

Source of data to be used: Electricity meter

Value of data applied for the

purpose of calculating

expected emission

reductions in section B.5

20

(Annual electricity consumption, based on actual monthly data for

February 2010, which happens to be 0.56 MWh, translates to 6.72

MWh/Year. A value of 20 MWh, has been used for conservative

estimates anticipating increase in electricity consumption in the future.

This parameter will be monitored and the actual value will be used for ex-

post calculation of emission reductions.

Description of measurement The power consumption from the grid will be measured using electricity






page 43

methods and procedures to

be applied:

meter or it shall be taken from the monthly electricity bills.

QA/QC procedures to be

applied:

Electricity meter will be subject to regular (in accordance with stipulation

of the meter supplier) maintenance and testing to ensure accuracy. The

readings will be double checked by the electricity distribution company

purchase invoices.

Any comment: Monitoring Frequency: Continuous and aggregated monthly/annually

Data Archiving: Electronically and paper backup (+2 year of credit

period)

Data / Parameter: Fcons,y

Data unit: Litre

Description: Fuel consumption on-site during year 'y' of the crediting period.

Source of data to be used: Purchase invoices



expected emission


603,953

(

At the rate of 371.66 litres/day fuel consumption recorded for the month

of September, 2009, when the waste processing was at 336.92 TPD, fuel

consumption for a 1500 TPD plant is estimated to be 603,953

Litres/year.)

Description of measurement


be applied:

Fuel consumption will be recorded in daily log books and aggregated

monthly and annually.


applied:

Annual fuel consumption will be cross checked with fuel purchase

invoices.

Any comment: Monitoring frequency: Aggregated monthly/ annually

Data achieving: Electronically and paper backup (+2 year of credit

period)

Data / Parameter: Wx

Data unit: Tonnes

Description: Total amount of municipal solid waste prevented from disposal in year x

Source of data to be used: Plant records



expected emission


547500 tonnes/year (Expected value for maximum capacity utilization i.e.

1500 TPD and 365 days of operation per annum)



be applied:

Each truck carrying waste will be measured using weighbridge (s), which

will be installed at the entrance of the plant. In case the installation of the

weighbridge is either delayed or dropped, the weight of a standard load of

waste carried by each truck shall be established in any nearby

weighbridge once in every six months and the corresponding values shall

be used to calculate the quantity of waste brought in to the facility by



page 44

multiplying the number of trips of each truck with its standard load

weight.


applied:

Weighbridge (s) will be calibrated annually.

Any comment: Monitoring frequency: Continuously and monthly/ annually aggregation


period)

Data / Parameter: Pn,j,x

Data unit: %

Description: Weight fraction of the waste type j in the sample n collected during the

year x

Source of data to be used: Sample analysis by PP



expected emission


Fraction Type MSW composition processed

Vegetables & food waste 85%

Paper 4%

Textiles 1%

Garden Waste 0.0%

Wood & wood products 0%

Reference: Characteristics of market waste provided by Lagos Waste

Management Authority (LAWMA)

3.



be applied:

- Sampling procedure is outlined in Annex 4.1

- The size and frequency of sampling should be statistically significant

with a maximum uncertainty range 20% at a 95% confidence level. As

provided in Annex 4.4, total 24 samples per annum will be analysed.

-


applied:

-Minimum four samples will be analysed by National Accredited

Laboratory quarterly

Any comment: Monitoring frequency: 24 samples/ annum


period)

Data / Parameter: Mcompost,y

Data unit: Tonnes

Description: Total quantity of compost produced in year „y‟.




expected emission


191625 (35% of waste processed at for maximum capacity utilization i.e.

1500 TPD).



be applied:

Each compost truck will be measured using weighbridge (s) installed at

the gate. The temporary stored compost will also be measured.

QA/QC procedures to be Cross checked with compost sale invoices.



page 45

applied:



period)

Data / Parameter: RATECompliance

y

Data unit: Fraction

Description: State level compliance rate of the MSW Management rules in the year y

Source of data to be used: Monitored ex post based on the published information /annual report or

other reputed source or verifiable and accurate data to be provided by the

municipal bodies/state agency.



expected emission


0 (A value of zero has been considered as Nigeria does not have any

MSW Management Rules that mandate composting as the only option for

waste treatment).



be applied:

The compliance rate is based on the annual reporting of the municipal

bodies issuing these reports. If the compliance rate exceeds 50%, no

CERs can be claimed.


applied:

-

Any comment: Monitoring Frequency Annual

Data / Parameter: NOvehicles,i,y

Data unit: Number

Description: No of Vehicle i trips per year carrying waste and delivering compost to

end users

Source of data to be used: Plant records for Compost deliveries



expected emission


MSW= (1500*365)/5 =109500

Compost =(525*365)/5 = 38325

(Please refer Section: Leakage, page, 39)



be applied:

Number of vehicles and total km travelled by the vehicles will be

recorded on daily basis. Average number of vehicle per carrying capacity

per year will be calculated using the aggregated annual values.


applied:

Number of vehicles and average load should will be cross checked with

total amount of waste, compost and compost rejects delivered to and from

the facility.



period)

Data / Parameter: DTi,y

Data unit: Km

Description: Average additional distance travelled by vehicle type „i‟ compared to the

baseline in year „y‟.

Source of data to be used: Expert estimate, map calculation and/or distance record in vehicle.

Value of data applied for the 20 km for Waste transportation



page 46


expected emission


150 km for Compost transportation

Since waste will be transported from the nearby markets a distance of 20

KM has been used for waste transportation.

Most of the compost is expected to be used in the state of Lagos and other

nearby states. Therefore a distance of 150 KM has been used for the

purpose of PDD.

The actual distances for transport of waste will be monitored based on

areas from which the waste will be ultimate collected and for compost

based on the actual sales.



be applied:

The distance covered by the vehicles for compost, waste and compost

residue delivery to and from the facility will be recorded on daily basis.


applied:

The recorded distance will be cross checked with the actual average

distance based on distance map.



period)

Data / Parameter: Sa,y

Data unit: %

Description: Share of the waste that degrades under anaerobic conditions in the

composting plant during year „y‟.




expected emission


2%

The company will adhere to strict operating conditions in order to ensure

quality of compost. For the purpose of PDD share of wastes expected to

degrade under anaerobic condition is assumed to be 2%. In reality this

parameter will be monitored.



be applied:

O2 measurement-instrument will be calibrated periodically in accordance

with stipulation of instrument-supplier. A statistically significant

sampling procedure will be set up that consists of multiple measurements

throughout the different stages of the composting process according to a

predetermined pattern (depths and scatter) on a weekly basis.


applied:

Refer STotal,y

Any comment: -

Data / Parameter: SOD,y

Data unit: Number

Description: Number of samples with oxygen deficiency (i.e. oxygen content below

10%)

Source of data to be used: Oxygen measurement device



page 47



expected emission


24



be applied:

O2-measurement-instrument will be subject to periodic calibration (in

accordance with stipulation of instrument-supplier). Measurement itself to

be done by using a standardised mobile gas detection instrument. A

statistically significant sampling procedure will be set up that consists of

multiple measurements throughout the different stages of the composting

process according to a predetermined pattern (depths and scatter) on a

weekly basis.


applied:

STotal,y

Any comment: Samples with oxygen content <10%. Weekly measurements throughout

the year but accumulated once per year only.

Data / Parameter: STotal,y

Data unit: Number

Description: Number of samples

Source of data to be used: Oxygen measurement device



expected emission


Weekly



be applied:

O2-measurement-instrument will be subject to periodic calibration (in

accordance with stipulation of instrument-supplier). Measurement itself to

be done by using a standardised mobile gas detection instrument. A

statistically significant sampling procedure will be set up that consists of

multiple measurements throughout the different stages of the composting

process according to a predetermined pattern (depths and scatter) on a

daily basis. Please refer Annex 4.2.


applied:

Total number of samples taken per year, where STotal,y should be chosen in

a manner that ensures estimation of Sa,y with 20% uncertainty at 95%

confidence level. To determine the oxygen content during the process,

project participants shall measure the oxygen content according to a

predetermined sampling scheme and frequency. These measurements will

be undertaken for each year of the crediting period and recorded each

year.

Any comment: -

B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan:

ENL will have procedures for monitoring and recording of data on operation & maintenance of the plant

equipments. This monitoring plan is developed in accordance with approved Methodology AM0025. The

subsequent sections describes about the monitoring plan including CDM team, monitoring practices,

quality assurance, quality control procedures, data storage and archiving.

Monitoring Plan:



page 48

Following components are identified as the integral part of the monitoring plan for proposed project

activity.

i. Composition of CDM Team:

The CDM Team proposed for monitoring of emission reductions due to the project activity

performs various functions such as measuring, recording, storage of measured data and reporting.

The CDM Team will comprise of following members;Plant General Manager,

Production In- charge

Maintenance Engineers

Shift In- Charge/ Shift Supervisor

Operators

ii. Responsibilities of CDM Team:

The Plant General Manager will be the responsible person for overall operation and maintenance of the

project activity. The Production In-charge will maintain all the data records and ensures the completeness

and reliability of the data. Maintenance Engineers will be responsible for equipments/meters maintenance

and calibration, etc.. The Shift In-charge/ Shift supervisors and operators will maintain the day to day

sampling and data collection. Following table provides the details of the responsibilities of CDM team;

Table: Responsibilities of the CDM team

S. No. Entity Responsibilities

1. Plant General

Manager

i. Supervise the project operation in compliance with the

monitoring plan

ii. Internal audit and project conformance reviews

iii. Reviewing of records and monitored data and sign off the

data on a monthly basis

iv. Responsibility for closing project non conformances and

implementing corrective actions

v. Organizing operation and maintenance and CDM training

programs regularly

2. Production In- Charge i. Implementing all monitoring control procedures and monthly

performance report generation

ii. Ensure QA and QC

iii. Overall responsibility for record handling and maintenance

iv. Organizing internal audit to check the recorded data

v. Supervising training of operators and maintaining training

records

3. Maintenance Engineers i. Overall responsibility for maintenance and calibration of

equipments

ii. Assisting production in-charge for record handling and

organizing internal audits

iii. Supervising shift in-charge in recording data

4. Shift In- charge/

Shift Supervisor

i. Overall responsibility of data collection and compilation

ii. Monitoring and reporting the quality of incoming MSW and

the compost produced



page 49

5. Operators i. Maintenance of daily log books and day to day monitoring of

identified parameters

ii. Assisting the overall team in record checking during internal

audit

iii. Monitoring parameters and responsible person:

Identified parameters will be monitored as described in table below.

Parameter Description Frequency Person

Responsible

EGPJ,FF,y Amount of electricity consumed from the grid

as a result of the project activity

Monthly and

annual

aggregation.

Maintenance

Engineer/ Plant

General

Manager

Fcons,y Fuel Consumption on site during the year y of

the crediting period

Daily and annual

aggregation.

Shift In-charge/

Plant General

Manager

Mcompost,y Total quantity of compost produced in year

„y‟

Daily;

Monthly and / or

annual

aggregation.

Production In-

charge

Pn,j,x Weight fraction of the waste type j in the

sample n collected during the year x

24 samples/ year Maintenance

Engineers/ Plant

General manager

Z Number of samples collected during the year

„y‟

24 samples/ year Maintenance

Engineers/ Plant

General

Manager

RATECompliance

y State level compliance rate of the MSW

Management rules in the year y

Annual Plant General

Manager

NOvehicles,i,y Number of Vehicle per carrying capacity per

year

Daily and annual

aggregation.

Operator / Shift

Incharge

DTi,y Average additional distance travelled by

vehicle type „i‟ compared to the baseline in

year „y‟

Daily and annual

aggregation.

Operator / Shift

Incharge

VFcons,i Vehicle fuel consumption in litres per kilometre

for vehicle type i Daily and annual

aggregation.

Operator / Shift

Incharge

Sa,y Share of the waste that degrades under

anaerobic conditions in the composting plant

during year „y‟

- Operator / Shift

Incharge

SOD,y Number of samples with oxygen deficiency

(i.e. oxygen content below 10%)

Annual

aggregation

Operator / Shift

Incharge

STotal,y Number of samples Weekly and

annual

aggregation

Operator / Shift

In-charge

Aj,x Amount of organic waste type j prevented from

disposal in the landfill in the year Continuous and

annual

aggregation.

Operator / Shift

In-charge/ Plant

General

Manager



page 50

iv. Calibration and Maintenance of the metering Systems:

All measuring and analytical instruments will be subject to periodic calibration in accordance with

stipulation of supplier and or relevant national/sector standard and/or regulation as indicated in Table

above. The calibration records will be kept for every instrument irrespective of its frequency of usage,

the equipment is an operational or spare unit. Maintenance engineers will be the responsible entity for this

activity.

v. Reporting of the Monitored Parameters:

Data flow is given in figure below. The monitored data will be compiled at the end of each month by the

relative departments. Further, monthly monitoring report will be prepared by relative departments/

authority and reported to the Plant General Manager. Based on the CDM regulation and the monitoring

report will be issued annually by the Plant General Manager.

Fig. Schematic diagram for data flow

vi. Archiving of Data:

All data will be kept in both electronic and/ or paper form. The archived data shall be kept for two

years after the crediting period or issuance of CERs.

vii. Internal Audits:

ENL will conduct internal audits of all monitored records of composting facility twice a year. Plant

manager will be the responsible for person for organizing internal audits with the help of other CDM

team member. During internal audits, the monitored records will be cross checked as per the

monitoring plan.

viii. Training of CDM Team:

The Plant General Manager will ensure that all staff employed at ENL composting facility are trained

in the following subject areas:

Monthly Monitoring report

Daily Log Sheet

Physical Project Activity

Operators Shift Supervisor/ Shift In-charge

Maintenance Engineers

Production In-Charge

Other Sources Plant General

manager

DoE

Monitoring Report



page 51

i. General operation of the composting facility;

ii. Specific job roles and procedures as defined in section 4.2; and

iii. Contingency plans and emergency response procedures.

The training of the CDM team will be carried out on CDM principles. Step-by-step instructions on how

the data should be measured, logged, consolidated and archived shall be provided to these personnel

through a planned schedule made in advance and a record of various training programmes undertaken

should be kept for verification.

ix. Emergency Preparedness:

CDM team will be responsible for preventive maintenance, handling emergency situations and

improvement measures under the overall responsibility of Plant General Manager . If any problem

occurred, the monitoring staff will inform the Plant General Manager immediately. If monitoring

equipment is broken, relevant staffs will repair it as soon as possible according to the specification. If the

equipment cannot be repaired, replacement will be carried out immediately. The missing data during

repair and replacement will be identified in conservative manner which results minimum emission

reductions. For instance, if the electricity meter is not functioning, the electricity consumption will adopt

the maximum historical data for resulting maximum project emissions; if the weighbridge is broken, the

treated MSW will adopt minimum historical data for resulting minimum baseline emissions. Monitoring

team will take measures to ensure to avoid similar problem in future. The periodic audits will include the

review of necessary corrective action and also the tracking of the completion of the corrective measure.

ENL has envisaged following conditions which can cause unintended emission in the project activity;

Emission from MSW storage

If there is a major breakdown in the facility, stored MSW can lead to emissions and order nuisance. For

such situation, plant manager will make sure the stored MSW is turned on regular basis and kept in small

heaps to avoid such situation. In addition to ensure the aerobic condition in stored waste oxygen samples

will be taken on regular basis as per the procedure given in annex 4.2. Records of the same will be kept

for verification. During such period the waste transportation will also be suspended temporarily.

Emission from compost storage

Storage of final compost due to any breakdown in packaging machines can lead to unintended project

emissions. Therefore, ENL will have a spare packaging machine along with the emergency plan for

deployment of trained manpower for manual packaging. Production In charge will be the responsible

person for such conditions. Records of the same will be kept for verification.

Emission from compost rejects/residue storage

Long term storage of compost rejects/residue due to unforeseen reasons can also lead to project

emissions. During this period, ENL will monitor the stored compost reject/ residue on periodic basis to

ensure aerobic conditions. Production In charge will be the responsible person for such conditions.

Records of the same will be kept for verification.

x. Monitoring of Sustainable Development Indicators/ Environmental Impacts ENL will ensure that its operations are carried out with due regard to environmental safety by minimizing

or completely eliminating all harmful discharge into the air, water and soil. To ensure the same ENL will

take following actions;

1. Ensuring compliance with all local/state/ national statutory compliance



page 52

2. Ensure periodic auditing of its environmental policy and operations with regard to the

environmental parameters highlighted in Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)

3. Establishment of effective information dissemination network about the company‟s environment

policy among all stakeholders like; workers, local stakeholders, government.

4. Establishment of demonstration centres for local farmers

5. Contribution to funding environmental related research and sponsorship of educational project

for local stakeholders, as may be applicable

Plant General Manager will be the responsible person to organize review/ audit to ensure the continuous

contribution to the sustainable development of host country (Table below). These audit/review report will

be archived electronically and or paper backup for review and necessary actions. The monitoring process

will be subject to modification as per to accesses effectiveness and achieve the desired results.

Particulars SD Indicators Purpose Frequecny Responsible Entity

Regulatory/

Statutory

Compliance Audit

Environmental To ensure compliance

with local/ state/ national

guidelines

Quarterly Plant General

Manager/

Production Manager

Environment

Management Audit

Environmental To ensure

implementation and

review of company‟s

environmental policy

Quarterly Plant General

Manager/

Production manager

Health Audit Social To ensure the safety of

workers in work

environment

Quarterly Plant Manger/

Production Manager

Employment Economic To ensure the

contribution to the

economic development

of the region

Annual Plant Manager/

Accounts head

Grants Social/

Economic

To ensure the

contribution to social and

economic development

Annual Plant General

Manager/

Production Manager

Demonstration

centres

Social To ensure the

dissemination of

information among the

local farmers

Half yearly Plant General

Manager/

Production manager

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

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

Date of completion 25/10/2008

Emergent Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.

5th Floor, Universal Trade Tower

Gurgaon- Sohna Road, Sector 49



page 53

Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, India

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:

July 14, 2005 (Equipment Purchase Order placed)

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

25 Years

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

The project will use a renewable crediting period

C.2.1. Renewable crediting period:

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

1/11/2010 or the project registration date whichever is later

C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period:

7 years

C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:

C.2.2.1. Starting date:

NA

C.2.2.2. Length:

NA



page 54

SECTION D. Environmental impacts

D.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary

impacts:

An Environmental Impact Assessment for composting facility was conducted and approved by the

Federal Ministry of Environment, Nigeria. According to the EIA Report, the environment impacts

possibly caused by the Project and the corresponding mitigating measures adopted by the ENL are

analyzed as followings:

Construction phase impacts:

Air Quality:

The potential sources of air pollution are the fugitive dust produced by the movement of soils during site

clearing, grading and filling. Emission from internal combustion engines of vehicles and construction

equipment. These emissions are short term and localized to immediate site area. To avoid these emissions

engines, regular maintenance check of vehicles and construction equipment will be done. Emissions of

the fugitive dusts will be reduced by periodic spraying of water.

Geology and Soil:

Impacts to geology are not expected as site clearing and preparation had been effected during the

construction. The potential for soil erosion and degradation during the construction of the facility will be

greatly reduced by the forest buffer to be created around the project site and channelled to the rainwater

pond to reuse. Therefore no adverse impact on soil is envisaged.

Solid and liquid waste:

The construction will generate solid and liquid waste during construction such as slag, discarded solid,

wastewater from vehicles cleaning and sewage. The solid waste will be transferred to on-site disposal

point, which will be further used for building on-site road or landfilling at project site. The construction

personnel will be properly trained to handle and disposal of solid and liquid wastes to avoid accidental

spillage and to clean spillage appropriately.

Surface and ground water quality:

To mitigate the surface water pollution, the berms would be put to avoid washing away of the excavated

soil. The project is not expected to impact on groundwater in any adverse way. Ground water flow is not

expected to be disturbed during construction or operation phases. The storage area for lubricating and

waste oils, diesel fuel and other chemicals and solvents will be designed and built to prevent any

accidental spill infiltrating to the ground level.

Noise:

Noise arising from construction activities is expected to be the minimal and restricted to the project site

and of short duration. Adequate personnel protective equipment (PPE) will be provided to the workers

and site personnel.

Vegetation:



page 55

Construction activities are expected to impact significantly on wildlife and vegetation of the region. This

is the only significant impact of the project activity, which will be mitigated by putting buffered forest

around the project site.

Operation Phase impacts:

Air Quality:

The only significant source of air pollution during plant operation are the delivery trucks, diesel driven

grinder, screeners, loaders and ploughing tractors. Carbon dioxide and some methane may also be

emitted. The vegetation buffer zone will act as a sink for the emitted gases while the level other air

pollutants is expected to be insignificant.

Odour is a major concern in composting. But the inoculants eliminate or reduced the odour to a bare

minimum within one hour of application. The vegetation buffer around the project site is another

mitigation measure that will reduce the spread of odour.

Noise:

Noise generation will be limited to pieces of equipments to be used at the project site and to move

materials around. The level of noise will be insignificant but personnel at noise end of operation will be

mandated to wear ear muffs.

Geology and soil:

Significant adverse impact on the geology of the project site is not anticipated during the operation at the

project site. However the soil may be impacted though not significantly. The impact on soil can be

mitigated by using best available technology to convey waste and move loads around.

Surface and ground water quality:

The operation of the compost facility is not expected to affect significantly the ground water quality as the

dam will impound all storm water for reuse. The floor of the facility and the compost pads will be

concertized and the later lined will synthetic polymers to reduce permeability.

Vegetation and wild life:

The major impact would be during the construction phase only. And it is expected the composting may

indeed encourage some farmhouse wild life activity.

Environment Management and monitoring plan:

ENL is carrying out its business activities which is primarily the composting of biodegradable has a

standing policy of doing this in a law full manner with a strong emphasis on maintain a safe and healthy

environment for its employees and the general public. It is also part of the policy to minimize the bare

minimum effects of its activities and the natural environment within its area of activity.

The compost facility within its activities to maintain, manage and monitor the environmental indicators of

pollution to resist altering the natural ecosystem of the area.

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:



page 56

The proposed project activity is designed to be state of the art composting facility, environment friendly

and sustainable. There is no adverse impact by the project activity on the environment (air, water, soil) as

discussed in previous section. It has only positive impacts in the form of emission reduction of GHG.

SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments

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

ENL initiated the stakeholder consultation process by taking out a newspaper advertisement on 17

December, 2008, informing the locals about the project activity, its benefits, expected carbon credit

realization and the date and venue of the stakeholders‟ consultation meeting. The advertisement asked for

comments and suggestions that may help the project deliver benefits more efficiently to all parties

concerned. In addition to the newspaper advertisement, residents of Ikorodu farm settlement, Odogunyan

community and Ikorodu North Local Government area were informed by notices displayed at prominent

public places. LAWMA, the State Ministry for Environment, ENL employees and service providers were

also informed and their presence requested for the meeting.

The stakeholder consultation meeting was held on 19 December at the ENL composting facilities‟

premise. The attendees included:

1. Managing Director, Lagos State Waste Management Authority, LAWMA

2. Project Coordinator, Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas

3. Project Coordinator, Lagos State Ministry for the Environment

4. Other Representatives from LAWMA

5. Representatives from Ikorodu farm settlements

6. Representatives from Odogunyan community

7. Residents from Ikorodu North Local Government area

8. Members of staff of ENL

Discussions on the project activity and its implications ensued and recorded as minutes of the meeting.

E.2. Summary of the comments received:

The gathering was introduced to Greenhouse gas effect, methane mitigation potential of the project and

the Clean Development Mechanism. The positive impact of carbon financing on such projects was also

mentioned in the address. After introduction, the meeting turned into interactive sessions. The queries of

the gathering were taken and answered. The queries/comments received, have been summarised below:

Question: How does clean development mechanism benefit society?

Response: CDM is a tool to provide incentives to mitigate the emission of greenhouse gases which are

enhancing the climate change. The purpose of this programme is to reduce emission of greenhouse gases

as well as promote sustainable development in the host country. Therefore developing country like

Nigeria will gain financial and environmental benefits by reducing the emissions of ever increasing

GHGs.

Question: What are carbon credits? How these will be obtained? Who will buy them?



page 57

Response: Carbon credits are generated in the developing countries by reducing the greenhouse gas

emission to the atmosphere. One ton of carbon dioxide saved equals one carbon credit. All steps of CDM

cycle and carbon credit monetization were explained.

Question: What is the price of one credit?

Response: Carbon credits are priced at about US$20 which changes from time to time like shares.

The stakeholders welcomed the project activity and its cause. LAWMA officials commended the project

as being a positive step towards more efficient waste management in the Lagos state.

The farmer representatives welcomed the stakeholder consultation process and requested that more such

forums be undertaken in future.

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

The comments/suggestions/queries received at every stage of the stakeholder consultation process were

duly noted and recorded. All queries and comments were responded to in the best possible manner.

Project was well taken and appreciated by the local stakeholders. ENL has welcomed the suggestion and

planned to organise such forums in future as well to disseminate project related information and to

receive suggestions from local stakeholders. No negative comment was received.



page 58

Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

Organization: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development as the Trustee for the

Carbon Fund for Europe (CFE)

Street/P.O.Box: 1818 H street NW

Building: MC

City: Washington

State/Region: DC

Postcode/ZIP: 20433

Country: USA

Telephone: 1202 473 9189

FAX: 1202 522 7432

E-Mail: [email protected]

URL: www.carbonfinance.org

Represented by:

Title: Manager, Carbon Finance Unit

Salutation:

Last name: Chassard

Middle name:

First name: Joelle

Department: ENVCF

Mobile:

Direct FAX:

Direct tel: -

Personal e-mail: -

Organization: Fundo Portugues de Carbono (Portuguese Carbon Fund)

Street/P.O.Box: Rua de S. Domingos A Lapa No. 26

Building:

City: Lisbon

State/Region:

Postcode/ZIP:

Country: Portugal

Telephone: (351-21) 323-2593

FAX: (351-21) 394-6877


URL:

Represented by: Nuno Lacasta

Title: Director of the Office of International Relations

Salutation: Mr.

Last name: Lacasta

Middle name:

First name: Nuno

Department: Office of International Relations

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.carbonfinance.org/




page 59

Mobile:

Direct FAX:

Direct tel:

Personal e-mail:

Organization: EarthCare Nigeria Ltd.

Street/P.O.Box: 16-24 Ikoyi Road, Obalende

Building:

City: Lagos

State/Region: Lagos

Postcode/ZIP:

Country: Nigeria

Telephone: +234 8072594880, 7037754221, 8023881551

FAX:


URL:

Represented by: Dr. Benjamin Ohiaeri

Title: Director

Salutation: Dr.

Last name: Ohiaeri

Middle name:

First name: Benjamin

Department:

Mobile: +234 8033072810

Direct FAX:

Direct tel:

Personal e-mail:




page 60

Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

NO public funding from ODA is available to project activity.



page 61

Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION

“Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” Version 0232

(hereafter “Tool”) provide

procedures to determine the following parameters to estimate baseline grid emission factor:

Parameter SI Unit Description

EFgrid,CM,y

tCO2/MWh Combined margin CO2 emission factor for the project electricity system in year y

EFgrid,BM,y

tCO2/MWh Build margin CO2 emission factor for the project electricity system in year y

EFgrid,OM,y

tCO2/MWh Operating margin CO2 emission factor for the project electricity system in year y

Baseline Methodology Procedure:

Following seven steps are followed to estimate baseline grid emission factor:

Step 1. Identify the relevant electric power system

Step 2. Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system (optional).

Step 3. Select a method to determine the operating margin (OM)

Step 4. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method

Step 5. Identify the group of power units to be included in the build margin (BM)

Step 6. Calculate the build margin emission factor

Step 7. Calculate the combined margin (CM) emissions factor

Step 1. Identify the relevant electric power system:

The tool defines that project electricity system as the spatial extent of the power plants that are physically

connected through transmission and distribution lines to the project activity (e.g. the renewable power

plant location or the consumers where electricity is being saved) and that can be dispatched without

significant transmission constraints.

A connected electricity system, e.g. national or international, is defined as an electricity system that is

connected by transmission lines to the project electricity system. Power plants within the connected

electricity system can be dispatched without significant transmission constraints but transmission to the

project electricity system has significant transmission constraint.

National Grid of Nigeria is identified as connected electricity system for grid emission factor estimation.

Step 2: Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system (optional)

Option I: Only grid power plants are included in the calculation is chosen which corresponds to the

procedure contained in earlier versions of this tool to calculate the operating margin and build margin

emission factor.

Step 3. Select an operating margin (OM) method:

The calculation of the operating margin emission factor (EFgrid,OM,y) is based on one of the following

methods:

32 http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-07-v2.pdf



page 62

(a) Simple OM, or

(b) Simple adjusted OM, or

(c) Dispatch data analysis OM, or

(d) Average OM.

According to the tool Simple OM (option a) can only be used where Low-cost/must-run (LC/MR)

resources comprise less than 50% of the total grid generation in

1) average of the five most recent years, or

2) based on long-term averages for hydroelectricity production.

Where, LC/MR resources are defined as power plants with low marginal generation costs or power plants

that are dispatched independently of the daily or seasonal load of the grid. They typically include hydro,

geothermal, wind, low-cost biomass, nuclear and solar generation.

Simple OM method (a) is applied because low-cost/must-run resources

constitute less than 50% of total

grid generation in the five most recent years. Electricity generation of the five most recent years is

summarized in following table;

)

Table: Power plant-wise electricity generation (2004-2008)

Power

plant

Type

Power plant

Name Generation (MWh)

Total (MWh) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Hydro

KAINJI

2,878,774

2,586,929

2,366,716

2,816,750

2,707,020 13,356,190

JEBBA

2,703,750

2,268,230

2,171,747

2,728,899

2,794,976 12,667,602

SHIRORO

2,425,575

1,236,090

2,432,640

2,230,761

1,941,344 10,266,410

NESCO*

Thermal

EGBIN

7,962,764

8,592,097

4,924,478

3,636,

680

4,381

,564 29,497,584

SAPELE

1,025,568

878,417

185,079

490,790

728,977 3,308,831

AFAM

1,247,813

1,838,934

1,864,110

1,274,103

312,272 6,537,232

DELTA

3,933,785

3,235,212

3,752,054

2,696,719

1,510,988 15,128,758

AES

1,953,276

2,018,364

1,966,492

1,675,496

1,846,702 9,460,330

CALABAR 936

202

-

-

- 1,138

AGGREKO 1,409

-

-

-

- 1,409

GEOMETRIC 1,060

-

-

-

- 1,060



page 63

OKPAI -

1,343,611

3,267,430

3,294,207

2,708,671 10,613,919

AJAOKUTA -

80,597

356,452

572,517

30,344 1,039,910

OMOKU -

-

12,282

429,2

68

297,5

80 739,130

OMOTOSHO -

-

-

146,801

491,852 638,653

GEREGU -

-

-

1,193,553

995,875 2,189,427

OLORUNSGO -

-

-

-

418,546 418,546

AFAM6 -

-

-

-

142,3

89 142,389

Total Generation (2004-

2008) - MWh 116008516

Generation from Hydro

(2004-2008) - MWh 36290202

Generation from Other

Sources (2004-2008)-

MWH 79718314

Share of Hydro (%) 31%

Share of Other Sources

(%) 69%

* Data from NESCO Power Plant is not considered as it operates as an isolated system

Above table confirms that average contribution of LC/MR resources i.e., Hydro Power plant is less

than 50% of total grid generation, therefore Simple OM (option a) is used.

For the simple OM, the simple adjusted OM and the average OM, the emissions factor can be calculated

using either of the two following data vintages:

Ex ante option: If the ex ante option is chosen, the emission factor is determined once at the validation

stage, thus no monitoring and recalculation of the emissions factor during the crediting period is required.

For grid power plants, use a 3-year generation-weighted average, based on the most recent data

available at the time of submission of the CDM-PDD to the DOE for validation. For off-grid power

plants, use a single calendar year within the 5 most recent calendar years prior to the time of submission

of the CDM-PDD for validation.

Ex post option: If the ex post option is chosen, the emission factor is determined for the year in which the

project activity displaces grid electricity, requiring the emissions factor to be updated annually during

monitoring. If the data required to calculate the emission factor for year y is usually only available later

than six months after the end of year y, alternatively the emission factor of the previous year y-1 may be

used. If the data is usually only available 18 months after the end of year y, the emission factor of the year



page 64

proceeding the previous year y-2 may be used. The same data vintage (y, y-1 or y-2) should be used

throughout all crediting periods.

For Simple OM emission factor calculation Ex ante option is selected and 3- year generation weighted

average is applied.

Step 4. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method

The simple OM emission factor is calculated as the generation-weighted average CO2 emissions per unit

net electricity generation (tCO2/MWh) of all generating power plants serving the system, not including

low-cost/must-run power plants/units.

The simple OM may be calculated:

Option A: Based on the net electricity generation and a CO2 emission factor of each power unit;3 or

Option B: Based on the total net electricity generation of all power plants serving the system and the fuel

types and total fuel consumption of the project electricity system.

Option B is selected because:

(a) CO2 emission factor for each unit of the power plant as required by Option A is not available; and

(b) Only renewable power generation (hydro) is considered as low-cost/must-run power sources

and the quantity of electricity supplied to the grid by these sources is known; and

(c) Off-grid power plants are not included in the calculation (i.e., if Option I has been chosen in

Step 2).

Option BCalculation based on total fuel consumption and electricity generation of the system. .

Under this option, the simple OM emission factor is calculated based on the net electricity supplied to the

grid by all power plants serving the system, not including low-cost/must-run power plants/units, and

based on the fuel type(s) and total fuel consumption of the project electricity system, as follows:

EFgrid,OMsimple,y = EGy

xEFxNCVFC yiCOyiyi

i

)( ,,2,,

,

Where;

Parameter Description Unit

EFgrid,OMsimple,y Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y tCO2/MWh

FCi,y Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by plant/unit m in year y (mass

or volume unit)

NCVi,y Net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in the year y

(GJ/mass or volume unit)

EFCO2,i,y CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i, in the year y (tCO2/GJ)



page 65

EG,,y Net electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power plant/unit

m in year y

MWh

I All fossil fuel types combusted in power plant/unit m in year y

Y The relevant year as per the data vintage chosen in Step 3

In the project activity, (ex-ante) the full generation-weighted average for the most recent 3 years for

which data are available at the time of PDD submission has been considered.

Wherever fuel consumption data was not available, the emission factor of those power plants have been

calculated using the following formulae as suggested in the Tool.

EFEL,m,y =

ym

yimCO xEF

,

,,,2 6.3

Where

Parameter Description Unit

EFEL,m,y CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh) tCO2/MWh

Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by plant/unit m in year y (mass

or volume unit)

EFCO2,m,i,y Average CO2 emission factor of fuel type i used in power unit m in year y (tCO2/GJ)

(tCO2/GJ)

ym, Average net energy conversion efficiency of power unit m in year y (ratio)

I All fossil fuel types combusted in power plant/unit m in year y

Y The relevant year as per the data vintage chosen in Step 3

m All power units serving the grid in year y except low-cost/must-run power

units

The data vintage option selected is the ex-ante approach, where a 3 year average OM is calculated as

given in following table

Table: Power plant-wise fuel consumption (2006-2008)

Fuel Type

Power plant

Name

Fuel Consumption for electricity generation

2006-2008 (MMSCF/Year for NG,

Tonnes/Year for Diesel, and no fuel

consumption for Hydro)

2006 2007 2008

HYDRO

KAINJI 0 0 0

JEBBA 0 0 0

SHIRORO 0 0 0

NESCO *

GAS EGBIN 50,523 35,601 47,875



page 66

(MMSCF/Year) SAPELE 2,631 7,398 7,675

AFAM 24,732 17,935 4,749

DELTA 48,004 38,216 21,058

AES 24,909 20,709 23,920

CALABAR 0 0 0

AGGREKO 0 0 0

DIESEL

(Tonnes/Year) GEOMETRIC 0 0 0

GAS

(MMSCF/Year)

OKPAI NA NA NA

AJAOKUTA NA NA NA

OMOKU NA NA NA

OMOTOSHO 0 1,393 5,508

GEREGU 0 10,593 11,476

OLORUNSGO 0 0 4,638

AFAM6 0 0 NA

* Data from NESCO Power Plant is not considered as it operates as an

isolated system

NA : Data on fuel consumption was not available.

Table: Calculation of Operating Margin Emission Factor (2006 - 2008)

Plant name

Plant wise Emissions (tCO2/Year)

2006 2007 2008

KAINJI - - -

JEBBA - - -

SHIRORO - - -

NESCO *

EGBIN 3,080,149

2,170,439

2,918,687

SAPELE 160,376

450,992

467,934

AFAM 1,507,810

1,093,380

289,527

DELTA 2,926,584

2,329,860

1,283,796

AES 1,518,587

1,262,513

1,458,297

CALABAR - - -

AGGREKO - - -

GEOMETRIC - - -

OKPAI 1,670,608

1,684,299

1,384,919



page 67

AJAOKUTA 182,251

292,723

15,515

OMOKU 6,280

219,481

152,150

OMOTOSHO -

84,903

335,792

GEREGU -

645,822

699,621

OLORUNSGO - -

282,776

AFAM6 - -

72,802

Total Emissions (tCO2) - 2006

11,052,644


10,234,411


9,361,816

Total Electricity Generated (MWh) - 2006

16,328,377


15,410,133


13,865,759

Emission Factor (tCO2/MWh)-2006 0.68



Average OM EF (tCO2/MWh) 0.67

* Data from NESCO Power Plant is not considered as it operates as an isolated system

Table : Inputs for Calculation of Emissions

Parameters Units Values Sources

Net Calorific Value - Diesel TJ/Ktonnes 43.33

IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National

Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Net Calorific Value - Gas TJ/Ktonnes 48.00



Carbon Emission Factor

(CEF) - Diesel tCO2/TJ 74.10




(CEF) - Gas tCO2/GJ 0.0561




(CEF) - Gas tCO2/TJ 56.10



Density of Natural gas Kg/m3 0.80





page 68

Density of Diesel Kg/m3 885 http://www.simetric.co.uk.htm

Efficiency of gas based

Power Plants for which fuel

consumption data was not

available % 39.5%

UNFCCC Tool to calculate the emission

factor for an electricity system Version 02

Conversion Factors used in the calculations

1 Ib/ft3 = 16.018 Kg/m3

1 Kg/m3 = 0.0624 Ib/ft3

1 ft3 = 0.0283 m3

1 MWh = 3.6 GJ

Step 5. Identify the group of power units to be included in the build margin

The sample group of power units m used to calculate the build margin consists of either:

(a) The set of five power units that have been built most recently; or

(b) The set of power capacity additions in the electricity system that comprise 20% of the system

generation (in MWh) and that have been built most recently.

As can be seen from the table below, electricity generation from the set of five power units built most

recently constitutes only 11% of the total generation in the system during the year selected for build

margin calculation (2008). Similarly, electricity generation from six power plants built most recently

represents only 11.2 % of the total generation in 2008. However electricity generation from seven power

plants built most recently represents 23.9% of the total generation, which is more than 20% bench mark

as required by the Tool to select the build margin power plants. These seven power plants have therefore

been identified as the build margin power plants for the purpose of calculating the build margin emission

factor.

Table: Identification of power units for build margin capacity

Plant Name Installed Capacity of

Power Plants (MW)

Electricity

generation (MWh)

in 2008

Year of

Commissioning

KAINJI 760 2,707,020

JEBBA 578.4 2,794,976

SHIRORO 600 1,941,344

NESCO * - -

EGBIN 1320 4,381,564

SAPELE 1020 728,977

AFAM 931.6 312,272

http://www.simetric.co.uk.htm/



page 69

DELTA 882 1,510,988

AES 302 1,846,702

CALABAR -

AGGREKO -

GEOMETRIC -

OKPAI 450 2,708,671

AJAOKUTA 110 30,344

OMOKU 297,580 2006

OMOTOSHO 335 491,852 2007

GEREGU 414 995,875 2007

OLORUNSGO 335 418,546 2007

AFAM6 331.5 142,389 2008

Total Generation (MWh) 21,309,099

Generation in 5 newly built plants (MWh) 2,346,242

Share of 5 newly built plans in the total

generation (%) 11.0%







* Data from NESCO Power Plant is not considered it operates as an isolated system

As per the requirements of the Tool, the set of 7 power units built most recently and that represents 20%

of the system generation has been considered for build margin calculations. The build margin plants are

highlighted in the table above.

In terms of vintage of data, as per the tool, project participants can choose between one of the following

two options: Option 1: For the first crediting period, calculate the build margin emission factor ex ante based on the

most recent information available on units already built for sample group m at the time of CDM-PDD

submission to the DOE for validation. For the second crediting period, the build margin emission factor

should be updated based on the most recent information available on units already built at the time of

submission of the request for renewal of the crediting period to the DOE. For the third crediting period,

the build margin emission factor calculated for the second crediting period should be used. This option

does not require monitoring the emission factor during the crediting period.

Option 2: For the first crediting period, the build margin emission factor shall be updated annually,

ex post, including those units built up to the year of registration of the project activity or, if information

up to the year of registration is not yet available, including those units built up to the latest year for which

information is available. For the second crediting period, the build margin emissions factor shall be

calculated ex ante, as described in Option 1 above. For the third crediting period, the build margin



page 70

emission factor calculated for the second crediting period should be used.

The option chosen should be documented in the CDM-PDD.

Option 1 (ex-ante) has been used by the project participants for calculating the build margin emission

factor for the first crediting period. For the second crediting period, the build margin emission factor

will be updated based on the most recent information available on units already built at the time of

submission of the request for renewal of the crediting period to the DOE. For the third crediting period,

the build margin emission factor calculated for the second crediting period will be used. As per this

option monitoring the emission factor during the crediting period is not required.

STEP 6. Calculate the build margin emission factor (EFgrid, BM,y)

ym

m

m

ymELym

yBMgridEG

xEFEG

EF,

,,,

,,

Where,

EFgrid BM, ,y Build margin CO2 emission factor in t he year y, (tCO2/MWh)

EGm,,y Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in year y

(MWh)

EFEL,m,y CO2 emission factor of power unit m in the year y, (tCO2/MWh )

m Power units included in the build margin

y Most recent historical year for which power generation data is available.

The CO2 emission factor of each power unit m (EFEL,m,y) is determined for year y using the most recent

historical year for which power generation data is available, and using for m the power units included in

the build margin as follows:

Table: Build Margin Calculations

Power plant name Gas consumed Electricity EF(el,m,y) EF BM

MMSCF MWh tCO2/MWh tCO2/MWh

OKPAI NA 2,708,671 0.51

0.58

AJAOKUTA NA 30,344 0.51

OMOKU NA 297,580 0.51

OMOTOSHO 5,508 491,852 0.68

GEREGU 11,476 995,875 0.70

OLORUNSGO 4,638 418,546 0.68

AFAM6 NA 142,389 0.51



page 71

Step7. Calculate the combined margin (CM) emissions factor (EFgrid, CM, y )

The CM is calculated as per the following:

EFCM,y = EFgrid,OM,y * WOM + EFBM,y * WBM

Where:

Parameter Detail

EFBM,y Build Margin CO2 emission factor in the year y (tCO2/GWh)

EFOM,y Operating Margin CO2 emission factor in the year y (tCO2/GWh)

WOM Weighting of operating margin emission factor (%)

WBM Weighting of build margin emission factor (%)

The baseline emission factor for power projects in year y is calculated as the sum of 50% weightage of

OM and 50% weight age of BM emission factor. As noted above, the resulting Combined Margin is fixed

ex ante for the duration of the first crediting period:

Table: Combined Margin Emission Factor

Operating Margin EF tCO2/MWh 0.67

Build Margin EF tCO2/MWh 0.58

Weightage for OM (W1) % 50%

Weightage for BM (W2) % 50%

Combined Margin EF (EF CM) tCO2/MWh 0.63

In the project activity, combined margin has been chosen as the baseline emission factor for grid

emission factor. The value chosen is taken from relevant official sources.

Sources :

1. Annual Technical Report 2004, National Control Centre Osogbo, PHCN







page 72

1. Annex 4

MONITORING INFORMATION

Annex 4.1

Procedure for waste composition analysis:

The composition of incoming waste should be done by sampling fresh waste. At least 24 samples should

be collected and analysed annually.

Methodology for MSW sampling:

For each of the sample, waste from the freshly arrived solid waste will be collected from randomly

selected four incoming trucks. About, 100 Kg of sample will be collected from each truck and a quarter of

sample (25 kg approx) will be retained for sampling. Hence the composite sample size will be 100 Kg (25

kg each from 4 trucks). Physical inspection of the waste in the truck is required to ensure uniform nature

of waste. Using quartering method about 100 kg of composite sample will be drawn out for the original

solid waste. The waste should be sorted to segregate to the required constituents for weighing of each

component. This would be done at the site itself. The parameters would be noted down in format as

provided in table below. The record should be maintained for all sample analysed for verification.

Table: Composition of MSW

Sample No.

Date

S. NO. Waste Composition Weight in Grams

i. Wood and wood products

ii. Pulp, paper, and cardboard (other than sludge)

iii. Kitchen and food waste

iv. Textiles

v. Garden and park waste

vi. Glass, plastic, metal, other inert waste

vii. Total

Comments (if any)

Analysed by

Recorded by

Annex 4.2

Procedure to ensure aerobic condition in the windrow:

In the project activity, aerobic conditions during composting process should be ensured through two

means viz., maintaining specified width to height ratio of windrows and use of mechanical turner with

microbial spraying. The size and shape of the windrows should be designed to allow oxygen to flow

throughout the pile while maintaining its temperature in optimum range. If windrow is too large, oxygen

cannot penetrate to the center, while if it is too small it will not heat up properly result in low rate of

decomposition. The optimum size varies both with the type of material and with season. Therefore

windrows size should be according to the specification provided by technology supplier.



page 73

The main goals of turning the compost pile are to promote decomposition by moving material from the

outside to the inside of the pile, and to “fluff” the material so it will be more porous, allowing air to move

freely through the pile. Turning the piles increases the rate of decomposition by mixing of materials and

exposing new surface areas and improved destruction of any pathogens and weed seeds. Turning

frequency should be based on temperature, since temperature reflects decomposition taking place in the

pile. However, windrows may be turned within 1 to 2 weeks after initial windrow construction.

Table: Monitoring of Windrow Turing details

Date:

Windrow ID.

No.

Windrow

Start

Date

Spray of

microbial culture

(Yes/ No)

Widt

h (m)

Height

(m)

Windrow Turning Date

(dd/mm/yy)

1

2

3

4

N

Comments (if

any)

Operator

(Name and

Signature)

Recorded by

(Name and

Signature)

Annex 4.3

Verification procedure for land application of Compost:

To ensure the land application of compost, sample site will be selected randomly from the compiled list

of buyer. Number of sample site will be selected as per the method described in Appendix E for number

of waste sample selection. Approximately 24 number of sites should be visited annually. Following

information should be collected and recorded for verification.

Table: Verification of land application of Compost

Name of Respondent :

Address :

Contact No.:

Date of site visit :

Amount of Compost Sold:

Period:

Crops cultivated during the year:

1.

2.

3.

Type of Compost Use



page 74

Surface Use (Yes/ No) Submerged Use (Yes/ No)

Comment (if any)

Signature of Respondent

Name & Signature of Surveyor

Annex 4.4

Procedure for determination of number of samples:

For determining of number of minimum sample for waste composition and soil application of compost is

based upon general statistical methods33

and the formula is given below.

x = Z(c/100)2 r (100-r)………………………………………..(i)

n = Nx/((N-1)E2 + x)……………………………………………(ii)

Where

Parameter Detail Value

n sample size Calculated below

N population size Calculated below

E margin of error 20%

Z(c/100) critical value for the confidence level c 1.96 @ 95% confidence value

R response distribution 50%

X Constant calculated based on confidence

level and response distribution

9604 (Calculated below)

The size of sampling has been determined so that it is statistically significant with a Margin of Error of

20% at a 95% confidence level.

Calculation of Sample Size

Thus the value of x in equation (1) is calculated as:

X = (1.96)2*50*50 = 9604.

The plant will receive 109500 truck load of waste. Thus the population size (N) is 109500.

N = 109500

E = 20%

The sample size as per equation given above:

N = 109500*9604/ ((109500-1)*202 + 9604) = 24

Therefore the Sample Size is 24.

Required Sample size for Variable Population size at 95% confidence level and 20% margin of error:

33 http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html

http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html



page 75

Population Sample Size

500 23

1000 23

5000 24

10000 24

20000 24

30000 24

40000 24

50000 24

60000 24

70000 24

80000 24

90000 24

100000 24

110000 24

120000 24

130000 24

The above table demonstrates that irrespective of population size the sample size remains constant at 24.

Hence sample size of 24 is chosen for sampling of the following parameters

1. Waste Composition

2. Soil application of compost

- - - - -

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Composting Project in Ikorodu, Lagos ...

Documents

Transcript of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Composting Project in Ikorodu, Lagos ...