1310 feasibility compost_coffee and climate_soil and more final

Feasibility Study and Business Plan for the Implementation of a Composting

Project and Related Emission Reduction Options

Author:

Produced for the Initiative for coffee & climate

July 2013, Hamburg, Germany

www.coffeeandclimate.org

Author/ Organization: Andre Eitner / Soil & More Intl.

Contact details: Soil & More Intl.

Germany: c/o Projektquartier, Buttstrasse 3, 22767 Hamburg

The Netherlands: Hoofdstraat 24, 3972 LA Driebergen

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: +491795224174

http://www.coffeeandclimate.org/

mailto:[email protected]

Main contact:

Mika Adler, International Project Manager

Initiative for coffee & climate

c/o E.D.E. Consulting (affiliate of Hanns R. Neumann

Stiftung)

Am Sandtorpark 4 • Coffee Plaza

20457 Hamburg • Germany

http://www.coffeeandclimate.org/home-en.html

http://www.coffeeandclimate.org/home-en.html

Table of Contents

1. Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 5

2. How do Carbon Projects Work? .................................................................................... 9

3. Feasibility Assessment ............................................................................................... 10 a. Centralised Option ................................................................................................................. 10

1. Data Processing and Technical Approach ................................................................................. 13 2. Production and Business Planning ........................................................................................... 13 3. Requirements for a Feasible Centralized Composting Site ........................................................ 17

b. De-Centralized Option ............................................................................................................ 17 1. Baseline Scenario – Current Projects ........................................................................................ 18 2. Status Quo – Current Projects .................................................................................................. 19 3. Further Reduction Scenario – Current Projects ........................................................................ 20 4. Baseline Scenario – IDB Project ................................................................................................ 22 5. Reduction Scenario – IDB Project ............................................................................................. 24

4. Sustainability Flower Quick Assessment ..................................................................... 26 a. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 26

1. Preface .................................................................................................................................... 26 2. Results of the Quick Assessment .............................................................................................. 27

b. Benchmarking against Gold Standard Requirements ............................................................... 31

5. The Effect of Compost and Compost Tea ..................................................................... 35 a. General Benefits of Compost .................................................................................................. 35

3. Specific Economic Benefits of Compost for Participating Farmers ............................................ 41

6. Conclusion and next steps .......................................................................................... 44 a. Conclusion on Technical / Financial Feasibility ........................................................................ 44 b. ‘Social’ Feasibility ................................................................................................................... 44 c. The Way Forward ................................................................................................................... 44

1. Setting up The Project ............................................................................................................. 44 2. Integrating existing Monitoring Skills ....................................................................................... 45 3. Scalability to Other Countries / Projects .................................................................................. 45

List of Figures

Figure 1: HRNS Office .............................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2: Cover Cropping in c&c Farmer Field School ............................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Root Growth Stimulation through Coffee Husk .......................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Comparison Reduction Potential ............................................................................................. 22 Figure 5: Coffee Production in Nicaragua ............................................................................................... 36 Figure 6: ‚Lasso Fungi’ trapping harmful nematodes in the soil .............................................................. 40 Figure 7: Bare Soil in Between Coffee Bushes ........................................................................................ 41 Figure 8: Enhanced Root Growth ........................................................................................................... 42 Figure 9: Coffee Bush with Compost ...................................................................................................... 43 Figure 10: Coffee Bush without Compost ............................................................................................... 43

List of Tables

Table 1: Overview available Input Materials .......................................................................................... 11 Table 2: Overview Economic Indicators ................................................................................................. 12 Table 3: Input and Transport Costs ........................................................................................................ 12 Table 4: Production Planning ................................................................................................................. 14 Table 5: Commercial Planning ................................................................................................................ 15 Table 6: Practices Baseline Current Projects .......................................................................................... 18 Table 7: Emissions Baseline Current Projects ......................................................................................... 19 Table 8: Practices Status Quo Current Projects ...................................................................................... 19 Table 9: Emissions Status Quo Current Projects ..................................................................................... 20 Table 10: Practices Further Reduction Current Projects ......................................................................... 20 Table 11: Emissions Further Reductions Current Projects....................................................................... 21 Table 12: Reduction Potential Overview ................................................................................................ 21 Table 13: Practices Baseline IDB Project ................................................................................................. 23 Table 14: Baseline Emissions IDB Project ............................................................................................... 23 Table 15: Practices Reduction Scenario IDB Project................................................................................ 24 Table 16: Emissions Reduction Scenario IDB Project .............................................................................. 24 Table 17: Overview Aggregated Reduction Potential ............................................................................. 25 Table 18: SusFlower Results ................................................................................................................... 27 Table 19: SusFlower Indicator Key ......................................................................................................... 27 Table 20: Water Footprint ..................................................................................................................... 30 Table 21: ‘Do-No-Harm Assessment’ ...................................................................................................... 32 Table 22: Sustainability Matrix ............................................................................................................... 35

1. Abstract

Soil & More International carried out a feasibility study and business plan for the implementation of a

composting project and related emission reduction options for the Initiative for coffee & climate within

the pilot region of Minas Gerais, Brazil managed and implemented by Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung do Brasil

(HRNS).

Figure 1: HRNS Office

Under the umbrella of the coffee & climate initiative as well as the Força Café project, HRNS currently

works with 4 separate projects to support farmers in adapting sound agricultural & business management

practices.

The 1,698 farmers that participate at the moment own a total of 16,930 ha of land, of which 5,110 ha are

under coffee cultivation, 2,477 are native forest, 7,262 are used for other agricultural purposes (maize,

cow grazing) and the rest is covered by infrastructure.

Soon however, new municipalities will join the program. This extension is funded by the Inter-American

Development Bank (IDB) and will bring a significant number of new farmers into the project. Even though

the exact numbers are not yet available, it is estimated that a total of 4,000 farmers will be then trained

on below-mentioned measures. The project area will cover a total of 39,883 ha, of which 12,000 are likely

to be under coffee, 5,886 under native forest, 17,000 under other agricultural purposes as above and the

rest is used for infrastructure.

Under the initiative for coffee & climate, a toolbox1 of interventions has been developed, which will help

farmers adapt to and mitigate climate change. Examples of this work could be the implementation of

cover cropping. Due to this new practise the project was able to reduce the application of pest control

applications from four to one occasion per year.

Furthermore, continuous field testing with different plants have resulted in a thorough understanding of

the benefits and challenges of cover cropping. One example could be a nitrogen-fixing legume that has

helped increase the soil organic matter content of this particular plot by 0.5 % in just 6 months – which is

considerable.

Figure 2: Cover Cropping in c&c Farmer Field School

1 http://toolbox.coffeeandclimate.org/content/

http://toolbox.coffeeandclimate.org/content/

Introducing coffee husks – or compost based on coffee husks – as fertilizer and soil conditioner is another

practise, which has found widespread adoption amongst participating farmers. Next to its fertilization

function and its soil conditioner function it encourages strong root growth, which makes plants more

resilient and productive. These are just a few examples of the activities undertaken in the coffee & climate

project, which could qualify as Climate Smart Agriculture.

Figure 3: Root Growth Stimulation through Coffee Husk

The Gold Standard Foundation – the leading organization for high quality carbon credits – is currently

developing methodologies for the measurement and certification of ‘Climate Smart Agricultural

Practices’. Part of this feasibility study was to identify the possibilities for the HRNS program to benefit

from this development.

The following potential scenarios have been investigated:

1. A centralized composting facility that can supply farmers in the region with high quality compost.

2. A de-centralized approach that includes on-farm composting as well as the implementation and

further rollout of the above mentioned practices of the ‘Coffee & Climate Tool Box’.

It has to be stated that the centralized composting facility at this given time and situation seems

economically unfeasible. Compost production costs would be too high to allow for a sustained business

case. This is mostly due to high transport, labour and input material costs. Furthermore, it does not seem

to be common practise to purchase organic fertilizers or compost. Coffee residues are applied when

available, but that is currently as far as it goes.

A de-centralized approach seems to be more promising, especially when the application of farm-made,

static compost is combined with a more extensive use of cover cropping and the planting of trees as life

fences to prevent diseases.

The technical and economic feasibility of a composting facility is very much dependent on the local

circumstances. Especially the quantity and condition of the on - and off-site available biomass, distance

to the site and the requirements from the market, determine whether or not a composting project would

qualify as an emission reduction project and therefore is eligible to generate carbon credits. Therefore,

prior to investments into composting equipment and operations a feasibility study was carried out.

This feasibility study evaluates the economic and technical feasibility of turning the locally available,

currently un-used biomass into compost. The amount of available biomass has been assessed during on-

site interviews and questionnaires. Based on the amount of available biomass, the necessary investments

into equipment were selected.

The target is to not only produce good quality compost but as well compost tea as an alternative organic

fertilizer, stimulating the microbial activity in the soils where the compost is applied. Both good quality

compost and compost tea requires certain parameters to be met during the composting process,

specifically the composition of the input materials. For this reason Soil & More didn‘t consider all available

biomass as indicated in the questionnaires to guarantee a good quality output.

For the decentralized option, two different scenarios have been investigated. Based on information given

during an on-site interview the agricultural practices of an ‘average’ coffee farmer in Minas Gerais have

been estimated. This ‘baseline’ scenario has been used to benchmark the current activities as well as

future reduction potentials in regards to greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer & pesticide use, as well

as the carbon sequestration potential of cover cropping, compost application and tree planting for

windbreakers.

2. How do Carbon Projects Work?

Carbon credits can be awarded to project activities that reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases against

a certain baseline scenario. For example, if large amounts of coffee residues were to be stored in large

piles in humid conditions, the resulting fermentation process would release methane – a powerful

greenhouse gas. Aerobic composting of these materials would avoid large parts of the emissions of the

above mentioned baseline scenario and the difference in emissions between those two scenarios would

potentially qualify for certification as carbon credits.

Another example could be the following situation. In a coffee growing region with certain agricultural

practices (high agrochemical inputs, little shade trees, little cover cropping, etc.) climate change is having

an increasing effect on coffee farmers, their production and livelihoods. An international NGO approaches

these farmers and suggests supporting them in the implementation of certain agricultural practices that

will results in more climate change resilient farming practices. Amongst these measures are:

Incorporation of crop residues back into the field (either as mulch or as compost)

Cover cropping / green manure

Reduced use of agrochemicals

Afforestation / shade & fencing trees

All of these measures have the potential to either reduce greenhouse gas emissions or even to sequester

carbon. If those were measured and certified one could generate an additional stream of income from

those ‘carbon credits’, which could be used to partly finance the project activities.

The most common way to set up such a project is that the project developer (e.g. coffee & climate)

approaches the farmers and jointly develops a project plan outlining the activities & responsibilities. Once

these plans are drawn up, the emission reductions can be calculated and the potential revenue stream of

carbon credits can be factored into the financial planning of the project activities.

The project developer and the participants (farmers) agree on a deal in which the developer commits to

managing the project, to provide training & planning services, to either provide project materials (trees,

compost, etc.) for free or subsidized. The farmers commit to the project activities and to implementing

and maintaining said measures. Farmers should have sound land titles for the period of the project

activities (approx. 30 years), as legally the person who owns the land on which reductions are certified to

become carbon credits, also owns those credits.

There is now two ways to set up the legal side of the carbon aspect of the project. The standard way is

that the project developer and the participants (farmers) draft a legal document in which the developer

commits to providing trainings and material and farmers in return hand over the claim of the carbon credit

to the project developer, who uses them to subsidize the project.

Farmers often do not get a share of the sales of the carbon credits, but have to be satisfied with the project

activities themselves as reward. There are however those developers that share revenues from the sales

of carbon credits with the participants.

It has to be noted however, that not all revenue should be transferred to the participants. If that is the

case, one of the most important prerequisites of a carbon project has not been met to begin with – the

requirement of additionallity.

This concept simply states that carbon credits are only awarded to project activities that would not have

happened anyways. Carbon credits are therefore a means to generate additional income for a project

activity (be it a hydro-plant, a composting site or an agroforestry system) that would otherwise not have

been financially feasible.

3. Feasibility Assessment

a. Centralised Option

Soil & More collected the required data during a field visit in Brazil. The questionnaire used included

amount and cost of biomass by type (green fresh, woody brown, manures and others) available in the

proximity of the project location, the current use of the biomass such as landfilling, illegal anaerobic

dumping, in-situ usage or other use as well as other general data on expected compost prices and markets.

The amount and cost of biomass by type was needed to assess the technical and economic feasibility of

the composting project whereas the data on current use is required to define the baseline scenario as a

basis for the calculation of the emission reduction potential.

The data gathering exercise proved to be challenging, as much of the information was not easily

accessible. Especially information regarding availability of input materials such as manure and green, fresh

biomass was not readily available. However, the amount of available coffee husk, the core ingredient in

this scenario could be extrapolated from the amount of processed green coffee. The ratio between green

coffee bean and husk in the dry processing step, was given by the local expert Patrik Avelar – technical

director of Associação Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung do Brasil and local c&c project manager– to be 1:1. It

was furthermore established, that even though exact amounts for the other ingredients could not be

given, sufficient supply of manure and green biomass could be expected.

Minas Gerais is a major producer of cattle and farmers do occasionally buy manure already. Green

materials can either be sourced from surrounding farms or even from the municipalities themselves. Mr

Avelar assumed that for example all the green waste of Santo Antonio do Amparo – one of the cities where

the project is based – brings all its green waste to the landfill. It should therefore be possible to also source

green material locally and at reasonable costs.

Table 1: Overview available Input Materials

Input Material Amount available 50 Km from site in metric

tons

Current use

Land Fill Other

Coffee Husk 20.000 N/a 80%

Cow manure No detailed numbers available, but sufficient

supply assumed

N/a 100%

Chicken manure No detailed numbers available, but sufficient

supply assumed

N/a 100%

Green materials No detailed numbers available, but sufficient

supply assumed.

It is assumed that the city

of San Antonio do

Amparo brings a large

share of the city’s green

waste to the landfill.

Clay/Old

compost

No detailed numbers available, but sufficient

supply assumed.

N/a 100%

The following economic figures were collected and used in the feasibility study.

Table 2: Overview Economic Indicators

Economic Situation Unit

Inflation rate 7 %

Local Currency R$ FCU (Foreign Currency Unit)

Exchange rate 1.9977 R$ = 1 US $

2.5874 R$ = 1 €

Nominal lending interest rate 6.59 %

Cost of labour (man/month)

Worker 1,000 R$

Supervisor 2,000 R$

Manager 3,500 R$

Director 5,000 R$

Fuel prices Unit

1 litre of Diesel 3 R$

Costs of transport

1 metric ton transported 100 km 150 R$

Based on these numbers and experience from other projects the following costs development for input

materials over the next years has been extrapolated.

Table 3: Input and Transport Costs

Raw material cost/m3

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

R$ /m3 R$ /m3 R$ /m3 R$ /m3 R$ /m3

Green 50.00 53.30 56.81 60.55 64.54

Brown 162.50 173.21 184.62 196.79 209.76

Manure 96.67 103.04 109.83 117.06 124.78

Clay 30.00 31.98 34.08 36.33 38.72

Starter (units/year) 2.85 3.03 3.23 3.45 3.67

R$/L R$/L R$/L R$/L R$/L

Fuel/Oil 3.00 3.20 3.41 3.63 3.87

R$/ton/km R$/ton/km R$/ton/km R$/ton/km R$/ton/km

Transport 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.82 1.94

1. Data Processing and Technical Approach

Soil & More used the provided data to run its generic feasibility tool. First of all the available biomass was

assessed to check if it meets the quality requirements necessary to produce high quality compost. High

quality compost is made from a mixture of different input materials containing ideally about 30-40% green

fresh material, 30-40% woody brown material plus some manure and clay.

Based on Soil & More‘s experience from other projects the data provided was used to calculate the other

operational inputs required such as fuels, machinery, labour and transport.

The general assumptions for these calculations were as follows:

The dimension of a compost windrow is either 2m x 50m x 1,25 or 3m x 50m x 1,5m

Processing time per windrow: 13 weeks

1m3 of biomass is needed to produce 0,36 ton of ready-made compost

Each windrow should be turned during the 13 weeks 3 times

One 3m compost turner has the capacity to serve 30.000 tons of ready-made compost

A 80-90 hp tractor is needed to pull the required compost turner with a turning width of 3m

10.000 tons of ready-made compost can be produced on an area of 1 hectare

The available biomass doesn’t need further conditioning prior to composting such as shredding

The density of the ready-made compost is about 650kg per m3

The intention is to run an efficient composting site in terms of personnel. Job creation is only a

secondary objective.

All costs are subject to an annual inflation increase of 7% while prices paid for compost in the

market are expected to increase only by 5%

The amounts of biomass available will be the same for the next 5 years

Above mentioned assumptions are based on Soil & More‘s controlled microbial composting

technique.

2. Production and Business Planning

In order to produce 30.000 tons of high quality compost the following production scenario has been

established. We calculated the case for 30,000 tons because the availability of 20,000 tons of coffee husk

was the only input amount that could be confirmed. 20,000 tons of coffee husk correspond to 33,333 m3.

Following the above mentioned compost formula the required amount for the other inputs has been

established. A total of 83,333 m3 then leads us to a total of 30,000 tons of compost that can be produced

with the available coffee husks. This amount of compost would be more than sufficient to supply all

participating farmers and could even be sold on the market.

Table 4: Production Planning

Raw material input (m3/year) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Green 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Brown 33,333 33,333 33,333 33,333 33,333

Manure 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667

Clay 8,333 8,333 8,333 8,333 8,333

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Starter (units/year) 41,667 41,667 41,667 41,667 41,667

Total 83,333 83,333 83,333 83,333 83,333

Final Product (tons/year) 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000

Water requirement (m3/year) 27,778 27,778 27,778 27,778 27,778

Land requirements (calc. hectares) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Land requirements (eff. hectares) 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30

Land requirements (purchase) 3.30

Compost Management 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

m3 (3*1,5*50m)/windrow 168.75

Compost cycles (13 weeks)/year 4

Compost turning per cycle 4

Windrows per year 494 494 494 494 494

Windrows per cycle 124 124 124 124 124

TopTex (total rolls/year) 124 124 124 124 124

TopTex (new rolls/year) 124 124 124 124 124

Turns/year 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976

Based on this potential production forecast the business plan has been established. All costs and revenues

are expressed in R$.

Table 5: Commercial Planning

Commercial planning All financial values are expressed in R$

Investment:

Total

Investment

in R$

Depreciation/

year in %

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Compost turner &

tractor

40,000 10 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

Measurement

equipment

1,000 5 200 200 200 200 200

Truck 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

Screen 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

Baging facility 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

Others: 10% of total

investment

420 420 420 420 420

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Total investment per

year

R$ 41,000

Total depreciation

per year

R$ 4,620 4,620 4,620 4,620 4,620

Expenses

Direct costs

Cost per m3 input

material incl.

transport

Annual

Inflation

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Green 7% R$/m3 1,250,000 1,332,375 1,420,179 1,513,768 1,613,526

Brown 7% R$/m3 5,416,667 5,773,625 6,154,107 6,559,663 6,991,944

Manure 7% R$/m3 1,611,111 1,717,283 1,830,452 1,951,079 2,079,655

Clay 7% R$/m3 250,000 266,475 284,036 302,754 322,705

Starter (units/year) 7% R$/unit 118,591 126,407 134,737 143,616 153,080

Fuel cost for

machinery

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Tractor for turner R$/year 29,640 31,593 33,675 35,894 38,260

Front end loader R$/year 44,460 47,390 50,513 53,842 57,390

As can be seen, the forecasted production costs per ton of compost amount to a total of 300 R$ in the

first year, increasing steadily over the years. The main reasons for these prohibitive costs are the high

expenses for input materials, transport and labour.

In the opinion of Patrik Avelar – given during the site visit in Brazil – the acceptable market price for 1 ton

of compost should not exceed 40-50 R$, which would be corresponding to the price of manure.

Maintenance of

machinery

25% of

depreciation

R$/year 1,155 1,155 1,155 1,155 1,155

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Other costs: Estimated

2% of direct

costs

R$/year 174,432 185,926 198,177 211,235 225,154

Total direct costs 8,896,057 9,482,229 10,107,030 10,773,006 11,482,870

Admin. expenses

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual salary

increase

10%

Site operator 5,000 R$/month 60,000 66,000 72,600 79,860 87,846

Drivers / forworker 2,000 R$/month 12,000 13,200 14,520 15,972 17,569

Workers 1,000 R$/month 24,000 26,400 29,040 31,944 35,138

Land rent 200 R$/ha/year plus

annual inflation

660 726 799 878 966

Depreciation 4,620 4,620 4,620 4,620 4,620

Others: 10% of

admin. exp.

10,128 11,095 12,158 13,327 14,614

Total admin.

expenses

111,408 122,041 133,736 146,602 160,754

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Total expenses 9,007,465 9,604,270 10,240,767 10,919,608 11,643,624

Cost per ton ready-

made compost

300.25 R$ 320.14 R$ 341.36 R$ 363.99 R$ 388.12 R$

Cost per m3 ready-

made compost

195.16 R$ 208.09 R$ 221.88 R$ 236.59 R$ 252.28 R$

Furthermore it was estimated that approximately 14,500 carbon credits could be generated from running

such a site. These carbon credits could potentially subsidize the price of compost to make it more

competitive in the market. However, at a current average market price of 3€ per carbon credit, this option

does not seem to be feasible in this case, as the potential price reduction would only be 4€ per ton of

compost leaving it well beyond the market price deemed feasible by Mr Avelar.

Based on the data that could be gathered it has to be concluded that a centralized composting facility in

these circumstances is technically feasible, but not financially.

3. Requirements for a Feasible Centralized Composting Site

Establishing a financially feasible, large scale composting site in this part of Brazil seems challenging.

Especially the high costs for the raw materials and the most importantly the transport costs make the final

compost prohibitively expensive.

As per the request of HRN foundation we would like to provide a fictional scenario in which compost

production at reasonable cost would be possible.

The following key indicators have to be changed to arrive at a cost of production of approximately 50 R$.

The total output of the compost site would have to be increased to 105.000 tons of compost per year. It

is assumed that the costs for inputs has been reduced drastically – with coffee husk being delivered for

free to the site in large quantities.

Furthermore, it was assumed that the transport costs per ton / km are now 0.25 R$ rather than the actual

1.5 R$. On top of these costs reductions, the potential subsidies from carbon credits amount to R$12 per

ton of compost (that assumes an optimistic 10€ per carbon credit), resulting in a ton of compost being

produced at zero profit for R$ 38. It needs no further pointing out that unfortunately such a scenario is

unlikely.

It would be a very different scenario, if local communities or municipalities could be engaged to solve

potential green waste problems through the implementation of a composting site. This however does not

seem to be the case.

b. De-Centralized Option

The second option that has been investigated in this feasibility study is that of a de-centralized composting

approach where farmers produce the required compost on or close to their farm. This way transport costs

can be reduced and the approach can be based on the on-farm available biomass for composting.

Combining this approach with measures already under implementation by the coffee& climate project

can significantly reduce emissions and can potentially qualify for an emission reduction project under the

umbrella of the ‘Climate Smart Agriculture’ initiative by the Gold Standard Foundation.

In the following tables, the agricultural practices and the relating emissions for the farmers currently

active in the coffee & climate project have been analysed.

Based on conversations with Mr Avelar the following baseline scenario for coffee production in this region

of Minas Gerais could be established.

Table 6: Practices Baseline Current Projects

1. Baseline Scenario – Current Projects

By using a calculation tool these inputs and farming practices have been transformed into an estimate of

greenhouse gas emissions that farmers of the coffee & climate project emitted prior to the

commencement of the project. These emissions are the so-called baseline scenario.

Area (ha) 5,010

Yield Coffee Cherry (Kg) 26,458,080

Agricultural Inputs

Ammonium Sulphate (21%) Kg/ha 525

NPK (20:5:20) Kg/ha 1,050

Crop residues

Coffee Husks (Kg/ha) 1,500

Pesticide Applications 4 times a year

Agricultural Management

Cover cropping No

Compost application No

Residue incorporation (mulching) Yes, on 30 % of the total area

Table 7: Emissions Baseline Current Projects

Emissions for total area, kg CO2 eq Per hectare

Fertiliser production 6,594,668.9 1,316.0

Direct and indirect field N2O 7,708,422.5 1,538.3

Pesticides 410,902.0 82.0

Crop residue management 509,074.6 101.6

Carbon stock changes - -

Totals 15,223,068.1 3,037.9

2. Status Quo – Current Projects

Analysing data from the projects’ database gives an insight into the impact that the project has had to

date. Especially the increased use of cover cropping and coffee husk for mulching reduced emissions

against the baseline already.

Table 8: Practices Status Quo Current Projects

Area (ha) 5,010


Agricultural Inputs


NPK (20:5:20) Kg/ha 1,050

Crop residues


Pesticide Applications 1.5 times a year


Cover cropping Yes, on 75% of the total area



Table 9: Emissions Status Quo Current Projects

Emissions for total area, kg

CO2 eq

Per hectare





Carbon stock changes -6,545,342.9 -1,306.2

Totals 8,420,911.5 1,680.5

However, further reduction potentials could be realized if the coffee husk / manure mix would be undergo

a controlled composting process prior to application. It is estimated that then also 25% of chemical

fertilizers could be reduced, if also compost tea is applied on a regular basis. This will lead to a further

decrease of emissions for current project participants.

3. Further Reduction Scenario – Current Projects

Table 10: Practices Further Reduction Current Projects

Area (ha) 5,010


Agricultural Inputs

Ammonium Sulphate (21%) Kg/ha 393.75

NPK (20:5:20) Kg/ha 787.5

Compost 1,500

Crop residues

Coffee Husks (Kg/ha) 0




Compost application Yes, on 75 % of the total area

Residue incorporation (mulching) No, residues are composted

Table 11: Emissions Further Reductions Current Projects

Emissions for total area, kg

CO2eq

Per hectare

Fertiliser production 4,946,001.7 987.0



Crop residue management - -


Totals 4,760,740.1 950.1

Table 12: Reduction Potential Overview

Emissions for total

area, kg CO2 eq

Baseline - Current Status Quo - Current Reduction - Current

Fertiliser production 6,594,668.90 6,594,668.90 4,946,001.70

Direct and indirect field

N2O

7,708,422.50 7,708,422.50 5,686,148.60

Pesticides 410,902.00 154,088.30 154,088.30

Crop residue

management

509,074.60 509,074.60 -

Carbon stock changes - -6,545,342.90 -6,025,498.50

Totals 15,223,068.10 8,420,911.50 4,760,740.10

As can be seen in the table above, it is estimated that the current project activities of the coffee & climate

project have already decreased greenhouse gas emissions of coffee production by approximately 7 million

Kg CO2e. However, further integration of compost and fertilizer reductions can realize savings of up to

10.5 million Kg CO2e against the baseline scenario in one year.

Figure 4: Comparison Reduction Potential in Kg C02eq

4. Baseline Scenario – IDB Project

An even higher potential for greenhouse gas reductions can be found in the soon to launched IDB funded

project.

As no primary data could be established at this point, it was assumed that the new farmers joining the

project are practising the same management techniques as described in the baseline scenario above.

The following figures represent only the area under the IDB project.

0

2.000.000

4.000.000

6.000.000

8.000.000

10.000.000

12.000.000

14.000.000

16.000.000

Totals

15.223.068,10

8.420.911,50

4.760.740,10

GHG Emissions per Scenario

Baseline - Current

Status Quo - Current

Reduction - Current

Table 13: Practices Baseline IDB Project

Area (ha) 6,904


Agricultural Inputs


NPK (20:5:20) Kg/ha 1,050

Crop residues


Pesticide Applications 4 times a year


Cover cropping No



Table 14: Baseline Emissions IDB Project

Emissions for total area, kg CO2

eq

Per hectare





Carbon stock changes - -

Totals 20,973,869.9 3,037.9

If we now apply the same management changes as described above, the following reduction potentials

could be established.

5. Reduction Scenario – IDB Project

Table 15: Practices Reduction Scenario IDB Project

Area (ha) 6,904


Agricultural Inputs

Ammonium Sulphate (21%) Kg/ha 393.75

NPK (20:5:20) Kg/ha 787.5

Compost (Kg/ ha) 1,500

Crop residues

Coffee Husks (Kg/ha) 0




Compost application Yes, on 75 % of the total area

Residue incorporation (mulching) No, see compost application

Table 16: Emissions Reduction Scenario IDB Project

Emissions for total area,

kg CO2 eq

Per hectare

Fertiliser production 6,814,447.4 987.0



Crop residue management - -


Totals 6,619,128.3 958.7

Table 17: Overview Aggregated Reduction Potential

Emissions in

kg CO2 eq

Baseline - Current Reduction -

Current

Baseline - IDB Reduction – IDB Total

Emissions for

total area

15,223,068 4,760,740 20,973,869 6,619,128

Potential

Saving

against

baseline

10,462,328 14,354,741 24,817,069

Combining the potential emissions reductions from both projects leads us to an aggregated amount of

24,800 metric tons of C02e in the first year if these activity changes would be implemented immediately.

As we have so far concentrated on carbon sequestration in the soil, the above mentioned emission

reductions would be realized annually for the entire lifespan of the project. Soil carbon sequestration

behaves like an inverted exponential function, meaning that saturation of soil carbon levels are reached

over time, with highest gains occurring in the beginning. The exact reduction potential from soil carbon

sequestration, fertilizer reduction etc. would have to be re-calculated in greater detail during the project

development phase.

Not included here, is the potential to sequester carbon from the planting of trees – either for shade or to

set up living fences around the coffee plots. It can be stated though, that the combination of carbon

sequestration above and below ground on an area of the project size, normally should lead to emission

reduction potentials that justify project development and certification costs. The first step however is to

establish the farmer’s willingness to plant further trees.

4. Sustainability Flower Quick Assessment

a. Executive Summary

1. Preface

The Sustainability Flower and its nine dimensions is a simple but comprehensive framework for defining

sustainable development (see E. Annex). Assessing the farmers participating in coffee & climate against

the dimensions and its performance aspects helps to understand how good they perform not only

financially, but also concerning all other aspects of the dimensions of economic, societal and cultural life

as well as the six ecological dimensions (soil, plants, animals, energy, air, water).

The main goal of a quick assessment is to

roughly analyse the status quo for hot spots,

improvement potentials and hidden

relations. Therefore, the assessment does

not claim to be complete and might result in

slightly different evaluations if a more

detailed questionnaire would be carried out.

This document has been written by an

independent consultant of Soil & More Intl.;

based on a questionnaire filled out by coffee

& climate staff during a site visit in March

2013 and during following telephone calls.

One purpose of this assessment is to

benchmark the projects’ overall

sustainability performance against the

requirements of the Gold Standard

foundation. It can be stated that no major

obstacles were identified during this assessment.

Three evaluation levels guide the reader trough the assessment:

No activities identified

AND / OR

status quo not satisfying

Activities in place but obvious

improvement potential

AND / OR

status quo acceptable

Activities established and continuously

improved

AND / OR

status quo excellent

The headings of each performance aspect in the dimensions of Economic, Societal and Cultural Life and

the ecology dimensions are coloured according to the evaluation.

2. Results of the Quick Assessment

Table 18: SusFlower Results

Dimension Performance

Soil

Plants

Animals

Energy

Air

Water

Economic Life

Societal Life

Cultural Life

Table 19: SusFlower Indicator Key

Key Indicator

No action towards more sustainable practices

On a good path with still significant improvement potential

Good practise in place while developing continuously

Soil:

Coffee production is done as a mono crop system without shade trees. Farmers apply significant amounts

of agrochemicals. It has to be stated though that those farmers that participate in the Coffee & climate

project, have taken good steps towards more sustainable soil management practices, like cover cropping

and residue incorporation. Thus they use significantly less disease control than farmers outside the

project.

Even though encouraging steps have been taken in regards to soil management, further potential was

identified. A controlled composting of crop residues with farm-available biomass would increase the

nutrient efficiency, the soil water retention capacity, carbon storage etc. to only name a few. First trials

with compost tea have been scheduled and if positive results can be achieved a broad rollout should be

envisaged.

Plants:

Brazilian law is very strict when it comes to conservation of forest on farmland. 20% of the total area of a

farm has to be set aside as conservation area, plus buffer zones of 30m-50m next to water bodies.

Furthermore, in the farmer field schools they are currently testing the positive effects of planting further

trees around the area under coffee as windbreakers to avoid transportation of diseases through wind.

The further planting of trees as windbreakers should be encouraged if the field trials show positive results.

Further research could also be focused on the introduction of shade trees in the parts of the plantations

that are being rejuvenated.

Animals:

Cattle husbandry is done according to Brazilian law and customs, which in this case mean sufficient area

for grazing and other normal husbandry practices. No organic or biodynamic husbandry principles are

adopted. There is a range of endangered species (IUCN) in the area, but no specific plan to protect those

is in place.

A detailed analysis of endangered species in the area could be conducted and the project could then join

forces with other organizations to promote the conservation of these species.

Energy:

Energy consumption on farm level is minimal as much of the work is done manually. All fuel and electricity

is consumed on processing level for the hulling of the coffee cherries. 70% of the farmers use a mobile

hulling service, which is powered by Diesel, and 30% bring their coffee to a centralized processing facility

where they have access to electricity. The total consumption of fuels within the project boundary is quite

considerable, and no renewable energy sources are currently being used.

It might be worthwhile to investigate the usage of renewable energy sources to provide the energy for

the hulling. These could be decentralized biogas / solar power solutions as well as larger facilities on the

premises of the processing facilities.

Air:

The emissions per kg of green coffee are relatively low compared to coffees from other parts of the world.

However, it has to be stated that this is only true because the efficiency of these farming systems seem

to be also much higher, than for example in an African smallholder situation. The emissions per total area

and per ha are quite considerable due to the extensive use of chemical fertilizers and processing energy

(70% diesel and 30% electricity). For 2012 the total emissions on the entire area was 23,251 tons of C02e

(approx. 4.7 t/ha/year). This includes the carbon that is sequestered through mulching of crop residues.

We are thus looking at a considerable net source of emissions.

Despite the agricultural efficiency of the input/output ratio (fertilizer/harvest) - which keeps the emissions

per unit of coffee quite low - one should consider looking at potential emission reduction sources, which

in turn could also be beneficial for the soil, the plants and the water footprint. Over the long run, the

imbalance between agrochemicals and organic inputs will also lead to a decreasing efficiency of the

system, meaning increasing emissions per unit of output. One means to achieve further reduction while

maintaining/increasing soil quality and potentially yield is the composting and application (solid and

liquid) of the crop residues (coffee husks) with other inputs (manure, fresh material). An estimated 25%

of chemical fertilizer could potentially be saved in the long run, if this would be implemented widely.

Emissions would then sink drastically to 10,581 t / year / total area (a reduction of more than 50%) and to

2.1 t/ha/y.

Water:

All coffee in this project is being grown without irrigation, thus there is no depletion of water sources.

Furthermore, Brazilian environmental law requires buffer zones of 30-50m between agricultural land and

water bodies. If these regulations are met - and there is no hint otherwise here - these buffer zones play

an important role in the prevention of leeching of agrochemicals from the cropland into the water source.

The main effects of the coffee farms on the water performance are the use of chemical fertilizers and

disease control. However, project measures such as cover cropping and mulching have reduced the

application of 'round up' from three to one applications per year. Further activities like this should be

encouraged.

As already stated, the project activities have already had a positive impact on the overall water

performance when benchmarked with farmers outside the project framework (mostly due to reduced

disease control applications). Further activities to reduce chemical inputs and to increase organic ones

should be encouraged to further improve the water performance. One aspect next to water usage and

pollution is the challenging availability of water for the plants throughout the year. Even though this part

of Brazil still receives the same amount of rainfall as usual, its timely distribution is becoming more erratic

with occasions of heavy rainfalls and droughts becoming alarmingly frequent. The project conducts field

trials with gypsum to transport the nutrients deep into the soil and thus encourage the plant roots to grow

deeper than usual (with the ultimate goal to reach the groundwater table). Initial results are encouraging

and should be further tested - also a joint application with high quality compost should be investigated in

order to increase the water retention capacity of the topsoil as well.

Table 20: Water Footprint

Blue WF: Farm L water/kg fresh cherry Green WF: Farm L water/kg fresh

cherry

Grey WF: Farm L water/kg fresh

cherry

0 1,382 1,821

Economic Life:

Farmers depend for their income fully on their coffee, cattle and what they grow in their own garden. This

means that their incomes depend on the performance of their two main cash crops. Farmers do not tend

to form cooperatives in this region, which means that they face the markets by themselves - which can

have negative impacts on the price they achieve for their crop. Certification schemes like Fair-trade,

Rainforest Alliance or Global Gap are virtually absent. Young people are less and less willing to take over

their parents’ farm. The project addresses this by training the young kids in business skills to show them

that being a successful farmer is actually possible.

Diversification of potential income sources, development of cooperatives and the promotion of

environmental certification (if there's a business case for it) can help farmers to become less dependent

on one crop and the world market price development. The training sessions regarding agricultural

practices but more importantly business skills, which farmers receive from the project - especially the

youth - are invaluable steps towards a more stable, diversified stream of income.

Societal Life:

All households have access to compulsory health insurance as well as clean sanitary facilities and drinking

water. There is no risk of child labor or corruption. The injury rates are very low, with no known fatalities

in recent years. Farmers live in a traditional societal setting. The men are responsible for the coffee, while

the women take over the maintenance of the household and the cattle / dairy farming. Overall it seems

to be a stable societal situation.

One aspect of concern however is the hiring of seasonal workers during the harvesting period. An average

farmer normally employs up to 5 workers for the period of a few weeks. These migrant workers come

from the north of Minas Gerais - a poorer part of the state - and they move from farm to farm. A few years

ago, an open truck transporting seasonal workers lost control while overtaking a car and toppled over

several times before coming to rest on the side of the road, having killed several and injured many of the

workers that were hitching a ride on the open back of the truck. Even though the government intervened

and provided legislation for better protection of seasonal workers, the project should consider the

development of a binding code for the treatment of seasonal workers. This could be based for example

on the Fair-trade or Rainforest Alliance standards.

Cultural Life:

Every farmer receives an average of 84 hours of free training on matters of agriculture and business from

the project. This is by far the single most outstanding achievement of this project, especially because the

conversation between project and farmers is one that goes in both directions, meaning that the farmers’

input is heard and integrated into the training schedule. Of particular importance is the training focusing

on young people providing them with the business skills to become successful coffee farmers.

One idea could be to involve farmers stronger in the development and delivery of trainings. The 'lead

farmer' model of the rainforest alliance could be an interesting one to look at. It enables those farmers

that want to take a leadership role in their communities to do so, while it offers the project the

opportunity to extend its reach.

b. Benchmarking against Gold Standard Requirements

This ‘do-no-harm’ assessment is the first step in the Gold Standard sustainability assessment cycle. It

serves as a first round of contemplation to identify broader areas of concern for the overall sustainability

of the project.

The project activities of coffee & climate project do perform very well in this assessment. One area of

concern in the general coffee industry in this area of Minas Gerais is the use of seasonal workers during

the harvest. The project could and should be more active to promote their rights as well.

Table 21: ‘Do-No-Harm Assessment’

Safeguarding principle Relevance to

project

Risk of breaching SusFlower dimension

and performance

Human Rights

1 The project respects

internationally proclaimed

human rights including dignity,

cultural property and uniqueness

of indigenous people. The project

is not complicit in Human rights

abuses.

N/a Low Societal / Cultural

2 The project does not involve and

is not complicit in involuntary

resettlement.

The project is

suggesting changes

on existing

agricultural

structures, thus no

risk of replacement.

Low Societal / Cultural


is not complicit in the alteration,

damage or removal of any critical

cultural heritage.

See #2 Low Societal / Cultural

Labour Standards

4 The project respects the

employees’ freedom of

association and their right to

collective bargaining and is not

complicit in restrictions of these

freedoms and rights.

Yes, the project is

actually trying to

advance these

rights.

Low Societal / Cultural /

Economic


is not complicit in any form of

forced or compulsory labour.

The project is not

involved in this.

However, there is a

risk for labour

related issues due to

the annual use of

seasonal workers.

Before project start

Medium Societal / Cultural /

Economic

the right mitigation

measures have to be

in place to

safeguard the rights

of the seasonal

workers.

6 The project does not employ and


child labour.

No risk detected Low Societal / Cultural /

Economic



discrimination based on gender,

race, religion, sexual orientation

or any other basis.


Economic

8 The project provides workers

with a safe and healthy work

environment and is not complicit

in exposing workers to unsafe or

unhealthy work environments.

The project

contributes

significantly to a

positive

development in this

regard. For example

does the project

contribute to

reduced usage of

agrochemicals and

provides training on

safe storage.

Low Societal / Cultural /

Economic

Environmental Protection

9 The project takes a precautionary

approach in regard to

environmental challenges and is

not complicit in practices contrary

to the precautionary principle.

This principle can be defined as:

”When an activity raises threats

of harm to human health or the

environment, precautionary

measures should be taken even if

some cause and effect

The project suggests

the increase of

natural means to

increase the

sustainability of the

coffee production

system. It is thus

unlikely that

negative impacts

will occur. However,

the project will

Low Soil / Plants / Animals /

Energy / Air / Water

relationships are not fully

established scientifically.”

follow this

precautionary rule.

The project does not involve and

is not complicit in significant

conversion or degradation of

critical natural habitats, including

those that are (a) legally

protected, (b) officially proposed

for protection, (c) identified by

authoritative sources for their

high conservation value or (d)

recognized as protected by

traditional local communities.

No risk detected Low Soil / Plants / Animals /

Energy / Air / Water

Anti-Corruption


is not complicit in corruption.


Economic

The next, more detailed step, based on the ‘do-no-harm’ assessment would be an in-depth analysis of

those areas identified earlier. Such an in-depth analysis would be out of the framework of this analysis.

However, a quick scan will be undertaken here. During this so-called sustainability matrix assessment, the

project developer has to rate the project impact against a number of indicators. Negative impact that they

can foresee can potentially be neutralised by mitigation measures. All non-neutral scores will have to be

monitored during the project.

Table 22: Sustainability Matrix

Indicator Preliminary score Indicator Preliminary score

Gold Standard

indicators of

sustainable

development.

Negative impact:

score ‘-‘ in case negative impact

is not fully mitigated

score 0 in case impact is

planned to be fully mitigated

No change in impact: score 0

Positive impact:

score ‘+’

Gold Standard indicators of

sustainable development.

Negative impact:

score ‘-‘ in case negative impact

is not fully mitigated

score 0 in case impact is

planned to be fully mitigated

No change in impact: score 0

Positive impact:

score ‘+’

Air quality + Livelihood of the poor +

Water quality and

quantity

+ Access to affordable and clean

energy services

0

Soil condition + Human and institutional

capacity

+

Other pollutants + Quantitative employment and

income generation

+

Biodiversity + Balance of payments and

investment

0

Quality of

employment

0 Technology transfer and

technological self-reliance

0

5. The Effect of Compost and Compost Tea

a. General Benefits of Compost

According to various studies published by the International Trade Centre, UNCTAD, WTO, FAO, Fibl and

others, the use of compost in agricultural soils especially in marginal areas is of utmost importance as

compost offers multiple benefits to agricultural systems under stress.

Due to its unique physical and chemical structure as well as the microbiological activity, high-quality

humus enriched compost strengthens the structure of soils which prevents erosion during long dry

periods or floods caused by irregular rainfall, meaning compost enriched soils are more resistant to

extreme weather events which will happen more often due to climate change.

Additionally compost proved to be the main factor which made sustainable farming systems in marginal

areas perform better regarding yields and plant health compared to conventional practices (Badgley et al.

2007).

Especially the positive impact of compost on the water holding capacity of soils improves the sustainable

competitiveness of compost based agricultural practices. Due to less leakage and optimal pf-curves, crops

grown in compost enriched soils need up to 40% less irrigation water.

In times of climate change, emissions reduction policies and proposed carbon tax, the fact that compost

stimulates the carbon sequestration potential of soils with up to 26 tons of carbon per hectare over time

makes compost based agricultural systems only more competitive (Louis Bolk, Soil & More 2009).

No compost means higher risk of erosion and potential loss of soil fertility.

Figure 5: Coffee Production in Nicaragua

The main reasons to apply compost are soil structure, nutrients and soil life. The soil structure on the one

hand is an erosion and soil degradation prevention measure and on the other hand increases the holding

capacity of soils related to water and nutrients, preventing leakage. Nutrient leakage in soil with low soil

organic matter is one of the main reasons why non-sustainable farming practices will be less cost-effective

over time. Increasing fertilizer costs combined with growing leakage rates cause an exponential cost

increase per ton of product produced. Soil & More recently carried out a study comparing the cost of

production per ton of organic versus conventional farming systems for seven crops in Egypt. All seven

scenarios clearly show that within the next 5-10 years the cost of production for organic products will be

less than the conventional ones. The main driver for this is above-mentioned combination of increasing

fertilizer prices and the leakage rate of low organic matter soils.

Together with a British retailer and an internationally operating certifier, Soil & More carried out a

compost training program for small-scale farmers in Kenya. After one year of implementation the results

are obvious. Due to the increased soil organic matter through the compost applications, the conventional

small-scale farmers were able to save 26% of their usually applied synthetic fertilizer as the leakage rate

was reduced, while maintaining same yield levels.

Below figure shows the dynamics of the relation between soil structure and nutrient leakage.

Wheat Production Cost

blue = conventional; red

Potato Production Cost

blue = conventional; red

The second role of compost is the provision of nutrients, both macronutrients such as NPK as well as

micronutrients and trace elements.

During the compost process the microbes as they breakdown the fresh biomass and build-up the humus,

take the nutrients and trace elements into their bodies and fix them. The microbes not only break down

the fresh biomass and build up the humus but also feed on each other as they develop towards higher

organisms. The further the composting process is, the less fresh biomass, meaning food is available for

the microbes resulting in a decreasing microbial activity.

All the microbes and with it the nutrients are stabilized in the final humus complex and after the

application of the compost, the nutrients are released slowly and nutrient availability could be only 10%

of e.g. the total nitrogen potential of 1%.

This is when the compost tea can be used by activating the microbes through putting them in a water tank

and blowing air through it. Adding natural sugars to the water will provide the microbes with food and

even further stimulates their activity and multiplication. Due to the different carbon nitrogen ratios of the

microbes, nutrients, in particular Nitrogen is released when they feed on each other.

The following figure shows the dynamics of a living so called soil food web, where microbes feed on each

other resulting in an increased nutrient release.

Trials on various crops have shown that by applying this liquid compost solution to the soil in combination

with compost the nutrient availability can be increased up to 5 times.

Generally compost has a nutrient content of e.g. Nitrogen of 1% out of which normally only 10% is

available. A usual application rate for compost is 10 tons per hectare resulting in 100kg of total Nitrogen

potential per hectare but only 10kg plant available. Through the use of compost tea these 10kg can be

increased to 40-50kg per hectare potentially replacing an e.g. 100kg per ha application rate of Urea with

a mineralization rate of 46%. A compost tea unit therefore is definitely worth its cost of less than €1.000.

A compost tea unit consists of the extraction pipe in which the compost is submerged in a water tank and

exposed to forced aeration through a compressed air flow.

Eight hours of “bubbling” extracts the compost and activates the microbes, ready for application either

through spraying or irrigation systems.

The third role of compost is the overall enhancement of soil life, stimulating so-called natural disease

suppression against soil borne diseases. The higher the diversity and population of soil microbes is the

better the chance of existence of a predator for a soil born disease carrier. Many trials have proven the

effectiveness of useful soil microbes against harmful fungi or e.g. nematodes. Below picture shows the

useful “lasso-fungi” or Arthrobotus, capturing a harmful nematode preventing root failure.

Figure 6: ‚Lasso Fungi’ trapping harmful nematodes in the soil

Compost tea obviously not only improves the nutritional value of compost but also stimulates soil life and

natural disease suppression at the same time and therefore is a recommendable and easy to use

complementary product to solid compost.

3. Specific Economic Benefits of Compost for Participating Farmers

Specific economic benefits for farmers when applying compost can be seen in the pictures below. For

example, bare soil in between the plants - as if often the case outside the project - leaves the soil open

for erosion by wind and rain.

Figure 7: Bare Soil in Between Coffee Bushes

Farmers with such a system will not only not bring back valuable organic matter to their soils – and with

it nutrients that support healthy and productive plants. They will actually loose these, thus proactively

depleting their soils.

One of the effects of applying compost is the fact that the root network of the plant strengthens which

allows in turn the better uptake of nutrient and water leading to a healthy plant.

Figure 8: Enhanced Root Growth

Figure 9: Coffee Bush with Compost Figure 10: Coffee Bush without Compost

The plant on the left has received applications of compost, whereas the plant on the right hasn’t. The

differences are visible.

In a project with tea growers in Kenya Soil & More Intl. was able to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers

of farmers by 25% and to replace the missing nutrients with compost and compost tea. More than 13.000

small-scale farmers supply this tea factory and the total saving potential if all farmers implemented these

measures was estimated to be around $ 500.000 annually.

But these savings are just one side of the coin. The beneficial attributes of the compost led to a steep

increase in yields, sometimes by 20-30 %. This is not to say that this steep increase is the rule, it rather

seems that the tea farmers were coming from a very low production level. However, it is a well-known

fact that healthy soils contribute to good yields.

6. Conclusion and next steps

a. Conclusion on Technical / Financial Feasibility

A large-scale composting facility – the core approach under scrutiny here in this study – is unfortunately

financially not feasible. As explained earlier the high input costs, prohibitive transport costs and an under-

developed market for high quality compost rule out this option.

A de-centralised option however shows potential to be feasible to generate carbon credits. This would

have to be further investigated once certain parameters are established. Questions like, how many

farmers would actually incorporate farm-made compost and the planting of shade trees or living fences

need to be answered before detailed calculations can be made.

But potential reductions of up to 24.000 tons from a compost scenario (excluding trees) alone are already

encouraging and this path should be further investigated while including trees in the calculations.

Especially as many of the actual practices are in place or will be implemented soon – a great advantage

to other projects that often struggle with this part. In this case we will ‘only’ have to add the

corresponding reduction figures next to the relevant action plans.

b. ‘Social’ Feasibility

As was established through the Sustainability Flower Quick Assessment the project activities have already

had a very beneficial impact on the farming communities that participate in comparison to those outside

the project. Sustainable farming practices, access to training and to experts allows a good rating across

the board of the nine dimensions and the trend is looking positive.

The assessment according to the sustainability flower also helped to establish a first understanding of the

projects’ potential performance against the Gold Standard Sustainability requirements. And it can be

stated that it performed rather well and there do not seem to be any major obstacles from this angle at

this point in time.

c. The Way Forward

1. Setting up The Project

The recommendation that can be given here is to further investigate the opportunities of a de-centralized

compost / afforestation option.

The required next steps would entail:

Further integration of composting and tree planting in the overall project design and share these

plans with Soil & More Intl. for investigation

Calculation of emission reductions based on different adoption scenarios

Community engagement to negotiate participation and share of revenues (if any)

Project Design Document (PDD) development

2. Integrating existing Monitoring Skills

One of the major challenges for carbon sequestration projects is the question of how to effectively

monitor the adoption of project activities. coffee & climate is an exceptional position here, having this

infrastructure already in place.

This structure would not only be crucial for the implementation of project activities but also during the

project life and especially for certification purposes.

In a nutshell it could look like this:

coffee & climate and farmers jointly agree to implement certain activities that reduce / sequester carbon

emissions. A plan is drawn up, which gives information about the total emission reductions at different

adoption rates of these practices across the project participants. For example, one could estimate that

50% of the farmers actually implement the measures and that would result in a certain amount of

emission reductions. During the certification, the auditors will then investigate whether actually 50% of

the farmers have implemented the measures.

This is where any kind of monitoring infrastructure will come in handy.

3. Scalability to Other Countries / Projects

The measures and approaches here suggested can be rolled-out to other countries where HRN foundation

and coffee & climate is active. Actually, it might very well be that from a carbon credit perspective Brazil

might be the least feasible country due to its overall development status and the resulting costs (as

mentioned above).

It might very well be that a centralized composting facility in – for example – Tanzania would be quite

feasible; or the de-centralized option; or both.

The really encouraging part though is that the measures are already road-tested, the HRN infrastructure

for project delivery and monitoring are given in these countries as well. All one has to do is to put the

amount of carbon reduced / sequestered next to the project activities and to scale it up.

coffee & climate has therefore a great opportunity to benefit from but also to influence the development

of the Gold standards’ climate smart agriculture methodologies – an opportunity that should not be

missed.

Food

1310 feasibility compost_coffee and climate_soil and more final