1

Emissions reductions of GHG and domestic waste composting in less advanced countries.

Why new assessment tools are requested.

Presented by Gaïa Ludington Gevalor

2

Outline

1. Waste management - Least Developed Countries (LDCs) – Composting2. Composting and GHG emissions3. Emission reductions calculation4. CDM method analysis5. Baseline – Project – Emission Reduction6. Emission reductions calculation7. Conservativness of methodology8. Kinetics9. Main recent methodological evolutions (1)10. Main recent methodological evolutions (2)11. Difficult investment12. Drawbacks but not advantages13. What we’d like to propose14. Conclusion

3

Waste management - Least Developed Countries (LDCs) – Composting

• LDC’s : around 40% waste collection• Role of municipalities but little financial resources• Importance of informal sector• Average 70% organic matter compost : holistic approach

• Reduces residual volumes to landfill• Reduces polution risks• Reduces GHG emissions• Creates jobs (notably for waste pickers)• Favours sustainable agriculture and adaptation to climate change

4

Composting and GHG emissions

Source : Satoshi Sugimoto JICA expert team

5

Emission reductions calculation according to UNFCCC methodology

• Baseline emissions : SWDS

BECH4 ,SWDS,y= K1 * DOCj)

• Project emissions : Compost

PEy = PEy,power + PEy,comp + PEy,runoff + PEy,res waste

ER = BE - PE

6

CDM method analysis

• Ten years calculation• Climat : rain > 1000mm/year. T° : >20°C • Calculation data:– Local values (climate)– Monitored values (SWDS management – waste quantity)– Default values (decay rate – fraction of DOC)

7

Baseline – Project – Emission Reduction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Baseline emission for a same quantity of waste composted every year

BE

8

Baseline – Project – Emission Reduction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Baseline and project emissions for a same quantity of waste composted every year

BE PE

9

Baseline – Project – Emission Reduction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Emissions reductions for a same quantity of waste composted every year

BE PE

10

Emission reductions calculation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

20

40

60

80

100

X ton composted during year one

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

X ton composted every year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

102030405060708090

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

20

40

60

80

100

X ton composted during year 5

X ton composted during year 10

11

Conservativness of methodology

• Kinetics • Default values• Constant evolutions

• Has been criticized

scientific justification ?

12

Kinetics

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

X ton composted every year- calculation of ER on the year of treatment

13

Main recent methodological evolutions (1)

• Global uncertainty factor : from 10% to 20%• Nitrous oxide emissions in project emissions but not

in baseline• Monitoring CH4 and N2O very complicated – default

values very high

14

Main recent methodological evolutions (2)

25000 tons organic waste treated in the year of calculation. Calculation version 10.

25000tons organic waste treated in the year of calculation. Calculation version 11.

Year 1 1675 TCO2eq reduction emission -1125 TCO2eq reduction emission

Total (10 years) 53 500 TCO2eq reduction emission 25 500 TCO2eq reduction emission

15

Difficult investment

16

Drawbacks but not advantages

• Methane and nitrous oxide emissions

• Leachates from composting

• Emission from anaerobic storage

• Social impact ?– Job creation– informal workers (re)

insertion • Climate change ?– Agronomic parameters ?– Soil parameters ?

• Longer life for landfills• Less costs for

municipalities

17

What we’d like to propose Life cycle analysis

• CERF (compost emissions reduction factor) = Csb + (Wb + Eb +Fb +Hb)*C -Te + Pe + Fe

With • CSb = Emission reductions associated with the increased carbon storage in soil

(MTCO2E/ton of feedstock)• Wb = Emission reductions due to decreased water use (MTCO2E/ton of compost)• Eb = Emission reduction associated with decreased soil erosion (MTCO2E/ton of compost)• Fb = Factor to account for the reduced fertilizer use (MTCO2E/ton of compost)• Hb = Factor to account for the reduced herbicide use (MTCO2E/ton of compost)• C = Conversion factor used to convert from tons of compost to tons of feedstock• Te = Transportation emissions from composting (MTCO2E/ton of feedstock)• Pe = Process emissions from composting (MTCO2E/ton of feedstock)• Fe = Fugitive emissions from composting (MTCO2E/ton of feedstock)Developed by Cal EPA

18

What we’d like to propose Social impacts

• Job creation• informal workers (re) insertion

some standards already take them into consideration

19

Conclusion

Combine solid waste disposal site emissions (according UNFCCC methodology) and agricultural use of compost emissions reduction (LCA) for a better approach. Take in consideration social impacts

• No matter carbon finance, selling compost is essential for financial sustainability and is also a challenge in itself.

20

Thank You

Questions ?

gaia.ludington@gevalor.orgwww.gevalor.org