PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD)
Version 02 - in effect as of: 1 July 2004)

CONTENTS

A. General description of project activity

B. Application of a baseline methodology

C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period

D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan

E. Estimation of GHG emissions by sources

F. Environmental impacts

G. 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

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 2

SECTION A. General description of project activity

A.1 Title of the project activity:

>>
Title:
Methane Capture and Combustion from Swine Manure Treatment Project at PT Indotirta
Suaka Bulan Farm in Indonesia

Version (date): version 1.0-rev.7 (05/06/2006)

A.2. Description of the project activity:

>>
Outline and Objective of the Project
“Methane Capture and Combustion from Swine Manure Treatment Project at PT Indotirta Suaka
Bulan Farm in Indonesia” is a project, which collects and combusts methane from the manure
treatment system of the pig farm by installing the anaerobic digesters. By flaring the captured
methane, greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced.
The project site, “Bulan Farm” is a large-scale swine husbandry farm, which breeds approximately
230 thousands pigs on a steady basis to date. Currently, pig manure from this farm is treated in a
multi-stage open lagoon system with anaerobic treatment for a certain period of time and discharged
the sludge to a tapioca farm (land application as the fertilizer). From the open lagoons, methane is
actively generated and emitted into the atmosphere without recovery under the anaerobic treatment
process now.
This project captures the methane from the treatment process of the animal manure by installing
covered “anaerobic digesters” instead of current anaerobic open lagoons. Captured methane will be
flared in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Contribution to Sustainable Development of Indonesia

Indonesia sets its criteria on sustainability on: (a) environmental sustainability, (b) economic
sustainability, (c) social sustainability, and (d) technology sustainability.
This project contributes to the (a) environmental sustainability through
(1) Improvement of water treatment quality,1
(2) Prevention of odour,
(3) Improvement of labour sanitation environment,
as well as mitigating climate change through methane emission reductions.
The project also contributes to the (b) economic sustainability through
(4) Increase of local Indonesia company’s income.
For (c) social sustainability,
(5) There are no residents in the Bulan Island (where targeted site locates). However, precise
explanation and feedbacks are invited from the employees of the company who may be

1
The project contributes to the stabilization of wastewater treatment by preventing inflow of rainwater.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 3

directly influenced by the project activity.

For (d) technological sustainability,
(6) Environmentally friendly anaerobic digester system is introduced as the “first-of-this-
kind” practice in Indonesia.
See the details in Section 4.3. and Section F.

A.3. Project participants:

>>
Kindly indicate if the Party
Private and/or public entities
Name of Party involved involved wishes to be considered
Project participants (*)
((host) indicates a host Party) as project participant
(as applicable)
(Yes/No)
Party/country: Japan Mitsui & Co., LTD. No

Party/country: Indonesia (host) PT Indotirta Suaka No

Mitsui & Co., Ltd. SPC

Emission reduction calculation Data Transfer Install/Maintain methane recovery equipment
Emission reduction registration Periodical Verification
Communication with EB Assure data coherence
Analysis data
Data archive

Data Transfer

PT.Indotirta Suaka
Daily inspection of the site (Bulan Farm)
Monitoring of parameters

PT Indotirta Suaka and Mitsui & Co., LTD will either establish SPC or form consortium to
implement the project.
For details of contact information of the project participants, see Annex I of this PDD.
Indonesia ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 03/12/2004, while it does not intend to be a project
participant.
Japan ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 04/06/2002, while it does not intend to be a project participant.

A.4. Technical description of the project activity:

A.4.1. Location of the project activity:

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 4

>>

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

>>
Republic of Indonesia

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

>>
Riau Province

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:

>>
Bulan Island

Figure PDD-1: Map of Bulan Island, Indonesia

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

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

Bulan Farm is the largest pig farm in Indonesia owned by Indotirta Suaka PT, based in Bulan
Island, close to Singapore. This facility was established in 1986, since then to present, pig farming
has been consistently operated.
The site area is approximately 1,700 ha which equals to 17% of the entire Bulan Island
(approximately 10,000 ha). More than 300 people are working for pig farms in this island, while
no other residents live in the isolated island. Currently, there are about 150 pig farming barns in

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 5

total. Normally 6 barns are constructed as one group, called as “unit” as for management
convenience. Open lagoons are dug alongside each unit as a set of manure and wastewater
treatment facility.
For site utilities for business, drinking water facility, electricity generation facility, waste
management facility, warehouse and offices are constructed. Pig barns have been constructed in 4
stages in accordance with enlargement of business. Expansion was done from the east part of the
island to the west part, thus each Unit zoning is done based on its constructed time, called Phase 1
to Phase 4 accordingly2. The project covers manure management system for all of these
units/zones3.

2
Phase 4 is under construction. This farm is going to raise approximate 304,200 pigs by July in 2006 when Phase 4
will be completed.
3
This project is going to start in 01/04/2006 at Phase 1, 2 in 01/10/2006 at Phase 3, and in 01/04/2007 at Phase 4, in
order (expected).

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 6

: Phase1 Unit1~7
: Phase2 Unit8~14
: Phase3 Unit15~26
: Phase4 Unit27~39
Figure PDD-2: Map of project site

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 7

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

>>
Animal wastewater treatment in the agriculture sector.

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

>>
The new technology introduced for this project is the installation of “Anaerobic Digester” regarding
anaerobic treatment process of the swine manure.
Usually, anaerobic treatment is used to treat fluid, which contains high density of organic matters,
such as thick waste fluid and livestock wastes/manures. Anaerobic treatment degrades the organic
matters by anaerobic bacteria under the condition of low oxygen intensity. When the treatment
process is satisfactory, the organic matters will be degraded more than 90%, also with an expectation
rate of approximately 60% of nitrogen reduction and 80% of phosphorus reduction. Methane
emission from anaerobic bacteria occurs during the anaerobic treatment. Methane is generated from
two chemical reactions as described below; deoxidization of carbonate ion by hydrogen and
transmethylation of acetic acid.

Deoxidization of carbonate ion: 4H2 + HCO3− + H− → CH4 + 3H2O

Transmethylation: CH3COO− + H2O → CH4 + HCO3−

Methane consists of 60–80% of the total gas emitted from the anaerobic treatment process (large
portion of the remaining gas is carbon dioxide). The gas has approximately 5,000–6,500 kcal/m3
heat content. In addition, after the treatment processes, solid waste (sludge) can be utilized as
fertilizer. The simplest way to realize anaerobic treatment is to make a pond (lagoon) and store
animal manures/waste water to stimulate anaerobic degradation, which is called as anaerobic lagoon.
Regarding the Indotirta Suaka’s project site, manure treatment by anaerobic lagoon has already been
operated. However this lagoon is an open lagoon, which has no special equipment to capture the
emitted gases. By covering the surface of the open lagoons, which will be established for this
purpose, with membrane such as polyethylene emitted methane can be captured. Covered lagoon
also stabilizes the treatment process by preventing the inflow of rainwater and prevents the diffusion
of odour. Covered lagoon method is a wide spread technology for large-scale livestock production
facilities in the United States. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the UDSA-NRCS
(Natural Resources Conservation Service) jointly administer the guideline regarding the installation
of covered lagoon, known as UDSA-NRCS No.360. In this guideline it is noted, for maintenance
and management purpose, usually 2 anaerobic lagoons should be connected to and fro.
There are two types in the covered lagoon technology, which are Bank-to-Bank Cover type and
Modular Cover type. Bank-to-Bank Cover type covers the whole lagoon with single large cover. On
the other hand Modular Cover type covers the lagoon with smaller cover modules or sections covers.
Both types have pipes placed inside the covering, which captures the produced gas. Pipes are
usually connected to the pump, which compulsorily captures the gas. This project adopts Bank-to-
Bank Cover type since it ensures the effective cover function compared to Modular Cover type.
This project changes the existing open lagoons to covered lagoons. By installing the covered
lagoons, the project intends to capture and flare emitted methane. General outline of processing
system for baseline scenario and project scenario is shown in Fig. PDD-4. Fig. PDD-5 shows the
image of methane capture and flaring process.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 8

Figure PDD-3: Open lagoon and covered lagoon (anaerobic digester)

Figure PDD-4: Outline of effluent flow with associated GHG emissions

for Project and Baseline scenarios

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 9

Figure PDD-5: Image of flaring facility

Technology Transfer Effect

Presently, anaerobic digester has not yet been spread nor been in practical use in Indonesia, as far as
we know.
Covered lagoon is an environmental technology, which is a kind of application technology of the
open lagoon system currently utilized in Indonesia. Since open lagoon technology is already
popular in Indonesia, it is expected that after the implementation of this project, acknowledgment of
covered lagoon will be improved and the technology is expected gradually to be popular in
Indonesia (possibly with CER revenue). This technology has an advantageous aspect in prevention
of odour and improvement of water quality, which will be able to contribute to technological
improvement in Indonesia. In addition, the captured methane can be utilized as an energy source if
financially attractive.

A.4.4. Brief explanation of how the anthropogenic emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse

gas (GHGs) by sources are to be reduced by the proposed CDM project activity, including why the
emission reductions would not occur in the absence of the proposed project activity, taking into
account national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances:
>>
The principal logic of GHG emission reductions through the project is:
By installing the covered lagoons (anaerobic digesters), methane from anaerobic treatment
process will be captured and then flared, which prevents methane emissions into the
atmosphere. Therefore CO2-equivalent GHG emissions are reduced in comparison to the
baseline scenario, where such facilities are not introduced.
The initial cost for installation and operational cost are high compared to traditional manure
management system. Therefore, without CER revenues, the project will be unprofitable on a normal
business basis. In addition, covered lagoon technology, which is going to be installed in this project,
requires special technology for installation.
Under Indonesian Government Regulation No.82/2001 stipulating the provisions concerning Water
Treatment and Prevention of Water Pollution, an attempt has been proposed to comply with the
regulation for environment protection. The open lagoon system is generally in widespread use and it
meets the current environment law regulations in Indonesia. As long as current environment law
regulations are met, there is not much incentive in modifying the current open lagoon system to
costly covered lagoon system or other systems.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 10

Taking this situation, the covered lagoon technology has not yet been spread in developing countries.
The technology has not yet been introduced in Indonesian livestock production facilities, also since it
requires high engineering technology for installation.
Therefore it can be said that current open lagoon system will be continuously used, and without this
project closed lagoon system will be not implemented, which means without implementation of this
project, methane emissions will be not reduced. For details of additionality and baseline scenario
selection, refer to Section B.

A.4.4.1. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting

period:
>>
Estimated typical amount of emission reductions is 1.7 * 105 tCO2/yr, or equivalent to 1.16 * 106
tCO2eq. over the 7-year renewable crediting period.

Table PDD-1: Annual Emission Reduction (estimated)

Years Estimated emission reductions

2006 0.5 * 105 tCO2eq/yr
2007 1.7 * 105 tCO2eq/yr
2008 1.7 * 105 tCO2eq/yr
2009 1.7 * 105 tCO2eq/yr
2010 1.7 * 105 tCO2eq/yr
2011 1.7 * 105 tCO2eq/yr
2012 1.7 * 105 tCO2eq/yr
2013 1.0 * 105 tCO2eq/yr
Total (7 years) 1.16 * 106 tCO2eq
Annual average (7 years) 1.66 * 105 tCO2eq/yr

A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:

>>
No public fund is used for this project.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 11

SECTION B. Application of a baseline methodology

B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline methodology applied to the project activity:
>>
GHG emission reductions from manure management systems (AM0006)

B.1.1. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project
activity:
>>
Here we confirm each applicability condition specified in the methodology AM0006 as follows:

• The project context is represented by farms operating under a competitive market

¾ Applicable: PT Indotirta Suaka is a private company, which receives no special support from
the government.

• The manure management system introduced as part of the project activity, as well as the manure
management system in the baseline scenario, must be in accordance with the regulatory
framework in the country
¾ Applicable: The current open lagoon system (which is identified as the baseline scenario as
well after implementation of the project) and the project manure management system including
closed digester are designed to meet the local environmental regulatory framework of
Indonesia.4

• Livestock populations are managed under confined conditions. Barn systems and barn flushing
systems should neither be the baseline scenario nor the project activity
¾ Applicable: Pig breeding system by PT Indotirta Suaka is managed under confined conditions
by species and by age. Neither manure management systems of status-quo, the baseline
scenario (to be determined afterwards) and the project scenario are not barn systems nor barn
flushing systems.

• Livestock populations comprise only cattle, buffalo and/or swine

¾ Applicable: The project site only raises swine.

• The manure management system introduced as part of the project activity, as well as the manure
management system in the baseline scenario, may consist of several stages of manure treatment,

4
In the inspection of effluent wastewater quality in 2003, some substances did not meet the environmental
regulations due to the incomplete aerobic treatment process. PT Indotirta Suaka plans to take measures by
expanding the aerobic lagoons etc. These measures will be implemented anyway, independent of the project. The
project proposes to modify the anaerobic treatment process; therefore the following aerobic treatment process is not
directly influences to the project even if the process did not meet the regulation due to insufficient aerobic treatment.
Therefore, it can be recognized that such incident does not affect to demonstrate additionality. (Even if the aerobic
lagoons are expanded, it doesn’t affect methane emissions because the hydraulic retention time of the existing
systems is sufficient to treat methane emissions.)

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 12

including all options (or a combination of them) listed below in step 1* under “Additionality”, but
excluding the discharge of manure into natural water resources (e.g. rivers or estuaries)
¾ Applicable: The project scenario of manure management system of this project is covered
lagoon, which corresponds to “Anaerobic digester” in the methodology. On the other hand,
manure management system in the baseline scenario is open lagoon, which also corresponds to
“Anaerobic lagoon” the methodology.

* Step 1 specifically shows that the methodology includes; Solid storage, Dry lot, Liquid/slurry, Anaerobic lagoon,
Pit storage below animal confinement, Anaerobic digester, Deep litter, Composting and Aerobic treatment.

• The project activity does not lead to a significant increase of electricity consumption.
¾ Applicable: The newly installed equipments (fans, motors, pumps, ignition devices and pumps
for sludge removal) are all small scale equipments which does not require additional electricity
compared to the current practice. The associate CO2 emissions are negligible small in
comparison with the error level of methane reductions. (see Annex 3 for more information)

B.2. Description of how the methodology is applied in the context of the project activity:
>>
In this sub-section B.2., we trace the logics in the methodology applying to the specific project. The
following 4 steps are followed to determine the baseline scenario.

Step 1: List of possible baseline scenarios

Step 2: Identify plausible scenarios
Step 3: Economic comparison
Step 4: Assessment of barriers

Step 1: List of possible baseline scenarios

Following the measures listed in IPCC GHG Inventory Guidelines, we assess the following measures
as possible candidates of the baseline scenario:
(a) Daily spread
(b) Solid storage
(c) Dry lot
(d) Liquid/Slurry
(e) Anaerobic lagoon5 (continuation of the current practice)
(f) Pit storage below animal confinements
(g) Anaerobic digester
(h) Deep litter
(i) Composting
(j) Poultry manure
(k) Aerobic treatment

5
Installation number of anaerobic lagoon differs regarding project site needs. Even there are numbers of
anaerobic lagoon in the same project site, it can be seen as one anaerobic lagoon as a whole. Therefore in the
baseline scenario, the number of anaerobic lagoon does not matter. For detailed discussion regarding this matter,
refer to B.4. For reference, sedimentation pond is under anaerobic condition, and can be said as one kind of
anaerobic lagoon.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 13

Step 2: Identify plausible scenarios

Below is the evaluation whether the above mentioned manure management systems are plausible as
the baseline scenario of this project. Screening is done, by taking into consideration of the 4
conditions (listed below), described in AM0006.
– Legal constraints (the scenario must be in accordance with the regulatory framework of the
country);
– Historical practice of manure management (e.g. in the company and region);
– Availability of waste treatment technology; and
– Considerations of developments for manure management systems appropriate for the national
conditions, including technological innovations.
Each option specified above is assessed as follows:

(a) Daily spread:

The barns of the pig farm of the project site use duckboard type slat floor. Therefore, in order to
collect pig manure as a solid waste, it is necessary to substantially modify the structure of the barn
floors.
Therefore from the aspect of “Availability of waste treatment technology”, this option faces
significant barrier and is excluded from the baseline scenario.

(b) Solid storage:

The barns of the pig farm, where the project is going to be implemented, use duckboard type slat
floor. Therefore in order to collect pig manure as a solid waste, it is necessary to substantially
modify the structure of the barn floors.
Therefore from the aspect of “Availability of waste treatment technology”, this option this option
faces significant barrier and is excluded from the baseline scenario.

(c) Dry lot:

The project site has a lot of rainfalls throughout the year, thus it is impossible to collect the dry
manures. Therefore from the aspect of “Availability of waste treatment technology” which is
suitable for the climate condition of the site, this option faces significant barrier and is excluded from
the baseline scenario.

(d) Liquid/Slurry:
The pig farm of the project site, stores the pig manure in the channel under the slat floor. The stored
manures are flushed into the anaerobic lagoon twice a day. After the anaerobic treatment, the sludge
will be discharged into the river. Therefore, there is no restriction for barn structure concerning the
management of manure as Liquid/Slurry.
Since the amount of discharged manure is very large even on a daily bases, storing the liquid manure
in the tank to distribute them to the farmland requires a lot of labour work. Therefore it is unrealistic
to implement such a task for this project under the competition of the market. Therefore from the
aspect of “Availability of waste treatment technology”, this option faces significant barrier and is
excluded from the baseline scenario.

(e) Anaerobic lagoon:

This is the current manure management system, which Indotirta Suaka adopts since the beginning of
its operation. Therefore this option is adopted as the possible feasible scenario.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 14

(f) Pit storage below animal confinements:

As already described in item (d), the pig farm of this project site has a facility structure of excreted
manure being collected in the channel under a slat floor. For this reason, the current manure
management system has no restriction to shift to “pig storage below animal confinements” from the
structural aspect. However, it is unrealistic view for Indortirta Suaka to install this system, since the
system brings higher sanitation risk to the pigs compared to the current practice. Indotirta Suaka
exports its products mainly to Singapore, which is famous for its strict import regulations, and
seriously considers the sanitation management of pig farming process. (In 1998, Indotirta Suaka
faced a large demand of its products from Singapore, since Singapore prohibited imports from
Malaysian pig farms infected by virus encephalitis. From their past experience, Indotirta Suaka is
sensitive with its sanitation management.) Therefore, considering the “Historical practice of manure
management (e.g. in the company and region)”, this option faces significant barrier and is excluded
from the baseline scenario.

(g) Anaerobic digester:

This is the relevant option to the project scenario, which installs additional facility to the current
anaerobic lagoon to process manure in a more hygienic manner and also utilizes emitted methane
from the lagoon. This option is some difficulty to realize from technical and financial aspects,
however this option is adopted as one of the possible feasible scenario.

(h) Deep litter:

The barn of the project site adopts the duckboard type slat floor. In order to collect solid manure, it
is necessary to substantially modify the floor structure of the barn. Therefore from the aspect of
“Availability of waste treatment technology”, this option faces significant barrier and is excluded
from the baseline scenario.
In addition, this manure management option basically fits for smaller scale pig farms.

(i) Composting:
This manure treatment technology cannot be adapted to manure with high moisture content, thus this
option is impossible to apply to this site. Therefore this option faces significant barrier and is
excluded from the baseline scenario.
(j) Poultry manure:
This system can only be applied to poultry farms. This project site livestock is only comprised of
pigs. Therefore this option is excluded from the baseline scenario.
(k) Aerobic treatment:
Basically, this technology is for wastewater treatment with low density of organic matters, which is
not applicable to wastewater treatment from this project with high density rate of organic matters.
Therefore this option faces significant barrier and is excluded from the baseline scenario.

As a result, the following options are adopted as possible feasible baseline scenario options for this
project.6

6
There might be cases when neither process can treat the manure completely. To prevent this, normally
aerobic lagoon (final sedimentation pond) is placed after the anaerobic treatment. This treatment is done for
both Anaerobic Lagoon and Digester case anyway and has no relation with the process itself. Therefore, for
additionality test, analysis is done on difference between Anaerobic lagoon and Anaerobic digester, and
anaerobic process is unnecessary to be taken into additionality consideration.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 15

• Anaerobic lagoon
• Anaerobic digester

Step 3: Economic comparison

The result of economic analysis on “Anaerobic lagoon” and “Anaerobic digester” is shown in the
table below. Since no profit can be expected from either project scenarios, NPV is used as the
indicator for evaluation of economical efficiency. The period subject to calculation of NPV is seven
years, and the discount rate used to calculate NPV is 10% (= US$ Risk-free Rate (4.5%) + Indonesia
Sovereign Risk (2.5%) + Project Risk (3.0%)). The underlying spreadsheet calculation is provided
to the DOE at the validation stage.

TABLE PDD-2: Economic comparison (anaerobic lagoon, anaerobic digester)

“Anaerobic Lagoon” (7 years)

(Unit: T US$)
COST AND BENEFITS Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7
Equipment costs
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(specifiy the equipement needed)
Installation costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenace costs 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Other costs
(e.g. operation, consultancy, engineering, 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
etc.)
Revenues from the sale
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(excluding sales of CER)
TOTAL - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100 - 100
Discount rate (10%) - 100 - 91 - 83 - 75 - 68 - 62 - 56
NPV - 487
IRR(%) Nil

“Anaerobic Digester” (7 years / without CER revenues)

(Unit: T US$)
COST AND BENEFITS Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7
Equipment costs
1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
(specifiy the equipement needed)
Installation costs 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenace costs 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Other costs
(e.g. operation, consultancy, engineering, 167 292 292 292 292 292 292
etc.)
Revenues from the sale
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(excluding sales of CER)
TOTAL - 2,467 - 392 - 392 - 392 - 392 - 392 - 392
Discount rate (10%) - 2,467 - 356 - 324 - 295 - 268 - 243 - 221
NPV - 3,795
IRR(%) Nil

As shown in the table above, Anaerobic lagoon which is currently in practice as manure management
system at the project site, has much higher NPV compared to that of Anaerobic digester. Therefore,
Anaerobic lagoon is economically (continuation of current practice) attractive than Anaerobic
digester when there is no CER revenue; Anaerobic lagoon is chosen as baseline scenario. Which

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 16

proves that without CDM, Anaerobic digester as project scenario will not have been selected and has
the additionality.

Meantime, the economic analysis on “Anaerobic digester without CER” and “Anaerobic digester
with CER” is shown in below. The period subject to calculation of NPV is seven years (crediting
period).

“Anaerobic Digester without CER” (7 years)

(Unit: T US$)
COST AND BENEFITS Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7
Equipment costs
1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
(specifiy the equipement needed)
Installation costs 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenace costs 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Other costs
(e.g. operation, consultancy, engineering, 167 292 292 292 292 292 292
etc.)
Revenues from the sale
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(excluding sales of CER)
TOTAL - 2,467 - 392 - 392 - 392 - 392 - 392 - 392
Discount rate (10%) - 2,467 - 356 - 324 - 295 - 268 - 243 - 221
NPV - 3,795
IRR(%) NIL

“Anaerobic Digester with CER” (7 years)

(Unit: T US$)
COST AND BENEFITS Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7
Equipment costs
1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
(specifiy the equipement needed)
Installation costs 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenace costs 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Other costs
(e.g. operation, consultancy, engineering, 167 292 292 292 292 292 292
etc.)
Revenues from the sale
350 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190
(including sales of CER* 1)
TOTAL - 2,117 798 798 798 798 798 798
Discount rate (10%) - 2,117 725 660 600 545 495 450
NPV 1,235
IRR(%) 38.39%
* 1 Prices of CERs is assumed as US$7 / tCO2eq

Step 4: Assessment of barriers

Several barriers exist when implementing project scenario, i.e., Anaerobic digester.

Investment barrier
The system which is going to be installed at the project site; methane capture and utilization from
livestock has been introduced and promoted in U.S. and European countries since 1970, since the
system matched policies for environment protection and stable energy supply. However it requires
special engineering technology to implement the system. Also the initial implementation cost and
the running cost is high compared to other general manure management system. Therefore,
government gave various incentives (subsidies for constructing the methane capturing system,
priority purchasing of the electricity generated from methane gas etc.) to the farmer to promote its

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 17

installation. With these incentives, diffusion of the technology is yet low, except for countries like
U.S.A., Denmark and Germany etc.
In Indonesia, Government Regulation No.82/2001 stipulates the provisions concerning Water
Treatment and Prevention of Water Pollution. The open lagoon system is generally in widespread
use and it meets the current environment law regulations in Indonesia. As long as current
environment law regulations are met, there is not much incentive in modifying the current open
lagoon system to costly covered lagoon system or other systems.

Technological barriers
Technology of methane capturing and utilization system by covered lagoon has already been
established and are diffused in some part of developed countries. However for its installation, it is
inevitable to take into consideration various conditions for application of appropriate engineering;
such as location of the farm (climate condition, surrounding environment etc.), scale, domestic
animal, method of manure collection and conveyance, heat and electricity demand, possibility of
selling generated electricity, and unit sale price of electricity etc. Actually, during the first stage of
diffusion of this technology, there were several reports on failure examples of inappropriate system
installation, even in developed countries.
Furthermore, in Indonesia, the technology of capturing and utilization of methane from livestock
manure has not yet been diffused (however, this kind of technology has already been introduced to
palm oil production factories).
From these background; there is no installed covered lagoon methane gas capturing and utilization
system to Indonesian farming facilities; high technology is required for installation to avoid
performance uncertainties, it is difficult for Indotirta Suaka to implement the project on its own
capacity.

Barriers regarding current practice

The project site is located in the island, which Indotirta Suaka's parent company, Sarim Group owns.
Since the island is a private land, there is no general inhabitant living in the island. Currently
environmental regulations are not strictly applied and monitoring of drain water quality is done every
few years according to governmental requirement. This kind of geographical environment and law
system will not probably lead to reduction of GHG emissions nor to environmental protection
(pollution control etc.).

The logics described above lead to a conclusion, that the baseline scenario is to continue current
practice.

B.3. 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:
>>
As shown in B.2., the baseline scenario is to continue current practice which emits large amount of
methane from anaerobic lagoons. On the other hand, anaerobic digester captures most of the
methane from anaerobic process to be flared.
Therefore, as is shown in section E in detail, that the baseline emissions are expected to be more than
the project emissions; the project is additional.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 18

B.4. Description of how the definition of the project boundary related to the baseline
methodology selected is applied to the project activity:
>>
As specified in the methodology, the principal GHG reductions will be realized at the anaerobic
digester (and flaring process) in the project activity. Therefore, the project boundary is chosen as
manure treatment system.

Figure PDD-6: Project Boundary and Associated GHG Emissions

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 19

Each emission source and associated GHGs are listed below:

In the Boundary Outside of the Boundary

• Anaerobic treatment process

Significant (CH4)
n/a
(monitored) • Aerobic treatment process
(CH4)
Baseline • Anaerobic treatment process
Scenario Negligible (N2O: common)
or • Crop land (N2O from fertilizer
• Aerobic treatment process use: common)
Common
(N2O: common)
(not
monitored) • Manure treatment system
(CO2 from electricity: common)
• Anaerobic digester (CH4)
Significant
• Aerobic treatment process n/a
(monitored)
(CH4)
• Anaerobic treatment process
(N2O: common)
Project
Negligible • Aerobic treatment process
Scenario
or (N2O: common) • Crop land (N2O from fertilizer
Common
• Flaring System use: common)
(not
monitored) (CO2: from biomass)
• Manure treatment system
(CO2 from electricity: common)
[note] “common” implies that the associated emissions are common for the baseline and project scenarios.

CH4 Emission from Anaerobic treatment process

Sedimentation pond is an anaerobic lagoon which temporarily keeps the manure to remove
miscellaneous objects. When average Hydraulic retention time is insufficient and the lagoon turns
into a condition similar to Anaerobic lagoon, there are some cases when Aerobic lagoon in the
baseline scenario, emits methane gas from its lagoon.7 Final sedimentation pond is an aerobic
lagoon where wastewater is temporarily kept before dischargement.
Here, sedimentation pond, Anaerobic lagoon and Aerobic lagoon with anaerobic condition of the
baseline scenario can be thought as one anaerobic treatment process.

7
Enough time is secured for completion of anaerobic treatment, and the manure will be treated appropriately.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 20

In AM0006, method of calculating CH4 emissions from each lagoon is adopted. However,
essentially thinking, as long as CH4 is emitted through anaerobic process, as a whole, CH4 emissions
will not be much affected by the number of lagoon.8
Therefore, for this project, regardless the number of the lagoon at the project site, we will divide the
process in two and calculate the emission as there are two emission sources within the project
boundary. Two processes are namely, Anaerobic treatment process (anaerobic lagoon,
sedimentation pond, part of aerobic lagoon) and Aerobic treatment process (Anaerobic lagoon, Final
sedimentation pond).
To put it simple, for calculation of CH4 emission, we identified the emission sources within the
boundary of the project as follows. For baseline scenario emission sources are Anaerobic lagoon and
Aerobic lagoon. For project scenario, emission sources are Anaerobic digester and Aerobic lagoon.

N2O Emission
Regarding N2O emission, emission factor of N2O (EF3) is the same for Anaerobic lagoon and
Anaerobic digester (2000 IPCC Good practice guidance Table 4.1). There is no change in emission,
between baseline scenario and project scenario, for the volatised amount of NH3. This is because
NH3 volatise while the sludge flows into the aerobic lagoon anyway, and the amount of emission
itself will not change.
In concerning the N2O emission from the sludge utilized as fertilizer; the amount of N2O contained
in the sludge will not change between baseline and project scenario. In addition, there is no
difference between basic treatment process of Anaerobic lagoon (baseline scenario) and Anaerobic
digester (project scenario), regarding Nitrogen.
Therefore monitoring is unnecessary for N2O (see Annex3 for more information) .

Leakage
In AM0006, calculations method is prepared for CH4 and carbon contents of manure, which was not
treated within the boundary. However, for this specific project, after the treatment process, treated
wastewater will be discharged into aerobic condition, thus it will be not kept under anaerobic
condition. MCF is 0.1% for aerobic digestion, and most of the carbon content will be treated at the
lagoon or at the digester. Therefore, CH4 emission after the treatment process is quite small. Also
taking in the fact that waste will be discharged anyway for both baseline and project scenario,
emission difference from both scenario is negligibly small.
Sludge deriving from anaerobic treatment process will be utilized as a fertilizer. However, N2O
emission from the fertilizer does not change between baseline and project scenario, and the
difference will be negligibly small.9
Therefore emission regarding leakage monitoring is unnecessary.

B.5. Details of baseline information, including the date of completion of the baseline study
and the name of person (s)/entity (ies) determining the baseline:
>>

8
Processing efficiency might slightly improve. However there is not much problem in calculating emissions
from several Anaerobic lagoons as from one lagoon, since the estimated amount will be standing on a conservative
side.
9
There is no description regarding N2O emission from fertilizer in AM0006.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 21

For the baseline information, see Annex 3.

The baseline is determined by:
Dr. Naoki Matsuo and Mr. Hidetaka Shinozaki
Climate Experts Ltd.
[email protected]
Date of completion: 31/05/2006.

It is noted that Climate Experts Ltd. is not a project participant.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 22

SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period

C.1 Duration of the project activity:

C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity:

>>
01/04/2006 at Phase 1, 2
01/10/2006 at Phase 3
01/04/2007 at Phase 4

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

>>
15 years

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

C.2.1. Renewable crediting period

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

>>
09/08/2006

C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period:

>>
7 years.

C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:

C.2.2.1. Starting date:

>>
n.a.

C.2.2.2. Length:
>>
n.a.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 23

SECTION D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan

D.1. Name and reference of approved monitoring methodology applied to the project activity:
>>
GHG emission reduction from manure management system (AM0006)

D.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity:
>>
The applicability conditions of the monitoring methodology are identical to those of the baseline
methodology. See sub-section B.1.1.

The schematic system diagram with the monitoring points are shown below:

CH4
CO2 N2O

Flare

Monitoring CH4
P7, P8 N2O

Anaerobic Aerobic River

Barns
Lagoon Lagoon

Monitoring
P1, P2

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 24

D.2. 1. Option 1: Monitoring of the emissions in the project scenario and the baseline scenario

D.2.1.1. Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how this data will be archived:

ID number Measured
How will the
(Please use (m),
Proportion of data be
numbers to ease Source of calculated (c) Recording
Data variable Data unit data to be archived? Comment
cross- data or estimated frequency
monitored (electronic/
referencing to (e)
paper)
D.3)
Record of
entrance
P1. Swine Daily swine This parameter is identical with
[Heads] m and exit of 100% electronic
Nd Population stock
animals to
B1.
the barn10
Record of
entrance
P2. Average weight Weight This parameter is identical with
[kg] m and exit of 100% electronic
wsite,,d of swine meter
animals to
B2.
the barn
Default values from Table 4-20
Record of in the IPCC Guidelines should
Volatile solid entrance be adjusted at the project site if
P3. [kg-dry
excretion per - e and exit of 100% electronic default values are used.
VSsite,d matter/swine/day]
swine per day animals to
the barn This parameter is identical with
B3.
Maximum CH4 Once in Default values should be taken
P4.
production - [m3/kg-dm] e the 100% electronic from Appendix B of Chapter 4.2
B0
capacity from beginning in the Reference Manual of the

10
In AM0006, recording frequency of this parameter is weekly. But monitoring of heads of swine by age has already done daily as a part of production schedule whenever
swine enter and exit to the barns. So the existing monitoring system is used, which is more accurate than weekly monitoring.
This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 25

manure of the 1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines

crediting
period This parameter is identical with
B4
Once in Default values should be taken
the from Appendix B of Chapter 4.2
Methane
P5. beginning in the Reference Manual of the
conversion - [%] e 100% electronic
MCFi of the 1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines.
factor
crediting This parameter is identical with
period B5.
Once in
Relative
the Default values for different
reduction of
P6. beginning treatment technologies can be
volatile solids - [%] e - electronic
RVS,i of the found in Chapter 8.2 in US-
in the treatment
crediting EPA (2001).
stage i
period
This parameter guarantees the
correct performance of digester
and gas recovery.
Biogas flow Every
P7. This parameter will verify the
extracted by Flow meter [SCFM/day] m working 100% electronic
correct anaerobic fermentation
digester day
process in the baseline scenario
(considering the effect of
inhibitors).
CO2 Every This parameter guarantees the
P8.
concentration Meter [%] m working 100% electronic correct performance of digester
in the gas flow day and gas recovery.
This parameter guarantees the
Semi- correct performance of digester
annual, and gas recovery.
P9. Flare efficiency - [%] e n/a electronic
monthly if Design combustion efficiency,
unstable provided by designers of
equipment.
For a flaring system, the PJ activity employs an automatic ignition system, which immediately ignites again automatically in a case fire should get
extinguished.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 26

D.2.1.2. Description of formulae used to estimate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2
equ.)
>>
Project emissions within the project boundary in a certain year y is given by:

PEy = EPJ CH4,mm,anaerobic,y + EPJ CH4,mm,aerobic,y

where
EPJ CH4,mm,anaerobic,y: CH4 emission from manure treatment system in the anaerobic treatment stage [tCH4/yr]
= GWPCH4 * MCF digester * D CH4 /1000 * Σ day VSsite, d * B0 * Nd
Where GWP CH4: GWP potential for CH4 (=21 for 1st Commitment Period) [tCO2eq/tCH4]
MCF digester : Methane conversion factor in anaerobic digester [%]
D CH4 : CH4 density (0.67 kg/m 3 at 20℃ 1 atm)
VSsite, d : Volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a defined swine population in [kg-dm/swine/day]
B0 : Maximum CH4 production capacity from manure per swine for a defined swine population [m3-CH4/kg-dm]
Nd : the number of swine in the defined swine population [swine]

EPJCH4,mm,aerobic,y: CH4 emission from manure treatment system in the aerobic treatment stage [tCH4/yr]
= GWPCH4 * MCFaerobic * D CH4 * (1-RVS, digester) /1000 * Σ day VSsite, d * B0 * Nd
st
Where GWPCH4: GWP potential for CH4 (=21 for 1 Commitment Period) [tCO2eq/tCH4]
MCFaerobic : Methane conversion factor in aerobic lagoon [%]
DCH4 : CH4 density (0.67 kg/m 3 at 20 0C 1 atm)
RVS, digester : the relative reduction of volatile solids in the digester stage [%]
VSsite, d : Volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a defined swine population in [kg-dm/swine/day]
B0 : Maximum CH4 production capacity from manure per swine for a defined swine population [m3-CH4/kg-dm]
Nd : the number of swine in the defined swine population [swine]

Volatile solids at the project site

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 27

Where default values are used for the volatile solid excretion, they should be taken from Appendix B of Chapter 4.2 in the Reference Manual
of the 1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines. In the application of IPCC default values, it should be ensured that the definitions used by IPCC
reflect appropriately the project context.
Any default data used should be corrected for the swine weight at the project site in the following way, assuming that the volatile solid
excretion is proportional to the weight of the animal:
 wsite,d 
VS site,d =   ∗ VS default
w 
 default 
where:
VSsite,y: the adjusted volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a defined swine population at the project site [kg-
dm/swine/day].
wsite,y : the average swine weight of a defined population at the project site [kg].
wdefault: the default average swine weight of a defined population in [kg].
VSdefault: the default value (IPCC or US-EPA) for the volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a defined swine population
[kg-dm/animal/day].

D.2.1.3. Relevant data necessary for determining the baseline of anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs within the project
boundary and how such data will be collected and archived :

ID number How will the

(Please use Measured (m), Proportion of data be
Source of Recording
numbers to ease Data variable Data unit calculated (c), data to be archived? Comment
data frequency
cross-referencing estimated (e), monitored (electronic/
to table D.3) paper)
Record of
To be collected for each
entrance
B1. Farmer livestock population from 1996
Swine Population [Heads] m and exit of 100% electronic
Nd database
animals to
Revised IPCC Guidelines and
IPCC GPG 2000.
the barn
Record of To be collected for each
B2. Average weight of Weight entrance livestock population from 1996
[kg] m 100% electronic
wsite,,d swine meter and exit of Revised IPCC Guidelines and
animals to IPCC GPG 2000
This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 28

the barn
Default values from Table 4-20
in the IPCC Guidelines should
Record of be adjusted at the project site if
Volatile solid [kg-dry entrance default values are used.
B3.
excretion per - matter/ e and exit of 100% electronic
VSsite,d
swine per day swine/day] animals to To be collected for each
the barn livestock population from
1996 Revised IPCC Guide
lines and IPCC GPG 2000.
Once in the
Maximum CH4 Default values should be taken
beginning
B4. production [m3/kg- from Appendix B of Chapter 4.2
- e of the 100% electronic
B0 capacity from dm] in the Reference Manual of the
crediting
manure 1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines
period
Once in the
Default values should be taken
beginning
B5 Methane from Appendix B of Chapter 4.2
- [%] e of the 100% electronic
MCFi conversion factor in the Reference Manual of the
crediting
1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines
period
Once in the
Relative reduction Default values for different
beginning
B6. of volatile solids treatment technologies can be
- [%] e of the - electronic
RVS,i in the treatment found in Chapter 8.2 in US-EPA
crediting
stage i (2001).
period

D.2.1.4. Description of formulae used to estimate baseline emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2
equ.)
>>
The baseline emissions BEy within the boundary in a certain year y is given by:

BEy = EBL CH4,mm,anaerobic,y + EBL CH4,mm,aerobic,y

where
EBL CH4,mm,anaerobic,y: CH4 emission from manure treatment system in the anaerobic treatment stage [tCH4/yr]

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 29

= GWPCH4 * MCFanaerobic * D CH4 /1000 * Σ day VSsite, d * B0 * Nd 11

Where GWPCH4: GWP potential for CH4 (=21 for 1st Commitment Period) [tCO2eq/tCH4]
MCF anaerobic : Methane conversion factor in anaerobic lagoon [%]
D CH4 : CH4 density (0.67 kg/m 3 at 20 oC, 1 atm)
VSsite, d : Volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a defined swine population in [kg-dm/swine/day]
B0 : Maximum CH4 production capacity from manure per swine for a defined swine population [m3-CH4/kg-dm]
Nd : the number of swine in the defined swine population [swine]

EBLCH4,mm,aerobic,y: CH4 emission from manure treatment system in the aerobic treatment stage [tCH4/yr]
= GWPCH4 * MCF aerobic * D CH4 * (1-RVS, anaerobic) /1000 * Σ day VSsite, d * B0 * Nd
st
Where GWP CH4: GWP potential for CH4 (=21 for 1 Commitment Period) [tCO2eq/tCH4]
MCFaerobic : Methane conversion factor in aerobic lagoon [%]
DCH4 : CH4 density (0.67 kg/m 3 at 20 oC, 1 atm)
RVS, anaerobic : the relative reduction of volatile solids in the anaerobic treatment stage [%]
VSsite, d : Volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a defined swine population in [kg-dm/swine/day]
B0 : Maximum CH4 production capacity from manure per swine for a defined swine population [m3-CH4/kg-dm]
Nd : the number of swine in the defined swine population [swine]

D. 2.2. Option 2: Direct monitoring of emission reductions from the project activity (values should be consistent with those in section E).

D.2.2.1. Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how this data will be archived:

11
The equation is slightly modified from AM0006. This is because the equation considered the change of VS and N in relation with the change in number of swine on
daily bases (swine number changes from selling etc).
This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 30

ID number Data Source of Data Measured (m), Recording Proportion How will the data Comment
(Please use variable data unit calculated (c), frequency of data to be archived?
numbers to estimated (e), be (electronic/
ease cross- monitored paper)
referencing
to table
D.3)

D.2.2.2. Description of formulae used to calculate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2
equ.):
>>
D.2.3. Treatment of leakage in the monitoring plan

D.2.3.1. If applicable, please describe the data and information that will be collected in order to monitor leakage effects of the project
activity
ID number Measured How will the
(Please use (m), Proportion of data be
Data variable Source of Recording
numbers to ease Data unit calculated (c) data to be archived? Comment
data frequency
cross-referencing or estimated monitored (electronic/
to table D.3) (e) paper)

D.2.3.2. Description of formulae used to estimate leakage (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.)

>>
Leakage
In AM0006, calculations method is prepared for CH4 and carbon contents of manure, which was not treated within the boundary. However, for this
specific project, after the treatment process, treated waste water will be discharged into aerobic condition, thus it will be not kept under anaerobic
condition. MCF is 0.1% for aerobic digestion, and most of the carbon content will be treated at the lagoon or at the digester. Therefore, CH4 emission
after the treatment process is quite small. Also taking in the fact that waste will be discharged anyway for both baseline and project scenario, emission
difference from both scenario is negligibly small.
This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 31

Sludge deriving from anaerobic treatment process will be utilized as a fertilizer. However, N2O emission from the fertilizer does not change between
baseline and project scenario, and the difference will be negligibly small.

D.2.4. Description of formulae used to estimate emission reductions for the project activity (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm,
emissions units of CO2 equ.)
>>
Emission reductions ERy is given by:

ERy = BEy − PEy

using the notations defined above.

D.3. Quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are being undertaken for data monitored

Data
(Indicate table and Uncertainty level of data
Explain QA/QC procedures planned for these data, or why such procedures are not necessary.
ID number e.g. 3.-1.; (High/Medium/Low)
3.2.)
Management system is settled. At the project site, monitoring of heads of swine by age has already done for
P1, P2, B1, B2 Low raising swine. So this system will be used. We will prepare the instruction manual for monitoring of this project,
and teach how to monitor not to mistake.
P7, P8 Low Management system is settled.
The underlying methodology relies heavily on the IPCC default values by selection of Option B of the AM0006 (Option B). It requires that the methane emissions of second
or subsequent treatment stages are calculated on the basis of total volatile solids applied to the manure management system adjusted for volatile solid reductions in previous
treatment stages as specified in the formula (6) of the AM0006. AM0006 may allow to use the same MCF for each stages of the multiple lagoons, considering the no
distinction between the anaerobic stages of treatment in the IPCC Guidelines (AM0001 does not specify MCF as the monitoring item). If we use a uniform MCF for every
anaerobic lagoon, it results in more emissions for more anaerobic lagoons even if the organic matter decreases in the second and following stages. The method applied in the
PDD is to treat the anaerobic lagoons as a single one in order to avoid this over-counting and keep conservativeness.

D.4 Please describe the operational and management structure that the project operator will implement in order to monitor emission reductions
and any leakage effects, generated by the project activity
>>
The following table presents the monitoring plan in order to achieve certified emission reduction, after each validation and verification process:

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 32

DATA VALIABLE UNCERTAINTY DATA DATA ORIGIN Comments

LEVEL UNIT
The counting of swine heads is part of the production
Daily animal stock and inlet program pf pigs (Net
schedule. The responsibility of monitoring this
inlet considering mortality and bearing),
Swine Population Low Heads parameter relies on each barn’s operators, and its
PigCHAMP.
register is part of the Quality Management System,
Information managed by Indotirta Suaka.
implemented by Indotirta Suaka.
It is also part of the production schedule and
Average weight of Average weight of each species and age class.
Low kg registered as part of the Quality Management
swine Information managed by Indotirta Suaka.
System, implemented by Indotirta Suaka.
Biogas flow extracted Register from the controlled logical program. The responsibility of monitoring and registration
Low SCFM relies on operator in charge of the Manure treatment
by digester Information managed by Indotirta Suaka.
Technology’s operation. These daily registers are
informed [weekly] to the swine production
department of Indotirta Suaka. The only purpose for
monitoring the biogas flow is to confirm the correct
CO2 concentration in Register from the controlled logical program. functioning of the digester. Biogas extraction rate
Low %
the gas flow Information managed by Indotirta Suaka. and CO2 percentage concentration do not have any
influence in the emission reduction calculation; they
solely guarantee the continuity in the digester’s gas
extraction capacity.
Design Combustion Efficiency, provided by
Flare efficiency Low %
Designers of equipment.

The operational and management structure that the project operator will implement in order to monitor emission reductions

At the project site, monitoring of heads of swine by age has already done for raising swine. So this system will be used. We will prepare the instruction
manual for monitoring of this project, and teach how to monitor not to mistake. Basically, for the management system related to the responsibility and
commission for the implementation of project, the existing management system for raising swine is available.

D.5 Name of person/entity determining the monitoring methodology:

>>
Dr. Naoki Matsuo and Mr. Hidetaka Shinozaki
Climate Experts Ltd.
This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 33

[email protected]

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 34

SECTION E. Estimation of GHG emissions by sources

E.1. Estimate of GHG emissions by sources:

>>
Project emissions within the project boundary in a certain year y is given by:

PEy = EPJ CH4,mm,anaerobic,y + EPJ CH4,mm,aerobic,y

where
EPJ CH4,mm,anaerobic,y: CH4 emission from manure treatment system in the anaerobic treatment
stage [tCH4/yr]
= GWPCH4 * MCF digester * DCH4 /1000 * Σ day VSsite, d * B0 * Nd
Where GWP CH4: GWP potential for CH4
MCF digester : Methane conversion factor in anaerobic digester [%]
DCH4 : CH4 density (0.67 kg/m3 at 20℃ 1 atm)
VSsite, d : Volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for
a defined swine population in [kg-dm/swine/day]
B0 : Maximum CH4 production capacity from manure per swine
for a defined swine population [m3-CH4/kg-dm]
Nd : the number of swine in the defined swine population [swine]

EPJCH4,mm,aerobic,y: CH4 emission from manure treatment system in the aerobic treatment
stage [tCH4/yr]
= GWPCH4 * MCFaerobic * D CH4 * (1 − RVS, digester) /1000 * Σ day VSsite, d * B0 * Nd
Where GWPCH4: GWP potential for CH4 [tCO2eq/tCH4]
MCFaerobic : Methane conversion factor in aerobic lagoon [%]
DCH4 : CH4 density (0.67 kg/m3 at 20oC 1 atm)
RVS, digester : the relative reduction of volatile solids in the digester
stage [%]
VSsite, d : Volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a
defined swine population in [kg-dm/swine/day]
B0 : Maximum CH4 production capacity from manure per swine for a
defined swine population [m3-CH4/kg-dm]
Nd : the number of swine in the defined swine population [swine]

Volatile solids at the project site

Where default values are used for the volatile solid excretion, they should be taken from
Appendix B of Chapter 4.2 in the Reference Manual of the 1996 Revised IPCC
Guidelines. In the application of IPCC default values, it should be ensured that the
definitions used by IPCC reflect appropriately the project context.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 35

Any default data used should be corrected for the swine weight at the project site in the
following way, assuming that the volatile solid excretion is proportional to the weight of
the animal:
 wsite,d 
VS site,d =   ∗ VS default
w 
 default 

where:
VSsite,y: the adjusted volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a defined
swine population at the project site [kg-dm/swine/day].
wsite,y : the average swine weight of a defined population at the project site [kg].
wdefault: the default average swine weight of a defined population in [kg]. For Western
style (applied to this project), wdefault = 82 kg (IPCC 1996 GL, Ref. Manual, p.4.46)
VSdefault: the default value (IPCC or US-EPA) for the volatile solid excretion per day on a
dry-matter basis for a defined swine population [kg-dm/animal/day]. VSdefault = 0.5 (see
the same reference above).

In a year when swine population is 304,200 [swine] and their average weight is 49 [kg] (expected
value in the crediting period), project emissions are estimated as (0.30 is the site specific VS value):

PEy = 21 * 0.10 * 0.67 [kg/m 3]* 365 / 1000 * 0.30 [kg-dm/swine/day]

* 0.45 [m3-CH4/kg-dm] * 304,200 [swine]

+ 21 * 0.001 * 0.67 [kg/m 3]* (1- 0.80) * 365 / 1000 * 0.30 [kg-dm/swine/day]
* 0.45 [m3-CH4/kg-dm] * 304,200 [swine]
= (21,173 + 43) [tCO2eq/yr]
= 2.1 * 104 [tCO2eq/yr]

In the above ex ante estimation, the value of each factor is set as follows:
MCF i : IPCC default value (Table B-6, Appendix B of Chapter 4.2 in the Reference Manual of
the 1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines). This value is also used at the project.
VSsite, d : Assumption in this estimation. To be measured ex post.
B0 : IPCC default value(Table B-6, Appendix B of Chapter 4.2 in the Reference Manual of the
1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines). This value is also used at the project.
Nd : Assumption in this estimation. To be measured ex post.
RVS, digester : US-EPA default value in Chapter 8.2 . This value is also used at the project.

E.2. Estimated leakage:

>>
In AM0006, calculations method is prepared for CH4 and carbon contents of manure, which was not
treated within the boundary. However, for this specific project, after the treatment process, treated
waste water will be discharged into aerobic condition, thus it will be not kept under anaerobic
condition. MCF is 0.1% for aerobic digestion, and most of the carbon content will be treated at the

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 36

lagoon or at the digester. Therefore, CH4 emission after the treatment process is quite small. Also
taking in the fact that waste will be discharged anyway for both baseline and project scenario,
emission difference from both scenario is negligibly small. Therefore monitoring emission leakage
is unnecessary.

E.3. The sum of E.1 and E.2 representing the project activity emissions:
>>
The total project emissions including the leakage is given by PEy .
In a year when swine population is 304,200 [swine] and their average weight is 49 [kg], project
emissions are estimated as:

PEy = 2.1 * 104 [tCO2eq/yr]

E.4. Estimated anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases of the baseline:

>>
The baseline emissions BEy within in the boundary in a certain year y is given by:

BEy = EBL CH4,mm,anaerobic,y + EBL CH4,mm,aerobic,y

where
EBL CH4,mm,anaerobic,y: CH4 emission from manure treatment system in the anaerobic treatment
stage [tCH4/yr]
= GWPCH4 * MCF anaerobic * D CH4 /1000 * Σ day VSsite, d * B0 * Nd
Where
GWP CH4: GWP potential for CH4 (=21 for 1st Commitment Period) [tCO2eq/tCH4]
MCF anaerobic : Methane conversion factor in anaerobic lagoon [%]
D CH4 : CH4 density (0.67 kg/m 3 at 20oC 1 atm)
VSsite, d : Volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a defined swine
population in [kg-dm/swine/day]
B0 : Maximum CH4 production capacity from manure per swine for a defined swine
population [m 3-CH4/kg-dm]
Nd : the number of swine in the defined swine population [swine]

EBL CH4,mm,aerobic,y: CH4 emission from manure treatment system in the aerobic treatment
stage [tCH4/yr]
= GWPCH4 * MCF aerobic * D CH4 * (1 − RVS, anaerobic) /1000 * Σ day VSsite, d * B0 * Nd
Where
GWP CH4: GWP potential for CH4 (=21 for 1st Commitment Period) [tCO2eq/tCH4]
MCF aerobic : Methane conversion factor in aerobic lagoon [%]
D CH4 : CH4 density (0.67 kg/m 3 at 20 oC 1 atm)
RVS, anaerobic : the relative reduction of volatile solids in the anaerobic treatment stage [%]

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 37

VSsite, d : Volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a defined swine
population in [kg-dm/swine/day]
B0 : Maximum CH4 production capacity from manure per swine for a defined swine
population [m 3-CH4/kg-dm]
Nd : the number of swine in the defined swine population [swine]

In a year when swine population is 304,200 [swine] and their average weight is 49 [kg], baseline
emissions are estimated as:

BEy = 21 * 0.90 * 0.67 [kg/m 3]* 365 / 1000 * 0.31 [kg-dm/swine/day] * 0.45 [m3-CH4/kg-dm] * 304200 [swine]
+ 21 * 0.001 * 0.67 [kg/m3]* (1- 0.85) * 365 / 1000 * 0.31 [kg-dm/swine/day]
* 0.45 [m 3-CH4/kg-dm] * 304200 [swine]
= (190,559 + 32) [tCO2eq/yr]
= 1.9 * 105 [tCO2eq/yr]

In the above ex ante estimation, the value of each factor is set as follows:
MCF i : IPCC default value(Table B-6, Appendix B of Chapter 4.2 in the Reference Manual of the
1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines). This value is also used at the project.
VSsite, d : Assumption in this estimation. To be measured ex post.
B0 : IPCC default value(Table B-6, Appendix B of Chapter 4.2 in the Reference Manual of the
1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines). This value is also used at the project
Nd : Assumption in this estimation. To be measured ex post.
RVS, anaerobic : US-EPA default value in Chapter 8.2 . This value is also used at the project.

E.5. Difference between E.4 and E.3 representing the emission reductions of the project activity:
>>
Emission reductions ERy is given by:

ERy = BEy − PEy

using the notations defined above.

In a year when swine population is 304,200 [swine] and their average weight is 49 [kg], emission
reductions are estimated as:

ERy = 1.7 * 105 [tCO2eq/yr]

E.6. Table providing values obtained when applying formulae above:

>>
Estimated typical amount of emission reductions is 1.7 * 105 tCO2/yr, or equivalent to 1.16 * 106
tCO2eq. over the 7-year renewable crediting period.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 38

Table PDD-3: Annual Emission Reduction (estimated)

Years Estimation Estimation Estimation of Estimated emission

of Project of Baseline Leakage reductions (tCO2eq/yr)
Activity Emissions (tCO2eq/yr)
Emissions (tCO2eq/yr)
(tCO2eq/yr)
2006 0.6 * 104 0.5 * 105 zero 0.5 * 105
2007 2.1 * 104 1.9 * 105 zero 1.7 * 105
2008 2.1 * 104 1.9 * 105 zero 1.7 * 105
2009 2.1 * 104 1.9 * 105 zero 1.7 * 105
2010 2.1 * 104 1.9 * 105 zero 1.7 * 105
2011 2.1 * 104 1.9 * 105 zero 1.7 * 105
2012 2.1 * 104 1.9 * 105 zero 1.7 * 105
2013 1.3 * 104 1.9 * 105 zero 1.7 * 105
Total 2.1 * 105 1.2 * 105 zero 1.16 * 106 (tCO2eq)
(7 years)
Annual average 0.2 * 105 1.9 * 105 zero 1.66 * 105
(7 years)
For the 1st and end years’ calculation, please see Annex 3.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 39

SECTION F. Environmental impacts

F.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary

impacts:
>>

Bulan Island is a private island owned by Salim Group, and there is no resident in the island.
Employees at the project site do not live in the island and commutes from outside the island. The
nearest Batam Island where many people lives, is approximately 2.5 km away from Bulan.
Mangrove trees are growing around the island, however there are no mangrove forests, which might
be affected by project implementation.
In addition, currently the project site meets the Indonesian environment and emission standard
regarding wastewater and odour. There is no direct discharge of wastewater into the sea, and there
are no complaints from the fishermen around this area.
The planned installation of covered lagoon excels in treatment and odour prevention effect compared
to current open lagoon system. Therefore the project will lead to improving the natural environment
of this area.
Accordingly, environmental improvement may be expected from the implementation of this project,
but will not lead to negative environmental impact to the inhabitants.

Requirement of EIA

At this time, the government of Indonesia does not require the submission of EIA report.

Criteria and indicators for sustainable development used for evaluation

DNA of Indonesia uses the following criteria and indicators for environmental protection and
sustainable development in the process for evaluating CDM proposals. The criteria and indicators
(http://dna-cdm.menlh.go.id/en/susdev/) and the assessment of each indicator are given below.

Environmental Criteria and Indicators

The scope of evaluation is the area having direct ecological impacts from the project.

Criteria: Environmental sustainability by practicing natural resource conservation or diversification

Indicator: Maintain sustainability of local ecological functions
The project is expected to reduce the sewage and other wastes which would impose
environmental load. Therefore, local ecological functions are expected to be
strengthened.
Indicator: Not exceeding the threshold of existing national, as well as local,
environmental standards (not causing air, water and/or soil pollution)
The project is designed to meet all the environmental standards, especially on effluent
water.
Indicator: Maintaining genetic, species, and ecosystem biodiversity and not permitting
any genetic pollution

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 40

Local ecological biodiversity will not be damaged because the project is designed to
reduce effluents.
Indicator: Complying with existing land use planning
There are no public land use planning at the site.

Criteria: Local community health and safety

Indicator: Not imposing any health risk
The project is expected to reduce the sewage and other wastes which would impose
environmental load. Therefore, health of the local people (employee of the company,
in this case) will be better than before.
Indicator: Complying with occupational health and safety regulation
As shown above, we see no elements which may cause non-compliance with
occupational health and safety regulation.
Indicator: There is a documented procedure of adequate actions to be taken in order
to prevent and manage possible accidents
Currently, Indotirta Suaka has a documented procedure of adequate action to be
taken in order to prevent and manage possible accidents.

In general, it is supposed that the system installed by this project is superior to the existing system
from a sustainable development viewpoint. All of the indicators on environmental sustainability and
on local community health and safety are expected to be improved, or at least neutral.
However, just in case, the following elements are monitored to confirm that the project is on track to
the sustainability.

Not exceeding the limit of environmental quality standards set at the national and
local levels, available at the Ministry of the Environment office (not causing air,
water, and soil pollution) [within the current monitoring system of the pollutants],
Not cause health problems [within the current health monitoring system],
Properly document procedures that explain steps to avoid accidents and cope with
unexpected accidents [within the current management system],
Does not result in dependency on foreigners for knowledge and skills to operate tools
or equipment, and
Show efforts to increase the capacity and use of local technology [capacity
building/training programme will be implemented].

F.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:
>>
No significant environmental impacts are found.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 41

SECTION G. Stakeholders’ comments

>>

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

Local stakeholders:

The pig farm is located at Bulan island which is owned by a Republic of Indonesia based private
company PT. Indotirta Suaka (hereinafter called Indotirta). This facility was established in 1986, since
then to present, pig farming has been consistently operated. The site area is approximately 1,500 ha which
equals to 15% of the entire Bulan Island (approximately 10,000 ha). More than 580 people are working
for the pig farm on this island, while no other residents live in the isolated island. Besides Indotirta PT
Perkasa Jagat Karunia and PT Poultrindo Lestari are also based on the island and have a total of 160
employees.
Therefore people and entities who are doing business and are closely related to this pig farm are Indotirta
itself, employees of Indotirta, PT. PJK and PT Poultrindo Lestari and its employees. Total number of
people who are engaged in this island is approximately 740. In addition to these people, the local
government and villagers on nearby islands are considered as other important stakeholders.
Hence, Project participants acknowledge that above people are regarded as local stakeholders.
1. Local Government:
a. Environment office of Batam (BAPEDALDA):
b. DPRD (Batam Parliament) Legislative of Batam Government:
c. Commission III: (Development, instruments, infrastructure and environment)
2. Local Villages:
a. Camat / Region Chief of Bulang ( 6 Villages )
b. Chief Village of Batu Legong ( Lurah )
c. Chief Village of Pulau Buluh ( Lurah )
d. Chief Village of Bulang Lintang ( Lurah )
3. Local Company
a. Management Team Indotirta
b. Chief Union PT. Indotirta
c. Management Team PT Perkasa Jagat Karunia (PJK)
d. Management Team of PT Poultrindo Lestari

Indotirta set up the explanatory meetings and presentations for above local stakeholders during October,
2005. In these meetings, they explained this project and were willing to receive questions from the
attendees of the meeting and supplied answers to all queries. They made minutes of the meetings, and
photograph all meetings. The minutes is incorporated into this PDD.

Note that the local government department of environment (BAPEDALDA) has also be fully informed.
This Department oversees documentation, monitoring and approval of all environmental processes such
as waste water management, data, BOD values etc.
The Project participant will disclose the brief description of the comments from local stakeholders upon
receipt.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 42

G.2. Summary of the comments received:

>>

In the explanatory meeting with the stakeholders, we found that all comments received were positive.
Some of the stakeholders had been concerned about the smell problem from the open lagoon but after our
explanation, they understood that it can expect to an improved effect for this issue and they promised they
would give us any support, if any, for the implementation of this project.

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

This project is to improve the environmental impact from the facilities. At least there is no negative
impact for the environment compare with existing open lagoon facilities. The only comment received
from the stakeholders was related on the smell problem from the open lagoon but it will be improved by
the covered lagoon facilities.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 43

Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

Organization: PT Indotirta Suaka
Street/P.O.Box: Jalan Culindo Lestari
Building: Blok B 3/4
City: Komplek Tiban Kencana
State/Region: Batam
Postfix/ZIP: 29421
Country: Indonesia
Telephone: +62 778 323917
FAX: +62 778 323916
E-Mail:
URL:
Represented by: Peter Tay Kah Ann
Title: President Director
Salutation: Mr
Last Name: Tay
Middle Name:
First Name: Peter
Department: Management
Mobile: +65 96665439 (Mr.Tay), (+62 8127034329 (Mr Mark Eastaugh))
Direct FAX: +65 65383607 (Mr. Tay), (+62 778310216 (Mr Mark Eastaugh))
Direct tel: +65 65320326 (Mr. Tay), (+62 778310216 (Mr Mark Eastaugh))
Personal E-Mail: [email protected] ([email protected])
Organization: Mitsui & Co., Ltd.
Street/P.O.Box: 2-1, Ohtemachi 1-chome
Building:
City: Chiyoda-ku
State/Region: Tokyo
Postfix/ZIP: 100-0004
Country: Japan
Telephone: +81-3-3285-4094
FAX: +81-3-3285-9978
E-Mail: [email protected]
URL: www.mitsui.com
Represented by: Ryoichiro UNO
Title: Manager
Salutation: Mr
Last Name: UNO
Middle Name:
First Name: Ryoichiro
Department: First Power Projects Division
Mobile: +81-90-8489-3432
Direct FAX: +81-3-3285-9978
Direct tel: +81-3-3285-4094
Personal E-Mail: [email protected]

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 44

Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

No public funds are used for this project.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 45

Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION

CO2 Emission Factors Used in the Estimation

VS, B0, MCF

Emission factors used in the estimation are determined by [Emission Factor Determination Test]
described in AM0016, since AM0006 does not have clear criteria to determine emission factors.

Table PDD-4: Emission Factor Determination Test

Information to determine emission factor applied this project is as below;

• Parameters related to CH4 and N2O emission at swine farm in Indonesia published by
Indonesian government could not be found.
• Species of swine raised at the project site are Landrace, Yorkshire, Duroc, and such-like which
are all originated in Europe and USA.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 46

• The swine farm this project will implement operates Formulated Feed Ration by a clarified
nutritionist using format program. Pig production figures are recorded on PigCHAMP which is
database system for swine farms developed by Minnesota University in 1980s.

As referred to above, it is appropriate that emission factors applied to this project are developed
countries’ emission factors. Below is the emission factors used in the estimation;

Table PDD-5: Emission factors used in the estimation

Parameter Data unit value reference
the value corrected for the swine
weight at the project site (0.5 as
Volatile solid 0.02–0.9 (Differ from specified in 1996 IPCC p.4.46,
kg-dm/head/day
(VS) growth stage and sex) Appendix B, Table B-6, swine
characteristics, developed country’s
value)
Maximum CH4 IPCC default value (1996 IPCC
production Appendix B, Table B-6, swine
m3/kgVs 0.45
capacity from characteristics, developed country’s
manure (B0) value)
Methane IPCC default value (1996 IPCC
Project: 10% (digester)
conversion factor % Appendix B, Table B-6, Manure
Baseline: 90% (lagoon)
(MCF) management systems MCFs)

Rvs

Relative reduction rate of volatile solids in the anaerobic treatment process are referred from US-
EPA default value in Chapter 8.2 based on AM0006. We use the maximum value for the baseline
scenario and the minimum value for the project scenario, due to conservativeness.

Parameter Data unit Value reference

Project: 80%
(Anaerobic digester:
Relative
Covered first cell of
reduction of
two-cell lagoon, US-EPA default value in Chapter 8.2
volatile solids in %
80~90%) (TABLE 8-10,8-11)
the treatment
Baseline: 85%
stage
(Anaerobic lagoon: one-
cell lagoon, 75~85%)

Uncertainty Analysis of Each GHG Emission Source

The possible uncertainties associated with the emission reduction calculation basically comes from:
(1) CH4 from Anaerobic lagoon (baseline emissions), and
(2) CH4 from Anaerobic digester (project emissions).
Typically, emissions of each scenario are:

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 47

Baseline emissions: 1.9 * 105 tCO2/yr

Project emissions: 2.1 * 104 tCO2/yr
The largest uncertainty is MCF of digester in the project scenario. Default value is 10%, but it has ±5%
uncertainty (1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines Reference Manual Table 4-8). It suggests there may be
uncertainty about 1,000 [tCO2eq/yr]12。

N2O emission

AM0006 directs the formulation below to calculate N2O emission.

First treatment process

EN2O,mm,1,y = GWPN2O * EFN2O,mm,1 ∗ CFN2O-N,N /1000 * Σpopulation NEXpopulation * N population

where:
EN2O,mm,1,y Are the nitrous oxide emissions from the first stage of the manure management systems
in tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year.
GWPN2O Is the approved Global Warming Potential (GWP) for N2O.
EFN2O,mm,1 Is the N2O emission factor for the first treatment stage of the manure management
system in kg N2O-N/kg N (EF3 in 1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines and IPCC GPG).
CFN2O-N,N Is the conversion factor N2O-N to N (44/28).
NEXpopulation Is annual average nitrogen excretion per animal of the defined livestock population in
kg N/animal/year.
Npopulation Is the livestock of a defined population.

Other treatment process

EN2O,mm,i,y = GWPN2O * EFN2O,mm,i ∗ CFN2O-N,N * [ ∏n (1−Rn )] /1000 * ∑population NEXpopulation
* N population

where:
EN2O,mm,i,y Are the nitrous oxide emissions from the n stage of the manure management systems
in tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year.
GWPN2O Is the approved Global Warming Potential (GWP) for N2O.
EFN2O,mm,i Is the N2O emission factor for the treatment stage i of the manure management system in
kg N2O-N/kg N (EF3 in 1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines and IPCC GPG).
CFN2O-N,N Is the conversion factor N2O-N to N (44/28).
R,n Is the relative reduction of nitrogen in the treatment stage n in per cent.
NEXpopulation Is annual average nitrogen excretion per animal of the defined livestock population in
kg N/animal/year.
Npopulation Is the livestock of a defined population.

The variable different from in baseline scenario and in project scenario at the first treatment
process is only EFN2O,mm,1 , and the value is equal (0.001: EF3 in 2000 IPCC GPG Table 4-12).
Consequently, N2O emission at the first treatment process is equal (1.8*103 [tCO2eq/yr]).

12
When implementing the project, operation and maintenance of the Digester should be taken care with full
attention. By doing so, leakage can be reduced within 5-10%.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 48

AM0016 describes that there isn’t difference between baseline scenario (Anaerobic lagoon) and
project scenario (anaerobic digester) related to relative reduction rates of N-content in manure.
The second treatment process is common in baseline scenario and project scenario. So N2O
emission at the second treatment process is equal, too (7.1 *103 [tCO2eq/yr]).

It is considered that all process of N2O emission at the project site can be estimated as 8.9 *103
[tCO2eq/yr], which is equivalent to about 5% of the whole emission reduction. When N2O emission
was different between baseline scenario and project scenario, if at all about 5%, the difference
would be equivalent to about 0.2~0.3% (450 [tCO2eq /yr]) of the whole emission reduction, which
is negligible small compared to the uncertainty related MCF.

About N2O emission outside the project boundary, emission from sludge used as fertilizer is
supposed. It is not supposed that N-content in sludge be different between baseline scenario and
project scenario, and we don’t install denitrification treatment system newly. So N2O emission
outside the boundary is equal.

Consequently, N2O emission at the project site is negligible small compared to the uncertainty
related MCF, there is no point in the calculation of N2O emission. So we don’t need to monitor
parameters related to N2O emission.

Other emission

It is supposed that by changing manure treatment process, CO2 emission from electricity will be
changed.
At the project site, the seven diesel engines in Bulan island generate 6,169 MWh electricity for the
pumps, the offices, and the lightings of barns etc. About 4.9 * 103 [tCO2eq/yr] is emitted by the
diesel engines (emission factor is 0.8 [tCO2eq/MWh] (Appendix B of the simplified modalities
and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities, I.D)). The increase of electricity
consumption will be about several hundreds MWh/year, at most. That’s why some new facilities
installed for this project (pumps, ignition devices, etc) will only substitute the existing facilities.
When CO2 emission was different between baseline scenario and project scenario, if at all about
500 MWh/year, the difference would be equivalent to about 0.2–0.3% (400 [tCO2eq /yr]) of the
whole emission reduction, which is negligible small compared to the uncertainty related MCF.

So we don’t need to monitor parameters related to CO2 emission from electricity.

GHG Emission reductions in the 1st and the following years

spieces Boar Gilt Sow Piglet Weaner Porker

average weight 150 100 140 4 18 52 head average weight Vs/head/day Vs/year BL (1st) BL (2nd) PJ ER(Annual) ER(1st year)

Phase 1,2 2,800 5,600 32,900 32,900 74,200 77.1 0.47 12,725,146 72,512 12 8,073 64,451 64,451
Phase 3 78,000 108,000 186,000 37.7 0.23 15,623,780 89,030 15 9,912 79,133 39,566
Phase 4 44,000 44,000 52.0 0.32 5,092,195 29,017 5 3,231 25,791 0
sum 2,800 5,600 32,900 32,900 78,000 152,000 304,200 49.4 0.30 33,441,122 190,559 32 21,216 169,375 104,018
spieces Boar Gilt Sow Piglet Weaner Porker

average weight 150 100 140 4 18 52 head average weight Vs/head/day Vs/year BL (1st) BL (2nd) PJ ER(Annual) ER(1st year) ER (end year)

Phase 1,2 2,800 5,600 32,900 32,900 74,200 77.1 0.47 12,725,146 72,512 12 8,073 64,451 25,427 39,024
Phase 3 78,000 108,000 186,000 37.7 0.23 15,623,780 89,030 15 9,912 79,133 19,783 47,913
Phase 4 44,000 44,000 52.0 0.32 5,092,195 29,017 5 3,231 25,791 0 15,616
sum 2,800 5,600 32,900 32,900 78,000 152,000 304,200 49.4 0.30 33,441,122 190,559 32 21,216 169,375 45,211 102,553
7 year Total 1,164,016
ER
7 year Av. 166,288

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 49

The figure above is based on the plan with the average weight of 49 kg/head. Such average weight
varies in time (e.g., 48 kg in 2004. 51 kg in 2005), and monitored ex post for calculation of
emission reductions.
The Phase 1 and 2 start their operations from April 2006 (i.e., before the start of the crediting
period), while the Phase 3 starts from August 2006. The Phase 4 starts from April 2007.

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.
 PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02

CDM – Executive Board page 50

Annex 4

MONITORING PLAN

The following table presents the monitoring plan in order to achieve certified emission reduction, after
each validation and verification process:

DATA VALIABLE UNCERTAINTY DATA DATA ORIGIN

LEVEL UNIT
Daily animal stock and inlet program pf pigs (Net
inlet considering mortality and bearing),
Swine Population Low Heads
PigCHAMP.
Information managed by Indotirta Suaka.
Average weight of Average weight of each species and age class.
Low kg
swine Information managed by Indotirta Suaka.
Biogas flow extracted Register from the controlled logical program.
Low SCFM
by digester Information managed by Indotirta Suaka.
CO2 concentration in Register from the controlled logical program.
Low %
the gas flow Information managed by Indotirta Suaka.
Design Combustion Efficiency, provided by
Flare efficiency Low %
Designers of equipment.

The operational and management structure that the project operator will implement in order to
monitor emission reductions

At the project site, monitoring of heads of swine by age has already done for raising swine as a part of the
management system under a programme “PigCHAMP”. This system is applied for accurate monitoring of
each parameters specified in the monitoring plan as well as the monitoring of sustainable indicators below.
We will prepare the instruction manual for monitoring of this project, and have a capacity-building
programme for accurate monitoring as well as the data management.

Monitoring items for sustainable development

Not exceeding the limit of environmental quality standards set at the national and
local levels, available at the Ministry of the Environment office (not causing air,
water, and soil pollution) [within the current monitoring system of the pollutants],
Not cause health problems [within the current health monitoring system],
Properly document procedures that explain steps to avoid accidents and cope with
unexpected accidents [within the current management system],
Does not result in dependency on foreigners for knowledge and skills to operate tools
or equipment, and
Show efforts to increase the capacity and use of local technology [capacity
building/training programme will be implemented].

-----

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.