METHODOLOGY JUSTIFICATION DOCUMENT:
NEW PROPOSED SMALL SCALE CDM METHODOLOGY
“LOW GHG PRODUCTION OF CHARCOAL”.
Page 1 of 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
3
2.
HISTORY OF THE METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SCOPE OF THE
METHODOLOGY
3
INTRODUCTION
4
3.1
Basic problem:
6
3.2
The link between charcoal and deforestation
7
3.3
The opportunity:
7
3.
4.
SOURCE, DEFINITIONS AND APPLICABILITY
4.1
5.
8
4.2
Selected approach from paragraph 48 of the CDM modalities and
procedures
Applicability conditions
4.3
Emission sources
11
4.4
Project boundaries
14
4.5
Identification of the baseline scenario
14
4.6
Additionality
16
4.7
Baseline emissions calculation
16
4.8
Project emissions
17
4.9
Leakage
18
4.10
Monitoring
19
ANNEX 1: OVERVIEW OF FLOWS IN LOW GHG CHARCOAL PROJECTS:
Page 2 of 21
8
9
20
1.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The justification document was prepared by Nicolas Mueller from Perspectives
Climate Change (Zurich), with funding from the DFID Standardised Baseline Project.
The inputs from Randall Spalding-Fecher (Pöyry), Daisuke Hayashi and Axel
Michaelowa (Perspectives), Anja Kollmuss, Sophie Tison and Christoph Sutter
(South Pole Carbon Asset Management) and Sam Bryan (GERES) in this project
have been invaluable.
In addition to that, credit should be given to the group of methodology experts which
has provided very valuable input during the methodology development. Input has
been received from the following experts: Gareth Philips, Naoki Matsuo, Felicity
Spors, Michael Lazarus and Juerg Fuessler.
Many elements which have enabled the discussion on standardised approaches
have been made possible by the previous DFID funded assignment “Towards a
more standardized approach to baselines and additionality under the CDM”.
2.
HISTORY OF THE METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
AND SCOPE OF THE METHODOLOGY
The overarching goal of the present assignment has been the development of three
new CDM methodologies based on a standardised approach for project types with a
high relevance to LDCs.
Perspectives Climate change has identified the production of charcoal as having
both a large potential for emission reductions and a high relevance to LDCs. In turn,
Perspectives Climate Change started developing a broadly applicable methodology
for the production of charcoal which would also take into account the associated
changes in the depletion of forest carbon stocks.
A review from the group of methodology experts highlighted the strong expectation
to achieve a very strong level of simplicity. In trying to achieve this goal,
Perspectives reached the following conclusions:
- A higher level of simplicity can be reached for the production of charcoal
products from carbon neutral feedstock such as biomass wastes.
- The continued use of wood from the depletion of natural forests however
requires the determination of project emissions from the consumption of
partly non-renewable biomass.
As a consequence, it has been decided to develop two distinct methodologies for
each of the two project type:
Methodology
type
Standardised methodology for
the production of sustainable
charcoal and charcoal
briquettes
Large scale
Page 3 of 21
Low GHG production of charcoal
Small scale
Inputs
Biowastes,
wood from plantations,
pruning of trees,
shrubs,
bamboos,
etc.
Same wood mix as in the
baseline (partly non renewable
biomass)
The present document solely serves as justification document for the
proposed new methodology “Low GHG production of charcoal”.
INTRODUCTION
3.
Traditional fuels are widely used in Sub-Saharan Africa, where most LDCs are
located as can be seen in the figure below:
100
Cote d'voire
Tanzania
Traditional Biomass Consumption as % to Total
Energy Use (1997)
90
Uganda
Malawi
Cameroon
70
Ethiopia
Burundi
Zambia
Sierra Leone Niger
Kenya
80
Mozambique
Zimbabwe
60
Senegal
50
40
30
South Africa
20
Tunisia
10
Morocco
Algeria
Egypt
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
% Population Living Below $2 a day (1990-2001)
Figure 1: Share of traditional fuels (wood and charcoal) as a function of income levels
While wood remains the key fuel in most rural areas, charcoal is often the primary
fuel for cooking in urban areas. As noted by E.Smeets and al., in 2009 “While
information on charcoal use in the region is sparse, available estimates indicate that
the fuel provides energy for a majority of urban households.” The following
information indicates the share of charcoal as a fuel in urban areas:
Page 4 of 21
Table 1: Examples of charcoal use in urban centers
Country
Share of charcoal as fuel in urban areas
Year
Source
Kenya
80%
2002
(Republic of Kenya,
2002).
Tanzania
80%
2003
(Ngerageza, 2003).
Ethiopia
97% (urban areas consume 70% of the
charcoal in the country
2009
E.Smeets and al.
Zambia
85%
2000
(Chidumayo et. al.,
2002).
In addition, the switch from wood fuel to charcoal in urban areas is well documented
as illustrated below:
Figure 2: Switch from wood fuel to charcoal in Bamako, Mali, as retrieved from Girard, 2002
In addition, the switch to charcoal will continue at a rate between 4% and 10% per
year as found in the literature. At the same time, the further switch to more
convenient fuels on the energy ladder is expected to be hampered by high oil prices
Figure 3: The energy ladder (source: Sawadogo, A.; August 18, 2008; Women and household
energy in Sahelian countries- A BP56 special supplement from PREDAS. As retrieved at:
http://www.hedon.info/BP56:WomenAndHouseholdEnergyInSahelianCountries)
Page 5 of 21
Improvements in the conversion of biomass to charcoal in Sub-Saharan Africa show
a substantial potential for reductions in the associated GHG emissions. This potential
consists in both avoided consumption of non sustainable biomass and mitigation of
CH4 emissions during the production process. The strong and growing demand for
charcoal fuel is an important cause of deforestation. Due to a lack of affordability for
other fuel types, a switch to fossil fuels is presently highly unlikely under business as
usual. Due to the affordability and convenience domestic consumers of fuels in low
income countries are increasingly switching to charcoal, especially in urban areas.
The production of charcoal in low income countries is however overwhelmingly
dominated by the “informal sector” in which small scale producers use traditional
technologies to produce charcoal. Wood is almost always sourced from natural
forests and very often harvested illegally, despite forest management systems
implemented in some countries. Traditional charcoal making technologies typically
lead to high CH4 emissions and commonly require 6 kg of wood per kg of charcoal
produced.
So far, no CDM methodology has been able to deploy improvements in the charcoal
production chain in low income countries at the adequate scale to reduce
deforestation, greenhouse gases emissions in the charcoal making and increase
energy security. Existing methodologies have so far only focused on the decreased
methane emissions (AM0041, AMS-III.K.) and have been complex to apply. Many of
the possible options for reducing emissions from an improved charcoal production
are presently either not possible to implement or would not gain an adequate amount
of CERs compared to their contribution.
The purpose of this proposed new methodology is to grant access to carbon markets
to high priority projects which strongly reduce GHG emissions in the production of
charcoal for low or medium income countries.
3.1 Basic problem:
-
Charcoal is one of the main fuels in Least Developed Countries especially in
Sub-Saharan Africa;
-
The production and consumption of charcoal leads to a lot of GHG
emissions. The high GHG emissions associated with the production of
charcoal are the result of three factors:
o
An unsustainable supply of biomass
o
The use of inefficient technologies to convert wood into charcoal with
yields as low as 10% observed in certain countries (10 kg of wood
required to produce 1kg of charcoal).
o
The use of specific technologies/processes in which the conversion of
wood into charcoal leads to a high level of methane emissions.
In turn charcoal is one of the most GHG intensive fuels used:
Page 6 of 21
Figure 4: net
carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per cooking task for various
biomass and fuels (from Kammen and Lew)
3.2 The link between charcoal and deforestation
Sources of literature confirm charcoal as a source of deforestation. A portion of such
evidence is presented in the table below:
Table 2: Link between charcoal and deforestation
Source
Claim with regard to charcoal and deforestation:
Kammen and Lew, 2005 (page 5)
...Charcoal production, on the other hand, is
responsible for the large scale felling of wood,
which may lead more directly to deforestation.
GERES – case study (Cambodia), 2011
In Mali, the forests are in continual decline
due to drought and largely unrestrained
exploitation which are manifested by
progressive environmental degradation.
Francis Yamba, CEEEZ – case study
(Zambia), 2011
Through assessments (ILUA, 2009) evidences of
deforestation driven by various factors, one of
which is charcoal indicate that annual
deforestation rate is between 250,000ha to
300,000 ha.
3.3 The opportunity:
Types of opportunities: Opportunities exist to greatly reduce emissions associated
with the production of charcoal. These opportunities can be divided in two types:
(i) opportunities related to technology and practices for charcoal making and
(ii) opportunities related to a decrease in non-renewable share of biomass used.
Page 7 of 21
(i) Opportunities related to technology and practices for charcoal making
o
Low CH4 emitting technologies.
o
Efficient conversion of biomass to charcoal which leads to biomass
savings. For example yields up to 40% can be achieved instead of the
10 to 20% in the baseline.
(ii) Opportunities related to a decrease in the non-renewable share of biomass used.
Production of charcoal from carbon neutral biomass sources:
o Production of charcoal from dedicated plantations (wood, bamboo,
etc.).
o Production of charcoal briquettes obtained from the carbonization and
agglomeration of biomass residues
The focus of the present methodology is essentially on related technology and
practices. For emission reductions from a decrease in the non-renewable share of
biomass used, participants are invited to use the corresponding methodology
instead.
4.
SOURCE, DEFINITIONS AND APPLICABILITY
4.1 Selected approach from paragraph 48 of the CDM modalities
and procedures
Approach 48a: “Existing, actual or historical emissions.”
This approach is considered the most plausible for the informal charcoal sector as a
whole, both for the level of efficiency and the inputs used (wood from natural
forests). No autonomous improvements have been observed in the informal charcoal
sector as the same ancestral technologies are still in use nowadays and supply the
overwhelming majority of the charcoal produced in low income countries. This
approach is selected, referring to the “existing, actual or historical emissions” for the
whole informal charcoal sector. Although large discrepancies in wood to charcoal
yield are observed, an average performance based on a broad set of reliable figures
collected is found to be adequate.
Approach 48b: “Emissions from technology that represents an economically
attractive course of action, taking into account barriers to investment.”
This approach is very difficult to apply in practice. Charcoal production technologies
in low income countries and least developed countries are the result of a combined
opportunity to produce a good with close to zero initial investment and extremely low
operating costs, especially when wood from natural forests is sourced for free, either
legally or illegally. Small-scale producers from the charcoal sector which form the
baseline simply do not have access to finance and increase their efficiency. Even
where improved technologies have been externally financed, it has been observed
Page 8 of 21
that this “economically attractive course of action” has been discarded1. This
corresponds to observation by Kammen and Lew (Kammen and Lew, 2005) noting
that “in many countries, the rural people and even charcoal producers are too poor to
usecharcoal, and the demand for charcoal is found in the urban areas”.
Approach 48c: “Average of similar plants, previous 5 years, in similar economic,
environmental and technological circumstances and whose performance is among the
top 20% of their category.”
This approach is not applicable due to several constraints. The data availability is
low and it is unsure how representative the average of the top 20% performers
collected would be as it might be dominated by local parameters influencing the
performance such as practices. In addition to that, large discrepancies have been
observed in the performance level of conversion of wood to charcoal. In turn
selecting the average of the top 20% performers creates a too stringent baseline,
relying on values which are not representative for the sector. This approach would
severely undercut the incentive to reduce emissions under this methodology.
4.2 Applicability conditions
The project is the installation and operation of new low GHG charcoal production
kilns.
A new investment is required to ensure the materiality of the measure. In addition to
that, projects eligible under this methodology are intended to replace existing
practices characterized by zero-investment or low investment technologies. No
existing facility is eligible as project.
The methodology is not adequate for replacements and retrofits as no procedure for
the determination of baseline emissions for a specific site are included. Instead, the
methodology relies on a market based displacement of charcoal which is otherwise
produced by the informal charcoal sector.
All kilns installed offer a year-round average gravimetric yield (quantity of charcoal
per amount of dry wood used) of at least 30%.
Only project with a technology able to offer a high yield (kg of charcoal per kg of
wood) are allowed. This ensures a high environmental integrity of resulting projects
as a high increase in yield leads to a strong reduction in deforestation. The
applicability condition excludes the Casamance kiln which is only an “upgrade” of
traditional kilns and whose additionality is uncertain as it is the only technology which
could possibly be implemented autonomously given its lower cost.
This methodology is not applicable for the production of charcoal products derived
from biowastes.
Quote: „Evidence that local charcoal makers had previously tried several" improved
methods was found in the remains of metal kilns and metal pit covers which were scattered
throughout the forest.“Source: Feinstein and Van der Plas, 1991, Improving charcoal
efficiency in the traditional rural sector.
1
Page 9 of 21
The methodology does not have necessary provisions for this project type. A similar
methodology for charcoal projects based on biomass wastes has been proposed.
Project proponents are invited to propose and use the methodology developed for
charcoal products from biomass wastes.
The total emissions reductions must be less than 60,000 tCO2/yr;
Standard applicability condition to apply the simplify modalities of the small scale
scheme.
The project does not supply charcoal to large scale users such as industrial facilities;
The supply of charcoal to large scale industries is excluded for the following reasons:
(i) the proposed baseline in this methodology is specifically for the production of
charcoal from the informal sector; It is very unlikely that large scale users would
source their charcoal from the informal charcoal sector; (ii) the inclusion of large
scale users such as large scale industries could lead to a dangerous increase in the
demand. Project intending to produce charcoal for industrial applications should use
the approved methodology AM0082.
The project supplies charcoal to one or more identified areas in which charcoal is
consumed as fuel for households, small and medium businesses and cottage industries.
The charcoal is not supplied to large scale industries.
Own applicability condition. The present methodology is only applicable for projects
which displace charcoal produced from the informal charcoal sector. Charcoal
consumed by households and small scale users in lower income countries is
produced by the informal charcoal sector. To ensure the displacement, it has to be
ensured that the pool of users is the same as in the baseline.
In order to displace charcoal produced from the informal charcoal sector, the
methodology requires the supply of the charcoal to an area where charcoal is
already consumed. This also ensures that the methodology does not create new
pools of charcoal users where only fuelwood was previously used.
The project is able to demonstrate that it does not accelerate the depletion of biomass
stocks. This can be demonstrated by:

The retirement of traditional charcoal making activities on the community
level – with the inclusion of workers previously employed in the traditional
charcoal production

The distribution of efficient cookstoves

An afforestation which provides on average a mean annual increment in
biomass equal to the depletion by the project.

The implementation of a project for the production and use of alternative to
wood-based charcoal (e.g. bio-waste based charcoal, introduction of jatropha
oil as cooking fuel, etc.)

Any combination of the above
Page 10 of 21
The project proponent has to make sure that the production capacity installed by the
project does not lead to deforestation due to an increased charcoal production. In
turn, options are proposed to (i) ensure that either the new production capacity
replaces an existing one, (ii) compensate by mitigating the consumption of charcoal
whether by fuel switch or energy efficiency at the end user or (iii) compensate the
deforestation resulting from the project.
4.3 Emission sources
For the project activity, participants should account for the following elements:
- Emissions from the use of non-renewable biomass
- Emissions from the pyrolysis gases
- Emissions from the use of electricity
The following rationales have been used to decide on the inclusion of emission sources:
Source
Electricity
consumption
Gas
Included?
CO2
CH4
No
No
N2O
No
CO2
CH4
No
No
N2O
No
Auxiliary fuels
CO2
Baseline
CH4
N2O
Yes
Yes
Justification / Explanation
The baseline only consists in pit kilns and earth
kilns which are generally built on the site of the
wood harvest. Such kilns never have an associated
electricity consumption. It is safe to assume that
number in the baseline and derived from the
consolidated GHG database for the informal
charcoal sector are from earth mound kilns and
earth pit kilns without associated electricity
consumption
Assumed negligible. The objective reached with
charcoal is the production of a convenient fuel
which unlike commercial liquid fuel is affordable to
households. The quantity of expensive auxiliary
fuels is assumed to be either non existing or
negligible.
Included both for direct CO2 emissions and CO2
from the oxidation of the emitted CO.
Included – this is a major source of emissions.
Excluded for simplification. Overall, project kilns if
at all, will result in lower emissions N2O emissions
due to improved processes with sometimes a full
combustion of pyrolysis gases.
The following average values of N2O emissions
per tonne of charcoal have been found in the
literature:
Smith et al. (1999): 0.0458 g N2O / kg charcoal
Brocard et al. (1996): 0.11 g N2O / kg charcoal
Pennise et al. (2001): 0.15 g N2O/kg charcoal
Carbonization
activity
No
Project
activity
In turn the average emission factor found from the
literature is 0.10 g N2O / kg charcoal, or an
equivalent of 0.03 tonne CO2e / tonne of charcoal.
Transportation
related
emissions
CO2
CH4
N2O
No
No
No
As a comparison, around, in the present status of
the consolidated GHG database for the informal
charcoal sector, around 4.20 tCO2e are emitted
from the informal charcoal sector if 50% of the
biomass is from non renewable sources and 7.67
tCO2e are emitted if 100% of the biomass used is
from non renewable sources.
Determined to be very small. An evaluation of the
transportation related emissions can be found in
the following table
Page 11 of 21
CO2
CH4
No
No
N2O
No
CO2
Yes
CH4
Yes
N2O
No
CO2
Yes
CH4
No
N2O
No
Auxiliary fuels
Carbonization
activity
Power
consumption
Similar to the baseline, this source is assumed to
be very small. From the corresponding preliminary
assessment, it has been established that auxiliary
fuels represent around 0.2% of the total emission
reductions, thus can be neglected.
It is highly unlikely for the consumption of auxiliary
fuels (non wood based fuels) to increase compared
to the baseline as their cost is high compared to
the value of charcoal.
Yes – as part of the inputs is from non-renewable
biomass, this is the major source of project
emissions.
Included – depending on the technology this may
be an important source of emissions in the project.
Excluded for simplification – this source of
emissions is considered to be very small (as
already demonstrated in the baseline) and only
lower than the baseline in the project due to the
use of more advanced technologies.
To be considered in leakages. Depending on the
technology, this source of emissions might be
important.
This source of emissions is assumed to be very
small.
This source of emissions is assumed to be very
small.
Transportation related emissions:
Unlike pit kilns and earth mound kilns which are built on the site where wood is
harvested, the biomass under this methodology will be converted in a fixed kiln. This
means that the biomass has to be brought to the charcoal production facility. Compared
to the baseline, this represents an increase in project emissions.
In the following, the relative impact of transportation related emissions is evaluated. The
following data is used:
Table 3: Assumptions used for the calculation of the transport related emissions
Item
Value
Charcoal production:
1,000
Biomass conversion yield:
33.3%
Corresponding biomass input:
3,000
Density of diesel fuel:
Emission factor of diesel fuel
Truck
capacity
(tonnes)
Fuel
consumption
(l/km)
Unit
Source
tonnes per year
(assumption)
%
(assumption - based on the
Pronatura project)
tonnes per year
Calculated
0.89
t/m3
IPCC 2006
0.865
tC/t
IPCC 2006
Average distance to
the biomass source
50 km
(100 km round-trip)
5
9
16
0.167
0.223
0.308
0.444
28
12
4
1
27
Truck capacities and corresponding fuel emission factors are taken from the report “India Road
Transport Service Efficiency Study, World Bank South Asia Regional Office”
To evaluate the relative share of transport emissions in the project, we use the following
values mostly derived from the consolidated GHG database for the informal charcoal
Page 12 of 21
sector to evaluate the relative impact of transport emissions to the overall baseline
emissions:
Table 4: Assumptions for the calculation of baseline emissions
Item
Value
Charcoal production:
1,000
Unit
Source
tonnes per year
(assumption)
Correction factor for carbon
content
0.66
t charcoal / t
standard
charcoal
(conservative assumption based on the Pronatura project)
Equivalent standard charcoal
667
t standard
charcoal per
year
Calculated
Emission factor for CO2
emissions (assuming 100%
Xnrb)
6.95
tCO2e / t
standard
charcoal
Consolidated GHG database for
the informal charcoal sector
Xnrb – Fraction of non
renewable biomass
50%
%
Assumption
tCH4/t standard
charcoal
Consolidated GHG database for
the informal charcoal sector
tCO2e/tCH4
IPCC 2006
Emission factor for methane
emissions for the informal
charcoal sector
0.034
Latest IPCC global warming
potential of methane
21
From the values in the table above, the following value is obtained for baseline
emissions:
BL=2,799 tCO2e/y.
The resulting ratio of transportation emissions compared to baseline emissions is
provided in the table below:
Table 5: Estimated share of project transportation emissions to baseline emissions
Truck
capacity
(tonnes)
Fuel
consumption
(l/km)
Average distance to
the biomass source
50 km
(100 km round-trip)
5
9
16
27
0.167
0.223
0.308
0.444
1.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
It appears in turn that transportation related emissions would not exceed the 1%
threshold even if very small trucks (5 tonnes capacity) are used over long distances (50
km and above). This is however unlikely due to the transportation time required. Project
proponents will on the contrary tend to locate their kiln where large amounts of biomass
are available and source biomass around the charcoal production facility. In turn, the
likelihood for transportation related emissions to exceed the threshold of 1% is extremely
small.
Not credited emission reductions:
Projects under this methodology lead to a reduction of deforestation as less trees
have to be cut to produce charcoal.
(i)
This methodology only credits emission reductions from the carbon saved in
the wood which would have been used for charcoal production.
Page 13 of 21
(ii)
(iii)
The total carbon stock of a tree (which is cut for the production of charcoal)
exceeds however by at least 20%2 the carbon stock of the wood which would
be used in the charcoal production3.
In turn, this methodology avoids the total loss of the tree carbon stock4 (by
avoiding the cutting of the tree) yet only credit a certain share of this tree
carbon stock. As a consequence, real emission reductions are well in excess
of the CERs generated.
4.4 Project boundaries
The spatial extent of the project boundary encompasses all charcoal production
facilities included in the project. This includes among others the carbonization units
included in the project as well as areas for storage, processing, bagging and weighting
of inputs (wood mix) and outputs (charcoal).
The sole production site is included in the project boundary as changes in emissions
result from the production of improved carbonization units compared to the baseline.
4.5 Identification of the baseline scenario
This standardised additionality test is one of the important innovations proposed in
the methodology, and builds on the recent history of special additionality guidance
for LDCs. Similar to the EB Guidance on micro-scale additionality, this test allows
for automatic additionality in socio-economic settings where it is extremely likely the
charcoal consumed by end-users would be produced by the informal charcoal sector
using earth mound kilns and pit kilns.
The methodology only proposes one baseline scenario (identified as CC1) and is
only applicable if this baseline scenario is identified as the most plausible:
CC1: The baseline scenario is the production of charcoal from the informal charcoal
sector
Globally, it has been observed that for all countries with a low income level, wood
resources and high costs for modern fuels, there is only one likely baseline which is
the production of charcoal by a pool of small-scale producers using similar the same
technology, practices, the same input and producing the same output. For this
reason, the baseline determination procedure mostly focused on the identification of
economic parameters which drive the existence of an informal charcoal sector.
Indeed it has been observed that under the present situation of poverty and high
prices of modern fuels the existing demand as well as added demand for charcoal is
Table 4.4 „Ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass” of the IPCC Vol. 4 on
“Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use” puts the ratio of biomass in the root system
between 20% and 56% for tropical and subtropical climate systems where most of the eligible
countries for this methodology are located.
3
Typically, only stems above knee high and branches with over 2 cm in diameter are used in
the production of charcoal. The associated carbon stock in small branches, leaves, the
lowest part of the stem and roots represents more than 20% of the wood harvested for
charcoal.
4
With the exception of deep roots which are expected to partly fossilize.
2
Page 14 of 21
overwhelmingly supplied by small scale producers operating traditional kilns such as
earth mound kilns and earth pit kilns. For example, close to 100% of the production
observed in 2011 in Cambodia was from traditional kilns with only one single
industrial producer of charcoal in the whole country. Similarly in Zambia, 100% of the
production was estimated to be from earth mound kilns. In Mali, the production was
estimated to be over 90% from traditional kilns.
Overall no “modern efficient” charcoal making technologies have been found in low
income countries unless supported by a specific programme with only very few
exceptions. This means that no autonomous market penetration of efficient
technologies has been found. Past efforts to introduce more efficient technologies
have for example failed as can be seen from abandoned kilns installed under such
programmes in African countries5.
The example of Brazil and Thailand which enjoy a higher GDP per capita show the
switch to modern fuels, a more modern charcoal production chain which is no longer
dominated by inefficient technologies as well as a decreased pressure on forest from
charcoal production.
Empirical evidence can be used to show that in low income countries, charcoal is the
most affordable and convenient fuel and that the charcoal sector is overwhelmingly
dominated by small scale producers. It can be demonstrated that charcoal making is
a subsistence activity and that for such entities; no switch to modern technologies is
likely, unless supported by specific programmes.
Evidence for the informal sector being the adequate default baseline for least
developed countries, special underdeveloped areas and areas with observed poverty
is detailed in the table below:
Table 6: Adequacy of the baseline for countries in which the baseline scenario CC1 is assumed
to be the most plausible:
Baseline alternatives in AM0041:
Rationales for the exclusion of the baselines and
justification of their exclusion:
Adoption of minor efficiency
upgrades / refurbishments /
improvements of carbonization
kilns that are readily available.
Literature:
Development and adoption of
technology or process
innovations or improvements that
limit methane emissions from
kilns.
Literature:
- This option is only viable for stationary kilns. The
projects under this methodology replace the earth
mound kilns and earth pit kilns which are built on the
harvest site and discarded after only a couple of
weeks. Existing kilns can only be improved in the
form of adding a chimney on earth mound kilns to
turn them into Casamance kiln. The corresponding
investment of $200 associated with barriers prevent
however this switch to happen under business as
usual.
- Eligible countries for this methodology do not
mandate efficient technologies or enforcement has
been much lower than 50% as demonstrated by the
dominance of earth pit kilns and earth mound kilns.
Quote: „Evidence that local charcoal makers had previously tried several" improved
methods was found in the remains of metal kilns and metal pit covers which were scattered
throughout the forest.“Source: Feinstein and Van der Plas, 1991, Improving charcoal
efficiency in the traditional rural sector.
5
Page 15 of 21
In general, LDCs and areas affected by poverty have
a low level of enforcement of laws.
- No improvements are possible as kilns are built adhoc on the site of wood collection and discarded
afterwards. For this reason, improvements cannot
pay off without the switch to a sedentary production
site.
Aggregated barrier analysis from the literature:
- Investment barrier: lack of affordability of efficient
kilns (at €500, even an Adam Retort kiln costs the
equivalent of the average income of an average
charcoal maker).
- Insufficient return on investment without CDMrelated income: Without CDM, the only possible
savings for charcoal producers comes from the
improved ratio between the wood required (cost) and
the charcoal sold (profit). In the absence of an
enforced fee for wood collection, the cost of
harvested wood is low. In turn, the decreased cost in
wood collection is not sufficient to make the project
attractive without CDM.
- Practice barrier: The practice for charcoal maker is
to create kilns at the harvest site. These kilns are
discarded afterwards as the charcoal makers starts
harvesting a new area.
- Common practice: charcoal making is hugely
dominated by the production of charcoal from wood.
The production of charcoal from alternative sources
of biomass from biomass residues or plantations has
nearly not been observed and is only the result of
specific supported efforts.
It should be noted that the procedure allows for an automatic additionality
determination in specific countries provided that evidence can be produced to
support the claim of baseline CC1 being the most plausible baseline scenario.
4.6 Additionality
Projects are deemed additional if it can be proven that the baseline CC1 is
applicable. A switch to a more sustainable charcoal production has not been
observed in the set of eligible countries without supported efforts.
4.7 Baseline emissions calculation
Baseline emissions are calculated based on a standard average value of dry yield for
charcoal production in low income countries and calculated as follows:

BE y   QCCP ,PJ ,i y  CFNCV ,i , y  f NRB ,BLwood , y  K CO2  K CH 4  GWPCH 4 , y
i
Where:
BEy
QCCP,PJ,i,y
= Baseline emissions in year y (t CO2e/yr)
= Produced quantity of charcoal product i in year y (t CO2e/yr)
Page 16 of 21

CFNCV,i,y
fNRB,BL,wood,y
KCO2
KCH4
GWPCH4,y
= Correction factor for the project to baseline net calorific value of charcoal product i
in year y (-)
= Fraction of biomass of type i used in the absence of the project activity in year y
that can be established as non-renewable biomass using survey methods
= Emission factor for CO2 emissions as found in the consolidated GHG database for
the informal charcoal sector (tCO2e/t standard charcoal)
= Emission factor for methane emissions as found in the consolidated GHG
database for the informal charcoal sector (tCH4/t standard charcoal)
= Latest IPCC global warming potential of methane (tCO2e/tCH4)
In order to allow for the calculations in this methodology to be based on the same
level of service in the project and in the baseline, the project output is used and
corrected for the baseline to project ratio of net calorific value of charcoal products.
Procedures to correct for the net calorific values can be found in annex 2. The
reference net calorific value used is provided in the “consolidated GHG database for
the informal charcoal sector” in order to ensure consistency with other factors
provided and sourced from the same data collection.
Two types of emissions are taken into account:
-
CH4 emissions from the pyrolysis gases. Such emissions are derived from
the factor KCH4
-
Emissions from the use of non-renewable biomass. These emissions are
derived from the factor KCO2. This factor KCO2 represents the average level of
emissions resulting from the use of 100% non renewable biomass to produce
one tonne of charcoal with the average yield observed for the informal
charcoal sector. The figure is therefore multiplied by the fraction of biomass
which sourced from non renewable sources in the baseline.
Both emission factors shall be taken from the “consolidated GHG database for the
informal charcoal sector”. The database derives the numbers from one of the most
complete collection of tests performed in countries representative of those eligible
under this project. Due to the larger number of performance tests collected, figures
from the database are thought to be generally robust and representative.
4.8 Project emissions
The project emissions will mostly depend on the quantity of biomass used
(calculated from the yield and the project quantity of charcoal) as well the share of
this biomass which is from non-renewable sources. In addition to that methane
emissions from the pyrolysis process are taken into account.
 f NRB,PJ, j,k,y

44
PE y   QCCP ,i , y 
 CCi   EFCH 4, PJ , j ,. k , y 


12
k
 Yield PJ , j ,k , y

-
Methane emissions are to either use a default value.
o If a destruction of the methane formed in the pyrolysis process can be
demonstrated, an assumption of 90% of the value of KCH4 is to be
used. Such destruction can be assumed in certain retort kilns as well
as systems which use the pyrolysis gases productively for the
purpose of power generation. The default value of 0.9 for flaring
efficiency is commonly used in the CDM and is for example used in
AMS-III.H. for CFEww (capture and flare efficiency of the methane
Page 17 of 21
recovery and combustion equipment in the wastewater treatment).
This is conservative as the value taken as a basis for KCH4 is for
traditional kilns which is the least controlled pyrolysis process. The
more efficient systems mandated in the project (minimum efficiency of
30%) will already have a much lower specific methane emission factor
than KCH4. In turn, the calculation over-estimates project methane
emissions before their abatement.
o
If no methane abatement is claimed, the basis for the calculation of
project emission from pyrolysis methane is KCH4. As already
explained, this default value is for the least advanced and most
methane emitting units as found in the informal charcoal sector. This
means that when used in the project, especially for more advanced
carbonization units, the value is highly conservative.
4.9 Leakage
Power consumption related leakages are considered as advanced types of kilns
might consume electricity. It is either calculated based on the consumed electricity or
as a default conservative share of baseline emissions.
(i) Calculation based on the monitored electricity consumption
Emission factor: The default conservative emission factor of 1.3 tCO2e/MWh as
found in the latest version of the “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage
emissions from electricity consumption” is applied. This is adequate the specific
power consumption is expected to be relatively small.
Consumed electricity: The metered yearly electricity consumption per kiln is used.
(ii) Electricity related leakages based on a conservative assumption
Under this approach, emissions from the consumed electricity are conservatively
assumed to be much smaller than 5% of the total baseline emissions. In turn, LEEC,k,y
can be calculated as follows:
LE EC ,k , y  0.05  BE y
This conservative default value of 5% is derived from the table below:
Table 7: Adequacy of the 5% standardised discount factor to account for power consumption
Item
Charcoal production:
Value
1,000
Unit
Source
tonnes per year
(assumption)
Correction factor for carbon
content
0.66
t charcoal / t
standard
charcoal
(conservative assumption based on the Pronatura project)
Equivalent standard charcoal
667
t standard
charcoal per
year
Calculated
Emission factor for CO2
emissions (assuming 100%
Xnrb)
6.95
tCO2e / t
standard
charcoal
Consolidated GHG database for
the informal charcoal sector
Xnrb – Fraction of non
renewable biomass
50%
%
Assumption
Page 18 of 21
Emission factor for methane
emissions for the informal
charcoal sector
0.034
Latest IPCC global warming
potential of methane
21
Total baseline emissions
2799
tCH4/t standard
charcoal
Consolidated GHG database for
the informal charcoal sector
tCO2e/tCH4
IPCC 2006
tCO2e / year
Calculated from items above
Nameplate capacity of motors
10
kW
(based on the Pronatura project)
Utilization factor
80
%
Assumption
Hours per year
8769
Emission factor
1.3
Resulting power consumption
related leakages
Ratio of power related leakages
to baseline power consumption
91.1
3.4
h/y
tCO2e/MWh
tCO2e/y
Calculated from the lines above
%
Calculated on the basis of the
determined 91.1 tCO2e/y and
calculated baseline emissions of
2799 tCO2e/y
The project presented above is for the use of alternative types of biomass in a small
kiln. The power consumption is expected to be in all likelihood almost always lower
than the share of 3.4% of the baseline emissions for the following reasons:
-
The emission factor of 1.3 tCO2e/MWh is conservative.
-
The use of a very small scale project (barely 2 tonnes of charcoal produced
per day) for mechanized charcoal units is conservatives. No smaller facility
has been observed to consume power for the production of charcoal. Most
mechanized units will in all likelihood present lower specific power
consumptions with more efficient and larger charcoal production facilities.
-
The example used is for a project in which the biomass input has to be
shredded and the output needs to be agglomerated. Most kilns are likely to
use inputs and outputs which do not need to be shredded and then
agglomerated but instead directly for blocks of charcoal (e.g. cocounut husks,
bamboo, wood, etc.)
The application of a discount factor representing 5% of baseline emissions is very
conservative as it overestimates leakages by 1/3rd.
4.10 Monitoring
This methodology relies on an extremely simple monitoring. Since the methodology
prevents the use of other biomass inputs than carbon neutral biomass sources, the
methodology does not require the monitoring of the type and quality of the biomass
used. The conversion efficiency in this case does not need to be calculated. The
incentive to adopt efficient technologies remains in order to maximize the project
output (thus CER generation) compared to the biomass sourced.
Page 19 of 21
5.
ANNEX 1: OVERVIEW OF FLOWS IN LOW GHG CHARCOAL PROJECTS:
Biomass input
Reduction in carbon
stocks associated with
non-harvest biomass in
deforested areas
(branches, leafs, etc.)
Charcoal output
By-products, wastes and
emissions
Water
content
in wood
Mass of wood input
Baseline
Mass of dry
biomass
R carbon
Non renewable
fraction (e.g. 50%)
NR
carbon
Mass of
charcoal
Non emitted carbon (tar, ash,
brands, condensables, etc
Carbon in
charcoal
(85% mass)
Non renewable
fraction (e.g. 50%)
Carbon not
embodied in
charcoal
Water
content
in wood
Mass of wood input
Project
Carbon in
charcoal
(85% mass)
NR
R
carbon carbon
Non renewable
fraction (e.g. 50%)
Mass of dry
biomass
Non renewable
fraction (e.g. 50%)
Mass of
charcoal
Non emitted carbon (tar, ash,
brands, condensables, etc
Carbon in
charcoal
(85% mass)
Yield= (Mass of charcoal / mass of wood input)
Page 20 of 21
Carbon not
embodied in
charcoal
Page 21 of 21