Complete PDD For CKT Compost Plant

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03.1.
CDM – Executive Board
page 1
CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD)
Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006
CONTENTS
A. General description of project activity
B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology
C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period
D. Environmental impacts
E. Stakeholders’ comments
Annexes
Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity
Annex 2: Information regarding public funding
Annex 3: Financials ( for IRR calculations)

page 2
SECTION A. General description of project activity
A.1 Title of the project activity:

>>
Organic Waste Composting at CKT Palm Oil Mill, Indonesia
Version1. Sep 03, 2007.
A.2. Description of the project activity:

>>
The project comprises the design of a co-composting plant for waste from PT. Citrakoprasindo Tani
Palm Oil Mills, comprising the Empty Fruit Bunches (EFB) and the Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME)
from the mill residues, with an initial maximum annual input capacity of 87,200 tonnes/annum fresh
EFB (at 50% moisture content) in the first year, and going up to a capacity of 99,520 tonnes/annum
fresh EFB and averagely 175,200 m3/year POME, according to proven standards. Additional EFB will
be purchased from nearby surrounding mills to increase the production of compost. Apart from
compost fertilizer, the project will realise methane reductions by diverting POME from the anaerobic
ponds at the mill and high organic waste from dumping at landfills (where anaerobic process occurs)
to a composting plant (aerobic process). Most landfills in Indonesia are poorly controlled sites with no
coverage or landfill gas extraction.
Based on investigations and calculations the project will realise 1,523,265 tonnes CO2 equivalents
over the 7-year period 2008 – 2017. The investments will be realised during the period 2007 till 2008.
Delivery of CERs will start from 2008.
The EFB has high moisture content, making it heavy and unsuitable for incineration or long-distance
transport, and it also contains substantial amount of degradable organic carbon (DOC). The moisture
content and carbon-nitrogen ratio of 35-50 is optimum for aerobic composting. As such, composting
of this waste is an attractive option for resource recovery and environmental improvement. The EFB
are produced in abundance in the area, were generally incinerated or open burned, but are now piled
to decompose since open burning has been prohibited as a disposal option. Uncontrolled land filling is
prevented by the Project activity and highly demanded compost is generated that combats soil
degradation that is a severe problem in palm oil plantations. The project therefore contributes to
sustainable development of the agricultural sector in the region.
The plant will be semi-mechanised, but will still create a large number of jobs, in particular for less
educated workers.
Composting might cause some local environmental impact, mainly odour emission. The composting
plant is located near the existing milling operations. An organic deodorizer may be applied, which
will not only eliminate any odour emission, but also supplement the compost with additional organic
and nutrient contents, and therefore, can contribute to the compost generation.
page 3
A.3. Project participants:

>>
Name of Party involved Private and/or public Kindly indicate if the

(*) entity(ies) Party involved wishes to
((host) indicates a host project participants (*) be considered as project
Party) (as applicable) participant
(Yes/No)
Indonesia (host) PT. Citrakoprasindo Tani No

(private company)
Canada LFGC Ltd. No

(private company)
(*) In accordance with the CDM modalities and procedures, at the time of making the
CDM-PDD public at the stage of validation, a Party involved may or may not have
provided its approval. At the time of requesting registration, the approval by the
Party(ies) involved is required.
A.4. Technical description of the project activity:
A.4.1. Location of the project activity:

>>
A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

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

>>
Jambi, Sumatra
A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:

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

unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page):
>>
Detail of physical location:
Rantau Badak, Kec Merlung, Kab Tanjung Jabung Barat, Jambi, Sumatra, Indonesia
page 4
Figure 1. Jambi in the map
Latitude –1° 17’ 47’’ S

Longitude - 103° 8’ 36’’E
Figure 2. The Location of the Project Site

page 5
A.4.2. Category (ies) of project activity:

>>
Project Activity: Sector 13-Waste handling and disposal
A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity:

>>
The technology proposed for the composting plant is proven technology but relatively new to
Indonesia. A number of similar plants exist in Philippines and China, but none using combined EFB
and POME waste. International standards and good labour conditions will be taken into account, with
the processing equipment sourced from Canada and Italy, and the microbe technology coming from
Canada. Technological or technical constraints are not expected. The chosen process can be
characterized as follows:
• the composting plant is designed for a processing capacity of 290 tonnes and up to 331 tonnes of
organic waste (at 50% moisture content) input per day (2008 to 2017).2
• composting process in two stages: composting followed by maturing;
• the pre-treatment area and the composting area will be completely roofed, but the sides will be open.
• the maturing area will be open, but preparations have been made (foundation) for a completely
roofed maturing area, in case this is necessary for process control (i.e. humidity, dust)
• use of windrow system
• material transport in the reception area by means of conveyors and front loaders;
• material transport and material handling after the shredding line is done semi-mechanically;
• concrete hardening is provided with a drainage system;
The POME stream will be treated with a centrifuge to remove more than 50% of the solids from the
stream, then the balance will be used for spraying onto the composting windrows to control moisture.
Any POME after the centrifuging step that is not used, as well as any liquid from the concrete pads
will be directed to the existing aeration ponds, where the COD at the end of the process will be
measured, as well as the volume of effluent from these ponds.
2
One tonne of net input will result in approximately 500 kg of compost. The planned total gross input of 290 tonnes per day
(87,200 tonnes in year 1) and up to 331 tonnes per day (99,520 tonnes in year 7) results in approximately 145 – 165 tonnes
of compost per day(43,600 – 49,790 tonnes per year), based on half the EFB quantity on 60% moisture basis. These figures
are continuously monitored (see monitoring plan).
page 6
Process step
An overall scheme of the process is presented in Figure 4 on the next page.

page 7
COLLECTION & TRANSPORTATION OF

SOLID WASTE TO THE COMPOSTNG
PLANT
Residue removal
from the
composting plant
AEROBIC COMPOSTING PROCESS
SHREDDING（PRE-PROCESSING）
Recording of
data
FILLING OF ORGANIC WASTE
（PROCESSING）
TURNING
（PROCESSING）
Temperature & Integrated
moisture content quality
monitoring control
MOISTURE CONTROL
（PROCESSING）
MATURING
（PROCESSING）
SCREENING
（POST PROCESSING）
ENRICHMENT
(POST PROCESSING ELSWHERE)
PACKAGING AND STORAGE

(POST PROCESSING ELSWHERE)
MARKETING
Figure 3. Different steps in the composting process

page 8
A.4.4 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:
>>
.
Table - Estimated emission reductions from the project
Year Annual estimation of emission reductions

in tonnes of CO2e
2008 101,616
2009 163,344
2010 206,027
2011 234,823
2012 256,850
2013 273,959
2014 286,645
Total estimated reductions
1,523,265
(tonnes of CO2e)
Total number of crediting years 7
Annual average over the crediting period of
217,609
Estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e)
A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:

>>
There is no public funding in this project.

page 9
SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology
B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the
project activity:
>>
Baseline Methodology: The approved AM0039, version 1 “Methane emissions reduction from
organic waste water and bioorganic solid waste using co-composting”
Monitoring Methodology is from AM0039, version 1.
B.2 Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project
activity:
>>
The methodology is applicable to project activities that avoid methane emissions:
• Resulting from anaerobic degradation of the organic wastewater in open lagoons or storage
tanks; and
• From natural decay of bioorganic solid waste in landfills
The methodology is applicable under the following conditions:

• Organic wastewater and bioorganic solid waste can be generated at separate locations;
• The bioorganic solid waste can be of a single type or multiple types mixed in different
proportions. The proportions and characteristics of different types of bioorganic waste
processed in the project activity can be determined, in order to apply a multiphase landfill gas
generation model to estimate the quantity of landfill gas that would have been generated in
the absence of the project activity;
• Project activities shall employ co-composting process for treatment of the organic wastewater
and the bioorganic waste;
• The anaerobic lagoons or storage tanks utilized for the treatment of the organic wastewater,
which is processed in the project co-composting activity, in the baseline shall meet the
following conditions:
- The monthly average ambient temperatures are greater than 10°C;( the methodology
is applicable even if some of the months during the year have average ambient
temperature less than 10°C, but in such cases only months where monthly average
ambient temperatures are greater than 10°C shall be included in estimation of
methane emissions)
- Depth of the wastewater anaerobic lagoon or storage tank is greater than 1m;
- Residence time of the organic matter should be at least 30 days.
NOTE: The methodology is only applicable if the baseline is:

• Landfilling of the bioorganic waste; and
• An existing or new to be built anaerobic lagoons or open tanks for the
treatment of organic wastewater.
page 10
For Baseline Methodology: The approved AM0039, version 1 “Methane emissions reduction from
organic waste water and bioorganic solid waste using co-composting” is used, because there is no
viable alternative for the EFB to be used except for disposal in a landfill, which is the current practise.
The POME wastewater is currently anaerobically treated in ponds that give a residence time of more
than 60 days, and then polished in aerobic ponds in order to meet water effluent standards for surface
water disposal.
B.3. Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary
>>
The project boundary is the composting site where waste is treated. Possible CO2 emissions resulting
from fuel combustion and electricity consumption in the operation of the project activity will be
accounted as project emissions. Methane emissions are avoided by the aerobic composting activity.
Some methane may be produced from anaerobic pockets in the compost. N2O emissions will be
produced during the composting process.
The flow chart in Figure 4 shows the main components and connections including system boundaries
of the project. The Table following details the source of greenhouse gas emissions from the various
gaseous emissions and emission reductions from the Project activity.
Anaerobic
Wastewater Leak Waste Water
treatment (e.g. Collected Wastewater)
Ponds
Auxiliary Project Activity

Raw Equipment (e.g. (Aerobic process
Effluent Pump, Drying e.g. Composting)
(POME) Equipment, etc)
Transportation
(e.g. other material Landfill Site
required for project
activity)
Project boundary
Figure 4. Project Boundary

page 11
Emissions sources included in or excluded from the project boundary are shown in Table 1.
Source Gas Included? Justification / Explanation

CO2 emissions from biomass decay in landfills are
CO2 No
Biomass disposed considered GHG neutral.
in unmanaged Methane emission from biomass decay in the
CH4 Yes
landfills landfills
Not significant. Excluded for simplification and
N2O No
conservativeness.
CO2 emissions from biomass source are considered
CO2 No
GHG neutral.
Open Lagoons CH4 Yes Methane emission from anaerobic process.
Baseline
N2O No
conservativeness.
Emission from combustion of fossil fuel in transport
CO2 Yes
vehicles.
Transportation CH4 No
conservativeness.
N2O No
conservativeness.
CO2 Yes Emission from Grid Electricity or Fossil fuel.
Auxiliary CH4 No
conservativeness.
Equipment
N2O No
conservativeness.
CO2 emissions from composting process are
CO2 No
considered GHG neutral.
Methane emissions from anaerobic pockets during
Composting CH4 Yes
composting process.
process
N2O emissions from loss of N2O-N during
N2O Yes composting process and during application of the
compost.
Project Activity
CO2 emission from biomass source and considered

CO2 No
GHG neutral.
Leaked Waste
Methane emission from anaerobic process of
Water CH4 Yes
wastewater collected after the project activity.
N2O No Not significant, excluded for simplification.
Additional Emission from combustion of fossil fuel in transport
CO2 Yes
Transportation vehicles.
due to Project CH4 No Not significant, excluded for simplification.
Activity N2O No Not significant, excluded for simplification.
CO2 Yes Emission from Grid Electricity or Fossil fuel.
Auxiliary
CH4 No Not significant, excluded for simplification.
Equipment
N2O No Not significant, excluded for simplification.
page 12
B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified
baseline scenario:
>>
Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent

with current laws and regulations
Sub –step 1a. Define alternatives to the project activity:
For organic wastewater:
• Alternative 1:
Using the organic wastewater for co-composting (The project activity implemented without CDM)
• Alternative 2:
Continuation of current practice of using anaerobic lagoons or open storage tanks without methane
recovery and flaring;
• Alternative 3:
Anaerobic lagoons or storage tanks with methane recovery and flaring;
• Alternative 4:
Anaerobic lagoons or storage tanks with methane recovery and utilization for electricity or heat
generation;
• Alternative 5:
Building of a new anaerobic lagoon or open storage tanks without methane recovery and flaring;
• Alternative 6:
Building of a new anaerobic lagoon or open storage tanks with methane recovery and flaring;
• Alternative 7:
Other treatment options provided in table 6.3, Volume 5, chapter 6 of the IPCC 2006 guidelines for
green house gas inventory.
For bioorganic solid waste:
• Alternative 1:
Waste used for co-composting (the project activity implemented without CDM);
• Alternative 2:
Uncontrolled open burning;
• Alternative 3:
Waste returned to the plantation for mulching;
page 13
• Alternative 4:
Waste incinerated in controlled conditions or used for energy purposes including power generation;
• Alternative 5:
Waste disposed on a landfill without the capture of landfill gas;
• Alternative 6:
Waste disposed on a landfill where landfill gas is captured and flared;
• Alternative 7:
Waste disposed on a landfill where landfill gas is captured and electricity generated;
• Alternative 8:
Waste disposed on a landfill where landfill gas is captured and delivered to nearby industries for
heat generation.
Outcome of Step 1a: Identified realistic and credible alternative scenario(s) to the project activity
• Alternative 1:
This option will be analyzed as part of the Additionality evaluation as outlined in section B.5
below. The evaluation suggests that this option is not considered viable as it would face investment
and other barriers.
• Alternative 2:
This is the current practice at the mill and would be continued if no Project were considered to
provide a comprehensive solution to manage the overall waste problem at the Palm Oil Mills.
• Alternative 3:
There is no legal requirement to recover and destroy methane from the process, so this is not
currently done at any mill in Southeast Asia.
• Alternative 4:
Methane recovery from the anaerobic lagoons is not practical, since the mill uses the shells and
some of the mesocarp fibers for all the energy and power needed for the mill. If methane were
recovered from the ponds and utilized, the mesocarp fibers displaced would need to be sold outside
the mill, or landfilled if the sales were not possible. The economics do not allow this option to be
used in the area.
• Alternative 5:
The lagoons at the mill are quite new, so this is not a realistic option, and in any case would be the
same as the baseline scenario.
• Alternative 6:
The ponds are new, and do not need to be replaced.
page 14
• Alternative 7:
There are no other realistic options for either treatment or utilization of the POME.
• Alternative 1:
This option will be analyzed as part of the Additionality evaluation as outlined in section B.5
below. The evaluation suggests that this option is not considered viable as it would face investment
and other barriers.
• Alternative 2:
This option is not allowed under the Environmental Regulations.
• Alternative 3:
The mill is part of a plantation complex, and as much of the EFB and mesocarp fiber is returned for
mulching as is practical. However, the plantation has a problem with insects and vermin using the
piles of mulched wastes to nest and multiply, causing problems with tree growth and vermin
control. In addition, the EFB in particular is heavy and the labor to cut and move it into place in the
plantation makes this practice untenable. This causes the large amounts of EFB to be piled onto
landfills in the mill vicinity. Other nearby palm oil mills have the same problem with EFB disposal.
• Alternative 4:
Waste incineration is not a practical option due to the difficulty in obtaining an environmental
permit and the capital cost for this waste treatment option, with no benefit to cover the cost of the
incinerator and flue gas treatment expenses. Power generation from the EFB is not done in the area
due to the cost of connecting to the grid in the area. The mill itself is not connected to the local grid,
and the compost plant will be supplied with power from the mill’s generation from burning
mesocarp fiber.
• Alternative 5:
This is the current practice for the EFB waste. Continuation of this current practice would require
no investments on the part of the project developer, and would not face any technological or other
barriers. However, methane gas would continuously be emitted from the solid waste disposal sites.
• Alternative 6:
There is no gas capture system on the current piles and the local landfills are small and have no
landfill gas recovery systems.
• Alternative 7:
There are no landfills of this type in the region.
• Alternative 8:
There are no landfills of this type in the region.
page 15
Analysis of each of the above alternatives show different difficulty levels in terms of different barriers
faced. The only realistic and credible alternatives for this area is the continuing use of the anaerobic
ponds to treat the POME (Alternative 2) and landfilling of the EFB wastes without any methane
recovery (Alternative 5) or the aerobic co-composting of the POME and the EFB waste to convert
into compost fertilizer, which is the Project Activity.
Therefore, Alternative 2 for Organic Wastewater and Alternative 5 for Bioorganic Solid Waste are
identified as the baseline scenarios.
B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below
those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity
(assessment and demonstration of additionality):
>>
The determination of project scenario additionality is done using the latest version of the “Tool for the
demonstration and assessment of additionality” agreed by Executive Board (Version 03), which
follows the following steps:
Step 1. Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent

with current laws and regulations
Sub-step 1a. Define alternatives to the project activity:
The identified baseline alternatives are listed below. More details on the selection of the most realistic
and credible baseline scenario can be found in Section B.4.
• Alternative 1:
Using the organic wastewater for co-composting (The project activity implemented without CDM)
• Alternative 2:
Continuation of current practice of using anaerobic lagoons or open storage tanks without methane
recovery and flaring;
• Alternative 3:
Anaerobic lagoons or storage tanks with methane recovery and flaring;
• Alternative 4:
Anaerobic lagoons or storage tanks with methane recovery and utilization for electricity or heat
generation;
• Alternative 5:
Building of a new anaerobic lagoon or open storage tanks without methane recovery and flaring;
page 16
• Alternative 6:
Building of a new anaerobic lagoon or open storage tanks with methane recovery and flaring;
• Alternative 7:
Other treatment options provided in table 6.3, Volume 5, chapter 6 of the IPCC 2006 guidelines for
green house gas inventory.
• Alternative 1:
Waste used for co-composting (the project activity implemented without CDM);
• Alternative 2:
Uncontrolled open burning;
• Alternative 3:
Waste returned to the plantation for mulching;
• Alternative 4:
Waste incinerated in controlled conditions or used for energy purposes including power generation;
• Alternative 5:
Waste disposed on a landfill without the capture of landfill gas;
• Alternative 6:
Waste disposed on a landfill where landfill gas is captured and flared;
• Alternative 7:
Waste disposed on a landfill where landfill gas is captured and electricity generated;
• Alternative 8:
Waste disposed on a landfill where landfill gas is captured and delivered to nearby industries for
heat generation.
Sub-step 1b: Consistency with mandatory laws and regulations:
The only option that does not comply with regulatory requirements is the open burning or incineration
of the wastes.
The project will divert organic waste from waste piles or landfilling towards a composting plant.
Instead of anaerobic conversion, resulting in – amongst others – methane production, the organic
waste is aerobically degraded, producing only non-fossil CO2 , into a reusable product (compost). By
converting organic waste from land filling towards aerobic composting, landfill gas methane
emissions are 100% prevented. The prevented methane emissions from the landfill and anaerobic
wastewater treatment ponds that otherwise would occur is claimed as emission reductions.
page 17
Positive Leakage – The produced compost is used in the agricultural sector, replacing some (fossil
derived) fertilizers. The emission reduction from displacing fertilisers and the emissions in the
fertiliser production process are not claimed. The CERs related to the increased crop production (N2
fixing) from the use of enhanced compost are not claimed either. This project will use microbes to
assist in the decomposition and add nitrogen –fixing properties to the end fertilizer product.
AM0039 is used as the guideline for determining avoided methane emissions.
Preventing organic waste from landfilling prevents the production and escape of 100% of the methane
emissions to the atmosphere. This amount is calculated by using the Multi Phase First Order Decay
Model.
Outcome of Step 1b:
There is no law or regulation mandating composting activities for agricultural waste, while
regulations on solid waste landfill do not apply for agricultural waste since it is regarded as natural
waste; however, discharge from wastewater treatment must be below certain standards as stated in the
Decree of Environment Minister No 51/1995 on standards for wastewater in industrial activities. This
standard requires that the water discharged into the environment will not exceed 350 mg/l in COD for
palm oil industry. The standards do not, however, specify the type of treatment process that should be
used. Therefore, the standard practice remains the construction of a lagoon system for anaerobic
decomposition of the wastewater to lower its COD. So, the two alternatives that are realistic comply
with all the local regulations
Step 2. Investment Analysis
Sub-step 2a: Determine appropriate analysis method
According to the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality”, if the project will
generate financial or economic benefits other than CDM-related income and if the alternative to the
CDM project activity does not include investments of comparable scale to the project, then Option III
(of the methodology tool) must be used. As this is the case for the project, Option III is applied here.
The Alternatives presented are not commercially used in the area, or not common in Kalimantan,
Indonesia, so were not included in the analysis.
Sub-step 2b: Option III - Application of benchmark analysis
The likelihood of development of this project, as opposed to the continuation of its baseline will be
determined by comparing its Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) with the
benchmark of interest rates available to a local investor; i.e., those provided by local banks in the Host
Country.
page 18
Financial analysis conducted for the Project (see Annex 3 for the input details and Tables showing the
results of the Financial Analysis) using assumptions that are the best cases from an investment
decision point of view, shows that the IRR of the project without carbon finance is negative.
A financial analysis was undertaken using assumptions that are highly conservative from the point of
view of analysing additionality; i.e., the best case scenario IRR was calculated. It was assumed that
the average waste rate at the project site was equal to 290 tonnes per day in year 1 and gradually
increases up to 331 tonnes per day from year 2 until year 7. Sales of compost product were assumed
to be at current market prices (US$ 70/t), so the increased supply would not depress prices. These best
case assumptions were inputted into the model and financial analyses to calculate the IRR.
The inter-bank interest rate published 3 by the Indonesian central bank (Bank Indonesia) in 2006 is on
average 11%, and typical lending banks charge 4 – 5% higher than the central bank rate4. In 2006, the
average investment lending rate 5 was above 15%. Added to this would be risk premiums for investing
in a capital project in the palm oil sector, which presents numerous risks. 15% has therefore been
conservatively chosen as the benchmark rate of return for comparison. This would be the minimum
hurdle rate for the Project.
Sub-step 2c: Calculation and comparison of financial indicators
The Table below shows the financial analysis for the project activity. As shown, the base case project
IRR (without carbon) is negative, lower than the interest rates provided by local banks or government
bonds in the Host Country.
Table B.1: Financial results of the project (Alternative 1) without carbon finance. NPV
uses 15 % discount rate.
without CER
Net Present Value (US $) (3,083)
IRR (%) (11.73)
Discount rate 15%
Summary of results of project analysis. Details in Annex 3 and will be made available to
Validator.
3
http://www.bi.go.id/web/id/Indikator+Moneter+dan+Perbankan/Suke+Bunga/default.aspx?pageid=1
4
Communication with local bank officer, typical lending rate correlates to the central bank rate as commonly applied in the
commercial banks credit approval.
5
“Country bank is slow to adjust to B. I. interest rate”, The Jakarta Post – January 16th, 2007
http://www.thejakartapost.com/review/bus03.asp
page 19
Table B.2 Impact of CDM registration
with CER
Net Present Value( US $) 906
IRR (%) 20.55
Discount Rate 15%
Assumptions:
z Discount rate: related to historical commercial lending fees are approx 15%. In addition a
technology risk factor of 1% is taken into account, since the composting on such large scale and
the associated technology used is new to the country and to local operators. These two factors
add up to a 16% discount rate.
z Inflation: based on historical data (Source: World Economic Outlook (WEO) -- September 2004
--Statistical Appendix) an average inflation rate of 3% has been assumed.
z Project duration: 7 years.
z Revenue streams: Taken into account are the expected revenues: sale of compost fertilizer.
Investments: Taken into account are the composting plant, equipment and working capital.
z Costs: Taken into account are the associated operational expenses (mainly labour, energy costs,
microbes, additives, etc.)
Sub-step 2d: Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis was conducted by altering the following parameters:
z Increase in project revenue- Compost fertilizer selling price of 10%

z Reduction in running costs (Operational and Maintenance costs) of 10%
Those parameters were selected as being the most likely to fluctuate over time. Financial analyses
were performed altering each of these parameters by 10%, and assessing what the impact on the
project IRR would be (see Table below). As can be seen, the project IRR remains lower than its
alternative even in the case where these parameters change in favor of the project.
Table B.3: Sensitivity analysis

Scenario % change IRR (%) NPV $US
Original (11.73) (3,083)
Increase in project revenue 10 1.09 (1,795)
Reduction in project costs 10 (8.89) (2,836)
Note: NPV use 15% discount rate
page 20
Outcome of Step 2:
Without the additional revenue from sale of carbon credits, the project would not proceed. This is
evidenced by the fact that waste EFB piles in Indonesia are becoming mountains and causing serious
environmental problems since the ban on open burning of these Palm Oil Wastes was instituted a few
years ago. The use of the EFB as a fertilizer also contributes to sustainable agricultural practices for
the industry.
Step 3. Barrier Analysis
No barrier analysis will be conducted since the only real barrier to the project activity is an economic
one and without the extra revenue from CER sales, this type of project would not proceed, as will be
demonstrated in Step 4.
Step 4. Common Practice Analysis
Sub-step 4a. Analyse other activities similar to the proposed activity
To date there has been limited development of composting projects using EFB in Indonesia. A
number of companies were contacted to supply compost fertilizer and the LFGC database for
competitor analysis was used to identify companies that were even remotely associated with the
business. The Table below summarizes the activities that could be identified for compost and organic
fertilizer activity in Indonesia:

page 21
Production
Company Name Location Current Status
Rate (tones/a)
The Bahari EFB-POME co-composting CDM

project, which is under validation now (June
2007), is a composting project in Aceh
PT. Bahari Dwikencana Lestari Tamiang District, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam
Sumatra 0 Province in Indonesia. The estimated emission
reductions from the project activity is expected
to be 58,458tCO2e annualy through out the 10
year fixed crediting period. Estimated compost
production is 20909 ton annually.
PT. Gandaerah Hendana
The project activity is a EFB-POME co-
PT. Enviro Mitra Abadi composting CDM project in the province of
Riau, on the Island of Sumatra in Indonesia.
Sumatra 0 The project, which is under validation now
(June 2007), is estimated to produce 40,000 ton
compost annually and reduce approximately
81629 t CO2 e per year.
In Perkebunan Nusantara group, the main

commodities, such as Palm Oil, Rubber, Latex,
Tea, Coffee, Cocoa, Sugar, Molasses, Alcohol,
PT. Perkebunan Nusantara IV
Brand Spirit, Tobacco, and Cotton Fiber are
Sumatera Utara Unknown
selling in both domestic and overseas They
(http://www.kpbptpn.co.id)
have done composting using Australian
technology but they are not successful in
producing good compost

page 22
SMART currently has palm plantation with

total coverage area of about 110,000 hectares.
SMART Group SMART also distributes markets and exports
Regency of
Unknown consumer palm-based products such as cooking
Kotabaru
(http://www.smart-tbk.com) oil, margarine and shortening. SMART has
failed to produce compost using machines from
France and America.
In Perkebunan Nusantara group, the main

PT. Perkebunan Nusantara V
commodities, such as Palm Oil, Rubber, Latex,
Tea, Coffee, Cocoa, Sugar, Molasses, Alcohol,
(http://www.kpbptpn.co.id) Pekanbaru-Riau Unknown
Brand Spirit, Tobacco, and Cotton Fiber are
selling in both domestic and overseas markets.
EFB has been partly used as fertilizer.
PT. Tasma Puja is a Oil Palm Processing

Industry company. They have done composting
using Backus from German. They also tried to
PT. Tasma Puja
get support from CDM to improve their
Riau Unknown
financial situations, but is not qualified for
CDM as they have done the composting and in
operation several months before their
application..
Founded in 1979, owns over 150,000 planted

hectares of palm oil in Indonesia. EFB are
PT. Asian Agri
mainly used as fertilizer through mulching or
North Sumatra Unknown
incinerated ash. Anaerobic/aerobic lagoon is
(http://www.asianagri.com/)
the main facilities to treat POME. They tried
compost by using EFB but failed.

page 23
PT Komposindo Granular
West Java
Established in 2004, small organic fertilizer
Unknown
company, compost brand name “RABOG”.
DKI Jakarta
PT. Indochito International

Waru-Sidoarjo Unknown Produce and supply guano organic fertilizer
(http://www.indochito.biz)
Small organic compost company, raw material

CV Barokah Java Less than 100
is animal waste.
Established in 2005. Main productions include

PT. Mullerne Indonesia Medan Unknown mulching materials, such as bark, sphagnum
peat moss/muck peat etc. and woods.
Agricultural product manufacturer, main

PT. Tani Utama Teknik products include fertilizer, insecticides, plant
Jakarta Unknown seeds, aquaculture equipment etc. The organic
(http://www.taniutama.com) fertilizer product is in liquid form, named FTi-
7.
Pt. Pupuk Agro Flora Indonesia

Taman Harapan Supply organic fertilizers. Parts are made from
(http://www.pupuk-organik.com) Indah, Jakarta, Unknown oil palm waste. The fertilizer contains min.
Jakarta Raya nitrogen 4% and min. potassium 2%.
Propinsi Jawa A manufacturer that produces complete

PT.CV Sinar Kencana Unknown
Barat compound fertilizer, claimed supply capacity is

page 24
3,500 ton per month.

(http://www.cvsk.co.id)
Produce fertilizer from burned palm bunch ash,

PT. Hamparan Pusaka Deli Belawan Unknown
content of K2O is 35 - 40 %.
Cv. Unggul Abadi Produce the organic fertilizer from vegetable

Jawa Timur, Unknown garbage, chicken faeces, lamb faeces, cow
urine, etc using fermentation process.
Pangkalpinang
Fertilizer wholesale company, detail
Asia Pupuk Guna Lestari PT Unknown
information is unknown.
PT. Asean Aceh Fertilizer

695,826 Produces only chemical fertilizers, such as urea
Aceh Utara
(1997) fertilizer and Ammonia liquid etc.
(http://www.aaf.co.id)
Pertani PT Persero
Chemical fertilizer manufacturer with branches
Jakarta selata Unknown
all over the indonesia
(http://www.pertani.co.id)
Petrokimia Gresik PT Persero Chemical fertilizer manufacturer, designed

Gresik Unknown capacity is about 2.5 million tons various
(http://www.petrokimia-gresik.com) chemical fertilizers annually.
Pukati Pani PT
A company with part of the trading business of
Jakarta Unknown
fertilizer
(http://www.parnaraya.com)
Pupuk Iskandar Muda PT A chemical fertilizer manufacturer with about

Sumatra Unknown 0.57 million ton urea production capacity
(http://www.pim.co.id) annually.

page 25
Pupuk Kalimantan Timur PT Tbk

Bontang Unknown A chemical fertilizer manufacturer
(http://www.pupukkaltim.com)
page 26
Sub-step 4b Discuss any similar options that are occurring
There are hundreds of fertilizer trading or manufacture companies in Indonesia, most of which are
doing chemical fertilizer business. The production and using of organic fertilizer is not a common
practice in Indonesia because of low NPK content. This project will convert waste EFB and POME
to organic fertilizer to reduce methane emission. However, the implement of this co-composting
practice is still facing economic risks which may come from lower NPK content compared with
chemical fertilizer, acceptance by public, compost production cost, performance of microbe additives
etc.
Currently, there are two Indonesia hosted EFB-POME co-composting CDM projects. Both of them
are under validation and no compost production currently (up to June 2007). There are also other
manufacturers, such as Agro Flora, that can produce organic fertilizer from oil palm waste. Besides,
only 5 other EFB co-composting projects have been developed in Indonesia, which is a small portion
compared with the total number of palm oil mills (about 400). In addition a number of small composting
operations using different raw materials in the area, but none are in large scale. Burning and mulching
are still two common practices for EFB waste treatment for the last few years. However, mulching can
only absorb very small part of total EFB waste. This is the reason that EFB was treated by open
burning a few years ago, which caused serious air pollution problems.
The chemical fertilizer manufacturers are listed but not considered as they are not comparable to that
using EFB as the compost material for commercial operations. These products have a relatively
stable market, in contrast to the market that must be established for large scale production of EFB
compost. The Table above shows 2 new projects utilizing the CDM Program to produce these
compost products, so the anticipated price for the products will not be a premium.
B.6. Emission reductions:
B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices:

>>
The project activity diverts organic waste from landfilling towards composting, where the baseline
scenario is landfilling with the methane produced in the landfill totally released into the atmosphere.
POME from the Palm Oil mill also is treated first in anaerobic ponds that remove most of the DOC
from the wastewater before going to aerobic polishing ponds for final treatment before release to
surface water. Collection and utilization of this methane is not practical since the site is isolated, and
the mill boiler is fuelled by Mesocarp Fiber. The boiler also supplies steam to a steam turbine
generator that supplies the mill and this project with all the electricity necessary for operations, so the
methane cannot practically be used for power generation. There is no economic reason to install
methane collection on the existing anaerobic ponds to collect and flare the gas.
This situation fits the requirements of AM 0039, version1.
The following conditions apply:

- The waste going into the composting plant would be landfilled in the baseline and landfill gas
would be released into the atmosphere. No other alternative besides landfilling and the project
itself are available. Methane capture from the existing landfill is not financially viable without
page 27
CER revenue. LFG revenues (gas, electricity and /or heat) alone are insufficient to recover project
investments and operational costs. The methane emissions from the landfill would thus be emitted
into the atmosphere in the baseline.
The composting meets the following operational requirements:

• The organic material is fully aerated (aerobic process) during the composting process
- Conditions required applying the multi-phase model:
• The net inputs to the composting process are known and can be monitored during the process.
Values to be utilized in the Multi-Phase Model are determined for local substrates (EFB) or IPCC
default values are used (for the POME stream).
The emission reductions can be calculated using the following formula:
ERy = BEy – PEy –LEy
Where:
ERy: Emissions Reductions (t CO2e) in year y
BEy: Emissions in the baseline scenario (t CO2e) in year y
PEy: Emissions in the project scenario (t CO2e) in year y
LEy: Leakage emissions (t CO2e) in year y
B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation:

(Copy this table for each data and parameter)
Data / Parameter: B,0

Data unit: Kg CH4 per Kg COD
Description: Maximum methane producing capacity of the inlet effluent
Source of data used: IPCC default value
Value applied: 0.21
Justification of the Conservative value
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures actually
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: DOCf

Data unit: fraction
Description: Degradable Organic Carbon dissimilated to landfill gas
Source of data used: IPCC
Value applied: 0.77 ( default value)
Justification of the EFB will completely degrade in less than one year, so the lignin content is not
choice of data or inhibiting the degradation to biogas of the EFB.
description of
page 28
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: Ф
Data unit: Fraction
Description: Model Correction Factor
Source of data used:
Value applied: 0.9
Justification of the Normal Practice
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: OX
Data unit: Fraction
Description: Oxidation Factor ( amount of methane oxidised in the soil or other material
covering the waste
Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Value applied: 0
Justification of the OX is determined by the following two ways:
choice of data or (1) Conduct a site visit at the solid waste disposal site in order to assess the type
description of of cover of the solid waste disposal site. Use the IPCC 2006 Guidelines for
measurement methods National Greenhouse Gas Inventories for the choice of the value to be applied.
and procedures actually (2) Use 0.1 for managed solid waste disposal sites that are covered with
applied : oxidizing material such as soil or compost. Use 0 for other types of solid waste
disposal sites.
Since the landfill in baseline scenario can be considered as a managed
landfill without cover, the OX in this case is 0.
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: MCF

Data unit: Factor
Description: methane correction factor
Value applied: 1.0
Justification of the Use the following values for MCF:
choice of data or • 1.0 for anaerobic managed solid waste disposal sites. These must have
description of controlled placement of waste (i.e., waste directed to specific deposition areas, a
measurement methods degree of control of scavenging and a degree of control of fires) and will
and procedures actually include at least one of the following: (i) cover material; (ii) mechanical
applied : compacting; or (iii) leveling of the waste.
• 0.5 for semi-aerobic managed solid waste disposal sites. These must have
controlled placement of waste and will include all of the following structures
page 29
for introducing air to waste layer: (i) permeable cover material; (ii) leachate
drainage system; (iii) regulating pondage; and (iv) gas ventilation system.
• 0.8 for unmanaged solid waste disposal sites – deep and/or with high
water table. This comprises all SWDS not meeting the criteria of managed
SWDS and which have depths of greater than or equal to 5 meters and/or high
water table at near ground level. Latter situation corresponds to filling inland
water, such as pond, river or wetland, by waste.
• 0.4 for unmanaged-shallow solid waste disposal sites. This comprises all
SWDS not meeting the criteria of managed SWDS and which have depths of
less than 5 meters.
In the proposed project, the landfill in baseline scenario can be considered as a
managed landfill, since most of the criteria indicated in the note of table
Annex 3.1 is existing. The waste at the landfill has a height of more than 5
meters and thus can be considered as a deep landfill, there is placement of waste
in specific areas, no scavenging, control of fires and a bulldozer is used to level
the waste piles and do some compacting.
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: DOCj
Data unit: fraction

Description: Fraction of degradable organic carbon (by weight) in the waste type j
Value applied: 30%
Justification of the
choice of data or EFB can be considered very similar to wood waste due to their similarities in
description of terms of cellulose, hemi-cellulose, lignin compositions and etc. Therefore, a
measurement methods default value for wood waste is applied.
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: Kj
Data unit: -
Description: Is the decay rate for the waste type j
Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories for Rapidly
Degrading Waste Type
Value applied: 0.4
Justification of the In the site of proposed project, the mean annual temperature is 26.8 °C, and
choice of data or mean annual precipitation (MAP) is more than 2000mm. The decay rate is rapid
description of because the processing of EFB (includes cooking, steaming, pressing which
measurement methods denature its structural contents inclusive of lignin) causes it to behave much like
and procedures actually food waste, which is a rapidly degrading waste type.
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: GWPCH4

Data unit: tCO2e
page 30
Description: Global Warming Potential of methane

Source of data used: UNFCCC
Value applied: 21
Justification of the Normal Practice
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: GWPN2O

Data unit: tCO2e
Description: Global Warming Potential of Nitrous Oxide
Value applied: 310
Justification of the Normal practice
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: NCVi

Data unit: MJ/fuel quantity
Description: Net Calorific Value of fuel type I used in project activity
Value applied: 42.7 ( Net Calorific Value of Diesel)
Justification of the The only fuel used in the project activity is diesel
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: EF i
Data unit: KgCO2 per GJ
Description: CO2 Emission Factor for fuel type i
Value applied: 74.1 ( Emission factor of diesel)
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
page 31
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: OXID,i

Data unit: factor
Description: Oxidation factor of fuel type i
Value applied: 0.99
Justification of the Default value
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: fd
Data unit: Fraction
Description: Fraction of anaerobic degradation due to depth
Source of data used: Default values given in AM00039
Value applied: 0.5
Justification of the The depth of the anaerobic POME treatment ponds in the project location is
choice of data or <5meters. Therefore the default value used is 0.5
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: ft
Data unit: Fraction
Description: Fraction of anaerobic degradation due to temperature
Source of data used: Department of Meteorology
Value applied: 0.77 ( The value has been calculated taking the temperature of 26.8° C in the
region)
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:

Baseline emissions
The following types of baseline emissions will be accounted under this methodology.
page 32
a) Methane (CH4) emissions from waste water in anaerobic lagoons or open storage tanks;
b) Methane (CH4) emissions from decay of bioorganic solid waste in disposal sites;
c) CO2 emissions from transportation of organic wastewater and bioorganic solid waste;
d) CO2 emissions from fossil fuels used for energy requirements and
e) CO2 emissions from grid electricity consumption.
Total baseline emissions are expressed as:
BEy = BECH4, WW, y + BE CH4,SW, y + BECO2,Trans, y + BE CO2,FF ,y + BE CO2, Elec,y
Where:
BEy is the total baseline emissions during the year y, (tCO2e)
BECH4,WW,y is the baseline methane emissions from existing open lagoon or open storage tanks
during the year y (tCO2e)
BECH4,SW,y is the baseline methane emissions from decay of bio-organic solid waste during the
year y(tCO2e)
BECO2,Trans,y is the baseline CO2 emissions from transportation of organic wastewater and
bioorganic solid waste during the year y (tCO2e)
BECO2,FF,y is the baseline CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels during the year y (tCO2)
BECO2,Elec,y is the baseline CO2 emissions from grid electricity consumption during the year y
(tCO2)
The above emissions shall be calculated as explained below:
(a) Methane (CH4) emissions from wastewater in open storage systems (BECH4,WW,y)
The baseline methane emissions from anaerobic lagoons or storage tanks are estimated based on the
chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the effluent that would enter the lagoon in the absence of the
project activity, the maximum methane producing capacity (Bo) and a methane conversion factor
(MCF) that expresses what proportion of the effluent would be anaerobically digested in the open
lagoons. These CH4 emissions from wastewater are calculated according to the IPCC Guidelines as
follows:
BECH 4,WW,m = COD available,m * Bo * MCF baseline *GWPCH 4
Where:
BECH4,WW,m is the baseline monthly methane emissions from wastewater (tCO2e)
page 33
CODavailable,m is the monthly Chemical Oxygen Demand available for conversion which is equal to
the monthly COD of the wastewater used for co-composting CODbaseline,m plus COD
carried on from the previous month (tCOD)
CODbaseline,m is the monthly Chemical Oxygen Demand of effluent entering anaerobic lagoons or
storage tanks (measured in the project activity) (tCOD), 50 kg/t for this calculation
Bo is the maximum methane producing capacity of the inlet effluent (tCH4/tCOD)
MCFbaseline is the methane conversion factor of the baseline storage system (fraction),
GWPCH4 is the Global Warming Potential of methane, default value 21
CODbaseline,m is to be directly measured in the project as the baseline activity level since the effluent
that goes into the anaerobic lagoon or storage tanks in the baseline situation is the
same as the one that goes into the project.
CODbaseline,m is calculated as the product of CODbaseline,m concentration (kgCOD/m3) in the

wastewater input to the project and the flow rate Fdig (m3/month).
In case there is an effluent from the lagoons where the wastewater does not reside for at least 30 days
in the baseline, CODbaseline values should be adjusted by multiplying CODbaseline by the following
factor AD:
⎛ CODa , out ⎞
AD = 1 - ⎜ ⎟
⎜ CODa , in ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Where:
CODa,out is the COD that leaves the lagoon with the effluent that does not reside for at least 30
days
CODa,in is the COD that enters the lagoon
CODa,out and CODa,in should be based on one year historical data
The amount of organic matter available for conversion to methane CODavailable,m is assumed to be
equal to the amount of organic matter produced during the month (CODbaseline,m input to the project)
plus the organic matter that may remain in the system from previous months.
The amount of organic matter consumed during the month is equal to the amount available for
conversion
CODavailable,m multiplied by MCFmonthly.

page 34
The amount of organic matter carried over from one month to the next equals to the amount available
for conversion minus the amount consumed and minus the amount removed from the anaerobic
lagoon or storage tank. In the case of the emptying of the anaerobic lagoon or storage tank, the
accumulation of organic matter restarts with the next inflow.
The default IPCC value for Bo, the maximum amount of CH4 that can be produced from a given
quantity of wastewater, is 0.25 kg CH4/kg COD. Taking into account the uncertainty of this estimate,
project participants should use a value of 0.21 kg CH4/kg COD as a conservative assumption for
Bo.
MCFbaseline,m is estimated as the product of the fraction of anaerobic degradation due to depth (fd) and
the fraction of anaerobic degradation due to temperature (f t):
MCF baseline m = f d * f t monthly * 0.89
Where:
fd is the fraction of anaerobic degradation due to depth as per Table 1. This project has
existing anaerobic ponds with a depth >5m, so the value used will be 0.7
ft is the fraction of anaerobic degradation due to temperature. The average annual

temperature is 26.8°C, as reported by the local weather meteorological station. For
verification, monthly values will be used, but for this estimation, 26.8°C was used as the
annual average, resulting in a factor of 0.77
0.89 is an uncertainty conservativeness factor (for an uncertainty range of 30% to 50%) to account
for the fact that the equation used to estimate ft ,monthly assumes full anaerobic degradation at
30 ºC.
Deep Medium Small depth

> 5m depth 1–5m <1m
Fraction of degradation under
anaerobic conditions due to
70% 50% 0
depth of anaerobic lagoons or
storage tank
ft, monthly is calculated as follows:
⎡ E ⋅ (T2 − T1 ) ⎤
f t, monthly = exp ⎢ ⎥
⎣ R ⋅ T1 ⋅ T2 ⎦
Where:
ft,monthly anaerobic degradation factor due to temperature
page 35
E Activation energy constant (15,175 cal/mol)
T2 Ambient temperature (Kelvin) for the climate (299.96 K based on 26.8° C average
temp)
T1 303.16 (273.16° + 30°)
R Ideal gas constant (1.987 cal/ K mol).
The factor ‘ft,,monthly’ represents the proportion of organic matter that is biologically available for
conversion to methane based upon the temperature of the system. The assumed temperature is equal to
the ambient temperature. The value of ft to be used cannot exceed unity.
Monthly values for ft,,monthly are calculated as follows:
(1) The monthly average temperature for the area is obtained from published national weather service
information.
(2) Monthly temperatures are used to calculate a monthly van’t Hoff – Arrhenius ‘ft,,monthly’ factor
above.
A minimum temperature of 10 °C is used. Months where the average temperature is less than 10 ºC,
ft,monthly = 0. The value of ft,monthly to be used cannot exceed unity.
It is then possible to calculate the MCF both monthly and annual.
Annual MCF can be estimated from the following equation:
12
∑ CH
m =1
4m
MCF annual = 12
Bo ⋅ ∑ COD baseline , m
m −1
Monthly baseline CH4 emissions (BECH4,WW,m) shall be aggregated into annual emissions as follows:
∑
12
BE CH 4 WW, y = m −1
BECH 4 ,WW ,m
Where:
BE CH 4, WW, y, is the estimated annual methane production in tCO2e, during the year y
BE CH 4,WW, m is the estimated monthly methane production in tCO2e
For the project MCF has been calculated to be 0.7*0.77*0.89=0.48

page 36
(b) Methane emissions from decay of bioorganic solid waste in disposal sites(BECH4,SW,y)
The amount of methane that is generated each year is calculated for each year with a multi-phase
model. The model is based on a first order decay equation. It differentiates between the different types
of waste j with respectively different decay rates kj (fast, moderate, slow) and fraction of degradable
organic carbon (DOCj). The model calculates the methane generation based on the actual waste
streams Aj,x disposed in the most recent year (y) and all previous years since the project start (x=1 to
x=y). The amount of methane produced in the year y (MBy) is calculated as follows:
⎡ 16 ⎤
( )
y D
BECH 4,SW , y = ⎢φ ⋅ ⋅ F ⋅ DOCf ⋅ MCF ⋅ GWPCH 4 ⋅ ∑ ∑ A j,x ⋅ DOCj ⋅ 1 − e −kj
⋅ e −kj ( y − x )
⎥ − MDreg
⎣ 12 x =1 j=A ⎦
Where:
BECH4,SW,y is the methane produced in the landfill in the absence of the project activity in year
y(tCH4)
Φ is the model correction factor (default 0.9) to correct for the model-uncertainties
F is the fraction of methane in the landfill gas (default value of 0.5 used)
DOCj is the per cent of degradable organic carbon (by weight) in the waste type j (0.3 for EFB)
DOCf is the fraction of DOC dissimilated to landfill gas (default value of 0.77 used)
MCF is the Methane Correction Factor (value used 1-managed landfill)
Aj,x is the amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the landfill in the year x
(tonnes/year)
kj is the decay rate for the waste stream type j(determined through independent research)
j is the waste type distinguished into the specific type or three waste categories, as above
x is the year during the crediting period: x runs from the first year of the first crediting
period (x=1) to the year for which emissions are calculated (x=y)
y is the year for which LFG emissions are calculated
MDy,reg y
Methane that would be destroyed or removed in the year “y” for safety or legal regulation. In cases
where regulatory or contractual requirements do not specify MDreg,y, an Adjustment Factor (AF)
shall be used and justified, taking into account the project context. In doing so, the project participant
should take into account that some of the methane generated by the landfill may be captured and
destroyed to comply with other relevant regulations or contractual requirements, or to address safety
and odour concerns.
page 37
MDreg,y = MBy * AF
Where:
AF is Adjustment Factor for MBy (%)
AF is defined as the ratio of the destruction efficiency of the collection and destruction system
mandated by regulatory or contractual requirement to that of the collection and destruction system in
the project activity.
The ‘Adjustment Factor’ will be revised at the start of each new crediting period taking into account
the amount of GHG flaring that occurs as part of common industry practice and/or regulation at that
point in the future.
At the present time, most landfills in Indonesia do not collect landfill gas, and consequently do not
burn it, so the AF is considered zero for the first crediting period.
GWPCH4
Global Warming Potential for methane (value of 21)
The IPCC default values 6 used for the variables in the equation are as follows:
Methane correction factor – 1.0, since the EFB is in a pile higher than 5m placed in pre-determined
areas, levelled periodically and compacted.
Fraction of DOC disseminated to LFG – 0.77
Fraction of CH4 in LFG – 0.5
EFB is considered as a rapidly degrading waste type. A conservative default value of 0.47 for k factor
was applied. However, the local k factor for EFB will be determined from local field research in order
to fully depict the anaerobic degradation process of EFB. A field research program on determination
of local k factor for EFB will be conducted simultaneously by University Pertanian Malaysia (UPM)
and Indonesian Oil Palm Research Institute. The determined local k factor will be suggested to be
applied in future.
The DOC value of EFB (which moisture content is about 60%) will be measured at least once a year
and used to calculate methane generation potential.
Model Correction Factor (φ)
Oonk et el. have validated several landfill gas models based on 17 realized landfill gas projects.8 The
mean relative error of multi-phase models was assessed to be 18%. Given the uncertainties associated
6
IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories, Reference Manual, Chapter 6, WASTE and Chapter 4, Agriculture.
7
IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National GHG Inventories, Volume 5, Table 3.3
8
Oonk, Hans et al.:Validation of landfill gas formation models. TNO report. December 1994
page 38
with the model and in order to estimate emission reductions in a conservative manner, a discount of
10% should be applied to the model results, i.e. φ = 0.9
The amount of organic waste type j (Aj,x) is calculated based on the total amount of waste collected in
the year x (Ax) and the fraction of the waste type in the samples (pn,j,x), as follows:
Aj,x = Ax ⋅
∑ Pn,j,x
n=1
where:
Aj,x is amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the year x (tonnes/year)
Ax is amount of total organic waste collected during the year x (tonnes/year)
pn,j,x is fraction of the waste type j in the sample n collected during the year x
z is number of samples taken during the year x
Calculation of F
The project participant shall determine F with the following order of preference:
1. Measure F on an annual basis as a monitoring parameter, at a landfill in the proximity of the

treatment plant, receiving comparable waste as the treatment plant receives.
2. Measure F once prior to the start of the project activity at a landfill in the proximity of the treatment
plant, receiving comparable waste as the treatment plant will receive.
3. In case there is no access to a landfill, the project participants should apply the conservative default
value of 0.5, being the lower end of IPCC range of 0.5 – 0.6.
For the ex-ante calculations, an F value of 0.5 will be used. For actual calculations, actual methane
concentrations will be used, if available at local landfills.
(c) CO2 emissions from transportation of organic wastewater and bioorganic solid waste
(BECO2,FF,y)
The baseline emissions from transportation are to be calculated using distance traveled by trucks and
the fuel emission factor, as follows :
BECO2,Trans,y = ∑ N vehicles,i,y ⋅ Dist i,y ⋅ FC i,Trans ⋅ NCV i ⋅ EF CO2,i

i
page 39
Where:
N vehicles,i,y is the number of vehicle trips used for transportation, with similar loading capacity
Dist i,y is the average distance per trip travelled by transportation vehicles type i in the
baseline scenario during the year y (km)
FCi is the vehicle fuel consumption in volume or mass units per km for vehicles type i
NCVi is the net calorific value of fuel type i in TJ per volume or mass units
EFCO2,i is the CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel type i used in transportation vehicles,
(tCO2e/TJ)
The CO2 emissions of the project transportation in the baseline are considered to be zero as the EFB
is piled at the mill and the wastewater is piped into the lagoon
(a) CO2 emissions from fossil fuels used for energy requirements (BECO2,FF,y)
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel used in the baseline for energy requirements such as heating shall be
calculated as follows:
BECO2,FF,y = FCi,y ⋅ NCVi ⋅ EFCO2,i ⋅ OXIDi
Where:
FCi,y is the baseline fossil fuels consumed of type i for energy requirements during the
year y in mass of volume units
NCVi is the Net Calorific Value (energy content) in TJ of fuel type i, per mass unit or
volume unit
EFCO2,I is the CO2 emission factor per unit of energy of the fuel i (tCO2e/TJ)
OXIDi is the oxidation factor of the fuel (see page 1.29 in the 1996 Revised IPCC
Guidelines for default values)
Where available, local values of NCVi and EFCO2,i should be used. If no such values are available,
country-specific values (see e.g. IPCC Good Practice Guidance) are preferable to IPCC world-wide
default values.
Emissions in the baseline from the use of fossil fuels are considered to be zero as there are no fossil
fuels currently being used for energy requirements
(b) CO2 emissions from grid electricity consumption (BECO2,Elec,y)
In case electricity is consumed for energy requirements in the baseline, CO2 emissions from
page 40
electricity shall be calculated as follows:
BECO2,Elec,y = ECy ⋅ EFGridElec,y
Where:
ECy is the baseline electricity consumption during the year y (MWh)
EFGridElec,y is the grid electricity emission factor for the year y (tCO2/MWh)
Emissions from grid electricity consumption in the baseline are zero as the mill is not connected to the
electricity grid
Baseline Emissions for POME:

Year QWW CODWW,untreated Bo,ww MCFbaseline GWPCH4 Baseline
3
(m /yr) (kg COD/m3) (default Emissions from
value) POME (tCO2e)
2008 156,000 57 0.21 0.48 21 18,808
2009 168,000 57 0.21 0.48 21 20,255
2010 172,800 57 0.21 0.48 21 20,834
2011 174,000 57 0.21 0.48 21 20,978
2012 180,000 57 0.21 0.48 21 21,702
2013 186,000 57 0.21 0.48 21 22,425
2014 189,600 57 0.21 0.48 21 22,859
Baseline Emissions for EFB

Year Amount of fresh EFB Baseline Emissions for EFB
Placed(tons) (t CO2 e)
2008 87,200 83,674
2009 91,600 143,985
2010 93,360 186,101
2011 93,800 214,755
2012 96,000 236,073
2013 98,200 252,474
2014 99,520 264,734
Project emissions
The project emissions in year y are expressed as:
PEy = PEN2O,Comp,y + PECH4,Comp,y + PECH4,Bww,y + PECO2,Trans,y + PECO2,FF,,y + PECO2,Elec,y
where:
PEy is the project emissions during the year y (tCO2e)

page 41
PEN2O,Comp,y is the N2O emissions from composting of bio-organic waste in year y(tCO2e)
PECH4,Comp,y is the CH4 emissions from composting of bio-organic waste in year y (tCO2e)
PECH4,B,ww,y is the CH4 emissions from leaked wastewater discharged after the project activity
in year y (tCO2e)
PECO2,Trans,y is the CO2 emissions from transportation in the project situation during year y
(tCO2)
PECO2,FF,y is the CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels in the project during year y (tCO2)
PECO2,Elec,y is the CO2 emissions from grid electricity consumption in the project situation
during year y (tCO2)
The above emissions shall be calculated as explained below:
(a) N2O emissions from composting (PEN20,Comp,y)
PEN20,Comp,y = QCompost, ,y * EFN2O,Comp * GWPN2O
where:
QCompost, ,y is the total quantity of compost produced during year y, (tons of compost)
EFN2O,Comp is the emission factor for N2O emissions from composting process ( tN2O/ton of
compost)
GWPN2O is the global warming potential of N2O, default value 310
Based upon Schenk 9and others, a total loss of 42 mg N2O-N per kg composted dry matter can be
expected (from which 26.9 mg N2O during the composting process). The dry matter content of
compost is around 65%.
Based on these values, a default emission factor of 0.043 kg N2O per tonne of compost was used .10
The emissions of N2O are estimated as follows:
Calculated amounts are for 43,600 – 49,760 tonnes compost in the 7 years of the crediting period
(b)CH4 emissions from composting ( PECH4,Comp,y):
9
Manfred K. Schenk, Stefan Appel, Diemo Daum, “N2O emissions during composting of organic waste”, Institute of Plant
Nutrition University of Hannover, 1997
10
Assuming 650 kg dry matter per ton of compost and 42 mg N2O-N, and given the molecular relation of 44/28 for N2O-N2,
an emission factor of 0.043 kg N2O / tonne compost results.
page 42
During the composting process, aerobic conditions are possibly neither completely reached in all
areas nor at all times. Pockets of anaerobic conditions – isolated areas in the composting heap where
oxygen concentrations are so low that the biodegradation process turns anaerobic – may occur. The
emission behaviour of such pockets is comparable to the anaerobic situation in a landfill. This is a
potential emission source for methane similar to anaerobic conditions which occur in unmanaged
landfills. Through predetermined sampling procedures the percentage of waste that degrades under
anaerobic conditions can be determined. Using this percentage, project methane emissions from
composting are calculated as follows:
PECH4,Comp,y = PECH4,Anaerobic,y * GWPCH4 * Sa,y
where:
PECH4,Anaerobic, is the quantity of methane that would be generated from anaerobic pockets in
composting process, during year y(t CH4)
GWPCH4 is the global warming potential of CH4, default value 21
Sa,y is the share of the waste that degrades under anaerobic conditions in the composting
Plant during the year y (%)
The amount of methane that is generated in anaerobic pockets (PECH4,Anaerobic) is calculated for each
year with a multi-phase model. The model is based on a first order decay equation. It differentiates
between the different types of waste j with respectively different decay rates kj (fast, moderate, slow)
and fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOCj).The model calculates the methane generation based
on the actual waste streams Aproject,j,x disposed in the most recent year (y) and all previous years since
the project start (x=1 to x=y).The amount of methane produced is calculated as follows:
y D
16
PECH4, Anaerobic, y = Φ ⋅ ⋅ F ⋅ DOCf ⋅ MCF ⋅ GWPCH4 ⋅ ∑ ∑ Aproject,j,x ⋅ DOCj ⋅ (1 – e –kj) ⋅ e –kj (y-x)
12 x=1 j=A
Project participants should use 0.8 as default MCF, unless they can demonstrate that the project –
scenario is an aerobic composting of the solid biomass waste with a much lower MCF value.
Calculation of Sa,y
Sa,y is determined by a combination of measurements and calculations. Bokhorst et al 11and Richard et

al12 show that if oxygen content is below 5% - 7.5%, aerobic composting processes are replaced by
11
Jan Bokhorst. Coen ter Berg – Mest & Compost Behandelen beoordelen & Toepassen (Eng: Manure & Compost –
Treatment,
judgment and use), Louis Bolk Instituut, Handbook under number LD8, October 2001
12
Tom Richard, Peter B. Woodbury, Cornell composting, operating fact sheet 4 of 10, Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant
Research at Cornell University Cornell University
page 43
anaerobic processes. To determine the oxygen content during the process, project participants shall
measure the oxygen content according to a predetermined sampling scheme and frequency.
These measurements should be undertaken for each year of the crediting period and recorded each
year. The percentage of the measurements that show an oxygen content below 10% is presumed to be
equal to the share of waste that degrades under anaerobic conditions (i.e. that degrades as if it were
landfilled), hence the emissions caused by this share are calculated as project emissions ex-post on an
annual basis:
Sa = SOD / Stotal
where:
SOD is the number of samples per year with an oxygen deficiency (i.e. oxygen content
below 10%)
Stotal is the total number of samples taken per year, where Stotal should be chosen in a
manner that ensures the estimation of Sa with 20% uncertainty at a 95% confidence
level.
Emissions from composting:
Default Global
Amount of Default N2O Emissions from
Year Warming
Compost (tons) Emission Factor composting(tCO2e)
Potential of N2O
2008 43,600 0.043 310 581
2009 45,800 0.043 310 611
2010 46,680 0.043 310 622
2011 46,900 0.043 310 625
2012 48,000 0.043 310 640
2013 49,100 0.043 310 655
2014 49,760 0.043 310 663
(c) CH4 emissions from the leaked wastewater (PECH4,bww,y)

Projects such as composting will usually have no wastewater discharge but there is a possibility that a
small quantity of leaked wastewater is collected from windrows or as a balance of waste water and
this leak wastewater may cause CH4 emissions.
CH4 emissions from leak and/or balance of waste water shall be calculated as follows.
PECH4,BWW,y = CODoutlet,total,y ⋅ Bo ⋅ MCFoutlet ⋅ GWPCH4
Where:
page 44
PECH4,BWW,y is the project methane emissions from wastewater during the year y (tCO2e)
CODoutlet,total,y is the outlet total COD of the wastewater during the year y (tCOD)
Bo is the outlet maximum methane producing capacity of wastewater (tCH4/tCOD)
MCFoutlet is the methane conversion factor of the storage system (fraction)
GWPCH4 is the Global Warming Potential of methane
MCFoutlet is to be estimated in the same manner a that of MCFbaseline,m in the baseline.
(d)CO2 emissions from transportation (PECO2,Trans,y):
The project emissions from transportation are to be calculated using the total distance and IPCC
default values for transportation fuel, as follows:
PECO2,Trans,y =∑Nvehicles,i,y * Disti,y * FCi * NCVi * EFCO2,i
Where:
Nvehicles,i,y is the number of trips used for transportation, with similar loading capacity
Disti,y is the average distance per trip traveled by transportation vehicles type i in the project
scenario in the year y (km)
FCi is the vehicle fuel consumption in volume or mass units per km for vehicle type i
NCVi is the net calorific value of fuel type i in TJ per volume or mass units
EFCO2,i is the CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel type i used in transportation vehicles
Project emissions from transportation in the project situation (PECO2,Trans,y):
About 30,000 tonnes of EFB will be purchased every year from 2008 until 2011.
Number of vehicles trips used for transporting EFB : 3,000 (10 tonnes/truck; 30,000 tonnes EFB –
EFB has moisture content of 60%)
Distance travelled : 70 km + 70 km
Fuel consumption : 15 litre/100 km
Calorific Value of diesel : 42.7 MJ/kg
EF (Emission Factor) of diesel : 74.1 kg/GJ
Emissions = 3,000*140*0.15*42.7*74.1/1000000 = 169 tonnes CO2e (per year)
page 45
Total Project Emissions:

Year Emissions due to Emissions due Emissions due to Total Project
composting(PEN2O,COMP,y) to fossil fuel transportation(PECO2,Trans,y) Emissions(PEy)
use(PECO2,FF,y)
2008 581 115 169 866
2009 611 115 169 895
2010 622 115 169 907
2011 625 115 169 910
2012 640 115 169 925
2013 655 115 169 939
2014 663 115 169 948
Total 4,397 808 1,186 6,391
(e)CO2 emissions from fossil fuel used in the project for energy requirements (PECO2,FF,y)
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel used in the project for energy requirements such as heating shall be
calculated as follows:
PECO2, FF,y = FCi,project,y * NCVi * EFCO2,i * OXIDi
where:
FCi,project,y is the fossil fuels consumed of type i for energy requirements during the year y in
mass or volume units
NCVi is the Net Calorific Value (energy content) in TJ of fuel type i,per mass unit or
volum unit
EFCO2,i is the CO2 emissions factor of the fuel i (tCO2e/TJ)
OXIDi is the oxidation factor of the fuel (see page 1.29 in the 1996 revised IPCC
Guidelines for default values)
Where available, local values of NCVi and EFCO2,i should be used. If no such values are
available,country-specific values(see e.g. IPCC Good Practice Guidance) are preferable to IPCC
world-wide default values.
IPCC default values are used for the net calorific values and CO2 emission factors
Table Values for emissions calculation related to fossil fuel used on-site
Parameter Description Value

36,500 ltr. (Two loaders will be used);
Fuel (diesel)consumption (ltr.) on site in Based on other projects this is estimated
FCi,project,y
year y to be around 50 ltr.per day during 365
days a year per loader)
page 46
NCVi Net Caloric value of fuel (MJ/ltr.) 42.7 MJ/kg

OXIDl Oxidation factor of fuel (IPCC default) 0.99
Emission Factor of fuel (diesel)
EFCO2,i 74.1 kg/GJ
(toCO2e/MJ) according IPCC
The CO2 emissions of the project activity on-site are calculated to be 58 tonnes per year. The actual
fuel consumptions will be monitored for ex post CER calculations.
Emissions from fuel use on site:

Year Emissions from fuel use on site
2008 115
2009 115
2010 115
2011 115
2012 115
2013 115
2014 115
(f) CO2 emissions from grid electricity consumption (PECO2,Elec,y ):
In case electricity is consumed for energy requirements in the baseline, CO2 emissions from electricity
consumption shall be calculated as follows:
PECO2,Elec,y = EC project,y * EFGridelec,y
where:
EC project,y is the project electricity consumption during the year y (MWh)
EFGridelec,y is the grid electricity emission factor for the year y (tCO2/MWh)
In cases where electricity is purchased from the grid, the emission factor EFGridelec,y should be
calculated according to methodology ACM0002(“Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-
connected electricity generation from renewable sources”).If electricity consumption is less than small
scale threshold of 15 GHh/yr, AMS.I.D.1 may be used.
Emissions due to grid electricity consumption are considered to be zero in the project activity because
all the power that is needed will be supplied from the palm oil mill’s existing biomass boiler and
steam turbine. (Note: the palm oil mill is not connected to any power electrical grid).This power
source is considered carbon neutral and is not leading to any increase in emission
Leakage effects are not considered in accordance with the Baseline Methodology.
page 47
Table: Resulting project emissions and leakages in first crediting period
Total Project Emission and

Leakage
Year Tonnes
2008 866
2009 895
2010 907
2011 910
2012 925
2013 939
2014 948
Total 2008-2017 6,391
Table Resulting emission reductions in first crediting period
Total project activity Net total amount of

Total Baseline Emissions
emissions and leakage CERs
Year Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes

2008 102,482 866 101,616
2009 164,240 895 163,344
2010 206,935 907 206,027
2011 235,733 910 234,823
2012 257,774 925 256,850
2013 274,899 939 273,959
2014 287,593 948 286,645
Total 2008-2017 1,529,656 6,391 1,523,265
page 48
B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:

>>
Year Estimation of Estimation of Estimation of Estimation of

project activity baseline leakage overall emission
emissions emissions (tonnes of CO2e) reductions
(tonnes of CO2e) (tonnes of CO2e) (tonnes of CO2e)
Year 2008 866 102,482 0 101,616

Year 2009 895 164,240 0 163,344
Year 2010 907 206,935 0 206,027
Year 2011 910 235,733 0 234,823
Year 2012 925 257,774 0 256,850
Year 2013 939 274,899 0 273,959
Year 2014 948 287,593 0 286,645
Total
6,391 1,529,656 0 1,523,265
(tonnes of CO2e)
B.7 Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:
Data and parameters not monitored
Data / Parameter: Disty

Data unit: Km
Description: Total distance travelled in a year
Source of data used: Host facility.
Measurement Based on estimation of actual distance used for transportation in the baseline
procedures(if any):
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment: Estimate by an expert
Data / Parameter: FCi,y

Data unit: Tons or m3 (mass or volume units)
Description: Amount of fossil fuels consumed in the baseline
Measurement Based on the onsite data sheets recorded prior to the project implementation
procedures(if any):
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: ECy

Data unit: MWh
Description: Amount of electricity consumed in the baseline
Measurement Based on the on-site record for power meter readings
procedures(if any):
page 49
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: EFGridElec,y

Data unit: tCO2e/MWh
Description: Grid electricity emission factor
Measurement Obtained from the latest local statistics or calculated ex ante using the latest
procedures(if any): version of approved consolidated methodology, ACM0002
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment: Applicable for both baseline and project situation
Data / Parameter: CODa,out

Data unit: tCOD
Description: COD of the effluent that leaves the lagoon in the baseline situation
Measurement Obtained from the most recent year prior to the implementation of the project
procedures(if any): activity
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: CODa,in

Data unit: tCOD
Description: COD that enters the lagoon in the baseline situation
Measurement Obtained from the most recent year prior to the implementation of the project
procedures(if any): activity
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:
B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored:
Baseline emissions:
Data / Parameter: CODbaseline,m
Data unit: tons of COD
Description: COD at the inlet of the project activity
Source of data: Host facility

Measurement Calculated as the product of COD concentration in ton COD/ m3 in the
procedures (if any): wastewater input to the project activity and the flow rate of wastewater in
m3/year.
Monitoring frequency: monthly
QA/QC procedures to COD concentration is to be measured monthly using sampling techniques and
be applied: flow rate is to be measured continuously. Sampling to be carried out adhering to
internationally recognized procedures. Flow meters undergo
page 50
maintenance/calibration subject to appropriate industry standards.

Value used in 57 kg COD/m3
Calculations
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: F
Data unit: fraction
Description: Fraction of methane in landfill gas
Source of data: On-site measurements
Measurement
procedures (if any):
Monitoring frequency: Annually
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Value used in 0.5 ( default value)
Calculations
Any comment: This parameter to be used in the order of preference as below.
1. Annually measured value,
2. Measured at once before prior to the start of the project activity
3. default value of 0.5
Data / Parameter: Aproject,j,x

Data unit: tonnes
Description: Amount of organic waste type j disposed in landfill in the year x
Measurement On-site data sheets recorded monthly using weigh bridge.
procedures (if any)
Monitoring frequency: Monthly
QA/QC procedures to Weighbridge will be subject to periodic calibration (in accordance with
be applied: stipulation of the weighbridge supplier)
Value used in 87,200 -99,520
Calculations
Any comment: The moisture content of EFB which will be weighed and sent for composting is
about 50%. The final EFB amount used in the first order decay model will be on
a dry basis with the adjustment for moisture taken from the quarterly analyses.
Data / Parameter: Kj
Data unit: -
Description: Is the decay rate for the waste type j
Source of data used: IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories for Rapidly
Degrading Waste Type
Value applied: 0.4
Justification of the In the site of proposed project, the mean annual temperature is 26.8 °C, and mean
choice of data or annual precipitation (MAP) is more than 2000mm. The decay rate is rapid
description of because the processing of EFB (includes cooking, steaming, pressing which
measurement methods denature its structural contents inclusive of lignin) causes it to behave much like
and procedures actually food waste, which is a rapidly degrading waste type.
applied :
page 51
Any comment: A local k factor value will be applied upon determination from relevant research
by the University Pertanian Malaysia (UPM) and Indonesian Oil Palm Research
Institute, which is currently ongoing.
Project emissions:
Data / Parameter: CODoutlet,total,y
Data unit: tons of COD
Description: COD at the outlet of the project activity
Measurement Calculated as the product of COD concentration in ton COD/ m3 in the
procedures (if any) wastewater outlet from the project activity and the flow rate of wastewater in
m3/year
QA/QC procedures to COD is measured using sampling techniques. Sampling will be carried out
be applied: adhering to internationally recognized procedures. Flow meters undergo
maintenance/calibration subject to appropriate industry standards
Value used 0 ( Residence time of the POME in the lagoons is >30days)
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: Disti,y

Data unit: km
Description: Distance traveled per trip during the year y
Measurement Based on the estimation of actual distance used for transportation in the project
procedures (if any) activity.
Monitoring frequency: Yearly
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Value used in 70 km (transporting EFB from nearby surrounding mills)
Calculations
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: FCi,project,y

Data unit: tons or m3 (mass or volume units)
Description: Fossil fuels of type i consumed by the project for energy requirements during the
year y
Measurement On-site data sheets recorded according to the monitoring frequency
procedures (if any)
QA/QC procedures to Data will be acquired based on measurement of quantity of fuel used.
be applied: Measurement equipment/meters will be calibrated according to the suppliers
specifications
Value used in 36,500 liters of diesel fuel
Calculations
Any comment:
page 52
Data / Parameter: FCi,trans,y

Data unit: tons or m3 (mass or volume units)
Description: Fossil fuels of type j consumed by the project for transportation during the year y,
Measurement On-site data sheets recorded according to the monitoring frequency.
procedures (if any)
QA/QC procedures to Data will be acquired based on measurement of quantity of fuel used.
be applied: Measurement equipment/meters will be calibrated according to the supplier’s
specifications.
Value used in 15 litres per 100 km
Calculations
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: Nvehicles,i,y

Data unit: Number
Description: Number of vehicle trips used for transportation, of fuel type i, during the year y,
Measurement On-site monitoring records.
procedures (if any)
Monitoring frequency: Daily
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Value used in 3,000 (from nearby surrounding mills)
Calculations
Any comment: Applicable for both project situation and baseline situation
Data / Parameter: ECproject,y

Data unit: MWh
Description: Amount of electricity consumed
Measurement On-site data sheets recorded according to the monitoring frequency.
procedures (if any)
Monitoring frequency: Continuously
QA/QC procedures to Data will be acquired based on measurement of electricity consumed. Meters will
be applied: be calibrated according to the supplier’s specifications.
Value used in 0
Calculations
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: ECGridElec,y

Data unit: tCO2e/MWH
Description: Grid electricity emission factor during the project situation
Measurement Calculated as per the most recent version of the approved consolidated
procedures (if any) methodology AMC0002.
Monitoring frequency: Yearly
page 53
QA/QC procedures to Data obtained from the latest local/regional statistics and calculated as per
be applied: AMC0002
Value used in 0
Calculations
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: SOD

Data unit: Number
Description: Number of samples with Oxygen deficiency
Measurement Samples with Oxygen content less than 10%. Measurement itself to be done by
procedures (if any) using a standardised mobile gas detection system
Monitoring frequency: Depends on the frequency of Stotal
QA/QC procedures to O2 measurement instrument will be subjected to periodic calibration (in
be applied: accordance with stipulation of the instrument supplier).A statistically significant
sampling procedure will be setup that consists of multiple measurements
throughout different stages of the composting process according to a
predetermined pattern ( depths and scatter).
Value used in 0
Calculations
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: Stotal

Data unit: Number
Description: Total number of samples
Measurement Total number of samples taken per year. Measurement itself to be done by using
procedures (if any) a standardised mobile gas detection system
Monitoring frequency: Stotal should be chosen in a manner that ensures estimation of Sa with 20%
uncertainty at 95% confidence level
QA/QC procedures to O2 measurement instrument will be subjected to periodic calibration (in
be applied: accordance with stipulation of the instrument supplier).A statistically significant
sampling procedure will be setup that consists of multiple measurements
throughout different stages of the composting process according to a
predetermined pattern ( depths and scatter).
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: Qcompost,y

Data unit: Tons
Description: Quantity of compost produced during the year y
Measurement On-site data sheets recorded according to the monitoring frequency
procedures (if any)
QA/QC procedures to Weighed on calibrated scale; also cross check with sales of compost
be applied:
Value used in 43600 - 49,760 (50% of EFB at 50% moisture content)
Calculations
page 54
Any comment:
Leakage
Monitoring of leakage is not applicable under this methodology.
B.7.2 Description of the monitoring plan:
The monitoring plan details the actions necessary to record all the variables and factors as described
in the data tables of Section B.7.1. above. All data will be archived electronically, and backed up
regularly. It will be kept available for the full crediting period, plus two years after the end of the
crediting period or the last issuance of CERs for this project activity (whichever occurs later).
The Monitoring Plan for this project has been developed to fulfil the following key objectives:
• Provide guidance for the implementation of the necessary measurement operations

• Establish and maintain a reliable, accurate and verifiable monitoring system
Monitoring Organization:
Prior to the start of the crediting period, the monitoring team will be organised. Clear and well defined
roles and responsibilities will be assigned to all the staff directly involved in the project. A brief
Organization Structure is available at Figure 5.
A formal set of monitoring SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) will be established. These SOPs
will detail the organisation, control and steps required for the key monitoring system features,
including:
• Training of staff
• Data collection
• Data quality control and quality assurance
• Record keeping and archiving
• Equipment calibration and maintenance

page 55
Figure 5. Organization Structure
PT. CKT
Level 1 Plant Manager
Level 2 Office Staffs Supervisors Tech Staffs
Raw Material Mixing & Turner Staffs Packing Store General Finished Good Mover
Level 3 Handler Staffs Operator Staffs Staffs Workers Forklifts Operator
• Operations & Maintenances : Involve relevant Level 3 staffs, overseen by Supervisors.
• Monitoring : Involve all levels staffs, in-charged by the Supervisors and furthered monitored and controlled by the Plant Manager.
• Documentations : Mainly done by Office Staffs.


page 56
Table 4b: Equipment used to monitor emission reductions from the project activity
Parties
Default value
Variables Operational Calibration responsible for Procedure in
Equipment to use in case Comments
Monitored range procedures operating case of failure
of failure
equipment
Weigh Scale Weight of each Tonnes Equipment will Failure reported Daily average
substrate to be calibrated to equipment of the weight in
plant 18-24 months Project supplier and the previous
after initial Developer repairs carried month minus
installation by out. If repair is 5%, per day of
the equipment not possible, weigh scale
supplier equipment will failure
be replaced by
equivalent item
within one
month. Failure
events will be
recorded in the
site events log
book.
Portable Mol fraction 0 to 20% Equipment will Failure reported Average of the
Oxygen Gas oxygen be calibrated to equipment measured
Analyser annually by the Project supplier and oxygen content
owner on site, Developer repairs carried in the previous
calibration gases out. If repair is month minus

page 57
to be supplied not possible, 5%, per day of

by equipment equipment will gas analyser
supplier. be replaced by failure. If this
equivalent item brings the
within one oxygen below
month. Failure 10%, the
events will be relevant PE
recorded in the factor applies
site events log
book
Electricity meter Total amount Equipment will Failure reported Daily average
of electricity be checked to equipment of the electricity
generated by the monthly by the Project supplier and consumed in the
project and Lead Engineer Developer repairs carried previous month
electricity out. If repair is
consumed not possible,
equipment will
be replaced by
equivalent item
within one
month. Failure
events will be
recorded in the
site events log
book.

page 58
Table 4c: Operational procedures and responsibilities for monitoring and quality assurance of emission reductions from the project activity
(E = responsible for executing data collection, R = responsible for overseeing and assuring quality, I = to be informed)
Task Regional Manager Site Engineer Equipment Supplier Project Developer LFGC Ltd.
R E
Collect Data
Enter data into R E R

Spreadsheet
Make monthly and R E R I

annual reports
Archive data & reports R E R I
Calibration/Maintenance, I R E I I
rectify faults
page 59
Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) Procedures
All measurements will use calibrated measurement equipment that is maintained regularly and
checked for its functioning. QA/QC procedures for the parameters to be monitored are illustrated in
the following table.
Uncertainty Level of
Data Explain QA/QC procedures planned for these data,
Data (High/Medium/Low) or why such procedures are not necessary
Electricity meter will be subject to regular (in

accordance with stipulation of the meter supplier)
maintenance and testing to ensure accuracy. The
readings will be double checked by the electricity
1 MWhe Low distribution company.
Calculated as per appropriate methodology at start of

2 CEFelec Low crediting period, 0.80 t/MWh used.
The amount of fuel will be derived from the paid fuel

3 Fcons Low invoices (administrative obligation).
IPCC default factor or country-specific data may be

4 NCVfuel Low applied, resulting in no error due to measurement.
IPCC default factor or country-specific data may be

5. EFfuel Low applied, resulting in no error due to measurement.
Weighed on calibrated scale; also cross check with sales

6. Mcompost,y Medium of compost.
O2-measurement-instrument will be subject to periodic

calibration (in accordance with stipulation of instrument
supplier).Measurement itself to be done by using a
standardized mobile gas detection instrument. A
statistically significant sampling procedure will be set up
that consists of multiple measurements throughout the
7. Sa Medium different stages of the composting process according to a
predetermined pattern (depths and scatter) on a weekly
8. SOD Medium basis.
9. Stotal Medium
page 60
The value itself is highly variable, but reference data

10. EFc, N2O Low shall be used.
Data are derived from or based upon local or national
11. MDreg or guidelines, so QA/QC-procedures for these data are not
AF Medium applicable.
Weighbridge will be subject to periodic calibration (in

12. Ax Low accordance with stipulation of the weighbridge supplier).
Regular sorting & weighing of waste (initially quarterly)
by project proponent will be carried out. Procedures will
13. Pjx Low be checked regularly by a certified institute/ DOE.
Analyser will be calibrated regularly (in accordance with
stipulation of the meter supplier) by a certified institute,
14. F Low or the IPCC default value will be used.
15. DOCj Low-medium Certified laboratory to be used.
16. DOEf Low-medium IPCC default value to be used
IPCC default value to be used depending on type of

17. MCF Low-medium landfill waste goes to in absence of the Project.
18. k Low-medium Measured value confirmed ex-ante.

Number of vehicles must match with total amount of
sold compost. Procedures will be checked regularly by
19. NOvehicles Medium DOE.
20. KMy Medium Assumption to be approved by DOE.
21. VFcons Low IPCC default value
22.CVfuel Low IPCC default value
23. Dfuel Low IPCC default value
24. EFfuel IPCC default value

page 61
B.8 Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology
and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies)
>>
Gerald P. Hamaliuk
LFGC Corporation
200 N. Service Rd. W.
Unit 1, Ste. 410
Oakville, ON, Canada
L6M 2Y1
Tel: 1-905-334-6127
Fax: 1-905-469-4281
E-mail: gerry@lfgccorp.com
LFGC Corporation is a CDM advisor to the Project and listed in Annex 1 of this document. The
baseline study and monitoring methodology were completed on July 16, 2007.
page 62
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:

>>
The time line of the project is as follows:
• Project starting date: March, 2007

• Construction starting date: July, 2007
• Construction finishing date: Dec., 2007
• Start operating of equipment: Jan., 2008
C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:

>>
The composting plant will continue to operate up to at least 2030.
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:

>>
January 2008
C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period:

>>
7 years
C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:
C.2.2.1. Starting date:

>>
Not Applicable
C.2.2.2. Length:
>>
Not Applicable
page 63
SECTION D. Environmental impacts

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

impacts:
>>
The project involves the implementation and operation of a composting plant in Indonesia, within a
Palm Oil mill complex. It does not use any scarce resources (like water); it doesn’t produce any solid
waste or emissions to water and soil. The (limited number of) vehicles do produce local combustion
gases. The main environmental negative component can be NOx that is an acidifying gas produced in
small quantities during the composting process. The electricity used on-site is also relatively small
and derived from renewable biomass.
Composting can have some local environmental impact, mainly odour emissions. Odour reduction
techniques are applied. The composting plant is located remote from populated areas and utilization of
the EFB will reduce the amount piled near the mill and farms and rotting presently.
Compost can improve the soil condition and will improve crop production. Compost is therefore in
demand and contributes to a better environment for the agriculture run-off, as if will be greatly
reduced compared to chemical fertilizer use.
D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the
host Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an
environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by
the host Party:
>>
In brief, the project might have a slight negative environmental impact during the operational phase,
being odour emission. However this emission is compensated by prevented emissions from the
landfills, and organic deodorizer may be used to eliminate odors from the building.
No impacts during the construction phase are expected

page 64
SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments

>>
E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:
>>
The Public Forum was held at the Kuala Tungkal Room, Novotel Hotel, Jambi
E1.1 Official reports announcing a Public Forum of the project in local newspapers:
1. Aug 2nd, 2007, “Jambi Independent”, “Forum Terbuka PT.Citrakoprasindo Tani”
E1.2 There were 31 participants at the Public Forum. The attendee list is available at validation.
E.2. Summary of the comments received:

>>
Question 1
What are the specifications or components of the compost that you are going to produce?
Question 2
The POME used in co-composting will be taken from which pond? How much methane emission will be
reduced? Do you know what the percentage is?
Question 3
How much waste can be processed in each year? If there is an excess capacity, will you plan to process the
waste from city as well?
Question 4
How much is the investment for the composting plant? Are there any similar projects in operation?
Question 5
We hope that this composting plant can become a commercial supplier to local farmers and also possibly
involve the Local University in the project? There are also many forest fires in the region, it would be
good if those waste can be made into compost as well. Can this composting plant be mobile such that it
can be nearer to the waste?
Question 6
River pollution is a key issue in this region. We hope that this project will optimize and greatly improve
the environment, not just meet the local basic discharge requirements.
page 65
Question 7
I hope that this project will be successful. What is the price of the compost produced? How much compost
needs to be applied to each Ha of palm plantation? What is the cost per Ha?
Question 8
What is the current GHG emission and what is the amount that will be reduced by this project?
Question 9
Is there any chance to change or lighten the colour of the POME discharge into the river?
Question 10
Are there any composting plants which have already in operation in Malaysia? Are there any comparisons
of data being made between the plants in Malaysia and Indonesia on investment and operational cost? I
heard that the EFB shredder cost about USD 100,000, is that correct?
Question 11
What kind of microbes will be used for the co-composting process? Has CKT produced any sample of
compost and researched on the ratio of POME to EFB?
Question 12
Will there be any health hazards to the workers work in the composting plant?
E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:
For Question 1
The quality and composition of the compost will depend on the co-composting conditions, methods,
formulation etc. Its contents include nitrogen, potassium, phosphate, trace elements etc. similar to any
current marketed organic fertilizer despite different formulation. Generally, the compost produced is
good for soil conditioning and will meet the market specifications.
For Question 2
The POME from Anaerobic Pond will be taken and used in the co-composting process. The amount of
methane emission being reduced actually depends on several factors including regional temperature,
depth of ponds and its COD. Generally, 1 m3 of POME will emit about 3-6kg of methane gas
depending on the factors mentioned.
For Question 3
The capacity of the composting plant is about 80,000 to 100,000 MT per year. This project actually
requires a full commitment on achieving the waste capacity determined in the PDD per year once we
successfully register the project. Therefore, unless the city waste is also considered before the project
being registered, else we could not process them even we have excess processing capacity.
For Question 4
The investment of this composting plant depends on what kind of technology applied, quality of raw
materials, location and existing infrastructures etc. generally, it will take about USD$4 to 5 million for
a plant with processing waste capacity of 100,000MT. There are actually another 2 CDM projects (by
other consultants), which are currently under validation by DOE. None of them has been approved
yet.
page 66
For Question 5
We will be very happy to work together with local university in the CDM project. We will consider
working with the Local University for some research projects.
There are many types of composting technologies but not all suitable and practical for mobile system.
In addition, mobile system is only practical when the waste processing capacity is small scale. For
example, a simple static pile with air blow system for small scale waste composting could be mobile
as it does not involve infrastructures and machineries. However, In-vessel technology for large scale
waste composting requires infrastructures such as concrete floor, roofing etc. and machineries such as
shredder, turner etc and is not mobile.
For Question 6
We are confident that this project will greatly improve the quality of the environment. This is because
there is no discharge of any form of waste into the environment as all the waste utilized will be
transform into organic compost. The design of this project has included preventive infrastructures
such as concrete floor, roofing, leachate collection system etc. to prevent any possible leachate of
waste to the environment. In addition, by converting anaerobic digestion of POME and anaerobic
landfill of EFB into aerobic co-composting, no methane gas will be emitted. Thus, the air quality will
be greatly improved.
For Question 7
PT Citrakoprasindo Tani (CKT) does not intend to sell the compost initially but to use it back in the
plantation to replace chemical fertilizers.. The amount of compost applied to the palm plantation will
depend on the age of the palm trees. For example, the amount of compost applies to the mature palms
may need at least 50 MT per Ha.
For Question 8
The current GHG emissions include (1) Methane (CH4) gas from anaerobic digestion of POME and
landfill of EFB, (2) Nitrogenous Oxide (N2O) from application of inorganic fertilizer, (3) Carbon
Dioxide (CO2) from diesel used in trucks during transportations. This project will not produce any
methane gas as aerobic co-composting treatment will be applied on to the wastes. It will also reduce
the emission of carbon dioxide by diesel as less transportation is needed. Please refer to the PDD for
details of emission reductions once it is posted in the UNFCCC website.
For Question 9
This project does not involve treatment of POME for discharging into river as there is no discharge of
POME. The POME will be fully utilized and absorbed by the feedstock during the co-composting
process.
For Question 10
Yes, there are some composting plants (but not a lot) which are in operation now in Malaysia.
However, none of them has registered in CDM. For example, Asia Green has their pilot plant located
in Proton City, Tanjong Malim which produces organic compost from EFB.
We do not know of comparisons made betweens Composting plants as most of these are commercial
plants, which do not normally disclose data that may be sensitive to their competitiveness.
For Question 11
The microbes used are actually from a Canadian technology. The formulation of microbes has been
proved to produce high quality compost. CKT is planning to conduct a preliminary research on the
page 67
co-composting process before the actual production cycle starts and test the effectiveness of the
microbes before deciding to use them.
CKT has yet to produce any samples of Compost but from prior research from Canada the Ratio of
EFB to POME is 1:5
For Question 12
No, there will be no health hazards to the workers as long as the workers follow the safety instructions
given.
page 68
Annex 1
CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY
Project owner:
Organization: PT Citrakoprasindo Tani
Street/P.O.Box: Jl. H.R. Rasuna Said Kav. X-2 No:5
Building: Abriobimo Sentral 4th Floor
City: Jakarta
State/Region:
Postfix/ZIP:
Country: Indonesia
Telephone: +62 21 252 5792
FAX: +62 21 529 00166
E-Mail:
URL:
Represented by: Ng Huang Chia
Title: Mill Manager
Salutation:
Last Name: Ng
Middle Name: Huang
First Name: Chia
Department:
Mobile: +62 811 744544
Direct FAX: +62 741 572286
Direct tel:
Personal E-Mail:
CERs Buyer
Organization: LFGC Ltd.
Street/P.O.Box: 200 N Service Rd. W
Building: Unit 1, Ste. 410
City: Oakville
State/Region: Ontario
Postfix/ZIP: L6M 2Y1
Country: Canada
Telephone: +1-905-334-6127
FAX: +1-905-469-4281
E-Mail: jboissiere@cogeco.ca
URL:
Represented by:
Title: Director
Salutation:
Last Name: Boissiere
Middle Name:
page 69
First Name: Jimmy

Department:
Mobile: 647-333-2115
Direct FAX: 905-821-2095
Direct tel: 905-469-5493
Personal E-Mail: jboissiere@cogeco.ca
CDM Consultant
Organization: Aretae Pte Ltd
Street/P.O.Box: 50 Raffles Place, 37th Floor
Building: Singapore Land Tower
City: Singapore
State/Region: Singapore
Postfix/ZIP: 048623
Country: Singapore
Telephone: +65-6298-8859
FAX: +65-6829-7070
E-Mail:
URL:
Represented by:
Title:
Salutation:
Last Name: See
Middle Name: S. L.
First Name: Joseph
Department:
Mobile: +65-9116-0905
Direct FAX: +65-6829-7070
Direct tel: +65-9116-0905
Personal E-Mail: josephsee@aretae.com
page 70
Annex 2
INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING
This Project has not and will not receive public funding from Annex 1 countries of any kind.
page 71
ANNEX 3
INFORMATION USED FOR THE ADDITIONALITY ANALYSIS
The following pages are copied from the Financial Model used to determine the IRR, cash flows and
NPV for this Project. Without the benefits from the sale of CERs, all cases for the compost project
show negative or very low IRR from the cash flows. This is the reason that composting has not been
carried out as a commercial business operation in Indonesia.
Project : Biomass Waste to Organic Fertilizer
Capital Outlay required for Project: USD 4.9 million total

Total Turnover in 5 years: USD 31.502 million
Total EBITDA in 5 years: USD 8.575 million
IRR for Project: 21%
Payback: 3.62 Years
Major Assumptions : 1) CERs generated by this project at full capacity -

(286,645 t/a)
2) Fixed Selling price of CERs @ $US 10 / mt
3) Fertilizers sold at USD 60 / mt
4) Ordinary Dividend declared at 50% of available
profits annually

page 72
Project : Biomass Waste to Organic Fertliser

Year Pre-op 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Contract Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
US$000 Mth/yr 12 12 12 12 12 12
Annual Capacity 49,760 mt of Organic Fert. 88% 92% 94% 94% 96% 99%
Annual Hours 8720
CER mta 101,616 163,344 206,027 234,823 256,850 273,959
CDM Program Expenses (250) (85) (85) (90) (90) (95) (100)
CER Sales @ US$10 0 1016 1633 2060 2348 2569 2740
Sales of Fertiliser US$70/mt 0 3051 3269 3333 3347 3425 3507
Total Revenue (250) 3982 4817 5303 5605 5898 6146
Operating
Expenses
Biomass $8/mt 81 697 754 769 792 816 841
Microbes ( $5,556 / mt ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mechanical Shovel 4 100 103 106 109 113 116
Bagging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Electricity 40 120 124 127 131 135 139
Travelling 21 50 50 50 50 50 50
Staff Accomodation 22 46 47 49 50 52 53
Rental for land 1 67 67 67 67 67 67
Printing , Stationery & Postage 0 7 7 7 7 8 8
Telecomunication Charges 7 17 17 18 18 19 19
Insurance 50 80 80 83 89 94 98
Professional fees 25 28 28 31 34 38 42
Plant Operators wages 28 412 412 424 437 450 464
Plant Maintenance 30 175 180 185 191 197 203
Administrators & mgmt cost 14 343 354 365 376 387 398
Start-up Expenses 175 280 60 0 0 0 0

page 73
Total Operating Expenses 498 2421 2283 2281 2352 2424 2497
EBITDA (748) 1561 2534 3022 3253 3474 3649
Table of Assumptions
Biomass Waste (mt/a) 99,520.00

Conversion (ratio) 0.50
Biomass Waste Cost (per mt) in USD 8.00
286,645.0
Full Capacity CER (mt/a) 0
Full Capacity Fertilizers (mt/a) 49,760.00
CER Price in USD 10.00
Fertiliser Price in USD 70.00
Annual Hours 8,720.00
Cost of Microbes (per mt) in USD 5,555.56
Inflation of cost (ratio) 1.03
Inflation of Sales Price (ratio) 1.02
The following Table shows the effect of increasing the price of fertilizer by 10%, no CER sales:

page 74

Year Pre-op 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
US$000 Mth/yr 12 12 12 12 12 12
Annual Hours 8720
CER mta 0 0 0 0 0 0
CDM Program Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CER Sales @ US$10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue 0 3356 3877 3953 3970 4063 4160
Operating
Expenses
Biomass ($8/mt) 81 697 754 769 792 816 841
Microbes ( $5,556 / mt ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bagging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Electricity 40 120 124 127 131 135 139
Travelling 21 50 50 50 50 50 50
Rental for land 1 67 67 67 67 67 67
Insurance 50 80 80 85 87 90 93

page 75
EBITDA (498) 935 1605 1684 1638 1665 1694
Biomass Waste (mt/a) 99,520.00

Full Capacity CER (mt/a) 0.00
Full Capacity Fertilizers (mt/a) 49,760.00
Fert Price in USD 77.00
Inflation of cost (ratio) 1.03
Following Table shows the financial projection with the operating and maintenance costs reduced by 10%, no CER sales:

page 76

Year Pre-op 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
US$000 Mth/yr 12 12 12 12 12 12
Annual Hours 8720
CER mta 0 0 0 0 0 0
CDM Program Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CER Sales @ US$10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue 0 3051 3269 3333 3347 3425 3507
Operating
Expenses
Biomass 81 697 732 747 750 767 786
Microbes ( $5,556 / mt ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bagging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Electricity 40 120 108 111 115 118 122
Travelling 21 50 50 50 50 50 50
Rental for land 1 67 67 67 67 67 67
Insurance 50 80 80 85 87 90 93

page 77
EBITDA (495) 664 1097 1167 1140 1161 1184
YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4
99,520.0
Biomass Waste (mt/a) 0
Full Capacity CER (mt/a) 0.00
59,760.0
Full Capacity Fertilizers (mt/a) 0
Fert Price in USD 70.00
Inflation of cost (ratio) 0.90 1.03 1.03 1.03

page 78
The following Table shows the IRR, payback and NPV for the Project with CER sales.
Project
IRR Calculator Description : CKT Compost Project
IP #: Biomass Waste to Organic Fertliser

Prepared By :
Sensitivity Version # : 1 3-Sep-07
Assumptions :
INCOME FROM OPERATIONS: Yr 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Profit/ ( Loss ) After Tax (747.7) 465.8 1191.7 1593.2 1820.6 2046.4 2204.5
SUBTOTAL TAXABLE INCOME (747.7) 465.8 1191.7 1593.2 1820.6 2046.4 2204.5
ITEMS NOT AFFECTING CASH FLOW:

Add Depreciation 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0
Other
SUBTOTAL 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0
OTHER CASH FLOWS:


page 79
Capital Additions - Investment (3500.00)

Income Taxes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net Working Capital Changes (1,400.00)
SUBTOTAL CASH FLOWS (4900.00) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Annual Net Cash Flow (5647.67) 815.8 1541.7 1943.2 2170.6 2396.4 2554.5
Cumulative Cash Flow (5647.67) (4831.8) (3290.2) (1347.0) 823.6 3220.0 5774.5
INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN, IRR 20.55% 20.55%
PAYBACK PERIOD 3.62 3.62
COST OF CAPITAL 5.8%
RATE OF
DISCOUNT 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%
NPV OF CASHFLOW 5,775 3,596 2,037 906 77 (536) (991)
TOTAL VALUE OF PROJECT 5,775 3,596 2,037 906 77 -536 -991
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 02
CDM – Executive Board page 80
This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font.

Complete PDD For CKT Compost Plant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complete PDD For CKT Compost Plant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03.1.

CDM – Executive Board

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

A. General description of project activity

B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period

Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity

Annex 2: Information regarding public funding

Annex 3: Financials ( for IRR calculations)

CDM – Executive Board

SECTION A. General description of project activity

A.1 Title of the project activity:

A.2. Description of the project activity:

CDM – Executive Board

A.3. Project participants:

Name of Party involved Private and/or public Kindly indicate if the

Indonesia (host) PT. Citrakoprasindo Tani No

Canada LFGC Ltd. No

A.4. Technical description of the project activity:

A.4.1. Location of the project activity:

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

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

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:

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

CDM – Executive Board

Figure 1. Jambi in the map

Latitude –1° 17’ 47’’ S

Figure 2. The Location of the Project Site

CDM – Executive Board

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

Project Activity: Sector 13-Waste handling and disposal

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

• composting process in two stages: composting followed by maturing;

• use of windrow system

• concrete hardening is provided with a drainage system;

CDM – Executive Board

An overall scheme of the process is presented in Figure 4 on the next page.

CDM – Executive Board

COLLECTION & TRANSPORTATION OF

AEROBIC COMPOSTING PROCESS

PACKAGING AND STORAGE

Figure 3. Different steps in the composting process

CDM – Executive Board

Year Annual estimation of emission reductions

A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:

There is no public funding in this project.

CDM – Executive Board

SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

Monitoring Methodology is from AM0039, version 1.

The methodology is applicable under the following conditions:

NOTE: The methodology is only applicable if the baseline is:

CDM – Executive Board

Auxiliary Project Activity

Figure 4. Project Boundary

CDM – Executive Board

Source Gas Included? Justification / Explanation

CO2 emission from biomass source and considered

CDM – Executive Board

Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent

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

For organic wastewater:

For bioorganic solid waste:

CDM – Executive Board