Quantifying and Monetizing Co- -benefits: The Case of Pro benefits: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Quantifying and Monetizing Co Quantifying and Monetizing Co-

• benefits: The Case of Pro

benefits: The Case of Pro-

• Poor

Poor Waste Waste-

• to

to-

• Resource Strategies In Developing Countries :

Resource Strategies In Developing Countries : Experience of Waste Concern with Composting Project Experience of Waste Concern with Composting Project

Iftekhar Enayetullah Co-Founder and Director, Waste Concern & Abu Hasnat Md. Maqsood Sinha Co-founder and Executive Director, Waste Concern,

Bangladesh

I. What Is Waste to Resource Approach?

• II. Economic Opportunities From Climate Change

Mitigation Projects

• III. Steps to Quantify and Monetize Co-benefits
• IV. Way Forward

Presentation Outline

What is Waste to Resource Approach?

Waste to Resource is an approach which converts waste into economic outputs, such as compost, refuse derived fuel (RDF), biogas, bio fuel and also contributes to emission reduction. This approach promotes upstream management of waste and avoids end-of-pipe approaches of managing waste. Since 2007, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), in partnership with Waste Concern, has been promoting decentralized and Integrated Resource Recovery Centers (IRRCs) in secondary cities and small towns in Asia-Pacific with the objective to recover value from waste and provide livelihood opportunities to the urban poor. IRRC is based on waste to resource approach. IRRC is a facility where significant portion (80-90%) of waste can be composted/recycled and processed in a cost effective way near the source of generation in a decentralized manner.

80%

Compost

6-10%

Recyclables

10-14%

Non-compostable

GHG Reduced

Agriculture CER

Local market

Landfilled

IRRC

100% Collected with user

fee

House-to-house

waste collection method

86% RECYCLED Waste

Energy Refuse Derived Fuel

Organic Waste Organic Waste

Used Cooking Oil

Organic Waste

(non- compostables)

Composting (Aerobic Process) Biogas Plant

(Anaerobic Digestion)

Refused Derived Fuel (RDF)

Organic Waste

Co-composting

(Aerobic Process)

Bio diesel Plant

Human Excreta

Compost

(Diverted organic waste from landfill and replacing use of chemical fertilizer )

Biogas to Electricity

(replacing fossil fuel based electricity)

Fuel in Pellet form

(replacing diesel or coal used in boilers or brick kilns)

Compost

(Diverted organic waste from landfill and replacing use of chemical fertilizer)

Bio diesel

(replacing diesel as fossil fuel)

IRRC model converts waste into resource and reducing green house gas methane (CH4)

Input Technology Produce No Methane Emission

IRRC model and economic

• pportunities

How to Quantify and Monetize Co-benefits

The calculations and data reported here refer to a registered CDM composting project

• perated by Waste Concern in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The project was approved in July 2006

as a registered CDM project. Verification of CERs was completed by DNV in June 2011 and December 2013, and CERs have been issued from 2009 to 2012. We have also collected and used data from our partner organizations (Sevanatha and ENDA) from Sri Lanka and Vietnam respectively to develop this paper.

Quantify emission reduction from composting

• f municipal organic waste

Step 1

Collect baseline data for the co-benefit indicators identified

Step 3

Collect data of quantifiable indicators after implementation of the project

Step 4

Calculate the net co-benefits of the project

Step 5 Step 2

Identify quantifiable impact indicators of the project apart from GHG emission reduction

Steps to Quantify and Monetize Co-benefits

Problem Co-benefits Co-Benefit Indicators Type of Benefit Baseline Data Condition After Implementation of the Project Net Co-benefit

Unmanaged

• rganic waste

generates methane if kept in anaerobic condition. Aerobic composting technique can produce good quality compost and at same time avoid GHG emissions. Amount of GHG reduced. Public 0. 0.5 tons per ton of

• rganic waste

composted 0.5 tons per ton of organic waste composted.

Reduce 0.5 tons of CO2eq GHG emissions by recycling 1 (one) ton of

• rganic waste

GHG Mitigation through Composting of Organic Waste

Emission Reduction by Processing 1 (one) Ton of Organic Waste

SL Problem Co-benefits Co-Benefit Indicators Type of Benefit Baseline Data Condition After Implementation

• f the Project

Net Co-benefit

1 Lack of job

• pportunities

for poor prevailing in the towns and cities. Can create safe job

• pportunity for

waste pickers engaged in recycling of mixed waste without any protection. Number of safe jobs created for low income people and waste pickers. Increase in income of workers by having safe jobs. Both public and private Average income

• f waste picker

in is Taka 2600 per month out of which 15% are medical expenses per

• month. Average

disposable income is Taka 2210 per month. 2 jobs per ton. Average income of waste pickers working in the plant is Taka 7000 per month. 2 jobs per ton. Average increase in income of waste pickers by working in the compost plant is Taka 4400 per month.

Creation of New Jobs= 2 nos. Create 2 new jobs for the urban poor, including waste pickers

Co-benefits of recycling 1 (one) ton of organic waste

SL Problem Co-benefits Co-Benefit Indicators Type of Benefit Baseline Data Condition After Implementation of the Project Net Co-benefit 2. Unmanaged

• rganic waste

full of nutrients are remaining unutilized and creating pollution.

If waste is segregated properly and appropriate technology is used, compost can be produced and used in the agriculture.

Amount of compost produced. Both public and private No compost plant was

• perational in

city using the market waste. 200-250 kg per ton

• f organic waste

treated. 200-250 kg per ton of

• rganic

waste treated. Produce 0.20-0.25 tons

• f

good quality compost

Co-benefits of recycling 1 (one) ton of organic waste

SL Problem Co-benefits Co-Benefit Indicators Type of Benefit Baseline Data Condition After Implementation

• f the Project

Net Co-benefit 3.

Land for landfill sites are becoming scarce in most of the developing countries due to increase in land price and environmental regulations. Composting can save landfill areas as well as land filling cost for the local governments. Amount of waste diverted. Cost saved for the municipality from disposal

• f waste.

Public In the baseline scenario, no waste is diverted towards composting. city spends Taka 600/ton for transportation of waste and Taka 300/ton for landfilling of waste. Saving 1.1 cubic meter

• f landfill area per ton
• f organic waste

composted. USD 11.68/ton (transportation and landfilling cost) Saved 1.1 cubic meter of landfill area per ton of

• rganic waste

composted. USD 11.68/ton (transportation and landfilling cost).

Save 1.1 cubic

meter of landfill

area

Co-benefits of recycling 1 (one) ton of organic waste

SL Problem Co-benefits Co-Benefit Indicators Type of Benefit Baseline Data Condition After Implementation of the Project Net Co-benefit 4.

Due to heavy use

• f chemical

fertilizer, lack of crop rotation, high cropping intensity, drought, and other reasons, the soil is losing its fertility thus causing threat to food security.

• Chemical

fertilizer cost is subsidized by the government.

• Use of compost

can lower the use of chemical fertilizer at the same increase crop yield due to improved.

• Increase in

crop yield of 0.21 ton per of rice per half ha Consideration: from 2 tons of waste 0.5 ton of compost can be produced Increase in crop yield per hectare. Amount of chemical fertilizer avoided by use

• f compost.
• Expense of

subsidy on chemical fertilizer reduced 25%. Public and Private Yield: 4.16 tons/ha (BIRRI Rice 46) NPKS @80-35-40- 10 kg/ha) + no compost Taka 19,676 /ha (excluding fertilizer application and labor cost).

• Amount of subsidy
• n chemical fertilizer

by the government of Bangladesh is Taka 7793.17/tons. Yield: 4.58 tons/ha (BIRRI Rice 46) 75% NPKS @80-35-40- 10 kg/ha) + 1 ton/ha compost Taka 18,161/ha (excluding fertilizer application and labor cost)

• 25% subsidy on

chemical fertilizer saved. 0.42 tons/ha (BIRRI Rice 46) which has a value of Taka 7560. 25% savings in use of chemical fertilizer resulting in savings of Taka 1515/ha.

• use of compost can increase

crop production between 25- 30% and reduce use of chemical fertilizer by 25-35%

• 25% less subsidy on chemical

fertilizer.

Co-benefits of recycling 1 (one) ton of organic waste

Type of Benefit Sector of Benefit Co-Benefits/ GHG emission reduction Value of Co- benefits/ GHG emission reduction Public and Private Social Sub sector: Employment generation Creation of additional income for four waste pickers by working in the compost plan Consideration: 4 jobs created to process 2 tons of organic waste to reduce 1 ton CO2eq US $ 7.53 Public Economic Sub-sector: urban/municipal Cost saved for the municipality from disposal of waste Consideration:1.1 cubic meter of landfill area per ton of

• rganic waste composted. US$ 23.36 saved by avoiding 2

tons of organic waste to be land filled. Presently USD 11.68/ton spent for (transportation and land filling cost) US $ 23.36 Private Economic Sub sector: agriculture 25% saving in chemical fertilizer usage by use of compost Consideration: 25% savings in use of chemical fertilizer resulting in savings of Taka 1515/ha. US $ 9.71 Public Economic Sub-sector: Agriculture 25% less subsidy on chemical fertilizer Consideration: At present Government of Bangladesh (GOB) is giving BDT 7793.17/Ton on chemical fertilizer. US $ 2.06 Private and Public Environmental and Economical Increase in crop yield of 0.21 ton per of rice per half ha Consideration: from 2 tons of waste 0.5 ton of compost can be produced US $ 49.09 Total value of co-benefits per ton of GHG emission reduction through composting US $ 91.65

Potential Co-benefits by Reducing 1 (One) Ton of CO2e

2 Tons

Organic Waste

if Processed into Compost

1 ton

CO2eq Reduced

Co-benefit Type Value (US$) Bangladesh Sri Lanka Viet Nam Job creation: additional income for waste-pickers employed in compost plants Social/Economic – Public & Private 7.53 6.00 N/A (*) Cost savings for the municipality for avoided landfilling of waste Economic – Public 23.36 57.50 69.70 Savings in chemical fertilizer use (25% reduction) Economic/Environme ntal – Private & Public 9.71 2.26 21.09 Savings in subsidy to chemical fertilizers Economic – Public 2.06 5.48 N/A (**) Increase in crop yields (***) Economic – Private & Public 49.09 43.05 93.42 Total 91.65 114.29 184.21

Value of Co-benefits Generated by Composting Projects in 3 (three) Countries

100 Tons/day Capacity Composting Project

(with10 (ten) Years Life)

Income from Carbon Finance

CERs

Income from Carbon Finance

CERs INCOME: US$ 9,125/ year

50 tons*365 day*US$ 0.5 Price of 1 (ton) CO2e Reduction: Euro 0.3 / US$ 0.5

Value from

CO-BENEFITS

Value from

CO-BENEFITS INCOME: US$ 1.67 million/ year

50 tons*365 day*US$ 91.65 Co-benefit from 1 (ton) CO2e Reduction: US$ 91.65

BENEFIT OF A 100 TONS/DAY CAPACITY COMPOST PLANT

Way Forward

Clear cut policy to create conducive environment for investment. Inter-ministerial co-ordination essential for easy implementation

• f projects with priority basis.

Incentives Required: tipping fees/ free delivery of waste to recycling facility, feed-in tariff, low interest rate/ soft loan, tax holiday, land etc. Capacity building training programs: for monitoring of the projects especially MRVs Standardization of technology is important by the Govt.