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

Quantifying and Monetizing Co- -benefits: The Case of Pro benefits: The Case of Pro- -Poor Poor Quantifying and Monetizing Co Waste- -to to- -Resource Strategies In Developing Countries : Resource Strategies In Developing Countries : Waste 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

Presentation Outline 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

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% Agriculture 100% Collected with user Compost fee Energy Refuse House-to-house Derived 86% RECYCLED waste collection method Fuel 6-10% Local market Recyclables Waste IRRC 10-14% Landfilled Non-compostable GHG Reduced CER

IRRC model and economic opportunities Produce No Methane Input Technology Emission Compost Composting (Diverted organic waste Organic Waste ( Aerobic Process ) from landfill and replacing use of chemical fertilizer ) Biogas Plant Biogas to Organic Waste (Anaerobic Digestion) Electricity (replacing fossil fuel based electricity) Organic Waste Fuel in Pellet form Refused Derived (non- (replacing diesel or coal Fuel (RDF) compostables) used in boilers or brick kilns) Compost Human Excreta Co-composting (Diverted organic waste (Aerobic Process ) from landfill and Organic Waste replacing use of chemical fertilizer) Bio diesel Used Cooking Oil Bio diesel Plant (replacing diesel as fossil fuel) IRRC model converts waste into resource and reducing green house gas methane (CH4)

How to Quantify and Monetize Co-benefits The calculations and data reported here refer to a registered CDM composting project operated 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.

Steps to Quantify and Monetize Co-benefits Quantify emission reduction from composting Step 1 of municipal organic waste Identify quantifiable impact indicators of the project Step 2 apart from GHG emission reduction Collect baseline data for the co-benefit indicators Step 3 identified Collect data of quantifiable indicators after Step 4 implementation of the project Step 5 Calculate the net co-benefits of the project

Emission Reduction by Processing 1 (one) Ton of Organic Waste Reduce 0.5 tons of CO2eq GHG emissions by recycling 1 (one) ton of organic waste Problem Co-benefits Co-Benefit Type of Baseline Data Condition After Net Co-benefit Indicators Benefit Implementation of the Project Unmanaged Aerobic Amount of Public 0. 0.5 tons per ton of 0.5 tons per ton of organic organic waste composting GHG reduced. organic waste waste composted. generates technique can composted methane if kept produce good in anaerobic quality condition. compost and at same time avoid GHG emissions. GHG Mitigation through Composting of Organic Waste

Co-benefits of recycling 1 (one) ton of organic waste Creation of New Jobs= 2 nos. Create 2 new jobs for the urban poor, including waste pickers SL Problem Co-benefits Co-Benefit Type of Baseline Data Condition After Net Co-benefit Indicators Benefit Implementation of the Project 1 Lack of job Can create Number of Both public Average income 2 jobs per ton. 2 jobs per ton. opportunities safe job safe jobs and private of waste picker Average income of Average increase in for poor opportunity for created for in is Taka 2600 waste pickers income of waste prevailing in waste pickers low income per month out of working in the plant pickers by working in the towns and engaged in people and which 15% are is Taka 7000 per the compost plant is cities. recycling of waste medical month. Taka 4400 per month. mixed waste pickers. expenses per without any Increase in month. Average protection. income of disposable workers by income is Taka having safe 2210 per month. jobs.

Co-benefits of recycling 1 (one) ton of organic waste Produce 0.20-0.25 tons of good quality compost SL Problem Co-benefits Co-Benefit Type of Baseline Data Condition After Net Co-benefit Indicators Benefit Implementation of the Project 2. Unmanaged If waste is Amount of Both public No compost 200-250 kg per ton 200-250 kg per ton of segregated and private organic waste compost plant was of organic waste organic waste properly and full of produced. operational in treated. treated. appropriate nutrients are city using the technology is remaining market waste. used, unutilized and compost can creating be produced pollution. and used in the agriculture.

Co-benefits of recycling 1 (one) ton of organic waste Save 1.1 cubic meter of landfill area SL Problem Co-benefits Co-Benefit Type of Baseline Data Condition After Net Co-benefit Indicators Benefit Implementation of the Project 3. Land for landfill Composting Amount of Public In the baseline Saving 1.1 cubic meter Saved 1.1 cubic meter of sites are can save waste diverted. scenario, no of landfill area per ton landfill area per ton of becoming scarce landfill areas Cost saved for waste is diverted of organic waste organic waste in most of the as well as land the towards composted. composted. developing filling cost for municipality composting. USD 11.68/ton USD 11.68/ton countries due to the local from disposal city spends Taka (transportation and (transportation and increase in land governments. of waste. 600/ton for landfilling cost) landfilling cost). price and transportation of environmental waste and Taka regulations. 300/ton for landfilling of waste.

Co-benefits of recycling 1 (one) ton of organic waste -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. SL Problem Co-benefits Co-Benefit Type of Baseline Data Condition After Net Co-benefit Indicators Benefit Implementation of the Project 4. Due to heavy use -Use of compost Increase in Public and Yield: 4.16 tons/ha Yield: 4.58 tons/ha 0.42 tons/ha of chemical can lower the crop yield per Private (BIRRI Rice 46) fertilizer, lack of use of chemical hectare. (BIRRI Rice 46) (BIRRI Rice 46) which has a value of crop rotation, fertilizer at the Amount of NPKS @80-35-40- 75% NPKS @80-35-40- Taka 7560. high cropping same increase chemical 10 kg/ha) + no 10 kg/ha) + 25% savings in use of intensity, drought, crop yield due to fertilizer compost 1 ton/ha compost chemical fertilizer and other improved. avoided by use Taka 19,676 /ha Taka 18,161/ha resulting in savings of reasons, the soil -Increase in of compost. (excluding fertilizer (excluding fertilizer Taka 1515/ha. is losing its crop yield of -Expense of application and labor application and labor fertility thus 0.21 ton per of subsidy on cost). cost) causing threat to rice per half ha chemical -Amount of subsidy -25% subsidy on food security. Consideration: fertilizer on chemical fertilizer chemical fertilizer saved. -Chemical from 2 tons of reduced 25%. by the government of fertilizer cost is waste 0.5 ton of Bangladesh is Taka subsidized by compost can be 7793.17/tons. the government. produced