Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Towards sustainable development - policy oriented, practical and strategic research on global environmental issues

Lessons learned from the Application ofEmission Factors defined in 2006 IPCC
Guidelines to the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM)
IPCC Expert Meeting:
Application of 2006 IPCC Guidelines to Other Areas
1-3 July 2014
Sofia, Bulgaria

Kazuhisa KOAKUTSU(koakutsu@iges.or.jp)
Principal Policy Researcher
Leader, Climate and Energy Area, IGES

205 CDM Methodologies
HFC, PFC, andSF6, 13

othermethane, 5
Leakreduction, 2
Coal mine/bed,2Compost, 2Landfill, 2

N2O, 15Biogas, 16Renewableenergy, 14
Biomass, 10
Waste gas orHeat, 15

Fuel Switch, 14
EE supply, 29

Mateial use, 11
Cement, 3
Transport, 14

EE demand, 32

Biofuel, 6
Source: IGES in CHARTS (March 2014)2

Majority of projects under
renewables and waste management
6000
5000
4000
30004984

 6,898 CDM Projects Registered 70% is renewable energy
 Low percentage on other sectors(i.e. energy efficiency)

2000
1000

1009
364

201

1372030Industrial gas
OthersRenewable
Waste
Waste gas
Energy(HFC, N2O, (Transport, Fuel
Energy (Hydro, Management
utilization
Efficiency
switch, etc.)
Biomass, Solar, (LFG, Compost (Cement, Steel (Commercial & SF6 PFCs)
Tidal)
etc.)
Plant)
household,Factory, Power
Generation)

Source: IGES CDM Project Database (June 2013)3

More than 70% of CDM projects use
the baseline as the existing emissions
Share of Registered CDM
Project by types

Others27%

Gridconnect
ed RE
62%

Landfillgas &compost
6%
Biogas5%
4
IGES
CDM Project database (1. Feb. 2012)

Grid connected=
Grid Emission Factor

Biogas=Methane
generation potential
Landfill/compost=FastOrder Decay model

Renewable Energy
ACM0002 (ver.12.1) Consolidated methodology for grid-connected
electricity generation from renewable sources

Combined CO2 emission factor for grid connected powerProject emissions in year y
Baseline Emissions

Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system
Project Emissions

Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuelcombustion5

Tool to calculate EF for Grid
Based on data on fuel consumption and net
electricity generation of each power plant / unit

OM-aveNet calorificvalue (IPCC)

CO2 emissionfactor ((IPCC))

6Tool to calculate Project EFs
Based on fuel consumption and fraction ofcarbon in the fuelOption A:

Mass fraction of carbon in the fuelOption B:Default values can be appliedby the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

7

Waste Management (Animal Manure)
AMS-III.D. (version17) Methane recovery in animal manure
management systems

For many of parameters, default values are provided by
2006 IPCC inventory guideline
Baseline Emissions: Equation (1)D: CH4 density IPCC
MCF: Methane correction factor
B: Methane producing capacity
VS: Volatile solidsIPCC IPCC

IPCC

IPCC

W: Default average animal weight of a defined population

8Wastewater Treatment
AMS-III.H. (version16) Methane recovery in wastewater treatment

For many of parameters, default values are provided by
2006 IPCC inventory guideline
Baseline Emissions
Emissions: Equation (2)MCF: Methane correction factor
B: Methane producing capacity

IPCC

IPCC

Baseline Emissions: Equation (3)IPCC
DOC: Degradable organic content
F: Fraction of CH4

IPCC

IPCC IPCC
9Waste Management (Municipal waste)
AMS-III.F. (ver.10) Landfill methane recoveryAMS-III.G. (ver.6) Avoidance of methane emissions through controlled
biological treatment of biomass

For many of parameters, default values are provided by
2006 IPCC inventory guideline
Baseline Emissions: AMS-III.F.

Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal ofwaste at a solid waste disposal site (ver.5)

Baseline Emissions: AMS-III.G.

10

Tool to determine CH4 avoided
Based on Fast Order Decay Model

IPCC IPCC

IPCC

IPCC

IPCC

F: Fraction of methane captured
OX: Oxidation factor
MCF: methane correction factor
DOC: Fraction of degradable organic carbon
k: decay rate for the waste
11Different ERs in the Same Methodology
Methane recovery in wastewater treatment (AMS-III.H.)The same input value, but different emissions reductions
Differences due to the changes in calculation formula andintroduction of conservative default values
18000
16000
14000
12000
t-CO2 10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
012

Baseline Emissions
Project Emissions
Emission Reductions

13,082

13,082
8,755
8,643

0
0
0

Ver.4
16,821
3,739
13,082

Ver.9
16,821
3,739
13,082

Ver.1010,625
1,870
8,755

Ver.16
10,7792,136
8,643

Based on IGES ER calculation Sheet (AMS-III.H.) and IGES own calculation

Methodology is not always perfectLandfill methane recovery (AMS-III.G.)19 reg. projects out of 22 reg. projects “voluntarily”
introduces correction factor, “methane recovery rate”(0.5-0.7), which is not in the methodology
Project developer, based on experience, try to make best
estimates to reflect in their emission reductions.

13

Expected Ers according
to methodology
Annual ERs (tCO2/y)（Source: UNFCCC HP）
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.65
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.70.55
10.5
0.5
0.6
0.7 and 0.6
0.65
0.85
10.5
10.5
0.5
0.5

100,000
90,00080,00070,00060,00050,00040,00030,00020,00010,0000t-CO2/yBased on PDD and IGES own calculation

Methane recovery rateSummary of Application of IPCC
default values to the CDM
 CDM methodology has been benefited by utilizing 2006 IPCC
guideline for national GHG inventory, where appropriate.
 Mostly concentrated in the CDM methodology related torenewable energy and waste management.
 For those related to energy, most of the EFs offered by theIPCC are used to calculate emission reductions by displacing
fossil fuels. They are typically (NCV, CO2/CH4 emission
factor per unit of energy, mass fraction, etc.)
 For those related to waste management, extensive set of
EFs are offered by the IPCC default values (MCF, B, F, OX,DOC, etc.).
 Depending on the parameters, regional (e.g. DOC) and casespecific (e.g. animal weight) are also provided and they seem14
to be effective as the CDM is project-based mechanism.

Lessons learned from theApplication of IPCC default values
 There has been tendency to revise the default values to beconservative as new findings are available. This has been
the cases for the CDM methodology as it involves actual
verification (filling gap between theory and practice).
 Default emission factors are much more available for waste
related emission factors than any other sectors, which in turnhas been extensively utilized, however, it has limited
application and variety for the energy related sectors (e.g.
regional values for fossil fuels.
 Some project participants have tried to calculate country
specific EFs for certain fossil fuel (e.g. coal, and naturalgases) in order to incorporate country specific circumstances.
 It has been difficult to ensure the level of uncertainty basedon the limited experience.
15

Default &Country Specific Values applied
Default parameters
Parameters
Average annual temperature
Average mass of feed intake per head per day
Density of methane at normal condition
Maximum methane producing capacity formanure produced by livestock category
Methane Conversion Factor
Urinary energy expressed as fraction of energy
intakeDigestibility
Maximum methane producing potential of thevolatile solid generated
Default value for the volatile solid excretion per
day on a dry-matter basis for a defined livestock(market)
Default value for the volatile solid excretion per
day on a dry-matter basis for a defined livestock(breeding)
Average animal weight (breeding)
Average animal weight (market)(Source PDDs from UNFCCC website)

Default values

Unit

SourcePAGASA
27
Co
2.33 or 2.66
kg/dayPDA
IPCC 2006
0.00067t/m3
0.29 m3CH4/kg VS IPCC 2006802%%IPCC 2006
IPCC 2006

80%
IPCC 2006
0.45 kg CH4/kg VS IPCC 2006
0.3kg
IPCC 2006
VS/head*day

0.46kg
IPCC 2006
VS/head*day

198
50kg/headkg/head

IPCC 2006
IPCC 200616