VCS PD-Zhoukou Swine Farm Biogas Recovery Project in Henan

ZHOUKOU SWINE FARM BIOGAS
RECOVERY PROJECT IN HENAN
Project Title Zhoukou Swine Farm Biogas Recovery Project in Henan
Version 1.0
Date of Issue 26-March-2023
Prepared By Muyuan Foods Co., Ltd.
Contact Wolong District, Nanyang City, Henan Province, P. R. China.
Telephone: 86-15938866018
Email: myc@muyuanfoods.com
Website: N/A
CONTENTS
1 PROJECT DETAILS................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Summary Description of the Project ................................................................................ 4
1.2 Sectoral Scope and Project Type..................................................................................... 4
1.3 Project Eligibility................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Project Design ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Project Proponent .............................................................................................................. 6
1.6 Other Entities Involved in the Project ............................................................................... 6
1.7 Ownership............................................................................................................................ 7
1.8 Project Start Date ............................................................................................................... 7
1.9 Project Crediting Period .................................................................................................... 8
1.10 Project Scale and Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals ........................ 8
1.11 Description of the Project Activity .................................................................................... 9
1.12 Project Location................................................................................................................ 11
1.13 Conditions Prior to Project Initiation ............................................................................... 15
1.14 Compliance with Laws, Statutes and Other Regulatory Frameworks ....................... 15
1.15 Participation under Other GHG Programs .................................................................... 16
1.16 Other Forms of Credit ....................................................................................................... 16
1.17 Sustainable Development Contributions....................................................................... 17
1.18 Additional Information Relevant to the Project............................................................ 18
2 SAFEGUARDS ..................................................................................................... 18
2.1 No Net Harm ..................................................................................................................... 19
2.2 Local Stakeholder Consultation ..................................................................................... 19
2.3 Environmental Impact ..................................................................................................... 21
2.4 Public Comments ............................................................................................................. 22
2.5 AFOLU-Specific Safeguards ............................................................................................ 22
3 APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY................................................................... 23
3.1 Title and Reference of Methodology ............................................................................ 23
3.2 Applicability of Methodology ......................................................................................... 23
3.3 Project Boundary .............................................................................................................. 27
3.4 Baseline Scenario ............................................................................................................. 30
3.5 Additionality ...................................................................................................................... 34
3.6 Methodology Deviations ................................................................................................. 37
4 QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS .......... 37

4.1 Baseline Emissions ............................................................................................................. 37
4.2 Project Emissions ............................................................................................................... 43
4.3 Leakage ............................................................................................................................. 51
4.4 Estimated Net GHG Emission Reductions and Removals............................................ 54
5 MONITORING .................................................................................................... 59
5.1 Data and Parameters Available at Validation............................................................. 60
5.2 Data and Parameters Monitored ................................................................................... 73
5.3 Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................................. 88
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 101

Project Description: VCS Version 4.2
1 PROJECT DETAILS
1.1 Summary Description of the Project
Zhoukou Swine Farm Biogas Recovery Project in Henan (hereafter referred to as "the project")
installs total 22 sets of new animal waste management systems (AWMSs) to treat the manure on
site for 22 existing swine farms owned by the subsidiaries of Muyuan Foods Co., Ltd. in Zhoukou
City in Henan Province, i.e. one set for each swine farm. The purpose of the project is to treat the
waste produced in swine farms by adopting AWMSs to avoid GHG emissions generated in the
uncovered anaerobic lagoons of baseline scenario.
The treatment process employed by the newly built AWMSs consist of 3 steps: solid-liquid
separation, anaerobic digestion, and aerobic composting. All manure and urine collected from
swine farms are separated first. Solid components separated are then treated in aerobic
composting system to produce organic fertilizer. And the liquids flow into anaerobic digestion
process to generate biogas for utilization for energy. Excess biogas (if any) is destroyed through
the flaring system. The sludge produced from anaerobic digestion process are treated through
aerobic composting together with the solid, the effluent is supplied to the farmers living around
for free for agriculture irrigation. It is estimated that a total of 537.2571×104m3 biogas are
utilized annually and used for energy generation.
Prior to the project, manure produced in swine farms is treated in uncovered anaerobic lagoons
on site. Animal waste was left to decay in open lagoon which generated methane emitting to the
atmosphere directly without any recovery or destruction. There is no legal regulation to mandate
animal waste treatment techniques and to capture and/or utilize methane generated at these
lagoons, therefore the continuously use of uncovered anaerobic lagoons is the most economic
and practical method for swine farms to handle the animal waste.
In the baseline scenario, animal waste was poured to uncovered anaerobic lagoons. The project
reduces GHG emission to atmosphere through avoiding of methane emission generated in
baseline by deploying anaerobic treatments in AWMS with biogas utilization and destruction
systems. The project is expected to annually achieve GHG emission reduction of about 834,590
tCO2e, and during fixed 10-year crediting period from 20/09/2021 to 19/09/2031 the total GHG
emission reduction will be 8,345,897 tCO2e. The project has been put into operation officially
since 20-Sept-2021.
1.2 Sectoral Scope and Project Type

The project falls into sectoral scope 01: Energy industries (renewable -/ non-renewable sources),
sectoral scope 13: Waste handling and disposal and sectoral scope 15: Livestock and manure
management.
4
The project is one of the type III projects, i.e. “Other project activities not included in Type I or
Type II”.
The project is not a grouped project.
The methodology applied for the project is ACM0010“GHG emission reductions from manure
management systems1”(Version 08.0).
1.3 Project Eligibility

As per section 2.1.1 of VCS Standard (version 4.4), the scope of the VCS program and justification
is provided as below in table 1-1：
Table 1-1 Project eligibility under the scope of VCS program
Scope of the VCS program Eligible or not
1) The seven Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases The project is to set up new AWMSs to
handle the animal waste in swine farms
to avoid methane emission in
uncovered anaerobic lagoons of
baseline scenario. Methane is one of
the seven Kyoto Protocol greenhouse
gases, so the project is eligible for this
requirement.
2) Ozone-depleting substances Not applicable as no ozone-depleting

substances is involved in the project
3) Project activities supported by a methodology Not applicable as methodology applied

approved under the VCS Program through the in the project is ACM0010 (version
methodology approval process 08.0) which is under CDM program.
4) Project activities supported by a methodology Eligible, methodology applied for the

approved under an approved GHG program, unless project is ACM0010 (version 08.0)
explicitly excluded (see the Verra website for under CDM program which is a VCS
exclusions) approved GHG program.
5) Jurisdictional REDD+ programs and nested Not applicable.

REDD+ projects as set out in the VCS Program
1 https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/99QRTE6N5QJEBOV2XP374B25SSIXBB
5
document Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR)

Requirements
The scope of the VCS Program excludes projects that can reasonably be assumed to have
generated GHG emissions primarily for the purpose of their subsequent reduction, removal or
destruction. The VCS Program also excludes project activities under the circumstances indicated
in Table 1 in section 2.1.3 of VCS Standard (version 4.4).
The project is to set up new AWMSs for biogas utilization and destruction that generated from
animal waste treatment to avoid methane emission in the uncovered anaerobic lagoons in swine
farms. The project does not generate GHG emissions primarily for the purpose of their
subsequent reduction, removal, or destruction.
The proposed project is located in Zhoukou City, Henan Province, China, which is not one of LDC 2
designated by the United Nations. The project is not one of the project types excluded in Non-LDC
in Table 1 of VCS Standard 4.4. Therefore, the project is eligible under the scope of VCS program.
1.4 Project Design

The project installs total 22 sets of new animal waste management systems (AWMS) to treat the
manure on site for 22 existing swine farms owned by the subsidiary of Muyuan Foods Co., Ltd. in
Zhoukou City in Henan Province with one set of AWMS for each swine farm. The project belongs
to multiple project activity instances and is not a grouped project.
Eligibility Criteria
The project is not a grouped project. Thus, this section is not applicable.
1.5 Project Proponent

Organization name Muyuan Foods Co., Ltd.
Contact person Wang Chuan
Title Project Manager
Address Wolong District, Nanyang City, Henan Province, P. R. China.
Telephone 86-15938866018
Email myc@muyuanfoods.com
1.6 Other Entities Involved in the Project
2 https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/ldc_list.pdf
6
Organization name Deloitte HiTech Ltd.
Role in the project VCS Project Developer/Consultant
Contact person Chang Jinyu
Title Project Manager
Address 12/F China Life Financial Center, No. 23 Zhenzhi Rd., Chaoyang Dist.,
Beijing, P. R. China.
Telephone +86 10 8534 2096
Email bohchang@deloitte.com.cn
1.7 Ownership
Approval letter of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) issued by Local Ecology and
Environment Bureau for each project activity instance indicates the owner of each project activity
instance is the subsidiary of Muyuan Foods Co., Ltd. (the project proponent), who has the legal
right to control and operate the project. The main construction contracts of each project activity
instance also established the property and contractual right of the project and ownership of
carbon credits generated.
1.8 Project Start Date

As per Section 3.7 of VCS Standard (Version 4.4), the project start date of a non-AFOLU project
is the date on which the project began generating GHG emission reductions or removals. The
proposed project is a non-AFOLU project, hence the project start date is the first operation start
date of the project activity instances, i.e., the date on which the project began generating GHG
emission reductions or removals. The commissioning start date of each project activity instances
is showed in table 1-2 below.
Table 1-2 Operation start dates of project activity instance
Subsidiaries Project activity instance Operation start date
Fugou No.21 swine farm AWMS 27-Oct-2021
Fugou No.22 swine farm AWMS 31-Oct-2021
Fugoumuhua No.1 swine farm AWMS 06-Oct-2021

Fugou Muyuan
Fugoumuhua No.2 swine farm AWMS 01-Oct-2021
Fugoumuhua No.3 swine farm AWMS 22-Sept-2021
Fugoumuhua No.4 swine farm AWMS 21-Sept-2021
7
Luyi Muyuan Luyi No.9 swine farm AWMS 06-Oct-2021
Shangshui No.11 swine farm AWMS 18-Oct-2021
Shangshui No.13 swine farm AWMS 23-Sept-2021
Shangshui Shangshui No.18 swine farm AWMS 20-Sept-2021

Muyuan Shangshui No.19 swine farm AWMS 28-Sept-2021
Shangshui No.20 swine farm AWMS 30-Sept-2021
Shangshui No.21 swine farm AWMS 04-Nov-2021
Taikang Muyuan Taikang No.11 swine farm AWMS 02-Oct-2021
Xihua No.15 swine farm AWMS 09-Oct-2021
Xihua Muyuan Xihua No.16 swine farm AWMS 21-Sept-2021
Xihua No.18 swine farm AWMS 27-Sept-2021
Xiangcheng No.1 swine farm AWMS 21-Sept-2021

Xiangcheng
Xiangcheng No.2 swine farm AWMS 25-Sept-2021
Muyuan
Xiangcheng No.5 swine farm AWMS 13-Oct-2021
Based on the table above, the project start date is 20-Sept-2021.
1.9 Project Crediting Period

This project adopts fixed crediting periods of 10 years. The crediting period is 10 years 0 month
from 20/09/2021 to 19/09/2031 (both days included).
1.10 Project Scale and Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals

Project Scale
Project
Large project 
Year Estimated GHG emission

reductions or removals (tCO 2e)
8
20/09/2021-31/12/2021 235,515
01/01/2022-31/12/2022 834,590
01/01/2023-31/12/2023 834,590
01/01/2024-31/12/2024 834,590
01/01/2025-31/12/2025 834,590
01/01/2026-31/12/2026 834,590
01/01/2027-31/12/2027 834,590
01/01/2028-31/12/2028 834,590
01/01/2029-31/12/2029 834,590
01/01/2030-31/12/2030 834,590
01/01/2031-19/09/2031 599,075
Total estimated ERs 8,345,900
Total number of crediting years 10
Average annual ERs 834,590
1.11 Description of the Project Activity

The project is designed to install total 22 sets of new animal waste management systems (AWMS)
to treat the manure on site for 22 existing swine farms owned by the subsidiaries of Muyuan Foods
Co., Ltd. in Zhoukou City, Henan Province, i.e. one set for each swine farm. The purpose of the
project is to treat the manure and wastewater from swine farms in AWMS to avoid GHG emissions
generated in the uncovered anaerobic lagoons of baseline scenario. The treatment process
deployed the newly built AWMSs consist of 3 steps: solid-liquid separation, anaerobic digestion,
and aerobic composting. All manure and urine collected from swine farm are separated first.
Solid components separated are then treated in aerobic composting system to produce organic
fertilizer. The liquids flow into anaerobic digestion process to generate biogas for energy
utilization. Excess biogas (if any) is destroyed through the flaring system. The sludge produced
from anaerobic digestion are treated through aerobic composting together with the separated
solid in the first step, the effluent is supplied to the local farmers for agriculture irrigation free of
charge. It is estimated that a total of 537.2571×104 m3 biogas are generated annually and
utilized for energy generation.
Baseline scenario
9
Prior to the implementation of the project, the animal waste from swine farms were left to decay
in uncovered open lagoon at the livestock farms and the methane generated is emitted to the
atmosphere directly without any collection or utilization/destruction.
Project technology description
The project consists of 22 sets of AWMSs in 22 swine farms respectively. All the manure and
urine are cleaned from the swine barns and transferred into waste collecting tanks. Then the
manure waste is separated by solid-liquid separators. Solid components separated are then
treated in aerobic composting system to produce organic fertilizer. The separated liquids flow into
anaerobic digestion process to generate biogas for energy utilization. Excess biogas (if any) is
destroyed through the flaring system. The sludge produced from anaerobic digestion are treated
through aerobic composting together with the separated solid, the effluent of anaerobic digester
is used for agriculture irrigation. All 22 AWMS adopt same technologies and process flow. The
process flow diagram of AMWS of the project is shown in Figure 1-1 below.
Project boundary
Organic fertilizer Land

Aerobic composting
application
solid
Manure from Solid-liquid
swine farm separation sludge Energy energy User (swine
liquid generation farm)
biogas Desulfurization biogas
Anaerobic tank
and purification
Open flaring
effluents system
Electricity
Local Power
Liquid fertilizer
Grid
land application
Figure 1-1 Manure process flow of the project
Solid-liquid separation
The project activity applies flushing system to collect the manure automatically. All the manure
and wastewater are collected and then be separated first. A screw extruder with separation
efficiency over 50% is applied to separate the solids and water. The separated solids are sent
out as organic fertilizers while the separated liquid is treated through anaerobic digestion and
the biogas generated during the treatment process is collected for energy generation.
Anaerobic digesters treatment process
10
The manure is treated anaerobically. In the anaerobic digester, high density polyethylene (HDPE)
geomembranes are integrated into the base and top membranes through anchor trenches, with
anaerobic fermentation and gas storage functions. The anaerobic digesters receive the animal
manure and maintain a steady–state population of methanogenic bacteria for degradation.
Methanogenic bacteria convert organic manure into biogas anaerobically. Then the biogas will be
collected and used for energy generation. In addition, anaerobic digesters could reduce offensive
odors, pathogens from the manure slurry, and GHG emissions during the storage. Since the
biogas generated within anaerobic digesters forms a heat insulation layer and the black
membranes of digesters can absorb heat from sunshine, the digester could keep relatively
constant temperature in winter, the manure within digesters is less affected by the outside
temperature, thus no heat preservation measure is needed in winter.
Biogas utilization and flaring system
The biogas generated within the anaerobic digester is a mixed gas containing saturated steam.
In addition to CH4 and CO 2, the biogas also contains H2S and suspended particulate impurities.
Therefore, desulfurization and purification treatments are required. Biogas collected from
anaerobic reactors is purified by biogas purification device firstly, and then the biogas is sent to
energy generation units. The energy generated is supplied to the swine farms of project activity
instances.
Each project activity instance adopted an open flare. In case of the energy generation systems
malfunction or is under maintenance, the produced biogas will be transferred to the flaring
system to ensure the destruction of methane.
Aerobic composting
The solid components separated after solid-liquid separation and the sludge produced from
anaerobic digestion are used to produce organic fertilizer by aerobic composting. Organic
fertilizer produced will be provided to nearby farmers for land application.
1.12 Project Location

The project is located in Zhoukou City, Henan Province, P.R. China. The specific location
information of each subsidiary farm is shown in Table 1-3 and Figure 1-2:
Table 1-3 Project location details
Swine farm Geographical coordinates
Fugou No.21 swine farm AWMS 114°22'35.54"E, 34°12'2.88"N
Fugou No.22 swine farm AWMS 114°30'27.52"E, 33°59'59.52"N
Fugoumuhua No.1 swine farm AWMS 114°30'28.27"E, 34°0'33.18"N
11
Luyi No.9 swine farm AWMS 115°33'40.38"E, 33°47'58.89"N
Shangshui No.11 swine farm AWMS 114°18'3.24"E, 33°33'48.07"N
Taikang No.11 swine farm AWMS 114°41'39.34"E, 34°11'4.86"N
Xihua No.15 swine farm AWMS 114°32'3.69"E, 33°56'3.28"N
Xiangcheng No.1 swine farm AWMS 114°58'44.61"E, 33°20'15.40"N
12
Henan Province
13
Zhoukou City
14
Project site
Figure 1-2 Project Location Map
1.13 Conditions Prior to Project Initiation

The project is a greenfield project. In absence of the project animal waste would have been left
to decay in uncovered anaerobic lagoons and methane emitted to the atmosphere directly
without any methane utilization and destruction facility. The baseline scenario is the same as the
scenario existing prior to the start of implementation of the project activity. Please refer to Section
3.4 (Baseline Scenario) for details.
1.14 Compliance with Laws, Statutes and Other Regulatory Frameworks

Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) reports of the project were carried out by qualified third-
party organizations and got approved by governmental authorities, Environmental Protection
Bureaus of municipal level. In the EIA reports, all related laws, regulation and standards etc. were
considered before assessment. The approvals indicate that the project is permitted to be
implemented hence the project is in compliance with national, regional and local laws, status
and other regulatory frameworks.
15
1.15 Participation under Other GHG Programs
Projects Registered (or seeking registration) under Other GHG Program(s)
The project has not been registered or is seeking registration under any other GHG programs.
Projects Rejected by Other GHG Programs
The project activity is not participating in any environment credits, GHG programs or rejected by
any other GHG Programs.
1.16 Other Forms of Credit
Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits
Does the project reduce GHG emissions from activities that are included in an emissions
trading program or any other mechanism that includes GHG allowance trading?
☐ Yes ☒ No
The project is not included in any emission trading program or any other mechanism involving
GHG allowance trading. In addition, the Project does not reduce GHG emissions from any
activities that are included in an emissions trading program or any other mechanism that
includes GHG allowance trading. The net GHG emission reductions generated from the project
will not be used for any compliance with emission trading programs or to meet binding limits on
GHG emissions. Currently China is developing a cap & trade scheme. However, China’s national
emissions trading scheme (ETS) is still evolving at very early stage, only fossil fuel-fired power
plants in the power sector is included 3 . China’s ETS is expected to include all companies with
annual GHG emissions greater than 26,000 tCO 2e in eight emission-intensive industries
including power generation, petrochemicals, chemicals, building materials, non-ferrous metals,
papermaking, steel and aviation. As the project is neither included in the above eight sector nor
the annual GHG emissions of the project proponent surpass 26,000 tCO 2e, it will not be included
in the national ETS. Therefore, no emission cap will be enforced on the project proponent, nor
can it participate in carbon transactions in the national ETS. The net GHG emission reductions
of the project will not be used for compliance with emission trading programs or to meet binding
limits on GHG emissions.
Other Forms of Environmental Credit
Has the project sought or received another form of GHG-related credit, including renewable
energy certificates?
3 https://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk06/202203/t20220315_971468.html
16
☐ Yes ☒ No
The project has not sought or received another form of GHG-related environmental credit or
renewable energy certificates.
Supply Chain (Scope 3) Emissions
The project involves the replacement of traditional uncovered anaerobic lagoons in swine farms.
Biogas generated in the new AWMSs is collected and utilized or destroyed. The project does not
affect the market swine and breeding swine production or the feed consumption by swine.
Therefore, the implementation of project activity does not affect emissions associated with a
good or service, nor it will affect the indirect upstream and downstream GHG emissions in supply
chain.
1.17 Sustainable Development Contributions

The project contributes to achieving sustainable development in following ways:
SDG1: No Poverty
The project involves the replacement of uncovered anaerobic lagoons with new AWMSs to collect
the biogas for utilization, which requires personnel to operate and maintain the AWMS and the
energy generation system, more job positions are generated and are provided to residents nearby.
Since the project site located in rural area and most residents are farmers with relatively low
income, the project will provide them with higher incomes and help to achieve national poverty
alleviation target.
SDG2: Zero Hunger
Providing organic fertilizer to nearby farmers can play a critical role in achieving SDG 2, which is
to end hunger. Organic fertilizers can help improve soil health, increase crop yields, and promote
sustainable agricultural practices, all of which contribute to ensuring food security. By providing
organic fertilizers to farmers, they can access the necessary nutrients for their crops, leading to
higher yields and increased food production. This can help reduce food insecurity, particularly in
areas where farmers may not have access to synthetic fertilizers. Additionally, the use of organic
fertilizers can promote sustainable agricultural practices, preserving soil health and reducing
environmental degradation. Providing organic fertilizers can also improve the socio-economic
status of farmers, particularly small-scale farmers, by reducing their reliance on expensive
synthetic fertilizers, thus improving their livelihoods.
SDG7: Affordable and Clean Energy
The biogas generated during the treatment process are collected and utilized for energy
generation. The generated energy is used by the swine farms or for daily use. The energy
generated by biogas utilization replaces the traditional energy generated by fossil fuel energy.
17
The project is designed to collect and utilize 537.2571×104m3 biogas4 for energy generation
annually. The project helps to optimize the energy structure of China and reduce the dependence
on exhaustible fossil fuels for energy generation. This contributes to one of the China’s actions
for promoting the sustainable developing, “By 2030, increase the share of non-fossil fuels in
primary energy consumption to about 20 percent”.
SDG8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
The project can provide temporary and permanent job opportunities for locals during the
construction and operation period, which meets one of the China’s action plans “Increase labour
force participation rate through implementation of the classification policy. Vigorously enforce
the Law on Promotion of Employment.”
SDG13: Climate Action
Prior to the implementation of the project, the animal manure waste was left to decay in
uncovered open lagoon at the livestock farms and methane is emitted to the atmosphere directly
without any methane recovery and destruction facility. The project activity will reduce of GHG in
the atmosphere through avoiding methane emissions from anaerobic treatment of swine manure.
So, the impact parameter of the proposed project on SDG13 is the amount of GHGs emission
reductions. It is estimated that 834,590 tCO2e emission reductions can be produced annually.
1.18 Additional Information Relevant to the Project
Leakage Management
The leakage of in this project includes leakage from anaerobic digestion process and land
application of organic fertilizer. The leakage has been included in the emission reductions
calculation as per the applied methodology and tool.
Commercially Sensitive Information
No commercially sensitive information has been excluded from the public version of the project
description.
Further Information
Not applicable.
2 SAFEGUARDS
4 Data from EIA report of each project activity instance.
18
2.1 No Net Harm

The project are biogas collection and utilization projects. According to the EIA Reports, every
aspect of environmental impact has been considered with corresponding measures during
development, construction and operation which are in line with national policies and no net harm
has been detected. Meanwhile, the implementation of the project will improve local-socio
economic development through creating career opportunities. Each EIA report was approved by
local Environment Protection Bureau.
2.2 Local Stakeholder Consultation

Local stakeholder consultation procedure
The stakeholder consultation was conducted by the subsidiary of Muyuan Foods Co., Ltd.
Stakeholder groups were identified, and they were informed through oral and written means
about the meeting. The invitation letter and meeting notice was sent to participants or publicly
posted 2 weeks before the meeting date.
A Local stakeholder consultation meeting was held on 17th January 2020 in the meeting room
of the subsidiary of project proponent. Total 64 representatives from the involved 18 swine farms
of the project attended the meeting.
Table 2-1 Overview of representatives for stakeholder consultation meeting
District or county from which representative come Amount
Fugou Dist. 15
Luyi Dist. 9
Shangshui Dist. 15
Taikang Dist. 8
Xihua Dist. 9
Xiangcheng Dist. 8
Total 64
During the meeting, a survey was conducted through distributing and collecting responses to
questionnaires. In total, 64 out of 64 questionnaires were returned with a 100% response rate.
Table 2-2 Information of stakeholder attending the meeting
Items Amount of people
Gender Male 38
stakeholders female
26
surveyed
Age <24 24
24-60 40
19
>60 0
Education Junior high school or below 22
Senior high school 37
College or above 5
Occupation Worker 25
Farmer 36
Management personnel 0
Freelancer 3
The detail questions and responses of questionnaires are as follows:

Table 2-3 Feedback of the questionnaires from each project activity instance
Project name: Zhoukou Swine Farm Biogas Recovery Project in Henan
No. Question Answer Amount Percentage
1 Do you know the Very much 60 94%

purpose of this project?
A little 4 6%
Not at all 0 0
2 What's the negative Air pollution 0 0

impacts of the project to
Water pollution 0 0
local environment?
No negative impact 62 97%
I do not know 2 3%
3 Are you satisfied with Satisfied 64 100%

the environmental
Dissatisfied 0 0
protection measures
that the proposed 0 0
Indifferent
project has made?
4 Does the project Yes 64 100%

improve the current
No 0 0
environmental situation
of livestock farm? I do not know 0 0
5 Do you think the project Yes 64 100%

will benefit local
No 0 0
economic
development? I do not know 0 0
6 Does the project create Yes 64 100%

employment
No 0 0
opportunities?
I do not know 0 0
20
7 Do you support the Yes 64 100%

project?
No 0 0
I do not care 0 0
The result of the survey shows local stakeholders believe that the project has positive impacts
on the local environment and economy. All stakeholders expressed their support to the project
and no negative comments have been received. A full list of the filled-in questionnaires is
available from the owner of the project.
2.3 Environmental Impact

EIA reports were prepared by certificated third parties. The project is concluded by the EIA reports
that the construction and implementation of the project is in line with the national industrial
policy and related clean production requirements. The EIA reports also conclude the project site
selection is feasible and the impact of all kinds of pollutants to surrounding environment is
acceptable with appropriate treatment measures, and the project generates economic, social,
and environmental benefits to local development. Therefore, the construction of this project is
feasible from the perspective of environmental protection. The EIA reports for the project have
been approved by local Environment Protection Bureaus. The environmental impacts and
mitigation measures are summarized as follows:
Air pollution
Air pollution caused by the project in construction period is mainly construction dust and exhaust
gas emitted by construction vehicles, excavators, and other machinery. Construction dust is the
most important pollutant. The impact was considered as temporary and minor and would
eliminate after the construction completion. Water spraying and daily strict management would
mitigate the impact.
During operation period, air pollutants are mainly form malodorous gas and biogas produced by
the anaerobic digestion, solid manure composting treatment area and biogas flaring system.
Measures such as the deodorants, sealed management and greening were adopted, and the
biogas generated is collection and utilized and destroyed. The project is concluded to meet the
requirements set out in related standards.
Noise
During the construction period the main noise are mainly mechanical noise, construction
operation noise and construction vehicle noise. Measures such as adoption of low -noise
mechanical equipment, optimized arrangement of noise equipment and work time etc. was take
to mitigate the impact. During the operation of this project, the noise is mainly the sound of pigs,
air compressors, and cooling of pig houses etc. After taking the appropriate measures, the noise
can be attenuated by about 15~25dB(A), and then after a certain distance attenuation, the field
21
boundary noise is predicted to meet the requirements of Class 2, incidental standard of the
"Industrial Enterprise Boundary Environmental Noise Emission Standard" (GB12348 2008).
Wastewater
Wastewater generated during the construction period mainly include construction wastewater
generated by construction and domestic sewage of construction personnel. During the
construction period, dry toilets were built, and domestic sewage and manure in the construction
area were treated by dry toilets and used in the surrounding farmland. Besides, measures to
mitigate the pollution such as waster save, reuse for mixing cement and sprinkling water and
dust suppression at the construction site after simple precipitation etc. were taken.
Wastewater generated in operation were treated through treatment station of solid-liquid

separation and anaerobic digestion tank with Impermeable layers, and temporarily stored in the
anaerobic digestion tank and used as liquid fertilization in the surrounding farmland.
After the appropriate measures, impact of the wastewater from the project is considered as minor.
Solid waste
The solid wastes generated during the construction period are mainly excavated earth,
construction waste and domestic waste. The excavated earthwork of the project can be excavated
and filled in balance, and the construction waste and domestic waste can be regularly sent to
the waste disposal site near the plant site. Therefore, the solid waste during the construction
period will not have a significant impact on the surrounding environment.
During the operation period, all digestate and sludge is used for organic fertiliser production.
After taking t measures, the solid waste is reasonably disposed of, will not cause secondary
pollution to the environment, and the measures are feasible.
Hence, the project has no significant negative impact on the surrounding environment. The
implementation of the project will significantly improve the quality of the local environment by
replacing the traditional uncovered anaerobic lagoons. The project will also reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and utilize biogas for energy generation to reduces the consumption of fossil fuels
and contributes to sustainable development.
2.4 Public Comments

Not applicable before project description is made public available on Verra website.
2.5 AFOLU-Specific Safeguards
Not applicable.
22
3 APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY
3.1 Title and Reference of Methodology
The following methodologies are applied to the project:
ACM0010 "GHG emission reductions from manure management systems (Version 08.0) 5".
The latest version of the following tools are adopted in the PD preparation which are available on
the UNFCCC website 6:
• Tool 02: “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality
(version07.0)”
• Tool 05:” Baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption and
monitoring of electricity generation (Version 3.0)”
• Tool 06:” Project emissions from flaring (Version 4.0)”
• Tool 08: “Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream
(version03.0)”
• Tool 14: “Project and leakage emissions from anaerobic digesters (Version 02.0)”
• Tool 24:” Common practice (Version 03.1)”
3.2 Applicability of Methodology

Justification for the choice of the selected methodology and methodological tool are provided in
the following tables:
Table 3-1 Applicability of methodology

ACM0010 (Version 08.0) "GHG emission reductions from manure management systems"
Applicability Criteria Justification
This methodology applies to project activities that Eligible. The project is designed to install 22 new AWMSs in
include destruction of methane emissions and 22 existing swine farms to treat the animal waste from swine
displacement of a more GHG-intensive service in farms respectively. The project avoids methane emissions in
manure management of livestock farms by the baseline uncovered anaerobic lagoons. Biogas generated
introducing a new animal waste management system in the project is collected for utilization for energy generation.
or a combination of animal waste management
systems that result in less GHG emissions.
This methodology is applicable to manure Eligible. The current open anaerobic lagoons are replaced by
management on livestock farms where the existing the project with 22 greenfield AWMSs. Animal waste collected
5 https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/99QRTE6N5QJEBOV2XP374B25SSIXBB
6 https://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/tools/index.html
23
anaerobic manure treatment system, within the goes through the solid-liquid separation system to separate
project boundary, is replaced by one or a the solid components for aerobic composting to produce
combination of more than one animal waste organic fertilizer. The liquid is treated through anaerobic
management systems (AWMSs) that result in less digestion to generate biogas for utilization. Sludge produced
GHG emissions compared to the existing system. The from anaerobic digestion are treated through aerobic
methodology is also applicable to Greenfield composting together with the solid, the effluent is used for
facilities. agriculture irrigation. The project reduces GHG emission
through avoiding methane emissions from baseline by the
new AWMS installed to the swine farms.
This methodology is applicable to manure The project is eligible as:
management projects under the following conditions: (a) This project introduces 22 sets of new AWMSs to 22
(a) (a) Farms where livestock populations, comprising of existing swine farms of Muyuan Group which is one of the
cattle, buffalo, swine, sheep, goats, and/or poultry, is leading national agricultural enterprises with the largest scale
managed under confined conditions. of swine farming in the country. The farms contain swine
populations, and all the swine is managed under confined
(b) (b) Farms where manure is not discharged into natural
conditions.
water resources (e.g., rivers or estuaries).
(b)The swine manure is dumped into open anaerobic lagoons
(c) (c) In case of anaerobic lagoons treatments systems, and without any discharge into natural water resources.
the depth of the lagoons used for manure (c) The open anaerobic lagoons considered in the baseline
management under the baseline scenario should be scenario are designed for deep storage and used for manure
at least 1 m; management with depth of 3 – 5m.
(d) The annual average ambient temperature at the project
(d) (d) The annual average ambient temperature at the
location is 14.3°C according to EIA reports, higher than 5°C.
site where the anaerobic manure treatment facility in
(e) As per the EIA reports, retention time of manure waste in
the baseline existed is higher than 5°C; the open anaerobic lagoons is no less than 45 days, actually
(e) (e) In the baseline case, the minimum retention time as least 60 days in the baseline scenario practice7.
of manure waste in the anaerobic treatment system is (f) In the project, the anaerobic tanks have non-permeable
greater than one month; layer to prevent any leakage to soil and ground water, and
(f) (f) The AWMS(s) in the project case results in no solid is to produce fertilizer after composting, hence no
leakage of manure waste is possible.
leakage of manure waste into ground water, for
example the lagoon should have a non-permeable
layer at the lagoon bottom.
Table 3-2 Applicability of Tool 02

Tool 02: “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality(version07.0)”
(g) The tool is applicable to all types of proposed project
(h) The project activity is designed to install new AWMS to
activities. However, in some cases, methodologies referring to a group of 22 swine farms to treat the animal waste to
this tool may require adjustments or additional explanations avoid methane emissions generated in the baseline
as per the guidance in the respective methodologies. This uncovered anaerobic lagoons. Alternative scenarios,
could include, inter alia, a listing of relevant alternative barrier analysis, investment analysis and common
scenarios that should be considered in Step 1, any relevant practice analysis is carried out based on Tool 02.
types of barriers other than those presented in this tool and Please refer to section 3.4 and 3.5 of the PD for more
guidance on how common practice should be established. details.
7https://mbd.baidu.com/newspage/data/landingsuper?context=%7B%22nid%22%3A%22news_9639404512015689726%22%
7D&n_type=-1&p_from=-1
24

Tool 05: “Baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption and monitoring of electricity
generation (version 03.0)”
(i) If emissions are calculated for electricity consumption, the tool is only The source of electricity consumption of
applicable if one out of the following three scenarios applies to the the project activity instance falls into
sources of electricity consumption: Scenario A of Tool 05: Electricity
(j) (a) Scenario A: Electricity consumption from the grid. The electricity is consumption from the Central China Power
purchased from the grid only, and either no captive power plant(s) is/are Grid (CCPG).
installed at the site of electricity consumption or, if any captive power
plant exists on site, it is either not operating or it is not physically able to
provide electricity to the electricity consumer;
(k) (b) Scenario B: Electricity consumption from (an) off-grid fossil fuel fired
captive power plant(s). One or more fossil fuel fired captive power plants
are installed at the site of the electricity consumer and supply the
consumer with electricity. The captive power plant(s) is/are not
connected to the electricity grid; or
(l) (c) Scenario C: Electricity consumption from the grid and (a) fossil fuel
fired captive power plant(s). One or more fossil fuel fired captive power
plants operate at the site of the electricity consumer. The captive power
plant(s) can provide electricity to the electricity consumer. The captive
power plant(s) is/are also connected to the electricity grid. Hence, the
electricity consumer can be provided with electricity from the captive
power plant(s) and the grid.
(m) This tool can be referred to in methodologies to provide procedures
(q) to This methodological tool is applied to
monitor amount of electricity generated in the project scenario, only if calculate emission by electricity
one out of the following three project scenarios applies to the recipient consumption in project. So, this criterion is
of the electricity generated: not applicable.
(n) (a) Scenario I: Electricity is supplied to the grid;
(o) (b) Scenario II: Electricity is supplied to consumers / electricity
consuming facilities; or
(p) (c) Scenario III: Electricity is supplied to the grid and
consumers/electricity consuming facilities.
(r) This tool is not applicable in cases where captive renewable (s)
power This methodological tool is applied to
generation technologies are installed to provide electricity in the project calculate project emissions from electricity
activity, in the baseline scenario or to sources of leakage. The tool only consumption supplied by CCPG. Baseline
accounts for CO2 emissions. emissions of captive biogas power
generation system are ignored for
conservativeness. Only CO2 emissions are
accounted in.

Tool 06: “Project emissions from flaring (version04.0)”
25
(t) This tool provides procedures to calculate project Biogas generated in the AWMSs of the project is collected
emissions from flaring of a residual gas. The tool is for energy generation and if there is any excess biogas, it
applicable to enclosed or open flares and project will be flared. One open flaring system is installed in each
swine farm to compose 22 flares in total in the project.
participants should document in the CDM-PDD the type of
flare used in the project activity.
(u) This tool is applicable to the flaring of flammable The residual biogas come from biogenic source of
greenhouse gases where: anaerobic treatment process of manure. As per the EIA
(v) (a) Methane is the component with the highest reports, methane accounts for 50-70% of the biogas,
which is the highest concentration in the flammable
concentration in the flammable residual gas; and
residual gas.
(w) (b) The source of the residual gas is coal mine methane or
a gas from a biogenic source (e.g., biogas, landfill gas or
wastewater treatment gas).
The tool is not applicable to the use of auxiliary fuels and No auxiliary fuels are used by the flaring system. As per
therefore the residual gas must have sufficient flammable the EIA reports, methane which is a flammable gas
gas present to sustain combustion. For the case of an accounts for 50-70% of the biogas. Operating
enclosed flare, there shall be operating specifications specifications were provided by the manufacturer of the
provided by the manufacturer of the flare. flare.

Tool 08: “Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream (version03.0)”
Typical applications of this tool are methodologies where The amount of biogas produced from the anaerobic
the flow and composition of residual or flared gases or digestion collected for utilization and or deduction is
exhaust gases are measured for the determination of monitored. Refer to section 5.2 of the PD for more details.
baseline or project emissions.
Methodologies where CO2 is the particular and only gas of The biogas generated in the anaerobic treatment
interest should continue to adopt material balances as the comprises of CH4, H2S、CO2 etc., therefore this tool is
means of flow determination and may not adopt this tool adopted to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas.
as material balances are the cost-effective way of
monitoring flow of CO2
The underlying methodology should specify: a) Methodological tool” Tool to determine the mass flow of
(a) The gaseous stream the tool should be applied to; a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream” is applied in the
(b) For which greenhouse gases the mass flow should be PD.
determined; b) The mass flow is determined in the monitoring plan of
(c) In which time intervals the flow of the gaseous stream the PD.
should be measured; and c) The flow of the gaseous stream will be measured
(d) Situations where the simplification offered for continuously.
calculating the molecular mass of the gaseous stream d) The gaseous stream is dry, equation (18) and (19) are
(equations (3) or (17) is not valid (such as the gaseous used to calculate the mass flow of greenhouse gas.
stream is predominantly composed of a gas other than
N2).

Tool 14: “Project and leakage emissions from anaerobic digesters (Version 02.0)”
The following sources of project emissions are accounted for The project does not involve any use of fossil fuels and
in this tool: electricity consumed by the project is supplied by the
26
(a) CO2 emissions from consumption of electricity associated grid company. Hence the project considers the emission
with the operation of the anaerobic digester; source of (a), (c) and (d).
(b) CO2 emissions from consumption of fossil fuels associated
with the operation of the anaerobic digester;
(c) CH4 emissions from the digester (emissions during
maintenance of the digester, physical leaks through the roof
and side walls, and release through safety valves due to
excess pressure in the digester); and
(d) CH4 emissions from flaring of biogas.
The following sources of leakage emissions are accounted for In the project, after anaerobic digestion the fermented
in this tool: sludge is treated in aerobic composting system to
(a) CH4 and N2O emission from composting of digestate; produce organic fertilizer. No additional SWDS or
(b) CH4 emissions from the anaerobic decay of digestate storage yard was adopted by the project to store the
disposed in a SWDS or subjected to anaerobic storage, such sludge. Therefore leakage emissions associated with
as in a stabilization pond. the anaerobic digester (𝐿𝐸𝐴𝐷,𝑦) should not be taken into
account for this project.
Emission sources associated with N 2O emissions from Emission sources associated with N 2O emissions from
physical leakages from the digester, transportation of feed physical leakages from the digester, transportation of
material and digestate or any other on-site transportation, feed material and digestate or any other on-site
piped distribution of the biogas, aerobic treatment of liquid transportation, piped distribution of the biogas, aerobic
digestate and land application of the digestate are neglected treatment of liquid digestate and land application of the
because these are minor emission sources or because they digestate are neglected because these are minor
are accounted in the methodologies referring to this tool. emission sources.

Tool 24: Methodological tool: “common practice (version03.1)”
This methodological tool is applicable to project activities "Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and
that apply the methodological tool “Tool for the demonstrate additionality (Version07.0)" is applied to
demonstration and assessment of additionality”, the identify the baseline scenario of the project.
methodological tool “Combined tool to identify the
baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality”, or
baseline and monitoring methodologies that use the
common practice test for the demonstration of
additionality.
In case the applied approved baseline and monitoring The latest version of "Combined tool to identify the
methodology defines approaches for the conduction of baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality" is
the common practice test that are different from those referred by ACM0010 methodology.
described in this methodological tool, the requirements
contained in the methodology shall prevail.
3.3 Project Boundary

As per ACM0010” GHG emission reductions from manure management systems” (version 08.0),
the spatial extent of the project boundary encompasses the site of the AWMS(s), including the
flare or energy and/or heat generation equipment and the power/heat source.
The project boundary considers the GHG emissions that come from AWMS, including the GHG
emissions from the anaerobic digestion tanks, biogas utilization systems, sludge aerobic
27
composting treatment and biogas opened flaring systems in the project. The baseline situation
is shown in Figure 3-1 below.
Baseline scenario
CH4, N 2O CH4, N 2O
Manure from swine farm Uncovered anaerobic lagoon Land application
Figure 3-1 The baseline scenario of the manure treatment in swine farms
The project activity boundary is defined as Figure 3-2 below.
Project boundary
CH4, N 2O, CO2 CH4, N 2O

Aerobic composting
application
CO 2
solid
Manure from Solid-liquid CH4, N 2O, CO2
swine farm separation sludge Energy energy User (swine
liquid generation farm)
biogas Desulfurization biogas
Anaerobic tank
and purification
Open flaring
Electricity effluents system
Local Power Liquid fertilizer

CH4, N 2O
Grid land application
Figure 3-2 The project boundary (All swine farms within the project adopted the same
technology)
As per the paragraph 49 of the applied methodology ACM0010(Version 08.0), leakage covers the
emissions from land application of treated manure as well as the emissions related to anaerobic
digestion in a digester, occurring outside the project boundary. Therefore, leakage should be
calculated as per the requirement of applied methodology.
The greenhouse gases included or excluded from the project boundary are summarized in Table3-
8 below.
28
Table 3-8 Emissions sources included in or excluded from the project boundary
Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation
CO2 emissions from the decomposition of

Emissions CO2 No
organic waste are not accounted
from the
waste CH4 Yes The major source of emissions in the baseline
treatment
processes Direct and indirect N2O emissions are
N 2O Yes
accounted
Excluded for simplification. This is

CO2 No
Emissions conservative.
from
Baseline

electricity CH4 No
conservative
consumption/
generation Excluded for simplification. This is
N 2O No
conservative

CO2 No
conservative.
Emissions
from thermal Excluded for simplification. This is
CH4 No
energy conservative
generation
N 2O No
conservative
Excluded for simplification. This project does

CO2 No
not use thermal energy.
Emissions
from thermal CH4 No
energy use
N 2O No
May be an important emission source. If

CO2 Yes
Emissions electricity is consumed from the grid company
Project
from on-site
CH4 No Excluded for simplification.
electricity use
N 2O No Excluded for simplification.
Direct and indirect N2O emissions are

N 2O Yes
Emissions accounted
from the
CO2 emissions from the decomposition of
waste CO2 No
organic waste are not accounted
treatment
processes The emission from anaerobic digesters and
CH4 Yes
aerobic treatment
29
3.4 Baseline Scenario

Baseline scenario of the project has been identified using the methodological tool 02 “Combined
tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality (Version07.0)” with the
consideration of requirements set out in the applied methodology and possible waste
management options described in 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (Volume 4, Chapter 10, Table 10.17).
The most plausible baseline scenario is identified using the following steps:
Step 0. Demonstration whether the proposed project activity is the first-of-its-kind;
Step 1. Identification of alternative scenarios;
Step 2. Barrier analysis;
Step 3. Investment analysis;
Step 4. Common practice analysis.
Step 0: As per Tool 02“Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate
additionality” (Version07.0), this step is optional. This step is skipped.
Step1: Identification of alternative scenarios
Step 1a: Define alternative scenarios to the project activity
The project is to install 22 sets of AWMS to 22 existing swine farms respectively. Prior to the
project, animal waste was left to decay in uncovered anaerobic lagoons to generate methane
emitting to the atmosphere directly without any recovery or destruction. There is no legal
regulation to mandate animal waste treatment techniques and to capture and/or utilize methane
generated at these lagoons, therefore the continuously use of uncovered anaerobic lagoons is
the most economic and practical method for swine farms to handle the animal waste.
According to methodology, baseline alternatives for managing the manure for the existing
facilities, shall take into consideration, inter alia, the complete set of existing/possible manure
management systems listed in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (Volume 4, Chapter 10, Table 10.17).
The baseline and possible alternatives for the manure management are listed as below Table 3-
9 as provided by 2006 IPCC guidelines:
Table 3-9 Baseline and possible alternatives for manure management listed in 2006 IPCC guidelines
No. IPCC Alternatives Applicability Justification

1 The manure is collected from Not Applicable Swine are bred in confined barns rather than
the pasture/range/paddock pasture/range/paddock, this alternative is excluded.
30
2 Daily spread: Manure Not Applicable Swine farm involved in this project is confined large-scale
removed from confinement with a huge amount of manure and urine production very
and applied to pasture within day. It is impossible to implement the high labor-intensive
24 hours of excretion work to remove manure for daily spread. Therefore, this
option is not economically attractive nor feasible for land
absorption. This alternative is excluded.
3 Solid Storage: The manure is Not Applicable This involves the storage of manure, typically for a period
disposed by solid storage. of several months, in unconfined piles or stacks. It is only
a storage method of manure, not a disposal. Besides,
Swine farm involved in this project is confined large-scale
with a huge amount of manure and urine production very
day. Hence, it is not a potential alternative for baseline
scenario.
4 Dry lot Not Applicable In dry climates animals may be kept on unpaved feedlots
where the manure is allowed to dry until it is periodically
removed. This method is only a storage method of
manure, not a disposal method. Upon removal the manure
may be spread on fields. This system is not applicable to
the conditions of the swine farms involved in the project
as stated above. So, this is excluded.
5 The manure is disposed as Not Applicable This method is only a storage method of manure, not a
liquid/slurry. disposal method. Manure is stored as excreted or with
some minimal addition of water in either tanks or earthen
ponds outside the animal housing. The swine farms as
stated above produce a huge amount of wastes. It is
unrealistic to implement such a task for the farms of the
scale of the project. Therefore, this option faces
significant barrier and is excluded from the baseline
scenario.
6 Uncovered anaerobic lagoon Applicable As per “Technical specification for sanitation treatment of
livestock and poultry manure”, the uncovered anaerobic
lagoon is a kind of harmless treatment of manure. After
being treated in the uncovered anaerobic pond, the liquid
can be used for agricultural irrigation, the solid can be
composted, and the fertilizer can be used by local farmers
for farming. This method meets the requirements of above
regulations. However, these regulations have not yet
imposed any restrictions on GHG emissions. Hence, the
uncovered anaerobic lagoon is a alternatives baseline
scenario.
7 Pit storage below animal Not Applicable This method is only a storage method, not a disposal
confinements, <1 month method. Daily manure quantity produced is too large to
implement pit storage structure under the barns. In
addition, the manure stored in below animal
confinements were removed within 1 month requires a lot
of labor work. so, this scenario is excluded.
Pit storage below animal Not Applicable This method is only a storage method, not a disposal
confinements, >1month method. Daily manure quantity produced is too large to
31
implement pit storage structure under the barns. In

addition, the excreted volume accumulated under the
barns produces enteric fermentation gas which is of high
risk to threaten swine health. Hence, this is excluded.
8 Anaerobic digester Applicable A single anaerobic digester is suitable for manure
（ Anaerobic digester-Aerobic treatment but requires high invest compared to the most
Treatment system） commonly used and economic uncovered anaerobic
lagoon. However, a single anaerobic process cannot meet
the requirements for waste utilization and has to be
followed up with disposal process. A combination of
aerobic and anaerobic processes is necessary.
Combination of anaerobic digester - aerobic treatment
system is considered as one of the most advanced
manure management systems, but to implement such
technology need high invest and the proposed project will
not be invested and constructed without any extra
benefits such as being registered as a VCS project.
9 Burned for fuel Not Applicable The project involves swine manure and urine, it is unlikely
to dry the dung before using as fuel.
10 Cattle and Swine deep Not Applicable This method is only a storage method of manure, not a
Bedding, <1month disposal method. The manure generated is of huge
Cattle and Swine deep Not Applicable amount and this method is not economically feasible for
Bedding, >1month the swine farms of the project scale. In addition, the
concentration of nocuous gas in the bedding is high risk
for swine health if it is not disposed appropriately as well
as the high temperature and humidity. Therefore, this
alternative is excluded.
11 Composting - In-vessel Not Applicable It is suitable to treat solid manure. Manure in this project
is in liquid with large volume of urine and flush water.
Therefore, it is excluded from the possible baseline
scenario.
12 Composting - Static pile Not Applicable It is suitable to treat solid manure. Manure in this project
is in liquid with large volume of urine and flush water.
scenario.
13 Composting - Intensive Not Applicable It is suitable to treat solid manure. Manure in this project
windrow is in liquid with large volume of urine and flush water.
scenario.
14 Composting – Passive Not Applicable It is suitable to treat solid manure and requires a long time
windrow and large place. Manure in this project is of huge amount
and in liquid with large volume of urine and flush water.
scenario.
15 Poultry manure with litter Not Applicable The project is to treat the manure from swine farms, so no
poultry manure produced. This option is excluded.
16 Poultry manure without litter Not Applicable The project is to treat the manure from swine farms, so no
poultry manure produced. This option is excluded.
32
17 Aerobic treatment Applicable The manure contains a large amount of highly

（ Anaerobic digester-Aerobic concentrated organic, which is difficult to be treated by
Treatment system） the aerobic method and does not meet the Chinese
environmental quality standards and pollutant discharge
standards for discharge to water bodies.
Combination of anaerobic digester - aerobic treatment
system is considered as one of the most advanced
manure management systems, but to implement such
technology need high invest and the proposed project will
not be invested and constructed without any extra
benefits such as being registered as a VCS project.
Outcome of Step 1a:
The alternatives to the baseline scenario are identified by the tool 02:” Combined tool to identify
the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality (Version 07.0)”as:
Scenario 6: “The manure is disposed in an uncovered anaerobic lagoon”; and,
Scenario 8 & 17: Anaerobic digester - aerobic treatment i.e., the proposed project activity not
being registered as a VCS project activity.
Step 1b: Consistency with mandatory applicable laws and regulations
Manure from livestock is prohibited to discharge directly into environment without any treatment
as per Regulations on Prevention and Control of Pollution from Livestock and Poultry Farming 8
issued by the State Council in Nov. 2013. However, no specific law or regulation mandating the
livestock farm owners to implement anaerobic digestion, aerobic or other biological treatment
techniques to treat the animal manure in China. According to “Technical specification for
sanitation treatment of livestock and poultry manure 9 ”, uncovered anaerobic lagoon is
considered as a manure treatment method, requiring minimum financial cost and compliance
with laws and regulations. Therefore, it is the most economic and feasible choice for livestock
farm owners to handle the manure. According to “Specifications for the construction of manure
resource utilization facilities for large-scale livestock and poultry farms (for trial
implementation) 10 ”, anaerobic digester, aerobic treatment or other biological treatment
techniques to dispose manure waste are encouraged by the state and not mandatory.
Therefore, the Scenario 6: “The manure is disposed in an uncovered anaerobic lagoon” and
Scenario 8 & 17: Anaerobic Digester-Aerobic Treatment are all Consistency with mandatory laws
and regulations. So, the outcome of Step 1b is unchanged from Step 1a.
Step 2: Barrier analysis
8 http://politics.people.com.cn/n/2013/1126/c1001-23662445.html
9 https://oss.baigongbao.com/2020/12/14/MRyhTKQcWC.pdf
10 http://www.moa.gov.cn/gk/tzgg_1/tfw/201801/t20180111_6134801.htm
33
There are no technology barriers, acceptability barriers and financial barriers that may prevent
these two alternative scenarios to occur. As per Tool 02 Combined tool to identify the baseline
scenario and demonstrate additionality (Version 07.0), go to Step 3 investment analysis.
Step 3: Investment analysis
Undertake investment analysis of all the alternatives that don’t face any barriers, as identified in
Step II. For each alternative, all costs and economic benefits attributable to the waste
management scenario should be illustrated in a transparent and complete manner. According to
“Tools for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” (Version 07.0.0), three options are
provided for investment analysis:
• Option I: simple cost analysis;
• Option II: investment comparison analysis; and,
• Option III: benchmark analysis.
According to the "Tools for the demonstration and assessment of additionality" (Version 07.0.0),
If the project activity and the alternatives identified in above step generate no financial or
economic benefits other than VCS related income, then apply the simple cost analysis (Option I).
The alternatives left after above step are scenario 6: “The manure is disposed in an uncovered
anaerobic lagoon” and scenario 8 & 17: Anaerobic Digester-Aerobic Treatment i.e. the project
activity with and without support from VCS income. No financial or economic benefits other than
VCS related income would be generated in all these three left alternatives therefore, option I
simple cost analysis is adopted.
The cost of the uncovered anaerobic lagoon is limited for building up a simple tank only while the
costs of project activity comprise of the costs of the construction of anaerobic tanks, purchase
and installation of related equipment such as the desulfurization and purification system and
flare system as well as the O&M cost etc. which is significantly higher than the alternative of
uncovered anaerobic lagoon. The rank list for cost comparation is analysed as:
Cost of scenario 6 uncovered anaerobic lagoon < Cost of scenario 8&17 the project activity with
or without VCS
Hence, the proposed project activity is more costly and the uncovered anaerobic lagoon is the
most attractive course of action and is considered as the baseline scenario.
3.5 Additionality
Tool 02 Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality (Version
07.0) is adopted for additionality demonstration. Investment analysis has been conducted in
section 3.4 above. As per Tool 24 Common practice (Version 03.1), Step 4 common practice
analysis is carried out.
34
Step 4: Common practice analysis
The project reduces GHG emission through capturing and utilizing methane generated from the
manure treatment process. According to the Tool 24 “Common practice (Version 03.1)”, The
project belongs to “Methane formation avoidance”. Thus, sub-steps are adopted to take the
common practice analysis.
Sub-step 4a. The proposed CDM project activity(ies) applies measure(s) that are listed in the
definitions section above.
The project belongs to type (D) measure listed in the latest version of the Tool 24 “Common
practice (Version 03.1)”, i.e., Methane formation avoidance (example: use of biomass that would
have been left to decay in a solid waste disposal site resulting in the formation and emission of
methane, for energy generation). As per Tool 24 “Common practice (Version 03.1)”, available on
the UNFCCC website is applied as below:
Sub-step 4a.1: calculate applicable capacity or output range as +/-50% of the total design
capacity or output of the proposed project activity.
In this project 22 swine farms annually have a production of 1,879,900 heads of market swine and
62,000 heads of breeding swine with 288,437.68 tons of manure generated annually, Therefore, the
projects belong to “methane formation avoidance” and can handle manure from 144,218.84 tons
to 432,656.52 tons are included.
Sub-step 4a.2: identify similar projects (both CDM and non-CDM) which fulfill all of the following
conditions:
(a) The projects are located in the applicable geographical area;
The common practice analysis is limited to the provincial level as the provincial government is at
the highest level of local governments. Local regulatory frameworks are generally set by local
governments (e.g., price regulation, investment policy and environment). only the activities in the
same province could be regarded as sharing the same “comparable environment”. Therefore,
Henan province is considered as the geographical area with comparable investment climate and
is selected for geographical boundaries for common practice analysis.
(b) The project applies the same measure as the proposed project activity;
As described above, the project installs new AWMSs to treat the manure from 22 existing swine
farms to avoid methane emissions in the baseline uncovered anaerobic lagoons. And the
measure of the proposed project belongs to “Methane formation avoidance” as per Tool
24“Common practice (version03.1)”.
(c) The projects use the same energy source/fuel and feedstock as the proposed project activity,
if a technology switch measure is implemented by the proposed project activity;
35
The project is to treat the manure from the 22 existing swine farms to avoid methane emissions
in the baseline uncovered anaerobic lagoons through 18 sets of newly built AWMSs. The biogas
captured is used for energy generation for swine farms.
(d) The plants in which the projects are implemented produce goods or services with comparable
quality, properties and applications areas (e.g., clinker) as the proposed project plant;
The project is to treat 288,437.68 tons of animal manure waste annually. If the similar projects
can treat the manure waste should be considered as the comparable service.
(e) The capacity or output of the projects is within the applicable capacity or output range
calculated in Step 1;
Based on the calculation in Sub-step 4a.1, the output/capacity ranges of similar project are that
can handle manure from 144,218.84 tons to 432,656.52 tons annually.
(f) The projects started commercial operation before the project design document (CDM-PDD) is
published for global stakeholder consultation or before the start date of proposed project activity,
whichever is earlier for the proposed project activity.
The similar project stared commercial operation before the start date of the project at 20-Sept-
2021.
Sub-step 4a.3: within the projects identified in Step 2, identify those that are neither registered
CDM project activities, project activities submitted for registration, nor project activities
undergoing validation. Note their number, Nall.
Through searching UNFCC website, CDM website, China CER exchange info-platform, GS website,
VCS website, local DRC of Henan website11 and Department of Agriculture and rural affairs of
Henan Province12, there are no similar projects, therefore N all=0.
Sub-step 4a.4: within similar projects identified in Step 3, identify those that apply technologies
different that the technology applied in the proposed project activity. Note their number N diff .
Ndiff=0
Sub-step 4a.5: calculate factor F=1-Ndiff/Nall representing the share of similar projects
(penetration rate of the measure/technology) using a measure/technology similar to the
measure/technology used in the proposed project activity that deliver the same output or
capacity as the proposed project activity.
According to the analysis above, N all= Ndiff =0, and the factor F=1-Ndiff/Nall=1-1 =0< 0.2. Therefore,
the result of common practice assessment is: N all -Ndiff =0 < 3 Therefore, the proposed activity is
not a common practice in the region.
11 https://fgw.henan.gov.cn/
12 https://nynct.henan.gov.cn/
36
Conclusion of the assessment and demonstration of additionality
To summarize, “the Project is undertaken without being registered as a VCS project activity” is
not financially attractive to investors, thus it is not feasible. Being registered as a VCS project, the
VCUs revenues can alleviate the identified barriers, therefore the proposed project is additional.
3.6 Methodology Deviations

No methodology deviation is applied for the project.
4 QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSION

REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS
4.1 Baseline Emissions
The baseline is the AWMS identified through the baseline selection procedure in Section 3.4 of
this PD. As per paragraph 26 of the applied methodology,
Baseline emissions are calculated as:

BEy = BECH4,y + BEN2O,y + BEelec⁄heat,y (Equation 1)
where:
BEy Baseline emissions in year y (t CO 2/yr)
BECH4, y Baseline CH4 emissions in year y (t CO2/yr)
BEN2O, y Baseline N2O emissions in year y (t CO2/yr)
BEelec/heat,y Baseline CO2 emissions from electricity and/or heat used in the baseline (t CO 2/yr)
i) Baseline CH4 emissions (BECH4, y)

BECH4,y = GWPCH4 ∗ DCH4 ∗ ∑j,LT(MCFj ∗ B0,LT ∗ NLT ∗ VSLT,y ∗ MS%Bl,j ) (Equation 2)
where:
1) BECH4, y2) Baseline CH4 emissions in year y (t CO2/yr)
3) GWPCH4 Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 (t CO2e/t CH4 )
4) DCH4 Density of CH4 (t/m3). 0.00067t/m3 at room temperature (20℃) and 1am pressure.
5) MCFj Annual methane conversion factor (MCF) for the baseline AWMSj. IPCC 2006 Guidelines,
table 10.17, chapter 10, volume 4.
6) B0,LT Maximum methane producing potential of the volatile solid generated by animal type LT
(m3CH4 /kg -dm)
7) NLT 8) Annual average number of animals of type LT for the year y (number)
37
9) VSLT,y Annual volatile solid excretions for livestock LT entering all AWMS on a dry matter weight
basis (kg -dm/animal/yr)
10) MS%Bl,j Fraction of manure handled in system j in the baseline. In this project, the baseline manure
management system is uncovered anaerobic lagoon only. The amount of manure handled by
the anaerobic lagoon is 100%. MS%Bl,j =100%
11) LT Type of livestock
12) j Type of treatment system
Estimation of various variables and parameters for above equations:
(A) VSLT,y shall be determined in one of the following ways, presented in the order of preference.
Option 1:
Using published country specific data. If the data is expressed in kilogram volatile solid excretion
per day on a dry-matter basis (kg -dm per day), multiply the value with nd y (number of days
treatment plant was operational in year y).
Option 2:
Estimation of VS LT,y based on dietary intake of livestock:
𝐷𝐸𝐿𝑇 1−𝐴𝑆𝐻
𝑉𝑆𝐿𝑇,𝑦 = [𝐺𝐸𝐿𝑇 ∗ (1 − ) + (𝑈𝐸 ∗ 𝐺𝐸𝐿𝑇 )] ∗ [( )] ∗ 𝑛𝑑𝑦 (Equation 3)
100 𝐸𝐷𝐿𝑇
where:
Annual volatile solid excretions for livestock LT entering all AWMS on a dry matter weight basis
VSLT,y
(kg -dm/animal/yr)
GELT Daily average gross energy intake (MJ/animal/day)
DELT Digestible energy of the feed (per cent)
UE Urinary energy (fraction of GELT)
ASH Ash content of manure (fraction of the dry matter feed intake)
EDLT Energy density of the feed fed to livestock type LT (MJ/kg -dm)
ndy Number of days treatment plant was operational in year y
Option 3:
Scaling default IPCC values VSdefault to adjust for a site-specific average animal weight as shown
in equation below:
𝑊𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒
𝑉𝑆𝐿𝑇,𝑦 = (𝑊 ) ∗ 𝑉𝑆𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡 ∗ 𝑛𝑑𝑦 (Equation 4)
𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡
where:
VSLT,y Annual volatile solid excretions for livestock LT entering all AWMS on a dry matter weight basis
(kg -dm/animal/yr)
Wsite Average animal weight of a defined livestock population at the project site (kg)
Wdefault Default average animal weight of a defined population (kg)
VSdefault Default value for the volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-matter basis for a defined livestock
population (kg-dm/animal/day)
38
Option 4:
Utilizing published IPCC defaults for VS LT,y (IPCC 2006 guidelines, volume 4, chapter 10), multiply
the value by nd y (number of days in year y).
Developed countries VS LT,y values may be used provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a)The genetic source of the production operations livestock originates from an Annex I Party;
(b)The farm use formulated feed rations (FFR) which are optimized for the various animal(s),
stage of growth, category, weight gain/productivity and/or genetics;
(c) The use of FFR can be validated (through on-farm record keeping, feed supplier, etc.); and
(d) The project specific animal weights are more similar to developed country IPCC default values.
There is no published country specific data available, so Option 1 cannot be used. The energy
intake of the swine is not available, so Option 2 is not available as well. Option 3 utilizes the
average weight of the swine, this data is available and therefore Option 3 is adopted to calculate
VSLT,y.
(B)Annual average number of animals of type LT (N LT) shall be determined in one of the following
ways, presented in order of preference
Option 1:
𝑁𝑝,𝐿𝑇
𝑁𝐿𝑇 = 𝑁𝑑𝑎,𝐿𝑇 ∗ ( 365 ) (Equation 5)
where:
NLT Annual average number of animals of type LT for the year y (number)
Nda,LT Number of days animal of type LT is alive in the farm in the year y (number)
Np,LT Number of animals of type LT produced annually for the year y (number)
Option 2:
If the project developer can monitor the daily stock of animals in the farm by a reliable and
traceable way, discounting dead animals and animals discarded from the productive process
from the daily stock, then the annual average number of animals (N LT) may be calculated as
follows:
∑365
1 𝑁𝐴𝐴,𝐿𝑇
𝑁𝐿𝑇 = (Equation 6)
365
where:
NLT Annual average number of animals of type LT for the year y (number)
NAA,LT Daily stock of animals of type LT in the farm, discounting dead and discarded animals (number)
There are two types of swine in this project, i.e., market swine and breeding swine. For market
swine, since there is no way to trace the daily stock, so the Option 1 is adopted to calculate N LT
39
for market swine. For breeding swine, the PP can monitor the daily stock of breeding swine in a
reliable way, discounting dead breeding swine and discarded them from the productive process
from the daily stock. So, the Option 2 is adopted to calculate N LT for breeding swine.
(C) Maximum methane producing potential(B 0,LT)
According to applied methodology ACM0010(Version 08.0), this value varies by species and diet.
Default values are used, and they are taken from tables 10A-4 through 10A-9 (IPCC 2006
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories volume 4, chapter10).
The project is located in Henan Province, China. According to Table 10A-7 and 10A-8 of IPCC
2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories volume 4, chapter10, the maximum
methane producing potential(B 0,LT) for market swine and breeding swine in Asia region is 0.29
m3 CH4/kg VS.
(D) Annual methane conversion factor (MCF) for the baseline AWMS j
(a)The MCFj values given in table 10.17, chapter 10, volume 4, IPCC 2006 Guidelines should be
used. MCFj values depend on the annual average temperature where the anaerobic manure
treatment facility in the baseline existed. For this project, the annual average temperature is 14.3℃
and the value of 73% is applied.
(b)A conservativeness factor should be applied by multiplying MCF values (estimated as per
above bullet) with a value of 0.94, to account for the 20% uncertainty in the MCFj values as
reported by IPCC 2006.
ii)Baseline N 2O emissions (BEN2O,y)

1
BEN2O,y = GWPN2O ∗ CFN2O−N,N ∗ 1000 ∗ （EN2O,D,y + EN2O,ID,y ） (Equation 7)
where：
BEN2O,y Annual baseline N2O emissions in (t CO2e/yr)
GWPN2O Global Warming Potential (GWP) for N2O (t CO2e/tN2O)
CFN2O-N,N Conversion factor N2O-N to N2O (44/28)
EN2O,D,y Direct N2O emission in year y (kg N2O-N/year)
EN2O,ID,y Indirect N2O emission in year y (kg N2O-N/year)
EN2O,D,y = ∑j,LT EFN2O,D,j ∗ NEXLT,y ∗ NLT ∗ MS%Bl,j (Equation 8)
where：
EN2O,D,y Direct N2O emission in year y (kg N2O-N/yr)
EFN2O,D,j Direct N2O emission factor for the treatment system j of the manure management system (kg N2O-
N/kg N). (Estimated with site-specific, regional or national data if such data is available, otherwise
use default EF3 from table 10.21, chapter 10, volume 4, in the IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories). The site-specific, regional or national data are not available, so this
project activity adopts default EF3.
40
NEXLT,y Annual average nitrogen excretion per head of a defined livestock population (kg N/animal/yr)
estimated as described in appendix 2
MS%Bl,j Fraction of manure handled in system j (fraction)
NLT Annual Average number of animals of type LT for the year y estimated as per equation (5) or (6)
(number)
𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝐼𝐷,𝑦 = ∑j,LT EFN2O,ID ∗ FgasMS,j,LT ∗ NEXLT,y ∗ NLT ∗ MS%Bl,j (Equation 9)
where:
EFN2O,ID Indirect N2O emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of nitrogen on soils
and water surfaces (kgN2O-N/kg NH3-N and NOX-N). (Estimated with site-specific, regional or
national data if such data is available. Otherwise, default values for EF4 from table 11.3, chapter
11, volume 4 of IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories can be used). The
site-specific, regional or national data are not available, so this project activity adopts default EF4.
MS%Bl,j Fraction of manure handled in system j (fraction)
FgasMS,j,LT Default values for nitrogen loss due to volatilisation of NH3 and NOX from manure management
(fraction)
(number)
(A)Procedure for estimating NEXLT,y
Option 1:
𝑁𝐸𝑋𝐿𝑇,𝑦 = 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 ∗ (1 − 𝑁𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ) ∗ 𝑛𝑑𝑦 (Equation 10)
where:
Nintake Daily N intake per animal (kg N/animal/yr)
Nretention Portion of that N intake that is retained in the animal (kg N retained/animal/yr)
Nintake may be calculated using:

𝐺𝐸 𝐶𝑃⁄100
𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 = (18.45) ∗ ( 6.25
) (Equation 11)
where:
CP Crude per cent of protein (per cent)
GE Gross energy intake of the animal (MJ/animal/day-)
18.45 Conversion factor for dietary GE per kg of dry matter (MJ/kg). This value is relatively constant
across a wide range of forage and grain-based feeds commonly consumed by livestock
41
6.25 Conversion from kg of dietary protein to kg of dietary N, kg feed protein (kg N) -1
Option 2:
In the absence of availability of project specific information on protein intake, which should be
justified in the “CDM-PDD”, national or regional data should be used for the nitrogen excretion
NEXLT,y, if available. In the absence of such data, default values from table 10.19 of the IPCC
2006, volume 4, chapter 10 may be used and should be corrected for the animal weight at the
project site in the following way:
𝑊𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒
𝑁𝐸𝑋𝐿𝑇,𝑦 = ∗ 𝑁𝐸𝑋𝐼𝑃𝐶𝐶 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡 (Equation 12)
𝑊𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡
where:
NEXLT,y Annual average nitrogen excretion per head of a defined livestock population (kg
N/animal/yr)
Wsite Average animal weight of a defined livestock population at the project site (kg)
Wdefault Default average animal weight of a defined population (kg)
NEX IPCC default Default value for the nitrogen excretion per head of a defined livestock population (kg
N/animal/year)
𝑇𝐴𝑀
𝑁𝐸𝑋𝐼𝑃𝐶𝐶 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑁𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒(𝑇) ∗ 1000 ∗ 36513 (Equation 13)
where:
Nrate(T) the default N excretion rate, kg N/ (1000 kg animal mass)/ day, table 10.19, chapter 10, volume 4
of IPCC 2006 Guidelines
TAM Typical animal mass for livestock in kg/animal
For this project, neither specific information on portion of that N intake nor site-specific national
or regional data is available. So, the Option 2 is adopted to calculate NEX LT,y.
iii) Baseline CO2 emission from electricity and/or heat used in the baseline
BEelec⁄heat,y = BEEC,y + BEHG,y (Equation 14)
where:
BEelec/heat,y Baseline CO2 emissions from electricity and/or heat used in the baseline (t CO2/yr)
BEEC,y Baseline emissions associated with electricity generation in year y (t CO2/yr)
BEHG,y Baseline emissions associated with heat generation in year y (t CO2/yr)
The baseline scenario of this project is uncovered anaerobic lagoon. The biogas generated during
the treatment process in this project is captured for energy generation for swine farms. So, the
baseline CO 2 emission from electricity and/or heat used in the baseline is taken as 0, this is
conservative.
13 This formula refers to the formula 10.30 in chapter 10 volume IPCC2006.
42
4.2 Project Emissions

There are 2 stages are involved in the manure treatment for the project activity: (1) anaerobic
digester; (2) aerobic composting.
Project emissions are estimated as follows:

𝑃𝐸𝑦 = 𝑃𝐸𝐴𝐷,𝑦 + 𝑃𝐸𝐴𝑒𝑟,𝑦 + 𝑃𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑦 + 𝑃𝐸𝐸𝐶 ⁄𝐹𝐶,𝑦 (Equation 15)
where：
PEy Project emissions in year y
PEAD,y Project emissions associated with the anaerobic digester in year y (t CO 2e/yr)
PEAer,y Project CH4 emissions from aerobic AWMS treatment (t CO2e/yr)
PEN2O,y Project N2O emissions in year y (t CO2/yr)
PEEC/FC,y Project emissions from electricity consumption and fossil fuel combustion (t CO 2e/yr)
i) Project emissions associated with the anaerobic digester in year y (PEAD,y)
Based on the methodology ACM0010” GHG emission reductions from manure management
systems (Version 08.0)”. PEAD,y is determined using the methodological tool 14 “Project and
leakage emissions from anaerobic digesters”.
According to the TOOL14” Project and leakage emissions from anaerobic digesters (Version
02.0)”, the project emissions associated with the anaerobic digester (PE AD,y) are determined as
follows:
𝑃𝐸𝐴𝐷,𝑦 = 𝑃𝐸𝐸𝐶,𝑦 + 𝑃𝐸𝐹𝐶,𝑦 + 𝑃𝐸𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 + 𝑃𝐸𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑒,𝑦 (Equation 16)
where:
PEAD,y Project emissions associated with the anaerobic digester in year y (t CO 2e)
Project emissions from electricity consumption associated with the anaerobic digester in year y (t
PEEC,y
CO2e)
Project emissions from fossil fuel consumption associated with the anaerobic digester in year y (t
PEFC,y
CO2e)
PECH4, y Project emissions of methane from the anaerobic digester in year y (t CO 2e)
PEflare,y Project emissions from flaring of biogas in year y (t CO2e)
Since electricity consumption of the anaerobic digestion system cannot be measured separately
from the entire AWMS, so the project emissions from electricity consumption associated with the
anaerobic digester and that is not related to the anaerobic digester will be calculated together.
The project emissions from electricity consumption calculated according to the tool 05 “Baseline,
project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption and monitoring of electricity
generation”,
𝑃𝐸𝐸𝐶,𝑦 = ∑j,LT 𝐸𝐶PJ,J,y ∗ EFEF,j,y ∗ (1 + TDLj,y ) (Equation 17)
Where：
PEEC,y Project emissions from electricity consumption in year y (t CO 2e)
43
EGPJ,J,y Quantity of electricity consumed by the project electricity consumption source j in year y (MWh/yr)
EFEF,j, y Emission factor for electricity generation for source j in year y (t CO2/MWh)
TDLj,y Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing electricity to source j in year y
As biogas is produced during the anaerobic treatment of the project, and the biogas is collected
for energy generation to the swine farm. Power consumption by the AWMS is assumed to be 0.
i.e., the 𝑃𝐸𝐸𝐶,𝑦 = 0 in pre-calculation·During the monitoring period, the actual electricity
consumption from the region grid of the AWMS is calculated according to the actual electricity
settlement with the grid company.
The anaerobic digestion process of this project does not involve the use of fossil fuels, so the
project emissions from fossil fuel consumption associated with the anaerobic digester is 0, i.e.,
PEFC,y=0.
In case, there is residual gas stream which will be flared by flaring and the project emissions from
flaring of biogas (PEflare,y) shall be estimated using the tool 06 “ Project emissions from
flaring”(version 04.0).
The calculation procedure in this tool determines the project emissions from flaring the residual
gas (PEflare,y) based on the flare efficiency (ηflare,m) and the mass flow of methane to the flare
(FCH4,RG,m). The flare efficiency is determined for each minute m of year y based either on
monitored data or default values.
The calculation procedure of project emissions from flaring is given in the following steps:
STEP 1: Determination of the methane mass flow of the residual gas;
STEP 2: Determination of the flare efficiency;
STEP 3: Calculation of project emissions from flaring.
Step 1: Determination of the methane mass flow in the residual gas
The tool 08 “Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream” shall
be used to determine the following parameter FCH4,m :
The following requirements apply:
(a) The gaseous stream to which the tool is applied is the residual biogas for flaring;
(b) The flow of the gaseous stream shall be measured continuously;
(c) CH4 is the greenhouse gas i for which the mass flow should be determined;
(d) The simplification offered for calculating the molecular mass of the gaseous stream is valid
(equations 3 and 17 in the tool); and
(e) The time interval t for which mass flow should be calculated is every minute m.
44
FCH4,m , which is measured as the mass flow during minute m, shall then be used to determine
the mass of methane in kilograms fed to the flare in minute m (FCH4,RG,m). FCH4,m shall be
determined on a dry basis.
Therefore, option A is adopted to calculate the mass flow of the residual biogas for flaring as per
Too 08 “Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream”
As per paragraph 23 of Tool 8:” Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous
stream (version 03.0)”, the way to prove that the gaseous stream is dry needs to demonstrate that
the temperature of the gaseous stream (Tt) is less than 60º
C (333.15 K) at the flow measurement
point. For this project, the flowmeters installed in the outlet of the anaerobic tanks and the
temperature of the anaerobic treatment unit of this project is designed as medium temperature,
and the optimal temperature range is 35 ~ 38 º
C. Therefore, the gas temperature measured by the
flowmeter does not exceed 60 º
C, it can be demonstrated that the gaseous stream is dry.
The mass flow of greenhouse gas i (Fi,t) is determined as follows:

𝐹𝑖,𝑡 = 𝑉𝑡,𝑑𝑏 ∗ 𝜐𝑖,𝑡,𝑑𝑏 ∗ 𝜌𝑖,𝑡 (Equation 18)
𝑃𝑡 ∗𝑀𝑀𝑖
𝜌𝑖,𝑡 = (Equation 19)
𝑅𝑢 ∗𝑇𝑡
where:
Fi,t Mass flow of greenhouse gas i in the gaseous stream in time interval t (kg gas/h)
Vt,db Volumetric flow of the gaseous stream in time interval t on a dry basis (m³dry gas/h)
𝜐𝑖,𝑡,𝑑𝑏 Volumetric fraction of greenhouse gas i in the gaseous stream in a time interval t on a dry
basis (m³gas i/m³dry gas)
𝜌𝑖,𝑡 Density of greenhouse gas i in the gaseous stream in time interval t (kg gas i/m³gas i)
Pt Absolute pressure of the gaseous stream in time interval t (Pa)
MMi Molecular mass of greenhouse gas i (kg/kmol)
Ru Universal ideal gases constant (Pa.m3/kmol.K)
Tt Temperature of the gaseous stream in time interval t (K)
Step 2: Determination of flare efficiency
The flare efficiency depends on the efficiency of combustion in the flare and the time that the
flare is operating. For determining the efficiency of combustion of enclosed flares there is the
option to apply a default value or determine the efficiency based on monitored data. For open
flares a default value must be applied. The time the flare is operating is determined by monitoring
the flame using a flame detector and, for the case of enclosed flares, in addition the monitoring
requirements provided by the manufacturer’s specifications for operating conditions shall be met.
The flares in this project belongs to open flares. According to Tool 06 paragraph 18: in the case
of open flares, the flare efficiency in the minute m (η flare,m ) is 50% when the flame is detected in
the minute m (Flamem), otherwise ηflare,m is 0%.
Since the flame is not detected in the minute, therefore, fixed value of 0% for the flare efficiency
45
will be applied for this project, and this is for conservative.
Step 3: Calculation of project emissions from flaring
Project emissions from flaring are calculated as the sum of emissions for each minute m in year
y, based on the methane mass flow in the residual gas (FCH4,RG,m) and the flare efficiency (η flare,m),
as follows:
𝑃𝐸𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑒,𝑦 = 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 ∗ ∑525600
𝑚=1 𝐹𝐶𝐻4,𝐺𝑅,𝑚 ∗ (1 − 𝜂𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑒,𝑚 ) ∗ 10
−3
(Equation 20)
Where:
PEflare,y Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas in year y (tCO2e)
GWPCH4 Global warming potential of methane valid for the commitment period (tCO 2e/tCH4)
FCH4,RG,m Mass flow of methane in the residual gas in the minute m (kg)
ηflare,m Flare efficiency in minute m
As described above, FCH4,RG,m will be determined according to equation 18 and 19, so the Project
emissions from flaring can be calculated by:
𝑃𝐸𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑒,𝑦 = 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 ∗ 𝑉𝑡,𝑑𝑏 ∗ 𝜐𝑖,𝑡,𝑑𝑏 ∗ 𝜌𝑖,𝑡 ∗ (1 − 𝜂𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑒,𝑚 ) ∗ 10−3 (Equation 21)
Where:
Vt,db Volumetric flow of the residual gas for flaring in time interval t on a dry basis (m³dry gas/h)
𝜐𝑖,𝑡,𝑑𝑏 Volumetric fraction of greenhouse gas i in the gaseous stream for flaring in a time interval t on a dry
basis (m³gas i/m³dry gas)
Since the gaseous stream will be distributed though the same pipeline, and the temperature and
pressure of gaseous stream can be stable. Therefore the 𝜐𝑖,𝑡,𝑑𝑏 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜌𝑖,𝑡 of residual gas will be
same with the biogas produced in the anaerobic digester.
As per EIA reports, there are 5,372,571.05 m3 biogas which generated in the AWMS will be
utilized for energy generation, only when the energy generation system malfunctions or is in
maintenance or if there is any excess biogas will be flared, so the value 0 is used as flared biogas
volume for pre-calculation of emission reductions. While in the monitoring period, the project
emissions from flaring of biogas will be calculated according to the actual flaring mass flow of
methane.
Determination of project emissions of methane from the anaerobic digester (PE CH4,y)
PECH4,y was determined following the step 4 of the applied tool “Project and leakage emissions
from anaerobic digesters(Version 02.0)”.Project emissions of methane from the anaerobic
digester include emissions during maintenance of the digester, physical leaks through the roof
and side walls, and release through safety valves due to excess pressure in the digester. These
emissions are calculated using a default emission factor (𝐸𝐹𝐶𝐻4, 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡), as follows:
46
𝑃𝐸𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 = 𝑄𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 ∗ 𝐸𝐹𝐶𝐻4,𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡 ∗ 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐶𝐻4 (Equation 22)

where:
PECH4, y Project emissions of methane from the anaerobic digester in year y (t CO 2e)
QCH4,y Quantity of methane produced in the anaerobic digester in year y (t CH4)
EFCH4,default Default emission factor for the fraction of CH4 produced that leak from the anaerobic digester (fraction)
GWPCH4 Global warming potential of CH4 (t CO2 / t CH4)

(A) Quantity of methane produced in the anaerobic digester QCH4,y
According to the TOOL14” Project and leakage emissions from anaerobic digesters (Version
02.0)”. There are two different procedures to determine the quantity of methane produced in
the digester in year y (𝑄𝐶𝐻4,𝑦). For large scale projects defined by CDM only Option 1 shall be
used. For small scale projects defined by CDM, project participants may choose between Option
1 or Option 2. The proposed project belongs to large scale projects defined by CDM, so Q CH4,y
was determined following step 1 and Option 1 of the applied tool. Below is the formula used
for the calculation of QCH4,y.
Option1: Procedure using monitored data
𝑄𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 shall be measured using the “Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a
gaseous stream”. When applying the tool, the following applies:
(a) The gaseous stream to which the tool is applied is the biogas collected from the digester.
(b) CH4 is the greenhouse gas i for which the mass flow should be determined; and
(c) The flow of the gaseous stream should be measured on an hourly basis or a smaller time
interval; and then accumulated for the year y. Please note that units need to be converted to
tons, when applying the results in this tool.
The biogas is produced and collected from anaerobic digestion process. The flowmeters are
installed at the outlet of the biogas digesters and the measured on an hourly basis time interval.
So the quantity of methane produced in the digester in year y (𝑄𝐶𝐻4,𝑦) is the accumulation of
the mass flow of methane in the gaseous stream in an hourly basis time interval. i.e., Q CH4,y
=∑8760
𝑖=1 𝐹𝑖,𝑡 .
The mass flow of greenhouse gas i (Fi,t) is determined as follows:

𝐹𝑖,𝑡 = 𝑉𝑡,𝑑𝑏 ∗ 𝜐𝑖,𝑡,𝑑𝑏 ∗ 𝜌𝑖,𝑡 (Equation 23)
𝑃𝑡 ∗𝑀𝑀𝑖
𝜌𝑖,𝑡 = 𝑅𝑢 ∗𝑇𝑡
(Equation 24)
where:
47
Fi,t Mass flow of greenhouse gas i in the gaseous stream in time interval t (kg gas/h)
Vt,db Volumetric flow of the gaseous stream in time interval t on a dry basis (m³dry gas/h)
𝜐𝑖,𝑡,𝑑𝑏 Volumetric fraction of greenhouse gas i in the gaseous stream in a time interval t on a dry basis (m³gas
i/m³dry gas)
Pt Absolute pressure of the gaseous stream in time interval t (Pa)
MMi Molecular mass of greenhouse gas i (kg/kmol)
Ru Universal ideal gases constant (Pa.m3/kmol.K)
Tt Temperature of the gaseous stream in time interval t (K)
In summary, the project emissions associated with the anaerobic digester in year y (t CO 2e) is the
sum of the project emissions of methane from the anaerobic digester in year y (t CO2e), the
project emissions from electricity consumption associated with the anaerobic digester (if any)
and that is not related to the anaerobic digester and the project emission from flaring the biogas
(if any). i.e., PEAD,y= PECH4, y+ PEEC,y+ PEflare,y.
ii) Project CH4 emissions from aerobic AWMS treatment (PEAer, y)
IPCC guidelines specify emissions from aerobic lagoons as 0.1 per cent of total methane
generating potential of the waste processed, which can be used as a default for all types of
aerobic AWMS treatment.
𝑃𝐸𝐴𝑒𝑟,𝑦 = 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐶𝐻4 ∗ 𝐷𝐶𝐻4 ∗ 0.001 ∗ 𝐹𝐴𝑒𝑟 ∗ [∏𝑁
𝑛=1(1 − 𝑅𝑉𝑆,𝑛 )] ∗ ∑𝑗,𝐿𝑇(𝐵0,𝐿𝑇 ∗ 𝑁𝐿𝑇 ∗ 𝑉𝑆𝐿𝑇,𝑦 ∗ 𝑀𝑆%𝑗 ) + 𝑃𝐸𝑠𝑙,𝑦
(Equation 25)
where:
GWPCH4 Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 (t CO2e/tCH4)
RVS,n Fraction of volatile solid degraded in AWMS treatment method n of the N treatment steps prior to
waste being treated (fraction)
DCH4 Density of CH4 (t/m3)
FAer Fraction of volatile solid directed to aerobic system (fraction)
LT Type of livestock
Bo,LT Maximum methane producing potential of the volatile solid generated by animal type LT
(m3CH4/kg dm)
VSLT,y Annual volatile solid excretion livestock type LT entering all AWMS on a dry matter weight basis in
(kg -dm/animal/yr)
NLT Annual average number of animals of type LT for the year y (number) as estimated in equation (5)
or (6)
PEsl,y Project CH4 emissions from sludge disposed of in storage pit prior to disposal during the year y (t
CO2e/yr)
MS%j Fraction of manure handled in system j in the project activity (fraction)
All sludge produced from the aerobic composting will be used for land application, which is
calculated as leakage emission, so the PE sl,y=0. So,
𝑃𝐸𝐴𝑒𝑟,𝑦 = 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐶𝐻4 ∗ 𝐷𝐶𝐻4 ∗ 0.001 ∗ 𝐹𝐴𝑒𝑟 ∗ [∏𝑁
𝑛=1(1 − 𝑅𝑉𝑆,𝑛 )] ∗ ∑𝑗,𝐿𝑇(𝐵0,𝐿𝑇 ∗ 𝑁𝐿𝑇 ∗ 𝑉𝑆𝐿𝑇,𝑦 ∗ 𝑀𝑆%𝑗 )
48
(Equation 26)
where:
RVS,n Fraction of volatile solid degraded in AWMS treatment method n of the N treatment steps prior
to waste being treated (fraction)
FAer Fraction of volatile solid directed to aerobic system (fraction)
LT Type of livestock
Bo,LT Maximum methane producing potential of the volatile solid generated by animal type LT
(m3CH4/kg dm)
VSLT,y Annual volatile solid excretion livestock type LT entering all AWMS on a dry matter weight basis
in (kg -dm/animal/yr)
NLT Annual average number of animals of type LT for the year y (number) as estimated in equation
(5) or (6)
iii) Project N 2O emissions in year y (PEN2O,y)

1
𝑃𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑦 = 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝑁2𝑂 ∗ 𝐶𝐹𝑁2𝑂−𝑁,𝑁 ∗ 1000 ∗ (𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝐷,𝑦 + 𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝐼𝐷,𝑦 ) (Equation 27)
where:
PEN2O,y Project N2O emissions in year y (t CO2/yr)
EN2O,D,y Direct N2O emission in year y (kg N2O-N/year)
Option1:
𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝐷,𝑦 = ∑𝑗,𝐿𝑇 𝐸𝐹𝑁2𝑂,𝐷,𝑗 ∗ 𝑁𝐸𝑋𝐿𝑇,𝑦 ∗ 𝑁𝐿𝑇 ∗ 𝑀𝑆%𝑗 (Equation 28)
where：
EFN2O,D,j Direct N2O emission factor for the treatment system j of the manure management system (kg N2O-
N/kg N)
MS%j Fraction of manure handled in system j (fraction)
(number)
𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝐼𝐷,𝑦 = ∑j,LT EFN2O,ID ∗ FgasMS,j,LT ∗ NEXLT,y ∗ NLT ∗ MS%j (Equation 29)
where:
49

EFN2O,ID Indirect N2O emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of nitrogen on soils and
water surfaces (kgN2O-N/kg NH3-N and NOX-N)
MS%j Fraction of manure handled in system j (fraction)
FgasMS,j,LT Default values for nitrogen loss due to volatilization of NH3 and NOX from manure management
(fraction)
(number)
Option2:
𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝐷,𝑦 = ∑𝑗 𝐸𝐹𝑁2𝑂,𝐷,𝑗 ∗ ∑12
𝑚=1(𝑄𝐸𝑀,𝑚 ∗ [𝑁]𝐸𝑀,𝑚 ) (Equation 30)
𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝐼𝐷,𝑦 = 𝐸𝐹𝑁2𝑂,𝐼𝐷 ∗ ∑𝑗,𝐿𝑇 𝐹𝑔𝑎𝑠𝑀𝑆,𝑗,𝐿𝑇 ∗ ∑12
𝑚=1(𝑄𝐸𝑀,𝑚 ∗ [𝑁]𝐸𝑀,𝑚 ) (Equation 31)
where:
EFN2O,D,j Direct N2O emission factor for the treatment system j of the manure management system (kg N 2O-N/kg
N)
QEM,m Monthly volume of the effluent mix entering the manure management system (m 3/month)
[N]EM,m Monthly total nitrogen concentration in the effluent mix entering the manure management system (kg
N/m3)
EFN2O,ID Indirect N2O emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of nitrogen on soils and water
surfaces (kg N2O-N/kg NH3-N and NOX-N)
FgasMS,j,LT Default values for nitrogen loss due to volatilization of NH3 and NOX from manure management (fraction)
The same method used to estimate the emissions in the baseline should be used to estimate the
project emissions of nitrous oxide, so the Option 1 is used to calculate the project N 2O emissions
PEN2O, y.
iV) Project emissions from use of heat and/or electricity (PE elec/heat)
𝑃𝐸𝐸𝐶 ⁄𝐹𝐶,𝑦 = 𝑃𝐸𝐸𝐶,𝑦 + ∑𝑗 𝑃𝐸𝐹𝐶,𝑗,𝑦 (Equation 32)
where:
PEEC,y Project emissions from electricity consumption in year y. The project emissions from electricity consumption
will be calculated following the latest version of the “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage
emissions from electricity consumption”. In case, the electricity consumption is not measured then the
electricity consumption shall be estimated as follows 𝐸𝐶𝑃𝐽,𝑦 = ∑𝑖 𝐶𝑃𝑖,𝑦 ∗ 8760 , where CPi,y is the rated
capacity (in MW) of electrical equipment i used for the project activity.
PEFC,y Project emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process j during the year y. The project emissions from
fossil fuel combustion will be calculated following the latest version of the “Tool to calculate project or
leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion”. For this purpose, the processes j in the tool
corresponds to all fossil fuel combustion in the AWMS (not including fossil fuels consumed for
transportation of feed material and sludge or any other on-site transportation).
50
These emissions should only be considered for consumption of electricity or heat that is not related
to the anaerobic digester. As described above, since the electricity consumption that is not related
to the anaerobic digester cannot be separated from the total electricity consumption, therefore
the emission for consumption of electricity is calculated in PE FC,y. please refer to above PEFC,y
calculation.
Therefore, PEelec/heat=0
4.3 Leakage
Leakage covers the emissions from land application of treated manure as well as the emissions
related to anaerobic digestion in a digester, occurring outside the project boundary. These
emissions are estimated as net of those released under project activity and those released in
the baseline scenario. Net leakage is only considered if they are positive.
𝐿𝐸𝑦 = (𝐿𝐸𝑃𝐽,𝑁2𝑂,𝑦 − 𝐿𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝑁2𝑂,𝑦 ) + (𝐿𝐸𝑃𝐽,𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 − 𝐿𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 ) + 𝐿𝐸𝐴𝐷,𝑦 (Equation 33)
Where:
LEPJ, N2O, y Leakage N2O emissions released during project activity from land application of the treated manure
in year y (t CO2e/yr)
LEBL, N2O, y Leakage N2O emissions released during baseline scenario from land application of the treated
manure in year y (t CO2e/yr)
LEPJ, CH4, y Leakage CH4 emissions released during project activity from land application of the treated manure
in year y (t CO2e/yr)
LEBL, CH4, y Leakage CH4 emissions released during baseline scenario from land application of the treated
manure in year y (t CO2e/yr)
LEAD, y Leakage emissions associated with the anaerobic digester in year y (t CO2e)
i) Estimation of leakage N2O emissions released during baseline scenario from land application
of the treated manure in year y, LEBL, N2O, y
1
𝐿𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝑁2𝑂,𝑦 = 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝑁2𝑂 ∗ 𝐶𝐹𝑁2𝑂−𝑁,𝑁 ∗ 1000 ∗ (𝐿𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑,𝑦 + 𝐿𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑓𝑓,𝑦 + 𝐿𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑣𝑜𝑙,𝑦 ) (Equation 34)
𝐿𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑,𝑦 = 𝐸𝐹1 ∗ ∏𝑁
𝑛=1(1 − 𝑅𝑁,𝑛 ) ∗ ∑𝐿𝑇 𝑁𝐸𝑋𝐿𝑇,𝑦 ∗ 𝑁𝐿𝑇 (Equation 35)
𝐿𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑓𝑓,𝑦 = 𝐸𝐹5 ∗ 𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ ∗ ∏𝑁
𝐿𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑣𝑜𝑙,𝑦 = 𝐸𝐹4 ∗ ∏𝑁
𝑛=1(1 − 𝑅𝑁,𝑛 ) ∗ 𝐹𝑔𝑎𝑠𝑚 ∗ ∑𝐿𝑇 𝑁𝐸𝑋𝐿𝑇,𝑦 ∗ 𝑁𝐿𝑇 (Equation 37)
where:
LEN2O,land,y Leakage N2O emissions from application of manure waste in year y (kg N 2O-N/year)
LEN2O,runoff,y Leakage N2O emissions due to leaching and run-off in year y (kg N2O-N/year)
LEN2O,vol,y Leakage N2O emissions due to volatilization in year y (kg N2O-N/year)
Fgasm Fraction of N lost due to volatilization (fraction)
NLT Annual average number of animals of type LT estimated as per equation (5) or (6) (number)
51
NEXLT,y Annual average nitrogen excretion per head of a defined livestock population (kg N/animal/year)
EF1 Emission factor for N2O emissions from N inputs (kg N2O-N/kg N input)
EF5 Emission factor for N2O emissions from N leaching and runoff in (kg N2O-N/kg N leached and
runoff)
EF4 Emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of N on soils and water surfaces,
[kg N- N2O/ (kg NH3-N + NOX-N volatilized)]
Fleach Fraction of all N added to/mineralized in managed soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs
that is lost through leaching and runoff (fraction)
RN,n Nitrogen reduction factor (fraction)
ii) Estimation of leakage N 2O emissions released during project activity from land application of
the treated manure in year y, LEPJ, N2O
1
𝐿𝐸𝑃𝐽,𝑁2𝑂 = 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝑁2𝑂 ∗ 𝐶𝐹𝑁2𝑂−𝑁,𝑁 ∗ 1000 ∗ (𝐿𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑,𝑦 + 𝐿𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑓𝑓,𝑦 + 𝐿𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑣𝑜𝑙,𝑦 ) (Equation 38)
𝐿𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑,𝑦 = 𝐸𝐹1 ∗ ∏𝑁
𝐿𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑓𝑓,𝑦 = 𝐸𝐹5 ∗ 𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ ∗ ∏𝑁
𝐿𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑣𝑜𝑙,𝑦 = 𝐸𝐹4 ∗ ∏𝑁
𝑛=1(1 − 𝑅𝑁,𝑛 ) ∗ 𝐹𝑔𝑎𝑠𝑚 ∗ ∑𝐿𝑇 𝑁𝐸𝑋𝐿𝑇,𝑦 ∗ 𝑁𝐿𝑇 (Equation 41)
where:
LEN2O,land,y Leakage N2O emissions from application of manure waste in year y (kg N 2O-N/year)
LEN2O,runoff,y Leakage N2O emissions due to leaching and run-off in year y (kg N2O-N/year)
LEN2O,vol,y Leakage N2O emissions due to volatilization in year y (kg N2O-N/year)
Fgasm Fraction of N lost due to volatilization (fraction)
NLT Annual average number of animals of type LT estimated as per equation (5) or (6) (number)
NEXLT,y Annual average nitrogen excretion per head of a defined livestock population (kg N/animal/year)
EF1 Emission factor for N2O emissions from N inputs (kg N2O-N/kg N input)
EF5 Emission factor for N2O emissions from N leaching and runoff in (kg N2O-N/kg N leached and runoff)
EF4 Emission factor for N2O emissions from atmospheric deposition of N on soils and water surfaces,
[kg N- N2O/ (kg NH3-N + NOX-N volatilized)]
Fleach Fraction of all N added to/mineralized in managed soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs that
is lost through leaching and runoff (fraction)
RN,n Nitrogen reduction factor (fraction)
It is not possible to measure the quantity of manure applied to land in kg manure/yr (Q DM) and
the nitrogen concentration in kg N/kg manure (N DM) in the manure to estimate the total quantity
of nitrogen applied to land. In this case, ∏𝑁
𝑛=1(1 − 𝑅𝑁,𝑛 ) ∗ ∑𝐿𝑇 𝑁𝐸𝑋𝐿𝑇,𝑦 ∗ 𝑁𝐿𝑇 should be applied.
iii) Estimation of leakage CH 4 emissions from land application of the treated manure
The calculation of methane emissions from land application of manure in the baseline and
52
project cases are estimated as below:

𝑛=1(1 − 𝑅𝑉𝑆,𝑛 )] ∗ ∑𝑗,𝐿𝑇 (𝐵0,𝐿𝑇 ∗ 𝑁𝐿𝑇 ∗ 𝑉𝑆𝐿𝑇,𝑦 ∗ 𝑀𝑆%𝑗 ) (Equation 42)
𝐿𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 = 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐶𝐻4 ∗ 𝐷𝐶𝐻4 ∗ 𝑀𝐶𝐹𝑑 ∗ [∏𝑁
𝐿𝐸𝑃𝐽,𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 = 𝐺𝑊𝑃𝐶𝐻4 ∗ 𝐷𝐶𝐻4 ∗ 𝑀𝐶𝐹𝑑 ∗ [∏𝑁
𝑛=1(1 − 𝑅𝑉𝑆,𝑛 )] ∗ ∑𝑗,𝐿𝑇 (𝐵0,𝐿𝑇 ∗ 𝑁𝐿𝑇 ∗ 𝑉𝑆𝐿𝑇,𝑦 ∗ 𝑀𝑆%𝑗 ) (Equation 43)
where:
LEBL,CH4,y Leakage CH4 emissions released during baseline scenario from land application of the treated manure in
year y (t CO2e/yr)
LEPJ,CH4,y Leakage CH4 emissions released during project activity from land application of the treated manure in year
y (t CO2e/yr)
RVS,n Fraction of volatile solid degraded in AWMS treatment method n of the N treatment steps prior to sludge
being treated
B0,LT Maximum methane producing potential of the volatile solid generated by animal type LT (m 3CH4/kg dm)
NLT Annual average number of animals of type LT estimated as per equation (5) or (6), expressed (number)
VSLT,y Annual volatile solid excretions for livestock LT entering all AWMS on a dry matter weight basis (kg -
dm/animal/yr)
MCFd Methane conversion factor (MCF) assumed to be equal to 1
iV) Estimation of leakage emissions associated with the anaerobic digester
LEAD,y is determined using the methodological tool 14 “Project and leakage emissions from
anaerobic digesters(Version 02.0).
The leakage emissions associated with the anaerobic digester (𝐿𝐸𝐴𝐷,𝑦) depend on how the
digestate is managed. They include emissions associated with storage and composting of the
digestate and are determined as follows:
𝐿𝐸𝐴𝐷,𝑦 = 𝐿𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒,𝑦 + 𝐿𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝,𝑦 (Equation 44)
where:
LEAD,y Leakage emissions associated with the anaerobic digester in year y (t CO2e)
LEstorage,y Leakage emissions associated with storage of digestate in year y (t CO2e)
LEcomp,y Leakage emissions associated with composting digestate in year y (t CO2e)
For subsequent treatment stages, the reduction of the nitrogen during a treatment stage is
estimated based on referenced data for different treatment types. Emissions from the next
treatment stage are then calculated following the approach outlined above, but with nitrogen
adjusted for the reduction from the previous treatment stages by multiplying by (1-RN), where R N
is the relative reduction of nitrogen from the previous stage. The relative reduction (R N) of
nitrogen depends on the treatment technology and should be estimated in a conservative manner.
Default values for different treatment technologies can be found in appendix 1 (values for TN).
The anaerobic digestion process of this project is carried out in a fully enclosed system. The
biogas generated during the treatment process will be captured for power generation or flared (if
53
any). The Emissions from combustion will be calculated in project emissions (if any). After
anaerobic digestion, the fermented sludge will be treated in aerobic composting system, which
will be used as fertilizer. Wastewater from the new animal waste management systems will be
treated aerobically and then used for agriculture irrigation. So, the Estimation of leakage
emissions associated with the anaerobic digester is 0. i.e., LE AD,y =0.
4.4 Estimated Net GHG Emission Reductions and Removals

The emission reduction ER y by the project activity during a given year y is the difference between
the baseline emissions (BEy) and the sum of project emissions (PE y) and leakage, as follows:
𝐸𝑅𝑦 = 𝐵𝐸𝑦 − 𝑃𝐸𝑦 − 𝐿𝐸𝑦 (Equation 45)
Further, in estimating emissions reduction for claiming certified emissions reductions, if the
calculated CH4 baseline emissions from anaerobic lagoons are higher than the measured CH 4
generated in the anaerobic digester in the project situation (Q CH4,y in the tool “Project and leakage
emissions from anaerobic digesters”), then the latter shall be used to calculate the emissions
reduction for claiming certified emissions reductions. Therefore, the actual methane captured
from an anaerobic digester shall be compared to the (BE CH4,y - PEAD,y in the tool “Project and
leakage emissions from anaerobic digesters”) and if found lower, then (BE CH4,y - PEAD,y) (which is
a component of BE y -PEy ) in Equation (45) is replaced by QCH4,y.
As described above, emission reductions of the project are as below：
Calculation of the baseline emission:

𝐵𝐸𝑦 = 𝐵𝐸𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 + 𝐵𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑦
Table 4-1 The calculation result of BEy

Parameter Value
Unit
species Market Swine Breeding Swine
GWPCH4 28 28 tCO2/tCH4
DCH4 0.00067 0.00067 t/m3
MCFj 30.36% 30.36% /
Bo,LT 0.29 0.29 m3 CH4 /kg_dm
Np,y 1,879,900 62,000 No of heads
Nda,y 180 365 days
NLT 927,074 62,000 No of heads
Wsite 60 90 kg
Wdefault 28 28 kg
VSdefault 0.3 0.3 Kg-dm/animal/day
VSLT,y 234.64 351.96 kg-dm/animal/yr
MS%Bl,j 100% 100% %
ndy 365 365 days
Sub total 812,088 81,465 tCO2e
BECH4,y 893,553 tCO2e
54
Table 4-2 the calculation result of BEN20,y

Parameter Value
Unit
EFN2O,D,j 0 0 kg N2O-N/kg N
Nrate(T) 0.42 0.24 kg N/1000kg animal mass/day
NEXIPCCdefault 4.29 2.45 kg N/animal/year
Wsite 60 90 kg
Wdefault 28 28 kg
NEXLT,y 9.20 7.88 kg N/animal/yr
MS%Bl,j 100% 100% /
EN2O,D,y 0 0 kg N2O-N/year
EFN2O,ID 0.01 0.01 kg N2O/kg N
FgasMS,j,LT 40% 40% /
GWPN2O 265.00 265.00 tCO2/tN2O
CFN20-N,N 1.57 1.57 Conversion Factor N2O-N to N2O
EN2O,ID,y 34,108 1,955 kg N2O-N/year
BE N2O,y 15,017 tCO2e
Baseline Emissions: BECH4,y+ BEN2O,y =893,553+15,017= 908,570 tCO2e
Calculation of the project emission

𝑃𝐸𝑦 = 𝑃𝐸𝐴𝐷,𝑦 + 𝑃𝐸𝐴𝑒𝑟,𝑦 + 𝑃𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑦
PEAD,y= PEEC,y+ PECH4,y+PEflare,y
Table 4-3 The calculation result of PEEC,y

Parameter Value Unit
ECPJ,j,y 0 MWh/yr
EFEF,j,y 0.57205 tCO2/MWh
TDLj,y 20% /
PEEC,y 0 tCO2e
Table 4-4 The calculation result of PECH4,y

GWPCH4 28 tCO2/tCH4
EFCH4,default 0.1 /
QCH4,y 2159.77 tCH4
PECH4,y 6,048 tCO2e
Table 4-5 The calculation result of PEflare,y

GWPCH4 28 tCO2/tCH4
ηflare,m 50% /
FCH4,RG,m 0 t CH4
PE flare,y 0 tCO2e
55
PEAD,y= PEEC,y+ PECH4,y+PEflare,y =0 tCO2e + 6,048 tCO2e + 0 tCO2e = 6,048 tCO2e
Table 4-6 The calculation result of PEAer,y

Parameter Value
Unit
DCH4 0.00067 0.00067 t/m3
0.001 0.001 /
FAer 100% 100% /
1-Rvs,1 20% 20% /
B0,LT 0.29 0.29 m3 CH4 /kg VS
VSLT,y 234.64 351.96 kg-dm/animal/yr
MS%j 100% 100% /
Sub total 237 24 tCO2e
PE Aer,y 261 tCO2e
Table 4-7 The calculation result of E N2O,D,y

Parameter Value
Unit
EFN2O,D,j 0 0 kg N2O-N/kg N
MS%j 50% 50% /
Sub total 0 0 kg N2O-N/year
EFN2O,D,j 0.006 0.006 kg N2O-N/kg N
MS%j 50% 50% /
Sub total 25,582 1,467 kg N2O-N/year
E N2O,D,y 27,049 kg N2O-N/year
Table 4-8 The calculation result of EN2O,ID,y and PEN2O,y

Parameter Value
Unit
EFN2O,iD 0.01 0.01 kg N2O-N/kg NH3 and NOX-N
MS%j 50% 50% %
GWPN20 265 265 tCO2/tN2O
Sub total 17,055 978 kg N2O-N/year
Parameter Value
Unit
EFN2O,iD 0.01 0.01 kg N2O-N/kg NH3 and NOX-N
56
NEXLT,y 9.20 7.88 kg N/animal/year

MS%j 50% 50% %
GWPN20 265 265 tCO2/tN2O
Sub total 19,187 1,100 kg N2O-N/year
E N2O,ID,y 38,320 kg N2O-N/year
PE N2O,y 27,222 tCO2e
Project emission: 𝑃𝐸𝑦 = 𝑃𝐸𝐴𝐷,𝑦 + 𝑃𝐸𝐴𝑒𝑟,𝑦 + 𝑃𝐸𝑁2𝑂,𝑦 = 33,531 tCO2e
Calculation of leakage
𝐿𝐸𝑦 = (𝐿𝐸𝑃𝐽,𝑁2𝑂,𝑦 − 𝐿𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝑁2𝑂,𝑦 ) + (𝐿𝐸𝑃𝐽,𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 − 𝐿𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 )
Table 4-9 The calculation result of LEBL,N2O,y
Market Swine Breeding Swine
NEXLT,y 9.20 7.88 kg/animal-yr
RN,n 80% 80%

/
EF1 0.01 0.01 kg N2O-N/kg N
EF5 0.0075 0.0075 kg N2O-N/kg N
EF4 0.01 0.01 kgN-N2O-N/kg NH3-N+NOX-N
Fleach 0.3 0.3 /
Fgasm 0.2 0.2 /
GWPN2O 265 265 tCO2/tN2O
CFN2O-N,N 1.5714 1.5714
LEN2O,land,y 17,054 977 kg N2O-N/year
Subtotal 18,031 kg N2O-N/year
LEN2O,runoff,y 3,837 219 kg N2O-N/year
LEN2O,vol,y 3,410 195 kg N2O-N/year
LEBL,N2O,y 10,699 tCO2e
Table 4-10 The calculation result of LEPJ,N2O,y

NEXLT 9.20 7.88 kg N/animal/year
RN,n,1 25% 25% /
RN,n,2 5% 5%
EF1 0.01 0.01 kg N2O-N/kg N
EF5 0.0075 0.0075 kg N2O-N/kg N
EF4 0.01 0.01 kgN-N2O-N/kg NH3-N+NOX-N
Fleach 0.3 0.3 /
Fgasm 0.2 0.2 /
57
GWPN2O 265 265 tCO2/tN2O

CFN2O-N,N 1.5714 1.5714
LEN2O,land,y 60,757 3,483 kg N2O-N/year

64,240 kg N2O-N/year
LEN2O,runoff,y 13,671 784 kg N2O-N/year
LEN2O,vol 12,152 697 kg N2O-N/year
LEPJ,N2O 38,122 tCO2e
Table 4-11 The calculation result of LEBL,CH4,y

DCH4 0.00067 0.00067 t/m3
MCFd 1 1
/
VSLT,y 234.64 351.96 kg/hd/y
Bo,LT 0.29 0.29 m3 CH4/kg-VS
RVS 85% 85% /
MS%j 100% 100% /

LEBL,CH4,y 177,518 17,807 tCO2e
Total 195,325 tCO2e
Table 4-12 The calculation result of LE PJ,CH4,y

DCH4 0.00067 0.00067 t/m3
MCFd 1 1 /
VSLT,y 234.64 351.96 kg/animal/day
B0,LT 0.29 0.29 m3 CH4/kg-VS
RVS 80% 80% /
RVS 20% 20% /
MS%j 100% 100% /

LE PJ,CH4 ,y 189,354 18,996 tCO2e
Total 208,350 tCO2e
𝐿𝐸𝑦 = (𝐿𝐸𝑃𝐽,𝑁2𝑂,𝑦 − 𝐿𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝑁2𝑂,𝑦 ) + (𝐿𝐸𝑃𝐽,𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 − 𝐿𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝐶𝐻4,𝑦 )= 40,449 tCO2e
58
Emission Reduction: ERy=BEy-PEy-LEy= 834,590 tCO2e
Estimated net
Estimated Estimated Estimated
GHG emission
baseline project leakage
Year reductions or
emissions or emissions or emissions
removals
removals (tCO 2e) removals (tCO 2e) (tCO 2e)
(tCO 2e)
20/09/2021-
256,39114 9,462 11,414 235,515
31/12/2021
01/01/2022-
908,570 33,531 40,449 834,590
31/12/2022
01/01/2023-
908,570 33,531 40,449 834,590
31/12/2023
01/01/2024-
908,570 33,531 40,449 834,590
31/12/2024
01/01/2025-
908,570 33,531 40,449 834,590
31/12/2025
01/01/2026-
908,570 33,531 40,449 834,590
31/12/2026
01/01/2027-
908,570 33,531 40,449 834,590
31/12/2027
01/01/2028-
908,570 33,531 40,449 834,590
31/12/2028
01/01/2029-
908,570 33,531 40,449 834,590
31/12/2029
01/01/2030-
908,570 33,531 40,449 834,590
31/12/2030
01/01/2031-
652,179 15 24,069 29,035 599,075
19/09/2031
Total 9,085,700 335,310 404,490 8,345,900
Average 908,570 33,531 40,449 834,590
5 MONITORING
14 The estimated annual baseline emission is 908,570 tCO2e, the BE from 20/09/2021 to 31/12/2021 is 908,570 tCO2e * 103
days /365 days= 256,391 tCO2e, the PE and LE are calculated based on the same method.
15 The estimated annual baseline emission is 908,570 tCO e, the BE from 01/01/2031 to 19/09/2031 is 908,570 tCO e * 262
2 2
days /365 days=652,179 tCO2e, the PE and LE are calculated based on the same method.
59
5.1 Data and Parameters Available at Validation
Data / Parameter GWPCH4
Data unit tCO2/tCH4
Description Global Warming Potential of CH4
Source of data IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
Value applied 28
Justification of choice of 100-year values are adopted from Box 3.2, table 1, IPCC Fifth
data or description of Assessment Report, 201416, which complies with the requirement
measurement methods described in Section 3.15.4 of VCS Standard (V4.4).
and procedures applied
Purpose of Data Calculation of baseline emissions

Calculation of project emissions
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter GWPN2O
Data unit tCO2e/tN2O
Description Global Warming Potential of N 2O
Source of data IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
Value applied 265
Justification of choice of 100-year values are adopted from Box 3.2, table 1, IPCC Fifth
data or description of Assessment Report, 2014, which complies with the requirement
measurement methods described in Section 3.15.4 of VCS Standard (V4.4).

Comments N/A
Data / Parameter DCH4
16 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf
60
Data unit t/m3
Description Density of CH4
Source of data ACM0010 Version 08.0
Value applied 0.00067
Justification of choice of
data or description of
0.00067 t/m 3 at room temperature 20℃ and 1 atm pressure.
measurement methods

Comments N/A
Data / Parameter MCFj
Data unit -
Description Methane conversion factor for the baseline AWMSj
Source of data IPCC 2006 table 10.17, chapter 10, volume 4
Value applied: 68.62%
MCFj value for uncovered anaerobic lagoon (baseline AWMS) is

data or description of chosen.
measurement methods
For the proposed project, it is located in Zhoukou City, the annual
average temperature is 14.3℃. As per methodology ACM0010,
the MCFj of default value 73% from IPCC is adopted.
A conservativeness factor has been applied by multiplying MCFj

value with a value of 0.94, to account for the 20 per cent
uncertainty in the MCFj values as reported by IPCC 2006. Thus the
MCFj * UFb =73% * 0.94 = 68.62%
Comments N/A
61
Data / Parameter MS%Bl,j
Data unit Fraction
Description Fraction of manure handled in system j in the baseline.
Source of data Project proponents
Value applied: 100%
Justification of choice of For the proposed project, the baseline scenario is that all manure
data or description of is treated in uncovered anaerobic lagoon only. The amount of
measurement methods manure handled by the anaerobic lagoon is 100%.
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter Wdefault
Data unit kg
Description Default average animal weight of a defined population
Source of data IPCC 2006 table 10A-7 and 10A-8, chapter 10, volume 4
Wdefault(Market swine)=28 kg
Value applied:
Wdefault(Breeding swine)=28 kg
Justification of choice of The values in IPCC 2006 and US-EPA are compared and the lower
measurement methods value from IPCC 2006 is applied.
Purpose of Data Calculation of Baseline emissions
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter VSdefault
62
Data unit kg-dm/animal/day
Description Default value for the volatile solid excretion per day on a dry-
matter basis for a defined livestock population
VSdefault(Market swine)=0.3
Value applied:
VSdefault(Breeding swine)=0.3
Justification of choice of The values in IPCC 2006 and US-EPA are compared and the lower
measurement methods value from IPCC 2006 is applied.

Comments N/A
Data / Parameter NEXIPCC default
Data unit kg N/ animal/year
Description Default value for the nitrogen excretion per head of a defined
livestock population
Calculated by the equation:

Source of data
NEXIPCC default =Nrate(T) * TAM/1000*365
NEXIPCC default (Market swine) =4.29

Value applied:
NEXIPCC default (Breeding swine) =2.45
Justification of choice of NEXIPCC default is calculated as equation 10.30 in IPCC 2006, N rate(T)
measurement methods and TAM are default value from IPCC 2006-
Calculation of leakage emissions
63
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter Nrate,(T)
Data unit kg N (1000 kg animal mass) -1 day-1
Description default N excretion rate
Nrate,(T) (Market swine) =0.42

Value applied:
Nrate,(T)( Breeding swine) =0.24
data or description of Default value from IPCC 2006 is applied
measurement methods
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter TAM
Data unit kg animal-1
Description typical animal mass for livestock category
TAM (Market swine) =28

Value applied:
TAM (Breeding swine) =28
data or description of Default value from IPCC 2006 is applied
measurement methods
Comments N/A
64
Data / Parameter Fgas MS,j,LT
Data unit Fraction
Description Default values for nitrogen loss due to volatilisation of NH 3 and

NOX from manure management
FgasMS,j,LT, (anaerobic lagoon) : 40%

Value applied:
FgasMS,j,LT , (solid storage) : 45%
Justification of choice of Site specific data is unavailable therefore default values are
measurement methods applied.

Comments N/A
Data / Parameter EFN2O,D,j
Data unit Kg N2O-N/kg N
Description Direct N2O emission factor for the treatment system j of the
manure management system
Value applied: EFN2O,D,j =0 for anaerobic digester, EFN2O,D,j =0.006 for composting-
static pile.

65
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter EFN2O,ID,j
Data unit kgN2O-N/kg NH3-N and NOX-N
Description Indirect N 2O emission factor for the treatment system j of the

manure management system
Value applied: 0.01
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter EFCH4,default
Data unit t CH4 leaked / t CH4 produced
Description Default emission factor for the fraction of CH4 produced that leak
from the anaerobic digester (fraction)
Source of data Tool 14:” Project and leakage emissions from anaerobic digesters
(version 02.0)”
Value applied: 0.1
Justification of choice of Digesters with unlined concrete/ferrocement/brick masonry

data or description of arched type gas holding section; monolithic fixed dome digesters,
measurement methods covered anaerobic lagoon
66
Purpose of Data Calculation of project emissions
Comments PECH4,y for ex ante estimation adopted equation(4) of

Methodological tool “ Project and leakage emissions from
anaerobic digesters”, the amount of biogas collected at the
digester will be monitored in section 5.2.
Data / Parameter RVS,n
Data unit Fraction
Description Fraction of volatile solid degraded in AWMS treatment method n

of the N treatment steps prior to waste being treated
Source of data Refer to Annex 1 of methodology ACM0010 (version 08.0)
RVS,n, aerobic treatment and anaerobic digester 17: 20%, 80% for
Value applied:
leakage N2O emission released during project activity
RVS,n, one cell lagoon 18:85% for leakage N 2O emission released

during baseline scenario
Justification of choice of Estimated from table provided in Annex 1 of ACM0010 and EIA
data or description of reports. The most conservative value for the given technology
measurement methods must be applied.
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter RN,n
17 For the proposed project, before the treated manure is applied to the land, it undergoes two stages of pre-treatment
and an anaerobic-aerobic combined treatment technology, the pre-treatment belong to underfloor pit storage in the
Appendix 1 of applied methodology ACM0010 (version 08.0), so, the RVS,n is 20% which is the most conservative value.
The anaerobic-aerobic combined treatment technology belongs to covered first cell of two cell lagoon in the Appendix 1
of applied methodology ACM0010 (version 08.0), so the RVS 80% which is the most conservative value.
18 For the proposed project, the baseline is uncovered anaerobic lagoon which belongs to the anaerobic treatment of One-
cell lagoon in the Appendix 1 of applied methodology ACM0010 (version 08.0), so, the R VS,n is 85% which is the most
conservative value.
67
Data unit Fraction
Description Nitrogen reduction factor
Source of data Refer to Annex 1 of methodology ACM0010 (version 08.0)
RN,n, aerobic treatment and anaerobic digester: 5%, 25% 19

Value applied:
RN,n, uncovered anaerobic lagoon : 80% 20
Justification of choice of Estimated from Table provided in Annex 1 of ACM0010. The most
measurement methods conservative value for the given technology must be applied.
Purpose of Data Calculation of leakage emissions
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter EF1, EF4, EF5
Data unit kg N2O-N/kg N for EF1, EF5 and [kg N 2O-N/ (kg NH3-N and NO X-N)
for EF4
Description Emission factor for N2O emissions from N inputs; from N leaching
and runoff; from atmospheric deposition of N on soils and water
surfaces
Source of data IPCC 2006 Guidelines default values are be used, since country
specific or region-specific data are not available. EF1 from table
11.1, chapter 11, volume 4. EF 4 and EF5 from table 11.3, chapter
11, volume 4
EF1 = 0.010
Value applied:
EF4 =0.010
EF5 = 0.0075
19 For project, Before the treated manure is applied to the land, it undergoes two stages of pre -treatment and the an
anaerobic-aerobic combined treatment technology, the pre-treatment belong to underfloor pit storage in the Appendix 1
of applied methodology ACM0010 (version 08.0), so, the R N,n is 5% which is the most conservative value. The anaerobic-
aerobic combined treatment technology belongs to covered first cell of two cell lagoon in the Appendix 1 of applied
methodology ACM0010 (version 08.0), so the RN,n is 25% which is the most conservative value.
20 For project, the baseline is uncovered anaerobic lagoon which similar to the anaerobic treatment of One -cell lagoon in
the Appendix 1 of applied methodology ACM0010 (version 08.0), so, the RN,n is 80% which is the most conservative value.
68
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter Fgasm
Data unit Fraction
Description Fraction of N lost due to volatilization
Source of data Default values from table 11.3, chapter 11, volume 4 of IPCC
2006 guidelines
Value applied: 0.2
Site specific data is unavailable therefore default values are

data or description of applied.
measurement methods
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter Fleach
Data unit Fraction
Description Fraction of all N added to/mineralized in managed soils in regions

where leaching/runoff occurs that is lost through leaching and
runoff
Source of data Default values from table 11.3, chapter 11, volume 4 of IPCC
2006 guidelines
Value applied: 0.3
69
Site specific data is unavailable therefore default values are

data or description of applied.
measurement methods
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter MCFd
Data unit -
Description Methane conversion factor for leakage calculation
Source of data Methodology ACM0010(version 08.0)
Value applied: 1
According to paragraph 51 of the methodology ACM0010” GHG

data or description of emission reductions from manure management systems (version
measurement methods 08.0)”, Methane conversion factor for leakage calculation
and procedures applied assumed to be equal 1
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter EFgrid,OM,y
Data unit tCO2/MWh
Description Operating margin CO 2 emission factor in year y
Source of data Published by Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China, which

is the DNA of China. 21
Value applied: 0.8587
21 http://mee.gov.cn/ywgz/ydqhbh/wsqtkz/202012/t20201229_815386.shtml
70
The proposed project is located in Henan Province, China, thus,

data or description of the default value of the Central China Power Grid (CCPG) is
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter EFgrid,BM,y
Data unit tCO2/MWh
Description Build margin CO 2 emission factor in year y
Source of data Published by Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China, which

is the DNA of China.
Justification of choice of The proposed project is located in Henan Province, China, thus,
data or description of the default value of the Central China Power Grid (CCPG) is
measurement methods
applied.
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter EFEF,j,y
Data unit tCO2/MWh
Description Emission factor for electricity generation for source k in year y
Source of data Calculated following the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for
an electricity system”.
71
Justification of choice of Following the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an
data or description of electricity system”, EFEF,j,y = EFgrid,CM,y = 0.8587*0.5 +
measurement methods
0.2854*0.5=0.57205
Purpose of Data Calculation of project emission
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter Ru
Data unit Pa.m3/kmol.K
Description Universal ideal gases constant
Source of data Tool 08:” Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in
a gaseous stream (version 03.0)”
Value applied: 8,314
Justification of choice of Default value from methodological tool 08” Tool to determine the
data or description of mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream (version
measurement methods
03.0)”.
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter MMi
Data unit kg/kmol
Description Molecular mass of greenhouse gas i
Source of data Tool 08:” Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in
a gaseous stream (version 03.0)”
Value applied: 16.04 kg/mol for methane
72
Justification of choice of Default value from methodological tool 08” Tool to determine the
data or description of mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream (version
measurement methods
03.0)”.
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter ηflare,m
Data unit /
Description Flare efficiency in minute m
Source of data Tool 06” Project emissions from flaring (Version 04.0)”
Value applied: 50%
data or description of The project adopts open flares, 50% is the default value for open
measurement methods flare.
Purpose of Data Calculation of project emission
Comments /
5.2 Data and Parameters Monitored

Data / Parameter Np,LT
Data unit Number
Description Number of animals of type LT produced annually for the year y
Description of The project owner records the production and sales data of market
measurement methods swine and breeding swine routinely.
73
Frequency of Monthly
monitoring/recording
Value applied: The design data is from EIA reports of the proposed project, the actual data
will be monitored.
Swine farm name Amount of market Amount of breeding

swine （104 heads） swine （104 heads）
Fugou No.21 swine

4.3400 0.7
farm
Fugou No.22 swine

0 0.3
farm
Fugoumuhua No.1
8.0000 0
swine farm
Fugoumuhua No.2
10.0000 0.4
swine farm
Fugoumuhua No.3
14.0000 0
swine farm
Fugoumuhua No.4
13.0000 0
swine farm
Luyi No.9 swine farm 20.0000 0
Shangshui No.11
15.0000 0
swine farm
Shangshui No.12
16.9000 0
swine farm
Shangshui No.13
20.0000 0.8
swine farm
Shangshui No.18
15.0000 0
swine farm
Shangshui No.19
6.0000 0
swine farm
Shangshui No.20
12.5000 0.75
swine farm
Shangshui No.21
10.0000 0
swine farm
Shangshui No.9 swine

14.0000 0
farm
Taikang No.11 swine

2.5000 0
farm
Xihua No.15 swine

1.0000 0.5
farm
74
Xihua No.16 swine

0.7500 0.75
farm
Xihua No.18 swine

5.0000 0.6
farm
Xiangcheng No.1
0 0.6
swine farm
Xiangcheng No.2
0 0.4
swine farm
Xiangcheng No.5
0 0.4
swine farm
Total 187.9900 6.2000
Monitoring equipment N/A
QA/QC procedures The sale records will be used as crosscheck and the
applied documentation will be well archived.
Purpose of data Calculation of baseline emissions
Calculation method N/A
Comments Indirect information (e.g., sale records) will be considered as

crosscheck evidence.
Data / Parameter Nda,LT
Data unit Number
Description Number of days animal of type LT is alive in the farm in the year y
Description of The personnel appointed by the project owner record the data
measurement methods according to the swine farm operation requirements.
75
Value applied: The design data is from EIA reports of the proposed project, the
actual data will be monitored. For ex-ate calculation, N da,LT of 180
for market swine and 365 for breeding swine is adopted.
QA/QC procedures The indirect information (e.g. sales records) will be used as
applied crosscheck and the documentation will be well archived.
Comments Indirect information (e.g., sale records) will be considered as

crosscheck evidence.
Data / Parameter NAA,LT
Data unit Number
Description Daily stock of animals in the farm, discounting dead and discarded
animals
Description of The project owner records the production and sales data of market
measurement methods swine and breeding swine routinely.
Frequency of Daily
Value applied: The design data is from EIA reports of the proposed project,
1,879,900 for market swine and 62,000 for breeding swine are
applied in ex-ante calculation, the actual data will be monitored.
76
QA/QC procedures The indirect information (e.g. sales records) will be used as
applied crosscheck and the documentation will be well archived.
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter Wsite
Data unit kg
Description Average animal weight of a defined livestock population at the

project site
Description of Measured by the weighing device

measurement methods
Value applied: For ex-ante calculation, the following data applied:
Market swine: 60kg
Breeding swine: 90kg
The actual data is monitored during the crediting period
Monitoring equipment Weight scale
QA/QC procedures Sampling procedures will be adopted to calculate this parameter,

applied taking into account the following guidance:
(a) To ensure representativeness, each defined livestock
population should be classified into a minimum of three age
categories;
77
(b) For each defined livestock population, a minimum of one

monthly sample per age category should be taken;
(c) When estimating baseline emissions and emissions released
during baseline scenario from land application of the treated
manure in the leakage section, the lower bound of the 95%
confidence interval obtained from the sampling measurements
should be used;
(d) When estimating project emissions and emissions released

during project activity from land application of the treated manure
in the leakage section, the upper bound of the 95% confidence
interval obtained from the sampling measurements should be
used.
The weight scale will be calibrated annually to ensure the

reliability of the parameter.
Comments Sampling procedures and method is described in Section 5.3.
Data / Parameter FAer
Data unit Fraction
Description Fraction of volatile solids directed to aerobic treatment
Source of data EIA reports
Description of The maximum value is applied due to not monitored in operation

measurement methods period.
Frequency of Annually
Value applied: Since this parameter is not monitored, a conservative value of

100% is applied.
78
QA/QC procedures N/A

applied
Purpose of data Calculation of project emissions
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter ndy
Data unit number
Description Number of days treatment plant was operational in year y.
Description of The number of of days treatment plant was operational will be

measurement methods recorded by the appointed personnel. If there is no malfunction
happened, the treatment plant is in operation the whole year,
which is 365 days.
Frequency of Daily
Value applied: 365 days for ex-ante calculation. The actual number of days
treatment plant was operational will be monitored and applied in
the crediting periods.
QA/QC procedures Operation record can be considered as crosscheck.

applied
Comments N/A
79
Data / Parameter vf
Data unit m3
Description Biogas flow
Description of Measured by gas flow meters.

measurement methods
Frequency of Continuously by flow meter and reported cumulatively on weekly

monitoring/recording basis
Value applied: The biogas generated will all be used for energy generation
according to the EIA reports of project, the design values from EIA
reports used for ex-ante calculation are as follows:
Swine farm name Biogas generated and

utilized (104 m3/yr)
Fugou No.21 swine farm 17.3215
Fugou No.22 swine farm 5.0541
Fugoumuhua No.1 swine farm 23.4683
Luyi No.9 swine farm 41.5448
Shangshui No.11 swine farm 36.7680
Taikang No.11 swine farm 4.5659
Xihua No.15 swine farm 8.7588
80
Xiangcheng No.1 swine farm 7.8791
Total 537.2571
Monitoring equipment Gas flowmeters
QA/QC procedures The flowmeters will be calibrated periodically according to related

applied standards.
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter Vt,db
Data unit m³dry gas/h
Description Volumetric flow of the gaseous stream in time interval t on a dry

basis
Source of data Measured by flowmeters from project proponents
Description of The volumetric flow is monitored by flowmeter and should always

measurement methods refer to the actual pressure and temperature.
Frequency of Continuous measurement

Value applied: The biogas generated will all be used for energy generation
according to the EIA reports of project, the design value of
5,372,571.05 m3/a from EIA reports used for ex-ante calculation.
The actual data will be monitored during the crediting period.
Monitoring equipment Gas flowmeters
81
QA/QC procedures The flowmeters will be calibrated periodically according to related

applied standards.
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter Vi,t,db
Data unit m³gas i/m³dry gas
Description Volumetric fraction of greenhouse gas i in a time interval t on a

dry basis
Source of data Measured by gas analyzer from project proponents
Description of Gas analyzer operating in dry-basis. Volumetric flow measurement

measurement methods should always refer to the actual pressure and temperature

Value applied: The volumetric fraction of methane design value from EIA reports
is 60% and is used for ex-ante calculation are as follows:
The actual monitoring data will be applied during the crediting

period.
Monitoring equipment Gas analyzers
QA/QC procedures The gas analyzers will be calibrated periodically according to

applied related standards.
Comments N/A
82
Data / Parameter Tt
Data unit K
Description Temperature of the gaseous stream in time interval t
Source of data Measured by instrument from project owners
Description of Instruments with recordable electronic signal (analogical or

measurement methods digital) are required. Examples include thermocouples, thermos
resistance, etc.

Value applied: In ex-ante calculation, 293.15 K was applied for the density of CH 4
as per methodology AMCM-010 (Version 08.0), the actual
temperature of the gaseous stream will be monitored by the
recordable electronic signal in the crediting period. The
temperature Tt(K) is calculated as the equation T(K)=t(°C)
+273.15.
Monitoring equipment Instruments with recordable electronic signal (analogical or

digital)
QA/QC procedures The instruments will be calibrated periodically according to related

applied standards.
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter Pt
Data unit Pa
Description Pressure of the gaseous stream in time interval t
Source of data Measured by instrument from project owner
83
Description of Instruments with recordable electronic signal (analogical or

measurement methods digital) are required. Examples include pressure transducers, etc.
Frequency of Continuous monitoring

Value applied: In ex-ante calculation, 101.325 kPa was applied for the density of
CH4 as per methodology ACM-010 (Version 08.0), the actual
pressure of the gaseous stream will be monitored by the
recordable electronic signal in the crediting period.
Monitoring equipment Instruments with recordable electronic signal (analogical or

digital)
QA/QC procedures The instruments will be calibrated periodically according to related

applied standards.
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter ECPJ,j,y
Data unit MWh
Description Quantity of electricity consumed by the proposed project in year y
Source of data Direct measurement or calculated based on measurements from

more than one electricity meters
Description of Measured by electricity meter installed at the electricity

measurement methods consumption sources.
Frequency of Continuous measurement and at least monthly recording

Value applied: 0 MWh for ex-ante calculation. Actual monitored data will be
applied in the crediting period.
84
Monitoring equipment Electricity meter
QA/QC procedures The power sales invoice issued by local power grid company can
applied be considered as crosscheck.
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter 𝜌𝑖,𝑡
Data unit kg gas i/m³gas i
Description Density of greenhouse gas i in the gaseous stream in time interval

t
Source of data Calculated
Description of Calculated based on temperature and pressure of the gaseous

measurement methods
stream in time interval t.
Frequency of Pressure and temperature are measured continuously by the

monitoring/recording biogas flow meters -
Value applied: 0.67 kg/m3 for ex-ante calculation. This parameter will be
calculated based on actual temperature of the gaseous stream in
time interval t and pressure of the gaseous stream in time interval
t in the crediting period.
QA/QC procedures Calculated value according to the pressure and temperature

applied
Calculation method Equation 19
Comments N/A
85
Data / Parameter MS%j
Data unit Fraction
Description Fraction of manure handled in system j in project activity
Source of data Project owner
Description of All the manure is treated in AWMSs; there will be no manure

measurement methods discharged outside. Therefore, the value of this parameter is
100%.
Value applied: 100%. Since this parameter is not monitored in the actual
operation, the value of 100% applied is conservative.
QA/QC procedures 100% is the maximum value and conservative.

applied
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter B0, LT
Data unit m3CH4/kg -dm
Description Maximum methane producing potential of the volatile solid

generated by animal type LT
Description of Since this parameter is not monitored in the actual operation, the
measurement methods
default values from IPCC are applied.
86
Frequency of N/A
B0, LT (Market swine) =0.29
Value applied:
B0, LT (Breeding swine) =0.29
QA/QC procedures The value is sourced from published sources. The parameter value
applied should be updated on latest available public data source.
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter Type
Data unit /
Description Type of barn and AWMS
Description of The swine barn and AWMS layout and configuration are collected.
measurement methods
Archive electronically during project plus 5 years.
Frequency of Once for each monitoring period

Value applied: N/A
QA/QC procedures If any change in the type of barn and AWMS happened in the
applied crediting period, it will be reported by the project proponent.
Purpose of data Confirm the type of barn and AWMS which could relate to the
selection of some default values.
87
Comments N/A
Data / Parameter T
Data unit °C
Description Annual average ambient temperature at project site
Source of data Official publicly available information
Description of
measurement methods Data sourced from Official public information
Value applied: 14.3°C for ex-ante calculation. the annual average ambient
temperature at project site will be obtained from the official
publicly available information.
QA/QC procedures The actual monitored data can be cross-checked with the value of
applied ex-ante data which is sourced form EIA reports written by third
entities qualified by local government.
Purpose of data Calculation of baseline emissions (used for the selection of MCF j
from IPCC 2006 Guidelines)
Comments N/A
5.3 Monitoring Plan

The monitoring plan will be implemented by the project proponent during the project operation.
The details of the monitoring plan are specified as follows:
88
1. Operational and management framework of monitoring
The operational and management framework of the proposed project is showed below:
General manager
Monitoring team
O&M team Data review and archiving
Project operation team Equipment maintenance Data management team
Figure 5-1 Operational and management framework
The general manager of the project owner is the top management personnel of the monitoring,
who is responsible for the designation of members within the monitoring system and sets out the
duties of different members.
The VCS monitoring team consists of the operation team and the data review & archiving team.
The operation team is responsible for the daily operation of project activities and the equipment
maintenance, as well as the calibration of monitoring instruments. Besides, the operation team
is also responsible for executing the emergency plan and drafting emergency situation reports.
The data review & archiving team carry out the work of data recording, review and archiving. The
data involved in the monitoring plan will be recorded according to the requirements, the recording
data will be reviewed by specific personnel to ensure no typo or other mistakes happen, then the
recording data will be archived.
2. Monitoring equipment and installation
The parameters involved in section 5.2. above will be monitored and archived by the appointed
personnel of project owner.
The monitoring equipment and installation for each initial project activity instance is showed
below:
89

Aerobic composting
application
solid Gas
analyzer
Manure from Solid-liquid
swine farm separation Energy energy User (swine
sludge
liquid biogas M1 generation farm)
Desulfurization biogas
Anaerobic tank
Weighing and purification
M2 Open flaring
device
Np,y，Nday, Wsite effluents system
Grid
M3
company
Liquid fertilizer
land application
Figure 5-2 Installation of monitoring equipment
3. Principle of Monitoring
The proposed project should monitor all the parameters outlined in section 5.2.
The installation of relevant monitoring instruments and meters shall be implemented in

accordance with industrial requirements and manufacturer specifications and shall be calibrated
regularly as related standards required.
If there is any change happened to the monitoring instruments during the crediting period, it shall
be described and documented in the monitoring reports, and the procedure for post registration
changes shall be followed.
4. Parameters to be monitored and monitoring instruments
As per ACM-010 " GHG emission reductions from manure management systems" (version 08.0),
the parameters for both baseline and project emissions calculations should be monitored. For
the proposed project, the parameters that need to be monitored as the description of section 5.2
are as follows:
a) Number of animals of type LT produced annually for the year y, N p,LT:
For the number of animals of type LT produced annually for the year y in the swine farms, The
data is recorded by appointed personnel in each swine farm and the sales record of swine
can be used as crosscheck.
b) Number of days animal of type LT is alive in the farm in the year y, Nda,LT:
90
For number of days animal of type LT is alive in the farm in the year y is sourced from the
monthly sales record of market swine, the data is 180 days, for breeding swine, which is kept
alive in the swine farm whole year, the data is 365 days.
c) Daily stock of animals in the farm, discounting dead and discarded animals, N AA,LT:
For the number of the daily stock of animals in the farm, discounting dead and discarded
animals. The data is recorded by appointed personnel in each swine farm and the sales
record of swine can be used as crosscheck.
d) Average animal weight of a defined livestock population at the project site, W site:
The monitoring of the average animal weight of a defined livestock population at the project
site will be implemented in accordance with the methodology and the sampling standard.
The swine in each farm will be classified into three age groups and the samples are weighed
at least on monthly basis. A weighing device is applied to measure the weight. The monthly
data is recorded by the project proponent and then average animal weight of a defined
livestock population at the project site is calculated based on those data.
e) Number of days treatment plant was operational in year y, n dy:
The number of days treatment plant was operational is determined according to the actual
operating days of the AWMS during the monitoring period. The data can be sourced from the
operation system record. Normally, the treatment plant is operation the whole year which is
365 days unless malfunction of the plant happens.
f) Quantity of electricity consumed by the proposed project in year y, EC PJ,j,y:
The quantity of electricity consumed from the power grid by the proposed project is measured
by an electricity meter installed on-site and the data is sourced from the monthly power
consumption record and cross-checked by the electricity sales invoice issued by local power
company.
g) Biogas flow, Vf;
The biogas flow is monitored by the gas flowmeters, M1 is the gas flowmeter installed at the
entry of the generation unit and M2 is the gas flowmeter installed at the entry of flaring
system. The data are sourced from the operation system.
h) Volumetric flow of the gaseous stream in time interval t on a dry basis, V t,db:
The volumetric flow of the gaseous stream in time interval t on a dry basis is monitored by
the gas flowmeters, M1 is the gas flowmeter installed at the entry of the generation unit and
M2 is the gas flowmeter installed at the entry of flaring system. The data are sourced from
the operation system.
i) Volumetric fraction of greenhouse gas i in a time interval t on a dry basis, m³gas i/m³dry
gas, Vi,t,db:
91
The volumetric fraction of greenhouse gas i in a time interval t on a dry basis can be
monitored by the gas analyzers. The data are sourced from the operation system.
j) Temperature of the gaseous stream in time interval t, T t; Pressure of the gaseous stream in
time interval t, P t;
The temperature and pressure of the gaseous stream in time interval t are monitored by the
instruments with recordable electronic signal, since the characteristics of the biogas are
relatively constant with tiny change, the change of the monitored data will be very small. The
data can be obtained from the operation system. The density of greenhouse gas i in the
gaseous stream in time interval t should be calculated based on the temperature and
pressure of the gaseous stream in time interval t.
k) Density of greenhouse gas i in the gaseous stream in time interval t, ρ i,t:
The density of greenhouse gas i in the gaseous stream in time interval t should be calculated
based on the temperature and pressure of the gaseous stream in time interval t.
l) Fraction of volatile solids directed to aerobic treatment, FAer:
For Fraction of volatile solids directed to aerobic treatment, F Aer. Since there is no monitoring
equipment to monitor this parameter in the actual operation, a conservative value of 100%
will be applied in the monitoring period.
m) Fraction of manure handled in system j in project activity, MS% j:
For the proposed project, all the animal manure is treated in the anaerobic digesters in each
swine farm. In the monitoring period, to be conservative, the value 100% is applied for this
parameter in the emission reduction calculation.
n) Maximum methane producing potential of the volatile solid generated by animal type LT, B 0,
LT :
For B 0, LT, the default values sourced from IPCC 2006 are applied and will not be monitored
during the operation period.
o) Type of barn and AWMS, Type:
For Type of barn and AWMS, the swine barn and AWMS layout and configuration are collected,
which can be prove the type of barn and AWMS. If any change in the type of barn and AWMS
happened in the crediting period, it will be reported by the project proponent.
p) Annual average ambient temperature at project site, T:

For annual average ambient temperature at project site, the monthly data can be sourced
from publicly available information and can be cross-checked with the value of ex-ante data
which is sourced form EIA reports written by third entities qualified by local government.
5. QC/QA procedures
92
To ensure the quality and accuracy of the measured data, a quality management system will be
established and implemented.
Training
To ensure the capability of the monitoring team, mandatory trainings related to the monitoring
will be implemented by the project proponent. The trained and qualified employees are permitted
to take the responsibility of the monitoring. The training shall consist of the general and technical
requirements of monitoring in accordance with VCS Standard and related methodology.
Data management
Specific staff of each project activity instance will be appointed by the project proponent to
undertake the monitoring work and keeping all monitored data archived. The electronically
archived data will be kept at least for 2 years after the end of the crediting period.
Handwriting records and documents, including electricity invoices or receipts for cross-checking,
will be copied and archived and kept at least 2 years after the end of the crediting period.
Procedure of correction
The VCS monitoring team shall follow related standards to ensure the reliability and accuracy of
the monitored data. The quality control and quality assurance procedures include the handling
and correction of unconformities in the monitoring. Once the unconformity is observed, the
following procedures shall be followed:
- Analyze the cause of any unconformity immediately once observed, if necessary, external
professionals might be utilized.
- A correction plan should be developed to eliminate the unconformity and prevent further
recurrence of the cause. The plan shall be carried out and reported by the monitoring team.
- Relative information should be included in the monitoring report and reported to VVB during the
verification.
During the monitoring period, if the monitored data record is missing or the document is damaged,
the following process should be carried out:
- Conservative values should be applied for the missing or damaged data. Each monitoring team
member should be fully aware of and strictly follow the conservative principle in the monitoring
process.
- If the monitoring personnel made any mistake unintentionally, the certain personnel must take
further training until he or she is confirmed qualified for the monitoring. For the mistaken data
recorded by such personnel, conservative value shall be applied.
93
- For monitoring team member's lack of capability or working attitude issues, such personnel will
be expelled from the monitoring team and new qualified personnel would join. For the mistaken
data recorded by the personnel, conservative value shall be applied.
- If any recorded data significantly exceeds the normal range of the corresponding parameter, the
monitoring personnel should figure out the reason. If the occurrence of abnormal data was
caused by the malfunction of measurement equipment, conservative value shall be applied. The
malfunctioned measurement equipment shall be calibrated or replaced immediately.
If the monitoring records comply with the requirements of reporting, data completeness and
correct analysis, then the data can be applied in the monitoring report.
6. Sample plan
The sampling objective
As per methodology ACM-010 " GHG emission reductions from manure management systems",
to determine the average animal weight of a defined livestock population at the project site during
the crediting period with a 95/10 confidence/precision, the sampling procedures according to
“Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programmes of activities (Version 09.0)”
must be followed, and the sampling plan is described below:
Table 5-1 Sampling plan of the project

Parameter Wsite
Determining the Average animal weight of a defined livestock population at
the project site during the crediting period.
According to the “Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and
programs of activities (Version 09.0)”, PP shall use 95/10
confidence/precision as the criteria for the reliability of sampling efforts for
large-scale project. According to the methodology” ACM0010” GHG emission
reductions from manure management systems (Version 08.0)”, each defined
livestock population should be classified into a minimum of three age
Objectives and reliability
categories; The three age categories of marketing swine are classified
requirements
according to the age in days, i.e. Nursery phase, Growing phase and Mature
phase. The three age categories of breeding swine are classified according to
the age in days, i.e. Nursery phase, Growing phase and Mature phase with.
For each defined livestock population, a minimum of monthly sample per age
category should be taken. In this project, the monitoring activities of the
average animal weight of a defined livestock population at the project site will
be conducted in the three age groups of Nursery phase, Growing phase and
Mature phase in each swine farm at least once a month.
For ex-ante calculation, A total of 1,879,900 market swine and 62,000
breeding swine included in this project and the data of the average animal
weight of a defined livestock population at the project site is from the EIA. As
Target population and
the applied value of 1,879,900 market swine and 62,000 breeding swine are
sampling frame
the design scale, during the monitoring periods, the actual breeding scale of
the farm will not exceed the design value, so the sample size calculated from
the design values can be used in the monitoring period and it is conservative.
94
For the proposed project, 22 swine farms involved with two types of swine i.e.,
market swine and breeding swine, and as per applied methodology ACM0010,
each defined livestock population should be classified into a minimum of three
age categories, so the sampling method is Stratified random sampling. The
specific sampling methods are as follows:
Project proponent should calculate the overall sample size based on the
population of pigs in stock firstly. As the project consist of 22 swine farms, so
the sample size in each swine farm should be determined based on the
proportion of the number of each farm in the total number of 22 farms.
Sampling method
Similarly, the sample size of each age group of market swine and breeding
swine in a farm were also calculated based on the proportion of the number
of each age group of swine to the total number of swine in the farm. After the
sample size in each age group of market swine and breeding swine of each
farm determined, the sampling can be conducted in every swine farm. Since
swine in different age are kept in the different pig houses, samples can be
randomly selected from pig houses of this age group. After the samples are
selected, the weight is measured by weight measurers and recorded in the
weight record table.
The sampling sizes
According to the standard of the “Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and
programmes of activities (Version 09.0)”, PP shall use 95/10 confidence/precision as the criteria
for the reliability of sampling efforts for large-scale project.
According to statistical principles and sampling survey method, the sample size should be
determined as follows:
𝑍 2 𝜎 2 𝑍 2 (𝜎 2 /𝑋 2 )
𝑛1 = 2 = = 𝑍 2 𝑉 2 /𝑒2
𝑑 𝑑 2 /𝑋 2
n2= n1N/(N+n1)
n3=Bn2
n4= n3/r
n= n4 (110%)
Where:
the Z-statistic and the value taken is 1.96 (corresponding to 95%

Z
confidence level);
σ the standard deviation;
d the maximum error of estimate;
X the mean value of samples;
V the coefficient of variation, V= σ/X≤1 and its maximum value 1 is taken;
the allowed relative sampling error (“precision”) and the value taken is
e
10%;
95
N the total number of involved swine;

the survey design effect and the value taken is 1 because for
B
stratification sampling the B value is less than or equal to 1;
r the survey replies rate and the value taken is 100%;
110% 10% contingency was added to produce the final sample size;
the adjusted values after each step with n being the final number of
n1, n2, n3, samples to be taken. Actually, n4 is the required number of samples
n4, n based on calculation, 10% contingency was added to n4 to produce n in
this sampling.
For pre-calculation, since the total number of involved swine is 927,074 for market swine and
62,000 for breeding swine, N in the calculation of sample size is 989,074, and the calculation
result is as follows:
Table 5-2 the calculation result of overall sample size

Z V e N B r
1.96 1 10% 989,074 1 100%
n1 2
𝑍 𝑉 /𝑒 2 2 384
n2 n1N/(N+n1) 384
n3 Bn2 384
n4 n3/r 384
n n4 (110%) 423
The calculation result of n is 423. Therefore, 423 samples should be sufficient to satisfy the
desired confidence and precision.
Stratified sampling (with samples of 423) is applied for the monitoring of the W site. The specific
sampling methods are as follows: project proponent should calculate the overall sample size
based on the population of pigs in stock firstly. As the project consists of 22 swine farms, so the
sample size in each swine farm should be determined based on the proportion of the number of
each farm in the total number of 22 farms. Similarly, the sample size of each age group of market
swine and breeding swine in a farm were also calculated based on the proportion of the number
of each age group of swine to the total number of swine in the farm. The distribution of the
samples in each age category in each farm shows as follow:
Table 5-3 The distribution of the samples in each age category in each farm
NO. Swine farm Swine type Age category Sample size
Nursery phase 4
Market Growing phase 4
Fugou No.21 Mature phase 4
1
swine farm Nursery phase 2
Breeding Growing phase 2
Mature phase 2
Nursery phase 0
Fugou No.22
2 Market Growing phase 0
swine farm
Mature phase 0
96
Nursery phase 1
Mature phase 1
Nursery phase 0
Fugoumuhua Mature phase 0
3 No.1 swine
farm Nursery phase 0
Mature phase 0
Nursery phase 8
4 No.2 swine
Mature phase 1
Nursery phase 10
5 No.3 swine
Mature phase 0
Nursery phase 10
6 No.4 swine
Mature phase 0
Nursery phase 15
Luyi No.9 Mature phase 15
7
Mature phase 0
Nursery phase 11
Shangshui Mature phase 11
8 No.11 swine
Mature phase 0
Nursery phase 12
9 No.12 swine
Mature phase 0
Nursery phase 15
10 No.13 swine
Mature phase 2
Shangshui Nursery phase 11
11 No.18 swine Market Growing phase 11
farm Mature phase 11
97
Nursery phase 0
Mature phase 0
Nursery phase 5
12 No.19 swine
Mature phase 0
Nursery phase 9
13 No.20 swine
Mature phase 2
Nursery phase 8
14 No.21 swine
Mature phase 0
Nursery phase 10
15 No.9 swine
Mature phase 0
Nursery phase 2
Taikang No.11 Mature phase 2
16
Mature phase 0
Nursery phase 1
Xihua No.15 Mature phase 1
17
Mature phase 1
Nursery phase 1
18
Mature phase 2
Nursery phase 4
19
Mature phase 1
Xiangcheng Nursery phase 0
20 No.1 swine Market Growing phase 0
farm Mature phase 0
98
Nursery phase 1
Mature phase 1
Nursery phase 0
Xiangcheng Mature phase 0
21 No.2 swine
Mature phase 1
Nursery phase 0
Xiangcheng Mature phase 0
22 No.5 swine
Mature phase 1
Total 453
Implementation and Monitoring frequency
The sampling procedure will begin once the target population is determined, and the sampling
should be carried monthly.
The monthly sampling activity will be taken in the 22 swine farms during monitoring period.
Since the sampling activity is taken monthly, all the samples will be changed in the next month.
The monitoring data will be collected and recorded throughout the entire crediting period. All
archived data and documentation will be kept for at least 3 years after the last year of crediting
period.
Procedures for Administration of Data Collection and Minimizing Non-sampling Errors
During the monitoring period, the monthly sample of animal weight is recorded by the appointed
personnel in each swine farm of this project. The average animal weight of a defined livestock
population at the project site was calculated based on these data by the monitoring team member.
The data will be reviewed by the project developer and VVB.
For the original records which are reasonable and in consistent with the actual growth status,
such original records shall be archived.
If data missing or damage happened, or the target animal died during the monitoring periods,
the following procedures shall be followed:
1) For the missing or damaged data records, to be conservative, the value of zero should be
applied. Each monitoring team member should be fully aware of and strictly follow the
conservative principle in the monitoring process.
2) If the monitoring personnel made any mistake unintentionally, the certain personnel must
take further training until he or she is confirmed qualified for the monitoring. For the mistaken
data recorded by such personnel, conservative value zero shall be applied.
99
3) For monitoring team member's lack of capability or working attitude issues, such personnel
will be expelled from the monitoring team and new qualified personnel would join. For the
mistaken data recorded by the personnel, conservative value zero will be applied.
4) If any recorded data significantly exceeds the normal range of the corresponding parameter,
the monitoring personnel should figure out the reason. If the occurrence of abnormal data
was caused by the malfunction of measurement equipment, conservative value zero shall be
applied. The malfunctioned measurement equipment shall be calibrated or replaced
immediately.
If the monitoring records comply with the requirements of reporting, data completeness and
correct analysis, then the data can be applied in the monitoring report.
QA/QC Procedures
Before the member of monitoring team member taking the monitoring work, pre-training will be
conducted by the project owner to ensure the appropriate implementation of the monitoring.
The project owner should archive all the measured data electronically each month, and using
appropriate software (e.g. Microsoft Office Excel) to calculate the weighted mean value of average
animal weight of a defined livestock population at the project site from all the samples.
100
APPENDIX
Use appendices for supporting information. Delete this appendix (title and instructions) where no
appendix is required.

VCS PD-Zhoukou Swine Farm Biogas Recovery Project in Henan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

VCS PD-Zhoukou Swine Farm Biogas Recovery Project in Henan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZHOUKOU SWINE FARM BIOGAS

RECOVERY PROJECT IN HENAN

Project Title Zhoukou Swine Farm Biogas Recovery Project in Henan

Date of Issue 26-March-2023

Prepared By Muyuan Foods Co., Ltd.

Contact Wolong District, Nanyang City, Henan Province, P. R. China.

4 QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS .......... 37

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 101

1.2 Sectoral Scope and Project Type

The project is not a grouped project.

1.3 Project Eligibility

Table 1-1 Project eligibility under the scope of VCS program

Scope of the VCS program Eligible or not

2) Ozone-depleting substances Not applicable as no ozone-depleting

3) Project activities supported by a methodology Not applicable as methodology applied

4) Project activities supported by a methodology Eligible, methodology applied for the

5) Jurisdictional REDD+ programs and nested Not applicable.

document Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR)

1.4 Project Design

1.5 Project Proponent

Contact person Wang Chuan

Title Project Manager

Address Wolong District, Nanyang City, Henan Province, P. R. China.

1.6 Other Entities Involved in the Project

Organization name Deloitte HiTech Ltd.

Role in the project VCS Project Developer/Consultant

Contact person Chang Jinyu

Title Project Manager

Telephone +86 10 8534 2096

1.8 Project Start Date

Table 1-2 Operation start dates of project activity instance

Subsidiaries Project activity instance Operation start date

Fugou No.21 swine farm AWMS 27-Oct-2021

Fugou No.22 swine farm AWMS 31-Oct-2021

Fugoumuhua No.1 swine farm AWMS 06-Oct-2021

Fugoumuhua No.3 swine farm AWMS 22-Sept-2021

Fugoumuhua No.4 swine farm AWMS 21-Sept-2021

Luyi Muyuan Luyi No.9 swine farm AWMS 06-Oct-2021

Shangshui No.11 swine farm AWMS 18-Oct-2021

Shangshui No.12 swine farm AWMS 10-Oct-2021

Shangshui No.13 swine farm AWMS 23-Sept-2021

Shangshui Shangshui No.18 swine farm AWMS 20-Sept-2021

Shangshui No.20 swine farm AWMS 30-Sept-2021

Shangshui No.21 swine farm AWMS 04-Nov-2021

Shangshui No.9 swine farm AWMS 03-Oct-2021

Taikang Muyuan Taikang No.11 swine farm AWMS 02-Oct-2021

Xihua No.15 swine farm AWMS 09-Oct-2021

Xihua Muyuan Xihua No.16 swine farm AWMS 21-Sept-2021

Xihua No.18 swine farm AWMS 27-Sept-2021

Xiangcheng No.1 swine farm AWMS 21-Sept-2021

Based on the table above, the project start date is 20-Sept-2021.

1.9 Project Crediting Period

1.10 Project Scale and Estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals

Year Estimated GHG emission

Total estimated ERs 8,345,900

Total number of crediting years 10

Average annual ERs 834,590

1.11 Description of the Project Activity

Project technology description

Organic fertilizer Land

Figure 1-1 Manure process flow of the project

Anaerobic digesters treatment process

Biogas utilization and flaring system