nl agency - sustainability assessment rice husk gasifier indonesia

© Partners for Innovation

Agentschap NL

19 September 2013

Sustainability Assessment rice husk project Indonesia

Emiel Hanekamp, senior consultant

Partners for Innovation BV

Introduction

1) DBM project: “Applying rice husk as

feedstock for power generation“

2) Introduction of the assignment

3) Approach Sustainability Assessment

4) Results

5) Conclusions and recommendations to

consortium

6) Questions and discussion

2

1) DBM project: Applying rice husk as feedstock for power generation

Objective: To establish a successful pilot project in power generation with rice husk gasification and to gain insights into the conditions under which this is beneficial from an economic, environmental and local development perspective.

Consortium:- BULOG: government owned company responsible for the

national food supply (mainly rice) in Indonesia - PT SyRes Indonesia: privately owned energy company

developing projects in the area of hydropower, biomas/rice husk, algae and other forms of renewable energy

Results: 2 rice husk gasifiers (Jatisari and Anabanua)

3

1) DBM project: Applying rice husk as feedstock for power generation

4Jatisari (Java)

Anabanua(South- Sulawesi)

1) Current situation in Anabanua

UPGB Anabanua = rice processing unit of BULOG (200 in IND)

> installation for drying rice runs on kerosene and for milling on diesel

‘milling’ = removing husks from grain

> UPGB buys wet paddy from local farmers (and dry paddy and rice

from local rice traders/millers)

> rice husks are disposed of behind the drying-milling factory (food for

insects and rodents and slowly decaying, releasing methane)

> gasifier was technically ready end of May 2013 but not used as no

rice was harvested.

5

1) Gasifier

6

1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanuna

7

1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua

8


9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17

2) Assignment for Partners for Innovation

Harnessing the full learning potential:

1. Carry out a full sustainability assessment of the project based on a robust generic scheme.For this assessment the existing baseline surveys will be used and new data will be collected. In parallel the required data on Direct Effects of the project will be collected.

2. Capacity building of the local consultant from INA, related to sustainability assessments.The local consultant from INA will be working alongside the expert from Partners for Innovation, thereby experiencing and ‘working on the job’ how to perform a sustainability assessment.

3. Provide advice (on request) to BULOG and PT SyRes on issues related to the assessment.

18

2) The consultants Iskandar and Emiel

19

Iskandar ZulkarnainINA-HCC

Emiel HanekampPartners for Innovation

3) Approach

1. RSB (Round table for Sustainable Biomaterials) standard> Tough, detailed but practical standard> PfI experience with RSB in other assignments (e.g. Mozambique)> Number of tools available e.g.:

• detailed question list (RSB)• Number of guidance documents (RSB)• Screening tool - rapid screening of potential impacts (RSB)• Excel sustainability assessment tool (PfI) with graphical presentation of the

results of the assessment

20

De 12 RSB ‘Principles’

1. Legality2. Planning, monitoring and continuous improvement3. Greenhouse Gases4. Human and labor rights5. Rural and Local Development6. Food security

7. Conservation8. Soil9. Water10. Air11. Technology12. Land (use) rights

3) Scoring

21

Detailed compliance questions can score: > 100% - Full compliance with the verifier

> 75% - Partial compliance with the verifier; a lot has already been done but some further compliance work is needed to reach full compliance

> 20% - Non-compliance with the verifier; significant compliance work is needed for this verifier to reach full compliance. We used 20% and not 0% for non-compliance since our assessment experience demonstrates that companies rarely start from zero; most of the time something is already in place

> Not Applicable

> Similar grading structure for evidence scoring (100%/75%/20%/NA). Scoring is based on the actual evidence (reports, documentation, verbal responses from interviewed people, pictures, etc) that was collected in the course of their assignment.

4) Resultaten

22

RSB Principles and Criteria (v2.0) Compliance score Evidence Explanation scoring Evidence list

Nr Verifiers rice husk gasifier

oldsituation

>> Explain in a few words the scores for compliance and evidence

P3. Greenhouse Gases (GHG)

Bioenergy shall contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing lifecycle GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuels.

Criterion 3a. There are no legislative bioenergy policies or regulations in force in Indonesia, in which bioenergy must meet GHG reduction requirements across its lifecycle.

Ind. 3.a.i.1

The operator has either calculated the GHG emissions of the bio energy plant using the applicable methodology or provided all necessary input data to the external party.

Full com-pliance(100%)

Partialcom-pliance(75%)

Partial evidence (75%)

A GHG calculation has been executed as part of this assessment.

+ Annex A GHG calculation+ Rice huskgasificationand biocharapplication+ simple GHG calculation

Ind. 3.a.i.2

The operator maintains documentation of and evidence to support the GHG emissions calculations and the data used in the calculations or provided to external parties.

Non-com-pliance(20%)

Non-com-pliance(20%)

No evidence (20%)

A GHG calculation has been executed as part of this assessment. Some data was provided to the experts but no structural recording of data is done to substantiate the GHG calculation.

Ind. 3.a.i.3

The operator provides objective evidence demonstrating that lifecycle GHG emissions of the biofuels meet the minimum required GHG emissions reductions of the legislative biofuelspolicy or regulation in force.

Not Applicable (NA)

NotAppli-cable(NA)

NotAppli-cable(NA)

There are no legislative or regulative minimum requirements for GHG emission reductions for rice husk gasification plants.

3) Approach

2. Adjustment of some of the detailed questions> Rice husk is a residue => Principles 6 and 12 are not relevant> Additional questions Agentschap NL:

• Competition with other useful rice husk applications?• How do benefit local farmers from the new situation?

> Project specific targets for energy use / GHG-emissions:• Minimum 50% GHG emission reduction per kWh produced

and 80% overall GHG emission reduction

3. Comparison between ‘old situation’ (no gasifier) and ‘new situation’ (working gasifier)

4. Assessment on content and available evidence> Indication of reliability of the assessment

23

3) Approach

5. Mission 10 days (16-27 June 2013), to check already provided information and detail the analysis> Number of project documents analysed> Additional documentation during visits requested> Interviews with all stakeholders:

6. Intensive cooperation with Iskandar Zulkarnain necessary due to language problems

24

3) Activities during 10 day mission

1. Discussions / presentations at BULOG:+ Head Office (17th and 27th June) – several people+ Regional Office (18th June) – several people+ Sub-regional office (19th, 20th and 21st June) – several people

2. Discussions with UPGB+ UPGB Mangianpajo (19th, 20th and 21st June) – several people

3. Discussions with PT SyRes+ Hoedani Hadijono (17th, 24th and 25st June)

4. Discussions with third parties+ Farmers, traders and millers (20th June) – several people+ Regional farmers association Sarudin (19th June)+ WWF Indonesia (26th June)

5. Site visits+ UPGB Mangianpajo (19th- 21st June) – twice test run of gasifier+ Two private millers

6. Request for documentation (evidence) and study of public reports

25

3) BULOG-UPGB-stakeholder meetings

26

3) BULOG-UPGB-stakeholder meetings

27

4) Some principles have improved, some deteriorated; overall the same

28

4) Evidence is overall weak but supports compliance results

29

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%P1. Legality

P2. Planning, Monitoring

and Continuous …

P3.

Greenhouse

Gases (GHG)

P4. Human and Labor

Rights

P5. Rural and Local

Development

P7. Conservation

P8. Soil

P9. Water

P10. Air

P11. Technology

rice husk gasifier old situation evidence

4) Some principles have improved, some deteriorated; overall the sameOverall weak evidence

30

5) Main conclusions

31

1. The gasifier project has a great potential for positive

sustainability impacts and for widespread replication.

2. Crucial for the project’s success is its economic viability,

which is to be confirmed.

3. The current organisational set-up and procedures are

insufficient to secure the potential positive impacts and

to address the risks adequately.

4. As the gasifier is not yet operational (harvesting season

still to come), and the availability of documented

evidence is in general low, there are many uncertainties.

5) P1. Legality

32

Principle The operation shall follow all applicable laws and regulations

Conclusions

The operation complies for 92% with this principle. > All permits (trade permit, location permit, Hindering Law and

building permit) are in place. > The HO should have been renewed latest 3rd June 2013.

EvidenceAlmost all evidence in place. Absence of valid Hindering Law makes that the score is 92% and not 100%. No copy of the trade permit was transmitted as evidence.

5) P2. Planning, Monitoring andContinuous Improvement

33

PrincipleThe operation shall be planned, implemented, and continuously improved through an open, transparent, and consultative impact ass-essment and management process and economic viability analysis.

Conclu-sions

The operation complies for 63% in the old situation and for 33% in the new situation. In the old situation the RPC is being operated and managed for more than 8 years. In the new situation the following issues and risks have been identified: > No consultation / information sessions with stakeholders> Technical and environmental risks and potential impacts have

not been systematically assessed and are managed> Likely positive local social impacts are not being secured > No economic viability analysis has been carried out

EvidenceThere is limited evidence (36%) due to the unavailability of assessments and management plans. This merely supports the results for compliance.

5) P3. GHG

34

PrincipleThe gasifier shall contribute to climate change mitigation by signifi-cantly reducing lifecycle GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuels.

Conclu-sions

The operation complies for 29% with principle 3 in the old situation and for 69% in the new situation. The operation potentially can significantly contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Based on calculations using provisional data, a significant (3/4) GHG reduction is possible. There are no legislative or regulative minimum requirements for GHG emission reductions for rice husk gasification plants. Gas leakages and flaring of surplus gas have not been taken into consideration.

EvidenceThe evidence is medium (48%) mostly as a result of the uncertainty in the data on the amounts of paddy processed (drying and milling), and the associated diesel and kerosene used (and saved).

5) P3. GHG

35

5) P3. GHG

36

5) P4. Human and Labor Rights

37

PrincipleThe gasifier operations shall not violate human rights or labor rights, and shall promote decent work and the well-being of workers

Conclu-sions

The operation complies for 86% with principle 4 in the old situation and for 83% in the new situation. > Wages, working hours, etcetera are in line with the principle.> Responsible personnel recently received a specific training how to

operate and maintain the gasification installation.> Operators of the gasifier do not have an official labour contract

with UPGB but are hired on a monthly basis. > BULOG-UPGB have not assessed the occupational health&safety

risks associated with the gasifier. Literature suggests a number ofpotential health&safety risks associated with long-term exposureto emissions from the gasifier.

EvidenceThe evidence is partially available (66%), mainly based on discussions with employers, labour unions, local farmers and traders and a representative of the local farmers association.

5) P5. Rural and Local Development

38

PrincipleIn regions of poverty, bio-energy operations shall contribute to the social and economic development of local communities.

Conclu-sions

The operation complies for 40% with principle 5 in the old situation and for 58% in the new situation. > Wajo is not a region of poverty. Average rice farmers income

is 4,2 USD/day, with national standard poverty line 0,8 USD/day.> No loss of local economic activity for private millers and traders.

Gasifier has the potential to improve local rural development : > Enhance position of local farmers by providing them with free

drying facilities (or higher prices for wet paddy) > Biochar rice husk (residue from gasifier) is likely to have a positive

impact on the soil structure for agriculture. > However, no monitoring in place for the above issues.

EvidenceSome evidence is available (50%) but mainly about Wajo not being a region of poverty. As gasifier is not yet operational, no hard evidence is available on the expected positive impacts.

5) P7. Conservation

39

PrincipleGasifier operations shall avoid negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and conservation values.

Conclusions

The operation complies for 92% with principle 7 in the old situation and for 94% in the new situation. Based on the RSB Screening tool there are no expected negative impacts for biodiversity, ecosystems and conservation values.

EvidenceSome evidence is available (34%). We used the RSB screening tool to assess compliance. However maps and databases, local stakeholder testimonies or other objective documented evidence was not available.

5) P8. Soil

40

PrincipleGasifier operations shall implement practices that seek to reverse soil degradation and/or maintain soil health.

Conclusions

The operation complies for 20% with principle 8 in the old situation and for 57% in the new situation. > Agricultural activities are out of scope as a residue is used.> Currently rice husk is not being used in other useful applications> Rice husk is being dumped behind the RPC unit > Biochar potentially can improve soil quality> There are pollution and contamination risks from PAHs in the water and sludge of the settling pond

Evidence

At present some (54%) evidence is available, mostly related to proving a residue is being used. As the gasifier is not operational yet and biochar is not used yet, no evidence is available related to the potential soil contamination risks and potential positive impacts on soil quality.

5) P9. Water

41

PrincipleGasifier operations shall maintain or enhance the quality and quantity of surface and ground water resources, and respect prior formal or customary water rights.

Conclusions

The gasifier operation complies for 90% with principle 9 in the old situation and for 48% in the new situation.> Operation does not affect the availability of water in any way > Contamination risk of ground water and nearby water ways

EvidenceThe available evidence (23%) origins mainly from discussions with BULOG and UPGB staff. No supportive documented evidence is available.

5) P10. Air

42

PrincipleAir pollution from bioenergy operations shall be minimized along the supply chain.

Conclusions

The gasifier operations is not compliant with this principle as no Air Emission Control Plan is available and/or implemented. + potential emissions from gasifier have not been identified+ gasifier installation is not checked for being gasproof

Evidence No evidence available.

5) P11. Technology

43

PrincipleThe use of gasifier technology shall seek to maximize production efficiency and social and environmental performance, and minimize the risk of damages to the environment and people.

Conclusions

The operation complies for 48% with principle 11 in the old situation and for 20% in the new situation. > Gasifier is a much more complex technology> No risk assessment of the installation has been conducted:

• Soil and water contamination by black water of settling pond • Air pollution from the gasification installation• Contamination caused by waste from filter installation • Explosion risks

> No Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) > No analysis has been made how to maximize the production

efficiency of the installation

EvidenceMinor evidence (20%) is available. Detailed technical description of the Ankur gasifier system not available. The low evidence supports the low compliance scores.

5) Main conclusions

44

1. The gasifier project has a great potential for positive

sustainability impacts and for widespread replication.

2. Crucial for the project’s success is its economic viability,

which is to be confirmed.

3. The current organisational set-up and procedures are

insufficient to secure the potential positive impacts and

to address the risks adequately.

4. As the gasifier is not yet operational (harvesting season

still to come), and the availability of documented

evidence is in general low, there are many uncertainties.

6) Recommendations

45

Step 1) Execute an economic analysis, based on factual data

and identify measures to improve economic viability.

Step 2) Execute and draft a Technology Risk Assessment and

a simplified Environmental and Social Impact Assessment.

Step 3) Ensure economic viability and secure positive social

and environmental impacts by implementing a

management plan.

Step 4) Set up the organisational structures required to

implement the above.

46

Vragen en discussie!

Partners for Innovation BVEmiel Hanekamp+31 20 62 00 511

[email protected]