The potential to access carbon markets through biogas projects in the Greater Mekong Sub-region:

Case studies and training needs

Study Objectives
1. To examine the level of understanding among biogas producers, farmers and relevant organizations on the economic, social and environmental benefits of biogas, bioslurry and bioslurry compost activities; and 2. To understand the current status and potential of biogas, bioslurry and bioslurry compost production in the GMS region and how these activities can be leveraged to access carbon financing.

Methodology
Desk research Field visits (Lao PDR - Vientiane Province; Sikhaod, Xaythany, Naxaythong, Pak Gneun and Hadxayphong) and Thailand Tamboon Prasak Muang district of Lamphun Province) visited 40 biogas producers and 40 farmers not producing biogas

Categories of findings
1. Potential production of biogas, bio slurry and bio slurry compost in GMS

2. Potential to access the carbon market

3. Status of bio gas production and bio slurry applications 4. Level of awareness among stake holders; especially bio gas producers and potential users

5. Training needs

Potential production of biogas, bio-slurry and bioslurry compost

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

at 100 percent TP at 75 percent TP

Scenario 3

at 50 percent TP

TP = Theoretical Potential

Composition and quantities of available livestock waste in the GMS

Livestock Total dry biomass (tons) 18,105, 110 C (kg/kg dry N (kg/kg dry matter) matter) 0.339 0.011 C (tons) N (tons)

Buffalo

6,137,632

199,156

Cattle

26, 700, 651

0.355

0.014

9,478,731

373,809

Pigs

18, 321, 713

0.524

0.027

9,600,578

494,686

Poultry

2, 806, 626

0.322

0.03

903,734

84,199

Total

65, 934, 100

26, 120, 675

1, 151, 850

Source: Computed from the literature values and national statics

Scenario 1: Theoretical potential of bio-slurry production

Country/Provi nce Bioslurry (tons/year) Dry matter (tons/year

C (tons/year)

N (tons/year)

Urea replaced (tons/year)

Cambodia Lao PDR Myanmar Viet Nam Thailand Yunnan Total

46, 447,938 32, 722, 468 170, 826, 074 157, 137, 968 122, 946, 393 153, 350, 112 683, 430, 953

3, 000, 863 2 ,151, 838 11, 042, 327 10, 973, 901 8, 173, 283 10, 811, 659 46 ,153, 870

956, 759 702, 192 3 ,514, 611 3, 967, 166 2, 670, 137 3, 861, 540 15 ,672, 405

65, 595 47, 916 241, 162 305, 084 198, 491 293, 601 1, 151, 850

142,598 104,166 524, 266 663, 227 431, 503 638, 264 2, 504, 023

Source: Computed from the literature values and national statics

Potential of bio-slurry production in GMS

Scenario Bioslurry (tons/year) Dry matter (tons/year C (tons/year) N (tons/year) Urea replaced (tons/year)

Scenario 1

683, 430, 953 46, 153, 870 15 ,672, 405

1 ,151, 850

2, 504 ,023

Scenario 2

512, 573, 214 34, 615, 403 11, 754, 304

863, 888

1, 878, 017

Scenario 3

341, 715, 476 23, 076, 935

7 ,836 ,202

575, 925

1 ,252, 011

Source: Computed from the literature values and national statics

Crop waste biomass, C and N quantities in potential crop waste production (calculated for
major annual crops from yield, area harvested and harvest index)
Level of estimate Scenario 1

Total dry Amount of C in Amount of N in biomass in crop crop waste crop waste waste (tons) (tons) (tons)
261, 514, 037 128, 752, 469 2, 131, 137

Scenario 2

196, 135, 528

96, 564, 352

1, 598, 353

Scenario 3

130, 757, 019

64, 376, 235

1, 065, 569

Source: Computed from the literature values and national statics

Potential bio-slurry compost production in GMS

Level of estimate

Total dry biomass (tons)

246, 134 326

C (tons)

N (tons)

Scenario 1

101, 097,412

1, 969, 792

Scenario 2

184, 600, 744

75, 823, 059

1, 477, 344

Scenario 3

123, 067, 163

50, 548, 706

984, 896

Source: Computed from the literature values and national statics

Annual N production potential and equivalent amount of urea in each scenario

Level of Estimate
N production potential (tons)/year Bioslurry Bioslurry compost Equivalent amount of urea (tons)/year Bioslurry Bioslurry compost

Scenario 1
Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Source:

1, 151, 850
863, 888 575, 925

1, 969, 792
1, 477, 344 984, 896

2, 504, 023
1, 878, 017 1, 252, 011

4, 282, 157
3, 211, 618 2, 141, 079

Estimated potential biogas production in the GMS

Country / Province Scenario 1 Fuel wood replaced (tones million / year) LPG replaced (tones / year) Biogas (m3 million / year) Biogas (m3 million / year) Scenario 2 Fuel wood replaced (million tones / year) LPG replaced (tones / year) Bio gas (m3 million / year) Scenario 3 Fuel wood replaced (million tones / year) 2 1 LPG replaced (tones/ year) 7 ,888 5 ,649

Cambodia Lao PDR

789 565

3 2

15 ,776 11, 299

592 424

2 2

11, 832 8 ,474

394 282

Myanmar
Viet Nam Thailand Yunnan Total

2 ,908
2, 890 2, 199 2 ,885 12 ,236

11
11 9 11 48

58, 151
57, 802 43, 986 57 ,708 244, 722

2, 181
2, 168 1, 649 2 ,164 9, 177

8
8 6 8 36

43 ,613
43, 352 32, 989 43, 281 183, 542

1, 454
1, 445 1, 100 1, 443 6 ,118

6
6 4 6 24

29 ,075
28, 901 21 ,993 28 ,854 122 ,361

Source:

Potential GHG reduction through biogas installation in the GMS region

Level of Estimate Energy Manure Fertilizer substitution management substitution CO2 eq (Gg) CO2 eq (Gg) CO2 eq (Gg) Total Value of emission carbon credit reduction (US$) CO2 eq (Gg)

Scenario 1

48, 363

13, 853

3, 856

66, 072

991, 075, 940

Scenario 2

36, 272

10, 390

2, 892

49, 554

743, 306, 955

Scenario 3

24, 181

6, 926

1, 928

33, 036

495, 537, 970

Value of unit carbon credit : 15$ / ton of CO2 eq- is assumed

Key observations
A number of biogas users have stopped their bio gas production Most biogas plants built under past projects have already stopped functioning It seems that many digesters are not operating in their full capacity - Perhaps less than 50% of feeding rate

In general, the potential amount of available dung, daily gas use and capacity of the biogas plants does not correspond to the ground reality

Key observations
There are oversized plants having no additional benefits from the excess gas There are under sized plants producing insufficient gas for the households needs Cattle and buffaloes are usually kept in stable at night time only Lack of properly trained local technicians

Key observations
Poorly constructed and managed slurry pits
Application methods of bioslurry are not up to standard

No proper bio slurry compost production

Training and extension perspectives

Majority of people are not clearly aware on biogas technology and its benefits Training in use of bio-slurry is weak Poor rural communities cannot afford biogas technology and appear to have low willingness to obtain it In general it appears that biogas is more accessible to wealthier

households

Training and extension perspectives

Coordination among key stakeholders at grassroots level is a must

in order to implement effective dissemination of biogas

technology and bio-slurry applications

The level of awareness of GHG mitigation potentials, carbon

markets and global climate change is poor among key stakeholders

at all levels
Quality training materials are available at upper levels of program implementation but this information does not seem to reach the field level

Conclusions and recommendations

A comprehensive extension programme is needed to motivate farmers and to establish effective production of biogas and proper use of bioslurry in order to obtain optimal benefits from investment in biogas technology in the GMS region Majority of people are not aware of biogas technology and its benefits Public awareness on biogas technology to overcome traditions and predilections of local people could be improved Existing biogas users can be motivated through nominal incentives from climate change mitigating programmes in the GMS region so that existing biogas programmes can be revitalized

Conclusions and recommendations

There is a need to design and implement suitable field experiments to better assess the potential level of chemical fertilizer replacement by bio-slurry, biosludge and bioslurry compost in the GMS context The inclusion of chemical fertilizer substitution and N2O emission reduction from manure management require more attention, emphasis and applied research