Opportunities for Trading Carbon Credits from Dairy Sector

Transcription

1 Opportunities for Trading Carbon Credits from Dairy Sector Smita Sirohi Principal Scientist NCAP, N.Delhi

2 Livestock: Source of GHG Emissions From the Digestive Process: Enteric Emissions Methane From Animal Wastes Methane Nitrous Oxide

3 Contribution of Livestock to National GHG Inventory In CO 2 Equivalent: 208.6Tg 17 % of Total National Emissions 60% of Emissions from Agriculture sector (NATCOM 2004)

4 Total GHG Emissions from Livestock Methane 9918 Gg Enteric (8972 Gg) Manure (972 Gg) Nitrous Oxide 1Gg (NATCOM 1994)

5 Mitigation Options: Animal Waste Emissions Biogas Methane emissions from Cow dung of one animal 225 liters of petrol (Dept. of Planning U.P., 2007) Cow dung 4 animals cater to cooking fuel needs of a family of five (Bagepalli Biogas Project, 2005)

6 Technologies for Enteric Methane Mitigation Improving rumen fermentation efficiency Feed Additives Propionate enhancers Ionophores Dietary manipulation, Feed substitution Strategic supplementation Changing rumen microflora

7 Feed additives Propionate Enhancers Fumarate : 24 % (Newbold, 1998) : 27.6%(Asuma et al., 1995) Malate : 25% (ADAS, 1998) : 27% (Martin et al., 1995) Acrylate : 13.8% (Ouda et al, 1999) Ionophores Monensin : 25% (Van naval & Demeyer, 1995) Salinomycin (Wakita et al., 1986) Lasalocid (Tyler et al., 2003)

8 Dietary manipulation Feed Substitution Low digestibility feeds with high digestibility ones: 7.8% (O Hara et al, 2003) Concentrate feeding: 40% Replacing fibrous concentrate with starchy concentrate: 22% Utilization of less ruminally degradable starch: 17% (Benchar et al 2001) Strategic Supplementation: Molasses/Urea Multinutrient block (MNBs): 25-27% (Bowman et al., 1992; Robertson et al., 1994)

9 Changing Rumen microflora Probiotics Aspergillus oryzae reduction potential: 50% (Frumholtz et al 1989) Saccharomyces cerevisiae Reduction potential: 10%, but not sustatined (Mutsvangwa et al 1992) Methane oxidising bacteria Reduction potential: 8% (ADAS, 1998)

10 Defaunation Plant secondary metabolites for use as possible defaunating agents: Saponin (Kamra et al., 2000; Sliwinski et al., 2002; Lila et al., 2003). Bacteriocins Nisin 36% (Callaway et al., 1997)

11 Effect of Methane Mitigation Options on Dairy Animals in India Mitigation option Extent of reduction 1. Dietary manipulation (i) Supplementation of 5.7% (Singhal and Madhu Mohini, 2002) Green Fodder (ii) Concentrate feeding 15-32% (Singh and Madhu Mohini, 1999) 2. Feed additives (i) Monensin 21% (De and Singh, 2001) For animals on: Maintenance diet 14-23% } Medium producing ration 23-32% }(Singh, 1998) High producing ration 14-25% } 3. Strategic supplementation (i) Urea Molasses Mineral Block (UMMB) 15% (Singh et al., 2001) 8.7% (Srivastava and Garg, 2002)

12 Carbon Credits: Scope Potential to Generate CERs 10% annual reduction in enteric emissions =18 million CERs Small projects covering group of districts 10% methane reduction 15% coverage of adult bovine population

13 Potential Annual CERs from Enteric Methane Mitigation

14 Effect on milk productivity Feed Additives (Ionophores) Monensin premix 4.5 % Monensin Controlled Released Capsule (CRC) 6% (McGuffey et al. 2001) Strategic Supplementation (MUBs) Bangladesh 18% (Rafiq et al, 2000) Uttranchal Buffaloes: 35.97% Cows: 33.8% (Singh and Singh, 2003) Himachal Pradesh Buffaloes: 35.18% Cows: 31.58% (Tripathi et al. 2006) Probiotics Yeast probiotics 7.8% (Wallace and Newbold, 1993)

15 Economics of MUB Supplementation Types of animals Units Adult animals: Local cows Buffalo Heifer: Local cows Buffalo Adult male: Cattle Buffalo Annual cost of suppleme ntation Rs Annual CH 4 emissions Kg/head Annual CH 4 Kg/head Dairy animals Non-Dairy animals Gross cost of reduction Rs./t CO Increased returns from milk Rs Net cost of reduction Rs./t CO

16 Cost of ionophore feed additive Type of animal Unit Annual cost of ionophore Rs. Annual CH 4 emission Kg/head Annual CH 4 Kg/head Gross cost of reduction Rs./t CO 2 Increased returns from milk Rs. Net cost of reduction Rs./tCO 2 Local cow Buffalo Crossbred cow Other animals

17 Market economics of methane mitigation : Haryana Particulars Units Mitigation (25% Base case BAU coverage) Milk production/ consumption million tonnes/yr Per capita milk consumption gms./day Domestic milk price Rs./lit TWTP Rs. billion/year Production Cost Rs. billion/year Annualised Investment Rs. billion/year Total Surplus Rs. billion/year Economic cost Rs. billion/year Dairy animals thousands buffaloes thousands crossbred cows thousands local cows thousands Total Methane emissions tonnes/year

18 Earlier Efforts India Dairy Project using the molasses urea products (MUPs) undertaken during in Gujarat Collaborative venture of U.S. based non-profit organization, Enterprise Works and electricity giants Applied Energy Systems Ltd. and Trans Alta. The Project was proposed to be a part of the US Initiative on Joint Implementation (USIJI) which was to be one of the most comprehensive programs for AIJ activities, the precursor of CDM. Enterprise Works and its partners in India (Appropriate Technology) worked with local commercial enterprises to produce and market lowcost MUPs as a dairy cattle feed supplement (Pashu Poshak) for increasing milk production and reducing methane emissions.

19 Project was expected to contribute 569,966 tonnes of CO2 reductions in TransAlta hoped the project would receive future recognition as a CDM project and in its Sustainable Development Annual Report 2000, reports a contractual transfer of following CO2 equivalent tonnes to TransAlta- 1996: 1000t, 1997: 6000t, 1998: 12,000t, 1999: 36,000t, 2000: 117,000t. Current status of the project from the perspective of mitigating methane is however unclear. Reported Net gain per animal (without accounting for returns from carbon credits): US$ per annum

20 Upcoming Initiatives Business organizations Pilot testing of products Dabur : Submitted PIN Research organizations Mitigation options International organizations RU Meth Japanese Company

21 Key Barriers No Approved Baseline Methodology as yet Access to smallholders Monitoring methodology Verification

22 The Way Forward Intensify CDM capacity building efforts in dairy sector Initiate work on CDM Baseline and Monitoring methodology Conduct field trials of mitigation options in different locations Small pilot projects

23

24 Assumptions Real Income compound annual growth 5.71% (=observed growth during 1990/ /05) Population million (as per the projections given by Registrar General of Population) Feed cost linear growth 7.3% (= observed growth during 1990/ /05) Milk yield linear growth rate 1.23% buffaloes, 0.70% crossbred, 1.24% local (= observed growth during 1990/ /05) Mitigation Additional assumptions: 10% increase in productivity over and above increase under BAU 11% reduction in emission rate per head, Option considered: Molasses Urea

25 Possible Increase in Income from milk production Average annual Net Crossbred Rs.4000 Buffalo Rs.3500 Local Cow Rs.280 Adoption of methane mitigation option Incremental Annual Gross Returns (10% increase in Milk Yield) Crossbred Rs Buffalo Rs.1500 Local Cow Rs. 700 Incremental Annual cost of feeding MNBs : Rs. 650 Monensin premix Rs.150 Incremental Net Returns as percentage of net returns without the adoption of mitigation option Crossbred Buffalo Local 7-196

26 Assumptions AMY LL PM CMP Crossbred Rs.12 Rs.10 Buffalo Rs.14 Rs Local Cow Rs.12 Rs AMY: Average Milk Yield LL: Lactation length PM: Price of milk CMP: Cost of milk production