UNIFORM REPORTING FORMAT:
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY
UNDER THE PILOT PHASE
UNIFORM REPORTING FORMAT:
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY UNDER THE PILOT PHASE
The uniform reporting format contained below is to be used in reporting on activities implemented jointly
under the pilot phase. It is noted that the reporting should be consistent with decision 5/CP.1 and 8/CP.2
(reproduced in annexes I and II to this reporting format). The SBSTA notes that the uniform reporting
format could possibly require revision in the light of experience gained and methodological work conducted
under the pilot phase.
List of
Projects
A. Description of project
A. 1) Title of project:
HORTICULTURAL PROJECT TYUMEN
A. 2) Participants/actors:
Please fill in one table for each participant/actor. For individuals fill in as from
item"Function within activity".
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organization (a):
|
RITZA
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
Russian, Tyumen, Zavodoukovsk, Innovation of Agro-industrial companies
|
|
Department:
|
RITZA
|
|
Acronym:
|
RITZA
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
RITZA
|
|
Function within activity:
|
(standard classifiers to be developed)
|
|
Street:
|
|
|
Post code:
|
|
|
City:
|
Gilevo-Zavodoukovsk
|
|
Country:
|
Russian Federation
|
|
Telephone:
|
+7 34542 23664
|
|
Fax:
|
+7 34542 21666
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
---------------------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Fokin
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
A. (Andrei)
|
|
Job title:
|
Manager greenhouse
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+7 34542 23664
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+7 34542 21666
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
|
a) Organization includes: institutions, ministries, companies, non-governmental organizations,
etc. involved in the activity, i.e. research institutes associated with the project, auditors, government
agency closely following the activity.
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organization (a):
|
V.E.K. Adviesgroep B.V.
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
V.E.K. Adviesgroep B.V.
|
|
Department:
|
Section Environmental Management
|
|
Acronym:
|
VEK/MZ
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
VEK/MZ
|
|
Function within activity:
|
(standard classifiers to be developed)
|
|
Street:
|
Maasdijk 86 (P.O. Box 57)
|
|
Post code:
|
2690 AB
|
|
City:
|
's-Gravenzande
|
|
Country:
|
The Netherlands
|
|
Telephone:
|
+ 31 174 417221
|
|
Fax:
|
+ 31 174 418066
|
|
E-mail:
|
vek@caiw.nl
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
WWW.VEK.NL
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
---------------------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Raaymakers
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
L.J.M.
|
|
Job title:
|
Head of Section Environmental Management
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+ 31 174 417221
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+ 31 174 418066
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
vek@caiw.nl
|
a) Organization includes: institutions, ministries, companies, non-governmental organizations,
etc. involved in the activity, i.e. research institutes associated with the project, auditors, government
agency closely following the activity.
A. 3) Activity:
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
General description:
|
Energy efficiency improvement greenhouse production of vegetables
(see also below)
|
|
Type of projecta):
|
Energy efficiency, agriculture
|
|
Location (exact e.g.: city, region, state):
|
Zavodoukovsk district, South Tyumen region, Tyumen Oblast
|
|
Activity starting date:
|
November 1994
|
|
Expected activity ending date:
|
March 1998
|
|
Stage of projectb):
|
In progress
|
|
Lifetime of activity if different from ending datec):
|
Closing date greenhouse
|
|
Technical datad):
|
Modern greenhouse complex with a surface of over 1 ha, including the necessary equipment and
working rooms
|
a) For example, using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) classification: energy
efficiency; renewable energy; fuel switching; forest preservation, restoration or reforestation;
afforestation; fugitive gas capture; industrial processes; solvents; agriculture; waste disposal or bunker
fuels.
b) Circle the appropriate option.
c) Methodological work will be required to define lifetime of activities.
d) Methodological work will be required to determine for each type of activity what the minimum
data requirements are.
Additional project information
The production of vegetables, such as tomatoes, in greenhouses requires a lot of energy, causing
CO2 emissions. In general this CO2 emission is due to heating (91%), electricity (5%)
an to equipment and input materials (4%). In the Netherlands the CO2 emission is calculated at
101 kg CO2/m2 and 2.1 kg/kg tomatoes. The yield of tomatoes in the Netherlands is
49.2 kg/m2 and the use of gas 51.7 m3/m2. In Russia the CO2
emission is estimated at 300-700 kg/m2 and 20-47 kg/kg tomatoes. The yield of tomatoes in Russia
is estimated at 10 kg/m2.
Objectives of this project are a reduction of the CO2 emission by:
- using a modern heating installation (efficiency 90%) and/or a cogeneration unit
- on-farm heat production (no transport loss)
- low heat losses by modern greenhouse structures and use of energy saving technology
- computer controlled heat production based on actual demand
- high yields by modern production techniques and crop management (high energy efficiency per kg
product).
A. 4) Cost (to the extent possible):
|
Item
|
Year 1
|
Year 1
|
...
|
Year Xc)
|
|
Cost of the project in US$a):
|
3.225.806 (total investment)
|
|
|
|
|
AIJ component in US$b):
|
I 322.500 costs
II 64.500 costs
III 5.500 profit
|
I 322.500 costs
II 64.500 costs
III 95.161 profit
|
|
I 322.500 costs
II 64.500 costs
III 235.600 profit
|
|
US$ per avoided ton of CO2 equivalentb):
|
I 68.56 costs
II 13.71 costs
III 1.17 profit
|
I 56.64 costs
II 11.33 costs
III 16.71 profit
|
|
I 38.40 costs
II 7.68 costs
III 28.05 profit
|
Describe briefly how costs are determined:
a) The cost of the project are the costs of RITZA and the cost of the Dutch side. The cost of
RITZA are the costs for the building site, oil storage tank, concrete and 65% of the labour. These costs
are not exactly know. The costs of the Dutch side is US$ 3.225.806. The costs of the JI simulation study is
not included. Total cost year 1 till year 3 is US$ 161.000 including monitoring equipment costs, annual
monitoring costs, costs for workshops.
b) For this project there are three different ways to calculate the AIJ component and the costs
per avoided ton of CO2 equivalent:
I Costs on total investment: the total investment for the greenhouse complex on the Dutch side is approx.
US$ 3.225.806. With a depreciation of 10% per year and an greenhouse area of 10.000 m2, the
annual costs of the investment are US$ 32,25 per m2;
II Cost on high energy efficiency investment: of the total investment costs, only about 20% is needed for
extra investment in high efficiency equipment.
III Profit: costs -/- proceeds.
Calculations are made with assumption that operational costs (plants, labour, fertilizer, crop protection,
energy, etc.) and proceeds are stabile.
c) An extra CO2 reduction by using a Total Energy Unit and or by extending the greenhouse
complex (lower costs per m2) is not included in the calculation.
A. 5) Mutually agreed assessment procedures:
|
Describe the procedures, including name of organizations involved):
|
|
RITZA - collects in co-operation with VEK the data for the baseline calculation
- collects the necessary data directly from metering/monitoring equipment/registration and climate
computer and sends them to VEK
- has obligation to realize the highest yield in tomato production as possible with the lowest
energy consumption
- organize and contribute to workshops
VEK - calculating the baseline
- setting up the monitoring system
- technical assistance in placing the monitoring system
- calculate the CO2 emission reduction and cost effectiveness
- carry out crop consultancy
- report to the government
- organize and contribute to workshops
|
a) Please ensure that detailed contact information for all organizations mentioned is reported
under
section A.2 above.
B. Governmental acceptance, approval or endorsement
Bearing in mind that all activities implemented jointly under this pilot phase require prior acceptance,
approval or endorsement by the Governments of the Parties participating in these activities, which shall be
shown as follows:
(a) In the case of joint reporting, the report is submitted by the designated national authority of one
participating Party with the concurrence of all other participating Parties as evidenced by attached
letters issued by the relevant national authorities;
(b) In the case of separate reporting, the reports are submitted separately by the designated national
authority of each and every participating Party. Information will only be compiled once reports have been
received from all participating Parties.
B. 1) For the activity:
* First report and joint reporting: please add copies of letters of endorsement by each designated national
authority of Parties involved in the activity.
* Subsequent reports:_
Activity was:
_ suspended
_ terminated earlier
Describe:
B. 2) This report is a joint report:
_ Yes, forward copy of agreement/endorsement by the
designated national authorities involved
_ No
B. 3) General short comment by the government(s) if applicable:
C. Compatibility with and supportiveness of national economic development and socio-economic and
environment priorities and strategies
|
Describe (to the extent possible) how the activity is compatible with and supportive of national
economic development and socio-economic and environment priorities and strategies
|
|
The project:
· contributes tot the Russian energy and environmental policies by using the most modern
cultivation technology for food production, which means a clean production with the use of
biological control in the greenhouses and by means of using techniques which as much as possible
prevent the pollution of the environment or a superfluous use of energy;
· is a fully self-employed food production project;
· has a demonstration effect on the region;
· is creating a spin-off effect by means of the involvement of private organizations and
energy producers in the region.
|
D. Benefits derived from the activities implemented jointly project
Whenever possible, quantitative information should be provided. Failing that, a qualitative description
should be given. If quantitative information becomes available, it could be submitted using the update(s).
(If the amount of quantative information is too large, the source could be indicated.)
|
Item
|
Please fill in
|
|
Describe environmental benefits in detail:
|
Less air pollution
Less water pollution
Less soil pollution
Less use of energy/better energy efficiency
Less use of chemicals for crop protection
Less use of fertilizers
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of environmental benefits:
|
Yes, CO2-emission, energy use/energy efficiency
No, emission of other greenhouse gases/other air pollutants, water pollution, soil pollution, use
of chemicals and fertilizers. Quantitative date could be collected but are not available now.
|
|
Describe social/cultural benefits in detail:
|
better and safer working circumstances
employment
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of social benefits:
|
No, could be collected but are not available now
|
|
Describe economic benefits in detail:
|
Lower production costs by higher production level
Higher prices by better product quality
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of economic benefits:
|
Yes
|
E. Calculation of the contribution of activities implemented jointly projects that bring about real,
measurable and long-term environmental benefits related to the mitigation of climate change that would not
have occurred in the absence of such activities
E. 1) Estimated emissions without the activity (project baseline):
Description of the baseline or reference scenario, including methodologies applied:
The baseline is based on the technical equipment of the Agrofirma Prigrodnaya nursery in Tyumen, which
consists of two parts of 5 and 6 ha respectively. The greenhouses are of the single-span type. The
single-span greenhouses (width 12 m) are not connected to each other, resulting in an extra surface of glas
of 30% compared to multi-span greenhouses. The public power plant of Tyumen delivers heat and electricity.
In the power plant steam is generated in gas fired boilers. The steam is used for electricity production
and the waste heat is used for heating the greenhouses. When more heat is needed, the generated steam is
used directly for heating the greenhouses. This gives a reduction of the electrical efficiency. In the
present situation tomatoes and cucumbers are cultivated in the nursery. Because of sub-optimal growth
circumstances, the yield of tomatoes is approximately 10 kg/m2.
Because in Russia there are different means of generating heat and power for greenhouses 5 baseline
calculations are made:
I the greenhouse is heated by a nearby power plant. The power plant generates heat and power (electricity)
in a co-generation installation. Overall efficiency 55%. The fuel is natural gas.
II the same as calculation I, but there is also energy used for desinfecting the soil.
III the same as calculation II, but with oil as fuel.
IV the greenhouse is heated with a nearby heating plant without co-generating. The fuel is natural gas. The
electricity is generated by an gas fired power plant.
V the same as calculation IV, but with oil as fuel.
Because a life-cycle-analyses (LCA) of tomato production in greenhouses in the Netherlands situation shows
that 99% of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2, only calculations are made for the emission of CO2. The
LCA also shows that the emission of greenhouse gases is for 91% due to heating of the greenhouse complex,
for 5% the consequence of the use of electricity generated in a power plant and 4% is caused by the
production of equipment and production of means (glass, steel, fertilizer, rockwool) and winning of raw
materials. So in the calculations is only the CO2 emission due to heating and the use of electricity
included.
The total CO2 emission per m2 per year and the total CO2 emission per kg product per year is
calculated for the different baseline calculations as follows:
I 293 kg/m2 resp. 29.3 kg/kg
II 314 kg/m2 resp. 31.4 kg/kg
III 404 kg/m2 resp. 40.4 kg/kg
IV 505 kg/m2 resp. 50.5 kg/kg
V 696 kg/m2 resp. 69.9 kg/kg
The production level is 10 kg/m2. Baseline calculation I is used for calculating the CO2
reduction.
E. 2) Estimated emissions with the activity:
Description of the scenario, including methodologies applied:
Calculations are based on a nursery with the following dimensions and technical equipment:
- surface greenhouse complex 10,000 m2; surface shipping building and technical room 500
m2 each
- heating: boiler capacity 2 x 3,500 kW; capacity heating installation 410 W/m2
- fuel used: natural gas
Emission reduction is achieved by the following aspects:
- high efficiency conversion of fuels intor heating by modern boiling installation
- by production of heat on-site no energy loss due to transport
- by use of modern greenhouses less losses and heating of greenhouses costs less energy oper surface unit
- by computer controlled boilor and climate regulator better tuning between heat delivered and demand for
heating
- by other cultivation methods (among others substrate cultivation) higher kilogramme yield per cultivation
surface
Calculation
Production of tomatoes 24 kg/m2
Energy needed for heating greenhouse 3,350 MJ/m2
Use of gas for steaming rockwool 0.1 m3/m2
Electricity use 182 MJ/m3
Efficiency heating generation 95% (0% transport loss)
Efficiency electricity generation 35% (5% transport loss)
Results
Emission CO2 by heating 197.4 kg/m2
Emission by steaming rockwool 0.21 kg/m2
Emission by electricity generation 34.1 kg/m2
The RITZA ex-ante calculation is 232 kg CO2 emission per m2 per year resp. 9.7 kg CO2 emission
per kg tomatoes per year. Production is estimated at 24 kg/m2/year.
Fill in the following tables as applicable:
E.2.1) Summary table: Projected emission reduction s: (kg CO2 per kg production per m2
per year)
|
GHG
|
Year 1
|
Year 2
|
...
|
Year X
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
29.3
|
29.3
|
==>
|
29.3
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
9.7
|
9.7
|
==>
|
6.6
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
C) Effect (B-A)
|
CO2
|
19.6
|
19.6
|
==>
|
22.7
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
19.6
|
39.2
|
==>
|
315
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
a) including indirect GHG leakage.
E.2.2) Summary table: Actual emission reductions : (kg CO2 per kg production per m2 per
year)
|
GHG
|
Year 1
|
Year 2
|
...
|
Year X
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
29.3
|
|
==>
|
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
B) Project activity scenario
|
CO2
|
9.8
|
|
==>
|
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
C) Effect (B-A)
|
CO2
|
19.5
|
|
==>
|
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
D) Cumulative effecta)
|
CO2
|
19.5
|
|
==>
|
|
|
CH4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
N2O
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
a) including indirect GHG leakage.
F. Bearing in mind that the financing of activities implemented jointly shall be additional to financial
obligations of Parties included in Annex II to the Convention within the framework of the financial
mechanism as well as to current official development assistance flows , please indicate
|
Source of project funding
including pre-feasibility phase
(For each source one line)
|
Amount
(US dollars)
|
|
Dutch Bilateral Support Programme PSO
|
3.225.806
|
|
Dutch JI Fund
|
161.000
|
|
RITZA
|
in-kind
|
G. Contribution to capacity building, transfer of environmentally sound technologies and know-how to
other Parties, particularly developing country Parties, to enable them to implement the provisions of the
Convention. In this process, the developed country Parties shall support the development and enhancement of
endogenous capacities and technologies of developing country Parties
Describe briefly the transfer of environmentally sound technology and know-how including where appropriate
the type of technology, terms, education, capacity building etc.
Technology transfer from the Netherlands:
- Greenhouse technology, including greenhouse, heating and watering installation, cultivation system,
technical equipment to produce tomatoes, seeds, fertilizers and selective pesticides and biological pest
management.
Cultivation and technology know-how:
- One year know-how transfer by instructing workers in using installations and cultivating tomatoes by a
Dutch manager on site
- Frequent visits of a crop consultant to consult on watering, fertilization, pest management, crop
planning, labour management, etc.
Enhancement of endogenous capacity:
- New production site for RITZA to grow vegetables.
H. Additional comments, if any, including any practical experience gained or technical difficulties,
effects, impacts or other obstacles encountered
Fill in as appropriate:
H. 1) Any practical experience gained:
H. 2) Technical difficulties:
H. 3) Negative impacts and/or effects encountered:
Whenever possible, quantitative information should be provided. Failing that, a qualitative description
should be given. If quantitative information becomes available, it could be submitted using the update(s).
(If the amount of quantative information is too large, the source could be indicated.)
|
Item
|
Please fill in
|
|
Describe environmental negative impacts/effects in detail:
|
Not encountered/anticipated
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of environmental negative impacts/effects?
|
No
|
|
Describe social/cultural negative impacts/effects in detail:
|
Not encountered/anticipated
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of social negative impacts/effects?
|
No
|
|
Describe economic negative impacts/effects in detail:
|
Not encountered/anticipated
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of economic negative impacts/effects?
|
No
|
H. 4) Other obstacles encountered:
H. 5) Other:
· The question which baseline is the right baseline;
· There is no definition of JI costs. Through that there are differences between projects in
allocating costs as JI costs.
· Different ways to calculate the costs per ton CO2 reduction: costs on total investment, cost on
energy efficiency investment, costs on profit.
