Selasa, 09 Juni 2020

Complicated

Indonesia is one of the most biodiverse countries in the world and
has several types of government-approved community forestry schemes
that are implemented in both primary and secondary natural forest.
Indonesia also has high rates of forest loss (Abood et al., 2015) primarily
due to agricultural expansion. The area of large-scale industrial
plantation concessions has doubled since the early 2000s (Santika et al.,
2015; Gaveau et al., 2016b). Complicated forest tenure systems, unclear
legal status of customary land tenure, and vested interests from government
and the private sector have undermined efforts to curb high
deforestation rates (Brockhaus et al., 2011). This situation has led to the
land rights of smallholders and local communities to be largely ignored
by large-scale investors, with land-use conflicts being increasingly
prevalent (Obidzinski et al., 2012; Abram et al., 2016); a pattern that is
common in other tropical countries (e.g. De Oliveira 2008; Araujo et al.,
2009).

Rabu, 28 November 2018

INDONESIA: Investing in Climate, Investing in Growth

Key Messages:
·       The 1.5 degree Celsius (°C) rise compared to 2°C provides a host of benefits and avoided impacts.
·       The economy in a 1.5°C rise will be in better shape than in a 2°C —increasing wealth and preventing further deepening of inequalities. Costs will be lower for public health and climate adaptation. There will also be less of: extreme climatic events (heat waves, high intensity rainfall, hurricane, sea level rise, and flood), and long-lasting or irreversible impacts, e.g. the loss of some ecosystems.
·       Climate change impacts in Indonesia have been projected to decrease the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 2.5% to 7%, by the end of the century.
·       The Government of Indonesia (GOI) has integrated public low-carbon and climate adaptation/resilience investments in the Country’s development. The private sector, financial market, and state owned enterprises (SOEs) in the Country have addressed climate investments through direct implementation of low-carbon technologies and adaptation/resilience measures, issuance of green bonds and sustainable and responsible mutual fund, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and public-private partnerships (PPPs).
·       A conservative guesstimate on climate investments in the country in 2020 will be, USD 3.1 billion annually, which will cover 33% of investment based on the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), and 14% if consistent with the Paris Agreement (PA) target (below 2°C). Climate finance gap will further increase for 1.5°C consistent pathways, roughly estimated at 3 - 4 times the costs of below 2°C.
·       The potentials to reduce the climate finance gap in Indonesia are, 1) GOI’s Low Carbon Development Initiative (LCDI), and 2) embedding climate actions in the government’s expenditures on infrastructures and regional and village funds. Also, IPCC has further advocated for global policy tools to address climate resource gaps in a key climate negotiation document, the “Special Report on 1.5°C”.
·       Economic study has not been availed for a 1.5 °C scenario. For below 2 °C scenarios in the Group of 20 countries (G20), an increase of GDP is estimated at 2.5%, and 4.6% with climate damages included.

In October, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) dispatched a report unveiling the pressing needs for a large scale reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degree Celsius (1.5°C). Responses to the report ranged, from the resolute of Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the UN Climate Convention (UNFCCC) who twitted about the report as “a clarion call to maintain the strongest commitment”, to the pessimistic of Drew Shindell, one of the report’s leading writer, spoke to the Guardian on the remote possibility of ever reaching the 1.5°C limit.

The release of the IPCC Special Report which assesses a 1.5°C temperature rise (SR1.5) in Earth’s average surface temperature above the pre-industrial level, will likely consolidate the present climate goal of “well below 2 degree Celsius (2°C), and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C”. As defined by the IPCC, a 1.5°C consistent pathways are carbon budget scenarios with probabilities of 50 – 66% of staying below 1.5°C, by 2100. The “well below 2°C” is a political consensus, with no scientific definition found, and as speculated by Glen Peters’ in Energi and Klima is pathways with 66% probability of staying below 2°C. Meanwhile the world’s efforts are alarmingly inadequate in addressing the goal. Climate Action Tracker reported the present climate efforts are putting the world to between 3.1 to 3.7 °C, by 2100.

The Special Report, distilled from more than 6000 scientific studies, focuses in communicating impacts of 1.5°C versus 2°C rise. "Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being" said Priyardarshi Shukla, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III. However, SR1.5 also informs that climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present. The economy in a 1.5°C rise will be in better shape than in a 2°C —more wealth can be created, while also preventing further deepening of inequalities. Costs will be lower for public health and climate adaptation. There will also be less of: extreme climatic events (heat waves, high intensity rainfall, hurricane, sea level rise, and flood), and long-lasting or irreversible impacts, e.g. the loss of some ecosystems.

The multitude of climate change impacts in Indonesia have been projected to decrease the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 2.5% to 7%, by the end of the century—as assessed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). As projected by the report, “Pursuing a 1.5°C Rise, Benefits & Opportunities”, the country could experience a reduction in annual GDP growth by at least 50% by the 2040s due to climate change, if compared to no climate change. A study by the French Development Agency (AFD) and Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA) found that the greatest climate change impacts will also fall on the poorest people, especially those dependent on climate-sensitive livelihoods, such as agriculture and fisheries, and those living in areas prone to, for example, drought, flooding or landslides. The impacts are likely to be socially as well as economically divisive, disproportionately affecting the poor, women and female-headed households, families with a large number of children, and ethnic minorities. Those population groups often lack the necessary capacities to adapt, buffers against shocks, and capacities to recover.

Climate change directly challenges Indonesia’s development aspirations — both by presenting different opportunities and prospects for the future while also putting the Country’s past development gains in jeopardy (AFD & JICA).

The Government of Indonesia (GOI) has integrated public low-carbon and climate adaptation/resilience investments in the Country’s development. The private sector, financial market, and state owned enterprises (SOEs) have addressed climate investments through direct implementation of low-carbon technologies and adaptation/resilience measures, issuance of green bonds and sustainable and responsible mutual fund, and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Public-private partnerships (PPPs) investments on climate actions have also been facilitated by development agencies/financial institutions.

Indonesia’s Third National Communication to the UNFCCC (TNC) projected climate mitigation and adaptation investments, to 2030 at, USD 81 billion. Those investments will under the right conditions help and be a part that creates potentially larger climate-smart investments at USD 274 billion, as projected by the International Finance Corporation (IFC).

A conservative guesstimate on the volume of existing climate investments in the country, and with the assumption of a new climate finance regime that starts in 2020 will be, USD 3.1 billion annually.  The guesstimate is calculated and adjusted to 2020, based on data from 7 sources: Kemitraan, TNC, Ministry of Finance, BAPPENAS, Climate and Development Knowledge Network, United Nations Development Program, and indonesia-investments.com. The amount will cover 33% of the required annual climate finance needed in 2020 (USD 9.4 billion) based on the TNC document. The costs are estimated  based on Indonesia’s climate goal (which is not consistent with the global climate goal of “well below 2°C…”).

The climate finance for the below 2°C scenario that is consistent with the Paris Agreement Goal has been estimated by the Deep Decarbonisation Pathway Project (DDPP) for Indonesia. Annual finance needed was estimated at, USD 21 billion, in 2020 (based on climate adaptation estimation in the TNC, and the mitigation costs from DDPP). Projected climate finance based on existing fund volumes and sources will only cover 14% of climate finance in the below-2°C pathway. The IPCC made a rough estimation of 1.5°C consistent mitigation pathways which are 3 -  4 times the costs in 2°C. Although costs are country/region specific, those pathways will increase further the climate finance gap in the Country.

Yet, there are potentials to at least reduce the climate finance gap in the Country. Climate compatible components will be integrated more coherently in Indonesia’s development expenditures, as the country embarks on the Low Carbon Development Initiative (LCDI) in its next five-year development plan (2020-2024). LCDI will be led by BAPPENAS with a focus on sectors with the most emissions—energy and land use. These potentials can be harnessed as it does not need to cost much more to ensure that new infrastructure is compatible with climate goals, according to the World Bank (WB) and the New Climate Economy (NCE). Similar in trait to Indonesia's LCDI, Oxford Policy Management (OPM)-led Action on Climate Today has been working with sub-national governments in India and Nepal to integrate climate change into planning and budgeting, and showed possibilities to use existing resources more effectively. The mainstreaming of climate change into a broader budget emphasised the cross-cutting relevance of climate change to development policy.

In perspective, the magnitude of potential low-carbon development that can be embedded in the country’s expenditure is, (a part of) USD 77 billion. That has been based on the current (2018) GOI’s 2018 expenditure allocation for sectors that have the greatest need to be climate-friendly (infrastructures, and fund transfers to regional governments and villages).

To further consolidate climate actions, the Country still needs to address various shortcomings in climate finance mobilization, from market and non-market sources (public, private, and development; domestic as well as international).

The TNC document discussed climate finance programmatic gaps as they relate to the public, intergovernmental, and multilateral institutions sources. To bridge such gaps, the German Development Agency (GIZ) has developed the approach ‘Ready for Climate Finance’ to support capacity building in climate finance—through enhancing planning and financial governance to access international climate finance, and enhancing private sector engagement.

GOI, besides fulfilling its roles to finance climate related actions as a public service obligation, has also paved the route toward sustained climate change responses through enhancing climate/sustainability related capital flows and investments. These are by, establishing the Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF), enabling Indonesia Financial Services Authority’s (OJK) capacities, enhancing policy framework for climate investments, issuing of government green bonds, and implementing public-private partnership projects.

ICCTF links international public and private finance sources with national investment strategies—in stages, from grant-based investment to eventual market penetration and revenue generation, as described by Frankfurt School-UNEP’s report. Indonesia Financial Services Authority’s (OJK) technical capacities and governing authority are especially essential in the creation of an enabling policy environment to mobilize private investments in climate actions from, financial institutions and institutional investors in the capital market. The sustainable finance roadmap developed by OJK details work plan to achieve a goal on sustainable finance in the Country for the financial service industry. Paving the way for a systematic implementation, OJK is developing an umbrella policy to provide practical guidance to Indonesia financial sector on sustainable finance, the mapping of priority sectors, and an action plan for banking, the capital market and non-banking sectors, as revealed by IFC. Technically, OJK is building the capacity of financial market actors, developing green financing products, and engaging relevant ministries in developing financial schemes for industrial sectors. While in terms of governance, in 2017, OJK has issued a regulation requiring banks to develop action plans for sustainable financing and report their green financing.

GOI has provided fiscal and non-fiscal incentives, as conveyed by IFC and the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI), an international, investor-focused not-for-profit. Significant steps have been taken over the past few years to improve Indonesia’s policy framework—13 separate pieces of legislation from 2012 to 2015 in areas such as permitting, licensing, purchasing policies, and feed-in-tariffs for renewable sources of energy, along with support for green buildings. Other fiscal and non fiscal policies are, a tax holiday for certain business types and those in the special economic zones, and tax allowance for selected business sectors, credit enhancement for PPPs and SOEs in the form of sovereign guarantees and the provision of subsidies for PPPs. The fiscal incentives are complimented by simplified regulation to enhance the ease of doing business, e.g. fast track processing, and the removal of a minimum investment threshold, and improvements to the government’s PPP regulations for infrastructure.

A number of green investments have been initiated in 2012, on renewable energy, transportation, and  waste management, which are worth about USD 150 million. Banking institutions, private businesses, an SOE, Finland government, and international development agencies have been involved in the above partnerships, as reported by Kemitraan.

The flow of climate capital has been enhanced with the issuance of green bonds and a mutual fund product by GOI, SOE, as well as a banks (OCBC-NISP and DBS Bank). Present green bonds issued have/will obtain about USD 4.2 billion. A large portion is the Islamic law compliance green bonds (sukuk), at USD 4 billion. Relatively long tenor periods of the bonds (5 – 10 years) can accommodate longer term financing of climate projects. Also, the first mutual fund themed on sustainability ("Sri Kehati") has been launched in Indonesia in 2017 by the DBS Bank with a capitalization of USD 223 million.

Green bonds have also gained a significant momentum in the financial market, and are growing exponentially, reported CBI. According to CBI, the bonds can have comparable returns, and satisfy Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) requirements for sustainable investment mandates. Quoting Eric Raynaud, CEO, Asia Pacific, BNP Paribas: “[Green bond issuance] is proof that financial institutions can generate socially beneficial outcomes when we really work hard [&] our institutional investor clients have the appetite to invest in projects and companies that combine commercial and financial performance with clear environmental and social purpose and impact.”

Another potential significant climate finance is the Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) scheme with finances sourced from public, private, bilateral and multilaterals. According to the TNC document, there are about 37 REDD+ related Demonstration Actions (DAs)/pilots/projects/ activities, implemented with a variety of approaches, scales, scopes, time periods, extent and methods, and are distributed in 15 provinces. While the Country has significant forest and peat-land carbon stock, REDD+ implementation has been challenging. While it cannot be generalised for all projects, a study by Enrici and Hubacek in Ecology and Society, found significant challenges that had been encountered: operational financing for a project tied to a result-based payment scheme, overlapping project boundaries with other land uses, project areas encroachments, stakeholders’ fatigue due to a long time lag between project preparation including pitching and its initiation, perceived scant/non-existent benefits by community stakeholder, carbon markets that might not readily absorb emission reduction credits from REDD+ scheme, and in designing appropriate business models.

Projects under the UNFCCC's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) scheme (a carbon compliance market) have also been developed in the Country with 152 projects, by 2014, and worth billion of US dollar. Fund generation from CDM however is uncertain, as the Mechanism may be phased out in 2020, along with the Kyoto Protocol.

Indonesia is also involved in a number of other carbon emission reduction financing schemes. There are more than 60 projects across sectors—energy, forestry, and waste management—in Voluntary Carbon Standard, Joint Crediting Mechanism, Gold Standard, and Plan Vivo schemes, as presented by Indonesia Coordinating Ministry of Economic Affairs.

The carbon credit pricing looks to gain a positive momentum in anticipation of Paris Agreement consolidation in December’s Conference. The IPCC’s SR1.5, a key document in the upcoming Conference, produced high confidence analysis results stating the necessity of a high price on emissions in models to achieve cost-effective 1.5°C consistent pathways—being about three to four times higher compared to pricing of the 2°C warming scenario. Further, according to the NCE, most carbon pricing that is now in place are too low to drive transformational change.

Other avenue for private-commercial climate investments is the industry sector through policy on Green Industry Standards (GIS’s). The Indonesia's Ministry of Industry has ratified GIS’s which assess GHG emissions, and further the “cradle to grave” life-cycle of manufactured products, for 8 industry types, and is developing on more types. The adoption of the standards is voluntary, but will be compulsory although there is no confirmed implementation timeline.

Climate actions cross-cut Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Targets, and are mutually consolidating. Complimentarily, sustainable development supports, and often enables, the fundamental societal and systems transitions and transformations that help limit global warming to 1.5°C, as analysed by the IPCC’s SR1.5. There are thus opportunities for financing effectiveness in the integrated implementation of the Paris Agreement’s and SDGs’ agenda.

Meanwhile IPCC is also advocating for global policy tools which support decisive actions to address global gaps in climate action resources. The SR1.5’s high confidence result of analysis calls for policy tools to assist in the mobilisation of resources, including the shifting of global investments and savings and through market and non-market based instruments.

Study has not been availed on a 1.5 °C scenario. Meanwhile below 2 °C  scenarios in the Group of 20 countries have been estimated by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, to increase GDP by around 2.5%, and 4.6% when climate damages are accounted for.

In a July's speech, Patricia Espinosa urged climate actions in the midst of a critical point in history, as our window of opportunity is rapidly closing. NCE is calling for similar urgent response in policy and investment decisions in the narrow window spanning 2-3 years from now. Decisions in that time span will be crucial in shaping the next 10—15 years. The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate stated that the benefits of climate action are greater than ever before, and that decisive shift will unlock unprecedented opportunities to deliver a strong, sustainable, and inclusive global economy.

Jumat, 14 September 2018

Climate Financing Resources

Governance in Climate Change Finance
https://www.climatefinance-developmenteffectiveness.org/

Key lessons for developing Climate Change Financing Frameworks
https://www.opml.co.uk/files/Publications/corporate-publications/briefing-notes/bn-key-lessons-developing-climate-change-financing-frameworks.pdf?noredirect=1

Climate Investment Opportunities in Emerging Markets An IFC Analysis
https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/51183b2d-c82e-443e-bb9b-68d9572dd48d/3503-IFC-Climate_Investment_Opportunity-Report-Dec-FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Climate Finance: a Status Report & Action Plan (2016)
https://regions20.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ClimateFinance.pdf

Strengthening Public and Private Climate Finance in Indonesia Final Report, June 2013
https://cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/INDONESIA-Country-Report_3Dec2013.pdf

Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy (2009)
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/sustainability/cost%20curve%20pdfs/pathways_lowcarbon_economy_version2.ashx

Indonesia: Costs of Climate Change 2050
https://www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/files/asset/document/Indonesia%20Costs%20of%20CC%202050%20Policy%20Brief.pdf

A Catalyst for Green Financing in Indonesia
http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/catalyst-green-financing-indonesia

Greening the Banking System - Experiences from the Sustainable Banking Network (SBN)
(Input Paper for the G20 Green Finance Study Group)
https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/da980744-987e-496d-82e8-e5f146895165/SBN_PAPER_G20_updated+08312016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Sustainable Finance
https://www.dbs.com/sustainability/responsible-banking/sustainable-finance/default.page

The Economics of Global Climate Change http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/education_materials/modules/The_Economics_of_Global_Climate_Change.pdf



Jumat, 31 Agustus 2018

Temperature Rise Threshold Target


The Paris Agreement in 2015 calls for concerted action to hold the increase in global average temperature to less than 2 degrees Celcius (C), and the more ambitious target, to 1.5 degrees C—above the pre-industrial levels[1]—and net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. The temperature-limit  threshold refers to the Assessment Report 5 (AR 5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which stated with medium confidence that precise levels which can trigger a tipping point— dramatic, irreversible changes of the Earths’ climate. While the option of the more ambitious temperature limiting target has been advocated by climatologists, and also by Frank Bainimaram, the Prime Minister of Fiji, who stated that scientific research is revealing climate that is changing at a faster rate than was believed in the Paris Agreement. The temperature threshold target issue has further been complicated by assessments made on its feasibility[2]. While temperature threshold target has become a contentious issue, pledges and efforts thus far are still on the trajectory of putting the Earth’s temperature rise of 3C degree or more, thus the urgency of immediate action (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).



[1] Carbonbrief has provided an overview on the difference of 1.5 versus 2 degrees rise in the average global temperature which compares the differences in heatwave duration, freshwater availability , increases in rainfall  intensities, crop yield increases and decreases, sea level rises, and coral bleaching.
[2] A draft "special report" by the UN climate science panel to be unveiled in October, obtained by AFP, concludes that "holding warming at 1.5C by the end of the 21st century (is) extremely unlikely" (phys.org). However, "We can still keep temperatures well below 2 degrees," said Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford a co-author on several of the studies. But doing so requires that "we start now and reduce emissions steadily to zero in the second half of the century," (phys.org). Nevertheless a study in Nature Geoscience finds that holding the rise of global temperature to 1.5 degree Celcius is possible although very challenging (Millar et al., 2017).  

Senin, 13 Agustus 2018

Kinetic of decomposition of composting in household organic management system


Kinetic of decomposition of composting in household organic management system 
Composting of organic wastes has several benefits for the environment which includes:
·       Less than half greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide equivalent –CO2-equiv) released compared to landfiling—415 kg of CO2-equiv per ton waste in composting kg versus 927 kg in landfilling. The figures for comparison has been taken to account for short term decomposition, processing emissions and long term decomposition (up to 100 years); the processing emissions are assumed for centralized composting system and are strongly suggested to be much lower if composting is conducted at the household level. Figures are cited based on data from: see footnote [1].
·       Organic wastes in landfill are the main cause of acidic leachate which aggressively dissolve many compounds resulted in highly toxic leachate which contaminates groundwater. Diverting organic wastes from landfill reduces leachate toxicity. Modeling study has shown reduced toxicity of leachate with the reduction of organic wastes loads in landfill[2].
·       Better handling characteristics in waste management, i.e. reduced volume and weight, and becomes a stable material. Reduced volume and weight is caused mainly by[3]
o   loss of carbon (mainly carbon dioxide and very small amount of methane)—lost of carbon is estimated to be 63-077%
o   Loss of nitrogen (N) during composting was 51-68% and the nitrous oxide (N(2)O) made up 2.8-6.3% of this loss. The NH(3) losses were very uncertain but small.
o   Loss of water in the form of leachate.
The study is part of setting up a household organic waste management system to avoid its landfilling. The system aims to be efficient and low maintenance in managing waste. To realize the aims, a system with components of bokashi fermentation and passive aerobic composting was chosen. In order to stabilize the wastes, fermented wastes from the kitchen is loaded into the aerobic composting facility after adequate fermentation has been reached—a stage which maybe termed pre-composting. The aerobic composting facility is assisted by effective microorganisms inoculation.

Kinetic in household composting
The household organic waste management system is a combination of bokashi fermentation and aerobic in-vessel composting with effective microorganism innoculation.
Decomposition of organic wastes in composting is typically described as a first order reaction. A study (see reference)[4] had found that passive aeration and turning of organic wastes composted (compared to decomposition without aeration and turning) can increase the rate of decomposition by a factor of 1.8 to 2.8 at different parts of the compost bins. Addition of innoculum effective microorganism (EM1) further increases the kinetic by 28% to 40%[5].   
The casual investigation studies the kinetic of household composting and data are fitted to the following pseudo first-order kinetic model equation:
 
where C is the mass of wastes, k is the degradation rate constant (day-1) and t is the time (days).
Integrating the above equation and letting C = C0 initially when t = 0, it gives
The reaction rate constant (k) was obtained by plotting ln (C/C0) versus time.

Materials & Methods
Composting wastes: Garden wastes mostly leaves shed by trees, kitchen wastes.
Kitchen wastes were treated with bokashi fermentation using effective microorganism (EM4) and rice bran and which had been fermented for 5-7 days. The effective microorganisms are activated with sugar in the mixture of 20 ml of EM4, 15 grams of water and 1.5 liter of water. 1.5 liter + 20 ml of EM4 mixture treat about 40 – 50 liter of kitchen wastes produced over about one week. EM4 mixture dosage applied is 17 milliliter per 1 liter of kitchen wastes. Rice bran dosage applied is 4 grams per liter of kitchen wastes. Thus with assumed daily kitchen waste generation of 7 liter, daily applications are:
·       EM4 mixture applied is 119 ~ 120 milliliter and
·       rice bran applied is 28 ~ 30 grams.
The ratio of the wastes garden to kitchen is 10 : 1 by volume. Garden wastes and kitchen wastes are relatively homogenously mixed with the aid of a compost turner. The wastes are sprayed with effective microorganism (EM4) activated with sugar in the volumetric ratio of water and EM4 20 : 1, and 15 grams of sugar for every 20 ml of EM4. The application rate is suggested at 3 liter EM-water mixture per 1 m3 of waste to be composted (https://www.emnz.com/industries/horticulture/composting-with-em), which is 3 milliliter per 1 liter of waste to be composted.
The daily generation of wastes are: 1) kitchen waste = 7 liter, 2) garden waste = 3 liter, 3) once every week the garden is cleaned more thoroughly thus generating waste = 10 liter. Therefore daily application of EM4 mixture except for a day of larger waste generation is,
              3 (ml EM4 mixture/ liter waste ) X    (7+3) (liter waste) = 30 ml EM4 mixture
On the day of large waste generation, daily application of EM4 mixture is,
              3 (ml EM4 mixture/ liter waste ) X    [(7+10) (liter waste) = 51 ml EM4 mixture
Composting bin which was used was a 200 liter drum with passive aeration: pipes air intake numbering 64, on the side and bottom of drum, plastic grate, chimney in the center of the drum to create positive draft in the drum, and 2 T-pipes at the top of the drum to assist the creation of draft.
Nett weight of wastes and composted wastes were weighed on day 0 and weekly for 6 weeks.



[1] http://communitycompost.org/CCN_documents/GHG_compost.pdf
[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51206438_Mass_balances_and_life_cycle_inventory_of_home_composting_of_organic_waste
[4] (PDF) Drum Composting of Food Waste: A Kinetic Study. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305892566_Drum_Composting_of_Food_Waste_A_Kinetic_Study [accessed Jul 10 2018].

[5] Ibid. (Ref. 3)

Dryland Agriculture, Biochar and Climate Adaptation


I.     INTRODUCTION


Dryand agriculture in Indonesia is an important livelihood for a significant proportion of the population living in the tropical savanna climatic zone.  Most areas in Eastern Nusa Tenggara Province fall under the tropical savanna climatic zone with long dry season where 90% of the population rely on agriculture as their main livelihood.

The changing climate, abnormal changes in air temperature and rainfall, increases in frequency and intensity of drought and flood events have long-term implications for the viability of agricultural ecosystems (FAO, 2007). People living in marginal areas such as drylands face additional challenges with limited management options to reduce impacts (FAO, 2007) where climatic pressures on land have existed before the onset of climate change. Considerable resources  needed to increase agricultural ecosystem resilience are lacking in small scale farming households facing negative consequences of the changing climate.

The ENSO (El-Nino Southern Oscillation) is the main driver of inter annual climate variability in NTT. It has significant impact on seasonal rainfall as well as on the onset and the end of the rainy seasons (Fox 1995). Boer and Faqih’s (2013) analysis on temporal and average annual rainfall show greater deviations in the last few decades which are related to increases in the frequency of El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) episodes. As a result, most areas in the eastern part of Indonesia will experience more climate extremes (Boer and Faqih, 2013). The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) and Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) also influence the increase in the episodes of extreme climates (e.g. the extraordinary drought in 1997/98 which occurred in conjunction with El Nino and IOD positive).

Studies have confirmed impacts of the changing climate: the unpredictability of planting seasons, decreased soil fertility (Sari et al., 2007), failed harvest, degradation of agricultural land resources, increased frequency, area, and intensities of drought, and increased intensities of pests (Las, et al., 2008), and decreased crop yields (Setiyanto and Irawan, 2013).

Droughts as often experienced during El-Nino periods, cause crop losses in lower hills and alluvial plains while rainstorms linked to typhoons lead to damage to corn and other crops in the highlands4. In the 2002/2003 El-Nino for example, the production loss in NTT due to drought was about 130 billion rupiahs (equivalent to 16 million US$). Losses varied between districts of the order of between 0.5 and 5.0 million US$ (NTT Provincial Agriculture Office, 2004). More recently, the El Niño in 2006/07, for example, caused low rainfall and prolonged crop failure on the northern coast of the province (Muslimatun and Fanggidae, 2009); while the latest 2015/2016 El Nino had also caused “Long” to “Extreme “ drought in most areas of eastern Indonesia, including Nusa Tenggara (Food Security Monitoring Bulletin, 2015). On the other hand, extreme wet season such as experienced during La Nina (Cold ENSO) cause extreme leaching of especially nitrogen, wind and water damage which mostly damage corn and sorghum while other crops also tend to experience micro-nutrient deficiencies.

There are strong indications that changes in rainfall patterns are already occurring: over the last decade, there has been a growing number of years with a ‘false’ start of the rainy season, floods and droughts both during dry and rainy season, and high winds. Historical data analysis indicates that extreme rainfall has increased during the last half of the 20th century when comparing 1901-1950 with 1951-2000. Climate change projections prepared up to 2050 for NTT province suggest a likely decrease in September-November rainfall by 2050, with greater decreases likely in the western parts of the Province. There is also a consistent indication that rainfall will increase during March-May, suggesting a shift of the rainy season (a later start and later end) (UNDP, 2011). Prediction on the delayed onset of rainy season in Indonesia’s southern islands (which include NTT) is also stated by the Netherland Commission for Environmental Assessment (2015).

Small scale farmers in the dry land are facing multiple inter-related challenges—affecting their well
beings and sustainabilities—which are compounded by the changing climate. Technical obstacles concern the accessibility of appropriate agricultural inputs and techniques; economic obstacles are related to inadequate capacity to mobilise adequate finances for appropriate agricultural inputs and unfavourable agricultural product value chain. Geography concerns with accessibility (thereof, the lack of). Environmental challenges are numerous—climatic, agricultural land degradation, and the decline in healthy biodiversity which support pollination and prevention of pests and diseases. Some farmers are more prone to one or more of the above challenges.  

Adaptation to climate change includes a set of actions to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities in response to climate change (IPCC). Biochar based agriculture is one means to adapt to climate change challenges, through increasing  water retention/drainage capacity and fertility.  In agricultural cropping biochar provides resilience against both excess of water (due to high intensity rainfall), as well as lack of water (due to extended drought periods). Biochar also assists in exploiting beneficial opportunities of climate change which are, its ability to retain water gained from temporal excess (increased rainfall intensity). Application of biochar will also increase predictabilities of harvest, and extend the length of planting time (Scholz et al., 2014). Biochar application can also take the opportunity to increase arable land by the restoration of marginal land to increase crop production. The combination of increase in the areas of arable land and extension of planting time is in accordance to analysis of Irawan (2013) which states that efforts to overcome impacts of El Nino and La Nina should be focused in preventing the decrease of harvest area during the occurence of the former, and to increase harvest area during the latter.

Biochar benefit extend beyond the strengthening of resilience of agriculture in climate change adaptation. The application of biochar combines a number of important benefits: i) climate change mitigation: absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) in photosynthesis and carbon sequestration through its stable carbon, and the reduction of other GHG emissions (mainly N2O), ii) pollutant immobilization, and iii) waste management. In contrast to other organic materials, most of the biochar matrix is probably stable for hundreds to thousands of years when mixed into soils, and thus represents carbon that is actively removed from the short-lived carbon cycle.

An alternative use of biochar is as a clean energy source. Household burning of traditional biomass is a major health risk factor in Indonesia (Zhang and Wu, 2012). Indoor combustion of solid fuels using traditional stoves releases a large amount of particulate matter (PM) and gaseous pollutants, causing serious health  consequences for exposed populations. IAP emission levels generated by
solid fuels are often 20–100 times those of clean fuels like liquefied petroleum gases, and often up to 20 times higher than the maximum  recommended levels suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines and national standards (WHO/UNDP 2009).

Biochar briquettes as fuel in low emission cookstove has been proven to reduce smoke and harmful gas production from traditional biomass cooking. The use of biochar from agricultural wastes to substitute for firewood also contributes to the mitigation of greenhouse gases (GHG’s). Other benefits that may incur with the substitution of firewood with biochar for cooking are, time freed from firewood collection and increased security on cooking fuel availabilities in cases where wood for cooking fuel are scarce.

Decentralised biomass gasification electricity generation is also important in overcoming the lack of economy of scale in extending electricity grid to remote and sparsely populated areas. Likewise, biochar based clean cooking energy may overcome the lack of economy of scale in expanding the distribution network of clean cooking fuel such as liquified petroleum gas (LPG).

I.1.  Dryland Agriculture



Areas in Indonesia eastern provinces are generally less developed and in several regions, have been facing chronic poverty issue for decades such as Eastern Nusa Tenggara (ENT). The main livelihood of most villages (> 90%) in NTT is agriculture (BPS NTT, 2014). Agriculture mainly takes place in the form of subsistence rain fed based agriculture.

Dryland agriculture in the east of Indonesia, is especially vulnerable to climatic stress and land degradation due to drought and erosion vulnerabilities. Areas which are dominated by tropical savanna climate, have a longer dry season than most parts of Indonesia which are mainly in the tropical wet climate.

In Indonesia, dry agricultural land, is defined as land that receive precipitation of less than 750 mm/year. Agricultural land in those areas also receive short period rainy season and have less than 179 planting days. In terms of agricultural land resources, almost 50% agricultural land in Indonesia is dryland potential to contribute to national food crop production.

Most of agricultural land in NTT falls into the categories of dry agricultural land (237,800 ha) and dry agricultural land and bush (601,600 ha) out of 1,177,115 ha total agricultural land.

According to the Agency for Agricultural Research and Development, the production of food crops in dryland needs to be increased so that it can contribute to the national food security (Balitbangtan, 2013). The harvested land area of dryland crops has increased annualy by 0.34%, which is an insignificant—compared to those of non dryland harvest area with increase rate of 1.22% (Balitbangtan, 2013). Furthermore, area planted with agricultural commodities dominant in the dryland (cassava, dryland rice, and peanut) tend to decrease or remain stagnant (Balitbangtan, 2013). While there have been investments made in dryland agriculture, overall investments are much greater in wetland rice and plantation. Regions with dominant drylands (Sulawesi and Nusa Tenggara) experience slower or even contraction in the development of agricultural commodities than regions dominated by wetland rice or plantations (Balitbangtan, 2013). Generally, investments for dryland agriculture development is slower than for the wetland. This is reflected by the slow accumulation of agricultural capital and slow productivity increase  in the dryland (Balitbangtan,2013).

I.2.  Land Degradation in the Dryland


Land degradation is a reduction in the physical, chemical or biological status of land, which may also restrict the land's productive  capacity  (Chartres, 1987). degraded land in Indonesia can be defined as “critical land” based on standard as described in the Regulation of Dirjen 4/V-SET/2013 about Technical Guidance of Conducting Spatial Data of Critical Land byThe Ministry of
Forestry  (The Ministry of Environment and Forestry since 2014). Based on the regulation, critical land is the land which has been damaged, hence losing or reducing the function up to the defined or intended level. Therefore, the assessment of critical land in an area is adjusted with
the area function. The value of critical level of land is acquired from multiplication of weights and scores value[1] (Prasetyo et al, 2013).

The area of the degraded land (lahan kritis)  in Indonesia  was 24.3 million  hectare (ha) in  2013 (MoF). Most of the degraded land are in the forest and non-forest lands, have become weed infested land, open space, grassland, and dry agricultural  land.

The extent of degraded land in Indonesia is increasing rapidly especially in the dry areas, in the eastern and central parts (Anwar, 2009), caused  mainly by  inappropriate land  use and the lack of soil  and  water  conservation techniques.

Revitalisation of degraded land is a strategy outlined in the Indonesia Climate Change Sectoral (Agriculture) Roadmap which serves the need and demand for development in increasing agricultural areas that can prevent deforestation and decrease degraded land (BAPPENAS, 2010).

In the eastern parts of Indonesia, which are considerably drier, climatic factors contribute to the
dryness and arid conditions in various parts of the islands. In East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) Province, degraded land has reached 1,356,757 ha, comprising 299,291 ha in forest land and 1 057 466 ha in non-forest land.

The biophysical conditions of NTT Province, which are closely related to land degradation problems, are characterized here under:
·       An island dominated by hilly topography, 26–46 percent slope, with young sedimentary rocks and volcanic parent materials and high erosion sensitivity;
·       Low vegetative cover, low infiltration rate, high runoff and risk of floods;
·       A dry season of nine months and a rainy season of three months with high erosivity via rainfall;
·       Land productivity is very low, thus requiring many inputs from farmers to maintain production;
·       High sediment load during floods; this has led to mangrove forest degradation, downstream pollutionand other negative environmental impacts.

I.3.  Biochar, Agro-Ecosystem Resilience and Climate Change Mitigation


Biochar, a heterogeneous substance rich in aromatic carbon and minerals, is produced by
pyrolysis of sustainably obtained biomass under controlled conditions.

Biochar contributes to the increase in soil water holding capacity as well as drainage in flood prone area, the neutralization of soil acidity and to a decrease in the solubility of phytotoxic metals such as aluminum in soils. In addition, biochar can bind and release nutrients (N, P, K, Ca) and could therefore reduce nutrient leaching to the subsoil in weathered, low-cation exchange capacity soils.

Biochar specific surfaces, being generally higher than sand and comparable to or higher than clay, will therefore cause a net increase in the total soil-specific surface when added as an amendment. The beneficial impact of biochar as soil ammendment tool is because of its cation exchange capacity (CEC; 40 to 80 meq/100 g, high surface area (51 to 900/m2.g), which leads to increased soil pH and water holding capacity, and affinity for micro- and macro-plant nutrients (Lehmann et al, 2006; Laird et al, 2009 and Lehmann, 2007).

Increased soil fertility has been reported in the use of biochar as soil ammendment (Norwegian Research Council, 2014). An increase of yield was obtained  in a field test in an oxisol soil in Sulawesi. A trial in a compact clay (vertisol) area in Oebola, West Timor (NTT Province) shows that biochar can help to drain compact clay soil during heavy rainfall in the monsoon season.

Biochar ability to ammed a degraded soil was also reported. In Ngatatoro, Sulawesi, biochar which was used to ammend a degraded oxisol soil with limited nutrient holding capacity (low cation exchange capacity) increased yield and the length of planting season enabling two planting seasons (Norwegian Research Council, 2014).

Biochar can also strengthen communitye’s resilience through increasing access to modern energy services which are, clean thermal energy for cooking and productive activities and electricity—which are often lacking in remote areas. Pyrolysis heat from the production of biochar can be recovered for the provision of low emission thermal energy. Biomass gasification to generate electricity produces biochar as the by-product. Biochar made into briquettes can be used as clean cooking fuel. Access to those energy forms improve living conditions. Electricity and significant heat energy can also be precursors for economically productive activities (e.g. food proccessing, agricultural product drying).

Biochar also combines a number of other important benefits such as: i) climate change mitigation: carbon sequestration and reduction of other GHG emissions (mainly N2O), ii) pollutant immobilization, and iii)  waste management.

Assessments of the realistic potential for biochar in carbon abatement have converged on a figure of about 1 Giga ton Carbon/yr (Lehmann, 2007) presenting a potential wedge for climate change mitigation (Nsambe, 2015).

Biochar sequester about 40% of biomass from agricultural wastes that are pyrolised. Biomass which is pyrolysed returns around half of the biomass carbon into the atmosphere as CO2. Around 40% of total biomass C is sequestered, i.e. locked up for long periods, as biochar (the remaining 10% is more labile and degraded). In contrast to other organic materials, most of the biochar matrix is probably stable for hundreds to thousands of years when mixed into soils, and thus represents carbon that is actively removed from the short-lived carbon cycle.

Biochar also inhibits the emission of the strong greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O), where up to 90% (lab trials) and 70% (field trials) reductions in the release of the gas have been reported. The most probable mechanism to explain this is a combination of a “pH effect”(biochar having an alkalizing effect, see below) and an additional mechanism such as strong biochar sorption of nitrous oxide followed by reduction of N2O to N2 with biochar-sorbed organic molecules serving as electron donor.

Potentially, the energy generating component of a biochar system can displace carbon-positive fossil fuel energy and high emission traditional biomass combustion from cooking. The ability of biochar to maintain  soil fertility can potentially reduce emission from the conversion of forest to replace degraded agricultural land.

Contamination of soil with legacy pesticides such as DDT and persistent pollutants such as PAHs is still a significant problem (a billion-euro problem throughout the world). Such organic pollutants can be immobilized by strong binding to biochar added to the soil in small (1-5%) dosages. Studies indicate extremely strong sorption of hydrophobic organic compounds and pesticides to non-activated biochar (i.e., biochar that has not undergone a process with steam or chemical activation to increase pore volume) (Norwegian Research Council, 2014).

Biochar can be used as one solution to manage agricultural waste, as the are signficant quantities of wastes that are burnt and disposed indiscriminately, for example into water bodies. Biochar based system utilize the unmanaged agricultural wastes, converting the wastes into useful products which are soil ammendment and also a source of energy.

I.4.  Biochar Production Technologies


Rather than a single technology, biochar is a common thread running through various technological approaches, which can be varied to emphasize a particular outcome or opportunity (Lehmann, 2007).

Traditional biochar producing technologies emit greenhouse gases and particles and are therefore non-sustainable. There is a need to both introduce new environmentally friendly technologies making efficient use of pyrolysis gases and heat generated by pyrolysis.

Previous phase of the project have tested a number of technologies which are evaluated based on its social and economic compatibilities and environmental  performances.

Technologies that were evaluted previously are, the Adam Retort Kiln (ARK), Top lift updraft stoves (TLUD), and the Kon Tiki kiln (KTK).

The development of the Adam retort kiln and similar devices such as basic steel retort systems introduced the partial afterburning of pyrolysis gazes. In these retort systems the feedstock wood can be mixed with dry biowaste materials like prunings, rice husks or maize cobs but a lot of valuable start-up wood is still needed [Sparrevik et al., 2014; Adam 2009). Such medium-scale improved retort technologies, with the recirculation of pyrolytic gases produce around 75% lower deleterious gas emissions (mainly CO, CH4, aerosols) and higher yield than traditional systems.

Household-scale cooking stoves, so-called TLUDs (Top-Lit Up-Draft stoves) (Manoj et al, 2013) can generate biochar while using the energy produced for cooking. Advantages include that they burn cleanly avoiding negative health effects due to indoor air emissions (Smith and Mehta, 2003), can use various waste biomasses as feedstock and are fuel-efficient. Small-scale TLUDs may be applicable for horticulture or small kitchen gardens but they generate too little biochar (0.5–1 kg per run for household devices and up to 10 kg for the bigger community stoves) to supply enough biochar for farming or selling as charcoal. In addition, the stove needs to be actively quenched after each cycle, which is impractical in daily use (Corenelissen et al., 2016).

A recent development has been the introduction of the Kon-Tiki flame curtain kiln, designed in 2014 in Switzerland and rapidly spreading since by open source technology transfer to farmers in more than 50 countries (Schmidt and Taylor, 2014).

In contrast to medium-sized retort kilns, no startup wood is needed for flame curtain kilns. The cost per kiln varies with design, construction material and country but is within a range of €30 (soil pit shield) to €5000. The cheapest way is a mere conically shaped soil pit which would essentially be for free (Corenelissen et al., 2016).

The Kon Tiki kiln offers multiple advantages (Corenelissen et al., 2016):
1. gas and aerosol emissions are relatively low (for CO even lower than those of retort kilns)
compared to other small scale biochar and charcoal production technologies but not to
large-scale processes;
2. no wood is required for startup;
3. construction and operation is much easier and more economic compared to retort kilns;
4. pyrolysis is much faster (hours) than in most traditional and retort kilns (days).

Advantages and disadvantages of various medium-size kiln types (Cornelissen et al., 2016)
Biochar produciton technology
Application
Main advantages
Main disadvantages
Biochar-generating TLUD cookstove
Kitchen gardens, cooking purposes
Energy for cooking, Saving firewood, Low gas emission factors
Too small to generate larger amounts of biochar
Traditional kilns
Agriculture, charcoal making
Familiarity, Low investment cost, Complete pyrolysis of thicker logs
High gas emission factors, Slow (4 days)
Retort kilns
Agriculture (possibly+ energy), charcoal/ briquette making
Lower emissions than traditional kilns, High biochar yield, Energy generation possible with pyrolysis heat, Complete pyrolysis of thicker logs
High investment cost, Startup wood required. Complicated construction and operation, Slow (2 days)
Kon Tiki Kiln
Agriculture + heat, charcoal making (small logs)
Relatively low emissions esp. of CO, No startup wood required, Easy to construct and operate, Fast (3 hours for 1 m3 biochar), Low to zero investment cost, Heat recovery
Relatively low biochar yield (charcoal making), Incomplete pyrolysis of thick logs
Power-generating systems
Energy + agriculture, briquette making
Power generation, Negligible emissions
Relatively high investment cost, Low caloric
content of briquettes



[1] There are several parameters used to determine “critical land” level based on the regulation No. P.32 / Menhut-II / 2009, including: land cover, soil slope, soil erosion hazard level, land productivity, and land management. Bulk density, soil permeability, soil texture, soil structure, and soil organic carbon are some soil parameters needed in determining soil erosion hazard using USLE (Universal Soil Loss Equation) method.