Letaba Biomass to Energy PDD - MyClimate

THE GOLD STANDARD: 

Project Design Document for Gold Standard 

Voluntary Offset projects 

For more information, please contact The Gold Standard: 

http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org 

info@cdmgoldstandard.org 

phone +41 61 283 09 16 

fax +41 61 271 10 10 

April 2006 

This document was developed by: 

(GS-VER-PDD) 

The Gold Standard for VERs has received financial support from: 

Explanatory information on how to complete the PDD and how to obtain Gold Standard registration can be found in 

the project developer’s manual available on the Gold Standard website. 

This template of the PDD is applicable for micro-, small- and large-scale projects. Note that the shaded boxes 

present information on the Gold Standard VER project development procedures. Project developers should delete 

these shaded boxes when preparing their PDD.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (GS-VER-PDD) 

Voluntary Offset Projects - Version 01 

VOLUNTARY OFFSET PROJECTS 


Version 01 - in effect as of: January 2006) 

A. General description of project activity 

B. Application of a baseline methodology 

CONTENTS 

C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period 

D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan 

E. Estimation of GHG emissions by sources 

F. Environmental impacts 

G. Stakeholders’ comments 

Annexes 

Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity 

Annex 2: Baseline information 

Annex 3: Monitoring plan 

Annex 4: Sustainable Development Matrix 

Annex 5: EIA Pre-screen 

Annex 6: Initial Stakeholder Consultation 

Annex 7: Data on other South African juicing plants and technology used 

Annex 8: Calculation of the Grid Emissions Factor 

This template shall not be altered. It shall be completed without modifying/adding headings or logo, format or font. 

page 2

SECTION A. General description of project activity 

A.1 Title of the project activity 

Title: Letaba Biomass to Energy Project 

Version: 6 

Date: 5 May 2009 

A.2. Description of the project activity 




page 3 

Letaba Estates is a large citrus farm near the town of Tzaneen in the Limpopo Province of South Africa. The farm 

grows, sells and exports fruit and fruit juice. The fruit juice is made onsite in a juicing plant that needs electricity and 

steam to operate. In the processing of citrus fruit most of the waste fruit peels are dried for cattle feed in peel driers 

fired by coal in adjacent combustion chambers and a portion of the peels is land-filled. Since 1961 when the plant 

opened, the steam requirement has been met from large coal-fired boilers installed onsite. Until recently the installed 

steam capacity was 31 tonnes per hour from four coal fired boilers, and at present the capacity is still 26 tonnes per 

hour from three coal fired boilers. The coal is sourced from 380 kilometres away in Middelburg in the province of 

Mpumalanga. 

Tzaneen is also home to a thriving forestry industry and there are several sawmills around town. In addition to much 

wood, large quantities of biomass waste is produced in the form of woodchips and sawdust. The wood chips have a 

market value and are freely available in a spot market, especially as Silicone Smelters in Polokwane (traditionally a 

large buyer) is no longer doing so 1 . The main supplier of wood chips and sawdust will be Matumi Sawmills (Pty) Ltd, 

a company that never before used to chip or sell its waste wood. There is thus no danger of a leakage through wood 

chips being taken out of the market. The sawdust produced by these sawmills seldom finds any useful large scale 

application and in several places has been disposed on what have become sizeable heaps (informal solid waste 

disposal sites). In total there are between 15 and 20 producers of sawdust of whom about a third possess large 

sawdust heaps in excess of 5 metres where methane is created. The total annual production of sawdust within a 49 

kilometre radius from Letaba Estates is estimated at 35 000 tonnes per annum of which about a third is stock-piled 

on waste dumps in excess of five metres high. These high stockpiles listed in A.4.1.4 below are conservatively 

estimated to contain 175 000 tonnes of sawdust at 65% moisture. 

Transport leakage is not considered. The reason for this is that the only source of potential leakage is transport 

emissions and the effect of the project will clearly be a positive leakage - the coal used in the baseline was 

transported from 380 kilometres away in Middelburg while the sawdust/wood chips will at most be transported 49 

kilometres from the landfill sites to Letaba. As a most conservative approach it will require 4.33 tonnes of wet saw 

dust at 65% moisture to displace 1 tonne of coal. If this is sourced from the furthest saw mill (49km) then the 

effective distance will be 4.33*49km=212km for saw dust, which is still far less than the 380km for the coal transport. 

The moisture content of wood chips will be 40% at most and so the positive leakage on a fuel switch to wood chips 

will be even greater. A sawdust drier fuelled by sawdust/woodchips may be installed at the site of the prime supplier, 

Matumi. This if viable will increase the positive leakage by making the fuel lighter. The feedstock would again be 

biomass and lead to no emissions. 

Project Activity Interventions 

1 The wood chips at most sawmills and specifically at Matumi, the chosen fuel supplier, are made from waste wood (off-cuts) 

produced in the sawmills. Matumi acquired a chipper specifically for this project. At sawmills in the area, smoke can always be 

seen as the prevalent method to dispose of waste wood is to burn it. There is thus no competing use for the biomass wood chips 

or the sawdust.



The busiest period at Letaba Estates coincides roughly with the citrus fruit season. During late February/early March 

preparations begin for the production of citrus fruit juice and the juicing plant runs at a high steam load factor until 

early in December. Maintenance can be done in the intervening 3 month period until the following autumn. 

The project will be done in three phases. The projected dates at which each intervention will take place are 

approximate and the intention where possible is to deliver these interventions sooner rather than later. 

Phase 1 


page 4 

Phase 1 will commence in October 2009. Work will start on replacing the peel presses in order to improve the peel 

press efficiency and on the conversion of the two peel driers to run on biomass in the form of sawdust/wood chips. It 

is projected that Phase 1 will be commissioned on 31 December 2009. The result will be a complete fuel switch in the 

peel driers and higher efficiency, leading to projected VERs of 4 647 per annum. As a conservative measure given 

that the baseline is determined ex post and efficiency will improve (effectively expanding the capacity of the peel 

drier) the VERs will be capped at the equivalent of the highest amount of peels dried in the last seven years, being 3 

991 tonnes, equating to 5 286 VERs per annum. 

Phase 2 

In October 2008 some steam efficiency measures will be implemented and an order for a biomass boiler in the 15-16 

tonne per hour range will be placed. When the steam demand is clear another, smaller boiler in the 5-8 tonne range 

will be installed primarily to cater for very unusual peaks in demand. The first boiler is projected to be commissioned 

on 1 July 2010 and the second on 1 January 2011. Phase 2 is thus the replacement of the present coal boilers. The 

first boiler will be from Thermax and the second, if affordable, will also be from Thermax. If a second Thermax boiler 

is not affordable, a used John Thompson boiler will be converted to also burn biomass. After 1 January 2011, barring 

an emergency, no coal will ever be burnt again at Letaba Estates. 

Phase 3 

Phase 3 targets the electrical energy consumption at Letaba Estates. At present the plant uses a maximum of 

approximately 0.5 MW grid electricity, primarily to cool fruit juice in storage. There is an opportunity to use waste heat 

from the production process at Letaba Estates to drive a Vapour Absorption Chiller (“VAC”) in order to provide 

cooling that will remove the need for grid electricity-based cooling. It is difficult to predict when the VAC will be 

installed as it cannot easily be done while the initiatives mentioned above are in progress. For purposes of this 

document it has been assumed that work on the VAC will commence on 1 October 2010 and will be completed 

another 3 months later (31 December 2010). 

Biomass is renewable (EB 23 annex 18) 

The biomass that will be used as a feedstock (sawdust and wood chips) is a biomass residue and the use of that 

biomass residue in the Project Activity does not involve a decrease of carbon pools, in particular dead wood, litter or 

soil organic carbon, on the land areas where the biomass residues are originating from. Biomass residue is usually 

defined as “biomass by-products, residues and waste streams from agriculture, forestry, and related industries”. The 

collection of the sawdust will not affect the forestry practices in the area and will not impact upon the carbon stocks. 

The sawdust and wood chips come from Eucalyptus Grande and Pine, species of tree used commonly for forestry in 

the area. 

Project structure 

The project in all phases will be developed by BioTherm Energy but owned by Letaba Estates.



The VERs will accrue to BioTherm Energy for its development services but in terms of a contractual agreement 

Letaba Estates and a to-be erected Worker’s Trust will share in the proceeds. In each Phase the VER income will 

increase. The project is not viable without carbon finance and faces amongst other things investment barriers and 

barriers of prevailing practice. 

Contribution to sustainable development 

On an economic level the project makes a contribution towards national economic development in that some 

employment will be supported both in the construction and commissioning phases (an estimated 10-15 contracting 

and 1-3 permanent jobs) by the end of Phase 3. The project will also lead to local skills development in the 

installation and maintenance of the peel driers and biomass/converted boilers. 


page 5 

On a social level the VER income share held by the Worker’s Trust will see the trust earning money going towards 

the aims decided upon by the Trustees - which are likely to include study bursaries for workers and their children and 

the improvement of the housing of workers who live on the farm. This will contribute towards the eradication of 

historical economic imbalances in the country. 

In both Phase 1 and Phase 2 the project will utilize biomass wood chips or sawdust for energy. The biomass will be 

used to displace coal, an environmental hazard that not only creates greenhouse gas emissions but also soot and 

dust. If sawdust can be burnt a significant local environmental hazard in the form of sawdust waste heaps will be 

ameliorated. It is hoped to in this way create a win-win solution. 

At present the ash from the boilers at Letaba is landfilled on the property. In the Project Activity less waste will be 

produced (because the coal has a 14% ash content and the biomass only 3%) and it will be landfilled as before. If all 

peels are dried and none are landfilled, methane formation will be further avoided on the Letaba landfill (no VERs will 

be claimed for this). 

A projected 100 000 VERs emanating from the project will via the myclimate foundation be traded to FIFA to offset 

the emissions from the 2006 World Cup in Germany. 

As required the sustainable development assessment of the project has been completed. The matrix can be found in 

Annex 4. Total score of the project is +8, all categories score positive, and no negative indicators were recorded. It 

can therefore be concluded that the project positively contributes to a sustainable development. 

A.3. Project participants: 

Name of Party involved (*) 

((host) indicates a host Party) 

Private and/or public entity(ies) project 

participants (*) 

(as applicable) 

Kindly indicate if 

the Party involved 

wishes to be 

considered as 

project participant 

(Yes/No) 

No 

South Africa (host) BioTherm Energy (Pty) Ltd* 

Private company – private entity 

South Africa (host) Letaba Estates (African Realty Trust) – private entity No 

Switzerland myclimate – The Climate Protection Partnership 

Foundation– private entity 

No 

The South African DNA has been informed of the project and has issued a Letter of No Objection.

A.4. Technical description of the project activity: 

A.4.1. Location of the project activity: 

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies): 

South Africa 

A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: 

Limpopo 

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc: 

Tzaneen 




page 6 

A.4.1.4. Detail of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification 

of this project activity (maximum one page): 

The GPS co-ordinates of the juice processing plant at Letaba is as follows: 

S 23 deg 52.659 min E 30deg 17.967min 

The GPS co-ordinates of the sawdust producers from whom sawdust is likely to be bought are as 

follows:



Distance to 

Letaba 

Estates by 

road in 


page 7 

Capacity of 

existing 

heaps in 

wet tonnes 

Size of 

heap PRODUCER GPS 

kilometres 

> 5m Matumi S23deg51.873min;E30deg5.592min 41.9 50 000 

> 5m Visagie S23deg46.714min;E30deg10.901min 30.6 40 000 

> 5m Thulani S23deg 42.112min;E30deg 8.432min 45.1 13 500 

> 5m Johan 

Schoeman 

39.1 18 000 

Mill S23deg54.979min;E30deg3.011min 

> 5m Kobus 

30.6 2 000 

Vosloo S23deg 46.714min;E30deg 10.9min 

> 5m Schoeman 

30.6 47 000 

Meule S23deg 50.196min; E30deg 7.656 sec 

The primary supplier of both sawdust and wood chips will be Matumi as detailed above. BioTherm Energy has a long 

term supply agreement with Matumi which will to the extent necessary be supplemented by buying in the spot 

market. Matumi has not been selling wood chips before and will be installing a chipping machine specifically to 

service the BioTherm Energy agreement. BioTherm will be ceding the fuel supply agreement to African Realty Trust. 

Small 

A.4.2. Size of the project: 

A.4.3. Category(ies) of project activity: 

Renewable Energy (Ecologically Sound Biomass) 

A.4.4. Brief explanation of how the anthropogenic emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHGs) by 

sources are to be reduced by the proposed project activity, including why the emission reductions would not 

occur in the absence of the proposed project activity, taking into account national and/or sectoral policies 

and circumstances: 

In the absence of the Project Activity, Letaba Estates would continue to burn coal for its peel drying and energy 

needs and so the combustion of the coal would continue to generate greenhouse gas emissions in the form of 

carbon dioxide. There is no legislative obligation on the owners of sawdust heaps to remove these, nor on Letaba 

Estates not to use coal for peel drying and/or steam. Letaba Estates would further continue to use electricity drawn 

off the national grid for cooling.

The estimated annual emissions reductions in tonnes of CO2e are as follows: 

Phase 1: 4 646 tCO2e from fuel switching in peel driers 

Phase 2: 11 189 tCO2e from fuel switching in biomass boiler/s 

Phase 3: 5 125 tCO2e from VAC 

Total: 20 960 tCO2e per annum 



A.4.4.1. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the crediting period: 

The crediting period is ten years for Phase 1 and shorter for the others in accordance with the later projected 

commissioning dates. The crediting period for all phases will start on 1 January 2010,. 

Years Annual 

estimation 

of emission 

reductions 

in tonnes of 

CO2 e 

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 

2010 10 241 4 646 5 595 0 

2011 20 960 4 646 11 189 5 125 

2012 20 960 4 646 11 189 5 125 

2013 20 960 4 646 11 189 5 125 

2014 20 960 4 646 11 189 5 125 

2015 20 960 4 646 11 189 5 125 

2016 20 960 4 646 11 189 5 125 

2017 20 960 4 646 11 189 5 125 

2018 20 960 4 646 11 189 5 125 

2019 20 960 4 646 11 189 5 125 

Total emission reductions (tonnes of 

CO2 e) 

198 881 46 460 106 296 46 125 

Total number of crediting years 10 10 10 10 

Annual average over the crediting 

period of estimated reductions (tonnes 

of CO2e) 

19889 4 646 10 630 4 613 


page 8

SECTION B. Application of a baseline methodology 



B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline methodology applied to the project activity: 

Phase 1 

Gold Standard VER Small Scale Methodology, “Ecologically sound fuel switch to biomass with reduced energy 

requirement” version 1 – (fuel switch in peel driers) 2 . 

Phase 2 

Gold Standard VER Small Scale Methodology “Ecologically sound fuel switch to biomass with reduced energy 

requirement”, version 1 – (fuel switch in boilers) 

Phase 3 

AMS II.D “Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for industrial facilities“, version 11 (vapour absorption 

chiller) 

B.1.1. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project 

activity: 

Phases 1 and 2 3 

This methodology was developed especially for this project to cater for the situation where there is a fuel 

switch from fossil fuel to biomass that also changes the efficiency. 


page 9 

The situation at Letaba Estates is that production varies in different years according to the size of the 

harvest and the type of fruit juice produced at the plant (sub-tropical fruit juice and single strength juice 

require different amounts of energy to process). It is thus not possible to determine an a priori baseline 

against which project emissions can be measured as it cannot be predicted what production levels or the 

production mix will be in any given year. If in such a scenario the energy input is measured in the project 

activity, the proponent will not get the benefit of energy efficiency improvements as it would tend to produce 

an artificially low baseline. 

The answer is to determine an a priori energy usage (and implicitly an a priori emissions factor) for both 

citrus and single strength juice and monitor output for an accurate baseline that gives credit for efficiency 

improvements. 

2 As a conservative measure and in accordance with the methodology, given that the baseline is determined ex post 

and efficiency will improve (effectively expanding the capacity of the peel drier) the VERs will be capped at the 

equivalent of the highest amount of peels dried in the last five years, being 5 286. 

3 As a conservative measure and in accordance with the methodology, given that the baseline is determined ex post 

and efficiency will improve (effectively expanding the capacity of the peel drier) the CER’s will be capped at the 

equivalent of the highest amount of peels dried in the last five years, being 3 991 tonnes per annum




page 10 

In the methodology the applicability criteria are stated as follows: “This methodology is 

applicable to fuel switching from fossil fuel to renewable biomass in existing industrial, 

residential, commercial, institutional or electricity generation applications, in the event where 

the project activity primarily aims at reducing emissions through fuel switching a , but will involve 

both fuel switching and energy efficiency measures which reduce the energy demand per unit of 

output” 

Applicability criterion Comment 

“Fuel switching…”! In Phases 1-2 the project primarily aims 

at fuel switching in the peel driers and 

boilers respectively 

“….from fossil fuel….” In the baseline coal is used in both the 

peel driers and the boilers 

“…….to renewable biomass….” In the project activity renewable biomass 

will be used in the form of wood chips 

“….in existing industrial, residential, 

commercial, institutional or electricity 

generation applications…..” 

“….in the event where the project activity 

primarily aims at reducing emissions through 

fuel switching a , but will involve both fuel 

switching and energy efficiency measures 

which reduce the energy demand per unit of 

output” 

“not applicable to project activities that 

propose a switch from fossil fuel use in the 

baseline to renewable biomass (…) in the 

project scenario without energy efficiency 

initiatives that reduce the energy generation 

requirement, or with efficiency improvements 

only in generation of energy.” 

Measures are limited to those that result in 

emission reductions of less than or equal to 60 

kt CO2 equivalent annually. 

“The potential of deforestation due to the 

implementation of the VER project activity 

must be addressed by considering the 

following applicability condition b : 

Where the project activity involves the use of a 

type of renewable biomass that is not a 

biomass residues or waste…..” 

“For biomass from land areas which in the 

absence of the project would be used for other 

and sawdust 

The plant at Letaba Estates is an existing 

industrial application 

The project aims primarily at fuel 

switching but intends to drop demand by 

raising efficiency in both the peel driers 

and the boilers/steam lines 

The project activity includes both a fuel 

switch and efficiency measures as 

detailed above 

As appears in sections A above and 

section E below, the projected emissions 

reductions from Phases 1-3 are well less 

than 60 kT per annum 

The project activity involves the use of a 

type of renewable biomass that is a 

biomass residue/waste in the form of 

sawdust/wood chip. 

The project activity will not change the 

use of any land areas

purposes (i.e. agriculture), and not be 

abandoned 4 , this methodology is not 

applicable, if the value of any of the following 

indicators is larger than 50%........” 

This methodology is not applicable under a 

Programme of Activities. 

Phase 3 



Not applicable – the project activity is not 

programmatic 

AMS II.D “Energy Efficiency and fuel switching measures for industrial facilities” 

Applicability criterion Comment 

“This category comprises any energy efficiency 

and fuel switching measure implemented at a 

single industrial or mining and mineral production 

facility….” 

“This category covers project activities 

aimed primarily at energy efficiency….” 

“The measures may replace, modify or retrofit 

existing facilities….” 

“The aggregate energy savings of a single project 

may not exceed the equivalent of 60 GWhe per 

year…..” 

“This category is applicable to project activities 

where it is possible to directly measure and 

record the energy use within the project boundary 

(e.g. electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption)…. “ 

“This category is applicable to project activities 

where the impact of the measures implemented 

(improvements in energy efficiency) by the project 

activity can be clearly distinguished from changes 

in energy use due to other variables not 

influenced by the project activity (signal to noise 

ratio).” 


page 11 

In Phase 3 at Letaba Estates the intervention is very 

specifically one aimed at energy efficiency in an 

existing industrial facility by retro-fitting a Vapour 

Absorption Chiller to utilise waste heat in order to 

provide cooling to the store rooms where the fruit 

juice is kept. 

In Phase 3 the intervention is very specifically one 

aimed at energy efficiency 

The intervention is a retro-fit (installation of a Vapour 

Absorption Chiller to utilise waste heat in order to 

provide cooling to the store rooms where the fruit 

juice is kept). 

The aggregate savings will be in the order of 4 GWe 

per annum – well under the threshold. The change in 

energy usage will not be affected by other changes in 

the plant set-up as it pertains to the cooling 

requirement while the other planned interventions 

pertain to the heating requirement. Furthermore, the 

cooling is presently done electrically while the heat is 

provided by the combustion of coal. 

It is possible to directly record the energy use within 

the project boundary by measuring the electrical load 

with and without the VAC being on. 

It is possible to directly record the energy use within 

the project boundary by measuring the electrical load 

with and without the VAC being on. 

B.2. Description of how the methodology is applied in the context of the project activity: 

4 please see “Attachment C (information on leakage in biomass project activities) b ” for details on relevant cases

Detailed baseline information and calculations are contained in Annex 2. 



Phases 1-2 Gold Standard VER Small Scale Methodology “Ecologically sound fuel switch to biomass with 

reduced energy requirement”, version 01 


page 12 

The methodology will be used on two distinct components of the projects, namely the replacement of coal in the peel 

driers 5 and the replacement of coal in the boilers. Throughout, steps will be taken to address the efficiency of the 

plant as a whole. The fact that the methodology rewards such interventions by measuring output (as opposed to 

input) is specifically why there will be an incentive to do so (otherwise the saving would only show up as a saving in 

biomass once the fuel switch has been done and there would have been an incentive to be as inefficient as possible 

to gain more VERs). 

Throughout it needs to be borne in mind that efficiency improvements in either the peel drying process or the steam 

process will lead to an aggregate saving in the historical (baseline) level of coal usage. 

The emissions factor for the peel drier is first established from which the historical coal use in the peel driers is 

established, meaning that the remainder of historical coal use is attributable to the boilers. An emissions factor for 

single strength and sub-tropical juice is then determined. According to these emissions factors the baseline 

emissions can then be accurately determined in each year with reference to the production of the respective amounts 

of single strength juice and sub-tropical juice. 

Phase 1 relates to the fuel switch in the peel driers and the improvement in the efficiency of the peel press. The 

technological intervention in the peel driers will take the form of a biomass fuel feeding system, converting from a 

chain grate system to a stepped grate system which will allow for the combustion of a wide range of fuels with 

moisture contents as high as 55% in a safe and sound manner. 

As part of Phase 2, one or more of the following initiatives will be used to improve the efficiency of the steam process 

in order to minimise the size of biomass boiler needed: 

• Upgrading of the steam lines; 

• Improvement of the evaporator efficiency; 

• Pre-heating of the product 

The methodology and more specifically its monitoring of output as opposed to input will ensure that both efficiency 

improvements and fuel switching manifest in the same variable namely a lower emission factor per unit of fruit juice 

which can then be compared to the emission factor in the baseline to determine the emissions reduction occasioned 

by the project activity. 

It is anticipated that the largest biomass fuel source will be sawdust as opposed to wood chips. 

The biomass boilers will be installed to run on either sawdust or wood chips. At least the first and probably both 

boilers will be Thermax imported from India. Thermax is an internationally recognised equipment supplier in this field 

and the technology is well tested, safe, appropriate and proven. 

5 As a conservative measure given that the baseline is determined ex post and efficiency will improve (effectively 

expanding the capacity of the peel drier) the VERs will be capped at the equivalent of the highest amount of peels 

dried in the last five years. This is in accordance with the methodology.




page 13 

The emissions from the fuel being biomass will be zero. For start-up procedures initially and after shut-downs for 

maintenance, wood chips or waste wood will be used. The emissions from the Project Activity will thus be less than 

15kT. No coal will be burnt unless an emergency arises, in which case the quantity will be monitored. 

The biomass in the form of Eucalyptus and Pine sawdust is renewable as described in section A.2 above. The wood 

chips supplied by Matumi wil constitute the first occasion on which Matumi ventures into selling wood chips made 

from its waste wood. There is no danger of a leakage due to the project due to this specific supplier. 

More generically the methodology requires consideration of possible leakage due to the following: 

A. Shifts of pre-project activities: can not be influenced by the project owner->leakage; leakage is in this case zero as 

no pre-project activities are shifted. 

B. Production of Biomass: can not be influenced by the project owner->leakage; leakage is in this case zero as the 

used biomass is waste/residue. 

. 

C. Competing uses of the Biomass: “The project participant shall evaluate annually if there is a surplus of the 

biomass in the region of the project activity, which is not utilised. If it is demonstrated (e.g. using published 

literature, official reports, surveys etc.) that the quantity of available biomass in the region (e.g. 50 km radius), is at 

least 25% larger than the quantity of biomass that is utilised including the project activity, then this source of leakage 

can be neglected otherwise this leakage shall be estimated and deducted from the emission reductions. A similar 

audit to the one done to establish the facts above re biomass availability will be done annually to determine surplus 

of the biomass in the region. 

In the present case no official data exists on the use of biomass but the developer survey revealed that the total 

annual production of sawdust within a 49 kilometre radius from Letaba Estates is estimated at 35 000 tonnes per 

annum. Existing stockpiles are conservatively estimated to contain 175 000 tonnes of sawdust at 65% moisture. The 

projected annual use of sawdust at Letaba Estates will be at most (assuming a very high moisture factor) 28 000 

tonnes per annum. This excludes the considerable supply of waste wood in the area. It is this evident that existing 

stockpiles alone will be able to provide sufficient biomass to the project for up to five years and that just the new 

supply of sawdust (excluding waste wood) would exceed the demand created by the project by about 25% on the 

most conservative assumptions. 

The fuel switch from coal to biomass in the peel driers (Phase 1 of the project) will result in a projected emissions 

reduction of 4 646 tonnes of CO2e per annum or 46 460 tonnes of CO2e over the lifetime of the project. The 

emissions reductions will be monitored by monitoring the quantity of peels dried and applying the historical emissions 

factors for drying peel from coal. 

The emissions reductions from the different phases are as per the table in section A.4.4.1 above. It is worth 

mentioning that these estimates are based on the historical average rather than present trends and that emission 

reductions may well be higher if production remains at high levels. This increase is however unlikely to take total 

emissions reductions from Phases 1-3 beyond 25 000 tonnes per annum. 

The project regarding fuel switching (phases 1-2) is thus eligible as small-scale Project Activity and will remain under 

the limits for small-scale project activities Type III every year over crediting period. 

Summary of baseline emissions factors: Fuel switching 

Coal – Emissions factor CO2 - Emissions factor

Peel drier 0.602349 tonnes Coal per tonne 

dried peel produced 

Boilers – citrus concentrate 1.359104 tonnes Coal per kL 

citrus concentrate produced 

Boilers – single strength 0.058794 tonnes Coal per kL 

fruit juice 

single strength fruit juice 

produced 



1.324364 tonnes CO2 per tonne 

dried peel produced 

2.988218 tonnes CO2 per kL citrus 

concentrate produced 

0.129268 tonnes CO2 per kL 

single strength fruit juice produced 

Phase 3 AMS II.D “Energy Efficiency and fuel switching measures for industrial facilities” 


page 14 

Phase 3 will consist of the installation of a Vapour Absorption Chiller or “VAC” from Thermax in India for the purpose 

of replacing the electricity used at present in the cooling of the storage facility at Letaba Estates, where the 

perishable fruit juice is kept prior to shipment to clients. The VAC will be run off the waste heat produced by the 

combustion of biomass in the plant (peel-driers and/or boilers). 

The projected emissions reductions emanating from Phase 3 are estimated at 5 125 tonnes per annum. This is 

calculated by multiplying the total number of hours per year with the projected load shifted (0.5 MW), with the 

projected load factor of 0.9 and with the grid emissions factor of 1,31kg/kwH = 5 125 tonnes per annum. The 

calculation of the grid emissions factor is attached hereto as Annexure 8. 

The grid emissions factor is determined in accordance with AMS 1-D. version 13, paragraph 9(b) being: “The 

weighted average emissions (in kg CO2e/kWh) of the current generation mix”. The data of the year in which project 

generation occurs must be used. 

It is anticipated that the grid emissions factor will increase in the next few years, as: 

• Eskom, the national utility, is presently bringing three previously moth-balled, coal-fired power stations back 

online. The three stations (Arnot, Komati and Camden) have installed capacity of 

2 100, 1 000 and 1 600 MW respectively (aggregate 4 700MW) and will further increase the proportion of 

grid electricity derived from fossil fuels; 

• The renewable energy projects due to come on-stream in the next few years (Darling Wind Farm, 

Bethlehem hydro and possibly some others) are unlikely to even approach 100 MW of installed capacity in a 

national grid of approximately 42 000 MW installed capacity (0,23%); 

• Eskom plans to ease pressure on capacity during peak hours by installing 1 000 MW of kerosene fired open 

cycle turbines as soon as possible. 

Data/information 

Value Source 

Grid emissions factor 1.3 kg/kWh Calculated as per annex 8 

http://www.eskom.co.za/annreport07/annreport07/downloads/eskom_ar2007.pf 

B.3. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that 

would have occurred in the absence of the registered VER project activity: 

As appears from the other parts of this document, the emissions reductions are clearly measurable. The emissions 

from biomass in the Project Activity are zero. Using the emissions factors derived in section B.2. above, the coal use



displaced can be accurately determined in each year regardless of the production levels at Letaba Estates or the 

relative amounts of citrus juice and single strength juice produced. In Phase 4 the electricity replaced and the 

emissions reductions it creates can be accurately determined. 

The Project Activity will contribute to technology transfer to South Africa as at present no juicing plants in South 

Africa are burning biomass in their operations. It is likely the technology will be transferred from Thermax in India. 

No public announcement has been made that the project would go ahead without carbon credits . The opposite is 

true – the project was announced as a carbon project within the context of the FIFA Green Goal initiative. 

No Official Development Aid (“ODA”) has been used in the project whatsoever. 

As appears below the project can illustrate additionality using the UNFCCC additionality tool. 

National legislation and policies relevant to the Project Activity 

Phase 1-2 


page 15 

There are no laws or policies compelling Letaba Estates to switch to biomass from coal at their juicing plant nor are 

any legislation compelling the owners of sawdust wood waste to combust the sawdust. Indeed, the usual feedstock 

for making steam at juicing plants is coal while sawdust in the area is habitually heaped into stockpiles and left as 

such. There are no laws compelling Letaba Estates to switch to biomass in their peel-drying operation, nor any laws 

compelling them to switch to biomass boilers. 

Phase 3 

There are no laws or policies compelling Letaba Estates to switch to a VAC for cooling from grid electricity. There is a 

possibility of a Demand Side Management (“DSM”) subsidy. In terms of EB 16 annex 3 any DSM subsidy should be 

disregarded from the baseline (see annex 2 for more detail). 

Additionality Tool (version 5.02) 

Step 1a: Identify alternatives to the project activity 

Alternative Comment 

1 Continuation of the status quo – coal based 

steam and drying and electricity based cooling 

2 Project Activity without VERs 

3 “Other realistic and credible alternative 

scenario(s) to the proposed CDM project activity 

scenario that deliver outputs services (e.g., 

cement) or services (e.g. electricity, heat) with 

comparable quality, properties and application 

areas, taking into account, where relevant, 

examples of scenarios identified in the underlying 

methodology”; 

The old boilers and peel driers can be 

maintained in a working state for several 

years into the future. This is a genuine 

alternative 

This is a genuine alternative 

There are no other viable alternatives as 

there is no gas line at Letaba Estates, 

trucking in gas is impractical and the 

storage and fuel feeding system is not set 

up for something like Heavy Fuel Oil which 

in any event is of comparable cost and 

emission levels as coal, making any 

change not viable. These are not genuine

The inquiry proceeds with options 1 and 2 

Step 1b: Enforcement of applicable laws and regulations 



alternatives. 

Both the alternatives are compliant with applicable laws and regulations. 

Step 2: Investment Analysis 

This step is not conducted as the barrier analysis is used as per step 3 below. 

Step 3: Barrier analysis 

As per “Tools for the demonstration and assessment of additionality”, the barrier analysis has been carried out for 

demonstrating the additionality of the project activity. Barriers to project activity must demonstrate following 

characteristics: 

(a) Prevent the implementation of this type of proposed project activity; and 

(b) Do not prevent the implementation of at least one of the alternatives stated above. 

Background 


page 16 

When BioTherm first approached African Realty Trust in about August of 2005 about a possible CDM fuel switch 

project there was installed capacity of 32 tonnes of steam per hour which was practically double what an efficient 

plant would need but the mere existence of so much redundant capacity showed that energy efficiency was not in the 

minds of African Realty Trust or that otherwise the solutions were not being uncovered. 

It appeared the plant had not been analysed from first principles for energy efficiency and there were several ways in 

which efficiency could be improved. BioTherm spent considerable time and dedicated highly skilled resources to 

investigating how the demand of the plant could be dropped so that a fuel switch that unlocks the VER revenue 

stream could be profitably made. 

As appears below the interventions are in reality a holistic effort aimed at a fuel switch but implemented in stages. 

Sub-step 3a. Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of type of the proposed 

project activity 

There are several barriers associated with the use of biomass fuel switching in the fruit juicing industry in South 

Africa. It is evident from the fact that till now no juicing plant in South Africa has switched to biomass or installed a 

Vapour Absorption Chiller for cooling purposes. The proposed project activity has to overcome various barriers which 

are illustrated in the following paragraphs. 

Barriers due to prevailing practice. 

• This is the first project of its kind in South Africa. Annex 7 contains a list of similar plants in South Africa, 

none of which have attempted a similar initiative.




page 17 

• The coal traditionally used in the boilers has been so used for approximately 48 years (from 1961). Supply 

is secure and there is no danger that the fuel will run out for many years to come. Counterparties are big 

entities with substantial balance sheets guaranteeing performance. 

• The entire fuel supply chain has been fine-tuned using coal over the years. The existing plant at Letaba 

Estates was designed to burn coal as the primary fuel. Burning alternative fuels involves investment not only 

in the peel driers and boilers but in a parallel storage, handling and processing systems. 

• The present project has been in development with the in-principle support of African Realty Trust since 

September 2005 and the PIN was first submitted the SA DNA in September 2006 . Despite a great many 

hours spent overcoming various difficulties as detailed below, the Letaba Board only finally saw their way 

clear to implement the project early in June 2008 after the provisional approval of the Gold Standard 

Methodology that would make the VERs possible. 

• It is thus submitted that there is an entrenched reliance on coal not only at Letaba Estates but also in the 

broader juicing industry in South Africa. 

Technological Barriers 

• Coal has a uniform characteristic and calorific value ("CV") while the CV of biomass differs across different 

types of biomass and origin. The main challenge with biomass is the non-uniform characteristics. Key 

characteristics are moisture, ash content, calorific value, chemical composition and contaminants. 

• Moreover, the moisture content of biomass can differ markedly and feed stocks like sawdust are often 

contaminated with a variety of materials including soil and metallic objects 

• The risk of technological failure is thus significantly greater for biomass than coal in the local circumstances. 

Financial and risk barriers 

• The inability to know what coal and biomass fuel costs will be respectively going several years into the 

future combined with the inability to hedge these costs especially in the case of biomass makes a 

meaningful financial comparison impossible. 

• The biomass market is currently very informal and unsophisticated. Suppliers must be developed and it is 

very difficult to enter into forward agreements for the supply of biomass as the market is typically a spot 

market and there is an expectation that wood prices will continue to rise. 

• Counterparties typically do not possess balance sheets comparable to that of coal suppliers, leading to 

increased risk. 

• Against these challenges, decisions with far-reaching financial implications need to be made, as detailed 

below. These decisions would not need to be made if fossil fuels remained to exclusive source of energy at 

the plant. 

• The fuel substitution programme at Letaba Estates has required significant sunken costs. In the thirty 

months of project development, BioTherm Energy has spent an estimated 1 500 person hours on the 

project, all at risk. This included: 

o between 8 and 10 site visits spaced over 30 months with concomitant travelling and 

accommodations costs (400 kilometres one way by road each time); 

o detailed design of technical solutions; 

o an entire week in the area doing GPS fuel mapping and negotiating with potential fuel suppliers; 

o Writing nineteen different versions of the PDD that were occasioned inter alia by changes in CDM 

rules, changes in the calculation of methane avoidance from waste dumps (this aspect of the 

project was subsequently abandoned), new versions of methodologies, changes in the cap on 

small-scale CDM activities, a ruling by the Small Scale Working Group that the applied CDM 

methodology shall not longer be used for fuel switching to biomass and by efforts to restructure 

the project so it could remain viable given the changes in projected carbon revenue;



o Drafting twenty six different versions of a Heads of Agreement between BioTherm Energy and 

Letaba Estates in order to find a way forward acceptable to both parties; 

o Drafting a new Gold Standard methodology after the applied CDM methodology became 

inapplicable and there was no approved methodology under which a combination of energy 

efficiency and fuel switching to biomass could be accommodated. 

o Engaging the authorities to get regulatory clearances. 

Sub-step 3b: Identified barriers would not prevent the implementation of Alternative Scenario-1 

which is continuation of current practice 


page 18 

The current practice scenario is the use of coal in both the peel driers and the boilers and the use of grid electricity 

for cooling. In essence the choice is between coal (status quo) and biomass (the project activity). Nothing prevents 

the coal route from proceeding into the future as the existing boilers can be kept in operation and the plant has 

operated in this fashion for more than forty years. The boilers can be kept in operation for a long time yet and should 

they become dysfunctional the chances are very good that second hand coal boilers can be obtained at low cost. 

The peel driers were built to operate on coal. Furthermore, there is expertise and experience at the plant on how to 

operate using coal. The coal is uniform and requires far less manpower to administer than biomass. Risk is low. Coal 

does not have the inherent danger of production losses or any technological uncertainty. 

It is thus submitted that the project activity faces barriers that would prevent the project activity from being 

implemented without carbon finance and further that there is an alternative that does not face these barriers being 

the continued use of coal. 

Table 1: Barriers faced by the two alternatives: 

Barrier Alternative 1: Continuation of 

the current situation 

Alternative 2: Project 

Activity without Gold 

Standard registration 

Barrier of prevailing practice n/a X 

Technological barrier n/a X 

Financial barrier (including risks) n/a X 

Step 4 Common practice analysis 

Sub-step 4a and b 

The project proponent is unaware of any similar project in South Africa that is not a CDM project. 

B.4. Description of how the definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology 

selected is applied to the project activity: 

Phases 1-2 Ecologically sound fuel switch to biomass with reduced energy requirement 

The project boundary is the physical, geographical site where the fuel combustion affected by the fuel-switching 

measure occurs, being the juicing plant at Letaba Estates. 

Phase 3




page 19 

AMS II.D paragraph 4 stipulates that the project boundary is the physical, geographical site of the industrial or mining 

and mineral production facility, processes or equipment that are affected by the project activity. This will be the 

juicing plant at Letaba Estates, inclusive of the cooling room. 

B.5. Details of baseline information, including the date of completion of the baseline study and the name 

of person (s)/entity (ies) determining the baseline: 

Baseline compiled by Martin Kruse of BioTherm Energy (Pty) Ltd (martin.kruse@wspgroup.com tel +27 83 282 0846) 

and documented by Johan van den Berg of CDM Africa Climate Solutions (Pty) Ltd (johanvdb@cdmafrica.com tel 

+27 82 925 5680), reformulated for version 16 of the PDD on 26 June 2008 and retained in later versions. 

SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period 

C.1 Duration of the project activity: 

C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity: 

1 October 2009. 

C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: 

Operationally, the fuel switching will continue indefinitely and both the converted peel driers and the multifuel 

boilers are projected to last 15 years or more. The VAC will last 15 years or more. 

C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information: 

C.2.1. Renewable crediting period 

Not applicable left open on purpose 

C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period: 


C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: 


C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: 

C.2.2.1. Starting date: 

1 January 2009

C.2.2.2. Length: 

Ten years 0 months 




page 20

SECTION D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan 

D.1. Name and reference of approved monitoring methodology applied to the project activity: 



Phases 1-2 Gold Standard VER Small Scale Methodology “Ecologically sound fuel switch to biomass with reduced energy requirement”, version 1 (June 08) 

The monitoring is done in accordance with the requirements of the abovementioned methodology 

Phase 3 AMS II.D: “Energy Efficiency and fuel switching measures for industrial facilities”, version 11 

The monitoring is done in accordance with the requirements of the abovementioned methodology 

D.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity: 

For reasons mentioned above in section B.2, the Gold Standard methodology used in Phase 1 - 3 is applicable to the present Small Scale VER Activity and the monitoring 

methodology used is prescribed by the relevant Gold Standard small-scale methodology. For reasons mentioned above in section B.2, AMS II.D is applicable to Phase 3 of the 

present Small Scale VER Activity and the monitoring methodology used is prescribed by the relevant small-scale CDM methodology. 

ID number 

(Please use 

numbers to 

ease crossreferencing 

to 

D.3) 

D.2. 1. OPTION 1: Monitoring of the emissions in the project scenario and the baseline scenario 

D.2.1.1. Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how this data will be archived: 

Data variable Source of 

data 

Data unit 

Measured (m), 

calculated (c) or 

estimated (e) 

Recording 

frequency 

Proportion of 

data to be 

monitored 

How will the 

data be 

archived? 

(electronic/ 

paper) 

Phase 1 

1 Weighted Letaba Kms M/C Monthly 100% Electronically 

average 

distance 

records 

and paper 


Comment 

page 21 

Crediting period plus 2 years – to ensure the leakage 

always stays a positive one

iomass 

feedstock 

transportation 

2 Auxiliary coal 

combusted in 

peel driers– if 

any 

3 Carbon content 

and calorific 

value of 

auxiliary fossil 

fuel (coal) – if 

any burnt in peel 

driers 

4 Auxiliary coal 

combusted in 

boilers – if any 

5 Carbon content 

and calorific 

value of 

auxiliary fossil 

fuel (coal) – if 

any burnt in 

boilers 


records 


records 


records 


records 

Tonnes/ 

Annum 

%, 

energy 

units per 

weight of 

fuel 

M and C Monthly 100% Electronically 

and paper 

M Monthly Sample Electronically 

and paper 

Phase 2 

Only monitoring additional to what will be done in Phase 1 is noted 

Tonnes/ M and C Monthly 100% Electronically 

Annum 

and paper 

%, 

energy 

units per 

weight of 

fuel 

M Monthly Sample Electronically 

and paper 




Crediting period plus 2 years 




D.2.1.2. Data to be collected in order to monitor project performance on the most sensitive sustainable development indicators: 

Because no negative scores were recorded on the sustainability matrix it is submitted that there are no related sensitive sustainable development indicators. Selected positive 

indicators will be monitored a specified below: 

page 22

Sustainable 

Development Indicator 

Data type Data variable Data unit Measured (m), calculated (c) or estimated (e) 

Poverty alleviation Pro rata Financial 

C 

payment of records project 

proceeds company and 

from VERs bank statements 

to workers’ 

trust 

trust 

Livelihoods of the Pro rata Financial 

C 

poor: Contribution to payment of records project 

equitable 

proceeds company and 

distribution and from VERs bank statements 

additional 

to workers’ Trust 

opportunity for 

disadvantaged 

sectors. 

trust 

Support of 

Number of Employment Jobs 

C 

employment temporary records ART supported 

opportunities and and transport 

permanent 

supported 

contractors 




D.2.1.3. Description of formulae used to estimate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.) 

Project emissions = tonnes of auxiliary coal burnt * carbon content coal * atomic weight carbon dioxide /atomic weight carbon 

Other formulae appear in Annex 2 

page 23




D.2.1.3. Relevant data necessary for determining the baseline of anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs within the project boundary and 

how such data will be collected and archived : 

ID number 

(Please use 

numbers to ease 

cross-referencing 

to table D.3) 

Data variable Source 

of data 

6 Amount of peels 

dried 

7 Total amount of 

biomass 

combusted 

8 Amount of citrus 

juice produced 

annually 

9 Amount of 

single strength 

juice produced 

annually 

10 Metering the 

energy use of 

the juicing plant 

and cooling 

facility 


records 


records 


records 


records 


records 

Data unit Measured (m), 

calculated (c), 

estimated (e), 

Tonnes/ 

annum 

Tonnes/ 

annum 

Recording 

Frequency 

Proportion of 



How will the data be 

archived? (electronic/ 

paper) 

Comment 

Phase 1 – Fuel switch and energy efficiency in peel driers 

M Monthly 100% Electronically and paper Crediting period plus 2 years 

page 24 

M Monthly 100% Electronically and paper Crediting period plus 2 years – this is purely a 

control measure that can act as a reality check 

Phase 2 – Fuel switching and energy efficiency in boilers 

Only monitoring additional to what will be done above is noted 

Tonnes/ M Annual 100% Electronically and paper Crediting period plus 2 years – this is 

annum 

necessary to determine what the baseline 

emissions would have been for the specific 

output level using the calculated emission 

factors 

Tonnes/ M Annual 100% Electronically and paper Crediting period plus 2 years - this is 

annum 

necessary to determine what the baseline 

emissions would have been for the specific 

output level using the calculated emission 

factors 

Phase 3 – Installation of VAC 

Only monitoring additional to what will be done above is noted 

kWh M Monthly 100% Electronically Crediting period plus 2 years

11 Load factor of 

cooling 

rooms/VAC 

12 Electrical load 

removed by 

VAC 

13 Published grid 

emissions factor 

Phase 1 and 2 


records 


records 

Eskom 

annual 

reports 




% C Monthly 100% Electronically Crediting period plus 2 years 

kW M Once at 

commission 

ing of 

CO2/kW 

h 

N.a Paper Crediting period plus 2 years 

N/a 

Phase 3 

Annually 100% Electronically Crediting period plus 2 years 

D.2.1.4. Description of formulae used to estimate baseline emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.) 

Baseline emissions = tonnes of coal burnt in baseline * carbon content coal * atomic weight carbon dioxide /atomic weight carbon 

Other formulae appear in Annex 2 

Phase 3 

Emissions reductions = hours of cooling room use per annum*grid emissions factor*electrical load removed by VAC 

page 25



D. 2.2. OPTION 2: Direct monitoring of emission reductions from the project activity (values should be consistent with those in section E). 

Not applicable 


Phases 1-2 

Transport 

D.2.2.1. Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how this data will be archived: 

D.2.2.2. Description of formulae used to calculate project emissions (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.): 

D.2.3. Treatment of leakage in the monitoring plan 

Leakage is not considered for the reasons mentioned in section A.2 above. 

Shifts of pre-project activities and emissions from the production of renewable biomass 

Neither of these is applicable since the biomass is waste and these indicators are thus not monitored. 

Competing uses of the Biomass 

In order to show that there is a surplus of the biomass in the region of the project activity, which is not utilised, it will be demonstrated annually that the quantity of available 

biomass in the region (e.g. 50 km radius), is at least 25% larger than the quantity of biomass that is utilised including the project activity and, therefore, this source of leakage 

can be neglected. For this purpose the amount of available and utilised sawdust and woodchips in the region is determined by surveys. 

Phase 3 

Leakage is not considered as the energy efficiency technology is not equipment transferred from another activity. 

D.2.3.1. If applicable, please describe the data and information that will be collected in order to monitor leakage effects of the project activity 


page 26



It is not expected that the variables below will lead to a leakage because the availability of wood chips and sawdust is far more than 25% larger than its utilisation. 

ID number 

(Please use 

numbers to ease 

cross-referencing 

to table D.3) 

Data variable Source 

of data 

14 Quantity of 

available wood 

chips and 

sawdust in the 

region of the 

project activity 

(50 km radius) - 

annually 

15 Quantity of 

wood chips and 

sawdust that is 

utilised in the 

region including 

the project 

activity – 

annually 

Field 

visits 

and 

interview 

s 

Field 

visits 

and 

interview 

s 

Data unit Measured (m), 

calculated (c), 

estimated (e), 

Recording 

frequency 

Proportion of 




How will the data be 

archived? (electronic/ 

paper) 

Comment 

Tonnes E Annually 100% Electronic Crediting period plus 2 years 

Tonnes E Annually 100% Electronic Crediting period plus 2 years 

D.2.3.2. Description of formulae used to estimate leakage (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of CO2 equ.) 

Not applicable because; 

- the availability of biomass is estimated to exceed the utilised biomass by more than 25% within the region. 

- The transport of feedstock is reduced. Therefore positive leakage occurs. However, conservatively this leakage is set to equal 0. 

D.2.4. Description of formulae used to estimate emission reductions for the project activity (for each gas, source, formulae/algorithm, emissions units of 

CO2 equ.) 

page 27

Phases 1-3 

Emission reductions = Baseline Emissions – Project Emissions – Leakage 




Baseline Emissions = Tonnes of peel dried in year y * emissions factor peel driers + kL of citrus concentrate produced year y * emissions factor citrus concentrate + kL of 

single strength fruit juice produced in year y * emissions factor single strength fruit juice + Annual hours of operation cooling facility* Published grid 

emissions factor *electrical load removed by VAC 

= Tonnes of peel dried in year y * 1.324364 + kL of citrus concentrate produced year y * 2.988218 + kL of single strength fruit juice produced in year y * 

0.129268 + Annual hours of operation cooling facility* Published grid emissions factor *electrical load removed by VAC 

Project emissions = tonnes of auxiliary coal burnt * carbon content coal * atomic weight carbon dioxide/atomic weight carbon 

= tonnes of auxiliary coal burnt * carbon content coal * 44/12 

Leakage = 0 (see D.2.3.2) 

Therefore, 

Emission reductions = Tonnes of peel dried in year y * 1.324364 + kL of citrus concentrate produced year y * 2.988218 + kL of single strength fruit juice produced in year y * 

0.129268 + Annual hours of operation cooling facility* Published grid emissions factor *electrical load removed by VAC – (tonnes of auxiliary coal burnt 

* carbon content coal * 44/12) 

D.3. Quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are being undertaken for data monitored 

It has been contractually agreed that quality control and quality assurance will be carried out by African Realty Trust as the functions below would merely be an add-on to the 

similar work already carried out at the plant laboratory. The weight bridge, laboratory equipment is calibrated as per the suppliers’ specifications and the local governing 

industry standard requirements. 

Data 

(Indicate table and ID 

number e.g. 3.-1.; 3.2.) 

Uncertainty level of data 

(High/Medium/Low) 

Explain QA/QC procedures planned for these data, or why such procedures are not necessary. 

3-1 Low The origin of all feedstock will be recorded. It is likely that most of it will come from one site. 

3-2 Low The amount of coal burnt is recorded by Letaba. In year 1 it will be necessary to distinguish between coal burnt in 

the peel drier and coal burnt in the boilers as only Phase 1 will be operative. The Quality Assurance Manager at 

Letaba Estates will ensure that separate record is kept of auxiliary coal being burnt in the peel drier. 

page 28



3-3, 3-5 Low Carbon content and calorific value of auxiliary coal – the quality assurance manager at Letaba estates will ensure 

that separate record is kept of the carbon content and calorific value of auxiliary coal. 

3-4 Low The amount of coal burnt is recorded by Letaba. The Quality Assurance Manager at Letaba Estates will ensure 

that separate record is kept of auxiliary coal being burnt in the boilers. 

3.6 – 3.12 Low The Quality Assurance Manager at Letaba Estates will ensure that record is kept of these variables. All these 

variables would be recorded in the natural course of business in any event. 

3.13 Low Published in Eskom annual report 

3.14 Medium In order to determine the biomass available in the region as accurately as possible the stocks at the facilities as 

listed in A.4.1.4 will be monitored by annual field visits and interviews. The sites make up a very large proportion of 

the feedstock in the region and will be a representative sample of what happens in the region. It will be assumed 

that these sites continue to represent the same proportion of the total as in the baseline 

3.15 Medium In order to determine the biomass utilised in the region as accurately as possible the stocks at the facilities as 

listed in A.4.1.4 will be monitored by annual field visits and interviews. The sites make up a very large proportion of 

the feedstock in the region and will be a representative sample of what happens in the region. It will be assumed 

that these sites continue to represent the same proportion of the total as in the baseline 

D.4. Please describe the operational and management structure that the project operator will implement in order to monitor emission reductions and any 

leakage effects, generated by the project activity 

Letaba Estates will continue to bear responsibility for transporting and delivering the feedstock (as in the status quo). Letaba Estates would further continue to take 

responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the plant in its totality, as in the status quo. BioTherm Energy will be responsible for full project development including 

CDM. BioTherm Energy would further facilitate and enter into the necessary feedstock supply agreements. The assets installed would belong to Letaba Estates.. Letaba 

Estates will be responsible for maintaining daily QC and QA standards. 

Letaba Estates presently uses the Requirements for a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (“HACCP”) quality control system as published by Standards South Africa. 

The system is managed and administered by the Quality Assurance Manager at Letaba Estates. The present project will use the existing HACCP quality control system and 

the personnel that are already in place. 

The seven principles of the HACCP system are as follows: 

Principle 1: Conduct a hazard analysis; 

Principle 2 : Determine critical control points (“CCP’s”); 

Principle 3: Establish critical limits to ensure each CCP is under control; 


page 29



Principle 4: Establish a monitoring system to ensure control over each CCP by scheduled testing or Observation; 

Principle 5: Establish a corrective action where monitoring indicates that particular CCP is moving out of control; 

Principle 6: Establish validation and verification procedures and conduct a review to confirm that the HACCP system is working effectively; 

Principle 7: Establish documentation on the procedures and records appropriate to these seven principles and their application. 

The data to be monitored as described above dictates how the first four principles of the HACCP system will be adhered to. There is an existing laboratory at Letaba Estates 

and an existing weigh bridge that is presently used to measure inter alia how much fruit comes into the juicing plant. These facilities will be used to establish and record how 

much biomass enters the premises. Should any coal be bought in it will also be recorded. The data will be captured on a log sheet hard copy and also electronically. 

The laboratory at Letaba Estates has historically tested the carbon content of coal purchased and will continue to do so should auxiliary coal be needed. Principle 5 will be 

used in the unlikely event that a CCP moves out of control so that corrective action is taken speedily. Principles 6 and 7 of HACCP overlap with the requirements of the CDM 

and will not be duplicated. 

D.5 Name of person/entity determining the monitoring methodology: 

Compiled by Johan van den Berg of CDM Africa Climate Solutions (Pty) Ltd (Tel +27 21 883 3474 or +27 82 925 5680). Assisted by Martin Kruse of BioTherm Energy (Pty) 

Ltd (Tel +27 83 282 0846) 


page 30

SECTION E. Estimation of GHG emissions by sources 

E.1. Estimate of GHG emissions by sources: 



Phases 1 & 2 Ecologically sound fuel switch to biomass with reduced energy requirement 

No formulae are needed once the fuel switches are complete as emissions by sources will be zero – fuel source 

(sawdust) is a CO2 neutral source of energy. The transport of biomass will cause a positive leakage and thus need 

not be considered. The emissions reduction will equal the baseline which will be determined as in Annex 2. 

Phase 3 AMS II.D Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for industrial facilities 


page 31 

No additional formulae are needed. The project emissions will be zero as waste heat will be used to drive the cooling 

process. 

E.2. Estimated leakage: 

As expected above no leakage is expected 

E.3. The sum of E.1 and E.2 representing the project activity emissions: 

For the estimated period of a year after the project start date until Phase 3 is implemented there will be project 

emissions from Phase 3 equaling the baseline emissions for Phase 3 (5 125 tonnes), thereafter the project emissions 

will be zero. There will also be some Project emissions from phase 2 (5 116) as it is commissioned after phase 1. 

The total is 10 241. 

E.4. Estimated anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases of the baseline: 

Phase 1 Ecologically sound fuel switch to biomass with reduced energy requirement (fuel switch boilers) 

Baseline emissions = Tonnes of peel dried in year y * emissions factor peel driers 

= 3509 * 1.324364 

= 4 647 tonnes per annum 

Phase 2 Ecologically sound fuel switch to biomass with reduced energy requirement 

Note: Because there is not really a “normal” year in terms of the division between single strength and citrus 

concentrate production, projections are done using aggregate average (historical) coal use in the boilers. Once the 

project activity has been implemented, the baseline will be calculated ex post by using the production figures and the 

emission factors for the single strength juice and concentrate respectively 

Baseline emissions = Coal used in the baseline (as per annex 2) * emission factor boilers 

= 5 180 * 0.6*3.6 

= 11,189 tonnes/annum

Phase 3 



AMS II.D. Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for industrial facilities 

= 

Baseline emissions = Annual hours of operation cooling facility*grid emissions factor *electrical 

load removed by VAC 

= 8,760*0.9*1,3*0,5MW 

= 5,125 tonnes/annum 

E.5. Difference between E.4 and E.3 representing the emission reductions of the project activity: 


page 32 

Once all three phases are up and running this figure will be as below. After the commissioning of Phase 1 but before 

the commissioning of Phase 3 there will be a period during which there will still be some project emissions from 

Phase 1, as detailed above. If everything runs according to plan this period will be 12 months. In all subsequent 

years however the emission reductions will be: 

20,960 – 0 = 20,960 tonnes per annum 

E.6. Table providing values obtained when applying formulae above: 

The emission reductions will be calculated ex post to take account of the differential output in different production 

years due to the differential amount of fruit processed and the relative volumes of single strength fruit vis-a-vis citrus 

concentrate differing from year to year. The baseline is thus not constant. A projection based on historical production 

volumes is thus given below. This is conservative as present production levels are above the average. It should be 

noted that after the commissioning of Phase 1 and 2 but before the commissioning of Phase 3 there will be project 

emissions that will disappear when Phase 3 is commissioned.

Year Estimation of Project 

Activity emissions 

(tonnes CO2 e) 



Estimation of baseline 

emissions (tonnes CO2 

e) 

Estimation of leakage 



page 33 

Estimation of 

emission reductions 


1 10 719 20 960 0 10 241 

2 0 20 960 0 20 960 

3 0 20 960 0 20 960 

4 0 20 960 0 20 960 

5 0 20 960 0 20 960 

6 0 20 960 0 20 960 

7 0 20 960 0 20 960 

8 0 20 960 0 20 960 

9 0 20 960 0 20 960 

10 0 20 960 0 20 960 

Total 10 719 209 600 0 198881 

SECTION F. Environmental impacts 

F.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts: 

Given the existing assets already installed on the site the Project Activity is defined as “maintenance” for purposes of 

the Environment Conservation Act 71 of 1989 and the regulations thereto and is thus not a listed activity that requires 

an investigation of environmental impacts. The authorities in the province of Limpopo were engaged on this aspect 

and agreed with the abovementioned classification. A written confirmation thereof is available. 

As required by GS, an EIA pre-screen has been performed of which the results can be found in annex 5. 

The impacts are expected to be positive or neutral and thus no EIA is necessary because of GS requirements. 

As required by GS, the sustainable development assessment of the project has been completed. The matrix can be 

found in annex 4. Total score of the project is +8, all categories score positive, and no negative indicators were 

recorded. In can therefore be concluded that the project positively contributes to sustainable development. 

F.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, 

please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental impact 

assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party: 

Not applicable.

SECTION G. Stakeholders’ comments 



G.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: 

Comments by local stakeholders were invited through a visit to Letaba Estates and the surrounding area during 

which interviews were conducted. Johan van den Berg representing the project developer held the following 

meetings: 

Meetings with the Limpopo Department of Environmental Affairs 

After an initial pre-application meeting early in 2006, a full submission was made to the authorities on the reasons 

why no EIA need be conducted. A site meeting was held on 1 June 2006 and on the same day Johan van en Berg 

and BioTherm Energy’s environmental consultant Ms Maggy Machumele met with Mr Grace Rasesepe in 

Polokwane. It was agreed by all that the project was outside the ambit of the legislation requiring Environmental 

Impact Assessments. 

Meeting with the Village Committee 4 April 2006 

The village committee are a representative body of people living on Letaba Estates. They hold regular meetings – 

once or twice a month. In attendance were: 

KS Maluleke 

N Nkuna 

S Phalandwa 

FS Mhlongo 

J Mndlovu 

ME Malubane 

J van den Berg (on behalf of project developer) 

Meetings between BioTherm Energy and workers/their representatives 

Johan van den Berg, on 5 April 2006, met Frans Mongwe, Chairman of the NUFBWSAW - National Union 

of Food Beverage Wine Spirit and Allied Workers Union – he indicated that he has informed 120 people 

and members working at Letaba Estates about the proposed project. He is regional chairperson and local 

chairman. 


page 34 

Also on 5 April 2006 Johan van den Berg met with Charlie Baloyi, supervisor of the subtropical fruit juicing plant; and 

Hendry Nkuna (supervisor in production). 

Due to the fact that about 20 workers belong to a separate trade union called Solidarity, some interviews were 

conducted with Solidarity members who work in the juicing plant, namely Warner Staples and Alwyn van der Berg 

who are both active in the workshop. 

During the first week of June a short DVD documentary was made at Letaba Estates about the project and Aklaf 

Maflele, electrical supervisor at the juicing plant, was interviewed and asked for his comments.



Meeting between Ms Maggy Machumele and the Municipal Manager, Tzaneen 

In the second week of December 2006, Ms Machumele on behalf of BioTherm Energy met with the Municipal 

Manager of Tzaneen to explain the project and garner comments. A letter of support is available. 

Engagement of WWF SA 

WWF SA in the person of Mr Peet du Plooy was engaged and had sight of the final draft of the PDD. WWF SA 

indicated its support for the project. 

Main Stakeholder consultation by Email 


page 35 

As part of the Main Stakeholder Consultation the PDD was made public in July 2007 and on 12th of July 2007 an 

email was sent to the IISD Climate Change Info Mailing List (climate-l@lists.iisd.ca) to ask for comments. Additional 

to climate-l the Gold Standard supporting NGOs were invited by email to give comments on the project.. Among 

those NGOs were; 

- The CDM Gold Standard itself 

- SouthSouthNorth 

- Mercycorps 

- WWF India, Indonesia, Hongkong, Madagascar 

- REEEP 

- Winrock Nepal, India 

No comments were received. 

G.2. Summary of the comments received: 

The results of the initial stakeholder consultation can be found in annex 6. Most comments were related to air 

pollution caused by the existing coal-fired boilers, a situation that will be improved by the project. Other comments 

addressed the general living situation on the farm. 

G.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: 

The most common threads in comments made were concern about the housing/safety situation on the farm and 

general support of the project. Consequently, in negotiations about the structuring of the project, African Realty 

Trust/Letaba Estates was engaged about the possibility of creating a Workers’ Trust that would have a shareholding 

in the project. This was agreed and the Workers’ Trust will indeed have a 10% shareholding in the project. The aims 

of the Workers’ Trust will be, amongst other things, improving the housing situation of the workers and providing 

study bursaries for the children of workers.



Annex 1 

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY 

Organization: BioTherm Energy (Pty) Ltd 

Street/P.O.Box: PO Box 98867 Sloane Park 2152 

Building: WSP House, Bryanston Place, 199 Bryanston Drive, Bryanston 

City: Johannesburg 

State/Region: Gauteng 

Postfix/ZIP: 2127 

Country: South Africa 

Telephone: +27 11 361 1300 

FAX: +27 11 361 1301 

E-Mail: charles.liebenberg@wspgroup.com 

URL: Not applicable 

Represented by: CDM Africa Climate Solutions (Pty) ltd 

Title: Mr 

Salutation: CEO 

Last Name: Van den Berg 

First Name: Johan 

Mobile: +27 82 925 5680 

Direct FAX: +27 21 883 3474 

Direct tel: +27 21 883 3474 

Personal E-Mail: johanvdb@cdmafrica.com 


page 36

Organization: African Realty Trust (Pty) Ltd 

Street/P.O.Box: Tzaneen 

Building: Limpopo Province 

City: Private Bag X4020, Tzaneen, 0850 

State/Region: South Africa 

Postfix/ZIP: +27 15 304 4006 

Country: +27 15 304 4030 

Telephone: +27 15 304 4006 

FAX: +27 15 304 4030 

E-Mail: marius@letaba.com 

Represented by: 

Title: Mr 

Last Name: De Bruyn 

First Name: Marius 

Mobile: +27 82 371 1770 

Personal E-Mail: marius@letaba.com 

Organization: myclimate Foundation 

Street/P.O.Box: Technoparkstrasse 1 

Building: 

City: Zurich 

State/Region: 

Postfix/ZIP: 8005 

Country: Switzerland 

Telephone: +41 44 633 77 50 

FAX: +41 44 633 14 23 

E-Mail: info@myclimate.org 

Represented by: 

Title: Mr 

Last Name: Schilli 

First Name: Alain 

Telephone: +41 44 633 79 07 

Personal E-Mail: alain.schilli@myclimate.org 




page 37

Introduction 



Annex 2 

BASELINE INFORMATION 


page 38 

In this section the small-scale methodology used is discussed. Before this is done however it is necessary to set out 

certain important facts about the plant at Letaba Estates in order to place the methods used and calculations made 

below in proper perspective. 

Firstly, the project baseline at Letaba Estates is the coal used in two applications namely the peel driers and the 

boilers respectively. Phase 1 will see the former switching to biomass and Phase 2 the latter. The energy efficiency 

measures implemented in the peel dryers and steam plant will eventually see the feedstock/input requirement being 

lowered – however in the baseline it remains at historical efficiency levels and based on coal rather than biomass. 

Secondly, the plant produces two categories of fruit juice namely citrus and single strength. The citrus product line 

processes oranges, navels, grapefruit, lemon, Midseason, mineola and Valencia. The single strength fruit product 

line processes banana, butternut, guava, granadilla, kiwi, mango and paw paw. Citrus juice is made in concentrate, 

meaning that much water has to be vaporised. Single strength juice however is made in its final form and merely 

heated. For partially this reason and because output of citrus is measured in concentrate while output of single 

strength juice is measured in final juice produced, the emissions factor for citrus concentrate is much higher than the 

emissions factor for the single strength juice line. Because, as prescribed by AMS III.B, annual output (concentrate of 

citrus and final product single strength fruit) produced will be monitored to establish emissions reductions and 

because the relative quantities of fruit juices made differ from year to year, it is necessary to distinguish between the 

energy used to process each category of fruit in order to always be able to determine emissions reductions 

regardless of relatively how much citrus concentrate and single strength fruit juice is produced in each year of the 

Project Activity. Separate emissions factors are thus determined for citrus concentrate and subtropical/singe strength 

fruit juice. 

Thirdly, in the baseline coal has been used at the processing plant to both produce steam and dry the peels. 

Accurate records exist of how much coal was used but historically no distinction was made between coal going to the 

boilers and coal going to the peel dryer. There also was no constant ratio between the amount of coal being put to 

these two different uses. It therefore becomes necessary to establish historical emissions not only for each tonne of 

citrus fruit juice and each tonne of single strength fruit juice produced but also for each tonne of peels dried in order 

to be able to monitor and calculate emissions reductions by monitoring the quantity of fruit juice produced 

(distinguished as between single strength and citrus) and the quantity of peels dried. The emissions factors are thus 

theoretically calculated. 

Fourthly, at present the ash from the boilers at Letaba is landfilled on the property. In the Project Activity less waste 

will be produced and it will be landfilled as before. 

Fifthly, the new baseload multi-fuel boiler and also the remaining boilers (when they are still needed in times of high 

steam demand) will be fired initially and after periodic maintenance by using solid wood chunks. There will thus be 

no use of this auxiliary fossil fuel, however, should an emergency necessitate the use of coa,l the use thereof will be 

monitored. 

Sixth, the calculations further in this document are based on starting with the aggregate amount of coal used 

historically for both the peel drier and the boilers and first establishing how much was used by the peel drier. This is 

done by the theoretical model developed and included below. By subtraction it is then possible to establish how



much coal historically has been used for the boilers. The historical coal use is a function of the relative amount of 

citrus concentrate and single strength fruit juice made in a year and a calculation is made to determine the relative 

energy needs of the two types of output and to calculate an emissions factor for each. 

BASELINE DATA 

Carbon content coal and CV of coal at Letaba Estates 


page 39 

Historical 

ITEM QTY UNIT 

fruit juice 

and peel Coal CV as per lab results 27.00 Mjoule/tonne 

Carbon content coal (lab tests) 60 % 

production and coal use at Letaba Estates 

FRUIT TYPE 

TOTAL JUICE - 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Litre 10 927 196 10 387 835 

Dried peel 

11 269 302 17 183 685 

13 095 236 

produced – tonne 

Coal used – total 

for boilers and 

3 645 3 379 3 496 3 153 3 558 

peel driers 6 500 6 600 5 700 8 872 8 265 

Calculation of peel drier emissions factor 

Coal requirement = Amount of water that needs to be evaporated to achieve 1 ton of dried peels * gross 

heat requirement to evaporate 1 ton of water considering all losses / CV of Coal 

= 3.444 tonne * 4.722245 GJ/tonne/27 

= 0.602349 tonne of coal/tonne of peels dried 

CO2e emissions factor = coal requirement * atomic weight of CO2/atomic weight of carbon * carbon content of 

the coal 

= 0.602349 * 44.01 / 12.01 * 0.6 

= 1.324364 tonnes CO2e per tonne of peels dried 

Establishing how much coal historically has been used by the peel drier and boilers respectively 

The coal requirement in the peel drier is 0.602 tonnes per tonne of dried peels produced. When using the 0.602 and 

multiplying it by the average peel produced in the last five years, the following average coal use attributable to the 

peel drier and boilers respectively is found: 

2006 

16 465 571 

3 341 

7 560 

2007 

AVE- 

RAGE 

16 366 652 13 148 160 

3 991 3 509 

7 558 7 294



Calculation of relative coal use: Boilers and peel drier 

Average coal use 2001 – 2007 

7 294 

Average peels dried 2001-2007 3 509 

Coal requirement peel drier 0.602349 

Thus coal use by peel drier 

(3 509 * 0.602349) 

2 114 

Thus coal use by boilers 

(7 294 – 2 114) 

5 180 


page 40 

Calculation of CO2 emission factors for the production of single strength fruit juice and citrus concentrate 

respectively 

Energy required to produce one litre of concentrate (“ERC”) - Citrus 

ERC = Energy requirement (based on the name plate rating of the evaporators) 6 

= 6.655 MJoule/li concentrate 

Energy required to produce one litre of single strength fruit juice (“ERS-T”) 

ERS-T = 0.288 MJoule/li single strength – (this is based on the name plate rating of the sterilizers) 

Weighted contribution of citrus concentrate (“WCC”) 

WCC = ERC * average production/1000 

= 6.655 * 3 389 093/1000 

= 22 554 

Weighted contribution of single strength fruit juice (“WCS-T”) 

WCS-T = ERS-T * average production/1000 

= 0.288 * 9 759 517/1000 

= 2 810 

Citrus % = 22 554 / (22 554 + 2 810) * 100 

= 88.92% 

6 Division by 63 to get a per litre answer 

Percentage of total energy required for citrus concentrate 

Percentage of total energy required for single strength fruit juice

Single strength % = 2 810 / (22 554 +2 810) * 100 

= 11.08% 



Coal allocation citrus (“CAC”) 7 

CAC = Citrus % * total boiler coal use in tones 

= 0.88923 * 5 180 

= 4 606.13 tonnes per annum 

Coal allocation Single strength (“CAS-T”) 

CAS-T = Single strength % * total boiler coal use in tones 

= 0.1107 * 5 180 

= 573.80 tonnes per annum 

Coal Use Citrus Concentrate (“CUCC”) 

CUCC = CAC / final product average last 7 years * 1000 

= 4 606.13 / 3 389 093 * 1000 

= 1.359104 tonnes coal/kL citrus concentrate 

Coal Use single strength fruit juice(“CUS-T”) 

CUS-T = CAS-T / final product average last 7 years *1 000 

= 573.80 / 9 759 517 * 1000 

= 0.058794 tonnes coal/kL single strength juice 

Emission factor for Citrus (“EFC”) 

EFC = CUCC * percentage carbon in coal used * atomic weight CO2 /atomic weight C 

= 1.359104 * 0.6 * 44.01 / 12.01 

= 2.988218 

Emission factor for Single strength fruit juice (“EFS-T”) 

EFS-T = CUS-T * percentage carbon in coal used * atomic weight CO2 / atomic weight C 

= 0.058794 * 0.6 * 44.01 / 12.01 

= 0.129268 


page 41 

7 The coal allocation calculation yields a relative answer that indicates relatively how much of the coal was used in 

producing citrus concentrate as compared to sub-tropical fruit




page 42

This is described in section D above 



Annex 3 

MONITORING PLAN 


page 43

A Local/global environmental sustainability 



Annex 4 

Sustainable Development Matrix 

Indicator Score Comment 

Water: Water quantity: This indicator is used to 

evaluate the project’s contribution to water 

availability and access locally and regionally. 

Number of people with access to water supply in 

comparison with the baseline. 

Water quality: This indicator is used to evaluate 

the contribution of the project to water quality 

locally and regionally in the project’s area in 

comparison with the baseline. Water quality will be 

measured using concentration of main pollutants 

(including BOD and others) in any effluents 

generated by the project activity and their 

contribution, if any, to local water quality. 

Dependent on the result of the EIA, both quantity 

and quality assessment should discuss seasonal 

variation of availability and quality in addition to 

mean annual data due to the fact that mean 

annual data might not be sufficient to provide full 

understanding of impacts of the project activity 

against the baseline. 

Air quality: This indicator is used to evaluate the 

contribution of the project to local air quality. Air 

quality will be measured by comparing the 

concentration of most relevant air pollutants (e.g.: 

SOx, NOx, particulate matters etc.) generated by 

the project activity with the baseline. 

Other pollutants: This indicator is used to evaluate 

the contribution of the project activity to reducing 

the flow of pollutants not already considered to the 

environment, including solid, liquid and gaseous 

wastes. 

Soil condition: This indicator is used to evaluate 

the contribution of the project activity to local soil 

condition. Soil condition will be measured by 

0 The project has no impact on water 

availability. 


page 44 

1 The water quality is affected in a positive 

way. Wood chips that are used for firing of 

the boilers originate from the processing of 

sawdust that currently accumulates on large 

heaps. According to local fishermen, 

effluent of these heaps through leaching 

has an adverse impact on the water quality. 

This can be considered a minor positive 

impact. 

0 Several studies 8 . show that the Project 

Activity (biomass burning) emits similar if 

not less amounts of relevant air pollutants 

(e.g.: SOx, NOx, particulate matters etc.) 

than the baseline (coal burning). An 

indicator of 0 is therefore conservative. 

1 At present the ash from the boilers at 

Letaba is landfilled on the property. In the 

Project Activity less waste will be produced 

(because the coal has a 14% ash content 

and the biomass only 3%) and it will be 

landfilled as before. If all peels are dried 

and none are landfilled, methane formation 

will be further avoided on the Letaba landfill 

(no VERs will be claimed for this). 

0 Soil erosion and land use changes are not 

impacted, since the biomass in the form of 

Eucalyptus and Pine sawdust is renewable 

8 e.g. IEA, 2002. Biomass Combustion and Co-firing. An Overview. Published by IEA Bionergy Task 32

comparing the concentration of most relevant soil 

pollutants, erosion and the extent of land use 

changes due to the project with the baseline. 

Contribution to biodiversity: This indicator is used 

to evaluate the contribution of the project to local 

biodiversity. The change in biodiversity is 

estimated on a qualitative basis considering any 

destruction or alteration of natural habitat 

compared to the without projects scenario. A 

positive change will be given by previously 

disappeared species re-colonising the area, a 

negative change will be given by species 

disappearing or by introduction of foreign species. 

In judging this, inputs from local communities 

should be considered a key resource. 

Total Score 2 




page 45 

as described in section A.2 above. 

However, for the same reasons as “water 

quality”, the local soil condition is improved 

slightly. An indicator of 0 is therefore 

conservative. 

0 The project has no impact on biodiversity. 

B Social sustainability and development 


Employment (quality): This indicator is used to 1 Some employment will be created both in 

evaluate the qualitative value of employment, such 

the construction and commissioning phases 

as whether the jobs resulting from the project 

(an estimated 10-15 contracting and 1-3 

activity are highly or poorly qualified, temporary or 

permanent jobs. The permanent jobs are 

permanent in comparison with BAU. Take 

highly qualified, while the temporary jobs 

temporary and permanent as well as job-related 

(construction) are of average quality. It is 

Health and Safety (H&S) impacts as qualifications 

for job quality. 

ensured that all jobs are well paid. 

Poverty alleviation: This sub-indicator is used to 1 Most important social aspect of the project 

evaluate the project contribution to poverty 

are a) the jobs generated, since 

alleviation. Poverty alleviation will be evaluated by 

unemployment is a serious problem in the 

calculating the change in number of people living 

region, and b) the shareholding of a 

above income poverty line compared to baseline. 

Worker’s trust. In total, and considering the 

fact that each additional job usually feeds 

an entire family, a certain number of 

additional people will live above poverty 

line. 

Livelihoods of the poor: Contribution to equitable 2 On a social level the shareholding held by 

distribution and additional opportunity for 

the Worker’s Trust will see a this trust 

disadvantaged sectors. This sub-indicator is used 

earning a 10% share of dividends as per its 

to evaluate contribution of the project to equitable 

10% shareholding, going towards the aims 

distribution of wealth and opportunity, in particular 

decided upon by the Trustees - which are 

gender and marginal or excluded social groups. 

likely to include study bursaries for workers 

The indicator combines quantitative - changes in 

and their children and the improvement of 

estimated earned income (normalised to the 

the housing of workers who live on the 

project’s starting year) compared with the baseline 

farm. The shareholding held by BEE (“Black 

– and qualitative assessment - improved 

Economic Empowerment”) persons will 

opportunities. 

contribute towards the eradication of

Access to essential services (water, health, 

education, access to facilities, etc.) Access to 

essential services will be taken as an indicator of 

social sustainability, measured by the number of 

additional people gaining access in comparison 

with the baseline. Access must be directly related 

to the service and not an unintended impact. 

Access to affordable clean energy services The 

CDM and JI provide an important opportunity to 

improve the coverage of reliable and affordable 

clean energy services, especially to the poor and 

in rural areas. Where of a relevant scale, security 

of energy supply (an indicator of a country’s ability 

to generate the power that is needed for services 

and the economy in comparison with the baseline), 

should be taken into account. 

Empowerment The sub-indicator is used to 

evaluate the project’s contribution to improving the 

access of local people to and their participation in 

community institutions and decision-making 

processes. 

Education/skills The sub-indicator is used to 

assess how the project activity enhances and/or 

requires improved and more widespread education 

and skills in the community. 

Gender equality The sub-indicator is used to 

assess how the project activity requires or 

enhances improvement of the empowerment, 

education/skills and livelihoods of women in the 

community. 

Total score 5 




page 46 

historical economic imbalances in the 

country. Considered the small size of the 

project, we judge this a major positive 

impact. 

0 The project does not change access to 

essential service in a direct way. 

1 The Letaba factory is supplied with an 

affordable, clean energy source. However, 

no poor people will directly benefit, since 

the energy is entirely used on-site. This is 

therefore a minor positive impact. 

0 The project does not particularly lead to 

empowerment in the sense of this indicator. 

Indirectly, the shareholding held by BEE 

(“Black Economic Empowerment”) persons 

will contribute towards the eradication of 

historical economic imbalances in the 

country. 

1 The project will lead to local skills 

development in the installation and 

maintenance of the peel driers and biomass 

boiler. 

0 Gender equality is not particularly enhanced 

through the project, however, it is ensured 

that no adverse impact on gender equality 

is caused by the project. 

C Economic and technological development 


Employment (numbers) Net employment 

1 10-15 contracting and 1-3 permanent jobs 

generation will be taken as an indicator of 

will be generated. Considering the small 

economic sustainability, measured by the number 

size of the project, this is a considerable 

of additional jobs directly created by the CDM 

project in comparison with the baseline. 

positive impact. 

Sustainability of the balance of payments Net 0 Since neither in the baseline nor in the

foreign currency savings may result through a 

reduction of, for example, fossil fuel imports as a 

result of CDM projects. Any impact this has on the 

balance of payments of the recipient country may 

be compared with the baseline. 

Hard currency expenditures on technology, 

replicability and contribution to technological selfreliance: 

As the amount of expenditure on technology 

changes between the host and foreign investors, a 

decrease of foreign currency investment may 

indicate an increase of technological sustainability. 

When CDM projects lead to a reduction of foreign 

expenditure via a greater contribution of 

domestically produced equipment, royalty 

payments and license fees, imported technical 

assistance should decrease in comparison with the 

baseline. Similarly a reduced need for subsidies 

and external technical support indicates increased 

self-reliance and technology transfer. 

(not an official Gold Standard criterion): 

Strengthening of local business 

Total score 1 




page 47 

project any fuel is imported, this indicator 

scores 0. 

0 Neither the fuel switch not energy efficiency 

improvements involve major technological 

changes. 

not counted The viability of Letaba Estates, an important 

employer in the region, will be 

strengthened. 

Total score of all criteria 8 no negative scores were recorded.



Annex 5 

EIA Pre-screen 

1. Will there be a large change in environmental conditions? 

Only small changes; and such minor changes as described in annex 3 are in a positive way. 

2. Will new features be out-of-scale with the existing environment? 

No 

3. Will the effect be unusual in the area or particularly complex? 


4. Will the effect extend over a large area? 


5. Will there be any potential for transfrontier impact? 

No 

6. Will many people be affected? 

Few people, such as local workers and fishermen, will be affected, but only in a positive way. 

7. Will many receptors of other types (fauna and flora, businesses, facilities) be affected? 

No 

8. Will valuable or scarce features or resources be affected? 

No 

9. Is there a risk that environmental standards will be breached? 

No (confirmation of local authorities is available) 

10. Is there a risk that protected sites, areas, features will be affected? 

No 

11. Is there a high probability of the effect occurring? 


12. Will the effect continue for a long time? 


page 48


13. Will the effect be permanent rather than temporary? 


14. Will the impact be continuous rather than intermittent? 


15. If it is intermittent will it be frequent rather than rare? 


16. Will the impact be irreversible? 


17. Will it be difficult to avoid, or reduce or repair or compensate for the effect? 





page 49



Annex 6 

Initial Stakeholder Consultation 


page 50 

The questions were addressed to the participants of two distinct meetings, namely a public meeting of the village 

committee and a factory workers meeting. Several meetings were held with African Realty Trust which fully supports 

the project. 

Environmental Impacts 

1. Will construction, operation or 

decommissioning of the project use or 

affect natural resources or ecosystems, 

such as land, water, forests, habitats, 

materials or, especially any resources 

which are non-renewable or in short 

supply? 

2. Will the project involve use, storage, 

transport, handling, production or 

release of substances or materials 

(including solid waste) which could be 

harmful to the environment? 

3. Will the project release pollutants or 

any hazardous, toxic or noxious 

substances to air? 

4. Will the project cause noise and 

vibration or release of light, heat energy 

or electromagnetic radiation? 

5. Will the project lead to risks of 

contamination of land or water from 

releases of pollutants onto the ground 

or into surface waters, groundwater, 

coastal wasters or the sea? 

Impact 

applicable to 

this project? 

Yes / No / ? . 

Briefly describe 

Is this likely to 

result in a 

significant 

effect? 

Yes/No? 

Why? 

Yes No Concerns were 

addressed, 

participants 

were satisfied 

with 

explanations. 

Yes No No concerns 

were raised 

Yes No Project is likely 

to improve the 

situation 


were raised 

Yes No The project 

leads to a 

reduction of 

water 

contamination; 

this was 

Specific comments 

received 

J Mndolovu wanted to know 

the difference between the 

effects of sawdust and coal 

burning. It was explained 

that both fuel burning meas 

pollution on a local level but 

only coal has an impact onm 

a global level (climate 

change.) 

Frans Mongwe indicated that 

his views as presented to the 

meeting he addressed were 

that the project is positive as 

pollution is dangerous. He 

indicates that members at 

boilers have been requesting 

regular medicals because 

they were worried about coal 

impact.

6. Are there any areas on or around the 

location which are protected under 

international or national or local 

legislation for their ecological value, 

which could be affected by the project? 

7. Are there any other areas on or 

around the location, which are 

important or sensitive for reasons of 

their ecology, e.g. wetlands, 

watercourses or other water bodies, the 

coastal zone, mountains, forests or 

woodlands, which could be affected by 

the project? 

8. Are there any areas on or around the 

location which are used by protected, 

important or sensitive species of fauna 

or flora e.g. for breeding, nesting, 

foraging, resting, overwintering, 

migration, which could be affected by 

the project? 

9. Are there any inland, coastal, marine 

or underground waters on or around 

the location which could be affected by 

the project? 

10. Is the project location susceptible to 

earthquakes, subsidence, landslides, 

erosion, flooding or extreme or adverse 

climatic conditions e.g. temperature 

inversions, fogs, severe winds, which 

could cause the project to present 

environmental problems? 

Socioeconomic and Health Impacts 

11. Will the project involve use, 

storage, transport, handling, production 

or release of substances or materials 

(including solid waste) which could be 

harmful to human health or raise 

concerns about actual or perceived 

risks to human health? 

12. Will the project release pollutants 

or any hazardous, toxic or noxious 

substances to air that could adversely 

affect human health? 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 



acknowledged 

by participants 


were raised 

Yes No Project is likely to 

improve the 

situation 


page 51 

Peter Mlangeni works at the 

boiler. He is positive about 

the project and supports it. 

He previously asked 

management to go for 

medicals once in three 

months because he saw the 

health risks of the coal and 

the smoke. Project sounds 

excellent to him as the risk of 

air pollution will be reduced.

13. Will the project cause noise and 

vibration or release of light, heat 

energy or electromagnetic radiation 

that could adversely affect human 

health? 

14. Will the project lead to risks of 

contamination of land or water from 

releases of pollutants onto the ground 

or into surface waters, groundwater, 

coastal wasters or the sea that could 

adversely affect human health? 

15. Will there be any risk of accidents 

during construction or operation of the 

project which could affect human 

health? 

16. Will the project result in social 

changes, for example, in demography, 

traditional lifestyles, employment? 

17. Are there any areas on or around 

the location, protected or not under 

international or national or local 

legislation, which are important for their 

landscape, historic, cultural or other 

value, which could be affected by the 

project? 

18. Are there any transport routes or 

facilities on or around the location 

which are used by the public for access 

to recreation or other facilities and/or 

are susceptible to congestion, which 

could be affected by the project? 

19. Is the project in a location where it 

is likely to be highly visible to many 

people? 

20. Are there existing or planned land 

uses on or around the location e.g. 

homes, gardens, other private 

property, industry, commerce, 

recreation, public open space, 

community facilities, agriculture, 

forestry, tourism, mining or quarrying 





were raised 

Yes No The project leads 

to a reduction of 

water 

contamination; 

this was 

acknowledged by 

participants. 

Contamination in 

the baseline does 

not affect human 

health but rather 

fishery. 


were raised 


were raised 

No 

No 

No 

No 


page 52 

Aklaf Maflele said “the air will 

be clean for each and 

everybody who’s staying 

near this big factory of ours.”


the location which are densely 

populated or built-up, or occupied by 

sensitive uses e.g. hospitals, schools, 

places of worship, community facilities, 



the location which contain important, 

high quality or scarce resources e.g. 

groundwater, surface waters, forestry, 

agriculture, fisheries, tourism and 

minerals, which could be affected by 

the project? 

23. Is the project location susceptible 

to earthquakes, subsidence, 

landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme 

or adverse climatic conditions e.g. 

temperature inversions, fogs, severe 

winds, which could cause the project to 

present socioeconomic problems? 

Other general comments: 



Yes No Living conditions 

in the area are 

considered a 

major problem by 

stakeholders. 

While the project 

does not worsen 

such conditions, 

it does 

unfortunately only 

improve them 

indirectly (i.e. 

through 

empowerment 

activities). 

No 

No 

Ndlovu indicated that he is pleased with BioTherm Energy and the company’s plans. 


page 53 

Several members of the 

village committee made 

comments about the housing 

situation of workers who live 

on the farm: Ms Malubane 

asked about electricity, 

Malubane said the water is 

sometimes in short supply 

but possibly this could be 

because of the old pipes, 

Mhlongo said it is not safe 

for people to stay at the 

village. M Ndlovu said there 

are pot-holes in the road 

where they live – this is seen 

as a hazard. Nkuna said the 

houses are old and he is 

worried about their condition. 

Malubane said the empty 

houses are a security risk. 

Hendry Nkuna (supervisor in production) enquired about ownership. The ownership and management structure was 

explained to him. He indicated that he supports the project. 

Warner Staples and Alwyn van der Berg said that they are not really affected by the coal use or a change to 

biomass. 

The Municipal Manager expressed his support for the project – letter is available. 

- - - - -

Members of 

the South 

African Fruit 

Processors 

Association 



Annex 7 

DATA ON OTHER SOUTH AFRICAN JUICING PLANTS AND TECHNOLOGY USED 

Members of the South African Fruit Processsors Association 

Region / 

Town 

ALG Juice Citrusdal, 

Western Cape 

Bronpro Nelspruit 

Mpumalanga 

Granor Passi Palokwane, 

Limpopo 

Granor Passi Letaba, 

Limpopo 

Magaliesberg 

Citrus 

Onderberg Cooperative 

Cape Fruit 

Processors 

Valor Fruit (Pty) 

Ltd 

Brits, Northwest 

Province 

Malalane, 

Mpumalanga 

Malalane, 

Mpumalanga 

Port Elizabeth, 

Eastern Cape 

Peels - how 

disposed 

Given to farmers wet for 

animal fodder 

Disposed wet on 

farmland – compost 

Given to farmers as 

fodder (wet) 

Some given to farmers 

as fodder (wet) 

remainder landfilled 

Landfill 

Dried for cattle feed 

Don’t know 


animal fodder – dried 

onsite by 3 rd party 


animal fodder 

If dried, 

technology 

used 

Feed-stock 

for steam 

provision 


page 54 

Contact person/address 

Na Electricity hoffice@algestates.com 

Stephen Le Roux 

022 921 3544/3499 

082 829 1033 

Na Coal bronpro@mweb.co.za 

Four coal based Coal 

peel driers not 

used – too 

expensive 

Na Coal 

Rick Basson 082 896 0386 

013 753 2318 

Danie vd Heever 082 420 2833 

Niel van Rensburg 

015 298 6000 

Coal fired peel Coal 

niel@granorpassi.co.za 

Hans du Preez 

drier 

Johan Smit 

012 256 9000 

hans@magaliescitrus.co.za 

Don’t know Coal Dr Piet van Wyk 

jpvwovk@mweb.co.za 

Coal Coal Vonnie Thalwitzer 

vonnie@riverside.co.za 

Sakkie van Zyl 

013 790 3015 

082 388 0128 

Na Coal Wallace Barnes 

wallace@valor.co.za 

41 6 2146

Annex 8 

Calculation of the Grid Emissions Factor 




page 55




page 56

Letaba Biomass to Energy PDD - MyClimate

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?