CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 1

AWMS METHANE RECOVERY PROJECT MX05-S-11,

BAJA CALIFORNIA, MÉXICO

UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism

Simplified Project Design Document
for
Small Scale Project Activity

DOCUMENT ID: MX05-S-11

VER 3, 31 OCT 2005
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 2

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

SIMPLIFIED PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT
FOR SMALL-SCALE PROJECT ACTIVITIES (SSC-CDM-PDD)
Version 02

CONTENTS

A. General description of the small-scale project activity

B. Baseline methodology

C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period

D. Monitoring methodology and plan

E. Calculation of GHG emission reductions by sources

F. Environmental impacts

G. Stakeholders comments

Annexes

Annex 1: Information on participants in the project activity

Annex 2: Information regarding public funding

 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 3

Revision history of this document

Version Date Description and reason of revision

Number
01 21 January Initial adoption
2003
02 8 July 2005 • The Board agreed to revise the CDM SSC PDD to reflect
guidance and clarifications provided by the Board since version
01 of this document.
• As a consequence, the guidelines for completing CDM SSC
PDD have been revised accordingly to version 2. The latest
version can be found at
<http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Documents>.
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 4

SECTION A. General description of the small-scale project activity

A.1. Title of the small-scale project activity:

AWMS Methane Recovery Project MX05-S-11, Baja California, México

A.2. Description of the small-scale project activity:

Purpose: The purpose of this project is to mitigate and recover animal effluent related GHG by
improving AWMS practices.
Worldwide, agricultural operations are becoming progressively more intensive to realize economies of
production and scale. The pressure to become more efficient drives significant operational similarities
between farms of a “type,” as inputs, outputs, practices, genetics, and technology have become similar
around the world.
This is especially true in livestock operations (swine, dairy cows, etc.) which can create profound
environmental consequences, such as greenhouse gas emissions, odour, and water/land contamination
(including seepage, runoff, and over application), that result from storing (and disposing of) animal waste.
Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) use similar Animal Waste Management System (AWMS)
options to store animal effluent. These systems emit both methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
resulting from both aerobic and anaerobic decomposition processes.
This project proposes to apply the Methane Recovery methodology identified in Section III.D, of the
Indicative Simplified Baseline and Monitoring Methodologies for Small-Scale CDM Project Activity
Categories, to a dairy cattle operation located in Baja California, México. The proposed project activities
will mitigate and recover AWMS GHG emissions in an economically sustainable manner, and will result
in other environmental benefits, such as improved water quality and reduced odour. In simple terms, the
project proposes to move from a high-GHG AWMS practice, an open air lagoon, to a lower-GHG AWMS
practice, an ambient temperature anaerobic digester with capture and combustion of resulting biogas.
Contribution to sustainable development:
Establishing a positive model for livestock operations is essential. In years 1993 – 2002, Mexican dairy
cattle population grew by approximately 25%. In 2002, the dairy cattle inventory in México was
2,166,149.1 Producers in the Baja region make up approximately 3% of that inventory.
Dairy cattle produce about 195 lbs of raw manure per day.2 The proper handling of this large quantity of
CAFO animal waste is critical to protecting human health and the environment. Because of the practices

1
http://www.siea.sagarpa.gob.mx/ar_compec_pobgan.html
2
Weida, William J. “A Citizens Guide to the Regional Economic and Environmental Effects of Large Concentrated
Dairy Operations,” GRACE Factory Farm Project November, 19, 2000, Table II-2
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 5

employed by farmers, the design, location, and management practices of livestock operations are critical
components in ensuring an adequate level of protection of human health and the environment.3
This methane recovery project activity will upgrade livestock operations infrastructure. The
infrastructure improvement is in direct alignment with President Vicente Fox’s national goals and
objectives for agriculture, livestock, rural development, fishing and nutrition as outlined in the Mexican
government’s Plan Nacional de Desarrollo, 2001 –2006 (National Development Plan, 2001 -2006).4
This project activity will have positive effects on the local environment by improving air quality (i.e.,
reducing the emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and odour) and will set the stage for
future on-farm projects (i.e., changes in land application practices) that will have an additional positive
impact on GHG emissions with an attendant potential for reducing groundwater contamination problems.
This project activity will also increase local employment of skilled labour for the fabrication, installation,
operation and maintenance of the specialized equipment. Finally, this voluntary project activity will
establish a model for world-class, scalable animal waste management practices, which can be duplicated
on other CAFO livestock farms throughout México, dramatically reducing livestock related GHG and
providing the potential for a new source of revenue and green power.

The proposed methane recovery project uniquely satisfies the Mexican government priorities for
environmental stewardship and sustainability while positioning rural agricultural operations to develop
and use renewable (“green”) power. Indeed, it does so with no negative consequences and with a series
of environmental and infrastructure co-benefits.

Because the proposed project establishes an advanced AWMS the project participants believe the farm
managers will adopt – and continue to practice – AWMS practice changes that result in meaningful, and
permanent, GHG emission reductions beyond the project’s expected lifespan.

A.3. Project participants:

Kindly indicate if
the Party involved
Private and/or public entity(ies)
Name of Party involved (*) wishes to be
project participants (*)
((host) indicates a host Party) considered as
(as applicable)
project participant
(Yes/No)
México (host) • AgCert International plc No

A.4. Technical description of the small-scale project activity:

>>

3
Speir, Jerry; Bowden, Marie-Ann; Ervin, David; McElfish, Jim; Espejo, Rosario Perez, “Comparative Standards
for Intensive Livestock Operations in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.,” Paper prepared for the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation.
4
http://www.sagarpa.gob.mx/Dgg/sectorial.htm
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 6

A.4.1. Location of the small-scale project activity:

>>

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

The host party for this project activity is Mexico.

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

The project will be located in Baja California

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:

The project will be in the area of Descanso (Figure 1)

A.4.1.4. Detail of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this
small-scale project activity(ies):

Detailed description of the physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of
this project activity:

Establera Jersey del Noroeste, S.A. (Ernesto de Jesus Jimenez Beruman) - is located at kilometre 58 of
Highway 1, south of Tijuana. It is a dairy farm with approximately 1,100 total animals. The farm
operates an open air lagoon system with three serial lagoons and an emergency lagoon. There is also a
sand separator and second solids separator. Water from these lagoons is recycled to flush the stables.
This is the first site where a digester will be installed.

Establo Lechero No. 2 (Rogelio Reynoso De Anda) - is located on the Carretera Tijuana – ensenada KM
56.5 car ensenada. It is a dairy operation with about 1,300 animals in its inventory. This site shares one
open lagoon with Establo Lechero No. 3.

Establo Lechero No. 3 (Pascual Navarro Soto) - is a dairy operation with just under 900 total animals
and is located on the Carretera Tijuana – Ensenada KM 56.5. It has access from the Carretera Libre y de
Cuota. This site shares one open lagoon with Establo Lechero No. 2.

Establo Lechero No. 4 (Ramiro Reynoso Marquez) - is a dairy operation with approximately 1,300
animals total. It is located within close proximity of the aforementioned sites. Establo Lechero No. 4
operates one lagoon. There is another lagoon on site that is out of operation. Over the next 4 to 8
months, a digester will be installed to handle effluent from Establo Lechero No. 2, Establo Lechero No. 3
and Establo Lechero No. 4.

Establo Lechero No. 5 (Victor M. Garcia Centeno) - is a dairy operation that consists of approximately
920 total animals. It is located within close proximity of the aforementioned sites. Within 12 months, it
is expected that this operation will route its effluent to the digester constructed to handle the waste from
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 7

Establo Lechero No. 2, Establo Lechero No. 3 and Establo Lechero No. 4. As a result, the digester will
be sized to accommodate this proposed future expansion.

Figure 1

A.4.2. Type and category(ies) and technology of the small-scale project activity:

The project activity described in this document is classified as a Type III, Other Project Activities,
Category III.D. Methane recovery.

The project activity will capture and combust methane gas produced from the decomposing manure of
dairy cattle farm located in Baja California, México.

The technology to be employed by the project activity includes the installation of new covered lagoons
creating a negative pressure anaerobic digester. The system will be comprised of a lined and covered
lagoon creating a digester with sufficient capacity and Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) to greatly reduce
the volatile solids loading in the effluent. The cover consists of a synthetic, high density polyethylene
(HDPE), geomembrane which is secured to the liner by means of an anchor trench and extrusion welds
around the perimeter. HDPE is the most commonly used geomembrane in the world and is well suited for
use in this project. HDPE is an excellent product for large applications that require UV, ozone, and
chemical resistance. The digester has been designed to permit solids residue removal without breaking
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 8

the gas retention seal. Processed effluent from the lagoon cells will be routed to the clarification
lagoon(s) and captured gas will be removed and combusted.

Technology and know-how transfer:

The project developer is implementing a multi-faceted approach to ensure the project, including
technology transfer, proceeds smoothly. This approach includes careful specification and design of a
complete technology solution, identification and qualification of appropriate technology/services
providers, supervision of the complete project installation, farm staff training, ongoing monitoring (by the
project developer) and developing/implementing a complete Operations & Maintenance plan using
project developer staff. As part of this process, the project developer has specified a technology solution
that will be self-sustaining (i.e., highly reliable, low maintenance, and operate with little or no user
intervention). The materials and labour used in the base project activity are sourced from the host country
whenever economically possible.

By working so closely with the project on a “day to day” basis, the project developer will ensure that all
installed equipment is properly operated and maintained, and will carefully monitor the data collection
and recording process. Moreover, by working with the farm staff over many years, the project developer
will ensure that the staff acquires appropriate expertise and resources to operate the system on an
ongoing/continuous basis.

A.4.3. Brief explanation of how the anthropogenic emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
(GHGs) by sources are to be reduced by the proposed small-scale project activity, including why
the emission reductions would not occur in the absence of the proposed small-scale project activity,
taking into account national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances:

Anthropogenic GHGs, specifically methane is released into the atmosphere via decomposition of animal
manure. Currently, the farm produced GHG is not collected or destroyed.

The proposed project activity intends to change current AWMS practices. These changes will result in
the recovery of anthropogenic GHG emissions by controlling the lagoon’s decomposition processes and
collecting and combusting the methane biogas.
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 9

A.4.3.1 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:

THE TOTAL ESTIMATE OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION OVER THE 10 YEAR

CREDITING PERIOD IS 216,010 TONNES OF CO2 EQUIVALENT

(AVERAGE 21,601 TONNES CO2e ANNUALLY)

A.4.3.1 - Estimated Emission Reductions over chosen Crediting Period

Annual estimation of emission reductions in tonnes

Years
of CO2e
Year 1 18,078
Year 2 21,993
Year 3 21,993
Year 4 21,993
Year 5 21,993
Year 6 21,993
Year 7 21,993
Year 8 21,993
Year 9 21,993
Year 10 21,993
Total estimated reductions (tonnes
CO2e) 216,015
Total number of crediting years 10
Annual average over the crediting
period of estimated reductions
(tonnes of CO2e) 21,601

A.4.4. Public funding of the small-scale project activity:

There is no official development assistance being provided for this project.

A.4.5. Confirmation that the small-scale project activity is not a debundled component of a larger
project activity:

Based on paragraph 2 of Appendix C of the Simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small-Scale CDM
project activities,5 this project is not debundled. There are no other registered small-scale CDM project
activities with the same project participants, in the same project category and technology/measure whose
project boundary is within 1 km of another proposed small-scale activity.

5
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/pac/sscdebund.pdf
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 10

SECTION B. Application of a baseline methodology:

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

The project activity is a Type III, Other Project Activities, Category III.D. Methane Recovery.

B.2 Project category applicable to the small-scale project activity:

The simplified methodologies are appropriate because the project activity site is considered an agro-
industry and GHG emissions calculations can be estimated using internationally accepted IPCC guidance.

The project activity will capture and combust methane gas produced from the decomposing manure at a
dairy cattle farm located in Baja California, México. This simplified baseline methodology is applicable
to this project activity because without the proposed project activity, methane from the existing AWMS
would continue to be emitted into the atmosphere.

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 small-scale CDM project activity:

Anthropogenic GHGs, specifically methane, are released into the atmosphere via decomposition of
animal manure. Currently, this farm-produced biogas is not collected or destroyed.
The proposed project activity intends to improve current AWMS practices. These changes will result in
the mitigation of anthropogenic GHG emissions, specifically the recovery of methane, by controlling the
lagoon’s decomposition processes and collecting and combusting the biogas.
There are no existing, pending, or planned national, state, or local regulatory requirements that govern
GHG emissions from agro-industry operations (specifically, dairy production activities) as outlined in this
PDD. The project participants have solicited information regarding this issue during numerous
conversations with local and state government officials and through legal representation and have
determined there is no regulatory impetus for producers to upgrade current AWMS beyond existing open
air lagoon. The following paragraphs discuss the Mexican dairy industry and how conditions hinder
changes in AWMS practices.
Assessment of barriers:

Absent CDM project activities, the proposed project activity has not been adopted on a national or
worldwide scale due to the following barriers:
a) Investment Barriers: This treatment approach is considered one of the most advanced AWMS
systems in the world. Only a few countries have implemented such technology because of the
high costs involved in the investment compared to other available systems and due to
regionalized subsidies for electric generation.
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 11

Mexican dairy producers face the same economic challenges as farmers in other nations due to
increased worldwide production and low operating margins. Farm owners focus on the bottom
line. Odour benefits, potential water quality enhancements, and the incremental savings
associated with heating cost avoidance, are rarely enough to compel farmers to upgrade to an
(expensive) advanced AWMS system.6 Unless the AWMS upgrade activity affords the producer
the means to (partially) offset the practice change cost (via the sale of Certified Emission
Reduction (CER) credits, for instance) the open lagoon will remain the common AWMS practice
– and all AWMS GHG biogas will continue to be emitted.
Producers view the AWMS as a stage that is outside of the production process and have difficulty
financing changes that should be undertaken. Even banks have been unwilling to finance such
activities absent government guarantees or other incentives.
b) Technology barriers: Anaerobic digester systems have to be sized to handle projected
animal/effluent volumes with a Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) consistent with extracting
most/all methane from the manure. These systems become progressively more expensive on a
‘per animal’ basis as farm animal population (i.e., farm size) is decreased. Moreover, operations
and maintenance requirements involved with this technology, including a detailed monitoring
program to maintain system performance levels, must also be considered. Worldwide, few
anaerobic digesters have achieved long-term operations, due primarily to inappropriate operations
and maintenance.
c) Legal barriers: The implementation of this project activity by these farms highly exceeds current
Mexican regulations for swine waste treatment. Apart from existing legislation in México that
establishes water quality parameters that require that water supplies be protected from
contamination, there is no legislation in place that requires specific swine manure treatment as it
relates to the emission of GHG.
An analysis was performed to assess whether the basis in choosing the baseline scenario is expected to
change during the crediting period and the results follow:
a) Legal constraints: There is no expectation that Mexican legislation will require future use of
digesters due to the significant investments required. Further, there is no expectation that México
will pass any legislation which deals with the GHG emissions. Indeed, the developer is aware of
no Latin American or other worldwide location requiring either the use of digesters or the
constraints of agricultural GHG emissions. Qualitatively, this is the most likely “risk” area
associated with possible changes in the baseline scenario. Overarching environmental regulations
have to balance creating a legislative framework that enables agricultural production against
social pressures to make industrialized livestock operations “good neighbours.” México has
successfully grown this sector, building upon low operating costs and technically expert labour.
They have recently demonstrated environmental sensitivity by requiring lagoon liners.
b) Common practice: While past practices cannot predict future events, it is worth noting that sites
included in this project activity have been in existence for many years, during which time, the
prevailing AWMS practice was open lagoons.

6
DiPietre, Dennis, PhD, Agricultural Economist, (18 June 2003) Private communication
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 12

B.4. Description of how the definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology
selected is applied to the small-scale project activity:

The project boundary is the physical, geographical site of the anaerobic digester. Components within
the project boundary are illustrated in Figure B1.

Power Source

PROJECT BOUNDARY

ANIMAL
Combustion
GHG Biogas Flow

BARNS
Flare;
Renewable
Energy
Effluent

Loading
Ambient Temperature
Digester Output
Anaerobic Digester
Storage
(CH4 and N2O)

Irrigation Farm Operations

Figure B1, Project Boundary

B.5. Details of the baseline and its development:

>>
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 13

The amount of methane that would be emitted to the atmosphere in the absence of the project activity can
be estimated by referring to Section 4.2.5 of the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG
Inventories.

The baseline for this project activity is defined as the amount of methane that would be emitted to the
atmosphere during the crediting period in the absence of the project activity. In this case an open
anaerobic lagoon is considered the baseline and estimated emissions are determined as follows:

Step 1 – Livestock Population

Livestock populations for the project activity sites are described in the tables below. The AWMS used on
the farms is an open anaerobic lagoon.

Table B1, Establera Jersey Animal Population

Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 659 675 686 614 595 616 606 620 618 613 606 626
Avg Weight (kg) 652 652 652 652 652 652 652 652 652 652 652 652
Days Unpopulated 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 12

Dry Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 94 81 93 71 103 101 109 113 110 112 125 100
Avg Weight (kg) 714 714 714 714 714 714 714 714 714 714 714 714
Days Unpopulated 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Heifer Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 44 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 44 22 22
Avg Weight (kg) 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590
Days Unpopulated 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Calves (0-7 months) Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 269 213 263 222 227 233 243 237 247 244 236 252
Avg Weight (kg) 132 148 133 145 143 142 138 140 137 138 141 136
Days Unpopulated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table B2, Establo Lechero No. 2 (Rogelio Reynoso De Anda) Animal Population
Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 660 655 640 600 615 620 620 640 645 670 665 650
Avg Weight (kg) 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700
Days Unpopulated 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 12

Dry Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 105 110 118 110 100 95 105 103 105 105 109 110
Avg Weight (kg) 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650
Days Unpopulated 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Calves (0-7 months) Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 527 533 550 498 499 499 518 531 534 532 540 535
Avg Weight (kg) 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215
Days Unpopulated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 14

Table B3, Establo Lechero No. 3 (Pascual Navarro Soto) Animal Population
Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 791 797 809 682 699 655 649 680 679 680 726 736
Avg Weight (kg) 705 705 705 705 705 705 705 705 705 705 705 705
Days Unpopulated 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 12

Dry Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 33 29 39 58 32 43 47 67 90 57 87 12
Avg Weight (kg) 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
Days Unpopulated 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Table B4, Establo Lechero No. 4 (Ramiro Reynoso Marquez) Animal Population
Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 580 565 610 555 568 560 565 550 565 575 568 570
Avg Weight (kg) 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700
Days Unpopulated 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 12

Dry Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 120 130 118 130 140 145 125 130 130 138 140 140
Avg Weight (kg) 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720
Days Unpopulated 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Calves (0-7 months) Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 566 563 568 546 550 550 554 556 550 557 557 560
Avg Weight (kg) 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
Days Unpopulated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table B5, Establo Lechero No. 5 (Victor M. Garcia Centeno) Animal Population
Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 450 456 466 415 425 420 422 420 413 422 430 440
Avg Weight (kg) 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700
Days Unpopulated 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 12

Dry Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 80 62 60 76 70 75 73 77 86 88 88 85
Avg Weight (kg) 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700
Days Unpopulated 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 14

Calves (0-7 months) Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 402 402 402 435 435 428 440 436 431 441 416 415
Avg Weight (kg) 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
Days Unpopulated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Step 2 – Emission Factors

The emission factor for the animal group for any given month is:

EFi = VSi * nm *B0i * 0.67kg/m3 * MCFjk* MS%ijk

Equation B17

Where:

7
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual. Page 4.26, equation
16 and Page 4.43, Table B3.
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 15

EFi = emission factor (kg) for animal type i (e.g., dairy cows),
VSi = Volatile solids excreted in kg/day for animal type i,
nm = Number of days animals present,
Bo = Maximum methane producing capacity (m3/kg of VS) for manure produced by
animal type i,
MCFjk = Methane conversion factor for each manure management system j by climate
region k; and
MS%ijk. = fraction of animal type i’s manure handled using manure system j in climate
region k.

The amount of methane emitted can be calculated using:

CH4a = EFi * Populationyear

Equation B28

Where:
CH4a = methane produced in kg/yr for animal type I,
EFi = emission factor (kg) for animal type i (e.g., dairy cows),
Poulationyear = yearly average population of animal type i.

Step 3 – Total Baseline Emissions

To estimate total yearly methane emissions the selected emission factors are multiplied by the associated
animal population and summed.

BE = [CH4a * GWPCH4]/1000
Equation B39

Where:
BE = Baseline carbon dioxide equivalent emission in metric tons per year,

8
Adapted from Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual. Page
4.26.
9
Adapted from Equation 9, page 12, AM0016/version 02, 22 October 2004 / UNFCCC / CDM Meth Panel
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 16

CH4a = annual methane produced in kg/yr for animal type I,

GWPCH4 = global warming potential of methane (21).

Baseline emissions have factored in the loss of excrement to the digester by estimating that all animals are
out of the confined areas (out of barn) for half the month. In addition, using conservative estimates, even
a large increase in animal population will never produce more than 15KtCO2e per year.

SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period:

C.1. Duration of the small-scale project activity:

>>

C.1.1. Starting date of the small-scale project activity:

The starting date for this activity is 15/02/2005

C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the small-scale project activity:

The expected life of this project is 15y – 0m

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

The project activity will use a fixed crediting period

C.2.1. Renewable crediting period:

>>

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:

The starting date of the crediting period is 01/08/2006.

 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 17

C.2.2.2. Length:

The length of the crediting period is 10y-0m.

SECTION D. Application of a monitoring methodology and plan:

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

The methodology applied to this project activity is AMS-III.D., Methane recovery

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

The simplified monitoring methodologies are applicable to this project activity because they provide a
method to accurately measure and record the GHG emissions that will be captured and combusted by the
project activity.

D.3 Data to be monitored:

See Table 1 for specific parameters to be monitored.

 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 18

Table 1, Data to be monitored

For how long
Measured (m), Proportion How will
ID Data Data Recording is archived
Data type calculated (c) or of data to be the data be Comment
number variable unit frequency data to be
estimated (e) monitored archived?
kept?
This parameter measures cumulative
Duration of
Biogas 3 biogas produced. A bio-gas meter will
1. BGP Volume M M Monthly 100% electronic project
produced continuously measure amount of bio-
activity +2y
gas produced.
Duration of
Methane This parameter determines the actual
2. MC Percent % M Quarterly 100% electronic project
content methane content of the biogas.
activity +2y
Combustion Duration of This parameter is used to determine
Fraction of
3. CEE equipment % m/c Quarterly 100% electronic project the fraction of time in which gas is
time
efficiency activity +2y combusted.
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 19

D.4. Qualitative explanation of how quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures
are undertaken:

AgCert has designed and implemented a unique set of data management tools to efficiently capture and
report data throughout the project lifecycle. On-site assessment (collecting Geo-referenced, time/date
stamped data), supplier production data exchange, task tracking, and post-implementation auditing tools
have been developed to ensure accurate, consistent, and complete data gathering and project
implementation. Sophisticated tools have also been created to estimate/monitor the creation of high
quality, permanent, ERs using IPCC formulae.

By coupling these capabilities with an ISO quality and environmental management system, AgCert
enables transparent data collection and verification.

D.5. Please describe briefly the operational and management structure that the project
participant(s) will implement in order to monitor emission reductions and any leakage effects
generated by the project activity:

A complete set of procedures and an Operations and Maintenance Plan has been developed to ensure
accurate measurement of biogas produced and proper operation of the digester equipment. This plan
exceeds the requirements outlined in the approved methodology outlined in Appendix B of the simplified
modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities as it applies to proposed project activity.

Further, AgCert has a trained staff located in the host nation to perform O&M activities including but not
limited to monitoring and collection of parameters, quality audits, personnel training, and equipment
inspections. The associated O&M Manual has been developed to provide guidance (work instructions) to
individuals that collect and/or process data. AgCert staff will perform audits of farm operations personnel
on a regular basis to ensure proper data collection and handling.

D.6. Name of person/entity determining the monitoring methodology:

>>
The entity determining this monitoring methodology is AgCert International PLC, who is the project
developer listed in Annex 1 of this document.

SECTION E.: Estimation of GHG emissions by sources:

E.1. Formulae used:

>>

E.1.1 Selected formulae as provided in appendix B:

Specific formula to calculate the GHG emission reductions by sources for the AWMS improvement are
not provided in appendix B of the simplified M&P for small-scale CDM project activities.
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 20

E.1.2 Description of formulae when not provided in appendix B:

>>

E.1.2.1 Describe the formulae used to estimate anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs due to
the project activity within the project boundary:
>>
The amount of methane that would be emitted to the atmosphere due to the project activity and within the
project boundaries can be estimated by referring to Section 4.2.5 of the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines
for National GHG Inventories

The project emissions for this project activity are defined as the amount of methane that would be emitted
to the atmosphere during the crediting period due to the project activity. In this case an anaerobic
digester is considered the project activity and estimated emissions are determined as follows:

Step 1 – Livestock Population

Livestock populations for the Granja Jersey farm are described in the tables below. The AWMS proposed
for use on the farm is an anaerobic digester.

Table E1, Establera Jersey Animal Population

Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 659 675 686 614 595 616 606 620 618 613 606 626
Avg Weight (kg) 652 652 652 652 652 652 652 652 652 652 652 652
Days Unpopulated 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 12

Dry Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 94 81 93 71 103 101 109 113 110 112 125 100
Avg Weight (kg) 714 714 714 714 714 714 714 714 714 714 714 714
Days Unpopulated 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Heifer Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 44 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 44 22 22
Avg Weight (kg) 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590
Days Unpopulated 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Calves (0-7 months) Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 269 213 263 222 227 233 243 237 247 244 236 252
Avg Weight (kg) 132 148 133 145 143 142 138 140 137 138 141 136
Days Unpopulated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table E2, Establo Lechero No. 2 (Rogelio Reynoso De Anda) Animal Population
Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 660 655 640 600 615 620 620 640 645 670 665 650
Avg Weight (kg) 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700
Days Unpopulated 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 12

Dry Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 105 110 118 110 100 95 105 103 105 105 109 110
Avg Weight (kg) 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650
Days Unpopulated 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Calves (0-7 months) Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 527 533 550 498 499 499 518 531 534 532 540 535
Avg Weight (kg) 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215
Days Unpopulated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 21

Table E3, Establo Lechero No. 3 (Pascual Navarro Soto) Animal Population
Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 791 797 809 682 699 655 649 680 679 680 726 736
Avg Weight (kg) 705 705 705 705 705 705 705 705 705 705 705 705
Days Unpopulated 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 12

Dry Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 33 29 39 58 32 43 47 67 90 57 87 12
Avg Weight (kg) 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
Days Unpopulated 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Table E4, Establo Lechero No. 4 (Ramiro Reynoso Marquez) Animal Population
Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 580 565 610 555 568 560 565 550 565 575 568 570
Avg Weight (kg) 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700
Days Unpopulated 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 12

Dry Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 120 130 118 130 140 145 125 130 130 138 140 140
Avg Weight (kg) 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720
Days Unpopulated 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

Calves (0-7 months) Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 566 563 568 546 550 550 554 556 550 557 557 560
Avg Weight (kg) 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
Days Unpopulated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table E5, Establo Lechero No. 5 (Victor M. Garcia Centeno) Animal Population
Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 450 456 466 415 425 420 422 420 413 422 430 440
Avg Weight (kg) 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700
Days Unpopulated 12 11 12 11 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 12

Dry Cows Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 80 62 60 76 70 75 73 77 86 88 88 85
Avg Weight (kg) 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700
Days Unpopulated 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 14

Calves (0-7 months) Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04
Population 402 402 402 435 435 428 440 436 431 441 416 415
Avg Weight (kg) 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
Days Unpopulated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Step 2 – Emission Factors

The emission factor for the animal group for any given month is:

EFi = VSi * nm *B0i * 0.67kg/m3 * MCFjk* MS%ijk

Equation E210

Where:
EFi = emission factor (kg) for animal type i (e.g., dairy cows),
VSi = Volatile solids excreted in kg/day for animal type i,

10
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual. Page 4.26,
equation 16 and Page 4.43, Table B3.
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 22

nm = Number of days animals present,

Bo = Maximum methane producing capacity (m3/kg of VS) for manure produced by
animal type i,
MCFjk = Methane conversion factor for each manure management system j by climate
region k; and
MS%ijk. = fraction of animal type i’s manure handled using manure system j in climate
region k.

The amount of methane emitted can be calculated using:

CH4a = EFi * Populationyear

Equation E311

Where:
CH4a = methane produced in kg/yr for animal type I,
EFi = emission factor (kg) for animal type i (e.g., dairy cows),
Poulationyear = yearly average population of animal type i.

E.1.2.2 Describe the formulae used to estimate leakage due to the project activity, where required,
for the applicable project category in appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for
small-scale CDM project activities

In accordance with the baseline methodology contained in appendix B of the simplified M&P for small-
scale CDM project activities, leakage calculations are not required and renewable energy equipment used
in this proposed project activity is being supplied new.

E.1.2.3 The sum of E.1.2.1 and E.1.2.2 represents the small-scale project activity emissions:

To estimate total yearly methane emissions the selected emission factors are multiplied by the associated
animal population and summed.

PE = [CH4a * GWPCH4]/1000
Equation E412

Where:
PE = Project activity carbon dioxide equivalent emission in metric tons per year,

11
Adapted from Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual. Page
4.26.
12
Adapted from Equation 9, page 12, AM0016/version 02, 22 October 2004/UNFCCC/CDM Methodology Panel
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 23

CH4a = annual methane produced in kg/yr for animal type I,

GWPCH4 = global warming potential of methane (21).

Project

Populationyear Nm Days OB EFi CH4 annual

Cows - Lactating: 2745 229 136 19.15 52,561.44
Cows - Dry: 368 198 167 16.56 6,092.60
Heifers: 22 198 167 16.56 364.23
Calves: 1381 365 0 30.52 42,147.90
Bulls: 0 365 0 30.52 0.00

Total Annual CH4: 101,166.16

PE (CO2e/year): 2,124.49
Emissions from Establo Lechero No. 5 4380.77
Total 6,505.26
Table E1-1, Year 1

Project

Populationyear Nm Days OB EFi CH4 annual

Cows - Lactating: 3211 229 136 19.15 61,484.43
Cows - Dry: 428 198 167 16.56 7,085.95
Heifers: 22 198 167 16.56 364.23
Calves: 1783 365 0 30.52 54,416.87
Bulls: 0 365 0 30.52 0.00

Total Annual CH4: 123,351.49

PE (CO2e/year): 2,590.38
Table E1-2, Year 2-10

E.1.2.4 Describe the formulae used to estimate the anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs in
the baseline using the baseline methodology for the applicable project category in appendix B of the
simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities:
>>

Baseline

Populationyear Nm Days OB EFi CH4 annual

Cows - Lactating: 3211 229 136 172.33 553,359.90
Cows - Dry: 428 198 167 149.00 63,773.59
Heifers: 22 198 167 149.00 63,773.59
Calves: 1783 365 0 274.68 489,751.87
Bulls: 0 365 0 274.68 0.00

Total Annual CH4: 1,170,658.95

BE (CO2e/year): 24,583.84
Table E2–, Baseline Emissions
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 24

E.1.2.5 Difference between E.1.2.4 and E.1.2.3 represents the emission reductions due to the project
activity during a given period:
>>
Total Emission Reductions

ERnet = BE - PE (CO2e/year) Year 1: 18,078.58

ERnet = BE - PE (CO2e/year) Year 2 - 10: 21,993.46

E.2 Table providing values obtained when applying formulae above:

>>
Parameter/Factor Value Source/Comment

Baseline
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change
GWP CH4 21 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 1996)
Animal population used to estimate baseline and project
Populationyear Table B1 emission estimates was based on a 12 month period of actual
operation production data (See Table B1).
nm Table B1 Days resident in system
MS%ijk 100% Percent of effluent used in system.
VSi 5.2 Obtained from 1996 IPCC, Appendix B, Table B-3, p. 4.43
Boi 0.24 Obtained from 1996 IPCC, Appendix B, Table B-3, p. 4.43
MCFjk 0.90 Obtained from 1996 IPCC, Appendix B, Table B-3, p. 4.43
Project Activity
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change
GWP CH4 21 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 1996)
Animal population used to estimate baseline and project
Populationyear Table E1 emission estimates was based on a 12 month period of actual
operation production data (See Annex 3).
nm Table E1 Days resident in system
MS%ijk 100% Percent of effluent used in system
VSi 5.2 Obtained from 1996 IPCC, Appendix B, Table B-3, p. 4.43
Boi 0.24 Obtained from 1996 IPCC, Appendix B, Table B-3, p. 4.43
MCFjk 0.10 Obtained from 1996 IPCC, Appendix B, Table B-3, p. 4.43
Table E3
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 25

CH4 Emission
Baseline: 962,050.74
Project: 101,166.16
Delta: 860,884.58

CH4 Captured (kg) conversion to g CH4 Mole Wgt. (g) Total

CH4 Produced Mol/year: 860,884.58 860,884,582 16.00 53,805,286

CH4 Produced Mol/year: Stand. Mol Volume (l) Total

CH4 Produced Liter/year: 53,805,286 22.40 1,205,238,415

CH4 Produced Liter/year: conversion to kg Total

3
CH4 Produced M /year: 1,205,238,415 1,205,238 1,205,238

CH4 Produced M3/year hours in year Total

3
CH4 Produced M /hr: 1,205,238 8,760 137.58
Table E3-1, Year 1

CH4 Emission
Baseline: 1,170,658.95
Project: 123,351.49
Delta: 1,047,307.46

CH4 Captured (kg) conversion to g CH4 Mole Wgt. (g) Total

CH4 Produced Mol/year: 1,047,307.46 1,047,307,458 16.00 65,456,716

CH4 Produced Mol/year: Stand. Mol Volume (l) Total

CH4 Produced Liter/year: 65,456,716 22.40 1,466,230,441

CH4 Produced Liter/year: conversion to kg Total

3
CH4 Produced M /year: 1,466,230,441 1,466,230 1,466,230

CH4 Produced M3/year hours in year Total

3
CH4 Produced M /hr: 1,466,230 8,760 167.38
Table E3-2, Year 2 - 10
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 26

Uncertainty Parameter for GHG Mitigation Project Estimates

Uncertainty: How Addressed:
o Data collection o Accurate data collection is essential. The farms included in this project
inaccuracies activity use a Standardized industry database package which captures a
o Animal type wide range of incremental production data to manage operations and
o Animal population, enable the farm to maximize both productivity and profitability.
group/type, mortality AgCert uses some data points collected via this system.
rates o AgCert employed the emission factor determination test to assist in the
o Genetics selecting of appropriate IPCC “developed” or “developing” country
o Choice of appropriate values.
emission coefficients o AgCert has a rigorous QA/QC system that ensures data security and
o Data security data integrity. AgCert performs spot audits data collection activities.
o Animal health o AgCert has a data management system capable of interfacing with
producer systems to serve as a secure data repository. Project activity
data related uncertainties will be reduced by applying sound data
collection quality assurance and quality control procedures.
o Strict bio-security procedures are observed and adhered to.

SECTION F.: Environmental impacts:

F.1. If required by the host Party, documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of
the project activity:

An environmental impact analysis is not required for this type of GHG project activity.

Environment:
There are no negative environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project activity.

Beyond the principal benefit of mitigating GHG emissions (the primary focus of the proposed project);
the proposed activities will also result in positive environmental co-benefits. They include:

ƒ Reducing atmospheric emissions of Volatile Organics Compounds (VOCs) that cause odour,

ƒ Lowering the population of flies and associated enhancement to on-farm bio-security thus
reducing the possible spread of disease.
The combination of these factors will make the proposed project site more “neighbour friendly” and
environmentally responsible
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 27

SECTION G. Stakeholders’ comments:

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

A stakeholders’ meeting was conducted on May 18, 2005 in the city of Rosarito in Baja California,
Mexico. Invitations to the stakeholders meeting were communicated by e-mail sent directly to project
participants and federal, state and local officials, as well as several being notified by post mail. The
project participants were also notified by telephone.

The CDM Project Stakeholders Meeting information was published in three newspapers in the region of
the CDM project activity:

a) El Mexicano, Tijuana, Baja California, May 13, 2005

b) El Mexicano, Mexicali, Baja California, May 13, 2005

c) El Mexicano, Ensenada, Baja California, May 13, 2005

Juan Carlos González of AgCert México conducted a presentation which covered the following topics:
purpose of meeting, background on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC CDM process,
process and responsibilities of the project, participants, equipment to be used for evaluation and audits,
information management system, an example of project, benefits from the project (environmental and
economic), and where to get further information.

G.2. Summary of the comments received:

>>
Overall, the comments from the attendees at the stakeholders’ meeting were positive and supportive of the
project. Several attendees suggested AgCert contact other producers throughout the region. Further,
discussions with local representatives have resulted in a commitment of full support.

G.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:
>>
No action required
 CDM-SSC-PDD (version 02)

CDM – Executive Board page 28

Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

Project Participant:
Organization: AgCert International plc
Street/P.O. Box: Blackthorn Road Sandyford
Building: Apex Building
City: Dublin 18
State/Region:
Postfix/ZIP: 18
Country: Ireland
Telephone:
FAX:
E-Mail:
URL: www.agcert.com
Represented by:
Title: CDM/JI Program Manager
Salutation: Mr.
Last Name: Perkowski
Middle Name: S.
First Name: Leo
Department: Business Development
Mobile: +1 (321) 432.3081
Direct FAX: +1 (353) 245-7400
Direct tel:
Personal E-Mail: [email protected]

Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

There is no official development assistance being provided for this project.