In June 2013 Emiel Hanekamp assessed the first rice husk gasification plant in South Sulawesi (Indonesia) on behalf of NL Agency.

1. Sustainability Assessment
rice husk project Indonesia
Agentschap NL
19 September 2013
Emiel Hanekamp, senior consultant
Partners for Innovation BV
© Partners for Innovation

2. Introduction
1) DBM project: “Applying rice husk as
feedstock for power generation“
2) Introduction of the assignment
3) Approach Sustainability Assessment
4) Results
5) Conclusions and recommendations to
consortium
6) Questions and discussion
2

3. 1) DBM project: Applying rice husk as
feedstock for power generation
Objective: To establish a successful pilot project in power
generation with rice husk gasification and to gain insights into the
conditions under which this is beneficial from an economic,
environmental and local development perspective.
Consortium:
- BULOG: government owned company responsible for the
national food supply (mainly rice) in Indonesia
- PT SyRes Indonesia: privately owned energy company
developing projects in the area of hydropower, biomas/rice
husk, algae and other forms of renewable energy
Results: 2 rice husk gasifiers (Jatisari and Anabanua)
3

4. 1) DBM project: Applying rice husk as
feedstock for power generation
Anabanua
(South- Sulawesi)
Jatisari (Java)
4

5. 1) Current situation in Anabanua
UPGB Anabanua = rice processing unit of BULOG (200 in IND)
> installation for drying rice runs on kerosene and for milling on diesel
‘milling’ = removing husks from grain
> UPGB buys wet paddy from local farmers (and dry paddy and rice
from local rice traders/millers)
> rice husks are disposed of behind the drying-milling factory (food for
insects and rodents and slowly decaying, releasing methane)
> gasifier was technically ready end of May 2013 but not used as no
rice was harvested.
5

6. 1) Gasifier
6

7. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanuna
7

8. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua
8

9. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua
9

10. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua
10

11. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua
11

12. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua
12

13. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua
13

14. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua
14

15. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua
15

16. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua
16

17. 1) Gasifier UPGB Anabanua
17

18. 2) Assignment for Partners for Innovation
Harnessing the full learning potential:
1. Carry out a full sustainability assessment of the project based on a
robust generic scheme.
For this assessment the existing baseline surveys will be used and
new data will be collected. In parallel the required data on Direct
Effects of the project will be collected.
2. Capacity building of the local consultant from INA, related to
sustainability assessments.
The local consultant from INA will be working alongside the expert
from Partners for Innovation, thereby experiencing and ‘working on
the job’ how to perform a sustainability assessment.
3. Provide advice (on request) to BULOG and PT SyRes on issues
related to the assessment.
18

19. 2) The consultants Iskandar and Emiel
Emiel Hanekamp
Partners for Innovation
Iskandar Zulkarnain
INA-HCC
19

20. 3) Approach
1. RSB (Round table for Sustainable Biomaterials) standard
>
>
>
Tough, detailed but practical standard
PfI experience with RSB in other assignments (e.g. Mozambique)
Number of tools available e.g.:
• detailed question list (RSB)
• Number of guidance documents (RSB)
• Screening tool - rapid screening of potential impacts (RSB)
• Excel sustainability assessment tool (PfI) with graphical presentation of the
results of the assessment
De 12 RSB ‘Principles’
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Legality
Planning, monitoring and continuous improvement
Greenhouse Gases
Human and labor rights
Rural and Local Development
Food security
20
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Conservation
Soil
Water
Air
Technology
Land (use) rights

21. 3) Scoring
Detailed compliance questions can score:
> 100% - Full compliance with the verifier
> 75% - Partial compliance with the verifier; a lot has already been done
but some further compliance work is needed to reach full compliance
> 20% - Non-compliance with the verifier; significant compliance work is
needed for this verifier to reach full compliance. We used 20% and not
0% for non-compliance since our assessment experience
demonstrates that companies rarely start from zero; most of the time
something is already in place
> Not Applicable
> Similar grading structure for evidence scoring (100%/75%/20%/NA).
Scoring is based on the actual evidence (reports, documentation,
verbal responses from interviewed people, pictures, etc) that was
collected in the course of their assignment.
21

22. RSB Principles and Criteria (v2.0)
Nr
4) Resultaten
Verifiers
Compliance score Evidence Explanation scoring
rice husk
old
gasifier situation
Evidence list
>> Explain in a few words the scores for
compliance and evidence
P3. Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
Bioenergy shall contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing lifecycle GHG emissions as compared to
fossil fuels.
Criterion 3a. There are no legislative bioenergy policies or regulations in force in Indonesia, in which bioenergy must
meet GHG reduction requirements across its lifecycle.
Ind. The operator has either calculated the Full com3.a.i.1 GHG emissions of the bio energy plant pliance
using the applicable methodology or (100%)
provided all necessary input data to
the external party.
Ind. The operator maintains
Non-com3.a.i.2 documentation of and evidence to
pliance
support the GHG emissions
(20%)
calculations and the data used in the
calculations or provided to external
parties.
Partial
compliance
(75%)
Partial A GHG calculation has been
evidence executed as part of this
(75%)
assessment.
Noncompliance
(20%)
Ind. The operator provides objective
Not
3.a.i.3 evidence demonstrating that lifecycle Applicabl
GHG emissions of the biofuels meet e (NA)
the minimum required GHG emissions
reductions of the legislative biofuels
policy or regulation in force.
Not
Applicable
(NA)
No
A GHG calculation has been
evidence executed as part of this
(20%)
assessment. Some data was
provided to the experts but
no structural recording of data
is done to substantiate the
GHG calculation.
Not
There are no legislative or
Appli- regulative minimum
cable
requirements for GHG
(NA)
emission reductions for rice
husk gasification plants.
22
+ Annex A
GHG
calculation
+ Rice husk
gasification
and biochar
application
+ simple GHG
calculation

23. 3) Approach
2. Adjustment of some of the detailed questions
> Rice husk is a residue => Principles 6 and 12 are not relevant
> Additional questions Agentschap NL:
• Competition with other useful rice husk applications?
• How do benefit local farmers from the new situation?
> Project specific targets for energy use / GHG-emissions:
• Minimum 50% GHG emission reduction per kWh produced
and 80% overall GHG emission reduction
3. Comparison between ‘old situation’ (no gasifier) and ‘new
situation’ (working gasifier)
4. Assessment on content and available evidence
> Indication of reliability of the assessment
23

24. 3) Approach
5. Mission 10 days (16-27 June 2013), to check already provided information
and detail the analysis
> Number of project documents analysed
> Additional documentation during visits requested
> Interviews with all stakeholders:
6. Intensive cooperation with Iskandar Zulkarnain necessary due to language
problems
24

25. 3) Activities during 10 day mission
1. Discussions / presentations at BULOG:
+ Head Office (17th and 27th June) – several people
+ Regional Office (18th June) – several people
+ Sub-regional office (19th, 20th and 21st June) – several people
2. Discussions with UPGB
+ UPGB Mangianpajo (19th, 20th and 21st June) – several people
3. Discussions with PT SyRes
+ Hoedani Hadijono (17th, 24th and 25st June)
4. Discussions with third parties
+ Farmers, traders and millers (20th June) – several people
+ Regional farmers association Sarudin (19th June)
+ WWF Indonesia (26th June)
5. Site visits
+ UPGB Mangianpajo (19th- 21st June) – twice test run of gasifier
+ Two private millers
6. Request for documentation (evidence) and study of public reports
25

26. 3) BULOG-UPGB-stakeholder meetings
26

27. 3) BULOG-UPGB-stakeholder meetings
27

28. 4) Some principles have improved, some
deteriorated; overall the same
28

29. 4) Evidence is overall weak but
supports compliance results
P1. Legality
100%
P11.
Technology
P2. Planning,
Monitoring
and
Continuous …
80%
60%
P3.
Greenhouse
Gases (GHG)
40%
P10. Air
20%
0%
P4. Human
and Labor
Rights
P9. Water
P5. Rural and
Local
Development
P8. Soil
P7.
Conservation
rice husk gasifier
old situation
29
evidence

30. 4) Some principles have improved,
some deteriorated; overall the same
Overall weak evidence
30

31. 5) Main conclusions
1. The gasifier project has a great potential for positive
sustainability impacts and for widespread replication.
2. Crucial for the project’s success is its economic viability,
which is to be confirmed.
3. The current organisational set-up and procedures are
insufficient to secure the potential positive impacts and
to address the risks adequately.
4. As the gasifier is not yet operational (harvesting season
still to come), and the availability of documented
evidence is in general low, there are many uncertainties.
31

32. 5) P1. Legality
Principle
The operation shall follow all applicable laws and regulations
The operation complies for 92% with this principle.
Conclusions > All permits (trade permit, location permit, Hindering Law and
building permit) are in place.
> The HO should have been renewed latest 3rd June 2013.
Evidence
Almost all evidence in place. Absence of valid Hindering Law makes
that the score is 92% and not 100%. No copy of the trade permit
was transmitted as evidence.
32

33. 5) P2. Planning, Monitoring and
Continuous Improvement
The operation shall be planned, implemented, and continuously
Principle improved through an open, transparent, and consultative impact assessment and management process and economic viability analysis.
Conclusions
The operation complies for 63% in the old situation and for 33% in
the new situation. In the old situation the RPC is being operated and
managed for more than 8 years. In the new situation the following
issues and risks have been identified:
> No consultation / information sessions with stakeholders
> Technical and environmental risks and potential impacts have
not been systematically assessed and are managed
> Likely positive local social impacts are not being secured
> No economic viability analysis has been carried out
There is limited evidence (36%) due to the unavailability of
Evidence assessments and management plans. This merely supports the results
for compliance.
33

34. 5) P3. GHG
Principle
The gasifier shall contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing lifecycle GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuels.
Conclusions
The operation complies for 29% with principle 3 in the old situation
and for 69% in the new situation. The operation potentially can
significantly contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Based
on calculations using provisional data, a significant (3/4) GHG
reduction is possible. There are no legislative or regulative minimum
requirements for GHG emission reductions for rice husk gasification
plants. Gas leakages and flaring of surplus gas have not been taken into
consideration.
The evidence is medium (48%) mostly as a result of the uncertainty in
Evidence the data on the amounts of paddy processed (drying and milling), and
the associated diesel and kerosene used (and saved).
34

35. 5) P3. GHG
35

36. 5) P3. GHG
36

37. 5) P4. Human and Labor Rights
Principle
The gasifier operations shall not violate human rights or labor rights,
and shall promote decent work and the well-being of workers
Conclusions
The operation complies for 86% with principle 4 in the old situation
and for 83% in the new situation.
> Wages, working hours, etcetera are in line with the principle.
> Responsible personnel recently received a specific training how to
operate and maintain the gasification installation.
> Operators of the gasifier do not have an official labour contract
with UPGB but are hired on a monthly basis.
> BULOG-UPGB have not assessed the occupational health&safety
risks associated with the gasifier. Literature suggests a number of
potential health&safety risks associated with long-term exposure
to emissions from the gasifier.
The evidence is partially available (66%), mainly based on discussions
Evidence with employers, labour unions, local farmers and traders and a
representative of the local farmers association.
37

38. 5) P5. Rural and Local Development
Principle
Conclusions
In regions of poverty, bio-energy operations shall contribute to the
social and economic development of local communities.
The operation complies for 40% with principle 5 in the old situation
and for 58% in the new situation.
> Wajo is not a region of poverty. Average rice farmers income
is 4,2 USD/day, with national standard poverty line 0,8 USD/day.
> No loss of local economic activity for private millers and traders.
Gasifier has the potential to improve local rural development :
> Enhance position of local farmers by providing them with free
drying facilities (or higher prices for wet paddy)
> Biochar rice husk (residue from gasifier) is likely to have a positive
impact on the soil structure for agriculture.
> However, no monitoring in place for the above issues.
Some evidence is available (50%) but mainly about Wajo not being a
Evidence region of poverty. As gasifier is not yet operational, no hard evidence is
available on the expected positive impacts.
38

39. 5) P7. Conservation
Principle
Gasifier operations shall avoid negative impacts on biodiversity,
ecosystems, and conservation values.
The operation complies for 92% with principle 7 in the old situation and for
94% in the new situation. Based on the RSB Screening tool there are no
Conclusions
expected negative impacts for biodiversity, ecosystems and conservation
values.
Evidence
Some evidence is available (34%). We used the RSB screening tool to assess
compliance. However maps and databases, local stakeholder testimonies or
other objective documented evidence was not available.
39

40. 5) P8. Soil
Principle
Gasifier operations shall implement practices that seek to reverse
soil degradation and/or maintain soil health.
The operation complies for 20% with principle 8 in the old situation
and for 57% in the new situation.
> Agricultural activities are out of scope as a residue is used.
Conclusions > Currently rice husk is not being used in other useful applications
> Rice husk is being dumped behind the RPC unit
> Biochar potentially can improve soil quality
> There are pollution and contamination risks from PAHs in the
water and sludge of the settling pond
Evidence
At present some (54%) evidence is available, mostly related to proving a
residue is being used. As the gasifier is not operational yet and biochar is
not used yet, no evidence is available related to the potential soil
contamination risks and potential positive impacts on soil quality.
40

41. 5) P9. Water
Principle
Gasifier operations shall maintain or enhance the quality and
quantity of surface and ground water resources, and respect prior
formal or customary water rights.
The gasifier operation complies for 90% with principle 9 in the old
Conclusions situation and for 48% in the new situation.
> Operation does not affect the availability of water in any way
> Contamination risk of ground water and nearby water ways
Evidence
The available evidence (23%) origins mainly from discussions with BULOG
and UPGB staff. No supportive documented evidence is available.
41

42. 5) P10. Air
Principle
Air pollution from bioenergy operations shall be minimized along
the supply chain.
The gasifier operations is not compliant with this principle as no
Air Emission Control Plan is available and/or implemented.
Conclusions
+ potential emissions from gasifier have not been identified
+ gasifier installation is not checked for being gasproof
Evidence
No evidence available.
42

43. 5) P11. Technology
Principle
The use of gasifier technology shall seek to maximize production
efficiency and social and environmental performance, and
minimize the risk of damages to the environment and people.
The operation complies for 48% with principle 11 in the old
situation and for 20% in the new situation.
> Gasifier is a much more complex technology
> No risk assessment of the installation has been conducted:
• Soil and water contamination by black water of settling pond
Conclusions
• Air pollution from the gasification installation
• Contamination caused by waste from filter installation
• Explosion risks
> No Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP)
> No analysis has been made how to maximize the production
efficiency of the installation
Evidence
Minor evidence (20%) is available. Detailed technical description of the
Ankur gasifier system not available. The low evidence supports the low
compliance scores.
43

44. 5) Main conclusions
1. The gasifier project has a great potential for positive
sustainability impacts and for widespread replication.
2. Crucial for the project’s success is its economic viability,
which is to be confirmed.
3. The current organisational set-up and procedures are
insufficient to secure the potential positive impacts and
to address the risks adequately.
4. As the gasifier is not yet operational (harvesting season
still to come), and the availability of documented
evidence is in general low, there are many uncertainties.
44

45. 6) Recommendations
Step 1) Execute an economic analysis, based on factual data
and identify measures to improve economic viability.
Step 2) Execute and draft a Technology Risk Assessment and
a simplified Environmental and Social Impact Assessment.
Step 3) Ensure economic viability and secure positive social
and environmental impacts by implementing a
management plan.
Step 4) Set up the organisational structures required to
implement the above.
45

46. Vragen en discussie!
Partners for Innovation BV
Emiel Hanekamp
+31 20 62 00 511
e.hanekamp@partnersforinnovation.com
46