PREFEITURA DA CIDADE DO RIO DE JANEIRO

SECRETARIA MUNICIPAL DE MEIO AMBIENTE

INVENTÁRIOE CENÁRIO

DE EMISSÕESDE GASES

DO EFEITO ESTUFADA CIDADE DO

RIO DE JANEIROC

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

Capa_INVENTARIO_EMISSOES_GASESES_ingles.pdf 16/11/2011 13:14:23

Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Emissions

Scenario of Rio de Janeiro City - Brazil

Technical Summary

Mayor of RIO DE JANEIRO CITY

Eduardo Paes Municipal Environmental Secretary

Carlos Alberto Muniz Municipal Environmental Undersecretary

Altamirando Fernandes de Moraes MUNICIPAL STAFF

Coordination: Nelson Moreira Franco Sérgio Besserman Vianna Rodrigo Rosa Carlos Augusto Góes Marcelo Hudson José Henrique Penido Antonio J. Z. Andrade Cláudia Fróes Victor Hugo Mesquita Sydney Menezes David Campanelle

Art Design

Alexandre Bandeira

CENTRO CLIMA/COPPE/UFRJ STAFF

Technical-Scientific Coordination: Prof. Emilio Lèbre La Rovere, D.Sc

Claudia Costa, D.Sc

Researchers

Flávia Carloni, M.Sc Marcelo Buzzatti, Engo.

Paulina Porto, M.Sc Renzo Solari, M.Sc

Saulo Loureiro, M.Sc William Wills, M.Sc

AdministrativeSupport

Carmen Brandão Reis – Secretária Executiva

Juliana Gama – Auxiliar Administrativa

Diagram

Elza Ramos 2011

Gerência de Mudanças Climáticas e Desenvolvimento Sustentável http://www.rio.rj.gov.br/web/smac/

smac@pcrj.rj.gov.br

MESSAGE

The world is expecting the events and achievements that will take place in Rio de Janeiro in

the next few years. The conjunction of the economic, social and historical factors put

together elements for a period of great changes. This opportunity must be used for building a

future that goes thorough sustainability, a priority matter for the planet and for our civilization.

The history of Rio is closely linked with the environment. In this city, international awareness

was brought upon environmental preservation when, in 1992, Rio gathered the main political

leaderships of the world to discuss sustainable development. The recent climate phenomena

occurring in the planet reinforce the importance of nature preservation as a condition for our

evolution, and call us to rethink about the development model to be adopted.

During the last two years, Rio de Janeiro City, by means of firm actions practiced by the City

Government, has been outstanding by facing climate change, taking into consideration,

besides the environmental, technological and economic dimension, the cultural and political

dimensions, which will demand the participation of all society segments from Rio de Janeiro.

Rio was one of the first cities in the country to define a Municipal Climate Change and

Sustainable Development Policy (see annex – Law no. 5248/2011), an initiative that stood

out the joint effort between the Government and the City Council of Rio de Janeiro. The Rio

de Janeiro Climate Change and Sustainable Development Forum was created, formed by

people representing the public sector, private entities and civil society, aiming to contribute in

the search for feasible solutions towards the adoption of public policies in this area. The

climate policy of the City is executed by the Climate Change Management of the Municipal

Environmental Secretariat.

Once again, Rio is pioneer in environmental matters. The city becomes the first one in Latin

America to update its Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, under this publication from the

City Government of Rio de Janeiro, in partnership with COPPE/UFRJ, one of the most

important environment research centers. The study is more than a radiography of the carbon

dioxide emissions in the urban perimeter, and represents a invaluable material to guide the

city policies and its development.

Besides that, the map of the path to achieve such development got clearer lines. The City

Government and COPPE/UFRJ outlined distinct greenhouse gas emissions scenarios

indicating the directions to be taken. The prognoses were developed based on the ongoing

changes, such as the installation of a new Waste Treatment Plant and the implementation of

Transcarioca, Transolímpica and Transoeste bus exclusive corridors. This information is

fundamental to achieve the targets of reduction of Greenhouse gases in the next years,

incorporated to the municipal environmental legislation. Such studies also resulted in the

elaboration, by the City Government and COPPE/UFRJ, of an Action Plan contemplating the

measures to be taken by the municipal government aiming to reach the GHG reduction

targets, previously established by the city climate policies, like doubling the cycle way net,

expanding the reforesting program, the installation of Waste Treatment Plants and the

rationalization of collective transportation, among others.

There are aspects ahead that will have significant environmental impact, like the operation of

the Complexo Siderúrgico da Zona Oeste. We must not fear such challenges, which will

generate jobs and income to the most needing area of the city. We must manage those

challenges with clear mind and transparency, in the name of the collective interest. The

important issue is to internalize and spread sustainability awareness, so that it becomes a

premise in our way of life aggregating value to the legacy of future generations.

Carlos Alberto Vieira Muniz

Vice-Mayor and Municipal Environmental Secretary of Rio de Janeiro City

SUMMARY

Presentation ...........................................................................................................................1

I. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY OF RIO DE JANEIRO CITY…………………………………………………………………………..………….....................4

1. Methodological aspects for the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Elaboration …………..………………………………………………………………..……….……..5

1.1. Inventory Structure ……………………………………………………………………….…..6

2. Energy Sector Emissions ………………………………………………………………...8

2.1. Structure of the Energy Inventory ………………………………………………….………8

2.2. Adequacy of IPCC Methodology to Municipal Inventories ………………….…….……10

2.3. Presentation of Energy Sector GHG Emissions ………………………………………...13

2.3.1. Sectorial Emissions by Energy Use ………………..…………………………..13

2.3.2. Refining Emissions ……………………………..…………………………………15

2.3.3. Fugitive Emissions ……………………………………….………………………..15

2.3.4. Bunker Emissions ……………………………………….…………………………16

2.4. Consolidation of the Results from Energy Sector………………..……………………...16

3. Emissions of Industrial Processes and Product Use – IPPU …………….............21

3.1. Structure of the IPPU Inventory ……………………………..……………………………22

– IPPU ……………………………………………………………………………..….……………...23

4. Emissions of Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use – AFOLU …………......25

4.1. Structure of AFOLU Inventory ………………………………………………….…………25

4.2. Methodological Adjustment for Rio de Janeiro City …………………….…........…..…27

4.3. Presentation of GHG Emissions from the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Sector – AFOLU………………………………………………………………………….…….…28

4.3.1. Forest Coverage and Land Use ….…………………………………………..….28

4.3.2. Emissions from Agriculture Activities …………………………………….………29

4.3.2.1. Biomass Burning: sugar-cane ……………………………..…….......….29

3.2.Presentation of GHG emissions in the Industrial Processes and Product Use Sector

4.3.2.2. Agriculture Land Management by Nitrogen Fertilizer Addition …………………………………………………………….………..…………………………29

4.3.2.3. Agriculture Land Handling by the Use of Limestone …………….…....30

4.3.2.4. Agriculture Land Management by Use of Urea ...…………….……….30

4.3.3. Cattle Raising Emissions ………………………………….…………….………..31

4.3.3.1. Enteric Fermentation …………………………………………...……….31

4.3.3.2. Waste Management …………………………………………….………..32

4.4. Consolidation of the Results from AFOLU Sector……………………………………….32

5. Waste Sector Emissons ………………………………………………..……….…..…...34

5.1. Solid Waste ……………………………………...…………………………………….…34

5.1.1. Premises Adopted for the Elaboration of the Solid Waste Inventory…………35

5.1.2. Presentation of GHG Emissions of the Solid Waste Sector ……………….…38

5.2. Residential and Commercial Wastewater and Industrial Effluents…………….…...….39

5.2.1. Presentation of GHG Emissions for Residential and Commercial Wastewater and Liquid Effluents ……………………………………………………………………..….41

5.3. Consolidation of the Results from the Waste Sector……………………………..……..42

6. Consolidation of the Inventory Results …………………….……………..……….…44

6.1. Totalization of GHG Emissions Inventory in Rio de Janeiro City ……….………….…44

6.2. Comparison of GHG Emissions for the years of 1996, 1998 and 2005 .............…….47

6.3. Comparison of the Results with Other Inventories ………………………...……..……48

6.4. Uncertainties from the Estimates ……………………………………………..…….…….49

II. SCENARIOS OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OF RIO DE JANEIRO CITY 2005-2025 ……………………………………………………………….…………………………..52

1. Methodological Aspects in the elaboration of Scenarios …..……….………….…53

1.1. Scenarios Structure and Limits ………………………………….…………………….….54

1.1.1. Population ………………………………………………………………….....……55

1.1.2. Gross National Product - GNP ……………………………..............................56

2. Actions and Measures for Mitigation of GHG Emissions Considered by Scenarios ………………………………………………………………………………..………….60

2.1. Energy Sector ……………………………………………………………………….…...…60

2.2. Industrial Processes and Product Use Sector – IPPU ………………….…….………..63

2.3. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Sector – AFOLU …………………...……..63

2.4. Solid Waste Sector …………………………………………………………………..….....65

2.5. Residential and Commercial Wastewater and Industrial Effluents Sector ………..…69

2.6. Presentation of Results obtained in Scenarios A, B and C ………………..……...…..71

2.6.1. Energy Sector ………………………………………...……………….……...…...71

2.6.2. Industrial Processes and Product Use Sector – IPPU ……….……….……….76

2.6.3. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Sector …...…………..…………...76

2.6.4. Solid Waste and Residential Wastewater and Industrial Effluents Sector …………………………………………………………….………..….................................80

3. Consolidation of Results from Scenarios A, B and C ……………………..…...….85

References …………………………………………………………………………….….………....91

Internet Sites Consulted ………………………………………………………………..…...…....95

ANNEX …………………………………………………………………………………….…….…...97

Law Nº 5.248, January 27th, 2011 ……………………………………………………………....98

1

PRESENTATION

Global heating and climate change became essential matters to sustainable development.

Many government initiatives look for means to reduce the emission of Greenhouse Gases

(GHG), whether through actions that includes from the elaboration of an inventory of such

gases to the implementation of programs and policies for the contention of climate change.

Adequate regulation and incentives to a responsible acting in relation to climate, including

variables stressing mitigation and removal of GHG, will only be possible when we (in this

case, Rio de Janeiro City) know the emission profile.

Inventory is a stage in the planning process which demonstrates this conditions of the

emission level and the respective sources. For such purposes, several sources of GHG

emissions are analyzed and the respective gas emissions are estimated, in accordance with

a systematics that includes most part of emissions arising from the social-economic activities

in the City.

A well structured and managed GHG inventory serves several objects, from the GHG

emission risk management to the identification of reduction opportunities, stimulating

voluntary GHG reduction or removal programs, improvement of regulations, recognizing

pioneers and foreseeing mitigation measures.

The preparation of scenarios aims to help the planning process in a manner to provide inputs

to actions with an impact on public policies and government strategies. They are tools to help

understanding a “potential future” so that the people in charge of the decision-making

process may, in case of doubt, decide on the long term ways and actions.

In the case of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Scenario, the purpose is to identify future

emissions (baseline scenario), and to identify and quantify the mitigation actions (alternative

scenarios), taking several strategies into consideration.

Since the GHG emission is the product of very complex dynamic systems, determined by

motive power, such as demographic development, social-economic development and

technological changes, its future evolution is highly uncertain. Therefore, the scenarios are

alternative images of how the future may unravel, evaluating how such motive power may

influence future emissions and the uncertainness associated to them.

2

According to IPCC Guidelines (2006), the “national inventories include GHG emissions and

removals that occur within a national territory and offshore, within the country’s jurisdictional

waters”. However, if such a guideline is observed in the case of municipal inventories in

Brazil, where, for example, the electrical energy offer is made by means of an interconnected

system, large electrical energy consumer cities, but eventually with a low participation in the

generation mix, are not large producers of such GHG sources, as the electricity consumption

does not generate any emission, only its generation.

Therefore, in the municipal range, the main methodological issue is to establish the limits of

the study range, both the inventory and the scenarios, in a manner to reflect those emissions

corresponding to the social-economic activities responsibility of Rio de Janeiro City. In this

case, this study includes some methodological adjustments to cover such a concept.

In relation to the consumption of fuel alcohol for the transportation sector, although this fuel is

renewable, that is, the CO2 emission is preceded by the retention of the carbon resulting

from the sugar-cane growth, and thus equal to zero, we must take into consideration that

there are emissions in the anhydrous and hydrated alcohol production, which shall be

overtaken by this fuel consumers.

Also, in the case of inter-municipal transportation, the social-economic activities conducted in

Rio de Janeiro City are the ones that induce the population movement of the nearby cities,

as it is more appropriate to consider in the GHG emission calculation the entire consumption

of the fuel marketetd within the city, irrespective of the vehicle origin.

For urban Solid Waste, the disposal location is presently in Gramacho, in Duque de Caxias

City, where methane (CH4) emissions occur, arising from the waste generated by Rio de

Janeiro City. Then, it would not be adequate to exclude such emissions away from the

boundaries of Rio de Janeiro City.

Moreover, in the case of companies located at Complexo Siderúrgico da Zona Oeste, this

study assumed the guidelines established under Law no. 5.248, dated on January 27th, 2011

which, in its Art. 6, paragraph 3, establishes that “the GHG emissions arising from companies

part of the Complexo Siderúrgico da Zona Oeste shall be accounted separately from the

remaining GHG emissions in the City, and the differentiated reduction targets shall be

observed, as per Law no. 5.133, dated on December 22nd, 2009”.

We present below the results obtained from the GHG emissions inventory in Rio de

Janeiro City, for the year of 2005, and the reference and alternative Scenarios for the

period 2005-2025.

3

4

I. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

INVENTORY OF RIO DE JANEIRO CITY

5

1. METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS FOR THE GREENHOUSE

GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY ELABORATION

The GHG Emissions Inventory of Rio de Janeiro City calculates the estimated values of

carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxides (N2O) emitted by the city in the year

of 2005.

The methodology used was developed by Centro Clima/COPPE/UFRJ, based on the 2006

IPCC Guidelines of National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, having observed the adjustments

already conducted in the Anthropic Emissions and Removals of Greenhouse Gases Not-

Controlled by the Montreal Protocol Inventory – Initial Communication from Brazil (MCT,

2004).

The IPCC methodology (2006), meant for countries, includes from simple methods and

hypotheses (default), covering the major GHG sources and drainage, even the most

elaborated ones requiring a more detailed data base. The countries have the option of using

several methods and detail levels, depending on their own needs, data and technical

capability availability. Users are encouraged to go beyond default values where applicable.

Such assertives refer to the national sphere, but they can be transposed to the cities, and

their emissions inventories, depending on data availability, may and shall be more detailed

by the use of local emission factors and observing the emission source characteristics.

The conduction of national inventories is an obligation undertaken by the “member” countries

in the Climate Convention, and in view of helping decisions relating to the adoption of limits

for the national emissions, the methodology aiming to make the information uniform, or a

manner to allow the comparison with the different inventories. National inventories, therefore,

are exhaustive and standardized. In the case of cities, inventories shall reflect the needs

defined by the possibilities of policy implementations to mitigate and remove emissions and,

consequently, shall be configured for this purpose.

The main methodological issue considered in the municipal range is the institution of the

inventory range limits, so that is restrict to the emissions which sources result only from the

social-economic activities which are the responsibility of Rio de Janeiro City, bearing in mind

that such activities, in their majority, may undergo interference by the municipal government.

Therefore, the methodology to be used in the Inventory for Rio de Janeiro City shall adapt

the IPCC – 2006 Guidelines, so that the obtained results may express the responsibility of

6

the municipal emissions caused by its consumption decisions. The inventory is, then, named

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Rio de Janeiro City and not, “in Rio de Janeiro

City”, since it does not incorporate emissions occurred in the geographical boundaries of the

city, but those occurring under its responsibility.

1.1. Inventory Structure

The object sectors of National Inventories, in accordance with the IPCC 2006 Guidelines and

which are used in the structuring of the Inventory of Rio de Janeiro City, are the following.

Energy

Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU)

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)

Waste

In relation to specific emissions liabilities, as to the necessary changes in the IPCC – 2006

guidelines, they are also presented in each of the analyzed sectors along this document.

In relation to outsourced Tiers1 used, they depend on the availability of data for each

evaluated emission source. The same applies to emission factors that, whenever possible,

are locally obtained and, when they are not available, they are contained in the Greenhouse

Gas Anthropic Emissions and Removals not controlled by the Montreal Protocol National

Inventory, presented in the Initial Communication to Brazil (2004). Only when those, or

1A tier represents a methodological complexity level. In general, three tiers are offered. Tier1 is the basic method, Tier 2 the intermediate method and Tier 3 the one demanding more complexity and data needs. Tiers2 and 3 are the methods considered as the more accurate ones.

IPCC indicates methodologies to estimate GHG emissions and removals in three detail levels:

Tier1 uses aggregate data and default values proposed by IPCC for emission factors

Tier2 uses aggregate data, of which, in some sectors, there may be a need for a higher disaggregation level. It

uses national values (in the case of State/Municipal inventories, emission factors that are more appropriate for

the city may exist or may be developed)

Tier3 uses more separate data (detailing level by type of technology or input used, for example). It uses more

elaborate methods, such as, for example, modeling.

others factors identified in the reference literature in Brazil, are not available, the factors in

IPCC Guidelines – 2006 are used.

In the next chapters of the inventory, therefore, each of the sectors proposed by the IPCC-

2006 Guidelines are separately analyzed, taking care to identify the critical points related to

the obtaining and adapting required to the national and municipal plan.

7

8

2. ENERGY SECTOR EMISSIONS

The estimations from CO2 emissions provided by the burning of fossil fuels in the energy

sector in Rio de Janeiro were elaborated for the base year of 2005. The approach used is

Bottom-up (or sector approach), where the fuel burning emissions are presented according

to each different social-economic sector, as specified under the National Inventories

Guidelines for Greenhouse Gases of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC

2006), with the due adequacy measures for the municipal level.

An alternative approach would be Top-down, or Reference Approach, where carbon dioxide

(CO2) emissions are counted based on the fuel consumption quantity data for a certain

economy, that is, from a high level of aggregate data, not depending on detailed information

on how the fuel is used by the final user or on transformations.

2.1. Structure of the Energy Inventory

In accordance with IPCC (2006), the use of energy comprises all the Greenhouse Gas

Emissions produced by the burning of fuels and the release (leakage) resulting from such

use. Thus, this inventory counts the emissions relating to production, transforming and

consumption of energy, including emissions due to the burning fuels, as well as Fugitive

Emissions resulting from the distribution of channeled gas. The considered gases are CO2,

CH4 and N2O.

The GHG emissions of Rio de Janeiro City were calculated by taking into consideration the

structure proposed in IPCC (2006), as shown on Table 1, below. However, some adaptations

were done in relation to electric energy and alcohol consumption in the transportation sector

to reflect Greenhouse Gas Emissions on which the city of the Rio de Janeiro is responsible,

and not only those occurred in its territory. This adaptation was also included in the revision

of the 1996 and 1998 inventory values, so that the result of such years' emissions underwent

some changes resulting from the methodology updating. The item below shows the

adaptations considered under this inventory.

Table 1 – Simplified Structure of the Energy Use Inventory

1) Energy Use

1.A) Fuel Use

1.A.1) Energy Industry

1.A.1.a) Electricity Production

1.A.1.b) Petroleum Refining

1.A.1.c) Solid Fuel Manufacturing and other energy industries

1.A.2) Industry (aggregate values for all the sector)

1.A.3) Transportation

1.A.3.a) Civil Aviation

1.A.3.b) Road

1.A.3.c) Railway

1.A.3.d) Navigation

1.A.4) Other Sectors

1.A.4.a) Commercial

1.A.4.b) Institutional

1.A.4.c) Residential

1.A.4.d) Agriculture / Cattle Raising

1.A.5) Fugitive Emissions

Source: IPCC (2006)

The bottom-up approach allows quantifying and identifying CO2 and non-CO2 gases in a non-

aggregate manner, that is, by the several city social-economic sectors, as per the Table

above. The use of the Bottom-up methodology is desirable in cases where there is a need for

identifying other non-CO2 gases and in situations where one wishes to elaborate a policy that

needs detailed information on the source of emission, including CO2. The Bottom-up

methodology uses emission factors for specific gases and sectors for Mobile Sources and

Fixed Sources.

The data used in this inventory, was made available by ANP – the National Petroleum

Agency, for the year of 2005, not being then possible to obtain data for more recent years.

Additionally, the data existing in the IPP – Instituto Pereira Passos database, State Energetic

Balance Sheet (BEE-RJ) and Emissions Inventory of the State of Rio de Janeiro, basic year

1998, were used.

9

10

2.2. Adequacy of IPCC Methodology for Municipal Inventories

One of the most important methodological matters faced when elaborating municipal

inventories is the limited range of social-economic activities that adequately reflect the city

liability in relation to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The first criterion was the use of the

municipal social-economic limits, that is, to take into consideration the emissions taken place

within the geographical boundaries of the municipal territory. This option itself, however, is

not sufficient, as it does not consider important sources of emission induced by the city.

Therefore, in order to evaluate and account for the emissions under the responsibility of Rio

de Janeiro City, the following steps were considered:

a) In accordance with IPCC 2006, only GHG emissions originated from the use of fossil

fuels for the generation of electric energy (category 1.A.1) shall be accounted. However,

Rio de Janeiro city is not self-sufficient in relation to electricity and, consequently, besides

GHG emissions by the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity in the municipal

territory (which will generate a municipal emission factor, considering the mix of sources),

we also took into consideration the CO2 emissions relating to the electricity used through

the electric energy net (considered as imported electricity). That, its turn, shall be

calculated by the emission factor for inventories (published in the homepage of MCT –

Ministério de Ciências e Tecnologia). According to MCT “the average CO2 emission

factors for electric energy to be used in inventories aim to estimate the quantity of CO2

associated to a determined electrical energy generation. It calculates the average of

generation emissions, taking into consideration all the plants generating energy and not

only those working in the margin. If all the SIN (Sistema Interligado Nacional) electrical

energy consumers calculated their emissions by multiplying the energy consumption by

the emission factor, the total would correspond to the SIN emissions. In this sense, it

shall be used in order to quantify the electrical energy emissions being generated at a

certain moment. It serves, therefore, for inventories in general, corporate or otherwise”.

This inventory will use the average emission factor for inventories of 0,0337 tCO2/MWh

(average for the years of 2006, 2007 and 2008) since there are no previous values

published by MCT.

b) In relation to fuel alcohol consumption for the transportation sector, despite being this fuel

renewable, that is, the CO2 emission is preceded by the carbon sink resulting from the

sugar-cane growth and being, therefore, zero, there must be considered that the

anhydrous and hydrated alcohol production cycle includes emission, which must be

undertaken by the consumers of this fuel. For this purpose, the emissions generated by

the production of the consumed alcohol in the city are included in the inventory2. Using

data published by Macedo & Nogueira (2005), the following ones were taken into

consideration: (1) emissions due to the use of fossil energy (fuels consumed or electric

energy acquired, that is, the direct energetic inputs); and (2) emissions from other

sources not reabsorbed by photosynthesis in the growth of sugar cane (non-CO2 gases

in the burning of hay, fertilizers decomposition, etc.).

Schedules 1 and 2 below present a summary of the considered adaptations.

2IPCC recommends, for the transportation sector, for the CH4 and N2O emissions to be calculated for biofuels. So, the emission calculation for such gases will take into consideration the alcohol consumption in the city.

11

12

Schedule 1 – Adequacy of Methodology to Compute Emissions due to Imported Electricity

Based on the fuel consumption data supplied by Usina de Santa Cruz, the CO2 and CH4 and N2O

emissions were calculated due to the burning of fuel to generate electricity. Then, such an emission was

divided by GWh (in thousand toe) generated at the plant, resulting an emission factor due to thermal

generation in the city. After that, the weighed average was calculated between the emission factor

supplied by MCT for inventories, of 0,0337Gg CO2/GWh (for imported electricity consumed in the

electrical energy net) and the emission factor due to the thermal generation in the city (for 1996, 1998 and

2005). The average factor for the city was of 1,1 GgCO2eq /thousand toe for 1996, 1,12 Gg CO2eq

/thousand toe for 1998 and 0,51 Gg CO2eq /thousand toe for 2005, as per the table below.

Average Emission Factor due to Electricity

Inventory Average

(MCT) – Gg

CO2/GWh

Emission Factor

due to thermal

generation (Gg

CO2/GWh)

Emission Factor

in the city

GgCO2eq/ GWh

Average Emission

Factor in the city

Gg CO2/mil toe

1996 0,034 0,878 0,092 1,067

1998 0,034 0,846 0,097 1,126

2005 0,034 0,887 0,044 0,513

For CH4, the same methodology was used, resulting 2,71 x10-5Gg CH4/thousand toe for 1996, 2,84

x10-5Gg CH4/thousand toe for 1998, and 4,95 x10-6Gg CH4/thousand toe for 2005, due to the burning

of fuels at Usina de Santa Cruz. The N2O values were so small that they were not considered in the

calculations.

Schedule 2 – Adequacy of Methodology to Compute Emissions from imported Alcohol Production

According to Macedo et al (2008), the emission factor for anhydrous alcohol is 0,436 tCO2eq./m3,

and for hydrated alcohol is 0,417 tCO2eq./m3. The fossil fuel burning in the transportation of

sugar-cane and on tractors represents the largest emissions source of alcohol. Macedo et al

(2008) presents the results in tCO2eq., already accounted in this total the CO2, CH4 and N2O

emissions. Thus, the table showing CO2 emissions for the city, the emissions relating to ethylic

alcohol arise from the manufacturing chain. This adaptation was also adopted for the years of

1996 and 1998.

In accordance with the IPCC-2006 Guidelines, emissions arising from the alcohol burning in

vehicles must be calculated. The CO2 share is renewable, and then shall not be computed in

count of city emissions. In 2005, such emissions were of 680.5 Gg Co2. For shares relating to

CH4 and N2O gases, they are considered in the final total of emissions for this inventory.

2.3. Presentation of Energy Sector GHG Emissions

2.3.1. Sectorial Emissions by Energy Use

Table 2 presents the CO2eq emissions, calculated for Rio de Janeiro City. Besides the sector

emissions to be presented below, IPCC 2006, under its methodology, determines the

calculation of petroleum refining emissions. In this inventory, in view of the lack of data on

the type of fuel used in the petroleum refining at Manguinhos Refinery, the emissions shall

be separately accounted.

13

14

Ta

ble

2 –

CO

2e

q E

mis

sio

ns

in t

he

So

cia

l-E

con

om

ic S

ect

ors

– C

on

soli

da

ted

Sp

rea

dsh

ee

t (G

g C

O2e

q)

Gg

CO

2eq

N

atu

ral

Gas

D

iese

l O

il F

uel

O

il G

aso

l. G

PL

M

anu

f.

Gas

. A

viat

ion

K

ero

s.

Ele

ctri

c.

An

hyd

r.A

lco

ho

l H

ydra

ted

Alco

hol

Illum

in.

Ker

osen

e A

viat

ion

G

aso

l. T

ota

l

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n t

ota

l 1.

389,

1 1.

427,

6 0,

2 1.

459,

2 –

– 1.

060,

638

13,4

93

,7

32,2

–

2,2

5.47

8,2

Ro

ad

1.38

9,1

1.41

7,2

– 1.

459,

2 –

– –

– 93

,7

32,2

–

– 4.

391,

3

Air

way

–

– –

– –

– 1.

060,

638

– –

– –

2,2

1.06

2,9

Rai

lway

–

– –

– –

– –

13,4

–

– –

– 13

,4

Wat

erw

ay

– 10

,4

0,2

– –

– –

– –

– –

– 10

,6

Res

iden

tial

+C

om

mer

cial

25

7,4

3,9

– –

396,

0 29

,6

– 42

7,6

– –

0,2

– 1.

114,

7

Res

iden

tial

16

5,3

– –

– 37

5,9

21,6

–

232,

5 –

– 0,

2 –

795,

6

Co

mm

erci

al

92,1

3,

9 –

– 20

,1

7,9

– 19

5,1

– –

– –

319,

2

Pu

blic

an

d o

ther

s 12

,7

36,5

3 0,

2 –

21,4

1,

9 –

98,2

–

– –

– 21

0,9

Ind

ust

rial

1.

246,

2 46

,63

10,2

–

12,2

–

– 10

0,8

– –

0,5

– 1.

416,

41

To

tal

2.90

5,3

1.62

0,7

60,5

1.

459,

2 42

9,6

31,4

1.

060,

6 64

0,0

93,7

32

,2

0,8

2,2

8.22

0,3

Sour

ce: A

utho

rs

15

2.3.2. Refining Emissions

Manguinhos Refinery is the only one existing within the limits of Rio de Janeiro City. As it

was not possible to obtain data on emissions directly from the refinery, it was attempted, as

an alternative, to use the average factor of emission for Petrobras refineries, whose value is

0,224 ton CO2/toe refined (SMAC, 2003). Therefore, it is possible to estimate the emissions

for such operation.

The table below presents the volume of refined petroleum in Manguinhos, as well as an

estimate for the corresponding emissions.

Table 3 – Volume Processed by Manguinhos Refinery and Estimate for Corresponding Emissions

Refining 1996 1998 2005

Processed petroleum (thousand Toe) 470,0 480,0 335,0

Emissions (GgCO2eq) 105,3 107,5 75,0

Source: Authors

2.3.3. Fugitive Emissions

Due to Rio de Janeiro City profile, the calculation of this item took into consideration only the

Fugitive Emissions of the CEG Natural Gas Distribution Net.

For the calculation of the Fugitive Emissions, the IPCC (IPCC 2006) methodology for

Fugitive Emissions resulting from the distribution of natural gas for final consumers was

used. The average between the superior and the inferior limits of the emission factor was, as

suggested by IPCC for developing countries, corresponding to 1,8*10-3Gg of CH4 per million

of m3 traded gas, and 9,55*10-5Gg CO2 per million of m3 of traded gas (Table 4).

16

Table 4 – Natural Gas Fugitive Emissions of the Distribution Net

Fugitive Emissions Millions m3 CH4 CO2 CO2eq

Total Volume of gas traded in the City 1.414,5

IPCC Fugitive Emissions factor (Gg per million m3 of traded gas) 1,8*10-3 9,55*10-5

Emissions (Gg) 2,5 0,1 53,6

Source: Authors

2.3.4. Bunker Emissions

It is important to observe that IPCC recommends to consider the international Bunker fuel

consumption (international air and sea transportation), in separate, only for information

purpose, as this value is not part of the national emissions (in our case, State). So, we the

aviation kerosene consumption calculation for international flights (obtained from BEERJ –

Balanço Energético do Estado do Rio de Janeiro) was extracted.

Table 5 presents consumption attributed to Bunker in 2005, per fuel.

Table 5 –Bunker Fuel Consumption in 2005

Bunker Diesel Oil Aviation Kerosene Total

Fuel Consumption (thousand toe) 2,3 175,2 177,5

Source: Authors

According to the methodology used, the total emissions assigned to Bunker totalized 531.1 GgCO2eq in 2005.

2.4. Consolidation of the Results from Energy Sector

The results obtained from the Energy Emissions Inventory for Rio de Janeiro City are

summarized on Table 6, as follows.

The share relating to Bunker is accounted for, but it is not part of the city emissions and in

accordance with IPCC – 2006 Guideline, shall be presented in separate.

Table 6 – Consolidation of Total Inventory Values, 2005

Source Gg CO2 Gg CH4 Gg N2O GgCO2eq

Energy Use 8.052,1 2,9 0,3 8.220,2

Refining 75,0 - - 75,0

Fugitive Emissions 0,1 2,5 - 53,6

Total State Emissions (use of the energy + refining + Fugitive Emissions) 8.127,2 5,5 0,3 8.348,8

Emissions not taken into account in the City Grand Total

Bunker 526,4 0,00 0,01 531,1

Source: Authors

The total Energy Sector emissions of Rio de Janeiro City, by the Bottom-up method with the

adequacies introduced, add up to 8.348,8 GgCO2eq, being 66% arisen out of the

Transportation Sector (Figure 1) – of which 53% represent road transportation (Figure 2).

The industrial sector emissions reached 1.416,41GgCO2eq, representing 17% of the

energetic sector emissions for the city. These two sectors together totalize 83% of the

Energy emissions.

Energetic elements (Figure 2) with higher participation in GHG emissions are natural gas

(35%), gasoline (18%) and diesel oil (19%), actually demonstrating the weight of the

transportation sector in the city emissions (Figure 3). Electricity represents only 8% of the

emissions, which is explained by the low carbon content, due, mainly, to the high

participation on hydroelectric generation in the country.

Besides the industry (Figure 4), the use of natural gas is expressive in road transportation

due to the Rio de Janeiro State Government incentive policy for better usage of natural gas

in vehicles over that period. It is worth mentioning that natural gas emissions are 20% lower

than the gasoline emissions, and, therefore, the use of such fuel was an important step in the

contribution for the reduction of transportation emissions at that time. Only later (as of 2005),

a larger use of the flex fuel technology induced a higher consumption of hydrated alcohol (as

shown in scenarios below), decreasing even more the emissions impact on this.

17

18

The Residential Sector emissions reached 795,6 GgCO2eq and the Commercial emission

319,2 GgCO2eq, being responsible for a participation of 9% and 4% respectively, of GHG

emissions. The most representative energetic sectors are residential LPG and commercial

electricity.

Figure 1 – GHG Energy sector emission per subsector (GgCO2eq)

5.478,2066%

9%795,6

4% 319,2

2%210,91

1.41617%

1%53,6

1%75

Industrial

4.391,30

1.062,90

13,4

10,6

19

Note: “0” represents a non-null value rounded up to zero.

Figure 3 – Fossil Fuels and Electricity Participation in GHG emissions for the Transportation sector (GgCO2eq)

25%

26%

0%

27%

0%

0%

19%

0% 2% 1% 0%0%

35%

19%

1%

18%

5%

0%

13%

8%

1%

0%0%

0%

GPL

Note: “0” represents a non-null value rounded up to zero.

Figure 2 - Fossil Fuels and Electricity Participation in GHG Emissions of the Energy Sector (GgCO eq) 2

20

Note: “0” represents a non-null value rounded up to zero.

Figure 4 – Fossil Fuels and Electricity Participation in GHG emissions of the Industrial sector (GgCO2eq)

88%

3%

1% 1%

7%

0%

GPL

3. EMISSSIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES AND

PRODUCTS USE SECTOR – IPPU

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions produced by industrial activities correspond not only to

energy, heat and/or work generating processes, but also the productive process itself.

In accordance with the Guidelines for National Inventories of Greenhouse Gases of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2006), emissions arising from energy

generation equipment, that is, those constituting intentional oxidation of materials, which use

equipment appropriate to supply heat or mechanical work for a certain industrial process, are

counted in the ENERGY Sector. On the other hand, emissions generated during the

industrial process, or in the use of greenhouse gases in products, or in non-energetic use of

carbon are fit for IPPU – Industrial Processes and Product Use.

In several stages of the productive process of a large variety of industrial activities, the

emission of different greenhouse gases occurs, such as: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, etc. The

main sources are processes that chemically or physically transform the materials, for

example: blast furnace in the iron and steel industry, manufacturing of ammonia and other

chemicals manufactured from fossil fuels, cement manufacturing, etc.

It is also counted in IPPU the use of non-energetic fossil fuels (used as raw material in the

manufacturing of products) and the use of products, such as solvents, since, in many cases,

for an estimate, the data on the production and/or the quantity of such products which is part

of the productive process is required.

Besides, greenhouse gases are frequently used in products, such as refrigerators, foam

materials and sprays. An interesting characteristic of such products is the time gap between

the manufacturing of the product and the release of the greenhouse gas into the atmosphere:

it may take a few weeks, in the case of sprays; even decades, in the case of rigid foam

products. In some cases, the gas may even be recovered, at the end of lifetime of the

product, and be recycled or destroyed – a fact that must be observed when calculating IPPU

emissions.

21

22

3.1. Structure of the IPPU Inventory

Due to its characteristics, Rio de Janeiro City presents few industries producing emissions

that can be counted in IPPU. The main data sourceswere INEA – Instituto Estadual do

Ambiente and ABIQUIM – Associação Brasileira da Indústria Química.

By analyzing the industrial processes and product use categories proposed by IPCC, in a

cross-reference with the productive activities in Rio de Janeiro City, the productive processes

and products identified for the calculation of city emissions are shown on Table 7.

Table 7 – Categories of the Industrial Processes and Products Use Identified in the

City of Rio de Janeiro

Industrial Processes and Products Gas emissions Information Availability

Non-Metallic Minerals Industry

Glass CO2 INEA

Ceramic CO2 N/I

Several Carbonates CO2 N/I

Soda Ash Use CO2 N/I

Chemical Industry Petrochemical Methanol Manufacturing CO2 ABIQUIM

Metallic Minerals Industry

Iron and Steel Production CO2, CH4 and N2O INEA/IBS

Aluminum Production CO2 INEA/ABAL

Non energetic Products Use in fossil fuels

Lubricants CO2 ANP

Paraffin CO2 ANP

Anesthetics Use N2O N/I

N/I – No information

To avoid the double counting3 of emissions, it was estimated in IPPU only emissions arising

from the industrial process. Emissions related to fossil fuel consumed under these processes

are not accounted. As per IPCC comments in its manual, “the task of allocating the

emissions from fossil fuels in the Energy sectors or in IPPU, often becomes quite complex.

The use of gases as raw material and/or reducer, frequently produces other gases that must

be burnt to supply energy for the industrial process. Accordingly, part of the raw material

must be burnt directly in order to supply heat. This may cause uncertainties and ambiguity”.

3.2. Presentation of GHG emissions in the Industrial Processes and

Products Use Sector – IPPU

A thorough research was conducted for the obtainment of data, in a manner to converge to

the inventory base year, 2005. For emissions estimated in the IPPU sector, it was not

possible to update the previous inventory, published by Secretaria Municipal de Meio

Ambiente (SMAC) in 2003, in a work also carried out by CentroClima/COPPE/UFRJ, since

all the GHG emissions arising from industrial activities were accounted in the Energy sector,

as per previous methodology, which accounted for non-energetic emission, part of the

industrial processes.

GHG Emission Source

Gg CO2 1996 1998

Asphalt – –

Lubricants 73,0 –

Total 73,0

Source: City of Rio de Janeiro Inventory, 1998

The methodology used for the elaboration of the Inventory is contained in the IPCC manual

(2006) , although some adaptations were done. Along the work, separate information was

3According to the IPCC premises, during the inventory elaboration it is of Paramount importance that not only emissions are avoided, but also the double counting of GHG emissions.

23

24

not always available, making it totally impossible to estimate the emissions of some industrial

processes, such as: ceramics production, carbonates, etc. In a general manner, simpler

calculation methodologies were used, based on default emissions factors, covering the

largest source categories relating to IPPU. For this purpose, only total production data was

used in relation to the respective production processes.

GHG emissions in the IPPU sector, for 2005, are summarized on Table 8.

Table 8 – GHG emissions in the IPPU sector

GHG Emission Source Gg CO2 Emission Gg CH4 Emission Gg N2O Emission GgCO2eq Emission Year 2005

Glass Production 13,87 – – 13,87

Methanol Production 89,46 0,414 – 98,15

Steel Production 130,6 – – 130,6

Aluminum Production 150,4 – – 150,4

Use of lubricants 16,7 – – 16,7

Use of paraffin 0,07 – – 0,07

Total 401,10 0,414 --- 409,79

Source: Authors

Note: “0” represents a non-null value rounded up to zero.

Figure 5 – GHG emissions participation in IPPU sector (GgCO2eq)

3%

24%

32%

37%

4%0%

4. EMISSIONS OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND

OTHER LAND USE – AFOLU

The main greenhouse gases related to the AFOLU sector are carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous

oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). The carbon flow between the atmosphere and the

ecosystems are primarily controlled by absorption through the photosynthesis of plants and

breathing emission, deposition and combustion of organic material. N2O is, in particularly

emitted into ecosystems as a byproduct of nitrification and of denitrification, while CH4 is an

emission by methane-genesis under anaerobic conditions on lands, excrement packing,

enteric fermentation, and during incomplete combustion when organic material is burnt.

In this sector, the GHG emissions and removals are defined as those occurring in managed

lands, that is, land where human intervention is present by using social, ecological and

production practices.

The AFOLU inventory was elaborated based on Guidelines for National Inventories of

Greenhouse Gases issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2006),

being, however, adapted to Rio de Janeiro City reality and the data available.

4.1. Structure of AFOLU Inventory

The Greenhouse gases flow in the AFOLU sector is estimated in two forms, in accordance

with IPCC (2006):

Net changes in carbon stock (C) over a determined period (for most part of CO2 flow);

and

Direct transfer as gas flow rates from/to the atmosphere (to estimate non-CO2 gas

emissions and some CO2 emissions and removals).

The net changes to the carbon stock supply CO2 emissions and removals for the AFOLU

sector, and are estimated for each land use category, as per Table 9 below.

25

26

Each of such categories of land use is subdivided into subcategories of:

“Remaining” area, that is, whose land has not changed.

“Converted” area, where there has been a conversion to a new form of land use,

which means that there has been a change in the use of the land, reflecting a change

in the carbon stock.

Then, we can have as a subcategory example: “Forest remaining as a forest” or, “Use of

Lands converted into Forest”.

Table 9 –Land Use and Vegetal Coverage Inventory Categories

Source of GHG Emissions Studied Categories Evaluated

Gases

Land Use

Forestry

CO2

Agriculture Areas

Reforesting

Plains Areas

Swamp Areas

Sandbank Areas

Urban Area (Ground plots)

Others

In the case of direct transfer to atmosphere, non-CO2 gases are also considered, such as

methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), which circulate between atmosphere and

ecosystems as a product of the microbiological processes and organic material combustion.

They derive from a series of sources, including land, herds and animal excrements, besides

biomass combustion, dead and sawn wood, and cultivation, as with the rice.

In a summarized way, the AFOLU sector accounts for emissions arising from:

1) Forestry Coverage and Land Use – based on carbon stock change, as explained above

(loss or gain of forest coverage and land use categories).

2) Agriculture Activities due to rice cultivation, fires, particularly of sugar-cane, and the use

of fertilizers and land correctives (limestone, dolomite and urea). It is worth mentioning

that rice cultivation is not present in Rio de Janeiro City.

3) Cattle Raising Activities – Consists in counting the emissions originated from enteric

fermentation and excrement management. The cattle raising activities in the City are

centralized mainly in the West Zone, in the districts of Santa Cruz, Bangu and Campo

Grande, where there are still areas for this kind of animals.

For item 1 above, the data on use were supplied by Environmental Recovery Coordination (CRA

- Coordenadoria de Recuperação Ambiental) of the Municipal Environmental Secretariat (SMAC

– Secretaria Municipal de Meio Ambiente), complemented with information obtained from Pereira

Passos Institute (IPP - Instituto Municipal de Urbanismo Pereira Passos) by means of its data

warehouse, available at http://www.armazemdedados.rio.rj.gov.br/; and Brazilian Institute of

Geography and Statistics (IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). These entities

supply the storage with basic information required for the acknowledgement and monitoring of

the physical, territorial, environmental, economic, demographic and social reality of Rio de

Janeiro City. Due to the form by which the data was supplied, the AFOLU sector emissions could

not be separated from the City Planning Areas (AP – Áreas de Planejamento), and shall be

presented jointly for the city as a whole.

For Agriculture and Cattle Raising (items 2 and 3 above), this study used official statistic data

supplied by IBGE for the year of 2005. Particularly for Cattle Raising, the characterization of

animals was conducted based on the geographic data and information used by the First

Inventory for Brazil (MCT, 2004).

4.2. Methodological Adjustment for Rio de Janeiro City

The records on vegetal coverage and land use in Rio de Janeiro City date until the year of

2001, according to information supplied by the Environmental Information Management of

SMAC and the information available at IPP database. Therefore, this study used the annual

mean variation of the main land uses in the City for the period 1996 – 2001, and considered

that the same rate remains constant from 2001 to 2005. It was then possible to determine an

estimation of changes in the land use in Rio de Janeiro City for the base year of 2005.

27

28

In addition, in view of the lack of recent standardized information on vegetation and land use

in Rio de Janeiro City, an effort was endeavored to systemize legends. The City most

representative classes were selected and deemed as important in the context of the study on

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), as contributors for the carbon atmosphere absorption or

as potential threats regarding the emissions.

In this case, dense forests and recovery reforesting are encompassed, besides the tree

estimations for planting estimates and green areas in squares and parks directly related to

the surfaces occupied by the urban centers, native vegetation suppression caused by

several occupations and the agriculture and cattle raising areas in Rio de Janeiro City.

4.3. Presentation of GHG emissions from the Agriculture, Forestry and

Other Land Use Sector – AFOLU

4.3.1. Forestry Coverage and Land Use

Table 10 presents the emissions and removals estimated for the year of 2005 for the

different land use categories in Rio de Janeiro City. This table allows the visualization of the

weight and importance of each category in the total value of emissions in the city.

Table 10 – Carbon Emissions and Removals by the Use of Land in Rio de Janeiro City

Category of Land Use Total

Forest Plains Sandbank Swamp Fruit culture Urban Areas Re-foresting

Emission (Gg CO2)

254,3 0,2 0,3 --- --- --- 254,8

Removals (Gg CO2)

--- 0,0 9,9 20,5 21 51,4

254,3 0,2 0,3 –0,0 –9,9 –20,5 –21 203,4

Source: Authors..

As a final estimate result, it is possible to observe that in Rio de Janeiro City, carbon removals or

passed by the emissions. Therefore, the value

2

lower than the removals.

sequestration from the atmosphere were fully sur

of emissions reached a total of 203,4Gg CO in the City of the Rio in 2005, being the emissions

ry

4.3.2. Emissions from Agriculture Activities

4.3.2.1. Biomass Burning: Sugar-Cane

In case of herb and tree vegetation fires, the burning areas were not detected due to the lack

of information, and, therefore, they are not part in the calculation of this study. In the case of

sugar-cane, the reached emissions values correspond to 0.01 GgCO2eq, as shown on Table

11.

Table 11 – Sugar-Cane Burning Emissions (hay) by GHG in Rio de Janeiro City in 2005

Burnt Area Quantity of

hay available for comb.

Comb. Factor

CH4

Emission Factor

CH4

Emissions

N2O Emission

Factor

N2O Emissions Total

(ha) (t/ha) g/kg dry material t CH4

g/kg dry material t N2O GgCO2

eq

26 6,5 0,8 2,7 0,37 0,07 0,01 0,01

Source: Authors. Burnt Area: IBGE, 2005 Comb. = Combustion

4.3.2.2. Agriculture Land Management by Nitrogenous Fertilizer Addition

The direct N2O emissions in the agriculture areas of Rio de Janeiro City totalized 0.92 tons in

2005 and are presented on Table 12, below:

Table 12 – Direct Emissions of N2O by Agriculture Land in Rio de Janeiro City in 2005

Total Agriculture

Areas

Fertilizers Used in Agriculture

Areas

Agriculture Emission Factor

Direct Land emission in Agriculture Area

Total Agriculture Land Direct Emissions

(ha) (kg N) (kg N2O/kg N) (kg N2O-N/year) (t N2O-N)

2.269 58.814 0,01 924 0,92

Source: Authors..

Indirect volatized and percolated nitrogenous oxide emissions in agriculture land in the city

were 0,3 tons in 2005 and can be observed on Table 13 below:

29

30

Table 13 – Indirect N2O Emissions by Agriculture Land in Rio de Janeiro City in 2005

Total Agriculture Area (ha)

Fertilizer Used

Volatizing N fraction

N Volatized Emission Factor

Percolated N Fraction

N Percolated Emission Factor

Total Indirect

Emissions

Kg N (kg N2O-N)/(kg NH3-N + NOx-N volatilized)

(kg N2O-N / kg N percolated and

runoff) (tN2O)

2.269 58.814 0,1 0,01 0,3 0,0075 0,3

Source: Authors.

Therefore, emissions from the addition of nitrogen to the agriculture land in Rio de Janeiro

were 0,28 GgCO2eq for direct and 0.09 GgCO2eq for indirect emissions, thus totaling 0.36

GgCO2eq in 2005.

4.3.2.3. Agriculture Land Management by the Use of Limestone

Total emissions from the use of carbonates in the agriculture areas in Rio de Janeiro City

were of 2.11 Gg CO2 in 2005. Table 14 shows the values used in the calculation emissions

produced by this activity.

Table 14 – Emissions from the Use of Limestone and Dolomite in Agriculture in Rio de Janeiro City.

Agriculture Area

Quantity of Dolomite

Used

Quantity of Limestone

Used

% of C in Dolomite

% of C in Limestone

Dolomite Emissions

Limestone Emissions

Total Emissions

(ha) (t) (t) C C tC tC Gg CO2

2.269 2.995 1.543 0,13 0,12 389 185 2,11

Source: Authors.

4.3.2.4. Agriculture Land Management by the Use of Urea.

Total emissions arising from the use of urea reached 0,04 Gg CO2 in Rio de Janeiro City in

2005, as shown on Table 15 below:

Table 15 – Emissions from Urea Use in Rio de Janeiro City in 2005

Total Collected Area

(ha)

Total Nitrogen Added Fertilizers Used

(t)

Total Urea Used (t) (90% of N)

Emission Factor

(t C / t Urea)

C Emission (Gg)

CO2 (Gg) Emission

2.269 58,8 52,93 0,2 0,01 0,04

Source: Authors..

4.3.3. Cattle Raising Emissions

4.3.3.1. Enteric Fermentation

Calculations show that the methane emissions produced in cattle raising achieved 0,53Gg

CH4 in the year of 2005, being 96% originated from enteric fermentation and 4% from

excrement management. Out of the total emissions, 88% relating to oxen.Table 16, below,

presents the obtained results.

Table 16 – Methane Emissions from Cattle Raising in Rio de Janeiro City in 2005

Type of Animal

Gg CH4

% Enteric

Fermentation Excrement management Total

Beef Cattle 0,31 0,01 0,32 59,3

Milk Cows 0,15 0,00 0,15 27,8

Horses 0,04 0,00 0,04 7,5

Mules and Asinine 0,003 0,000 0,003 0,55

Pigs 0,01 0,01 0,02 3,7

Caprine Cattle 0,005 0,00 0,005 0,9

Ovine Cattle 0,001 0,000 0,001 0,2

Poultry 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,1

Total 0,51 0,02 0,5393 100

31

Source: Authors

32

4.3.3.2. Waste Management

Calculations estimate that direct emissions were 0.011 Gg N2O in the year of 2005. In

relation to direct and indirect emissions, the estimated N2O values were 0,01 and 0,001Gg,

respectively. In total, 92% are from the bovine livestock. Values are shown on Table 17

below.

Table 17 – Total N2O Emissions for Cattle Raising in Rio de Janeiro City in 2005

Type of Animal Gg N2O

% Direct Emissions Indirect Emissions Total

Oxen 0,007 0,001 0,008 71,4

Milk Cows 0,002 0,000 0,002 17,8

Bubals 0,001 0,000 0,001 8,9

Pigs 0,0002 0,0000 0,0002 1,78

Total 0,010 0,001 0,011 100

Source: Authors

4.4. Consolidation of the Results from AFOLU Sector

The AFOLU sector was responsible for the emission of 220,6GgCO2eq in Rio de Janeiro City

in 2005. The main emission gas was CO2, followed by CH4. A summary of the emission

sources and the respective values are shown on Table 18 below.

Table 18 – Summary of AFOLU Emissions (GgCO2eq) in Rio de Janeiro City in 2005

Vegetal

Coverage

Enteric

Fermentation Excrement management

Agric.

Wastes

Burning

(sugarcane)

Nitrogen

Added

Fertilizers

Use

Limestone

and Dolomite

Use

Urea Use

Total

(CO2 emissions (CH4 emissions) (CH4 emissions) (dir. and ind.

emissions N2O)

(CH4 and N2O

emissions)

(dir. and ind.

emissions N2O) (CO2 emissions (CO2 emissions)

203,4 10,81 0,42 3,45 0,01 0,38 2,11 0,04 220,6

Source: Authors..

According to this inventory estimates, it may be noticed that emissions from changes in land

use (vegetal coverage) present the hihgest values in the AFOLU sector, which would

correspond to 92.2% of the total emissions. Cattle raising is the second largest source of

emissions, with only 6.7% of the total, and enteric fermentation contributes more

expressively than animal excrement management, the former with 4.9% and the latter with

1.8%. The use of Limestone and Dolomite in agriculture within the City comes as the third

source of emissions with a weight of 1% of the total GHG emissions. The other sources

return less significant values in this sector.

It is worth mentioning that the quantity of carbon removals by part of the vegetal coverage

(reforesting and urban tree planting) reduced or neutralized 19% of the total emissions in Rio

de Janeiro City in 2005. The related participations are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 – Sources participation in the Total of AFOLU Emissions (%) in RIO DE JANEIRO CITY in 2005

33

92%

5%

2%

0%0%

1%

0%

34

5. WASTE SECTOR EMISSIONS

The Waste Sector inventory was carried out based on the National Inventory Guidelines for

Greenhouse Gases of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC 2006), and

comprises the subsectors of Solid Waste, Residential and Commercial Wastewater and

Industrial Effluents.

5.1. Solid Waste

The Solid Waste sector comprises urban and industrial waste. The solid urban waste is

formed by a mixture of residential waste, street, park and garden sweeping waste,

commercial waste, sludge from residences and industries, produced in wastewater and

effluent treatment plants in general, hospital waste (non-pathogenic), hazardous waste and

agricultural waste.

The solid waste can be disposed of in sanitary landfills, recycled, incinerated or used in the

energy generation. When the urban waste are submitted to anaerobic conditions (in the

absence of oxygen, which occurs normally when they are buried), they generate methane

gas (CH4), one of the main greenhouse gases, besides CO2 and N2O. The amounts of CH4,

CO2 and N2O emissions vary due to the produced garbage volume, the contents of the

organic material in its composition and the anaerobic conditions of disposal (if the disposal

location is deep or shallow, for example). CH4 is the main gas emitted. CO2 has a biogenic

origin and does not impact climate, being again captured in the carbon cycle.

Presently, solid urban waste of the city is disposed of in two controlled landfills: Waste

Treatment Centers of Gericinó, in Bangu, and Gramacho, in Duque de Caxias City. Based on

the responsibility principle, although the waste is disposed of in a neighboring city, the GHG

emissions generated by such disposal shall be counted within the range of this study, since

they are the responsibility of Rio de Janeiro City.

The garbage amounts produced in the city were supplied by the Municipal Urban Cleaning

Company in Rio de Janeiro City (COMLURB – Companhia Municipal de Limpeza Urbana),

distributed among residential and public waste, associated to gravimetric composition of the

5 planning areas (AP). The industrial waste (class II) is collected by private companies and

sent to waste transfer stations managed by COMLURB, and then sent to the disposal area,

or to private landfills or those managed by COMLURB, the reason for this company to have

the statistic data for this type of waste.

5.1.1. Premises Adopted for the Elaboration of the Solid Waste Inventory

The IPCC methodology (2006) recommends that the accounting of GHG emissions in a

determined year shall be the sum of the methane emission curves for the 50 previous years.

However, for this study a period of 30 years was adopted, in view of the lack of data for the

historical series of this period. Therefore, the city GHG emissions inventory used data for the

period 1975-2005 to calculate emissions from the wastes disposal in 2005. The 30-year

period was also based on the methodology adopted by the National Communication of the

Brazilian Climate Convention (Comunicação Nacional do Brasil à Convenção do Clima).

The calculation methodology adopted was the First Order Decay Model, as contained in the

IPCC Manual (2006), to estimate CH4 emissions from wastes disposal in landfill and

deposits, or from industrial wastes.

To calculate the methane emissions curve in this period, the following parameters were

taken into consideration:

� In accordance with COMLURB, 100% of the garbage in Rio de Janeiro City are

collected. In 2005, the selective collection was around 6.000 ton/year (< 1%). The

capture of biogas at Gramacho Landfill only occurs after 2005, and, therefore ,it is

not considered in this inventory.

� Production per capita of waste generation supplied by COMLURB for the period

1996-2005, as per Table 19 below. In 2005, this value was 0,807 kg/inhab/day. After

the 1996-2005 values, a correlation was made with the GNP per capita to find a

growth trend for the 1975-1994 period (Table 20). The garbage production per capita

is an important parameter, because it is multiplied by the city population, it supplies

the total garbage quantity generated in Rio de Janeiro City on an annual basis.

35

36

Table 19 – Production of Urban Wastes Per Capita (kg/inhab.day) – Data by COMLURB

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

0,719 0,744 0,765 0,794 0,824 0,832 0,852 0,813 0,805 0,807

Source: Authors.

Table 20–Evolution of Production Urban Solid Waste Per Capita in Rio de Janeiro

Year Production

(kg/inhab.day) Year

Production

(kg/inhab.day) Year

Production

(kg/inhab.day)

1975 0,715 1985 0,740 1995 0,769

1976 0,717 1986 0,743 1996 0,719

1977 0,719 1987 0,746 1997 0,744

1978 0,721 1988 0,749 1998 0,765

1979 0,723 1989 0,752 1999 0,794

1980 0,725 1990 0,755 2000 0,824

1981 0,728 1991 0,758 2001 0,832

1982 0,731 1992 0,761 2002 0,852

1983 0,734 1993 0,763 2003 0,813

1984 0,737 1994 0,766 2004 0,805

Source: Authors.

� Gravimetric Composition – this is important to determine the percentage of organic

material (main methane emission waste component), along the period. The garbage

gravimetric in Rio de Janeiro City was supplied by COMLURB, for the years of 1981-

2005. Then, a correction was made with the GNP per capita in order to identify the

growth trend, for organic material, as well as for other garbage components, and thus

identify the trend for the period 1975-1981 (Table 21).

Table 21 –RSU composition, in Weight Percentage per Volume (% kg/m³)

Year Organic

Material (%)

Gardens (%)

Paper/ Cardboard (%)

Wood (%)

Textile (%)

1975 37,57 3,94 34,39 0,26 2,27

1977 38,03 3,76 33,26 0,28 2,25

1979 38,52 3,60 32,16 0,29 2,23

1980 38,78 3,52 31,63 0,30 2,22

1981 35,10 3,64 41,72 1,09 3,35

1986 32,79 5,82 38,54 1,33 4,09

1989 41,58 2,51 31,54 0,91 2,66

1991 48,83 1,54 27,11 0,41 3,13

1993 41,02 5,49 23,95 1,17 5,11

1995 45,70 4,81 24,05 0,96 2,69

1996 49,13 2,46 22,26 0,53 2,66

1997 49,22 3,04 21,08 0,76 1,98

1998 48,58 1,97 22,21 0,68 2,13

1999 50,08 0,72 21,85 0,18 0,89

2000 51,36 1,91 19,77 0,44 1,79

2001 51,71 1,50 18,71 0,44 1,38

2002 56,03 0,60 18,78 0,38 1,36

2003 53,05 2,34 16,06 0,66 2,10

2004 59,73 2,12 12,48 1,92 1,78

2005 60,78 1,06 13,51 1,51 1,80

Source: Comlurb (2010)

� For the estimation of industrial wastes, a correlation of its historical series (supplied

by COMLURB for the period 1995-2009) with the Industrial GNP in the period was

used, since its production depends on the quantity of economic activity in the sector.

The values are shown on Table 22.

37

38

Table 22 – Evolution of Industrial Solid Waste Production in Rio de Janeiro

Year Production (10³ t/year) Year Production

(10³ t/year) Year Production (10³ t/year)

1975 9,1 1985 14,7 1995 23,8

1976 9,6 1986 15,5 1996 11,8

1977 10,0 1987 16,2 1997 6,6

1978 10,5 1988 17,0 1998 17,2

1979 11,0 1989 17,8 1999 26,7

1980 11,6 1990 18,7 2000 15,8

1981 12,2 1991 19,6 2001 18,2

1982 12,8 1992 20,6 2002 27,2

1983 13,4 1993 21,6 2003 58,7

1984 14,0 1994 22,7 2004 76,0

Source: Authors.

5.1.2. Presentation of GHG emissions of the Solid Waste Sector.

With the use of the aforementioned data in the First Order Decay Model, we come to a total

Solid Waste emissions in Rio de Janeiro City in the order of 75,0 GgCH4, or 1.574,2

GgCO2eq in 2005. Table 23 and Figure 7 present the total results of Solid Waste emissions

in Rio de Janeiro City.

Table 23 – GHG Emission per Type of Waste

Waste

CH4 (Gg) N2O (Gg) CO2eq (Gg)

Urban Solid Waste 75,0 0 1.574,2

Industrial Solid Waste 1,5 0 30,4

TOTAL 76,5 0 1.604,5

Sources: Authors.

Figure 7 – GHG emission by type of solid waste in Rio de Janeiro City (GgCO2eq)

5.2. Residential and Commercial Wastewater and Industrial Effluents

The residential wastewater and the industrial effluents, particularly those with

composition which presents a large quantity of organic load, are CH4 emission sources

when they are under anaerobic treatment or disposal. They are also N2O sources that

can be produced by decomposition of the nitrogen filled compounds. The CO2

emissions are not taken into consideration because they are from biogenic origin.

The residual waters may be treated or disposed of with no treatment at the place of

origin, may be collected and taken to a treatment plant or even disposed of with no

treatment near the places where they are produced or away from such places, as is the

case of this set to waterways by means of emissaries.

Schedule 3, below, presents a summary of emission sources and respective GHGs

resulting from wastewater and effluents.

39

98,0%

2,0%

40

Schedule 3 – Potential CH4 and N2O Emissions from Wastewater and Industrial Effluents Treatment

Types of Treatment and Disposal Potential CH4 and N2O Emissions

Col

lect

ed

No

Trea

tmen

t

Disposal on rivers Stagnated rivers and lakes may present anaerobic conditions and produce methane. Rivers, lakes and estuary are probable sources of N2O.

Collectors (closed and underground) Not CH4 and N2O sources

Open Air Stopped and saturated wastewater collectors, ditchesand channels are probable significant sources ofCH4.

With

Tre

atm

ent Ae

robi

c Tr

eatm

ent

AerobicWaste Management Plants

May produce limited quantities of CH4 in anaerobic bubbles and when unprotected or wrongly dimensioned. Wattherwaste Treatment Centers with advanced nutrient removal systems (nitrification and denitrification) are N2O sources..

Mud anaerobic treatment in aerobicWaste Management Plants

Mud can be a significant source of CH4 if CH4 is not recovered and burnt.

Shallow aerobic lagoons Improbable CH4 and N2O source. Wrong project and badly operated systems produce CH4.

Anae

robi

c Tr

eatm

ent Anaerobic Lagoons Probable CH4 source. Not N2O source

Anaerobic Reactors May be significant source of CH4 if CH4 is not recovered and burnt..

No

Col

lect

ing

Septic tanks Frequent removal of solids reduces CH4 emissions.

Open Latrines Probable source of CH4 when temperature and retention time are favorable..

Disposal on Rivers See above.

Source: IPCC (2006)

5.2.1. Presentation of GHG emissions for Residential and Commercial

Wastewater and Liquid Effluents.

Table 24 below presents the total estimated GHG emissions for each type of destination of

residential and commercial wastewater/effluents produced in Rio de Janeiro City.

Table 24 – Estimate of Total Emissions in Relation to the Different Destinations of Residential and Commercial

Wastewater Effluents in Rio de Janeiro City

Destination Methanol Liquid Emissions (GgCO2eq)

N2O Emissions(GgCO2eq)

Total GHG Emissions (GgCO2eq)

Wastewater Treatment Center 435,25 - 435,25

Cesspit 22,62 28,66 51,28

Others 64,17 108,4 172,57

Total 522,04 137,06 659,1

Source: Authors.

Table 25 presents the total GHG emissions of residential/commercial wastewater and

effluents and industrial effluents in Rio de Janeiro City. Figure 8 presents the percentage

relations between such emissions.

Table 25 – Total Emissions of Greenhouse Gases of Liquid Effluents Produced in Rio de Janeiro City

Methanol Liquid Emissions (GgCO2eq)

N2O Emissions (GgCO2eq)

Total GHGs Emissions (GgCO2eq)

Residential/Commercial Wastewater Effluents 522,04 137,06 659,1

Industrial effluents 108,81 108,81

Total Emissions (Gg CO2eq) 630,85 137,06 767,91

Source: Authors..

41

42

Figure 8 – Total GHG Emissions of Residential and Commercial Wastewater/Effluents and Industrial (GgCO2eq)

5.3. Consolidation of the Results from Waste Sector

Table 26 presents the total GHG emissions of the Waste Treatment Sector in Rio de Janeiro

City, per type of waste, type of gas and in equivalent carbon dioxide.

Table 26 – GHG Emissions of the Waste Treatment Sector

Total for Rio de Janeiro City Methane (GgCH4)

Methane (GgCO2eq)

Nitrous Oxide (tN2O)

Nitrous Oxide (GgCO2eq)

Total GHG Emission

(GgCO2eq)

Urban Solid Waste 75,00 1.574,2 1.574,2

Industrial Solid Waste 1,50 30,4 30,4

Total – Solid Waste 76,50 1.604,5 1.604,5

Residential and Commercial Wastewater 24,9 522,0 443,0 137,1 659,1

Industrial effluents 5,2 108,8 108,8

Total – Liquid effluents 30,0 630,8 443,0 137,1 767,9

Grand Total for the Wastes Sector 106,5 2.235,3 443,0 137,1 2.372,4

Source: Authors from IPCC (2006), COMLURB (2005), IPP (2005), CEDAE (2005)

14%

86%

It may be concluded from the results obtained that the management of the solid waste and

liquid waste sectors in Rio de Janeiro City in 2005 was responsible for the emission of

2.372,4GgCO2eq.

Figure 9 – Solid Waste (GgCO2eq) Sector GHG emissions participation

43

66%1%

28%

5%

44

6. CONSOLIDATION OF INVENTORY RESULTS

6.1. Totalization of GHG emissions inventory in Rio de Janeiro City

Table 27 below shows the total values in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for Rio

de Janeiro City. The values are accounted per sources of emission and per each gas, being

that the total is equivalence to carbon dioxide.

Table 27 - Total GHG Emissions in Rio de Janeiro City, in 2005

Sector GgCO2 tCH4 tN2O GgCO2eq

ENERGY 8.242,9 5.480,6 344,9 8.348,9

Transportation 5.312,8 2.883,7 338,2 5.478,2

Road transportation 4.235,4 2.875,2 308,1 4.391,3

Airway 1.053,5 7,4 29,8 1.062,9

Railway 13,4 0,1 --- 13,4

waterway 10,5 1,0 0,3 10,6

Residential + Commercial 1.113,8 15,8 2,0 1.114,8

Residential 794,9 11,6 1,4 795,6

Commercial 318,9 4,2 0,6 319,2

Public and others 210,6 10,4 2,0 210,9

Industrial 1.415,0 24,7 2,7 1.416,4

Total Energy (w/o Bunker, Fugitive Emissions, refining) 8.052,2 2.934,6 344,9 8.220,3

Natural Gas Escaping Emissions 0,1 2.546,0 --- 53,6

Petroleum refining 75,0 --- --- 75,0

Bunker 526,4 4,3 14,9 531,1

Total Energy with Bunker 8.653,7 5.484,9 359,8 8.880,0

IPPU 401,1 0,4

409,8

Glass Production 13,9 --- --- 13,9

Methanol Production 89,5 0,4 --- 98,2

Steel Production 130,6 --- --- 130,6

Aluminum Production 150,4 --- --- 150,4

Use of lubricants 16,7 --- --- 16,7

Use of paraffin 0,1 --- --- 0,1

AFOLU 205,6 535,0 12,3 220,6

Land Use 203,4 --- --- 203,4

Enteric Fermentation --- 514,8 --- 10,8

Waste Management --- 19,8 11,1 3,8

Sugar-cane Burning --- 0,4 0,0 0,0

Use of Nitrogen Compound Fertilizers --- --- 1,2 0,4

Use of Calcareous and Dolomite 2,1 --- --- 2,1

Use of Urea 0,0 --- --- 0,0

WASTES – 106.600,0 443,0 2.372,5

Urban Solid Waste --- 75.000,0 --- 1.574,2

Industrial Solid Waste --- 1.500,0 --- 30,4

Total– Solid Waste

76.500,0

1.604,6

Residential and Commercial Wastewater --- 24.900,0 443,0 659,1

Industrial Effluents --- 5.200,0 --- 108,8

Total– Liquid Effluents --- 30.100,0 443,0 767,9

Grand Total 8.734,0 112.616,0 800,2 11.351,9

Emission Per capita (tCO2/ inhab) --- --- --- 1,9

Source: Authors.. Note: “0” represents a non-null value rounded up to zero..

As we can see on Figure 10, the sector with the highest amount of emissions is the energy

sector, with 73%, followed by wastes with 21%. In accordance with the projections from

Instituto Pereira Passos, the population considered in 2005 was 5.894.349 inhabitants.

45

46

Figure 10 – GHG emissions, per Sector, in Rio de Janeiro City (GgCO2eq)

Analyzing the main sources, as shown on Figure 11, it can be observed that the highest

emission source sector is the road transportation which responds itself for 39% of the

emissions and solid waste responds for 14%. It is worth noticing that one of the Emissions

Inventory purposes is to identify the key sectors, the ones with the highest contribution for

GHG emissions. In the case of the city, it is also important to identify the sectors where the

public power may, in an easier manner, interfere on the range of planning for the

implementation of emission mitigation actions. Waste Sector and Road transportation cover

both criteria. Although the industrial sector reaches a significant percentage of the city

emissions (12%), this segment has different specifications and is subject to other institutional

and governmental areas planning, and even if the city is able to contribute, it does not

depend directly on the decision-making process.

8.348,9273%

4%409,82

2%220,6

2.372,51 21%

IPPU

AFOLU

Figure 11 –Sectors participation in GHG emissions (GgCO2eq)

6.2. Comparison of GHG Emissions for the Years of 1996, 1998 and 2005.

In order to allow the elaboration of a coherent trend curve for GHG emissions in the city,

between the past inventory, 1996 and 1998 and this one, 2005, wherever possible, the

values contained in the First Inventory of Rio de Janeiro City were revised, adapting the

methodology (previously based on 1996 IPCC) to be used in this inventory. Table 28

presents the consolidated emissions between the years of 1996, 1998 and 2005, and the

Energy and Wastes sectors. For IPPU and AFOLU updating was not possible.

47

39%

9%

0%

10%2%

12%

1%4%

2%14%

7%

IPPUAFOLU Res., Com. e Ind.

48

Table 28 – Consolidated Emissions between the Years of 1996, 1998 and 2005

1996 GgCO2eq % 1998

GgCO2eq % 2005 GgCO2eq %

ENERGY 8.192,5 81,6% 9.006,02 82,1% 8.348,9 73,5%

Total Transportation 4.726,6 47,1% 5.021,4 45,8% 5.478,2 48,3%

Road Transportation 3.879,0 38,6% 4.157,0 37,9% 4.391,3 38,7%

Airway Transportation 847,6 8,4% 864,4 7,9% 1.062,9 9,4%

Railway Transportation --- --- 13,4 0,1%

Waterways Transportation --- --- 10,6 0,1%

Residential +Commercial 1.382,0 13,8% 1.516,0 13,8% 1.114,8 9,8%

Residential 952,8 9,49% 1.062,5 9,68% 795,6 7,01%

Commercial 429,2 4,27% 453,5 4,13% 319,2 2,81%

Public and others 176,0 1,8% 201,4 1,8% 210,9 1,9%

Industrial 1.068,9 10,6% 1.748,6 15,9% 1.416,4 12,5%

Petroleum Refining 105,0 1,0% 107,0 1,0% 75,0 0,7%

Fugitive Emissions 734,0 7,3% 411,6 3,8% 53,6 0,5%

IPPU 73,0 0,7% --- 409,8 3,6%

AFOLU 201,4 2,0% 268,6 2,4% 220,5 1,9%

WASTES 1.576,0 15,7% 1.699,4 15,5% 2.372,5 20,9%

Urban Solid Waste 712,5 7,1% 937,2 8,5% 1.580,3 13,9%

Industrial Wastes 6,4 0,1% 6,2 0,1% 24,3 0,2%

Residential/Commercial Wastewater 730,8 7,3% 667,5 6,1% 659,1 5,8%

Industrial Effluents 126,3 1,3% 88,6 0,8% 108,8 1,0%

Grand Total 10.043,0 100,0% 10.974,0 100,0% 11.351,7 100,0%

6.3. Comparison of the Results with Other Inventories

To have a parameter of emissions magnitude in Rio de Janeiro City, the values on Table 29,

as follows, allow a comparison of the emissions in Rio de Janeiro City and of other locations,

in terms of emissions per capita. The calculations took into consideration the city population

in 2005 (IBGE) which was of 5,894,349 inhabitants.

Table 29 – Emissions Per capita – State of Rio de Janeiro and Other locations (tCO2eq/inhab.)

Location Emissions per capita

t CO2eq/I inhabitant Year Gases Considered

Rio de Janeiro City 1,9 2005 CO2, CH4 e N2O

Brazil* 9,4 1994 CO2, CH4, N2O

State of Rio de Janeiro 4,5 2005 CO2, CH4 e N2O

State of Minas Gerais 6,38 2005 CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs e SF6

Rio de Janeiro City ** 2,3 1998 CO2 e CH4

City of Los Angeles (USA)*** 9,3 1990 No information

City of Rome (Italy)*** 5,2 1993 No information

Unit Conditions **** 23,4 2003 CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs e SF6

European Union ***** 11,0 2003 CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs e SF6

*Source: National Communication (MCT, 2004) **Source: CentroClima/COPPE/UFRJ – does not include emissions from industrial processes *** Source: ICLEII **** Source: Globalis ***** Source: European Environmental Agency

We can observe that the emissions from Rio, 1.9tCO2eq per inhabitant, are below the

emissions in cities like Los Angeles, in the USA, and Rome, in Italy.

6.4. Uncertainties from the Estimates

Every inventory has a degree of uncertainty, bearing in mind that they deal with estimations

and not measurements. Therefore, the values of emissions in Rio de Janeiro City are subject

to uncertainties, whether due to the imprecision of the basic data, or the use of default

factors in relation to the other values used.

The analysis of the estimation imprecision has little objectivity, since to make them precise, it

would be necessary to conduct a detailed evaluation for each analyzed item, thus reducing

49

50

uncertainties. This is not feasible in the short term and irrelevant in the extension of the

analyzed items, because the inventory is a planning instrument and identifies economic

activities that deserve to have a more detailed study, in the future, an the possibilities of

emissions mitigation.

The uncertainties associated to each value found are, if analyzed together with the

magnitude of the values found, an indication of where there might be an investment

opportunity in database and increase in the knowledge of the processes originating the GHG

emissions and removal of carbon dioxide.

The evaluation, presented on Table 30, assignes the high, medium and low grades to the

uncertainties on each item analyzed in relation to the database and the other factors used,

their adequacy to the estimations performed for each gas, in accordance with the current

knowledge improvement possibilities.

Table 30 – Uncertainties Evaluation

Sector Gg CO2 t CH4 t N2O

ENERGY

Residential (Energy) Low Medium Medium

Commercial (Energy) Low Medium Medium

Public (Energy) Low Medium Medium

Agriculture/Cattle Raising (Energy) Low Medium Medium

Transportation – Total

Roadways Low Medium Medium

Railways Low Medium Medium

Airways Low Medium Medium

Waterways Low Medium Medium

Industrial – Total (Energy)

Industry Low Medium Medium

IPPU

Non Metallic Minerals

Cement Production Low n.a. n.a.

Lime Production High n.a. n.a.

Ceramics High n.a. n.a.

Chemicals Industry

Calcium Carbite Production Low Low n.a.

Silesia Carbite Production Low Low n.a.

Metallic Minerals

Iron Production – ALLOYS Low Low n.a.

Aluminum Production Low n.a. Low

AFOLU

Land use Medium n.a. n.a.

Enteric Fermentation (Cattle Raising) n.a. Low n.a.

Waste Management (Cattle Raising) n.a. Low Low

Rice cultivating (Agriculture) n.a. Medium n.a.

Sugar-cane burning (Agriculture) n.a. Low Low

Use of Nitrogen Loaded Fertilizers (Agriculture) n.a. n.a. High

Use of Calcareous and Dolomite (Agriculture) High n.a. n.a.

Wastes

Urban Solid Waste n.a. Low Low

Industrial Solid Waste n.a. Large n.a.

Residential and Commercial Wastewater n.a. Medium Low

Industrial effluents n.a. Medium Low Source: Authors based on the IPCC 2006 Guidelines– n.a = not applicable

51

52

II. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Scenarios of

Rio de Janeiro City

2005 - 2025

1. METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS IN THE ELABORATION

OF SCENARIOS

The elaboration of scenarios aims to help the planning process in a manner of input actions

that have impact on the public policies and government strategies. They are tools to help the

understand a “potential future” so that the people in charge of the decision-making process

may, when uncertain, decide on the necessary long term ways and actions.

To construct the base of a prospective scenario goes through several phases, among which:

the limit oultiling for the studied system, the diagnosis of this situation and the examination of

the past evolution. Upon constructing this base, the prospective part itself starts, subdivided

into the following phases: the elaboration of a trend scenario and contrasting scenarios

(alternative).

In the case of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Scenarios, the purpose is to identify future

emissions (baseline scenario, tendency), and identify and quantify mitigation actions

(alternative scenarios), considering the several strategies.

Figure 12, below, represents the GHG emissions quantification to be estimated and the

respective reductions that may be obtained with the adoption of the alternative scenarios,

when compared to the baseline scenario.

Figure 12– Emission reductions estimates for different scenarios.

(t = inventory emissions in the year t; t’ = any future time)

53

54

Therefore, from the diagnosis of this situation, in this case, the raising of the Greenhouse

Gas Emissions in the city for the year of 2005, a series of analysis was carried out on the

possible mitigation actions and measures in the range of the city to identify possible future

scenarios for the reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Then, three scenarios were

established for the period 2005-2025: one baseline scenario, named Scenario A, and two

alternative scenarios, named Scenario B and Scenario C, as below.

Scenario A (baseline scenario) – is the trend scenario which considers that the GHG

emissions will continue to follow the tendency shown under the 1996, 1998 and 2005

inventories. It covers the emissions responsibility of Rio de Janeiro City that could occur, in

the absence of municipal policies and projects starting on the base-year of 2005.

Scenario B – presents the potential reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions with the

implementation of policies and projects that are already part of the planning and initiatives of

the Rio City Government, separately or jointly with other government areas.

Scenario C – shows the potential reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions arising from

policies and projects indicated by the government as feasible and desirable, but that are still

in the planning, study or analysis phases. This scenario also includes some of the scenario B

actions, in a wider range, in a manner to evaluate the actions impact, although are part of

the planning, may be more intensely applied.

1.1. Scenarios Structure and Limits

The sector scenarios, in their majority, depend on estimations on the population and

economic growth. These hypotheses serve as parameters for quantitative development of

the sector scenarios, as explained below. Exceptions are the AFOLU scenarios, that, in this

study, used historical data from the activities themselves for the projection of alternative

scenarios.

The scenarios sectors were based on the inventory structure, as follows:

Use of Energy

o Transportation sector

o Residential, Commercial and Industrial Sector

Industrial Processes and Products Use (IPPU)

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU)

Solid Waste

Residential and Commercial Wastewater and Industrial Effluents

1.1.1. Population

For the calculation of the population projection for Rio de Janeiro City, the Demographic

Trend study for Rio de Janeiro City (BELTRÃO et al., 2004) was used. This study, carried out

by Instituto Pereira Passos, projected a population for 2000 to 2025. To estimate the

population in the period 2020 to 2025, the population growth rate used was the same rate for

2020.

The growth rates adopted for the projection for the period 2008-2025 were based on a

population of 5.894.349, in 2005. The population growth rates used for each period are

presented on Table 31.

Table 31– Population Growth Rate

Period Population Growth Rate (%)

2006-2010 0,26

2011-2015 0,38

2016-2020 0,48

2021-2025 0,48

55

56

The premises and considerations adopted for population projection were the following:

It was assumed that the Total Fecundity Rate will remain constant, as observed in the

period 1991-2000;

The mortality projection for the City was based on the fall trends observed between 1980

and 2000. For death per sex probabilities and fifties of ages, a sole projection hypothesis

was conducted;

Work was carried out on the basis of immigration and emigration rates separately, to

calculate the balance of changes between the city and the rest of the country;

To obtain the immigrating population, a projection was first made for the Brazilian

population.

It was assumed that the immigration and emigration rates presented, in the period 2000-

2020, the same variation observed in the period 1991-2000. Besides, the variation would be

proportionally distributed along the time. For the female population, it was assumed that such

rates, after the age of 35 would not vary.

1.1.2. Gross National Product – GNP

To calculate the municipal GNP growth rate, the values presented by Instituto Pereira

Passos were used. The growth rate accepted for the projection for the period 2008-2025 was

4.92% a year, and it has the following considerations as its premises:

The fact that during the period 1999-2007, Rio de Janeiro City, together with Duque de

Caxias, Campos, Niterói and São Gonçalo, was the leading contributor for the State GNP;

The highest participation of the inland in relation to the capital – the capital contribution fell

from 57% to 47% between 1999-2007, while the inland had a 10% increase, reaching

53%. Out of the ten inland cities contributing for such an increase, nine of them carry out

activities related to petroleum exploration;

The fact that during the last 9 years, the service sector was responsible for the major part of

the of Rio de Janeiro City GNP – in 1999 this sector corresponded to 83% of the gross

aggregate value and in 2007 to 87%.

GNP composition of Rio de Janeiro City is strongly impacted by the value added by the

service sector, considering the future incomes from pre-salt royalties.

It is expected that the World Cup will add around R$ 987,4 million to the city GNP in the

period 2010-2014, which corresponds to 0,5%, when compared to the estimated 2010

GNP of approximately R$ 185,2 billion.

The Olympic Games are expected to impact the GNP in R$ 22 billion until 2016, and of 27

billion in the period 2017 to 2027, being Rio de Janeiro City the main city to be involved in

this economic movement.

Although Rio de Janeiro City’s GNP grows at a lower rate than the State GNP, the

investment flow expected for the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympic Games in 2016 will

be higher in the city than in the rest of the State. Therefore, these two trends tend to

balance, and then it is reasonable to assume that the municipal GNP growth will be close

to the State GNP growth.

Therefore, the Rio de Janeiro State GNP was used as a proxy for the city growth rate,

resulting into the value of 4.92% a year.

Table 32 shows the consolidation of the social-economic scenario and presents the GNP per

capita calculation for the city. This is an important parameter, since a higher per capita

income will certainly lead to higher consumption in general, of energy as well, and depending

on the type of energy used (or its use efficiency), it will lead to a higher or lower emission in

some of the scenarios to be elaborated.

57

58

Table 32– Consolidation of Social-Economic Scenario

Year GNP at market

prices (R$ million)

Population GNP per

capita Year

GNP at market prices (R$ million)

Population GNP per

capita

1999 72.106 5.806.642 12.418 2013 186.170 6.039.546 30.825

2000 76.731 5.882.295 13.044 2014 195.329 6.062.540 32.219

2001 82.601 5.865.191 14.083 2015 204.939 6.085.534 33.676

2002 91.063 5.872.481 15.507 2016 215.022 6.115.329 35.161

2003 95.751 5.879.770 16.285 2017 225.601 6.145.124 36.712

2004 112.675 5.887.060 19.139 2018 236.701 6.174.919 38.333

2005 117.772 5.894.349 19.980 2019 248.347 6.204.714 40.025

2006 128.026 5.909.592 21.664 2020 260.565 6.234.509 41.794

2007 139.559 5.924.834 23.555 2021 273.385 6.264.434 43.641

2008 146.426 5.940.077 24.650 2022 286.836 6.294.504 45.569

2009 153.630 5.955.320 25.797 2023 300.948 6.324.717 47.583

2010 161.188 5.970.562 26.997 2024 315.755 6.355.076 49.685

2011 169.119 5.993.557 28.217 2025 331.290 6.385.580 51.881

2012 177.440 6.016.551 29.492 --- --- --- ---

1It includes Public Administration. Source: Instituto Pereira Passos, 2010

Besides the GNP per capita, another parameter, also important for the Scenarios, that shall

be used in the Industrial Processes Sector (IPPU) and in the industrial sector, is the industrial

GNP of the city. The following table presents the values calculated on the basis of data

available for 2007 (last available data). The industrial GNP before 2007 and for the period

2008-2025 follows the same relation observed in 2007 with the municipal GNP.

Figure 13 presents a projection of the industrial GNP.

Figure 13 –Industrial GNP growth in Rio de Janeiro City

59

60

2. ACTIONS AND MEASURES FOR MITIGATION OF GHG

EMISSIONS CONSIDERED BY THE SCENARIOS

2.1. Energy Sector

The scenarios in the Energy Sector are divided into two groups: Mobile Sources

(transportation sector) and Fixed Sources (other sources).

The transportation sector is responsible for a large share of the greenhouse gases (GHG)

emissions in Rio de Janeiro City. However, this sector presents, at the same time, several

reduction possibilities in the use of energy (and the consequent reduction of GHG

emissions), like the BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) systems, enlargement of the subway and train

nets, thus favoring the change from road transportation mode to railway one, and substitution

of fuels. This sector may be divided into four different modes: road, air, rail and water, being

the two latter the most efficient ones, both in terms of consumption and in relation to the

emission of greenhouse gases.

In this sector, Scenario B incorporates measures that, according to Rio de Janeiro City

Government, shall start being practiced, most of them, until 2016. Scenario C considers all

the measures in scenario B as successfully implemented, and that city will continue investing

between the years of 2016 and 2025, aiming to have a more rational and efficient

transportation system.

For fixed Sources, GHG emissions are not very significant for residential, commercial and

public sectors, since the largest energy consumption comes from electricity, with a low

emission factor, in view of the Brazilian electrical park characteristics, mainly hydric. The

exception is the industrial sector, which presents a significant emission, due to the natural

gas consumption. However, in this sector Rio City Government can not interfere directly, as

the public policies for the reduction and mitigation of industry emissions are part of other

governmental area scopes.

Tables 33 and 34 present the actions and measures taken into consideration in Scenarios B

and C.

Table 33– Measures to Mitigate GHG Proposed for Scenarios B and C – Transportation Sector

SCENARIO B SCENARIO C

BRT – TransCarioca (380 thousand pass./day) BRT – TransCarioca (380 thousand pass./day)

BRT – TransOeste (150 thousand pass./day) BRT – TransOeste (150 thousand pass./day)

BRT – TransOlímpica (100 thousand pass./day) BRT – TransOlímpica (100 thousand pass./day)

2nd Phase TransCarioca (150 thousand pass./day) 2nd Phase TransCarioca (150 thousand pass./day)

BRS Copacabana BRS Copacabana

Jardim Oceânico Subway (230 thousand pass./day) Jardim Oceânico Subway (230 thousand pass./day)

Subway – purchase of new wagons doubles the number of passengers (+550 thousand pass./day)

Subway – purchase of new wagons doubles the number of passengers (+550 thousand pass./day)

--- Subway – New investments gradually increase the number of passengers as of 2016 (+ 665 thousand pass./day in 2025)

Expansion of the cycleway nets (280km) Expansion of the cycleway nets (280km)

--- Expansion of cycleways (140km longer than scenario B)

Inspection and maintenance program for light vehicles – conservative (2,5%)

Inspection and maintenance program for light vehicles – optimist (5%)

--- % of Biodiesel gradually increases between 2012 and 2020

Source: Authors.

The measures considered for Fixed Sources were also based on hypothetical data, since

there was no municipal public power data to establish the range of actions in these

segments. Therefore, we decided to adopt symbolic values to allow an idea of these actions

impact in the reduction of municipal emissions.

61

62

Table 34 – GHG Mitigation Measures Proposed under Scenarios B and C – Fixed Sources

MEASURES SCENARIO B SCENARIO C

Efficiency of Public Illumination (LEDs)

Municipal Secretariat of Works (SMO – Secretaria Municipal de Obras) in agreement with Clinton Foundation – replacement of conventional lamps for LED technology presently available. Potency classes considered are: Replacement of 50W instead of 70W, 70W instead of 100W and 110W instead of 150W. (For scenario C only)

Not Applicable – considered only for scenario C 100 % replacement

Installation of LEDs in traffic lights

Energy consumption reduction in traffic lights by installing LED technology, reducing consumption from 100 W to 70 W

1000 units 10 thousand units

Minha Casa, Minha Vida Project

Installation of thermal solar energy equipment for the heating of water in popular housing allowing a reduction of 30% to 40% in electricity consumption in low income housing (around 45 kWh/month)

1000 houses 10 thousand houses

Replacement of cast iron pipes with polyethylene ones in the distribution of CEG natural gas in CEG no Rio de Janeiro4

State Gas Company (CEG – Companhia Estadual de Gás) has a project for reduction of GHG emissions in the range of Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol. Although this is an action by the private sector, it favors the reduction of municipal emissions in relation to Fugitive Emissions in the municipal territory, included in the 2005 GHG inventory for Rio de Janeiro City.

Data supplied by the CDM Project, by CEG, indicates that the emission factor for polyethylene pipes is of only 6% of the cast iron pipes emissions.

100% incorporated 100% incorporated

Implementation of energy efficiency measures

Efficiency in the use of electrical energy for the residential, commercial and public sectors, in accordance with the projections of Plano Decenal de Expansão de Energia 2019 (Ten Years Energy Expansion Plan), as presented below (for scenario C only)

na

Reduced electrical energy by sector (%)

Sector 2010 2014 2019 Residential 0,3 1,7 3,7 Commercial 0,6 2,5 4,1 Public 0,5 2,1 3,5

Source: Authors..

4A significant part of the natural gas distribution net in Rio de Janeiro is formed by old cast iron pipes with connectors that, besides corrosion, favor the natural gas to leak (methane leakage emissions). The replacement of such pipes with polyethylene ones allows for better sealing in the transportation of natural gas and the following reduction of escaping emissions.

2.2. Industrial Processes and Product Use Sector – IPPU

For scenario A, due to the lack of historical data and more recent statistical data related to

the IPPU sector for such industries5, it was chosen to use a correlation between the 2005

GHG emissions data and the industrial GNP. As occurred in the industrial sector (in Fixed

Sources), the mitigation actions related to industrial processes and use of products depend

on the industry projects or on public policies related to other government areas, other than

municipalities. Under the lack of information that could allow the identification of mitigation

actions for the industries listed in the 2005 GHG emissions inventory, scenarios B and C, in

this study, maintain constant the emissions projected in Scenario A. Accordingly, new

industries to be created in the city after 2005, in the district of Santa Cruz, are not

contemplated in the scenarios, because they will have their activities and GHG emissions

separately monitored in Rio de Janeiro City.

2.3. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Sector – AFOLU

In the absence of an updated historical series on the area occupied by green coverage in Rio

de Janeiro City, the elaboration of Scenario A for changes in land use was based on the data

available on green coverage categories (Forests, Humid Areas with vegetation, Sandbank

and Swamp) between the years of 1996 and 2001. Then, based on data relating to the

variation of land use and occupancy of class areas between 1996 and 2001 it was possible

to estimate an annualy vegetal coverage change rate for the categories in the city. Such

annualy rates were projected up to the 2025 horizon and used to estimate the emissions

resulting from the land use and occupancy. Therefore, the annualy deforestation rate in Rio

is the same as that one estimated for 2005, for all the types of vegetal coverage contained in

this Emissions Inventory for Rio de Janeiro City.

For Scenario B, two actions to reduce GHG emissions were considered. The first one is

based on the hypothesis of implenting Rio de Janeiro City Government and other public and

private institutions implementing policies, programs and instruments, such as the

deforestation reduction goals contained in the National Plan of Climate Change, Agenda 21

5 In this case, the elaboration of GHG emissions inventories conducted by the industries in Rio de Janeiro would supply a database to start the elaboration of the emissions and mitigating scenarios.

63

64

and others. In summary, this scenario also considers a deforestation rate reduction of 80% in

2020, being this value estimated on the basis of the hypothesis that the National Plan of

Climate Change can be driven for the city.

The second action is the Rio Capital Verde project, which predicts reforesting efforts to plant

1.500 hectares between 2010 and 2012. In this case, the projections considered an average

reforesting rate from 2013, of 58,5 ha/year, although reforesting depends on land availability

for such. However, in the absence of more information the average rate was used,

calculated from the targets established by SMAC, as follows:

2010 – 300 ha

2011 – 500 ha

2012 – 700 ha

As well as the provisions in Scenario A, there were no variations in the urban areas in the

entire time horizon of the projections for Scenario B. The quantity of existing trees in the

parks, squares, gardens and avenues in the City of Rio remained the same.

Once the agriculture and cattle rising subsectors present a low significance impact on the

total emissions of the AFOLU sector, the hypotheses and values used for the projections of

future Scenario B were the same used in Scenario A of this study. The premises are that

there will be no change in such activities along the period.

For Scenario C, the emission reduction hypotheses are based on the same principles of

Scenario B; however, it is considered that stronger efforts shall be adopted in actions and

measures direct and indirectly connected to GHG emissions reduction, by means of

biodiversity protection and environment preservation and quality, and the integration of the

municipal, state and federal policy actions relating to climate change. More investments are

also expected to be made by the private sector, in conservation and reforest recovery

actions, in view of the large events to be held in the City of Rio, like the World Football Cup in

2014 and the Olympic Games in 2016.

Besides, Scenario C also considered Parque do Carbono (Parque da Pedra Branca)

reforesting, as informed by the State Government. According to the Instituto Estadual do

Ambiente (INEA - State Environmental Institute), Parque Estadual da Pedra Branca has an

area of 12.5 mil hectares. Out of these, at least 5,000 hectares are degraded. Therefore, the

reforesting of the Parque do Carbono (Carbon Park) shall grant additional CO2, contributing

for the emissions reduction within Rio de Janeiro City.

Table 35 presents the summary of actions and mitigation measures of GHG emissions in

AFOLU Sector by comparing B and C Scenarios proposed in this study.

Table 35– Measures for GHG mitigation proposed or scenarios B and C

SCENARIO B SCENARIO C

Deforesting reduction in 80% of the “Forest” land use category to be reached in 2020 and followed until 2025, in relation to base year of 2005..

Deforesting reduction in 100% of the Forest, Plains and sandbank Land use category, to be reached in 2020 and followed until 2025, in relation to base year of 2005.

Reforesting, according to the City Government Rio Green Capital Project, of 1.500 hectares between 2010 and 2012. Followed by a rate of 58,5 ha/year between 2013 and 2025.

Reforesting, according to the City Government Rio Green Capital Project, of 1.500 hectares between 2010 and 2012. Followed by a rate of 58,5 ha/year between 2013 and 2025.

Reforesting of the Carbon Park (Parque da Pedra Branca) by the Instituto Estadual do Ambiente (INEA - State Environmental Institute): 1st Phase – Reforesting of 3 million trees in 1.360 hectares until 2016, equivalent to an average of 194 hectares/year, and the 2nd phase – planning of 3.640 hectares, meaning an average rate of 404,5 hectares/year, between 2017 and 2025.

Agriculture and Cattle Raising activities would be maintained with no adjustments.

Agriculture and Cattle Raising activities would be maintained with no adjustments.

Source: Authors

2.4. Solid Waste Sector

For the construction of the baseline scenario (Scenario A) of the Solid Waste sector, the

same premises adopted for the 2005 GHG emissions calculations were adopted, extending

the hypothesis until the year of 2025, that is:

� Garbage production calculation per capita had as starting point the historical data

supplied by COMLURB from 1995 to 2009 relating to garbage production per capita.

Then, this production was correlated with the GNP per capita, calculated as per the

social-economic scenarios, in a manner that a growth tendency is found for the

period 2010-2025. Data contained in the City GHG emissions Inventory were also

65

66

used, calculated on the basis of the inventory methodology6, for production per

capita, since 1975. The garbage production per capita is an important parameter,

since it is multiplied by the city population, it supplies the total garbage quantity

generated in the Rio de Janeiro City every year.

Table 36 – Evolution of Urban Solid Waste Per Capita Production in Rio de Janeiro

Year Production (kg/inhab.day) Year Production

(kg/inhab.day) Year Production (kg/inhab.day) Year Production

(kg/inhab.day) Year Production (kg/inhab.day)

1975 0,715 1985 0,740 1995 0,769 2005 0,807 2015 0,860

1976 0,717 1986 0,743 1996 0,719 2006 0,830 2016 0,864

1977 0,719 1987 0,746 1997 0,744 2007 0,820 2017 0,867

1978 0,721 1988 0,749 1998 0,765 2008 0,844 2018 0,871

1979 0,723 1989 0,752 1999 0,794 2009 0,803 2019 0,875

1980 0,725 1990 0,755 2000 0,824 2010 0,842 2020 0,878

1981 0,728 1991 0,758 2001 0,832 2011 0,846 2021 0,882

1982 0,731 1992 0,761 2002 0,852 2012 0,849 2022 0,886

1983 0,734 1993 0,763 2003 0,813 2013 0,853 2023 0,889

1984 0,737 1994 0,766 2004 0,805 2014 0,857 2024 0,893

Source: Authors

� Industrial waste sector used data from the historical series supplied by COMLURB for

the period 1995-2009 and was correlated to municipal industrial GNP, according to

the same approach mentioned above.

6As per IPCC (2006 methodology), GHG emissions calculation of the solid wastes sector, of a certain year, covers only the methane emissions curves for a period of 50 years

Table 37 – Evolution of Rio de Janeiro Industrial Solid Waste Production

Year Production (10³ t/year) Year Production

(10³ t/year) Year Production (10³ t/year) Year Production

(10³ t/year) Year Production (10³ t/year)

1975 9,1 1985 14,7 1995 23,8 2005 40,2 2015 82,0 1976 9,6 1986 15,5 1996 11,8 2006 51,3 2016 86,0 1977 10,0 1987 16,2 1997 6,6 2007 71,9 2017 90,2 1978 10,5 1988 17,0 1998 17,2 2008 71,8 2018 94,7 1979 11,0 1989 17,8 1999 26,7 2009 61,5 2019 99,3 1980 11,6 1990 18,7 2000 15,8 2010 64,5 2020 104,2 1981 12,2 1991 19,6 2001 18,2 2011 67,7 2021 109,4 1982 12,8 1992 20,6 2002 27,2 2012 71,0 2022 114,7 1983 13,4 1993 21,6 2003 58,7 2013 74,5 2023 120,4 1984 14,0 1994 22,7 2004 76,0 2014 78,1 2024 126,3

Source: Authors..

� Gravimetric Composition – based on COMLURB historical data 1981-2005, a

correlation was made with the GNP projection per capita to identify the growth

tendency in organic materials and other garbage components until 2025.

Table 38 – Composition of Urban Solid Waste, in Weight Percentage per Volume (% kg/m³)

Year Organic Material(%) Gardens

(%) Paper/CarBODard (%)

Wood (%)

Textile (%)

2006 61,37 1,30 14,83 0,73 1,68

2008 56,21 1,09 15,96 0,79 1,83

2010 52,10 1,09 13,25 0,93 1,68

2012 51,80 1,02 12,61 1,00 1,65

2014 51,49 0,95 12,00 1,06 1,62

2016 51,16 0,89 11,43 1,13 1,59

2018 50,83 0,84 10,89 1,21 1,56

2020 50,49 0,79 10,38 1,29 1,53

2022 50,14 0,74 9,89 1,37 1,50

2025 49,59 0,67 9,20 1,51 1,46

Source: Authors.

The aforementioned data was applied in the IPCC (2006) methodology, in the First Order

Decay model, in order to find Scenario A emissions trajectory, which is the scenario that

considers that GHG emission will continue following the trend presented by the 2005

inventory, that is, it considers that the wastes collected by COMLURB will continue to be set

to landfill in similar conditions to this one (as in Gramacho and Gericinó), and the GHG

emissions will grow in accordance with the increase in garbage production, which depends to

67

68

the growth in population and the increase in consumption due per capita revenue raising.

Regarding the wastes collection and disposal system context, part of the elaboration of

scenarios A, B and C, in accordance with Rio de Janeiro City planning and SMAC and

COMLURB information, we have:

Table 39–Context of Solid Waste Sector

100% of the municipal garbage is collected by COMLURB in Scenarios A, B and C, as informed by COMLURB.

Scenario A considers as baseline hypothesis that all the city garbage will continue to be deposited in the landfill of Gramacho and Gericinó.

Scenarios B and C consider that all the city garbage will be deposited in Waste Treatment Center (for example, Seropédica Waste Treatment Center), and that Gramacho and Gericinó landfills shall be gradually closed.

Scenarios B and C consider composting as per Joint Resolution SMAC / COMLURB, no. - 1/2010, which established composting of 15,33Gg of wastes as of 2011. For the years of 2009 and 2010 the quantity supplied by COMLURB of 30 t/day was adopted, totaling 10,95Gg of wastes sent to composting7.

Scenario A considers the constant selective collection of 6.000t/year in the period 2005-2025.

Scenarios B and C, only consider emissions avoided by selective collection of additional quantity of wastes sent to such purpose.

This three waste transfer plants shall become 7, in accordance with COMLURB information, when the Seropédica Waste Treatment Center is implemented. The Caju and the VargemPequena (presently existing) waste transfer plants will be reformed and part of Seropédica Waste Treatment Center structure. 5 other treatment plants will be built: Penha, Tanque, Marechal Hermes, Bangu and Santa Cruz

Scenario B incorporates actions that are part of the municipal planning and policies for the

solid waste sector, and are already conceived, with prediction of implementation in the scope

of study. For example, there is the fact that the wastes will be buried and treated in waste

treatment plants (for example, Serópedica CTR), which facilitates the implementation of

measures such as biogas collection, among others. Scenario C extends Scenario B actions,

as observed in Table 40.

7Composting avoids GHG emission of the quantities of organic material that would be sent to landfills, if they were not composted. However, depending on IPCC methodology, the activities of a small quantity of methane, even aerobic, were duly calculated in this study.

Table 40 – Measures for GHG Mitigation Proposals in Scenarios B and C

SCENARIO B SCENARIO C

Seropédica Waste Treatment Plant in operation as of January 2012

Selective collecting (recycling) 5% Selective collecting (recycling) 10%

10,95Gg of wastes sent to composting in 2009 and 2010. As of 2011 the amount shall be of 15,33 Gg of wastes

10,95Gg of wastes sent to composting in 2009 and 2010. As of 2011 the amount shall be of 15,33 Gg of wastes

Gramacho Landfill closes in January 2012 and will collect 1800 m³/h biogas as of June 2009 and will collect 80% of biogas in March 2012, for industrial use

Gramacho landfill, even closed, will have collection increased to 85% of biogas for industrial use

Gericinó landfill closes in December 2011 and will collect 70% of biogas burning as of January 2014

Gericinó landfill, even closed, will have its collecting increased to 85% of biogas for burning

Collection of 80% of biogas in Seropédica CTR for burning in January 2012

Collection of 85% of biogas in Seropédica CTR for burning in January 2012

Source: Authors.

2.5. Residential and Commercial Wastewater and Industrial Effluents

Sector.

For the wastewater and effluent sector scenarios, State Water Company (CEDAE –

Companhia Estadual de Águas e Esgoto do Rio de Janeiro) data was used. This company is

responsible for residential and commercial wastewater collection and treatment in Rio de

Janeiro City, and covers 83% of the Rio population. The company renders water supply

services (capitation, adduction, treatment and distribution) and sanitary drainage (collection,

transportation, treatment and final disposal).

The baseline scenario (Scenario A) reflects the increase in the production of organic cargo

correlated to the foreseen population growth. For residential and commercial wastewater, as

there is no data on the treatment technologies used in the city Waste Management Plants

(ETEs), it was conservatively considered that they all operate anaerobic systems. However,

N O emissions were not considered, as there are no Waste Management Plant in the city 2

operating tertiary treatment systems.

For industrial effluents, due to the lack of concrete information about the city industries, it

was chosen to calculate such emissions based on the methodology used for residential and

commercial effluents. The IPCC methodology considers a correction factor for the disposal of

industrial BOD to the collecting net, corresponding to 1.25 for collected industrial effluent and

69

70

1 to non collected effluents, according to the standard IPCC values. Then, considering in an

arbitrary manner that all the industrial effluent in Rio de Janeiro City were disposed of in the

collecting nets and from there to the treatment plant with anaerobic systems (MCF = 0,8)8, it

was estimated the city industrial effluents as the difference between emissions arising from

effluents going to the Waste Management Plants with additional industrial BOD (I = 1,25) and

without (I = 1).

In relation to disposal by means of septic tanks, the larger is the CH4 emission, the better

they have been constructed and are used. In accordance with the Brazilian inventory, they

are low efficiency – around 25% (CETESB, 2002).

Besides, it was considered the total of population not served by sanitary drainage, excluding

septic tanks, and the number of those attended by the collecting net, but not served by

treatment services disposed of the wastewater in natura into waterways.

Scenario A was built by using data related to the volume of wastewater collected and treated

in the city, obtained from IPP, and has as premises the fact that there is no increase in the

existing sanitary drainage services. Therefore, as population grows along the studied

horizon, the percentage of people served by the collecting net (86%) and percentage of

people served by treatment plants (47%) in the year of 2005 (inventory year), remain the

same. Then, in the absence of sanitary drainage services, the number of persons served by

septic tanks with no type of service increases in a directly proportional manner to the growth

in population.

Scenarios B and C comprise the following premises, as of 2005:

8Methane conversion factor. To be applied on IPCC (2006) model

Table 41 – Measures for GHG Mitigation Proposed in Scenarios B and C

SCENARIO B SCENARIO C

Start-up of Barra da Tijuca treatment plant (capacity for 900L/s) in 2007 ---

Enlargement of Barra da Tijuca treatment plant to a capacity of 2.500L/s in 2011

Barra da Tijuca treatment plant operating with 100% of its foreseen capacity (5.200L/s)

Start-up of Deodoro treatment plant in 2016, serving 344.239 inhabitants ---

--- As of 2012, the new Waste Management Plants installed shall recover all the methane generated by the burning.

2.6. Presentation of Results obtained in Scenarios A, B and C

2.6.1. Energy Sector

As shown in Table 44, the Energy sector reaches an emission of 13.901,1 GgCO2eq in

Scenario A, being the road transportation responsible for almost 42% of emissions in 2025,

with special mention to highlight vehicles that, although emissions with the highest increase

in the period, reduces its participation in the Energy sector emission due to the use of

ethanol by the flex fuel fleet. The industrial sector presents a significant growth due to the

growth projection in natural gas consumption – but, as noticed before, this sector depends

directly on public policies in other governmental areas. The actions and measures proposed

in Rio City Government planning contemplate activities where the municipal Power may

directly interfere, as we can observe in the actions of the alternative scenarios.

Scenario B of the Energy sector will reduce municipal emissions in 4,3 % in 2020 and 3,8%

in 2025, when compared to Scenario A (Table 43). The actions proposed for Fixed Sources,

such as the use of LEDs in traffic signs cause very little reduction, in the order of 0,2%, as

they are applied to reduce electricity consumption, which has a low municipal emission

factor, as per the calculation methodology adopted for inventories (Table 44). Besides, action

range estimations were calculated on the basis of hypothesis, since there was no data from

the municipal public power as to the number of LEDs in traffic lights used in the period.

71

72

In this Scenario B, the implementation of the BRTs system, and subway expansion were

mitigation measures that most reduced GHG emissions, as shown in Figure 14. It is worth to

highlight the increase of emissions in railway transportation from 20 to 61 GgCO2eq, due to

the higher use of this model in the period. There was no reduction in residential, commercial

and industrial sectors. Reduction on fugitive emissions in the city occurs in view of the CEG

CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) Project.

Figure 14 –GHG emissions range in the Transportation Sector Scenario B (GgCO2eq)

In Scenario C, there is already a larger contribution from Fixed Sources to the GHG

emissions reduction, although more than once the range of the actions were based on

hypothesis. Residential sector, with the introduction of Minha Casa Minha Vida Project (My

House, My Life) Program, which uses thermal solar energy to heat water, the installation of

LED in public illumination, and the introduction of energetic efficiency measures allowed a

reduction of 2,2% in 2025, in relation to Scenario A. In view of the enlargement of the actions

in the transportation sector, there was a 5% reduction (in 2025) related to this sector,

reflecting the importance of investments in a more rational transportation system, granting a

privilege for more efficient modes in the consumption of energy and fuels with less carbon

contents.

500,00

1000,00

1500,00

2000,00

2500,00

3000,00

3500,00

4000,00

4500,00

2005 2012 2016 2020 20250,0

Figure 15 - Amplitude of the GHG Emissions at the Transportation Sector, Scenario C (Gg CO2eq)

Table 42– Reduction of Emissions between the Energy Sector Scenarios by Fixed Sources

Scenario 2012 2016 2020 2025

Gg CO2 A 3.836 4.497 5.292 6.549 B 3.829 4.479 5.280 6.538 C 3.813 4.440 5.209 6.407

Variation Variation Variation Variation

(%) (%) (%) (%) A-B 6 0,2% 18 0,4% 12 0,2% 12 0,2% A-C 23 0,6% 57 1,3% 83 1,6% 142 2,2%

Table 43 – Reduction of Emissions between Energy Sector Scenarios by Fixed and Mobile Sources

Scenario 2012 2016 2020 2025

Gg CO2 A 9.685 10.744 11.999 13.901 B 9.527 10.235 11.487 13.378 C 9.426 10.022 11.087 12.905

Variation Variation Variation Variation

(%) (%) (%) (%) A-B 159 1,6% 509 4,7% 513 4,3% 524 3,8% A-C 260 2,7% 722 6,7% 913 7,6% 997 7,2%

Source: Authors.

73

1000,00

2000,00

3000,00

4000,00

5000,00

6000,00

7000,00

2005 2012 2016 2020 20250,0

74

Table 44 below present details of the amount obtained in scenarios A, B and C.

Table 44 – GHG emissions for Scenarios A, B and C – Energy Sector

Scenario A (GgCO2eq) 2005 2012 2016 2020 2025 Energy 2.742,1 3.797,4 4.451,7 5.238,3 6.482,7 Residential 795,6 1.080,5 1.188,7 1.322,6 1.519,2 Commercial 319,2 616,3 772,5 962,2 1.285,4

Public and others 210,9 293,9 322,6 351,3 399,8

Industrial 1.416,4 1.806,7 2.167,9 2.602,1 3.278,3

Transportation 5.478,2 5.849,7 6.247,0 6.707,5 7.351,7 Highways 4.391,3 4.635,1 4.937,2 5.283,0 5.748,3

– Light Vehicles (cars, Vans and Station Wagons) 2.974,2 2.919,4 3.183,7 3.500,5 3.936,0

– Heavy Vehicles (buses and trucks) 1.417,2 1.715,7 1.753,5 1.782,5 1.812,3

Airways 1.062,9 1.175,0 1.269,7 1.384,5 1.562,9

Railways 13,4 27,0 27,1 26,7 27,1

Waterways 10,6 12,7 13,0 13,2 13,5

Fugitive methanol 53,6 38,28 45,14 53,69 66,64

Refining 75,0 Total Scenario A 8.348,9 9.685,4 10.743,9 11.999,5 13.901,1

Scnario B (Gg CO2 eq) 2005 2012 2016 2020 2025

Energy 2.742,1 3.797,3 4.451,6 5.238,2 6.482,6

Residential 795,6 1.080,4 1.188,6 1.322,6 1.519,2

Commercial 319,2 616,3 772,5 962,2 1.285,4

Public and others 210,9 293,9 322,6 351,3 399,8

Industrial 1.416,4 1.806,7 2.167,9 2.602,1 3.278,3

Transportation 5.478,2 5.696,3 5.755,4 6.206,9 6.839,7

Highways 4.391,3 4.475,0 4.408,2 4.746,1 5.200,5

– Light Vehicles (cars, Vans and Station Wagons) 2.974,2 2.822,9 2.972,3 3.285,2 3.712,6

– Heavy Vehicles (buses and trucks) 1.417,2 1.652,1 1.435,9 1.460,9 1.487,9

Airways 1.062,9 1.175,0 1.269,7 1.384,5 1.562,9

Railways 13,4 33,6 64,5 63,0 62,9

Waterways 10,6 12,7 13,0 13,2 13,5

Fugitive methanol 53,6 32,6 28,1 42,3 55,3

Refining 75,0 Total Scenario B 8.348,9 9.526,2 10.235,1 11.487,4 13.377,7

Scenario C (Gg CO2 eq) 2005 2012 2016 2020 2025

Energy 2.742,1 3.780,0 4.411,5 5.166,7 6.352,1 Residential 795,6 1.074,9 1.173,7 1.295,3 1.469,6

Commercial 319,2 610,0 755,9 930,6 1.223,5

Public and others 210,9 288,4 314,0 338,8 380,6

Industrial 1.416,4 1.806,7 2.167,9 2.602,1 3.278,3

Transportation 5.478,2 5.613,0 5.582,3 5.877,4 6.497,8

Highways 4.391,3 4.391,7 4.224,4 4.385,8 4.828,1

– Light Vehicles (cars, Vans and Station Wagons) 2.974,2 2.746,5 2.857,6 3.110,7 3.528,8

– Heavy Vehicles (buses and trucks) 1.417,2 1.645,2 1.366,8 1.275,1 1.299,3

Airways 1.062,9 1.175,0 1.269,7 1.384,5 1.562,9

Railways 13,4 33,6 75,1 93,8 93,4

Waterways 10,6 12,7 13,0 13,2 13,5

Fugitive methanol 53,6 32,6 28,1 42,3 55,3

Refining 75,0 3. 4. 5. 6.

Total Scenario C 8.348,9 9.425,6 10.021,8 11.086,5 12.905,2

Source: Authors.

75

76

2.6.2. Industrial Processes and Product Use – IPPU

This sector was considered in the scenario by using the correlation with the Industrial GNP in

Rio de Janeiro City. The table below presents the values obtained. As mentioned in item 8.2,

in the absence of information allowing identification of mitigation actions in the industries

listed in 2005 GHG emissions inventory, B and C Scenarios, in this study, keep constant the

emissions projected in Scenario A. Thus, the new industries installed in the city from 2005, in

the district of Santa Cruz, are not contemplated in the scenarios, as they will have their

activities and GHG emissions separately monitored in Rio de Janeiro City.

Table 44A – GHG emissions for Scenarios A, B and C –IPPU Sector

Scenario A, B and C (GgCO2eq) 2005 2012 2016 2020 2025

IPPU 409,77 617,5 748,3 906,8 1.152,9

Glass 13,87 18,1 20,9 25,3 30,7

Methanol 98,2 128,10 147,95 179,29 217,26

Steel 130,6 170,36 196,77 238,44 288,95

Aluminium 150,4 196,19 226,60 274,59 332,75

Lubrificants 16,58 21,63 24,98 30,27 36,68

Grease 0,13 0,17 0,20 0,24 0,29

Paraffin 0,07 0,09 0,11 0,13 0,16

2.6.3. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Sector

According to Table 46, in Scenario A, the emissions estimations relating to AFOLU show a

reduction in emissions of 7,6% in the period 2005-2025, even with no additional effort. This is

due to the increase on reforesting areas, urban trees and fruit trees within the city

boundaries, which absorb important CO2 quantities from the atmosphere.

In Scenario B, efforts conducted to reduce deforesting impact and the increase in

reforestation areas lead to a significant reduction in GHG emissions, however, as of 2020

carbon removals (absorbing) are higher than the number of emissions. Therefore, within Rio

de Janeiro City boundaries, the AFOLU sector turns itself into a reservoir of liquid absorption

of CO2 from the atmosphere. This is mainly due to the higher accumulation in green areas

within the limits of Rio de Janeiro City.

As the agriculture and cattle raising subsectors have a little significance impact on AFOLU

sector total emissions, the hypotheses and values used for future projections in Scenario B

were the same used in Scenario A of this study, having as basis that there shall be no

variation for such activities along the period.

Figure 16– Reduction of GHG emissions in AFOLU – Scenario B in relation to Scenario A

In average relative terms, the Forest coverage variation is responsible for 85,7% of the

emissions in 2012, and the cattle raising activity for 11,6% and the agricultural activities for

2,6% in the same year. Along Scenario B period the relative weight for land use falls to 65%

of the total in 2016. After 2018, the total emissions are generated by the agronomic/cattle

raising activities, being 81,5% cattle raising and 18,5% Agriculture. Such proportions continue

constant throughout the years. The vegetal coverage starts to absorb more carbon than it

emitted. Being that, in 2020, reforesting shall capture 2.2 times more than that

agricultural/cattle raising activities. This proportion continues practically constant until the end

of Scenario B.

Scenario C broadens the results obtained in Scenario B, by increasing reforesting activities,

such as the city joint reforesting effort, that is, the values presented by SMAC in its Rio

Green Capital Project and Parque da Pedra Branca reforesting, as informed by the State

government.

77

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2012 2016 2020 2025 -50

78

Figure 17– Reduction of GHG emissions in AFOLU – Scenario C in relation to Scenario A (Gg CO2eq)

Tables 45 and 46 present, respectively, the reduction potential in each Scenario and the

detailed values obtained in Scenarios A, B and C.

Table 45– Emissions and Variation between Future Scenarios of the AFOLU Sector in Rio de Janeiro City

Scenario 2012 2016 2020 2025

Gg CO2 A 210,6 207,3 204,7 203,6 B 97,4 39,8 –17,2 –17,8 C 65,3 –16,6 –109,6 –138,1

Variation Variation Variation Variation

(%) (%) (%) (%) A-B 113,29 54% 167,61 81% 221,94 108% 221,46 109% A-C 145,32 69% 224,05 108% 314,37 154% 341,73 168%

Source: Authors. Negative values correspond to CO2 removal.

2005 2012 2016 2020 2025 0

50

100

150

200

250

-50

-100

-150

-200

Table 46 – GHG Emissions for Scenarios A, B and C – AFOLU Sector

Scenario A (GgCO2eq) 2005 2012 2016 2020 2025

AFOLU 220,56 210,66 207,36 204,76 203,66

Land Use 203,4 196,7 193,4 190,8 189,7

Enteric Fermentation (Cattle raising) 10,8 8,3 8,3 8,3 8,3

Waste Management (Cattle raising) 3,8 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1

Sugar-cane Burning (Agriculture) 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01

Use of Nitrogen Added Fertilizer (Agriculture) 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,38

Use of Limestone & Dolomite (Agriculture) 2,13 2,13 2,13 2,13 2,13

Use of Urea (Agriculture) 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04

Scenario B (GgCO2eq) 2005 2012 2016 2020 2025

AFOLU 220,6 97,4 39,8 -17,2 -17,8

Land Use 203,4 83,4 25,8 -31,2 -31,8

Enteric Fermentation (Cattle raising) 10,8 8,3 8,3 8,3 8,3

Waste Management (Cattle raising) 3,8 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1

Sugar-cane Burning (Agriculture) 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01

Use of Nitrogen Added Fertilizer (Agriculture) 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,38

Use of Limestone & Dolomite (Agriculture) 2,13 2,13 2,13 2,13 2,13

Use of Urea (Agriculture) 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04

Scenario C (GgCO2eq) 2005 2012 2016 2020 2025

AFOLU 220,56 65,36 –16,64 –109,64 –138,14

Land Use 203,4 51,4 –30,6 –123,6 –152,1

Enteric Fermentation (Cattle raising) 10,8 8,3 8,3 8,3 8,3

Waste Management (Cattle raising) 3,8 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1

Sugar-cane Burning (Agriculture) 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01

Use of Nitrogen Added Fertilizer (Agriculture) 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,38

Use of Limestone & Dolomite (Agriculture) 2,13 2,13 2,13 2,13 2,13

Use of Urea (Agriculture) 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04

79

80

2.6.4. Solid Waste and Residential Wastewater and Industrial Effluents Sector

In baseline scenario (Scenario A), the waste sector emissions reach 3.003,0 GgCO2eq, of

which approximately 70% are generated by urban solid waste. Scenario A considers, as a

trend, the growth in garbage production based on the generation per capita, which increases

in accordance with the GNP growth per capita in the city. Selective collection, considered

under this scenario, corresponds to 6.000 ton/day (less than 1%), in accordance with data

supplied by COMLURB.

The mitigation actions considered for this segment are those related to the capture and

burning of biogas generated at the location of urban solid waste disposal. Presently, Rio de

Janeiro has two controlled landfills, Gramacho and Gericinó, which will be closed when

Seropédica sanitary landfill operation starts-up. Scenario B, therefore, accounts for biogas

collection and burning, since 2009, 1.800 m3/h increasing its capture to 80%, when it closes

in 2012 (COMLURB prevision), as per ongoing project. For Gericinó, the prediction for

starting capturing and burning biogas is for 2014, two years after its closing. For Waste

Treatment Center of Seropédica, it was considered a capture percentage of 80% from 2012.

The emissions reduction for urban solid waste, observed in Scenario B when compared to

Scenario A, is of 77% in 2025.

Scenario C, broadens the biogas collection and capture efforts in landfills and exceeds

selective collecting until a percentage of 10% is reached in 2025, causing a reduction of

GHG emissions of almost 90%.

Besides, Scenarios B and C take into consideration GHG emissions generated by aerobic

compressing and emissions avoided from the residual quantities compressed and those that

were not avoided when sent to the landfill.

Industrial waste has a little significance participation in the solid waste sector emissions and

keeps constant participation in Scenarios A, B and C, as no mitigation measures were

considered for this segment.

Figure 18 represents the reduction potential that may be obtained in the urban Solid Waste

sector. It is worth to highlight that the main gas emission is his sector is methane (CH4),

represented in GgCO2eq units.

Figure 18 –GHG emissions reduction for Urban Solid Wastes (GgCO eq), Scenarios A, B and C (Gg CO eq) 2 2

Table 47– Emissions and Variation between Future Scenarios for Urban Solid Waste in

Rio de Janeiro City*

Scenario 2012 2016 2020 2025

Gg CO2 A 1.826,0 1.896,1 1.976,6 2.085,1 B 851,7 410,0 433,5 475,2 C 761,8 265,2 267,9 278,7

Variation Variation Variation Variation

(%) (%) (%) (%) A-B 974,30 53% 1.486,10 78% 1.543,10 78% 1.609,90 77% A-C 1.064,20 58% 1.630,90 86% 1.708,70 86% 1.806,40 87%

*It does not include values relating to Industrial Waste

For Wastewater and Liquid Effluents, Scenario A shows a growth of 8.5% in the period

2005-2025. This scenario considered that there was no improvement in the sanitary

wastewater services and the number of people using septic tanks with no kind of service

increases in a directly proportional way to the population growth. Results show a large

oscillation in the total emission values in the wastewater and effluents sector over time,

without presenting a defined trend in this scenario. This has occurred much probably due to

the hypothesis adopted, which let the emissions to oscillate only in view of the growth in

population.

81

0,00

500,00

1.000,00

1.500,00

2.000,00

2.500,00

2005 2012 2016 2020 2025

82

Scenario B, however, presents an increase in emissions as of 2005, as new Waste

Management Plants started operations. That is why, in the absence of information on the

treatment technologies used on such Waste Management Plants, a conservative approach

was used, and it was considered that they adopted anaerobic treatment systems. Emissions

in the effluents treatment sector have this peculiarity, as the anaerobic treatment service is

enlarged, emissions also increase. However, this can be solved adopting the methane

recovery process, with its burning or energy usage, to avoid its emission.

Thus, it is considered in Scenario C that the new Waste Management Plants installed will

recover all the methane generated for burning. According to the 2nd Brazilian Inventory of

Emissions, it was adopted that the estimated efficiency of burners is approximately 50%. In

this scenario, as well as in Scenario B, although there is an increase in emissions due to the

increase in the number of inhabitants served by the treatment system, such emissions are

considerably mitigated when emissions are avoided by the recovery of the methane

generated for burning. Therefore, the importance of the adoption of methane recovery is

realized in order to mitigate emissions arising out of the necessary enlargement of the

wastewater treatment services for the population. Another existing possibility, not

contemplated under this scenario, is the capture of biogas with energy usage, which can be

even more interesting from the emissions reduction standpoint.

.

Figure 19 – GHG Emissions Reduction in Wastewater and Liquid Effluents - WLE (Gg CO eq), Scenarios A, B and C 2

Table 48– Emissions and Variation between Future Scenarios for Residential and Commerce Wastewater and

Industrial Effluents in RIO DE JANEIRO CITY

Scenario 2012 2016 2020 2025

Gg CO2 A 785,1 798,0 813,6 833,3 B 935,2 1.005,6 1.021,1 1.040,7 C 673,5 744,3 759,8 779,5

Variation Variation Variation Variation

(%) (%) (%) (%) A-B –150,1 –19% –207,6 –26% –207,5 –26% –207,4 –25% A-C 111,6 14% 53,7 7% 53,8 7% 53,8 6%

*Negative variation corresponds to increase in GHG emissions

Table 49 presents detailed values for the Waste Sector.

83

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

-

-

-

2005 2012 2016 2020 2025

84

Table 49 – Emissions of GHG in Scenarios A, B and C – Waste Sector

Scenario A (GgCO2eq) 2005 2012 2016 2020 2025

Solid Waste 1.604,6 1.870,4 1.950,6 2.042,9 2.169,7

Urban Solid Waste 1.580,3 1.826,0 1.896,1 1.976,6 2.085,1

Industrial Solid Waste 24,3 44,4 54,5 66,3 84,6

Wastewater and Liquid effluents 767,9 785,1 798,0 813,6 833,3

Residential and Commercial Wastewater

659,1 673,7 684,8 698,1 715,0

Industrial Effluents 108,8 111,4 113,3 115,5 118,3

Total Waste 2.372,5 2.655,5 2.748,6 2.856,5 3.003,0

Scenario B (GgCO2eq) 2005 2012 2016 2020 2025

Solid Waste 1.604,6 896,1 464,5 499,8 559,8

Urban Solid Waste 1.580,3 851,7 410,0 433,5 475,2

Industrial Solid Waste 24,3 44,4 54,5 66,3 84,6

Wastewater and Liquid effluents 767,9 935,2 1.005,6 1.021,1 1.040,7

Residential and Commercial Wastewater

659,1 781,8 834,6 847,9 864,7

Industrial Effluents 108,8 153,4 171,0 173,2 176,0

Total Waste 2.372,5 1.831,3 1.470,1 1.520,9 1.600,5

Scenario C (GgCO2eq) 2005 2012 2016 2020 2025

Solid Waste 1.604,6 806,2 319,7 334,2 363,3

Urban Solid Waste 1.580,3 761,8 265,2 267,9 278,7

Industrial Solid Waste 24,3 44,4 54,5 66,3 84,6

Wastewater and Liquid effluents 767,9 673,5 744,3 759,8 779,5

Residential and Commercial Wastewater

659,1 659,1 572,6 625,7 639,1

Industrial Effluents 108,8 108,8 100,9 118,5 120,8

Total Wastes 2.372,5 1.479,7 1.064,0 1.094,0 1.142,8

Source: Authors. .

3. CONSOLIDATION OF RESULTS FROM SCENARIOS A, B

AND C

This item presents the consolidation of the Energy Sector Scenarios, including the

Transportation, Industrial Processes (IPPU), Agronomy and Cattle raising, Forests and Other

Land Uses (AFOLU), and Waste Sectors.

Three scenarios were formed for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the period 2005-2025:

Scenario A (Baseline Scenario) – comprises emissions for which Rio de Janeiro City is

responsible, and that could occur in the absence of local policies and projects.

Scenario B – presents the potential reduction for emissions of greenhouse gases with

the implementation of policies and projects already included in the planning of the Rio de

Janeiro initiatives, individually or jointly with other government areas.

Scenario C – shows the potential reduction for emissions of greenhouse gases relating

to policies and projects deemed as feasible and desirable by the Government, but which

are still in the planning or studies and analysis phases, being such actions more

challenging than those contained in Scenario B. This scenario also includes some actions

from scenario B, although in a wider range in the form of evaluating the impact of such

actions, in less intensity already part of the planning.

The consolidation of the values obtained in the scenarios allows verifying the source

liabilities in terms of participation in total emissions, besides observing the occurrence of the

best opportunities for emissions reduction, as per Tables 50 to 53, which, respectively, show

the consolidation of scenarios per source; the relative participation of the sectors in the

scenario years; the amount of reduced emission and potential per source in GgCO2 and %.

85

86

Ta

ble

50

–C

on

soli

da

ted

Va

lue

of

Gre

en

ho

use

Ga

s E

mis

sio

ns

pe

r S

ou

rce

– S

cen

ari

os

A,

B a

nd

C –

Gg

CO2e

q

E

nerg

y U

se

Road Light Transp.

Road Heavy Transp.

Air Transp.

Railway Transp

Waterway Transp

Residential

Commercial

Public Sector

Industrial

Fugitive andothers

IPPU

Forest and Land Use

Agric./ Cattle raising

Urban Solid Waste

Wastewater and Effluents

Tot

al

S

cen

ario

A

2005

2.

974

1.41

7 1.

063

13,4

10

,6

795,

6 31

9,2

210,

9 1.

416,

4 12

8,6

409,

77

203,

4 17

,2

1.60

4,6

767,

9 11

.351

,7

2012

2.

919

1.71

6 1.

175

27,0

12

,7

1.08

0,5

616,

3 29

3,9

1.80

6,7

38,3

61

7,5

196,

7 14

,0

1.87

0,4

785,

1 13

.169

,1

2016

3.

184

1.75

4 1.

270

27,1

13

,0

1.18

8,7

772,

5 32

2,6

2.16

7,9

45,1

74

8,3

193,

4 14

,0

1.95

0,6

798,

0 14

.448

,1

2020

3.

501

1.78

2 1.

385

26,7

13

,2

1.32

2,6

962,

2 35

1,3

2.60

2,1

53,7

90

6,8

190,

8 14

,0

2.04

2,9

813,

6 15

.967

,5

2025

3.

936

1.81

2 1.

563

27,1

13

,5

1.51

9,2

1.28

5,4

399,

8 3.

278,

3 66

,6

1.15

2,9

189,

7 14

,0

2.16

9,7

833,

3 18

.260

,6

S

cen

ario

B

2005

2.

974

1.41

7 1.

063

13,4

10

,6

795,

6 31

9,2

210,

9 1.

416,

4 12

8,6

409,

8 20

3,4

17,2

1.

604,

6 76

7,9

11.3

51,7

2012

2.

823

1.65

2 1.

175

33,6

12

,7

1.08

0,4

616,

3 29

3,9

1.80

6,7

32,6

61

7,50

83

,4

14,0

89

6,1

935,

2 12

.072

,4

2016

2.

972

1.43

6 1.

270

64,5

13

,0

1.18

8,6

772,

5 32

2,6

2.16

7,9

28,1

74

8,29

25

,8

14,0

46

4,5

1.00

5,6

12.4

93,3

2020

3.

285

1.46

1 1.

385

63,0

13

,2

1.32

2,6

962,

2 35

1,3

2.60

2,1

42,3

90

6,78

–3

1,2

14,0

49

9,8

1.02

1,1

13.8

97,8

2025

3.

713

1.48

8 1.

563

62,9

13

,5

1.51

9,2

1.28

5,4

399,

8 3.

278,

3 55

,3

1.15

2,91

–3

1,8

14,0

55

9,8

1.04

0,7

16.1

13,3

S

cen

ario

C

2005

2.

974

1.41

7 1.

063

13,4

10

,6

795,

6 31

9,2

210,

9 1.

416,

4 12

8,6

409,

8 20

3,4

17,2

1.

604,

6 76

7,9

11.3

51,7

2012

2.

746

1.64

5 1.

175

33,6

12

,7

1.07

4,9

610,

0 28

8,4

1.80

6,7

32,6

61

7,50

51

,4

14,0

80

6,2

673,

5 11

.588

,1

2016

2.

858

1.36

7 1.

270

75,1

13

,0

1.17

3,7

755,

9 31

4,0

2.16

7,9

28,1

74

8,29

–3

0,6

14,0

31

9,7

744,

3 11

.817

,4

2020

3.

111

1.27

5 1.

385

93,8

13

,2

1.29

5,3

930,

6 33

8,8

2.60

2,1

42,3

90

6,78

–1

23,6

14

,0

334,

2 75

9,8

12.9

77,6

2025

3.

529

1.29

9 1.

563

93,4

13

,5

1.46

9,6

1.22

3,5

380,

6 3.

278,

3 55

,3

1.15

2,91

–1

52,1

14

,0

363,

3 77

9,5

15.0

62,8

Ta

ble

51

- R

ela

tive

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n o

f th

e E

mis

sio

n S

ou

rce

s -

Sce

na

rio

s A

, B

an

d C

- (

Gg

CO

2eq)

E

nerg

y U

se

Road Light Transp.

Road Heavy Transp.

Air Transp.

Railway Transp

Waterway Transp

Residential

Commercial

Public Sector

Industrial

Fugitive and others

IPPU

Forest and Land Use

Agric./ Cattle raising

Urban Solid Waste

Wastewater and Effluents

Tot

al

S

cen

ario

A

2005

26

,2%

12

,5%

9,

4%

0,1%

0,

1%

7,0%

2,

8%

1,9%

12

,5%

1,

1%

3,6%

1,

8%

0,2%

14

,1%

6,

8%

1,0

2012

22

,2%

13

,0%

8,

9%

0,2%

0,

1%

8,2%

4,

7%

2,2%

13

,7%

0,

3%

4,7%

1,

5%

0,1%

14

,2%

6,

0%

1,0

2016

22

,0%

12

,1%

8,

8%

0,2%

0,

1%

8,2%

5,

3%

2,2%

15

,0%

0,

3%

5,2%

1,

3%

0,1%

13

,5%

5,

5%

1,0

2020

21

,9%

11

,2%

8,

7%

0,2%

0,

1%

8,3%

6,

0%

2,2%

16

,3%

0,

3%

5,7%

1,

2%

0,1%

12

,8%

5,

1%

1,0

2025

21

,6%

9,

9%

8,6%

0,

1%

0,1%

8,

3%

7,0%

2,

2%

18,0

%

0,4%

6,

3%

1,0%

0,

1%

11,9

%

4,6%

1,

0

S

cen

ario

B

2005

26

,2%

12

,5%

9,

4%

0,1%

0,

1%

7,0%

2,

8%

1,9%

12

,5%

1,

1%

3,6%

1,

8%

0,2%

14

,1%

6,

8%

1,0

2012

23

,4%

13

,7%

9,

7%

0,3%

0,

1%

8,9%

5,

1%

2,4%

15

,0%

0,

3%

5,1%

0,

7%

0,1%

7,

4%

7,7%

1,

0

2016

23

,8%

11

,5%

10

,2%

0,

5%

0,1%

9,

5%

6,2%

2,

6%

17,4

%

0,2%

6,

0%

0,2%

0,

1%

3,7%

8,

0%

1,0

2020

23

,6%

10

,5%

10

,0%

0,

5%

0,1%

9,

5%

6,9%

2,

5%

18,7

%

0,3%

6,

5%

-0,2

%

0,1%

3,

6%

7,3%

1,

0

2025

23

,0%

9,

2%

9,7%

0,

4%

0,1%

9,

4%

8,0%

2,

5%

20,3

%

0,3%

7,

2%

-0,2

%

0,1%

3,

5%

6,5%

1,

0

S

cen

ario

C

2005

26

,2%

12

,5%

9,

4%

0,1%

0,

1%

7,0%

2,

8%

1,9%

12

,5%

1,

1%

3,6%

1,

8%

0,2%

14

,1%

6,

8%

1,0

2012

23

,7%

14

,2%

10

,1%

0,

3%

0,1%

9,

3%

5,3%

2,

5%

15,6

%

0,3%

5,

3%

0,4%

0,

1%

7,0%

5,

8%

1,0

2016

24

,2%

11

,6%

10

,7%

0,

6%

0,1%

9,

9%

6,4%

2,

7%

18,3

%

0,2%

6,

3%

-0,3

%

0,1%

2,

7%

6,3%

1,

0

2020

24

,0%

9,

8%

10,7

%

0,7%

0,

1%

10,0

%

7,2%

2,

6%

20,1

%

0,3%

7,

0%

-1,0

%

0,1%

2,

6%

5,9%

1,

0

2025

23

,4%

8,

6%

10,4

%

0,6%

0,

1%

9,8%

8,

1%

2,5%

21

,8%

0,

4%

7,7%

-1

,0%

0,

1%

2,4%

5,

2%

1,0

87

88

Ta

ble

52

- A

mo

un

t o

f R

ed

uce

d E

mis

sio

ns

pe

r S

ou

rce

- b

etw

ee

n S

cen

ari

os

A,

B a

nd

C -

(G

g C

O2eq)

E

nerg

y U

se

Road Light Transp.

Road Heavy Transp.

Air Transp.

Railway Transp

Waterway Transp

Residential

Commercial

Public Sector

Industrial

Fugitive and others

IPPU

Forest and Land Use

Agric./ Cattle raising

Urban Solid Waste

Wastewater and Effluents

Tot

al

S

cen

ario

B in

rel

atio

n t

o S

cen

ario

A

2012

96

,6

63,5

--

- –6

,7

---

0,1

---

-0,0

2 --

- 5,

7 --

- 11

3,3

---

974,

3 –1

50,1

1.

096,

8

2016

21

1,4

317,

6 --

- –3

7,4

---

0,1

---

0,02

--

- 17

,0

---

167,

6 --

- 1.

486,

1 –2

07,6

1.

954,

8

2020

21

5,3

321,

6 --

- –3

6,2

---

0,1

---

0,03

--

- 11

,4

---

222,

0 --

- 1.

543,

1 –2

07,5

2.

069,

7

2025

22

3,4

324,

4 --

- –3

5,8

---

0,1

---

-0,0

2 --

- 11

,4

---

221,

5 --

- 1.

609,

9 –2

07,4

2.

147,

3

S

cen

ario

C in

rel

atio

n t

o S

cen

ario

A

2012

17

2,9

70,5

--

- –6

,7

---

5,6

6,3

5,4

---

5,7

---

145,

3 --

- 1.

064,

2 11

1,7

1.48

0,9

2016

32

6,0

386,

7 --

- –4

8,0

---

15,0

16

,6

8,6

---

17,0

--

- 22

4,0

---

1.63

0,9

53,8

2.

630,

7

2020

38

9,8

507,

4 --

- –6

7,1

---

27,4

31

,7

12,5

--

- 11

,4

---

314,

4 --

- 1.

708,

7 53

,8

2.98

9,5

2025

40

7,2

513,

0 --

- –6

6,4

---

49,6

61

,9

19,1

--

- 11

,4

---

341,

8 --

- 1.

806,

4 53

,8

3.19

7,4

S

cen

ario

C in

rel

atio

n t

o S

cen

ario

B

2012

76

,4

7,0

---

0,0

---

5,5

6,3

5,5

---

---

---

32,0

--

- 89

,9

261,

7 48

4,2

2016

11

4,7

69,1

--

- –1

0,6

---

15,0

16

,6

8,6

---

---

---

56,4

--

- 14

4,8

261,

3 67

5,9

2020

17

4,5

185,

8 --

- –3

0,9

---

27,3

31

,7

12,5

--

- --

- --

- 92

,4

---

165,

6 26

1,3

920,

2

2025

18

3,8

188,

6 --

- –3

0,5

---

49,6

61

,9

19,2

--

- --

- --

- 12

0,3

---

196,

5 26

1,2

1.05

0,5

Ta

ble

53

- P

ote

nti

al

for

Gre

en

ho

use

Ga

s E

mis

sio

n R

ed

uct

ion

pe

r S

ou

rce

- S

cen

ari

os

A,

B a

nd

C (

%)

E

nerg

y U

se

Road Light Transp.

Road Heavy Transp.

Air Transp.

Railway Transp

Waterway Transp

Residential

Commercial

Public Sector

Industrial

Fugitive and others

IPPU

Forest and Land Use

Agric./ Cattle raising

Urban Solid Waste

Wastewater and Effluents

Tot

al

S

cen

ario

B in

rel

atio

n t

o S

cen

ario

A

2012

3,

3%

3,7%

--

- –2

4,7%

--

- --

- --

- --

- --

- 14

,8%

--

- 57

,6%

--

- 52

,1%

–1

9,1%

8,

3%

2016

6,

6%

18,1

%

---

–138

,1%

--

- --

- --

- --

- --

- 37

,7%

--

- 86

,7%

--

- 76

,2%

–2

6,0%

13

,5%

2020

6,

2%

18,0

%

---

–135

,5%

--

- --

- --

- --

- --

- 21

,2%

--

- 11

6,4%

--

- 75

,5%

–2

5,5%

13

,0%

2025

5,

7%

17,9

%

---

–132

,3%

--

- --

- --

- --

- --

- 17

,0%

--

- 11

6,8%

--

- 74

,2%

–2

4,9%

11

,8%

S

cen

ario

C in

rel

atio

n t

o S

cen

ario

A

2012

5,

9%

4,1%

--

- –2

4,7%

--

- 0,

5%

1,0%

1,

8%

---

14,8

%

---

73,9

%

---

56,9

%

14,2

%

12,0

%

2016

10

,2%

22

,1%

--

- –1

77,4

%

---

1,3%

2,

2%

2,7%

--

- 37

,7%

--

- 11

5,8%

--

- 83

,6%

6,

7%

18,2

%

2020

11

,1%

28

,5%

--

- –2

51,0

%

---

2,1%

3,

3%

3,6%

--

- 21

,2%

--

- 16

4,8%

--

- 83

,6%

6,

6%

18,7

%

2025

10

,3%

28

,3%

--

- –2

45,0

%

---

3,3%

4,

8%

4,8%

--

- 17

,0%

--

- 18

0,2%

--

- 83

,3%

6,

5%

17,5

%

S

cen

ario

C in

rel

atio

n t

o S

cen

ario

B

2012

2,

7%

0,4%

--

- 0,

0 --

- 0,

5%

1,0%

1,

9%

---

---

---

38,4

%

---

10,0

%

28,0

%

4,0%

2016

3,

9%

4,8%

--

- –1

6,5%

--

- 1,

3%

2,2%

2,

7%

---

---

---

218,

6%

---

31,2

%

26,0

%

5,4%

2020

5,

3%

12,7

%

---

–49,

0%

---

2,1%

3,

3%

3,5%

--

- --

- --

- –2

96,2

%

---

33,1

%

25,6

%

6,6%

2025

5,

0%

12,7

%

---

–48,

5%

---

3,3%

4,

8%

4,8%

--

- --

- --

- –3

78,3

%

---

35,1

%

25,1

%

6,5%

89

90

Emissions reduction in Scenario B in relation to Scenario A reaches 13,0% in 2020 and 11,8% in

2025; and scenario C in relation to scenario A reaches 18,7% in 2020 and 17,5% in 2025. Figure

20 below presents the differences relating to the Scenarios. The Figure 21 shows the emissions

reductions amplitude between scenarios in absolute terms.

Figure 20 – Emissions Reduction Percentage between Scenarios

Figure 21 – Reduction Potential between Scenarios A, B and C

8,3%

13,5% 13,0%11,8%

4,0%5,4%

6,6% 6,5%

12,0%

18,2% 18,7%17,5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

02.0004.0006.0008.000

10.00012.00014.00016.00018.00020.000

1996 1998 2005 2012 2016 2020 2025

Scenario A 10.043 10.974 11.352 13.169 14.448 15.968 18.261

Scenario B 10.043 10.974 11.352 12.072 12.493 13.898 16.113

Scenario C 10.043 10.974 11.352 11.588 11.817 12.978 15.063

REFERENCES

ABIQUIM, 2006. Anuário da Indústria Química Brasileira.

Agostinetto, D., Nilson Fleck, G., Rizzardi, M. A., Balbinot Jr., A. A., 2002. Potencial de emissão de

metano em lavouras de arroz irrigado. In: Ciência Rural, Santa Maria, v.32, n.6, p.1073-1081,

2002 , ISSN 0103-8478

Alcantara, M.M.P, 2005. O Setor Industrial no Estado do Rio de Janeiro: Uma Análise Espaço

Temporal. Dissertação de Mestrado, ENCE – Escola Nacional de Ciências Estatísitcas.

Anais do 12o Simpósio de Pastagens. Tema: O Capim Colonião – Publicado pela Fundação dos

Estudos Agrários Luiz de Queirós (FEALQ/UNESP).

ANFAVEA, 2010. Anuário da Indústria Automobilística Brasileira.São Paulo, 2010.

Aquino, L. C. S., 2005. Painel “Estimativa do Estoque de Carbono das Principais Paisagens Florestais

Brasileiras” apresentado no Simpósio Mundial de Restauração da Paisagem Florestal, realizado

em Petrópolis, em abril de 2005.

Araújo, D. S e Crude Maciel. N., 1979. Os Manguezais do Recôncavo da Baía de Guanabara,

Cadernos FEEMA, Série Técnica 10/79.

BEE-RJ, 2006. Balanço Energético do Estado do Rio de Janeiro 2003-2005. Secretaria de Estado de

Energia, da Indústria Naval e do Petróleo – SEINPE/RJ.

Brun, E. J., 2004. Biomassa e Nutrientes na Floresta Estacional Decidual no município de Santa

Tereza (RS). Tese de Mestrado em Engenharia Florestal, defendida na Universidade de Santa

Maria (UFSM).

CENTRO CLIMA, 2006. Emissões Evitadas e Scenarios Futuros de Emissões de Gases de Efeito

Estufa do Município de São Paulo. Centro Clima/COPPE/UFRJ. Disponível em

www.centroclima.org.br.

CEPERJ (2010a). Anuário Estatístico do Estado do Rio de Janeiro 2009.

CEPERJ (2010b). Diagnóstico sobre a economia fluminense, baseado nos projetos contas regionais

do Brasil e PIB municipal.

Costa, T. et al., 2007. Vulnerabilidade Ambiental em Sub-bacias Hidrográficas do Estado do Rio de

Janeiro por meio de integração temática da perda de solo (USLE), variáveis morfométricas e o

uso/cobertura da terra. Anais XIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto, Florianópolis,

Brasil, 21-26 abril 2007, INPE, p. 2493-2500.

91

92

Dantas, M. E., Shinzato, E., Medina, A.,Silva, C., Pimentel, J., Lumbreras, J., Calderano, S. e

Carvalho Filho, A. , 2000. Diagnóstico Geoambiental do Estado do Rio de Janeiro

http://www.cprm.gov.br/publique/media/artigo_geoambientalRJ.pdf (consultado em 10/08/2007).

Demarchi, J. , Berndt , A., Primavesi, O. , e Lima, M., 2006. Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa e

Práticas Mitigadoras em Ecossistemas Agropecuários – Bovinos de Corte. In:

http://www.aptaregional.sp.gov.br/artigo.php?id_artigo=287 (26/07/2007)

DUBEUX, C. B. S., 2007. Mitigação de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa por Municípios

Brasileiros: Metodologias para Elaboração de Inventários Setoriais e Scenarios de Emissões

como Instrumentos de Planejamento. Tese de Doutorado. Programa de Planejamento

Energético, COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro. ERNST & YOUNG (2010). Brasil Sustentável –

Impactos Socioeconômicos da Copa do Mundo de 2014.

EHRLICH, M., ALMEIDA, M. S. S., BARBOSA, M. C., 1994, “Pollution Control of Gramacho Municipal

Landfill”.I International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, Edmonton, Canada, pp. 657-

663;

ERNST & YOUNG (2010).Brasil Sustentável – Impactos Socioeconômicos da Copa do Mundo de

2014.

FEEMA, 2007. Programa de Autocontrole de Efluentes Líquidos (PROCON ÁGUA), Fundação

Estadual de Engenharia do Meio Ambiente.

FIRJAN, 2004. Súmula Ambiental: Gestão para Reaproveitamento de Materiais nas Indústrias do

Estado Rio de Janeiro.

FIRJAN, 2007. Cadastro Industrial do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, 2006/2007.

GOVERNO DO ESTADO DO RIO DE JANEIRO/SEARJ, COPPE/LIMA, 2007, Inventário de Emissões

de Gases de Efeito Estufa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Centro de Estudos

Integrados sobre Meio Ambiente e Mudanças Climáticas – Secretaria do Ambiente do Estado do

RJ, 307 p.;

GRÜTTER CONSULTING, 2006. BRT Bogotá, Colombia: TransMilenio Phase II-IV. PROJECT

DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) – Version 02

GRÜTTER CONSULTING, 2010.Monitoring Report TRANSMILENIO year 2009.CDM Project 0672:

BRT

IBGE, 2004, Resultados da Amostra do Censo Demográfico 2000 – Malha municipal digital do Brasil:

situação em 2001. NOTA: Informações de acordo com a Divisão Territorial vigente em

01.01.2001. Rio de Janeiro, RJ;

IBGE. Censo Demográfico 2000: Características da População e dos Domicílios: Resultados do

universo. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Rio de Janeiro. 2000. Disponível

em:<http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2000/default.shtm>. Acesso em:

Maio, 2010.

IPCC, 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for NationalGreenhouseGasInventories – Volume 5: Waste.

NationalGreenhouseGasInventoriesProgramme, EditedbyEggleston, H.S., Buendia L., Miwa

K.,Ngara T., Tanabe K. Publishedby IGES, Japan;

IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R.

Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds). IPCC AR4 WG3 chapter 5 – Transport and its infrastructure.Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

IPP 2008, Indústria na cidade do Rio de Janeiro: estrutura e conjuntura recente, 2008. Helcio de

Medeiros Junior, Mérida Alberta Herasme Medina – Instituto Municipal de Urbanismo Pereira

Passos/Prefeitura da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro.

IPP 2008, PIB MUNICIPAL: CONCEITUAÇÃO, METODOLOGIA E ANÁLISE PARA A CIDADE DO

RIO DE JANEIRO. Gilda Santiago – Instituto Municipal de Urbanismo Pereira Passos/Prefeitura

da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro.

Jantalia, C.,Aita, C.,Urquiaga, S., Alves, B., 2006. Emissão de Óxido Nitroso com a Aplicação de

Dejetos Líquidos de Suínos em Solo sob Plantio Direto. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. vol.41 no.11

Brasília Nov. 2006.

Jensen, B. B., 1996. Methanogenesis in MonogastricAnimals. Environmental

MonitoringandAssessment, Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia.

LEITE, L. E. C., MAHLER, C. F., 2005, “Avaliação do Potencial de Receitas Derivadas do Biogás de

Aterros Sanitários”, Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, III-204, Rio de

Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 18-23, Setembro;

LOUREIRO, S. M., 2005, Índice de Qualidade no Sistema da Gestão Ambiental em Aterros de

Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos – IQS. Dissertação de M.Sc., COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ,

Brasil;

Macedo e Nogueira, 2004. Biocombustíveis. In: Cadernos NAE – Núcleo de Assuntos Estratégicos da

Presidência da República, no. 2, Brasília. http://www.planalto.gov.br/secom/nae

Macedo, I. C.; Seabra, J. E. A.; Silva, J. E. A. R., 2008. Green house gas emissionss in the production

and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: The 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020.

BiomassandBioenergy 32 ( 2008 ) 582 – 595.

MCT, 2004. Comunicação Nacional Inicial do Brasil à Convenção-Quadro das Nações Unidas sobre

Mudança do Clima.

93

94

MCT, 2010. SEGUNDO INVENTÁRIO BRASILEIRO DE EMISSÕES ANTRÓPICAS DE GASES DE

EFEITO ESTUFA. EMISSÕES DE GASES DE EFEITO ESTUFA NO TRANSPORTE

RODOVIÁRIO. Versão para consulta pública. Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia 2010.

Medeiros Junior, H. D.; Negrete, A. C. A. Comércio na cidade do Rio de Janeiro: estrutura e

conjuntura recente. IPP/Prefeitura da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro. 2008.

MORAES, C.; PICILLO, G. Queima do lixo no Brasil pode gerar 300 MW de energia em 5 anos. GP

Comunicação, 2009.

OLIVEIRA, J.C., ALBUQUERQUE, F.R.P.C., Lins, I.B., 2004, Projeção da População do Brasil por

Sexo e Idade para o Período 1980-2050. Diretoria de Pesquisas – DPE, Coordenação de

População e Indicadores Sociais – COPIS, Rio de Janeiro, agosto, 22p.

PNUMA, 2010. PERSPECTIVAS DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE: AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE.

Programa de lasNaciones Unidas para elMedio Ambiente. Panama City, Panamá.

PREFEITURA DO RIO/SMMA, COPPE/LIMA, 2003, Inventário de Emissão de Gases de Efeito Estufa

da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Centro de Estudos Integrados sobre Meio

Ambiente e Mudanças Climáticas – Secretaria Municipal de Meio Ambiente, 104 p.;

SCHAEFFER, R., 2007, Scenarios de Emissões Evitadas de Gases de Efeito Estufa. Mudanças

Climáticas e Gases de Efeito Estufa I, Programa de Planejamento Energético, COPPE/UFRJ,

Rio de Janeiro, RJ;

SECRETARIA DA COMUNICAÇÃO SOCIAL DA PRESIDÊNCIA DA REPÚBLICA (2009). Impacto

econômico das Olimpíadas no Rio será de US$ 14 bilhões. Ipcdigital.com. outubro de 2009.

Disponível em: http://www.ipcdigital.com/br/Noticias/Brasil/Impacto-economicodas-Olimpiadas-

no-Rio-sera-de-US-14-bilhoes, Acesso em: 15 de setembro de 2010.

Sigaud, M. F. Caracterização dos domicílios na cidade do Rio de Janeiro. Instituto Pereira Passos –

IPP. Rio de Janeiro. 2007.

SMAC, 2003. Inventário de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro.

Prefeitura da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro.

SVMA, 2005. Inventário de Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa do Município de São Paulo.

Secretaria do Verde e do MeioAmbiente.

UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE – UNFCCC – CLEAN

DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM (CDM).Disponível em: <http://cdm.unfccc.int/index.html>. Acesso

em 02/09/2008.

VIEIRA, S. M. M., & SILVA, J. W. Primeiro Inventário Brasileiro de Emissões Antrópicas de Gases de

Efeito Estufa – Relatórios de Referência – Emissões de Metano no Tratamento e na Disposição

de Resíduos. CETESB/MCT. Brasília. 2002.

WILLS, W., 2008. O Aumento da Eficiência Energética nos Veículos Leves e suas IMPLICAÇÕES

nas Emissões de Gases de Efeito Estufa – Scenarios Brasileiros entre 2000 E 2030. Dissertação

de Mestrado. Programa de Planejamento Energético, COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro.

WILLS, W., LA ROVERE, E. L., 2009.Light vehicle energy efficiency programs and their impact on

Brazilian CO2emissions.Energy Policy. Volume 38, Issue 11, November 2010, Pages 6453-6462.

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.057.

WINKELMAN, S. e SILSBE, E., 2004. Assessing how the Clean Development Mechanism can

Increase Bicycle Use in Santiago.. Santiago, Chile. August 25, 2004

WRI, 2008.Measuring the Invisible.Quantifying Emissions Reductions

fromTransportSolutions.PortoAlegre Case Study. World Resources Institute.

WRI, 2010.Modernizing Public Transportation. Lessons learned from major bus improvements in Latin

America and Asia. World Resources Institute.

WRIGHT, L. e FULTON, L., 2005. Climate Change Mitigation and Transport in Developing Nations.

TransportReviews, Vol. 25, No. 6, 691–717, November 2005

INTERNET SITES CONSULTED

CETESB (2006) – (http://www.cetesb.sp.gov.br/Ar/emissoes/im.asp).

COMPANHIA MUNICIPAL DE LIMPEZA URBANA – COMLURB. Meio Ambiente. Disponível em:

<http://www.rio.rj.gov.br/comlurb>. Acesso em: 01 ago. 2010;

Bogotá, Colombia: TRANSMILENIO Phase II to IV. Monitoring Period 1.1.2009 – 31.12.2009.

28/02/2010.

http://portalgeo.rio.rj.gov.br/indice/flanali.asp?codpal=296&pal=TRANSPORTE

IPP, 2010 – site acessado em julho de 2010 – http://www.armazemdedados.rio.rj.gov.br/

MINISTÉRIO DA CIÊNCIA E TECNOLOGIA – MCT. Disponível em: <http://www.mct.gov.br>. Acesso

em 02/09/2010;

OPERADOR NACIONAL DO SISTEMA ELÉTRICO – ONS. Disponível em:

<http://www.ons.org.br/home/index.aspx>. Acesso em: 30/08/2010;

PREFEITURA DO RIO – ARMAZEM DE DADOS/INSTITUTO PEREIRA PASSOS – IPP. Disponível

em: <http://www.armazemdedados.rio.rj.gov.br>. Acesso em: 29/08/2010;

http://www.anp.gov.br/?pg=18599&m=&t1=&t2=&t3=&t4=&ar=&ps=&cachebust=1279564308204

95

96

http://www.imprensa.rj.gov.br/detalheNoticiaMetropolitana.asp?ident=50150&flag=Noticia

http://www.imprensa.rj.gov.br/detalheNoticiaMetropolitana.asp?ident=48612&flag=Noticia

http://www.sectran.rj.gov.br/downloads/proj_futuros.pdf7

ANNEX

97

98

LAW Nº 5.248 (January 27th, 2011) – MUNICIPAL LAW

ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT

States the Municipal Policy on Climate Change and Sustainable Development,

regulates about the establishment of reduction goals for anthropic greenhouse gas

emissions in Rio de Janeiro City, among other statements.

Author of the Bill: City Councillor Aspásia Camargo

THE MAYOR OF RIO DE JANEIRO, makes known that the City Hall declares and approve

the following Law:

CHAPTER I

PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS

Art.1 This Law states the Municipal Policy on Climate Change and Sustainable

Development.

Art. 2 For all intents provided in this Law the following concepts are adopted:

I. Adaptation: Group of initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and

human systems in face of the effects of current or expected climate change;

II. Anthropic: Result from human action;

III. Carbon dioxide equivalent: Standard measurement unit used for expressing the amount

of greenhouse gas emissions, considering that the various gases have different degrees

of absorption and reemission of infrared radiation, corresponding to different heating

potentials of the planet's atmosphere, with the carbon dioxide heating potential set to 1,

and the other gas potentials set as multiples of this unit;

IV. Adverse effects from climate change: changes in physical environment or in biota, due to

climate change that have significant detrimental effects over the composition, resilience

or productivity of natural and managed ecosystems, over the functioning of

socioeconomic systems or human health and welfare;

V. Emissions: Releasing of greenhouse gases and/or its precursors in the atmosphere on a

specific area on a set period;

VI. Source: Process or activity which releases greenhouse gases, aerosol or greenhouse gas

precursor into the atmosphere;

VII. Greenhouse gases: Gases belonging to the atmosphere, natural and anthropic, which

absorb and re-release infrared radiation, listed on the Kyoto Protocol – Annex A,

identified by the acronym GHG;

VIII. Impact: Effects from climate change on human and natural systems;

IX. Inventory of greenhouse gas emissions: calculation results of all emissions of human

activities which have any impact on releasing greenhouse gases, related to a specific

territorial unit or institution, during a certain period;

X. Mitigation: Human intervention for source reduction or strengthening of greenhouse gas

sinks;

XI. Climate change: Changes in climate which can be directly or indirectly attributed to

human activity, modifying the global atmosphere composition, and which adds to those

caused by natural climate scalability observed during comparable periods;

XII. Kyoto Protocol: Document approved by the undersigning countries of the Board

Convention on Climate Change of the United Nations, including Brazil, which establishes

a worldwide goal of a 5 per cent reduction on anthropic greenhouse gas emissions, in

comparison with the levels of the 1990 decade, during the agreement period from 2008

to 2012;

XIII. Sink: Any process, activity or mechanism which removes greenhouse gases, aerosol or

greenhouse gas precursor from the atmosphere;

XIV.- Vulnerability: Degree of susceptibility or inability of a system, due to its sensitivity and

adaptation ability, and the character, magnitude and change rate of the climatic variation

to which the referred system is exposed, as well as its ability to deal with the adverse

effects of climate change, such as climatic variability and extreme natural events.

CHAPTER II

PRINCIPLES, OBJECTIVES AND GUIDELINES

Art. 3 The Municipal Policy on Climate Change and Sustainable Development will address

the following principles:

I – sustainable development, based on the international agreements undertaken by Brazil, on

the state legislation regarding the subject, and on Law nº 12.187, of December 29th,

2009, which stated the National Policy of Climate Change;

99

100

II - acknowledgement of the existence of global climate change and the urge for a Municipal

Plan of Climate change and Sustainable Development, as well as programs, projects

and actions directly or indirectly related to climate change and its consequences;

III – prevention, which consists on the adoption of measures capable of mitigating or avoid

dangerous anthropic interference in the climatic system;

IV – mitigation, which consists on the adoption of measures for the reduction of anthropic

emissions of greenhouse gases;

V – polluter-payer, which consists on the acknowledgement that the polluter must be liable

for the costs of environmental damage, avoiding these costs of being passed down to

society.

VI – equity, according to which all taken measures must consider the different socioeconomic

contexts to their application, share the pertaining burdens and charges between the

economic sectors and the population in an equal and balanced way;

VII – transparency and stimulation for society to take part in the advising and decision-

making processes, with access right to information and environmental education, and

access to justice regarding themes related to climate change;

VIII – support for study and research about climate change and their impact and for

development of sustainable technologies;

IX – eco-efficiency, which consists on the management and reasonable and sustainable use

of natural resources;

X – Institutional cooperation on project accomplishment on a regional, national and

international scope, seeking to reduce anthropic greenhouse gas emissions and

promote sustainable development;

XI – internalization of the ventures’ social and environmental costs, taking into account the

local, regional, national and global interests, and the rights of future generations.

Art. 4 The Municipal Policy on Climate Change and Sustainable Development aims at:

I – establishing a strategy for reduction of anthropic emissions of Greenhouse gases on the

City and an adaptation policy to the effects of climate change;

II – promoting effective actions for the necessary protection of the climatic system;

III – securing the compatibility of social and economic development with protection of the

environment and climatic system, in anticipation of sustainable development;

IV – fostering Clean Development Mechanism projects and other instruments and

mechanisms for the reduction of emissions or sinks from greenhouse gases;

V – raising population awareness about climate change and the sense of urgency required

for the prevention and treatment of its consequences;

VI – establishing mechanisms to stimulate changes in production and consumption patterns,

in economical and transport activities, as well as urban and rural land usage, focusing on

the environmental sustainability of the processes and mitigation of the emission of

greenhouse gases and absorption of these gases by sinks;

VII – taking actions to increase the share of renewable energy sources in the County's

energy matrices;

VIII - identifying vulnerabilities and promote effective adaptive actions to the negative impacts

of climate change, mainly for protection of more vulnerable populations and ecosystem;

IX – ensuring the participation of civil society in advisory and decision-making processes,

related to the climate change;

X – providing broad promotion regarding aspects related to climate change;

XI – stimulating research, development and scientific innovation regarding the climatic

system;

XII – supporting the use and exchange of technologies and environmentally responsible

practices for mitigation and adaptation to climate change;

XIII – stimulating cooperation with different government levels, non-governmental

organizations, the private sector, academy and multilateral agencies for implementation

of the climate change policy and support strategies of sustainable development.

Art. 5 The Municipal Policy on Climate Change and Sustainable Development has as its

guidelines:

I – establish measurable, reportable and verifiable objectives for the reduction of anthropic

greenhouse gas emissions in the City;

101

102

II – elaborate, update and publish, every four years, the municipal Greenhouse Gas

Emissions Inventory;

III – promote research, production and reporting of knowledge about the climate change and

vulnerabilities thereof, as well as the setting of mitigation and adaptation measures of

the greenhouse gas emissions in the City;

IV – promote and support the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind

energy, and stimulate the use of natural lighting systems.

V – stimulate gradual substitution of fossil fuels for others with less potential of emission of

Greenhouse gases.

VI – stimulate development, application and transference of technologies, practices and

processes which reduce or prevent anthropic emissions of Greenhouse gases;

VII – promote and support actions of national and international cooperation and the

transference of sustainable technologies;

VIII – stimulate the integration of the municipal government with other governmental levels,

civil society organization, and private and academic sectors, in plans projects, programs

and actions regarding climate change;

IX – stimulate reasonable use of natural resources, promoting a change in social behavior for

the sake of responsible consumption and an incentive to eco-efficiency.

CHAPTER III

GOALS

Art. 6 The goals for reduction of anthropic greenhouse gas emissions – GHG, in Rio de

Janeiro City, for the years 2012, 2016 and 2020, expressed in equivalent carbon dioxide,

in comparison with the City’s emission levels in 2005, are determined as follows:

I – 2012 goal: reduction of GHG emissions by eight per cent;

I – 2016 goal: reduction of GHG emissions by sixteen per cent;

I – 2020 goal: reduction of GHG emissions by twenty per cent;

§ 1 The GHG emission level from Rio de Janeiro City in 2005 is based on the information of

the first municipal inventory, referring to the year of 1998, and the preliminary projections

verified by the inventory updating jobs.

§ 2 The emission volume and GHG reduction goals can be adjusted right after the disclosure

of the final numbers of the emissions inventory update in Rio de Janeiro City.

§ 3 The emissions of GHG coming from the companies settled at Complexo Siderúrgico da

Zona Oeste will be calculated separately from the other GHG emissions of the City and

will receive specific reduction goals, according to Law nº 5.133, of December 22nd,

2009.

§ 4 The companies settled at the Complexo Siderúrgico da Zona Oeste must adopt reduction

and mitigation measures for GHG emissions, for environmental compensation and

transparency of their activities, according to Law nº 5.133, of December 22nd , 2009.

Art. 7 The planning and strategy for the accomplishment of the municipal goals for reduction

of GHG emission must consider an effort of emission reduction as a responsibility of the

City Hall and Federal and State Government actions, as well as the private sector’s

initiatives and the City’s civil society.

Art. 8 The works, programs, actions and projects of the City Hall, including urbanization and

revitalization, at any time possible, should consider the objectives of fulfillment of the

GHG emission reduction goals, and estimate its respective impacts regarding GHG

emissions.

Art. 9 On the bidding and contracts to be made by the organizations and entities from any of

the powers of Rio de Janeiro City, must be taken into account as choosing criteria,

whenever possible, the acquisition of products and services which are environmentally

and socially sustainable.

CHAPTER IV

WASTE AND ADAPTATION STRATEGIES

Section I

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Art. 10. Notwithstanding the provisions in special Law, on actions regarding waste

management, the following guidelines should be observed:

I - reduction of urban waste, residential wastewater and industrial effluent generation;

103

104

II – recycling or reutilization of urban waste, including scrap material from civil construction

and tree pruning, residential wastewater and industrial effluents;

III – treatment and final disposition of waste, preserving sanitary conditions and promoting

reduction of GHG emissions;

IV – supporting of environmentally sustainable production, trading and consumption

standards, in order to prioritize the utilization of materials of lesser environmental impact

and the reduction of waste generation;

V – generation of economic receipts and benefits, including exploitation of carbon credits,

and warranted proper final disposition of waste, through utilization of environmentally

sustainable and energy recycling techniques;

VI – creation of work and income generation mechanisms, directly benefitting more

unassisted populations of the City involved with recycling and waste collection;

VII – safeguarding biodiversity and environment and welfare preservation.

Section II

TRANSPORTS

Art. 11. The transport sector planning and urban mobility in Rio de Janeiro City should

incorporate measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, as established in Art. 6.

Sole Paragraph. Among the measures provided in the main section of this article are:

I – incorporation of climatic dimensioning into road network planning and into offers of

different transport modals;

II – suitability of public transport offer in the City and disencouragement of individual motor

transport usage;

III – rationalization and redistribution of transport demand throughout the road system,

integrating the various modals;

IV – provision of transport model integration and urban mobility in the City;

V – stimulation of non motor transport, with implementation of supporting infrastructure and

operational measures for pedestrians and bicycle users, improving its articulation with

other means of transport;

VI – traffic flow improvement and reduction of traffic jam peaks;

VII – gradual replacement of fossil fuels for low-carbon ones;

VIII – encouragement to renewable fuel usage in the vehicle fleet, such as biofuels;

IX – campaigns to raise awareness of the reasonable use of automobiles and to provide

information regarding the local and global environmental impacts caused by the use of

motor vehicles and individual transport;

X – controlling and monitoring the City's vehicle fleet;

XI – reorganization of the road system and traffic lines to encourage the use of public

transport;

XII – inclusion of criteria for environmental sustainability and GHG mitigation encouragement

to the acquisition of vehicles for the Public Authority fleet and hiring of transport services,

encouraging the use of renewable fuel technology;

XIII – elaboration of a Vehicle Pollution Control Program, based on the inventory of

emissions from mobile sources and air quality monitoring;

XIV – interaction with the Union and competent authorities in the air sector regulation for the

setting of standards and limits to the GHG emissions from air transport activities inside

the City.

Section III

ENERGY

Art. 12. The following measures shall be coordinately executed between the bodies of the

City’s Public Authorities:

I – creation of incentives for decentralized energy production in the City, off of renewable

sources;

II – promotion of efforts for the elimination of subsidies to fossil fuels and the creation of

incentives to the generation and use of renewable energy;

III – promotion and adoption of energy efficiency programs and renewable energy sources in

buildings, industry and transport;

IV – promotion and adoption of a product and process quality labeling program, under the

point of view of energy and climate change;

105

106

V – creation of tax incentives for research related to energy efficiency and the use of

renewable energy sources on energy conversion systems;

VI – promotion of the best standards of energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy

sources in street lighting;

Section IV

RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT

Art. 13. The Public Authorities should adopt encouragement measures to research and

knowledge generation about the climate change, such as:

I – support of scientific research, especially in relevant impact areas regarding climate

change and study of climatic vulnerabilities in the City;

II – dissemination of information and the use of applicable technologies in facing climate

change;

III – encouragement to the installation of companies, within the City, which work on the

development of applicable technologies to combat climate change;

IV – integration of the results of technical and scientific research with governmental actions.

Section V

ADAPTATION ACTIONS TO THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Art. 14. The Municipal Public Authority will adopt a permanent civil defense program focused

on damage prevention, relief assistance and reconstruction of areas affected by extreme

events due to climate change.

Art. 15. The Municipal Civil Defense Program must keep watch of life and health risk factors

in consequence of climate change, as well as implementing necessary prevention and

treatment measures, in order to avoid or minimize impact over public health.

Sole Paragraph. The Municipal Civil Defense Program must include educational actions

focused on damage prevention and relief assistance to the most exposed to extreme

events due to climate change.

Section VI

ECO-EFFICIENCY

Art. 16. The City Government must implement an Eco-efficiency and Environmental

Sustainability Program of resources and consumables of the City Hall of Rio de Janeiro.

Art. 17. The Eco-efficiency and Environmental Sustainability Program must provide for the

effective and reasonable consumption of material resources, such as:

I – water;

II – energy;

III – paper;

IV – fuels and gas.

Sole Paragraph. The Eco-efficiency and Environmental Sustainability Program must

encourage the use of recyclable materials and of lesser impact to the environment, of

low-carbon consumables and renewable energy sources.

Art. 18. The Municipal Public Authority will adopt the following guidelines for the compliance

to the Eco-efficiency and Environmental Sustainability policy:

I – decrease in consumption of services and goods;

II – minimization of waste generation and implementation of selective collection;

III – adoption of less environmentally aggressive technologies;

IV – reduction and compensation of emissions;

V – rationalization of the use of natural resources;

VI – education for sustainability.

CHAPTER V

INSTRUMENTS

Art. 19. The Municipal Policy on Climate Change and Sustainable Development has as its

instruments:

I – Municipal Plan on Climate Change and Sustainable Development;

II – Climate change and Sustainable Development Forum in Rio de Janeiro;

107

108

III – Municipal Fund of Climate Change and Sustainable Development;

IV – Financial, economic and tax incentives to encourage actions of mitigation and

adaptation to climate change;

Art. 20. The Municipal Public Authority will elaborate the Municipal Plan on Climate change

and Sustainable Development, which will contain details about the strategies and actions

provided in Chapter IV of this Law.

Art. 21. It is established the Climate Change and Sustainable Development Forum in Rio de

Janeiro, an advisory instance, aiming to raise awareness and mobilize society and the

government of Rio de Janeiro to discuss the problems derived from climate change and

promote sustainable development, contributing to economic growth, environmental

preservation and social development.

Art. 22. It is established the Municipal Fund of Climate Change and Sustainable

Development, which will direct public and private applications for the development of the

following activities:

I – projects which result into mitigation of GHG emissions in Rio de Janeiro City;

II – encouragement and creation of clean energy projects and technologies on the various

sectors of economy;

III - environmental education and technical qualification in areas related to climate change;

IV – encouragement and support to sustainable and eco-efficient productive chains;

V – research and creation of project and inventory systems and methodologies that

contribute to the reduction of liquid GHG emissions;

VI – projects for adaptation to the impacts of climate change in the City.

Art. 23. The composition of the resources from the Municipal Fund of Climate Change and

Sustainable Development will derive from the following sources:

I – generated revenue from fees for environmental offences;

II – revenue from economic compensations generated from activities with significant potential

of GHG emissions;

III – revenue generated by the Municipal Environmental Fund and the Federal and State

Funds for climate change;

IV – resources generated by partnerships or contracts settled between the City and other

entities of the Federation;

V – budget provisions from the City and additional credits;

VI – applications, inversions, donations, loans and transfers from outer sources, national or

international, public or private.

Art. 24. The Municipal Public Authority will establish criteria and procedures for the

elaboration of carbon neutralization and compensation projects in the City.

CHAPTER VI

FINAL PROVISIONS

Art. 25. Environmental licenses for ventures with significant GHG emission will be subjected

to the presentation of an emission mitigation plan and compensational measures, in the

form of specific legislation.

Art. 26. The Public Authority will edit the acts deemed necessary for the regulation of the

present Law.

Art. 27. This Law will take effect from the date of its publication.

EDUARDO PAES

Mayor of Rio de Janeiro City

Published in the Official Gazette of Rio de Janeiro City

on January 28th, 2011.

109