BIOMASS, LIVELIHOODS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE€¦ · on sub-Saharan Africa, a summary regarding the significance of modern vs. traditional biomass, and a brief discussion on sustainable

BIOMASS, LIVELIHOODS ANDINTERNATIONAL TRADE

Challenges and Opportunities for the EU and Southern Africa

Francis X. JohnsonStockholm Environment Institute, Climate and Energy Programme

and

Frank Rosillo-CalleImperial College London, Centre for Energy Policy and Technology

February 2007

SEI Climate and Energy Report 2007-01

Stockholm Environment InstituteKräftriket 2B

SE -106 91 StockholmSweden

Tel:+46 8 674 7070; Fax +46 8 674 7020E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.sei.se

Communications Manager: Anh Dung NguyenPublications Manager: Erik WillisWeb Access: Howard Cambridge

Photo credit (inside front cover): Kalaluka Munyinda, UNZA, ZambiaPhoto credit (inside back cover): Francis X. Johnson, SEI

This report is available on line (http://www.sei.se)

Editing: Anil Kumar & Shovna Upadhyay, Winrock International India, IndiaLayout & Design: Jaison Jose, Winrock International India, India

Copyright 2006 by the Stockholm Environment Institute. This publication may be reproducedin whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes, without specialpermission from the copyright holder(s) provided acknowledgement of the source is made. Nouse of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial purpose, without thewritten permission of the copyright holder(s).

ISBN: 978-91-976022-3-5

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Cross-Out

BIOMASS, LIVELIHOODS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

CONTENTS

Preface ......................................................................................................................... vAcknowledgements and Disclaimer ................................................................................ vi1. Background on Biomass and Bio-energy .................................................................. 1

1.1 Biomass resources ............................................................................................... 11.2 Biomass in the global energy supply ....................................................................... 21.3 Traditional biomass in sub-Saharan Africa ............................................................... 21.4 From traditional to modern bio-energy .................................................................... 31.5 Bio-energy conversion options ............................................................................... 41.6 Global bio-energy potential ................................................................................... 71.7 Biomass and sustainable livelihoods ....................................................................... 9

2. SADC Regional Overview .......................................................................................... 112.1 Land use patterns ................................................................................................ 112.2 Income and population ......................................................................................... 112.3 Energy/development indicators .............................................................................. 122.4 Biomass use in the SADC region ............................................................................ 142.5 SADC biofuels strategy ......................................................................................... 162.6 International trade ............................................................................................... 172.7 Opportunities and constraints ................................................................................ 18

3. Markets for Modern Bio-energy ................................................................................ 193.1 Land use and ownership ....................................................................................... 193.2 Harvesting, delivery and transport.......................................................................... 213.3 Environmental impacts ......................................................................................... 223.4 Socio-economic impacts ........................................................................................ 243.5 Sustainability criteria ............................................................................................ 25

4. Regional and Global Markets for Biofuels ................................................................. 274.1 Historical overview ............................................................................................... 274.2 Biofuels in Brazil .................................................................................................. 294.3 EU bio-energy policies and programmes .................................................................. 314.4 Biofuels in other countries/regions ......................................................................... 334.5 International trade in biofuels ................................................................................ 34

5. Policies and Programmes in Selected SADC Countries .............................................. 365.1 Overview of policies and programmes in Tanzania .................................................... 365.2 Bioenergy options and energy policies in Zambia ...................................................... 375.3 The Malawi ethanol programme ............................................................................. 395.4 The cogeneration programme in Mauritius ............................................................. 395.5 Farming for Livelihoods in Southern Africa (FELISA).................................................. 425.6 Small-scale ethanol production in Zambia ............................................................... 43

6. Strategic Issues and Priorities ................................................................................. 456.1 Household and small industry use of traditional biomass ........................................... 456.2 Role of for mechanisation ...................................................................................... 456.3 Regional markets vs. international markets ............................................................. 466.4 Implementation strategies ..................................................................................... 47

7. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 487.1 Scientific analysis and research .............................................................................. 487.2 Policy analysis/research ........................................................................................ 487.3 Training/capacity building ...................................................................................... 497.4 Demonstration projects ......................................................................................... 497.5 Programme development ...................................................................................... 49

8. References ............................................................................................................... 50

Annex I : Summary of Workshop Deliberations and Events ................................................ 53Annex II : List of Participants .......................................................................................... 57Annex III : Workshop Programme ..................................................................................... 59Annex IV : Beaufort Court – Zero Emissions Building .......................................................... 61Annex V : Information on Friars Court Farm...................................................................... 64Annex VI : Seminar Programme ....................................................................................... 65Annex VII : International Networks and Partnerships ........................................................... 66

iii

iv


Figure 1a : Shares in 2001 of global primary energy (418 EJ) ............................................... 2Figure 1b : Shares in 2001 of total renewable energy consumption (57 EJ) ............................. 2Figure 2a : Primary energy in sub-Saharan Africa, 2001 ....................................................... 3Figure 2b : Primary energy in sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa), 2001..................... 3Figure 3 : Various conversion routes for biomass to bio-energy ............................................ 5Figure 4 : Global 2050 bio-energy potential for residues & abandoned agricultural land........... 8Figure 5 : Sustainable Livelihoods Approach ...................................................................... 9Figure 6 : Map of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) as of 2005 .............. 11Figure 7 : Five-year average production levels in SADC for selected ethanol feedstock ............ 15Figure 8 : Five-year average production levels in SADC for selected bio-diesel feedstock ......... 15Figure 9 : Value of exports in different economic groups or zones in Africa ............................ 17Figure 10 : Annual average growth rates in exports in different economic zones, 2000-2004 ..... 17Figure 11 : Production of various products from palm oil ....................................................... 42

Table 1 : Land use summary for SADC and selected countries/regions in 2003-2004 ............. 12Table 2 : GDP and population summary for SADC and selected countries/regions in 2003-2004 13Table 3 : Energy/development indicators for SADC countries for 2002 ................................. 13Table 4 : Selected forest product consumption indicators in SADC countries, 2002 ................ 14Table 5 : Ethanol production

1 by country or region (billion litres) ......................................... 28

Table 6 : Biodiesel production by country or region (million litres) ....................................... 29Table 7 : Overview of plant capacities in Mauritius ............................................................ 41Table 8 : Production using sweet sorghum vs. sugarcane ................................................... 44

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Cross-Out

v


PREFACE

This report is an outcome of a workshop held on 29-30 April 2005, in London, entitled, “Biomass, SustainableLivelihoods, and International Trade: Challenges and Opportunities for the EU and southern Africa.” Theworkshop focused on the intersection of these three topics by addressing the questions of how biomass andbio-energy can contribute to creating livelihoods, while also promoting trade and sustainable development.Special emphasis was placed on international cooperation between two economic blocks: the European Union(EU) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

Initially this report was expected to be a point-of-reference on some of the issues raised at the workshop, and inthe follow-up discussions that took place among the participants, and their associates during the summer andfall of 2005. However, the fast-moving pace of issues relating to expansion of bioenergy production, consumptionand trade during the past year required a different approach. Consequently, over the past year the authors haveexpanded the report into a longer review, with background and details on the topics and regions. Some of theworkshop participants also made contributions to this follow-up effort. It is hoped that the report will stimulatenew ideas and partnerships not only for policy analysis/research, but also for the design and implementation ofdevelopment cooperation programmes.

The rapid changes occurring around the world in relation to these issues during the past year, particularly in thearea of biofuels production and trade, complicated the task of writing the report. The dynamic nature ofanalysis and research that is intended to have strong policy relevance necessarily makes any documentation ofthis type incomplete. An attempt has been made by the authors, wherever possible, to update the report basedon policy developments during the past year.

The workshop served as a starting point for scoping out some key issues and creating contacts and partnershipsin the framework of North-South and North-South-South cooperation. The considerable amount of materialand the diversity of topics have made it difficult to develop an agenda for further action. The authors have,therefore, expanded significantly on the fundamental themes, with the result that this is not a report on theworkshop, but instead a review of current trends and a discussion of how to follow up on some of the keyissues. The workshop documents are included in the appendices.

The report is not intended to cover any of the topics comprehensively, and therefore it cannot be regarded as aliterature review. The topics are far too broad for such a review, and they draw on highly diverse areas of studyand disciplines. It is more appropriate to categorise the report as a “stylised” review, i.e. a review that is undertakenin light of a particular policy research profile, as well as, in recognition of the topical nature of the issuesaddressed and the associated near-term policy goals. The report mentions, wherever possible, references thatcan offer the reader a more comprehensive review of specific topics and/or technical details. It is hoped that thereport can help to elucidate some heretofore uncovered synergies and conflicts among the various energy,environment, and development objectives that are identified, along with the associated policies and institutionsthat attempt to achieve such objectives.

francis

Cross-Out

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER

vi

Thanks are extended to all those who provided valuable assistance in implementing the workshop and in preparingthis report:� Maria Morales, Solveig Nilsson, and Monica Ng Wing Tin were instrumental in organising the workshop

and in the logistical arrangements for the participants� Dr. Jeremy Woods provided valuable assistance in developing the workshop programme, and organising

study tours� David Matthews (Themba Tech.) and John Willmer (Friars Court) hosted study tours� Nicholas Hughes drafted some of the material on social and environmental impacts and the results of

biomass feedstock working groups� Monica Ng Wing Tin drafted sections on recommendations that resulted from the workshop� Margaret Matinga provided useful feedback on some of the key issues identified� Helen Watson provided material on land use and agronomy� Contributions to various sections on country policy/programme overviews and policy/institutional issues

were provided by Edith Chilembo, Vikram Seebaluck, Francis Songela, Mary Swai, and Sudhirendar Sharma� Yong Chen (SEI) consolidated and edited some of the country case studies

Other useful contributions were provided by some of the participants during and after the workshop. Apologiesare extended to those who may have made specific contributions but are not mentioned here.

Thanks to the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) for financial support.

The authors are responsible for the contents of the report, which does not necessarily represent the views heldby their respective organisations or of Sida.


T his section provides some workingdefinitions, an overview of current bio-energy use and potential with an emphasis

on sub-Saharan Africa, a summary regarding thesignificance of modern vs. traditional biomass, and abrief discussion on sustainable livelihoods. Note thatthis report is quite limited with respect to bio-energyoptions and impacts. Given the complexity andtremendous diversity involved, a full review ofmodern bio-energy options and their impacts is farbeyond the scope of this report. The reader istherefore referred instead to view a review on the topic(World Bank, 2005).

1.1 Biomass resourcesBiomass is living matter derived from plants andanimals, and energy production sources from biomassare often divided into two main categories: biomasswastes (or residues) and energy crops. Biomass wastesor residues refer to the remaining biomass afterharvesting and after processing. The two categoriesdiffer significantly in the economics of their utilisationas well as in biophysical terms:� Biomass wastes and residues include forestryresidues; agricultural residues (e.g. sugarcane bagasse,cereal husks, straws), urban organic wastes, and animalwastes. They normally offer the most widely availableand least-cost biomass resource options. The principalchallenge is to develop or adapt reliable, cost-effectivehandling methods and conversion technologies (Leachand Johnson, 1999).� Dedicated energy crops refer to plantations oftrees, grasses and other energy crops. Bio-energyplantations are optimised for energy production,through which the harvested biomass is used directlyafter processing, or serves as feedstock for furtherproduction of more specialised liquid, gaseous or solidfuels. The principal challenge centres on loweringbiomass production costs, and reducing risks forbiomass growers (e.g. stable prices) and energyproducers (e.g. guaranteed biomass supply).

These approaches can be—and generally are—mixed,by growing biomass for profitable non-energypurposes (e.g. timber) and using the harvest residuesfor bio-energy. In some eucalyptus plantations inBrazil, about 80-90% of the biomass is used for

timber, with the remaining 10-20% used for energyproduction internally or for sale to other markets. Insome regions, mixed approaches will provide the mostattractive long-term option, given huge projectedglobal demands for wood products and the possiblescarcity of suitable land in the long-term for dedicatedenergy crops once basic food and fibre needs are met.Future scenarios for bio-energy trade should includeconsideration of timber markets, as the two marketsmay be in conflict in some cases (Smeets et al, 2004).

It is important to assess bio-energy within the overallbiomass resource base and the socioeconomic contextof the affected communities, i.e. biomass is much tooimportant and complex to be viewed only as a sourceof bio-energy! The trade-offs among the manydifferent uses of biomass are often summarised interms of the 4Fs: Food, Feed, Fibre, and Fuel. Eventhis division into four categories is much toosimplified; biomass serves many inter-connected andcritical functions/services. These include:� shelter, housing, household materials;� livelihoods, entrepreneurship, local business

opportunities;� maintenance of biodiversity;� ecosystem functions and integrity;� nutrient cycles and functional synergies;� water quality, erosion control, watershed

maintenance;� recreation, peacefulness, tranquillity, wildlife

observation;� contribution to human dignity and equality;� shaping the role of citizens and communities as

caretakers; and� resource base for future generations.

The use of biomass for energy needs to be undertakenin such a way that it does not detract from other usesof biomass to the extent that the overall biomassresource base is degraded. Such constraints do notimply, however, that all uses must be treated equally.The differing valuation applied to different uses byindividuals and societies must be weighed together,in a continuous process relating to the evolvingeconomy and ecology of regions, as well as in globalterms. It would be inequitable, for example, that alarge forest is maintained intact only for recreation,

1

Background on Biomass and Bio-energy


1

2


when nearby inhabitants depend on the resources ofthat forest for their very survival. By the same token,irreversible damage should not be permitted to foreststhat have unique cultural or ecological value, whereother resources could reasonably be substituted. Theresolution of the trade-offs involved at local, national,regional, and global scales will directly impact thefuture use of biomass in the energy supply.

1.2 Biomass in the global energysupplyBiomass accounts for about 11% of total primaryenergy consumed globally, more than otherrenewables and nuclear power together. Fossil fuelscontinue to account for the overwhelming share ofglobal energy consumption, together accounting fornearly 80% of the total. Other renewables, includinghydro, account for only 3% of all primary energyconsumption. (Figure 1a). Biomass is also by far themost significant among renewable energy sources,accounting for about 80% of renewables used (Figure1b). Modern bio-energy could potentially surpass largehydro in the coming years, given the significant rateof growth in liquid and solid biomass use and theincreasing reluctance in many regions of the world toaccept the environmental impacts of large-scale hydro.

Expansion and trade in bio-energy, and particularlyliquid biofuels, has also taken on more strategicpolitical importance in recent years due to a numberof issues: higher oil prices and the near-term prospectof a peak in global oil production; regional energytrade disruptions related to gas and oil supplies; andthe growing energy import dependence of manyregions. In the case of solid biomass, the availabilityof high-efficiency applications at many scales—including households, small industry, and cogenerationplants—has opened up new markets for bio-energy.Prepared and compacted forms of biomass, such aspellets, have facilitated the growth of bio-energy inmany countries and created new livelihoods in rural areasthat were in economic decline. Conversion technologieshave evolved with the expansion in biomass productionand have been optimised for various types of biomasssupply and operating conditions.

Such modern and efficient uses of biomass are stillthe exception in global terms. The overwhelmingmajority of biomass energy—over 85%—isconsumed as solid fuels in traditional uses at lowefficiencies for cooking, heating, and lighting. Theconsumers are more than two billion people that rely

Figure 1a: Shares in 2001 of global primary energy(418 EJ). Source: UNDP (2004)

Figure 1b: Shares in 2001 of total renewable energyconsumption (57 EJ). Source: UNDP (2004)

on traditional biomass fuels and have no access tomodern energy services (UNDP, 2004). The impactfrom lack of access to modern energy is felt in manyways—the harmful effects of indoor air pollution,the tremendous amount of time devoted to gatheringfirewood and water, the lack of health and educationservices that require electricity and reliable energysupplies, and many other problems. The two billionpeople lacking access to electricity have inadequatelighting and few labour-saving devices, as well aslimited telecommunications and possibilities forcommercial enterprise. Greater access to electricityand modern fuels would open up new economicopportunities, as well as providing basic amenities thatare taken for granted in the OECD countries.

1.3 Traditional biomass in sub-Saharan AfricaThe dependence on biomass in sub-Saharan Africa isfar greater than in any other world region, accountingfor over 61% of primary energy consumption, andover 71% if South Africa is excluded (Figures 2a and

3


2b), with nearly all of this biomass being consumedfor traditional uses. Biomass sources for traditionaluse include residues from agricultural and industry aswell as, wood gathered or planted, although theoverwhelming majority is from forest-based sourcesand consumed directly or as charcoal. In some Africancountries, over 95% of household fuel use is biomassfrom woodfuel or charcoal.

The use of modern and much more efficient bio-energy has generally been limited to those industrieswhere residues are available on-site as part of theprocessing, such as timber mills and sugar factories.Some traditional forms of converted biomass,particularly charcoal, have also seen more widespreaduse in industry. There have also been some limiteduses of liquid biofuels for transport and gaseousbiofuels for small-scale applications.

The deforestation in developing countries that wasobserved and discussed in the 1970s was at firstattributed to household consumption for woodfuel

and charcoal, but subsequent research later showedthat the deforestation was in fact attributable mainlyto companies and industries that were clearing landfor agricultural uses and timber (WEC, 1999). Anothersignificant user of woodfuel in some regions has beenlocal industries that use it to provide energy for small-scale activities such as brick-making. Furthermore, thenotion that communities would quickly descend intoa “Tragedy of the Commons” in their use of forestresources turned out to be a gross simplification thatignored the role of informal institutions. Localcommunities that had control over their own resourcesoften showed a marked ability to implement informalcustoms and institutions that would preserve someland and forest for future uses (Leach and Mearns,1988).

Household use of fuelwood and charcoal has seriousimpacts on health. Some estimates have suggestedthat indoor air pollution results in the premature deathof 1.6 million persons in sub-Saharan Africa, with adisproportionate number of them being women andchildren, as they spend more time indoors.Consequently, indoor air pollution ranks with AIDS,malaria, and tuberculosis as the leading cause of deathin the region. Where liquid fuels such as kerosene areused, safety and health have also become majorconcerns, due to the difficulty in controlling its use.Cleaner and safer renewable fuels, such as gel fuelmade from bio-ethanol, have been proposed as asolution to health and safety issues that can takeadvantage of the region’s under-utilised agriculturalcapacity (Utria 2004).

Although consumption of biomass for traditional usescan be sustainable under certain conditions, it isdifficult in the longer-term to sustain traditional usesof biomass, not only due to their low efficiency butbecause of the difficulty in controlling the level andquality of energy services provided. A transition fromtraditional to modern bio-energy in the developingworld is thus an important element in the globaltransition to sustainable energy.

1.4 From traditional to modernbio-energyThe transition from traditional uses of biomass forenergy to more efficient and higher quality “modern”bio-energy, is important for many reasons, butforemost for the following:� Modern bio-energy provides higher quality energyservices that are more versatile and more efficient than

Figure 2a: Primary energy in sub-Saharan Africa,2001. Source: UNDP (2004)

Figure 2b: Primary energy in sub-Saharan Africa(excluding South Africa), 2001. Source: UNDP (2004)

4


traditional bio-energy. Traditional use of solid biomassas fuel can only deliver poorly-controllable heat,whereas modern bio-energy can deliver a variety ofefficient and well-controllable energy services (Leachand Johnson, 1999).� Assuming that environmental impacts areappropriately incorporated into overall system designs,modern bio-energy is much more likely to be sustainablein the long-term compared to traditional uses, due tosavings in land, water, and other resources as a result ofhigher efficiency and greater precision in matching themode of implementation to the differing needs ofenergy users in particular applications.

Like other renewable sources, bio-energy can makevaluable contributions in climate mitigation and inthe overall transition towards sustainable energy. Atthe same time, bio-energy also has a rather specialstatus among renewable energy sources. Modern bio-energy will inevitably play a leading role in the globaltransition to clean and sustainable energy because ithas two decisive advantages over other renewables:� Biomass is stored energy like fossil fuels, it can bedrawn on at any time. This is in sharp contrast todaily or seasonally intermittent solar, wind, wave andsmall hydro sources, whose contributions are allconstrained by the high costs of energy storage;� Biomass can produce all forms of energy, i.e.energy carriers, for modern economies: electricity, gas,liquid fuels, and heat. Energy from solar, wind, waveand hydro are limited to electricity and in some casesheat. Indeed, biomass energy systems can oftenproduce energy in several different carriers from thesame facility or implementation platform, therebyenhancing economic feasibility and reducingenvironmental impacts.

For developing countries, modern bio-energy hasseveral other advantages providing developmentbenefits in addition to improving energy services:� Provides rural jobs and income to people who growor harvest the bio-energy resources (it is more labour-intensive than other energy resources);� Increases profitability in the agriculture, food-processing and forestry sectors. Biomass residues andwastes—often with substantial disposal costs—caninstead be converted to energy for sale or for internaluse to reduce energy bills;� Helps to restore degraded lands. Growing trees,shrubs or grasses can reverse damage to soils, withenergy production and sales as a valuable bonus.

In a nutshell, modern bio-energy systems offerdeveloping countries an opportunity to transform theinefficient traditional biomass sector into an efficientand competitive bio-energy industry. Technicaladvances are steadily improving the economicattractiveness of this transition, while at the same timesocial and environmental concerns are making themmore politically attractive.

1.5 Bio-energy conversion optionsThe scales at which modern bioenergy conversionsystems become economically competitive varyconsiderably with the local conditions and the natureof the energy demand. At one end, there is increasinginterest in large-scale plantations up to 100,000 hafor production of liquid biofuels and cogenerationapplications. At the other end are village-scale systems,such as the famous 5 kWh biogas-diesel generatorsystem in Pura in southern India, which provideselectricity and clean drinking water to households. Theuse of nearby sources of biomass residues incombination with dedicated energy crops couldincrease sustainability and ease system management.This section briefly reviews bio-energy conversionoptions.

There are different routes for converting biomass tobio-energy, involving various biological, chemical, andthermal processes. The major routes are depicted inFigure 3. The conversion can either result in finalproducts, or may provide building blocks for furtherprocessing. The routes are not always mutuallyexclusive, as there are some combinations ofprocesses that can be considered as well. Furthermore,there are often multiple energy and non-energyproducts or services from a particular conversionroute, some of which may or may not have reachedcommercial levels of supply and demand. Thedescriptions in this section are only intended toprovide a simple overview of the conversionprocesses, routes and products, and not any type ofexhaustive or comprehensive accounting.

� Biological conversionBiological conversion is well-established, with the twomain routes being fermentation and anaerobicdigestion. Sugar and starch crops provide thefeedstocks for the process of fermentation, in whicha catalyst is used to convert the sugars into an alcohol,more commonly known as bio-ethanol. Alternatively,any lignocellolosic source can be used as feedstockby hydrolysing it, i.e. breaking it down into its

5


components. The reaction is catalysed by enzymes oracids. Acid hydrolysis offers a more mature conversionplatform, but enzymatic hydrolysis appears to offerthe best long-term option in terms of technicalefficiency. Lignocellulosic conversion would greatlyincrease the supply of raw materials available for bio-ethanol production. The lignin residues could be usedas fuel for the energy required and even providesurplus energy, resulting in significantly improvedenergy balances and reductions in GHG emissions.

Anaerobic digestion uses micro-organisms to producemethane from various biomass source in a low oxygenenvironment. Methane gas can be used directly forcooking or heating, as is common in China, or it canbe used for electricity or for heat production. Fortransport applications, biogas is used in compressedform, as is natural gas. Biogas can also be upgraded, i.e.cleaned of impurities and then fed into natural gaspipelines. Both bio-ethanol and biogas are commonlyused in buses and other fleet vehicles in cities such asStockholm and in the Midwestern region of the U.S.The waste stream from bio-ethanol production, knownas vinasse, can be further converted through anaerobicdigestion, creating a further step in a “cascade” ofenergy extraction processes.

� CombustionCombustion is simply thermal processing, or burningof biomass. In a simple case, this process can takeplace in the combustion chamber in a furnace.

Combustion technologies play a key role throughoutthe world, producing about 90% of the energyobtained from biomass (including traditional uses).Combustion technologies convert biomass fuels intoseveral forms of useful energy, such as hot water,steam and electricity. Commercial and industrialcombustion plants can burn many types of biomassranging from woody to municipal solid waste (MSW).The hot gases released as biomass fuel contain about85% of the fuel’s potential energy.

A biomass-fired boiler is an adaptable technology thatconverts biomass to electricity, mechanical energy orheat. Biomass combustion facilities that generateelectricity from steam-driven turbine generators havea conversion efficiency of 17% to 25%, but withcogeneration can increase this efficiency to almost85%. The large-scale combustion systems use mostlylow-quality fuels, while high-quality fuels are morefrequently used in smaller systems (IEA, 2005).Combustion technology still needs to be optimised.In particular, there is a need to meet demand for lowercosts, by increasing fuel flexibility, lowering emissionsand increasing efficiency. Other technical issues thatneed to be addressed include flue gas cleaning,particulate formation, multi-components and multi-phase systems, NOx and SOx formation, improvedsafety and simplified operations.

� Co-firingCo-firing is opening many new possibilities for the

Figure 3: Various conversion routes for biomass to bioenergy

6


utilisation of biomass in much larger-scale, if someof the technical, social, and supply problems can beovercome satisfactorily. Co-firing of biomass withfossil fuels, primarily coal or lignite, has received muchattention particularly in the EU and USA. Biomasscan be blended with coal in differing proportions,ranging from 2% to 25% or more. Extensive testsshow that biomass energy could provide, on average,about 15% of the total energy input with only minortechnical modifications. Since large-scale boilers forelectric power range from 100 MW to 1.3 GW, thebiomass potential in a single boiler ranges from 15MW to 150 MW.

The main advantages of co-firing include:� existence of an established market for CHP;� lower investment compared to biomass-only plant

(i.e. minor modification in existing coal-firedboiler);

� flexibility in arranging and integrating the maincomponents into existing plants (i.e. use of existingplant capacity and infrastructure);

� favourable environmental impacts compared tocoal-only plants;

� potentially lower local feedstock costs (i.e. use ofagro-forestry residues);

� waste disposal benefits (i.e. use of biomass-basedwastes reduces need for land-based waste disposal)

� potential availability of large amounts of feedstock(biomass/waste);

� higher efficiency for converting biomass toelectricity compared to 100% wood-fired boilers.Biomass conversion efficiency would be 33-37%when fired with coal, compared to 20-30% forbiomass-only; and

� special permits (i.e. related to waste combustion)are not required in most cases

Currently, about 40% of the world’s electricity isproduced by coal-fired power stations in over 80countries. About 100 GWe of coal-fired plant capacityis over 40 years old, rising to as much as 500 GWewithin the next 20 years. More co-utilisation of coalwith natural gas and biomass would also reduce GHGemissions. Globally, co-firing with biomass could bedeployed on an installed plant capacity of 100 GWe.A European study found that the cost of CO2

reduction for CHP based on either coal or biomasswas around half the cost of exchanging old coal-firedpower stations with new clean coal technology (IEA,2005).

� GasificationGasification is another major alternative, currently oneof the most important RD&D areas in biomass forpower generation, as it is the main alternative to directcombustion. The importance of this technology reliesin the fact that it can take advantage of advancedturbine designs and heat-recovery steam generatorsto achieve high energy efficiency. The first successfuldemonstration of biomass gasification at commercialscale was at Värnamo in southern Sweden, in ademonstration programme funded by the EC and theSwedish Energy agency, and carried out during 1996-2000, using a pressurised design (Sydkraft, 2001). Thetechnical functioning had high reliability, and futureimprovements are aimed at refinements and cost-saving measures.

Gasification technology is not new; the process hasbeen used for over 150 years. In the 1850s, much ofLondon was illuminated by “town gas”, producedfrom the gasification of coal. Currently, gasificationonly for heat production has reached commercialstatus. Biogass gasification for electricity productionhas reached commercialisation in the past 5-10 yearswith over 90 installations and over 60 manufacturesaround the world. The main attractions of gasificationare (Walter et al, 2000):� higher electrical efficiency (e.g. 40%+ compared

with combustion 26-30%);� possibility for substantial new developments e.g.

advanced gas turbines, fuel cells, etc.;� possible replacement of natural gas or diesel fuel

use in industrial boilers and furnaces;� distributed power generation where power demand

is low; and� displacement of gasoline or diesel in an internal

combustion (IC) engine.

� PyrolysisThe main advantage that pyrolysis offers overgasification is a wide range of products that canpotentially be obtained, ranging from transportationfuel to chemical feedstock. Considerable amount ofresearch has gone into pyrolysis in the past decadein many countries. After many ups-and-downs, thefirst commercial plants are coming into operation.Any form of biomass can be used (over 100different biomass types have been tested in labsaround the world), but cellulose gives the highestyields at around 85-90% wt on dry feed. Liquid oilsobtained from pyrolysis have been tested for shortperiods on gas turbines and engines with some initial

7


success, but long-term data is still lacking. (Brammer,2006).

Pyrolysis of biomass generates three main energyproducts in different quantities: coke, oils and gases.Flash pyrolysis gives high oil yields, but still needs toovercome some technical problems needed to obtainpyrolytic oils. However, fast pyrolysis is one of themost recently emerging biomass technologies usedto convert biomass feedstock into higher valueproducts. Commercial interest in pyrolysis is relatedto the many energy and non-energy products that canpotentially be obtained, particularly liquid fuels, andalso the large number of chemicals (e.g. adhesives,organic chemicals, and flavouring) that offercompanies good possibilities for increasing revenues.

� Chemical conversion from oil-bearingcropsOils derived from oilseeds and oil-bearing plants canbe used directly in some applications, and can evenbe blended with petroleum diesel in limited amounts.Some restrictions are necessary depending on theengine type and measures are also needed to avoidsolidification of the fuel in cold climates, since theydiffer in freezing points. Because the effect on enginesvaries with both engine type and the raw material used,there is still debate on how much straight vegetableoil (SVO) can be blended with petroleum dieselwithout damaging the engine or its associated parts.Consequently, SVOs, as well as used cooking greaseand other sources of raw oils, are generally used forlocal applications based on experience with specificapplications, and are less likely to be internationallytraded as a commodity for direct use.

The refined versions of SVOs, on the other hand,can potentially be fully interchangeable with petroleumdiesel, and are therefore preferred for internationaltrade. The raw oils can be imported and the refiningdone locally, as is the case with petroleum. Thechemical refining process is refer red to astransesterification, since it involves the transformationof one ester compound into another, a process thatalso transforms one alcohol into another. Glycerol—a viscous, colourless, odourless, and hygroscopic

1

liquid—is a valuable by-product of the process, andis an important raw material for variouspharmaceutical, industrial, and household products.

Yet another set of options associated with these bio-chemical conversion processes relates to the creationof various carbon-rich compounds from glycerol andthe fatty acids that comprise it. The carbon-rich chainsform building blocks for a variety of products thatcould potentially be produced, which are to someextent bio-degradable and are the result of biologicalprocesses. Such platforms might be based on thecarbon chains C2 and C3, which would in somerespects lead to bio-refining processes that areanalogous to the petroleum refining process.Movement towards a bio-based economy is generallyrecognised as a fundamental characteristic of theoverall transition to sustainability (NAAC, 2001). Suchplatforms are not reviewed in this report, but thetremendous future potential warrants much moreinvestment in research, development, anddemonstration.

� Bio-diesel from algaeAn interesting option for the future is the productionof bio-diesel from algae. The production of algae toharvest oil for bio-diesel has not yet been undertakenon a commercial-scale, but feasibility studies havesuggested high yields, as some algae have oil contentgreater than 50%. In addition to its projected highyield, algae-culture—unlike crop-based biofuels—ismuch less likely to conflict with food production, sinceit requires neither farmland nor fresh water. Someestimates suggest that the potential exists to supplytotal global vehicular fuel with bio-diesel, based onusing the most efficient algae, which can generally begrown on algae ponds at wastewater treatment plants(Briggs, 2004). The dried remainder after bio-dieselproduction can be further reprocessed to makeethanol. The possibility to make both bio-diesel andbio-ethanol from the same feedstock could acceleratebiofuels market expansion considerably.

Several pilot projects and initiatives have started duringthe past year. A company in New Zealand recentlyproduced its first sample of bio-diesel fuel made fromalgae found in sewage ponds. Unlike previousattempts, the algae were naturally grown in ponddischarge from the nearby sewage treatment works(NZT, 2006). In South Africa, in November 2006, acommercial-scale bio-diesel project was announced.Using American-made, closed bioreactors, it isexpected to produce 37.9 million litres a day of bio-diesel within a couple of years. The bioreactors willinitially use sunflower oil as feedstock, but one of theplants will be used as a pilot plant for using oils from

1 Refers to substances that readily absorb water from their

surroundings.

8


algae, and it is envisioned that eventually only algae-based oils will be used (Green Star, 2006).

1.6 Global bio-energy potentialBiomass that is produced in tropical and sub-tropicalclimates has an average productivity that is over5 times higher than that of biomass grown in thetemperate regions of Europe and North America (ElBassam, 1998). Since developing countries are locatedpredominantly in the warmer climates and lowerlatitudes, they have a tremendous comparativeadvantage. However, most research and developmentfunding, as well as a considerable amount of directsubsidies are provided for the production of biomassin the EU and in North America, where technologyand strong infrastructure can compensate somewhatfor the natural disadvantage.

A recent study found that the bio-energy potential insub-Saharan Africa—after accounting for foodproduction and resource constraints—is the most ofany of the major world regions (Smeets et al, 2004).Using four scenarios, the potentials were estimatedusing the IMAGE model and included variouscategories of biomass, among which residues and

abandoned agricultural land were the most significantglobally (Figure 4). The high potential results fromthe large areas of suitable cropland in the region, largeareas of pasture land presently used and the lowproductivity of existing agricultural productionsystems. Estimates of the long-term bio-energypotential for the region can serve as guidelines fordevelopment strategies that can harness the biomassresource base in a sustainable manner.

Overall, the global potential range from 30% to over200% of current total energy consumption (recallFigure 1a). Other sources of bio-energy that are notincluded in the potential above include animal wastes,organic wastes such as MSW, and bio-energy fromnatural forest growth. Inclusion of such sources wouldincrease the potential by an additional 10% to 50%,depending on the assumptions (Smeets et al, 2004).It is also important to note that water-based bioenergyproduction is generally not included in these estimates,the potential for which could be quite large, such asin the case of algae-oils that are used for bio-dieselproduction (Briggs, 2004).

It is important to note that these are techno-economic

Scenario/assumptions for Figure 4 1 2 3 4

Feed conversion efficiency high high high highAnimal production system (pastoral, mixed, landless) mixed mixed landless landlessLevel of technology for crop production very high very high very high super highWater supply for agriculture rain-fed rain-fed + rain-fed + rain-fed +

only irrigation irrigation irrigation

Figure 4: Global 2050 bio-energy potential for residues & abandoned agricultural land

Source: Smeets et al (2004)

9


potentials, and there will inevitably be social andcultural issues that would restrict use of some landsfor energy production. Nevertheless, the tremendouspotential for bio-energy, after accounting for foodproduction, means that the margin for futuredevelopment is significant. The concentration of thepotential in sub-Saharan Africa in combination withthe lack of potential in Europe poses interestingquestions for future development and trade in bio-energy. The bio-energy and biofuels policies followedin the EU could offer new export marketopportunities for sub-Saharan Africa and otherdeveloping countries.

Given the high level of poverty and malnutritionfound in many developing countries, food securitywill generally take preference over energy production.The food vs. fuel debate is sometimes used todiscourage bio-energy development, even thoughthere is not necessarily a negative correlation betweenfood and fuel, and in fact there are many positiveeconomic linkages that can arise (Moreira, 2003). Arecent study suggested that there are synergiesbetween food and fuel production, with the result thatproduction increases for food and fuel will go hand-in-hand, especially, as new agro-industrialbiotechnology methods are deployed. Furthermore,where equity concerns can be addressed, the incomeprovided from bio-energy production can in somecases more than compensate for displaced foodproduction. Where large-scale displacement occurs,it is vital that policies and institutions re-direct suchincome towards investment in greater agriculturalproductivity and address distributional issues relatedto the benefits accrued.

Another issue that will inevitably arise in the long-term in some regions of sub-Saharan Africa is theavailability of water for irrigation in agriculture, whichmight reduce the potentials achievable in scenarios 2,3 and 4. Some regions and countries, particularly SouthAfrica, are projected to be water deficient by 2015 or2020. However, there is already a significant amountof irrigation in some regions, and therefore what maybe more important than the total are incrementaldecreases or changes in the scope of irrigation indifferent hydrological zones. Further, the scope forimprovements in irrigation in agriculture as well as inbiomass production is quite significant.

1.7 Biomass and sustainablelivelihoodsThe bio-energy development strategies for particularregions, such as southern Africa, should be based onsocio-economic priorities in combination with theoverall resource base that is available and the subsetof that resource base that can be harvested for bio-energy use. A consideration of these broader issuesmust include the extent to which development ofbiomass resources can help create, maintain, andexpand sustainable livelihoods for the local populationas well as for those in areas that are connected socially,economically, and ecologically to the local or regionalcommunities involved. There are many definitions ofsustainable livelihoods in policy research literature, butthe following definition seems to be both concise andcomprehensive:

“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets(including both material and social resources) andactivities required for a means of living. A livelihood

KEY: H=Human; N=Natural; F=Financial; P=Physical; S=Social; NR = Natural ResourceSource for diagram: (DFID, 1999)

Figure 5: Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

is sustainable when it can cope with and recover fromstresses and shocks and maintain or enhance itscapabilities and assets, while not undermining thenatural resource base (Scoones, 1998).”

The sustainable livelihoods framework is based onfive components: context, assets, transformingstructures and process, strategies, and outcomes(Figure 5). It has been used by donor agencies andresearchers in conducting analysis and in evaluatingprojects, proposals, and programmes. The frameworkis dynamic, i.e. there are feedbacks across thesecomponents.

Although the creation of working days is sometimesused as the key indicator of creating or maintaininglivelihoods, other indicators are perhaps just asimportant in terms of enhancing social capital,improving the quality of work, and ensuring the futureavailability of the natural resource base. Altogether,five indicators have been identified (Scoones, 1998):� creation of working days;� poverty reduction;� well-being and capabilities;� livelihood adaptation, vulnerability, and resilience;

and� natural resource base sustainability.

In terms of jobs and working days, it is important tonote that bio-energy generates far more jobs than anyother energy sources – both renewable and non-renewable. Furthermore, these jobs are created mainlyin rural areas where poverty is worst, and thus canhelp to slow down or even reverse migration to urbancentres. It is difficult to generalise about the impactof bio-energy development with respect to the otherfour indicators. Rapid degradation of forests and soilsfor short-term profit will obviously not lead tosustainable livelihoods, whereas carefully managedgrowth strategies can not only maintain the resourcebase, but even enhance it.

In the case of biomass resources, the livelihoods ofgreatest interest here will be the ones created in ruralareas, given that biomass offers special developmentopportunities for rural areas. It is worth noting,however, that many people living in so-called “peri-urban” areas—those living in between cities andvillages—earn their livelihoods from resource-based

sources, such as distributing and making charcoal andusing wood gathered in rural areas. Charcoalproduction, sale and distribution is therefore a majorsource of livelihood in both rural and peri-urban areas.

Policies and institutions need to be aimed atsupporting people and communities in developingstrategies that can improve their livelihoods, and suchstrategies must include preparations for adaptiveactions as well as addressing well-being in the near-term. Three types of strategies can be identified: (1)improving agricultural productivity (intensive orextensive); (2) diversification of livelihoods; (3)migration, i.e. seeking livelihood elsewhere.

Within this framework, one might consider differentoptions available for expanding bio-energyproduction, either for local or export markets or somecombination of the two. Improvements in theintensive productivity of food crops could free someland for bio-energy production, or plots of un-or-under-utilised land could be added for extensivechanges to production. A diversification strategymight include gathering and selling of biomassresidues to industrial or household buyers, assupplement to other incomes and a buffer in the eventthat food markets or climatic conditions change.Migration might be chosen where tradingopportunities can be enhanced or where climaticdifferences might allow livelihoods with fewerresources, e.g. expanding into bio-energy cropsmight be taken up on land with less rainfall wherebio-energy crops may need less water than otheralternatives.

Overall, the relationship between policy and livelihoodcreation is complicated and not well-understood, bothwith respect to analytical models as well as how policycan be influenced in practice so as to promotesustainable livelihoods. Such questions require broadpolicy analysis and research in terms of thedevelopment implications across the tremendousdiversity of socio-economic circumstances. Althoughsuch analysis is beyond the scope of this report, anoverview of some of these issues is considered inthe context of case studies, which examines howdifferent regions and countries are approachingbiomass resource development and bio-energy policyformulation.

10


2

SADC Regional Overview


11

Alarge region that is undergoing a process ofeconomic integration—the southern AfricanDevelopment Community (SADC)—is of

special interest for the topic of concern here. Aneconomic bloc was chosen rather than an ecologically-defined region (e.g. a river basin) because of theemphasis on markets and trade. At the same time,biomass resources are spatially constrained as well asbeing constrained by the availability of land, waterand other resources. Greater economic integrationwithin SADC would allow biomass resourcedevelopment to be better allocated to those areas whereit is most productive, rather than being overly constrainedby national priorities and policies. Consequently, theexpanded trade in biomass and biofuels could exploitefficiencies both regionally and globally, whereas currentbio-energy markets and policies tend to be orientedtowards local or national levels.

SADC was created in 1992 and currently includesfourteen member states, as shown in the map (Figure6). Its objectives include regional integration, peaceand security, maximising productive employment,promoting economic development, and achievingsustainable utilisation of natural resources. In manyrespects, these objectives are similar to those of othereconomic blocs such as the EU. In the case of SADCthere is a special emphasis on food security, povertyalleviation and addressing major health threats,particularly HIV/AIDS.

2.1 Land use patternsAs shown in Table 1, the SADC region encompassesa sizable area, larger than Brazil, China, or the U.S.and more than three times the size of India. It has aconsiderable amount of forested lands, nearly as muchas the U.S. and China combined. The region has aneven greater amount of pastures, grasslands, and otherareas that fall under the agricultural heading. It doeshave some arid and semi-arid areas where agricultureis highly limited. It however, does not have significantmountain ranges that render major areas uninhabitable(such as is the case in China).

The present amount of land cultivated is quite small—less than 6%—the comparable figures elsewhere inthe world are generally much higher. Not only is theamount of land cultivated small, but the productivitylevels of agricultural systems are quite low by worldstandards. A great deal of pasture land could be madeavailable for uses, i.e. for fuel and fibre (Smeets et al,2004).

The aggregate figures in Table 1 do not necessarilyindicate anything about the land available forexpanded agricultural or biomass production, as manyother characteristics have to be considered. Socio-economic, cultural, environmental, and ecologicalfactors would all have to be taken into account. Theproximity of available land to markets, distributioncentres, and urban areas would also impactdevelopment options. However, the aggregate datado suggest the considerable-scale of available landresources in comparison to the current low levels ofutilisation. It remains to be considered the variousalternatives for utilising agricultural and forest-basedresources differently so as to take better advantageof the bio-energy potential.

2.2 Income and populationIn economic terms, several countries in the regionare among the poorest in the world, with per capitaincomes less than a dollar per day, as listed in Table 2.The lower cost of living in these countries, relative toglobal conditions, offsets some of these incomeeffects, with Purchasing Power Parity GDP generallyseveral times higher than nominal GDP. In general,the poorer countries in SADC also have a higher

Figure 6: Map of the Southern African DevelopmentCommunity (SADC) as of 2005

12


Country/region Total land Forest area Agricultural areas (a) Cultivated area (b) area

UNITS: million ha million ha share of million ha share of million ha share oftotal land total land total land

area area area

Angola 124.7 69.8 56% 57.6 46% 3.6 2.9%Botswana 56.7 12.4 22% 26.0 46% 0.4 0.7%Congo 226.7 135.2 60% 22.8 10% 7.8 3.4%Lesotho 3.0 2.3 77% 0.3 11.0%Madagascar 58.2 11.7 20% 27.6 47% 3.6 6.1%Malawi 9.4 2.6 27% 4.4 47% 2.6 27.5%Mauritius 0.2 0.1 56% 0.1 52.2%Mozambique 78.4 30.6 39% 48.6 62% 4.6 5.8%Namibia 82.3 8.0 10% 38.8 47% 0.8 1.0%South Africa 121.4 8.9 7% 99.6 82% 15.7 12.9%Swaziland 1.7 1.4 81% 0.2 11.2%Tanzania 88.4 38.8 44% 48.1 54% 5.1 5.8%Zambia 74.3 31.2 42% 35.3 47% 5.3 7.1%Zimbabwe 38.7 19.0 49% 20.6 53% 3.4 8.7%Total SADC 964.1 368.3 38% 433.2 45% 53.4 5.5%EU-15 313.0 115.7 37% 140.4 45% 84.55 27.0%Brazil 845.9 543.9 64% 263.6 31% 66.6 7.9%China 932.7 163.5 18% 554.9 59% 154.9 16.6%India 297.3 64.1 22% 180.8 61% 169.7 57.1%United States 915.9 226.0 25% 409.3 45% 175.5 19.2%

Table 1: Land use summary for SADC and selected countries/regions in 2003-2004

Sources: FAOSTAT 2005; World Resources Institute 2005Note: (a) Agricultural areas includes temporary and permanent pastures, permanent crops, and temporary cropsNote: (b) Cultivated areas includes permanent crops and temporary crops

proportion of the population working in agriculture.The population density is fairly low by globalstandards, although with considerable variation.

Some care is needed in interpreting land use anddemographics, as the categories are not necessarilydefined in the same way in different countries. Forexample, the share of persons earning their livelihoodfrom agriculture ends up being quite high, and in factgreater than the rural population in China. Nor is theinternational comparison particularly revealing insome cases. Thus, although India has a higher shareof rural population, the distance to a major city tendsto be much greater in many rural areas of the SADCregion compared to India. Consequently, access toinfrastructure is severely limited in many rural areaswithin SADC, rural industries are more isolated, andit is costly to get products to market. The creation ofrural-based industries such as those associated withbiomass and bio-energy are especially appealing for a

region that is predominantly rural. At the same time,getting these products to international markets willtend to be more complicated in comparison toopportunities for local and regional markets.

2.3 Energy/developmentindicatorsWith the exception of South Africa and Mauritius,the countries in the SADC region are characterisedby low national rates of electrification and high levelsof traditional biomass use, as given in Table 3. In theregion’s most populous country—DR Congo—traditional biomass makes up 95% of all energyconsumption. The use of liquid fuels is also quite low,with the exception of Mauritius and Angola, the lattercountry being the only major oil producer in theregion. It is interesting to note that Angola has thelowest electrification rate, in spite of the availabilityof oil revenues. It is an example where conflict andcorruption have worked against modern energy

13


Sources: FAOSTAT 2005, World Bank 2005Note: (a) PPP = Purchasing Power Parity, which reflects better differences in cost of living, whereas Nominal GDPaccounts more appropriately for the value of international trade.Note: (b) Agricultural Population refers to those persons who earn their livelihoods from agricultural activities alongwith their non-working dependents

Country/region GDP/capita (USD) Total population Rural Agriculturalpopulation population (b)

UNITS: nominal GDP GDP - PPP 1000s density share of total share of total(a) (p/km2)

Angola 1304 2457 13.6 10.9 64% 71%Botswana 5702 10169 1.8 3.1 49% 44%Congo 111 633 52.8 23.3 69% 62%Lesotho 633 2074 1.8 59.4 82% 39%Madagascar 251 854 17.4 29.9 74% 73%Malawi 152 569 12.1 128.7 84% 76%Mauritius 4833 12215 1.2 601.5 57% 10%Mozambique 320 1247 18.9 24.1 64% 76%Namibia 2233 6449 2.0 2.4 68% 47%South Africa 4587 10798 45.0 37.1 43% 13%Swaziland 2172 4995 1.1 62.6 77% 32%Tanzania 308 673 37.0 41.8 64% 77%Zambia 478 870 10.8 14.5 65% 68%Zimbabwe 491 2309 12.9 33.3 65% 61%Total SADC 1267 3142 228346 24 63% 57%EU-15 29291 26900 380.1 121.4 22% 4%Brazil 3325 8049 178.5 21.1 17% 15%China 1272 5642 1311.7 140.6 61% 65%India 622 3080 1065.5 358.4 72% 52%United States 39935 39496 294.0 32.1 20% 2%

Table 2: GDP and population summary for SADC and selected countries/regions in2003-2004

Electrification Liquid fuels consumption Traditional biomass rate (petrol, LPG, others) energy consumption

UNITS: share with 1000 TJ share of GJ per 1000 TJ share of GJ perelectricity total capita total capita

access energy energy

Angola 5.0% 58 46% 4.3 40 32% 2.9Congo 8.3% 12 2% 0.2 703 95% 13.3Madagascar 8.3% 26 17% 1.5 123 81% 7.1Malawi 5.8% 9 11% 0.7 68 84% 5.6Mauritius 100.0% 32 58% 26.2 14 25% 11.5Mozambique 8.7% 19 9% 1.0 171 80% 9.1Tanzania 9.2% 40 13% 1.1 247 83% 6.7Zambia 18.4% 21 6% 1.9 329 88% 30.4Zimbabwe 40.9% 40 8% 3.1 335 66% 26.0SACU* 56.5% 817 12% 15.8 781 12% 15.1Total SADC 15.4% 1074.0 12% 4.7 2811.0 31% 12.3

Table 3: Energy/development indicators for SADC countries for 2002

*South African Customs Union: Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and SwazilandSources: FAOSTAT 2006, UN 2005, IEA 2005

14


services, in spite of significant domestic energyresources.

Not much can be deduced from the differences inenergy consumption without further information andmore detailed analysis. Nor is the data on traditionalbiomass consumption equally reliable across thecountries. One anomaly observed here is the high percapita consumption of traditional biomass in Zambiacompared to most other countries; it is nearly fivetimes that of Tanzania and nearly six times that ofMalawi. Furthermore, electricity access is twice as highin Zambia as in Tanzania and three times as high asin Malawi. Conventional economic analysis mightsuggest that consumption of one form of energyshould go down when another goes up. However, inthese countries, electricity is too highly-valued to beused for cooking, or heating. Where electricity isavailable, it would generally be directed towards thehigher valued uses, such as lighting, motors, etc., whichcan lead to income-generating activities.

2.4 Biomass use in the SADCregionA thorough review of current biomass use in theregion is not feasible here, but some basic indicatorscan be obtained in terms of what is currently beingused. With respect to forest-based resources, wood

fuel charcoal and round wood account for most ofthe available resources used. Other wood products,such as pulp and paperboard, are quite small bycomparison. Table 4 contains some indicators forconsumption. The per capita consumption of woodfuel and the production of round wood in variouscountries are distributed for the most part around themean values. Such tight distribution is not true forcharcoal, although there is considerable uncertainty,as wood and charcoal data are notoriously difficult toestimate. The high consumption of charcoal per capitain Zambia appears to be the main cause of its overallhigh level of traditional biomass consumption. TheDR Congo accounts for over 40% of wood fuel usein the SADC region.

Demand for charcoal is likely to continue to grow, inspite of the opportunities to substitute modern energysources, since these sources will almost always be moreexpensive. The rural population as well as a significantshare of the urban population outside of South Africais dependent on fuelwood and/or charcoal for dailyenergy needs. Contrary to popular belief, in many areasthe use of charcoal has not yet exceeded levels atwhich it can be characterized as sustainable, and isnot a major contributor to deforestation (Chidumayo2002). The price of charcoal is generally relativelystable, regardless of the distance transported, i.e. it is

Wood fuel Wood charcoal Round woodCountry 1000 share of m3 per 1000 share of kg per 1000 share of m3

m3 SADC capita tonnes SADC capita m3 SADC pertotal total total capita

Angola 3320 2.2% 0.24 221 4.0% 16.20 4436 2.4% 0.33Botswana 645 0.4% 0.36 62 1.1% 34.65 750 0.4% 0.42DR Congo 67285 43.6% 1.28 1535 27.7% 29.08 70938 38.5% 1.34Lesotho 2034 1.3% 1.13 82 1.5% 45.44 2034 1.1% 1.13Madagascar 10202 6.6% 0.59 795 14.4% 45.68 10299 5.6% 0.59Malawi 5029 3.3% 0.42 409 7.4% 33.77 5549 3.0% 0.46Mauritius 9 0.0% 0.01 0 0.0% 0.08 17 0.0% 0.01Mozambique 16724 10.8% 0.89 100 1.8% 5.30 18043 9.8% 0.96Namibia n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aSouth Africa 12000 7.8% 0.27 41 0.7% 0.91 30616 16.6% 0.68Swaziland 560 0.4% 0.52 n/a n/a n/a 890 0.5% 0.83Tanzania 21125 13.7% 0.57 1243 22.5% 33.63 23439 12.7% 0.63Zambia 7219 4.7% 0.67 1041 18.8% 96.28 8053 4.4% 0.74Zimbabwe 8115 5.3% 0.63 9 0.2% 0.70 9108 4.9% 0.71SADC 154268 0.68 5538 24.25 184172 0.81

Table 4: Selected forest product consumption indicators in SADC countries, 2002

Source: FAOSTAT 2006n/a = data not available

15


costs associated with processing residues incombination with the variation in their compositionhave generally led to lower economic potentials thanexpected. For some specific applications and locations,such as sugarcane trash in Brazil, it appears that theeconomics are favourable where efficient cogenerationsystems are installed (GEF 2005).

Due to logistical constraints and market structures,liquid biofuels are of greatest interest for internationaltrade. Sugarcane, maize, and cassava are the cropsmost likely to be used as feedstock for bio-ethanolproduction in the near term. Oil palm, sunflower, andsoybean appear to be the most likely crops in the nearterm for production of bio-diesel. South Africa andDR Congo are currently the largest producers inSADC of biofuel crops. Other crops being consideredare sweet potatoes and sweet sorghum for bio-ethanoland jatropha and castor oil for bio-diesel. Sweet

Figure 7: Five-year average production levels in SADC for selected ethanolfeedstock

a regional commodity in many respects (Chaposa2002) although cross-border trade is difficult due totaxes and controls. South Africa and Madagascar alsohave a sizeable international export market forcharcoal (UN, 2005).

In terms of agricultural biomass and bio-energyresources, the three main categories of interest are:crop residues, animal residues, and biofuel crops.Estimates of crop and animal residue availability andenergy content have been conducted for a variety ofsources and locations and the summaries are availablein some recent publications (World Bank, 2005;Kartha and Larsen, 2000). Residue availability can varyfrom 5% to 50% of total harvest, depending on thetype of crop, while energy content will depend onmoisture and constituents. The economics aredependent on efficient methods for gathering,compacting, and transporting the residues. The high

Figure 8: Five-year average production levels in SADC for selected bio-dieselfeedstockSource for Figures 7 and 8: FAOSTAT 2006

16


sorghum and jatropha are considered to be promisingcrops, but there is very little experience with them inAfrica as energy crops.

South Africa produces nearly half of the sugarcanein the region and more than half of the maize, whileDR Congo produces nearly half of the cassava, asshown in Figure 7. Sugarcane production hasincreased significantly in SADC in the past 10-15 years,while maize and cassava have increased only slightly.Although cane is far more efficient for ethanolproduction than starch crops such as cassava andmaize, cane is less amenable for small-scaleproduction. Starch crops, in spite of the lowerefficiency, may have benefits in terms of livelihoodscreation. Starch crops are planted annually, (cane hasa multi-year cycle) allowing more flexibility andrequiring less up-front investment. As cassava andmaize are grown for subsistence purposes (outside ofSouth Africa) while cane is often grown for sugar export,diversion to fuel production is more likely to adverselyaffect food availability in the case of cassava. South Africahas a significant surplus of maize, and this surplus couldbe directed towards fuel production. However, thereare equity concerns with the scenario of South Africamaking ethanol from subsidised maize production,and thereby hurting other SADC members.

2.5 SADC biofuels strategyA Joint Meeting of the SADC Senior Officers ofFood, Agriculture and Natural Resources andInfrastructure and Services was held in Gaborone on12 October 2004, to create awareness on ‘Farmingfor Energy’, a potential area of development, whichcould create rural employment and increase theregion’s capacity to produce biofuel (SADC, 2004).The participants noted the rocketing price of fossiloil and expressed their concern on its devastatingeffect on SADC economies. They agreed that biofuelssuch as ethanol and bio-diesel made from variousorganic sources would be viable alternative sourcesfor energy. Participants noted that fuel productionthrough farming would be creating rural employment,and that it would also be in line with the KyotoProtocol and the recommendations of the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development. Theparticipants called upon SADC trading partners tofacilitate the global trade and investment in biofuels.The participants also emphasized the need foradaptive agricultural and energy research andextension development to enhance the transfer ofbiofuel technologies especially at grass root level.

The meeting led SADC to commission a study aimedat developing a SADC biofuels strategy, which wascompleted in late 2005. The study reviewed the variousbiofuels crops that were feasible in different regionsand the opportunities for developing new markets forbiofuels using these crops. The major crops identifiedfor bio-ethanol included sugarcane, maize, andcassava. For bio-diesel, jatropha and soy were amongthe crops identified. The potential is quite significantfor both bio-ethanol and bio-diesel, althoughconsiderable investment will be needed to bringagricultural practices up to the required level oftechnical capacity, scale of operations, and intensityof production (SADC, 2005).

Different regional strategies might be pursued,depending on the relative weight given to exports vs.local consumption. One advantage of localconsumption for bio-diesel is that the oil-based fuelscan be used in their unrefined form, saving the costsassociated with esterification. Trials would need tobe undertaken to determine the different types ofequipment that could use unrefined forms withoutdifficulty. Such an advantage does not exist for bio-ethanol. However, priority for intra-regional use ofbio-ethanol (as opposed to exports outside the region)would have some synergies with existing policies thathave yet to be fulfilled, particularly the plan for leadphase-out in petrol in many countries in the region.One strategy to take advantage of different feedstocksmight be to produce ethanol from the starch crops(maize, cassava, and others) for local use, while sugarproducers make ethanol intended for export markets.Yet this strategy would deprive small farmers of hardcurrency benefits unless some type of revenue-sharingscheme was established across different sectors ofthe industry.

Another set of scocio-economic issues relates to thescale of operations, incentives for small farmers, andthe distribution of benefits from a biofuelsprogramme. Although all categories of biomass canin principle be grown on different types of estates orplantations, an emphasis on small growers wouldprovide livelihoods across the greatest section of thepopulation. On the other hand, where export marketsare important and for crops that are mature likesugarcane, estates or plantations of some kind willlikely be needed to reach economies-of-scale. Modernbio-energy applications in other end-use sectors, i.e. forheat and power production and for direct uses, althoughless directly relevant for bio-energy trade, do have

17


There are a wide variety of economic zones and free-trade areas worldwide, most of which haveexperienced export growth during the period 2000-2004. Some of these are listed in Figure 10, whichcompares the annual average growth rates inexports during the same period with that of SADC,as well as the world average and the Africanaverage. The SADC rate was higher than the worldand African averages, as well as the averages of severalother zones.

Such average trade figures in and of themselves donot necessarily provide the best indication of tradeperformance, since more detailed analysis would beneeded in terms of the classes of products, directions

Figure 9: Value of exports in different economic groups or zones in AfricaSource: UNCTAD (2005)KEY to Abbreviations: Common Market for Eastern and Southern African (COMESA); EconomicCommunity of Central African States (ECCAS); Economic Community of West African States(ECOWAS); Southern African Development Community (SADC); Union du Maghreb Arabe(UMA) / Arab Maghreb Union (AMU).

Figure 10: Annual average growth rates in exports in different economic zones,2000-2004Source: UNCTAD (2005)KEY to Abbreviations: EU 15 refers to the European Union before the 10 accession statesjoined in 2004; Mercado Comun del Cono Sur (MERCOSUR); North American Free Trade Area(NAFTA); Southern African Development Community (SADC); Association of Southeast AsianNations (ASEAN); Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

important synergies that need to be considered. Someof these relationships are addressed in later sections ofthis report.

2.6 International tradeThere are a number of other economic trade zonesoperating in various regions and/or groupings inAfrica that have been reducing trade barriers andincreasing the opportunities for cross-borderinvestment. The evolution of exports for the five mostsignificant of these zones is shown in Figure 9. TheSADC region continues to be the largest among thesezones in economic terms. Although all zones showedsignificant increases during the past five years, theincrease in SADC exports was the highest.

of trade and investment, exchange rates, payments,etc. However, they do provide some generalindication regarding the expansion that is occurringin the region as a result of recent economicintegration efforts.

2.7 Opportunities and constraintsThe main point that arises from the preceding sectionsis that southern Africa has a low population density, ahigh share of population engaged in agriculture, asignificant amount of land that is potentially availablefor alternative uses, plentiful biomass resources, anda fairly dynamic set of opportunities for expandingtrade. Consequently, not only does one expect thereto be significant opportunities for increasing use ofbiomass resources in the region, but it appears thatthere may be significant potential for exports ofbiofuels and biomass resources. Land constraintsappear unlikely in any near-term scenario, althoughother resources—notably water—may turn out to belimiting factors, although such considerations arebeyond the scope of this report. The reader is insteadreferred to other recent references on this issue(Berndes et al, 2002).

One major barrier to expansion of international tradein the SADC region is the high cost of road transport,which is several times higher than the world average(UNCTAD 2005). The landlocked countries of the

18

region, such as Zambia and Malawi, experienceconsiderable difficulties in getting their products tomarket. For international shipping by tanker, thereare several ports in Mozambique and South Africathat could accommodate expanded trade in biomassand biofuels and these shipping costs would be quitelow. In the case of liquid biofuels such as bio-ethanol,the costs would amount to only 1-2 cents/litre(Johnson and Matsika, 2006). For solid biomass trade,the costs would be slightly higher due to some minoradditional handling costs for dry products (Hamelincket al, 2003).

A major cost issue in trade of bulk products such asbiomass and biofuels is that shipping by sea can bean entire order of magnitude cheaper or more on aunit basis compared to road transport. Consequently,regional coordination strategies become quiteimportant and facility-siting for production that isintended for export markets becomes a key issue.Some strategies would therefore aim to locate biomassconversion or processing facilities near ports, whileraw materials might be shipped from inlanddestinations (Batidzirai et al, 2006). Cost-sharingarrangements would need to be established betweeninland biomass producers and operators located nearthe coast, and such arrangements could be facilitatedby some of the various economic integration policiesbeing pursued within SADC.


3

Markets for Modern Bio-energy


19

This section provides an overview of someaspects of biomass markets, including landuse, harvesting and delivery, implementation

issues, and social and environmental impacts.Reference is made, where appropriate, on differencesacross the three categories of feedstock: sugar crops,woody biomass, and oil crops. The main sugar cropof concern here is sugarcane, which is by far the mostimportant economically for developing countries.Other sugar crops that are considered promising forthe future are sweet sorghum and the tropical sugarbeet. These crops are generally not addressed here,although some of the same principles as those forsugarcane would be applicable.

The overview is not intended to be comprehensiveand mainly addresses issues that arose at the workshop(summarised in Annex 1). This section of the reportis generally oriented towards dedicated energy crops,as opposed to residues or to the gathering of biomassfrom common property forest resources. Some ofthe aspects considered here also apply to the use ofresidues, although often at a much smaller-scale.Harvesting of common property forest resources forbio-energy, albeit the most common form of biomassconsumption in Africa, is mentioned only briefly here,since it is less relevant for international trade and alsosince the sustainability issues it raises are rathercomplicated to review.

3.1 Land use and ownershipBio-energy is inherently land-intensive and land-sensitive, and as such the associated impacts aregenerally more significant than those of otherrenewable energy systems. Land use assessment is animportant factor in determining the actual biomassaccessibility, which is one of the most difficult andsensitive tasks of any biomass for energy analysis.The potential impacts on land use and landownership are diverse and complex. Positiveimpacts might include creation of rural livelihoods,regeneration of abandoned land, and erosioncontrol . Negative impacts might includedegradation in ecosystem habitats, loss in uses ofland by indigenous peoples, or competition with foodcrops. The implications and the overall assessmentof costs and benefits are highly dependent upon

locations, scale, managerial skills and publicacceptance.

It is fairly straightforward to distinguish the case ofresidues vs. dedicated energy crops, regarding theimpact on land use. The use of residues fromagricultural, forestry, or animal husbandry will oftenhave minimal impact on land use if sufficient residuesare left for soil conditioning and associated uses. Oftensuch residues are burned or require separate disposal,so their use for bio-energy creates value-addition. Inthe case of dedicated crops or plantations, the impactwould be far more significant, as large amounts ofland may need to be cleared, restructured, orconsolidated.

The main options for land ownership generally followone of three models or some combination of thesemodels:� large estates owned and managed by private

companies, i.e. feedstock production andconversion are vertically-integrated elements of thesame enterprise;

� medium-scale growers who provide feedstocks topublic and/or private companies for processing,based on standardised terms-of-sale; or

� small-scale farmers who provide feedstock topublic and/or private companies, generally througha cooperative or some similar institution thatestablishes terms-of-sale.

In the southern African context, the high proportionof subsistence farming in rural areas, and thecomplexities of land ownership under traditional landlaw regimes, can make large-scale acquisition of landsomewhat more controversial. It has been suggestedthat a small-scale approach involving the contractingof small farmers to work as ‘out-growers’, dedicatinga proportion of their land to growing a crop forguaranteed purchase by a processing company couldbe beneficial. Such an approach has the advantage ofproviding additional seasonal income for poor ruralfarmers, without dismantling their existing livelihoods.However, the lower intensity of land use entails alarger area of agricultural production for eachprocessing plant, resulting in feedstock transport costsbecoming potential obstacle to commercial viability.

20


� Sugar cropsIn the case of permanent (as opposed to annual orsemi-annual) crops such as sugarcane, different partsof the world have adopted different models. Variousownership models can be categorised as follows:� cane is owned by the factory owner; fields are

located adjacent to the factory;� long-term agreements between factory owners and

cane supply partners (farmers who own landadjacent to the factory and sell the cane directly tothe factory);

� land rented from third parties; and� cane bought from independent growers/suppliers

(usually to supplement cane shortages).

When ownership is separated, it may be the case thatcane growers are in principle free to sell the cane towhatever factory they choose, but usually in practicecane growers will have some type of agreement witha particular factory to supply sugarcane. This avoidstransporting the cane to other factories located furtheraway, as sugarcane growers must balance out higherprice received from the cane with the additionaltransport costs. It also reduces the uncertainty in canesupply for the factory owner.

In much of Africa, large estates provide most of thesugarcane that sugar companies use, although smallfarmers or out-growers may also supply 10-20% ofthe cane processed. In other parts of the world, landis owned or rented by many small producers, as isoften the case in the Caribbean countries, India, andThailand. In India, there are in fact operations at manydifferent scales, even within the cane supply for a givenfactory; small family farms, medium-size, and large-scale estates might all supply cane to the same factorybased on simple contract terms.

Small farmers would generally be grouped in sometype of association that provides technical supportas well as establishing standard contracts and terms-of-scale. A small farmer might have a plot of only 5-10 hectares; a yield of 100 tonnes/ha implies a needfor 1000-2000 small family farms to reach theminimum-scale. In some African countries, familyfarms are even smaller; in Tanzania, the average familyfarm is only 1 hectare, and they are grouped in farmers’associations. In Mauritius, one third of the cane isalso harvested by small growers, and there is a “farmerservice centre” that supports small cane growers inthe mechanisation process.

The significant differences in the experiences of theworld’s two largest cane producers are instructive. InBrazil, production is dominated by large estates; theBrazilian experience suggests that the optimum-scalefor cane processing into sugar and/or ethanol isbetween 1 and 2 million tonnes of cane (Leal, 2005).The Brazilian market is open, as prices are set byinternational markets and not by governmentregulations or through preferential markets. TheBrazilian structure is oriented towards the worldmarket, as Brazil is a major exporter and in fact iscurrently the most competitive producer in the worldof sugar as well as ethanol.

The situation is quite different in India, where 60%to 70% of cane growers are small ones, and these aregenerally organised into cooperatives that may havesharing formulae for markets and proceeds. Thecooperative sector also provides technical support tosmall farmers, e.g. by providing seeds, fertilizers andchemicals. Moreover, the government fixes sugarprices, so that growers are protected from thefluctuations in the world market. In fact, India hasperhaps the most regulated cane industry in the world,but such regulations are also made more feasible bythe fact that India produces predominantly fordomestic consumption (Seebaluck et al, 2007). Onemight tentatively conclude that it is difficult to developexport markets without fairly large-scale agriculturaloperations.

� Woody sources of biomassWoody biomass for products and bio-energy can beorganised in one of three ways:� large plots or plantations, operated by private

corporations or government agencies;� woodlots or tree nurseries; or� common-property managed forests

The issue of property rights is complicated and isbeyond the scope of the discussion here. However, itis important to note the distinction between “commonproperty” and “open access” systems. Commonproperty systems are characterised by clear rules asto who can use the forest resources, when they canuse them, and under what conditions, whereas openaccess systems lack such a framework. The distinctionwas first clarified widely in the scientific literature inresponse to the “Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin,1960), in which open access and common propertysystems were assumed to be equivalent. It has beensubsequently shown that there are a wide range of

21


institutions that can and have been used to managecommon resources such as forests (Ostrom, 1990).

Large plots are more economical where mechanisationis required due to the high cost of the capitalequipment involved. The large plots will supplyfactories that process either mainly for export or forsome combination of export and domesticconsumption. Woodlots or nurseries can fit well withcommunity plans for multi-purpose resourcestrategies, and might include various services such assoil conservation, watershed maintenance, recreation,and other uses as well as marketable products likeenergy and timber. Environmental concerns aboutlarge plantations are placing them under increasedscrutiny in developed and developing countries alike.

Another important distinction is, of course, intensive(more inputs) vs. extensive (more land) expansion forbio-energy production. The Brazilian model foreucalyptus plantations generally exemplifies the large-scale intensive approach, using high capacity centralprocessing points fed by intensively farmedsurrounding areas. Where intensive farming isaccomplished with best practice techniques and wherethe land used does not have major ecosystemfunctions, then the overall result can be beneficial, asmore sensitive land elsewhere can be relieved fromthe pressures of expansion. On the other hand, lessintensive bio-energy practices on wider areas couldallow the benefits to be more widely dispersed andthe bio-energy production to be integrated withproduction of food, environmental services,recreation, housing materials, and other welfare-enhancing activities.

� Oil-bearing cropsThe land use issues of concern for oil-bearing cropsare similar to those of sugar crops. The main oil-bearing crop in the developing world today is oil palm.It has a high yield relative to other oil-bearing cropsand is generally grown on large plantations. Otheroil-bearing crops are more amenable to smaller-scaleproduction, such as coconut oil and jatropha.Ownership is less likely to be highly correlated toeconomies of scale than is the case of sugarcane. Theestablishment of smaller-scale operations should thusbe feasible, although there does not yet appear to beexamples of small-scale operations that produce asignificant quantity in aggregate, through cooperativesor other institutional mechanisms. Another factor thatwill impact the scale and ownership is the destination

of the final products. Unrefined oils are more likelyto be compatible with small-scale production andownership. Larger-scale and consolidated ownershipis more likely where export markets requirehomogenous commodities, i.e. trans-esterification intobio-diesel.

3.2 Harvesting, delivery andtransportHarvesting, delivery, and transport of biomassresources comprise key elements in the bio-energyproduction chain, and often determine the spatialextent of bio-energy markets. The two main types oftransport and delivery are thus the transport to theprocessing facility or facilities and the transport tofinal markets. One distinction is between the casewhere harvesting and delivery results directly inmarketable products vs. when biomass is being sentto a major facility for further processing andconversion. Another distinction arises whereintermediate products (e.g. compacted biomass,unrefined fuels) are involved.

� Sugar cropsFor centuries, sugarcane harvesting has been donemanually by the so-called “cane cutters” and this stillremains the case in Africa (except for parts of SouthAfrica) and much of Asia. The cane is often burnedbefore harvesting so as to remove the extraneousmatter and leave only the stalks that contain thesucrose, which do not burn due to their moisturecontent. In OECD countries such as the U.S. andAustralia, mechanisation occurred many decades ago.In Brazil and other South American countries, theincreasing cost of labour and other socio-economicfactors have contributed to increased mechanisation.Until the past two decades, there has not been anydramatic change in harvesting methods in developingcountries due to the following factors:� relatively low cost of manual harvesting, and the

availability of labour;� high costs of mechanical harvesters;� low efficiency of mechanical harvesting for sugar

production (e.g. high losses of 4-5% of sucrose,cane impurities, etc.); and

� difficulty for mechanical harvesters to deal withcertain topographies (e.g. steep slope, rockyterrain).

Mechanisation had been occurring where labour costshave been rising, not only in Latin America, but alsoin South Africa and in some Asian countries. Another

22


major driving force has been environmental pressureto ban burning of cane along with the growing interestin using cane residues for cogeneration. Yet anotherfactor has been the drive for modernisation. Increasingcompetition, reductions in preferential sugar markets,and emerging market opportunities are transformingthe sugarcane sector from a primarily “family runbusiness” into a modern agro-industrial complex, runby an increasingly professional labour force. This isparticularly so in the case of Brazil and South Africa.This process is facilitated by computerisation, whichis providing greater efficiency and managementcontrol at all levels.

In a market faced with environmental and socialpressure and increasing competition, mechanisationoffers additional advantages. For example, a harvestercan replace 80 cutters and thus facilitate the wholeharvesting process. The benefit to the enterprise’scost is not only the saving per tonne/cane cut butalso in administration (e.g. preparation of contracts),health and safety, training, transport, etc. Furthermore,with increasing standards of living, fewer and fewerpersons are willing to accept the hard physical andseasonal labour required for cutting cane. In countriessuch as India, the process will be slower. With morethan 500 sugar factories a lot of people depend onmanual harvesting of cane for their livelihood.

There are also mixed systems in practice in somesouthern African countries, in which a machine cutsthe cane, but people would still be needed to collectand gather cane in the fields. As the cutting of thecane is the hardest part physically, this will easeconsiderably the task for workers and open up thelabour force for women. The mixed system may beof special interest for bio-energy production, sincethe gathering of residues might be accomplished atthe same time that cane is gathered. Field researchsuggests that mechanical gathering of residues canbe complicated and would be aided by humanassistance, since the machine parts sometimes becometangled due to the bulkiness of the residues (GEF2005). The additional labour required for gatheringresidues, known as “cane trash,” would partiallycompensate for some of the labour losses due tomechanisation of cutting (Macedo, 2005).

� Woody sources of biomassThere are more direct end-use markets for woodybiomass and thus they will generally require lessprocessing compared to agricultural sources.

Transportation cost to final markets is an importantelement in feasibility and cost-effectiveness and thespatial extent of export markets will often be related.When production is for woodfuel and timberproducts, for example, land transportation costs willbe significant, as the cost of transporting woodproducts 60 kilometres by land is about the same astransporting it 1000 kilometres by ship. Consequently,international export markets have tended to clusternear coasts. Liquid fuels have an obvious advantagein this regard. Not only are they less bulky, but wherequantities are sufficient, pipelines can greatly reducethe costs of transport.

Local markets for woody biomass will undoubtedlybe important in developing countries, particularly insouthern Africa, for many years to come.Consequently, traditional biomass in the form ofcharcoal and firewood will be needed for householdsand small-scale enterprises. The local nature oftraditional biomass markets also suggests that woodybiomass will be more valued for local use comparedto agricultural or plantation-based biomass, otherthings being equal. It will be important, of course, toimprove the efficiency of traditional biomass use, suchas with improved cookstoves.

Woody biomass is also available in large quantities asa residue from wood industries. This has beendemonstrated in Sweden and other countries, wheresawdust from sawmills and paper industries are usedfor energy. The waste products from pulp production,known as “black liquors” are also being used forbiofuel production. This has environmental benefits,of using what would otherwise be a waste productfor energy as well as socioeconomic benefits aspayments from the energy industry are now greatlycontributing to the survival of the sawing industry(Kåberger, 2005). Some African countries, includingGhana and Tanzania are beginning to use residuesfrom timber mills to sell in compact form, therebyobtaining supplementary income.

3.3 Environmental impactsBioenergy is inherently land-intensive, meaning thatthe associated socioeconomic and environmentalimpacts are much more significant than those of otherrenewable energy systems. A comprehensive list isdifficult to summarise in this brief review, but somekey concerns relate to loss of ecosystem habitat,deforestation, loss of biodiversity, depletion of soilnutrients, and excessive use of water. In addition to

23


the provision of a renewable energy source, somepositive environmental impacts might includerestoration of degraded land, creation ofcomplementary land use options, and provision ofnon-energy resources and materials. Some specificissues that arise in the case of sugar crops, woodybiomass, and oil-bearing crops, are outlined below.

� Sugar cropsThe environmental impacts of sugarcane have beenanalysed in considerable detail in the case of Brazil.When Brazil began its effort to expand sugarcane forethanol production in the 1970s, the environmentalimpacts were quite significant, particularly the disposalof large streams of waste effluent from ethanoldistilleries. Over the past thirty years, dramaticimprovements have been achieved in technicalefficiency and in the efficiency of key resource inputs(e.g. water). The case of water use is particularlyinteresting, since cane requires significant amountsof water during a key period in the growth cycle. Caneis rain-fed in Brazil, and furthermore, the amount ofwater that is recycled in the cane-ethanol processes isto the order of 90% (Macedo, 2005).

In other parts of the world where water is scarcer,sweet sorghum could provide a useful alternative, withits low water requirements, less than half of thatneeded for cane. Additionally, it has the ability toremain dormant during periods of drought, resuminggrowth upon the re-occurrence of favourableconditions (Bassam, 1998). This means there is a muchgreater likelihood of small-scale farmers with noaccess to irrigation raising a crop of sweet sorghumin dry conditions than sugarcane, or even of maize.This could potentially have strong socioeconomicbenefits by increasing the productivity of small-scalefarmers.

Sweet sorghum has low requirements for nitrogenousfertiliser, about 35-40% compared to sugarcane (Praj,2005). This has economic benefits for the farmer, asthe crop will require less investment in inputs, as wellas possible environmental benefits from avoidingimpacts of fertiliser run-off. Sweet sorghum has highpotassium uptake, however, and is therefore highlydepleting of this mineral (El Bassam, 1998).

� Woody biomassWoody biomass is a major source of primary energyfor the majority of the world’s poor. In some Africancountries, over 95% of households depend on wood

for cooking and heating. However it is generallyindustries that are responsible for deforestation, ratherthan households. Unsustainable extraction practicesof forest and wood products industries are a majorsource of environmental degradation in many regions.The environmental impacts of wood fuel use byindustries and households are well known, and include:� health effects of indoor air pollution, which kills

more women and children than tuberculosis andmalaria (UNDP, 2004);

� contributing to deforestation, a major problem insome southern African countries; and

� soil degradation and erosion problems.

A common impact from the use of wood fuels relatesto the opportunity cost of the time spent collectingwood. The gathering of wood can require several hoursper day, sometimes preventing children from attendingschool, and women from improving their livelihood byengaging in other, possibly profitable enterprises.

However, the consumption of woody biomass as ahousehold fuel need not be inherently unsustainable,although improvements in conversion efficiency anduse are needed, especially in more densely populatedregions. Improved charcoal and wood burning stoveshave an important part to play in poor areas wheremodern energy services are unlikely to penetrate formany years. A number of studies have suggested thateven traditional charcoal use can be sustained inregions that are not too densely populated. Analysisin the Lusaka region in Zambia showed that charcoaluse had not exceeded the sustainability threshold(Chidumayo, 2002). However, an important questionwill be whether policy should aim towards providing“clean cooking fuels” through more efficient energycarriers, both non-renewable such as LPG, andrenewable, such as ethanol gel fuel.

� Oil-bearing and other biomass cropsJatropha trees yield oil that is highly suitable for usein raw form or for refinement into bio-diesel. Thistree is reported to have strong environmental benefitswhen intercropped with other produce. It can be usedas a hedge to prevent soil erosion, and can also haveregenerative effects on the soil, being a nitrogen fixer(Openshaw, 2000).

Several oil bearing crops, currently usedpredominantly in food products, are stronglyassociated with severe environmental impacts. Inparticular, soya bean plantations are encroaching on

24


rainforests in Brazil, and the palm oil industry is amajor cause of deforestation in Malaysia andIndonesia, threatening species such as the Sumatrantiger and the orangutan with extinction (Friends ofthe Earth, 2005). In order to preserve the credibilityof bioenergy as an environmentally sustainable sourceof energy, particularly in the context of a possiblefuture international trade in biofuels, suchsustainability concerns will have to be addressed. Someform of social and environmental certification wouldseem to be desirable. The precise structure of such ascheme, whether it could be mandatory, or would haveto remain voluntary, and how it could be linked toother existing social and environmental certificationschemes, needs to be established.

One starchy crop that is quite important in thesouthern African context is cassava, a staple food cropin many parts of southern Africa. It could serve adual purpose by providing food and energy. It couldalso be seen as a food reserve crop in case of foodshortages. In Tanzania, farmers devote more than 10%of their land to cassava for this purpose. Cassava isproductive on poor soil, resistant to drought andcapable of achieving high yields (10 tonnes/hectare).It also has the advantage of being able to remain inthe soil for long periods, and can be harvested onlywhen required. This eliminates storage problems,making it an ideal back-up crop, for fuel or food.

� Industrial processing impacts: thecase of vinasseThere are many further impacts from the industrialside of bioenergy processing. Stillage or vinasse, a by-product of ethanol production, presents a somewhatspecial case. It is produced in large volumes and isalso potentially valuable input for further bioenergyproduction as well as for other uses such as fertiliser.Each litre of ethanol produced is accompanied by10-15 litres of vinasse. This large volume of vinasseand its high BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) andhigh COD (80,000 to 100,000 mg/l) poses a problemfor its disposal.

The hazardous substances present in the vinassegenerate a very high BOD, ranging from 30,000 to40,000 mg/l and a low pH of 4-5, because of theorganic acids, which are corrosive and require stainlesssteel or fibre glass to resist it. Vinasse containsunconverted sugars, non-fermented carbohydrates,dead yeast, and a variety of organic compounds, allof which contribute to the BOD (Cortez et al, 1998).

The organic components in the vinasse can be usedfor biogas production through anaerobic digestion, aprocess in which methane is produced whenmicroorganisms break down the components underconditions of low oxygen and low temperature (recallsection 1.5).

One possibility of reducing its polluting effect isrecycling it in the fermentation process. Vinasse maybe partly used to dilute the sugarcane juice or molassesin the fermentation step. The juice or molasses needto have the Brix adjusted to allow proper yeast growth,a process that normally requires water to dilute it. Onecompany (Alfa Laval) has developed a process called“Biostil” that uses vinasse to dilute the molasses priorto the fermentation step.

In Brazil, detailed and extensive studies and fieldtesting have shown that vinasse is an excellent fertilizerand improves the physical, chemical and biologicalproperties of the soil. It increases the pH, enhancesthe nutrient availability, improves the soil structuredue to the addition of organic matter, increases thewater retention capacity and improves themicroorganisms’ population.

3.4 Socio-economic impactsSocio-economic impacts that are of primary interestgenerally include income generation, job creation,provision of new services, creation of newinfrastructure, establishing opportunities forentrepreneurs, and stimulating innovative technicaland institutional approaches. At the same time, large-scale projects have encountered controversy involvingthe acquisition of traditional land and competitionwith food crops.

The range and extent of socio-economic impacts ofbioenergy use are greatly dependent on the scale andintensity. The Brazilian model exemplifies the large-scale intensive approach, using high capacity centralprocessing plants fed by intensively farmedsurrounding areas. The establishment of large estatescan bring significant benefits to employees, such ashealth care, sanitation and improved infrastructure(Tomlinson, 2005). Indeed, the large-scale cropenterprises are more economically efficient. However,the question remains whether or not they can bemodified to further improve local livelihoods.

In the southern African context, the high proportionof subsistence farming amongst livelihoods in rural

25


areas, and the complexities of land ownership undertraditional land law regimes, has made such large-scaleacquisition of land somewhat more controversial. Ithas been suggested that a smaller-scale approach maybe more appropriate, possibly involving thecontracting of small-scale farmers to work as‘outgrowers’, dedicating a proportion of their land togrowing a crop for guaranteed purchase by aprocessing company. Such an approach has theadvantage of providing additional seasonal incomefor poor rural farmers, without dismantling thestructure of their existing livelihoods, which may bevital to their survival. However, the lower intensityof land use entails a larger area of agriculturalproduction for each processing plant, resulting infeedstock transport costs becoming a serious obstacleto commercial viability.

A decentralised approach could also help to reducefeedstock transport costs by reducing the weight ofthe cargo—in other words—by decentralising moreof the production process through the setting up ofsmall-scale factories. This would create anotherimportant benefit for the rural poor—access to clean,domestic fuel—with resultant benefits to health fromreduction of indoor air pollution. The economicviability of such small-scale distilleries has not beenproved, and concerns have been expressed about thedangers of alcohol abuse. It is nevertheless an areaworthy of some further investigation.

Seasonal employment can pose social problems inindustries such as sugarcane in southern Africa. Thesudden influx of migrant seasonal workers intoregions to which they have no attachment has beenreported to have negative effects on communitycohesion, causing ethnic tension and disintegrationof traditional structures of authority. Migrant workerssometimes establish unauthorised settlements andthey are unwilling to leave at the end of the season,ultimately increasing overall unemployment levels andpressure on land for subsistence farming. Due to thesometimes drunken and promiscuous behaviour ofmigrant workers, it has also been observed that HIVinfection rates can be higher around sugarcaneplantations (Cornland et al, 2001; FAO, 1995).

A major area of concern for critics of biofuels is thepossibility that bioenergy crops could replace land forfood crops. Another advantage of sweet sorghum isthat in addition to producing sugary stems suitablefor ethanol production, many varieties also produce

edible grains, which can be ground to make ‘mealiemeal’, a staple food in many parts of southern Africa.This has the attraction of providing potentially adouble benefit – subsistence food and a cash income– allowing the farmer the chance to rise out ofpoverty, without losing self-sufficiency.

3.5 Sustainability criteriaThere has been considerable effort during the pastfew years aimed at the development of sustainabilitycriteria for biomass and biofuels, both within regionsand in the context of international trade. In Europe,a recent analysis shows that 15-17% of expectedprimary energy requirements in the EU-25 in 2030could be met through bioenergy, even with theapplication of rather stringent sustainability criteria.The expansion would be facilitated by increasedavailability of significant quantities of waste residues,the increasing productivity of agricultural biomasssources, and the increased amount of land availablefor dedicated energy plantations (EEA, 2006).

It is worth reiterating that in the context of bioenergyprojects, there are no “one size fits all” solutions(ESMAP, 2005). Socio-economic and environmentalimpacts must be assessed for every new bioenergyproject in the context of the pre-existing ecological,cultural, agro-industrial and land use systems that arespecific to the area under consideration. However, itis possible to devise a ‘check list’ of sustainabilitycriteria most likely to be relevant to a bioenergyproject. The following are among the key criteria, asidentified by Smeets et al (2005) in their case studiesof Ukraine and Brazil:� land use patterns: deforestation, competition with

food, protection of natural habitats;� socioeconomic: child labour, minimum wages,

employment, health care, education; and� environmental: soil erosion, fresh water use,

fertilisers pollution, agricultural chemicals.

Smeets et al (2004) assess the costs of applying thesecriteria both in a ‘loose’ and ‘strict’ fashion, the latterset sometimes being defined as not merely minimisingnegative impacts, but making positive improvements,most notably in the provision of health care andeducation services. It is worthwhile consideringwhether the concept of sustainability in bioenergyprojects or programmes should mandate simply thatconditions measured according to these criteria shouldnot be negatively impacted; or whether in fact truesustainability should entail positive improvement of

conditions. At the same time it is important torecognise that bioenergy in some cases will replacefossil fuels, and as such the costs and benefits mustbe compared to those of the fossil fuels beingreplaced.

Sustainability criteria for bioenergy will inevitably haveto address certain core criteria, which will differconsiderably in different regions and for differentcrops. The core criteria would likely cover thefollowing areas (WWF, 2006):� land use and land ownership, including food

security;� maintenance of biodiversity;

� reduction and minimisation of greenhouse gasemission;

� soil erosion and degradation;� water use and contamination; and� socio-economic impacts.

The criteria would also have to be applied at varyinglevels: local, regional, national, and international (i.e.particularly in relation to trade). Undoubtedly therewill be conflicts across the scales, and consequently agovernance system or perhaps an environmentalregime would have to be somewhat flexible, but alsocapable of maintaining fairly high standards.

26


4

Regional and Global Markets for Biofuels


27

This section provides an overview of regionaland global markets, focusing on liquidbiofuels—bioethanol and biodiesel in

particular—since these have the greatest significancein terms of international trade in the near-term. Ahistorical overview is provided, followed by somediscussion of key regional markets and a briefconsideration of global market prospects. Biogas is acost-effective and important option in manydeveloping countries, but is unlikely to have muchrelevance in terms of international trade. Althoughnot addressed here, in the longer-term, there may besignificant potential for trade in other liquid fuels suchas methanol and various second-generation biofuels.

Production and consumption of bio-ethanol isdominated by Brazil and U.S.A, though interest isgrowing in many countries around the world. After30 years of running a bio-ethanol programme, Brazilinitiated a bio-diesel programme in 2005. Legislationproposed in the U.S. in early 2007 calls for a twelve-fold increase in biofuels by 2030, amounting to 60billion gallons or about 227 billion litres (Harkin,2007). U.S. production is destined almost exclusivelyfor domestic markets, while Brazil is a major exporteras well as domestic consumer. There is also someproduction and trade in synthetic ethanol, derivedfrom coal and natural gas in countries such as SaudiArabia and South Africa. Production and use of bio-diesel is dominated by Germany. While there is notyet significant trade in bio-diesel outside Europe, it isgrowing quickly. Much of the discussion in thefollowing sections focuses on bioethanol, althoughsome of the same principles may apply to biodieseltoo.

4.1 Historical overviewBiofuels have been around for over a hundred years,and bio-ethanol in particular saw significant use inthe early part of the twentieth century. Before the eraof cheap oil and during times of conflict such asWorld War II, biofuels have been recognised as avaluable domestic alternative to imported oil. Theresurgence of interest in biofuels in recent years is inpart for similar reasons of energy security, but nowthe added issues of rural development and climatemitigation make the case for biofuels even more

compelling. An interesting historical note is that theModel T introduced by Henry Ford during 1908-1926could run on either petrol or ethanol. Consequently,the dual-fuel vehicles introduced in recent years aresimply a somewhat more sophisticated re-introductionof a capability that was already available at the dawnof the auto age!

� EthanolEthanol fuel played a key role in the first four decadesof the 20th Century. By the mid-1920s ethanol waswidely blended with gasoline in many industrialcountries. In the Scandinavian countries, a 10-20%blend was common, produced mostly from paper millwaste. In most of continental Europe ethanol wasobtained from surplus grapes, potatoes, wheat, etc.In Australia, Brazil, and many other sugarcaneproducing countries, ethanol was produced from canejuice and molasses (Rosillo-Calle & Walter, 2006).

After World War II, few countries showed any interestin ethanol as there was plentiful cheap oil around. Inthe 1970s, after the oil shock, many countries beganto again consider the ethanol fuel option, notablyBrazil. During most of the 1990s the low price of oilagain had a negative effect on ethanol fuelprogrammes, with many schemes being eitherabandoned or scaled down significantly. The pastseveral years have witnessed a growing interest inethanol fuel as a substitute to petrol in thetransportation sector on a global-scale. This is due toa combination of factors, ranging from environmentaland social benefits to climate mitigation and energysecurity.

There are three broad market categories for ethanol—fuel, industrial, and potable—with the largest volumemarket today being for fuel. In fact, since 1975, themarket share of fuel ethanol (of all ethanol) hasincreased from about 5% to over 75%, due mainly toits use in Brazil and the U.S. (FO Lichts, 2006). Theindustrial market is generally associated with chemicaland pharmaceutical industries that require ethanol asa feedstock for fine chemicals and various products.The industrial market generally has greater purityrequirements than fuel alcohol, since it is directed tospecialised production processes rather than

28


combustion as a fuel. The potable market includesdistilled spirits and liquors. However, surplus winealcohol is sometimes re-directed to other markets,such as is the case in some Caribbean countries, whichre-process the wine alcohol for export to the U.S.under special trading arrangements. Ethanol can alsobe processed into ETBE (ethyl-tertio-butyl-ether) byreaction with isobutylene, a refinery by-product. Suchre-processing is popular in the EU, due to the fuelstandards adopted by the automobile industry in EUmarkets, and the preferences of oil distributors in theEU for ETBE rather than bio-ethanol as a finalproduct for blending (EUObserver, 2005).

Not all ethanol is bio-based. Synthetic fuels—bothdiesel and ethanol—can be produced from coal ornatural gas through the Fischer-Tropsch process, asis common in South Africa. Synthetic ethanol is oftenused in the industrial market, due to the specific purityrequirements. Synthetic ethanol is chemically identicalto bio-ethanol, and market data is not necessarilyreported separately (Table 5 gives total ethanolproduction). Although synthetic ethanol productionis generally not cost-competitive with bio-ethanol, thehigher levels of purity required can acquire a pricepremium for certain applications. Production in SouthAfrica was initially a result of the political isolationagainst the apartheid regime in the 1970s. Tradesanctions required greater reliance on domestic energysources where feasible, and South Africa has plentifulsupplies of coal. Having all the infrastructure in place,

South Africa has continued for many years now, afterapartheid, with its synthetic production. The processfor gas-to-liquids is analogous to the production ofsecond-generation biofuels in the future viagasification of biomass.

As illustrated in Table 5, world ethanol productionhas increased significantly in recent years. The twolargest producers—Brazil and USA—have generallybeen responsible for 60-70% of world ethanolproduction. All ethanol produced in Brazil is bio-ethanol, as is nearly all ethanol produced in the U.S.Synthetic ethanol is produced in a number ofEuropean countries as well as in Middle Easterncountries, South Africa, and some Asian countries.Due to fuel quality issues and ongoing negotiationswith oil companies, most ethanol produced in the EUis either synthetic or is bio-ethanol that is processedinto ETBE (EurObserv’ER, 2006). In a few EUcountries such as Sweden, ethanol is blended directlyrather than using ETBE. Sweden is also one of thefew countries to run a significant fleet of E100vehicles; much of the bus fleet runs on ethanol, usingspecially-designed engines.

� BiodieselThe process of trans-esterification for making bio-diesel has been known for well over a hundred years,although bio-diesel, as it has come to be known,emerged only in the past twenty years, in terms ofthe use of refined vegetable oils on a large-scale.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Global share, Global share, Annual2000 2005 average

change

Brazil 10.6 11.5 12.6 14.7 14.7 16.1 33% 34% 8.6%U.S.A. 7.6 8.1 9.6 12.1 14.3 16.2 24% 34% 16.4%other Americas 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 3% 2% 0.8%EU 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 8% 6% 2.5%other Europe

23.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 12% 9% 2.6%

Africa 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 2% 1% 3.6%China 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.8 9% 8% 5.1%India 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.7 5% 4% -0.2%other Asia

21.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 4% 3% 0.8%

World 31.7 33.7 36.5 41.5 43.6 47.6 8.5%

Table 5: Ethanol production1 by country or region (billion litres)

NOTES:1All figures include bio-ethanol and synthetic ethanol; about 85-90% of the total world ethanol market is bio-ethanol; about 75% of

the total world ethanol market is for fuel; Some ethanol is processed into ETBE for blending, particularly in the EU.2Other Europe includes Russia and republics; other Asia includes Pacific/Oceania

Source: F.O.Licht’s, 2006.

29


Rudolf Diesel first demonstrated his breakthroughengine design in 1893, and it was powered by peanutoil. He believed that the utilisation of a biomass fuelrepresented the future for his engine. In 1911, he said“The diesel engine can be fed with vegetable oils andwould help considerably in the development ofagriculture of the countries which use it.” Theemergence of cheap fossil fuels, however, encouragedthe diesel engine manufacturers to alter their enginesto utilise the lower viscosity petroleum diesel.

Research into the use of trans-esterified sunfloweroil and refining it to diesel fuel standard was initiatedin South Africa in 1979. By 1983 the process toproduce fuel quality engine-tested bio-diesel wascompleted and published internationally (SAE, 1983).An Austrian Company, Gaskoks, obtained thetechnology from the South African AgriculturalEngineers, put up the first pilot plant for bio-diesel inNovember 1987 and the erection of the first industrialbio-diesel plant in April 1989, with a capacity ofprocessing 30,000 tons of rapeseed as feedstock perannum. Throughout the 1990s, plants were openedin many European countries, especially in the CzechRepublic, France, Germany, and Italy.

Globally, production of bio-diesel is concentrated ina few countries, with Germany and France accountingfor nearly 60% of production and consumption, asshown in Table 6. Global production has beenincreasing at a tremendous pace, with most of thegrowth in the EU as a result of fairly generous taxbenefits and subsidies. From 2000 to 2005, biodieselproduction increased globally four-fold, from under1 billion litres to nearly 4 billion litres. Production in

Germany alone increased more than five-fold overthe same period.

4.2 Biofuels in BrazilThe rapid development of ethanol productioncapability in Brazil took place only after the creationof the Brazilian Alcohol Program, known asPROALCOOL, in 1975, with the purpose ofproducing anhydrous ethanol for blending withgasoline. After the second oil shock in 1979, thegovernment decided to expand production to includehydrated ethanol to be used as neat fuel in modifiedengines. Sugarcane production has increased several-fold during the past three decades, up to over 380 Mtin the 2004/2005 harvest. In the past five years alone,production has increased by over 50% (recallTable 5).

The continued expansion of the sugarcane industryin Brazil, particularly in the last decade, has been theresult of various factors, ranging from high demandfor sugar and ethanol both in the domestic andinternational market to continuous improvements inproductivity. Such improvements include the wholechain system, ranging from better varieties, soilmanagement, pest and disease control, transportation,technical improvement in conversion, to end use.

With dozens of new industrial units in different stagesof construction, ethanol production capacity is set toexpand considerably in the coming years. Brazil hasthe capacity—land, technical know-how and evenfinance—to expand its ethanol production capacity8-10-fold in the next 20-30 years. The implicationsof such an expansion are being evaluated at the

NOTES: other EU includes EU-25 starting in 2004 and 2005Sources - estimated based on: Eurobserver, 2006; National Biodiesel Board, 2006.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Global share, Global share, Annual2000 2005 average

change

Germany 250 315 511 813 1176 1897 26% 45% 50.0%France 373 364 416 406 395 559 40% 13% 8.4%Italy 89 160 239 310 364 450 9% 11% 38.4%other EU 112 128 130 181 330 713 12% 17% 44.8%EU Total 813 912 1210 1630 2265 3618 86% 86% 34.8%U.S.A. 8 19 57 76 95 284 1% 7% 106.4%other 125 190 256 284 273 307 13% 7% 19.7%World 945 1121 1523 1989 2633 4209 34.8%

Table 6: Biodiesel production by country or region (million litres)

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

(Ramadhas et al, 2004)

francis

Inserted Text

Su

30


University of Campinas, one of Brazil’s premierresearch universities (Cortez, 2006).

With the lowest cost production in the world, Brazilhas become the largest exporter of ethanol. The mainpriority in Brazil has thus far nevertheless been tosupply the domestic market. Alcohol is used as anoctane booster blended with gasoline, alone as “neat”fuel, and in flex-fuel vehicles, and also as a chemicalfeedstock and other industrial applications. The flex-fuel vehicles, introduced in 2003-2004 run on anycombination of gasoline and alcohol.

� Sugarcane burningThe burning of sugarcane fields has been a majorissue in Brazil for some years as well as in many othersugarcane producing countries. The cane is burnedto kill pests and remove extraneous matter, making itmuch faster for manual cutting of the cane. Althoughthe overall cycle of cane production is CO2 neutral,the emissions emanating from sugarcane burning isstill a significant economic and environmental issue,particularly in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, not onlybecause it is the largest producer of cane, but alsobecause it is most densely populated. Some of thenegative impacts of sugarcane burning are:� loss of sucrose: unburned cane can have as much

as 20% higher productivity;� loss of nutrients: 10-20 ton/ha of dry matter are

lost in the process of burning; and� smoke and danger from fire is a nuisance and

hazard for neighbouring residents.

� Sugarcane harvestingMechanical harvesting is partly dictated by thelegislative pressure to ban the practice of burning,although new factors are emerging. There are twocamps: the first camp consists of those who promotemanual harvesting, mainly because of socialconsiderations, as it is a large source of employment.In some areas of the State of Sao Paulo for example,the competitive pressures for sugarcane are intense.This is because industrialisation and services arebecoming increasing important and thus there ispressure on land and wages for alternative uses.Similarly, in areas around Piracicaba, a major sugarcanearea, pressure on land and wages is forcing canegrowers to move to other areas as it is becominguneconomic to grow cane (UDOP, 2005). This forestcamp includes mainly trade unions, academics andgovernment officials. The second camp promotesmechanisation fairly agressively and is more

representative of the corporate interests of thesugarcane, ethanol and related industrial sectors.

Until recently, there has not been any dramatic changein harvesting methods mostly due to the followingreasons:� relatively low cost of manual harvesting (availability

of labour);� high costs of harvesters; and� low efficiency of mechanical harvesting (e.g.

sucrose losses 4-5%, cane impurities).

However, in recent years this situation has began tochange, particularly in the State of Sao Paulo, due toa combination of factors of which harvesting costsand environmental pressures play a major role.Increasing cost of labour in some areas is becomingacute according to sugarcane growers. However, thisis more complex than what it seems at first instance.For example, sugarcane cutters usually receive a salarythat is as much as 3 times higher than other workersdoing similar jobs (e.g. in the agro-forestry sector).This difference in wages is caused by social reasons,younger workers do not want to work as cane cutterssince it is extremely hard and short-term work that isassociated with poor education and low status.Emerging opportunities in other sectors can offer jobswith better working conditions.

Environmental pressure is increasing due to socialconcerns about the effects of burning. There is newlegislation that bans burning near urban areas,motorways, roads, etc. For example, in Sao Paulo Stateby 2006, 30% of the cane would have to be harvestedwhole in areas where mechanisation is possible. Thiswill reach 100% by 2021, and by 2031 all sugarcanewould have to be harvested whole (green),mechanically or otherwise. Currently, the average forBrazil is 25% mechanical and 75% manual harvestingand in Sao Paulo State 35% is harvested mechanically(Gazeta Mercantil, 2005). The consensus is thatmanual harvesting will gradually be replaced bymechanical harvesting. In fact, new expansion ofsugarcane takes place only where the topography andsoil conditions are suitable for mechanised harvesting.

� Expansion of land under caneBrazil has enormous potential for increasing ethanolproduction, due to the high productivity of sugarcane,as it does not require as much land as for other crops.There is about 62 million ha (Mha) cultivated for allcrops in Brazil and cane is grown on about 5.7 Mha.

31


In the short-run it is estimated that domestic ethanolfuel demand will grow about 9% a year for the next 5years (Oliveira, 2005). In 2013, the domestic demandcould reach 25 B/l, while exports could reach 6 billionlitres (Nastari, 2005). However, such large expansioncould have serious land use impacts.

There is considerable domestic and internationalconcern with the possible opening of the Cerrado,

2 a

large region that is the biologically richest savannahin the world. There is a perception of negative effectsdue to multinational agro-industrial corporationsgrowing crops such as soybean, which is much moreland-intensive than sugarcane. EMBRAPA

3 has

identified over 90 Mha suitable for sugarcanecultivation, although there is considerabledisagreement as to the suitability of this area

4. Some

proposals have suggested that ethanol fuel from theCerrado must meet internationally agreedenvironmental and socially sustainable developmentcriteria. Purchasers of ethanol fuel should also bewilling to pay a price premium to make such a policymore attractive.

� Biodiesel in BrazilA Brazilian programme for biodiesel has beeninitiated, with similar objectives to those of the bio-ethanol programme. However, the approach will bedifferent, in that small farmers are expected to providefeedstocks for the industrial producers of biodiesel.A regulatory instrument will be used to enforce thesocial and environmental profile, known as “TheSocial Fuel Seal,” which will be awarded by theMinistry of Agrarian Development, as a conditionfor industrial producers of biodiesel to obtain taxbenefits and credits. In order to receive the Seal, anindustrial producer must purchase feedstock fromfamily farmers, enter into a legally binding agreementwith them to establish specific income levels, andguarantee technical assistance and training (PNPB,2005).

Unlike the large-scale approach used in the case ofethanol from sugarcane, the benefits of building anew industry could be better distributed. Economiesof scale are somewhat different for biodiesel, and soa different approach may be useful. However, it isnot clear whether the small-scale approach willultimately prove to be economical in the globalmarket. Government legislation will providesecurity for the market demand. A blend of 2%(B2) will be mandatory for all diesel fuel as of 2008,while 5% (B5) will be mandatory starting in 2013(MDA, 2005). There are support schemes forresearch and development, in addition to thesupport for implementation, via the tax creditsassociated with the Social Fuel Seal. There is growingcriticism within the business community of theconditions imposed by government, which seemsmore concerned with social development rather thanenergy at competitive price. They argue that theconditions attached to biodiesel production,particularly in the Northeast, will make biodieseluncompetitive.

4.3 EU bio-energy policies andprogrammesEU policies on biofuels are relevant with respect tointernational trade, as it is recognised that a rapidincrease in biofuels within the EU cannot be achievedwithout imports. Biomass and bio-energy arepromoted through a variety of programmes andpolicies within the EU, and is widely recognised thatbio-energy will be among the major renewable energysources in the near-term. Recent policies and strategiesaddress liquid biofuels, solid biomass and biogas. Thesector coverage includes heat and power production,transport, and direct uses in households andbusinesses. A biomass action plan was released by theEC in late 2005 and a biofuels strategy in early 2006(EC, 2005; EC, 2006).

In 2001, the EC launched its policy to promotebiofuels for transport, the motivation for whichincludes several dimensions:� to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;� to reduce the environmental impact of transport;� to increase the security of supply;� to stimulate technological innovation; and� to promote agricultural diversification.

The policy was to be market-based, but would includeindicative (i.e. non-binding) targets and financialincentives in order to maintain progress. The targets

2 The Cerrado is an area of 204 Mha (agricultural land 137

Mha, cattle ranching 35 Mha; forest & plantations 12 Mha) ofwhich about 90 Mha of land is potentially available for othercrops. However, there is considerable disagreement evenabout what land the “cerrado” actually covers.3 Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (Brazilian

Agricultural Research Organization)4 It is not clear what classification criteria EMBRAPA has used;

in any case, only a small fraction could eventually be plantedwith sugarcane, due to various factors, including: soil quality,water availability, domestic opposition, and topographiclimitations. Topography is a major factor since the tendency isto plant cane only in areas where mechanisation is possible.

francis

Inserted Text

b

32


were to be based on the percentage of biofuels in thetransport market, which was only 0.6% in 2002.

The EU Directive on biofuels came into force in May2003, under which Member States were expected toensure a minimum 2% share for biofuels by 31December 2005 and 5.75% by December 2010 (EC,2003a). Only Sweden with 2.2% and Germany with3.8% exceeded the 2% target in 2005 (EC, 2006).Sweden accomplished this mainly through bio-ethanol, while Germany relied on bio-diesel. Thebiofuels component within the overall roadmap forrenewable energy has been revised somewhat in lightof the slow progress by Member States. A more recentpolicy document acknowledges that the 2010 targetswill be difficult to meet, but nevertheless proposes atarget of 10% for 2020, with the assumption thatpolicy instruments must be made more effective (EC,2006). The integrated energy-climate package that wasput forth by the Commission also retains biofuels asa major component of strategies aimed at the goalsof energy security, competitiveness, and sustainability(EC, 2007).

In conjunction with the biofuels directive, and otherrenewable energy directives and policies, legislationwas developed to allow exemptions in the taxationof energy sources (EC, 2003b). The Directive allowsMember States to apply exemptions or reductions inthe level of taxation on renewable energy sources,including solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biomass, andwaste. These tax concessions are considered state aids,which may not be implemented without prior ECCommission authorisation, in order to avoid unduedistortion of competition and over-compensation.

A third component of the EU biofuel legislationrelates to fuel quality. In 2003, the environmentalspecifications for market fuels were amended toestablish specifications for gasoline and diesel. Theprevious Fuel Quality Directive was thus amended,and applies to biofuels as well as to petrol and diesel(EC, 2003c). The European Committee forStandardization (CEN) has set limits on biodieselblending to no more than a 5 percent share by volumefor technical reasons. This strict technical requirementrepresents an obstacle to achieving the targets set inthe Biofuels Use Directive. Consequently, it isproposed that the Fuel Quality Directive be revisedagain in order to remove such technical barrier, aswell as to address related issues that may constrainthe use of biofuels.

The EU currently has a special aid programme forenergy crops grown on non-set-aside land, i.e. landthat is not already within the 10% of land that farmersare requested to set aside under the EU CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP). The energy crops canreceive a premium of Euro 45 per hectare, within amaximum guaranteed area of 1.5 million hectares. In2005, an estimated 0.5 million hectares received theenergy crop payment. The generous supportmechanisms available for bio-diesel have resulted intwenty of the twenty-five Member States of the EUproducing biofuels, as of the end of 2005(EURobserver, 2006).

EU biofuels production is generally not cost-competitive, mainly because of high-priced feedstock,which is rapeseed in the case of biodiesel and sugarbeet, corn, or wheat in the case of bioethanol. In spiteof recent sugar sector reforms, the EU internal sugarprices are expected to remain substantially aboveinternational market prices, and consequently sugarbeet will continue to be an expensive feedstock. Withrecent significant increases in world oil prices, biofuelshave become more competitive, particularly biodiesel.EU-produced bioethanol is still not cost-competitive,and imported bio-ethanol will generally be cheaperthan EU-bioethanol, particularly that imported fromBrazil, which is cost-competitive at current oil prices.However, since most EU countries continue to chargecustoms duties based on the higher agricultural tariffs,even lo-cost Brazilian ethanol can become moreexpensive.

In early 2006, the EC released a biofuels strategy, inwhich the overall aims of the biofuels initiatives werereviewed, progress was assessed, and specificimplementation issues were addressed in terms ofmeeting future targets (EC, 2006). It was recognizedthat only about half of the target for 2010 could bemet through production within the EU, and theremainder would need to be met through imports.

The EU biofuels policy currently relies on anassumption that the heavily-subsidised cultivation ofrapeseed will meet its biodiesel targets. However, thisis a very large assumption. Already some 3 millionhectares of agricultural land across the EU, an arearoughly the size of Belgium, results in 10 Mt ofrapeseed. Only 20% of this is ultimately used forbiodiesel as opposed to food oil. Therefore, anotherarea, about the size of Belgium, would have to becultivated with rapeseed in order to meet the targets.

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

7

francis

Inserted Text

c

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

b

33


Rapeseed tires the land, and requires expensive croprotation and fossil-based fertilisers. Growing rapeseedalso has an opportunity cost of preventing farmersfrom growing more environment-friendly, lessintensive, and often more profitable produce such ascereals or organic root vegetables. Under thesecircumstances, the supply of rapeseed oil is unlikelyto be able to meet the demand.

There is an obvious conflict between the stated policyof the EU to promote imported biofuels as well asinternally-produced fuels, and the fact that mostcountries have not extended tariff exemptions toimported bioethanol. The failure of the Doha Roundto produce significant trade reforms has beenattributed by developing countries to the unwillingnessof the EU and the USA to reduce protections fortheir agricultural sectors. Consequently, there will bea continuing struggle between agricultural policy,which has been firmly entrenched in the EU forseveral decades, and renewable energy policy, whichis relatively new—now that it has reached a significant-scale—by comparison.

4.4 Biofuels in other countries/regionsA number of other regions are significant producersof biofuels, or could become significant producers inthe near-term. Countries with large domestic markets(USA, China, and India) are unlikely to becomeexporters. Other regions could become majorexporters in the future, particularly southern Africaand some parts of Southeast Asia. Smaller Africanproducers such as Malawi are discussed in section 5along with other summary case studies. The situationin the U.S., China, and India is briefly mentionedbelow, since these countries could be major producers,but also potentially major importers in the future,depending on market developments.

� U.S.A.Ethanol is produced mainly from corn in the U.S.,and domestic producers receive a subsidy of $0.52/gallon ($0.14/litre). Partly, as a result of such supportschemes and the recent rise in oil prices, USAproduction exceeded Brazilian production for the firsttime in 2005. Ethanol is sold in most states as anoctane enhancer or oxygenated blended with gasoline,and in the Midwest there are also E85 or ethanol-only vehicles, including buses.

Bio-diesel production has also been increasing

significantly due to the generous tax credits providedby legislation enacted during 2004-2005. The tax creditis $0.50/gallon ($0.13/litre) of biodiesel made fromwaste grease or used cooking oil and ($0.26/litre) forbiodiesel. If the fuel is used in a mixture, the credit is1 cent per percentage point of agribiodiesel used or1/2 cent per percentage point of waste-grease biodiesel.For small biodiesel producers (i.e. production capacityof less than 60 million gallons annually), an additional$0.10 ($0.03/litre) tax credit is provided for each gallonof biodiesel produced by small producers. This taxcredit is capped after the first 15 million gallonsproduced annually (US-DOE, 2004).

In September of 2005, Minnesota became the firststate to require that all diesel fuel sold in that statecontains part biodiesel. The Minnesota law requiresat least 2% biodiesel (B2) in all diesel fuel sold. InMarch 2006, Washington State became the secondstate to pass a 2% biodiesel mandate, with a start-date set for December 1, 2008 (WA, 2006).

� ChinaAlthough China cannot be regarded today as a majorplayer in biofuels, this could change dramatically inthe near future. China is potentially a hugely untappedvehicle market. In 2004 there were only 27 millionprivately owned vehicles, most of them concentratedin large cities (Brown, 2004), which is very low bywestern standards. The Chinese automobile use hasbeen growing faster than in any other country andduring the past 5-6 years, automobile use has nearlydoubled. If this trend continues, the size of theChinese automobile industry will have significantimplications for fuel demand, and some of thisdemand may very well be met through biofuels.

� IndiaWith the growing mobility of India’s increasingpopulation, demand for crude oil long ago surpasseddomestic production. Diesel demand is much higherthan petrol, due to the significant amount of freighttransported by road. Bio-diesel production offers thepossibility for fuel produced from renewable sourcesto sustain the growing demand. Some oil-bearingcrops such as jatropha, can be grown on degradedland, that are not well-suited for traditional agriculturalcrops. Over 65 million hectares of land has beendeclared “wasteland” in India, and another 174 millionhectares are close to being called wasteland, and thismay present an excellent opportunity for energy cropslike Jatropha.

34


In April 2003, the National Committee onDevelopment of Biofuel recommended a major multi-dimensional programme to replace 20% of India’sdiesel consumption. The National PlanningCommission has involved the Ministr ies ofPetroleum, Rural Development, Poverty Alleviationand the Environmental Ministry and others, in theworking of the National Committee. One objectiveis to blend petro-diesel with a planned 13 millionton of bio-diesel by 2013, produced mainly fromnon-edible jatropha oil and a smaller part frompongomia. For this, eleven millions ha of presentlyunused lands are to be cultivated with jatropha.One of the difficulties is lack of experience withlarge-scale production of jatropha, compoundedby its low productivity in terms of fuel producedper hectare.

There is a key socio-economic and environmentalquestion related to how the Indian biodieselprogramme will be implemented. The crucial issue iswhether privatisation of wastelands can rehabilitatethese lands and generate gainful employment for thepoor in the process (Sharma, 2005). It is clear thatthe programme will generate wide investor interest,due to the financial incentives available. Consequently,the productivity of the wastelands is likely to improveconsiderably in the process. What is not at all clear iswhat will happen to those persons who rely on the publicwastelands for their livelihoods. A related question iswhether poor farmers will be able to participate in thisprogramme on equal terms with large corporations.Consequently, the programme remains somewhatcontroversial with respect to privatisation and theinstitutions that will govern land tenure.

4.5 International trade in biofuelsBiomass markets already exist in Brazil, Canada andNordic countries. Trade between countries is alreadysettled, for example, Sweden imports biomass fromFinland and Russia. The bioenergy trade that iscurrently in action is not controlled by any text orinstitution. However, the biomass energy challengewill fail if biomass resources are not conserved. Today,most direct drivers of degradation in ecosystemsremain constant or are growing in intensity in mostecosystems (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment). Thequestion is how to deal with interactive issuesinvolving land availability and improved productivitiesand rural livelihood, natural resource conservation andbiodiversity, poverty reduction and modernized energysupply.

International bioenergy trade is growing rapidly,particularly for co-firing (wood chips, and pellets),CHP (wood chips), and liquid biofuels for transport(bioethanol and biodiesel). The potential forinternational biotrade is quite huge, and this wasrecognised by the International Energy Agency (IEA)Bioenergy Program, when it decided to set a newresearch task (Task 40) to specifically address issuesrelated to bioenergy trade.

The case of bio-ethanol is of particular interest fordeveloping countries, as it is different from otherbiofuels and from biomass resources in general inseveral respects. First, the opportunity to export avalue-added product such as ethanol, rather than rawbiomass is important for developing countries.Second, there are many significant potential producersof bio-ethanol. Any of the more than 100 countriesthat grow sugarcane could enter the market fairly easilyin the absence of protectionist measures. Third, themost economical biomass source or feedstock,sugarcane, is found almost exclusively in thedeveloping world. Fourth, unlike biomass or woodproducts, ethanol markets are impacted significantlyby trade barriers and tariffs. While many smallsugarcane–producing developing countries arepotential producers, both sugar and ethanol areprotected products in most markets. Preferentialprices for sugar have been a disincentive fordeveloping countries to switch to bio-ethanol fromsugar, since they can obtain more money from thesubsidised sugar exports.

The sugarcane sector is at a crossroad. For decades,this industry has both benefited and suffered, as it isone of the most distorted international commoditiesin the world. In spite of some market openings andreductions in subsidies, preferential markets for sugarremain in place and in several different forms. Somecountries have benefited while others have paid a highprice. Pressures from the WTO means that marketsare gradually being liberalized, again for the benefitof some and to detriment of others. The recentagreement by the EU to cut the internal price of sugarby 36%, forcing greater domestic and internationalcompetition, is a good example, greeted with a senseof relief by some (low-cost) producers and outrageby those (high-cost) producers that have been greatlydependent on supported prices.

Some projections suggest that ethanol trade willincrease by a factor of 3-4 by 2010 (Rosillo-Calle &

35


Walter, 2006). Between 2010 and 2015, trade isexpected to more than double (Lichts, 2006). Moresignificantly, the number of exporting countries/regions will increase significantly, with countries otherthan Brazil and U.S.A. making up about 30% of thetotal, compared to less than 5% in 2005. Exports areincreasing as a growing number of countries aredeveloping ethanol fuel policies and programmes, dueto several driving forces:� progress on climate change: implementation of

Kyoto and further post-Kyoto decisions;� clearer long-term policy in U.S.A. in favour of

alternative transport fuels;� improving attitude of the automobile industry

toward alternative fuels;� technological progress, including cellulose-based

ethanol; and� interest in supporting rural development in

developing and developed countries alike.

International trade of fuel ethanol also faces somespecific barriers, including:� tariff and non-tariff trade barriers;� in most countries ethanol fuel programs have been

aimed at the domestic rather than the externalmarket. International trade requires a change inmentality;

� new investments in infrastructure and adaptationsto new programmes; and

� direct domestic production subsidies to ethanol fuelactually hinder longer-term market developmentbecause of market risk perceptions in light ofpolitical uncertainty of future support schemes.

Recenttrends indicate that it would be possible tocreate sizeable production and consumption centresoutside the USA and Brazil, i.e. EU, China, India,

Japan, Thailand, and southern Africa. If a goal, suchas 10% blending is used, future scenarios suggest thatmultiple regional markets could emarge by 2025(Johnson, 2002). It is relatively easy and cheap totransport ethanol by ship, as for oil, where thetransport cost is generally between 1-2 US ¢/litre.Currently, between 3 and 4 billion litres of ethanolis traded annually, with Brazil and the USA beingthe main exporters, and Japan and EU the mainimporters. The EU and Japan could continue tobe the major importers in the future, given theinterest in creating renewable fuels markets basedon environmental and energy security reasons, andthe low availability of cost-effective domesticproduction. Howeve, in the case of the EU the strongagricultural lobby is pushing for domestic productionrather than imports.

Fulton (2005) has studied the potential large-scaleethanol production from sugarcane up to 2050,estimated at 633 B/l/yr (14.5 EJ/yr or about 20% ofthe estimated projected world gasoline demand in2050). This scenario considers only a maximum of10% of the cropland area to be used for sugarcane(excluding Brazil). Brazil accounts for nearly half ofthe total ethanol production in this scenario. It isestimated that 3,460 new industrial plants would haveto be built up to 2050, of which 1,720 will be inBrazil; the cumulative associated investment isestimated at US $215 billion. This appears to bean optimistic scenario in terms of a total marketsize equal to 20% of gasoline demand. On theother hand, the estimated amount of croplandrequired may in fact be less, given the historicalimprovement in yields and the possibility to focusproduction on the most high-yielding regions and thevarieties best-suited to those regions.

francis

Inserted Text

b

francis

Inserted Text

(Johnson and Matsika, 2006)

francis

Inserted Text

francis

Inserted Text

(OECD/IEA, 2005)

BIOMASS, LIVELIHOODS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE5

Policies and Programmes in Selected SADCCountries

This section provides an overview of countryor regional case studies on bioenergy policiesand programmes. The case studies include

particular biomass or bio-energy programmes as wellas general policies and strategies related to bio-energyand other renewable energy sources. The emphasis ison the energy services to be delivered, and theopportunities for advancing biomass optionsalongside the creation of livelihoods and marketdevelopment regionally and globally. Specificdemonstration projects are not reviewed or discussedhere, except in the context of policies andprogrammes to which they were connected. Aparticular focus is placed again on biofuels, andparticularly on bio-ethanol, due to the long experiencewith sugarcane in the SADC region, and the impactof recent competitive pressures that have increasedeconomic incentives for sugar producers to diversifyinto bio-energy.

5.1 Overview of policies andprogrammes in TanzaniaTanzania is blessed with abundant energy resourcesin its different forms, biomass, solar, wind, hydro, etc.With exception of biomass, most of the otherrenewable energy resources remain unexplored.Biomass fuels (firewood, charcoal and farm residues)are the dominant energy sources, accounting for morethan 90 percent of total energy consumed and 98percent of the total energy used in the rural householdsector. The overwhelming dependence on woodfuelfor energy, and clearing land for agriculture andcommercial logging are greatly contributing toenvironmental degradation, such as high deforestationand soil erosion.

More than 90 percent of the 35 million people in thecountry do not have access to electricity. About 80percent of the population live in rural areas. Onlyone percent of the rural population is connected tothe electricity grid, so that the overwhelming majorityof Tanzanians depend on woodfuel as their mainsource of energy. It is anticipated that, due to lackof affordable alternatives, this trend is unlikely tochange in the foreseeable future, unless there areserious efforts taken both at the national and locallevels.

In the recent National Energy Policy, which wasapproved by the Cabinet in February 2003, theGovernment is focusing on new approaches that willhave an impact on rural transformation. Among theseis the establishment of an institutional framework thatwould mobilise, co-ordinate, facilitate, monitor andevaluate private and public initiatives in rural andrenewable energy. The Ministry of Energy andMinerals is in the process of developing a nationalstrategy, which encompasses an entirely new approachto provide of modern energy to Tanzania’s ruralpopulation. In the new approach, a Rural EnergyAgency (REA) and Rural Energy Fund (REF) will beestablished with clear roles and functions.

The strategic focus of the REA and REF will include,among other things, the provision of energy servicesfor productive applications in rural areas to stimulateeconomic development, and rural growth in line withmajor government policies in most sectors, and toprovide modern energy sectorsto key rural service,particularly health, education, water, andcommunication.

Manyenergy projects and programmes have beeninitiated in Tanzania (i.e. tree planting, improvedstoves, biogas, solar technologies, improved charcoalmaking kilns, etc.) for various purposes, includingcombating deforestation, improving energy services,substitution of imported petroleum fuels, and healthimprovement. Efforts made so far have not had muchsuccess in facilitating large-scale adoption of modernenergy technologies in rural areas.

Inefficient technologies dominate production and useof biomass, and women and children are the mainsuppliers of biomass energy as they do most of thewood-gathering. Tanzania urgently needs tomodernize its traditional uses of biomass for energy,but this faces many challenges ranging from lack ofcapital to cultural practices. Following are some ofthe problems identified through studies and fieldobservations, as the main causes of the low adoptionof modern energy technologies in rural areas:

Technical constraints� low quality and inefficient energy technologies;

36

� inadequate training opportunities, facilities andinfrastructure;

� limited capacities for operation and maintenance;and

� non-availability of reliable data for energy planning.

Economic/financial limitations� use of non-commercial fuels reduces economic

benefits of technology adoption;� low degree of involvement of commercial sector,

due to unfavourable policy environment for privatesector to operate as effective promoters of energytechnologies;

� low commercialisation of renewable technologiesand market potential poorly understood; and

� lack of financing schemes.

Government/policy� low priority and inadequate commitment and no

major government biomass programmes;� priority centralised energy, which provide services

to less than 10% of the population;� top-down approaches have been used, which failed

to consult and involve those who would be directlyaffected; and

� lack of appropriate institutional framework toprovide consistent and quality services.

Social and cultural limitations� majority of people are poor and lack resources and

education;� project/programme developers have poor

understanding of the socio-cultural issues of thetargeted community; and

� communities tend to differ widely, depending onthe level of development, leadership, etc. andfrequently energy options need to be specificallytargeted.

A number of strategies have been discussed in termsof overcoming the above difficulties, and expandingthe market for modern efficient energy systems.

Technology issues� technical assistance programmes should be

initiated;� technology should reflect resources available and

needs of people;� technologies should be socially relevant and

economically viable;� training of local persons in production, installation

and maintenance of energy systems; and

� R&D results should be brought to the benefits ofusers and producers.

Energy planning issues� formulate energy strategy within the framework

of sustainable integrated development;� give priority to developmental needs of the

community;� encourage sustainable management of locally

available energy resources; and� undertake market studies.

Financing issues� provision of low-interest loans and tax incentives;� incentives to create and promote SMEs;� scale-up efforts to mobilise adequate financial

resources;� local financial institutions educated on energy’s role

in socio-economic development; and� financial assistance programmes should be initiated.

Capacity-building and networking� serious consideration should be given to incorporate

energy and related issues in the curriculum of formaleducation course at all level of learning;

� collection, dissemination and exchange information- mainly through electronic means;

� facilitate networking among relevant institutions;and

� ensure that material is accessible in a form that iseasy to understand by users.

Overall, concerted efforts in formulating andimplementing rural energy strategies are required inorder to facilitate improved and sustainable energyservices to the majority of the population. Suchstrategy will result in a positive contribution to theoverall rural socio-economic development and energysector needs of the country. These initiatives willsimultaneously accelerate the development and greateruse of modern rural energy technologies for improvedenergy services for the majority of the rural people.To achieve this, a new thrust in the development ofmodern energy technologies has to be initiated toconsolidate whatever achievements has been madeso far, to remove constraints and problems forfacilitating accelerated adoption of modern ruralenergy technologies on a large-scale.

5.2 Bioenergy options and energypolicies in ZambiaThe Zambian Government’s Energy Policy is divided

37


38


into 5 main sectors: (1) petroleum, (2) woodfuel, (3)electricity, (4) coal, and (5) new and renewable sourcesof energy, including energy conservation andsubstitutions. In addition, energy pricing isincorporated as a cross-cutting element within all thesectors. The main policy objective is to promoteoptimum supply and utilisation of energy, especiallyindigenous forms, to facilitate the socio-economicdevelopment of the country and maintenance of asafe and healthy environment.

The government aims to support and promote newand renewable energy sources through systems andcomponents adaptation, manufacture anddocumentation, and dissemination of information,and establishment of a specialised agency onrenewables. The agency would be expected to:� carry out R&D;� provide evaluation, certification and monitoring of

technologies to ensure that they conform to quality,safety, health and environmental standards; and

� training in development and application ofrenewable and efficiency technologies.

The Government is reviewing its energy policy to takeinto account new developments that have occurredin the energy sector. For example, the revised nationalenergy policy recognises the need to use ethanol andbiodiesel as transport fuels. A policy on ensuringavailability of data on market demand, resources andapplicability of renewable energy technologiesincludes the following:� a study on the feasibility of growing energy crops

(ethanol and biodiesel) and their economic use astransport fuels;

� policies and standards on the replacement of leadas octane enhancers; and

� policies and standards on the use of biodiesel as atransport fuel.

Zambia imports all its petroleum products, whichaccount for 10% of the country’s foreign exchangeexpenditure and 14% of the national energyrequirement. The business-as-usual policy option inthe petroleum sector is to continue with the currentstate of operation, under which the INDENI refineryremains the sole importer of crude and there is noblending with biofuels. The other option would be tointroduce ethanol and biodiesel for blending withgasoline and diesel, and the resulting blends can bedistributed independently or through the oil marketingcompanies (OMCs). If this option is considered, three

implementation models would be assessed:1) INDENI maintains its monopoly status, as the sole

responsible agent for blending, including thefollowing elements:� INDENI buys ethanol from producers and

blends with petrol and sells to OMCs;� INDENI invests in equipment to process bio-

diesel from jatropha and sells to OMCs; and� Farmers and out grower schemes sell jatropha

and sweet sorghum to INDENI and ethanolproducers, respectively.

2) An open but regulated market, allowing for variouscompanies undertaking localised blending of petroland diesel with biofuels; and

3) An open and deregulated market, where OMCsare allowed to buy petrol and diesel from anycompetitive market and blend it with biofuels.

Successful implementation of a biofuels programmewill require political will, smart subsidies or supportschemes, and an integrated approach to theimplementation of the programme. There will be aneed to incorporate the biofuels programme inpoverty reduction strategies. The regulators also needto develop standards on biofuels and the upper limitin blending. The Zambia Government has beenlearning lessons from other countries such as Brazilas to how to encourage development of the localethanol industries.

A feasibility study on the Luena farming block innorthern Luapula Province examined the potentialfor bioenergy from a new sugar factory and distillery.The study included technical, economic, financial,social, and environmental assessments for ethanolproduction and cogeneration of electricity. The studyconcluded that markets for joint production of sugar,ethanol and cogenerated electricity were economicallyfeasible and socially beneficial under certainconditions: consistent policy support, a mandate forblending with petrol, access to the electricity grid, arenewable motor fuels credit amounting to about 5US cents/litre, and private investment for some ofthe infrastructure required (Cornland et al, 2001). Ascenario based on ethanol-only (i.e. no productionof sugar) would not be economically feasible due tothe lack of sufficient demand and also the opportunitycost of the foregone sugar production.

The draft National Energy Policy includes a policydiscussion on biofuels, under which the Ministry ofEnergy has, for the first time, established a Working

39


group comprised of key stakeholders to develop aNational Biofuel Strategy. Biofuels have the potentialto play a significant role in the economic developmentof Zambia. However, for this to succeed thegovernment has to take a leading role by creating anenabling environment that is conducive to investment.

5.3 The Malawi ethanolprogrammeMalawi began looking at ethanol in the 1970s for thesame reasons that Brazil did: to address rising oilprices, save foreign exchange, and develop a domesticresource. Public-private partnerships and marketcoordination (for blending, distribution,transportation, etc.) were critical to establishing theethanol programme in Malawi. The first ethanol plantwas commissioned in Northern Malawi in 1982, andwas managed by ETHCO Ltd. (ethanol company ofMalawi). The plant has operated continuously since1982, with annual production varying between 10 and20 million litres. The price of ethanol was pegged tothat of petrol, plus an incentive of 5% or more,depending on the volume of ethanol blended. Sinceirrigation water is available from Lake Malawi,ETHCO was not susceptible to climate-inducedinterruptions (World Bank, 2005).

The company faced some difficulties in supply ofmolasses—the feedstock for ethanol production.ETHCO was owned separately from the adjacentDwangwa sugar factory, resulting in the need for pricenegotiations, additional costs, and increaseduncertainty in feedstock supply. This factor along withspare plant capacity and the desire to maintainblending targets, prompted ETHCO to secureadditional molasses supply (as much as 40%) fromthe Sucoma sugar factory, located several hundredkilometers to the South. Ironically, use of diesel trucksto transport molasses from Sucoma reduced theotherwise positive environmental and economicbenefits of ethanol substitution.

Another ethanol plant was commissioned in SouthMalawi in June 2004, which partially alleviated the needto ship the molasses north. It has a capacity of 60,000litres per day and can produce approximately 14million litres of ethanol per year. This plant alleviatedthe need to transport molasses from the sugar factoryin the South. The plant process uses continuousfermentation to produce 8% alcohol in the wash, anduses tray column distillation and molecular sievedehydration as separation. The plant built in 2004 gives

a much higher quality of ethanol and is 99.8% pure.The ethanol is sold locally to petroleum companiesfor blending with petrol. A small fraction is alsoexported to South Africa and Europe for the cosmeticand pharmaceutical industry. The expanded capacityfor ethanol production in Malawi has resulted ininsufficient domestic supply of molasses to operateboth factories, and Malawi has had to import molassesfrom Mozambique and Zambia. Corn (maize) is beingconsidered as a supplementary feedstock for ethanolproduction that can be made available domestically.

Locally, the ethanol is blended with petrol, at ablending rate of 10%, although the blending rate hasbeen much higher when the supply allows it. Rates ashigh as 24% have been reported, which is nearly ashigh as the blending rates used in Brazil (Chanje 1998).Blending is not compulsory in Malawi, but 95% ofthe gasoline consumed today is blended with ethanol.There is a high demand from foreign countries forMalawi ethanol exports, especially from South Africaand the Netherlands, but also from France andTanzania. Supply has not been sufficient to meet thedemand for exports, suggesting options for futureexpansion.

One of the main problems in Malawi has been thecomplaints that arise from the communities livingaround the ethanol plants because of the smell fromthe effluent, which is known as stillage. Some of it isused to reduce dust on roadways, and in some casesit can be used as fertiliser, but the lack of implementingsuch alternatives in Malawi means that stillage disposalremains a major concern. When the first plant wasbuilt, it was planned that the stillage waste fromethanol production was to be turned into biogas, usingan anaerobic digester funded mainly by the Dutchgovernment. However, lack of training andstandardized operational procedures resulted in theplant being shut down without ever havingoperated for more than a few days at a time (Chanje1998). Efforts aimed at more productive use ofstillage through biogas plants could provide majorbenefits to nearby communities in the form of gasfor direct use or for electricity production or eventransport.

5.4 The cogeneration programmein MauritiusDuring the past two decades, a series of plans andreforms were undertaken in the sugar industry inMauritius in order to address key issues with regard

40


to rationalisation and modernisation of the sector. Aspecial focus of many of the policy measures was topromote bagasse cogeneration, and the resultingprogramme has been quite successful. Theprogramme was facilitated through legislation,financial incentives, and technical support.

The Sugar Industry Efficiency Act formulated in 1988,contained incentives and measures for the variousstakeholders, including the millers, miller-planters,large planters, and the many employees in the sugarsector. Measures for land conversion restrictions werealso included. The measures for promoting bagasseenergy were as follows (Seebaluck, 2007):� introduction of performance-linked rebates on

export duty payable by millers for bagasse savedand sold for firm electrical power generation5;

� exemption from the payment of income tax for75% of the proceeds from the sale of bagasse bya miller to another one for the purpose ofgenerating firm electrical power;

� exemption from the payment of income tax for60% of the proceeds from the sale of firm electricalpower by a miller to the public utility body; and

� increase in the initial allowance from 50% to 80%for machinery or plant used for energy saving ortreatment of fly ash.

The Bagasse Energy Development Programme(BEDP) was set up by the Government with theassistance of the World Bank in consultation withconcerned stakeholders. The objective was to developa strategy to optimize the use of bagasse, including:� displace the heavy investments to be effected by

the national utility company;� reduce dependence on petroleum products and

diversify its energy base;� improve the viability of the sugar industry through

modernisation and rehabilitation;� allow savings in foreign exchange by decreasing

import of petroleum products; and� contribute to GHG mitigation.

The plan was to erect two firm power plants annexedto the sugar factories, one at Union St Aubin sugarfactory (southern part of the country) and the otherat Belle Vue sugar factory (northern part of the

country), each having an installed capacity of 22 MW.All the bagasse generated from the sugar factorywould be used to generate high pressure steam, whichwould subsequently be sent to condensing-extractionturbo alternator for cogeneration of electricity to thenational grid, after satisfying factory processing needs.Additional plans, including rehabilitation of someexisting plants, restrictions on intermittent powerproduction due to its inefficient mode of operation,and adoption of the process of satellite factoriessupplying excess bagasse to the neighboring powerplant.

The bagasse would be burnt during the crop season,and any surplus from its own or satellite factorieswould be stored for use during the intercrop. Thefirm power plant would burn coal as an alternativefuel during the intercrop, since it can be burnt in thesame boiler house. Use of coal during the intercropwould help in diversifying the energy base of thecountry and also because it was cheaply and largelyavailable from supplying countries that are lessexposed to political risks and instability. It was alsointended to compact bagasse and use additional canefield residues as a supplementary boiler fuel.

A Sugar Energy Development Loan (SEDP)amounting to US $15 million was negotiated by theGovernment to facilitate the implementation of theBEDP. The loan was mainly for projects pertainingto enhance bagasse savings in the cluster of factories.An additional grant of US $3.3 million was madeavailable from the Global Environment Facility (GEF)of the World Bank to conduct projects and studies inrelation to the BEDP.

Some problems arose in the initial stages of theprogramme. Only 40% of the SEDP loan was initiallydisbursed for investment in bagasse saving in thesatellite factories, due to the slow progress in one ofthe firm power plants, which was connected to afactory that had a low crushing capacity of 130 TCH,and hence, had to rely largely on bagasse from satellitefactories. The satellite factories determined that theprice of bagasse should be calculated on the basis ofthe equivalent coal price, which deteriorated thefinancial viability of the project. It was also determined

5 Firm power is defined as power available at any time during a commitment period, even under adverse conditions. In Mauritius,

firm power associated with cogeneration plants at sugar mills is based on bagasse during the harvest season, and generallyrequires coal-fired boilers for use in the non-harvest season. A ‘continuous’ power plant in Mauritius in this context generally refersto bagasse cogeneration plants that run only during the harvest season. In some cases, stored bagasse along with the use of canetrash can extend the operation of the plant on biomass sources beyond the harvest season, thereby also reducing the use of coal.

41


that the firm power plant project would have areasonable rate on return on investment with acapacity of 30 MW instead of 22 MW.

Tax-free incentives for bagasse electricity andmodernisation of sugar equipment were raisedthrough the Finance Acts of 1992 and 1993, whichalso extended the performance-linked rebates onexport duty to firm power producers who carried outenergy savings of their own bagasse and also to millersselling bagasse to continuous power producers. Partof the capital expenditure incurred in the installationof efficient equipment used to enhance bagasse savingand hence, further energy generation was also entitledto refund of export duty. Export duty was abolishedaltogether in 1994 and as per a Memorandum ofAgreement with the Government, the sugarcompanies had to segregate growing and millingactivities and further set up public milling companies.This led to the creation of a Sugar Investment Trust(SIT) where 20% of the equity shares of the millingcompanies were sold to planters and millers. In 1995,the tax on milling companies was brought down to15%, through the Income Tax Act.

Centralisation was important for reducing the costof production in cane milling through the closure oflow capacity crushing mills and their integration inbigger capacity adjoining mills. Higher crushingcapacity at the sugar factories made available morebagasse on a single site and thus ensured the runningof more efficient boilers. In 1997, a policy wasissued with guidelines and conditions for theclosure of mills. Particular emphasis was laid forthe need to l ink the closure of mil ls withcogeneration of bagasse energy.

The Ministry of Energy conducted a study to interpretthe clauses of the draft purchase agreement and washelped by the World Bank in working out the

principles and guidelines. An in-depth analysis of theprice setting mechanism used as cost basis for a dieselplant of 22 MW capacity, as proposed by the CEB,was conducted to arrive at the avoided cost for thefirm power plant, both economically and financially.The appropriate prices for bagasse (Rs. 1.59/kWh)and coal (Rs 1.43/kWh) were subsequentlyrecommended. The prices for continuous plants thatcame into operation later were partially indexed to oilprices. The electricity price of the firm power plantsin Mauritius varies according to the plant set-up, andranges from approximately 20% above to 20% belowthe recommended prices. The electricity prices areindexed to the coal price, cost of living indices inMauritius and foreign exchange rate fluctuations.

A Sugar Sector Strategic Plan (SSSP) was developedfor 2001-2005, which considered a number ofreforms, mainly at the factory level, which included:� centralisation whereby placing a high priority on

electricity generation in the centralisation process;� adoption of energy conservation devices to

improve steam consumption with the aim ofincreasing export to the national grid;

� adoption of continuous processes and automationto improve sugar recovery efficiency; and

� production of value-added products in the formof special sugars in the strategy of diversificationwithin sugar.

As of 2005, independent power production fromsugar factories accounted for over a third of installedcapacity in Mauritius (Table 7). The transformationin the sector thus occurred over a period of abouttwenty years. The success achieved on bagasse energycogeneration in Mauritius can be replicated in almostall of the cane producing countries in the southernAfrican continent. There is a wide spectrum ofopportunities, which can encourage integration ofsugar and energy production. On the technical front,

Central Electricity Board Independent Power ProducersConventional Plant capacity/MW Thermal (bagasse/coal) Plant capacity/MWplants installed effective installed effective

Hydro 59.4 54.2 Firm producers 136.3 121.0Thermal 348.5 290.0 Continuous producers 100.2 84.7TOTAL 407.9 344.2 TOTAL 236.5 205.7

Table 7: Overview of plant capacities in Mauritius

(Source:CSO, 2005)

42


many sugar factories in southern Africa use diffusiontechnology, which is less energy intensive than milling.There would be less power consumption at the frontend of the sugar factory, thereby enhancing co-generation. The experience in Mauritius suggests thatconsistency and comprehensiveness in policyimplementation is actually more important than thetechnical features, which are well-documented andcommercially mature.

The advantages are enormous in the context ofsouthern African countries. There is reduceddependence on petroleum products and improvedreliability in power supply through diversification ofelectric power sources. Implementation ofcogeneration will also bring additional revenue to thesugarcane industry which is facing threats of priceand quota reduction in preferential markets in thecontext of trade liberalisation. Cogeneration is aclimate friendly technology that can attract GEFfunding as well as financing schemes, such as,Activities Implemented Jointly and the PrototypeCarbon Fund. Most of the cane producing countriesin the African continent could benefit from suchfunding or schemes.

However, the path of power sector reform can bedifficult. There are difficult socio-economic conditionsprevailing in most of these countries. Powergeneration is usually undertaken by the national utilityas a monopolistic activity, whereas the issue ofrenewable energy/bagasse is more profitable ifundertaken by Independent Power Producers. Thisentails that a proper Government policy should bedefined to promote this type of investment. Theaccess to finance by IPP is another difficulty that needsto be overcome.

5.5 Farming for Livelihoods inSouthern Africa (FELISA)Biofuels hold enormous potential for the southernAfrican agriculture and for the economies of theregion in general. In terms of liquid biofuels formaking bio-diesel, palm oil offers an attractive optiondue to its high yields, while jatropha could be anotheruseful alternative due to its ability to grow in poorersoils along with the fact that it is non-edible andthereby does not create a conflict with foodproduction.

FELISA (Farming for Energy for better Livelihoodsin Southern Africa) is a new initiative in Tanzania that

intends to produce biodiesel, biogas and compostfrom palm oil, and to a lesser extent, from sunflowersand jatropha. Palm oil has the highest yield amongoil-bearing crops. It is native to Africa but today theoverwhelming majority of its production is based inAsia. Many different products and services areobtained from palm oil production, some of whichare indicated in Figure 11.

Integrated production of biofuels can be promotedbased on a multi-use and multi-system platform thatincludes appropriate incorporation of supply anddemand constraints. The options within amanagement strategy would include:� management of oil seed plantations, such as palm

oil plantation;� production of vegetable oils;� production of bio-diesel;� production of bio-gas for electricity, cooking or

other uses; and� ongoing research on applications and uses of bio-

fuels.

Farming for energy can contribute significantly toAfrica’s economic development in a way that isfinancially, economically, socially and environmentallysustainable. However, a number of issues need to beaddressed to establish biofuels on a larger-scale inAfrica:� evaluation of the potential of different agro-

ecological zones and different crops;� identification and development of high-yielding

varieties;� promote involvement of the private sector in

production;� ensuring remunerative price for the farmers on a

Figure 11: Production of various products from palmoil

francis

Inserted Text

Energy for better

43


long-term basis; and� setting up processing plants in major oilseed

growing areas.

A biofuels strategy for southern Africa needs to takeinto consideration many different conditions,constraints, and priorities, including agronomic,technical, socioeconomic, and environmental aspects.A regional strategy will also require coordinationamong key producing regions, potential distributioncompanies, and related infrastructure needs. As withmany countries or regions engaging in biofuelsdevelopment, public-private partnerships will beimportant to provide both the proper incentives andalso the appropriate oversight.

5.6 Small-scale ethanolproduction in ZambiaDue to lack of modern energy resources in most partsof Zambia, many people have come to rely ontraditional energy resources such as fire wood andcharcoal to meet both their domestic and industrialneeds. Home-based industries operated by womendepend heavily on biomass as their major source ofenergy (AFREPREN, 2004). These home industriessuch as bakeries, pottery, fish smocking and oilprocessing are the ones which provide income forthe families. Most of the institutions such as school,hospitals and prison in rural community also dependon wood fuel for cooking and heating water.

The technology used in the homes and institutionshave health effects, especially on women and children,who spend long time in the poorly ventilated kitchenswhere soot and smoke oil affect the respiratory systemand eyes. The hard work also strains the back musclesof women, creating difficulties during child delivery.Charcoal and firewood are the cheapest and easilyaccessible sources of energy for the poor, and can bepurchased in small quantities. The annual increase forcharcoal consumption in Zambia’s urban householdswas estimated at 4% or 24150 tones of charcoal(Chaposa, 2002)

In an effort to conserve the environment and topromote the efficient use of wood fuel and charcoal,work has been done to promote the use of efficientcookstoves. However, due to technical and proceduralconstraints, these programs have generally not beeneffective. In many cases, cookstoves weremanufactured and disseminated without involvingwomen and women’s groups, resulting in rejection of

the technology. Improvements have been made, butthe dissemination is slow due to the ease of obtainingcharcoal and its relatively low price. Substitution ofethanol gelfuel for charcoal and fuelwood in cookingcould help to address a number of problems andissues, including the following:� reduce health and environmental impacts of

smoke, especially on women and children;� provide jobs for farmers and rural dwellers;� reduce the amount of time needed by women for

gathering fuel and cooking, which would in turncreate more time for income-generating activitiesthat might also utilise renewable energy sources;

� improve air quality in urban areas; and� create a new market for renewable energy.

At the national level, Zambia plans to replace theblending lead in petrol with ethanol that will also createa market for ethanol, which can be made fromsugarcane, sweet sorghum and other crops. If ethanolis also used for cooking and lighting to replacecharcoal, firewood and kerosene, it will broaden thelocal markets, especially since transport uses of petrolin rural areas are extremely low. There is also apossibility to create export markets to the EU andother regions. Additional national benefits couldaccrue through credits obtained from the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM). The additionalinvestment in Zambia will result not only in GHGemission saving projects, but also in new economicopportunities and livelihoods for the biomass growersand the associated industries.

Sugarcane and sweet sorghum will generally offer themost efficient feedstock options. Sugarcane has thehighest overall efficiency, but it requires a fairly largescale and high upfront investment costs. Growingcane, which is a perennial crop, is also a majorcommitment, due to the long time frame forestablishing initial production. Sweet sorghum is easierto grow on a smaller-scale, has low cultivation costs,and is more accessible than sugarcane for small-scalefarmers who may not have significant technicalexpertise. Sweet sorghum matures fairly quickly (120days), whereas cane requires a year or more. The price/liter of ethanol produced from sweet sorghum willgenerally be less than the price from production ofcane (Woods, 2001).

An initial program could begin with small-scalefarmers growing sweet sorghum. The following aresome potential initial activities:

� conduct survey and identification of womencharcoal producers;

� develop technical specification, source and placeorder for the plant;

� identify and train farmers in sweet sorghumcultivation;

� supply sorghum seeds to farmers;� install ethanol plant;� train operators;� conduct ethanol stove testing and identify local

producers; and� conduct training for management of public

institutions and farms on ethanol.

Considering the fact that the technologies andoperations are new to Zambia, there will be a needinitially to seek external assistance in the followingareas:� develop criteria on the selection of growing sites

and plant locations;� plant design, using the most cost-effective

processes of ethanol production;

� develop technical specification of ethanol plant;� develop plant technical specifications, maintenance

and operational standards;� train the management of the ethanol plant in

factory operation and business skills; and� develop a strategy of scaling up the ethanol plant

and draw up a business plan based on theexperience gained to entice the private sector toinvest in the expansion programme.

The goal would be to make the village ethanol projectsself-sustaining through the revenues generated, thelivelihoods created and maintained, and the higherproductivity of rural dwellers engaged in biomassproduction. Since the government is promoting theuse of ethanol as a domestic fuel, and there is currentlyno local production of ethanol, the village ethanolprojects will complement the supply of ethanol fromlarger plants and provide some greater stability to theoverall markets for biofuels.

Table 8: Production using sweet sorghum vs. sugarcane

Source: (Yamba, 2004)

44

Properties Sugarcane Sweet Sorghum

Crop cycle 11-13 months 3.5-4 monthsYield per ha 70 -100 tonnes 17-22 tonnes x twice/year = 34 - 44 tonnesSugar content 11-13% 9-11%Ethanol yield 68-74 litres/tonne 45-55 litres/tonneWater requirement 65-70% of caneFertilizer requirement 35-40% of caneBagasse availability 30% of cane 28-30% of sweet sorghum


6

45

In evaluating alternative strategies for developingbiomass and bioenergy, it is necessary to considersome key issues at various scales—local, regional,

national, and global—in order to set priorities. Thissection identifies and elaborates some key issues thatneed to be resolved with respect to the evolution ofnew markets for bioenergy in southern Africa andthe associated implications for sustainabledevelopment in the region.

6.1 Household and small industryuse of traditional biomassTraditional biomass, mainly charcoal and firewood,remains a key energy source in Africa, in householdsand in small-scale enterprises and institutions. Theutilisation of fuelwood and charcoal for cookingcreates indoor air pollution that strongly affects thehealth of women and children. Furthermore,collecting wood raises several social problems. Womenin least developed countries may spend more thanone-third of their productive life collecting andtransporting wood. The need for additional help fromchildren may prevent them from going to school.

Major efforts have been aimed at replacing traditionalbiomass usage with improved cookstoves that utilisebiomass more efficiently and reduce indoor airpollution. Whilst improved cook stoves are moreefficient than the traditional three-stone fireplace,overemphasis on improved cookstoves can lockpeople in a technology that is only marginally better.Where more efficient fuels and cooking equipmentare close to being economically feasible, policies andincentives for switching might be considered.

Cost-benefit analysis of improved stove programmesis difficult, for the same reasons that analysis ofhousehold energy in developing countries is difficultin general—because there is a great deal of informaleconomic activity and non-priced labour involved inthe household sector. Furthermore, even withimproved cook stoves, indoor air pollution levelsremain many times above the maximum levelsrecommended by the World Health Organisation(WHO).

There is a need to take household energy services

delivery efforts beyond the improvement ofcookstoves to services that result in “significant”impacts, whilst of course expanding improvedcookstoves programs where transitions can be clearlyshown to be a long way off. Modern biomass energyincluding ethanol, gel fuel, biomass-based electricity,and other options present opportunities to providebasic energy services as well as contribute to “fuelling”industrial processes.

One of the few renewable energy alternatives forhousehold cooking that can be economicallycompetitive in the near-term is ethanol or ethanolgelfuel, the latter being a safer alternative to liquidfuel. It also offers the possibility for developing small-scale, village-based industries in rural areas. Somepreliminary studies have suggested that gelfuel couldbe made in significant quantities in sub-SaharanAfrica—about 30 billion litres—and from a varietyof feedstocks, including cane, sweet sorghum, cassava,and sweet potatoes (Utria, 2004). Whether or notsufficient demand could arise to create such a largemarket is unclear, however, as it would requireimprovements in both the cost differential of gelfuelcooking, and in the income of the population in theregion, given higher purchase costs compared to woodand charcoal.

6.2 Role of mechanisationOne of the advantages of bioenergy in developingcountries is the large number of jobs created, whichare significantly higher when harvesting of biomassis manual. At the same time, the manual harvestingof some energy crops is extremely physicallydemanding. In the case of sugarcane, it also leads tothe practice of burning before harvest in order toremove debris, while leaving the green parts thatcontain the sucrose. Due to the low or even negative(as a result of high unemployment) cost of labour,we can expect manual harvesting of biomass to bethe norm in most sub-Saharan African countries inthe near-term, assuming that there are no laws orregulations against it.

With the increase of standards of living, it is veryhard to find local people willing to cut sugarcane andother crops manually. It is therefore believed that all

Strategic Issues and Priorities


46


the countries, as they get richer, will have more andmore difficulties to find local people willing to cutsugarcane and other densely planted energy crops.One illustration of this trend is in Brazil, where anincreasing share of sugarcane is cut mechanically.

The solution to this problem could be half-mechanization. It consists in mechanical aid forharvesting. A machine is used for cutting the cropbut people are still needed to collect and gather thecrop in the fields. As the cutting of the cane is thehardest part, it will considerably ease the task forworkers, but at the same time, fewer jobs will disappearand when they do it will be more gradual. This solutionwill also allow limiting the capital costs. This methodwas successfully used in Brazil as a transition frommanual to mechanized harvesting.

Mechanisation was showed to be crucial in the globalstudy of bioenergy potential at Utrecht University,which estimated biomass potential in 2050 (Smeetset al, 2004). This study takes into account thecompetition with food as well as the preservation ofnatural ecosystems. In the most favourable scenario,bioenergy production would be 4 times as much astotal energy consumption! Much of this potential isin fact located in sub-Saharan Africa. This potentialcould be achieved if the best available techniques areused everywhere. Indeed, today, the productivity inAfrica is very low (around 1ton/ha/year), whereasproductivity in France or the United States reaches10 ton/ha/year. It is therefore above all a matter oftechnology and productivity for a very highbioenergy potential to be reached. Transportation costsare not expected to break down international trade ofbiomass. Indeed, transportation costs generally accountfor less than 10% of the total cost of bioenergy, and inthe case of liquid biofuels less than 5%, which iscomparable to that of petroleum fuels.

6.3 Regional markets vs.international marketsCreating an international market for a relatively newset of commodities poses a number of challenges,especially in an underdeveloped region such assouthern Africa. In the near-term, it may be preferableto concentrate on national and regional (SADC)markets, where the benefits of substituting a domesticresource can be obtained without having to competehead-to-head with international companies and/or sellthrough large traders or distributors. The lack ofexperience and infrastructure are important barriers,

while the comparative advantages include the low costof labour and the excellent growing conditions forvarious energy crops. It is also possible that the exportand local markets could develop together, with somepotential cross-subsidisation due to the larger-scaleassociated with export markets.

Alternatively, developing national and regional marketscan be seen as a logical step in the development ofinternational export markets, indeed, several phasesexist in bioenergy use and market development:� local use of forest and agricultural residues;� assuring proper waste treatment, processing of

residues, and energy efficiency;� infrastructure development;� national market development through supportive

policies and incentives;� regional biomass markets, medium-to-large-scale

utilisation, transport logistics;� increasing scale, followed by decreasing costs; and� global commodity market.

It may be premature to consider a global commoditymarket for bioenergy products from Africa, since theearly stages of market development have not beencompleted. Policymakers may place highest priorityon energy accessibility in the near-term rather thanbioenergy export as this will be more appropriate toemerging economies that lack infrastructure. Thereis also concern that Brazil and others will havemonopolies on some markets and will set internationalstandards and prices.

On the other hand, large markets would be needed toattract foreign investment, which is urgently neededin the region. Other than South Africa, the marketsfor biofuels and bioenergy will be too small to attractmuch investment. Since the risks are perceived as highin many respects, investors will require a risk premiumand the prospect of large payoffs. Dependence onnational markets alone may result in no market at all,as there is a certain threshold of demand requiredbefore investment will flow. The determination ofsuch thresholds would be a useful type of policyanalysis that would support decisions about regionaldevelopment and investment incentives.

An alternative that lies somewhat between the twooptions is to develop a super-regional market insouthern Africa, which would require an acceleratedlowering of traded barriers in the region and acommitment to infrastructure development and much

47


greater economic coordination policies. Once thismarket develops, a new and potential element couldenter in the form of region-to-region tradeagreements, e.g. with the European Union. The ideawould then be for the EU to provide financial supportand market access to poorer developing countries thatcan produce biofuels cheaper than in the EU and moresustainably, due to the better energy balance and lowerdegree of mechanisation.

6.4 Implementation strategiesImplementation of successful bioenergy strategies indeveloping countries is not dependent on technologyor financing alone, but often on the intersection ofthe two in combination with social and institutionalfactors. Three essential components can be identified:(1) adaptive R&D (especially for conversiontechnologies); (2) good assessments of emergingbusiness opportunities; and (3) support for theemerging modern bio-energy industry in seizing theseopportunities (identifying key financial and socialinstitutions, development of business plans, etc). Afurther aspect is the key role of the agricultural sector.It is not possible to have a modern biofuels sectorwithout a modern agricultural sector, i.e. high andsustained agricultural productivity.

It is also important to co-ordinate with otherdevelopment initiatives (e.g. commercial forestry, agro-forestry, commercial cropping to produceconcentrated high-volume residues such as sugar, tea,coffee). Also the mobilisation of key potentialstakeholders, such as, smallholders interested inagroforestry, or farm forestry, equipmentmanufacturers, and independent power producers.

In comparison to other renewables, bioenergystrategies are more tailored to the capabilities andneeds of the local population. While this presentsspecial challenges, it also offers tremendousopportunities to design and implement energy systemsthat promote sustainable livelihoods. It is importantto keep in mind that in order for bioenergy to have a

long-term future, it is not enough to reach a large-scale or high technical efficiency—it must be able toprovide what the consumer wants, and this requiresmodernisation and restructuring of bioenergy systemsin accordance with market demands.

Bioenergy industries that are derived from historicallynon-energy industries, such as sugarcane, often lagbehind other industrial sectors, when it comes toinnovation and introduction of new technologies. Thereasons are many and complex, including the pricefluctuations of commodity markets that results in tightprofit margins, fragmentation of various sectors,differences in agronomy practices, differences inproductivity, know-how, and cultural differences.Following is a summary of the main findings of asurvey on such issues (Kochergin et al, 2003):� R&D has often been marginalised due to falling

prices, fragmentation, and existence of many smallproducers concerned with everyday survival;

� poor cooperation among international R&Dcentres, partly since many are located in developingcountries that cannot afford scientific exchanges;

� intensifying competition requires innovation,investment in new technologies to improveproductivity and cost-cutting by companies;

� environmental sustainability issues must be takenon board by industry in order to gain internationalacceptance and set common standards;

� longer-term plans for R&D are needed; and� better methods are needed to identify and prioritise

land suited for energy crops.

Concerns over land use conflicts are perhaps the mostimportant element to be addressed via stakeholderinteraction and dialogue. The multi-dimensional issuesinvolved require a systematic thinking and holisticperspective, tackling the issues of increasingenvironmental and social pressures associated withdevelopment of bioenergy sources. Sustainabilityindicators, economic modelling, and productivitybenchmarks are needed to assess environmental,economic, and technical progress and impacts over time.


Recommendations

T his section summarises somerecommendations for scientific analysis andresearch, policy analysis and research

priorities, training and capacity-building,demonstration projects, and programmedevelopment.

7.1 Scientific analysis andresearchOne of the major difficulties facing bioenergydevelopment, particularly in developing countries, ispoor understanding of fundamental issues dealingwith agronomy and end use technologies.Considerably more long term reliable data on allaspects of biomass production and uses are stillrequired, as lack of such data hampers energy planningfor the production and use of biomass for energy.Programmes to tackle this breakdown in the biomasssystem will require detailed information on theconsumption and supply of biomass, i.e. annual yieldand growing stock of biomass resources.

It is surprising that despite the overwhelmingimportance of biomass energy in developingcountries, policy makers and energy analysts do notpay much attention to planning for management ofbiomass production, distribution and use. This islargely caused by lack of financial and humanresources for adequate data collection and analysis,and because of the informal nature of traditionalbioenergy. Lack of good statistical long-term data andan integrated approach, methods and tools, requiresurgent attention in order to provide reliable data forsound decision-making.

For example, in the case of bioethanol a broad rangeof critical scientific, technological environmental andsocial issues are arising as a result of its rapidexpansion that needs to be addressed, including:� wider, technical, socioeconomic and environmental

implications;� the role of sugarcane as the most feasible feedstock

for ethanol, combined with the need to modernizeand diversify this industry;

� emerging technological alternatives [i.e. new crops,fuels (hydrogen), and engine technologies];

� synergy of sugarcane-sugar-ethanol systems and

use of by-products; and� assessment of the wider sustainability issues related

to ethanol fuel industries.

In the case of biodiesel, more research is needed onspecific oil-bearing plants in Africa. For example,whereas there are plentiful amounts of data availablein Europe on rapeseed, and in the US on soybean,there is very little data available internationally onjatropha oil, which is among the most promising crops,due to its ability to grow on marginal lands. Interestin jatropha has increased in recent years with manycountries and in particularly in Africa, but littleagronomic information exists. In order to gatherbetter data about such plants, it would be helpful toset up an information-sharing network. Theimportance of gathering data whose dissemination isnot limited by commercial sensitivities must beemphasised, while a multi-stakeholder approach isimportant for reliability and credibility.

7.2 Policy analysis/researchThere are many questions that need to be pursuedwith respect to economic policy, organisational issues,and the type of databases that are needed. The relationbetween policy analysis and bioenergy developmentstrategies might be assessed based on issues such as:� long-term sustainability of biofuels from oil

bearing plants;� role of North-South and South-South

partnerships;� detailed environmental impacts of key tropical

crops such as palm oil;� fuel vs. food: what are the potential conflicts and

synergies; and� development of biofuel industries should be

integrated with related policy areas, such asenvironment, transport and health. A holisticapproach is required.

A key policy question is whether a biofuelsdevelopment strategy should focus on local demandor the international market. The options that are mosteconomic will evolve alongside the different stagesof development, as the national economy becomesmore integrated with world prices and benefits morefrom international investment.

48

7.3 Training/capacity buildingAmong the skills needing development, the followingcan be highlighted:� what technologies are available given local

conditions;� where and how to get financing;� how to bring local communities on board;� how to improve the ability to negotiate at

international meetings, so that local knowledgeshould not get drowned out by internationalagendas;

� how to incentivise technology transfer/development;

� empowerment of marginalised groups, e.g.minorities, women; and

� building the capacity of the donors to “listen tothe people”

In addition, it should be recognised that growingenergy crops will not necessarily compete with food.There can be synergies or conflicts, and it is necessaryto conduct careful analysis of local conditions beforereaching any conclusions.

7.4 Demonstration projectsDemonstration projects on locally available biomasssources are important for identifying priority areasof research, but often suffer from lack of financialand human resources. There is often difficulty inperforming detailed studies on bioenergy feedstocksthat have special local significance, since there is atendency for bioenergy research to focus on cropsthat are used in OECD countries. For example,demonstration projects for the invasive plant Lantanacamaral

6 should receive higher priority in East Africa.

Government attempts to organise removalprogrammes were unsuccessful, however, thepotential use of the collected crops for energy createdan economic incentive, which greatly encouragedpeople to participate in collecting the plant. The cropcan be gasified or converted into pellets.

Also highlighted isthe case of Chromolaena odorata7 ,the most prevalent invasive plant in eastern southernAfrica. It also happens to have a high hydrocarboncontent and is therefore ideal as an energy crop. Suchplants offer economic alternative energy uses thatshould receive higher priority. The general point is

that effective biomass demonstrations projects needto be designed around local environmental andsocioeconomic conditions.

7.5 Programme developmentSome key issues related to programme developmentwere identified:� short term/long term: it should be established

whether a programme is intended as a transitionto a more efficient technology, or whether it isintended to be developed in the long term;

� “software/hardware”: software was defined assetting up the social networks to make programmessuccessful, hardware as the more physical processof putting projects on the ground. Both areimportant; and

� programme on commonly used subsistence cropssuch as cassava

Governments need to take the lead in thedevelopment of institutions for biomass development.It is only when a strong institutional framework is inplace that investors will take interest. One idea is thata Department of Biomass should exist in everyAfrican country, given the importance of this resource.The reason why it probably does not exist now is thataccess to modern energy is incorrectly interpretedprimarily as access to electricity and hence biomass isnot given the appropriate priority in energy planning.If an international market is to develop, projectguidelines and a certification system that is supportedby international bodies are also needed.

6 It is a widespread species in East Africa occurring mainly at

the forest edges7 It is considered the most aggressive invasive species of the

indigenous sub-tropical areas.

49



References

� Batidzirai, B., Faaij, A. P.C., and Smeets, E., Biomassand Bioenergy Supply from Mozambique, Energy forSustainable Development, Volume X No. 1, March2006.

� Berndes, G., 2002, Bioenergy and Water - the implicationsof largescale bioenergy production for water use and supply,Global Environmental Change 12, 253-271.

� Bradley, P., and Dewees, P., 1993, IndigenousWoodlands, Agricultural Production and HouseholdEconomy in The Communal Areas, in: Bradley, P. N. &McNamara, K. (eds.) Living with trees: policies forforestry management in Zimbabwe, World Bank,Washington, D.C. pp. 63-137.

� Brammer, J.G., Lauerb, M., and Bridgwater, A.V.,2006, Opportunities for biomass-derived ‘bio-oil’ inEuropean heat and power markets, Energy Policy 34,2871–2880.

� Briggs, M., 2004, Widescale Biodiesel Production fromAlgae , UNH Biodiesel Group, Available at:www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html.

� Brown, W., 2004, Automakers Find China Ripe forNew Technology, Washington Post, Available at:www.washingtonpost.com

� Chanje, A., 1999, Comments on the production of ethanolin Malawi, Technical memorandum provided byETHCO to the Stockholm Environment Institute,November.

� Chaposa, 2002, Charcoal Potential of Southern Africa(Chaposa), Final consolidated report to EC DG-Research under contract ERBIC18CT980278.

� Chidumayo, E.N., 2002, Charcoal Potential of SouthernAfrica: Zambia Country Study, Report to EC DG-Research under contract ERBIC18CT980278.

� Cornland, D., Johnson, F., Yamba, F., Chidumayo,E., Morales, M., Kalumiana, O., Mtonga-Chidumayo, S., 2001, Sugarcane Resources forSustainable Development: A Case Study in Luena,Zambia, ISBN: 91 88714 71 3

� Cortez, L., Griffin, M., Scaramucci, J.A., Scandiffio,M.A.G., Braunbeck, O.A., 1998, Considerations onthe worldwide use of bioethanol as a contribution forsustainability, Management of EnvironmentalQuality: An International Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4.

� CSO, 2005, Central Statistics Office, Mauritius,Digest of Energy and Water Statistics

� DFID, 1999, Department for InternationalDevelopment, Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets,UK, Available at: http://www.livelihoods.org/

� EC (2003b), Directive 2003/96/EC18� EC (2003c) Directive 2003/17/EC of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 3March 2003 amending Directive 98/70/EC relatingto the quality of petrol and diesel fuels

� EC, 2006, An EU Strategy for Biofuels {SEC(2006)142} European Commission, Brussels, 8.2.2006,34 final.

� EC, 2006, Renewable Energy Road-Map, RenewableEnergies in the 21st Century: Building a more sustainablefuture, [COM (2006) 848 Final, SEC (2006) 1719]

� EC, 2006a. Biomass Action Plan, EuropeanCommission, DG-TREN, March 2006.

� EC, 2006b. An EU Strategy for Biofuels, COM(2006)34 final, Communication from the Commission,Brussels, 8.2.2006.

� EC, 2007, Communication from the Commission to theEuropean Council and the European Parliament - AnEnergy Policy for Europe {SEC(2007) 12}/* COM/2007/0001 final */

� EEA, 2006, How Much Bioenergy can Europe Producewithout Harming the Environment?, Copenhagen, EEAReport No 7/2006. ISBN 92–9167–849-X

� EL Bassam, N., 1998, Energy Plant Species- Their Useand Impact on Environment and Development, James andJames, London.

� ESMAP, 2005, Advancing Bioenergy for SustainableDevelopment: Roles for Policymakers and Entrepreneurs,Report prepared by Stockholm EnvironmentInstitute (SEI) for the World Bank EnergyManagement Assistance Programme, ESMAPreport 300/05, April.

� EurObserv’ER, 2005, Observatoire des énergiesrenouvelables, Renewables Barometer, June 2005, n°159.

� EurObserv’ER, 2006, Observatoire des énergiesrenouvelables, Le baromètre des biocarburants”(Biofuels Barometer), May 2006, n° 167

� FAO, 1995, The Effects of HIV/AIDS on FarmingSystems in Eastern Africa, FAO Farm Managementand Production Economics Service, Available at:h t t p : / / w w w. f a o . o r g / d o c r e p / v 4 7 1 0 e /V4710E00.htm#Contents

� FAOSTAT, 2005, Food and AgricultureOrganisation Statistical Database, http://faostat.fao.org.

� FO LICHT, 2004, World Ethanol and Biofuels Report,Vol.2, No.17

� FO LICHT, 2006, World Ethanol - The Outlook Until2015, FO Licht, London, UK

� Friends of the Earth, 2005, The Oil for Ape ScandalAvailable at: http://www.palmoilorg.uk lastaccessed on 27/10/05

� Fulton, L., 2004, Biofuels for Transport- An InternationalPerspective, IEA

� FULTON, L., 2005, Recent Biofuels Assessments andTwo New Scenarios, IEA Seminar Assessing theBiofuels Option, Paris, Available at: http://

50

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

Restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, 27 October 2003.

francis

Inserted Text

EC, 2003a, Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport.

francis

Inserted Text

.

francis

Inserted Text

,

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

,

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

,

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

francis

Inserted Text

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

c

francis

Inserted Text

b

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

5a

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

OECD/IEA

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

ulton

francis

Inserted Text

.

www.unfoundation.org/features/biofuels.asp� Gazeta Mercantil, 2005, Newsletter, 2-3 April p.

B12, Available at: www.gazetamercantil.com.br/� GEF, 2005, Biomass Power Generation: Sugar Cane

Bagasse and Trash, Global Environment Facility,GEF/UNDP/CTC project BRA/96/G31.

� Goldemberg, J., and Coelho, S. T., 2003, RenewableEnergy - Traditional Biomass vs. Modern Biomass,Energy Policy 32 (6), pp. 711-714.

� Green Star Products Press Release, 2006, Green StarProducts Signs Contract to Build 90 Biodiesel Reactors,last accesses on 13/11/2006, Available at:www.greenstarusa.com/

� Hamelinck, C.N., Suurs, R.A.A., and Faaij, A.P.C.,2003, International Bioenergy Transport Costs and EnergyBalance, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University,Netherlands, NWS-E-2003-26, ISBN 90-393-3508-7.

� Hardin, G., 1968, The Tragedy of the Commons,Science 13, December: Vol. 162. no. 3859, pp. 1243– 1248.

� Harkin, T., 2007, Renewable Fuels Act of 2007 – draftversion, http://Harkin.senate.gov.

� IEA, 2005, World Energy Outlook, InternationalEnergy Agency, www.iea.org.

� International Energy Agency (EIA), 2001, Potentialfor Economic GHG Reduction in Coal-fired PowerGeneration, IEA, Paris

� Johnson, F., and Matsika, E., 2006, Bio-energy Tradeand Regional Development: the case of bio-ethanol insouthern Africa, Energy for SustainableDevelopment, Volume X No. 1, March 2006

� Johnson, F.X., 2002, Bio-Energy from Sugarcane forSustainable Development and Climate Mitigation: Options,Impacts and Strategies for International Cooperation,Twelfth European Biomass Conference: Biomassfor Energy, Industry and Climate Protection,Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 2002, James &James, London

� Kåberger, T., 2005, Analysis of Multi-Product BiomassSystems and Options, Presentation at StockholmEnvironment Institute Conference on Biomass andSustainable Livelihoods

� Karekezi, S., Lata, K., Coelho, S.T., 2004, TraditionalBiomass Energy: Improving its Use and Moving to ModernEnergy Use, Thematic Background Paper, InternationalConference for Renewable Energies, Bonn, May.

� Kartha, S., and Larson, E.D., 2000, Bioenergy Primer :Modernised Biomass Energy for Sustainable Development,United Nations Development Programme.

� Knothe, Gerhard 2001, Historical Perspectives onVegetable Oil-Based Diesel Fuels, Inform, 12, 1103-1107, Available at: http://www.biodiesel.org/

� Kochergin, V., Purchase, B., and Rhoten, C., 2003,Research and Development in the Sugar Industry: Statusand Future Trends. Summary of a Survey, InternationalSugar Journal 105, March:137-41.

� Leach, G., and Johnson, F., 1999, Modern Bioenergy –

an overview of its prospects and potential, Renewable Energyfor Development, Vol. 12, No. 4, December.

� Leach, G., and Mearns, R., 1988, Beyond the Woodfuelcrisis: People, Land, and Trees in Africa, Earthscan,London.

� Leal, M.R.L.V., 2006, Techno-Economic Characterisationof Ethanol Production in Brazil, Report commissionedby Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI),Stockholm, Sweden, January.

� Lichts, F.O., 2006, Ethanol market statistics, WorldEthanol and Biofuels Report, 27 January.

� Macedo, I.C., 2005, Sugar Cane’s Energy – TwelveStudies on Brazilian Sugar Cane Agribusiness and itsSustainability, UNICA, Brazil.

� MDA, 2005, Federal Law 11.097, Ministry ofAgrarian Development, Brazil.

� Moreira, M., and Goldemberg, J., 1999, The AlcoholProgram, Energy Policy, 27, 229-245

� Moreira, R., 2006, Global Biomass Energy Potential,Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for GlobalChange, Vol. 11, Number 2: 313-333, March.

� Nastari, P., 2005, Ethanol: the Global Overview,Ethanol – the Smart Way Forward, 2005 InternationalEthanol Conference, Queensland Government,May, Brisbane, Australia.

� NBB, 2006, National Biodiesel Board, www.nbb.org.� NZT, 2006, NZ firm makes bio-diesel from sewage in

world first, New Zealand Herald, last accesses on5/12/06, Available at: www.nzherald.co.nz

� Oliveira, Hr., 2005, The Brazilian Experience, IEASeminar Assessing the Biofuels Option, Paris, June,Available at: http://www.unfoundation.org/features/biofuels.asp

� Openshaw, K., 2000, A Review of Jatropha Curcas:an Oil Plant of Unfulfilled Promise, Biomass andBioenergy. 19: 1-15

� Ostrom, E., 1990, Governing the Commons: TheEvolution of Institutions for Collective Action, CambridgeUniversity Press, London, UK.

� PNPB, 2005, National Biodiesel Production Programme(PNPB), http://www.biodiesel.gov.br.

� Rosillo-Calle, F., 2002, Global Overview of Ethanolfuel, in Proc. 12th European Conf. & TechnologyExhibition on Biomass for Energy, Industry andClimate Protection, James & James, London

� Rosillo-Calle, F., et al, 2004, Sugarcane - A WorldwideFeedstock for Ethanol Production, 2nd World BiomassConference, Rome, 10-14 May, James and James,London, Vol. 2 pp.1906-1909

� Rosillo-Calle, F., et al, 2006, Biomass EnergyHandbook, J&J, London

� Rosillo-Calle, F., Walter, A., 2006, A Global Perspectiveof Ethanol Fuel, for Sustainable Development,Vol. X, No. 1, March

� SADC, 2004, Regional Indicative Strategic DevelopmentPlan (RISDP), Southern African DevelopmentCommunity, www.sadc.int.

51


francis

Inserted Text

Ramadhas, A. S., Jayaraj, S. and Muraleedharan, C., 2004, "Use of vegetable oils as I.C. engine fuels - A review," Volume 29, Issue 5 , April 2004, Pages 727-742.

francis

Inserted Text

Energy

francis

Inserted Text

.

francis

Inserted Text

.

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

Assessment

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

Earthscan

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

de Groot, P. , Hemstock, S., Woods, J.,

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

and

52


� SADC, 2005, Strategy for biofuels in SADC, SouthernAfrican Development Community, October,www.sadc.int.

� SAE, 1983, Technical Paper series no. 831356, SAEInternational Off Highway Meeting, Milwaukee,Wisconsin, USA, 1983.

� Scoones, I., 1998, Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: AFramework for Analysis, IDS Working Paper 72,Brighton, UK

� Seebaluck, V., Mohee, R., Sobhanbabu, P.R.K.,Rosillo-Calle, F., Leal, R.L.V., and Johnson, F.X.,2007, Thematic Report on Industry, Cane ResourcesNetwork for Southern Africa (CARENSA), EuropeanCommission report under contract ICA-4-2001-10103, February.

� Sharma, S., 2005, Privatisation of wastelands in Indiafor Biofuels Production, Presented at Workshop onBiomass, Livelihoods and International Trade,April 2005.

� Smeets, E., Faaij, A., and Lewandowski, I., 2004,A Quickscan of Global Bio-energy Potentials to 2050:An Analysis of the Regional Availability of BiomassResources for Export in Relation to the Uunderlying Factors,Copernicus Institute Report NWS-E-2004-109,Utrecht, Netherlands.

� Smeets, E., Faaij, A., Lewandowski, I., 2005, TheImpact of Sustainability Criteria on the Costs and Potentialsof Bioenergy Production, Copernicus Institute,Available at: http://www.fairbiotrade.org/

� Steenblik, R., 2005, Liberalisation of Trade inRenewable-Energy Products and Associated Goods:Charcoal, Solar Photovoltaic Systems, and Wind Pumpsand Turbines, OECD Trade and EnvironmentWorking Paper No. 2005-07, Organisation forEconomic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

� Sydkraft, 2001, Värnamo Demonstration Plant forBiofuel-fired Combined Heat and Power Generation Basedon Pressurised Gasification, Berlings Skogs, Trelleborg,Sweden

� Tomlinson, D., 2005, Future Prospects of Bio-EnergyUtilization in the South African Sugar Industry, IllovoSugar Ltd, SEI Workshop on Biomass, SustainableLivelihoods and International Trade Workshop, 29-30 April 2005

� UDOP, 2005, União dos Produtores de BioenergiaAvailable at : www.udop.com.br/versao_impressao.php

� UN, 2005, Energy Statistics Yearbook 2002,Department of Economic and Social Affairs,Statistics Division, United Nations, New York.

� UNCTAD, 2005, Trade Statistics, www.unctad.org.� UNDP, 2004, World Energy Assessment, United

Nations Development Programme, New York,ISBN: 92-1-126167-8, www.undp.org/energy.

� UNICA – União da Agroindústria Canavieira deSão Paulo, 2004; 2005, Açúcar e álcool do BrasilCommodities da Energia e do Meio Ambiente

Commodities da Energia e do Meio AmbienteAçúcar e álcool do Brasil, São Paulo, Brazil,Available at: http://www.portalunica.com.br

� UNICAMP, 2005, Estudo sobre as possibilidades eimpactos da produção de grandes quantidades de etanolvisando à substituição parcial de gasolina no mundo,Universidade Estadual de Campinas NúcleoInterdisciplinar de Planejamento EnergéticoFundação de Desenvolvimento da Unicamp,RELATÓRIO FINAL, Dezembro de 2005.

� US-DOE, 2004, Alternative Fuels Data Center, U.S.Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy Division, http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/.

� US-DOE/EIA, 2005, International EnergyOutlook 2005, Report # DOE/EIA-0484(2005),US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, July.

� Utria, B., 2004, Ethanol and Gelfuel: Clean RenewableCooking Fuels for Poverty Alleviation in Africa”, Energyfor Sustainable Development, Vol. VIII No. 3,September, pp. 107-114.

� van Dam, J.E.G., de Klerk-Engels, B., Struik, P.C.,and Rabbinge, R., 2005, Securing Renewable ResourcesSupplies for Changing Market Demands in a BiobasedEconomy” Industrial Crops and Products 21 (2005),129-144.

� WA, 2006, Washington State Senate Bill 6508, http://www.leg.wa.gov/

� Walter, A., et al, 2000, New Technologies forModern Biomass Energy Carriers, in: IndustrialUses of Biomass Energy - The Example of Brazil,F. Rosillo-Calle, S. Bajay & H Rothman (ed.) Taylor& Francis, London, pp. 200-253

� Washington State, 2005, Developing MinimumRenewable Fuel Content Requirements and Fuel QualityStandards in an Alternative Fuels Market, LegislationSB 6508 - 2005-06, Available at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6508

� WEC, 1999, The Challenge of Rural Energy Poverty inDeveloping Countries, World Energy Council, London,October.

� Woods, J., 2001, The Potential for Energy ProductionUsing Sweet Sorghum in Southern Africa,” Energy forSustainable Development, Vol. V No. 1, March,pp. 31-38.

� World Bank, 2005, “World DevelopmentIndicators,” http://web.worldbank.org.

� World Resources Institute (WRI), 2005, WorldResources Institute Earth Trends, http://earthtrends.wri.org/.

� WWF, 2006, Sustainability Standards for Bioenergy,World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF Germany,Frankfurt, November.

� Yamba, D., Matsika, E., 2004, Policies andRegulations Related to Implementation ofSugarcane Co-products Projects within SouthernAfrica, CARENSA, Durban

53


This section summarises the workshop on“Biomass, Sustainable Livelihoods, andInternational Trade,” that was held in

London, at the end of April 2005. Also described aresome additional events that were organised inconjunction with the workshop, including two studyvisits and a special seminar. The focus, objectives, andparticipant profiles are included here, as well as briefsummaries concerning the working groups that weredeveloped. The results of discussions and some keyissues that emerged from the presentations have beenincorporated into this report.

Thematic focusThe broad thematic focus of the workshop was inthe conflicts and synergies that arise between localand global economic development objectives, withrespect to biomass and bio-energy markets. Localdevelopment objectives are represented in this caseby the notion of sustainable livelihoods, while globaleconomic development is represented by expansionof international trade. Consequently, the more specificfocus of the workshop is the relative contribution ofbiomass and bio-energy to sustainable developmentgoals through domestic vs. international markets.

Economists might frame the tension betweendomestic and international markets as being somewhatanalogous to the choice between developmentstrategies based on import substitution vs. export-leddevelopment. However, in this workshop, aninterdisciplinary approach was taken in which theissues are viewed as the intersection of technical,economic, political, social, and environmental aspects.Furthermore, the emphasis is on policies andinstitutions rather than on specific technical solutionsor economic approaches.

The case of bio-ethanol from sugarcane is givenconsiderable attention for a number of reasons.Sugarcane is currently the world’s most significantenergy crop, due to its high productivity. Second, forclimatic reasons, it is grown predominantly indeveloping countries, which allows for South-Southcooperation and technology transfer. Third, as anagro-industry, it offers significant opportunities tocreate rural livelihoods and facilitate rural

development. Fourth, it addresses a number ofenvironmental issues, including lead phase-out andGHG reduction. Fifth, oil dependency in southernAfrican countries consumes hard currency and limitslocal development benefits. Finally, there are emergingopportunities for international trade in bio-ethanol,due to the EU biofuels strategy and increasing demandfor renewables.

However, it is important to note that the choice ofparticular bio-energy feedstocks (e.g. sugarcane), andthe choice of final products (e.g. ethanol) in marketstrategies depends crucially on local and regionalconditions. Furthermore, even in regions where theconditions are favourable for sugarcane, it may notnecessarily be appropriate or desirable, depending onthe development objectives and the socio-economicand environmental context.

Geographical focusThe primary geographical focus of the workshop wassouthern Africa. The region of southern Africa notonly has significant biomass potential, but also hasset ambitious goals for improving economicintegration, political cooperation, and developmentof its natural resource base in a sustainable manner,mainly through the Southern African DevelopmentCommunity (SADC). The economic and politicalintegration within SADC, along with internationalcooperation on issues at the environment-development nexus, are among the important driversfor larger-scale biomass production, and along withthe coordination of national markets and policies,would facilitate expanded international trade byimproving the region’s overall economiccompetitiveness in bio-energy markets.

In terms of international cooperation, the relationshipbetween the EU and southern Africa has specialsignificance for several reasons. First, the strongeconomic and development cooperation ties betweenthe EU member states and the countries of the regionprovide an institutional basis for evaluatingprogrammes and policies at both national and regionallevels. Second, several EU countries are world leadersin biomass and bio-energy research and developmentand implementation. Third, the expanded demand for

ANNEX ISummary of Workshop Deliberations and Events

54


biomass and biofuels is expected to be met to asignificant extent by imports, which could bepotentially supplied from the SADC region. Finally,there are useful opportunities for technology transferbetween the EU and southern Africa, especially inlight of biofuels and bio-energy projects, policies andprogrammes recently initiated by the EuropeanCommission.

The process of economic integration in SADC couldpotentially both facilitate—and benefit from—theexpanded production of modern biomass andbiofuels. The domestic benefits will include healthimprovements, reduced regional emissions, andcreation of rural livelihoods. The macroeconomicimpacts include foreign exchange savings and reduceddependence on imported sources of energy. There isalso significant potential for greenhouse gas (GHG)emission reductions from expanded use of modernbio-energy, with the latter potentially earning creditsunder the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism(CDM).

ObjectivesThe primary aim of the workshop was to exchangeinformation and share experiences in the developmentof biomass resources and bio-energy markets sources,with an emphasis on the resulting impacts on rurallivelihoods and sustainable development in southernAfrica. A related aim is to examine developments inbiomass and bio-energy within the EU, and theopportunities for technology transfer and forinternational trade. In terms of technology transfer,there is a need for more detailed assessments of howbest-practice technologies for biomass preparation orconversion that are available in the EU might beadapted for use in southern Africa. With respect tointernational trade, liquid biofuels have special appeal

in terms of future EU imports from southern Africa.

Another aim of the workshop was to consider theformation of a network, or connections amongexisting networks, for comparing and evaluating localexperiences with biomass and bio-energy. Unlike theEU or OECD countries, the availability of consistentdata and comparable analyses is lower in southernAfrica as well as in many small and poor developingcountries around the world. Such a network iseffectively a North-South-South network, through theparticipation from representatives of major biomassproducers such as Brazil and India, in cooperationwith partners from the EU and southern Africa.

Workshop participants andprogrammeThere were thirty-nine participants, who came fromseveral EU countries and southern African countries,as well as several international experts. About half ofthe participants were from developing countries,mainly in southern Africa. Participants came fromresearch institutes, consulting organisations,universities, NGOs, government, internationalorganisations, and private industry, as shown inTable A-1. The full list of participants is provided inAnnex II.

The programme included presentations, discussions,and working group sessions, as given in Annex III.The presentations included some short (5-10 minutes)informal presentations as well as formal presentationsthat were longer (20-30 minute).

� Study visitsThere were two study visits, each lasting 2-3 hours,and amounted to a full day after accounting fortransportation time. The purpose of the study visits

Table A-1: Type of affiliation and region/location for workshop participants

Type/location EU Other OECD Africa Other DC TOTAL

Research Institutes 4 1 3 1 9University 6 1 3 1 11Consulting 3 2 5Governmental orInternational Organisation 2 1 2 5NGOs 1 3 1 5Private Industry 1 3 4TOTAL 17 3 16 3 39

55


was to consider some of the issues relating to biomassand livelihoods in the UK context, and draw somecomparisons with the situation for bio-energydevelopment in Southern Africa and elsewhere. Thestudy visits were also designed to place biomass andbio-energy within the context of renewable energyand sustainable development strategies, drawing onthe example of the UK.

The first study visit was to Beaufort Court – a zeroemission facility that incorporates many differentelements and types of renewable energy and energyefficiency into its buildings and facilities, which includeworking offices (Annex IV). On an annual basis, thesite generates more energy than it consumes, with salesto the grid, compensating for those periods of theyear when wind and sun is insufficient for heatingneeds.

The main bio-energy element was the miscanthusplanted on the grounds for biomass production. Aboiler using the miscanthus provides approximately160 MW of heat, about 100 MW of which will beavailable for sale to industries or district heatingfacilities. Additional information on the site is givenin Annex IV.

Other renewable energy components at BeaufortCourt included solar thermal for water heating, passivemeasures for energy storage, a windmill, and a numberof efficiency measures. The aesthetics and socialimpacts appeared overall to be quite positive. Oneparticipant remarked that the sound of the windmillabove their head was drowned out by the sound ofthe nearby motorway!

The second study visit was to Friars Court, a workingfarm, multi-purpose farm encompassing 575 acres(233 ha) and located in central England. In additionto the crops grown (wheat and barley), the farm haslivestock, a conservation area, a nature trail, arestaurant and catering facility, a beautiful terrace andgarden where weddings and other events can be held,and 25 acres of short-rotation crops (SRC), for whichwillow was chosen. A more detailed description ofthe establishment of the SRC plantation is found inAnnex V. A biomass boiler generates heat using theharvested biomass, which generates a surplus that isalso sold for use in construction and as fuel forneighbouring areas.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the visit was

the fact that the farmer in the UK faces many of thesame issues and challenges faced by farmers indeveloping countries, although of course, only in arelative sense, given the huge disparity in incomes. Amain example was the need that arose to diversify theuse of the land and sources of income in the face ofcompetition and the fluctuating prices of agriculturalcommodities. Furthermore, multiple uses of biomassare not only recognised as important, butimprovements come somewhat naturally to farmerswho know the land, underlining the important rolefor farmers in the future bio-economy.

The farmer at Briars Court also had to deal withinconsistent signals from government policy at thesame time deal with the unpredictable market, just asfarmers all around the world do at the time ofglobalisation and shifting policies. In this case, theSRC plantation initially received support forexperimenting with production of biomass for fuel,but the support was later modified with rather shortnotice (Willmer, 2005). In spite of this, the farmeradapted to the changed circumstances by finding othermarkets for the willow, such as for crafts. In the sameway, albeit in the face of more dire circumstances,farmers in Africa have to adapt to changing conditions,but at the same time try to take advantage of theirskills in harnessing biomass resources effectively.

� Seminar on energy for sustainabledevelopmentA special half-day seminar on the broad theme of“Energy for Sustainable Development: PastExperiences and Future Challenges” was held inmemory of the passing of Gerry Leach, a well-knownbiomass/development researcher from the UK, whohad worked for many years together with Africancolleagues on woodfuels and bio-energy systems,incorporating local institutions into the analysis anddiscussion. A keynote presentation was made byYouba Sokona, Executive Secretary of the Sahara andSahel Observatory (OSS). Five panellists, representinginternational research and policy organisations,provided responses to the address and to questionsfrom the audience. The detailed programme is givenin Annex VI.

� Working groupsIn addition to the general workshop discussions, threeworking groups were formed for more detaileddiscussion of biomass resource development. It wasdecided that the groups should be based on different

types or classes of feedstocks. Three categories offeedstock were chosen for the working groups: (1)sugar crops, (2) woody biomass, (3) oil-bearing crops(and other crops).

The working groups were asked to address five aspectsrelating to priorities for future analyses,implementation, and research:� scientific analysis/research;� policy analysis/research;� training/capacity building;� programme development; and� demonstration projects.

The categories are not intended to be representativeof the overall biomass resources, nor are theyseparated on the basis of agronomic characteristics.They merely form categories that are somewhathomogenous in terms of production methods, and

are interesting in terms of near-term markets as wellas current uses and availability. Production of liquidbiofuels for the international market warrants a focuson sugar crops—sugarcane and sweet sorghum—forbio-ethanol, and various oil-bearing crops for bio-diesel. Sugar crops are preferred over starch cropssuch as maize or wheat, as they are much moreefficient.

Woody biomass is by far the most important categoryfor households in Africa, and this will certainlycontinue to be the case in the near-term, even if thereare significant advances in modern bio-energy in thenext 5-10 years. In addition to the role of woodybiomass for traditional uses in households, the useof woody biomass for bio-energy is important forsmall-scale businesses that have no access to modernenergy services.

56


57


ANNEX IIList of Participants

Participant Organisation Position Country

Avis, Jonathan Environmental Change Institute Research Analyst UKBallard-Tremeer, Grant Eco Ltd Director UKBrown, Gareth Imperial College- ICCEPT Research Fellow UKCherni, Judith Imperial College UKChilembo, Edith Energy and Environmental Chairperson Zambia

Concerns for Zambia (EECZ)Estrin, Alexander Imperial College-ICCEPT PhD Student UKFaaij, Andre Copernicus Institute - Utrecht Associate Professor, The

University, Department of Coordinator Energy Supply & NetherlandsScience, Technology and Society System

Fulton, Lew IEA Transport Energy Specialist US/FranceFylaktos, Nestor IC PhD Student, UKHachileka, Excellent IUCN Country Programme Coordinator ZambiaHektor, Bo HPP SwedenHongo, Hamimu FELISA Co. Ltd. Director TanzaniaHughes, Nicholas Imperial College MSc Student UKJamieson, Max Imperial College MSc Student UKJohnson, Francis SEI, Climate and Energy Research Fellow Sweden

ProgrammeJolly, Lindsay ISO Sugar Organisation UKKgathi, Donald Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Senior Research Fellow BotswanaLetsholo Research Centre, University of

BotswanaKåberger, Tomas International Institute for Associate Professor Sweden

Industrial EnvironmentalEconomics, IIIEE LundUniversity

Magalhaes, Paulo Faculty of Agricultural Professor BrazilGraziano Engineering, BrazilMatinga, Margaret Eco Ltd. Junior Consultant MalawiNjiramboMbolela, Ngosa Zambian Department of Zambia

EnergyMorales, Maria SEI, Climate and Energy Research Fellow Sweden

ProgrammeMphundukwa, James PressCane Ltd. MalawiNg Wing Tin, Marion SEI, Climate and Energy Intern France

Programme SwedenNilsson, Solveig SEI, Climate and Energy Administrative Assistant Sweden

ProgrammePeksa, Malgorzata ETA Renewable Energies International Projects Manager ItalyRead, Peter Massey University Senior Lecturer New ZealandRosillo Calle, Frank Imperial College - ICCEPT Research fellow UKSekhwela, Mogodisheng University of Botswana Assistant Director Research BotswanaB.M. Quality Management

francis

Pencil

francis

Cross-Out

francis

Text Box

Senior Economist

francis

Text Box

Project Officer

francis

Text Box

Technical Operations Manager

58

Sharma, Sudhirendar The Ecological Foundation IndiaSilveira, Semida PhD Student Brazil/

SwedenSobhanbabu, P.R.K. Winrock International India Senior Programme Officer India

(Energy and Environment)Sokona, Youba Sahara and Sahel Observatory Executive Secretary Mali/Tunisia

(OSS)Songela, Francis Tanzania Traditional Energy Biomass Energy Coordinator Tanzania

Development and EnvironmentOrganisation (TaTEDO)

Swai, Mary E. Tanzania Traditionnal Energy Environment Energy Expert TanzaniaDevelopment andEnvironmental Organisation(TaTEDO)

Tomlinson, Denis Illovo Sugar Ltd. Corporate Affairs Development SouthManager Africa

Watson, Helen K. University of KwaZulu-Natal Senior Lecturer South AfricaVikram, Seebaluck University of Mauritius PhD Candidate, Lecturer MauritiusWoods, Jeremy Imperial College - ICCEPT Research Fellow UK

Participant Organisation Position Country


francis

Cross-Out

francis

Inserted Text

Sustainable Energy Expert

francis

Text Box

Sustainable Energy Expert

59


Day One - Friday 29 April08:30 – 09:30 Registration, Coffee, Informal discussions

09:30 – 11:15 Welcome, Introductions, Overview

11:15 – 13:00 Reports and Information from Recent Events, Networks, Initiatives� World Bank Energy Week & IEA Task 40 Sustainable Bio-Trade Workshop – Andre Faiij, Copernicus Institute,

University of Utrecht, Netherlands� Abrupt Climate Change (ACC) Meeting and the Importance of a Carbon Life-cycle Approach – Peter Read,

Massey University, New Zealand� Biomass, CDM, and the Nordic Initiative (April 2005-Copenhagen World Bank Donors Meeting) – Semida

Silveira, Swedish National Energy Administration� Renewable Energy Partnerships for Poverty Eradication in Africa – M. Morales, SEI� Cane Resources Network for Southern Africa (CARENSA) – Francis X. Johnson, SEI

13:00 – 14:15 Lunch

14:15 – 16:00 International Cooperation, Biomass Resources, Bio-Trade� Sustainable Bio-trade: Global Analysis of Potentials – Andre Faiij, Copernicus Institute, University of Utrecht,

Netherlands� Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP) – Dick Jones, GVEP Secretariat, DFID� Multi-product Biomass Systems – Tomas Kåberger, Lund University, Sweden� Biomass Potential from Sugarcane Production in Brazil – Paolo Graziano Magalhaes, University of Campinas,

Brazil� Ethanol Production and Markets – Frank Rosillo-Calle, Imperial College

16:00 – 16:15 Coffee Break

16:15 – 17:45 Sustainable Livelihoods, Rural Energy, and Biomass Policies in Africa� Experiences from SPARKNET – a Knowledge Network for Africa – Margaret Matinga, Eco Ltd., Malawi� Experiences from the Household Energy Development Network (HEDON) – Grant Ballard-Tremeer,

Ecoharmony, UK� Farming for Livelihoods in Southern Africa (FELISA) – Hamimu Hongo, FELISA, Ltd., Tanzania� Biomass Successes and Failures in West Africa – Youba Sokona, OSS, Tunisia� Overview of Energy Policies and Programmes in Tanzania – Francis Songela and Mary Swai, Tatedo, Tanzania� Bioenergy Options and Energy Policies for Zambia – Ngosa Mbolela, Zambia

17:45 – 18:00 Wrapping-up and Summary

Day Two - Saturday 30 April08:30 – 09:30 Registration, Coffee, Informal discussions

09:30 – 11:00 Biomass, Bioenergy and Biofuels: Policies and Potentials� Zambian Government Policy Position on Biofuels and Renewable Energy – Ngosa Y. Mbolela, Department of

Energy, Zambia� Overview of Bioenergy Policies and Programmes in Tanzania – Francis Songela and Mary Swai, Tatedo, Tanzania� The Ethanol Programme and Experiences from Ethanol Production and Utilisation in Malawi – James

Mphundukwa, Presscane, Malawi� Biomass Potential from Sugarcane Production in Brazil – Paolo Graziano Magalhaes, University of Campinas,

Brazil� Ethanol Production and Markets – Frank Rosillo-Calle, Imperial College

ANNEX IIIWorkshop Programme


11:15 – 12:30 Biomass and Biofuels issues-scale and impacts: global, regional, local� Agronomics of Sugarcane and Sweet Sorghum inSsouthern Africa – Helen Watson, South Africa� Land use and Ownership Issues in Biofuels Production – Sudhirendar Sharma, India� Community Based Natural Resource Management – Donald L. Kgathi, Botswana� Small-scale Production and Sustainable Livelihoods – Edith Chilembo, Zambia� Industry Perspectives – Denis Tomlinson, ILLOVO

12:30 – 12:45 Goals and Structure for Working Groups

12:45 – 14:15 Lunch and Working Group I Meetings

14:15 – 15:00 Reports from Working Group I Sessions

15:00 – 15:15 Goals and Structure for Working Groups II

15:15 – 16:00 Working Group Sessions


16:15 – 17:00 Reports from Working Group Sessions

17:00 – 17:30 Wrap-up and Conclusions

60


61


An integrated renewable energystrategyIt is intended that all energy used by Beaufort Courtbe provided by renewable sources located on the site.These are: a wind turbine providing electricity, aphotovoltaic/thermal solar array providing bothelectricity and hot water for heating, a ground waterborehole providing cooling and a biomass cropproviding heat (and maybe, in the future, combinedheat and electricity).

The biomass installation will not be installed later,therefore, in the meantime, its heat contribution isprovided from natural gas. Even so, it is expectedthat the buildings will be carbon neutral with exportof electricity compensating for the use of fossil basedgas supply. An underground seasonal heat storeallows heat generated in summer to be used in winter. Detailed information on the various energy sourcesis given below.

� BiomassThe buildings’ heating needs will primarily be met bya biomass boiler fuelled by the energy crop

miscanthus, or ‘Elephant Grass’, 5 hectares of whichhave been planted adjacent to the site. The crop isharvested annually in the late winter with conventionalharvesting equipment and stored as bales until needed.The bales are shredded before being fed into thebiomass boiler. The field is expected to yield 60 oven-dried-tonnes per year with a calorific value of 17GJ/tonne. The 100 kWh biomass boiler is provided byTalbott’s Heating. It is 80% to 85% efficient and canmodulate down to 25% of full load. The shreddedbales are fed into the boiler by a mechanical screwauger. Biomass is carbon neutral as the CO

2 emitted

during combustion is balanced by the CO2 absorbed

by the crop, which is coppiced on short rotation. Theemissions from the boiler comply with the Clean AirAct. The boiler is expected to be installed foroperation later.

� The wind turbineThe 225 kWh wind turbine has a hub height of 36 mand a rotor diameter of 29 m and is a Vestas V29model previously in operation in the Netherlands. The turbine is connected to the buildings’ electricaldistribution network and to the national grid. It is

ANNEX IVBeaufort Court – Zero Emissions Building

Source: http://www.beaufortcourt.com

62


a. 225kWh Wind Turbineb. Hybrid PVT Arrayc. Crop Stored. PVT Invertorse. 1400 m2 Underground Heat Storef. Biomass Crop (miscanthus)g. Office Buildingh. Crop Shredderi. Biomass Boiler & Gas Fired

Backup Boilersj. El. Import/Export Metersk. 75m Deep Borehole in Chalk

Aquiferl. 2No. Air Handling Installationm. Fresh Airn. Exhaust Airo. Irrigation

PVT arrayThe 170 m2 solar array comprises 54 m2 of PVTpanels and 116 m2 of solar thermal panels. The PVTpanels consist of a photovoltaic element, whichconverts light into electricity, and a copper heatexchanger on the back to capture the remaining solarenergy. The panels have been developed by ECN inthe Netherlands, incorporating Shell Solar PVelements and Zen Solar thermal elements. Theyproduce electricity and hot water. The solar thermalpanels are identical to the PVT panels, but withoutthe photovoltaic element.

Seasonal underground heat storeThe underground heat store is a 1400 m3 body ofwater that stores the heat generated by the PVT andsolar thermal panels for use in the buildings duringthe colder months. The top of the store is insulatedwith a floating lid of 500 mm expanded polystyrene,but the sides are uninsulated. As long as the groundaround the store is kept dry, it will act as an insulatorand additional thermal mass, increasing the capacity

of the store. The high specific heat capacity of water(4.2kJ/kg °C) makes it a good choice for storingheat.

During the summer there will be little or no demandfor heat in the building, so the heat generated by thePVT array will stored in the heat store. In autumn,some of the solar heat generated will be used directlyin the buildings and the excess will be added to theheat store. The temperature of the water in the storewill gradually rise over the summer and early autumn.During the winter the solar heat generated will beless than the building’s heat load, and heat will beextracted from the heat store to heat the incomingair to the building. The temperature of the water inthe store will drop as the heat is extracted. Someheat will also be lost to the surroundings. This isestimated to be about 50% of the total heat put intothe store over the summer. The relatively low-gradeheat from the store can be used to preheat theincoming air to the building, as the outside air willbe at a lower temperature than the water.

expected to generate 250 MW annually, which isgreater than the anticipated building consumption,and the excess power (equivalent to the needs ofaround 40 homes) will be exported to the grid.

� Ground water coolingGround water is used to cool the buildings during

the summer. Water is extracted from the local aquiferat 12 °C via a 75m deep borehole. First, it is used tocool and dehumidify the incoming air to the buildingsin the Air Handling Units. The water is then circulatedat 15 °C through chilled beams (finned tubes) at highlevel in the offices. Finally, the water is used to irrigatethe energy crop.

63


� Wealth creation and life changesBeaufort Court is located in a relatively affluent partof the United Kingdom. However, the relocation ofan expanding company to Kings Langley will provideopportunities for work and provide alternative careerpossibilities outside the magnet of London,obviating the need to commute. The new facilitieswill assist RES in expanding their operationsworldwide and the creation of wealth inherent inthis expansion. The main local social benefit willbe the provision of an efficient and stimulatingworkplace. However, the decision to operate thenew head office as a vis itors’ centre andinformation resource, allowing those of all levelsof interest to learn about the technologies andissues involved in creating low and zero net energywork settings, provides an invaluable national facility.

� Clean and greenBringing back to life a derelict building rather thanbuilding new is a considerable benefit in terms ofland utilisation, use of resources and improving theamenity of the area. The construction work wasundertaken on the basis of minimising waste, andusing materials and components with low embodiedenergy from readily available resources.

The site is self-sufficient in energy. In order tominimise the need for energy, a judicious combinationof active systems (mechanical ventilation, artificialcooling, heating and lighting, building managementsystems) and passive systems (solar heating, naturalventilation and lighting, solar shading, a wellinsulated building envelope incorporating thermalmass) was developed. A building managementsystem (BMS) controls and optimises all the energysystems, including opening and closing therooflights.

The buildings are exposed to considerable externalnoise: from passing trains to the West and themotorway to the South. To cut out the disturbancefrom noise inside the buildings, the outward facingfacades had to be sealed. This, together with therelatively high levels of heat generated by modernoffice use, requires the building to be artificially cooledin summer months. The cooling source is water drawnfrom aquifers located in the chalk below the building.This strategy avoids the heavy energy consumptionand potential polluting effects of refrigeration plantnormally used for air conditioning. The cool water isused to drop the temperature of air being fed intothe building and is circulated through convectorswithin the office space, cooling the air within it.

Heat is supplied from the biomass boiler (or gas boileruntil such time till the biomass plant is installed) andfrom the PVT array, either direct or via the seasonalground heat store. Hot water from these sources isused in a similar way, as the chilled water for cooling.Electricity is generated from the PVT array and thewind turbine.

Windows can be opened in facades and roofs facingaway, or sheltered from the motorway and the railway,to ventilate the building in temperate conditions.Exposed windows are shaded from the sun by fixedglass or aluminium screens and by deciduous treeplanting, thereby reducing unwanted solar gains andthe need for cooling. The building is well insulatedand sealed.

� Estimated energy use and supplyPredicted energy use and energy supply is shown inthe table below. The current monitoring programmewill show whether these predictions are born out inreality.

Electrical Space heating

Building annual loads (2500m2 building gross area) 115 MW 85 MWPV/T direct contribution (with 48 m2 of PV) 3.2 MW 15 MWHeat collected into storage 24 MWPumping load/heat lost from storage -4.5 MW -12 MWWind turbine 250 MWMiscanthus: peak expected production (60odt/year) 160 MWNet contribution 248.7 MW 187 MWPotential electrical export 133.7 MWPotential surplus miscanthus for heat export 102 MW

Table A-2: Predicted energy use and energy supply


The short-rotation crop (SRC) plantation, whichsurrounds the ‘Scrape’ was first established in 1992,and it has grown over a three year planting programto its current size of 25 acres. This was done inconjunction with a project started by the Departmentof Trade & Industry, as it wanted to find out if willowscould be grown as an alternative, economically viablecrop for use as a bio-fuel.

But why willow? Because willow trees grow at atremendous rate, especially in damp wetland soil, whilecutting them back, only stimulates their growthfurther. The entire 25 acres was hand-planted usingsmall 10 cm long willows rods, 4,000 to the acre - atotal of over 100,000 trees! After a year the treesproduced two or three shoots and grown up to 2metres high. At this stage they are cut back to groundlevel – this is known as coppicing.

Coppicing stimulates the tree to produce more sideshoots (up to ten) and three years later, when the treeshave reached a height of about 5½ metres, harvestingcan begin. This can be done either by hand or machine.Once harvested the trees produce more shoots andthe cycle is repeated after another three years. Currentresearch indicates that this can be done for up to 30years!

The primary reason for growing the trees was so thatthe wood could be chipped. Some of the potentialuses for these chips are as follow:

By spreading them on a garden they act as an effectivebarrier against weeds. As they decompose, nutrientsare released back into the soil.

Mixed with manure the chips can be used as a verygood peat substitute (chicken manure has been usedas it is virtually odourless).

The wood chips can also be burnt, thus generatingheat. Central heating systems and industries thatrequire a lot of hot water could find this an effectivealternative to existing oil-fuelled boilers.

When burnt in a controlled environment, it is possibleto separate and clean the exhaust gases, which are inthemselves flammable. These are ignited and burntin boilers, which in turn could power electricitygenerators. There are currently plans to build a wood-fuelled power station at Cricklade near Swindon, Wilts.

Although the primary reason for growing the treeson the farm was for use in the energy market, it wassoon apparent that the equipment required to burnthe wood would not be perfected in time for the trees’first harvest. Therefore it was necessary to find a newmarket.

Friars Court had for a long time been approached bya number of organisations, such as schools, whowanted small amounts of willow for weaving. Fromthis a new business idea was formed. Friars Court isnow home to three craftsmen, who use the willowgrown on the farm for garden and restorative weavework.

Two of the craftsmen use willow rods, between oneand three years old, to make living ornamentalstructures and hurdles, whilst the other uses it for‘Spiling’ which is a form of riverbank stabilisation tohelp prevent erosion. Examples of their willow workcan be seen in the gardens at Friars Court.

ANNEX VInformation on Friars Court FarmSource: Friars Court information brochure (Clanfield, Oxon. OX18 2SU)

64


In the 1970s, the traditional energy-economicparadigm was being questioned, due to concerns overhigh oil prices, energy security, and the environmentalimpacts attributable to fossil fuels and nuclear power.While the North was focused on its energy crises, oil-importing developing countries were facing their owncrises. Higher energy prices, population growth, andexploitation of natural resources exacerbated extremepoverty, threatened fragile political institutions, andconstrained future options for growth anddevelopment.

The role of energy in relation to environment anddevelopment has evolved considerably since the 1970s.Climate change emerged in the 1980s as a majorchallenge for policy-makers grappling with how toreconcile the aspirations of the South for economicdevelopment with the unsustainable energy paradigmthat had fuelled rapid economic growth in the North.The social and environmental impacts of increasingenergy consumption pose a threat to human healthand ecological systems, even as two billion personslack access to the modern energy services that helpto create livelihoods, generate growth, and reducepoverty.

This seminar will explore some of the basic synergiesand conflicts between the role of energy services inpoverty reduction and the social and environmentalconsequences of energy consumption. What is therole of energy in sustainable development and whatare the key institutional changes needed to facilitatethe global transition to a sustainable energy future?The emphasis in the seminar will be on the EU andsub-Saharan Africa, although the themes andquestions will naturally be broad in nature.

ANNEX VISeminar Programme

Energy and Sustainable Development: Past Lessons & Future ChallengesImperial College, London - Thursday 28 April 2005, 11:00-14:00A Seminar in remembrance of Gerald A. Leach (1933-2004)

Co-organised by:Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology (ICCEPT)

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)

11:00 – 11:30 Welcome and Introductions� Francis X. Johnson, Research Fellow, Energy and

Climate Programme, SEI-HQ (Stockholm)� Matthew Leach, Imperial College Centre for Energy

Policy and Technology (ICCEPT)� Camilla Toulmin, Director, International Institute for

Environment & Development (IIED)� Johan Kuylenstierna, Director, SEI-York

11:30 – 12:00 Keynote AddressYouba Sokona, Executive Secretary, Sahara and SahelObservatory (OSS), Tunisia

12:00 – 12:30 Panellists’ ResponseModerator: Andrew Barnett, The Policy PracticeLimited (Brighton, UK)� Andrew Simms, Director, Policy Analysis & Climate

Change, New Economics Foundation (UK)� Margaret Njirambo Matinga, Consultant, Eco Ltd,

(Malawi)� Ritu Kumar, Director, European Office, The Energy

Research Institute (TERI, India)� Mayer Hillman, The Policy Institute (UK)� Peter Davies, Energy Group, Department for

International Development (DFID, UK)

12:30 – 13:00 Refreshments (light lunch)13:00 – 13:45 Roundtable Discussion with

Panellists13:45 – 13:55 Summary Remarks – Andrew

Barnett13:55 – 14:00 Closing – Francis X. Johnson

and Matthew Leach

65


T here is a widespread belief that activeinternational partnerships among manydifferent stakeholders—including NGOs,

SMEs, donors, university research groups, multilateralinstitutions, and civil society—can help to addressenergy and development goals. A brief overview isprovided below for several North-South networks andpartnerships, established in recent years that wereaimed at cooperation between EU and African

ANNEX VIIInternational Networks and Partnerships

partners, on research and policy issues related to bio-energy, rural development and livelihoods.

The so-called “Type II partnerships” that grew outof the WSSD—such as the Global Village EnergyPartnership (GVEP)—are not reviewed here, sincethey are not specific to the EU and Africa and sinceinformation on them is readily available through theirown websites.

HEDON is a grassroots organisation of over 600household energy practitioners, the majority ofwhom are based in the South. Established in 1992,this currently 100% voluntary and ‘free’ network hasgrown rapidly, and now brings together many keystakeholders in household energy to create apowerful tool for change.

HEDON is a user-driven network that is fullydetermined by the users themselves—it is up to theusers to decide on what information to post andhow to edit it. So, not only can users of HEDONaccess up-to-date information on worldwide news,names of specialists, key documents, and links toother organisations and websites, but just asimportantly, users can inform others about theirwork, their successes and failures, and any otherinformation deemed relevant. Thus, the wholenetwork is greater than the sum of individual efforts,given that single work can reach all users, and thetime and money are not wasted.

To achieve this exchange of knowledge, HEDONoffers its users a number of key outlets forinteraction and exchange, including a library andknowledge base. The library allows users to post andretrieve documents of high relevance to householdenergy, offering an unparalleled exchange of keyresearch and knowledge assets. The knowledge baseuses an address book that allows personal webpagesto be automatically created for all users and

organisations. Users can quickly learn about otherusers, search for needed expertise, and develop acontact base. The HEDON knowledge base alsocontains critical ‘how-to’ documents, an introductionto household energy, an overview of householdenergy and health, and information on tools,technologies and techniques, all of which can beposted and edited by all. This ensures not only theprovision of up-to-date knowledge, but theopportunity for discussion and debate.

One important area of network development forthe future is the creation of special interest groups,which would link HEDON with specificcommunities of practice, allowing people to shareideas both through specialist websites and throughlinkages to other household energy sectors. Benefitswould include the strengthening of existing linksand infrastructure for wide dissemination of keymessages from specialist communities to the widercommunity (including the non-online knowledge),as well as the creation of a reliable technical toolboxusable by anyone with only limited computerknowledge. SIGs are likely to include topics such as,clean indoor air, carbon and cookstoves (CDM),scaling up of household energy programmes, andalcohol-based fuels or biodiesel. Other thematic,regional, or language groups would also beencouraged.

Website: www.hedon.info

66

HEDON: Household Energy Network

The Latin America Thematic Network on Bioenergy(LAMNET) was funded during 2001-2004 by theEuropean Commission DG-Research, under theprogramme on ‘Confirming the International Roleof Community Research’. The main objective ofLAMNET was to establish a trans-national forumfor the promotion of sustainable use of biomass inLatin America and other emerging economies. Aglobal network of 48 institutions (knowledge centresand SMEs) from 24 countries worldwide was set upto assess regionally adapted bioenergy applications.Regional centres were based in Mexico and Brazil.

In order to promote the sustainable use of biomassin Latin America and other emerging countries theobjective was to establish a network of KnowledgeCentres (universities and R&D institutes) and SMEsin EU and Latin America countries, as well as inother developing countries. Additionally, the projecthas a steering committee consisting of membersfrom the EU, Latin America, China and severalAfrican countries.

The main focus of the project is thereby, theidentification of technological objectives and thedevelopment of policy options to promotedecentralised biomass production and energygeneration. The following six key ThematicPriorities were identified:� Analysis of the energy policy framework for

biomass and bioenergy� Assessment of energy demand, prices, rural

development, and roles of key actors

� Assessment of present and potential biomassresources

� Technical and financial analysis of availableconversion technologies and systems

� Development of policy options for thepromotion of bioenergy

� Identification of training, technical cooperation,and demonstration projects

The efficient dissemination of the results of thisproject was based on a periodical newsletter and awebsite. Additionally, the focus of this project is toestablish a shared data-base on a regional LatinAmerican and other countries with emergingeconomies, to allow for enhanced comparability andlong-term accessibility of the results. Severalworkshops and seminars were organized, and theproceedings are available on the website. Severalmembers of the network also participated in theRenewable Energy Partnerships for Africa SupportAction in 2004-2005.

Website: http://www.bioenergy-lamnet.org/

67

LAMNET: Latin America Thematic Network on Bioenergy


68


CARENSA: Cane Resources Network for Southern Africa

The Cane Resources Network for Southern Africa(CARENSA) was supported by EC DG-Researchas a Thematic Research Network during 2001-2005.CARENSA aimed to critically assess the role of bio-energy from sugarcane and related crops inpromoting sustainable development and improvingglobal competitiveness in the region of SouthernAfrica. The network is structured on the principlesof North-South-South cooperation, with partnersin four EU countries, four African countries, andBrazil and India. Three international organisations

also participate, to create linkages with theinternational community on issues at the intersectionof environment and development. The networkbrings together five institutional or thematic phasesthat are critical to the goal of harnessing caneresources for sustainable development in SouthernAfrica, and the project components were designedaround these five phases (as shown in the figurebelow).

Website: www.carensa.net

69


The Sustainable Energy Policy Research KnowledgeNetwork (SPARKNET) was supported by the ECDG-Research International CooperationProgramme from 2002-2005. It focuses on energyissues affecting low income rural households ineastern and southern Africa. SPARKNET aimed togather and disseminate up-to-date knowledge,relevant for the energy situation of the sevenSPARKNET member countries of eastern andsouthern Africa, as well as with EU policy makersand researchers. SPARKNET was established as aninterdisciplinary interactive network and coremembers of SPARKNET included policy makers,research institutions, universities, technology expertsand NGOs, representing low income communitiesand end-users.

Core members of the network assembleinformation, according to pre-defined formatscovering the household energy situation in theircountries, from existing literature and from theirexpert knowledge and experiences. Some non-African partners provided knowledge on selectedissues of health, gender and forestry, which cutacross the energy sector in all the participatingcountries. The knowledge gathered is peer reviewed,firstly in-country and then by other expertparticipants, before final editing and publishing onthe SPARKNET webpage.

SPARKNET participants also prepared scenarioanalyses that assessed the energy-poverty situationand its various impacts, attempting to answer thequestion “What will the household energy scenarioin southern and eastern Africa be like in the next 10to 15 years?” The outlooks assessed business-as-usual scenarios, economic prosperity and regionalco-operation situations as well as worst casescenarios. These scenario preparations were followedby internet-based conferences to discuss thescenarios and possible strategies for a way forward.Network members then developed policy

recommendations for their respective countries andthematic issues. Again, an internet-based conferencewas held to discuss the implications of suggestedpolicies and strategies. Each of the two internetbased conferences, (discussing scenarios and policyactions) attracted over 170 participants from aroundthe world including Europe, Asia and across Africa.Knowledge products of SPARKNET includeinternet-based conference proceedings, countryreports, thematic briefings on health, gender andforestry, bibliographies, organisation, project andfunding profiles.

A key achievement of SPARKNET has been theavailability of information that can be used by policymakers and researchers and also by partner countries.It also helps in exchange of knowledge andnetworking for informing about changes in policiesand actions that can contribute in helping the regionfor better energy situations. The network has playeda key role in building capacity for knowledgegeneration among southern and eastern Africanenergy experts, and hence facilitating South-Southas well as South-North knowledge flows to counter-balance the traditional North-South knowledge flow.Conferences conducted in the past has helped toexpose gaps in expertise in various countries,particularly in moving from policy making tosustainable action, as well as about the failures inlinking energy poverty with other socio-economicissues such as health and gender.

SPARKNET participants felt that SPARKNETactivities were of high value and have expressed needfor continuity and to further incorporate policymakers from government and possibly multilateraland bilateral partners. In addition, non-membershave expressed interest to become future coremembers whilst other regions have expressed theneed for similar initiatives in their respective regions.

Website: www.sparknet.info

SPARKNET: Sustainable Energy Policy Research Knowledge Network

70


Renewable Energy Partnerships for Africa

This support action created internationalpartnerships for promoting the role of renewableenergy in poverty reduction, and supporting policymakers in the areas of renewable energy andsustainable resource management, public health andenterprise development. The mobilisation ofpartnerships in Africa involves:� Identifying partners� Bringing them together in partnership structures� Supporting and contributing to their financing

efforts� Facilitating their set-up and operation

There are three types of partnership to be built:Policy Partnerships, Programme Partnerships and

Action Partnerships. Policy Partnerships includeprogressive energy policy initiatives linked to variousresearch activities and stakeholder networking.Programme partnerships initiate and supporttraining and capacity-building. ActionPartnerships lay the foundations for concretedemonstration or pilot projects. The threepartner countries in Africa were South Africa,Senegal, and Zambia. Three thematic areas wereaddressed in providing support to policy-making:sustainable resource management, public health,and enterprise development. There was a particularemphasis on biomass resources in supporting energyfor development. An outline of the workprogramme is shown in the figure below.

Website: http://www.partners4africa.org

Website: http://www.compete-bioafrica.net/

A new EC-funded Coordination Action with 48 partners from around the world will follow up onthe biomass resources issues addressed in Partners for Africa and in the three aforementioned networks(LAMNET, CARENSA and SPARKNET). The new Action has many of the same partners and hassimilar objectives, but focuses on arid and semi-arid regions of Africa. It is entitled “CompetencePlatform on Energy Crop and Agroforestry Systems for Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems in Africa(COMPETE).”

COMPETE: Competence Platform on Energy Crop andAgroforestry Systems for Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystemsin Africa

Documents

BIOMASS, LIVELIHOODS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE€¦ · on sub-Saharan Africa, a summary regarding the significance of modern vs. traditional biomass, and a brief discussion on sustainable