Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action Study on Sustainable Charcoal in Uganda

7/27/2019 Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action Study on Sustainable Charcoal in Uganda

1/88

C

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action

Study on Sustainable Charcoal in Uganda


2/88

UNDP partners with peope at a eves o society to hep buid nations that can withstand crisis, and

drive and sustain the kind o growth that improves the quaity o ie or everyone. On the ground in 177

countries and territories, we oer goba perspective and oca insight to hep empower ives and buid

resiient nations. www.undp.org

Copyright 2012 United Nations Deveopment Programme

A rights reserved. This pubication or parts o it may not be reproduced, stored by means o any system or

transmitted, in any orm or medium, whether eectronic, mechanica, photocopied, recorded or o any other

type, without prior permission o the United Nations Deveopment Programme.

The views and recommendations in this report are those o the authors and do not necessariy represent

those o UNDP, the United Nations or it Member States. The boundaries and names shown and thedesignation o maps do not impy ocia endorsement or acceptabe by the United Nations. Soe respon

sibiity is taken or errors o omission or commission.

Editor: Caitin Conney

About the cover photo: Red onionbased cutivation/Photo: UNDP/ Women Union o Vinh Chau District or

the UNDPGEF CBA ProjectDesign: Camio J. Saomn Nechar ([email protected], www.benedictodesign.com)

UNDP partners with people at all levels o society to help build nations that can withstand crisis, and drive and

sustain the kind o growth that improves the quality o lie or everyone. On the ground in 177 countries and

territories, we oer global perspectives and local insight to help empower lives and build resilient nations.

www.undp.org

MDG Carbon is an innovative programme to harness the resources o the carbon market in order to bring

long-term sustainable development, at scale, to wide range o developing countries. Since its launch in 2007,

MDG Carbon has assisted developing countries in implementing a host o low-carbon interventions, spanning

multiple technologies, active in all regions o the world, and leveraging signicant amounts in private-sector

millions o dollars in independent co-investments. www.mdgcarbon.org

Perspectives GmbH is an independent, highly qualied consulting rm that provides advice to private sector,

governmental and non-governmental clients in the international greenhouse gas GHG market. Perspectives

was ounded in 2003. Its core competencies are Clean Development Mechanism CDM project management

including Programmes o Activities, identication and quantication o GHG reduction opportunities in

developing countries, development o underlying CDM baseline and monitoring methodologies, provision

o climate policy advice, and implementation o capacity building on climate change issues in developing

countries. Perspectives sta have a high-level, interdisciplinary education in the eld o economics and

environmental/industrial engineering. With oces in Hamburg, Germany and Zrich, Switzerland,

Perspectives serves more than 70 clients with projects in over 40 countries.

United Nations Development Programme

304 East 45th Street, 9th Floor

New York, NY 10017 USA

www.undp.org

Project Coordinator: Aleandra Soezer UNDP MDG Carbon

Authors: Arindam Basu, Courtney Blodgett, and Nicolas Mller with a special thanks to Rainer Nerger or

his assistance at Perspectives Climate Change and Aleandra Soezer the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme UNDP MDG Carbon.

Acknowledgments:The study benetted rom an internal UNDP review, as well as valuable assistance rom

stakeholders in Uganda including: Berta Pesti UNDP LECB, Godrey Ndawula MEMD Assistant Commissioner,

New and Renewable Sources o Energy Division, John Tumuhimbise MEMD Principal Energy Ocer,

Paul Isabirye Climate Change Unit, Dr Igbokwe Kennedy FAO, Lucas Black UNDP GEF, Vincent Kienzler

Green Bio Energy, Musiimenta Boaz PMO, Stephen Mutimba Camco, Daniel McMondo and Onesimus

Muhwezi UNDP Kampala, and Susan Abbo and Karsten Bechtel CREEC.

Editor: Eileen Travers

Design: Camilo J. Salomn [email protected], www.benedictodesign.com


3/88

1NATIONALLY APPROPRIATE MITIGATION ACTION STUDY ON SUSTAINABLE CHARCOAL IN UGANDA


4/88

NatioNally appropriate MitigatioN actioN study oN sustaiNable charcoal iN ugaNda2

TABlE O F CONT ENTS

Acronms 4

Foreword 8

Executive Summar 9

I. Introduction 10

1.1. Background 11

1.2. Scope 12

1.3. Structure 13

II. Nationall Appropriate Mitigation Action 14

III. Charcoal Sector 15

3.1. Production 15

3.2. Value Chain 16

3.3. Policies in Sub-Saharan Arica 17

IV. Current Charcoal Situation in Uganda 18

4.1. Background 18

4.2. Policies and Programmes 25

4.3. Institutional Framework 29

V. Technolog Options or Improved Production 30

5.1. Baseline Production 30

5.2. Types o Technology Interventions 31

5.3. Selected Technologies 32

VI. The NAMA Concept 36

6.1. Charcoal Value Chain 376.2. Sustainable Charcoal Production 39

6.3. Sustainable Woodlot/Forest Management 43

6.4. Institutional Framework: 46

6.5. Policies 55

Tabe o Contents


5/88

VII. Measuring, Reporting and Verifcation 567.1. MRV Objective 56

7.2. Monitoring Results 56

7.3. Understanding Impacts Using the Correct Result Indicators 67

7.4. Emissions Reductions and Sustainable Development Benets 68

7.5. Economic Evaluation o Activities 69

VIII. Assessment o Support Needs 70

8.1. Financing, Technology and Capacity Needs 70

8.2. Scale o the Problem 70

8.3. Cost Estimation 72

8.4. Potential Donors 78

IX. Next Steps 80

Reerences 81

NatioNally appropriate MitigatioN actioN study oN sustaiNable charcoal iN ugaNda 3

TABlE O F CONT ENTS


6/88

BAU BusinessasusuaBEST Biomass Energy Strategy

BTC Begium Technica Corporation

BUR Biennia update report

CCU Cimate Change Unit

CDM Cean Deveopment Mechanism

CERs Certied emission reductions

CH4 Methane

CIM Centre or Internationa Migration

cm Centimetres

CME NAMA coordinating and managing entity

CO2 Carbon dioide

CO2e Carbon dioide equivaent

COP Conerence o the Parties

CSO Civi society organization

EAP Environment Action Pan

EB Eecutive Board

EE Energy eciency

EPAC Energy Poicy Advice Component

FAOSTAT Food and Agricuture Organization Corporate Statistica DatabaseGEF Goba Environment Faciity

GHG Greenhouse gas

GIS Geographic inormation system

GIZ German Agency or Internationa Cooperation (Geseschat r InternationaeZusammenarbeit)

hp Horsepower

hr Hours

ICA Internationa consutation and anaysis

IRIN Integrated Regiona Inormation Networks

KW Reconstruction Credit Institute (Kreditanstat r Wiederaubau)kg Kiogram

km Kiometer

kW Kiowatt

kWe Kiowatt equivaents

kWh kiowatt hour

LDCs least deveoped countries

Acronyms


ACRONYMS


7/88


ACRONYMS

LPG liqueed petroeum gasLSC large scae

MEM Ministry or Energy and Mineras1

MEMD Ministry o Energy and Minera Deveopment

MRV Measurement, Reporting and Verication

MNRT Tanzanian Ministry o Natura Resources and Tourism

MoFPED Ministry o Finance, Panning and Economic Deveopment

MW Megawatt

MWLE Ministry o Water, lands and Environment

MWE Ministry o Water and Environment2

NAMA Nationay Appropriate Mitigation Action

NCV Net caoric vaue

NEA Nationa Environment Act

NEAP Nationa Environment Action Pan

NEMP Nationa Environment Management Poicy

NFA Nationa Forestry Authority

NFP Uganda Nationa Forestry Poicy

NGOS Nongovernmenta organizations

NPA Nationa Panning Authority

NTF Nationa Task Force or Biomass EnergyRE Renewabe energy

SBL Standardized baseine

SME Sma and mediumsized enterprises

SSC Smascae

t Metric tonne

tCO2e Metric tonnes o CO

2equivaents

TJ Terajoue

UGX Ugandan shiing

UNDP United Nations Deveopment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Cimate Change

WB Word Bank

WE Wood equivaent

XNRB

Nonrenewabe biomass

1 Formally Ministry o Energy and Mineral Development MEMD.2 Formally Ministry o Water, Lands and Environment MWLE.


8/88


TABlES

Tabe 1: Charcoa suppy to Kampaa and source districts (Knpfe 2004) 19Tabe 2: Panned increase o modern energy services (Rura Eectrication Agency 2007) 26

Tabe 3: Carbonization technoogies 32

Tabe 4: Briquetting technoogies 34

Tabe 5: Possibe stakehoder trainings 54

Tabe 6: Baseine parameters or charcoa production 57

Tabe 7: Four types o charcoa incuded in monitoring pan 58

Tabe 8: Monitoring parameters overview 59

Tabe 9: Registration o charcoa producers 60

Tabe 10: Number o abeed charcoa bags provided 60

Tabe 11: Number o abeed bags o each charcoa type purchased by the district 61

Tabe 12: NCV o dierent charcoa types 62

Tabe 13: Revenue rom taes coected by each district 62

Tabe 14: Ta rom charcoa put into orest und 63

Tabe 15: Charcoa icenses granted 63

Tabe 16: Number o bags o each type o charcoa checked during road bocks 64

Tabe 17: Taes coected rom unabeed BAU charcoa passing through road bocks 64

Tabe 18: Bags o charcoa brought into the warehouse 65

Tabe 19: Bags o charcoa sod to retaiers 65

Tabe 20: Retaiers registered in the charcoa retai association 66

Tabe 21: Ugandas urban popuation or 2011 (City Popuation n.d.) 72

Tabe 22: Annua charcoa demand 73

Tabe 23: Green charcoa suppy 75

Tabe 24: Percentage o green charcoa to be produced by Casamance and Adam retort kins 76

Tabe 25: Cumuative kin costs (USD) 77

Tabes


9/88

Bx 1: Prices in Kampaa 22Bx 2: Charcoa types 38

Bx 3: The roe o the Casamance kin 43

Bx 4: The Adam kin 44

Bx 5: Incentives or district empoyees 51

FiguresFgure 1: Charcoa vaue chain 17

Fgure 2: Key stakehoders in eisting charcoa vaue chain 17

Fgure 3: Map o Uganda showing urban centres (red) and districts 20

Fgure 4: The cone o major deorestation activities 21

Fgure 5: Schematic representation o major poicies in Uganda with impact on charcoa 25

Fgure 6: Eisting charcoa vaue chain and considerations or deveoping a charcoa NAMA 37

Fgure 7: Charcoa types and the type o intervention 39

Fgure 8: Schematic representation o sustainabe orestry and ecient kins 43

Fgure 9: Schematic representation o the proposed NAMA concept 46

Fgure 10: Schematic representation o the district charcoa unit 48

Fgure 11: Forestry und use o charcoa taation revenue to promote sustainabe charcoa 50

Fgure 12: Restructuring o the charcoa vaue chain without disturbing the eisting reationships 52

Boes


BOxES, FIGURES


10/88

The objective o this NAMA study is to provide Uganda with an important opportunity to hep shape its uture owcarbon deveopment. Not ony woud the impementation o an improved charcoa vaue chain NAMA hep Uganda

to increase the eciency and eectiveness o the current vaue chain, it woud enabe the country to remove a major

driver o deorestation whie increasing energy security and sustainabiity.

The NAMA, once uy deveoped and approved, woud be integrated with other reevant UNDP initiatives in Uganda,

in particuar the low Emission Capacity Buiding Programme, which is part o a arger UNDP owemission cimate

programme and addition to the GIZ Biomass Energy Strategy initiative to deveop short, medium and ongterm

interventions to achieve sustainabe management o biomass energy resources. The NAMA woud aso be integra to the

recenty approved UNDPimpemented and Goba Environment Faciity nanced projects in the charcoa sector reated to

addressing barriers to the adoption o improved production technoogies and sustainabe and management practices.

UNDP recognizes that the charcoa sector provides some o the most important opportunities to not ony prevent

emission reductions but aso to provide signicant and highy reevant sustainabe deveopment outcomes or

deveoping countries, and in particuar in least Deveoped Countries (lDCs). The NAMA modaity can provide the

essentia hoistic ramework or the improvement o the compete vaue chain in the charcoa sector.

The understanding o the NAMA concept is sti evoving and there is as o to date reativey itte on the ground eperience

with turning the concept into concrete action. UNDP hopes that by unding this study it can contribute to urther shaping

the concept and transating it into action. The key dening criteria or a NAMA to be comprised o measurabe, reportabe

and veriabe (MRV) emission reduction activities show us the way to the uture generation o emission reduction

eorts that intend to scaeup their scope and go beyond the projectbased approach that has been the main ocus

o the CDM. UNDPs MDG Carbon program has been providing comprehensive project deveopment services or

cients in deveoping countries. Starting with an ecusive ocus on project based CDM, the program has shited its

ocus to scaedup programmatic and sector wide approaches, in particuar targeting lDCs. It accompanies these

services with targeted capacity deveopment assistance, o which this particuar study is a good eampe.

UNDP is determined to assist deveoping countries in impementing owcarbon interventions and bringing ongterm

sustainabe deveopment benets. The sustainabe charcoa NAMA in Uganda is an eciting mitigation programme

that can achieve both objectives.

Mare Aers

Head, Energy, Inrastructure, Transport&Technoogy

Manager o MDG Carbon,

UNDP Goba Environment Faciity


FOREWORD

Foreword


11/88


ExECUTIVE SUMMARY

The charcoa sector currenty provides one o the greatest opportunities to hep to prevent emissions in eastdeveoped countries (lDCs) whie ostering signicant sustainabe deveopment benets. However, despite recent

improvements in the production sector, there have unti now been ew activities in CDM or genera cimate nancing.

However, the recent approva o a smascae (SSC) methodoogy or charcoa and the ongoing approva o a

charcoa standardized baseine (SB) shoud provide a strong basis or the uture deveopment o cimate nanced

charcoa projects.

First deveoped at the 2007 United Nations Framework Convention on Cimate Change (UNFCCC) Conerence o

the Parties, the concept o a nationay appropriate mitigation action (NAMA) has continuay evoved athough

ew have been designed and impemented. NAMAs are we suited to hoistic programmes since success depends

on considering a components o the vaue chain orest management, production, transportation, retai andconsumption.

This study ocuses on the midde three components o the vaue chain production, transportation and retai and

provides inormation about the Ugandan contet o the vaue chain, the stakehoders invoved, the reevant poicies

and the institutiona ramework. The core part o the study is the design o an improved vaue chain or Uganda,

incuding, at the production eve, the introduction o improved kins. A major component o the NAMA woud be

the creation and institutionaization o a charcoa unit at the district eve that is charged with, among other activities,

purchasing rom producers, categorizing the type produced so producers can be paid a dierentiated vaue based

on whether or not the product is sustainabe, and arranging transport rom the districts to Governmentcreated

warehouses ocated outside urban areas. At the warehouses, the charcoa wi be sod by retai associations.

A crucia component in the NAMA design is the incorporation o measuring, reporting and ongterm verication.

For this reason, the study incudes a system that permits robust monitoring that is impementabe in the Ugandan

contet in addition to parameters and recording and reporting procedures. It aso presents the necessary net steps

in the NAMA process that incude two stages o deveopment o a NAMA design document, which must be deveoped

in cose cooperation with stakehoders, and, eventuay, impementation. Finay, the study incudes a ist o possibe

donors to und both stages.

Eecutive Summary


12/88

3 Reer to Section 1.2 or urther inormation about the scope o this study.4 Coconut shell charcoaling and power generation at Badalgama, Sri Lanka.

1.1. BACKGROUNDOne o the argest opportunities to prevent emissions and trigger signicant sustainabe deveopment benets in

east deveoped countries (lDCs) is improving the charcoa sector. Yet unti recenty, there has been very itte CDM

or genera cimate activity within the charcoa production sector.3 Ony two approved CDM charcoa methodoogies

eist with a newy approved third methodoogy discussed beow. The rst is a SSC methodoogy, the AMSIII.K,

which comprises the avoidance o methane reease rom charcoa production. Ony one charcoa project4 has appied

this methodoogy and ater it was registered, the rst issuance o certied emissions reductions (CERs) rom the

project was ony 12 percent o the epected voume (UNEP Risoe 2012a). The second methodoogy is a arge scae

methodoogy, the ACM0021 reating to the reduction o emissions rom charcoa production by improved kin

design and/or abatement o methane. Two projects have been registered under this methodoogy but no CERs

have yet been issued.

To date, there is no methodoogy to acquire CERs rom the improvement o the eciency o the charcoa production

process or rom the reduction in the use o nonrenewabe biomass (xNRB

). The ack o a reevant methodoogy is a

missed opportunity to tap into the signicant potentia to reduce charcoa production emissions.

In addition, the ack o incentives to switch to renewabe biomass or o interventions in improving charcoa production

eciency has been ueed by a number o actors, incuding its ow cost, generay underpriced by 20 to 50 percent,

and strong cutura barriers to switch to aternative ues. As a resut, use xNRB

and o traditiona oweciency kins

continues aongside conventiona charcoa production and the consumption chain, which paces a high burden onoca orest resources and becoming a major source o deorestation.

At the seventieth CDM Eecutive Board (EB) meeting hed in November 2012, a new charcoa methodoogy was

approved. The SSC methodoogy, AMSIII.BG: Emission reduction through sustainabe charcoa production and

consumption, wi or the rst time provide an opportunity to earn CERs or switching rom xNRB

to renewabe biomass

in improved kins. In addition, the rst SB submitted to the UNFCCC is or charcoa production in Uganda. This SB

was submitted in May 2012; an initia assessment by the UNFCCC was successuy competed and a more detaied

assessment has been ongoing since November 2012.

The new SSC methodoogy and SB pave the way or urther carbon market activity or improved charcoa productionby providing a strong basis or Measuring, Reporting and Verication (MRV). In particuar, the SB provides strong and

conservative assumptions with regard to the yied and carbon fows in the baseine production. It is in that ight that

this study was commissioned. The goa o the study is to undertake a basic assessment o how the charcoa SB in

Uganda coud be urther buit upon and epanded on a poicy eve, in the orm o a NAMA.


1. INTRODUCTION, 1.1. BACKGROUND

1. Introduction


13/88

UNDP nanced this study with the goa that the deveopment o the NAMA concept woud provide an importantopportunity or Uganda to hep to shape its uture ow carbon deveopment. The impementation o an improved

charcoa vaue chain NAMA wi hep Uganda to increase the eciency and eectiveness o its current vaue chain

and wi enabe Uganda to remove a major driver o deorestation whie increasing energy security and sustainabiity.

Estabishing an adequate NAMA or the charcoa probem woud ideay entai the oowing steps:

i. Assessment: Knowing the scae o the probem in order to provide a soution at a sucient or at east

meaningu scae

ii. Anayss: Presenting the unctiona chain that inks the consumption o charcoa as cooking energy to

deorestation

iii. Frmuatn respnse: On the basis o the unctiona chain, identiying and seecting the most appropriate

scope o intervention to address the probem (e.g. depoyment o improved production technoogies; switch to

aternative sources o biomass, etc.)

iv. Mntrng resuts rst part te MRV: Computing the resuts achieved by the NAMA intervention or

the seected measures

v. Evauatn te stefetveness te resuts send part te MRV: Economic indicators on the

cost eectiveness o the probem shoud be incuded in order to check the cost o avoided emissions against

initia assumptions

vi. Evauatn te mpats trd part MRV: The MRV o the resuts shoud enabe an evauation o

the impacts

This report provides a strong basis or steps (i) through (iii) and touches upon (iv) through (vi). Foowing the competion

o this NAMA study, the net step woud be a urther eaboration o a steps.


1.1. BACKGROUND


14/88

1.2. SCOPEAs wi be seen in Section 3.2, the charcoa vaue chain is comprised o ve components: orest management, production,

transportation, retai and consumption.

The rst component o the vaue chain that coud be improved is orest management. This component wi be touched

upon in this study but wi not be eaborated since the issue is being addressed by other initiatives, such as the Uganda

Forest Working Group Sustainabe Forest Management, and shoud be addressed by orestry eperts.

The components o production, transportation and, to a esser etent, retai wi be addressed in this study.

The na crucia component o the vaue chain is consumer demand. This component, which is oten eamined in

reation to carbon nance, consists o reduction in consumption through the use o improved cook stoves. Indeed the

energy eciency o unimproved charcoa cook stoves is quite ow, with an eciency o ony 17 percent, whie modern

cook stoves can reach an eciency o above 40 percent (Berkeey Air Monitoring Group 2012). This indicates that

switching to more ecient cook stoves coud signicanty sash the demand or charcoa whie providing the same

cooking energy.

Athough there is a great potentia or charcoa savings rom improved charcoa cook stoves, the present study wi not

ocus on the user side o the charcoa chain or the oowing reasons:

1. Programmes and projects aimed at improving the energy eciency o charcoa cook stoves are aready underwayin severa countries, incuding Uganda, where reated projects incude Improved Cook stoves or East Arica,

Ecient Cook stove Programme: Uganda and Up Energy Improved Cook stoves (UNEP Risoe 2012b).

2. Pressure on countries where charcoa is used as a cooking ue is oten doubed, with growing popuations and

charcoa demands aongside the decreasing avaiabiity o wood. For eampe, charcoa demand in Uganda is

growing at yeary rate o +6 percent and without intervention orecasts show that a tota depetion o orestry

resources woud occur by 2050 (NEMA 2008). With this in mind, soey improving the mid to ongterm eciency

o charcoa stoves might not be sucient.


1.2. SCOPE


15/88

It shoud be noted that when the u NAMA design document is deveoped, improved cook stoves need to be takeninto consideration. The incusion o improved cook stoves is particuary important regarding charcoa price easticity.

I the use o improved cook stoves signicanty increases, the demand or charcoa wi in turn signicanty decrease,

eading to ower charcoa prices. A price decrease wi change the prot made by actors throughout the vaue chain

and must be considered as it coud signicanty aect stakehoders wiingness to engage in an improved vaue chain.

UNDP strongy supports the integration o this NAMA study with other reevant initiatives in Uganda, or instance,

a Goba Environment Faciity (GEF) supported project that has a highy reevant goa o securing mutipe environmenta

benets. Addressing the twin chaenges o unsustainabe utiization o biomass or charcoa and poor and management

practices common in Ugandas woodands, the project uses technoogy transer and ue switch, improved data

coection and carbon monitoring and promotion o sustainabe and and orest management practices.

This study serves to provide inormation that can be used to concretey deveop the necessary documentation

needed or the successu impementation o an ecient charcoa production NAMA in Uganda.

1.3. STRUCTURE

The study wi rst introduce NAMAs and report on the current progress at the internationa eve. A genera

introduction provides the reader with background knowedge, incuding eampes o charcoa poicies impemented

in subSaharan Arica. The study wi then narrow its ocus to Uganda, providing background inormation about the

vaue chain, poicies, institutiona ramework and, briefy, other ongoing initiatives. Net, technoogy options orimproved production wi be provided. The most reevant o these technoogies wi then be incuded, amongst other

activities, poicies and the governance structure, in the proposa or the NAMA. The grounds or the NAMA measuring,

reporting and verication wi then be set. Finay, a discussion covers where support or the NAMA is needed and who

coud provide it.


1.3. STRUCTURE


16/88

The NAMA concept was created at the 2007 thir teenth Conerence o the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC. Since

then progress at the internationa eve on the design o NAMAs has been sow but steady athough the eact

denition o the concept remains vague. The key dening criteria or a NAMA are that the concept is comprised

o measurabe, reportabe and veriabe (MRV) emissions reductions activities by deveoping countries in the

contet o sustainabe deveopment (UNFCCC 2007). Two types o NAMAs have been dened domesticay

or internationay supported with support coming in the orm o nance, capacity or technoogy transer.

A number o deveopments at the teenth COP to the UNFCCC (COP15) in 2009 in Copenhagen incuded deveoping

countries requests to submit inormation about NAMAs and decisions to create a UNFCCC NAMA registry and to

conduct internationa consutations and anayses o biennia reports (UNFCCC 2009). In 2010, at COP16 in Cancun,

a decision permitted deveoping countries to appy NAMAs to reach a deviation rom businessasusua (BAU)

emissions in 2020. In 2010 and 2011, deveoping countries submitted an etensive ist o NAMAs to the UNFCCC

and COP17 in Durban saw the mandate to deveop and naize the NAMA registry prior to COP18.

In 2011 and 2012, NAMA progress was made on the ground. Capacity buiding activities or deveoping countries

began, initia NAMA documents were written and requests or support or NAMA designs were upoaded onto

the registry. The concept o NAMAs has sowy been turned into concrete actions.


2. NATIONAllY APPROPRIATE MITIGATION ACTION

2. Nationay Appropriate

Mitigation Action


17/88

3.1. PRODUCTIONBiomass ues are an essentia component o ie in Arica, meeting more than 90 percent o energy needs in much

o subSaharan Arica. In 2000, househods in the region were estimated to consume neary 0.72 tonnes per capita or

470 miion tonnes o wood ues in the orm o pure wood and charcoa (Baiis et a. 2005), with this number increasing

over time as popuation does. Since much o the biomass consumed is nonrenewabe, there is a signicant generation

o greenhouse gas emissions. The majority o the biomass used in rura areas is wood and, across the region, the use o

charcoa is imited to urban househods.

For instance, in Kenya, 80 percent o househods rey on charcoa as their primary source o ue or cooking (Energy

or Sustainabe Deveopment Arica 2005). Scenarios that anticipate arge shits to charcoa and no improvements in

harvesting and production suggest that greenhouse gas emissions associated with charcoa coud reach 15 biion

tonnes o CO2

by 2050 (Steenbik 2006).

Charcoa is produced by sow pyroysis, which is the heating o wood or other substances in the absence o oygen.

Pyroysis, or carbonization, is initiated by heating a pie o wood under controed conditions in a cosed space, such

as a charcoa kin, with a very imited suppy o air triggering endothermic and eothermic reactions. The biomass

produces, as a resut o the pyroysis process, a miture o gas, iquid and charcoa (Energypedia 2012). This process

is usuay carried out in traditiona kins. Once the charcoa has cooed, it is paced into bags and transported to retai

centers, mainy in urban areas. The entire process can take 7 to 12 days (Greenpower 2012a).

Traditiona kins have conversion eciencies o 10 to 22 percent (cacuated on using ovendry wood with 0 percent

water content), resuting in the use o 8 to 12 kiograms (kg) o wood or the production o 1 kg o charcoa. This ow

eciency is primariy due to the rudimentary techniques used by producers. Variabes, such as pyroysis temperature

and time, and the initia rate o heating have a signicant impact on charcoas physica and chemica properties (Cua

Surez et a. 2010), thereore aecting the eciency o the production process. Switching to the use o improved kins

can resut in increasing eciency up to 30 to 42 percent, with the use o just 3 to 4 kg o wood per kg o charcoa

produced (Adam 2009).


3. CHARCOAl SECTOR, 3.1. PRODUCTION

3. Charcoa Sector


18/88

3.2. VALUE CHAINFigure 1: Charcoal value chain

Each component o the chain has a number o dierent actors. As mentioned previousy, this study wi ocus on the

midde three components production, transportation and retai. The study wi ocus on key stakehoders in the

eisting vaue chain (See Figure 2).

Producers have access to private orest ands where they produce charcoa to se

The intermediaries connect the producers and transporters who are then invoved with transporting the charcoa,

either iegay or egay (i.e. ater paying the appicabe evy) to the urban centres

Whoesaers are invoved with buk trade and operate rom markets ocated within urban centres

Retaiers purchase rom the whoesaers and vary greaty in scae o operation (rom arge markets to individua

shop owners).

Figure 2: Key stakeholders in eisting charcoal value chain

PRODUCERSINTERMEDIARIES/

WHOLESALERS

RETAILERS

(Urban centric)

CONSUMERS

(Urban centric)

ExISTING CHAR COAL VALUE CHAIN

Source: Authors.

Source: Authors.


3.2. VAlUE CH AIN

1. Forest

management

2. Charcoal

production

3. Transportation 4. Charcoal

retail

5. Charcoal

consumption


19/88

3.3. POLICIES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAIn order to try and address the probem o deorestation caused by the charcoa sector, a number o countries have

impemented a variety o poicies and reguations. Reevant reguations range rom those reated to orestry management,

ogging, charcoa production, transport and use. Discussion o three eampes o reguation is presented beow,

demonstrating some o the chaenges .

Chad

In 2008, the Government o Chad passed a aw banning the production o charcoa produced rom reshy cut trees.

At the same time, the President introduced another initiative o panting a miion trees over ve years to act as

a buer against the encroaching desert. The tree panting initiative has been wecomed but the charcoa ban hasproved highy controversia as the initiative was announced ony three weeks prior to coming into orce and once

the aw was enacted, the Government bocked a charcoa, regardess o how it was produced, rom coming into

the capita, Ndjamena (IRIN 2009). The Government introduced a subsidy on natura gas, however, prices have

increased threeod since the ban was impemented, eaving many peope without an economicay viabe ue

option (Hicks 2012).

Kena

In 1999, the Kenyan Government introduced a partia ogging ban in pubic orests that aowed ony our arge timber

companies to og in state orests and reorest the and. The ban was ited in 2010 ater it had caused increased iega

ogging, destroyed timber reated jobs and resuted in higher charcoa prices (Migiro 2012). In November 2012, the

Kenya Forest Service announced a new charcoa poicy to egaize and reguate the charcoa trade ees and charges wi

be evied on the charcoa and the revenue wi then be returned to the charcoaproducing communities (Ndonga 2012).

United Republic o Tanzania

In 2006, the Tanzanian Ministry o Natura Resources and Tourism (MNRT) introduced a ban on charcoa or a period

o two weeks to study the impact on the trade. During the two week ban, production, trade and use o charcoa

continued amost unchanged, abeit under more dicut conditions. The unsuccessu enorcement o the ban by the

MNRT ocers, as we as by other Government agencies may have been due to two reasons: the poicy measure to ban

charcoa was not we coordinated among the dierent government agencies who are at east party responsibe

or the subject matter; or the monitoring and enorcement machineries o the other Government agencies were as

ineective as MNRTs bureaucracy to successuy enorce the compete ban on charcoa (Word Bank 2010).

As can be seen, many charcoa poicies have been ineective. These aiures highight the need or a uy integrated

approach, with signicant stakehoder engagement, to tacking the chaenges o an inecient charcoa vaue chain.

It is in this contet that a uy integrated NAMA needs to be deveoped.


3.3. POlICIES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA


20/88

4.1. BACKGROUND

The importance o charcoa in Uganda can be gauged by its nickname, back god, as it is reerred to by some traders

in Kampaa. Charcoa in Uganda is viewed by urban househods as a reiabe, convenient and accessibe source o

cooking ue avaiabe at a stabe price. More than 90 percent o the popuation depends on charcoa and rewood

as the primary source o cooking ue (GIZ 2011). The uncertainties around the avaiabiity and high costs o iqueed

petroeum gas (lPG) usuay resuts in most rich urban househods depending on charcoa cook stoves as backups.

Moreover, the socioeconomic importance o charcoa is substantia, invoving the iveihoods o thousands o peope

who work in the charcoa vaue chain.

However, there is a growing concern in Uganda about the deteriorating state o the countrys orest cover. The Nationa

Forestry Authority (NFA) estimates that 80,000 hectares o private and protected orests are being ceared annuay

or the unsustainabe production o charcoa and timber (IRIN 2012).5 This is a signicant increase rom the estimated

50,000 hectares in 2004. For a country where one quarter o the and is covered by orests, the current rate o deorestation

transates to amost 1.24 percent o the orest and being ost annuay (Knpfe 2004).

Production

In Uganda, ike many other countries in the region, charcoa production is predominanty undertaken by rura

popuations in unorganized groups or individuas. Foowing the pyroysis process and ater having cooed, the

newy produced charcoa is coected in bags with an average weight o 50 to 60 kg and carried to the nearest road

coection point where intermediaries (transporters, traders) pay o the producers at an onspot price and transport

the charcoa to urban centres, predominanty Kampaa.

Given the unorganized nature o the business and the compeities invoved in the vauechain rom producers to

the urban consumers there is a dearth o veriabe and uptodate inormation. In 2004, a survey was undertaken

by the then Ministry o Energy and Minera Deveopment (MEMD) to estimate the annua consumption o charcoa

in Kampaa and to determine the district o its origin. The data coection was carried out by ed agents positioned

at ten entry points covering a important arteria roads entering Kampaa. Over a oneweek period, the agentsphysicay counted and measured the charcoa bags and questioned the source o origin o the charcoa. The data

was then etrapoated to determine the annua vaues o charcoa produced rom each region. A summary o the

data is provided in Tabe 1 and Figure 3. Whie the methodoogy ceary shows the chaenges associated with

acquiring accurate data, which is not uncommon in many lDCs, it aso provides a practica and proven soution

or pursuing simiar initiatives in uture.


4. CURRENT CHARCOAl SITUATION IN UGANDA, 4.1. BACKGROUND

5 See accessed 21 December 2012.

4. Current Charcoa Situation

in Uganda


21/88


22/88

Figure 3: Map o Uganda showing urban centres red and districts

Source: Ezion Maps, N.D. (Mentioned).


4.1. BACKGROUND


23/88

Value ChainMost trees used or charcoa production in Uganda are chopped rom privatey owned orests. The enorcement o

aws to prevent random deorestation on private ands has been dicut given the unorganized and distributed nature

o the activity. From 1990 to 2005, as seen in the Nationa Biomass Study, there was a 28 percent decrease in orest

cover, rom 4.9 miion hectares to 3.5 miion hectares (MEMD 2001, 30). As charcoa consumption is concentrated in

urban areas, the deorestation activities have been greatest in centra Uganda orest ands, which are near the cities,

as can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4:The cone o major deorestation activities

MAJOR URBAN CENTERS

CONE OF DEFORESTATION

Source: Authors.


4.1. BACKGROUND


24/88

A signicant voume (5 to 15 percent at production sites and 5 to 20 percent at retai areas) o charcoa in the ormcharcoa dust is ost during transportation and improper storage (Knpfe 2004). The signicance o these osses can

be gauged by the act that manuacturers around Kampaa buy out the residua charcoa dust and combine it with

a binding agent ike cassava to orm charcoa briquettes. A briquette manuacturer interviewed at the time o the

onsite study reveaed that he produced over one tonne o briquettes per day with the capacity to scae up to 4 to

5 tonnes/day in the immediate uture.

Apart rom the income generating potentia that charcoa production oers to the rura popuation, the producing

districts stand to earn signicant revenue through taation. Districts charge a evy in the range o 15 to 20 percent o

the tota vaue on the charcoa that is eported out o the districts. However, traders nd means to bypass this taation

resuting in signicant economic osses or the districts. Transporters oten resort to taking detours through anes andorest roads to bypass check points ocated on the major arteria roads.

Transportation o charcoa is oten unorganized and requenty invoves overoaded trucks o varying capacities.

The charcoa is transported to temporary storage sites in and around urban centres rom which it is then distributed

through a network o oca retaiers. Transportation aso invoves a arge spectrum o peope ooking to take advantage

o the reativey high price dierence between the money paid to the producers and the na price paid by consumers.

A market survey indicates that the 2012 retai market price o charcoa in Kampaa is in the range o 800 to 1,000

Ugandan shiings (UGx)/kg and producers can epect to be paid in the range o 5 to 10 percent o the retai price.

Further inormation about charcoa prices can be seen in Bo 1.

Box 1: Prices in Kampala

Source: Based on data coected by authors at time o site visit, Oct 2012.


4.1. BACKGROUND

For a amily o ve, the average monthly charcoal consumption in Kampala is approimately two 70kg bags. The price

o a 70 kg bag is 55,000 to 70,000 UGx, a signicant increase rom the price o 20,000 UGx three years ago. The price

increase can be attributed to rapidly depleting orests. Locals indicate a reluctance to travel or more than 0.5 km to buy

charcoal, which indicates the density o the retail network. Most oten charcoal is stored in small neighbourhood shops

that maintain a stock o a ew bags o varying sizes.

In comparison, prices o briquettes remain competitive. Green Bio Energy, a local manuacturer, sells three package sizes

under the brand Briketi at the ollowing retail price:

Small bags 1.1-1.25 kg: 800 UGx

Medium bags 5.5 kg: 7,000 UGx branded, packaged in carton with re starters

Large bags 25 or 50 kg: 18,000 and 35,000 UGx

The average retail price o charcoal briquettes is lower than conventional charcoal, given that the manuacturer incurs

no cost o procuring charcoal dust, uses locally improvised technology and maintains a lower overhead or himsel i.e.

takes no salary. The cost o setting up a briquetting plant has been low as the investments have been made rom personal

savings and some grant nancing. The current market o briquettes is very limited given the low number o the briquette

manuacturers in Kampala, low awareness o the option and that the manuacturers have limited access to the eisting

charcoal value chain retailers. Hence, companies such as Green Bio Energy supply briquettes to supermarkets with the

target market being educated, upper middle-class customers.


25/88

Charcoal EconomicsAny charcoa reated project in Uganda needs to take into account the entire vaue chain o production, transportation

and distribution. The cassic eampe o a producer is a rura mae who undertakes production activity as an additiona

source o income to suppement his earnings rom working on the eds. Operations tend to be unorganized as they

are based on the individua producers constanty changing daiy income needs. In Uganda, charcoa producers can

aso incude the entire spectrum o the popuation incuding women and chidren, working in organized groups or

as individuas.

The raw materia or charcoa production is most oten cut rom private orest ands, where cuturay there is a notion

o community and ancestra ownership. In many cases and owners encourage deorestation as it aows them to

convert orestand into more productive arming and at a reativey ow cost. More organized charcoa producers have

some sort o a nancia arrangement with the orest and owners based either on the number o bags o charcoa

produced or the area o orest and being ceared. Given the producers imited coective bargaining power, and aso

their ack o knowedge/incentive to increase production eciency, the share o the tota revenue pie to producers

is airy ow, ranging rom 5 to 10 percent). Any structure that incentivizes sustainabe charcoa production must

ocus on providing a stabe, assured and higher nancia return to the producers. Apart rom charcoa producers, the

owners o private orest ands need to be made aware o the opportunities or comparabe or better economic returns

by retaining the orests as compared to cearing the orest and or agricuture. The NAMA concept or an improved

charcoa vaue chain takes an incusive approach and proposes a potentia soution that addresses the concerns o

a stakehoders.

Industr Findings

The orest ands in Uganda can be cassied as either Governmentowned orests managed by the Nationa Forestry

Authority or private orest ands owned by individuas or cans. The atter constitutes 70 percent o the tota orest ands

in Uganda with orest ownership being passed down through generations.

Athough there are severa studies on the impact o charcoa on deorestation in Uganda, the east understood act is

the impact o the eisting socia system, the various cans and their perception about orest ands and orest ownership.

The ownership structure on private orests can be compicated, with severa individuas staking a caim on the absoute

ownership o a particuar orest. The trees in the private orests are deemed to be owned by the individuas/cans and

are, thereore, subject to deorestation without any authorization.

In many cases, the private owners aow tenants to reside on the private orest ands and aow them to cut down

the trees in return or a predetermined ee, e.g. based on the number o bags o charcoa produced. There are aso

instances where tenants are encouraged to cut down trees and prot through charcoa production as the owners are


4.1. BACKGROUND


26/88

incined to convert orests into agricutura and, which ensures ong term nancia returns. The orests continue toprovide the rura popuation the singe argest source o income in the orm o charcoa, rewood, timber and other

orest products, such as medicine, materia or crats etc.

Outside the orest ands, the charcoa industry aso provides a signicant source o income, both directy and indirecty,

or various sections o the society and or the Government. There are parties with signicant vested interests in

ensuring that the eisting charcoa vaue chain is not disturbed. Any signicant ecusion o the various invoved

parties rom the eisting vaue chain without consideration or aternative sources o income can ead to opposition

rom the parties and socia disturbances (e.g. there has been an instance where charcoa transporters set re to a truck

carrying briquettes into Kampaa when briquette manuacturing was viewed as competition). Thereore, the approach

to introducing sustainabe charcoa practices needs to be gradua. The aected parties need to understand the reasonor change (e.g. unsustainabe orestry woud eventuay ead to permanent oss o income) and avenues to adapt

to the changes woud need to be provided (e.g. graduay introduce sustainabe charcoa whie sowy reducing the

demand or unsustainabe charcoa through a combination o poicy initiatives and market condition). Furthermore,

a more incusive approach needs to be designed (e.g. empoy eisting transporters o unsustainabe charcoa to

hasseree transportation o sustainabe charcoa to identied warehouses).

The broad set o issues that need to be tacked is:

Ugandas energy poicy and government reguations

Charcoa production and suppy chain, incuding producers, transporters and retaiers

Sustainabe orest and woodot management

Energy ecient cook stoves

Roe and demands o internationa donor agencies


4.1. BACKGROUND


27/88

4.2. POLICIES AND PROGRAMMESCharcoa in Uganda as under two ministries (See Figure 5). As a source o energy, the charcoa vaue chain is subject

to rues and reguations under the Ministry o Energy and Mineras (MEM) (aso reerred to as i ts ormer name o

Ministry o Energy and Minera Deveopment). As the raw materia is sourced rom orest ands, the vaue chain rom

the charcoa production perspective is subject to the Ministry o Water and Environment (MWE).

Figure 5: Schematic representation o major policies in Uganda with impact on charcoal

Uganda Vision 2040

The Nationa Panning Authority estabished in 2002 has been entrusted with deveoping a ongterm country strategy

or Uganda with the objective o a transormed Ugandan society rom a peasant to a modern and prosperous country

within 30 years (NPA 2012). The Uganda Vision 2040, a vision ramework document, provides broad deveopment

indicators or 33 categories, with % o popuation with access to eectricity sated to increase rom the 2010 baseine

o 11 percent to 80 percent by 2040. Whie acknowedging that 95 percent o househods use wood and/or charcoa

as the primary cooking ue, the document states that over the vision period, the Government wi epand the rura

eectrication programme to cover the whoe country and aternative energy sources such as soar, natura gas and

biogas wi be promoted (NPA 2012). The ongterm deveopment o charcoa vaue chain, thereore, does not orm

a critica part o Ugandas ongterm energy strategy.

UGANDA VISION 2040

Other related policies

MEM, Uganda

Energy Policy o Uganda

Renewable Energy

Policy o Uganda

Biomass Energy StrategyBEST proposed

MWE, Uganda

National Forest Policy

National Environment ActNational Environment Action Plan

National Environment Management Policy

Source: Authors.


4.2. POlICIES AND PROGRAMMES


28/88

Energ PolicThe Energy Poicy o Uganda was ormuated by the Ministry o Energy and Minera Deveopment in 2002 and broady

ooks into the energy sector in Uganda via the oowing categories: power, petroeum, new and renewabe sources

o energy and atomic energy. The poicy has a reativey supportive tone or grid connected power and eporation

o oi and gas reated sectors. The ist beow provides the nancia resources (required and committed) as per Anne 1

o the document:

Power generation (hydro power, minihydro and bagasse cogen project): $1.61 miion

Rura eectrication and soar PV projects: $357 miion

Improvement o transmission & distribution network: $184 miion

Petroeum eporation and deveopment o suppy chain: $179 miion

Environmenta impact, energy governance and administration: $30 miion

Promotion o the use o Renewabe Energy (RE) and Energy Eciency (EE): $16 miion

Renewable Energ Polic

Approved by the cabinet in 2007, the Renewabe Energy Poicy o Uganda was an outcome emerging rom the need

to ocus on RE in the Energy Poicy o Uganda. The objective o the poicy is to increase the use o modern RE rom

4 percent to 61 percent by 2017, driven chiefy by a 3.5od increase o renewabe power generation rom 412 MW in

2007 to 1420 MW in 2017 (o which 1285 MW constituted arge and minihydro). For charcoareated technoogies,the scaingup is as shown in the Tabe 2 beow:

Table 2: Planned increase o modern energy services

There is no data avaiabe on the current status (2012) o the abovementioned services.

MoDERN ENERGY SERVicES FoR

hoUSEholDS 2007 2012 2017

Improved woodstoves 170,000 500,000 4,000,000

Improved charcoal stoves 30,000 100,000 250,000

Institutional stoves 450 1,500 5,000

Baking ovens 60 250 1,000

Kilns 10 30 100

Source: Rura eectrication agency 2007 (Mentioned).




29/88

Environmental PoliciesThe countrys three important environment poicies are the Nationa Environment Act (1995), the Nationa Environment

Action Pan (1994) and Nationa Environment Management Poicy (1994). Together they provide strategies to guide

and assist decision makers and users to determine nationa environmenta priorities at nationa, sectora and individua

eves, incuding the private sector. The poicies integrate environmenta concerns with socioeconomic deveopment

and hence orm an important guidance or decision making.

More importanty, the poicies recognize the importance o sectorspecic attention and as a resut, sectorspecic

rameworks have been deveoped. These incude the 1995 Water Poicy, the 1996 Nationa Wetands Management

Poicy, the 1996 Widie Poicy, the 2000 Fisheries Poicy, the 2001 Forestry Poicy and severa district environment

management poicies deveoped since 2000.

National Forestr Polic

The Uganda Nationa Forestry Poicy (NFP) was set orth by the Ministry o Water, lands and Environment (MWlE)

in 2001 with the view to sustainaby manage orests, woodands and trees, providing ecoogica and socia services,

producing economic goods or present and uture generations o Ugandans, and making a contribution to the goba

community. The key issues tacked in the poicy which have a direct impact on charcoa production are:

Sustainabe management and protection o permanent orest estate under government trusteeship

Promote the deveopment and sustainabe management o natura orests on private and

Promote protabe and productive orestry pantation businesses

Promote a modern, competitive, ecient and wereguated orest products processing industry

Deveop coaborative partnerships with rura communities or the sustainabe management o orests

Deveop and promote treegrowing on arms in a arming systems, and innovative mechanisms or the deivery

o orestry advisory services

Promote urban orestry

Support sustainabe orest sector deveopment through appropriate education, training and research

Deveop innovative mechanisms or the suppy o high quaity tree seed and improved panting stock

However, the poicy does not eaborate on how the key issues wi be tacked and overcome. This ack o eaboration

about impementation remains an important setback to most o the abovementioned poicies. There is a cear need

to propose a wedened roadmap and specic agenda or the promotion o sustainabe orestry and environmenta

management in the country.




30/88

Programmes on Biomass and Related SectorsThe Promotion o Renewabe Energy and Energy Eciency Programme (PREEEP) is being impemented by the

MEM with the support o the Deutsche Geseschat r Internationae Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), the German Financia

Cooperation (KW) and the Centre or Internationa Migration (CIM). The programme oers support in deveoping skis,

resources and capacities in the eds o energy poicy, disseminating modern biomass energy technoogies, promoting

energy eciency and rura eectrication.

The EU Energy Init iatives Partnership Diaogue Faciity and GIZ are unding the Biomass Energy Strategy (BEST)

initiative to deveop short, medium and ongterm interventions to achieve sustainabe management o biomass

energy resources and provide better energy services to the peope.

The UNDP Country Programme Action Pan (CPAP) (20102014) or Uganda is ocused on strengthening the eorts

and capacities o oca governments, civi society organizations (CSOs) and communities to hep them to sustainaby

manage and utiize natura resources, integrate cimate change adaptation and mitigation in their activities and buid

cimate change resiient societies. This is epected to be achieved through deveoping, pioting and impementing

initiatives in biodiversity and ecosystem management, sustainabe and management, ecient energy technoogies

and reduction in GHG emissions, as we as buiding cimate change resiient communities.

The low Emission Capacity Buiding (lECB) Programme is part o a arger UNDP ow emission cimate programme that

buids on initiatives aready deveoped by the UNDP and the EU. The veyear programme ocuses on the deveopment

o NAMAs, greenhouse gas inventory systems and MRV in 24 countries. Uganda has been shortisted or the lECB

programme with an emphasis on three areas, namey the energy, transport and waste sectors.

Uganda has aso been chosen as a potentia piot country or the CeanStart programme, a new UNDP and United

Nations Capita Deveopment Fund (UNCDF) joint initiative, which aims to support 2.5 miion poor peope in gaining

access cean energy through micronance across Arica and Asia. An assessment or Uganda has aready been

undertaken and the Government sha be provided with a strategy and a business pan to impement activities or

ogrid energy access under a uture potentia NAMA on energy use.

The GEF is the argest pubic unding agency or projects reated to improving the goba environment. In partnership

with 182 countries, institutions and the private sector, the GEF provides grants or projects reated to biodiversity,

cimate change, internationa waters, and degradation, the ozone ayer and persistent organic poutants. In Uganda,

the GEF has approved 25 projects in the areas o cimate change, biodiversity, and degradation and others, with

a tota grant o $73 miion and conancing o up to $585 miion. One o the recenty approved projects in the

charcoa sector reates to addressing barriers to the adoption o improved charcoa production technoogies and

sustainabe and management practices through an integrated approach.




31/88

4.3. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKThe Ministry o Energy and Mineras and the Ministry o Water and Environment are the two governmenta institutions

in charge o poicies reated to charcoa. The institutions invoved with charcoa and orestryreated issues are compe

at present. Whie the trees are standing, the charcoa vaue chain is under purview o the Nationa Forestry Authority,

which as under the MWE. Ater the trees are cut or charcoa production, jurisdiction o the charcoa vaue chain shits

to the MEM. As charcoa pertains to energy use, the MEM is in a better position to strengthen the charcoa vaue chain.

The abiity to sustain itse nanciay is crucia when proposing any institution as the coordinating and managing

entity or any potentia NAMA. Athough the MEM is ocused on promoting grid connected power and a greater roe

o ossi ues in the countrys energy baance, it empoys individuas who have an understanding o charcoareated

issues and, more importanty, understand the need to incude sustainabe charcoa production in the countrys short

and mediumterm energy strategy panning. The discovery o oi and gas reserves may cause MEM to reeamine their

priorities; however, it wi sti take some time beore Uganda organizes its ossi ue sector given the reativey imited

eperience it has had unti now.

The MWE on the other hand has a wide reach, ranging rom orestry (through the Nationa Forestry Authority), cimate

change (through the Cimate Change Unit and the Designated Nationa Authority) to energy (through district energy

ocers). The MWE has aso recenty set up environment poice mandated to prevent iega deorestation. The Nationa

Forestry Authority has undertaken studies based on a geographic inormation system (GIS) in order to understand

the impact o deorestation rom timber production. Thus, it is uy aware, through the use o GIS, o the country sdeorestation activities. Simiary the Cimate Change Unit (CCU) was a decisionmaker in deveoping the country s

environment programmes, incuding the deveopment o a nationa NAMA strategy to identiy the most suitabe

NAMAs or uture deveopment and government support.

Any potentia NAMA on sustainabe charcoa, thereore, needs to consider both ministries when setting up an

institutiona structure to benet rom the epertise and resources that each o them bring in (See Section 6 or

discussions on a proposa or the most appropriate institutiona ramework.).


4.3. INSTITUTIONAl FRAMEWORK


32/88

The overarching objective o a charcoa NAMA shoud be to baance the demand or wood or charcoa production

with the quantity o wood that can be sustainaby harvested or that purpose. In most countries, the demand or

wood eceeds the amount o wood that can be sustainaby harvested. As a consequence, the coection o wood

or charcoa production is oten a key driver o deorestation.

This section wi ook at technoogy options that can be used to improve charcoa production and, thereore, reduce

the demand or wood.

5.1. BASELINE PRODUCTION

In the absence o intervention, virtuay a o the charcoa consumed in owincome countries and lDCs is produced

by the inorma sector rom wood on the basis o unimproved technoogies. The inorma sector is characterized

by the use o traditiona kins that require no investment besides abour. The individuas or group o individuas

invoved in charcoa production are not ormay registered or reguated by the authorities or the production and

suppy o charcoa products or reated services.

The unimproved technoogies, aso reerred to as traditiona technoogies, used by the inorma charcoa makers

are earth mound kins, pit kins or equivaent openend technoogies soey made o branches and soi. They do not

incorporate parts made o meta and/or masonry.

The main probem with the baseine charcoa production is the ow conversion eciency o the wood used as both

ue and eedstock or the pyroysis process. The ratio between the mass o charcoa obtained and the mass o biomass

used or its production (ideay epressed on an ovendry basis) is caed the charcoa yied. As mentioned previousy,

the eciency o traditiona kins is 10 to 22 percent whie eciency can be increased to as high as 30 to 42 percent.

A second athough more minor probem associated with the production o charcoa is the production o methane

during the pyroysis gases. Depending on the source, between 0.027 and 0.045 tonnes o methane are emitted per

tonne o charcoa in the pyroysis gases (Mer and Michaeowa 2011).


5. TECHNOlOGY OPTIONS FOR IMPR OVED PRODUCTION, 5.1. BASElINE PRODUC TION

5. Technoogy Options or

Improved Production


33/88

5.2. TyPES OF TECHNOLOGy INTERVENTIONSThe oowing types o technoogy improvements can reduce the specic consumption o wood per tonne o

charcoa consumed:

i. Fuel switch: Whie virtuay a o the charcoa is produced on the basis o wood ogs, charcoa can aso be

produced rom other sources o biomass. For eampe, biomass waste, such as agricutura waste, can be used instead

o wood. An estimated 1.7 Mt o agricutura waste was ound to be avaiabe in Uganda (MEMD 2001). Whie this

amount is certainy not sucient to repace a the 4.0 Mt o wood consumed or the production o charcoa in 2006,

the switch to biomass waste can substantiay reduce the pressure on the countrys wood resources. One tonne

o charcoa produced rom aternative sources o biomass can uy avoid the harvest o wood, which in the baseine

woud have been needed to produce this tonne o charcoa (estimated at 5 tonnes o wood per tonne o charcoa).

ii. Agglomeration (or switch): Ony a ew biomass types, such as wood ogs, coconut husks and bamboo in the

orm o arge chunks, can directy orm arge pieces o charcoa. Most other sources o biomass consist ony o sma

partices. In order to produce useu pieces o charcoa, such as briquettes, an aggomeration process is needed.

An aggomeration process can either be depoyed beore the carbonization (to orm biomass briquettes to be

carbonized) or ater the carbonization (to aggomerate charcoa partices into briquettes).

iii. Increase in ield: More advanced charcoa kins enabe higher yieds in the wood to charcoa conversion. Under

optima conditions, surprisingy high yieds in the magnitude o 30 percent can be achieved rom traditiona

technoogies. In practice, however, yieds rom charcoa made rom unimproved technoogies are about 20 percent.In the case o Uganda, the yied o traditiona technoogies has been ound to be around 15.6 percent (Nturanabo et a.

2010). Improved technoogies not ony achieve higher yieds but aso are much more constant in the yieds achieved.

iv. Reduction in specifc methane emissions: The methane emissions resuting rom the pyroysis process can

either be reduced or combusted with or without energy recovery.

a. Methane ormation avoidance: As methane emissions are negativey correated with the eciency o the

wood to charcoa yied (Kammen and lew 2005), opting or a more ecient technoogy wi resut in ower

methane emissions. So ar, specic methane emissions per tonne o charcoa have ony been measured or

a imited number o kins. As such, there are sti arge uncertainties about the scae o methane emissionsreductions rom various technoogies. Determining the methane ormation avoidance requires determining,

on a basis o samping, the specic CH4

emissions per tonne o charcoa in the project.

b. Methane destruction with or without energ recover: When pyroysis gases are uy captured and

combusted, methane emissions, which woud otherwise have occurred as the resut o the pyroysis process, can

be uy avoided. As the pyroysis gas stream has a substantia energy content, it can be combusted to produce heat

either as process energy or the pyroysis reaction or or other uses, such as power generation. In the case o methane

destruction, the methane can be assumed to be competey destroyed i pyroysis gases are uy combusted.


5.2. TYPES OF TECHNOlOGY INTERVENTIONS


34/88

5.3. SELECTED TECHNOLOGIESAthough many technoogies or the improved production o charcoa eist, it was decided not to ist a options but

instead to emphasize the most adequate and prominent technoogies or the oca contet. Technoogies can be

divided in three broad categories:

i. Carbonization technoogies

ii. Briquetting technoogies

iii. Integrated (carbonization and briquetting) soutions

Carbonization technologies:

Many carbonization technoogies eist, but their eciency varies (For the most costecient, see Tabe 3). For eampe,

brick kins can commony achieve eciencies o 30 percent. Compared to the Adam kin reguar, brick kins are suboptima

as the cost, scae and dicuty o adoption is simiar whie achievements are ower (ower yied and much ower

reduction in methane emissions). Aso, many thirdgeneration retort ki ns eist.

Table 3: Carbonization technologies

NAME ADAM REToRT kilN

Type Retort kiln - Brick kiln advanced 2nd

generation kilnsCapacity per kiln 47 tonnes per year

Cost per unit $1,200+ license cost o $2,000 + $40 per kiln

Yield 35-40% Adam 2009

Specic cost USD 25/t

Power consumption None to be conrmed

CH4

emission actor 0.0036 kg/t charcoal based on an estimated 88% reduction rate Adams n.d.

Strengths Small scale: easier adoption at the level o communities

Can be built with locally sourced material and labour

High yields can be achieved

Very low specic cost per tonne produced

Weaknesses Large range o yields: sampling required to determine the real achieved yield

Need or trained operators

Not transportable


5.3. SElECTED TECHNOlOGIES


35/88

NAME EURo kilN (GREENPoWER)

Type Twin Retort 3rd generation kilns

Capacity per kiln 500 tonnes per year

Cost per unit $39,000

Yield 35-40%

Specic cost $78/t

Power consumption up to 0.55 kW/hr Greenpower 2012b

CH4

emission actor 0 kg/t charcoal assuming ull faring

Strengths Automated operations

High and steady yields

Moderate to low specic cost per tonne produced

High quality o products over 90% carbon content with wood charcoal

Weaknesses Import o equipment

Large scale which cannot be easily integrated to communities

Sedentary large scale: need to transport wood to the kiln

Need or source o power

NAME EURo kilN (GREENPoWER)

Type Improved traditional kilns advanced 1st generation kilns

Capacity per kiln 50 tonnes per year

Cost per unit $200 per portable chimney + training cost

Yield Up to 30% Energypedia 2012

Specic cost $4/t

Power consumption None

CH4

emission actor Unknown

Strengths Micro scale: easy adoption at the level o communities

Simple equipment which can be produced locally

Good yieldsVery low specic capital cost per tonne produced

Portable: also adequate or hilly and mountainous areas

Weaknesses Unknown specic methane emissions

Need or operator training

Additional eort to cut and pile logs in specic stacked 50 cm length pieces

Limited technical lietime

Source: Authors.




36/88

When considering the cost o kins, its epected ietime and the operation and maintenance costs need to be considered.For instance, the chimneys used in the Casamance kin may ony ast or 3 to 5 uses, i ow cost ocay produced chimneys

are used. Adam and Euro kins, on the other hand, may have ietimes spanning a number o years.

Briquetting technologies:

A arge seection o briquetting technoogies eist (For a sampe o the briquetting technoogies, see Tabe 4). From

a short review o briquetting technoogies, the oowing acts can be highighted:

i. The observed cost or briquetting equipment ranges rom $4.4 to $20 per tonne o charcoa, depending on

whether briquetting takes pace beore or ater carbonization

ii. The cost o briquetting is sma when compared to the na charcoa price. For eampe, charcoa briquettes in

Kampaa cost around $380/tonne (converted rom UGx 1,000/kg charcoa) whie briquetting equipment soey

cost $10/tonne

iii. A major barrier to the depoyment o briquetting technoogies remains the ack o an avaiabe eectricity grid. In

countries with very ow eves o rura eectrication, such as Uganda, charcoa briquette projects wi either need

to generate their own eectricity or be sited where a connection to grid eectricity is possibe

iv. The biggest chaenge remains how the technoogy can be either imported or deveoped/repicated and

maintained ocay

Table 4: Briquetting technologies

NAME

Type Charcoal particles briquettingSel-made briquetting machine meat mincer + 1 horsepower electric motor

Capacity unit 30 tonnes o charcoal powder briquetting per year rom 10 kg per hourShri AMM 2010

Cost per unit $363 per unit

Specic cost $12.1 per tonne o charcoal particles turned into briquettes per year

Power consumption 0.75 kW rom 1hp

Strengths Simple technologyLow cost per unit o outputUse o charcoal dust possible

Weaknesses Consumption o power limited availabilityImportant need o labor




37/88

NAME JUMBo 90

Type Biomass briquettingLarge automated briquetting press

Capacity unit Ma. 10,500 tonnes biomass per year rom 1.5 t per hour Radhe, n.d.

Cost per unit n.a.

Specic cost 7.2/t biomass per yearEquivalent to $/20 tonne o charcoal per year assuming a 35% yield

Power consumption 68 kilowatt equivalent converted rom 91 horsepower

Strengths Automated

No need or binding materialCan use a variety o particle sizes

Weaknesses Consumption o power limited availabilityImportant need o labor

NAME PYRo 7

Type Retort kiln advanced 3rd generation kiln

Capacity per kiln 1,850 tonnes charcoal per year

Cost per unit $317,000 ecluding labour Reinaud 2008

Yield 33%

Specic cost $169/t capacity per year

Power consumption Sel-generation o power rom pyrolysis gasesPossibly additional power ree or local supply

CH4

emission actor 0 kg/t charcoal assuming ull faring

Strengths Sel-generation o power consumedFull abatement o methane emissionsGood yieldsAutomated productionIntegrated feible production rom any biomass wastesEnables limited electrication

Weaknesses Cost per unitAdvanced technology epertise and maintenanceImport o equipmentSedentary large scale: need to transport the biomass to the kiln

Integrated solutions: Briquetting and carbonization

Integrated soutions aow the production o charcoa briquettes rom a wide range o biomass. As pyroysis gases can be used

or the generation o eectricity, such autonomous aciities coud be estabished even where access to power is not avaiabe.

Source: Authors.




38/88

The concept o a NAMA ramework is new and, thereore, designing a NAMA ramework provides both chaenges andopportunities. The design is chaenging as there is sti no specic denition o what constitutes a NAMA ramework,

and aso oers a degree o feibiity since the ack o a concrete denition provides potentia NAMA project deveopers

with the opportunity to dene the constituents. The type o actions that are proposed to be undertaken under a

NAMA can greaty vary and may incude dierent types o targets nationa emissions reduction targets in tonnes

o carbon dioide equivaent, nationa intensitybased targets, deviations rom businessasusua emissions and a

wide variety o actions nationa poicies and strategies, sectorocused poicy approaches and specic programmes

or projects.

Given the mutipe ayers o compeities invoved in deveoping a programme or sustainabe charcoa in Uganda,

the NAMA ramework provides an idea patorm to account or and unock the huge potentia or greenhouse gas(GHG) mitigation. This section provides a conceptua idea or setting up a NAMA on sustainabe charcoa production

in Uganda. The NAMA concept ocuses on the oowing issues:

Charcoa vaue chain stakehoders producers, middemen and consumers

Sustainabe woodot/orest management

Sustainabe charcoa production/seection o kin

Institutiona ramework

Creation o an enabing environment: charcoa poicies

Given the issues discussed in Section 1.2 and the ongoing ecient cook stove projects in Uganda and other

countries in Arica, there is a arge knowedge base regarding appicabe technoogy, project impementation

and monitoring, which has been ecuded rom urther discussion.


6. THE NAMA CONCEPT

6. The NAMA Concept


39/88

6.1. CHARCOAL VALUE CHAINThe NAMA proposa wi need to be taken into consideration throughout the vaue chain. Figure 6 demonstrates

the eisting vaue chain and specic items to be considered aong the vaue chain.

Figure 6: Eisting charcoal value chain and considerations or developing a charcoal NAMA

None o the actors in the charcoa vaue chain have any incentive to produce or promote the use o green

charcoa (See Bo 2). The rst step or deveoping the NAMA concept, thereore, invoves, understanding the

type o incentive structure that can be created to encourage the various actors to graduay shit towards the

use o green charcoa.

PRODUCERS

Earn less than

10% o the revenuerom the charcoal

value chain

Increase incomegeneration

potential orgreen charcoal

INTERMEDIARIES/

WHOLESALERS

Make the maimumprot rom charcoal

value chain

Carrot/stickapproach to

legalize activityStrengthen taation

RETAILERS

(Urban centric)

Mostlyunorganized

small scale retailers

Organize &incentivize retailers

to promote sale ogreen charcoal

CONSUMERS

(Urban centric)

No product

dierenciation Noincentive to choose

Green charcoal

Empower end-users to understand

impact o theirdesicion making

ExISTING CHARCOAL VALUE CHAIN

Considerations or developing the NAMA charcoal value chain

Source: Authors.

* Green charcoa denotes improved and sustainabe charcoa


6.1. CHARCOAl VAlUE CHAIN


40/88

Box 2: Charcoal types

Incentivizing Stakeholders

As with any new technoogy or new process, the introduction o green charcoa wi invove a period o transition.

The rst objective o the improvement o the charcoa vaue chain shoud be to bring a production, ega or

otherwise, into a singe scheme. This aows or greater contro over the entire vaue chain, enabes putting in

pace a robust MRV system and makes the chain more accessibe or invoving, educating and graduay shiting

producers rom conventiona to sustainabe charcoa production. In order to design this singe scheme, signicant

coordination with various ministries and stakehoders must rst occur. Stakehoder consutations shoud be hed

and the scheme design process and design shoud be made pubicy avaiabe. Eperts in technoogies, taation and

a reevant sectors shoud be invoved. This study provides suggestions o activities that coud be incuded in the

scheme design.

Producers

Charcoa producers are the ones who benet the east rom the charcoa economy and are the most important

actors in shiting production techniques rom BAU to green charcoa. The producers can be incentivized to under

take this shit to green charcoa through higher income generation potentia. As the charcoa producers constitute

the poorest o the poor, the incentive o a signicanty higher, stabe and assured source o income is epected to

be a key driver to shit towards green charcoa use.

Intermediaries

Intermediaries nanciay benet the most and are aso responsibe or the iega nature o activities incuding

evading evies and taes resuting in signicant oss o revenue to the state echequer. The transporters move

charcoa in overoaded trucks resuting in higher waste, operate on adhoc basis and avoid paying evy on charcoa.

Whoesaers receive the charcoa rom transporters and dea in buk purchase o (e.g. 50 and 100 bags per week)

rom where the individua retaiers source the charcoa suppy or na sae (e.g. 1 or 2 bags). Any NAMA concept

that competey cuts o the income source or the vaue chain invoving intermediaries, transporters and whoesaers

Source: Authors.


6.1. CHARCOAl VAlUE CHAIN

In this study, charcoal production is classied into three types:

Sustainable charcoal: Involves both sustainable orest management and use o ecient kilns

Improved charcoal: Produced using ecient kilns where the eciency o charcoal production is higher than the

baseline o traditional kilns

BAU charcoal: Conventionally produced using traditional kilns

The term green charcoal is used to collective represent sustainable and improved charcoal


41/88

woud resut in a backash or oca governments as they are oten infuentia poiticay, economicay and sociay.The incentive structure shoud invove a combination o incentives with sucient opportunities to adapt to the

new market scenario. The oowing actions shoud be considered:

Bring stakehoders into the mainstream charcoa vaue chain by encouraging them to secure icense/permits or

their activities and pay taes

Provide hasseree conditions or green charcoa and evy higher taes or iega charcoa

Encourage them to participate in green charcoa production, as they have the nancia resources and manpower

to invest in modern kins

Ensure stricter border contros between districts (e.g. poice orest roads, minor roads which are oten used by

transporters to evade taation)

Retailers/Wholesalers

Retaiers are oten unorganized and dependent on daiy changing conditions (e.g. suppy o charcoa entering

Kampaa, oca demand, presence o sma/arge charcoa retaiers in the vicinity) hence charcoa retaiing is not

oten their primary business. Most retaiers are sma shop owners, who purchase a coupe o bags o charcoa

rom whoesaers rom charcoa markets in the city. Retaiers then rese the charcoa in smaer bags o 1 to 5 kg,

making them aordabe to oca consumers. Increasing the proe o green charcoa retaiers through a system o

Governmentsupported cobranding schemes woud raise the visibiity o the new product. Some cost dierentiation

or the dierent types o charcoa wi need to occur in order to encourage consumer purchase o green charcoa.

Generating additiona business through saes is epected to be the key incentive or retaiers to promote green

charcoa, given that a other conditions remain the same.

6.2. SUSTAINABLE CHARCOAL PRODUCTION

The Government o Uganda reaizes the importance o charcoa in the countr ys energy panning and the need

or a comprehensive strategy to promote sustainabe charcoa production, as seen in eorts by the Ministry o Energy

and Minera Deveopment to initiate the deveopment o a BEST and the proposed Nationa Task Force or biomass

energy. However, given the socioeconomic importance o charcoa production, the shit rom conventiona charcoa

production to sustainabe production needs to be graduay introduced to avoid disturbing the eisting socia abric.

Charcoal Classifcation

As discussed in Section 6.1, charcoa has been broady cassied into three types (See Figure 7). The BAU charcoa

currenty produced using traditiona kins constitutes amost 100 percent o charcoa production in Uganda. With ow

eciencies ranging rom 10 to 15 percent, and a growing demand, the rate o deorestation has aso seen a signicant

upward trend.


6.1. CHARCOAl VAlUE CHAIN, 6.2. SUSTAINABlE CHARCOAl PRODUCTION


42/88

Figure 7: Charcoal types and the type o intervention

Use o the improved charcoa wi act as a rst step in red

Documents

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action Study on Sustainable Charcoal in Uganda