i

BIOFUEL, LAND-USE TRADEOFFS AND LIVELIHOODS IN SOUTHERN

AFRICA

G.P. VON MALTITZ

2014

ii

BIOFUEL, LAND-USE TRADEOFFS AND

LIVELIHOODS IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

By

Graham Paul von Maltitz

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in

the Faculty of Science at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

May 2014

Supervisor: Professor Christo Fabricius

iii

Declaration ………..

I, Graham Paul von Maltitz, student number 209202652, hereby declare that this

thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is my own work and that it has not

previously been submitted for assessment or completion of any postgraduate

qualification to another University or for another qualification.

Graham Paul von Maltitz

iv

Acknowledgements

I have had the privilege of working as part of a large number of multidisciplinary projects relating to biofuels in the developing world. The following institutions/entities all provided funding that contributed to my understanding of biofuels, the visiting of case studies, or in some instances the development of reports and papers that form part of this thesis:

The EU funded Re-impact project ENV/2007/114431 The EU funded project: Bioenergy, sustainability and trade-offs: Can we avoid deforestation while promoting bioenergy? EuropeAid/ENV/2007/143936/TPS The ESPA funded project: Impact of Jatropha production on ecosystem services and poverty alleviation in southern Africa (Grant: EIRG-2011-180), Oxfam Southern Africa CSIR Parliamentary Grant

A vast number of people have influenced my ideas and helped me grow my understanding of biofuels. These include, but are not limited to:

The late Ian Calder who conceived the idea of researching the Re-impact project and was largely responsible for my becoming involved in research on the sustainability of biofuels; Jen Hazelton, with whom I spent many hours in exotic locations discussing biofuels, and others from the Re-impact team including Jaime Amezaga, Neil Bird, Giuliana Zanchi, Sunandan Tiwari, Timm Tennigkeit, Kai Windhorst, Mamta Borgoyary, Arvind Reddy and Ashvin Gosain; all the members of the CIFOR project team including Laura German, Pablo Pacheco, Andrew Wardell, Margaret Skutsch, Omar Masera, Erik Kemp-Benedict, Francis Johnson, Hannes Schwaiger and Neil Bird; a number of my CSIR colleagues involved in sustainability science, hydrology or energy including Lorren Haywood, Benita de Wet, Mark Gush, Collin Everson, William Stafford, Alan Brent and Maxwell Mapako; students and interns who assisted me in biofuel research: Nicholas Ngepah, Ryan Blanchard, Gareth Borman, Kevin Setzkorn and Jonannes Chonco; and Annie Sugrue who introduced me to the workings of the RSB as well as making it possible for me to visit many agricultural development projects.

I also acknowledge the ESPA project team and especially Alex Gasparatos with whom I did the fieldwork in Malawi and Mozambique; also Valeria Cardi who filmed the fieldwork and acted as our informal translator; the staff of Niqel and BERL, and especially Nick Gagiano, Hein van der Merwe and Abbie Chittock; the communities of Gudje in Mozambique and the BERL projects in Machinga district, Malawi, who made time available for interviews, and the enumerators who conducted the interviews.

v

I also thank the Global Change and Ecosystems Dynamics group: Bob Scholes for his strategic leadership and scientific guidance, Marna van der Merwe for many discussions on food security and technical issues in GHG modelling, Marc Pienaar for discussions on land-use tradeoffs, Sally Archibald for developing the vegetation biomass coverages and Alecia Nickless for the statistical modelling on the BII.

Many thanks must go to my supervisor, Christo Fabricius, who provided focus and guidance, and ensured that the thesis did not reach a thousand pages, yet never get finished.

Constructive reviews from Dr T Buchholz and Dr R Diaz-Chavez are gratefully acknowledged.

My family: Mom and Mickey for reviewing the manuscript, Michelle for assisting with diagrams and referencing, and Murray. Thanks are due to you all for giving me the space to complete this project, and putting up with me while I did.

Kate Goldstone for the final language edits.

I acknowledge the following publications where I was lead author and which are used as components of chapters in this thesis:

Von Maltitz, GP, and Setzkorn, K. 2013. A typology of southern African biofuel feedstock production. Biomass and Bioenergy . This has been condensed to form the bulk of Chapter 4. Kevin Setzkorn is thanked for conducting most of the field- work as well as commenting on the draft paper and assisting with diagrams.

Von Maltitz, GP, Nickless, A, and Blanchard. R. 201 0. Maintaining biodiversity during biofuel development. In Amezaga J. M., von M altitz, G.P. and Boyes S.L. (Eds) Assessing the sustainability of biofuel projects in developing countries: A framework for policy evaluation . Newcastle University. ISBN 978-9937-8219-1-9. 179pp. This book chapter forms the basis of Chapter 5.1. Alecia Nickless is thanked for conducting the statistical analysis of the BII data. Ryan Blanchard is thanked for his comments on the entire chapter, as well as a sub-section on invasiveness which is available in the original publication, but not the thesis chapter.

Von Maltitz GP and Stafford, W. 2011. Assessing opportunities and constraints for biofuel development in sub-Saharan Africa . CIFOR Working Paper 58. CIFOR Indonesia . Sections from this report form the basis of Chapter 3 and contribute ideas to Chapter 7. William Stafford is thanked for reviewing the report and making contributions to its improvement.

A number of reviewers, mostly anonymous, are thanked for comments on earlier drafts of the above three reports.

vi

Abbreviations

AfSIS African Soil Information Service ARSCP African Roundtable for Sustainable Consumption and Production BEFS Bioenergy and Food Security Project (FAO) BERL Bio Energy Resources Ltd. Malawi BII Biodiversity Intactness Index BSI Better Sugarcane Initiative CAS Complex Adaptive Systems CBD (United Nations) Convention on Biodiversity CH4 Methane CIFOR Centre for International Forestry Research CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2eq Carbon dioxide equivalent COMPETE Competence Platform on Energy Crop and Agroforestry Systems for Arid and

Semi-arid Ecosystems - Africa COP Conference of Parties CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (South Africa) D1 D1 Oil Ltd DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo DUAT Direito de Uso e Aproveitamento da Terra EC European Commission EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EJ Exajoule 1 exajoule = 1018 joules ES Ecosystem Services EU European Union FACT FACT foundation FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations FPIC Free, Prior, Informed Consent FSC Forestry Stewardship Council g Gram GDP Gross Domestic Production GHG Greenhouse gas GJ Giga joule ha hectare IAS Invasive Alien Species iLUC Indirect land use change kg Kilogram Kwacha Malawi currency ~ 390 kwacha to US$ kWh Kilowatt hour LA Latin America LCA Life Cycle Assessment LED Light Emitting Diode (lantern or torch) LUC Land Use Change MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MDG Millennium Development Goals Meticais Mozambique currency ~ 30 meticais to the US$ MJ Mega Joule MMI Mapfura Makhura Incubator (South African smallholder biodiesel project) MODIS Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Moz Mozambique MWh Megawatt hour N2O Nitrous oxide

i

NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations Niqel NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product (woodland products) OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (countries) RED Renewable Energy Directive (of the European Commission) RED European Union Renewable Energy Directive REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RSB Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels RSPO Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil RTRS Round Table on Responsible Soy SA South Africa SADC Southern African Development Community SAfMA Southern African Sub-Global Assessment of the MA SD Standard Deviation SEA South East Asia SSA Sub-Saharan Africa SWADE Swaziland Water and Agricultural Development Enterprise t Metric tonne (1000 kg) UK United Kingdom UNCBD United Nations Convention on Biodiversity UNDP United Nations Development Programme USA United States of America y Year

ii

Table of Contents

Contents

Declaration ................................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... iv

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. vi

List of Figures ............................................................................................................ vii

List of tables ............................................................................................................... x

Summary ................................................................................................................... xii

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1

1.1. Rationale ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Aim and objective .......................................................................................... 2

1.3. Analytical framework ..................................................................................... 3

1.4. Structure of the thesis ................................................................................. 14

1.5. Background to biofuels in southern Africa ................................................... 15

1.5.1 General background to bioenergy and biofuels .................................... 17

1.5.2 Biofuel as a driver of land-use change ................................................. 19

1.5.3 Biofuels the face of African land grabs ................................................. 20

1.5.4 Drivers for biofuel expansion in Southern Africa ................................... 20

1.6. Conceptualising tradeoffs at the local level ................................................. 21

1.7. An introduction to jatropha .......................................................................... 24

1.7.1 Other biofuels ....................................................................................... 28

1.8. Southern Africa regional context ................................................................. 28

1.8.1 Overview of the SADC region ............................................................... 30

1.8.2 Developed versus developing countries’ perspectives ......................... 33

1.8.3 Reliance on woodland products ............................................................ 34

1.8.4 Poverty ................................................................................................. 36

1.8.5 Land tenure .......................................................................................... 37

iii

1.8.6 GHG and climate change ..................................................................... 41

1.8.7 EU RED ................................................................................................ 41

1.8.8 REDD+ ................................................................................................. 42

1.8.9 Fuel security ......................................................................................... 42

1.8.10 Traditional fuel use patterns .............................................................. 42

1.8.11 Rural development ............................................................................ 43

1.8.12 Certification and global concerns of sustainability ............................. 44

1.8.13 Unintended consequences ................................................................ 44

Chapter 2. METHOD ........................................................................................... 47

Chapter 3. WHAT TRADEOFFS SHOULD AFRICAN COUNTRIES BE

CONSIDERING WHEN THEY ENGAGE IN BIOFUEL EXPANSION....................... 54

3.1. Background ................................................................................................. 54

3.2. Methodology for determining what African countries should aim to achieve

from biofuel development ..................................................................................... 58

3.3. The desirable results Africa should hope to achieve from biofuels .............. 59

3.4. Discussion ................................................................................................... 69

Chapter 4. REVIEW OF BIOFUEL FEEDSTOCK PROJECTS ........................... 71

4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 71

4.2. Methods ...................................................................................................... 72

4.3. Results ........................................................................................................ 73

4.3.1 Key reasons for biofuel feedstock production ....................................... 77

4.3.2 Ownership and management of production units ................................. 81

4.3.3 Size of the biofuel feedstock production units ....................................... 83

4.3.4 Development of a typology ................................................................... 85

4.4. Discussion ............................................................................................... 90

Chapter 5. IMPACTS OF JATROPHA ON THE GLOBALLY IMPORTANT

REGULATORY AND SUPPORTING ECOSYSTEMS SERVICE OF BIODIVERSITY

AND CLIMATE REGULATION ................................................................................. 91

iv

5.1. Biodiversity impacts from biofuel ................................................................. 91

5.1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 91

5.1.2 Likely impacts of biofuel production on biodiversity .............................. 92

5.1.3 Strategic assessment of likely biodiversity impacts (the BII approach) . 95

5.1.4 Biodiversity Conclusions ..................................................................... 100

5.2. Carbon emissions from jatropha biofuel .................................................... 102

5.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 102

5.3. Land-use change impacts from growing biofuel crops in southern Africa . 105

5.3.1 Direct land-use change ....................................................................... 105

5.3.2 Indirect land-use change iLUC ........................................................... 120

5.4. Other environmental impacts from jatropha-based biofuel ........................ 121

5.5. Discussion on impacts from jatropha on global supporting and regulating

services .............................................................................................................. 122

Chapter 6. HUMAN WELL-BEING IMPACTS FROM BIOFUEL-INDUCED

CHANGES TO ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVISION ........................................ 125

6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 125

6.2. Food-fuel conflicts ..................................................................................... 128

6.2.1 Local food-fuel conflicts and local food security .................................. 130

6.2.2 National food-fuel conflicts and national food security ........................ 135

6.2.3 Impacts of the global food-fuel conflict on southern African biofuel

projects ........................................................................................................... 151

6.3. Jatropha projects’ impacts on community access to woodland products .. 157

6.4. Rural development impacts from jatropha growing ................................... 162

6.4.1 National level impacts ......................................................................... 162

6.4.2 Local level impacts ............................................................................. 163

6.4.3 BERL smallholder model .................................................................... 167

6.5. Land tenure impacts .................................................................................. 172

6.6. Other agricultural models .......................................................................... 174

v

6.6.1 Swaziland’s SWADE model for sugarcane production ....................... 174

6.6.2 Horticulture in Kenya .......................................................................... 176

6.6.3 Community conservation initiatives .................................................... 177

6.6.4 Contract farming ................................................................................. 177

6.7. Discussion ................................................................................................. 178

Chapter 7. POLICY AND RESEARCH CONSIDERATION OF A SUSTAINABLE

JATROPHA-BASED BIOFUEL INDUSTRY BIOFUEL ........................................... 181

7.1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 181

7.2. Increasing the ratio of small-scale to large-scale plantations .................... 182

7.3. Moving from global fuel supply to local fuel security ................................. 182

7.4. Developing a medium-scale farming sector .............................................. 183

7.5. Use of participatory decision making based on multi-criteria analysis ....... 184

7.6. The need for a tool to assist local communities to make informed decisions

186

7.7. The need for a re-assessment of the national economic benefits ............. 187

7.8. Understanding the cost of no intervention ................................................. 187

7.9. Use of third-party certification.................................................................... 187

7.10. Relooking at land tenure ........................................................................ 188

7.11. Being gender sensitive ........................................................................... 188

7.12. Considering if jatropha growing increases farmer and national resilience

189

7.13. Lessons for success in jatropha projects ............................................... 190

7.14. Critical research into the biological aspects of jatropha growing ............ 190

7.15. Ongoing monitoring and unintended consequences .............................. 191

7.16. Discussion ............................................................................................. 192

Chapter 8. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 193

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 200

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 226

vi

APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL DATA FROM THE BII ASSESSMENT IN CHAPTER

5.......................................................................................................................... 226

APPENDIX B. MALAWI AND MOZAMBIQUE CASE STUDIES ......................... 229

8.1.1 The BERL project in Malawi ............................................................... 229

8.1.2 The Niqel study Mozambique ............................................................. 235

APPENDIX C. QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE MALAWI AND MOZAMBIQUE

CASE STUDIES ................................................................................................. 239

APPENDIX D. ADDITIONAL MODEL RUNS FOR CHAPTER 6.2 ..................... 251

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. The MA conceptualization of the link between ecosystem services and

human well-being (MA 2003). .................................................................................... 4

Figure 1-2. The MA conceptual framework adapted for biofuel production and use.

Adapted from MA (2005) and Gasparatos et al. (2011). ............................................ 6

Figure 1-3. Schematic representation of the interactions between the human and

environmental (H & E) components of the land system (generalized from Stafford

Smith et al. 2007), ...................................................................................................... 8

Figure 1-4. Matrix of potential impacts of bioenergy production and use across

spatial scales (Harrison et al. 2010b) ....................................................................... 10

Figure 1-5. Conceptual diagram illustrating the linkages between external factors,

land-use planning and the environment. .................................................................. 13

Figure 1-6. A schematic overview of the links between chapters, showing how data

from earlier chapters are used to build the arguments in the later chapters. ............ 15

Figure 1-7. Diagrammatic representation of how biofuel crops are likely to be

incorporated into the existing landscape .................................................................. 23

Figure 1-8. Estimated jatropha yields (from Trabucco et al. 2010). .......................... 25

1-9. Rainfall and vegetation of the southern African region (from von Maltitz and

Setzkorn 2012). ........................................................................................................ 29

Figure 4-1. Flow diagram of Biofuel (Solid arrows) and financial (hollow arrows) flows

in projects where biofuel is used for local energy sustainability (A and B) versus

national and international fuel security (C and D). .................................................... 78

Figure 4-2. A typology of Southern African biofuel projects production models based

on size, ownership of the biofuel feedstock estate and intended market of the end

product. .................................................................................................................... 86

Figure 5-1. Ecoregions and land cover of the Eastern Cape. The black oval

approximates the area being targeted for biofuel expansion. ................................... 98

Figure 5-2. Influence of the type of land allocated to bioenergy on the BII impacts for

both annual and forestry crops. ................................................................................ 99

Figure 5-3. Soil carbon change when moving to or from plantations and forests to

other land-uses (Guo and Gifford 2002). ................................................................ 107

Figure 5-4. Soil carbon changes when pasture is converted to plantation from Guo

viii

and Gifford (2002). ................................................................................................. 107

Figure 5-5. Total estimated CO2eq emissions from both soil carbon plus total

vegetation carbon emissions following clearing of natural vegetation for a bioenergy

crop.. ...................................................................................................................... 111

Figure 5-6. Estimates of CO2eq emissions based on clearing of existing woody plant

material. (Based on data from Scholes et al. 2012). .............................................. 112

Figure 5-7. Estimates of soil CO2eq emissions resulting from a) 60% and b) 10% loss

of soil carbon from the top 30 cm when converting natural vegetation to annual

cropland or tree crops respectively (based on AfSIS 2013). .................................. 113

Figure 6-1. Value of jatropha sales achieved per ha versus the actual area planted to

jatropha, ................................................................................................................. 133

Figure 6-2. Long-term trends in area of maize production and yield per unit area as

10-year means from 1961 to 2012 (FAO data). ...................................................... 137

Figure 6-3 Long-term trends in area of sugar cane production and yield per unit area

as 10- year means from 1961 to 2012 (FAO data). ................................................ 137

Figure 6-4. Estimates on national level cereal surplus or deficit based on cereal

production (FAO Stats) and population.. ................................................................ 142

Figure 6-5. Scenario 1 at an initial maize yield of 1 t per ha and farm size decreasing

with population growth. ......................................................................................... 147

Figure 6-6. Net farm income from maize and jatropha over time for (left) scenario 1

with decreasing farm side and (right) scenario 2 with constant farm size .............. 147

Figure 6-7. Scenario 2 at an initial maize yield of 1 t per ha and farm size remaining

constant with population growth. ............................................................................ 148

Figure 6-8. Trends in global maize production and per hectare maize yields from

1961 till 2012. The trend line for yields has been split into two time periods, pre-1981

and post-1981 to show that there is no drop in the rate of yield increases. (Data from

FAO stats) .............................................................................................................. 153

Figure 6-9. Trends in global sugar cane production and per hectare cane yield from

1961 till 2012. ......................................................................................................... 154

Figure 6-10. Cash returns from sale of jatropha seeds compared with the number of

trees planted. . ....................................................................................................... 168

Figure 6-11. Contribution of the first three months of jatropha income to overall farm

cash income. Note that the jatropha income is for a partial year and this graph

excludes home use of crops. .................................................................................. 169

ix

Figure 6-12 Contribution of the first three months of jatropha income to overall farm

production (where home consumption has been valued at sales price). ................ 170

Figure 6-13. Returns to land (in US$) from jatropha in Malawi. .............................. 171

Figure 6-14. Number of farmers with different yields .............................................. 172

Figure 7-1. Use of policy interventions to change the ratio of feedstock production

from large-scale to small-scale producers .............................................................. 182

Figure 7-2. Use of policy interventions to stimulate biofuel projects for local energy

use rather than sale to the liquid transport fuel markets ......................................... 183

Figure 7-3. Use of policy to use biofuel to stimulate the development of small- to

medium-scale farmers ............................................................................................ 184

Figure 10-1 Impacts of area converted to crop agriculture biofuels on Eastern Cape

total BII scores if land transformation is limited to a single ecoregion. ................... 228

Figure 10-2. Scenario 1 at an initial maize yield of 1 t per ha and farm size

decreasing with population growth. ...................................................................... 251

Figure 10-3. Scenario 1 at an initial maize yield of 1 t per ha and farm size

decreasing with population with a constant 0.1 ha of jatropha per farm. ................ 251

Figure 10-4. Scenario 1 at an initial maize yield of 1 t per ha and farm size

decreasing with population with a constant 0.8 percent of the farm converted to

jatropha. ................................................................................................................. 252

Figure 10-5. Scenario 1 at an initial maize yield of 6 t per ha and farm size

decreasing with population growth based on an 80:20 rural urban split with no

jatropha. ................................................................................................................. 252

Figure 10-6. Scenario 1. Total farm cash profit for maize based on different yields.

............................................................................................................................... 253

Figure 10-7. The same scenario as in the Figure above, but with the addition of 0.08

% of the farm planted to jatropha with 0.85kg per tree and US$ 0.17 per kg for

jatropha seeds. ....................................................................................................... 253

Figure 10-8. Scenario 2 at an initial maize yield of 6 t per ha and farm size stays

constant. (a) without and (b) with 0.8% of the farm under jatropha. ....................... 254

Figure 10-9. Scenario 2 at an initial maize yield of 6 t per ha and farm size stays

constant. (a) without and (b) with 0.8% of the farm under jatropha. ....................... 255

x

List of tables

Table 1-1. Comparison of reasons given in the literature for planting jatropha versus

actual experience in the southern African region ..................................................... 27

Table 1-2. Human development index including the individual components making

up the index (UNDP 2011) ....................................................................................... 31

Table 1-3. Multidimensional poverty indicators from UNDP 2011 ............................ 32

Table 4-1. Assessment of ecosystem services for inclusion. ................................... 50

Table 3-1. Environment issues as covered in six biofuel sustainability frameworks

(Guariguata et al. 2011) ........................................................................................... 56

Table 3-2. RSB social principles and criteria (RSB 2010) ........................................ 57

Table 3-3. Links between desirable outcomes from African policy level commitment

and biofuel development. ......................................................................................... 59

Table 4-1. Some differences between smallholders and small to medium-sized

commercial farmers .................................................................................................. 72

Table 4-2 Summary of key aspects of the feedstock production in select Southern

African biofuel projects, based either on project visit data, interviews or literature. 75

Table 4-3. : Key characteristics and examples of biofuel production models .......... 87

Table 5-1. Indicative soil and vegetation CO2 emissions from land-use change in

southern Africa. ...................................................................................................... 115

Table 5-2. Values used in calculating Table 5.1.. .................................................. 118

Table 6-1. Comparison of the Malawi and Mozambique case studies.................... 127

Table 6-2 Percentage of farmers recording that their household goes hungry in any

month of the year, split between jatropha growers (n=55 ) and non-growers (n=41 ).

............................................................................................................................... 129

Table 6-3. A comparison between average months of hunger between jatropha

growers and non-growers ....................................................................................... 132

Table 6-4. Land area needed to meet national minimum daily food cereal intake and

national replacement of transportation fuels with biofuels for select SADC countries.

............................................................................................................................... 140

Table 6-5. Parameter values used to model maize-based food security ................ 144

Table 6-6. Contribution of agriculture to GDP in select southern African countries

(adapted from Louw et al. 2008 and Fan et al. 2008). ............................................ 156

xi

Table 6-7. Fuels used for cooking (% of households). Values between growers and

non- growers of jatropha in Malawi or plantation workers versus non-plantation

workers in Mozambique were very similar and only totals are given. ..................... 159

Table 6-8. Fuels used for lighting (% of households).Values between growers and

non- growers of jatropha in Malawi or plantation workers versus non-plantation

workers in Mozambique were very similar and only totals are given. ..................... 159

Table 6-9. Changes in use of woodland products over the past 10 years. Percentage

of households using the product. ........................................................................... 161

Table 6-10. Perception of respondents of whether they have more available money

now than 5 years ago. ............................................................................................ 165

Table 10-1. Impacts on BII per taxa of converting 20 000 km2 annual cultivated

biofuel (blue) or plantation forestry (red) in total from previously lightly used land to

bioenergy for three of the ecoregions in the Eastern Cape. ................................... 226

Table 10-2. Percentage biodiversity loss from a scenario of 20 000 km2 new biofuel

plantations in untransformed land in the Eastern Cape, transformed to annual

biofuel. .................................................................................................................... 227

Table 10-3. The difference in BII biodiversity loss if the conversion of land is to

plantation forestry rather than an annual crop ........................................................ 227

Table 10-4. Average household and farm size by village in Malawi ....................... 234

xii

Summary

The rapid expansion of biofuel projects in southern Africa creates an opportune issue

against which to examine land-use tradeoffs within the areas of customary land

tenure. For this an ecosystems services approach is used. Jatropha curcas (L), a

perennial oilseed plant which has been the key focus of most of the region’s biofuel

expansion to date is used as the focus biofuel crop for which case study data were

obtained from Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and South Africa. Despite the initial

enthusiasm for jatropha, most projects have proven less successful than hoped, and

many have collapsed. A few are, however, still showing signs of possible success

and it is two of these that form the basis of the case studies. Hugely complex

tradeoffs are involved when considering biofuel as a land-use option for communal

areas. They range from global impacts such as biodiversity and global climate

forcing, through national concerns of rural development, national food security and

national fuel security, to local household concerns around improving livelihoods.

Land that is converted to biofuel needs to be removed from some previous use, and

in the southern African case it is typically woodlands and the multitude of services

they provide, that suffer. The nature of the tradeoffs and the people affected change

over the scale under consideration. For the local farmer it is only the local issues

that are of concern, but national and global forces will change the policy environment

and lead to new types of development such as biofuels. Change is inevitable, and in

all developments there are likely to be both winners and losers.

It is clear that the impacts arising from biofuel are situation dependent, and each

community and location has unique social and environmental considerations that

need to be taken into account. In the case of jatropha the final realised yield and the

economic returns that this can generate, will be of critical importance and remain one

of the main uncertainties. There are promising signs that under certain

circumstances the balance of benefits from jatropha biofuel may be positive, but if

implemented incorrectly or in the wrong place, there is extensive evidence of total

project failure. It is clear that evidence-based data and assessment tools are needed

to assist communities, developers and government departments to make sound

decisions around biofuel (or other land-use based) development. A number of such

xiii

tools are suggested in the thesis.

Both the use of large-scale plantations or small-scale farmer centred projects have

their advantages and disadvantages. It is probable that in the correct circumstances

either can work. However, large-scale plantations can have huge negative social

and environmental consequences if poorly implemented. Small-scale projects,

though improving livelihoods, are unlikely to take the farmers out of poverty.

Tradeoffs from any land-use change are inevitable. Empirical data on biofuel impacts

on the environment and society are needed for the development of sound policy. A

favourable policy environment can ensure that positive benefits from biofuel are

obtained, whilst minimising negative impacts. To develop this policy means that

southern African countries will have to clearly understand what they wish to achieve

from biofuel, as well as having a clear understanding of impacts from biofuel

implementation. Sound scientific knowledge needs to underpin this process. For

instance governments may wish to increase the ratio of small-scale to large-scale

plantation to increase the developmental benefits, ensure biofuel is used to promote

national fuel security rather than being exported, or develop a medium-scale farming

sector which can help move farmers out of poverty and assist in developing a market

surplus of agricultural commodities.

Analysing impacts from biofuel expansion is a complex and multi-dimensional

problem and as such will require multi-criteria analysis tools to develop solutions.

Global, national and local tradeoffs must all be considered. In addition a wide range

of stakeholders are involved and participatory processes may be needed to capture

their inputs. Tools to better analyse impacts, specifically at the local level are

needed. These local results need to feed into national level economic assessments.

The cost of biofuel introduction should be considered against the costs of not

implementing biofuel, realising that doing nothing also has a cost and long-term

impact. Third-party certification provides a useful tool for shifting costs of ensuring

compliance with social and environmental legislation, from the state to biofuel

companies. In addition ongoing monitoring and evaluation of existing projects is

needed to learn from successes and failures, to identify unintended consequences,

and to increase the resilience of projects, community livelihoods and the national

xiv

economy. This will have to be supplemented with additional focused and ongoing

research.

Key words: biofuel; land-use tradeoffs; jatropha; e nvironmental impacts;

social impacts; climate change; bioenergy

1

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Rationale

The prospect of large-scale bioenergy expansion in southern Africa has forced a new

focus on how best to allocate land for different potential land-uses. In essence there

is competition for land for food, fuel, fibre and fodder production as well as non-

productive uses such as tourism, maintaining biodiversity, and the provisioning of

other ecosystem services such as water and carbon sequestration. Objective

decisions are needed for balancing these competing land-uses. It is the feedstock

production aspects of biofuel production where there is the potential for wide-scale

development, land-use, environmental and social impact and this thesis focuses

exclusively on this aspect of bioenergy, and does not consider the processing or

combustion aspects.

In southern Africa an overarching driver for land-use is that it should contribute to

rural development, i.e. improving the quality of life and economic well-being of

people living in relatively isolated and sparsely populated areas (Moseley 2003).

However, this development drive needs to be tempered by the requirement of

maintaining long-term sustainability. In addition there is a high likelihood of

disjunction between meeting global or national priorities and the land-use options

that will be chosen by individuals at the local level, to meet their local needs. Clearly

policy formulation needs to be guided by objective, evidence-based data as to which

land-use practices should be supported, and an appropriate policy framework needs

to be in place to support the development of appropriate land-use.

The nature of land ownership in southern Africa adds a further dimension of

complexity in the sense that land is administered under a mix of customary tenure,

state tenure and private ownership. Actual tenure arrangements differ vastly in

countries within the sub-region, though many of the underlying tenure issues are

common among countries.

Any land-use change will result in tradeoffs. Some of these may well be positive,

2

though there are almost always additional negative consequences. From a social

perspective there are likely to be both winners and losers, i.e. those who gain from

the land-use change, and those who are disadvantaged by the change. When

bioenergy is being proposed as a land-use, there is a high probability of negative

local environmental consequences, despite a potential for a global positive impact of

reduced carbon emissions. It is clear that the nature of the tradeoffs will differ over

both time and space, with international or national priorities not always matching the

best options at the local level. Equally, selecting what may appear to be appropriate

short-term solutions may well lead to long-term problems. Providing sound empirical

data to guide appropriate decision making is therefore critical.

This thesis uses an ecosystems services approach to consider a number of key

issues relating to understanding the advantages, disadvantages and trade-offs for

ecosystem services and human well-being when land is allocated to biofuel

production. It focuses specifically on the southern African environment for situations

where land is predominantly under some form of customary tenure. Though the

analysis is through a bioenergy lens, focusing predominantly on the introduction of

jatropha, the methodology and tradeoffs identified would be of relevance to any

proposed land-use change. The complexity involved in land-use change for

bioenergy means that it is not feasible within a single thesis to fully address all the

competing issues. Though the thesis considers tradeoffs of both global and local

importance, it is the local issues that receive more attention as these are less well

researched. A number of key concerns that should be met for sustainable African

biofuel development are identified and these are interrogated through case studies

and the development of simple models. The thesis draws on a number of different

research initiatives, all concerning the common theme of the tradeoffs involved in

biofuel production, and as such they are not uniform in location or methodology.

Rather they provide a wide overview of different situations and the nature of the

tradeoffs involved which are used to develop overarching conclusions.

1.2. Aim and objective

The aim of this thesis is to use the current trend of bioenergy expansion into

southern Africa as a focus by which to understand the multi-criteria nature of land-

3

use decision making and the tradeoffs involved, with a focus on areas under

customary tenure in South Africa, Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia. More

specifically the thesis seeks to:

a) Identify the benefits that southern African countries should be aiming to

achieve from biofuel (Chapter 3)

b) Identify key drivers for biofuel expansion in southern Africa on the national and

local scale (Chapter 3)

c) identify the nature of biofuel expansion within southern Africa (Chapter 4)

d) identify and examine key tradeoffs involved including biodiversity,

deforestation, hydrology, carbon, national development, food security, fuel

security and livelihoods (Chapter 5 for including biodiversity, deforestation,

hydrology and carbon and Chapter 6 for national development, food security,

fuel security and livelihoods)

e) develop procedures and tools to assist in decision making (Chapters 5 and 6)

f) provide policy level guidance on achieving sustainable biofuel implementation

(Chapter 7).

1.3. Analytical framework

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s (MA 2005) ecosystem services (ES)

framework is used for considering the link between environmental provisioning

services and human well-being (Figure 1-1). The MA framework divides ecosystem

services into three distinct categories, namely: provisioning; regulating and cultural,

with a fourth category of supporting services that underpins the first three categories.

The MA framework further shows how these different categories of services impact

on human well-being. Implicit in the MA framework is the potential for tradeoffs within

and between the categories of ecosystem services. For instance, increasing fuel

production may well reduce the levels of other provisioning services such as food,

fibre, water and fodder production. Impacts may also be experienced on regulating

services, for instance biofuels may result in improved global climate regulation (by

reducing global CO2 emissions) (Royal Society 2008), but reduce local flood

regulation (by changing natural vegetation to an annual monocrop) (Gasparatos et

4

al. 2012). Cultural services such as aesthetics and spiritual values may be impacted

due to the conversion of natural habitats to managed plantations (Dale et

al. 2010). It is therefore important to consider ecosystem services as a bundle of

benefits: in some cases management decisions and practices may increase the size

of the overall bundle (MA 2005, Dasgupta 1993); however, bad decision making may

result in overall degradation and a lowering of the overall bundle of ecosystem

services. This negative impact would be particularly severe where there is a

breakdown in the supporting services and long-term degradation or desertification

could occur (MA Desertification 2005). The tradeoffs between different ecosystem

services, and the impacts they will have on human wellbeing remain the core

background theme throughout the thesis.

Figure 1-1. The MA conceptualization of the link between ecosystem services and human well-being (MA 2003).

Gasparatos et al. (2012) suggest three reasons as to why the ecosystem services’

(ES) perspective is an appropriate way to consider the impacts of biofuel expansion.

• First, the ES approach employs a systems-perspective, linking environmental

impacts and human well-being, two elements of the biofuel debate evoked by

5

supporters and critics of biofuels alike (Gasparatos et al. 2011). The ES

approach has been used extensively to study coupled social-ecological

systems such as the ones in which biofuel production and use are embedded,

and can capture all major drivers and impacts associated with biofuel

production and use (Figure 1-2). It can thus assist biofuel stakeholders to

obtain a better grasp of the tradeoffs associated with biofuel production and

use across different spatial and temporal scales in a robust, yet

understandable way. This is something that other current biofuel sustainability

assessment frameworks in their current format omit (Gasparatos et al. 2011).

• Second, the ES approach is highly transdisciplinary as it integrates insights

from the natural sciences, the social sciences and local knowledge. This

methodological pluralism is particularly desirable when dealing with complex

and politically charged issues, such as biofuels, as it can offer useful

information to a wide spectrum of biofuel actors that usually hold radically

different perspectives about biofuel impacts (Michalopoulos et al. 2012;

Upham et al. 2011).

• Third, the ES approach is widely accepted internationally by academics,

practitioners and policy-makers. It has matured over the past decade through

the efforts of hundreds of scholars and practitioners around the world during

large-scale research initiatives such as the Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment (MA) and the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

(TEEB). The ES approach has been accepted by the United Nations

Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and is a major theme of the forthcoming

Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

In addition the approach is well aligned with resilience studies (e.g. Carpenter

2011). Several policy initiatives aim to streamline the ES approach in national

and international policies (BSR, 2010).

6

Figure 1-2. The MA conceptual framework adapted for biofuel production and use. Adapted from MA (2005) and Gasparatos et al. (2011).

The links between ecosystem services and human well-being are not static and

many factors can directly or indirectly cause ecosystem change as illustrated in

Figure 1-2. There are many external factors also impacting on human well-being

unrelated to ES provision. An important message from the MA (2005) and illustrated

in Figure 1-2 is that humans can chose to adapt to change by making changes to

their land-use management and land allocation choices at the local level, or through

policy interventions at the national level. The representation in Figure 1-2 is in

essence the start of a systems dynamics model indicating causal links and feedback

loops, though the nature of these feedbacks is poorly developed. It is also apparent

that deliberate intervention can be put in place such as moving land from natural

vegetation to food or biofuel-based agriculture. The consequences of these

intervention/management choices will have impacts on all aspects of ES delivery,

creating multiple tradeoffs in both the provisioning of ES and the varying aspects of

human well-being.

Understanding land-use in communal areas is best considered as a coupled human-

environmental system (Reynolds et al. 2007, 2011; Walker et al. 2012) or what

7

Norbert and Cummings (2008) term a complex adaptive system (CAS). A key feature

of CASs is that they are able to adapt internally in response to change and external

stimuli (Norbert and Cummings 2008). Figure 1-3 (which comes from the

desertification literature, but is equally applicable to biofuel) gives a conceptual

framework on the nature of these forward and backward linkages and interactions.

What this conceptualisation emphasises is that the system is in a state of balance

and changes may cause the system to tip in one or other direction. In the case of

biofuels it is the policy and market drivers for biofuels that will lead to the human

changes to the system, with resultant environmental consequences. Whereas most

changes to the coupled human-environmental system are slow and evolve over time,

biofuels may represent a very rapid and relatively catastrophic change to the system,

potentially changing the system’s equilibrium in radical ways.

A further important component implicit in the Figure 1-3 conceptualisation is the

bounding of the human and environmental systems. There is a human system at the

local level which interacts with the local environment. In addition there are human

systems represented in the diagram as policy which impact on the local system, but

are outside of the control of the local system. It is important to recognise scale and

the matching of scale to appropriate interventions, as mismatched scales can have

serious consequences (Cumming et al. 2006; Walker et al. 2012). In considering

biofuels or other land-use options it is important to recognise the hierarchy of

systems involved, ranging from the household level through the village level to the

regional, national and global levels. The type of social impacts and interventions as

well as the environmental ES consequences will differ greatly between these

hierarchical levels. This thesis focuses mainly at the local (village / landscape) level,

but takes cognisance of the fact that some impacts are felt mostly at the global level

(biodiversity and climate forcing), and that policy comes largely from the global and

national level.

8

Figure 1-3. Schematic representation of the interactions between the human and environmental (H & E) components of the land system (generalized from Stafford Smith et al. 2007), showing decision-making (H→E) and ecosystem services (E→H) as the key linkages between the components (moderated by an effective system of local and scientific knowledge), and indicating how the rates of change and the way these linkages operate must be kept broadly in balance for functional co-evolution of the components, itself driven by external changes on both H and E sides. H→H and E→E indicate those parts of system functioning that occur only within one sub-system; much study tends to focus on these at the expense of the linkages between them.

A unique feature of biofuels is that they represent complex tradeoffs that span issues

from the household level through to the global level (Figure 1-4). One of the key

drivers of biofuels is that they are seen as a potential mechanism for countering the

current unsustainable level of greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions (IEA 2004, Olver

and James 2006; Smeet et al. 2007). However, the introduction of biofuel policies in

Europe and America has implications for household level land-use decisions which

may either reduce or enhance local levels of poverty in remote areas of third-world

countries (German et al. 2011 a, b; Diaz-Chavez 2010). The tradeoffs involved cover

all aspects of ecosystem services, and though it is the tradeoffs within provisioning

services that will be most apparent, there are also tradeoffs in regulatory services,

cultural services and supporting services (Gasparatos et al. 2011, 2012; von Maltitz

et al. 2012). Some of the important tradeoffs relating to biofuels include:

• Biofuels displacing or enhancing food, fodder and fibre production

9

(Gasparatos et al. 2012). First generation biofuel crops will directly compete

for the same land resource used for food, fodder or fibre production. Complex

feedback loops could, however, result in enhanced productivity and hence

mitigate some of these impacts (Cotula et al. 2009; BEFS 2010).

• Biofuels impacting negatively on water provision through increased

transpiration and possible pollution, however there is a possibility that growing

biofuels may restore degraded land with possibly beneficial catchment

hydrological impacts (Gush et al. 2010; Edwards et al. n.d.).

• Biofuels may displace woodlands and the wide range of food, medicinal and

cultural services that they provide (Gasparatos et al. 2012; Schoneveld et al.

2011).

• The energy from biofuels may have local benefits, though it is more likely that

the fuel is exported whilst simultaneously access to local woodfuel energy is

reduced, increasing local energy poverty (Gasparatos et al. 2012).

• Biofuels mitigate climate change, but they may impact on local regulatory

services such as flood control (Gasparatos et al. 2012). This impact could be

positive if biofuels are used to stabilise degraded land (Karavina et al. 2011),

but negative if mature woodlands are replaced.

• Biofuels may replace traditional fuels with huge health benefits through

reduced smoke inhalation (Bailis et al. 2005).

• Income from using biofuels as a cash crop, or from working on biofuel

plantations may reduce rural poverty (Diaz-Chavez 2010); however if the

income is too low to compensate for lost agricultural opportunities then it

could increase poverty (German et al. 2011; Schoneveld 2011).

• Large-scale biofuel expansion will change social relationships. Projects will

have winners and losers; in addition projects may result in displaced

livelihoods and in and out migration of individuals (von Maltitz et al. 2012;

German et al. 2011a, b, c).

• Biodiversity is almost sure to be lost as a consequence of large-scale biofuel

development; however complex secondary feedbacks might mitigate some of

these losses (von Maltitz et al. 2010; Gasparatos et al. 2012).

10

SCALE WATER BIODIVERSITY CLIMATE CHANGE (Greenhouse gas emission/sequestration)

SOCIO-ECONOMICS

GLOBAL TRANSBOUNDRY

Change in large system ecological processes and social services Change in transboundary water systems

Change in biodiversity - Species - Extinction Biome loss - Biodiversity richness

Net greenhouse gas forcing - Carbon sequestration - Albedo change - Gaseous/aerosol emissions - Life cycle - Net radiative forcing

Millennium Development Goals Poverty alleviation Global food security Global political stability Impacts on global food and fuel markets (World Trade Organization)

NATIONAL PROVINCIAL/STATE

Change in ecological reserve for rivers Change in total streamflow and available water to downstream uses Movement towards catchment closure Irrigation need

Change in biodiversity - Species extinction - Intactness if habitat - Introduction of alien invasive species

Power density (Wm2) Energy return on energy investment (EROEI)

Macro-economic indicators (e.g. GDP, GBI, balance of payments) National food security Employment indicators - Jobs/ha vs Jobs/W (i.e. employment measured either by jobs created per unit land or per unit of energy produced)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CATCHMENT COMMUNITY HOUSEHOLD

Change in seasonality of streamflow Change in security of supply Change in depth to groundwater or yield of ground water Change in water quality

Change in ecosystem service provided by biodiversity - Provisioning (food, wood) - Regenerative capacity (supportive services) - Soil degradation

Ability to access and use CDM funds (i.e. Clean Development Mechanism, and carbon credit accounting under Kyoto Protocol)

Household income: equity of distribution (i.e. winner/losers across class, gender, age and urban/rural distinctions, for full product life cycle) Household food security (producing food vs earning money) Employment indicator - Jobs/village Risk of failure Human health impact (e.g. poisons from Jatropha)

Figure 1-4. Matrix of potential impacts of bioenergy production and use across spatial scales (Harrison et al. 2010b)

11

Since numerous and complex tradeoffs are involved, it is clear that a multi-criteria

approach is needed in any attempt to understand the consequences of biofuel

expansion. This thesis will not cover all tradeoffs in the same detail, rather it attempts

to investigate a number of the more important tradeoffs, and in particular

concentrates on jatropha as a crop and on regional specific issues, where there is

not already a large contribution of scientific evidence.

Using the MA ES (Figure 1-1, 1-2 ) and the coupled human-environment (Figure

1.3) frameworks as a basis, a schematic representation of the likely interactions that

would be important when making land-use decisions at the village level was

developed (Figure 1-5). This conceptual diagram has been developed using a

systems approach based on the concepts of Soft Systems Modelling (Checkland

1981) and causal loop diagrams (Wolstenholme 1990; van dem Belt 2004) using

VENSIM version 6.0 software. This Figure attempts to unravel the factors impacting

on decision making and how this will translate into land-use options with resultant

impacts on ES and livelihoods. The mapping tries to disaggregate local level and

external impacts on the system. In the figure this local versus national/international

influence is separated by the horizontal line. Though national level policy impacts

have a strong influence on local decision making it is also shown that there are some

(weak) feedback loops from the local to the national level.

Though the study was unable to investigate all the linkages in this systems diagram

(Figure 1-3), it picks up on a number of issue. Chapter 3 attempts to better

understand what national priorities should be when relating to biofuel expansion and

Chapter 4 considers the actual land-use decisions, in terms of the nature of biofuel

project implementation, that have taken place regarding biofuel project

implementation. Chapters 5 and 6 consider the ecosystem tradeoffs from two

opposing perspectives. Chapter 5 links strongly to the concerns of the global

environmental conventions, especially to climate change and biodiversity. Chapter 6

relates to the opposite side of the diagram and the supply and tradeoff between

provisioning services. As Figure 1-5 illustrates, the implications of the global services

are translated through national policy into incentives and disincentives for land-use

change. Chapter 7 gives some guidance on how this can be improved.

12

As Figure 1-5 suggests, it is at the local level that the greatest impacts from changes

in provisioning services will be experienced. This translates into changes in access

to food, fuel, fibre and fodder, as well as impacts on water provision. These impacts

may be experienced as direct changes in the availability of these services for home

consumption, or in the income that can be obtained through trading these

commodities. The feedback from the local level to the national level clearly exists,

with national food security being a function of the combined local production.

However, from any one project area this feedback is reliably weak in comparison

with the feedback to local livelihoods.

Though there are some aspects of decision making that fall outside the scope of this

thesis (such as the impact of corruption and vested interests on land allocation),

most aspects of this diagram are covered to some degree within the thesis.

13

Figure 1-5. Conceptual diagram illustrating the linkages between external factors, land-use planning and the environment. The thickness of lines is an subjective assessment of the strength of impacts.

Local Land Usemix

Local landuse decisions +

incentives anddisincentives

nationalpriorities

Policy

internaitonalpriorities

globalconventions

environmental

sustainabledevelopment

biodiversity

desertification

Green-housegas

national land usedecisions

market forces

supply anddemand

certification

development

vestedinterests

politicalobligations

investorpreasure

local power relationsand vested interests

hh needs fromprovisioning ES

cash fromprovisioning ES

local poverty

culturalservices

regulatoryservices

National food fuelfibre supply

local and scientificknowlage

perceptions of riskand vulnerability

Supply of / tradeoffsbetween provisioning

services

national localdivide

national localdivide 1

Local drivers

Nationaldrivers

Internationaldrivers

14

1.4. Structure of the thesis

Chapter 1. Introduction : This is an introductory chapter that provides important

background information needed to place the later chapters in context as well as

summarising the key literature. It includes the rationale, aims and objectives, as well

as relevant background relating to biofuels and the southern African regional context.

Chapter 2. Methods : This gives an overview of the methodology.

Chapter 3. What should African countries be conside ring when they engage in

biofuel expansion? : This chapter identifies the factors that should be considered by

African countries if they wish to establish a sustainable biofuel industry.

Chapter 4. Review of biofuel feedstock projects : This chapter develops a

typology of southern African biofuel projects that is used in later chapters.

Chapter 5. Understanding environmental impacts : This chapter highlights details

to enhance the understanding and quantifying of biodiversity and climate change

impacts as well as briefly identifying additional important environmental impacts.

Chapter 6 . Social impacts from biofuel : This chapter uses case study data from

Mozambique and Malawi to consider social impacts such as food-fuel competition,

rural development and land tenure. It also briefly considers alternate agricultural

models which may reduce social impacts.

Chapter 7. Policy and research considerations for a sustainable biofuel

industry: This discussion draws together issues from the previous chapter to

recommend actions to be considered when planning projects in the future.

Chapter 8. Conclusions : Here a few overall conclusions are discussed.

Additional background data on the case studies are given in Appendix B.

Figure 1-6 gives a schematic layout of the thesis and the linkage between chapters.

15

Figure 1-6. A schematic overview of the links between chapters, showing how data from earlier chapters are used to build the arguments in the later chapters. Chapter descriptions rather than actual chapter titles are used.

1.5. Background to biofuels in southern Africa

The global demand for biofuels has generated an extensive debate in the scientific

literature on the relative benefits of biofuels, especially as they relate to a

mechanism for countering global greenhouse gas emissions and the resultant

climate change impacts (Royal society 2008). However, the drivers of biofuel

expansion in southern Africa (as discussed in 1.6.3) differ substantially from those of

Europe and America.

South Africa has a long history of biofuels, with ethanol used as a fuel supplement

from the 1920s until the early 1960s when cheap imported fossil fuels made it no

longer viable (von Maltitz and Brent 2008). Zimbabwe produced ethanol from

sugarcane molasses from 1980, followed by Malawi in 1982 and Kenya in 1983

(Batidzirai and Johnson, 2012). In fact, ethanol blending in Malawi reached mixtures

of up to 20% at times (Mitchell, 2011).

16

Renewed interest in biofuels escalated in the sub-region from the early to mid-2000s

(Mitchell 2011; Gasparatos et al. 2012). South Africa was one of the first countries to

actively propose large-scale ethanol production and this was initiated by the maize

industry which wanted to install six ethanol facilities in the Bothaville area of the Free

State with a combined annual capacity of 151 million litres per year (Gao et al.

2011). This was seen by the maize industry as a mechanism to absorb surplus

maize production and as a means of stabilizing the maize industry which was

suffering from the impacts of globalization (Makenete et al. 2008; Lemmer and

Schoeman 2011). South African also started to investigate Jatropha curcas (L)

(jatropha), with the KwaZulu Natal Department of Agriculture actively promoting its

establishment. In 2004 D1 Oil made applications to grow jatropha commercially in

South Africa. A draft South African biofuels policy initially supported these plans,

though the Department of Agriculture decided to classify jatropha as a potentially

invasive species, in effect banning its use. The final South African biofuel strategy

(2007) dashed the maize industry’s hopes of biofuel by excluding maize as a

feedstock, not recommending mandatory blending, demanding involvement of

previously disadvantaged farmers and reducing the blending target to 2%. The South

African biofuels industry has largely stagnated since then despite suggestions of a

canola industry in the Eastern Cape, a sugarbeet and sorghum grain-based ethanol

industry in the Eastern Cape and sugar cane-based ethanol in Limpopo, KwaZulu

Natal and the Eastern Cape. In October 2013 the South African government

committed to blending by 2015, with the initial ethanol likely to be from sorghum.

Investors, largely linked to European countries, also targeted most other southern

African countries for biofuel production. Most investment was directed toward

jatropha production with projects being initiated in Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique,

Zambia, Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Namibia (GEXSI, 2008a, b). Although a few

companies also considered ethanol, with the Swedish company, SEKAB, being one

of the most active and proposing a large plantation in the Rufiji delta, Tanzania

(Havnevik et al. 2011), by 2010 almost all active projects were based on jatropha.

The interest from foreign investors for biofuel and feedstock production in Africa

caught most countries without established biofuel policies (Haywood et al. 2008). In

fact by the late 2000s there were no existing policy frameworks for promoting and

17

regulating biofuel expansion despite significant interest from foreign investors

(Mitchell 2011). South Africa was the first country to put in place a formal biofuel

policy (2007), followed by Mozambique (2009) and Angola (2010) (von Maltitz et al.

2012). Tanzania and Zambia have completed policies, but they have not made them

publicly available yet. Lately a number of African countries have enacted mandatory

biofuel blending mandates, e.g. Ethiopia (E10), Malawi (E20) and Zambia (E10, B5)

(REN21, 2012; Mitchell, 2011).

The 2008 recession, coupled with poor performances from the already established

projects, was a major blow to the emerging biofuel industry. Many projects have

closed since then or changed ownership, with the rate of new project development

having slowed substantially (Gasparatos et al. 2012; von Maltitz and Setzkorn 2012;

von Maltitz et al. submitted, Schoneveld 2013). Actual areas planted to date are only

a small proportion of the land made available for projects. Locke and Henley (2013)

found that as little as four percent of the acquired land had actually been planted in

Mozambique and Zambia.

1.5.1 General background to bioenergy and biofuels

Bioenergy is a generic term used to describe all energy sources from biomass. It

includes traditional fuels, use of fuels combusted for electricity generation and

biofuels (a term used for liquid fuels that can be used to replace diesel and

petroleum) (Rossi and Lambrou 2009).

Biofuels are proposed as partial replacements for petroleum-based liquid fuels, but

unlike petroleum fuels, are derived primarily from vegetative material. Currently there

are two main types of biofuels: bioethanol, which can be blended with petrol or used

in modified petrol engines; and biodiesel, which can be used as a direct diesel

replacement or as a blend with petroleum diesel. When these biofuels are derived

from sugar, starch or oilseed crops (mostly food crops) these are generally referred

to as first generation biofuels. When derived from ligno-cellulose the term second

generation biofuel is used.

Bioethanol is derived from sugar or starch through fermentation and distillation in a

18

process functionally identical to the production of alcohol for the liqueur market

(Bridgwater, 2006). First-generation ethanol can be obtained from the fermentation

of the edible parts of sugar-rich crops such as sugarcane (Saccharum officianarum),

sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) and sweet sorghum (Sorghum spp.), or starch-rich crops,

such as maize (Zea mays), wheat (Triticum spp.) and cassava (Manihot esculenta)

(Fischer et al. 2009). This simple and well-established process is practised in Brazil

(sugar cane), USA (maize), Malawi (sugar cane) and many other countries. So

called second generation technologies will allow lignin and cellulose to be used as a

feedstock and hence enable non-food components of vegetation to be converted into

fuel, but these technologies are still at the experimental and piloting stage (van der

Laak et al. 2007).

Ethanol when used as a fuel is distinctly different from petrol in a number of aspects.

Firstly, it is corrosive and requires modifications to the engine to prevent damage. It

has only about 70% of the energy content of petroleum (petrol) on an equal volume

basis and so about 30% more fuel is needed to travel the same distance. Bioethanol

used as a blend of up to 10% with petrol requires no major modifications to car

engines, though from the blending perspective there are technical considerations

relating to octane values. Blending beyond 10% ethanol requires specially designed

dual-fuel cars. Cars optimised to run on 100% bioethanol can also be built as is the

case in Brazil where garages have two sets of fuel pumps, one for petrol and one for

ethanol.

Straight vegetable oil can be used directly as a diesel replacement in some

applications, though the more common is to convert the oil to biodiesel through a

process termed transesterification (Bridgwater, 2006). This process requires about

20% methanol, a potassium (or sodium)-based catalyst and heat. Almost any oil or

fat can be used, though the properties of the resulting biodiesel will differ. The

production process is technically simple and can operate on almost any scale,

making it feasible for farmers to produce their own biodiesel. It is, however, only

large-scale processing facilities that can guarantee consistent quality. In addition,

large processing plants are needed if the more efficient chemical extraction of oils is

used instead of simple, but less efficient, oil presses, thus raising the oil recovery

from about 70% to about 98% (Jongschaap et al. 2007). Almost any oil seed can be

19

used for biodiesel though palm oil is clearly the most productive on a per hectare

basis. The use of soybean results in an animal fodder in the form of a protein rich

seedcake by-product, which, currently, is more valuable than the biodiesel itself; the

overall production costs are therefore greatly reduced. A number of tree species

including jatropha are being established as feedstocks, but in the case of jatropha

the seedcake is toxic and can only be used as a less valuable fertiliser or combusted

as a fuel (Jongschaap et al. 2007).

The properties of biodiesel are very similar to petroleum diesel though it only has

about 91% to 94% of the energy on a per volume basis. It has a higher flash point

making its handling safer, but tends to solidify at low temperatures. Biodiesel is a

solvent for rubber compounds and any rubber-based seals will be destroyed – a

potential, but cheap to remedy problem of older engines. Biodiesel has excellent

lubrication properties and no sulphur, which are both seen as benefits. Biodiesel

should work as a 100% replacement in older engines. In modern high tech turbo-

diesel engines most manufacturers will not give warranties beyond a 5% blend,

though some tractor manufactures are giving warranties up to 100% biodiesel

(Intelligent Energy Europe 2008).

1.5.2 Biofuel as a driver of land-use change

Biofuels expansion is probably the single greatest current driver of land-use change,

both globally and within the South African Development Community (SADC) region.

There has been an exponential growth in demand for biofuel products over the past

10 years, and if biofuels can be produced more cheaply than fossil fuel, then there is

a nearly insatiable market for biofuel (the total fuel market is probably bigger than the

realistic amount of biofuel that can be produced globally). To meet the current EU

and American 2012 biofuel targets of 7% and 23.39 billion litres respectively will

require millions of hectares of land. In Europe’s case it is unlikely that this mandate

can be met internally and biofuel will need to be imported (REN21, 2009). To meet

5% blending targets for most African countries would require relatively small

amounts of land (von Maltitz and Brent 2008 and as discussed in section 6.2.2).

However, many African countries are also considering producing biofuel for export

which could greatly increase the amount of biofuel driven land-use change. GEXSI

20

(2008) identified 52 jatropha projects with an area of 104 000 ha and estimated that

this would grow to two million hectares by 2015. Many projects not included in the

GEXSI (2008) report have been identified by von Maltitz and Setzkorn (2011, 2012).

1.5.3 Biofuels the face of African land grabs

The sudden expansion of biofuel projects globally, but particularly in Africa,

highlighted a new trend where foreign countries either directly, but more often

through private companies, are acquiring large blocks of land in the developing world

(and particularly in southern Africa) to grow both fuel and food crops (Hall 2011;

German et al. 2011c; Deininger et al. 2011; Cotula et al. 2008, 2009; Cotula, b;

Vermeulen 2009 a, b; Amseeuw et al 2012; Schoneveld 2013). This phenomenon

has been referred to as “land grabs” (Cotula et al. 2009; Cotula and Vermeulen

2009a), though Hall (2011) warns against this terminology as it tends to hide many of

the complexities and internal dynamics of these deals. There are mixed reactions to

these land deals. From one perspective they represent direct foreign investment in

countries desperate to gain development investment (World Bank 2009 and 2010).

However, the nature of this investment is questionable as the benefits to both local

communities and the local country may be minimal (Hall 2011; German et al. 2011 a

and c; Cotula et al. 2008, 2009; Cotula and Vermeulen 2009 a and b; Schoneveld

2013). The Lan Matrix Project (Anseeuw et al 2012) has been established to globally

monitor land deals in the global South.

Though biofuels expansion was the issue that alerted the scientific community to the

phenomenon of rapid investment in land in Africa, it is now obvious that this extends

beyond fuel crops to many other crops including food crops and forestry (Hall 2011;

Schoneveld 2013). There are also suggestions that in some instances biofuel

projects are being used as a front to allow other activities such as the extraction of

tropical hardwoods (Sulle and Nelson 2009).

1.5.4 Drivers for biofuel expansion in Southern Afr ica

The drivers for biofuel expansion differ substantially between southern African

countries and those of Europe and America.

21

The push for large-scale biofuel projects was largely investor driven. Investors from

the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and other European countries were

actively seeking land opportunities for biofuel long before any of the Southern African

countries had biofuel policies in place (von Maltitz and Setzkorn 2012; Schoneveld

2013). In South Africa, maize farmers were behind initial attempts to set up ethanol

production as it would expand their market and allow them to grow more maize

(Makenete et al. 2010). It would seem that European policies that dictated

mandatory biofuel blends (EU RED 2009) were a key motivation for private

companies to actively pursue the biofuels market. The perceived large European

market, coupled with the fact that many studies suggested that Europe would not be

able to meet this market from internal production would appear to have been a major

driver for public sector investment in African biofuels (von Maltitz and Setzkorn 2013;

Schoneveld 2013 ). The rapidly increasing fuel price, talk of peak oil and economic

analysis suggesting that biofuels would become profitable added to the investors’

motivation for backing biofuel. The benefits that African countries should ensure that

they achieve from biofuel expansion are investigated in Chapter 3 and form the basis

against which African biofuel sustainability is assessed.

1.6. Conceptualising tradeoffs at the local level

As land is moved into biofuel production, it must be taken away from some previous

land-use. Though the biofuel literature speaks extensively of the use of wasteland

and under-utilised land, the assumption of this thesis is that all land is used, though

the value of the bundle of ecosystem services supplied will differ between land-use.

In the southern African customary situation the norm is that there is individually

managed farmland as well as a commonage that is available for communal use (for

grazing, fuel wood collection and the provision of other woodland products). This

commonage is typically what is termed rangeland, woodland or forest (the terms are

used interchangeably in this thesis to describe the area of commonage within the

customary areas). Where human density is low, farmers often grow crops in a form

of shifting agriculture; however as density increases the field boundaries become

more permanent. Figure 1-7 is a graphical illustration of different scenarios of how

22

biofuel plantations could be integrated into the existing agricultural landscape under

a few settlement patterns. This representation is based on personal experience of

project implementation as well as the literature on African biofuel expansion (e.g.

Sulle and Nelson 2009; Schut et al. 2010a, b). Scenarios a, b and c are the base

scenarios where either farms are scattered within the woodland landscape (a and b)

as is common in Mozambique, or form a solid block of small farms (as is common in

Malawi). Slight variations may be that homesteads are clumped into villages rather

than being linked to the fields. Fields may also be located within a discrete block (as

is common in much of South Africa). When biofuel is introduced into this landscape it

can either displace existing agricultural land (as in scenarios h and i), but the more

likely scenario, especially for large-scale plantations, is that it displaces the

rangeland/woodland as in scenarios d, e, f and g. In scenario e both

rangeland/woodland as well as existing agriculture is displaced. In this scenario the

most likely is that the existing agriculture is moved into new areas of

rangeland/woodland, i.e. there is an indirect land-use change impact from the biofuel

expansion (as was found in the large-scale plantations in Mozambique – see

appendix B). This increases the density of agriculture, and in some cases there are

reports that fields are moved into less favourable areas with greater distance

between homesteads and fields (Schoneveld et al. 2012). Though in all scenarios

shown it is assumed that no farmer is pushed totally out of farming, in reality this

could also occur. For small-scale biofuel projects they can either be within the

commonage, effectively increasing the farmer’s current cropland, or could be part of

the farmer’s current crop land, hence reducing land available for food and/or other

cash crops. In Malawi jatropha is sometimes grown as a hedgerow around the farms

(see appendix B).

Though not illustrated in Figure 1-7, it is common to combine large-scale plantations

with what are termed “out growers”. In such scenarios there would be the combined

land-use change from large-scale and small-scale plantations.

At the local (village) or household level, key tradeoffs relate to the way biofuels

impact on livelihoods. In all scenarios illustrated above, either woodland/rangeland,

or croplands or both woodland and cropland are lost. This will impact on access to

resources, income generation and food security as well as the regulating and cultural

23

services provided by the broader landscape. The net balance between losses of

resources from the rangeland/woodland versus the gains from biofuel will determine

Figure 1-7. Diagrammatic representation of how biofuel crops are likely to be incorporated into the existing landscape

the overall net benefit. These tradeoffs will be complex as they will involve a tradeoff

between cash income from biofuel versus many consumptive and non-consumptive

uses of the previous land-use. Some of these existing land-uses such as fuel wood,

medicinal plants, grazing and construction material may be taken for granted by the

24

community and not specifically valued, though their loss would cause a reduction in

overall household livelihoods opportunities. In addition benefits and losses may not

be felt uniformly amongst community members. Some members may gain benefits

such as jobs, whilst other members may lose access to resources such as wild fruits.

It is often the more marginalised in the community such as widowed women who

suffer the greatest loss, whilst those already well off gain first access to new benefits

(Shackleton and Gumbo 2010; Cavendish 2000; Shackleton and Shackleton 2006;

Fisher 2004).

1.7. An introduction to jatropha

Jatropha curcas L. (referred to simply as jatropha throughout this text) is a small to

medium height tree (5 – 7 m maximum height) of the family Euphorbiaceae

(Openshaw 2000; Heller 1996). Its origins are from Central America, but it has been

grown in Africa and other parts of the world for over 100 years (Heller 1996). The

wood of jatropha has a very low specific density of approximately 0.25 (Maes et al.

2009). Mature plants are inedible for livestock hence the species has proved itself as

a good species for live fences. The seed has a very high oil content (on average

34%, although this ranges greatly (Achten et al. 2008) and the species has

historically been used for oil extraction for soap making or as a fuel for lanterns

(Jongschaap et al. 2007).

Jatropha seeds are toxic as they contain phorbol esters and curcain and consuming

seeds can be fatal, particularly for young children (Jongschaap et al. 2007; Achten

et al. 2008). In small doses the seed is sometimes used as a traditional medicine.

From a biodiesel-producing perspective the toxicity of the seed means that seedcake

cannot be used as an animal fodder despite its favourable protein content. This

greatly reduces the value of the seedcake compared to seedcake from sunflower or

soybean. D1 Oil claims that they are patenting a technique to detoxify the seed (D1

2009). Using seedcake as a fertiliser, though poorly researched, seems to have a lot

of potential as it is high in nitrogen (Jongschaap et al. 2007; Achten et al. 2008). The

toxicity does not appear to affect crops and in fact helps control pests such as

nematodes.

25

A key attribute of jatropha used to promote its utility as a biofuel crop is the

perception that jatropha is a dryland crop that can grow well on marginal and

degraded land in areas of low rainfall (Spaan et al. 2004; Divakara 2010; Heller

1996; Silitonga 2011). Although the species is clearly drought hardy, economically

viable yields from arid regions seem unlikely (Achten 2010; Trabucco et al. 2010).

Although data on yields are still sketchy, it is likely that at least 600 to 800 mm of

rainfall will be required before meaningful crops can be obtained (based on Achten et

al. 2008, 2010). Trabucco et al. (2010) estimate that optimum yield will require

1500mm rainfall, clearly breaking the perception of a dryland crop (Figure 1-8). Initial

published yields for jatropha are typically far less than was envisaged in the initial

project and investor plans of early projects (Schut et al. 2010; Achten et al. 2008;

Trabucco et al. 2010; Pandey et al. 2012; Liyama et al. 2013). Jongschaap et al.

(2007) attribute the low yield data reported to the fact that data are from young

plantations and they are optimistic that high yields will still be achieved. It is however

five years since Jongschaap’s prediction and the hoped for high yields are still not

being reported. It is now clear that extensive management is required if high yields

are to be achieved. This contradicts early assumptions that jatropha was a low-input

species (Table 1-1).

Figure 1-8. Estimated jatropha yields (from Trabucco et al. 2010). As can be seen from comparing this Figure and Figure 1-9, it is the Miombo regions of southern Africa which are most suited to jatropha growing.

26

During the period of approximately 2005 to 2010 jatropha was strongly promoted

across many African countries as an ideal biofuel crop for the African situation

(GEXSI 2008). It was promoted by the private sector, the NGO sector and

governments and national and international development organizations. Based on

area planted and total number of projects initiated, jatropha was by far the preferred

biofuel species during this period (von Maltitz and Setzkorn 2012; von Maltitz et al.

2012; Gasparatos et al. 2012; Schoneveld 2013). All Southern African countries with

the exception of Lesotho (which is climatically unsuitable) have considered growing

jatropha. Botswana is taking a cautious approach and wants to conduct extensive

research before embarking on a full programme (Lerner et al. 2010). South Africa,

which initially actively promoted jatropha, has since banned it due to concerns about

invasiveness. Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Madagascar, Swaziland, Zambia

and Zimbabwe have all attracted a substantive number of FDI jatropha projects

(Lerner et al. 2010). Recent reports suggest that many of the large-scale projects

have encountered financial problems and are either being closed down or sold out

(Gasparatos et al. 2012). These include some of the biggest players in the fields

including D1 Oils, Sun Biofuels and Bioshape.

27

Table 1-1. Comparison of reasons given in the literature for planting jatropha versus actual experience in the southern African region

Reason for planting jatropha Actual experience Claimed to be drought hardy and able to grow in arid regions.(e.g. Pandey 2012)

Jatropha seems able to survive drought, but recent data suggest that rainfall of 800 mm or more might be required for good yields (Trabucco et al. 2010).

Yields from the second year after planting with high yields of 5 to 12 t/ha of seeds after about 5 years (Heller 1996; Mitchell 2011; Jongschaap 2007; Openshaw 2000).

Economic yields have taken longer than expected, and current data suggest that the yield of more than 3t/ha is unlikely in most situations, with some projects getting substantially less – in some cases only a few hundred kilograms. This might change in the future if tree breeding is able to improve yields (Everson et al. 2013; Trabucco et al. 2010).

Ability to grow on marginal and degraded land (Heller 1996)

What constitutes marginal or degraded land has caused extensive debate. However, like most crops, jatropha thrives best on good soils and the experience has been that farmers plant it on good soils (Achten 2010; Trabucco et al. 2010; Foidl et al. 1996).

High rural development potential (UNDESA 2010; Henning n.d. a and b, )

Jatropha is very labour intensive, especially during picking. However the returns to labour are very low (Borman et al. 2012; German et al. 2011; Schoneveld et al. 2011). It has also been suggested that the value from jatropha does not compensate for the lost income from the land-uses that took place before jatropha was planted (German et al. 2011).

A good crop for small-scale farmers (e.g.UNDESA 2007; Rossi and Lambrou 2009; Henning no date a and b))

This is potentially the case, but to date a combination of low yields, high labour demand, a lack of market and low value of seeds have resulted in minimal or no benefits to small-scale farmers. Many small-scale farmer-based projects have gone bankrupt.

A good investment opportunity for investors wishing to invest in sustainable energy (D1, SUN, GEM)

Many of the early large-scale projects were listed companies. In most cases share prices have plummeted way below the original listing values. Jatropha is never likely to be a high-value crop, and growing costs will prevent high profits. (von Maltitz and Setzkorn 2013).

28

1.7.1 Other biofuels

Though the focus of the thesis is on jatropha, jatropha is rapidly losing favour as a

feedstock, and in future other feedstocks are likely to take a higher priority. The

debates and issues raised in this thesis are generic in nature and would be just as

applicable to other feedstocks, though hopefully, with better initial planning and

research the outcomes can be more favourable.

A number of alternative biofuel feedstocks have been proposed for southern Africa,

but excluding jatropha, the only feedstock that is attracting serious investment is

sugar cane (Mitchell, 2011). The Swedish based SEKAB project was originally

seeking 400 000 ha of land in the Rufije Valley of Tanzania, but only 24 500 ha was

finally approved (Sulle and Nelson 2009). The economic downturn of 2008 forced

SEKAB to disinvest and the project was sold to EcoEnergy for a nominal sum of US$

1. EcoEnergy plans to only plant an 8 000 ha core estate, with outgrowers being

responsible for the reminder of production (Gasparatos et al. 2012). Other large-

scale sugar plantations have been proposed for Mozambique, Angola and Zambia,

though these have, as yet, not started (Lerner et al. 2010).

Within South Africa sugar beet and canola have received considerable interest,

whilst crops such as palm oil, cassava and sweet and grain sorghum have also been

suggested.

1.8. Southern Africa regional context

This thesis has a broad focus on the southern African region (defined for the purpose

of as the mainland countries falling within the South African Development

Community (SADC)) with special focus on the woodland/savanna and grassland

areas as these are the areas where there is currently the most biofuel activity

(Figure1-8b). In essence these are the areas with sufficient rainfall for biofuel crops,

but not so moist as to be closed canopy forest. It is the more moist areas above

annual precipitation of 650mm where biofuel is most likely (von Maltitz and Bret

2008), with jatropha likely to do best above about 800mm (Trabucco et al. 2010).

Sugar cane requires above 1200mm of rain unless it has irrigation (Watson 2010)

29

(Figure 1-9a). In essence there is a band of precipitation exceeding 650 mm that

cuts diagonally across the sub-continent. In the NW the rain exceeds 1200 mm and

this area is associated with the Congo Basin tropical lowland forests. As can be

seen from Figure 1-9, there is a close overlap between areas ranging from 650 to

1200 mm and the woodlands referred to locally as miombo. An exception to this is in

South Africa where cooler winters see grasslands replace woodlands in the moister

areas (Ellery et al. 1991). Between approximately 450 and 700 mm is a region

mostly dominated by arid savanna vegetation. The exact rainfall divide between

savanna and miombo is determined by a combination of rainfall, altitude and soil

type (Huntley and Walker 1982).

1-9. Rainfall and vegetation of the southern African region (from von Maltitz and Setzkorn 2012).

The term miombo (White 1983) will be used to refer to the vast areas of moist

woodlands that dominate Mozambique, Malawi, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, southern

DRC, Zambia and Angola. They tend to be on dystrophic soils which combined with

relatively high rainfall leads to a grass layer with high bulk, but low nutritional status

(Huntley 1982). The soils are typically acidic, and as a consequence liming is

needed before fertilisation will have positive impacts on food crop yields (Campbell

1996).

30

The miombo region in particular is associated with high levels of rural poverty, in part

because of the difficulties in conducting sustainable agriculture within this habitat

(Campbell 1996). Jatropha expansion within southern Africa has mostly occurred

within the miombo, though a few projects have been located in the more arid

savannas. Newer research is, however, suggesting that jatropha in these more arid

areas is unlikely to ever have high yields (Trabucco et al. 2010).

1.8.1 Overview of the SADC region

The South African Development Community (SADC) consists of 15 member

countries, namely South Africa, Swaziland, Lesotho, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe,

Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, DRC, Angola, Tanzania, Madagascar (currently

suspended), Mauritius and Seychelles. All countries in the region are classified as

developing countries. South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Swaziland are classified

by the UNDP (2011) as medium human development countries. The remainder of

the countries all fall into the category of low human development. Mozambique and

the DRC in particular are amongst the lowest rated countries of the UNDP

development index, largely due to a long history of civil war. A large proportion of

the population lives below the 1.25 $/day development line (UNDP 2011, Table 1-2,

1-3) and a large proportion of the population are directly dependent on ecosystem

services for their livelihoods (Scholes and Biggs 2004, Shackleton et al. 2010).

31

Table 1-2. Human development index including the individual components making up the index (UNDP 2011)

Human Development Index (HDI)

Life expectancy at

birth

Mean years of

schooling

Expected years of

schooling

Gross National Income (GNI) per

capita Non- income HDI

Value (years) (years) (years) (Constant 2005 PPP$) Value

HDI rank 2011 2011 2011a 2011a 2011 2011

VERY HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

52 Seychelles 0.773 73.6 9.4 13.3 16 729 0.794 77 Mauritius 0.728 73.4 7.2 13.6 12 918 0.745

MEDIUM HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 118 Botswana 0.633 53.2 8.9 12.2 13 049 0.602 120 Namibia 0.625 62.5 7.4 11.6 6 206 0.643 123 South Africa 0.619 52.8 8.5 13.1 9 469 0.604 140 Swaziland 0.522 48.7 7.1 10.6 4 484 0.512

LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 148 Angola 0.486 51.1 4.4 9.1 4 874 0.455 151 Madagascar 0.480 66.7 5.2 10.7 824 0.605 152 Tanzania (United Republic of) 0.466 58.2 5.1 9.1 1 328 0.523 160 Lesotho 0.450 48.2 5.9 9.9 1 664 0.475 164 Zambia 0.430 49.0 6.5 7.9 1 254 0.469 171 Malawi 0.400 54.2 4.2 8.9 753 0.470 173 Zimbabwe 0.376 51.4 7.2 9.9 376 0.529 175 Mali 0.359 51.4 2.0 8.3 1 123 0.366 184 Mozambique 0.322 50.2 1.2 9.2 898 0.325 187 Congo (Democratic Republic of the) 0.286 48.4 3.5 8.2 280 0.399

32

Table 1-3. Multidimensional poverty indicators from UNDP 2011

Population in multidimensional poverty

Population vulnerable to

poverty

Population in severe poverty

Share of multidimensional poor with deprivations in environmental

services Population below

income poverty line

Multidimensional Poverty Index Head count

Intensity of deprivation

Clean water

Improved sanitation

Modern fuels

PPP $ 1.25 a

day

National poverty

line

Year Value (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

HDI value 2000-2009c 2000-2009c

MEDIUM HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Botswana .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 31 Namibia 07 0.19 40 47 24 15 15 36 38 .. 38 South Africa 08 0.06 13 42 22 2 5 10 8 17 23 Swaziland 07 0.18 41 45 24 13 24 38 38 63 69 LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Angola 01 0.45 77 58 11 55 51 69 71 54 .. Madag 09 0.36 67 53 18 35 49 67 67 68 69 Tanzania 08 0.37 65 56 23 44 47 64 65 68 33 Lesotho 09 0.16 35 44 27 11 18 31 33 43 57 Zambia 07 0.33 64 51 17 35 50 57 63 64 59 Malawi 04 0.38 72 53 20 40 44 72 72 74 52 Zimbabwe 06 0.18 40 45 24 15 24 32 39 .. 72 Mozamb 09 0.51 79 65 10 61 44 63 79 60 55 DRC 07 0.39 73 54 16 47 56 62 73 59 71

33

1.8.2 Developed versus developing countries’ perspe ctives

When considering land-use choices in general or the use of land for biofuel in

particular, there are a number of differences in the factors driving land-use decision

making between developed nations and the developing countries of SADC.

In the SADC region the need for development tends to be of paramount concern in

decision making, and though environmental issues (including GHG emissions) are of

importance, they are of secondary importance to both human development and

national economic development (von Maltitz and Brent 2008). The southern African

countries (excluding South Africa) have had marginal impacts on global carbon

emissions (Canadell et al. 2008). It is, however, emissions from land-use change,

rather than the burning of fossil fuels that have made the greatest contribution to

global emissions (Kutsch et al. 2011). South Africa is an exception in this regard and

its high reliance on coal for both electricity and petroleum has resulted in South

Africa contributing 1.46% of global CO2 emissions, with per capita emission rates on

a par with developed countries (CDIAC 2008).

From a global policy perspective southern African countries are not yet obliged to

put in place mandatory emission reduction targets (IBPC 2007). Embarking on a

land-use such as biofuels is therefore more about the development opportunities that

it will bring rather than emission savings that might result. Though the region has had

limited impact in causing global climate change, most assessments see the region

as being especially vulnerable to impacts from climate change (Scholes and Biggs

2004). Though possibly not a top priority in national planning, and of relatively low

priority at the level of local planning, the need to adapt to future impacts of climate

change must be considered as a component of long-term land-use planning.

The customary nature of land tenure found in all the southern African countries (see

section 1.8.5) also has profound impacts on the way that land-use decisions are

made and the impacts that such decisions will have on livelihoods. In addition this

customary land tenure has profound impacts on tenure security and the

management of the land for biofuel production.

34

1.8.3 Reliance on woodland products

It is common that biofuel projects are established on what was previously rangeland

or forest land (German et al. 2011). The biofuel literature has sometimes referred to

this as waste land or unutilised land, but the truth is that in almost all circumstances

important livelihood benefits are being derived from this land. In fact, this land is a

key contributor to reducing poverty in Africa’s rural areas, as especially the poor of

these populations rely largely on products from the natural, indigenous forests and

woodlands for their livelihoods (Shackleton et al. 2010; Cavendish 2000). Biofuel

expansion is likely to reduce village access to woodland resources and this is an

important tradeoff that should be considered in any biofuel expansion.

These forest and woodland resources are often referred to as non-timber forest

products (NTFP), woodland products, veld products, minor forest products or bush

products (Wickens 1991; de Beer and McDermott 1989). The term woodland

products is used here as this thesis focuses on the woodland regions of southern

Africa. These woodland products include a wide variety of goods including fuel, food

and fibres (Shackleton et al. 2010; Cavendish 2000). Though the literature

sometimes uses the term ‘non-timber’, this distinction is made to differentiate the

commercial timber harvesting from forests and woodlands from the local use of the

forests (de Beer and McDermott 1989). Wickens (1991) sees the term “timber” in

NTFP only relating to commercial roundwood timber and not the local use of timber.

In addition these woodland/forest/rangeland areas are also an important resource for

livestock grazing (Shackleton et al. 2011; Gambiza et al. 2010).

The contribution of woodland products to rural livelihoods varies extensively

between regions and is difficult to quantify (Shackleton and Gumbo 2010;

Cavendish 2000), but in Zimbabwe it has been reported as being as high as one-

third of rural household income (Cavendish 2000; Campbell et al. 2002). An

estimated 320 million people (about 1/3 of Africa’s entire population) are dependent

on the dry woodlands (miombos and savannas) to meet many of their basic needs

(Petheram et al. 2006). In some places site specific products can have extensive

cash value, for example Mopani worms, marula fruit (Sclerocarya birrea),

mushrooms and honey production as well as medicinal products from a number of

35

indigenous plant species (Shackleton and Gumbo 2010; Shackleton et al. 2010).

In addition to woodland products being used by almost all members of the rural

population, they play an important additional function by providing a safety net during

times of hardship such as drought (Shackleton and Gumbo 2010; Arnold and Ruiz-

Perez 2001). It is the poor households and disenfranchised groups such as women

and children who tend to rely disproportionately on woodland products to sustain

their livelihoods (Cavendish 2000; Campbell et al. 2002; Takasaki et al. 2004).

Woodland products tend to prevent a deepening of poverty rather than lifting people

out of poverty (Shackleton and Gumbo 2010; FAO 2003)

Fuel wood tends to be the single biggest contributor to household livelihoods in

those studies where valuations have been conducted (Shackleton and Gumbo 2010;

Malimbwi et al. 2010; Cavendish 2000). In addition fuel wood and charcoal remain

the main energy sources for the majority of households in Africa. The irony is that

whilst rural communities are growing biofuel for urban markets, these communities

themselves have poor access to energy and tend to rely locally on fuel wood. Large

scale biofuel expansion may well reduce the overall national ability to produce fuel

wood due to competition for land. It is estimated that across Sub-Sahara Africa

(SSA), about 93-94% of rural households and 58-73% of urban households are

reliant on either fuel wood or charcoal as their primary energy source (Bailis et al.

2005; IEA 2006). Over 90% of urban households use charcoal in Kenya, Tanzania,

Mozambique and Zambia (IEA 2002). Estimating the total fuel and charcoal use in

Africa remains difficult due to data constraints (Amos 1999; IEA 2008; Arnold et al.

2003). A number of independent estimates suggest that approximately 90% of all

wood extraction in Africa, including wood extraction from timber-harvesting in tropical

forests, is used for fuel wood or charcoal (FAO 2006).

Bailis et al. (2005) found national per capita fuel wood consumption to range from

less than 0.2 to over 1.5 t per capita in individual SSA countries. In urban areas, a

shift from fuel wood to charcoal has been documented. Charcoal remains the

principle energy source for the poor in most sub-Saharan African cities, though its

use is relatively rare in South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, Swaziland and

Zimbabwe. Some countries, such as Tanzania and Kenya, have attempted to ban

36

charcoal from cities, but this has been ineffective and simply created an illegal

charcoal trade, in part making the collection of charcoal use statistics more difficult

(Mugo and Ong 2006).

The wood and charcoal trade is huge, with some studies suggesting that fuel wood

and charcoal trade represents the single biggest market for a rural (including

agricultural) commodity in countries such as the DRC, Kenya, Tanzania, and Malawi

(Sepp n.d; World Bank 2009; Schure 2009). For instance, a study of charcoal use in

Tanzania suggested that total charcoal use was one million tons of charcoal,

requiring 30 million m3 of wood (Norconsult 2002). This value of wood and charcoal

is often not considered when converting woodlands to biofuel plantations.

1.8.4 Poverty

Sub-Saharan Africa is considered as being the region of the world with the greatest

poverty (UNDP 2011, 2003; Bias and Donovan, 2003; Scholes and Biggs, 2004).

The rural population is especially vulnerable to poverty (IAC 2004). Low soil fertility

throughout much of Southern Africa, and especially within the miombos, linked with

variable rainfall and frequent droughts makes agriculture, and especially small-scale

subsistence level agriculture, extremely difficult and unreliable (Campbell 1996). This

is compounded by poor infrastructure networks, low levels of state investment in

rural areas and agriculture, poor schooling and poor healthcare (IAC 2004)

Poverty often has a gender dimension, with women particularly vulnerable as legal

and customary systems often discriminate against single women (IAC 2004). The

high prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the sub-region has had a profound impact on poverty

as it has tended to target young adults of working age, resulting in high rates of

orphans, widowed women and adults too sickly to undertake labour intensive

activities (Drimie and Casale 2000).

What can be termed “income poverty” in areas where subsistence agriculture is

being practised has a profound impact on behaviour in many southern African

environments. Cash income is a high priority as it is needed for activities such as

school fees, clothing, modern fuels including candles and paraffin and any luxuries

37

such as cell phones, radios etc. The impact of this is that access to cash income

tends to act as a disproportionately strong driver of behaviour, and community

members may well opt for a very low waged income despite the fact that this

disproportionately impacts on other livelihood options.

1.8.5 Land tenure

African land tenure is typically one of two variants: statutory or customary (Alden

2008) though the details are extremely complex and country dependent. Current

tenure evolved from customary rights, colonial tenure models (including freehold)

and post-independence tenure reform (Alden 2008). In many southern African

countries land rights are vested in the government (or head of state) which allocates

land as leasehold and/or as land for customary tenure (German et al. 2011; ECA

2003). Five Southern African countries are of particular relevance to this study,

South Africa, Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique where case study data were

obtained, while Tanzania is also discussed briefly because there are well-

documented jatropha case studies from Tanzania and these are used in support of

arguments in the text.

South Africa has a high proportion of land in statutory tenure (approximately 87%)

and this land tends to be farmed on a large commercial scale where individual farms

range from tens to thousands of hectares. Some of this land is state land used

primarily for conservation. In addition there is approximately 13% of the land in what

was prior to 1994 referred to as homelands or Bantustans. In these areas, land is in

customary tenure. Though legally belonging to the state, it is held in trust for the

inhabitants. Land allocation is typically administered by tribal chiefs. Like many

customary areas elsewhere in the continent, land is divided into residential

(homestead) areas, individually managed plots for cropping and commonage where

livestock is grazed and woodland products are collected (von Maltitz and Evans

1998). The crop fields are typically only about one hectare in extent, though there

are some areas with land holding of about 10 hectares. South Africa is currently

undergoing an ambitious land reform process, but the key reforms proposed for

areas of customary tenure have largely stalled (Claassens 2013). What is termed a

back-to-back lease agreement would be needed for any large-scale biofuel projects

38

envisaged on customary land. This agreement would require both community buy-in

as well as approval from the Department of Land Affairs.

Mozambique land is all state land. Much of the land is under customary tenure, but in

addition there are large tracts which were historically allocated to large commercial

farms, many of which have been abandoned. Some of these farms have been

partially re-settled by peasant farmers. The relatively low population density means

that theoretically there is extensive land that can be allocated for development, and

the land legislation tries to balance community security with an investor friendly land

acquisition process (Nhantumbo and Salomão 2010). To access land a Direito de

Uso e Aproveitamento da Terra, or DUAT is required by the investor. The land is

obtained on the basis of a long-term lease agreement. Mozambique is regarded as

having one of the most progressive Land Acts in regard to establishing and securing

customary tenure that does not undermine customary rights based on land

occupation following customary norms and practices (German et al. 2011c).

Malawi has three categories of land: public, private, and customary land (Kishindo

2004). Customary land is held under the customary law of each ethnic group and

makes up 69 per cent of total land in Malawi (Government of Malawi 2001). In

customary land, local chiefs exercise trusteeship over land on behalf of the people in

the area (Takane 2007). All Malawians are entitled to land in their area of residence,

but the high population density means that average per capita landholding sizes

reduced from 1.53 hectares in the late 1960s to 0.8 hectares in the 2000s (Chirwa et

al. 2003).

In Tanzania communal land is referred to as village land. For international

developers to establish biofuel projects the land first needs to be transferred to state

land (termed general land) which is administered through the Tanzanian Investment

Centre (TIC) (Sulle and Nelson 2009). According to German et al.(2011c), if

investment projects collapse, the Land Act of 1999 makes provision for the land to

be converted back from general land to village land. However, it is unclear if this will

happen and concern has been raised that even if projects collapse, this land would

remain as general land (Sulle and Nelson 2009). In Tanzania this process in effect

results in communal land becoming state land which is then leased to the investor

39

(Sulle and Nelson 2009). Even when the land allocated to investors is state land, it

may well be that community members are currently using the land for a range of

activities to support local livelihoods. Tanzanian biofuel projects are accused of

disenfranchising community members from their land in deals agreed to by local

authorities (Sulle and Nelson 2009; Cotula et al. 2010).

Zambia has a similar process of land allocation to Tanzania in that community land

is moved to state land (termed crown land) before large-scale investment projects

can access it on a leasehold basis. If the project collapses or the lease expires the

land remains crown land and does not revert to the community (German et al.

2011c).

Land reform is an ongoing process in African countries. There are opposing views on

the nature that such reform should take. There is a strong argument for formal titling

which would be seen as increasing the efficiency of land distribution, boost

agricultural productivity and assist in capital accumulation (de Soto 2000; World

Bank 1989). The lack of formal rights has been argued to be a key contributor to a

lack of rural development throughout the developing world (de Soto 2000). A

counter argument is that land is a critical resource for the rural poor and that land

and land resources access is an important safety net, especially for women and

other marginalized groups (Behnke 1993; Lastarria-Cornhiel 1997; Niamir-Fuller

1998). Formalising land rights can lead to wealthier and more powerful groups

acquiring land at the expense of the poor (Lastarria-Cornhiel 1997; Toulmin and

Quan 2000). Rather than reform the smallholder peasant farmer sector, a trend in

many African countries appears to be to make large land blocks available to national

and international investors for large-scale commercial farming (Hall 2011; German et

al. 2011c; Schoneveld 2013).

Through most of Africa it is small-scale peasant farmers that form the bulk of the

agricultural sector, both number wise and for most countries, land area wise. Land

tenure places a number of constraints on this sector when they wish to engage in

biofuel production. Land allocations are made through customary processes and

existing land allocations are typically less than 2 ha per farmer (Wiggins 2009). Land

in communal tenure cannot be bought and sold. For local small-scale farmers it is

40

difficult to increase personal land holding. In addition the land cannot be used as

collateral for loans, making access to start-up or operational capital difficult.

Despite customary tenure being relatively secure, when new large-scale

developments are proposed on customary land, often through a lease agreement

with government and/or local authorities, this can lead to the displacement of existing

land-users (Sulle and Nelson 2009; Vermeulen and Cotula 2010; Cotula and

Vermeulen 2010). Quoting from Adams (2003):

“Little empirical information is available on tenure security on either State Land or

Customary Land in Zambia. The leasehold system itself can be a source of

insecurity, because chiefs consent to outsiders being granted leases, transgressing

the rights of local rights’ holders, perhaps denying the right of parents to bequeath

land to their offspring. At the same time, the prevailing sporadic tenure upgrading or

titling1 system is susceptible to land grabbing by those with sharp elbows,

dispossessing the poor and vulnerable members of the community. Further, when

applications made according to the formal procedures result in several years delay,

applicants are tempted to find ways of jumping the queue. The process then

becomes overtaken by graft and corruption and the integrity of the system is

undermined. The result is that statutory title may be no more secure than unrecorded

customary grants.”

The nature of land ownership plays an important role in determining the nature of

biofuel expansion, and underpins many of the key social impacts that occur. In

situations where land is in private tenure, relatively straightforward purchase or lease

agreements can be entered into. Where land is communal, or state land, the issues

are more complex. Where land is leased, the investor can acquire the rights to use

the land without incurring the high capital outlay of purchasing it, although there is an

implicit assumption that the land-use should bring development to the area (Diaz-

Chavez 2010).

1 Titling in this sense refers to the granting of usage rights

41

1.8.6 GHG and climate change

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the resultant climate change have been a

major global driver for biofuel expansion. As mentioned above, with the exception of

South Africa which is on a par with many OECD countries, other southern African

countries have relatively trivial emissions.

A further aspect of the GHG debate that has relevance is the fact that most of

southern Africa’s (excluding South Africa’s) contribution to GHG emissions has been

through land-use change and deforestation (Kutsch et al. 2011). The interplay

between biofuel expansion and deforestation is very poorly understood, especially

when indirect deforestation is considered (Bird 2010). Complex feedback

mechanisms between livelihoods, deforestation and biofuels are likely to be involved,

but to date these are poorly understood. A number of studies have shown that the

land-use change losses of carbon can totally negate the biofuel benefits achieved

from biofuel if biofuels are grown in inappropriate locations (Searchinger et al. 2008;

Fargione et al. 2008).

1.8.7 EU RED

The European Union’s (EU) Renewable Energy Directive (EU 2010) (RED) is the EU

legislation that sets European mandatory blending targets of 5.75% by 2010 and 10

percent by 20202. This legislation is largely what has driven the expectation of a

large biofuel market in Europe. Many predictions are that Europe will not be able to

meet its mandatory targets from European-grown feedstock, and the perceived

market this will create has prompted investors to grow feedstock in other regions of

the world including Africa. The directive specifies environmental criteria that need to

be met for biofuels to be approved for use in meeting European reduction targets.

This included overall energy efficiency of the biofuel produced as well as criteria

around preventing deforestation (Guariguata et al 2011). Implications for this are that

any biofuel project that wishes to export to the EU has to ensure that its biofuel

production meets the minimum EU specifications.

2 This amount is likely to be reduced to 5% due to mounting anti-biofuel pressure

42

1.8.8 REDD+

Adopted at the climate change COP17 in Cancun ( 2010) was the policy on

Reduction on Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). This is

a carbon financing programme aimed at reducing the rate of forest degradation, with

what is termed REDD+ also enabling degraded forest reclamation. This programme

may in future directly compete with biofuels, especially as it relates to access to

degraded land. In essence African countries may have to make choices on whether

they wish to fully support REDD+ or if they would rather expand their biofuel

programmes. To date no detailed studies have considered the tradeoffs between

these two programmes in southern Africa, but the World Bank has provided a

manual on computing opportunity costs from REDD+ which could be used to guide

this process (World Bank 2011).

REDD+ may in the future play a significant role in determining land-use decisions in

southern Africa.

1.8.9 Fuel security

Rising fossil fuel prices are placing a huge strain on most southern African states

since the importation of fossil fuel is typically one of the biggest contributors to

foreign exchange expenditure (NOU 2008). Partially decoupling fuels from the

volatile international fuel market is therefore important to most African countries.

1.8.10 Traditional fuel use patterns

The importance of traditional woodfuel usage is discussed in section 1.5.4.

There are a number of potential interactions and tradeoffs between biofuel and

traditional fuels. Firstly biofuels potentially compete for the same land from which

wood fuels are harvested. Biofuel expansion may therefore place increased pressure

on wood resources (Gao et al. 2011; Pacheco et al. 2011). Biofuel may become a

replacement fuel for wood fuels, helping communities to move up the so-called

43

‘energy ladder’ to more moderns fuels. However this transition will not be automatic

as most biofuels are destined for export rather than local use (see Chapter 4). There

is also the possibility that national campaigns could push the use of ethanol as a

replacement for charcoal. This would have repercussions throughout the charcoal

production chain, and though being beneficial to the urban poor, may force the rural

charcoal makers into deeper poverty.

1.8.11 Rural development

A key driver for biofuels is that they can potentially drive rural development (Diaz-

Chavez 2010). Biofuels can be a cash crop for peasant farmers, provide paid labour

in poor areas and assist in the development of a new class of small-scale outgrower

farmers. Though agriculture remains one of the biggest contributors to most southern

African countries’ GDP (South Africa excluded where it contributes less than 3%),

national investment in the agricultural sector has lagged behind and is typically a far

smaller proportion of national expenditure than its contribution to the economy (see

Table 6.6). Rural poverty is rife, with the vast proportion of Africa’s poor and ultra-

poor being found in rural areas. Even though many of these rural residents are

farmers, they are seldom able to meet their subsistence food needs, let alone make

substantive profits from farm surpluses. The issue of rural poverty is a major

challenge for all southern African states (UNDP 2011; Bias and Donovan 2003;

Scholes and Biggs 2004; IFAD 2011). Biofuel is seen as a potential mechanism to

boost the rural economy, and some studies have suggested it can have wide-ranging

job benefits (Arndt et al. 2009; Diaz-Chavez 2010). A partial equilibrium model to

understand the impact of Mozambique’s biofuel policy suggested that biofuel could

reduce the incidence of poverty in Mozambique by six percentage points over 12

years (Arndt et al. 2009). Growing of biofuel is estimated as having at least two

orders higher job creation ability than processing fossil fuels.

Despite these potential benefits, experience thus far has indicated that biofuels may

actually deepen poverty, as the returns to land and labour may be less than what

was obtained from alternative land-use (Schoneveld et al. 2011; German et al. 2011;

FoE 2011; Sulle and Nelson 2009).

44

1.8.12 Certification and global concerns of sustain ability

Certification is a market-based mechanism that ensures that production is conducted

in environmentally and socially sustainable ways (Vis et al. 2008; Zarrilli and Burnett

2008). Forestry certification was introduced in an attempt to reduce large scale

unsustainable exploitation of tropical hardwood forests (Cashore et al. 2005;

Overdevest 2010). It is, however, the plantation forests in more temperate areas

which have predominantly adopted forestry certification (Rametsteiner and Simula

2003). Certification has moved into a number of other areas including food, textiles

and other industries. In essence market forces are used to drive sustainable

behaviour from producers in situations where producer countries either do not have

the political will and/or the capacity to enforce it themselves (Guariguata et al 2011;

von Maltitz and Sugrue 2011).

Biofuels potentially have a relatively novel approach to certification in that it is the

importing countries (particularly the EU) that are demanding the certification, rather

than the final consumer. This means that certification is likely to become far more

widespread in the biofuel sector than in other sectors. A number of certification

bodies have been established including the Round Table on Sustainable

Biomaterials (RSB – previously round table on biofuels) which covers all biofuels and

feedstock specific bodies such as the Better Sugarcane Initiative, the Round Table

on Sustainable Palm Oil and the Round Table on Responsible Soy Association,

Global Bioenergy Partnership GBEP (Guariguata et al 2011; Vis et al. 2008). A

feature of certification is that in many ways it drives sustainability criteria as set by

global consultation that is far in excess of the criteria typically legislated at the

national level. However, not all schemes are equal and some have very limited social

criteria requirements (Guariguata et al. 2011).

1.8.13 Unintended consequences

Almost any land-use policy is likely to result in what are termed unintended

consequences (Scholes and von Maltitz 2006). Some of these consequences can be

directly attributed to poorly thought-through policies, but many arise as a

consequence of the complexity of the coupled human-environment systems. By their

45

very nature these consequences are difficult to predict and it is often only after the

fact that their impacts are felt. The following list reflects some of the unintended

consequences that have been identified in the literature relating to biofuel expansion:

1.8.13.1 Livelihoods

Though biofuel is expected to improve livelihoods, a number of reports suggest that

they may directly impact negatively on them. This is as a result of a number of

mechanisms including displacement from land (Sulle and Nelson 2009), low returns

to land and labour (German et al. 2011) or competition with food production

(Haverkort et al. 2007; Rosillo-Calle and Johnson 2010, HLPE 2013a). Biofuel

production in general may also push up global food prices and have a global level

impact on the poor (Oxfam 2008).

1.8.13.2 Land grabs

An unintended consequence of the EU RED directive is that it indirectly resulted in

land grabs by private companies in Africa which were eager to produce biofuel for

the perceived EU market (World Bank 2010; Hall 2011; Cotula et al. 2008).

1.8.13.3 Direct and indirect land-use change

Biofuels may cause direct land-use change (LUC) from indigenous vegetation to

plantations. It can also cause indirect land-use change where biofuel replaces

agriculture and as a consequence new agricultural land is opened up in previously

indigenous vegetation (Bird et al. 2010; Searchinger et al. 2008; Fargione et al.

2008).

1.8.13.4 Unintended emissions

Although biofuel is designed to reduce global CO2 emissions, a number of studies

have raised concern that, in some instances, biofuels may increase emissions as a

consequence of land-use change. Planting palm trees on peatlands is particularly

harmful from an emissions perspective (Fargione et al. 2008), but many other biofuel

activities may release extensive amounts of stored carbon from both vegetation and

soil carbon pools (Fargione et al. 2008; Searchinger et al. 2008). A lot of energy

including from fossil fuels is used in growing and producing bioenergy, and for some

crops such as maize this energy use is almost as much as the energy gained from

46

the biofuel (Stromberg and Gasparatos, 2012; Menichetti and Otto, 2009; Hill et al.

2006; Zah et al. 2007).

1.8.13.5 Biodiversity

Habitat loss due to land-use transformation will result in biodiversity loss (von Maltitz

et al. 2010; Gasparatos et al. 2012). In addition there is a concern that many biofuel

plants have a high potential to become invasive which can lead to biodiversity loss

(Blanchard et al. 2011; IUCN 2009). Lesser impacts from fertiliser, insecticide or

general water pollution, impoundment of water courses for irrigation and other

disturbances may also contribute to biodiversity loss (von Maltitz et al. 2010). There

is a very real threat that whilst trying to mitigate one environmental issue of global

concern (i.e. climate change), an unintended consequence could result in another

issue of global environmental concern, i.e. biodiversity. Biofuels became a distinct

agenda item during the 9th Conference of the Parties (CBD-COP9, Bonn, Decision

IX2) and their importance in the CBD process was reaffirmed during CBD-COP10

(Gasparatos et al. 2012)

1.8.13.6 Hydrology

In arid countries such as South Africa there is a very real threat that growing of

biofuel crops could compete with other water uses. Though jatropha appears to have

relatively low water demands (Holl et al. 2007; Gush and Moodley 2008), irrigated

sugarcane can have a substantial water demand. If fast growing trees are to be used

for either power generation of second generation biofuels then this could have

substantive hydrological impacts. The impacts from pine, wattle and eucalyptus

plantations on South African catchments are well documented (Dye and Versfeld

2007; Scott et al. 2000; Prinsloo and Scott 2009). A secondary hydrological impact

could be on water quality.

Concluding remark

It is against this background that the methodology employed in this study will now be discussed.

47

Chapter 2. METHOD

This thesis draws on results from numerous studies undertaken by the CSIR relating

to bioenergy and the sustainability of bioenergy development in southern Africa. The

current researcher was the principal research and project manager for most of these

projects, or a senior researcher tasked with specific aspects in the remainder.

Although the thesis draws on the wider CSIR research, it only used data where the

current author was the lead investigator, unless specifically stated otherwise. Each

specific study (chapter or sub-chapter) has details of its own methodology. Though

some of the research, such as the Malawi and Mozambique case studies, is

relatively broad, most studies are focused on a specific aspect of the biofuel-based

ecosystem service tradeoffs resulting from land-use change. The integrating

approach is therefore not focused on one uniform data set that compares all

ecosystem services and their related impacts in a systematic way in time and space.

The approach is rather to have a number of case studies, each with detailed

information on a specific ecosystem service at a specific place and location. The

global environmental services chapter has a South African or southern African focus,

whilst the local provisioning services with their related local socio-economic impacts

are largely based on case studies in Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia. The

modelling approach taken throughout this thesis is based on simple (and in most

cases spreadsheet based) models that use a scenario-based approach for

investigating alternative land-use futures, with baseline assumptions based on best

available national or local data. The thesis does not attempt to undertake rigorous

hypothesis testing, but rather uses empirical and modelled data to broaden the

understanding of biofuels, based on a wide range of social and environmental

sustainability parameters. In particular it develops a set of tools to better understand

social and environmental impacts from alternative biofuel (and other land-use)

expansion scenarios.

Chapter 3 deals with the research objectives, namely to a) Identify the benefits that

southern African countries should be aiming to achieve from biofuel, and b) Identify

key drivers for biofuel expansion in southern Africa on a national and local scale. The

chapter attempts to identify the reasons why southern Africa in particular might wish

48

to undertake biofuel expansion, and what it should aim to achieve from its biofuel

expansion. Though not specifically focused on ecosystem services, the chapter in

part helps understand the human wellbeing objectives that should be achieved when

assessing changes in the supply of ecosystem services.

This chapter is based on both a number of policy engagement workshops organised

or attended by the author, as well as the existing literature. In essence it is a review

of available data to identify a set of favourable outcomes that southern African

countries should be aiming to achieve from growing biofuel.

Chapter 4 focuses on the specific research objective b) identify the nature of biofuel

expansion within southern Africa. The chapter sets the basis for later chapters in the

thesis by identifying the nature of biofuel projects in the region and by developing a

typology that can be used later for better understanding project impacts and

tradeoffs. The need for this evolved from early interactions with the Round Table on

Sustainable Biofuels (now Biomaterials - RSB) where it became obvious that

sustainability criteria could not be uniformly applied to all biofuel types in the region.

The chapter is based on data from 13 biofuel projects in South Africa, Mozambique,

Malawi and Zambia visited by the CSIR during early 2008, as well as attendance of

local biofuel conferences where staff from numerous southern African biofuel

projects presented information on their operations. It was supplemented by

discussions with both project implementers, local policy makers and concerned

NGOs. In addition data were gathered from the literature and project web sites.

Actual analysis was based on direct data from 24 projects.

Chapters 5 and 6 look at changes in the provision of specific ecosystem services as

a consequence of changing land use to biofuel feedstock production and the impacts

this has on human well-being. These two chapters consider the research question d)

identify and examine key tradeoffs involved including biodiversity, carbon

sequestration, national development, deforestation, food security, fuel security and

livelihoods, and e) develop procedures and tools to assist in decision making. The

Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (MA 2005) Framework forms the basis of

linking ecosystem services provision with human well-being. The thesis is unable to

49

cover all ecosystem services changes resulting from biofuel introduction, but rather

focuses on what are identified as the major ecosystem and human well-being

impacts identified from jatropha-based biofuel. Table 2-1 gives a list of ecosystem

service impacts identified by Gasparatos et al. (2011 and 2013). The following set of

criteria was used to decide on which services to include in the thesis:

1. There is strong evidence from the literature that this is an important ES

tradeoff from jatropha feedstock production for biofuel

2. This tradeoff is likely to be important in, or to, southern Africa

3. The southern African consequences are not well researched

4. Meaningful research could be conducted within the constraints of the thesis

research

Chapter 5 considers ecosystem services of global importance, i.e. carbon emissions

and biodiversity loss. The chapter focuses on methodologies for assessing the

impacts of a biofuel programme at a regional or national level, rather than the project

level, as it is the cumulative impacts that would be of importance, rather than the

project specific impact. The Eastern Cape region of South Africa is assessed using

the BII methodology (Scholes and Biggs et al. 2005) to assess likely biodiversity

impacts of large-scale biofuel expansion; BII impact scores as developed by Biggs et

al (2006) are used to conduct the analysis.

For GHG and climate change impacts two factors are considered, one the lifecycle

carbon balance from jatropha as a biofuel crop, and the second the land-use change

impacts from large-scale biofuel expansion. Given that there are already numerous

Life Cycle Analyses (LCAs) conducted on jatropha, and that further analysis will only

give incremental improvements until actual project data become available, this

section is simply a short literature review of the issue and results. Land-use change

impacts on carbon are considered a more important impact, and one less well

considered for southern Africa. A student of the present author, Gareth Borman,

has attempted to model carbon change at the project level (in von Maltitz et al 2013)

and the research in this thesis concentrates rather on broad-scale southern African

50

Table 2-1. Assessment of ecosystem services for inc lusion. The list of ecosystem services considered i s based on Gasparatos 2011 and 2012. The assessment criteria are as explained in the text: 1) global evidence of importance, 2) i mportant to the region, 3) well- researched in the region, and 4) researched in the thesis. A big tick shows high importance for criter ia 1 and 2, high level of local knowledge 3, or high level of inclusion 4. A small tick indicated minimal importance for criteria 1 an d 2. Limited national knowledge 3 and peripheral inclusion in the thesis 4.

Issue and Ecosystem service

Assessment criteria

Comment

1 2 3 4 GHG emissions

Regulating (Climate change

regulation)

� � � � There have been a number of LCA analyses of jatropha GHG impacts, and given that this study would not

bring new empirical data to the table, at best only marginal improvements to already published data would

be possible. However, the newly available AfSIS data make it possible to develop new methods for

estimating land-use change impacts

Rural development

Provisioning (Fuel or income) � � �

� This is a key concern for southern Africa. There is some macro-economic assessment, but very limited local

assessment available

Food production and security

Provisioning (Food, feed) � � �

� This is a key concern for southern Africa. Global food-fuel debates poorly capture the issues of the sub-

continent.

Biodiversity loss. Biodiversity is “the

foundation of ecosystem services to

which human wellbeing is ultimately

linked” (MA, 2005).

� � � � This is a key concern for southern Africa. Globally there are exceptionally limited data for jatropha, but quite

a bit of information for other biofuels. A regionally wide assessment tool is lacking.

Soil

Regulating (Soil erosion))

� � � There are exceptionally limited data available on soil erosion impacts. Some literature suggests jatropha may

reduce erosion, but where plantations are concerned it probably increases erosion. Given the complexities

of measuring erosion and the suggestion that it is not a major concern, it was not investigated further.

Water

Provisioning (Freshwater)

� � � Available research suggests that jatropha will have relatively minor hydrological impacts. In addition

extensive research has been conducted regarding this in south Africa.

Air

Regulating (Air quality regulation)

� � Though no southern African research is available, there is no indication that growing jatropha will have any

major air impacts (other than CHG impacts covered above).

Health Provisioning (Food,

freshwater)

Regulating (Air quality regulation)

� � � Concern has been expressed over jatropha’s toxicity. There are also suggestions it is used as a traditional

medicine. However neither these issues seem to be major concerns governing jatropha growing in southern

Africa. Clearly health is also linked to nutrition and this is covered in the food security section

Social conflicts (incl.

tenure) � � � � This is an issue difficult to assess. Clearly there has been social conflict caused by the food fuel debate, but it

is not clear if this is based on experience on-the-ground in projects. Equally project collapse will cause

conflict.

Energy security � � � � This is a key reason for growing jatropha and of key importance to the region

51

wide predictions of likely carbon loss from land conversion. The newly available

AfSIS soil carbon database provides a useful tool on which to base this analysis as

does research conducted by the CSIR on standing carbon stocks in woody

vegetation (Scholes et al. 2013).

For completeness the chapter also highlights some additional ecosystem-service

impacts that are not covered further in the thesis either due to extensive existing

data (hydrology) or because substantive data are not readily available, and could not

be collected within the scope of this study.

Although the impacts of GHG emissions and climate change on human well-being

have been extensively researched (e.g. Stern Review 2006), the southern African

biofuel contribution to overall impacts is trivial. It therefore falls outside the scope of

this thesis to consider these human well-being impacts. The same applies to

biodiversity. Whilst the impact of biodiversity loss on human well-being is huge (e.g.

Peach and Moran 1994; Perrings 1997; Splash 2008; TEEB 2010) attributing this

cost back to biofuel projects would be difficult, contentious, and provide limited

benefit.

Chapter 6 concentrates specifically on provisioning services and how a change in

provisioning services impacts on human well-being. This chapter has a national and

local focus. In this chapter the interplay between the production of food versus the

production of fuel reflects the key tradeoff considered, though other provisioning

services such as fodder and fibre are also more briefly considered. Unlike in Chapter

5 where attributing links between ecosystem service changes and human well-being

is difficult, the impacts of the changes in provisioning ecosystem services as

considered in this chapter can be very directly linked back to human well-being,

especially when viewed at the local level.

Chapter 6 makes extensive use of data from two case studies, one in Mozambique

and one in Malawi. It is not the intent of the thesis to present detailed case study

research results. Rather information from the case studies is selectively used to

justify the arguments of predominantly Chapter 6. For further background to the case

studies readers are referred to appendix B. Selection of these case studies was

based on the following criteria:

52

• Case studies were sought where jatropha projects were still ongoing and

where there were indications of possible long-term success.

• One case study was to be of a small grower/outgrower type project whilst the

other was to represent a large-scale jatropha plantation

• The project owners would be prepared to have us conduct research

• One project would be in Mozambique and one in Zambia (changed later to

Malawi). This was agreed with the funders of the research.

• The projects would have been established sufficiently long ago for harvesting

to have commenced.

An informal process of contacting knowledgeable stakeholders was undertaken

to identify possible research projects. Despite wide consultation with Zambian

researchers and project implementers, we could not identify any Zambian project

that met our criteria and therefore decided to look for a Malawi project instead.

We decided on Niqel in Mozambique and BERL in Malawi as suitable study

projects. No other potential projects were identified that met the selection criteria.

A field research visit was undertaken in March 2013 to the identified Malawi and

Mozambique projects. At both project sites semi-structured interviews were held

with the project senior staff as well as with local chiefs in the project area and

with community groups. In addition questionnaire interviews using a mix of

qualitative measures as well as open-ended questions were administered. A total

of 81 questionnaires were split between 46 households not involved in the

project, 22 full-time employees and 13 part-time labourers. The households not

involved in the project were randomly selected by taking the first household on a

pre-defined side of the road after walking 100m down a particular road.

Labourers could not be randomly selected and their selection was opportunistic

based on workgroups operational at the time of the interviews. For the BERL

project 5 villages were selected based on jatropha growing and within these 55

jatropha growing and 41 non-growing households were selected. This survey

captured a large proportion of the village households, with the enumerators

working their way through the village until the required number of households had

been obtained.

53

Chapter 7 draws on the experience from the previous chapters and distils it into

policy relevant recommendations. This chapter addresses the thesis objective f),

namely: provide policy level guidance on achieving sustainable biofuel

implementation.

54

Chapter 3. WHAT TRADEOFFS SHOULD

AFRICAN COUNTRIES BE CONSIDERING WHEN

THEY ENGAGE IN BIOFUEL EXPANSION

This chapter addresses the thesis objectives: a ) Identify the benefits that southern

African countries should be aiming to achieve from biofuel, and b) identify key

drivers for biofuel expansion in southern Africa on the national and local scale.

3.1. Background

A number of certification bodies have developed certification criteria for biofuel

production (Vis et al. 2008; Guariguata et al. 2011; Buchholz et al. 2009; Echols

2009; Fritsche et al. 2011; van Dam et al. 2008; Zarrilli and Burnett 2008). These

provide a useful first step in identifying what the criteria should be when attempting

to understand the likely tradeoffs from biofuel expansion. However, the certification

criteria have tended to take a stronger environmental rather than social view, and

have also tended to consider sustainability more from a project rather than a national

perspective (Guariguata et al. 2011). Further, reducing GHG emissions is a major

global driver for biofuel expansion, but African countries (with the notable exception

of South Africa) have not been the major cause of global CO2 emissions, nor are

they as yet required to have targets for CO2 reduction (IPCC 2007). In fact, if biofuel

is only destined for national use by southern African countries then there is a strong

argument to be made that developmental and fuel security objectives should be the

prime objectives and if biofuel meets these criteria, it could be pursued regardless of

the CO2 emission impacts. However, if biofuel is to be exported, then adhering to

emission criteria will be important as it is a key driver for many importing countries.

For South Africa, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important policy

objective (DEA n.d.).

To understand what tradeoffs should be investigated regarding biofuel development

in southern Africa, three sources of information were considered. Firstly the

extensive literature on biofuel, secondly the certification criteria proposed by

certification bodies for biofuel projects and thirdly considering what African countries

should be attempting to achieve from biofuel expansion. Since the first two issues

55

are extensively covered elsewhere (Vis et al. 2008; Guariguata et al. 2011;

Buchholz et al. 2009; Echols 2009; Fritsche et al. 2011; BBP 2011; van Dam et al.

2008; Zarrilli and Burnett 2008), this chapter will disproportionally focus on the third

issue, i.e. attempting to understand what African countries should be attempting to

achieve through biofuel expansion.

From the literature the following global level tradeoffs were identified as being the

principal global tradeoffs in biofuel development: Global climate forcing (Kline et al.

2009; Smeets 2008; IPCC 2007), global fuel security (Fischer et al. 2009; Danielsen

2008), global food security (HLPE 2013a; Rosillo-Calle and Johnson 2010) and

global biodiversity (Fletcher et al. 2010; Danielsen et al. 2009). At the plantation level

a number of environmental criteria are identified by certification schemes (see Table

3-1). Social criteria are less well covered in certification schemes, though the Round

Table on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) is usually considered the most

comprehensive of the certification schemes regarding social criteria and they identify

the following key social criteria (Table 3-2).

56

Table 3-1. Environment issues as covered in six biofuel sustainability frameworks (Guariguata et al. 2011)

EU

RED

RSB RSPO RTRS BSI

Bonsucro

FSC

Environmental impact assessment

- + + + + +

Good farming practices + + + - + +

Mitigation of indirect LUC or indirect impacts

- + - + - -

Use of degraded lands + + + + - -

Conservation of unprotected areas of significant biodiversity value and HCV areas

+ + + + + +

Conservation of natural ecosystems

+ + + + + +

Ecological corridors, riparian areas

- + + + + -

Genetically modified organisms - + + - + +

Conversion of forest/natural habitat

+ + + + + +

Soil management and soil protection

- + + + + +

Use of agrochemicals - + + + - -

Use of waste and residues + + + + + -

No burning during land clearing - - + - - -

Conservation of above- and below-ground carbon

+ + + - + -

Calculation of GHG emissions from direct LUC

+ + + + + -

Calculation of GHG emissions from indirect LUC

- - - - - -

BSI = Better Sugarcane Initiative – now termed Bonsucro, EU RED = European Union Renewable Energy Directive, FSC = Forest Stewardship Council, GHG = greenhouse gas, HCV = high conservation value, LUC = land-use change, RSB = Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (now Biomaterials), RSPO = Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, RTRS = Round Table on Responsible Soy Association Note: ‘+’ indicates that the issue is explicitly addressed (either with or without enough guidance for its implementation). ‘–’ indicates that the framework contains little or no specific mention of the issue. Source: from Guariguata et al. 2011 (who had based it on Henneberg et al. (2010) and Scarlat and Dallemand

(2011).

57

Table 3-2. RSB social principles and criteria (RSB 2010)

Principle Criteria

Human and labour

rights

Biofuel operations shall not violate human rights or labour

rights, and shall promote decent work and the well-being of

workers.

Rural and social

development

In regions of poverty, the socio-economic status of local

stakeholders impacted by biofuel operations shall be

improved.

In regions of poverty, special measures that benefit and

encourage the participation of women, youth, indigenous

communities and the vulnerable in biofuel operations shall

be designed and implemented.

Food security Biofuel operations shall assess risks to food security in the

region and locality and shall mitigate any negative impacts

that result from biofuel operations.

In food insecure regions, biofuel operations shall enhance

the local food security of the directly affected stakeholders.

Water Biofuel operations shall respect the existing water rights of

local and indigenous communities.

Land rights Existing land rights and land-use rights, both formal and

informal, shall be assessed, documented, and established.

The right to use land for biofuel operations shall be

established only

when these rights are determined.

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent shall form the basis for

all negotiated agreements for any compensation,

acquisition, or voluntary relinquishment of rights by land-

users or owners for biofuel operations.

58

3.2. Methodology for determining what African count ries should aim to achieve from biofuel development

To determine what Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries may wish to achieve from

biofuel programmes (termed here as desirable outcomes), a synthesis of issues was

derived from a number of Africa-wide, regional or national policy engagements. In

addition, African country commitments to United Nations conventions were

considered. Sources include the Southern Africa Development Community’s (SADC)

biofuel sustainability objectives (SADC 2010); the CSIR/CIFOR/SADC assessment

of objectives, criteria and policy mechanisms; the African Roundtable for Sustainable

Consumption and Production (ARSCP); and the first High-Level Biofuels Seminar in

Africa jointly organised by the African Union, the Government of Brazil and the

United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (IISD/UNIDO 2007). Outcomes

from the COMPETE (Batidzirai et al. 2010) project are considered, including the

COMPETE Arusha declaration (Yamba et al. 2008), COMPETE Lusaka

recommendations (COMPETE 2009), COMPETE recommendations on financing

(Smeets and Faaij 2009) and COMPETE policy recommendations from Brussels

(Janssen and Rutz 2010). Furthermore, individual national policy objectives, as

summarised in von Maltitz et al. (2010) were taken into consideration. In addition,

since all African countries are signatories to the Millennium Development Goals

(MDG), these objectives can be seen as important overarching African development

goals. Most African countries are also signatories to the global environmental

conventions on Biodiversity, Climate Change and Desertification, and the

conventions’ objectives are regarded as representing African commitments.

The 18 desirable outcomes identified have been clustered into four themes:

livelihoods and development; energy poverty and security; attracting appropriate

investment; and sustainable land-use (Table 3-3)

59

Table 3-3. Links between desirable outcomes from African policy level commitment and biofuel development.

Impact areas CSIR/

SADC

SADC

sustain-

ability

objectives

IISD/UNIDO

High-level

biofuel

seminar

COMPETE

Arusha

declaration

COMPETE

Lusaka

recomme

ndation

COMPETE

Financing

recomme

ndations

COMPETE

Brussels

MDG

Livelihood and

development

impacts

1 2 1 2i 3i 4i

5 6i

1 2i 6i 1 2 4 5 6i 1 2 1i 1 (rest

implied)

1 2 3 5

Energy poverty

and security

7 7 8 7 7 8 7i 8 8

Attracting

appropriate

investment

9 10 11

12

10 9 11i 12i 9 10 11i 12i 9 10i 11i

12

9 10i 11

12

9 10 11 12

Sustainable

land-use

16

15

13 15i 16 13i 15i 16 14 13 15 13 15 13 13 15

Notes: Numbers correspond to the following sustainability objectives. An ‘i’ after the number indicates it is

inferred, whereas a number on its own indicates that the objective is clearly articulated in the document

considered. The objectives are: 1) rural development; 2) improved local rural livelihoods; 3) sensitive to gender

equity issues; 4) large-scale projects to benefit rather than displace existing local livelihoods; 5) food security

needs to be protected; 6) greater resilience of rural livelihoods and national economies; 7) increased national

fuel security; 8) increased local access to energy; 9) attract foreign investment that is appropriate and

conditional on achieving policy objectives; 10) value-added products rather than raw biofuel feedstock should

be exported; 11) maximise the retention of financial benefits within the country; 12) a net national economic

benefit; 13) appropriate and sustainable land-use; 14) linked to modernisation of agricultural practices; 15)

environmentally appropriate; 16) no net increase in deforestation; and 17) long-term sustainability.

3.3. The desirable results Africa should hope to ac hieve from biofuels

1. Biofuel development must drive rural development

Biofuel as a driver for rural development is a strong message coming through from

national policies and regional policy forums (Domac et al. 2005; Janssen and Rutz

2009; Harrison et al. 2010a) and would be in line with the first Millennium

Development Goal (MDG). The need for rural development in Africa is an urgent

goal since 76% of the population is living on less than US$2 a day with 53% in

poverty or extreme poverty (under US$1.25 per day). Of those in extreme poverty,

75% are rural (IFAD 2011). In contrast to all other regions globally, rural poverty in

sub-Saharan Africa has increased by 10% from 1988 to 2008 (IFAD 2011). In this

context, biofuel production could potentially have an overall national developmental

impact by reducing foreign exchange expenditure and increasing exports, as well as

attracting investments to the agricultural sector that could translate into jobs and

income for small-scale farmers in rural areas (Diaz-Chavez 2010; Vermeulen et al.

2009). For biofuel development to increase its contribution to rural development, it

should be accompanied by an appropriate policy and institutional environment to

60

ensure that the benefits flow to the rural populations instead of increasing economic

inequities and deepening rural poverty.

Despite the majority of Africa’s population being rural (64%) and the important

contribution of agriculture to national economies, the national expenditure on rural

development throughout Africa remains disproportionally low. International aid and

investment in the agricultural sector is low and has been declining (Rosengrant et al.

2005; Rosengrant 2008; UNESC 2007). Biofuel development could potentially

provide a stimulus for reversing such a trend, and if countries are going to undertake

biofuel expansion, optimising the leverage provided by biofuels for rural development

should be a key priority. Local ownership of the biofuel initiatives by local farmers

and community members is a key aspect of sustainable rural development

(Vermeulen et al. 2009). This is due to the fact that local ownership ensures that the

facility is based to some extent on local resources and needs, and much of the

revenue generated remains in the local economy (Wolde-Georgis and Glantz 2009).

2. Must lead to improvement of local rural livelihoods

Improving the livelihoods of people living in areas targeted for biofuel expansion

should take precedence over creating new livelihood opportunities for people foreign

to the area, such as migratory labour. This desirable outcome is aligned with 1)

above, but emphasises that biofuel development affects individuals and therefore, in

addition to total rural developmental impacts, it is also important to consider who the

winners and losers may be in the process. In most cases biofuel expansion tends to

occur through large-scale operations leading to displacement of land-use activities

that previously provided the basis of livelihoods for rural people, thereby leading also

to the displacement of people (Cotula et al. 2008 and 2009; Sulle and Nelson 2009;

German et al. 2010a). Although new livelihood opportunities are generated, these

may benefit people other than from those affected by the biofuels expansion (Cotula

2011; Graham et al. 2010; Nhantumbo and Salomão 2010). If the total rural

livelihood options after introducing the biofuel project are less than before the

project, then the net effect might be to deepen local poverty, especially amongst

vulnerable groups such as women and children (Bailey 2008; van Eijck et al. 2010;

Wolde-Georgis and Glantz 2009).

61

Energy poverty (i.e. the inability to access modern energy sources) as well as

financial poverty should be considered when considering the developmental impacts

of biofuels. There is a well-established link between energy poverty and financial

poverty, with some evidence that alleviating energy poverty can aid in overall poverty

reduction (Karekezi and Majoro 2002; UNEP 2005).

3. Must be sensitive to gender equity issues

This premise is based on the fact that women in most developing countries are

responsible for securing energy (e.g. fetching firewood for cooking and heating) and

water for their households and doing most of the work in the field. There is,

therefore, the potential that biofuels could assist in liberating women from these

toilsome burdens (Singh and Sooch 2004) and empowering them, by making fuels

more accessible and affordable whilst freeing more time for other activities.

However, establishing large-scale biofuel feedstock plantations and/or small-scale

outgrower projects could have different impacts on men and women. Men and

women within the same household as well as male- and female-headed households

could face different risks, particularly in their access to and control of land and other

productive assets, access to the profits of the biofuel endeavours, their level of

participation in decision-making and socio-economic activities, employment

opportunities and conditions, and their food security. These gender and biofuels

issues are explored in detail by Karlsson and Banda (2009).

4. Where large-scale projects are envisaged, these need to benefit rather than

displace existing local livelihoods

Biofuel expansion is largely being carried out through large-scale projects, and in

many instances this may be a prerequisite for establishing a viable biofuels industry

as investors may require the security of supply guaranteed by large-scale plantations

before being prepared to invest. This is especially true where bulk feedstock such as

sugar and palm oil are coupled with capital investments in processing plants.

Managing the potentially negative social impacts from large-scale plantations, as

well as maximising positive spinoffs from the plantations, may mitigate negative

impacts. The coupling of large-scale plantations with outgrower production is one

potential way to increase local ownership and benefit flows (Diaz-Chavez 2010). In

addition, policies can ensure that large-scale investments are conducted in a socially

62

responsible manner (Harrison et al. 2010b).

5. Food security needs to be protected

The necessity to protect food security when embarking on biofuel programmes is an

important consideration for SSA countries and a component of many biofuel

strategies and policies. Much of Africa is food insecure or only marginally food-

secure despite many areas of good agricultural potential (Eswaran et al. 1997).

Globally, food access per capita has increased by 25% since 1960, whereas for

Africa there has been a 10% decline. Ironically one of the most food insecure groups

in SSA is made up of small-scale farmers, who account for 50% of the food-insecure

(Heidhues et al. 2004). In some countries in Africa, concerns regarding food security

have resulted in governments actively cautioning against the development of

bioenergy. In Tanzania, for instance, as a result of mounting pressure from farmers

and environmental groups, the Government suspended all bioenergy investments

and halted land for bioenergy development (Browne 2009).Similarly, the South Africa

biofuel strategy excludes maize from ethanol production. The links between food

security and biofuel expansion are, however, complex and poorly understood in the

African context, with the possibility of synergistic relationships between biofuel

expansion and food security (Rossi and Lambrou 2009; Cotula et al. 2008).

6. Should lead to greater resilience of rural livelihoods and national economies

A large number of externalities such as climate change, global fuel prices and the

state of the global economy make local individuals and national economies

vulnerable. An important consideration when embarking on biofuel is whether it will

reduce or increase the resilience of the farmers’ livelihood strategies. If farmers are

moving from a diversified farming system to a monocrop of biofuels, then this could

increase vulnerability, but if they include fuel crops within a diverse system they may

reduce their vulnerability by opening up new markets and reducing the risk of total

crop failure in any given year. On the local scale, including biofuels in the crop mix

may increase the resilience of farmers’ livelihood strategies (Cortez et al. 2010).

7. Must lead to increased national fuel security

Energy security is a key driver for biofuel expansion in most SSA national states, and

is expressed in all reviewed biofuel policies (von Maltitz et al. 2010). Only eight SSA

63

countries have identified and exploited fossil fuel reserves, with Nigeria and Angola

combined producing 74% of the region’s continental total fossil fuel (BP Statistical

Review 2010). Given the trend toward high and volatile fossil fuel prices, all African

states are keen to maintain local fuel security. Yet, a trend in many early investment

proposals for African biofuel projects was investors seeking land to produce biofuel

for the EU market instead of trying to fulfil the energy security goals of the producer

countries (Banse et al. 2008; Mohamed 2007). African countries have started to

respond to biofuels’ development, with a growing trend in policy to first meeting

national biofuel targets before allowing exports (Amigun et al. 2011).

8. Must lead to increased local access to energy

SSA countries have a high dependency on traditional biofuels, with the rural areas in

many countries almost totally dependent on traditional biomass energy (fuel wood or

charcoal). In many cases, even urban areas have a high dependency on traditional

energy, typically charcoal (Arnold et al. 2003; World Bank 2009; Zulu 2010).

Although not strongly articulated in many national biofuel policies – which in many

instances are aimed specifically at liquid fuels – local energy provision is a key

element of policy in Mali and Ghana, and is echoed in the COMPETE Arusha

declaration (Yamba et al. 2008; Rainer and Rutz 2009). There is substantial support

from African leaders and academics that biofuels should help facilitate a local

transition from traditional to modern fuel use (UNDESA 2007). Overall, poverty and

energy poverty are closely linked, with numerous studies suggesting that better

access to modern energy sources is a key mechanism for assisting the poor to

escape from poverty (Singh and Sooch 2004; World Bank 2009; UNDESA 2007;

Miranda et al. 2010).

9. There is a high need to attract foreign investment; this investment however,

needs to be appropriate and conditional on achieving policy objectives.

Biofuel expansion in most SSA countries is unlikely without foreign investment to

stimulate the process, due to inadequate national capital investment and low levels

of technical capacity (Amigun et al. 2008). Most African countries actively seek

foreign investment, with a number including Mozambique and Tanzania considering

biofuels as an appropriate means to attract this investment (Sulle and Nelson 2009;

Schut et al. 2010a, b; GoM 2008).Yet, these investments must be made in a socially

64

and environmentally responsible manner in order to avoid negative socio-economic

and environmental effects, such as livelihood displacements, poor wages, reduced

livelihood opportunities, biodiversity loss or deforestation. These impacts are

particularly of concern at the local level (Cotula and Leonard 2010; Cotula et al.

2009). It is also important to ensure that as many as possible of the returns from the

investment remain in the country rather than simply returning to the investor, but also

that the returns are distributed in a more equitable way amongst the local people

either employed in the large-scale plantations or participating in outgrower schemes.

Use of a labour-intensive (with local labour) as opposed to a capital-intensive

approach to project implementation would be one example of how a policy shift in

investment approaches can stimulate greater distribution of benefits whilst also

providing economic multiplier effects in the national economy (GoM 2008; Arndt et

al. 2009). National land use planning is one mechanism to both assist investors in

deciding where to invest as well as protecting aspects such as food security and

biodiversity. In this regard Mozambique in particular has invested extensively in

strategic land-use assessments. SADC has developed SADC wide policy guidelines

(SADC 2010; Learner et al. 2010).

10. Value-added products rather than raw biofuel feedstock should be exported

when servicing export markets

Clearly maximising the national economic benefits from biofuel production is a

priority. Where possible all value-adding should therefore take place within the

country to produce finished products rather than exporting raw feedstock. This

increases both investment and job opportunities within the country as well as

increasing the value of the finished product. International and/or importing country

trade regulations have, on occasion, provided perverse incentives whereby sellers

achieve greater value by exporting raw produce.

The argument for local value-adding can be applied to the local context, with value

being added where the biofuel feedstock is produced rather than the feedstock being

moved to centralised processing plants in large cities; this would enhance the rural

development aspects of biofuel production.

65

11. Maximise the retention of financial benefits within the country

Clearly it is beneficial to countries to retain as many as possible of the financial

benefits from biofuel production. In addition to value-adding, other options can

increase the retention of financial benefits, with mechanisms including promotion of

high labour activities, taxation on profit, regulations on ownership, requirements for

corporate social responsibility, spending and foreign exchange controls. A fine

balance obviously exists between the ability to attract foreign investment, and the

degree to which revenue can be retained in the country. African countries are

predominantly poor, and citizens and governments do not have the financial

resources to invest in expensive biofuel plantations and the processing plants

needed to convert feedstock into biofuels. Therefore, foreign investment is critical.

Investments that result in large numbers of well-paid jobs for local employees will,

however, have far greater national benefits than developments based on high-

mechanisation and job opportunities for foreigners.

12. A net national economic benefit

It is important that biofuels represent a net economic benefit to the country. Where

biofuels have a net economic benefit, but are not financially attractive enough to

attract foreign investment, a case can be made for incentives or subsidies to

promote the industry. In essence this is the approach Brazil took to establish its

biofuel sector. If biofuel projects are financially viable, but not a net economic benefit,

then they should be banned or discouraged. Determining net economic benefits is,

however, complex as some of the costs and benefits such as environmental and

social costs and benefits are difficult to account for (Harrison 2010b). Biofuel is a

relatively unique development in that it has such a huge land-use footprint, and

therefore is likely to have far higher social and environmental impacts than most

other developments (Cotula et al. 2009). It is probable that a multi-criteria approach

rather than a more simplistic financial approach is needed to fully understand the

complete costs and benefits (Bazzani 2005; Bell et al. 2001; Dodgson et al. 2000).

13. Must lead to appropriate and sustainable land-use

Although biofuel feedstock production may be a technically feasible land-use, the

question needs to be asked whether or not it is the most appropriate land-use in any

given scenario. For instance, high-valued food crops may well have a better financial

66

return and provide more job opportunities than relatively low-value biofuel crops. A

number of early biofuel reports suggested that biofuels may be an appropriate land-

use for degraded or marginal land (Openshaw 2000; Francis et al. 2005; Fairless

2007), and this was suggested as being a particular strength of jatropha. Experience,

however, suggests that developers tend to target better quality land as this will give

greater returns, since all crops including jatropha respond to better quality soils.

Yields from biofuel crops planted on degraded or agriculturally marginal land

therefore might not be economically viable for biofuel production (van Eijck et al.

2010; Mengesha 2011).

Both national and international investments in new food crop production ventures are

low in most African situations. By contrast, there is a recent demand for land for

biofuel investment, especially from international investors. The biofuel investment, be

it for large-scale or small-scale plantations, often brings financial and technical

support, and in the case of small farmers, the promise of a market (Amigun et al.

2008). The possibility therefore exists that a relatively low valued biofuel crop (in

terms of dollars or jobs per ha) may receive financial and technical support, whereas

there is no direct foreign investment to support the establishment of more

economically beneficial alternative food crops. In such situations careful

consideration should be given to whether or not the region should embark on biofuel

simply because it will get support via direct foreign investment, or whether it should

try more beneficial land-use options such as food production even in the absence of

investment opportunities. A lower value, more secure investment may be better than

a higher value, uncertain investment. There is relatively good evidence that

outgrower crops that are supported by a mill succeed better than food crops sold into

the open market (Vermeulen and Goad 2006). This is because the mill depends on

feedstock to remain operational and it will therefore provide substantial support to

farmers to ensure that they produce the required feedstock (Vermeulen and Goad

2006). This is particularly true for sectors where mills depend on large volumes of

feedstock that need to be grown nearby to reduce transportation costs, as is the

case with forestry pulp mills or sugar mills (Mayers et al. 2001).

14. Should link to modernisation of agricultural practices

Low agricultural production over most of SSA is linked to poor agronomic practices

67

rather than inherently poor production potential (Eswaran et al. 1997). Enhancing

agricultural practices could simultaneously increase food security whilst freeing up

land for biofuel expansion (Rudel et al. 2009). Infrastructure such as roads, fertiliser

distribution networks and improved market access that is developed to support

biofuels projects could also be used to enhance other agricultural production. In

effect, this could result in a synergistic relationship where both agriculture and

biofuels jointly develop through increased investment in the rural environment. The

injection of cash into previously poor areas through the creation of jobs, shared

transportation of agricultural inputs and the creation of markets for agricultural

surplus could help prevent food/fuel conflicts and allow for the parallel development

of both sectors. Introducing sustainable farming practices for feedstock, based on an

agro-ecological approach (IAASTD) such as conservation tillage, may improve

economic and resource use efficiency, thereby reducing the environmental impacts.

There is also the potential for synergies and integration between biofuel feedstock

by-products, such as using jatropha seedcake as an organic fertiliser to improve

agricultural production (Sinkala 2008; Tigere et al. 2006; Achten et al. 2008).

15. Environmentally sustainable

A development-environment trade-off is inevitable where any development needs

large tracts of land (von Maltitz et al. 2010). Most countries in Africa are signatories

to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) and as such

biodiversity protection should be a priority. Numerous other environmental impacts

could also potentially be involved including changes in hydrology, pollution and land-

use. However, economic development is also a huge priority throughout SSA, and

policy-makers are under stronger pressure to meet their developmental rather than

environmental targets (Lerner et al. 2010). Numerous options are potentially

available to reduce environmental impacts through careful planning and the way

projects are implemented (von Maltitz et al. 2010). Biofuel development might also

be able to slow some of the non-biofuel related drivers of environmental degradation

resulting from rural poverty. For instance, many drivers for the unsustainable use of

traditional fuels are linked to poverty; if biofuels help reduce rural poverty, they might

also reduce the drivers of rural deforestation by allowing people to move to

alternative fuels. Mitigation options to reduce or compensate for biodiversity loss can

help ensure that high conservation areas are not only identified, but also protected.

68

16. Should not lead to net increase in deforestation

Deforestation rates differ extensively between countries in Africa but as a whole,

deforestation in SSA is less than in either South East Asia (SEA) or Latin America

(LA). High rates of deforestation are, however, common in many forested areas in

Africa. The current nature of deforestation in Africa tends to be different from other

regions and at present is not as strongly driven by large-scale agricultural and palm

oil expansion as found in LA and SEA. Charcoal production appears to be a strong

deforestation driver, though the true magnitude is uncertain (World Bank 2009; Mugo

and Ong 2006). Deforestation globally is a major driver of CO2 emissions. In

instances where biofuels are being targeted for international markets it is possible

that they will not be certifiable if their production has resulted in deforestation with

associated carbon emissions and biodiversity loss, e.g. the EU RED directive (EC

2009).

17. Positive impact on global climate forcing

This criterion has been left until second last as it may not be relevant to all biofuel

projects. If Africa has a potential for a positive development model, and the biofuel

produced is used domestically, then the GHG emissions may not be a relevant

criterion. Certainly if the crop grown was not for biofuel it is unlikely that this

question would be asked.

However, there are also circumstances where this question becomes important. For

South Africa emission reductions are an important policy agenda. This is in part

because South Africa has a per capita emission rate on a par with many developed

countries (IPCC 2007) due to the high use of coal for both electricity generation and

the production of petroleum products.

In addition certain industrial sectors are under increased pressure to reduce

emissions. One such sector is the aviation industry which would like to see 50% of

aviation fuel coming from biofuels in the near future, and obviously to achieve this

goal, the biofuel would have to adhere to emission standards. Projects that reduce

emissions may be able to access some form of climate change funding. Finally, all

exports of fuels to Europe would need to meet certain minimum requirements if they

69

are to fulfil the RED mandate.

18. Long-term sustainability

Long-term financial, social and environmental sustainability is required for a viable

biofuels initiative. Achieving this will require consideration of all of the above

mentioned desirable outcomes. Adherence to all national legislation is also

important, as well as the minimum standards set out in the various certification

standards where these are applicable.

3.4. Discussion

The above analysis attempts to take an Africa-centric view on the benefits that

should be expected from biofuel expansion. Though other regions are not analysed,

desirable outcomes and drivers of biofuel expansion are likely to differ substantially

from those of Western Europe and the USA. Though possibly closer to issues

pertinent to other developing regions, Africa, and southern Africa as a sub-region,

have many unique realities that will mean that biofuel development and the benefits

that derive from it will be unique. Probably the most important difference between

southern Africa (excluding South Africa) and developed nations in general is the

importance of climate mitigation. Though climate mitigation occurs frequently in the

African narrative on biofuel, it is suggested that in reality climate mitigation impacts

from biofuel are of little importance to African states other than as related to biofuel

markets within the West. As non-annex 1 countries, African states are not currently

obliged to meet climate mitigation targets. However, the importance of both rural

and national development is a key southern African concern. Though fuel security for

biofuels will be common between many southern African states and the Europe and

USA, in Africa’s case it is probably the cost of supply which is the major concern,

rather than actual access to petroleum products.

The analysis in this section is based on wide-scale consultation, based primarily on

organised policy engagement. Some of this was done by the author, or was in

situations where the author was involved, but the major part comes from a number of

independent (published) policy engagement initiatives. Despite the relatively wide-

70

scale nature of the consultation, it still only managed to interact with a small number

of interested parties. This is partly as a consequence of the nature of biofuel which

makes it an energy initiative, transport initiative, agricultural initiative, environmental

initiative, investment initiative and a development initiative. As such biofuel policy

relates to five or more government departments within a single country as well as to

a wide range of private and NGO sector role-players. Given the wide range of role-

players, spread over a large number of countries, there will be both a diversity of

viewpoints as well as the high probability that some viewpoints will not be captured.

71

Chapter 4. REVIEW OF BIOFUEL FEEDSTOCK

PROJECTS

4.1. Introduction

This chapter addresses thesis objective c), namely to identify the nature of biofuel

expansion within southern Africa. The aim of the chapter is to develop a typology of

biofuel projects in southern Africa so that determinants of sustainability and

mechanisms to ensure sustainability in the biofuel sector can be better understood

and developed.

Most African farmers are smallholder farmers on only a few hectares of customary

land. Terminology is not consistent in the literature with subsistence farmers,

smallholders and peasant farmers often used to describe these very small-scale

farmers (IAC 2004). The term ‘smallholders’ or ‘peasant farmer’ will be used to

distinguish the truly small producers from the small to medium-sized commercial

farmers (for whom the term ‘commercial farmers’ will be used). Some key differences

are given in Table 4-1. Excluding South Africa with its large commercial farmers, in

other SADC states a large proportion of food crops is produced by smallholders.

Even within these smallholders, it is the larger farms that tend to produce the bulk of

the surplus, with the smaller farms typically producing food only for subsistence

purposes, and in many cases not even fully meeting family subsistence needs (IFAD

2011; Wiggins 2009).

The terms contract farming and outgrower schemes are largely synonymous and

often used interchangeably. Baumann (2000) defines contract farming thus:

"Contract farming refers to a system where a central processing or exporting unit

purchases the harvests of independent farmers and the terms of the purchase are

arranged in advance through contracts” and Nucleus Estate-Outgrower Schemes

thus: “ A core estate and factory is established and farmers in the surrounding area

grow crops on part of their own land, which they sell to the factory for processing”.

Glover and Kusterer (1990) suggest that outgrowers connote a government scheme,

possibly in association with a private company, but in most of the biofuel literature

72

the terms are used to denote linkages to private companies.

Table 4-1. Some differences between smallholders and small to medium-sized commercial farmers

Smallholders Small to medium-sized commercial farmers

Most produce is for home consumption,

with the opportunistic sale of any surplus.

Some exceptions exist where high-value

cash crops such as tobacco are grown

totally for sale (Haywood et al. 2008)

Most production is for sale, though there

may be home consumption of part of the

crop

Largely household labour A mix of mechanisation, household labour

and hired labour

Multiple crops A focus on one or two key marketable crops

Multiple household livelihood strategies Sale of agricultural crops is the key livelihood

strategy

Mostly traditional cropping practices with

low levels of inputs

Mostly modern cropping practices with high

inputs

Farm sizes of typically only a few ha Farm sizes ranging from 10s to 100s of ha.

4.2. Methods

A number of biofuel projects were visited between 2008 and 2010 in South Africa,

Zambia, Mozambique and Malawi. A semi-structured interview was used to obtain

information from project managers. The set of open-ended topics covered: feedstock

grown; model for growing feedstock; ownership model; links between the growers

and the processing plant; size of land holding; employment numbers and

employment per ha; environmental policies; the previous land-use; intended market

for the feedstock and fuel; reasons for their choice of feedstock; expected yield; and

potential impacts on food security. In a few instances employees or outgrowers were

also interviewed, including data from 100 interviews of small-scale farmers in a

jatropha project area in Zambia. These field visit data were supplemented through:

an extensive literature review; information from project web sites and financial

statements (of listed companies); project presentations at national and international

73

conferences and workshops. Discussions, both formal and informal, were held with

a wide variety of people involved in, or linked to, the biofuel industry.

In a number of projects there are both core plantation and outgrower components. In

these instances the core plantation was considered as a separate production model

from the outgrowers. Where no data were available on the size of outgrower farms,

a size of less than 10ha was assumed. A wide disparity in the quantity and quality of

data meant that for many data variables there were no data available for specific

projects. This precluded rigorous statistical analysis of the data set, with analysis

being limited to inspection. Project clustering was based on manual clustering using

multiple sortings of the database.

4.3. Results

Thirteen projects were directly visited, with secondary data collected for a further 11

projects (see Table 4.2). Logistically it was impossible to investigate all southern

African projects, and the sample is not statistically random; however our sample size

represents about 25% of the estimated total number of projects in southern Africa

making it reasonably representative. Sampling is biased to larger and better

documented projects, with small NGO or community projects potentially under-

represented. The quality of data obtained from the different data sources and from

the interviews varied considerably. In some instances companies were reluctant to

divulge some information which they saw as proprietary, whilst in other cases the

available literature had limited information. Despite this, the extensive consultation

undertaken with government officials, industry representatives and other role-players

suggests that the trends observed from the projects investigated are representative

of the industry at large.

From the projects investigated a number of differentiating factors were identified that

distinguished production models, including: the feedstock producer’s motivation for

producing feedstock; the intended final market for the biofuel; the ownership model

of the feedstock producer; the spatial scale of feedstock production; the degree to

which feedstock production dominated the farmers’ farming activities; and the

species used for feedstock production. Despite this diversity, it was found that

74

projects tended to form clusters with many common factors between projects. Two

distinct clusterings of attributes were found to describe all southern African projects.

The first one related to the intended final purpose for which the fuel was being

produced, and the other related to the size and ownership of the production unit.

75

Table 4-2 Summary of key aspects of the feedstock production in select Southern African biofuel projects, based either on project visit data, interviews or literature. The main period for project visits was the first half of 2008.

Project Key management model

Feedstock crop Funding Size of individual plantations Key objective for biofuel production Reference

African biofuel and emission reduction (Pty) Tanzania

Corporate plantations Croton Not clear A, B

Biomass Energy Resources Limited (BERL) Malawi,

Outgrowers Jatropha Dutch NGO trust fund

Small scale National fuel blend C

Biomassive Tanzania Corporate plantation Jatropha and Pongamia

Listing Norwegian stock exchange

Large scale National and export markets D

Bioshape Tanzania Ltd Corporate plantation Jatropha International investors - Dutch

Large scale Export to Europe E

Cradoc Sugar Beet South Africa Industrial Development Corporation

Sugar Beet National development funds

Medium scale and possibly small scale

National fuel blends F

C3 (Climate Change Corporation) Mozambique

Corporate plantation, small scale outgrower

Jatropha Private large + Small National fuel blends I

D1 Zambia Corporate plantations, small scale outgrowers

Jatropha Listed on London Stock exchange

Large Medium Small

Original objective was export, but re-evaluing for local markets

I

Diligent Energy Systems Netherlands Tanzania

Small scale outgrowers

Jatropha Small Possibly medium

Selling to safari company to use in modified cars

A,G

Elaion AG Small scale farm and small scale outgrower

Jatropha German investors Small Not defined

Energem Corporate plantations Jatropha Listed on Toronto Stock Exchange

Large (18 000 Ha) National fuel bends I H

ESV Mozambique

Corporate Jatropha Private and foreign Medium National fuel blends I H

Farming for Energy for better livelihoods in southern Africa FELISA

Large scale and outgrowers

Oil Palm Private company - Belgium

large National fuel blend and export – though possibly moving to food oil

J

FACT Foundation Mozambique Hedgerows for local small scale farmers

Jatropha Mostly Dutch – development support funding

Small

Local electricity generation A K I

GEM Madagascar Large corporate farms Jatropha Foreign Investors Large International sales I L Illovo Sugar Estates (Presscane) Malawi

Corporate plantation Sugar cane South African – Plantation Malawi – Ethanol distillery

Large Small

National fuel blend and export regionally I

76

References A Sulle and Nelson 2009 B Biofuelsafrica.com C Kambewa and Chiwaula 2010 D Biomassive.andrewmacpherson.za.net [internet] E BioShape Tanzania Ltd [internet] F Masinga 2010 G Diligent-Tanzania.com [internet]. H Ribeiro and Matavel 2008 I Personal interviews, discussions with or attending presentations from the company J de Keyser and Hongo 2005 K FACT foundation [internet] L Gem BioFuels [inernet]. M Primary data collection from communities at project site

Project Key management model

Feedstock crop Funding Size of individual plantations Key objective for biofuel production Reference

Marli investment Zambia

Contracts with small scale farmers

Jatropha Small 1 – 7 ha

National fuel blends I M

MMI Small scale outgrowers

Soybeans and sunflower

Local government Small National fuel blends I M

Oval biofuels Zambia Contracts with small scale farmers + corporate farms

Jatropha Large Medium Small

Oval biofuels and National fuel blends I M

Procana – CAMEC Mozambique

Corporate plantation – no longer active

Sugar cane Private Large (30 000 Ha) National fuel blends I

Roger Sheriff Zambia

Private farmer – to replace purchased fuel

Jatropha and sunflower

private Medium On farm use I

Sekab/BAFF Tanzania

Corporate plantation Sugar cane Swedish investors Large Export to Sweden A, I

SilverSands South Africa

Private Maize / sugar beet Private Large Local – Ethanol cooking gel I M

Sun Biofuel Mozambique and Tanzania

Corporate plantation Jatropha Trading Emissions PLC

Large National fuel blends / exports A H

Thromro Biofuels South Africa

Private Jatropha Private Medium Local use A

77

4.3.1 Key reasons for biofuel feedstock production

A dichotomy in the primary objectives driving biofuel expansion was observed.

Though most projects aimed to provide biofuels for national or international

transportation fuel blends, a number of projects were also identified where biofuel is

used as a mechanism for meeting local fuel needs. In theory there could be a

continuum in distance to market from local to international, but in practice the drivers

for growing biofuels for local markets are uniquely different from the reasons for

growing biofuels for national and international markets.

4.3.1.1 Key characteristics of biofuel produced for national and international

petroleum blending

The Introduction of mandatory biofuel blends in the EU (EU 2009), and the possibility

of national biofuel blends is clearly the driver for the establishment of most biofuel

projects reviewed. It is the provision of feedstock for these international or national

transportation fuel markets that has attracted direct foreign investment (DFI) from

offshore investors to invest in biofuels. Key to these projects are that they are

established to produce biofuel for an external market as an income generating

activity, and the biofuels are a cash crop for the farmer. Figure 4-1 (C and D)

illustrates how the biofuel producer entities are separated (both spatially and

institutionally) from the biofuel consumers and that there is a flow of biofuels from the

producer to consumer, with a flow of cash income in the opposite direction. In Figure

4-1 (D) the feedstock producer and the processing facility are a single corporation,

whilst in Figure 4-1 (C) the feedstock is produced by independent farmers

(outgrowers, contract farmers, or commercial farms) and sold to the processing

plant.

Many projects were identified based on large corporate plantations including: D1,

Sun Biofuel Ltd (Sun Biofuels), GEM, ESV, SEKAB group (SEKAB) and Procana. A

common feature is that investors request land for plantations ranging in size from

thousands to hundreds of thousands of hectares. These projects tend to have the

sole purpose of producing biofuel feedstock and are mono-culture plantations.

78

In many cases the large plantations are linked to outgrower schemes, and in a few

cases the entire project is based on an outgrower model (see Table 4-2). Though

data could not be ascertained on the size of all outgrower schemes land holdings,

the data available suggest that these are almost always below 10ha in extent,

though typically they are only one to two ha.

Figure 4-1. Flow diagram of Biofuel (Solid arrows) and financial (hollow arrows) flows in projects where biofuel is used for local energy sustainability (A and B) versus national and international fuel security (C and D). The width of the arrow is in proportion to the size of the flow within that specific model.

4.3.1.2 Key characteristics of biofuel production for local fuel security

Traditional fuel wood usage dominates energy consumption in sub-Saharan Africa,

and contributes over 90% of rural energy in many countries in southern Africa (see

section 1.8.10). A lack of modern fuels is a consequence, but also a driver, of

poverty (Masud et al. 2007). In an attempt to overcome this, many NGOs, often in

Tanzania, promote the establishment of multi-functional platforms, such as a diesel

engine that can drive electric generators, water pumps, grain mills or other such

A B

C D

Company

producers

feedstock

Company produces

biofuel

Feedstock used to meet liquid

fuel blending targets

Corporation boundary

National or international

fuel market

Farmer

producers

feedstock

Company produces

biofuel

Feedstock used to meet liquid

fuel blending targets

Farm boundary Corporation boundary

National or international

fuel market

Farmer

produces

feedstock

Farmer

produces

biofuel

Fuel used for

lighting cooking

and farming

Farm boundary

Farmer

produces

feedstock

Local electricity utility

produces electricity /

milling service

Farmer

purchases

electricity and

other services

Other users

purchase

electricity

Village boundary

79

applications, which are also being converted to biofuel (Batidzirai 2010).

In contrast to the projects described in 4.1.1 above, a few projects were identified

where the biofuels are being grown to provide local energy needs. In other words,

the crop is not a cash crop, but rather it is grown for the energy that it can provide

the feedstock grower or the grower’s local community. In the simplest model (as

illustrated in Figure 4-1 (A)) the farmer grows the feedstock to meet the on-farm

energy needs. Some projects, however, are based on community level energy

provision. This can be in the form electricity generation (projects FACT

Mozambique) (Practical Action Consulting 2009; Wijgerse 2008), for household

cooking or lighting (FACT, Silversands) or for powering multi-functional platforms

(Batidzirai 2010). In essence, the key objective of all these projects is to achieve

local farm or community level fuel sustainability and to allow the communities access

to modern fuels. In cases were biofuel feedstock is sold, it is to local structures that

will provide local energy to the local residents (as illustrated in Figure 4-1 (B)). If

transportation fuel is produced, it is used by the producer or sold locally to increase

access to fuel and energy, and is not used as part of a national biofuels blending

target. In this regard only biodiesel was proposed as a local transportation fuel.

A key feature of the above projects is that they tend to be initiated by an NGO and, in

most cases, use external funding and/or government support to assist in their

establishment; for instance FACT receives money from Dutch charity lotteries (FACT

Mozambique n.d.). Biofuels are envisaged as a mechanism to assist the community

in bridging the gap from traditional biomass to modern fuels, especially electricity,

though they are more likely to complement rather than replace traditional fuels.

These projects tend to be cooperative projects involving a community or village, and

are often dominated by small-scale, resource-poor farmers providing the feedstock.

Some relatively large commercial farms are investigating on-farm biofuel production

to provide their own on-farm fuel needs. One such famer is Roger Sheriff of Zambia

who has been experimenting with jatropha and sunflower oil seeds on his farm

(Roger Sheriff pers com June 2008). A number of South African farmers are also

experimenting with this option. In these cases producing biofuel is seen as a way of

reducing the costs associated with purchasing liquid fuels. The prime motivation is

80

their own fuel security and self-sufficiency, though it is likely that any surplus fuel

would be sold locally to neighbouring farmers. Though no operating projects were

identified, mining houses in Zambia are also considering this option (CEC, nd;

Vermark pers com 2007). Not only will it benefit partnership with local governments

but also intergovernmental bi-lateral agreements looking to biofuels as a potential

mechanism to bring modern fuel to rural communities. The Folkecenter project in

Mali (though outside of southern Africa) is probably the best documented example of

such a project (Practical Action Consulting 2009; Wijgerse 2008). In the Mali case a

local electricity grid driven by three diesel powered generators will provide electricity

to 175 households (Practical Action Consulting 2009; Wijgerse 2008). The

generators are adapted to run on pure jatropha oil and local farmers will grow

jatropha seeds which they will sell to the locally run electricity utility. Similar projects

in southern Africa are the FACT Foundation (FACT) in Northern Mozambique (Sulle,

Nelson 2009; CEC, n.d.). FACT is also directly promoting jatropha as a fuel source

for simple lamps and stoves. They see this as a potential social responsibility

programme that can increase job opportunities for surrounding communities. A

similar model of local fuel self-sufficiency, though outside SADC, is the Muzizi Tea

Estate in Uganda. Muzizi Tea Estate produces heat and electricity to run their tea

processing activities from a wood gasification generator. The fuel for the gasification

is grown in a dedicated timber plantation which forms part of the tea estate

(Buchholz and Volk 2007).

The Silversand ethanol project, in South Africa, is a unique case. They produce

ethanol from a small-scale distillery (1,000,000 l/year) which they market as a fuel for

ethanol gel3 stoves. The fuel is sold nationally as an alternative to paraffin stoves

and is potentially safer as it does not spill, so is less likely to set houses on fire, a

common occurrence in informal settlements. This is a vertically integrated business

in that they cultivate the feedstock, produce the biofuel and manufacture and market

the stoves (Derik Mathews pers com 2010) (Silversands Ethanol, n.d.). The concept

of using ethanol gel as a replacement for traditional fuels has been researched in

Tanzania (Zuzarte 2007). Outside of the SADC region this model is being piloted in

Ethiopia and Brazil (Mengessha 2011).

3 Ethanol gel is a blend of ethanol and starch and is used in low cost stoves. Because it does not flow, it is less

of a fire hazard than liquid fuels.

81

4.3.2 Ownership and management of production units

Biofuel feedstock production was found to take place based on three different

ownership models. Smallholder farmers, mostly on some form of communal land, are

numerically the most common feedstock production units. Commercial farmers, on

freehold and leasehold land were relatively rare, but this might in part be due to

difficulties in identifying these individuals. Large-scale corporate plantations, mostly

on leasehold land, though not numerically large, account for a large proportion of the

total land area dedicated to biofuel.

Much of southern Africa’s land is under some form of customary tenure and farmed

by smallholder farmers. When these resource-poor smallholders engage in biofuel

production, it is typically as a complementary activity to ongoing agricultural activities

and as such biofuel feedstock only covers a small proportion of the land (e.g. the

Oval biofuels (Oval) and Marli investments (Zambia) Ltd (Marli) jatropha projects in

Zambia or the Diligent project in Tanzania). Biofuel projects may bring technical and

financial support to farmers, as is the case with Oval, Marli and Diligent, and in

addition provide guaranteed markets for the produce. In the case of Marli, farmers

are expected to enter into 30-year contracts as a condition for technical and financial

assistance (Haywood et al. 2008). When jatropha is grown, smallholder farmers tend

to integrate biofuels into existing farmland and farming practice. Sugar cane,

however tends to be grown in dedicated fields and in some cases biofuel projects

may assist farmers in establishing new fields. For instance Sekab (2008) have

suggested that smallholders farm large contiguous blocks of biofuels.

Commercial farms are differentiated from smallholders partly by farm size, but also

on ownership, with the farm typically being held in freehold tenure or leasehold. The

commercial farm, though possibly being registered as a company, is managed by the

farmer as a ‘family farm’, though the size of the farm dictates that paid labour is used

in addition to the farmers’ labour, to undertake the farming activities. Some level of

mechanisation is also likely. Though the nationality of ownership was not specifically

considered, it is likely that ownership is held by a mix of nationals and immigrants.

Some commercial farmers were identified who grew biofuel feedstock as part of a

82

broader farming activity. No commercial farmers were found to be dedicated to

biofuel feedstock production, though this model is common in existing South African,

Malawi and Zimbabwean sugar production. D1 Oil and Oval, in their business model

for Zambian biofuel, foresee a model where the core plantation would be

supplemented by medium-scale commercial farmers and then numerous smallholder

outgrowers. In Zambia these medium-scale farmers are not only on freehold land,

but are also concession farmers on customary land. As far as we could ascertain,

none of the D1 medium-scale farms have been established, though the Oval website

states that it has 12 of what it terms ‘contract growers’ who are commercial farmers

who would plant a core plantation and in addition establish outgrowers.

Corporate plantations typically have corporate ownership and are managed by a

dedicated manager rather than the owner. A mix of permanent and casual waged

labourers as well as mechanisation is used. Many of the corporate projects

identified are listed on an international stock exchange such as the London Stock

Exchange (Table 4-2). As such most of these projects have international ownership,

and are often managed by expatriates. Corporate-owned plantations are a common

choice for the large biofuel investors. In essence the investor acquires rights to

establish a biofuel feedstock farm or plantation, which will be used exclusively for

biofuel production. These are sometimes referred to as concession farmers (Dubois

et al. 2008), The biofuel feedstock is then produced as a monocrop using advanced

production techniques. This model has been used by D1, Sun Biofuel, GEM, ESV,

Sekab and Procana to name just a few. It is not uncommon for companies to enter

into a mixed model and to support outgrowers in addition to corporate plantations

(e.g. Sekab, Oval, D1).

Where companies purchase feedstock from third-party growers, these growers may

act as contract farmers under a seasonal or long-term contract to the company, or as

independent growers who farm independently and then sell their produce to the best

market. Markets for biofuels are still poorly developed, however, so examples of

independent growers are few, though some independent smallholders were

identified when doing research in the Mulungushi Community of Kabwe, Zambia

(Haywood et al. 2008).

83

4.3.3 Size of the biofuel feedstock production unit s

By the size of the biofuel feedstock production unit we refer to the size of the land

being farmed by an individual farmer or company. This farm or plantation may be a

contiguous block or split over a few locations. Biofuel is being produced by

smallholder farmers on small land holdings where less than 1 ha is devoted to

biofuel, as well as on dedicated biofuel plantations that are thousands or even

hundreds of thousands of ha in extent. For instance, Sekab, before it disinvested,

was considering an area of 400 000 ha under sugarcane in Tanzania (Songela and

Maclean 2008). Since most projects are still being established, the actual area

planted is typically less than that earmarked for planting. In addition the size of land

requested by investors for biofuel production is often considerably larger than the

actual area finally granted (Table 4). In-between these two extremes are commercial

farmers who have farms ranging from tens to thousands of ha. This commercial farm

model is very common in the South African situation, where over 80 % of land is

privately owned, and this is how most sugar cane is produced for the South African

sugar industry.

The average smallholder farm size across all of sub-Saharan Africa is less than 2ha

(Wiggins 2009), but it is likely to be areas where farmers have slightly larger farm

sizes that get targeted for biofuel. The smallholder farmers in the Mulungushi

Community of Kabwe, Zambia, typically have 10 ha plots, but on average had

planted 1.1 ha to jatropha, with some farmers opting for only 0.2 ha, this despite

Marli and Oval suggesting 7 ha should be planted (Haywood et al. 2008). The

farmers on the MMI farm in South Africa had 10 ha and these were fully planted to

oilseeds. The communal farmers around Silversand South Africa had 15 ha plots

leased to Silversands. This is however exceptional for South Africa where most

smallholders in the communal areas have fields of one hectare or less (van Zyl et al.

2001). Silversands is a typical South African commercial farm and has its own

farmland of about 300 hectares (Derik Mathew pers com 2008).

Three unique clusterings of projects based on size and ownership are distinguished.

84

Smallholder producers . These are farms normally of less than 10 hectare, but

typically less than five hectare, usually on customary land and managed by local

resource-poor farmers. These farmers are typically local to the area, normally do not

have freehold title, and therefore cannot use land as collateral. These farmers are

often termed outgrowers when they are linked to large-scale commercial plantations

or biofuel processing companies. They are also sometimes referred to as contract

farmers, as they might have entered into short or long-term contracts to supply

biofuel to a biofuel company. There is also the possibility for independent

smallholder producers and this is observed in the palm-oil sector in Tanzania

(though predominantly for food oil at present) and in the jatropha sector. These

smallholders may also be producing biofuel for farm or village level fuel provision.

Medium-scale commercial farmers. These are commercial farmers farming on

private land (freehold) or on leased or concession land. Farm sizes typically range

from a few hundred to a few thousand ha. The farm may be dedicated entirely to

biofuel feedstock production, or biofuel production may be one crop in a mixed

farming enterprise. The farmer typically sells the feedstock to a processing company

or mill (if supporting biofuel blends) or processes the feedstock on the farm (if for

own energy use), The farmer may have a long-term contract to supply the mill or

operate as an independent supplier. Though farms are often corporate entities, what

distinguishes the commercial farmers from the corporate producers is that the farm is

managed by the farmer as a family farm, with the famer being the principal owner

and manager. Distinguishing the small commercial farm from the large smallholders

is less clear, and there is a continuum from large smallholders producing dedicated

biofuels for a cash income can be considered as small commercial farmers.

Large-scale corporate plantations. These farms are typically owned by a large

corporation and can range from thousands to tens of thousands of ha in extent.

Some companies have even requested hundreds of thousands of ha. Farming of

biofuels may be in support of fuel for other corporate activities, but more commonly

the corporation is dedicated to biofuel production. The corporation often owns its

own biofuel processing mills and the farming activities provide feedstock to the mills.

These farms are mostly owned by international investors, and in many cases are

listed companies.

85

4.3.4 Development of a typology

As discussed above, biofuel production units tend to fall into three distinct size

classes that are a function of both ownership and management, i.e. smallholder

(typically less than ten ha), commercial farmers (tens to thousands of ha) and

corporate plantations (mostly thousands of hectares). In addition biofuel is grown for

two distinctly different reasons based on the end use of the biofuels. A two by three

matrix based on the above generates a typology of six uniquely different biofuel

feedstock production systems (Figure 4-2). This typology draws on ideas from

(Dubois 2008; Haywood et al. 2008; von Maltitz 2009). Though examples of projects

(or proposed projects) can be found for all typologies, some options such as the

‘corporate fuel’ (type C) are extremely rare. It is the ‘corporate plantations’ (type F)

that have attracted extensive media coverage as these are seen as being linked to a

foreign company land grab in Africa (World Bank 2010). Though both axes of the

typology represent continuums, in practice the project types are typically well defined

and can be easily allocated to a specific typology. Key characteristics and

examples of each type of production system are provided in Table 4-3.

Excluding South Africa, few projects were found in the type B and type E projects,

and a simplified four block typology can describe most southern African biofuel

projects. This simplified model is used in Chapter 7.

86

Inte

nd

ed

ma

rke

t

Size and ownership of the feedstock production unit

Village fuel

security

Type A

Farm fuel

security

Type B

Corporate fuel

security

Type C

Outgrowers

Type D

Independent

producers

Type E

Corporate

plantations

Type F

Ma

rke

t b

ase

d t

oo

ls

GH

G a

ke

y c

on

cern

Ru

ral d

eve

lop

me

nt

too

ls

GH

G n

ot

an

iss

ue

Figure 4-2. A typology of Southern African biofuel projects production models based on size, ownership of the biofuel feedstock estate and intended market of the end product.

87

Table 4-3. : Key characteristics and examples of biofuel production models

Scheme Key Characteristics Examples

Village fuel

security

Type A

In this model smallholder farmers provide feedstock

to a local processing company or use it themselves for

local energy provision. Fuel could be used for lamps

and stoves. Alternatively fuel can be used for a local

power utility which distributes the energy to

households in neighbouring villages or to power a

Multi-Functional Platform providing milling, pumping

and power generation. Payment for the electricity

supports both the operational costs of the power

utility as well as the farmers. Variations on this model

could have communal village land used for the

production of the feedstock. It is also possible for

producers to grow feedstock in a cooperative

arrangement with the energy provider. These types of

projects are typically non-profit, and have high NGO

involvement in their initiation and may require

subsidies to be viable. Labour will be largely from the

household. The farmers producing the feedstock are

typically resource-poor and on communal land. The

feedstock is probably only produced on a portion of

the farmland with the remaining land reserved for

food crops. The biofuel may well be grown on

underutilised land or as hedges.

Folkercentre in Mali

FACT Mozambique

MMI

Farm fuel

security

Type B

The most common use of this model is large-scale

farmers producing biofuels for their own on-farm

energy use. This is most likely to involve methane and

biodiesel, but other technologies such as gasification

or even micro-distilleries for ethanol are possible. In

these cases the farmer is seeking to lower input costs

or ensure greater reliability in energy supply. Surplus

fuel may be sold, most likely locally and from the

farm. Alternatively, the farmer could be involved as a

contract farmer in local, small-scale biofuel projects

such as the combined electricity and heat projects

being promoted widely in Europe, though no project

of this nature was found currently in southern Africa.

Farmers in Zambia, Namibia and South Africa are

Roger Sheriff,

Zambia

Bothaville ethanol

from Johnson grass

project

Thromro

88

experimenting with jatropha and annual oil seeds to

produce fuel for on farm use.

Corporate

fuel security

Type C

These would be corporations which produce biofuel to

meet their local energy needs or the energy needs of

surrounding communities. Currently this is a relatively

rare type of development scheme. In essence a

commercial enterprise would establish a small biofuel

processing plant to provide local energy needs. For

instance the Muzizi Tea Estate in western Uganda uses

short rotation forestry and gasification to meet its

electricity and heat needs. Mines could grow fuel to

meet their local electricity and fuel needs. This would

be especially valuable to remote mines that rely on

diesel generators for power. In addition to cost

savings it would help the mine bring development

opportunities to surrounding communities.

Silversands ethanol gel project has been included here

as it provides safe fuel for low income households to

use for cooking. It is unique in that it serves a national

rather than local market, and that its size and

ownership has commonalities with type B projects.

Silversands (though

this has a relatively

unique and slightly

different model)

Has been proposed

by mines in Zambia

Muzizi Tea Estate

Outgrowers

Type D

In this model smallholder farmers provide feedstock

to large-scale corporate biofuel producers. The

farmers typically have only a few ha available for

feedstock production, and in many instances have

mixed farming systems where only a portion of their

land is dedicated to biofuels. In most cases where this

model is used for sugarcane, small-scale farmers are

linked to large corporate farms which provide the bulk

of the feedstock. In biodiesel projects there is greater

potential to have projects totally dependent on small-

scale farmers, but even here mixed models are more

common. Biofuel companies typically provide

extensive support to the outgrowers. In return, the

company may require the farmer to enter into long-

term contracts that bind the farmer to selling to the

corporation at a particular price. These farms are

often on customary land, limiting the use of land as

collateral for loans. The biofuel company will

therefore often assist in financing the projects or

Marli biodiesel

Zambia

Oval Biodiesel

Zambia

D1 Zambia (in

mixed model with

corporate farm)

Sekab(in mixed

model with

corporate farm)

89

providing inputs. In the absence of a corporate

market, these projects would have no local use for

their biofuels produce.

Independent

producers

Type E

Commercial farmers grow biofuel feedstock on the

privately owned farms which is sold to a processing

mill. The farmer may, but need not be, on a long-term

contract arrangement with the processing mill.

Farming is done using intensive methods, and may be

either labour intensive or mechanised. Large labour

forces are involved, but jobs may be relatively menial

unless there is a high degree of mechanisation. It is

common in many developed countries in Europe and

is the predominant European model. This model is

likely to dominate in areas with established

commercial farms on private tenure land. It can also

be used in countries where land is leased. In these

circumstances the establishment of lease agreements

will have many of the same considerations as for Type

A projects.

Common in the

South African sugar

industry (though

not currently for

biofuel)

Suggested as part

of the D1 model.

The proposed (but

never

implemented)

Bothaville maize to

ethanol project

Corporate

plantations

Type F

Land is typically acquired by the processing company

as concessions or freehold, specifically for biofuel

production. All labour and management are hired. The

processing company owns large tracts of land which it

farms as monocrop plantations to meet its feedstock

needs. These plantations may be thousands or even

tens of thousands of ha in extent. Farming is done

using intensive methods, and may be either labour

intensive or mechanised. Large labour forces are

involved, but jobs may be relatively menial unless

there is a high level of mechanisation. In Africa this

model is common to many large-scale projects in

Mozambique and Tanzania. There is a high possibility

of local inhabitants being displaced from the land

during the awarding of leases, a process which needs

careful monitoring. This model is often favoured by

the biofuel industry, as it gives them guaranteed

production of feedstock. At present this is the main

model for most large-scale biofuel projects in Latin

America, Africa and South East Asia.

D1 Zambia

Sekab Tanzania and

Mozambique

Sun Biofuels

Mozambique and

Tanzania

ESV Mozambique

Illovo Malawi

Energem

Mozambique

Procana – CAMEC

BAE Madagascar

C3

GEM

90

4.4. Discussion

The typology developed gives a simple mechanism for quickly classifying southern

African biofuel projects in a way that is useful when considering issues such as

sustainability standards or environmental impacts. The six-box layout can in many

cases be compacted into a more simple two-by-two matrix by removing the middle

“boxes” i.e. types B and E as these are relatively rare. This simplified typology has

been used by Gasparatos et al. 2013, von Maltitz et al. 2012 and Haywood et al.

2009.

An important feature of the typology is it helps separate projects for which climate

change mitigation may be an important criterion from projects where this is irrelevant

as the project has a simple rural development focus. Much of the background

research was done for this classification in about 2008. At that stage global biofuel

markets were a major driver for many of the projects visited. As countries have

started developing biofuel strategies and local markets have developed there has

been a shift from international biofuel supply to firstly meeting national market needs.

Collecting actual project data proved difficult. Many projects were reluctant to share

proprietary information. Data collection also corresponded with a time period where

many projects were suffering from investment concerns due to the 2008 financial

crisis. Coupled with this it is suspected that many projects were not reaching planting

targets (confirmed by Locke and Henley 2013), nor were early yields as good as

expected (Neilson et al. 2014). It therefore proved difficult to obtain a single and

uniform set of data from all projects. This limited the ability to do rigorous statistical

analysis. Despite these shortcomings, the typology developed seems to be relatively

rigorous and has been found to work for all southern African biofuel projects visited

since its initial conception. It is, however, hard to classify the Indian biofuel model

where biofuels are grown as a communal resource on communal land, with this

model.

91

Chapter 5. IMPACTS OF JATROPHA ON THE

GLOBALLY IMPORTANT REGULATORY AND

SUPPORTING ECOSYSTEMS SERVICE OF

BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE REGULATION

This chapter addresses thesis objective d), namely to identify and examine key

tradeoffs involved including biodiversity, deforestation, hydrology and carbon, and e)

develop procedures and tools to assist in decision making about multi-criteria land-

use options at the village level.

This chapter considers impacts of biofuel on two ecosystem services of global

importance, i.e. biodiversity and climate regulation. Biodiversity is not an ecosystem

service in the strict sense, but is a supporting service underpinning all other

ecosystem services (MA 2005). Though biomass per se has a regulating influence

on climate at the local level, it is the impact of vegetation and biofuels on the global

carbon cycle and the impact that raised CO2 has on global climate change that are

the core considerations when considering biofuel impacts on climate change.

This chapter focuses on the development of methods and tools for quantifying

potential impacts at the provincial, national and regional level, rather than attempting

to directly quantify any specific project or programme impacts.

5.1. Biodiversity impacts from biofuel

5.1.1 Introduction

This sub-chapter focuses on two key issues relating to the tradeoffs between

biofuels and biodiversity:

• Understanding the opportunities and threats biofuels pose to biodiversity.

• Understanding how impacts can be predicted and modelled as a component

of multi-criteria decisions surrounding strategic decision making on whether to

undertake a biofuels programme or not.

Since jatropha specific environmental impacts are poorly documented, most of this

section discusses biofuel impacts in general, with specific links to jatropha where

92

possible. Much of the case study information comes from South Africa where

jatropha production was initially envisaged, but is no longer likely due to the joint fact

of it being effectively banned, as well as new data suggesting that the country is

largely climatically unsuitable. However, during the earlier 2000 period the debate on

jatropha suitability and understanding the environmental impacts was important.

Most South African specific information would have generic applicability to the rest of

the southern African region.

5.1.2 Likely impacts of biofuel production on biodi versity

Biofuel expansion in general (Fitzherbert et al. 2008; Danielsen et al. 2009; Foster et

al. 2011; Chessman 2004; Fletcher et al. 2011; Wiens et al. 2011) and jatropha

expansion in particular (Blanchard et al. 2012; IUCN 2012), if not carefully regulated,

have the potential to exert very high impacts on biodiversity, especially as a

consequence of habitat loss (Fischer et al. 2009). It is counter-productive to fight one

global environmental problem, climate change and simultaneously exacerbate a

second global environmental problem by increasing biodiversity loss. This is,

however, a complex tradeoff since climate change is also predicted to have profound

impacts on biodiversity (Thomas et al. 2004). Though biofuels can in part mitigate

climate change impacts, this positive impact is likely to be very small compared to

the high negative land transformation costs. The synergistic impact of both land

transformation and climate change will deal a double blow to biodiversity with

transformed habitats making it much harder for species to adapt to climate change

(Midgley et al. 2003; Thomas et al. 2004; von Maltitz and Scholes 2008).

Land cover change (both direct and indirect) is the single biggest biodiversity

concern resulting from biofuels (Fischer et al. 2009). This will result in loss of natural

vegetation as well as habitat fragmentation. A number of southern African jatropha

projects have been specifically linked to the clearing of natural woodlands (Sulle and

Nelson 2009).

5.1.2.1 Impacts of iLUC

Locating biofuel plantations on land already used for agriculture or grazing does not

93

automatically reduce the risk of biodiversity loss since there is a very real threat of

causing indirect land-use change (iLUC). This process is also known as ‘leakage’ or

‘displacement’. Put simply, because current agricultural land is converted to biofuel,

new agricultural land needs to be sought to make up for the agricultural shortfall

resulting from the reduced agricultural production. iLUC is difficult to quantify

because the impacts of iLUC are by definition expressed in spatially separate

locations from the biofuel production area itself, possibly even in other countries.

The relationship is also unlikely to be a one-to-one relationship in land areas

impacted (Shubert et al. 2008). There is strong circumstantial evidence that biofuel

expansion has resulted in iLUC (Searchinger et al. 2008; Fargione et al. 2008; Bird

et al. 2010). For example, indirect land-use change attributed to biofuels is

considered one of the drivers for the current high rates of Amazon deforestation

(Morten et al. 2006). The biodiversity assessment methods discussed in this chapter

relate predominantly to direct land-use impacts, but are also applicable to situations

where indirect land-use impacts can be quantified.

5.1.2.2 High biodiversity importance of developing countries

Most developing countries are located in the tropics, the global area with some of the

highest biodiversity (MA 2005). This therefore increases the potential for biodiversity

loss from habitat change. In addition some of these tropical habitats have been

identified as areas with high levels of threatened species. For instance, the

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found tropical and sub-tropical moist broadleaf

forest to be the terrestrial habitat type with by far the highest number of threatened

vertebrate species (MA 2005). This habitat type is undergoing rapid transformation to

palm oil plantations in SE Asia and to soybean fields in Brazil. Both these crops are

potential biofuels, though currently only a small percentage of their oil is used for

biofuel, most being used for food or fodder. Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf

forest, and tropical and subtropical grassland, savanna and scrubland all have high

levels of threatened vertebrate species (MA 2005). These ecosystems are potential

locations for Jatropha curcas expansion as well as for numerous grain and oilseed

crops. Sugarcane is also a potential crop in these habitats, especially where water is

available for irrigation. This potential for high biodiversity loss places an added

burden on tropical areas when considering potential biofuel expansion.

94

5.1.2.3 Impacts from invasive alien species

The introduction of invasive alien species (IAS) is a direct and indirect threat to

biodiversity though it has received little attention compared to other sustainability

issues associated with biofuel production. Alien species are plant or animal species

not native to a specific location. If these species are introduced and can reproduce,

establish and expand on their own, then they are considered invasive, that is

naturalised and a pest in their new environment (Pheloung 2003). The concern with

IAS is that they are able to competitively displace the indigenous species, largely

because they lack natural predators in their new environment. The total economic

cost of IAS can be enormous and controlling IAS is costly and difficult. Alien invasive

species have, for instance, been estimated to cost the USA agricultural industry

$77.8 billion per year, and the cost to restore the Cape Floristic region to its pristine

state without aliens is estimated as $2 billion (Pimentel et al. 2005; Turpie and

Heydenrych 2000). Despite the fact that very few introduced species become

invasive (Pimental et al. 2005; Zaveletta 2001) it is far better to prevent invasion

rather than attempt to eradicate or control a species once it has invaded (Lockwood

et al. 2001). Biofuels, and especially what are termed second generation biofuels,

hold a high risk of becoming IAS, specifically because the very features that make

for a good biofuel are the same features that are common in invasive species. These

include rapid growth, aggressive colonisation of space, ease of establishment, wide

habitat tolerance and resistance to pests and diseases. In addition to potential

biofuel feedstocks themselves being invasive, the uncontrolled movement of biofuel

products can act as a vector for the transportation of other potential pests and

pathogens that might be invasive (IUCN 2009).

It is the potential invasiveness of Jatropha curcas that has led to it being banned

from use in South Africa. Though invasiveness of jatropha under South African

conditions is not proven, this is a precautionary measure based on characteristics of

the Jatropha genera including a number of species known to be invasive (Blanchard

et al. 2012). Australia has banned jatropha for the same reason. Negussie et al.

(2013a and b) suggest that no evidence can be found in Zambia to support jatropha

being invasive.

95

5.1.2.4 Additional biodiversity risks

Though of lesser importance than land-use change and invasion, there are a number

of other mechanisms through which biofuels can impact on biodiversity during both

the growing of feedstock and the processing of biofuels. These include:

Pollution in waterways from fertilisers and pesticides applied to the biofuel fields,

sediments washing off them, and salts draining out of irrigated biofuels. This can

impact on downstream waterways and wetlands causing eutrophication and toxin

accumulation. Jatropha as a perennial crop with low fertiliser requirements is likely to

have less of an impact in this regard than annual crops.

Impacts of pesticides and herbicides on target and non-target species, as well as

impacting on predators of these species. Though jatropha was initially described as

pest hardy, local experience has shown that extensive pest management may be

necessary, especially during the establishment phase (Everson et al. 2013)

Pollution from processing plants discharged into river systems. This includes adding

organic matter to rivers which results in high Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD).

Sugarcane has a bad reputation in this regard. Data for jatropha are not available as

no projects have reached this stage of development.

Changes in hydrology leading to drying out of wetland systems. Jatropha seems to

have limited impact on hydrology so this may not be very relevant (Gush and

Moodley 2007; Gush 2010)

Impacts on soil micro-organisms through cultivation.

Habitat fragmentation which impacts on species movement and dispersal.

These additional threats to biodiversity will not be specifically considered in this

chapter, but their potential impact on biodiversity should not be ignored.

5.1.3 Strategic assessment of likely biodiversity i mpacts (the BII approach)

From a strategic regional, national or provincial perspective a biodiversity

assessment tool is required by policy decision makers to investigate likely impacts

from large-scale biofuel expansion. The tool needs to be able to investigate possible

consequences of different scenarios such as the type of biofuel crop envisaged and

where the plantings will take place in terms of habitat types and current land-use

96

options. In this regard ‘mean species abundance’ approaches, such as the

Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII) is regarded as an appropriate tool. BII has been

widely tested and is well documented (e.g. Scholes and Biggs 2005; Biggs et al.

2006). A simple user manual has been produced by Nickless and Scholes (2009).

The Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII) is a measure of the abundance of individuals,

averaged across a wide range of well-known elements of biodiversity, relative to their

abundance in a defined reference case (Scholes and Biggs 2005; Biggs et al. 2006).

It is an indicator of the average abundance of a specified set of organisms (or

functional groups of organisms) in a given geographical area (Scholes and Biggs

2005). The BII was created as part of the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment to provide an easy-to-understand overview of the state of biodiversity

for policy-makers and the public (Biggs et al. 2006).

The use of the BII approach for strategic assessment of biofuel introduction in regard

to biodiversity was investigated by von Maltitz et al. (2010) for the Eastern Cape

province of South Africa. Though jatropha is no longer a crop being considered for

the Eastern Cape, due to its banning in South Africa, the methodology used and

results obtained remain valid. Canola rather than jatropha is the biodiesel crop being

currently considered. Though no crop specific impact factors are available for

calibrating the BII for jatropha, there are calibrations for both generic agricultural

crops and generic afforestation (Biggs et al. 2006). Jatropha would have

characteristics of both, but as the results for the Eastern Cape show (Figure 5.1), the

overall impacts are similar regardless of whether it is a tree or annual crop being

considered. Impacts on individual taxa differ substantively between tree and annual

crops (appendix A). As shown in Figure 5-2, the bioregion in which biofuels are

planted can have huge impacts on overall biodiversity loss.

Already calibrated BII impact scores for plantation forestry crops and agricultural

crops are available for the individual ecoregions of South Africa (Biggs et al. 2006).

The WWF ecoregions (Olsen 2001) were therefore used in preference to the more

recent biome classification (Mucina and Rutherford 2006) which were not calibrated

with BII scores. The statistical analysis used a rule-based approach to allocate

biofuel in equal proportion to each ecoregion based on the ecoregion’s size.

97

Three scenarios were considered in relation to land allocation to biofuels.

Scenario 1. Agricultural land is allocated first, until it is used up, then degraded land

is allocated, and finally lightly utilised land (no conservation) land is allocated. This is

done per ecoregion, or for all ecoregions at an equal rate proportional to the

ecoregion total extent.

Scenario 2. As per scenario 1, but starting with degraded land, then moving to lightly

utilised land. No existing agriculture is allocated.

Scenario 3. As per scenario 1, but allocating all biofuel to lightly used land.

Results are summarised in Figure 5-2, with additional figures and tables in appendix

A. The option of using a perennial tree crop instead of an annual agricultural crop as

bioenergy feedstock was also investigated. No BII impact is available for jatropha,

but a factor has been derived for plantation forestry based on eucalyptus, pine and

wattle (Biggs et al. 2006). Though there are clearly differences between jatropha and

plantation forestry species, on this provincial scale, this provides an initial estimate of

possible jatropha impacts. It is also useful as a scenario generation exercise if

forestry is to be considered for bioenergy in the future.

98

Legend

ECOREGION

Albany thickets

Drakensberg alti-montane grasslands and woodlands

Drakensberg montane grasslands, woodlands and forests

Highveld grasslands

Knysna-Amatole montane forests

KwaZulu-Cape coastal forest mosaic

Lowland fynbos and renosterveld

Maputaland-Pondoland bushland and thickets

Montane fynbos and renosterveld

Nama Karoo

Southern Africa mangroves

Legend

LANDCOVER

Urban

Forestry

Agriculture

Degraded

Conserved

Light

Figure 5-1. Ecoregions and land cover of the Eastern Cape. The black oval approximates the area being targeted for biofuel expansion.

99

The results from the BII assessment suggest that biofuels could have a profound

impact on biodiversity in the Eastern Cape. As expected the extent of biodiversity

loss would be dependent on both the extent of the biofuel implementation and the

land chosen to grow the biofuel feedstock. If biofuel is grown on already degraded

land then the impact is likely to be far less than if the biofuel is grown on pristine

land. If the biofuel is grown on current agricultural land then the biodiversity impact

will be close to zero, and could even potentially be positive, providing there are no

indirect LUC impacts. Unfortunately no BII impact values are known for jatropha as a

crop. The analysis therefore used a generic annual agricultural crop value and a

generic tree crop value (plantation forestry) as surrogates. The results are interesting

in that the overall biodiversity impacts are almost identical regardless of whether a

tree crop or agricultural crop is chosen. The results do however differ substantially

between different taxa depending on whether tree of agricultural crops are chosen

(see appendix A).Though a tree crop jatropha is structurally very different from

plantation forestry, and depending on management methods and planting density, it

may well allow an understory of many of the indigenous vegetation species. If this is

the case some of the original biodiversity will be maintained. However, if the

understory is kept clear of vegetation, or is used for crop production, then the impact

0.67

0.69

0.71

0.73

0.75

0.77

0.79

0.81

0.83

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

BII

Area (km2) converted into biofuel plantations

Biofuel with annual crop

Cultivated >> Degraded >> Light

use

Degraded >> Light Use

Light use

0.67

0.69

0.71

0.73

0.75

0.77

0.79

0.81

0.83

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

BII

Area (km2) converted into biofuel tree plantations

Biofuel with tree crop

Cultivated >> Degraded >>

Light UseDegraded >> Light Use

Light Use

Impacts based on annual crop impact factors Impacts based on plantation forestry impact

factors

Figure 5-2. Influence of the type of land allocated to bioenergy on the BII impacts for both annual and forestry crops. The rules for land allocation used all cultivated land before assigning degraded land, and all degraded land before assigning lightly used land to bioenergy crops in the scenarios where this is applicable.

100

on biodiversity may be substantively greater.

The analysis in this section suffers from the fact that no project specific data could be

used as there are no current jatropha (or other biofuel) projects within the study area

on which project specific data could be based. It does however provide a method for

giving a rapid and easy overview of biodiversity impacts at a provincial (or national)

level. The fact that biodiversity impact scores are already available for South Africa

greatly facilitated the current study.

5.1.4 Biodiversity Conclusions

Biofuel expansion carries with it a real risk of resulting in biodiversity loss. This risk is

especially high for developing countries in the tropics where there are both a high

concentration of biodiversity and high levels of threat to the biodiversity due to a

multitude of land-use pressures.

From a national strategic policy perspective, careful assessment is needed as to

whether the biodiversity loss from biofuel is justified relative to the potential gains

from biofuel programmes. In this regard, strategic multi-criteria assessments are

needed in which projected biodiversity impacts are one of the variables. The direct

and indirect economic, human well-being and ethical consequences of biodiversity

loss must not be forgotten. The extent of biodiversity loss can be mitigated to some

extent by limiting the size of a proposed biofuel industry and by defining the habitats

and land-uses in which it is permissible. Impacts of indirect land-use change must

not be ignored.

Careful planning both at the strategic level and at the plantation level can greatly

reduce the level of biodiversity loss. Mitigation measures may also be used to

enhance biodiversity overall, so that even if some biodiversity is being lost from

specific locations, the overall strategic biodiversity conservation objectives for the

region can potentially be increased. Biodiversity impacts from biofuel expansion

need to be considered against biodiversity impacts from alternate land-use options.

In this regard ‘doing nothing’ also has a biodiversity consequence, which may be

greater or less than the consequences from introducing biofuels. Feedbacks

101

between biofuel expansion and other drivers of biodiversity loss need consideration,

as biofuel production could potentially reduce or enhance other drivers of biodiversity

loss. The way these interactions between sectors are managed could greatly

enhance overall biodiversity conservation.

Measuring or monitoring biodiversity and biodiversity impacts is complex and can be

extremely costly. To obtain a strategic perspective the BII tool is recommended as

an appropriate method to consider the overall biodiversity consequences of different

biofuel and competing land-use scenarios. Because the tool can be based on

specialist input rather than raw data, it is relatively inexpensive to undertake a BII

assessment, especially in areas of relatively limited data availability. It can, however,

utilise more rigorous data sources if available. The BII approach is scalable and

results can be disaggregated in a number of different ways. The BII approach is,

however, poor at picking up impacts on rare and endangered species and should be

run in parallel with a red data approach if impacts of this nature are anticipated.

Numerous techniques are available for local level assessment at the project level. It

must, however, be stressed that any local biodiversity plan should be aligned with

strategic conservation objectives. Simple screening can give a first clue as to

whether biodiversity impacts are likely to be an important issue. If biodiversity is

likely to be important, then either the development should be abandoned, or more

detailed approaches for biodiversity protection should be considered. In many

situations, strategic conservation of specific areas within a biofuel estate which have

high conservational value can greatly mitigate the overall biodiversity impact.

102

5.2. Carbon emissions from jatropha biofuel

5.2.1 Introduction

One of the key motivations for biofuels is their ability to reduce climate forcing

resulting from the CO2 emissions associated with the burning of fossil fuels.

Bioenergy is, however, not carbon neutral and in addition there may be greenhouse

gas emissions such as methane or nitrous oxide associated with biomass production

(Larson 2005). Under many circumstances the short to medium-term or even long-

term global climate change forcing from biofuel may exceed the forcing from the use

of fossil fuels as a consequence of land-use change impacts (Searchinger et al.

2008; Fargione et al. 2008). This sub-chapter will introduce some of the overall

aspects of climate forcing from jatropha as a biofuel, with the following sub-chapter

considering land-use change which is lacking from many life cycle assessments.

5.2.1.1 The life cycle analysis approach

Life cycle analysis (LCA) (ISO 14044) is an approach for measuring impacts that

considers the bioenergy production process throughout the life cycle of production

and consumption – what is sometimes called ’cradle-to-grave’ or in the energy sector

‘well-to-wheel’ analysis. Though LCAs attempt to consider all aspect of the process,

all LCAs need to be bounded in their scope. In addition they need to make hard

choices about how to deal with impacts when co-products and by-products are

involved (what is referred to as allocation). The carbon/GHG impacts of bioenergy

pathways can be measured in a number of different ways and the measure used can

lead to different conclusions. As pointed out by Cherubini (2011), the use of different

reference systems, methodologies, system boundaries, allocation processes and

inclusion (or exclusion) of land-use change effects means that it is extremely difficult

to compare results between different studies.

Basic data on some fundamental aspects are also not always available nor for site

specific conditions. Two such examples are nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from soils,

a clearly important emission for which there are relatively limited data available and

indirect land-use change (iLUC) which is very difficult to determine. In addition, many

life cycle assessments are forced, for at least some of the data, to rely on globally

103

published impact results as it is too costly and time consuming to gather all the

relevant data at the local level. In the specific case of jatropha, most life cycle

analysis is based on theoretical projects, and not actual project data. In particular

assumptions are made of seed yields despite the fact that the yields in the projects

are not being realised. In calculating GHG impacts of different gaseous emissions,

the numbers are normally expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq which are

typically computed over a 100-year timespan, but can be computed over other

timespans such as 20 years), based on the different Global Warming Potential

(GWP) of the gases.

LCAs are situation specific. For instance where they rely on external fossil energy,

the source of the energy will impact on the emissions. Within South Africa emissions

are typically high for both electricity and diesel, compared to global norms, because

of the high proportion of coal usage in the energy mix. Mozambique electricity is

largely from hydro power and hence has lesser emissions. From an emission

perspective Malawi and Mozambique diesel is “cleaner” than South African diesel as

it does not have the synthetic (coal-based) fuel component.

A number of studies have attempted to undertake LCA impacts of jatropha and

results are summarised in Gasparatos et al. (2013). The emissions during

combustion of biofuels differ slightly from emissions from fossil fuel, and this has

been researched by Kousoulidou et al. (2008) and Fontaras et al. (2010). For

practical purposed these combustion emission differences are minimal and it is the

emission during the plant growing, harvesting, transportation and processing that is

more significant.

Gasparatos et al. (2013) found that there is a wide range of estimates of emission

savings from published LCA studies, which range from 11% to 93%. In all the cases,

jatropha had a positive saving on emissions and hence can be considered as a

climate mitigation option. The variation may, in part, be due to methodological

differences when conducting LCAs, but is also due to project specific assumptions.

Unrealistic seed yields may well have been used in some assessments (Gasparatos

et al. 2013). A further key issue is the determination of system boundaries, i.e. what

is included as part of the analysed systems and what is excluded. What co-products

104

are assumed and how emissions are allocated between co-products and biofuel will

be an important consideration. For instance if the seedcake is allocated as a

fertiliser, what proportion of overall emissions is allocated to this use. However, it is

the inclusion or exclusion of land-use change impacts which will have major impacts

on the overall emissions from jatropha biofuels. Fargione et al. (2008) and

Searchinger et al. (2008) have shown that for biofuels in general, land-use change

emissions can take tens or hundreds of years to be repaid. For a Brazilian study on

jatropha it was found that including land-use change impacts resulted in emissions

going from 55 percent less than fossil diesel to 59 percent more (Bailis and Baka

2010). Von Maltitz et al. (2013) using data prepared by Gareth Borman, found that in

African Miombo situations a payback time of 32 to 81 years is likely depending on

yields, but at low yields the debt may never be repaid. Romijn (2011) calculated a

33-year carbon debt for Miombo woodlands, with Achten and Verchot (2011)

suggesting 94 and 188 years respectively for Ghana and Zambia. So, while jatropha

may initially appear to have positive GHG mitigation potential, the realised GHG

mitigation may be quite limited, especially if yields are low and the LUC aspects are

taken into consideration in the analysis. An initial claim for jatropha was that it could

be grown in degraded land, i.e. land which had already lost much of its natural

carbon stock. In such situations carbon payback could be quite rapid. However, the

southern African experience is that in most large-scale plantations, even if in

secondary forest, there is substantive natural woody vegetation. Further most

projects are initiated on good land, not marginal or degraded land, though some of

this land related to previously abandoned cropland which has since reverted to

secondary forest.

It is, however, important to point out that many aspects of the jatropha system are

poorly researched so long-term impacts are currently speculative. Key unknown

aspects include changes in soil carbon reserves, amount of sequestered carbon in

jatropha biomass, the final use of the seedcake, tree longevity and final realised

yields from mature plantations. The following section will consider land-use change

impacts in greater detail as well as compare jatropha against other biofuel crops in

terms of the land-use change impacts.

105

5.3. Land-use change impacts from growing biofuel c rops in southern Africa

5.3.1 Direct land-use change

5.3.1.1 Soil carbon impacts

Data on soil carbon impacts from cropping are scarce in the southern African region,

and even more so when related specifically to biofuel. Since South Africa has both

the highest density of commercial-scale crop production, as well as the most

comprehensive soil carbon information, this section will use South African data as a

background, whilst attempting to show how jatropha is likely to fit in relation to other

crops.

Direct land-use change emissions are the carbon and other GHG emissions resulting

from changing from one land-use to another. In general terms changing from natural

vegetation to an agricultural crop typically results in CO2 emissions (Fargione et al.

2008; Searchinger et al. 2008). In the South African situation most of these

emissions will be as a loss of soil carbon from the top 30cm of soil, though there are

also losses from above ground vegetation. The soil emissions will occur over a

number of years until a new soil organic carbon equilibrium is reached (Stephenson

et al. 2010). A 60% soil carbon reduction when converting from grassland or pasture

to cropland is common (Guo and Gifford 2002). South African specific data for

specific South African climate, soil and management conditions are scarce. Available

data are summarised by du Preez et al. (2011). Du Toit (1992) found losses ranging

from 10 to 75% in soil organic carbon from the top 20 cm of a range of 50 Free State

sites aged between 0 and 85 years of cultivation. The soil organic carbon tended to

be lost rapidly during the first few years after clearing and then more slowly until a

new equilibrium was established. The time taken to reach this equilibrium point

ranged from 20 years in dry-warm climates to 40 years in moist-cool regions. In

general the moist-cool regions tended to lose in total about 60% of their original

organic carbon, whilst the warmer, drier regions only lost 40% of their organic

carbon. A study by Lobe et al. (2002) looking specifically at Plinthic soils found a

65% organic carbon loss with a new equilibrium after 30 years. The use of no-till or

organic agricultural practices may reduce this loss (Mallett et al. 1987; van der Watt

106

1987; Smit 2004). Irrigation seems to have mixed impacts on soil carbon, with both

increases and decreases in soil carbon being reported when compared with the

original grassland (van Antwerpen and Mayer 1996). Restoration of soils from

cropland to pasture results in a slow increase of carbon. Birru (2002) found that 20

years after conversion from agriculture to pasture only resulted in 20% of the lost soil

carbon being restored. Stephenson et al. (2010) assumed 0.9 t CO2 ha-1 year-1 was

emitted due to changing from homeland grasslands to crops (over 20 years). A study

in Malawi (Walker and Desanker 2004) found a 60.5% loss in soil organic carbon

from the top 40 cm of soil following conversion from woodland to agricultural fields.

The study also found limited recovery of soil carbon in fallow fields.

Annual crops tend to result in a greater soil carbon loss than perennial crops.

Sugarcane for instance has a higher soil carbon than maize. Du Preez et al. (2011)

have found that in South Africa the soil carbon loss when converting to sugarcane

varies by climate and soil type. On Glenrosa soils of the South Coast a 48% decline

in soil carbon was observed over a 50-year period, whilst for dryland Hutton soils in

the Natal midlands only a 6% reduction was recorded.

Tree crops typically have a lower soil carbon loss than annual crops. Based on the

limited data available it is not always clear whether forestry will have positive or

negative impacts on soil carbon compared with the natural vegetation it replaces.

This will be partly dependent on climate, tree species involved and possibly soil type

(see Figures 5-3 and 5-4). Based on the data of Guo and Gifford (2002), it is likely

that soil carbon will be lost when converting from grassland to plantations in the

typically humid areas favoured by South African commercial forestry, with carbon

loss more likely as rainfall increases. Based on 1200 to 1500 mm precipitation, the

mean expected carbon loss is just over 11% (Figure 5-3 and 5-4). When converting

croplands to plantations or secondary (regrowth) forest there can be substantive soil

carbon gains. Similarly, increased soil carbon can accumulate when converting

degraded land to forest. Above ground carbon will almost always increase when

converting from grassland or savanna to plantation forestry. This change will be over

a number of years and it is likely that 20 to 50 years or more will be needed before a

new equilibrium of soil carbon is reached.

107

Figure 5-3. Soil carbon change when moving to or from plantations and forests to other land-uses (Guo and Gifford 2002). Mean, 95% confidence interval and number of studies considered.

Figure 5-4. Soil carbon changes when pasture is converted to plantation from Guo and Gifford (2002). Mean, 95% confidence interval and number of studies considered.

108

5.3.1.2 Calculating carbon loss from land-use change

The following methodology and resultant spatial coverages are proposed as a rough

estimate of dLUC impacts for southern Africa (they could also be used to calculate

iLUC which would need to be added to the dLUC impacts, but this would require an

understanding of the intensity and location of the iLUC impacts). It estimates

possible soil carbon losses from conversion of natural vegetation to annual crops,

vegetation carbon losses from clearing of the natural vegetation and the total carbon

losses combining both soil and vegetation losses.

An estimation of likely soil carbon losses as a result of converting natural vegetation

to annual agricultural crops in t CO2eq ha-1 over 40 years is given in Figure 5-5. The

soil organic carbon loss will be most rapid following land clearing, but it will take 30

to 40 years before the new lower equilibrium value is reached. The estimate is based

on the African Soil Information System (AfSIS) 1km2 square soil profile dataset

(AfSIS 2013). Total soil carbon to a depth of 30cm was computed using the AfSIS

soil bulk density to convert the AfSIS soil carbon percentage data into tonnes soil

carbon per hectare. A 60% loss of soil carbon is assumed when converting from the

natural vegetation to an annual agricultural crop (it is assumed this loss will occur

linearly over 40 years, though in truth the greatest loss will be in the first few years

after clearing (Guo and Gifford (2002). The data are presented as CO2eq lost per

hectare over 40 years. Note, the AfSIS data do not give soil carbon values for the

more arid areas such as the Karoo, though it is unlikely these areas would be

considered for bioenergy crops. It is the cool, high altitude areas with high rainfall

where the greatest soil carbon losses can be expected.

Vegetation loss during LUC results in CO2 emissions. These are proportional to the

standing vegetation at the time of clearing and need to include both above-ground

and below-ground components. These emissions are partly offset by the carbon

stored in the bioenergy crop. If the bioenergy crop is a perennial crop such as

jatropha, then the crop itself can sequestrate substantive amounts of carbon which

are not components of the bioenergy. This sequestrated carbon is investigated for

jatropha in Table 5-1. Note that where perennial crops are planted on degraded land

or agricultural land there can be overall soil carbon sequestrating as a result of the

LUC. However, as Birru (2002) found, this process of sequestrating soil carbon can

109

be slow.

In the southern African situation there are two vegetation types most likely to be

transformed for bioenergy crops; these are grasslands and woodlands. With

grasslands it is the soil carbon changes which are of most concern, but in woodlands

there can be substantive accumulation of biomass in the woody plants which is

relatively high in the moister woodlands as found in Malawi and Mozambique, but

still far less than in tropical closed canopy forests.

The vegetation loss from existing vegetation when converting to annual bioenergy

crops is based on the methodology proposed by Scholes et al. (2011) to develop

spatial estimates of grass and tree cover for southern Africa (Figure 5.6). Nationwide

GIS coverages of woody and grass biomass from CSIR (2011) were used. Grass

cover is based on rainfall, whilst tree cover is based on rainfall (using the model of

Sankaran et al. 2005) and proportion of the tree cover based on the MODIS tree

cover product (Bucini and Hanan 2007) and tree height estimated from rainfall

(Scholes et al. 2002). Since the MODIS tree cover data set drives the model, results

include existing natural vegetation as well as plantation forests and invasive trees.

To get total woody biomass, below-ground biomass was assumed to be 40% of

estimated above-ground woody biomass (IPCC 2007). For grass, below-ground

biomass was estimated as 20% of above-ground biomass. The grass and woody

biomass was summed and multiplied by 0.48 to convert it to carbon biomass, then

expressed as CO2eq by multiplying by 3.66. This coverage does not account for non-

grass Karoo vegetation, and though including fynbos and thicket vegetation, is not

specifically calibrated for these vegetation types. The data set should only be used to

give a broad overview of likely carbon emissions from vegetation clearing, and more

detailed studies would be required if detailed data are needed. These vegetation

derived CO2 emissions will be relatively rapid following clearing, but a lot depends on

the fate of the vegetation material. If the material is burnt then emissions are

immediate, whilst if the material is left to decompose, then the emissions could be

over a number of years. The below-ground vegetation may take many years to

decompose.

Total estimated CO2 estimates (i.e. of soil carbon and vegetation) resulting from

110

land-use change from natural vegetation to annual crops are given in Figure 5-7.

These totals are computed by combining soil and vegetation losses as given in

Figures 5-5 and 5-6. Note that this estimate includes plantation forestry as part of the

vegetation biomass, but does not include Karoo shrub. Overall patterns of likely

carbon loss can be used as guidelines that should be appropriate for national level

assessments, but case specific data need verification. The model assumes change

is from natural vegetation to a biofuel crop. If land has already been transformed to

some other use such as an annual agricultural crop or plantation forestry then the

starting carbon state will be different from the baseline given by the maps.

111

Figure 5-5. Total estimated CO2eq emissions from both soil carbon plus total vegetation carbon emissions following clearing of natural vegetation for a bioenergy crop. (Top) based on 10% carbon loss to 30cm (as may be expected from a tree-based bioenergy crop) and (bottom) 60% carbon loss to 30 cm as is likely from an annual crop.

112

Figure 5-6. Estimates of CO2eq emissions based on clearing of existing woody plant material. Note that this estimate includes plantation forestry and other exotic trees, and not just natural vegetation (Based on data from Scholes et al. 2012).

113

a)

b) Figure 5-7. Estimates of soil CO2eq emissions resulting from a) 60% and b) 10% loss of soil carbon from the top 30 cm when converting natural vegetation to annual cropland or tree crops respectively (based on AfSIS 2013). Units t CO2eq ha-1 (based on a 40-year equilibrium, but with most losses in the first few years)

114

The above coverages can be used to calculate likely LUC impacts from biofuel as

shown in Table 5.1. Total CO2 emissions from dLUC would be the sum of soil

emissions plus vegetation emissions minus the CO2eq sequestrated in the standing

biofuel crop, if a perennial crop such as jatropha is being considered. The AfSIS data

on which the soil estimates are based provide upper and lower conference limits to

their data which could be included if required.

For tree crops the soil carbon loss is less than for annual crops. A 10% loss of

carbon for plantation forestry seems appropriate for South African conditions (see

Figure 5-5)). An appropriate percentage for jatropha is not currently available due to

a lack of data. Many jatropha projects, including the Niqel project in Mozambique

(see section 6), prepare the land by clearing all vegetation and ploughing the bare

soil. This will result in a high level of oxidation of soil carbon. The rate and extent to

which this soil carbon is re-sequestrated is unknown, but as discussed above, can

be very slow. It seems likely that the soil carbon from jatropha will be somewhere

between that of plantation forestry and that of crop agriculture, with the possibility

that it is closer to plantation forests than annual crops. For sugar cane it is

suggested that unless better data are available, a value of half of the soil carbon loss

from annual crop agriculture is used.

Table 5-1 shows how this approach can be adopted. Indicative values from areas

that might be used to grow different feedstocks have been given. These are either

based on South African commercial farming scenarios for South African conditions,

or for the Malawi and Mozambique study sites from Chapter 6. To make values

more comparable they are converted into a common matrix of emissions per unit of

energy provided. However, since the systems are in different physical environments

a direct species comparison is not appropriate (except for the Mozambique

examples where the same site is used). For instance, if maize was grown in the

same locations as the jatropha then it would also have the same “carbon loss from

vegetation” factor as the jatropha and a higher soil carbon loss than jatropha for that

location. The calculation of feedstock energy value per tonne is based on the energy

of the end fuel, and only considers the part of the feedstock used for producing the

fuel. Transformation efficiency is as in Table 5-2.

115

Table 5-1. Indicative soil and vegetation CO2 emissions from land-use change in southern Africa. This is for illustrative purposes only and actual values would depend on actual areas destined for biofuel production. Values are based on inspection of Figure 5-6 and 5-7 for likely growth areas, but do not represent detailed spatial analysis

Feedstock

Total C loss over

40 years

t CO2eq y-1

C loss per

year

t CO2eq y-1

LUC

emissions

t CO2eq TJ-1

y-1

Carbon loss from soil carbon, based on 60% loss for annual crops 30% for sugarcane and 10%

for perennial trees. 20% for jatropha

Maize (grain) ethanol (SA savanna) 70 1.75 46.8

Maize (grain) ethanol (SA grassland) 70 1.75 46.8

Maize (grain) ethanol (Moz savanna) 56 1.4 150.6

Sugar cane ethanol (SA savanna) 60 1.50 16.8

Sugar cane ethanol (SA grassland) 60 1.50 16.8

Sugar cane ethanol (Moz savanna) 42 1.1 39.1

Sorghum (SA Grassland) 60 1.50 61.2

Wheat (SA fynbos) 40 1.00 32.4

Soybean (SA savanna) 60 1.50 111.7

Soy (Moz savanna) 56 1.4 59.1

Sunflower (SA savanna) 60 1.50 72.4

Canola (SA grassland) 100 2.50 144.8

Canola (Moz savanna) 56 1.4 29.7

Jatropha in woodland Mozambique site 16 0.4 8.8

Jatropha in woodland Malawi site 14 0.35 7.7

Jatropha in fields Malawi site 0 0 0

Plantation forest (SA grassland) 23 0.58 3.2

116

Feedstock

Total C loss over

40 years

t CO2eq y-1

C loss per

year

t CO2eq y-1

LUC

emissions

t CO2eq TJ-1

y-1

Carbon loss from vegetation (either from grassland or savanna) (this does not account for

carbon gain in the biofuel feedstock vegetation – except for the jatropha vales in brackets

based on 6 or 25 kg C per mature tree)

Maize (grain) ethanol (SA savanna) 90 2.25 60.1

Maize (grain) ethanol (SA grassland) 15 0.38 10.2

Maize (grain) ethanol (Moz savanna) 333 8.3 164

Sugar cane ethanol (SA savanna) 153 3.83 42.9

Sugar cane ethanol (SA grassland) 26 0.65 7.3

Sugar cane ethanol (Moz savanna) 333 8.3 42.8

Sorghum (SA Grassland) 80 2.00 81.6

Wheat (SA fynbos) 20 0.50 16.2

Soybean (SA savanna) 80 2.00 148.9

Soy (Moz savanna) 332 8.3 350.2

Sunflower (SA savanna) 80 2.00 96.5

Canola (SA grassland) 80 2.00 115.8

Canola (Moz savanna) 332 8.3 176.2

Jatropha in woodland Mozambique 333 8.3 182 (167 : 119)

Jatropha in fields Malawi site 0 0 0.0 (-46 : -9.7)

Jatropha in woodland Mozambique 159 3.9 86 (82 : 68)

Plantation forest (SA grassland) 26 0.65 3.6

117

Feedstock

Total C loss over

40 years

t CO2eq y-1

C loss per

year

t CO2eq y-1

LUC

emissions

t CO2eq TJ-1

y-1

Total C loss from soil and vegetation (this does not account for carbon gain in the biofuel

feedstock vegetation – except for the jatropha vales in brackets based on 6 or 25 kg C per

mature tree)

Maize (grain) ethanol (SA savanna) 160 4.00 106.9

Maize (grain) ethanol (SA grassland) 85 2.13 56.9

Maize (grain) ethanol (Moz savanna) 389 9.7 164

Sugar cane ethanol (SA savanna) 113 5.33 59.6

Sugar cane ethanol (SA grassland) 86 2.15 24.1

Sugar cane ethanol (Moz savanna) 374 9.3 42

Sorghum (SA Grassland) 140 3.50 142.9

Wheat (SA fynbos) 80 1.50 48.6

Soybean (SA savanna) 140 3.50 260.6

Soy (Moz savanna) 388 9.7 406

Sunflower (SA savanna) 140 3.50 168.9

Canola (SA grassland) 180 4.50 260.6

Canola (Moz savanna) 388 9.7 205

Jatropha in woodland Mozambique site 346 8.62 190 (127 : 174 )

Jatropha in fields Malawi site 0 0 0 (-17.5 : -4.1)

Jatropha in woodland Malawi site 172 4.30 94 (77 : 90)

Plantation forest (SA grassland) 49 1.23 6.8

Notes on Table 5.1 The carbon loss values, though based on indicative values from the spatial coverages, are not based on statistical means taken over crop growth areas. Thus more detailed analysis would be needed before they can be used in actual studies. LUC emissions per TJ of energy per year (t CO2eq TJ-1 y-1

) are based on gross energy values of the biofuel crop, and not on the net energy value after compensation for input energy as suggested in the ToRs The fuel energy from the feedstock is the energy of the final fuel produced from the feedstock, not the total energy of the feedstock. Feedstock yields are based on 5-year national statistics. Note that for the summer rainfall areas the past 5 years have not been drought years. During droughts, yields may be substantially less.

118

Table 5-2. Values used in calculating Table 5.1. Note: values for Mozambique oil crops are all set to 3 t ha-1 for comparison with jatropha, whilst maize and sugarcane are set to high yields for the region, despite there being no evidence for such yields at the location used. All other yields are based on FAO statistics.

Feedstock Crop yield

t ha -1

l biofuel per

t feedstock

l t -1

GJ fuel per t

feedstock

GJ t -1

Maize SA

Moz

3.75

6 (assumed)

421 9.85

Wheat 3.7 357 8.35

Sugar cane SA

Moz

42.7

120 (assumed)

78 1.82

Soybean SA 1.65 229 7.9

Soybean Moz 3 (assumed)

Sunflower 1.4 430 14.8

Jatropha 3 (assumed) 437 15.3

Canola SA 1.02 455 15.7

Canola Moz 3 (assumed)

Plantation

wood

12 n/a 15

No empirical data exist for long-term jatropha effects on soil carbon. A modelled

approach to estimate jatropha soil carbon impacts was adopted by Gareth Borman

for miombo and arid savanna regions (as reported in von Maltitz et al. 2012). The

Borman research suggested that about 14 t ha-1 would be lost from miombo soils

during establishment, but over a 40-year period about 2 t ha-1 would be returned to

the soil and this gives generally similar values to Table 5-1 above. His model,

however, resulted in a far higher percentage reduction in the soil carbon, with almost

50% of total soil carbon being lost during land clearing.

When considering emissions per unit of energy jatropha performs poorly against

ethanol crops (if grown under commercial conditions and high yields) in the same

119

location (Table 5-1 Mozambique data). However its performance against competing

oil crops will be good providing jatropha yields reach yields similar to those of

competing crops. For the calculations in Table 5-1, the yields of canola, soy and

jatropha were all set to 3 t ha-1 to make the data comparable, though actual yield for

crops such as canola or soybean are likely to be far less than the 3 t ha-1 used. The

reason jatropha has a lesser impact than annual oilseed crops is that as a perennial

jatropha is anticipated to have far less soil carbon loss, giving it an overall emission

advantage. In addition, as a tree crop, the jatropha will sequestrate carbon which will

partially replace the vegetation cleared. In degraded areas this could lead to a net

carbon increase.

In the case of BERL in Malawi, jatropha is being grown on already cleared farmland.

As such soil carbon is already depleted and there is no clearing of vegetation. BERL

in their CDM application suggested that jatropha may well increase soil carbon when

used in agroforestry situations such as they are doing in Malawi, but this has not

been taken into consideration in Table 5-1. If the carbon loss from vegetation is set

to zero, as would be appropriate when jatropha is planted in already cleared

agricultural fields, then carbon is potentially sequestrated as the jatropha trees grow.

There are almost no data on the total biomass of a mature jatropha tree (of which

approximately 50% will be carbon). In addition biomass will vary with pruning

regimes. BERL has used a value of 12 kg biomass and 6 kg carbon per tree as the

basis of their carbon estimates. Based on Organization of American States, in its

“Factsheet on Jatropha curcas for biodiesel production” (2005), a carbon mass of 25

kg is suggested for mature trees. We have used 6kg carbon per tree as a lower

estimate and 25kg carbon per tree as an upper estimate in calculating the carbon

sequestrated in the jatropha trees. These values are still far below that of the

woodland the jatropha replaces in scenarios where mature woodland is cleared.

In the case of Mozambique the high standing woody biomass means that extensive

amounts of carbon are emitted during woodland clearing. The results presented may

be a total over-estimation for the actual values from Niqel. This is due to the fact that

the modelled results have not been verified as accurate for the area of the Niqel

plantation and in addition stands of high wood density are not cleared. This

emphasises that the methodology above is good for overall regional planning

120

purposes, but may not be appropriate for project-level planning where local data will

be more appropriate than the regional level approximations.

5.3.2 Indirect land-use change iLUC

The assumption underpinning the indirect land-use change is that if land is allocated

to bioenergy then it displaces existing agricultural production and hence new

agricultural land will need to be opened elsewhere to compensate for it (Bird et al.

2010). The indirect land-use change from bioenergy could potentially offset all the

positive GHG savings from bioenergy (Fargione et al. 2008; Searchinger et al. 2008).

Quantifying iLUC impacts is, however, difficult.

As far as can be ascertained, no formal study has done a detailed assessment of

potential iLUC from bioenergy in southern Africa. The data from Niqel, Mozambique

suggest that there is some iLUC as farmers whose farms were displaced for the

jatropha plantations have opened up new farms elsewhere. This was not quantified

in the research. From the Malawi case study there is some evidence that overall crop

yields may be slightly suppressed (though this impact seems to be small). However,

at the moment Malawi is exceeding its staple food needs so there is not a national

food security imperative to open new farm land. The impact of fertiliser subsidies is

having a far greater impact on food security than any impact from jatropha growing

(see appendix B). Intensification of agriculture would be a more appropriate

mechanism for increasing agricultural production in all southern African countries;

however, though there are some possible links where jatropha growing may assist in

promoting intensification, it is currently unclear whether jatropha growing would have

this impact.

121

5.4. Other environmental impacts from jatropha-base d biofuel

Research on the hydrological impacts from biofuel is not covered in this thesis;

however the critical concern of hydrological impacts needs to be highlighted as an

issue requiring consideration when assessing the suitability of biofuel as a land-use

option. South Africa has a long history of hydrological research related to land-use

and especially afforestation (Kruger and Bennett 2013). In South Africa the link

between afforestation of grasslands and reduced catchment runoff has been

extensively demonstrated (Dye and Versfeld 2007; Scott et al. 2000; Scott and

Prinsloo 2008). As such forestry is considered a “streamflow reduction activity”

(NWA 1998). If bioenergy is to be produced from tree crops then it is necessary to

understand the potential catchment hydrology impacts. Mark Gush and colleagues

have undertaken extensive research on jatropha water use and conclude that for

jatropha, streamflow reduction impacts will be minimal when compared with natural

vegetation (Gush and Moodley 2007; Everson et al. 2013; von Maltitz et al. 2012).

However, if plantation forestry species such as Eucalyptus are to be contemplated,

then high levels of impacts can be anticipated (Dye and Versfeld 2007; Scott et al.

2000; Scott and Prinsloo 2008). Methodologies to understand streamflow impacts

are given in Gush (2010). The “blue water”, “green water” water categorisation of

Falkenmark et al.(1999) is an easy conceptual model for understanding hydrological

impacts. In essence any crop that increases transpiration rates above the baseline

vegetation is likely to have a negative catchment level hydrological impact.

Where irrigation is needed for biofuel production there will be numerous hydrological

impacts resulting from the extraction of water from river or aquifer systems. In

addition there may well be impoundments with related environmental impacts.

Water quality and quantity impacts may extend far downstream from the bioenergy

plantation, potentially impacting on important habitats such as those found in

estuarine systems. In addition there can be extensive social impacts from biofuel

water use as discussed in von Maltitz (2011).

Impacts from processing fall outside of the scope of this thesis which focuses

primarily on the feedstock production aspects. Though these are not envisaged to be

122

large, they should not be ignored.

Soil erosion is a likely consequence of land-use change, especially if extensive areas

of vegetation are removed. There is likely to be less erosion from jatropha as a

perennial crop than from annual crops. However, many projects conduct a total land

clearing during tree establishment and erosion during this phase is likely. In addition

if the area between trees is kept clear of grass then erosion is likely to be greater

than if this area has an established ground layer. There is some evidence that

jatropha hedgerows may help reduce erosion in agricultural settings and that

jatropha may reduce erosion if planted on degraded areas (Keravina et al. 2011;

Achten et al. 2008).

Pesticides and herbicides could impact on the natural fauna. Initial regional

experience is that pesticides are needed during the early years of jatropha

establishment (Jongschaap et al. 2007; Achten 2010).

Leaching of nutrients from the plantation into river systems is unlikely as very low

fertilization levels tend to be used in plantations. Use of seedcake as a replacement

for mineral fertilisers may reduce leaching of fertilisers in agricultural settings, but no

evidence on this could be found in the literature.

5.5. Discussion on impacts from jatropha on global supporting and regulating services

Jatropha growing is almost always going to have a short-term and direct impact on

biodiversity. In the long term there might be a slight positive impact on biodiversity

due to reduced climate change, but this is likely to be in orders of magnitude less

than the short-term direct impacts.

The current biodiversity study would be enhanced by more detailed assessment of

project level impacts of jatropha on biodiversity. Actual biodiversity within jatropha

fields as well as for the entire land use matrix that includes jatropha would greatly

strengthen the above assessment. Despite this shortcoming, the trends in

123

biodiversity loss as modelled from annual crops or forestry should still be applicable

to jatropha, though the rate of species loss that may change slightly.

A key driver for global biofuel expansion is that biofuel reduced carbon emissions

compared to fossil fuels. Although data on life cycle analysis of jatropha carbon

impacts are relatively scarce for southern Africa (see section 5.2), all data suggest

positive LCA carbon balances if LUC is not considered. It is the land-use change

impacts on carbon emissions that are likely to be most important from a southern

African perspective. All studies considered (see section 5.3) would tend to suggest

that there will be long payback periods if jatropha is planted in woodland. This means

that by growing jatropha there will be a net emission of carbon in the short term and

it is only in tens of years’ time that this would be reversed with a net positive carbon

impact. A vast number of uncertainties do, however, surround these estimates, these

including the impacts on jatropha growing on soil carbon, the yields that will be

achieved, the local LCA savings and the amount of biomass that accumulates within

jatropha plants grown in an operational harvesting system.

Carbon impacts are slightly different where jatropha is grown in already degraded

landscapes including within agricultural fields. Here there may be a net sequestration

of carbon from early on in the project lifecycle. This will be largely through the

sequestrating of carbon in the jatropha tree biomass, but can also include improving

soil carbon as well as the carbon saving achieved through combusting jatropha oil

rather than fossil fuels.

In general vegetation plays a critical role in regulating stream flow as well as

ensuring water quality for downstream water uses. Where jatropha is not irrigated

there is not likely to be a major hydrological impact, and water emerging from areas

with jatropha plantations is likely to be of better quality than water from areas of

annual cropland. This is because the jatropha (if there is good groundcover between

plants) will improve infiltration and reduce erosion compared to annual crops.

Leaching of nutrients and pesticides from jatropha is also likely to be less than from

annual crops, though worse than from a pristine environment. Limited or no impact is

foreseen on local air quality from jatropha growing. Though these limited impacts are

envisaged for jatropha, both hydrological and pollution impacts could be very

124

different for other biofuel crops and will be crop and management practice specific.

For the two globally important ecosystem services, biodiversity and climate

regulation, there are basically opposite impacts from jatropha growing, so that

understanding the tradeoff between these two is clearly important. The question

arises of whether it is justified to lose global biodiversity to gain a slight benefit in

climate change mitigation. Impacts to water regulation are considered to be minimal

for jatropha. In addition, these tradeoffs also need to be considered against the

provisioning service tradeoffs identified in Chapter 6 as well as cultural tradeoffs

which are beyond the scope of this thesis.

125

Chapter 6. HUMAN WELL-BEING IMPACTS

FROM BIOFUEL-INDUCED CHANGES TO

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVISION

6.1. Introduction

This chapter addresses thesis objective d) identify and examine key tradeoffs

involved including national development, food security, fuel security and livelihoods,

and e) develop procedures and tools to assist in decision making about multi-

criteria land-use options at the village level.

Moving from the current land use to a land use incorporating jatropha as a biofuel

feedstock will change the basket of ecosystem services produced by the

environment. Of particular concern in this chapter is the impact that jatropha growing

has on other provisioning services such as food provision, fuel provision (including

fuels other than jatropha ) and the overall impact that this change in provisioning

services has on human well-being. In essence this chapter asks the following key

questions:

How does growing jatropha in southern Africa negatively impact on local, national

and global food security?

How does growing of biofuel in southern Africa enhance local livelihoods (human

well-being)?

How does growing of biofuels improve local or global fuel security?

The social and developmental aspects of biofuels, especially as they relate to

southern Africa, raise a very contentious topic with strong arguments being put

forward for both positive and negative impacts. Issues that have received extensive

coverage include impacts of land grabs (Hall 2011; Cotula 2011a; Schoneveld 2013),

displacement of indigenous communities and/or loss of land tenure (Sully and

Nelson 2009; Cotula et al. 2008), reduced returns to land and labour (German et al.

2011), increased rural development (Diaz-Chavez 2010), increased national GDP

(Arnd et al. 2009), stimulated agricultural development (Vermeulen et al. 2009) and

126

food fuel conflicts (Rosillo-Calle and Johnson 2010).

Two case studies are used throughout this section to substantiate findings. Details of

these studies are provided in appendix B, with Table 6-1 giving a summary of salient

features. Though the data from these studies give relatively positive social impact

results, it must be emphasised that these two projects are exceptions and must be

viewed in the context of the wider literature where a host of negative impacts have

been recorded (e.g. Sulle and Nelson 2009; Schoneveld 2011; German et al. 2011a,

b, c). These projects do not represent a statistical random sample of jatropha

projects, but rather are projects that were deliberately chosen because they are

doing better than the others. As such results should be viewed more in terms of how

things could be done in a more socially responsible manner rather than as a blanket

endorsement of positive benefits from jatropha growing.

127

Table 6-1. Comparison of the Malawi and Mozambique case studies

BERL Malawi Niqel Mozambique Project type Small growers planting jatropha as

hedgerows. Trees managed by the farmer’s household

Large-scale commercial block plantation. Trees managed by paid labour.

Project extent

90 field extension staff to train and establish over 6M trees with 30 thousand smallholders. BERL ceased extension of planting activities in 2013. Now waiting for the 6M trees to mature.

2000 ha planted of a proposed 7 500 ha at Grudja. 250 permanent staff plus casual labour for harvesting.

Ownership Trees owned by farmers on the farmer’s existing land. BERL, which will concentrate on oil extraction, is owned by Bio Energy For Food which has 78% of shares. Originally supported by PostNL (formally TNT).

Trees owned by Niqel lda on leased land. Private listed company in Mozambique linked to Dikon Holdings of the Netherlands.

Role of investor

Providing extension support, purchaser of seeds and oil extraction.

Growing trees, harvesting and extracting oil.

Current demography and smallholder farming practices

High population density. Wall-to-wall permanent small farms of 0.1 to 2.5 ha (1.7ha mean). All farmers grow maize, with a wide mix of other crops. Mean annual income from agricultural sales US$ 38, with most households having 2 to 6 months of food shortage per year.

Low population density. Less permanent farms, slash and burn opening new fields. 11.5% of total land under cropland, the rest woodland. Farms range from 0.5 to 14 ha (3.97 ha mean), median income from agricultural sales of US$83. 4 to 5 months of food shortage per year.

Proposed destination of final product

Oil to be directly blended into national diesel fuel to a maximum of 9%.

Oil to be exported to Maputo – will probably undergo transestification for blending. Niqel aims to produce 25% of total Mozambique biofuel diesel needed to achieve a 3% blend with diesel.

Harvest, yield to date and hoped for long- term yield.

2012/13 first harvest (Jan to March) yield ranges hugely, median 0.07 kg/tree, but with 5 farmers reporting over 0.4kg/tree. BEREL target is 1.5 kg per tree per year at maturity which is the equivalent of 1.9 t/ha (at 1250 trees/ha)

2012/13 first formal harvest. Yield increased from 0.16 t/ha in the first year to 0.4 t/ha from two-year old trees. Target is 3 t/ha at maturity

Proportion of farm land converted to jatropha

A 500 tree jatropha hedge takes up 7% of the average farm at present. This might increase slightly as trees grow.

Approximately 6% of the area is converted to jatropha, reducing area per farmer from an estimated 27 ha to 25 ha. However, it would have had no impact on the area under crop production.

Impact on food security

Some cropland land is lost to jatropha trees and there is possible competitive interaction between trees and crops. Additional income will enable farmers to purchase food during the most food insecure months.

Land for home food production same. Plantation policy limits labour to one family member per household. Respondents say they maintain their crop production. Additional income to labour will help them purchase food.

Impacts on woodlands / woodland products

No or minimal impact. There will be ~7500 ha of woodland lost, however, given the ratio of woodland to households the impact of this loss will be minimal in services it provides.

Infrastructure benefits

BERL has established an oil pressing plant in Lilongwe.

Niqel has established 200km of all-weather road. This allows community members from surrounding villages to access the tar road during the wet season – something they could not do in the past. They are also building a new primary school and have created small dams for community water provision.

128

6.2. Food-fuel conflicts

The so-called food- fuel debate, i.e. the impact that bioenergy production will have

on food security, is the main factor that has changed the global biofuels discourse

from being seen as a positive developmental initiative into an issue of potential

global concern (Neville 2012). The food-fuel issue has received extensive media and

scientific coverage (Fischer 2009; Rossi and Lambrou 2009; Rosillo-Calle and

Johnson 2010; HLPE 2013a). The objective of this sub-chapter is not to try to

synthesise the global debate (this has been done a number of times as cited above),

but rather to extract some of the unique southern African nuances; also, to explain

why the impacts in southern Africa have the potential to be very different from the

global discourse – especially as it relates to jatropha production. Much of the global

food-fuel debate has focused on the use of maize (corn) in the USA for fuel.

Extrapolating the USA arguments to biofuel development in southern Africa is not

applicable as the local situation is fundamentally different from that in the USA.

However, maize production for food remains core to the SADC food security debate.

Within the African context the food-fuel debate is inextricably linked to the food

production from small-scale farmers. There are complex interplays between global

and local biofuel developments and smallholder’s abilities to grow both food and

biofuel.

The approximately 140 percent global rise in food prices between 2002 and 2007

was partly a consequence of global biofuel production, but was also caused by

rising input costs (especially those linked to fuel and fertiliser), drought, globalized

trade, speculation and other factors (Fischer et al. 2009; Stromberg and Gasparatos

2012). This impact needs to be put in the perspective of over 40 years of decline in

real terms of food commodity prices (FAO 2011). This long-term decline in food

prices, linked with globalisation has made agricultural margins, especially in the third

world exceptionally small. Commercial farmers have responded to these pressures

by mechanising and moving to larger production units, but many of Africa’s small-

scale farmers have sunk deeper into poverty (HLPE 2013; IFAD 2011). Western

countries have used trade barriers, subsidies and the promotion of biofuels to protect

their farmers.

129

Food insecurity is, in most instances, not a consequence of a global inadequacy in

food production, but rather income inequality which prevents the poor from

accessing food (Rosillo-Calle and Tschrirly 2010).The key to the food-fuel debate as

it relates to southern Africa is an understanding of the nature of poverty in the sub-

region. As covered in the introductory chapter, southern Africa encompasses some

of the world’s poorest countries, and these countries’ economies are largely

dependent on agriculture. Ironically it is the rural small-scale farmers in these

countries who are often the poorest, and though agriculturalists, they often

experience prolonged periods of hunger (IAC 2004; Kydd et al. 2002; Livingston et

al. 2011; Rosegrant et al. 2005). This is illustrated in Table 6-2 below with data

collected from small-scale farmers in Malawi, who despite recent fertiliser subsidies

aimed at increasing farm level maize yields, still experience many months of food

shortfalls during the year. There is also a large and growing urban poor, partly due

to rural-urban migration, which results in urban growth rates of over 6% in some

cities (Livingston et al. 2011; GoM 2010).

Table 6-2 Percentage of farmers recording that their household goes hungry in any month of the year, split between jatropha growers (n=55 ) and non-growers (n=41 ). The slightly lower rate of hunger of jatropha growers is attributed to their average farm size being larger (P<001, two tail t test)., rather than as a contribution from jatropha since they were only just harvesting their first jatropha crop (see appendix B for more details on the study).

The scale of the farming enterprise, international food commodity prices,

globalization and low yields all contribute to this farmer poverty. Africa currently

experiences high levels of food insecurity and hunger, but this predates the planting

of biofuels and has not been caused by biofuels. The debate therefore needs to be

on whether biofuels will deepen this disparity or can growing biofuel be part of a

solution although empirical data are limited, and there are indications that biofuels

could impact in either direction (e.g. Diaz-Chavez 2010; German et al. 2011).

Percentage of respondents claiming to go hungry during any one month

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Ma

r

Apr Ma

y

Jun

Grow 2 7 15 25 42 56 82 73 11 0 0 2

No grow 15 23 28 40 50 63 80 80 25 13 3 15

Total 7 14 20 32 45 59 81 76 17 5 1 7

130

In attempting to unpack the complexities of the food-fuel debate it is useful to

examine the issues on three uniquely different scales, i.e. household (or even sub-

household), national and global.

6.2.1 Local food-fuel conflicts and local food secu rity

Concern has been raised in the literature that the growing of biofuel may lead to

reduced local food security at the household or individual level in biofuel growing

areas (German 2011; Rosillo-Calle 2010; HLPE 2013). When discussing food

security, a broad definition of household level food security is needed such as the

four dimensional model of FAO (2008). Food security is more than simply the ability

to grow food and in effect wages can compensate for reduced production. The

concern is that those engaged in biofuel projects may not have the time to also

engage in household food growing, and/or the cash income from biofuel production

may be insufficient to purchase food, and/or income may be diverted to purchases

other than food. There is a specific concern that woman and children may be

disadvantaged if men divert the cash income to non-food purchases.

German et al.(2011) have suggested that jatropha growing in Ghana provided a

lower return to land and labour than had been achieved through subsistence farming

in the same region. Put differently, the job opportunities or cash income from

jatropha growing are less than can be achieved from the land if it is used for

subsistence agricultural purposes.

6.2.1.1 Method

Two case studies were investigated; one in Mozambique linked to a large-scale

commercial plantation and one in Malawi linked to small-scale growers (see

appendix B and C for greater details regarding the case studies). Respondents in

Malawi were split into jatropha growers and non-growers. In Mozambique they were

divided into permanent plantation workers, temporary workers and non-workers.

131

6.2.1.2 Results

In neither Mozambique nor Malawi could any conclusive evidence be found that

growing jatropha was increasing food insecurity. In Mozambique, the company never

employs more than one household member to work on the plantation, leaving other

household members to tend their fields. In a group interview respondents said that

they would simply employ local labour if they needed additional labour to tend their

crop. However, there was also no clear indication that plantation workers have

increased food security. In fact non-workers tended to have more household assets

than plantation workers. In Mozambique the extent of the untransformed woodland is

approximately nine times the extent of agricultural fields. Even after allocating 7500

hectares to jatropha, there is still no shortage of land for crop production. It would

appear that the truly poor in the community are those most eager to take temporary

employment opportunities, and though these pay very low wages, the respondents

were eager to take the jobs. The Mozambique community also had extensive

access to woodland products. Commodities such as fuel wood are in effect in over-

supply for them, and this contrasts sharply with Malawi where fuel wood is a scarce

and expensive commodity.

In Malawi the situation is far more complex as the jatropha is being grown on the

land holdings of the farmers and therefore could displace food crops or suppress the

growth of food crops. This is in a region where farmers are already food insecure

(see Table 6-3). The statistically larger farms of those who chose to grow jatropha

are likely to be the reason for the jatropha grower having fewer months of hunger.

Data from five years ago, before jatropha was grown, support this. The decrease in

hunger from 10 years ago is due to most farmers being re-located to new and bigger

farms during that period, and may also be in part due to government fertiliser

subsidies. When asked for their perceptions on the impact of jatropha growing on

food production 23% of respondents claim they have less food since starting to grow

jatropha, whilst 5 % claim they have more. They gave the reasons for this as:

reduced food is experienced because of jatropha reducing fertility for other crops (4);

jatropha taking space from other crops (3); shading other crops (2). Reasons for

more food relate to having money from jatropha to purchase food. Altogether 16

growers believe jatropha reduces the yield of other crops, whilst four believe it

improves the yield.

132

Table 6-3. A comparison between average months of hunger between jatropha growers and non-growers

Average months of hunger

per year

now 5 years

ago

10 years

ago

All 4.1 4.0 5.3

Non-growers 4.8 4.6 5.0

Jatropha

growers

3.6 3.5 5.5

In Malawi we found that the jatropha trees planted in hedgerows physically took up

about 2.07 m2 per tree or 0.1 ha per 500 trees (BERL suggests 400-600 trees per

farm). As trees mature, the area per tree may increase. Even if the trees are planted

as a border hedge, this still represents a loss of crop area. However, many of the

jatropha growers (other than in the community of Cimwaza) considered that they had

sufficient land and hence their farming practices are more likely to be labour rather

than land limited.

A large, but unanswered question, both from our data and in the literature in general,

is - to what extent does jatropha growing impact on surrounding food crops? In

essence the BERL cropping system is an agroforestry system. Although there are

unique situations where trees enhance crop growing in agroforestry systems (Nair

1993) the more common impact is one of competition. Trees often have root systems

extending seven times the canopy diameter. Jatropha is not normally nitrogen fixing

so it will not have this crop benefit (Achten 2008; Madhaiyan et al. 2013), it casts a

heavy shade, but probably has good windbreak properties. It is also a moderate

water user (Gush and Moodly 2007). Jatropha seedcake appears to be a good

fertiliser and can increase crop yields when applied to food crops (Srinophakun

2012). The fertiliser benefit was one of the benefits presented to the Malawi farmers

when jatropha was first promoted. However, BERL’s centralised processing facility

makes the logistics of returning seedcake to the farmers impossible. The seedcake

will most likely be sold in the Lilongwe region for fertiliser.

From the Malawi data we found a trend that high yields of seeds (yields being based

133

on the declared cash income) came predominantly from hedgerows (Figure 6-1).

Almost all farmers with block plantations reported low, or no, income from the sale of

seeds, By contrast some farmers with very few trees growing as hedges reported

high returns (based on the number of trees or the computed land area under trees).

Though the data set is very small for plantations, and there are various explanations,

such as households committing more time to tending and picking when they only

have a few trees, an untested hypothesis is that trees that are grown in hedgerows

have more access to resources ( soil fertility and soil moisture) than those grown in

blocks. If this is the case then it is likely to occur at a cost to the other crops growing

nearby. It is also important to indicate that if this hypothesis is true then farms

adjacent to the farm growing jatropha as a boundary fence would also be impacted

from the hedge, but not gain the benefits.

Figure 6-1. Value of jatropha sales achieved per ha versus the actual area planted to jatropha, Calculations are based on the land occupied by an average tree.

Jatropha is a labour intensive crop, especially for seed collection and seed

preparation (taking off the outer shell). From the respondent’s estimates it takes 23.5

(11.9 SD) minutes to pick 1 kg of seeds and 38 (25.8 SD) minutes to dehusk 1 kg of

seed. It takes approximately 1 hour per kg for a crop that sells at 0.17 US$ per kg.

However, on the positive side there is sound evidence that picking rates decrease as

yield increases, so this picking rate may improve if yields increase as the trees

mature (Borman et al. 2012; Everson et al. 2013). This jatropha harvesting time is

134

time that is potentially taken from other food growing activities; however, some of the

jatropha crop was found to be harvested during the late dry season when other

farming activities were not taking place. In addition this was providing a cash income

during the most food-insecure time of the year. Dehusking is a low intensity job that

takes place at night or during the heat of the day when more labour intensive jobs

are shunned, so it might have little impact on other food growing activities.

6.2.1.3 Discussion

Adding jatropha to the crop mix in southern African countries can potentially impact

on household food security in a number of direct and indirect ways. The type of

impacts will differ between large-scale plantation models and small-scale production

models, though in both cases the issue is the relative value that the household can

obtain from the cash income from jatropha versus reduced agriculture as a result of

labour or land being diverted away from food crop production. Additional cash

income can potentially be used for food purchases, or even potentially for the

purchase of agricultural inputs to boost food production. It may however be diverted

to non-food purchases and therefore increase food insecurity.

There is a theoretical possibility that although jatropha growing may divert family

labour away from crop growing and hence household food security, in our two case

studies this seems unlikely. In the small grower Malawi case study, households

place high a priority on their food growing activities and are unlikely to abandon them

for the relatively low profits from jatropha. In the Mozambique plantation example

households are either able to continue their crop production with existing household

labour or hire labour to compensate for labour lost to plantation work. In both cases

the cash income from jatropha can help supplement household food security.

In Malawi jatropha seeds are harvested during the period of greatest household

hunger. They represent the only farm based cash income for the farmers during the

periods before the first crops are harvested and as such may become an important

coping strategy for Malawi farmers in the future. However, the farmers are

concerned about the low returns they are achieving and they consider the price they

get for the seeds to be too low. If seed yields improve substantially over time, then

this could help compensate for the low price per kilogram, though there is still

135

substantive labour involved giving low returns per man-hour.

Displacing food crops for jatropha and the untested impact jatropha might have on

crop yields are issues of potential concern. Though the land lost to jatropha is only

about seven percent of the total farm area, the impacts on food production could be

greater than this land loss. It must also be considered that these households are

already struggling to be food self-sufficient, so even a small loss of land may worsen

this situation. In Mozambique there is (currently) in effect an over-supply of

agricultural land, so land lost to the plantations has not reduced farmer’s access to

crop land and the jatropha should in no way reduce overall food production.

6.2.2 National food-fuel conflicts and national foo d security

Although local food security is about access to food, and not the amount of food

produced, at a national level it is useful to consider if the country is able to produce

its basic food nutritional needs. Many African countries aspire to be food self-

sufficient. National level food self-sufficiency does not necessarily equate to food

security for all the national citizens. For the food-fuel debate, the question at the

national level is - will biofuel growing reduce individual countries’ ability to meet their

national food production requirements needed to feed their population? The irony is

that currently many of the SADC countries are barely food secure, with some

routinely having to import food (especially in drought years) (Figure 6-4).

At a global level the major biofuel producing countries are major food producers with

national level food security. In fact the motivation for biofuel production in places

such as the USA (largest producer of corn ethanol), Germany (largest producer of

biodiesel) and Brazil (largest producer of sugarcane ethanol) is that biofuels provide

an additional market to stimulate the agricultural sector which is over-supplying food

for the national market. In all major biofuel producing countries biofuel production

has not led to national level food insecurity, though in countries such as Brazil with

its high inequalities, there are high levels of local food insecurity (Oxfam 2010). In

Brazil the relationship between biofuels and local food insecurity is complex, with

some authors pointing out the overall positive impact biofuels have had on rural

development, while other authors have suggested that biofuel feedstock crops give

136

fewer opportunities than subsistence agriculture (Gasparatos et al. 2012, Luhtonen

2012, German et al. 2011, HLPE 2013, Oxfam 2010).

Africa as a continent has exceptionally low levels of agricultural production, and

increased production has tended to be through extensification of agriculture whilst

globally the trend has been intensification (Figure 6-2 and 6-3). South African

commercial agriculture is an exception, but for most African countries and for South

African small-scale agriculture, in effect green revolution agricultural technologies

have not been embraced and yields are similar now to those of the 1960s. There

has, however, been an upturn in per hectare yields in some countries over the past

five years. Malawi had an almost constant per hectare maize yield from 1960 until

2006, but then a fertiliser subsidy was introduced and this had a dramatic impact,

almost doubling maize yields (FAO Stats and appendix B). Malawian yields are still,

however, a fraction of the climatic potential. In Mozambique yields dipped during the

war years, and are still exceptionally low with no, or low levels of fertiliser used

(Figure 6-2 and appendix B). South Africa is a SSA exception with per hectare yield

increases roughly paralleling global trends, but actual yields being about one tonne

per hectare less than the global means due to inherently poor climatic and soil

conditions. The large increase in South African yields over the past five years is in

part due to technical advances, but also probably associated with a period of good

rainfall. The agricultural potential in countries such as Mozambique, Malawi and

Zambia is far above those of South Africa when high input practices are employed,

as illustrated in the sugarcane trends (Rutherford 2010). Malawi and Zambia far

exceed global yields of sugarcane and yields in Mozambique have rocketed over the

past few years as the plantations have been re-established. It is important to point

out that sugarcane is grown as an industrial crop with high inputs, unlike maize

which is grown as a subsistence crop by small-scale farmers with low inputs.

However, it is clear that the development in the cane industry is not matching the

international improvements seen in the global data over the past few years. South

African cane is counter trend, partly due to the high input cost involved because of

the less favourable climatic conditions, including the fact that in many areas it has to

rely on expensive irrigation. Both large-scale and small-scale sugar producers in

South Africa have a declining cane yield, with the rate of decline in the small-scale

farmers greater than that of large-scale farmers (Ngepah 2010a,b).

137

Figure 6-2. Long-term trends in area of maize production and yield per unit area as 10-year means from 1961 to 2012 (FAO data). The figures to the right are a five-year mean up to 2012 to illustrate rapid changes over the past few years. Values for bars are on the right and for lines on the left.

Figure 6-3 Long-term trends in area of sugar cane production and yield per unit area as 10- year means from 1961 to 2012 (FAO data). The figures to the right are a five-year mean up to 2012 to illustrate rapid changes over the past few years. Values for bars are on the right and for lines on the left.

All southern African countries (with the possible exception of Namibia and Botswana

in the arid west, and Lesotho with its mountainous terrain), have the agricultural

potential to be food self-sufficient in the staple crop of maize. This would be true at

138

even the conservative global yield averages, though yields far in excess of this

should be possible (see Table 6-4). The national staple requirements could be

achieved from relatively limited areas of land. Food insecurity at the national level is

therefore not limited by potential, but rather by a number of socio-political and

economic factors. Clearly from a biophysical perspective the countries could produce

a mix of biofuel and food. In fact, for those countries with a high production potential,

it would be theoretically possible to be 100% food secure, 100% fuel secure and still

have surplus to export and to maintain extensive conservation areas. Exceptions to

this are the predominantly arid countries of Botswana and Namibia, and South Africa

which in addition to being largely arid, also has a far higher fuel usage than the other

countries. Figure 6-4 shows cereal surplus and deficit. This was calculated by

dividing the year’s cereal production (UNDP 2013) by the national food needs (based

on 173 kg maize per year minimum dietary need (Borman et al. 2012). This in effect

gives per capita cereal shortfall or surplus in any given year. A few key issues

emerge from the Figure.

Surpluses (or deficits) vary substantially between years. This is largely due to rainfall

fluctuations which are well documented for the region (Tyson 1994), but also due to

farmer decisions on how much to plant and how many inputs to use. In addition

national policy and the provision of input subsidies or controlled market prices will

also have an effect.

South Africa (with its relatively low production potential, but with a predominance of

large-scale farms), consistently produces the highest per capita surplus. In the entire

time period, there is only one year (1992) with a slight deficit (1992 was a year of

severe drought).

Zimbabwe produced high surpluses in most years until 1990, though a decline can

be observed from the early 1980s. From 2000 onwards there has been a period of

almost constant deficit. This has been largely attributed to its land reform process.

Despite some evidence that land reform has had positive impacts (Scoones et al.

2010), at a national level the small-scale farmer model is not feeding the nation and

the trend in food production is still downward. Many small-scale farmers also chose

to produce tobacco rather than maize as it is more profitable for them (Majeke 2013).

139

A number of countries consistently produce a deficit. Some of these are arid

countries such as Namibia and Botswana, but they also include Angola and

Mozambique, both with high production potential. Angola and Mozambique both

showed a decline from 1960 to 1990, but with improvements since then. These

trends can probably be attributed to the extensive periods of civil war. Non-cereal

crops such as cassava are also important starches in these two countries so the

deficit may be less than indicated. In both Mozambique and Angola there is a trend

toward improved production from the early 1990s.

Zambia had a period until the late 1970s when it produced a consistent surplus.

From then until the late 1990s there was predominantly a deficit, though this deficit

showed a trend in reduction, with 2010 and 2011 reflecting a surplus. A fertiliser

subsidy programme has been in place since 2004 (Masson and Richer-Gilbert 2012;

Chirwa and Dorward 2013). Fertiliser has been subsidised at 50% and the

government bought maize at inflated prices. During 2013 subsidies were reduced

and purchase prices deregulated due to the unsustainability of the subsidy scheme

(Reuters 2013).

Tanzania which had a consistent deep deficit until about 1980, had less of a deficit

with odd years of surplus since then.

Malawi had a declining surplus from 1961 until about 1991. From then onwards

there were huge inter-annual fluctuations with many years in deficit. The last six

years have shown a consistent surplus and this correlates with the introduction of

fertiliser subsidies (Ricker-Gilbert 2011). As in Zambia, the extent of these subsidies

was reduced in 2013.

140

Table 6-4. Land area needed to meet national minimum daily food cereal intake and national replacement of transportation fuels with biofuels for select SADC countries. These are broad estimates and do not take into account specific country level agronomic potential, but are based on global mean productions (maize) and locally realised productions (sugar cane). Biodiesel is based on a conservative 500 l ha-1 which is potentially achievable from a number of oil seed crops or from a jatropha yield of under 2t ha-1.

SA Malawi Zambia Moz Zim Angola Namibia Botswana Tanzania

Population. million (2012) 50.7 15.8 13.8 24.5 13 20.2 2.4 2.1 47.6

Income index1 0.674 0.302 0.385 0.325 0.213 0.572 0.604 0.72 0.388

MPI1 0.057 0.334 0.328 0.512 0.172 na 0.187 na 0.332

Maize for MDA (million t) 8.8 2.7 2.4 4.2 2.2 3.5 0.4 0.4 8.2

Land area (million ha) 121.8 9.4 74.3 78.4 74.3 124.7 82.3 56.7 886

land that is arable (%) 9.9 38.2 13.1 6.6 10.6 3.3 0.97 0.13 13.1

Land available for dry land sugar production in (millions of ha5)

0.2 1.2 2.3 0.6 1.1 0.5

Land under cereal 2011 (million ha)

3.2 1.9 5.7 2.5 1.9 1.9 0.3 0.2 5.7

Annual cereal production 2011 (million t)

12. 9 3.9 5.7 2.8 1.6 1.4 0.1 0.06 7.8

Annual petrol use (kt oil equivalent) 6 611 147 155 141 1 189 299 364 245

Annual diesel use (kt oil equivalent) 5 014 65 377 228 980 230 276 717

141

SA Malawi Zam Moz Zimbabwe Angola Namibia Botswana Tanzania

Land needed for maize at 5 t/ha to meet national minimum daily allowance (million ha)

1.76 0.54 0.48 0.84 0.44 0.7 0.08 0.08 1.64

Assumed sugar cane yield (t/ha) 80 120 120 120 120 120 80 80 80 Assumed biodiesel yield (l/ ha) 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Ethanol needed (million l) 12 962

242 288 303 276 2 331 586 713 480

Biodiesel needed (million l) 6 428 180 83 483 292 1 256 294 353 919

Land needed to give 100% transportation fuel replacement (million ha)

15.17 0.39 0.20 1. 00 0.62 2. 79 0.69 0.84 1. 92

Land needed to give 100% national cereal food and transportation fuel needs (million ha)

16.

93

0.93 0.68 1. 84 1.058 3.49 0.77 0.92 3.56

Proportion of total land needed to give 100% national cereal food and transportation fuel needs

0.134 0.099 0.009 0.024 0.014 0.028 0.009 0.016 0.04

Proportion of arable land needed to give 100% national cereal food and transportation fuel needs

1.407 0.258 0.59 0.354 0.258 0.851 0.968 3.530 0.307

1International human development indicators http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/ZAF.html 2013 report data Based on minimum dietary food requirement of 173 kg of maize per year (Borman et al. 2012; FAO 2010) Based on 70 l/t for sugarcane for ethanol to replace petroleum assuming 70% energy and 700 l / ha biodiesel to replace diesel assuming 94% of diesel energy Fuel data http://data.worldbank.org/country Sugarcane land availability from Watson 2011

142

Figure 6-4. Estimates on national level cereal surplus or deficit based on cereal production (FAO Stats) and population. Values above the zero line suggest that at the national level there was a cereal surplus. Note: no consideration has been given for non-human consumption needs or the contribution of non-cereal food crops.

143

Despite the theoretical ability of most southern African countries to be able to

produce biofuel without sacrificing national food security, the reality is that for many

southern African countries there is currently a food deficit at the national level during

all or most years. For some countries changes in policy, especially regarding

subsidies has led to better production over the past few years. In the case of Malawi

the sustainability of the subsidies is questionable as the country has sunk deeper

into debt during the period in which they were offered (see appendix B). How

biofuels will impact on food security is not clear. During the past five years, the

period of rapid biofuel expansion, most countries have increased national food

security, though there is no evidence that this has in any way been linked to biofuel

expansion. However, the real danger exists that if agricultural land is diverted to

biofuel and there is no policy change to promote agriculture then many countries

could sink into deeper food insecurity. Of particular concern is where fuel is grown

for export at the expense of local food production. It is, however, clear that current

issues of national fuel insecurity are not related to biofuel expansion. Low agricultural

production needs to be understood and tackled regardless of biofuel expansion.

Most African countries rely on a small-scale grower model to produce the bulk of

their staple food needs. This approach coincides with countries that struggle to meet

their minimum national food security, and secondly with countries with extensive

rural poverty. In many cases rural farmers cannot even meet their own food

requirements, even with state subsidies (see Table 6.2; Ricker-Gilbert 2011). The

ability to meet national food requirements in a period of rapidly growing urban

populations was investigated through the development of a simple Excel-based

spreadsheet model. The model is based on Malawi data as Malawi is one of the

countries with the highest density of rural population and hence has extremely

limited ability to expand agricultural area without infringing into traditionally non-

agricultural areas such as forest reserves (Table 6.5) (GoM 2010). The model

considers two scenarios as to how farmland is subdivided due to population growth.

The scenarios are run with and without jatropha, and jatropha is set either as a fixed

0.1 hectares or as a fixed 8% of the land area.

144

Table 6-5. Parameter values used to model maize-based food security

Values used Comments

Seed US$ 30 to 100 for yields from 1 to 6 t ha-1

The model is not sensitive to this value

Urban population growth rate

5.6% Malawi Stats (GoM 2010)

Initial rural urban split 82:18 Malawi Stats (GoM 2010) Rural population growth rate

2% Malawi Stats (GoM 2010)

Initial farm size 1.7 ha This was the mean from our study, which is high for Malawi, with 1 ha being more common.

Maize yields 1, 2.2 and ,6 t ha-1 2.2 is current yield (FAO stats for 2011 and 2012)

Annual yield increase 1% Based on international trends

Area used for housing and other non-maize crops

0.3ha

Household annual maize consumption

0.697 tonne Based on 5 people per hh. ref

Cost of fertilizer Yield t ha-1 US$ 1 33 2 126 3 223 4 322 5 427 6 535

Based on fertiliser prices of US$ 1.91per kg urea plus 0.73 for K and other elements. Fertiliser response curve based on Mwimba (1999)

Initial population size 1000 The model assumes an initial population of 1000 people.

Area under jatropha Either 0.1 ha or 8% of farm area

Based on study site data

Scenario 1 Farm size decreases as rural population increases

Historic evidence suggests this is realistic

Scenario 2 Farm size remains constant – surplus rural population is therefore landless

Scenario 1. In this scenario farm size reduces as population grows. This is a

relatively realistic scenario if land is limited and there is no option to open new land.

As such it is a likely scenario for Malawi, whilst in Mozambique there is still an

opportunity for the medium term to include new farms. The unrealistic aspect of this

145

scenario is it assumes all small-scale farmers are primarily producing maize. Our

data showed farmers in fact grow a wide range of crops, largely for home

consumption. As illustrated in Figure 6-5 (with additional graphs in appendix D) the

following are likely outcomes of this scenario.

Regardless of initial small-scale farmer yields, the patterns stay the same, the only

difference being the time span before inevitable maize shortages occur .

If jatropha is introduced into the farm as a new land-use that displaces maize, then

the rate at which the maize shortage occurs increases. If jatropha is held as a

constant area per farm then this has a far more rapid impact than if jatropha is fixed

as a proportion of the total farm area.

At present there is the potential for a large national surplus of maize during the early

years. By 2016, 2037 and 2056 (for 1, 2.2 and 6 t initial yield respectively) an urban

shortfall of maize occurs. If jatropha is included as 8% of the farm area then an

urban shortage occurs in 2012, 2034 and 2053. A 0.1 ha per farm under jatropha

changes the onset of these shortages to 2010, 2031 and 2051 respectively.

By 2041, 2070 and 2082 respectively the rural farmers no longer meet their

household food requirements given an initial yield of 1, 2.2. and 6 t ha-1. At

approximately year 2034, 2057 and 2075 respectively (Figure 6.6) the cost of

producing maize will equal the profit from selling surplus, and after this point the

farmer will no longer be able to afford inputs based on maize sales. Yield is therefore

likely to drop (not considered in the model outputs). With jatropha added, the rate to

these points increases. Jatropha continues providing an income which exceeds

maize income over time (or when maize yields are low).

Regardless of maize yield, farmer cash profits are trivial. Less than 0.40 US$ per day

when averaged over the year for the six tonnes yield or 0.08 US$ per day per

household member at the start, and diminishing rapidly per year. The profit curves

are, however, highly sensitive to both input costs and sales prices. No input costs

other than fertiliser and seed are assumed, which is probably unrealistic. A maize

price of US$122 is assumed. This price has fluctuated widely over the past few years

– however, the Malawi farm interview data had most farmers reporting a sales price

that was only one tenth of this maize price. At this price they would be making no

146

profit at all, even given the maize subsidy. Under this scenario farmers rapidly get

poorer in terms of cash income earned, but jatropha can partly offset this (Figure 6-

5).

There are two points in the data where major farmer behavioural changes are likely

to take place and results beyond that point are likely to differ from the modelled

outputs: Firstly when profit reaches zero, i.e. the sale of maize no longer funds the

next year’s planting (at this point fertiliser use is likely to decline in high fertiliser use

scenarios), and secondly when household consumption starts to exceed production

(at this point cropping practices are likely to change and might result in higher

proportions of the farm being planted to maize, and possibly also the removal of the

jatropha trees).

The model assumption is that 0.3 hectares of the farm is used for activities other

than maize. This is the key reason why maize yields drop off as rapidly as farms

become smaller as a consequence of an expanding rural population.

In all scenarios it is assumed the family meets their own maize consumption needs

first, and only the surplus is sold.

147

Figure 6-5. Scenario 1 at an initial maize yield of 1 t per ha and farm size decreasing with population growth. On the left without jatropha and on the right with a fixed 0.1 ha jatropha. See appendix for full-sized figures and additional scenario runs

Scenario 2. In this scenario all factors are as scenario 1, with the exception that the

number of farms stays constant and they do not get smaller as population increases

(Figure 6.7). For the model purpose, increased rural population is added to the urban

category as it is a net consumer of maize without being a producer.

The key differences in results from scenario 2 and scenario 1 are the time taken

before the urban need can no longer be met (which is sooner), and the fact that the

rural farmers are able to meet their household food needs (assuming they can still

afford the maize growing input costs). In the profit per tonne results, the returns stay

constant over time. Maize production and surplus increase over time due to the

assumption of a 1% increase in yields annually as a result of technology. Clearly if

this assumption is removed then yields will remain flat and the time to shortages will

Figure 6-6. Net farm income from maize and jatropha over time for (left) scenario 1 with decreasing farm side and (right) scenario 2 with constant farm size

148

decrease.

Figure 6-7. Scenario 2 at an initial maize yield of 1 t per ha and farm size remaining constant with population growth. On the left without jatropha and on the right with a fixed 0.1 ha jatropha. See appendix for full-sized figures and additional scenario runs

The above two scenarios assume that all small-scale farmers are predominantly

cropping for maize. This is clearly unrealistic and a third scenario was run where the

proportion of maize farmers was only half of total farmers. The predictable

consequence of this was that the time to critical points of shortage was far sooner

and surpluses less.

Though the above models are very simple and crude, they raise a number of

important issues for the food security and biofuel debate.

Relying on small-scale farmers to provide staple crops is unlikely to bring small-scale

farmers out of poverty, and will inevitably lead to firstly national and later local food

insecurity. In fact, in scenario 1 farmers’ poverty levels rapidly increase. The model is

extremely sensitive to input costs and the maize price realised by farmers: changing

these parameters can lead to scenarios of no profit or relatively high profit. Mason

(2011) found that rural poverty rates in Zambia did not change despite the

introduction of maize subsidies.

Though there is a potential for a short-term surplus that could be sold outside of the

country, this will probably only be achieved through the use of subsidies which both

Malawi and Zambia have found to be unsustainable.

149

The subdivision of farms has a critical impact on the rural farmers’ ability to provide

both their own food needs and long-term national food security. If farms are

subdivided in proportion to rural population growth then a short-term consequence is

an urban shortage of maize, with an eventual outcome of a rural food shortage. Even

high maize yields have limited ability to stave off this inevitable outcome.

Adding jatropha to the crop mix accelerates the time to both urban and rural maize

shortages, but especially at higher maize yield this impact is surprisingly small,

especially under scenario 2 conditions with sizes remaining constant.

There is very little cash incentive for farmers to produce more than their own needs

of cereal crops. If they increase yield, the risks they carry will increase enormously,

but additional profit is minimal or non-existent (see appendix D). Given the cost and

sales price of maize that we used, jatropha profits out-perform maize profits, even

though they are a smaller proportion of the farm. This outcome is, however, very

susceptible to changes in maize input costs or market value.

Based on a small grower model, there is potential for biofuel in the short term, either

from food crop surplus or from surplus land that can be diverted to biofuel. In the

near to medium future this land will be needed for food. This finding is obviously

more relevant to Malawi than Mozambique, since in Mozambique there are relatively

large amounts of land that are not yet under agriculture. This will delay the outcomes

as suggested above, but they will still occur given sufficient time.

6.2.2.1 Discussion

Though the threat to national level food security is a real and justifiable concern for

southern Africa, and could potentially happen, there is no current evidence to

suggest that biofuel production has increased national food insecurity. In fact most

southern African countries have had improved food security over the past five years,

the main period of biofuel expansion. This is considered as coincidental and is

probably in no way linked to the local biofuel expansion. It is most likely directly

related to fertiliser subsidies and generally improved conditions for farmers. There is

a possibility that global food price increases (partly linked to global biofuel) may have

in part stimulated the greater local emphasis on agricultural support.

150

For most southern African countries (excluding the western arid countries) there is a

very real opportunity for both enhanced food production and simultaneous biofuel

production. This would, however, need extensive support to the food producing

sector so that it could move to being more productive. Clearly current African

agricultural systems are not working. They are struggling to achieve national level

food benefits, and are simultaneously keeping the rural poor in deep and growing

poverty. Dealing with the problems of African agriculture therefore needs to be a

priority, regardless of biofuels. In part, the entrenched peasant farmer model,

common throughout Africa, and based on tiny land holdings, will make long-term

provision of agricultural surpluses difficult, and seems to trap the farmers in

perpetual and deepening poverty (both confirmed by the models above as well as

Africa-wide experience over the past few decades).

Jatropha growing within a smallholder production model of food production could

increase the rate at which a maize surplus from the farmer will decline and hence

could reduce national food security. This is functionally the same as happened in

Zimbabwe where the cash crop of tobacco has led to farmers planting tobacco rather

than maize. However, it is unlikely that jatropha has sufficiently high value for

farmers to dedicate substantive proportions of their land to it. Grown in small

amounts, jatropha in the short term is unlikely to adversely affect food production

and could potentially give significant cash benefits to the farmer. Though this will not

take the farmer out of poverty it may reduce the depth of poverty. Over the long term,

even high maize yields will not result in national food security given the current small

grower production model.

In the large-scale jatropha faming model, impacts on national food security are less

clear. These large-scale plantations can, in some circumstances, operate in a way

that has limited impact on local food production, and may even enhance food

production through the provision of infrastructure as well as through increasing local

communities’ ability to invest in agriculture. For Mozambique, with relatively

abundant land, large areas could potentially be moved to large-scale jatropha

production with little or any impact on national food production. In Malawi this would

be more complex as most land is already under food crop production and therefore

this land would have to be taken out of food production to make way for biofuel. In

151

Malawi unlike Mozambique, farmers cannot simply re-locate to new areas of unused

land.

South Africa is an exception in that there is relatively limited land available for

agricultural expansion, but the country has a long-term history of being food

sufficient. In South Africa’s case there would seem to be a potential for a limited

amount of biofuel expansion (though this is unlikely to be jatropha), but with the

proportional biofuel contribution to total fuel needs being far less than is possible in

the northern and eastern neighbours.

6.2.3 Impacts of the global food-fuel conflict on southern African biofuel

projects

The global fuel-food debate has a number of important consequences for the local

debate as to whether jatropha growing is likely to impact on southern African farmers

and southern African local and national food security. This is for the following

reasons

International food markets have strong impacts on local food markets, and in many

instances determine local food prices. This in turn impacts on local farmer profit and

the choices farmers make in crop selection. Though, to the farmer, jatropha profits

are small, they may exceed profits from the sale of staple foods. However, a global

increase in commodity food prices could persuade farmers to move away from

biofuels. International biofuel production will impact on international food supply and

hence global food markets.

The international acceptance or rejection of biofuels will have large impacts on the

global market pull for biofuels. It will also impact on the level of technological

development that will take place in the biofuel sector.

Globally, Africa is seen as the continent which can increase food production to meet

the anticipated increase in food demand over the next 50 years – this potential will

be reduced if large areas of the best land are converted to biofuels.

Public perceptions from the international debates spill over into the local (southern

African) debates, and drive local sentiment, even if the local facts and circumstances

152

are substantially different.

Much of the global debate on the food-fuel conflict concerns maize production. Since

maize is southern Africa’s primary food (ironically it is not an important human food

in America, the biggest producer) it has important local consequence. At the

southern African level the local maize production needs to be considered in the

framework of this global debate. Even in the case of jatropha projects, the food-fuel

conflict (if it exists) is likely to be about local maize production.

African biofuel development needs to be considered in the context of the potential

changes in African food production stimulated by global biofuel production.

There is general consensus that globally there is insufficient land and primary

production for the total replacement of fossil fuels with biofuel given competing land-

uses for food, fibre, fodder and conservation (Pimentel and Pimentel 2008; Pimentel

et al. 2010; Parikka 2004). There is also global consensus that biofuel production

has an inflationary impact on food prices. Where there is no consensus is on the

scale of this impact (Rosillo-Calle and Tschirley 2010; HLPE 2013b). During the

period of rapid food inflation observed just prior to the 2008 global economic crisis a

number of studies tried to understand the impact of biofuels on global food inflation,

and provided figures ranging from three to close to 100% (HLPE et al. 2013). The

emerging consensus is that biofuels’ impact on the food price during this period was

likely to have been in the 15-20% percent range (Rosillo-Calle and Tschirley 2010).

The rapid decline in food prices just after the economic crisis indicated just how in-

elastic food prices are to small changes in global food supply and demand. As a

consequence the short-term food price is very susceptible to short-term shocks.

However, there is speculation that over the medium to longer term increased food

prices may be a stimulus to global food production, and in this regard Africa is the

continent with the most potential since it has extensive land resources and, at

present, production levels are low (Smeets et al 2007).

It is clear that with a rapidly growing global population, food production will need to

increase, at least in the medium term, until populations stabilise (MA 2004). Some of

this increase will be due to on-going yield improvements, but it will also have to come

from increased areas under agriculture. There is a concern that the rapid yield

153

increases observed during the 1950 to 1980 period where yields increased on

average by three percent per year have ended, with yields over the 1980 to 2010

period being a more modest one percent (Pimentel et al. 2009 citing FAO 1996 to

2006 data and PRB 2007). Put differently the green revolution technologies of

fertiliser use, and plant breeding that resulted in global yield increases might be

approaching their maximum benefits. Despite Pimentel’s claim, this trend does not

appear to be true for the two bioethanol crops, maize and sugarcane. FAO data from

1961 to 2012 indicate no change in the rate of per hectare maize yield increase and

sugar cane yields between the pre- and post-1980 period (see Figure 6-8 and 6-9).

The increased production above the long-term maize trend-line over the past six

years (as shown in Figure 6-8) is in the same order of magnitude as the amount of

corn used for biofuel (~ 72 million tonnes in 2012 (Jessen 2012)). The USA, both the

world’s largest producer of maize and maize-based biofuel, produced an annual

mean of 308 million tonnes of maize from 3.2 million hectares at an annual yield of

9.3 t/ha during the 2009-2012 period (FAO statistics), with a 1.7% annual increase in

yield from 1961 to 2012. The drought season of 2012 resulted in a 40 million tonne

reduction in USA production compared to the previous year – this is almost four

times the entire South African annual maize yield. Africa as a continent only

produced 64.9 million tonnes per year over the same period, with the SADC in total

contributing about one third, and South Africa alone contributing about one sixth of

this total. Sugarcane, the other main feedstock for biofuel has shown similar trends

of increasing yield to maize, and there is no clear indication of a decline in the trend

to improved yields.

Figure 6-8. Trends in global maize production and per hectare maize yields from 1961 till 2012. The trend line for yields has been split into two time periods, pre-1981 and post-1981

154

to show that there is no drop in the rate of yield increases. (Data from FAO stats)

Figure 6-9. Trends in global sugar cane production and per hectare cane yield from 1961 till 2012. The trend line for yields has been split into two time periods, pre-1981 and post-1981 to show that there is no drop in the rate of yield increases. (Data from FAO stats)

Predicting future demands for food is complex. Firstly the process needs dependable

estimates of future population, but in addition both regional dietary needs and likely

changes in these needs need to be taken into consideration. Daily human calorific

intake ranges from 3431 kcal/cap in Western Europe to 2247 in SSA (Erb et al.

2012). In addition dietary meat protein intake differs substantially around the world

and this has major impacts on the amount of animal feedstock that must be

produced. As lifestyles improve, there is a shift to greater proportions of meat in

diets, but meat production requires approximately 5 to 10 times more primary

production to produce the same amount of final food energy as cereal crops

(Pimentel and Pimentel 2008). Large proportions of both South African and the

USA’s grain yields go to livestock feed. In addition the efficiency of food use and the

high degree of wastage are also issues raising food demand. As Erb et al. (2012)

show, the combination of demand scenarios combined with those of agricultural

production gives a wide range in the global potential for biofuels that can be

achieved without sacrificing global food supply. Their analysis suggests that there is

a potential of between 9-53 EJ/yr of global biofuel production.

Globally an estimated 66% of the world population has insufficient food (Pimentel et

al. 2009). However, much of this is not a food production problem, but rather a

poverty problem. Many regions, South Africa included, can potentially produce more

155

food, but it is uneconomic for the farmers to do so. This was one of the key

arguments used by South African maize farmers to justify a maize-based biofuel

industry in South Africa (Makenete et al. 2008; Lemmer and Schoeman 2011). It is

also clearly a key driver of the USA and EU biofuel mandate. In both these areas

farmers are able to produce surpluses for which there is no (economic) market. One

consequence of food surpluses is so called “dumping” where food produce is sold on

the international markets for below production costs. This is further exacerbated

where producer countries have high agricultural subsidies (as in the EU and USA).

The consequence for African farmers who have the combined problems of small land

size, poor infrastructure, cheap food imports, poor agricultural support and poor

market access is that it is simply uneconomic for them to produce more food .

Currently the USA is the single biggest maize producer in the world, and there is

concern that diverting USA maize to biofuel will therefore increase world hunger

(HLPE 2013b). This viewpoint is, however, a static view of maize production and

does not take into consideration the impact that cheap food exports (from both the

USA and other countries) have had on depressing food production globally. Small-

scale farmers producing staple foods are hard hit since the import parity price for

maize will determines local maize prices unless prevented by state intervention.

Globally investment in agriculture fell from 17% in 1985 to 3% in 2005 of global

international development aid (Rosillo-Calle and Tschirley 2010). This trend is true

for most African countries’ internal investment in agriculture, where despite

agriculture typically being the single biggest contributor to GDP (South Africa being a

noticeable exception), the investment in agriculture is disproportionally low (Table 6-

6). African countries’ are eager to find ways to stimulate the agricultural sector,

especially if this can be done through foreign investment. A number of African

countries see biofuels as potentially playing this role (Lerner et al. 2010).

156

Table 6-6. Contribution of agriculture to GDP in select southern African countries (adapted from Louw et al. 2008 and Fan et al. 2008).

Country GDP US$

Millions

GDP growth

2000 - 2006

Value added

Agriculture

(% of GDP)

Agriculture

expenditure

as % of total

national

expenditure

Angola 44 033 11.1 7.0

Botswana 8 500 n/a 2.5

Malawi 2 232 4.1 36 2.4

Mozambique 7 608 8.2 22 4.0

Namibia 6 372 4.7 11 5.1

South Africa 254 992 4.1 3.0

Tanzania 12 784 6.5 45 2.3

Zambia 10 907 4.9 16 2.9

Zimbabwe 5 010 -5.6 22 6.2

At a global level, reduced staple food exports from the USA, European Union and

other developed nations may have a positive impact on agriculture in the developing

world. This would be coupled to food price inflation as it would reduce the quantity of

“cheap” food flooding the market. This is likely to benefit rural farmers at the expense

of the urban poor (Rosillo-Calle and Tschirley 2010). However, in Africa where 63%

of the population is rural and in addition a large proportion of the urban population is

as a result of recent rural-urban migrations, in part driven by the high levels of rural

poverty (IAC 2004) any activity leading to rural poverty reduction will have a

profound impact; however, this positive impact needs to be considered in tandem

with the negative impact food price increases would have on the urban poor.

Clearly the interplay between biofuels, global food production, poverty and rural

development is extremely complex, with many poorly understood feedback loops

which could lead to both positive or negative consequences to Africa. The food-fuel

debate that has taken place in the popular media, and even in some of the scientific

discourse, typically overlooks these complexities, focusing rather on global supply

157

and demand. Simply suggesting that global oversupply of food should be directed to

feeding the world’s poor overlooks the dynamics that have led to poverty in the first

place. In the case of Africa, globally low food prices are probably one of the many

causes preventing the establishment of viable rural agriculture-based economies.

6.3. Jatropha projects’ impacts on community access to woodland products

As stated in section 1-6, a key assumption of biofuel expansion is that it will displace

other land-uses, and the displacement of woodlands/rangelands was hypothesised

as the area most likely to be impacted.

The case studies in Malawi and Mozambique were too limited in scope and duration

to undertake detailed research on the impacts of jatropha growing on woodland

products, and as a consequence only superficial data are available from these

studies. Relatively detailed studies on woodland-use and value from miombo sites

are available from the literature and can be used to speculate on the magnitude of

impacts (e.g. Campbell et al. 1997;Hedge 2007; Fisher 2004; Shackleton and

Gumbo 2010; Shackleton et al. 2010a) .

In Mozambique the biofuel project will have a significant impact on the woodland

resources. However, access to woodland products would currently seem to be in

over-supply, and it is unlikely that households will experience short-term impacts. In

addition grazing does not appear to be a major limiting factor at the Niqel plantation,

Mozambique. The occurrence of Tsetse Fly (Glossina spp) with the related risk of

trypanosomiasis in cattle results in few cattle being found in the region. Sixty percent

of households own goats, but the mean herd size is only 9.6 animals. Given that on

average there is about 11 ha of land per household, the reduction of land due to the

jatropha project is unlikely to result in the goat-carrying capacity being exceeded.

Respondents indicated that the goat herd declined from a mean of 23.1 head of

goats 10 years ago to 19.6 five years ago to the current 9.1. Reasons for this

decline in herd size were not investigated, but there is no evidence that it is in any

way related to the jatropha expansion.

158

Malawi is a very different situation. Deforestation caused an acute shortage of

woodland products, with fuel wood resources identified as a concern in the region

(Fisher 2004; UNEP 2002). Fuel wood has a relatively high value of US$0.65 for a

head load (to put this into perspective a single head load is one fifth of the average

farm income from jatropha harvests in 2013). However, in Malawi jatropha will not

displace woodland resources as jatropha is grown on the already cleared farmland.

Grazing for livestock is also unlikely to be impacted, though livestock ownership is

low with no respondents having cattle and the mean goat herd being 1.5. Unlike in

Mozambique, the size of goat herds has increased from 0.7 head ten years ago to

1.4 five years ago. This is probably due to many farmers acquiring new and larger

farms over this period.

In both Malawi and Mozambique firewood is the main fuel for cooking, with a few

households also using charcoal (Table 6-7). There is very limited use of alternate

fuels for cooking in either case study. The main light source in Malawi and

Mozambique is LED lights (Table 6-8). These torches are rapidly replacing paraffin

and candles as sources of lighting. The Lighting Africa initiative

(http://www.lightingafrica.org/) is one of many initiatives to promote solar-powered

LED lights which they maintain can cost less than US$10. This has profound

importance for any project that considers promoting jatropha oil as a local lantern

fuel. It would appear that the LED lights, especially those that are solar powered, are

both more economical and provide better light than candles or paraffin lamps that

were previously used. The rapid adoption of this new technology demonstrated how

well it works for the farmers.

159

Table 6-7. Fuels used for cooking (% of households). Values between growers and non- growers of jatropha in Malawi or plantation workers versus non-plantation workers in Mozambique were very similar and only totals are given.

Malawi Mozambique

Fuel now 5 years

ago

10 years

ago

now 5 years

ago

10 years

ago

Wood 100 99 94 98 94 93

Charcoal 14 13 10 7 2 2

Paraffin 0 0 0 0 0 1

Electricity 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 1 2 2

Table 6-8. Fuels used for lighting (% of households).Values between growers and non- growers of jatropha in Malawi or plantation workers versus non-plantation workers in Mozambique were very similar and only totals are given.

Malawi Mozambique

Fuel now 5 years ago 10 years

ago

now 5 years

ago

10 years

ago

Candles 2 4 1 16 23 17

Torch 76 15 4 78 46 31

Paraffin 31 89 98 22 44 47

Electricity 0 0 0 1 1 0

Gas 0 0 0

Nothing 4 5 2

Other (maize

husks, plastic

and grass)

3 3 5 9 21 25

In response to questions on the use of woodland products 65% of households in

Mozambique said they used woodlands products; however, when asked if individual

woodland products were important the majority of respondents rated individual

woodland products as very important or important to their livelihoods (Table 6-9).

When asked specifically about individual products and the change in use over time,

all households used some woodland products, with most households making use of

160

multiple products. There are a few reasons for this initial low emphasis placed on

woodland products. Firstly, the harvesting of some products such as “bush meat” is

prohibited by law, so respondents are reluctant to talk about the level of use.

Secondly, many products are simply used as a part of normal livelihoods, but

because they are in abundance and free, no conscious thought is given to the fact

that they are being used until specific questions about their use are asked. Finally,

use of some products might be associated with practices of the poor, and people

might not wish to admit this use. From other studies done throughout the miombo on

woodland product use, the common trend is that woodland products play an

important role in supporting (Cavendish 2000; Shackleton and Clark 2007). Hegde

and Bull (2008) conducted a detailed survey of the value of woodland products to

gross household income in the Gorongoza region in December 2006. This area, no

more than 60km from the Niqel study site, is in similar miombo woodlands and has

similar socio-economic parameters. Using the methods of Cavendish (2000), they

calculated total household income as the sum of cash income and the value of

agricultural and woodland products used by the household. They found that on

average environmental resources (excluding crop agriculture) contributed 40% of

household gross income, with agriculture accounting for only 33%. Household use

of unprocessed forest products accounted for 22% of gross income, but its

contribution was 25% in the poorest households. Firewood was the single most

valuable use of forest products.

In Malawi the relative shortage of woodlands in comparison to Mozambique means

that there is slightly less opportunity for households to access such products.

161

Table 6-9. Changes in use of woodland products over the past 10 years. Percentage of households using the product.

Malawi Mozambique

Fuel Now

%

5 years

ago

%

10 years

ago %

Now

%

5 years

ago %

10 years

ago %

Wood 100 99 94 98 94 93

Charcoal 14 13 10 7 2 2

Wild fruit 55 46 11 29 55 57

Fish 0 0 0 35 43 40

Honey 28 18 4 25 34 36

Wild

animals

6 4 3

Mushrooms 53 50 6 26 35 36

The two case studies represent alternative extremes in terms of impacts on

woodland products. In the case of Malawi the projects are totally located on existing

farm land, therefore not directly impacting on woodlands. In Mozambique there are

extensive areas of woodland and degraded woodlands and the project is largely

located on degraded woodlands. However, the population density is sufficiently low

and a relatively large amount of woodlands will remain to meet the local woodland

resource needs. It is very likely that in other circumstances the impact on the

woodland resource would be far higher for the local communities.

Jatropha-based biofuel is being promoted as a mechanism for reducing global

carbon emissions. However, to achieve this, land in Mozambique is being cleared of

its natural vegetation to facilitate the planting of biofuel. The clearing of indigenous

vegetation (mostly for agriculture of charcoal making) has been identified as the

single biggest carbon emission from most southern African countries, excluding

South Africa (Kutsch et al. 2011; Valentini et al. 2014). This therefore raises the

interesting question of whether preserving the natural vegetation would be a better

mechanism to achieve GHG reduction. The REDD+ program of the UNCCC (see

section 1.8.8) aims specifically at conserving natural forest or restoring degraded

forest. This raises the interesting question of whether a REDD+ based approach to

162

preventing deforestation would be a better mechanism for achieving GHG reduction

than a jatropha-based biofuel project. Further complicating this are the relative rural

development benefits which would come from the two different approaches. There is

also the possibility that jatropha growing on degraded land might qualify as a REDD+

activity. Unfortunately insufficient data are currently available on the impacts of

REDD+ or the long-term impacts from jatropha for an objective comparison.

6.4. Rural development impacts from jatropha growin g

A key driver for biofuels in southern African countries is that they are seen as a

potential driver of rural development (Lerner et al. 2010; Arndt et al. 2009;

Schoneveld 2013). Africa has an acute poverty problem, and it is the rural areas

where this is most strongly felt (HLPE 2013a; IFAD 2011). Biofuel has been seen by

national governments and developmental agencies as a potential to drive rural

development and to boost rural economies.

As with food security, it is useful to consider the potential rural development impact

at both the national, and individual’s level. This is because although there could be a

national benefit, it is quite conceivable that at the local level there are individuals that

are driven deeper into poverty (as suggested by German et al. 2011). It is also

conceivable that there could be local benefits with little or no measurable national

benefit. This would be most likely in type D projects from Chapter 4 where local

communities improve their own energy security, but as a result stop purchasing fossil

fuels, and the state then loses the taxes it used to get, but without receiving tax on

the new biofuel.

6.4.1 National level impacts

National level models on biofuel developmental impacts on the local economy are

scarce; the models available tend to show overall strongly positive impacts (Arndt et

al 2009; BEFS 2010). All three studies indicate an overall national benefit, with the

FAO study, interestingly, also anticipating overall improvements in food security.

163

The early economic models needed to make extensive assumptions based on

untested input parameters. This was particularly true for jatropha where there is no

history of yields and labour requirements. The model used by Arndt et al. (2009)

seems to have been particularly optimistic in this regard, making assumptions of

yields that are probably far higher than will be realised (3 t ha-1) and also making

optimistic assumptions about job creation, assuming two hectares per job. There are

no true data on what the labour requirements will be for a fully operational jatropha

project, but current indications are that they will be far less than the projected

amount.

BERL hopes over time to produce a 9% blend of fossil oil. Though this production

will have a fossil oil footprint, it is expected to cause an overall reduction in imported

fuel and hence an overall benefit to the Malawi economy. There is a double benefit in

that both foreign exchange is saved, and simultaneously rural communities receive a

cash benefit. The Niqel plantation might be able to supply about 1.5 % of

Mozambique’s current fuel needs assuming a reasonable yield is achieved, which

will have a noticeable impact on Mozambique’s fuel import bill.

6.4.2 Local level impacts

The nature of impacts from plantation type projects and small grower/outgrower type

projects will differ substantially. Though there are cases where biofuel is being grown

for local energy security, these are the exceptions and rare in the southern African

region. In the majority of cases biofuel is being grown as a cash crop or people are

working on plantations to earn wages. The importance of access to cash, even in

predominantly subsistence agricultural settings cannot be overestimated. Though

small farmers grow most of their food needs (though as the Malawi data show this

does not always give year round food security), the environment in which they live

requires cash for many activities such as school fees, clothing, agricultural inputs,

food items that cannot be grown, lighting and any luxury items. As will be shown

below, farmers tend to obtain limited access to cash from their crop production and

are therefore eager to find opportunities for cash income. They also tend to be eager

to accept paid employment, even if wages are low.

164

6.4.2.1 Niqel large plantation model

Niqel, when fully developed, will have a plantation area of about 7 000 hectares.

During the establishment phase which requires extensive de-bushing, land

preparation and planting, it has a permanent labour force of 250. Most of this is

made up of labourers employed at low wages, but there are also a few supervisor

jobs and more skilled jobs such as tractor operators. In addition the plantation

employs casual labour for picking. The number of people employed as casual labour

will increase over time. The casual labourer’s daily earnings should also increase

assuming yields increase as the rate of picking is linked to yield (Borman et al. 2013;

Everson et al. 2013).

Prior to the Niqel project there were very limited labour opportunities in the area

(CES 2009; Maura and Vlaenderen 2011), and our data revealed that only 9% of

those interviewed were employed as farm labour and 7% were involved in any form

or business (far less than for Malawi). None of the respondents recorded received a

remittance or social benefit.

Fifty percent of respondents that are not currently working for Niqel said they would

take a job there if offered one. From our group discussions one of the key criticisms

of the project was that not everybody who wanted a job could get one.

Responses to a question about whether people have more money now than in the

past gave results that are difficult to explain (Table 6-10). Generally, respondents

indicated that they were worse off than in the past. However there were a few

respondents that indicated they were much better off.

165

Table 6-10. Perception of respondents of whether they have more available money now than 5 years ago.

Much

worse off

than 5

years ago

Less than 5

years ago

Same as 5

years ago

More than

5 years ago

Much more

than 5

years ago

Full time

employed

0.13 0.39 0.26 0.04 0.01

Seasonal

employed

0.31 0.54 0.08 0.08 0.0

Not

employed

on jatropha

project

0.21 0.33 0.13 0.24 0.21

Land for agriculture is not limited in the area of the Niqel plantation. CES (2009)

estimated that only 11% of the total area is under agriculture. Altogether 82% of

labourers, 100% of seasonal labourers and 98% of non-labours said they had

sufficient land for agriculture. Agriculture is mostly in recently opened fields and

famers are able to expand them into new areas of forest if they need more land or in

response to declining soil fertility. Only three of the 80 respondents said they

purchased any fertiliser.

The income that Mozambique farmers claimed they were making from maize sales

was surprisingly high, though 17 respondents reported no sales. For those selling

maize the mean annual income was US$265, medium US$83 and maximum US$

3210 (from 14 ha). Very few farmers reported their field size due to a data collection

error, and field sizes were not verified. Accepting these potential constraints, the

average value from the sale of maize was US$71 per ha. Maize prices in

Mozambique are substantially higher than in Malawi, in part explaining differences

between country results. The world maize price (2-year monthly mean up to March

2013) was 0.29 US$/kg, i.e 290 US$ per ton (http://www.foodsecurityportal.org/

based on FAO data). Mozambique retail maize price for the past 12 months was

0.444 US$ kg-1 whilst Malawi was 0.2575 US$ kg-1.This is the retail price (Lilongwe

166

and Maputo respectively). Maize in the central region i.e. Beira is on average 66 US$

per tonne cheaper than in Maputo (Dias 2013), although the highest earning farmer

(who is farming on a scale far above the norm for the area) might be getting better

returns from farming than from working for Niqel. For the average farmer, a full-time

job with Niqel is likely to give an income of at least twice what they get from farming

alone. In addition they can still receive a farm income.

The cash income from Niqel employees clearly represents a large cash injection into

an area having limited cash income. This will have secondary impacts through the

stimulation of small retail stores in the area. In addition to employment opportunities

a large positive impact from Niqel has been through infrastructure provision, and in

particular road infrastructure. Niqel has developed over 200 km of all-weather road,

and has linked the small village of Grudja to the national road. Prior to Niqel’s

involvement summer rains would have cut Grudja off from motor transport from the

main road for weeks, or even months at a time. The heavy clay soils of the area

quickly become impassable to even 4x4 vehicles. Niqel has resurfaced the road with

gravel, and uses its graders and large tractors to rapidly re-surface the road with

gravel if it becomes impassable after rains. This new road network has multiple

benefits to the community. For instance they can transport crops to the road by car,

where previously they had to take a 50kg bag for 30km by bicycle. In addition if

urgent medical treatment is needed they can go by car from the Grudja Clinic to a

regional hospital. Niqel provides community members with lifts to the clinic in the

event of medical emergencies. Niqel is also building a new school close to its

headquarters. Building was scheduled to start soon after our fieldwork session.

The borrow pits excavated to support Niqel’s road construction collect rainwater

which the community finds useful. Niqel has also constructed a small dam on a

perennial river which helps provide one of the communities with more accessible and

year-round water.

Niqel has consulted extensively with the community. Some farmers have chosen to

maintain their existing fields in the middle of the jatropha plantations and the

plantations simply move around these fields. Important sacred sites, graveyards and

sacred trees are pointed out by the community and protected by Niqel. By and large,

167

our survey results indicated a reasonably harmonious relationship between the

plantations and the community, and though this is a large-scale plantation model

there do not appear to be many of the problems that have been reported in the

biofuel literature.

6.4.2.2 BERL smallholder model

The rural development benefit envisaged from the BERL model is that farmers will

obtain a cash income from a crop that needs minimum tending and that once

established requires no cash inputs. This is in contrast to tobacco, one of the main

cash crops of the region, which though far more valuable, requires extensive fertiliser

inputs. BERL estimates that 400-600 metres of jatropha hedge should give a farmer

a US$ 100 income. This will, however, be dependent on jatropha trees reaching a

reasonable yield of at least 0.85 kg per tree. It also needs to be offset by any loss in

other revenue which may result from jatropha growing. The area investigated has

approximately four years of jatropha growing history, but the trees are still young and

it is only the first season of harvest, so all results are tentative with the expectation

that yields will increase over the next few years until trees reach maturity. During the

establishment phase farmers carried the cost of planting, but seedlings were

provided gratis. During the following few years there would been labour required for

weed and pest management, but no financial outlay.

All BERL interviewees were engaged in small-scale farming, though in addition 1%

were employees on farms, 21% were engaged in small businesses and 11% receive

remittances. Field sizes are small and on average less than two hectares, but

considering that all labour is manual, fields larger than 2 hectares are probably

difficult to manage, with most respondents believing they have enough land. All

respondents grow maize (the staple crop) with a multitude of additional crops also

being grown. Altogether 82% of respondents gave their reason for growing jatropha

as being a source of income, with most other reasons being similar such as it being

a good investment (10%). Some 28% said BERL convinced them that it was a good

option. The highest reason given by non-growers for not growing was that their trees

died or they did not have access to seedlings, rather than concerns relating to the

crop.

168

The returns that farmers have achieved from jatropha to date are given in Figure 6-

10. A high increase in yield for the first three months of 2013 can be seen compared

to the end of year harvest (the first harvest bought by BERL) from 2012. The highest

earning from jatropha was US$.23.

Figure 6-10. Cash returns from sale of jatropha seeds compared with the number of trees planted.

An attempt was made to quantify the contribution of jatropha to farm income (Figure

6-11 and 6-12). It must be emphasised that this was the first year of harvest and

though crop income would be for a full year, the jatropha income was from January

to March, with additional harvests being anticipated. The results suggest that

jatropha is contributing a disproportionate amount to farm cash income for the land

area involved. This does not, however, take into account the own-food value of

crops, but only of the crops sold. If a value is given to consumed crops and they are

added to the equation then the results are less impressive (Figure 6-12). When

home consumption is considered, the current value of jatropha is, in most instances,

less than its proportional land-use. In other words, the combination of all other crops

viewed together has a higher value per unit of land than jatropha. This may well

169

change once full-year yields are included, or as yields improve over time.

Figure 6-11. Contribution of the first three months of jatropha income to overall farm cash income. Note that the jatropha income is for a partial year and this graph excludes home use of crops. Values above the break-even line indicate that jatropha is contributing a greater value than other crops for an equivalent land area used. However, home consumption of crops is not considered in this analysis.

170

Figure 6-12 Contribution of the first three months of jatropha income to overall farm production (where home consumption has been valued at sales price). Note that the jatropha income is for a partial year. The red line shown a breakeven where jatropha’s contribution is proportional to the land area used. Values above the break-even line indicate that jatropha is contributing a greater value than other crops for an equivalent land area used.

171

Figure 6-13. Returns to land (in US$) from jatropha in Malawi. This excludes one outlier with an equivalent of US$1458.90 per ha return, but off only a fraction of a hectare plantation.

Yields of jatropha will be a key factor as to its eventual financial benefit. To date

most yields have been low (Figure 6-13 and 6-14). Despite the predominantly low

yields, a few farmers reported high yields over an order of magnitude higher than the

median (Figure 6-14). Reasons for this were not analysed in the field work, but it is

noticeable that all high yields were from farms with small jatropha holdings and

always from hedges rather than block plantings. This could be indicative of relatively

isolated jatropha trees gaining more access to soil moisture and nutrient resources.

Analysing jatropha yields against fertiliser use however gave inconclusive results.

There could also be social reasons, such as only a few farmers making the effort

needed to harvest all the fruit or even some farmers selling seed collected from wild

jatropha trees in addition to those grown on their fields.

172

Figure 6-14. Number of farmers with different yields

When considering jatropha in terms of returns to labour, it takes approximately one

hour to earn 0.17 US$, or approximately 1.36 US$ per day. This daily rate exceeds

the minimum wage of US$0.81 and the international poverty line value of US$1.25

(Ravallion et al. 2009) and could purchase 9kg of maize at the local market price,

which is sufficient to feed an average Malawi household for 3.4 days based on a

7916 kJ d-1(FAO 2010; Borman et al. 2013). If simple machinery was used to

increase the de-husking rate then this value would substantially improve. Even so,

jatropha will never be a high-paying activity for the necessary labour input. However,

neither is maize a high-paying crop, and the input costs and risks are less with

jatropha.

6.5. Land tenure impacts

The so called “land grab” that has characterised much of the large-scale African

biofuel expansion (Hall 2011; Schoneveld 2013) has been one of the key concerns

raised about large-scale biofuel expansion. Key to this concern is the manner in

which national governments allocate land to international investors. Even where

investors comply fully with local legislation, the outcomes for existing landholders

can be detrimental and unethical. Many examples in support of this exist in the

literature (e.g. Sulle and Nelson 2009; Schoneveld 2013). FPIC principles (free prior

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

< 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 > 0.4

nu

mb

er

of

farm

ers

Tree yield in kg/tree

173

informed consent) are recommended by some NGOs and certification bodies

(Rainforest Foundation US. 2013). A problem when implementing FPIC is the

disproportionate bargaining powers of large-scale operators versus community

members. The aspect of “informed” in the informed consent is also questionable as

most large-scale plantations make extravagant promises that they cannot later fulfil.

Many large-scale plantations have collapsed with community members having lost

access to their land and also not having received benefit from the project (Sulle and

Nelson 2009; von Maltitz et al. 2012; Mitchell 2011). The issue of just compensation

for land is also contentious. For example, where farmers have been paid

compensation, this has often been considered as a fraction of the true cost to the

farmer. The development of the land-use calculator as described in section 7 is an

attempt at assisting farmers and developers better understand some of the true

costs associated with the complex ecosystem and livelihood tradeoffs involved.

In the situation of the two case studies, these projects, though not perfect, seem to

fare better than most in terms of the land tenure impacts. In the case of Malawi, land

remains the farmers’ possession and the issue of lost land is not relevant. It is

however a consideration that the farmer has made his land and labour available for a

number of years, if jatropha were to collapse as a crop with no market, then the

farmer would be left carrying this opportunity cost.

In the case of Niqel in Mozambique, the project land was acquired through the

standard DUET process, after consultation with chiefs and local government

authorities. An extensive social impact assessment was undertaken with broad

community consultation. The planation layout was altered to reduce social impacts,

and impacted farmers were given options to either relocate or stay where they were.

Many farmers were happy to relocate under the conditions granted, and a few opted

to stay. It is important to understand that in this particular project, new land was

readily available and the company assisted in clearing it for cropping. Our interviews

indicated that people seemed relatively content with the arrangements. Community

interviews did not elicit relocation issues as a concern, nor did this come through

strongly as a concern from the questionnaires; however it must be emphasised that

detailed research into relocations, the compensation received and perceptions of it

was not conducted.

174

6.6. Other agricultural models

Though no detailed research was possible, a few alternative models for African

agriculture with possible implications for jatropha bioenergy were either observed

from project visits or from data in the literature.

6.6.1 Swaziland’s SWADE model for sugarcane product ion

This project was visited briefly during December 2012 and December 2013 and the

notes are from personal observation, discussions with key informants including Mike

Ogg (pers com December 2012), as well as informal and unstructured interviews

with some of the project participants.

This project has a unique structure in that the community has, in effect, created a

large-scale sugarcane plantation that is totally run and owned by themselves. This

has been made possible by the extensive facilitation of the Swaziland Water and

Agricultural Development Enterprise (SWADE), as well as national funding for the

development of the irrigation component.

In essence the entire community decided to pool their land resource for sugar

production. A formal company was created and each land holder whose land was

included got an equal share in the company. As this was communal land the formal

process involved community members giving their land-use rights back to the king,

and then the king granting land-use rights to the company. The company is

managed by the farmers as a fully commercial enterprise, planting the entire area to

cane. Community members are preferentially employed by the company as standard

waged labour, and there are employed managers. Profits are shared amongst the

shareholders.

Although the profits are not huge, they are greater than what was previously made

from subsistence agriculture. Management is excellent, and yields surpass those of

other commercial sugar ventures in the region, reaching close to 120 t ha-1 y-1. The

175

farmers who chose not to be labourers in the scheme now have free time to engage

in other activities. The plantation has provided a stimulus for many other types of

enterprise developments such as transport companies, harvesting companies etc. In

addition the income to the community also stimulates spin-off businesses such as

small shops (spaza shops).

This model breaks down many of the main critiques of large-scale plantation

projects.

• The land remains fully owned by the original farmers

• The farmers are true equity owners of the plantation and share in the benefits

• The strongly vested interests of the farmers ensure sound management

• The benefits of scale found in large-scale plantations are maintained,

including use of modern mechanisation and fertilisers.

• This model was only possible through the extensive government and industry

support provided. This included years of facilitation to form the community

structures, and extensive technical support, as well as the provision of the

irrigation infrastructure. Direct dividends from the scheme are also relatively

modest since they are split over a large number of people.

The issue of shares remains contentious as a single share per property was given

regardless of the size of the farmers’ original land holding. Those who originally had

large land holdings feel disadvantaged. However the project took the approach it did

for the following considerations:

• Simplicity

• Land is only a small part of the overall investment, and government-funded

investments should go evenly to all the community members, not

disproportionally to those who happen already to have larger land holdings.

• Those with larger land holdings have an unfair access to what is in truth

community land for the village.

It is important to point out that though this is a community level project, it is not a

communal project but rather a commercial project in which community members

have shares based on the fact that they invested their land in the project. Labour is

not contributed by community members, rather labourers are employed under

176

standard contracts to the company and subject to national labour legislation.

This type of model may be an alternative way of developing large-scale jatropha

projects that bring greater ownership and equity to the local community.

6.6.2 Horticulture in Kenya

Small-scale horticultural projects were visited in Kenya. In this model the community

has formed a cooperative to assist them to access markets, but farming is done by

small-scale individual farmers on their own land. Although a number of crops are

grown, high value snow peas are the main crop. These are grown under modern

farming conditions and exported to high-value markets in Nairobi (or even exported

to the UK or other destinations). Farmers provided their own irrigation, mostly

through gravity-fed water from nearby springs or rivers.

The key feature of this model is the use of a farmer-led cooperative to assist in

market access. The model is based on the use of modern agricultural techniques,

growing a crop that has high market value and ensuring quality standards that are

acceptable to high-value customers. A further consideration is logistics, and in

particular planting to ensure a constant flow of produce. The NGO Solidaridad has

assisted in many of the quality, logistics and technical aspects of the project.

Although these farms are on small areas of land, the farmers have chosen to move

almost all their production to high-value crops rather than staple food crops. This has

effectively increased their food security, through their ability to purchase food rather

than grow it. This may, however, make them vulnerable to disasters (agricultural or

market induced). Despite this, these famers are currently far better off. It must,

however, be pointed out that these farms are on areas with intrinsically high

agricultural potential. This model of high-value, high labour-intensive crops would

appear to be a niche well suited to small-scale growers. This needs to be contrasted

with maize production which is low value and receives no yield benefits from small-

scale management.

The Zimbabwe small-scale tobacco models have similarities to this model in that a

177

cash crop is grown in preference to food crops due to the higher returns.

With the jatropha yields and profit margins observed in the case studies it is unlikely

that jatropha could be grown under this model: Firstly jatropha does not have

sufficient value per unit of land; and secondly, though labour intensive, returns per

unit of labour are relatively low. Dedicated jatropha growing at this stage probably

cannot give sufficient income to replace the need for also growing subsistence crops,

especially on small land holdings.

6.6.3 Community conservation initiatives

A number of community conservation initiatives and lodges across the sub-continent

have pioneered the process of forming true joint ventures with local communities. In

these cases the community members are true partners in the venture. This differs

substantially from many large-scale biofuel projects where the investor has access to

the community land, but the community is in no way a partner of the enterprise, and

at best gets paid labour opportunities from the enterprise.

Assuming jatropha or other biofuel projects can be shown to be economically viable,

this type of joint venture model should be possible since the community is providing

the land so is in effect bringing substantive value to the joint venture. The fact that

such projects are already common in the conservation sector provides both a

precedent as well as experience on how to establish them.

6.6.4 Contract farming

The term share cropping comes from the American South and denotes a situation

where peasant farmers were allowed to farm on privately owned land, but would

need to give much of their produce to the land owner. This term has extremely

negative connotations and was credited with creating extensive poverty and

inequality.

The opportunity exists to reverse this and have commercial farmers hire land from

peasant farmers, then farm it commercially and share the profit with them. Peasant

178

farmers often do not have the capital, machinery, knowledge or desire to farm the

land. In addition, farming a small portion of land may never be sufficient to support a

reasonable livelihood. Under a contract farming option they have the opportunity to

use their skills to provide labour elsewhere, while still receiving a dividend from their

land. This type of model has been use by the Silversands ethanol project in the

Lichtenburg area in South Africa (see Chapter 3). Peasant farmers with 15 hectares

of land make their land available to Silversands which farms it commercially under

maize. The farmers receive 12.5% of the maize crop as rent. Based on three tonnes

per hectare this would give the farmer over 5 tonnes of maize, far in excess of

household consumption and with a value of over US$ 1000. The land owners receive

more maize than they historically produced themselves with no cost or labour

involved.

This model is considered exploitative by some, but can be a win-win solution

between the biofuel producer and the small-scale farmer, both being better off as a

consequence. This has similarities to the Swaziland model or the conservation

model discussed above in that it allows the local land owners to make an income off

their land without having to be actively engaged in farming themselves.

6.7. Discussion

This chapter set out to answer three questions relating to the tradeoffs involved in

jatropha growing,

1) How does growing jatropha in southern Africa negatively impact on local, national and global food security?

From the evidence available it would seem that jatropha impacts on food security in

the region would be minimal, though there are many complex feedback loops

between jatropha and food security. At the local level jatropha may improve

household food security by diversifying crop options. Food security would be

achieved through cash income from jatropha allowing farmers to purchase

alternative foods. At the national level it is the smallholder-based production model,

rather than biofuel, that is the fundamental barrier to food security in most southern

179

African countries. Food insecurity predates biofuel and though biofuel may

exacerbate an existing problem, it is not the cause of the problem.

Fully understanding the complex feedbacks between jatropha and food production

will only emerge over time, as projects mature. However in most respects jatropha is

much the same as any other cash crop being grown for sale rather than home

consumption. In this regard it is the relative return to land and labour that are more

important than the food-fuel debate. One issue of concern, however, is the unseen

impact that jatropha growing may have on adjacent food crops and this requires

further and urgent research.

2) How does growing of biofuel in southern Africa enhance local livelihoods

(human well-being)?

The current research would seem to suggest that jatropha growing, either by

smallholders or on large plantations, can enhance local livelihoods. However, the

cash income from jatropha is relatively limited and the returns are low for the labour

inputs. However, unlike most other cash crops, jatropha has the advantage of very

little cash input when grown as a smallholder crop. This is, however, dependent on

the project’s staying financially viable, if not the market will collapse for smallholders

and plantations will become bankrupt. In both these scenarios, local farmers would

suffer substantive losses, though most of these losses would relate to lost

opportunities rather than actual financial loss. Loss of land tenure is also a major

concern.

3) How does growing of biofuels improve local or global fuel security?

From the case studies it is obvious that growing jatropha has no direct impact on the

local communities’ fuel security. It is an irony of such projects that the fuel benefit is

experienced by distant communities whilst the local community gets no fuel benefit.

Jatropha wood is not a good fuel and is only likely to be used in times of great fuel

insecurity. It is also possible that growing jatropha may well lead to reduced fuel from

alternate resources such as woodfuel from indigenous woodlands. However, in the

specific situation of the two case studies this impact was not observed. At the

national level jatropha growing, if economically competitive with imported fuels, could

180

have a substantive impact on national fuel security. The relatively small Niqel

plantation could, on its own, meet over 1% of Mozambique’s fuel needs, provided

yields of over three tonnes per hectare can be achieved.

In addition to the above three social impacts, a few additional impacts were

identified. From the literature the importance of land tenure and the impact that large

scale developments have had on displacing communities is a major concern.

Though the case studies did not interrogate this in detail, it did not seem to be a

major issue from the case studies. However, improved tenure and ownership

arrangements are identified overall as an issue requiring further research. In addition

gender issues need greater research. Though the Mozambique study used a

women’s only focus group to identify gender-based issues, it is accepted that

detailed gender implications were not researched.

Although the above is cautiously optimistic about the potential human well-being

benefits from jatropha, this must be seen in the context of most jatropha projects

having failed and hence extensive evidence that badly planned and run projects can

have huge negative impacts in human well-being. In addition there are many less

obvious tradeoffs for which only limited data are available. Key to these is the well-

being loss from the loss of woodlands when jatropha displaces woodlands. In the

case of Mozambique this loss is assumed to be relatively little, but only because the

ratio of small-scale farmers to woodland is low, potentially giving an over-supply of

most woodland produce. In higher density areas this situation could be vastly

different.

The fact that jatropha projects are still in their maturing phase and have not yet

reached their long-term equilibrium production means that all data are biased to

impacts during project initiation. Though extrapolations or modelling can be used to

attempt to predict some of these longer term impacts, in truth there are still huge

uncertainties as to the long-term tradeoffs between biofuels, other provisioning

ecosystem services and the resultant human well-being. It is also acknowledged that

complex feedbacks exist that could well lead to unintended and unexpected

consequences.

181

Chapter 7. POLICY AND RESEARCH

CONSIDERATION OF A SUSTAINABLE

JATROPHA-BASED BIOFUEL INDUSTRY

BIOFUEL

This chapter considers the thesis research objective f, namely to provide policy level

guidance on achieving sustainable biofuel implementation.

7.1. Introduction

Chapter 3 of this thesis reviewed a number of policy initiatives regarding biofuel

expansion in Africa or southern Africa. It is important that outcomes from these

initiatives such as the policy recommendation from the COMPETE project (Janssen

and Rutz 2009), the SADC biofuel dialogues (Lerner et al. 2010) and the SADC

biofuel guidelines are all taken into consideration. This chapter partly builds on

these, but has a specific focus on issues emerging from this thesis to build a set of

focused policy recommendations that should be considered in tandem with these

other resources.

This thesis raises a number of issues that can assist in enhanced biofuel policy and

practice in the future. In addition, it also raises many issues that cannot be fully

resolved, partly because the biofuel industry is simply too recent. As in the thesis,

some issues can only be assessed through modelling of scenarios. In addition

emerging trends can be identified and analysed. However, until projects are fully

established and have reached an equilibrium state it will be difficult to fully

understand their overall impacts. Based on the findings from chapters above, this

chapter highlights some of the policy decisions that SADC governments need to

consider when establishing biofuel projects and programmes. In addition it

recommends a number of additional issues that require further clarity about biofuel,

and especially jatropha, expansion.

The chapter also highlights a number of areas where additional research is needed.

182

7.2. Increasing the ratio of small-scale to large-s cale plantations

Large-scale plantations are likely to be the most favoured option for international

investors in the biofuel feedstock producing industry (Cushion 2010; Cotula et al.

2008). A policy decision to shift a proportion of biofuel production from large- to

small-scale could be used to increase biofuel’s rural development benefits (Figure 7-

1). This change is most relevant in projects where biofuel is being produced for the

liquid transportation fuel market, but could also be used by companies seeking local

fuel security. A number of countries have already put in place biofuel policies in

support of this shift. For instance, in Brazil the social seal is designed to force

companies to support small-scale producers (Rossi and Lambrou 2009), though

more recent literature indicates this programme has been only partly successful

(Stattman et al. 2013). In South Africa the national biofuel strategy will only provide

support in terms of tax concessions and access to blended markets, to biofuel

refineries where feedstock is sourced from what are termed previously

disadvantaged farmers, who would effectively be mostly small-scale farmers. The

potential impacts of and options for changing the ratio of large to small projects is

explored in more detail in von Maltitz and Stafford (2012).

Figure 7-1. Use of policy interventions to change the ratio of feedstock production from large-scale to small-scale producers

7.3. Moving from global fuel supply to local fuel s ecurity

To stimulate rural development and reduce rural energy poverty in the SADC region

Scale of the project

Smallholders and

outgrowers

(Less than 10 ha)

Large industrial farms

(More than 100 ha)

Ma

rke

t /

pri

ma

ry e

nd

use

rs

Local fuel use

National and

international

liquid fuels

blends

Policy

183

a policy objective could be that a greater proportion of biofuel should be devoted to

local fuel needs rather than liquid biofuel destined for national or international

transportation fuel blends. In other words, the policy objective would be that biofuel

production must increase rural access to energy, and not just rural access to

income-generating activities (Figure 7-2). Examples such as the FACT Foundation

project in Mali have already been discussed in Chapter 4. There is the potential for a

far wider range of benefits and operational models. The potential impacts of and

options for moving from global fuel supply to local fuel security are explored in more

detail in von Maltitz and Stafford (2012). A feedstock other than jatropha may be

more appropriate in the future rather than jatropha, unless higher yielding jatropha

varieties are developed.

Figure 7-2. Use of policy interventions to stimulate biofuel projects for local energy use rather than sale to the liquid transport fuel markets

7.4. Developing a medium-scale farming sector

Although a lot of literature supports enhancing livelihood opportunities for microscale

farmers by those small-scale and largely subsistence farmers with access to only a

few hectares of land (Rossi and Lambrou 2009; Cushion et al. 2010), this model of

farming may well be a long-term poverty trap, despite interventions and new

technologies (as discussed in Chapter 6). An argument can be made for assisting in

the establishment of a class of medium to large-scale commercial farmers

undertaking commercial farming on economically viable farms ranging in size from

184

10 to a few hundred hectares; in other words, assisting farmers to move from being

subsistence farmers to farming for profit on medium-size commercial farms. This

commercial model is found throughout most of the developed world and in a number

of developing countries. It has also been used in establishing a successful sugar

industry in Kenya and Tanzania. The distinction between small and medium-scale

farmers is blurred, but would largely relate to a movement from growing

predominantly for subsistence food needs (with opportunistic sales) to commercial

farming, predominantly for sale. This objective of developing medium-scale farmers

can be achieved in two ways:

assisting small-scale farmers to increase their farming area and improve their

farming practices so that they become independent commercial farmers; this could

include making new blocks of land available to the famers, and

breaking up large-scale corporate owned plantations into numerous smaller privately

owned plantations (Figure 7-3).

The potential impacts of and options for developing a medium-scale farming sector

are explored in more detail in von Maltitz and Stafford (2012).

Figure 7-3. Use of policy to use biofuel to stimulate the development of small- to medium-scale farmers

7.5. Use of participatory decision making based on multi-criteria analysis

When deciding on the viability of any biofuel project, a multitude of factors need to be

considered and a decision needs to be made on whether the benefits achieved

Scale of the project

Smallholders and

outgrowers

(Less than 10 ha)

Emerging

commercial farmers

(10 – 100 ha)

Large industrial farms

(More than 100 ha)

Ma

rke

t /

pri

ma

ry e

nd

use

rs

Local fuel use

National and

international

liquid fuels

blends

Policy

Policy

Policy

Policy

185

warrant the negative consequences that may occur. Where there is a high degree of

risk or uncertainty about the magnitude of negative consequences, then a

precautionary approach should be taken.

The nature of biofuel tradeoffs is further complicated as global and national benefits

and costs need to be considered in addition to the national and local benefits and

costs. Different tradeoffs will also apply depending on the temporal framework

considered. Hopefully there can be win-win situations, although in all developments

there are likely to be both winners and losers (Scholes and von Maltitz 2006;

Haywood et al. 2006). On balance, the gains should substantively outweigh the

potential losses (Dasgupta 1993). In addition critical thresholds of acceptable change

should not be exceeded (Haywood et al. 2010) It is possible that there may be some

variables in the trade-off which would be a “show-stopper” and would result in the

project being rejected even if most other variables were positive (Gibson 2006;

Haywood et al. 2010). Examples would be the use of child labour or the loss of

irreplaceable biodiversity. In addition all development tends to carry with it

unintended consequences. Clear consideration of these potential consequences

must be understood before the project starts. On-going monitoring is required after

the project’s initiation to ensure that no unintended consequences are occurring.

The use of a participatory approach with relevant stakeholders would be the best

way to determine if tradeoffs are acceptable (Gibson 2006). This could be part of a

standard impact assessment, but preferably should be a dedicated sustainability

assessment (Haywood et al. 2010; Harrison et al. 2010a, b; Gibson 2006). A

multicriteria decision support tool could be used to assist in the tradeoff decision-

making process (Keeney 1976; Dodgson 2000; Bell 2001), but most important is the

need for sound and unbiased empirical data on which to base decisions. If a public

scoping of issues identifies areas of concern for which sufficiently detailed data are

required then additional research is recommended before making a decision

(Scholes and von Maltitz 2006).

186

7.6. The need for a tool to assist local communitie s to make informed decisions

To make sound decisions, local communities need to understand the full impacts of

allocating land to biofuel projects. This requires information on both the benefits that

will accrue and the losses that the communities will suffer. Clearly many early

jatropha projects over-sold the benefits. Understanding the losses requires a

detailed understanding of the alternative value that the community could have

received from the land being converted to biofuel. Many of these losses relate to

reduced access to ecosystem services, many of which do not have a direct market

value, as discussed in section 6.3; woodland resource may contribute as much as

40% of the household livelihood if market values are given to the woodland products

used (Cavendish 2000; Shackleton and Clark 2007; Hegde and Bull 2008).

The EU funded project: Bioenergy, sustainability and trade-offs: Can we avoid

deforestation while promoting bioenergy? , investigated modelling approaches (van

den Belt 2004) to ascertain how policy may impact on local biofuel projects. This

process was undertaken at a workshop in Dar-es-Salaam in June 2010. National

government representatives from a number of relevant departments were invited to

the workshop, as well as scientists familiar with regionally relevant issues. Dr Marjan

van den Belt, one of the global leaders in mediated modelling, facilitated the model

development process. A key limitation identified during this process was the need

for a simple model to understand the overall costs and benefits from different land

uses and then to summarise these values to understand the village level

consequences. In particular it was found that most biofuel project feasibility

assessment do not adequately account for the losses from changing the woodlands

to other uses.

Rural livelihoods are complex, and to some extent local food production can be

offset by cash earnings. Food security is for instance more about access to food than

the growing of food as such. However, many benefits that communities get from the

environment are under-valued since no cash is expended to acquire them. However,

if these goods and services are lost they can have profound livelihood impacts.

187

7.7. The need for a re-assessment of the national e conomic benefits

Early attempts to conduct macro-economic models of biofuel were made based on a

limited understanding of the true costs and benefits from jatropha projects. Most

made use of optimistic values of jatropha yields, income generation opportunities

and labour requirements. As more accurate data become available regarding the

actual situation of jatropha-based projects, there is a need to re-assess the national

level benefits, to decide if jatropha growing should be actively pursued. Ideally, this

should take a broad view of the economic benefits that include the environmental

cost.

7.8. Understanding the cost of no intervention

When deciding if a biofuel project is a good land-use option, the consequences of

not implementing a project also need to be considered. For instance, even if a

biofuel project results in a level of deforestation, the alternate land use of

subsistence agriculture may have the same impact. Understanding what impacts will

have occurred from biofuel 10 years into the future needs to be compared to what

would happen if the project is not implemented 10 years in the future, and not just

the current situation.

7.9. Use of third-party certification

The use of third-party certification, such as the certification standards of the RSB, is

a powerful tool to drive sustainability in biofuel projects. Certification has been

extensively covered in the literature (Vis et al. 2008; Guariguata et al. 2011;

Buchholz et al. 2009; Echols 2009; Fritsche et al. 2011; BBP 2011; van Dam et al.

2008; Zarrilli and Burnett 2008). The concern with certification is that it is voluntary,

so if markets do not demand certification then it is up to the projects to decide if they

wish to be certified. This can be partly overcome by governments demanding

certification (as is the case in Mozambique). It is also a requirement for any projects

wishing to export to the EU.

Further concerns with certification are that they are project specific and hence the

certification process does not take into consideration the cumulative impacts of

188

multiple project implementation. In addition many certification schemes have a

strong environmental focus but weak social focus (Vis et al. 2008; Guariguata et al.

2011). Certification should therefore be one of multiple tools for enhancing

sustainability, but not the only tool. Certification also tends to work best if

implemented in an environment with sound national planning frameworks (von

Maltitz 2011).

7.10. Relooking at land tenure

A consistent theme from the literature on biofuel projects is the impact that land

tenure has on projects (e.g. Sulle and Nelson 2009). Land tenure is a huge problem

for investors who have to go through complex, slow and costly processes to acquire

the land, though the actual cost of the land may be negligible (Nielson et al 2013). It

is, however, the impact that weak land tenure has on communities residing on the

land that is of greatest concern. Communities typically have to have relinquished

their claims to the land to the government, which then leases the land to the investor

(Sulle and Nelson 2009). If projects collapse, land often remains in the hands of

government rather than reverting to the original land users. The weak land tenure of

communities as well as the national rules relating to foreign investment often

preclude the community from forming true joint ventures with the biofuel company.

Rather they are reduced to being at best simple paid labourers on the land that they

previously controlled. Although most countries in the region have undertaken tenure

reform in the past decades, there remains a need for countries to re-look at land

tenure so that options can be found that are investor friendly, but simultaneously

protect and allow development of the customary users of the land.

7.11. Being gender sensitive

Women and children are often marginalised. Woman-headed households may well

struggle to access opportunities available to other community members, and it is

these households who often are most dependent on ecosystem services from the

natural woodlands (Shackleton 2005). Ensuring that biofuel projects are gender

sensitive is an important consideration when formulating legislation of voluntary

189

standards to regulate the emerging biofuel industry. National legislation also needs

to ensure that marginalised groups are adequately protected. It is not uncommon for

the community elite to capture benefits from new projects such as those offered from

large-scale biofuel expansion.

7.12. Considering if jatropha growing increases far mer and national resilience

Resilience can be seen as: (1) the amount of disturbance that a system can absorb

while still remaining within the same state or domain of attraction; (2) the degree to

which the system is capable of self-organization (versus lack of organization or

organization forced by external factors); and (3) the degree to which the system can

build and increase its capacity for learning and adaptation (Carpenter et al. 2001).

Holling (1973) popularised resilience in the ecological literature, and it has since

been widely used for analysing coupled human-ecological systems (Carpenter et al.

2001).

Using a resilience framework for analysing both the biofuel-based farming systems

and the relevant components of the national economy would be an additional way of

understanding the value of introducing jatropha, or other biofuels, into the rural

landscape. The results presented from the case study suggest that the direct

economic benefits from jatropha to farmers are likely to be modest. However, it is not

clear that having jatropha in the overall farming mix, either as a small-grower crop or

as large plantations will increase the overall resilience of the coupled socio-

environmental system.

Drought is one of the key stresses to which small-scale farmers are subjected. In

addition, since most SADC economies have a high reliance on agriculture, drought

also has major impacts on the overall economy. How jatropha responds to drought

and its impact on other farming activities during drought remains a key uncertainty.

Introducing jatropha creates institutional changes to the areas where it is being

grown. The resilience literature identifies institutional structures as key components

of resilience. More research is needed into the institutional structures resulting from

190

biofuel and if they are likely to increase or decrease resilience.

7.13. Lessons for success in jatropha projects

The focus of the fieldwork in Mozambique and Malawi was specifically aimed at

jatropha projects that were showing signs of success. It must be emphasised that

many large-scale plantations as well as small-scale outgrower projects on

smallholder farms have failed. The key point is not that all large-scale or all small-

scale projects are successful based on the case studies, but rather that the case

studies may provide insights into the conditions under which projects become

successful.

Ongoing monitoring of successful and failed projects should be conducted to identify

the factors leading to success and failure. A first attempt at identifying some of the

success factors is to be found in von Maltitz et al.(submitted).

7.14. Critical research into the biological aspects of jatropha growing

It still remains unclear if jatropha can be an economically viable crop and under what

conditions. Until mature yields are confirmed as well as the true cost structures

involved, this remains speculative.

Low jatropha yields are a core constraint regarding profitability. Simple breeding and

selection could greatly increase yields. Even crops such as maize with hundreds of

years of domestication, are still showing yield improvements of 1.7 percent per year

(see section 6.2.3). For a new crop, far higher improvements are likely. The

company Quinveta (http://www.quinvita.com) is actively involved in jatropha breeding

and the early results indicate that substantive yield improvements may be possible.

The impact of jatropha on adjacent crops in an agroforestry system also needs

investigation. For the small grower option it needs to be confirmed that jatropha does

not supress other crop production. Understanding this interplay in drought years will

be especially important.

191

Most projects are new, and long-term sustainable yields have as yet not been

established. Yields and overall farmer or plantation financial sustainability should be

tracked to ensure that jatropha is in truth an economically viable option before it is

widely promoted.

7.15. Ongoing monitoring and unintended consequence s

In addition to the above, on-going monitoring of overall social and environmental

impacts is needed as projects start to move from their establishment to mature

phases. A number of international initiatives such as the Global Bioenergy

Partnership, the EU reporting scheme and reports, and the Global-Bio-Pact project

will in part assist with this, though it is also important that this is done on a country-

by-country basis within implementing countries.

Lifecycle analysis of impact is needed based on real world Africa-specific outcomes.

Early analysis had to make many assumptions, and the validity of these assumptions

will only be apparent once projects mature.

The institutional aspects of projects in terms of relationships with both government

and local players need further investigation. New models of implementation with

novel ownership models that are more democratic require investigation. The SWADE

model in Swaziland, though for sugar, has potentially promising aspects in this

regard.

Food security is critical to African development. Enhancement of food security and

the profitability of African agriculture require investigation. A mature biofuels industry

needs a concurrent maturing of food agriculture production to have an overall

sustainable model of rural development.

The introduction of any new crop is likely to have numerous unintended

consequences. On-going monitoring is needed to identify these and to find possible

solutions where negative consequences arise. Hugely complex systems-level

feedbacks are involved and these must be identified and better understood. There is

192

also a potential for many unintended beneficial consequences and where these arise

they should be enhanced. Lessons learnt from success stories can be very valuable

for other projects.

7.16. Discussion

Deciding if biofuel is an appropriate land-use option is clearly an initial step that any

government should take before embarking on wide-scale biofuel promotion. This will

require a combination of macro-level assessments including economic assessment

and potentially a sustainability assessment (Haywood et al. 2010). The decision also

needs to take into consideration the on-the-ground impacts. A multi-criteria

framework is clearly needed since there will be a mix of social, environmental and

economic data that must be assessed. As suggested in this thesis, an ecosystems

services approach can provide guidance in that regard. It is also important that

biofuel feedstock production is compared against alternate land-use options

including conservation land-use options as suggested under the RED+ programme.

Any alternate crop will have its own unique set of tradeoffs.

If biofuel is to be promoted then there are a variety of mechanisms that can help

steer development in the way that is strategically most important for the country. For

instance, it may be desirable to promote a smallgrower sector. Various policy

instruments such as subsidies can be used to facilitate this. The use of third-party

certification is also a useful tool that government can use to ensure projects comply

with national requirements. However this third-party certification requires clear

national guidelines to be nationally specific, otherwise it will revert to global

standards.

193

Chapter 8. CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this thesis was to use the current trend of bioenergy expansion into

southern Africa as a focus by means of which to seek to understand the multi-criteria

nature of land-decision making and the tradeoffs involved, with emphasis on areas

under customary tenure in South Africa, Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia.

The first specific question investigated in Chapter 3 was: a) to identify the benefits

that southern African countries should be aiming to achieve from biofuel. It is

suggested that for southern Africa it is rural development and national fuel security

benefits that are of paramount importance, with climate mitigation benefits being of

only marginal importance. However, it is climate mitigation considerations that are

driving the international biofuel agenda and hence creating an international market

for biofuel. In essence, if southern Africa wishes to engage in biofuel, it should only

do so if there is a strong local and national developmental benefit. In relation to the

question b) Identifying key drivers for biofuel expansion in southern Africa at the

national and local scale, it is suggested that initially biofuel expansion was strongly

driven by the perceived international market, and especially the EU market. Initially

private investors were a major factor pushing for the large-scale biofuel expansion

envisaged during the late 2000s. However, as countries in the region start to develop

their own biofuel policies, they are realising that biofuel development needs to be to

the local benefit of the countries concerned. A trend has been a shift from exporting

of biofuels to growing biofuels for national use.

The nature of biofuel expansion in the region is explored in Chapter 4 to answer

research question c), namely to identify the nature of biofuel expansion within

southern Africa. It was found that biofuel expansion has been based on two very

different end uses. One is to provide national or international replacements for fossil

fuels and the other to assist local communities or farmers meet their own fuel needs.

It is the first of these options that is most common and the main issue of concern

because of potential negative social and environmental impacts. It was also found

that the size and ownership model of biofuel feedstock growing differed substantially,

taking place mostly either on smallholder farms or as large corporate plantations,

194

with a less common option being as a small component of medium-sized family

farms. Based on this a three-by-two or two-by-two matrix typology was developed

which greatly facilitates a common understanding of issues when considering

sustainability relating to jatropha biofuel projects.

The core question of this thesis is d) identify and examine key tradeoffs involved

including biodiversity, deforestation, hydrology, carbon, national development, food

security, fuel security and livelihoods. This question is split over two chapters, one

focusing on ecosystem services of global importance, namely the regulating service

of climate change mitigation, and the supporting service of biodiversity. A second

chapter considers provisioning services and their related human well-being impacts.

Finally, drawing from all previous chapters, a number of policy suggestions are made

in support of the final research question, namely f) provide policy level guidance on

achieving sustainable biofuel implementation. In addition a number of tools and

methods have been developed throughout the thesis in response to research aim

e): develop procedures and tools to assist in decision making about multi-criteria

land-use options at the village level. This included developing procedures for

assessing biodiversity and LUC carbon impacts as well as simple models for

assessing land-use change impacts on provisioning services.

Likely tradeoffs in ecosystem services from jatropha=based biofuel expansion will be

complex and situation dependent in the southern African region. Biodiversity is

almost certainly going to be a short-term loser as biofuels will most likely require new

land being opened for agriculture, either as a direct consequence of jatropha planting

or due to indirect LUC as a consequence of cropland displacement. However, the

Malawi smallholder model would have limited biodiversity impacts, especially if

linked to other programmes that help increase crop yield and hence negate the iLUC

impacts. Climate change mitigation is a potentially positive outcome, but this positive

impact may take decades to materialise, with the short-term impact being negative.

The extent of these impacts is very dependent on actual realised seed yields. The

initial negative impact is due to the land-use change carbon losses from clearing of

woodlands. Again the Malawi smallholder model is an exception and may result in

positive benefits from project inception (providing there is no iLUC). The nature and

extent of local benefits are less clear, with most projects in the region having totally

195

collapsed with negative impacts on the basket of provisioning services produced and

local livelihoods. However, modest positive benefits to livelihoods with limited or no

impacts on food provision may be possible if projects are well run, correctly situated

and able to achieve long-term financial viability. In such situations community

members may receive important cash benefits though either paid wages or the direct

selling of jatropha seeds. In addition the country will gain a significant amount of its

fuel needs from local production, thereby reducing its foreign exchange expenditure

and simultaneously resulting in the payment for fuel helping to support rural

development. What the thesis has not answered is the question: is jatropha a better

land-use option than other competing land-use options? This is a complex question

that would require comparable data from the competing land-use options. What is

clear is that during the early stages of jatropha projects, investors were prepared to

invest in jatropha at a time when they were not investing in other crops. However,

investor appetite for investing in jatropha has greatly reduced over the past few

years. This is probably as a consequence of a change in perception on the extent of

the economic returns. For smallholders, the returns are marginal given the land and

labour requirements versus the economic returns received. As such jatropha is more

likely to be a crop that adds diversity and spreads risk, rather than the agricultural

mainstay of the farming system.

The move to biofuel production, if implemented vigorously in southern African

countries will result in some of the most extreme land-use changes since the colonial

era. It is not inconceivable that literally millions of hectares could be converted from

their current land-use, to biofuel. Whether this happens in practice will be dependent

on the world view of biofuel which is evolving and changing over time, the economics

of biofuel production and the incentives or dis-incentives that African governments

put in place to promote or retard the development of biofuel production. In the early

days of the biofuel boom, biofuels were perceived as providing a win-win solution

that benefited the global environment, local rural development and the national

economy, as well as aiding in national fuel security. As more data are becoming

available the biofuel narrative has changed and it is realised that many of the

benefits accruing from jatropha-based biofuel are not as positive as originally

envisaged. The climate change benefits may be marginal or even negative

depending on the biofuel scenario, biodiversity will inevitably be negatively impacted,

196

at least in the short term, and despite many rural development advantages a vast

number of concerns have also been identified.

What is becoming absolutely certain is there is no global formula for biofuel

production; impacts are situation specific and depend on the feedstock chosen; the

management model applied; the social and physical environment where the project

is implemented; the sustainability regulations that are in place; the overall objectives

of the project; and the policy framework in place. It is also increasingly clear that

hugely complex tradeoffs are involved in biofuel production. These tradeoffs span

over time and space from global to local and from short term to many centuries into

the future. Even when considering only the local level there are complex tradeoffs

over the delivery of a diverse bundle of ecosystem goods and services and the

manner in which this will impact on the human well-being of multiple role-players. In

addition moving to biofuel will change the nature of the coupled socio-environmental

system, potentially moving it into a new state that is fundamentally different from how

the system operated prior to the biofuel development. However, the collapse of many

projects has been observed, with high cost to the biofuel investors and the

communities on whose land the projects took place.

An even more complex aspect of biofuel expansion is the fact that there is a high

likelihood of complex feedback loops applying in the already complex socio-

environmental system. This means that overall outcomes might differ substantially

from the obvious. These so called ‘unintended consequences’ are extremely difficult

to predict, and like any tradeoffs can be either positive or negative. For instance,

biofuel could act as a stimulus to boost investment in the rural economy, aiding food

farmers to have access to a larger and more profitable market and hence stimulating

food production. However, there is no guarantee that this will happen, and the more

obvious alternative of competition for land for food and fuel is also possible.

Tradeoffs in any land-use change are inevitable. Managing the tradeoffs is therefore

an imperative if sound and sustainable development is to be achieved. This process

is greatly facilitated by access to sound empirical data and knowledge as well as a

supportive policy environment. In any land-use change there will be both winners

and losers. From a national perspective, clearly the gains from biofuel should

197

outweigh the costs. Even if the overall gains are positive, vulnerable human

communities and natural environments that might be adversely affected through

biofuel expansion need to be protected. In fact it is the negative impact that biofuel

expansion might have on those communities currently residing on land earmarked

for biofuel expansion that has been one of the greatest criticisms of biofuel in Africa.

Biofuel as a land-use is probably not inherently any better or worse than most other

crops. It is the manner in which it is implemented that will be the critical issue. In this

regard the national policy framework linked to the national strategic visions for rural

land-use need to ensure that the biofuel development that takes place is in the

strategic best interest of the country. Sound scientific knowledge needs to underpin

this process. Certainly this knowledge will not guarantee success, but should reduce

the risk of doing the wrong thing.

The expansion of jatropha-based biofuel is clearly an example of where development

took place without good knowledge being available. The nearly total collapse of

jatropha is a consequence of this lack of information, and this will taint the biofuel

industry in the SADC region for a long time to come. Though the collapse of the

jatropha industry is largely due to jatropha not living up to the exaggerated claims

made about it, if grown in a more responsible manner with lower expectations it may

still have benefits. For any rural development in southern Africa to work, it has to

make economic sense at the national level, but also has to be in the farmer/land

owner’s best interest at the local level. It is the feedstock production aspects of

jatropha where the core jatropha-based biofuel problems have occurred.

As to the question of whether biofuel is a good land-use option for southern Africa,

there is no clear and simple answer. Certainly from a biophysical perspective there is

a potential for extensive biofuel production. There is also, theoretically, land and

production potential available. However, realising this potential without adverse

social and environmental consequences will be more difficult. What is certain is that

the answer is situation dependent. It is also clear that biofuel is a high-volume and

relatively low-value crop. The profits from biofuel growing in general and jatropha

growing in particular are relatively modest.

198

Early economic assessments of biofuel, especially when relating to jatropha,

provided many misleading data on overall national and local benefit. Yields tended to

be inflated and job opportunities exaggerated. As more nuanced data become

available on the actual costs and benefits of biofuel it is imperative that policy

makers re-consider the benefits from biofuel plantations. The biofuel calculator

mentioned in Chapter 7 is one potential tool for doing this, though this needs to be

supplemented with national level tools such as that developed by Kemp-Benedict

2012 or those prepared through the BEFS project (BEFS 2010). Biofuel, or any other

land-use change, involves complex tradeoffs in which there will be both winners and

losers even if the project has overall positive benefits. Understanding what is being

gained and lost in these tradeoffs is imperative for sound decision making. Though it

is hoped that, in correctly applied situations, win-win solutions will be found for both

the environment, community development and national growth, the truth is that there

will also always be negative consequences. A multi-criteria approach is therefore

needed to weigh up the overall net benefit. This cannot be done in an independent

objective way, as the final result is dependent on societal objectives, needs and

concerns. However, society’s final decision should be based on empirical evidence

and sound advice on both the positive and negative aspects of the proposed

development.

Sound national level policy needs to be in place to protect vulnerable rural

communities. Land tenure reforms should also be considered to prevent community

members losing their land rights without just compensation. Preferably communities

should maintain ownership of the land and be true partners in any large-scale land-

use. New and novel approaches are desperately needed which are both investor

friendly, but which also truly empower local land-users.

Biofuels are one of many competing land-use pressures for land in SADC. It is clear

the current agricultural practices in SADC, and particularly the small-scale production

model, are leading neither to household nor national level food security. In addition

wide-scale rural poverty remains a critical issue throughout SADC and SSA. Finding

solutions to Africa’s rural development needs is critical. Further research is still

needed to fully understand the role that biofuel can play in this regard.

199

This thesis used an ecosystem services framework to identify the likely

consequences of biofuel production on both ecosystems and the extent of human

well-being. It was not possible to consider all ecosystem service impacts and for

instance very limited data were collected, or are available, on cultural service

impacts. For global services no attempt was made to draw detailed links between

changes in carbon emissions or biodiversity in regard to human well-being since the

feedback loop in this regard is quite weak. The link between provisioning services

and human well-being, especially as it relates to the important tradeoff between food

and fuel provision was assessed in detail for the southern African region and the

case study projects. The important ecosystem service tradeoff linked to hydrology

and water provision was not researched in any detail. This is because it had not

previously been found to be an important consideration for jatropha as a specific

biofuel crop. This service may, however, be a critically important tradeoff for other

biofuel feedstocks, especially if irrigation is involved. No attempt has been made to

do a final assessment over all ecosystem services. This is deliberate as there is no

clear correct answer. The final assessment on whether the tradeoffs are acceptable

or not is not an absolute, but is dependent on society and what the national and local

priorities are at any specific point in time. Clearly there are both positive and

negative consequences from jatropha growing. Whether the positive benefits exceed

the costs will depend on the relative weight that has for instance been placed on

biodiversity versus rural development.

200

REFERENCES

Achten, W. 2010. Sustainability evaluation of biodiesel from Jatropha curcas L. A life cycle oriented study. PhD thesis. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Leuven.

Achten, W.M., Mathijs, E., Verchot, L., Singh, V.P., Aerts, R. and Muys, B. 2007. Jatropha biodiesel fueling sustainability? Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining;4(1):283–91.

Achten, W.M.J., Verchot, L., Franken, Y.J., Mathijs, E., Singh, V.P., Aerts, R. and Muys, B. 2008. Jatropha bio-diesel production and use. Biomass and Bioenergy 32(12): 1063-1084.

Adams, M. 2003. Land tenure policy and practice in Zambia: Issues relating to the development of the agricultural sector. Mokoro Ltd. Oxford. UK.

AFSIS. 2013. ISRIC – World Soil Information. Africa soil property maps at 1 km. Available for download at www.isric.org.

Alden, W.L. 2008. Custom and commonage in Africa: rethinking the orthodoxies. Land Use Policy. 25: 43-52.

Amigun, B., Muller-Langer, F. and von Blottnitz, H. 2008. Predicting the costs of biodiesel production in Africa: learning from Germany. Energy for Sustainable Development 12(1): 5-21.

Amigun, B., Musango, J.K. and Brent, A.C. 2011. Community perspectives on the introduction of biodiesel production in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa: questionnaire survey results.

Amos. 1999. The role of wood energy in Africa. FAO. Rome.

Andrew, M. and van Vlaenderen, H. 2011. Commercial biofuel land deals and environment and social impact assessments in Africa: Three case studies in Mozambique and Sierra Leone. LDPI working paper no 1.

Anseeuw, W., Boche, M., Breu, T., Giger, M., Lay, J., Messerli, P. and Nolte, K. 2012. Transnational Land Deals for Agriculture in the Global South. The Land Matrix Partnership (CDE, CIRAD, GIGA, GIZ, ILC). Available from: http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/fsdata/ess-fadata/en/.

Arndt, C., Benfica, R., Thurlow, J. and Uaiene, R. 2008. Biofuels, poverty, and growth: a computable general equilibrium analysis of Mozambique. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00803. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Arndt, C., Benfica, R., Tarp. F., Thurlow, J. and Uaiene, R. 2009. Biofuels, poverty, and growth: a computable general equilibrium analysis of Mozambique. Paper presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference. 16-22 August. Beijing. China

Arnold, J.E.M. and Ruiz-Pérez, M. 2001. Can non-timber forest products match tropical forest conservation and development objectives?, Ecological Economics, vol 39, pp437–447

Arnold, M., Köhlin, K., Persson, R. and Shepherd, G. 2003. Fuelwood revisited: what has changed in the last decade. Occasional Paper 39. CIFOR. Bogor. Indonesia.

201

Bailey, R. 2008. Another inconvenient truth: How biofuel policies are deepening poverty and accelerating climate change. OXFAM. Oxford. UK.

Bailis, R., Ezzati, M. and Kamman, D.M. 2005. Mortality and greenhouse gas impacts of biomass and petroleum energy futures in Africa. Science 308: 98 - 103.

Banse, M., van Meijl, H. and Woltjier, G. 2008. Consequences of EU biofuel policies on agricultural production and land use choices 23(3): 22–7.

Batidzirai, B., Bhattacharya, S. and Johnson, F.X. 2010. Report on Recommended Best Practices for Africa and Implementation Strategy. Competence Platform on Energy Crop and Agroforestry Systems for Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems- Africa. http://www.compete-bioafrica.net/publications/publications.html

Batidzirai, B. and Johnson, F.X. 2012. Energy security, agroindustrial development, and international trade: The case of sugarcane in Africa. In: A. Gasparatos and P. Stromberg, ed. 2012. Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of biofuels: Evidence from developing nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 254–277.

Baumann, P. 2000. Equity and efficiency in contract farming schemes: the experience of African tree crops. Overseas development institute. Working paper 139.

Bazzani, G.M. 2005. A decision support for an integrated multi-scale analysis of irrigation: DSIRR. Journal of environmental management 77: 301–314.

BEFS. 2010. Bioenergy and food security. The BEFS analytical framework. Environmental and natural resources management series no 16. FAO Rome.

Behnke, R.H., Scoones, I. and Kerven, C. (eds). 1993. Range Ecology at Disequilibrium: New Models for Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African Savannas. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Bell, M.L., Hobbs, B.F., Elliott, E.M., Ellis, H. and Robinson, Z. 2001. An evaluation of multi-criteria methods in integrated assessment of climate policy. Multi-criteria decision analysis. 10: 229-256.

Bias, C. and Donovan, C. 2003. Gaps and Opportunities for Agricultural Sector Development in Mozambique, Research Report No. 54E, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Mozambique.

Biggs, R., Bohensky, E., Desanker, P.V., Fabrecius, C., Lynam, T., Misselhorn, A.A., Musvoto, C., Mutale, M., Reyers, B., Scholes, R.J., Shikongo, S and van Jaarsveld, A.S. 2004. Nature supporting people. The southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. CSIR Pretoria

Biggs, R., Reyers, B. and Scholes, R.J. 2006. A biodiversity intactness score for South Africa. South African journal of science. 102: 277-283.

BioMassive Tanzania. http://biomassive.andrewmacpherson.za.net/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=viewandid=17andItemid=30. (accessed 22 March 2010)

BioShape Tanzania Ltd http://bioshape.phpwebhosting.com/en/node/73 (accessed 20 March 2010)

202

Bird, N., Cerubini, F., Pena, N. and Zanchi, G. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions and bioenergy. In: Amezaga J. M., von Maltitz, G.P. and Boyes, S.L. (eds) Assessing the sustainability of biofuel projects in developing countries. A framework for policy evaluation. Newcastle University. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Birru, T.C. 2002. Organic matter restoration by conversion of cultivated land to perennial pasture on three agro-ecosystems in the Free State. MSc dissertation. University of the Free State Bloemfontein. South Africa.

Blanchard, R., Richardson, D.M., O’Farrell, P.J. and von Maltitz, G.P. 2011. Biofuels and biodiversity in South Africa. South African Journal of Science. 107(5/6), Art. #186, 8 pages. doi:10.4102/sajs. v107i5/6.186

Borman, G., von Maltitz, G.P., Tiwari, S and Scholes, M. 2013. Modelling the economic returns to labour for jatropha cultivation in southern Africa and India at differential local fuel prices. Biomass and Bioenergy. 95:70-83

BP Statistical Review. 2010. http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929andcontentId =7044622 (accessed 2 March 2010).

Bridgwater, T. 2006. Biomass for Energy. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 86: 1755-1768.

Browne, P. 2009. Tanzania suspends biofuel investments. http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2009/10/14/tanzania-suspends-biofuelsinvestments/ (1 March 2010).

BSR, 2010. State of Global Ecosystem Services Policy Developments. San Francisco:BSR.

Buchholz, T., Luzardis, V.A. and Volk, T.A. 2009. Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems: results from an expert survey. Journal of Cleaner Production 17: S86-S98.

Buchholz, T. and Volk, T.A. 2007. Designing short-rotation coppice based BIOenergy SYstems for Rural Communities in east Africa. BIOSYRCA project. Final Report. Prepared for USAID/EGAT/I&E/E and AEAI/World Learning, Energy Sector Grants Program.

Bucini, G. and Hanan, N. A. 2006. Continental-scale analysis of tree cover in African savannas Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16, 593-605

Campbell, B. M., Jeffrey, S., Luckert, M., Mutamba, M., and Zindi C. 2002 Household Livelihoods in Semi-Arid Regions: Options and Constraints. Bogor. Indonesia: CIFOR.

Campbell, B.M. 1996. The Miombo in Transition: Woodlands and welfare in Africa. Bogor CIFOR. Indonesia.

Campbell, B.M., Luckert, M. and Scoones, I. 1997. Local-level valuation of savanna resources: A case study from Zimbabwe. Economic Botany. 51(1): 59-77

Canadell,J.C., Raupach, M.R. and Houghton R.A. 2009. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions in Africa Biogeosciences, 6 (2009), pp. 463–468

Carpenter, S.R., Walker, M., Anderies, J.M. and Abel, N. 2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems. 4: 765-781

Carpenter, S.R., Walker, M., Anderies, J.M., and Abel, N. 2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765–781

203

Cashore, B., van Kooten, G.C., Vetinsky, I., Auld, G. and Affolderbach, J. 2005. Private or self-regulation? A comparative study of forest certification choices in Canada, the United States and Germany. Forest Policy and Economics. 7: 35-69.

Cavendish, W. 2000. Empirical Regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development. 28: 1979- 2003.

CDIAC. 2008. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

CES. 2009. Social impact assessment Dutch jatropha consortium jatropha biofuel project, Buzi district, Mozambique. Coastal and environmental services. Grahamstown South Africa.

Checkland, P.B. 1981. Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley, New York, New York, USA.

Cherubini, F. and Stromman, A.H. 2011. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future challenges. Bioresource Technology. 102: 437-451.

Chirwa, E., Mvula, P., Kadzandira, J. and Horea, L. 2003. Community based rural land development. Project baseline socioeconomic study final report. Ministry of Lands, Physical Planning and Surveys. Lilongwe.

Chirwa, E., and Dorward, A. 2013. Agricultural Input Subsidies: The Recent Malawi Experience. Oxford University Press.

Claassens, A. 2013. Recent changes in women's land rights and contested customary law in South Africa. Journal of Agrarian Change. 13:71-92

Coastal and Environmental Services (CES). 2009. Dutch Jatropha Consortium Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Report for Phase 1. Coastal and Environmental Services, Grahamstown, South Africa, www.cesnet.co.za, accessed in June 2009.

COMPETE. 2009. Bioenergy policy implementation in Africa. . Conference summary. 26-28 May Lusaka, Zambia. http://ebookbrowsee.net/compete-conference-summary-lusaka-090813-pdf-d53453315 (accessed 12 December 2013)

Copperbelt Energy Corporation (CEC). www.liquidafrica.com (accessed 15 November 2011)

Cortez, L., Regis, M., Leal, M.R.L.V. and Sinkala, T. 2010. Why biofuels are important. In: Rosillo-Calle, F. and Johnson, F.X. (eds) Food versus fuel. Zed Books. London and New York. UK and USA.

Cotula, L. 2010. Investment contracts and sustainable development: How to make contracts for fairer and more sustainable natural resource investments. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Cotula, L. 2011a. Land deals in Africa: What is in the contracts? International Institute for Environment and Development. London. UK.

Cotula, L. 2011b. The outlook on farmland acquisitions. International Land Coalition. Rome. Italy.

Cotula, L. and Leonard, R. (eds). 2010. Alternatives to land acquisitions: agricultural investment and collaborative business models. International Institute for Environment and Development. London. UK.

204

Cotula, L., Dyer, N. and Vermeulen, S. 2008. Fuel exclusion: The biofuel boom and the poor's access to land. International Institute for Environment and Development. London. UK.

Cotula, L., Vermeulen, S., Leonard, R. and Keeley, J. 2009. Land grab or development opportunity: Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa. International Institute for Environment and Development, Food and Agriculture Organization, and International Fund for Agricultural Development. London. UK and Rome. Italy.

CSIR. 2011. Eskom biomass fuel supply study: Milestone 1. Biomass supply and fuel updating options. Client confidential report. CSIR. Stellenbosch.

Cumming, G.S., Cumming, D.H.M and Redman, C.H. 2006. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions. Ecology and Society 11(1): 14.

Cushion, E., Whiteman, A. and Dieterle, G. 2010. Bioenergy development: issues and impacts for poverty and natural resource management. World Bank. Washington DC. USA.

D1. 2007. D1 Oils Annual report and accounts 2007. http://www.d1plc.com/investorsReports.php (accessed 20 September 2009).

Dale, V.H., Kline, K.L., Wiens, J. and Fargione, J. 2010. Biofuels: Implications for land use and biodiversity. Biofuels and Sustainability Reports. Washington DC: Ecological Society of America.

Danielsen, F., Buekema, H., Burgess, N., Parish, F., Bruhl, C., Donald, P., Murdiyarso, D., Phalan, B., Reijnders, L., Struebig, M. and Fitzherbert E.B. 2009. Biofuel plantations on forested lands: Double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate Conserv. Biol., 23:348-358

Dasgupta, P. 1993. An Inquiry into Well-Being and Destitution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

DEA, n.d. South African Government’s position on Climate Change. http://www.climateaction.org.za/cop17-cmp7/sa-government-position-on-climate-change. (accessed 12 December 2013)

de Beer, J. H. and McDermott, M. 1989. The Economic Value of Non-timber Forest Products in Southeast Asia, second revised edition, Netherlands Committee for the World Conservation Union (IUCN), Amsterdam

Deininger, K., Byerlee, D., Lindsay, J., Norton, A., Selod, H. and Stickler, M. 2011. Rising Global interest. In: Farmland Can It Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits. World Bank. Washington.

Denning, G., Kabambe, P., Sanchez, P., Malik, A., Flor, R., Harawa, R., Nkhoma, P., Zamba, C., Banda, C., Magombo, C., Keating, K., Wangila, J. and Sachs, J. 2009. Input subsidies to improve smallholder maize productivity in Malawi: Toward an African green revolution. PLoS Biology, 7, 2–10.

De Soto, H. 2000. The mystery of capital.. London: Bantam

Dias, P. 2013. Analysis of incentives and disincentives For maize in Mozambique. MAFAP, FAO, Rome.

Diaz-Chavez, R., Mutimba, S., Watson, H., Rodriguez-Sanchez, S. and Nguer M. 2010. Mapping Food and Bioenergy in Africa. A report prepared on behalf of FARA. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa. Ghana.

205

Diaz-Chavez, R. 2010. The role of biofuels in promoting socio-economic rural development. In: Rosillo-Calle, F. and Johnson, F.X. (eds) Food versus fuel. Zed Books. London and New York.

Diligent Tanzania Ltd. http://www.diligent-tanzania.com/ (accessed 12 February 2011)

Divakara, B.N., Upadhyaya, H.D., Wani, S.P., Laxmipathi Gowda, C.L. 2009. Biology and genetic improvement of Jatropha curcas L.: a review. Applied Energy 87, 732-742.

Dodgson, J., Spackman, M., Pearman, A.D. and Phillips, L.D. 2000. Multi-criteria analysis: A manual, department of the environment, transport and the regions. London. UK.

Domac, J., Richards, K. and Risovic, S. 2005. Socio-economic drivers in implementing bioenergy projects. Biomass and Bioenergy 28: 97-106.

Drimie, S and Casale, M. 2008. Multiple stressors in Southern Africa: the link between HIV/AIDS, food insecurity, poverty and children's vulnerability now and in the future. AIDS Care: Psychological and Socio-medical Aspects of AIDS/HIV, 21:S1, 28-33, DOI: 10.1080/09540120902942931

Du Preez, C.C., Van Huyssteen, C.W., and Mnkeni, P.N.S. 2011. Land use and soil organic matter in South Africa 2: A review on the influence of arable crop production. South African Journal of Science 107(5/6), Art. #358, 8 pages. doi:10.4102/sajs. v107i5/6.358

Du Toit, M.E.1992. Effect of cultivation on the organic carbon and total nitrogen in selected dryland soils. MSc Agric dissertation. University of the Free State. Bloemfontein. South Africa. Afrikaans.

Dubois, O. 2008. How good enough biofuel governance can help rural livelihoods: Making sure that biofuel development works for small farmers and communities. FAO. Rome. Italy.

Dye, P. and D. Versfeld. 2007. Managing the hydrological impacts of South African plantation forests: an overview. Forest Ecology and Management 251: 121-128.

EC. 2009. directive 2009/28/EC. On the promotion and use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. European Commission. Brussels. Belgium.

ECA. 2003. Land tenure systems and sustainable development in southern Africa. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa: Southern African Office.

Echols, M.A. 2009. Biofuels certification and the law of the World Trade Organization. ICTSD programme on agricultural trade and sustainable development, Issue Paper 19. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. Geneva. Switzerland.

Edwards, K., Chimusoro, J., Davidson, G., Price, K., Abbot, P. and Kayambazinthu, D. (n.d.). Restoring degraded land in the Shire Valley, Malawi: Lessons for community led initiatives that link restoration and the development of sustainable livelihoods. 18th Commonwealth forestry conference.

Ellery, F., Scholes, R.J. and Mentis M.T. 1991. An initial approach to predicting the sensitivity of the South African grassland biome to climate change. South African journal of science. 87: 499-503.

Erb, K.H., Mayer A., Krausmann F., Lauk C., Plut C., Steinberger J., Haberl H. 2012. The interrelations of future global bioenergy potentials, food demand and agricultural technology.

206

In: Gasparatos A., Stromberg P., editors. Socioeconomic and Environmental Impacts of Biofuels: Evidence from Developing Nations. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK

Eswaran, H., Almaraz, R., van den Berg, E. and Reich, P. 1997. An assessment of the soil resources of Africa in relation to productivity. Geoderma. 77(1):1–18.

EU RED. 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/ EC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDF.

European Commission (EC). 2007. The impact of a minimum 10% obligation for biofuel use in the EU-27 in 2020 on agricultural markets - Impact assessment Renewable Energy Roadmap, AGRI G-2/WM D 30 April 2007, 10 pages.

European Union (EU). 2009. Directive 2009/28/ec of the European parliament and of the council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official journal of the European Union.

Everson, C.S. Mengisulu, M.G. and Gush, M.B. 2013. A field assessment of the agronomic performance and water use of Jatropha curcas in South Africa. Biomass and bioenergy. 59:59-69

Falkenmark, M., Andersson, L., Castensson, R. and Sundblad, K. 1999. Water – a reflection of land use. Options for counteracting land and water mismanagement. Swedish Natural Science Research Council, Stockholm, Sweden

Fan, S., Johnson, M., Saurkar, A. and Makombe, T. 2008. Investing in African agriculture to halve poverty by 2015. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00751. Washington. USA.

FAO. 2003. State of the World’s Forests 2003. Part II. Selected Current Issues in the Forest Sector, FAO, Rome

FAO. 2006. State of the World’s Forests. Rome.

FAO. 1961-2006. Annual Reports, Food and Agricultural Organization. Rome.

FAO. 2008. An introduction to the basic concepts of food security. FAO. Rome. Italy.

FAO. 2009. Small-scale bioenergy initiatives: Brief description and preliminary lessons on livelihood impacts from case studies in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. 2010.Minimum dietary energy requirement [Internet]. Rome: FAO. Food Security Data and Definitions [cited 2010 Apr 15].

FAO. 2011. Recent trends in world food commodity prices: costs and benefits Past and future trends in world food prices. FAO. Rome. Italy.

Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Hawthrone, P., 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 319(5867):1235–1238.

FELISA. n.d. Farming for energy southern Africa. http://www.partners4africa.org/docs/S4-1-PfA-Tanzania-Hongo.pdf

207

Fischer, G., Hizsnyik, E. Prieler, S., Shah, M. and van Velthuizen, H. 2009. Biofuels and Food Security. Prepared by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) for OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID).

Fischer, G., Hizsnyik, E. Prieler, S., Shah, M. and van Velthuizen, H. 2009. Biofuels and Food Security. Prepared by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) for OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID).

Fischer, G., Hizsnyik, E., Prielder, S., Shah, M. and van Velthuizen, H., 2009. Biofuels and Food Security. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Vienna. Available at

Fisher, M. 2004. Household welfare and forest development in Southern Malawi. Environment and Development Economics. 9: 135-154.

FoE. 2011. Jatropha: Money doesn’t grow on trees. Ten reasons why jatropha is neither a profitable nor sustainable investment. Friends of the Earth. London. UK.

Foidl, N., Foidl, G., Sanchez, M., Mittelbach, M. and Hackel, S. 1996. Jatropha curcas L. as a source for the production of biofuel in Nicaragua. Bioresource Technology 58, 77-82.

Fontaras, G., Kousoulidou, M., Karavalakis, G., Tzamkiozis, T., Pistikopoulos, P., Ntziachristos, L., Bakeas, E., Stournas, S. and Samaras, Z. 2010. Effects of low concentration biodiesel blend application on modern passenger cars. Part 1: Feedstock impact on regulated

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2010. Africa’s changing landscape: Securing land access for the rural poor. FAO, Rome.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2008. The state of food and Agriculture. FAO, Rome.

Food Security Data and Definitions [cited 2010 Apr 15]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/fsdata/ess-fadata/en/; 2010

Francis, G., Edinger, R. and Becker, K. 2005. A concept for simultaneous wasteland reclamation, fuel production, and socio-economic development in degraded areas in India: need, potential and perspectives of jatropha plantations. Natural resources forum 29: 12-24.

Friends of the Earth Europe. 2010. Africa up for grabs: the scale and impact of land grabbing for agrifuels. Friends of the Earth Europe, Brussels, Belgium. http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/FoEE_Africa_up_for_grabs_2010.pdf (21 March 2011).

Friis, C. and Reenberg, A. 2010. Land grab in Africa: emerging land system drivers in a teleconnected world. GLP Report No. 1. GLP-IPO, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Fritsche, U.R., Hennenberg, K.J., Hünecke, K., Herrera, R. and Wiegmann, K. 2011. Sustainable bioenergy: key criteria and indicators. Öko-Institut. Darmstadt. Germany.

Gambiza, J. Chidumayo, E., Prins, H. Fritz, H and Nyathi, P. 2010. Livestock and wildlife. In 2011 in: Chidumayo, E.N., and Gumbo D.J. (Eds.) The Dry Forests and Woodlands of Africa: Managing for Products and Services. Earthscan. London.

Gao, Y., Skutsch, M., Masera, O., Pacheco, P. 2011. A global analysis of deforestation due to biofuel development. CIFOR Working Paper 68. CIROF. Bogor. Indonesia.

208

Gasparatos, A., Stromberg, P. and Takeuchi, K. 2011. Biofuels, ecosystem services and human wellbeing: Putting biofuels in the ecosystem services narrative. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 142(3-4): 111-128.

Gasparatos, A., Borzoni, M. and Abramovay, R. 2012. The Brazilian bioethonal and biodiesel programs: Drivers, policies and impacts. In Gasparatos, A. and Stromberg, P. Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of biofuels. Evidence from developing countries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gasparatos, A., Lee, L.Y, von Maltitz, G.P., Mathai, M.V., Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. and Willis, K.J. 2012. Biofuels in Africa. Impacts on ecosystem services, biodiversity and human well-being. UNU-IAS Policy Report. United Nations University.

German, L., Schoneveld, G., Skutsch, M., Andriani, R., Obidzinski, K., Pacheco, P., Komarudin, H., Andrianto, A., Lima M. and Dayang Norwana, A.A.B. 2010b. The local social and environmental impacts of biofuel feedstock expansion: a synthesis of case studies from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Infobrief No. 34. 12p. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

German, L., Schoneveld, G.C. and Gumbo, D. 2010a. The local social and environmental impacts of large-scale investments in biofuels in Zambia. Report prepared as part of the European Community Contribution Agreement EuropeAid/ENV/2007/143936/TPS. CIFOR. Bogor. Indonesia.

German, L.A., Schoneveld, G.C., and Mwangi, E. 2011a. Contemporary processes of large-scale land acquisition by investors: Case studies from Sub-Saharan Africa. CIFOR Occasional Paper 68. Center for International Forestry Research. Bogor. Indonesia.

German, L.A., Schoneveld, G.C. and Gumbo, D. 2011b. The local social and environmental impacts of large-scale investments in biofuels in Zambia. Ecology and Society. 16(4):12.

German, L.A., Schoneveld, G.C. and Pacheco, P. 2011c. The local social and environmental impacts of biofuels: A global comparative assessment and implications for governance. Ecology and Society. 16(4): 29.

German, L.A, and Schoneveld, G.C. 2012a. A review of social sustainability considerations among EU-approved voluntary schemes for biofuels, with implications for rural livelihoods. Energy Policy, 51: 765–778.

German, L.A., and Schoneveld, G.C. 2012b. Biofuels in Sub-Saharan Africa: Review of the Early Legal and Institutional Framework for Biofuel Investments in Zambia. Review of Policy Research, 29(4): 467-491.

German, L.A., Schoneveld, G.C., and Mwangi, E. 2013. Contemporary Processes of Large-Scale Land Acquisition in Sub-Saharan Africa: Legal failures, or Elite Capture of the Rule of Law? World Development, 48: 1-18.

GEXSI. 2008. Global market study on jatropha final report [internet]. Berlin. Germany:

GEXSI. 2008. Jatropha biofuel 2006–2008. GEXSI LLP. Berlin. Germany.

Gibson, R.B. 2006. Beyond the Pillars: Sustainability Assessment as a Framework for the effective integration of social, economic and ecological Considerations in significant decision-making’. In Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 8(3): 259-280

209

Global Bioenergy Partnership. 2011. GBEP Sustainability indicators for bioenergy. http://www.globalbioenergy.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gbep/docs/2011_events/11th_TF_Sustainability_Stockholm_15-17_March_2011/indicators/names_and_descriptions.pdf (7 September 2011).

Glover, D.J. and Kusterer, K. 1990. Small farmers, big business: contract farming and rural development. Houndsmills/London: Macmillan. London. UK.

Gordon-Maclean, A., Laizer, J., Harrison P.J. and Shemdoe, R. 2008. Biofuel industry study, Tanzania. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Tanzania and Sweden.

Government of Malawi (GoM). 2001. State of environment report for Malawi 2001. Lilongwe: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs. Malawi.

Government of Mozambique (GoM). 2008. Mozambique biofuels assessment. Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Agriculture. Maputo. Mozambique.

Government of Malawi (GoM). 2010. Statistical Yearbook. National Statistical Office. Government of Malawi. Zomba. Malawi.

Graham, A., Aubry, S., Künnemann R. and Suárez, M.S. 2010. CSO monitoring 2009-2010 Advancing African Agriculture (AAA): The impact of Europe’s policies and practices on African agriculture and food security. Land grab study.

Guariguata M.R., Masera O.T., Johnson F.X., von Maltitz G.P., Bird N., Tella P. and Martínez-Bravo R. 2011. A review of environmental issues in the context of biofuel sustainability frameworks. CIFOR Occasional paper 69. 36 pp. CIFOR Indonesia.

Guo, L. B. and Gifford, R.M. 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biology 8, 345–360.

Gush, M.B. and Moodley, M. 2007. Water use assessment of Jatropha curcas. In: Holl, M, Gush, M.B., Hallowes, J and Versfeld, D.B. (eds.) Jatropha curcas in South Africa: An Assessment of its Water Use and Bio-Physical Potential. WRC Report No. 1497/1/07 (Chapter 4). Water Research Commission, Pretoria, RSA.

Gush, M. 2010. Assessing hydrological impacts of tree-based bioenergy feedstocks. In Amezaga J. M. von Maltitz, G.P. and Boyes S.L. (Eds) Assessing the sustainability of biofuel projects in Developing Countries A Framework for Policy Evaluation. Newcastle University. ISBN 978-9937-8219-1-9. 179pp.

Hall, R. 2011. Land grabbing in Southern Africa: the many faces of the investor rush. Review of African Political Economy. 38(128): 193- 214.

Harrison, J.A., von Maltitz, G.P., Haywood, L., Sugrue, J.A., Diaz-Chavez, R.A. and Amezaga, J.M. 2010a. Mechanisms for driving sustainability of biofuels in developing countries. Renewable Energy Law and Policy Review 2: 197-212.

Harrison, J.A., Amezaga J.M. and von Maltitz G.P. 2010b. Introduction to sustainable bioenergy for developing countries. In: Amezaga J. M., von Maltitz, G.P. and Boyes S.L. (eds) Assessing the sustainability of biofuel projects in developing countries: a framework for policy evaluation. Newcastle University. Newcastle on Tyne. UK.

Haverkort, A., Bindraban, P. and Bos, H. (Eds). 2007. Food, fuel or forest? Opportunities, threats and knowledge gaps of feedstock production for bio-energy. Proceedings of the

210

seminar held at Wargeningen, the Netherlands. March 2, 2007. Plant Research International. B.V. Wageningen. Report 142.

Havnevik, K., Haaland, H. and Abdallah, J. 2011. Biofuel, land and environmental issues - the case of SEKAB’s biofuel plans in Tanzania. Nordic Africa Institute.

Haywood, L., von Maltitz G.P., Setzkorn, K. and Ngepah, N. 2008. Biofuel production in South Africa, Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia: A status quo analysis of the social, economic and biophysical elements of the biofuel industry in Southern Africa. CSIR Oxfam draft report for comment. Natural Resources and the Environment. CSIR. Pretoria.

Haywood, L.K.; de Wet, B., von Maltitz, G.P. and Brent, A.C. 2009. Development of a sustainability assessment framework for planning for sustainability for biofuel production at the policy, programme or project level. In Energy and Sustainability II. Edited C.A. Brebbia and A.A. Mammoli. WITS Press, Southampton. pg 355-365 ISBN: 978-1-84564-191-7, ISSN: 1746-448X v

Haywood, L., de Wet, B. and von Maltitz, G.P. 2010. Planning for sustainability for bioenergy programmes, plans and projects. In: Amezaga J.M., von Maltitz, G.P. and Boyes S.L. (eds). Assessing the sustainability of biofuel projects in developing countries. A framework for policy evaluation. Newcastle University. Newcastle on Tyne. UK.

Hegde, R. 2007. Contribution of Miombo woodland to household economy and socio-economic determinants of woodland use: the case of Mozambique. CIFOR. Bogor. Indonesia.

Hegde, R., and Bull, G. 2008. Economic shocks and Miombo woodland resource use: a household level study in Mozambique, in: P. Dewees (Ed.) Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa.Washington,DC: World Bank, Technical Annex 4

Heidhues, F., Atsain, A., Nyangito, H., Padilla, M., Ghersi, G. and Le Vallée, J. 2004. Development strategies and food and nutrition security in Africa: an assessment. 2020 discussion paper

Heller, J., 1996. Physic Nut – Jatropha curcas L. – Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crops. PhD dissertation, Institute of Plant Genetic and Crop Plant Research, Gatersleben, Germany and International Plant Genetic Resource Institute, Rome, Italy, p. 66. http://tinyurl.com/cg2pw8.

Henning, R.K. 2006 Jatropha curcas in Africa - an evaluation global facilitation unit for underutilised species. http://www.underutilizedspecies.org/Documents/PUBLICATIONS/ Jatrophajatropha_curcas_africa.pdf (5 January 2009).

Henning. n.d. Jatropha curcas L. in Africa: Assessment of the impact of the dissemination of “the Jatropha System” on the ecology of the rural area and the social and economic situation of the rural population (target group) in selected countries in Africa. Weissensberg. Germany.

Henning. n.d. The jatropha booklet. A guide to the jatropha system and its dissemination in Zambia. GTZ. Germany.

Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Tiffany, D., 2006. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. PNAS 103(30), pp.11206–11210.

211

HLPE. 2013a. Biofuels and food security. A report by the high level panel of experts on food security and nutrition of the committee on World Food Security. Rome. Italy.

HLPE. 2013b. Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. A report by the high level panel of experts on food security and nutrition of the committee on World Food Security. Rome. Italy.

Holden, S. and Lunduka, H. 2012a. Who benefits from Malawi’s Targeted Farm Input Subsidy Program? Forum for Development Studies, DOI:10.1080/08039410.2012.6 88858, 1–25.

Holl, M.A., Gush, M.B., Hallowes, J. and Versfeld, D. (eds). 2007. Jatropha curcas in South Africa: An Assessment of its Water Use and Bio-Physical Potential. Water research Commission. WRC Report no 1497/1/07. Pretoria.

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 4: 1–23.

Huntley, B. J. and Walker, B. H. 1982. Ecology of Tropical savannas. Springer Verlag, New York, USA.

IAC. 2004. Realizing the promise and potential of African agriculture. InterAcademy Council. c/o Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Amsterdam. Netherlands.

IEA. (International Energy Agency). 2002. World Energy Outlook. Paris, France.

IEA. (International Energy Agency). 2004. Biofuels for transport: An international perspective. International Energy Agency. Paris. France.

IEA. (International Energy Agency). 2006. World Energy Outlook. Paris, France.

IEA. (International Energy Agency). 2008. World Energy Outlook. Paris, France

IFAD. 2011. Rural poverty report. New realities, new challenges, new opportunities for tomorrows generation. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

IISD/UNIDO. 2007 First High-Level Biofuels Seminar in Africa Bulletin: A Summary Report. 30 July – 1 August 2007. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/ Services/Energy_and_Climate_Change/Renewable_Energy/Conference_Ethiopia/IISD_coverage.pdf (21 March 2011).

Intelligent Energy Europe. 2008. Biofuelmarketplace.com. Financed by the European Commission Ref. No. EIE-05-022.

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2011. Rural poverty report 2011. IFAD. Rome. Italy.

IPCC AR4 WG3. 2007, Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R. and Meyer, L.A. (eds) Climate change 2007: Mitigation of climate change, contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. USA.

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. UK.

IUCN. 2009. Guidelines on biofuels and invasive species. IUCN. Gland. Switzerland.

212

Jenssen, R., and Rutz, D. 2010. Third Periodic Activity Report (01.01.2009 – 31.12.2009) December 2009. ANNEX 6-3-2: Policy Recommendation Paper. COMPETE. http://www.compete-bioafrica.net/policy/Annex6-3-2-COMPETE-032448-3rdReport2009-D6.3-WIP-PolicyRecommendationPaper-Final.pdf

Jessen, H. 2012. World of Corn report breaks down corn used for ethanol, DDGS. http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/8611/world-of-corn-report-breaks-down-corn-used-for-ethanol-ddgs

Jongschaap, R.E.E., Corré, W.J., Bindraban, P.S. and Brandenburg, W.A., 2007. Claims and facts on Jatropha curcas L.: Global Jatropha curcas evaluation, breeding and propagation programme. Report 158, Plant Research International B.V., Wageningen, Laren, the Netherlands, available from: http://library.wur.nl/way/bestanden/clc/1858843.pdf.

Karavina, C., Zivenge, E., Mandumbu, R. and Parwada, C. 2011. Jatropha curcas production in Zimbabwe: Uses, challenges and the way forward. Modern Applied Science. 5(2): 239- 243.

Karekezi, S. and Majoro, L. 2002. Improving modern energy services for Africa s urban poor. Energy policy journal special issue. 30(11-12): 1015-1028.

Karlsson, G. and Banda, K. 2009. Biofuels for sustainable rural development and empowerment of women: case studies from Africa and Asia.

Kishindo, P. 2004. Customary land tenure and the new land policy in Malawi. Journal of contemporary African studies. 22(2): 213-225.

Kousoulidou, M., Fontaras, G., Mellios, G. and Ntziachristos, L. 2008. Effect of biodiesel and bioethanol on exhaust emissions. ETC/ACC Technical Paper 2008/5.

Kruger, K.J. and Bennett, B.M. 2013. Wood and water: an historical assessment of South Africa's past and present forestry policies as they relate to water conservation. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa. 68(3):163-174

Kutsch, W.L., Merbold, L., Ziegler, W., Mukelabai, M.M., Muchinda, M. and Kolle, O. 2011. The charcoal trap: miombo forests and the energy needs of people. Carbon Balance Management; 6:5.

Kydd, J., Dorward, A., Morrison, A. and Cadisch, G. 2002. Agricultural development and pro poor economic growth in Sub Saharan Africa: Potential and policy. ADU working paper 02/04. Imperial College. Wye. Ashford. UK

Larson, E. 2005. A review of LCA studies on liquid biofuels for the transport sec-tor, scientific and technical advisory panel of the global environment facility (STAP) workshop on liquid biofuels, 29 August to 1 September 2005. New Delhi. India.

Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. 2007. Who benefits from land titling? Lessons from Bolivia and Laos. International Institute for Environment and Development Gatekeeper Series (132).

Lehtonen, M. 2012. Power, social impacts, and certification of ethanol fuel: view from the Northeast Brazil. In Gasparatos, A. and Stromberg, P. Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of biofuels. Evidence from developing countries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

213

Lemmer, W. and Schoeman, B. 2011. An assessment of the food security impact in South Africa and the world due to the South African biofuels industry rollout. Grain SA. Bothaville. South Africa.

Lerner, A, Matupa, O., Mothlathledi, F., Stiles, G and Brown, R. 2010. SADC biofuels state of play study: An assessment of the Biofuel Sector Development in the Southern African Development Community. SADC. Gaborone.

Livingston, G., Schonberger, S. and Delaney, S. 2011. Sub-Saharan Africa: The state of smallholders in agriculture. Paper presented at the IFAD conference on new directions for smallholder agriculture. 24-25 January.

Liyama, M., Newman, D., Munster, C., Nyabenge, M., Sileshi, G.W., Moraa, V., Onchieku, J., Mowo, J.G and Jamnadass, R. 2013. Productivity of Jatropha curcas under smallholder farm conditions in Kenya. Agroforestry Systems 87:729-746

Lobe, I., Du Preez, C.C. and Amelung, W. 2002. Influence of prolonged arable cropping on lignin compounds in sandy soils of the South African Highveld. Eur J Soil Sci.53:553–562. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2389.2002.00469.x

Locke, A and Henley, G. 2013. Scoping report on biofuels projects in five developing countries. Overseas Development Institute. London.

Lockwood, J.L., Simberloff, D., McKinney, M.L. and von Holle, B. 2001. How many, and which, plants will invade natural areas? Biological Invasions 3, 1-8.

Louw, A., Ndanga, L., Chikazunga, D. and Jagwe, J. 2008. Restructuring food markets in the Southern Africa region: Dynamics in the context of the fresh produce sub-sector. Part of the Regoverning Markets study in Southern Africa which forms part of a global initiative of 18 countries in five regions. University of Pretoria. South Africa.

MA Desertification. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Desertification synthesis. A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.355.aspx.pdf

MA. 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A framework for assessment. A report of the Conceptual Framework Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, USA.

MA. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Current State and Trends Assessment. Washington: Island Press.

Machinga socio-economic profile 2007-2012. Government of Malawi. Zomba

Madhaiyan, M., Peng, N., Te1, N.S., Hsin, H., Lin, I.G., Lin, G., Reddy, C., Yan, H. and Ji, L. 2013. Improvement of plant growth and seed yield in Jatropha curcas by a novel nitrogen-fixing root associated Enterobacter species Biotechnology for Biofuels. 6: 140

Maes, W.H., Trabucco, A., Achten, W.M.J. and Muys, B. 2009. Climatic growing conditions of Jatropha curcas L. Biomass and Bioenergy. 33(10):1481-1485

Majeke, F. 2013. Optimum combination of crop farm enterprises: a case study of a small-scale farm in Marondera, Zimbabwe. International Researcher. 2(1).

214

Makenete, A., Lemmer, W. and Kupka, J. 2008. The impact of biofuel production on food security: A briefing paper with a particular emphasis on maize-to-ethanol production. International food and agribusiness management review. 11(2).

Malimbwi, R. Chidumayo, E., Zahabu, E., Kingazi, S., Misama, S., Luaga, E. and Nduwamungu, J. 2010. Woodfuel. in: Chidumayo, E.N. and Gumbo, D.J. (Eds.) The Dry Forests and Woodlands of Africa: Managing for Products and Services. Earthscan. London.

Mallett, J.B., Long P.M., Arathoon A.J. 1987. Changes in a Doveton clay loam after 12 years of direct-drill maize production. S Afr J Plant Soil. 4:188–192

Mason, N. M. 2011. Marketing boards, fertilizer subsidies, prices, and smallholder behaviour: Modelling and policy implications for Zambia. PhD, Michigan State University.

Mason, N. M. and Ricker-Gilbert, J. 2012. Disrupting Demand for Commercial Seed: Input Subsidies in Malawi and Zambia. Working Paper No. 63. Lusaka: Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI).

Masud, J., Sharan, D. and Lohani, B.N. 2007. Energy for all. Addressing the energy, environment, and poverty nexus in Asia. Asian Development Bank.

Mayers, J., Evans, J. and Foy, T. 2001. Raising the stakes: impacts of privatisation, certification and partnerships in South African forestry. International Institute for Environment and Development. London. UK.

Mengesha, F. 2011. Gaia lessons and modifications of ethanol production: small-scale vs. large scale approaches. ETHOS Conference. 28–30 January.

Menichetti, E. and Otto, M., 2009. Energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels from a product life-cycle perspective. In: R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu, eds 2009. Biofuels: Environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use. Ithaca: Cornell University, pp.81–109.

Midgley, G.F., Hannah, L., Millar, D., Thuiller, W. and Booth, A. 2003. Developing regional and species-level assessments of climate change impacts on biodiversity in the Cape Floristic Region. Biological conservation. 112: 87-97

Miranda, R.C., Sepp, S., Ceccon, E., Mann, S. and Singh, B. 2010. Sustainable production of commercial woodfuel: lessons and guidance from two strategies. The energy sector management assistance program. World Bank. Washington DC. USA.

Mitchell, D. 2011. Biofuels in Africa: Opportunities, prospects and challenges. World Bank. Washington.

Mohamed, F.A. 2007. Sustainable biofuel production and use with a focus on Africa. Eastern and Southern Africa regional workshop on biofuels-UNEP. Nairobi. Kenya

Morten, D.C., DeFries, R.S., Shimabukuro, Y.E., Anderson, L.O., Arai, E., Espirito-Santo, F., Freitas, R. and Morisette, J. 2006. Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. PNAS 103: 14637-14641.

Moseley, M.L. 2003. Rural development : principles and practice. SAGE. London p.5. ISBN 0-7619-4766-3.

Mugo, F. and Ong, C. 2006. Lessons of eastern Africa’s unsustainable charcoal trade. ICRAF Working Paper no. 20. World Agroforestry Centre. Nairobi. Kenya.

215

Nair, P.K. 1993. An introduction to agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publishers. London.

Neville, K. 2012. The contentious political economy of biofuels: transnational struggles over food, fuel, and the environment. PhD Dissertation. University of British Columbia.

Ngepah, N. 2010a. Socio-economic impacts of biofuels: methodologies and case study examples. In: Amezaga, J. M., von Maltitz, G.P. and Boyes, S.L. (eds) Projects in developing countries a framework for policy evaluation. Newcastle University. Newcastle on Tyne. UK.

Ngepah, N. 2010b. Inequality and agricultural production: Evidence from aggregate agriculture and sugarcane farms in South Africa. AfJARE Vol 5 No 2

Nhantumbo, I. and Salomão, A. 2010. Biofuels, land access and rural livelihoods in Mozambique, International Institute for environment and development. London. UK.

Niamir-Fuller, M. 1998. The resilience of pastoral herding in Sahelian Africa. In Berkes, F., Folke, C., and Colding, J. (eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Nickless, A. and Scholes, R.J. 2009. User’s Guide to the Biodiversity Intactness Index. CSIR. Pretoria.

Norberg, J. and Cumming, G.S. 2006. Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future. Columbia University Press, New York.

Norconsult. 2002. The True Cost of Charcoal: a rapid appraisal of the potential economic and environmental benefits of substituting LPG for charcoal as an urban fuel in Tanzania. Norconsult Tanzania Limited, Dar es Salaam

NWA. 1998. National Water Act, RSA. Government Gazette No. 36 of 1998: 26 August 1998, No. 19182. Cape Town, South Africa.

Olver, R., and James, T. 2006. The opportunities in the global biodiesel market. Energy Infrastructure Utilities, Deloitte and Touche LLP. Presentation at the Biodiesel Expo, Nottinghamshire, UK, October 18, 2006, http://www.biodiesel-expo.co.uk/download/1%20Deloitte%20Bio%20Diesel4.pdf, accessed January 6, 2009.

Openshaw, K. 2000. A review of Jatropha curcas: an oil plant of unfulfilled promise. Biomass Bioenergy 2000. 19: 1-15.

Overdevest, C. 2010. Comparing forest certification schemes: the case of ratcheting standards in the forest sector. Socio-Economic Review 8: 47–76

Parikka, T.W. 2004. Thermodynamics of the corn ethanol biofuel cycle. Critical review in plant science:23(6):519-67

Pearce, D. W. and Moran, D. 1994. The Economic Value of Biodiversity. EarthScan. London:

Perrings, C. 1997. Biodiversity loss: economic and ecological issues Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Pheloung, P. 2003. An Australian perspective on the management of pathways for invsive species’. In Invasive Species Vectors and Management Strategies, eds Ruiz G. and Carlton,T.J. pp. 292-349. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Pimentel D. and Pimentel, M. 2008. Food, Energy and Society, third edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL.

216

Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R. and Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52: 273– 288

Pimentel, D., Marklein, A., Toth, M.A., Karpoff, M.N., Paul, G.S., McCormack, R., Kyriazis, J., and Kruger, T. 2009. Food Versus Biofuels: Environmental and Economic Costs. Human Ecology, 37(1), 1–12.

Pimentel, D., Marklein, M., Toth, M.A., Karpoff, M.N., Paul, G.S., McCormack, R., Kyriazis, J. and Kruger, T. 2010. Why we should not be using biofuels - environmental and economic costs. In: Rosillo-Calle, F. and Johnson, F.X. (eds) Food versus fuel. Zed Books. London and New York. UK and USA.

Practical Action Consulting. 2009. Small-scale bioenergy initiatives: brief description and preliminary lessons on livelihood impacts from case studies in Asia, Latin America and Africa. FAO, Rome. Italy.

PRB. 2007. World population data sheet. Population Reference Bureau. Washington DC.

Prinsloo, F.W. and Scott, D.F. 1999. Streamflow responses to the clearing of alien invasive trees from riparian zones at three sites in the Western Cape. 2009. South African Forestry Journal. 185:1-7

Rainer, J. and Rutz. D. 2010. Policy Recommendation Paper. Competence Platform on Energy Crop and Agroforestry Systems for Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems- Africa. http://www.compete-bioafrica.net/publications/publications.html (accessed 20 January 2012)

Rainer, J. and Rutz, D. 2009. COMPETE: third periodic activity report. Competence Platform on Energy Crop and Agroforestry Systems for Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems- Africa. http://www.compete-bioafrica.net/publications/publications.html. (accessed 20 January 2012)

Rainforest Foundation US. 2013. Turning rights into reality. Issues to consider in implementing the right to free, prior, informed consent. http://issuu.com/rfus/docs/fpic_document_rf_pantone_webversion. (accessed 20 June 2013)

Ravallion, M., Chen, S. and Sangraula, P. 2009. Dollar-a-day revisited. World Bank Econ Rev. 23(2):163-84

REN21, Renewables. 2007. Global Status Report. Paris and Washington, DC:

Resilience Alliance. 2010. Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: Workbook for practitioners. Version 2.0. Online: http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php (accessed 5 June May 2012)

Reuters. 2013. 16:04 Reuters http://www.fin24.com/Economy/Zambia-cuts-maize-fuel-strings-20130523) (accessed 23 May 2013)

Reynolds, J.F., Stafford Smith, D.M., Lambin, E.F., Turner, B.L., II, Mortimore, M., Batterbury, S.P.J., Downing, T.E., Dowlatabadi, H., Fernandez, R.J., Herrick, J.E., Huber-Sannwald E, Jiang, H., Leemans, R., Lynam, T., Maestre, F.T., Ayarza, M and Walker, B. 2007. Global desertification: building a science for dryland development. Science 316(5826):847-851 DOI: 10.1126/science.1131634.

Reynolds, J.F., Grainger, A., Stafford Smith, D.M., Bastin, G., Garcia-Barrios, L., Fernández, R.J., Janssen, M.A., Jürgens, N., Scholes, R.J., Veldkamp, A., Verstraete, M.M., von Maltitz,

217

G.P., Zdruli, P. 2011. Scientific concepts for an integrated analysis of desertification. Land Degradation and Development 22, 166–183.

Ricker-Gilbert, J. 2011. Household-level impacts of fertilizer subsidies in Malawi. PhD dissertation. Michigan State University.

RSB, 2010. Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels: Principles and criteria for sustainable biofuel production (Version 2.0). Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels. Lausanne. http://rsb.org/sustainability/rsb-sustainability-standards/

Rosegrant, M.W. 2008. Biofuels and grain prices: impacts and policy responses. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC.

Rosegrant, M.W., Cline, S.A., Li, W., Sulser, T.B. and Valmonte-Santos, R.A. 2005. Looking ahead: long-term prospects for Africa’s agricultural development and food security. 2020 Discussion Paper 41 International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC.

Rosillo-Calle, F. and Johnson, F.X. 2010. Food versus Fuel: an informed introduction to biofuels. Zed Books.

Rosillo-Calle, F. and Tschirley J. 2010. Food versus fuel, setting the scene. In Rosillo-Calle, Johnson, F.X. (eds). Food versus Fuel: an informed introduction to biofuels. Zed Books.

Rossi, A. and Lambrou, Y. 2009. Making sustainable biofuels work for smallholder farmers and rural households: issues and perspectives. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/ i0891e/i0891e00.htm (accessed 22 September 2010).

Royal Society. 2008. Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges. Policy document 01/08. Royal Society. London.

Rudel, T.K., Schneider, L., Uriarte, M., Turner II, B.L., DeFries, R., Lawrence, D., Geoghegan, J., Hecht, S., Ickowitz, A., Lambin, E.F. et al. 2009. Agricultural intensification and changes in cultivated areas, 1970–2005. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 106: 20675-20680.

Rutherford R.J. 2010. An assessment of the rain-fed crop production potential in South Africa’s neighbouring countries. Report no RSA 000/00/12510. Department of Water Affairs. Pretoria. South Africa.

SADC. 2010. SADC framework for sustainable biofuel use and production. Approved by SADC biofuel taskforce on 10 December 2009. Approved by SADC Energy Ministers meeting on 29 April 2010.

Sankaran, M., Hanan, N.P., Scholes, R.J., Ratnam, J., Augustine, D.J., Cade, B.S., Gignoux, J., Higgins, S.I., Le Roux, X., Ludwig, F., Ardo, J., Banyikwa, F., Bronn, A., Bucini, G., Caylor, K.K., Coughenour, M.B., Diouf, A., Ekaya, W., Feral, C.J., February, E.C., Frost, P.G.H. Hiernaux, P., Hrabar, H., Metzger, K.L., Prins, H.H.T., Ringrose, S., Sea, W., Tews, J., Worden, J. and Zambatis, N. 2005. Determinants of woody cover in African savannas Nature. 438, 846-849

Schlag, N. and Zuzarte, F. 2008. Market barriers to clean cooking fuels in Sub-Saharan Africa: Literature review. SEI working paper. Stockholm: Stockholm Environmental Institute.

Scholes, R.J. and R. Biggs. (eds.) 2004. Ecosystem services in southern Africa, a regional assessment. The Regional-Scale Component of the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Pretoria. South Africa.

218

Scholes, R.J. and Biggs, R. 2005. A biodiversity intactness index. Nature. 433: 43-49.

Scholes, R.J. and von Maltitz, G.P. 2006. Quantifying tradeoffs between sustainable land management, global environmental concerns and local socio-economic impacts. A report prepared for the GEF STAP. CSIR. Pretoria. 55p

Scholes, R.J., Archibald, S. and von Maltitz, G.P. 2011. Appendix 3. Methods and uncertainties around calculations of above ground biomass, productivity and encroachment in southern Africa. In: CSIR 2011. Eskom biomass fuel supply study: Milestone 1. Biomass supply and fuel updating options. Client confidential report. CSIR. Stellenbosch

Scholes, R.J., Archibald, S. and von Maltitz G.P. 2011. Emissions from fire in Sub-Saharan Africa: the magnitude of sources, their variability and uncertainty. Global Environmental Research. 15: 53-63.

Schoneveld, G.C. 2011. The anatomy of large-scale farmland acquisitions in sub-Saharan Africa. CIFOR Working paper 85. Center for International Forestry research. Bogor. Indonesia.

Schoneveld. G.C. 2013. The Governance of Large-Scale Farmland Investments in Sub-Saharan Africa A Comparative Analysis of the Challenges for Sustainability. PhD thesis. Eburon Delft.

Schoneveld, G.C., German, L.A. and Nukator, E.D. 2011. Land-based investments for rural development: A grounded analysis of the local impacts of biofuel feedstock plantations in Ghana. Ecology and Society. 16(4): 10.

Schoneveld, G.C., German, L. and Nutakor, E. 2010 Biofuel feedstock production in Ghana: a case analysis of environmental and socio-economic impacts. Report prepared as part of the European Community Contribution Agreement EuropeAid/ENV/2007/143936/TPS. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Schoneveld, G.C., German, L.A., Andrade, R., Chin, M., Caroko, W., and Romero-Hernández, O. 2010. The role of national governance systems in biofuel development: a comparative analysis of lessons learned. CIFOR Info Brief 35. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor. Indonesia.

Schoneveld, G.C., German, L.A. and Gumbo, D. 2012. Sino-African relations and the impacts on forests: a preliminary assessment for the case of Zambia. CIFOR Donor Report. Bogor. Indonesia.

Schubert, R., Schellnhuber, H.J., Buchmann, N., Epiney, A., Grießhammer, R., Kulessa, M., Messner, D., Rahmstorf, S.,Schmid, J. 2008. Future Bioenergy and Sustainable Land Use. Flagship Report 2008 WGBU: German Advisory Council on Global Change ISBN 978-1-84407-841-7. Pages 133-187

Schure, J. Ingram, v. Awono, A, and Binzangi, 2009. K. From Tree to Tea to CO2 in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a framework for analyzing the market chain of fuelwood around Kinshasa and Kisangani. XIII World Forestry Congress Buenos Aires, Argentina, 18 – 23 October 2009

Schut, M., Bos, S., Machuama, L. and Slingerland, M. 2010a. Working towards sustainability: Learning experiences for sustainable biofuel strategies in Mozambique. Wageningen University. Wageningen. The Netherlands.

219

Schut, M., Slingerland, M. and Locke, A. 2010b. Biofuel developments in Mozambique. Update and analysis of policy, potential and reality. Energy Policy. 38: 5151-5165.

Scoones, I., Marongwe, N., Mavedzenge, B., Murimbarimba, F., Mahenehene, J and Sukume, C. 2010. Zimbabwe’s land reform: Myths and realities. Oxford: James Currey; Harare: Weaver Press. Johannesburg: Jacana. South Africa.

Scott, D.F. Prinsloo, F.W. Moses, G., Mehlomakulu, M. and Simmers, A.D.A. 2000. A re-analysis of the South African catchment afforestation experimental data. WRC Report 810/1/00, Water Research Commission, Pretoria,

Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J. et al. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change. Science. 319(5867):1238-40.

SEKAB. 2008. Environmental and social impact statement of the proposed bioethanol production on the former Razaba Ranch, Bagamoyo District, Tanzania. SEKAB BioEnergy (T) Limited. Dar es Salaam.

Sepp, S. 2008 Analysis of charcoal value chains – general considerations. Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit. http://www.hedon.info/docs/charcoal-supply-chains.pdf (28 July 2010).

Sepp. n.d. Shaping charcoal policies: context, process and instruments as exemplified by country cases. Eco Consulting Group – Germany.

Shackleton, C. M. and Shackleton, S. E. 2006. Household wealth, status and natural resource use in the Kat River Valley, South Africa’, Ecological Economics 57:306–317

Shackleton, C.M. and Clarke, J.M. 2007. PAPER I: Research and Management of Miombo Woodlands for Products in Support of Local Livelihoods. CIFOR. Indonesia,

Shackleton, S.E. and Gumbo, D. 2010. Contribution of non-wood forest products to livelihoods and poverty alleviation. In: Chidumayo, E.N. and Gumbo, D.J. (eds) The dry forests and woodlands of Africa: managing for products and services. Earthscan. London.

Shackleton, S, Cocks, M, Dold, T, Kaschula, S, Mbata, K, Mickels-Kokwe, G and von Maltitz, G.P. 2010. Non-wood Forest Products: Description, Use and Management in: Chidumayo, EN, and Gumbo DJ (Eds.) The Dry Forests and Woodlands of Africa: Managing for Products and Services. Earthscan. London.

Schubert, R., Schellnhuber, H.J., Buchmann, N., Epiney, A., Grießhammer, R., Kulessa, M., Messner, D., Rahmstorf, S.,Schmid, J. 2008. Future Bioenergy and Sustainable Land Use. Flagship Report 2008 WGBU: German Advisory Council on Global Change ISBN 978-1-84407-841-7. Pages 133-187

Silitonga A.S., Atabani AE., Mahlia T.M.I., Masjuki H.H., Badruddin I.A., Mekhilef S. 2011. A review on prospect of Jatropha curcas for biodiesel in Indonesia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:3733–56.

Silversands 2010 http://www.silversandsethanol.co.za/literature.html (Accessed 5 November 2010)

Singh, K.J. and Sooch, S.S. 2004. Comparative study of economics of different models of family size biogas plants for state of Punjab, India. Energy Conversion and Management 45: 1329-41.

220

Sinkala, T. 2008. Liquid biofuels as a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Working paper prepared for the global renewable energy forum. Foz do Iguancu. Brazil. 18–21 May.

Smeets, E.M.W. 2008. Possibilities and limitation for sustainable bioenergy production systems. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht. Utrecht, Netherlands.

Smeets, E.M.W., Faaij, A.P.C., Lewandowski, I.M. and Turkenburg, W.C. 2007. A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 33: 56-106.

Smeets, E.M.W and Faaij, A.P.V. 2009. Report on potential projects for financing. Competence Platform on Energy Crop and Agroforestry Systems for Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems- Africa. http://www.compete-bioafrica.net/publications/publications.html

Smeets, E.M.W., Faaij, A.P.C., Lewandowski, I.M. and Turkenburg, W.C. 2007. A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 33: 56-106.

Smit, M.L. 2004. The effect of cropping systems and tillage practices on some fertility indicators of a Swartland soil near Malmesbury. MSc Agric dissertation. University of the Free State. Bloemfontein. South Africa.

Songela, F. and Maclean, A. 2008. Scoping exercise (situation analysis) on the biofuels industry within and outside Tanzania. Energy for sustainable development report for the WWF Tanzania programme office.

Spaan, W.P., Bodnar, F., Idoe, O. and de Graaff, J. 2004. Implementation of contour vegetation barriers under farmer conditions in Burkina Faso and Mali. Quarterly journal of international agriculture. 43: 21-38.

Splash, C.L. 2008. How much is that Ecosystem in the Window? The One with the Bio-diverse Trail Environmental Values 17: 259–284.

Srinophakun, P. P., Titapiwatanakun, B., Sooksathan, I. and Punsuvon. 2012. Prospect of deoiled Jatropha curcas seedcake as fertilizer for vegetables crops – A case study. Journal of agricultural science. 4(3): 211-226

Stafford Smith, D.M., McKeon, G.M., Watson, I.W., Henry. B.K., Stone, G.S., Hall, W.B. and Howden, S.M. 2007. Land Change Science Special Feature: Learning from episodes of degradation and recovery in variable Australian rangelands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 20690-20695.

Stattman, S.L., Hospes, O. and Mol, A.P.J. 2013. Governing biofuels in Brazil: A comparison of ethanol and biodiesel policies. Energy Policy 21: 22-30

Stephenson, A. L., Blottnitz von, H., Brent, A. C., Dennis, J. S. and Scott, S. A. 2010. The global warming potential and fossil energy requirements of biodiesel production scenarios in South Africa. Energy fuels. 24: 2489-2499.

Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, by Nicholas Stern. 2006. London, UK: Her Majesty’s Treasury.

Stromberg, P. and Gasparatos, A. 2012. Biofuels at the confluence of energy security, rural development and food security: a developing country perspective. In: A. Gasparatos and P. Stromberg, ed. 2012. Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of biofuels: Evidence from developing nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.3–26.

221

Sulle, E. and Nelson, F. 2009. Biofuels, land access and rural livelihoods in Tanzania. International Institute for Environment and Development. London.

Takane, T.U. 2007. Customary land tenure, inheritance rules, and smallholder farmers in Malawi. IDE Discussion Paper. No. 104. The Institute of Developing Economies (IDE). Chiba. Japan.

Takasaki, Y., Barham, B.L. and Coomes, O.T. 2004. Risk coping strategies in tropical forests: Floods, illnesses, and resource extraction. Environment and Development Economics, vol 9, pp203–224

TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.

The State of Food and Agriculture, Biofuels: prospects, risks and opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Publication ISSN 0081-4539, Rome, 128 pages; 2008

Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L.J., Collingham, Y.C., Erasmus, B.F.N., de Siqueira, M.F., Grainger, A., Hannah, L., Hughes, L., Huntley, B., van Jaarsveld, A.S., Midgley, G.F., Miles, L., Ortega-Huerta, M.A., Peterson, A.T., Phillips, O.L. and Williams, S.E. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145-148

Tigere, T.A., Gatsi, T.C., Mudita, I.I., Chikuvire, T.J., Thamangani S. and Mavunganidze Z. 2006. Potential of Jatropha curcas in improving smallholder famers livelihoods in Zimbabwe: an exploratory study of Makosa Ward, Mutoko District. Journal of sustainable development in Africa. 8: 1-9.

Trabucco A., Achten W.M.J., Bowe C., Aerts R., Orshoven J.V., Norgrove L. and Muys B. 2010. Global mapping of Jatropha curcas yield based on response of fitness to present and future climate, GCB Bioenergy, 2, 139–151

Turpie, J. and Heydenrych, B. 2000. Economic consequences of alien infestation of the Cape Floral Kingdom’s Fynbos vegetation. In: Perrings, C., Williamson, M., and Dalmazzone, S. (Eds.), The Economics of Biological Invasions. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 152–182.

UNDP. Human Development reports. http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/data_sheets. Accessed 25 September 2009

UNIDO. 2009. UNIDO’s biofuel strategy. http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/import/ 68441_final_draft_unido_biofuel_strategy.pdf (21 March 2011).

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). 2007. Small-scale production and use of liquid biofuels in sub-Saharan Africa: perspectives for sustainable development. Background Paper No. 2 DESA/DSD/2007/2. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd15/documents/csd15_bp2.pdf (12 December 2010)

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2005. A guide to energy’s role in reducing poverty. UNDP, New York.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2000. Mozambique Common Country Assessment. UN System in Mozambique, Maputo.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2003. World Population Prospects, United Nations Population Division, New York, USA.

222

United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNESC). 2007. Africa review report on agriculture and rural development (summary). Economic commission for Africa. Fifth meeting, African Committee on Sustainable Development. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2002. Africa environment outlook: past, present and future perspectives.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2013. Cereal production by country. https://data.undp.org/

Valentini, R., Arneth, A., Bombelli, A., Castaldi, S., Cazzolla Gatti, R., Chevallier, F., Ciais, P., Grieco, E., Hartmann, J., Henry, M., Houghton, R. A., Jung, M., Kutsch, W. L., Malhi, Y., Mayorga, E., Merbold, L., Murray-Tortarolo, G., Papale, D., Peylin, P., Poulter, B., Raymond, P. A., Santini, M., Sitch, S., Vaglio Laurin, G., van der Werf, G. R., Williams, C. A., and Scholes, R. J. 2014. A full greenhouse gases budget of Africa: synthesis, uncertainties, and vulnerabilities, Biogeosciences, 11, 381-407, doi:10.5194/bg-11-381-2014.

Van Antwerpen, R. and Meyer, J.H. 1996. Soil degradation under sugarcane cultivation in Northern KwaZulu-Natal. Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass. 70: 29–33.

Van Dam, J., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Jürgens, I., Best, G. and Fritsche, U. 2008. Overview of recent developments in sustainable biomass certification. Biomass and Bioenergy 32: 749- 780.

van den Belt, M., 2004. Mediated Modelling: A Systems Dynamic Approach to Environmental Consensus Building. Island Press, Washington DC. 339 pp.

van der Laak, W.W.M., Raven R.P.J.M and Verbong, G.P.J. 2007. Strategic Niche Management for Biofuels: Analysing Past Experiments for Developing New Biofuel Policies, 35 Energy Policy 3213-3225 (2007).

Van der Watt, H. 1987. The effect of reduced tillage on soil organic carbon. S Afr J Plant Soil. 4: 147–149.

Van Eijck, J., Smeets, E., Romijn, H., Balkema, A. and Jongschaap, R. 2010. Jatropha assessment: agronomy, socio-economic issues, and ecology. NL Agency. Ministry of Economic Affairs. Agriculture and Innovation. Netherlands.

van Zyl, J., Vink, N., Kirsten, J. and Poonyth, D. 2001. South African agriculture in transition: the 1990s, Journal of International 13(6): 725-739.

Vermeulen, S. and Goad, N. 2006. Towards better practice in smallholder palm oil production, International Institute for Environment and Development. London. UK.

Vermeulen, S. and Cotula, L. 2010a. Over the heads of local people: consultation, consent, and recompense in large-scale land deals for biofuels projects in Africa. Journal of Peasant Studies 37(4): 899–916

Vermeulen, S., and Cotula, L. 2010b. Making the most of agricultural investment: A survey of business models that provide opportunities for smallholders. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Vermeulen, S., Sulle, E. and Fauveaud, S. 2009. Biofuels in Africa: growing small-scale opportunities. IIED briefing. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. UK.

223

Vis, M.W., Vos, J. and van den Berg, D. 2008. Sustainability criteria and certification systems for biomass production. A report prepared for DG TREN – European Commission. Project 1386. Biomass Technology Group. Enschede. Netherlands.

von Maltitz G.P. 2011. Guidance on social aspects of water rights. Report submitted to the Round Table on Sustainable Biofuels.

von Maltitz, G.P. and Evans J. 1998. Is Tenure the Root Cause and Consequently the Solution to resource Degradation in the Communal Areas of Rural South Africa?. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Land Tenure in the Developing World. Cape Town: University of Cape Town, 1998.

von Maltitz, G.P. and Scholes, R.J. 2008. Vulnerability of Southern African biodiversity to climate change. In: Leary, N., Conde, C., Kulkarni, J., Nyong, A. and Pulhin, J. (eds). Climate change and vulnerability. Earthscan. London. UK.

von Malititz, G.P. and Brent, A. 2008. Assessing the biofuel options for Southern Africa. Science real and relevant: 2nd CSIR Biennial Conference, CSIR International Convention Centre Pretoria.

von Maltitz, G.P., Haywood, L., Mapako, M. and Brent, A. 2009. Analysis of opportunities for biofuel production in sub-Saharan Africa. CIFOR Environment Briefs.

von Maltitz, G.P. and Stafford, W. 2011. Assessing opportunities and constraints for biofuel development in sub-Saharan Africa. CIFOR working paper 65. CIFOR. Indonesia.

von Maltitz, G.P. and Sugrue, A. 2011. Discussion paper on the interface between RSB voluntary standards and an enabling policy and regulatory environment. Report prepared for the RSB, Lausanne Switzerland.

von Maltitz, G.P. and Setzkorn, K. 2012. Potential impacts of biofuels on deforestation in Southern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 31: 80-97

von Maltitz, G.P., Haywood, L., Mapako, M. and Brent, A. 2009. Analysis of opportunities for biofuel production in sub-Saharan Africa. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia

von Maltitz, G.P., Nickless, A. and Blanchard. R. 2010. Maintaining biodiversity during biofuel development. In: Amezaga J. M., von Maltitz, G.P. and Boyes, S.L. (eds) Assessing the sustainability of biofuel projects in developing countries. A framework for policy evaluation. Newcastle University. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

von Maltitz, G.P., Sugrue, A., Gush, M.B., Everson, C., Borman, G.D. and Blanchard, R. 2012. Chapter 13. Environmental and socio-economic considerations for jatropha growing in southern Africa. In Stromberg, P and Gasparatos, A (Eds) Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of biofuels: Evidence from developing nations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

von Maltitz, G.P., and Setzkorn, K. 2013. A typology of southern African biofuel feedstock production. Biomass and Bioenergy 59:33-49.

von Maltitz, G.P., Gasparatos, A., and Fabricius, C. (in press). Can jatropha increase socioeconomic resilience in southern Africa? Evidence from projects in Malawi and Mozambique. Sustainability.

224

Walker, B.H., Carpenter, S.R., Rockstrom, J., Crépin, A.S. and Peterson, G.D. 2012. Drivers, "slow" variables, "fast" variables, shocks, and resilience. Ecology and Society 17(3): 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05063-170330

Walker, S.M. and Desanker, P.V. 2004. The impact of land use on soil carbon in Miombo Woodlands of Malawi. Forest Ecology and Management 203: 345–360

Watson, H.K. 2010. Potential to expand sustainable bioenergy from sugarcane in southern Africa. Energy Policy 2010.

White, F. 1983. The vegetation of Africa: A descriptive memoir to accompany the UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO vegetation map of Africa. UNESCO, Paris, France.

Wickens, G. E. 1991. Management issues for development of non-timber forest products. Unasylva, vol 42, pp3–8

Wiggins, S. 2009. Can the smallholder model deliver poverty reduction and food security for a rapidly growing population in Africa? FAO expert meeting on how to feed the world in 2050. 24-26 June.

Wijgerse, I. 2008. The electricity system for a rural village in Mali. Sustainable energy technology. MSc. Thesis. Eindhoven University of Technology. Eindhoven. Netherlands.

Wilkinson, S. 2013. HLPE food fuel report. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.

Wolde-Georgis, T. and Glantz, M.H. 2009. Biofuels in Africa: a pathway to development. International research center for energy and economic development occasional papers No. 43. OECD/ITF. Paris. France.

Wolstenholme.E. 1990. System Enquiry, A System Dynamic Approach. John Wiley and Sons, New York 1990.

World Bank. 2011. Estimating the opportunity costs of REDD+. A training manual. World Bank. Washington.

World Bank. 2009. Environmental crisis or sustainable development opportunity. Transforming the charcoal sector in Tanzania: a policy note. World Bank. Washington DC.

World Bank. 2010. Raising global interest in farmlands. Can it yield sustainable and equitable benefits? World Bank. Washington DC.

Yamba, F., Janssen, R., Woods, J., and Diaz-Chavez, R. 2008. COMPETE Declaration on Sustainable Bioenergy for Africa. Competence Platform on Energy Crop and Agroforestry Systems for Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems - Africa. http://www.compete-bioafrica.net/publications/publications.html

Zah, R., Boni, H., Gauch, M., Hischier, R., Lehmann, M. and Wager, P., 2007. Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Products: Environmental Impact Assessment of Biofuels. St. Gallen: ETH-EMPA.

Zarrilli, S. and Burnett, J. 2008. Making certification work for sustainable development: the case for biofuel. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Geneva. Switzerland.

225

Zavaleta, E.S., Hobbs, R.J. and Mooney, H.A. 2001. Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16(8), 454-459

Zulu, C. 2010. The forbidden fuel: charcoal, urban woodfuel demand and supply dynamics, community forest management and woodfuel policy in Malawi. Energy policy 38: 3717-3730.

Zuzarte, F. 2007. Ethanol for cooking. Feasibility of small-scale ethanol supply and its demand as a cooking fuel: Tanzania case study. MSc Thesis. KTH School of energy and technology. Stockholm. Sweden.

226

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL DATA FROM THE BII ASSESSMENT IN CHAPTER 5

Table 0-1. Impacts on BII per taxa of converting 20 000 km2 annual cultivated biofuel (blue) or plantation forestry (red) in total from previously lightly used land to bioenergy for three of the ecoregions in the Eastern Cape. The proportion of area converted per ecoregion was the same for each of the three ecoregions. The number in black is the current BII score

AT0115

Coastal

AT1003

grassland

AT1009

Bushlands

AT1201

AT1202

AT1203

AT1314

AT1405

Grand Total

Plants 0.78 0.77 0.88 0.78 0.82 0.78 0.89 0.70 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.80

Cultivation 2 m ha 0.63 0.64 0.64 0.70

Forestry 2 m ha 0.61 0.63 0.63 0.70

Mammals 0.79 0.76 0.66 0.59 0.61 0.65 0.74 0.79 0.95 0.71 0.77 0.64

Cultivation 2 m ha 0.66 0.53 0.60 0.60

Forestry 2 m ha 0.66 0.49 0.59 0.58

Birds 0.92 0.93 0.96 0.90 0.92 0.88 0.97 0.92 0.97 1.07 0.91 0.94

Cultivation 2 m ha 0.79 0.77 0.76 0.86

Forestry 2 m ha 0.85 0.85 0.82 0.91

Reptiles 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.82 0.86 0.83 0.92 0.77 0.96 0.94 0.88 0.85

Cultivation 2 m ha 0.72 0.70 0.71 0.77

Forestry 2 m ha 0.74 0.71 0.72 0.77

Amphibians

0.85 0.86 0.99 0.88 0.93 0.91 0.97 0.79 0.95 0.98 0.92 0.89

Cultivation 2 m ha 0.67 0.70 0.75 0.75

forestry 2 m ha 0.71 0.73 0.86 0.79

TOTAL 0.81 0.79 0.89 0.79 0.83 0.79 0.90 0.72 0.95 0.90 0.89 0.82

Cultivation 2m ha 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.72

Forestry 2m ha 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.72

227

Table 0-2. Percentage biodiversity loss from a scenario of 20 000 km2 new biofuel plantations in untransformed land in the Eastern Cape, transformed to annual biofuel. Current biodiversity minus – future biodiversity expressed as a percentage of original biodiversity.

Coastal Grass Bush Total

Plants 15 15 15 11

Mammals 10 10 06 06

Birds 08 05 06 03

Reptiles 12 11 11 08

Amphibians 15 15 05 11

TOTAL 14 14 13 10

Table 0-3. The difference in BII biodiversity loss if the conversion of land is to plantation forestry rather than an annual crop. A negative number indicates plantation forestry has a more negative impact. As an example total grassland bird impact in forestry is 13 versus 5 for agriculture giving - 8.

Coastal Grass Bush Total

Plants 1.4 0.8 1.1 0.6

Mammals -0.1 3.8 -1.1 2.2

Birds -5.9 -8.0 -6.2 -5.0

Reptiles -1.5 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6

Amphibians -3.5 -3.6 -11.4 -3.4

TOTAL 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1

228

0.76

0.77

0.78

0.79

0.8

0.81

0.82

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000B

II

Area (km2) converted to biofuel plantations

Light Use only

KwaZulu-Cape coastal forest mosaic

Drakensberg montane grasslands, woodlands and forests

Maputaland-Pondoland bushland and thickets

0.76

0.77

0.78

0.79

0.8

0.81

0.82

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

BII

Area (km2) converted to biofuel plantations

Cultivated >> Degraded >> Light Use

KwaZulu-Cape coastal forest mosaic

Drakensberg montane grasslands, woodlands and forests

Maputaland-Pondoland bushland and thickets

Figure 0-1 Impacts of area converted to crop agriculture biofuels on Eastern Cape total BII scores if land transformation is limited to a single ecoregion. Two scenarios are shown, one where cultivated then degraded land is used first, and one where only lightly used land is transformed.

229

APPENDIX B. MALAWI AND MOZAMBIQUE CASE STUDIES

Two contrasting jatropha-based biofuel projects were visited, a small grower based

project in Malawi and a commercial large-scale plantation type project in

Mozambique. Not only was there a large difference in the management model of the

projects, but also in the socio-economic setting of the small-scale farmers. In Malawi

the area has a high population density, with near wall-to-wall small scale farms,

typically under two hectares in size. Communal rangeland is limited to small areas,

mostly on hill-slopes, that are unsuited to farming. In Mozambique the population

density is less, with individual farms being embedded in the larger miombo

woodland, and the field areas being a fraction of the overall area available to the

farmers. A comparison of the two case studies is given in Table 6-1.

Data were collected from community interviews, interviews with key informants and

household questionnaires. The household questionnaires were administered by

nationals and in the local language. In Mozambique local school teachers helped

administer the questionnaires, whilst in Malawi graduates from the Bonda College

were used. In Mozambique households were randomly selected by walking specified

distances along the road, then choosing the first house on the designated side. In

Malawi the sample size was typically close to the total number of jatropha growers in

a village, with non-growers randomly selected. Most results are descriptive, though

in some instances simple statistics are used, and these were either calculated in

Microsoft Excel or in Mystat version 12.

The BERL project in Malawi

BERL is a commercial company originally linked to Dutch funding (TNT couriers).

They believe that their production model must be as a viable business entity and

therefore do not consider themselves operating as an NGO. However, the initial

funding they received was linked to Dutch pension funds, and although seen as a

long-term investment from which financial returns were expected, there was also a

social responsibility component which meant that investor’s short-term return on

230

Investment (ROI) would be lower than for a fully commercial venture as there is a

component of social responsibility funding in the project, and it is expected to have

developmental benefits for Malawi as well as direct financial returns to the investors.

The project has also accessed CDM funding linked to the carbon that will be

sequestrated in the jatropha trees. To a large extent what BERL will offer is a market

for the jatropha oil, and in fact as of June 2013 they have been forced to stop their

extension functions and due to financial constraints will only concentrate on their oil

extraction business.

BERL uses a small-scale grower model where BERL supports the farmers in

establishing their jatropha and then purchases the jatropha back from the farmers at

the current (2013) price of 60 Kwatcha (0.17 US$) per kg. The basic model is that

jatropha is planted as a boundary hedge and is therefore only a small proportion of

the smallholder land. In addition the hedge helps the smallholder demarcate his

fields. Jatropha is promoted as a crop that provides a farmer with only a small part of

overall income, but requires low maintenance and few input costs (though possibly

quite high labour costs during picking). The project was initiated in 2008, so the

oldest trees are now about four years old. BERL has 91 field operatives (note this

has stopped as of June 2013). At present there are approximately 30 000 growers

linked to the BERL project. Local jatropha seeds are used to establish trees, and

though there has been testing of oil quality, there has been no seed selection for

breeding to get improved jatropha varieties. BERL estimates that 400-600 trees

should be sufficient for the individual farmer to get about US$ 100 per year. To

achieve this would require about 0.85 kg per tree per year. From our data only two

farmers were achieving 0.5 kg, with one reporting 2 kg/tree. However, on average

farmers were achieving only 0.15 kg/tree. However, our data were not for only the

January to March period and farmers may still get additional pickings during the

year. BERL hopes the trees will give 1.5 kg seed per tree when mature.

BERL’s oil market is Malawi’s diesel market. Currently Malawi imports all of its

diesel, and this is a major foreign exchange debt (approximately 9% of total imports

(2010 stats)). Import substitution and improvement of the national balance of

payment are additional drivers to the rural development benefits. Importantly the

programme is in no way driven by the perceived European market created by the EU

231

RED directive. As its commitment to the programme, the Malawi government has

agreed to waive all fuel levies on the biofuel produced. A blend of up to 9% has been

proven as technically feasible and would represent a market size of 27 million litres

per year. Initially a few fleet markets will be targeted until there is sufficient supply for

national demand. BERL has purchased 200 tonnes of jatropha seeds this year and

achieved a 30% oil yield (volumetric), i.e. approximately 60 000 tonnes of oil or 1/450

of the potential market size.

BERL initially had a large extension arm which assisted farmers in establishing

jatropha trees. They also acted as buyers who purchased the seeds from the

growers in their area. These buyers had small motorbikes on which they visited the

farmers and transported the seeds to larger depots from where they were collected

and transported to Lilongwe. From June 2013 BERL was forced to restructure as it

lost access to the funding that was supporting this extension network. To retain

financial viability BERL therefore refocused on the oil extraction and sale aspects of

its business, i.e. it would still provide a market for jatropha seeds, but without the

extensive extension and buyer network support. BERL also expanded its feedstock

to other oilseeds (such as sunflower) as there was an insufficient volume of jatropha

to fill its pressing capacity. Other oilseeds will go to higher valued food markets and

not to biofuel.

BERL has distributed seed to farmers and provided training in establishing jatropha.

This was done through the formation of jatropha growing clubs. Initially they also

provided with a subsidy to encourage seedling establishment. The subsidy was a

trivial amount, just a few Kwatcha, (less than one US$0.01) but there was some

resentment when it was discontinued as it was felt that it was the wrong incentive for

planting jatropha. BERL uses a central pressing and oil extraction plant located in

Lilongwe. Seeds are transported to the facility where they are crushed and the oil

extracted. BERL is supporting a model where pure oil (i.e. not transestified biodiesel)

is blended with diesel fuel up to a blend ration of 9%.

Although farmers were originally told that the crop would also help improve soil

fertility through using seedcake as a fertiliser, the centralised oil extraction means

that it is not logistically feasible to return seedcake to the producing farmers. It will

232

therefore be sold locally, probably as a fertiliser substitute.

Areas visited

The BERL study area visited was east of the Liwonde National Park in southern

Malawi. The area is on the S313 road out of Liwonde between the towns of Ntaja

and Thomo in the Machinga district.

The closest weather stations are Zomba 50km to the south at 900m (alt) , Balaka 50

km to the west at 650 m (alt) and Mangochi 45 km to the north-east at 490m (alt).

Balaka may be the most representative as it is at a similar altitude, and unlike

Mangochi, is close to the lake shore. The climate can be described as tropical with a

strongly seasonal rainfall pattern with a wet period from June to September and with

a very dry period from November through to April. The rainfall is reasonable for crop

production and is probably in the 800 to 1000 mm range. The rainfall will vary

extensively between years, with Zomba ranging from 715 to 1207mm, Balaka from

498 to 1060mm and Mangochi from 514 to 1236mm over the past 10 years. From a

crop perspective this means that there are drought years when production is likely to

be only a fraction of the average years. Temperature, which is strongly correlated

with altitude, is likely to be about midway between the Zomba and Mangochi values

with a mean minimum of the coldest month between 17 to 22oC and mean

maximums of the hottest month between 24 to 28oC. Rainfall rather than

temperature is the inhibitor to agricultural production during the dry months.

Soils are described as loamy sands or sandy loams with the exception of the low

areas and river valleys where there are clay loams (Machinga socio-economic profile

2007-2012). The vegetation is miombo vegetation, though the area is suffering from

extreme deforestation (Machinga socio-economic profile 2007-2012).

Demographics

The Machinga district has a population of 496 600 (2008) with a population growth

rate of 2.4 (Stats 2010). The fertility rate per woman is 6.2 (for the southern region).

This gives a population density of 127.0 people per km2, which is very close to the

233

Malawi average of 139.0. There is a 48/52 male female split. Average household

size is given as 4.2; 50.4% of the population is less than 18 years old; 3.1% of under

5 year old children are considered underweight for their age (Malawi average 4.4%).

Approximately half the over five population is considered illiterate (southern region

rural) with females slightly more likely to be illiterate than males. At a national level,

school enrolment at secondary level is only a fraction of school enrolment at primary

level suggesting that most children do not attain a secondary school education. For

Machinga Primary School attendance ratios for girls and boys are 88.3% and 85.9%

respectively. For secondary school they are 2.7% and 4.4% showing both the high

dropout and a high gender discrepancy. Malawi as a whole and Machinga as a

district have high employment rates of 99% (though this is mostly working on their

own farms, not formal salaried employment). For Machinga 87% of employment is in

the agricultural, forestry and fisheries sector, 7% in wholesale and retail, 2% in

manufacturing, 2% in social and community services and 1% in construction.

Poverty

Machinga has a poverty rate of 73.7% with an ultra-poor rate of 38.3% (2010

statistics book). This is substantially higher than the overall Malawi rate of 52.5%

and 22.4%. Altogether 96% of Machinga is reliant on fuel wood as their main fuel for

cooking. The remaining 4% rely on charcoal. The 2009 survey found 86% reliant on

paraffin for lighting (note this has changed substantively in the survey results with the

advent of LED torches). Housing is evenly split between mud bricks and baked

bricks, with roofs 74% thatch and 25% iron sheets;45% of under 14 children are

involved in unpaid household work or working in the family business.

The Malawi maize subsidy

Malawi introduced a maize subsidy programme in 2005/6 (Denning et al. 2009;

Holden and Lunduka 2012). This subsidy gives coupons to farmers that afford them

access to inputs for 0.4 ha of land at a highly subsidised rate. The input package

includes 50kg of fertiliser and 3 kg of seed. The scheme has had a dramatic impact

on yields, with Malawi going from being a net importer prior to 2006, to being a net

exporter after the subsidy. However, in 2012 the subsidy was reduced in overall size

234

as the country could no longer afford it. Still, most farmers, including those in our

study area, were able to access one 50kg bag of fertiliser (NPK) at the subsidised

rate of 800 Kwatcha ((US$2.05) versus a market value of about 16 000 Kwatcha (U$

4.10) (NPK) 17000 (Urea). Maize yields increased from an average of 1.06 t/ha

(2000 to 2005 mean) to 2.27 t/ha (2009/10) (this was also partly due to better rain

during this period, though this only explains 32% of the increase (Denning et al.

2009). The subsidy is seen by many as being unsustainable, and many foreign

donors are unwilling to give long-term support to subsidies as they are seen as

distorting markets and preventing diversification. It is important to point out that 41%

of Malawi’s total annual budget comes from foreign assistance (GoM 2010). Malawi’s

national debt level has increased over the period of its paying subsidies (GoM 2010).

Clearly subsidies have had a huge positive impact on national and local food

security. Equally clear (and as supported by our data), the farming systems in

Malawi are not sustainable, and even with subsidies the farmers are struggling to

survive.

Farming system

In the study area farmers are allocated permanent small farms which ranged in size

from 0.1 to 2.5 hectares. In two of the communities visited, farmers were recently

settled on old commercial farms that had been bought out by the government. These

farmers tended to have larger farms than those in older villages. This resettlement

also means farmers have more land now than they did in the past.

Table 0-4. Average household and farm size by village in Malawi

Average Household size by village. Mean with standard

deviation in brackets

village HH size Children per

HH

Mean farm size

ha Now

Mean farm

size ha 5

years ago

Mean farm

size ha 10

years ago

v1 Cimwaza 5.6(2.5) 2.7 (1.9) 1.9 1.2 0.35

V2 Sala 6.1(1.99) 3.5(0.75) 0.75 0.6 0.6

V3 Joho 4.6(1,46) 2.0(1.73) 1.73 1.8 0.4

v4 Lipende 5.7(1.76) 2.9(1.8) 1.8 1.8 0.26

Many different crops are grown. All households grow maize, 69% pigeon pea, 26%

235

grow cassava, 25% sorghum, 25% groundnuts, 22 % tobacco, 8% sunflower with a

variety of other less common crops including potatoes, tomatoes, pumpkins,

cabbage and soybean.

Specific communities were selected because of the high percentage growing

jatropha. Though growing jatropha is found in all the communities investigated, in all

but Sale, it was farmers with large land holdings that chose to grow jatropha. In Sala

all farms are small and cropping conditions are poor, possible leading to farmers

trying jatropha as an alternative crop.

The Niqel study Mozambique

Niqel Ltd is a subsidiary of the Dutch Jatropha Consortium, set up by the Green Mills

Holding Company based in Amsterdam and Lijden in the Netherlands (see

www.dutch-jatropha.nl) (Andrew and van Vlaenderen no date). Niqel is a large-scale

plantation type biofuel project. The project is located in the Sofala province of

Mozambique, next to the small settlement of Grudja. This is a green-fields project

and required the debushing of the existing woodland to make way for the jatropha

monoculture. As is the case in Mozambique and many other southern African

countries, Niqel is located in an area currently occupied by peasant farmers. To

acquire the land for the project Niqel had to go through the standard Mozambique

process of acquiring what is termed a ‘DUET’, i.e the right to set up a project on the

land. This process involves consultation with the local tribal authorities and also

environmental and social assessments which were undertaken by Coastal and

Environmental Services (CES) of Grahamstown, South Africa (CES 2009).

The initial application for the project was made in 2007 with the allocation being

approved in 2011. At present 2000 hectares are planted and the first harvests took

place during the summer of 2012/13. Pressing equipment will be installed, but

transestification is not envisaged. The oil will be sold to Mozambique companies.

Although the original intent was to sell into EU markets, they are now envisioning the

Mozambique market as being their most likely market. Mozambique is aiming for a

3% blend of biofuel and this gives a potential market size of 8 000 tonnes of bio-oil.

236

The initial land request made by Niqel was for 33 000 hectares, but after the initial

social and environmental studies the extent of the area requested was reduced to

10000 hectares, with only 7 500 hectares being earmarked for planting. This was

largely so as to avoid areas of high population density and areas of high biodiversity

importance as identified in the CES studies. The local communities were also

engaged in this initial planning process, and land allocations were agreed between

the chiefs and the company. The plantation was planned to minimise its impact on

existing households with associated agricultural fields, and households within the

plantation area were given the option of either being moved, or of remaining within

the proposed plantation. If the latter was chosen, then the plantation would

functionally surround the household, its fields and some of the natural vegetation.

The household fields, referred to locally as a mashamba, are areas that are still

functionally part of a slash and burn rotational farming practice, where trees are cut

down and burnt to provide soil fertility. After abandonment of the fields trees tend to

resprout, and the area rapidly reverts to secondary forest (CES 2009).

The investment is 90% from Dikon Holdings, Netherlands. To date they have

invested 6.5 million US$. They are slowly learning to manage jatropha, and agree

that the information available six years ago was poor and misleading. They believe

that their cost for establishing the 2 000 ha that they have established is substantially

lower than most other biofuel companies due to lower overheads and more efficient

use of labour and equipment. They are very proud of their exceptionally low levels of

equipment downtime. (Though we do not have figures on the costs of their

competitors, a company such as D1 had an expensive head office in Randburg,

South Africa, which was staffed by a number of highly paid executives who were not

involved in the day-to-day establishment of the project).

They are aiming in the long term for three tonnes per hectare of seed but this has

still to be proven. The three tonnes per hectare is the value used in the independent

financial analysis of Craford and Kruger (CES 2009). They are relatively happy with

the harvest they are getting to date considering the young age of the trees, but it is

still too early to know what their long-term yields will be. They have received strong

government support with both the president and governor having visited the project.

237

The local community has been in support of the project and shown no resistance to

it. This was confirmed through group interviews and questionnaires, both by us and

CES. The community members are very eager for the job opportunities created.

Niqel has a fleet of machinery including bulldozers, road graders and tractors, and

they are proud of the low downtime they achieve through good maintenance and the

ability to do on-site repairs. The jatropha is planted in rows with a 2 x 4 spacing

which gives about 1250 plants per ha. Grass is established between the trees,

though the bases of the trees are kept clean of grass. The grass is mowed with a

tractor during the growing season. The trees are pruned by hand to induce

branching. Seeds are collected by hand using casual labour which is paid per mass

of seed collected. Insecticides and fungicides are applied as needed. They have

also experimented with the application of biochar, which appears to give positive

responses to growth.

The 2012/2013 summer was the first year of commercial harvest. Yields over the first

two years have been relatively modest but the company has high hopes that they

will improve over time. When visited, Niqel was in the process of establishing a

pressing facility on site and the plan is that they would export raw jatropha oil. If

Niqel is able to harvest 3 t/ha of seeds from a final 7 500 ha then it would produce

approximately 6 500 t / year jatropha oil which is 1.3% of Mozambique’s estimated

509 thousand tonnes diesel requirement (IEA 2009 data). This means that Niqel

alone could supply almost half of Mozambique’s targeted 3% blend.

Niqel is in the Buzi district of the Sofala province, Mozambique. The district with an

area of 90000 ha has a population of 25 536 persons in 4 256 households (Andrew

and van Vlaenderen no date). Andrew (2009) gives an average household size of 6,

which is slightly smaller than the household size of 7.4 that was recorded from the

field results. Andrew and van Vlaenderen (based on their 2009 data) note that the

area has close to zero formal employment opportunities (other than the Niqel

plantation) and that livelihoods are almost exclusively based on shifting agricultural

practices, livestock and limited trading. When considering the original 29 712 ha

proposed for Niqel, Andrew and van Vlaenderen found that settlement and

agricultural density varied greatly by zone, but with, on average, only 11.5% of the

238

land being cultivated. This reduced to less than 1% in some areas. When Niqel later

reduced their land holding to 7 500 ha it was estimated that this would directly impact

on 150 households. The balance of the unplanted area would remain as ecological

corridors and areas of high agricultural activity.

There are no detailed climate data for Niqel. At an altitude of only 100 m AMSL it is

substantively lower than Chimoya (400m AMSL), the closest town with metrological

data. Being inland it is also different from the coastal town of Beira. The area is sub-

tropical in nature, having strongly seasonal rainfall during summer, i.e. from

November through to March. Storms are often linked to tropical cyclones originating

in the Mozambique channel. Beira has a long-term average of 1 500 mm

precipitation with Chimoya having 1 080 mm so it is likely the study site receives

something between these values. Temperatures are likely to be closer to Beira with

mean temperatures ranging between 24oC in July and 31oC in January. Though the

area appears relatively flat, in truth it has well-developed catenal sequences with

both soils and vegetation tracking slope position. On the ridges the soil is deep

sands, whilst in the valley bottoms heavy clay soils dominate. The vegetation is

predominantly what is typically referred to as miombo, with patches of acacia

woodland and small areas of deciduous forest (CES 2009 a) with Colophospermum

Mopani becoming dominant in low-lying areas near rivers (personal observation).

Measurements of recently felled trees suggest canopy height is in the region of 10 to

12 m.

239

APPENDIX C. QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE MALAWI CASE S TUDIES (the Mozambique questionnaire was very similar, tho ugh with questions changed slightly to represent the local situation)

Name of interviewer ______________________________ Date ______________ Interview number ______ Introduce the project, explain the process, ask for permission, give the person the opportunity to decline and hand out an information leaflet. Person being interviewed Gender M

F

Age 18 – middle age

Middle age Over retirement age

Schooling None Some primary

Some secondary

Other people present while the interview is held

Children Wife Husband

Description of the household Village Highest education level in the household

When did you move to this area?

More than 20 years ago

10 – 20 years ago

5- 10 years ago

Less than 5 years ago

If you moved here less than 5 years, what’s the rea son of your move? Available land to farm

Better roads

New family looking for an area to live

Job related to jatropha

Other (please, specify)

At the moment, what’s the age of the family members living in the house?

240

Age 0-14 years 15-59 years More than 60 years

M

F

What are the main activities of your family? 10 years ago 5 years ago now Own small farm

Employed in a bigger farm

Employed by the jatropha company

Small personal business

Remittances (money from someone working elsewhere)

Social benefits/ Retirement scheme

Other job (please, specify

What is the size of the field your family owns? 10 years ago 5 years ago now

Do you have enough land for crop production? Yes

No

Which are the three main crops you grow in your fie ld? 10 years ago 5 years ago now Maize Potatoes Rice Beans Cassava Soybean Pumpkin Groundnuts Pigeon pea

241

Tobacco Sorghum Cabbage Tomatoes Sunflower Other (specify) How much of the following crops did you harvest las t year and how much did you make from selling these crops last year? Approximate value (in

Kwacha) Approximate harvest (in Kg)

Maize Potatoes Rice Beans Cassava Soybean Pumpkin Groundnuts Pigeon pea Tobacco Sorghum cabbage Tomatoes sunflower Other fruits or vegetables (please, specify)

Other (specify) How much fertilizer do you use on your crops (kg/ye ar)? 10 years ago 5 years ago Now (last year)

Do you also grow Jatropha on your farm? Yes

No

If No, why did you choose not to grow jatropha? If Yes, Why did you decide to grow jatropha?

242

If you do grow jatropha How many jatropha trees do you have

When did you plant them (year)

How many kg did you harvest last season and how many Kwacha did you get for it last season i.e. January to September 2012

Kg and Kwacha

How many kg did you harvest last season and how many Kwacha did you get for it this season This season i.e. December till now

Kg Kwacha

Is your jatropha in boundary rows or as a plantation

Plantation Boundary hedge

What proportion of your family income comes from th e jatropha you sell? If you grow jatropha, which crop (if any) have you reduced to make space to grow jatropha. If you grow jatropha: Who is the main person in the family responsible for the following jatropha-related activities (can tick mor e than one box, but ask for the main) Men Women Children Planting Weeding Harvesting De-husking If you grow jatropha can you estimate how much time is needed to pick and dehusk 1 kg (time in hours) Pick 1 kg

Dehusk 1 kg

Other than selling the seeds, do you make any other use of the jatropha tree or seeds

243

Yes

No

If yes, please specify these other uses Do you have your own animals? Yes

No

If yes, could you tell us how many? 10 years ago 5 years ago now Goats

Chickens

Cows

Sheep

Donkeys

Other (please, specify)

Do you get food from the forest? Yes

No

If yes, please specify which of the below: 10 years ago 5 years ago Now Wild animals

Fish

Honey

Mushrooms

Fruits

Other (Please, specify)

244

How important are the following forest products fro m the forest for your family? Not so important

Average Very important

Wooden poles

Fuelwood/ charcoal

Medicinal herbs

Wild animals

Fish

Mushrooms

Honey

Fruits

Other (please specify)

Does your family sell wood or charcoal that you col lect from the forest? Wood Charcoal Yes

No

If yes, how much do you make per headload of wood / bag of charcoal your family sells Headload of wood (in Kwacha)

Bag of charcoal (in Kwacha)

245

What do you use to cook your food? 10 years ago 5 years ago now Wood

Charcoal

Paraffins

Electricity

Gas

Other (please specify)

What do you use for light? 10 years ago

5 years ago now

Candles

Torch

Paraffin

Electricity

Gas

Nothing

Other (please specify)

246

In a year, how many months does your family go with out adequate food? 10 years ago 5 years ago now

What is the usual reason for this lack of food at t he current time? Does your family have more money available than 5 y ears ago? Yes

No

What is the reason for this change in income?

10 years ago 5 years ago now Has anybody in this household completed 5 years of school?

Are there any primary school -aged children in this household not attending primary school?

Does the family have access to a toilet not shared with other households?

Does the family have access to an improved source of drinking water less than 30mins walk away?

Which goods does your family own?

10 years ago 5 years ago now Radio

TV

Bicycle

Refrigerator

Motorbike

Car

Mobile

Solar panel

Brick house

Is the floor of your house cement? 10 years ago 5 years ago now

247

Since they started growing jatropha in the area hav e you noticed a change in water quality? Yes (please specify)

No

Since they started growing jatropha in the area hav e you noticed a change in water quantity? Yes (please specify)

No

If you grow jatropha. Since you started growing jat ropha do you get more or less food from your farm? More food

Less food

Please explain why more or less food Do you think that growing jatropha makes the yields of other crops better or worse? Better (please specify)

Worse (please specify why)

Are you happy with growing jatropha?

248

Yes

No

Would you recommend growing jatropha to your friend s? Yes

No

Will you plant more jatropha trees in the future? Yes

No

Please explain Will you continue looking after your jatropha trees in the future? Yes

No

Please explain What, if anything, would cause you to stop growing jatropha and chop down the trees in the future? Is marking your boundaries with jatropha trees impo rtant (or useful) to you?

249

Yes

No

Please explain If Jatropha was not collected at your village by BE RL and you had to take it to the market yourself, would you still grow it? (ask only jatropha growers) Yes

No

Please explain What is good about growing jatropha? (ask both jatr opha growers and non-growers) Please list at least three issues 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) What is bad about growing jatropha? (ask both jatro pha growers and non-growers) Please list at least three issues 1) 2) 3)

250

4) What could the jatropha company (BERL) be doing bet ter? If you could go back in time to 2008, would you sti ll chose to grow jatropha nad why? Yes

No

Why? Any other issues that the respondent would like to bring to our attention Please thank the respondent for their time and for answering the questions for us.

251

APPENDIX D. ADDITIONAL MODEL RUNS FOR CHAPTER 6.2

Figure 0-2. Scenario 1 at an initial maize yield of 1 t per ha and farm size decreasing with population growth. The model is based on an initial population of 1000 people with an 80:20 rural urban split.

Figure 0-3. Scenario 1 at an initial maize yield of 1 t per ha and farm size decreasing with population with a constant 0.1 ha of jatropha per farm. The model is based on an initial population of 1000 people with an 80:20 rural urban split.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

% o

f u

rba

n n

ee

d b

ein

g m

et

Ma

ize

in

t p

er

ye

ar

Initial yield 1 t / ha

Maize produced HH consumption Surplus

% or urban need met 100% line % rural need

252

Figure 0-4. Scenario 1 at an initial maize yield of 1 t per ha and farm size decreasing with population with a constant 0.8 percent of the farm converted to jatropha. The model is based on an initial population of 1000 people with an 80:20 rural urban split.

Figure 0-5. Scenario 1 at an initial maize yield of 6 t per ha and farm size decreasing with population growth based on an 80:20 rural urban split with no jatropha. Changing 0.8 % of the farm to jatropha will cause the surplus to reach zero in year 2080and household consumption to reach zero in year 2088.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

% o

f u

rba

n n

ee

d b

ein

g m

et

Ma

ize

in

t p

er

ye

ar

Initial yield 6 t / ha

Maize produced HH consumption Surplus

% or urban need met 100% line % rural need

253

Figure 0-6. Scenario 1. Total farm cash profit for maize based on different yields. These curves are hugely sensitive to changes in input costs and the sales price of maize, so the shape of the curves, rather than absolute values, is what is important..

Figure 0-7. The same scenario as in the Figure above, but with the addition of 0.08 % of the farm planted to jatropha with 0.85kg per tree and US$ 0.17 per kg for jatropha seeds.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2010 2030 2050 2070 2090

Farm

inco

me

from

mai

ze in

US$

1 t/ha 2 t/ha 3 t/ha 4 t/ha 5 t/ha 6 t/ha

254

Figure 0-8. Scenario 2 at an initial maize yield of 6 t per ha and farm size stays constant. (a) without and (b) with 0.8% of the farm under jatropha. The model is based on an initial population of 1000 people with an 80:20 rural urban split.

255

Figure 0-9. Scenario 2 at an initial maize yield of 6 t per ha and farm size stays constant. (a) without and (b) with 0.8% of the farm under jatropha. The model is based on an initial population of 1000 people with an 80:20 rural urban split.

256

APPENDIX E SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

The attached disk contains the following.

1) A PDF version of this thesis. vonMaltitz2014.pdf vonMaltitz2012.docx

2) Full version of von Maltitz, GP, and Setzkorn, K. 2013. A typology of southern

African biofuel feedstock production. This report was used in part for Chapter

4. Biomass and Bioenergy.59:33-49 (special edition von Maltitz.pdf)

3) von Maltitz, GP., Nickless, A, and Blanchard. R. 2010. Chapter 5. Maintaining

biodiversity during biofuel development. In Amezaga J. M. von Maltitz, G.P.

and Boyes S.L. (Eds) Assessing the sustainability of biofuel projects in

developing countries: A framework for policy evaluation. Newcastle

University. ISBN 978-9937-8219-1-9. 179pp. This formed the basis for

Chapter 5.1. (Amezaga_et_al_assessing_ustainability.pdf)

4) von Maltitz GP. and Stafford, W. 2011. Assessing opportunities and

constraints for biofuel development in sub-Saharan Africa. CIFOR Working

Paper 58. CIFOR Indonesia. Sections from this report form the basis of

Chapter 3 and contribute ideas to Chapter 7 (WP58_sub-Saharan Africa)

5) The Excel model used to calculate the Malawi data for scenario 1

6) The Excel model used to calculate the scenario data for scenario 2

7) A draft version of the Excel-based land-use calculator.

All three models use a convention of blue boxes for input variables.

The landscape calculator is not part of this PhD thesis, but a product that will

result from it in the future.