Bioenergies in East Africa between challenges and opportunities

This book is the offspring of the Energy_Agro-Food Synergies in Africa: New

Educational Models for Universities, a project co-funded​by the European
Union within the EDULINK II, the ACP-EU Cooperation Programme
in Higher Education. The Energy_Agro-food Project arose from the need to
face two crucial issues for the future of East Africa: first, the nexus that links
bioenergy and the agro-food sectors with the role that these could have in
the socio-economic development of the region; and, second, the capacity
of African universities to fulfill the demand for qualified professionals on
the labour market.
The present publication represents an outstanding output of the project: it
embodies all efforts of researchers to extend the university’s capacity to open
dialogue with the society as a whole. In particular, this book is designed as
teaching material for the African Partner Universities in Ethiopia, Kenya
and Tanzania, thus it is a source of information that supports students’
academic understanding, growth, and specialization.

Bioenergies in East Africa between

challenges and opportunities
Edited by Marco Setti, Daria Zizzola
Proceedings of the Final Conference on the Energy-Agro-Food
Nexus in East Africa

ISBN 978-8895458984
XXVI
Bioenergies in East Africa between
challenges and opportunities
Edited by Marco Setti, Daria Zizzola
Proceedings of the Final Conference on the Energy-Agro-Food
Nexus in East Africa

ACP-EU Cooperation Programme in Higher Education (EDULINK). A pro-

gramme of the ACP Group of States, with the financial assistance of the European
Union
In copertina: Squares world map © Christos Georghiou | Dreamstime.com

Redazione e grafica di copertina: Edizioni Altravista

Tutti i diritti sono riservati. La riproduzione, anche parziale e con ­qualsiasi mezzo, non è consentita
senza la preventiva autorizzazione scritta ­dell’editore.
Finito di stampare nel mese di settembre 2016 presso Digital Print (MI)
Prima edizione settembre 2016
© Copyright 2016 Edizioni Altravista
via Dante Alighieri, 15 - 27053 - Lungavilla (PV)
tel. 0383 364 859 fax 0383 377 926
www.edizionialtravista.com
eISBN 978-88-99688-03-5
Summary
Preface 9

Part 1
The Challenge of Bioenergies in Africa. An Overview

Renewable Energy for Climate Change Mitigation: An Overview of Biogas

Energy in East Africa 15
Betelhem Mulugeta Negede, Wondwossen Bogale Eremed

Challenges for Energy in Sub Saharan Africa: The Role of Biofuels 29

Jean-François Brun, Pascale Motel Combes, and Eric N. Kéré

Biofuels and Food Security: Future Challenges and Opportunities 49

Maria Sassi, Monserrath Ximena Lascano Galarza

Part 2
Bioenergies in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania

Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector: Evidence from the Literature and a

Preliminary Survey in Ethiopia 69
Aregawi Gebreeyesus Gebremichael, Gebremeskel Berhane Tesfay, Haileleoul Sahle,
Masresha Eskeziaw, Daria Zizzola, Matteo Vittuari, Marco Setti

The Economics of Biodiesel Production in East Africa: The Case of

Ethiopia 93
Zenebe Gebreegziabher, Alemu Mekonnen, Tadele Ferede, Gunnar Köhlin

Biodiesel Policy Review for a Sustainable Agro-Food-Energy Nexus

in East Africa: with Special Reference to Kenya 109
Gichuki Muchiri

Bioenergy Utilization in Eastern Africa: Prospects and Challenges for

Ensuring Food and Energy Security 117
Damas Philip
Biogas from Livestock Waste (Cow Dung). Institutional Case Study:
College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, University of
Nairobi, Kenya 127
A. N. Gitau, W. Kogi – Makau, M. W. Kimani, D. Ndunge

Assessment and Design of Biogas Use and Generation: HEWO Hospital

Community Case Study 139
Aregawi Gebreeyesus Gebremichael, Gebremeskel Geytse, Desalegn Hndeya,
Tekleab Nguse

List of Authors 151

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the
European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsi-
bility of the Authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as
reflecting the position of the European Union.
Preface
Renewable energy is a crucial factor in supporting sustainable development
and improving the quality of life. Consequently, the agro-food chain must be
considered for both its energy consumption and high potential as a bioenergy
supplier. The production and use of biomasses for energy generation purposes,
however, are not only complex activities that involve interdisciplinary con-
cepts, but also pose a risk for sustainability because of the possible competition
between food and bioenergy, something that is particularly evident in certain
African countries.
The Energy_Agro-Food Synergies in Africa: New Educational Models
for Universities is a project co-funded by the European Union within the
EDULINK II Programme.1 The action started in October 2013 and involved
a Consortium of seven universities from Europe and Africa. The University of
Bologna was the project coordinator, while the University of Pavia (Italy) and
the Université D’Auvergne Clermont Ferrand (France) joined the Consortium
as European Partners.
The African Partner Universities were the University of Nairobi (Kenya),
the Sokoine University of Agriculture (Tanzania), the Addis Ababa Institute of
Technology, and the University of Mekelle (Ethiopia).
The main objective of the project was the creation of teaching modules to
be integrated at the master’s level in the African Partner Universities in the
bioenergy and agro-food nexus field.
As such, the Energy_Agro-Food Project was active in the modernization and
upgrading of study programs of the African Partners Universities to scale up
their capacity to fulfill market needs by providing qualified professionals to
respond to the new challenges of sustainable development in the agro-food
and bioenergy sectors.
The strategy of the Action was the promotion and diffusion of intelligent
agricultural and food production processes through sharing and disseminating
innovative and sustainable solutions tailored to local contexts. At the same
time, the project supported diffusion of renewable energy and reduction of
dependence on fossil fuels without jeopardizing food security, as typically oc-
curs in low-income countries.
Countries designing and implementing policies favoring synergies between
bioenergy and the agro-food sectors show a trend towards durable and faster
economic growth than those in which this integration is not considered a pri-
ority. According to the Consortium, improving the educational and training

1. ACP-EU Cooperation Programme in Higher Education. For more information: http://www.

acp-edulink.eu/
10 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

provision at university level was key to tackling this challenge, since the basis
for adoption of intelligent, sustainable, and inclusive production systems nec-
essarily passes through higher education.
The Energy_Agro-food Project arose from the need to face two crucial is-
sues for the future of East Africa: first, the nexus that links bioenergy and the
agro-food sectors with the role that these could have in the socio-economic
development of the region; and, second, the capacity of African universities to
fulfill the demand for qualified professionals on the labour market. From this
viewpoint, the project has been primarily committed to improving the skills
and experiences of academic staff in the following areas:
• efficiency of food chain management, seen as an opportunity to provide
renewable energy sources and improve energy access;
• management and deployment of renewable energy as a strategic element for
increasing efficiency and competitiveness of the agro-food chain;
• include specific skills of governance and energy policy, market analysis, sy-
stem design, and logistics in the agro-energy chain.
The new teaching modules at master level (second cycle MSc) were devel-
oped in line with three major dimensions: innovation, multidisciplinarity, and
inter-sectoriality.
All Partners agreed that an essential requirement to achieve project goals
was placing a strong accent on innovation. With special reference to the de-
velopment of a new educational offer, innovation meant primarily conducting
an in-depth analysis of current and emerging societal needs, and of the edu-
cational offer to operate a focused renewal of contents, technical approaches,
and teaching methodologies.
This scope was pursued including different topics in the modules thus
giving a broad view on bioenergies in the target countries. Engineering and
economics were the main disciplines targeted. Alongside these two axes, the
Consortium embraced several subjects, and among them are Food Security,
Bioenergy Entrepreneurship, Technological Innovation and Bioenergy
Generation, Natural Resource Management, Energy Geopolitics, Social
Impact Assessment, and Innovation Economics.
Additionally, the role of external actors (entrepreneurs, professionals,
civil servants, etc.) from the bioenergy sector and the added value of their
participation in project activities has been taken into consideration since
commencement.
A context analysis in the three Partner Countries was conducted and local
workshops organized to meet stakeholders and collect their recommendations
on how to better match the university’s educational offer with professional
requirements.
Moreover, this endeavor sought to promote integration among Universities
and the labour market. This goal was also achieved through the creation of a
regional platform with a twofold mission: serving students seeking internship
 Preface | 11

opportunities across the East African region and creating a network around the
Energy_Agro-Food Nexus (stakeholders, universities, and research centers).2
The present publication represents an outstanding output of the project: it
embodies all efforts of researchers to extend the university’s capacity to open
dialogue with the society as a whole. In particular, this book is designed as
teaching material for the African Partner Universities, and, thus, it is a source
of information that supports students’ academic understanding, growth, and
specialization.
This book constitutes the Proceedings of the Conference on the Energy_Agro-
Food Nexus in East Africa, held in Addis Ababa in February 2016. The event
presented the results achieved by the project from an academic point of view:
to this extent, all chapters furnish state of the art knowledge, diffusion, and
challenges of the Energy_Agro-Food Nexus in the global and regional/local
perspectives.
The conference was organized around the seven presentations given by
members of the Partner Universities, as well as invited speakers external to
the project. The complete version of these contributions can be found in the
present collection, to which two more papers have been added subsequently:
Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector: Evidence from the Literature and a Preliminary
Survey in Ethiopia, prepared by the University of Bologna, the Addis Ababa
Institute of Technology, and the University of Mekelle; and the case study
conducted by the University of Mekelle, Assessment and Design of Biogas Use
and Generation: HEWO Hospital Community Case Study.

The book is divided into two parts. The first is dedicated to the broad overview
of bioenergies in East Africa and consists of three chapters. In the first chapter,
B.M. Negede and W.B. Eremed give a brief overview of biogas production
and consumption in the region, taking into consideration the impact on cli-
mate change and viable solutions to support sustainable economic growth.
In the second chapter, J.F. Brun, P.M. Combes, and E.N. Kéré discuss, in
Challenge for Energy in Sub Saharan Africa, that a sustainable growth path
depends crucially on how targeted countries successfully handle the so-called
growth-energy nexus with special reference to the role played by bio-fuels.
Finally, in Biofuels and Food Security: Future Challenges and Opportunities, M.
Sassi together with M.X.L. Galarza investigate the relations between bio-fuel
production and food security in developing countries, analyzing in depth the
competition between agriculture for food or energy production and the broad
debate around “food vs. fuel”.
The second part focuses on the peculiarities of the three geographic contexts:
Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania. Starting with Ethiopia, A.G. Gebremichael,

2. http://www.east-app.com/
12 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

G.B. Tesfay, H.A. Sahle. M. Eskeziaw, D. Zizzola, M. Vittuari, and M. Setti

(Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector: Evidence from the Literature and a Preliminary
Survey in Ethiopia) explain the role that innovation can play in moving toward
modern energy supply and improved energy access by merging more recent sci-
entific acquisitions with primary data collected in the field in the two regions
of Mekelle and Addis Ababa. Moreover, Z. Gebreegziabher and A. Mekonnen
follow with The Economics of Biodiesel Production in East Africa: The Case of
Ethiopia an analysis of biodiesel viability from various feedstocks in Ethiopia
using fieldwork based estimates. With special reference to Kenya, G. Muchiri,
in Biodiesel Policy Review for a Sustainable Agro-Food-Energy Nexus in East
Africa, reviews state of the art biofuel natural resources in East Africa that can
be exploited to guarantee food and energy security while, at the same time,
contributing to the reduction of GHGs and thus mitigating adverse climate
changes. Subsequently, in Bioenergy Utilization in Eastern Africa: Prospects
and Challenges for Ensuring Food and Energy Security, D. Philip conducts a
literature review on biofuel production in Tanzania. His core findings revolve
around the main challenges associated to the increasing demand for climate-
friendly transport fuels, including fears of land grabbing that trigger escalation
of food prices and biodiversity loss.
Furthermore, two case studies are presented. The first is the Institutional
Case Study: College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences (CAVs), University
Of Nairobi, Kenya, co-authored by A.N. Gitau, W. Kogi Makau, and M.W.
Kimani. This chapter focuses on the results of a pilot project that sought to
prove the high potential of bioenergy utilization and its economic viability
in the University of Nairobi. The second is offered by A.G. Gebremichael,
G. Geytse, D. Hndeya, and T. Nguse, titled Assessment and Design of Biogas
Use and Generation: HEWO Hospital Community Case Study, and sheds light
on how to improve the biogas plant inside the Hewo Hospital to make this
Ethiopian community energetically self-sustainable.
 Part 1
The challenge of Bioenergies in Africa.
An Overview
Renewable Energy for Climate Change
Mitigation: An Overview of Biogas Energy
in East Africa
Betelhem Mulugeta Negede,1 Wondwossen Bogale Eremed

Abstract

The issues of high costs, rapid depletion of fossil fuel-based energy sources, and
global climate change due to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
fossil fuel combustion have led to an increase in the interest of researchers to-
wards finding alternative renewable energy sources. In Africa, the population
size, urbanization, economic development and energy demand are expected to
drastically increase in the coming decades. Without the development of renewa-
ble energy, GHG emissions will continue to rise and drive global warming, with
severe consequences for the energy-agro-food nexus. In the context of global
concern over mitigating climate change and addressing problems at the energy-
poverty nexus, biogas energy is receiving growing attention in developed and
developing countries. Based on an extensive literature review on biogas plant
and referring to internal documents with key-informants and stakeholders, the
intent of this work is to provide an overview of the present status, opportunities
and challenges of biogas technology in East Africa, with a focus on Ethiopia,
Kenya, and Tanzania. This paper explores the main challenges related to climate
change, factors that can enhance adoption of biogas plants, and finance, which
will contribute in creating sustainable energy for the society. The amount of
GHG reduction, electricity production, and avoided CO2 emissions are also
estimated. The results of the study show that if Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania
use their full potential of organic waste, they can avoid the emission of 237,605,
136,906 and 142,906 tonnes of CO2/MWh, respectively. Moreover, by adop-
ting biogas technology, Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania can conserve 6,722, 3,873
and 4,042 tonnes of wood, respectively, on a daily basis. The study further advo-
cates the multiple other uses of biogas beyond cooking and lighting. By using
biogas upgraded technologies, purified methane can be used to generate appro-
ximately 4,304 MW of electricity in Ethiopia, along with, 248 MW in Kenya
and 259 MW in Tanzania.

1. Corresponding Author.
16 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Keywords: Renewable Energy, Biogas, East Africa, Climate Change, Mitigation,

Greenhouse Gases, Methane

Introduction

African countries are rich in energy resources, such as hydropower, and so-
lar, wind and geothermal energy, yet only a small amount of energy from
these sources is harnessed for domestic use (Sarakikya et al. 2015). Africa has
the world’s lowest electrification rate, with approximately 635 million peo-
ple in Africa living without electricity (Birol 2010). Approximately 754 mil-
lion people, or 68% of the population, rely on the traditional use of bio-
mass as a fuel source (Birol 2010). According to the World Energy Outlook
Electricity Access Database (2015), 71 million of the 101.85 million residents
of Ethiopia, 35 million of the 47.25 million residents of Kenya, and 37 mil-
lion of the 51.73 million residents of Tanzania do not have access to electricity.
This translates into a rural electrification rate of 10%, 7%, and 4%, respec-
tively, in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania. In addition, approximately 95% of
Ethiopians, 84% of Kenyans, and 96% of Tanzanians depend on traditional
biomass for cooking and lighting purposes. Such practices are known sources
of major health issues, including indoor air pollution (Birol 2010). In 2012,
the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 581,300 people died
in Africa from diseases associated with exposure to indoor air pollutants. In
Ethiopia alone, 72,400 people die every year due to indoor air pollution. An
additional 14,300 deaths in Kenya and 18,900 deaths in Tanzania are attrib-
uted to indoor air pollution. In addition to adverse impacts at the household
level, the use of fuel wood and charcoal are the primary causes of deforestation
and forest degradation in developing countries. According to a 2010 World
Bank report on Tanzania, 100,000 to 125,000 hectares of annual forest loss
are due to unsustainable charcoal production. In fact, the equivalent of two-
fifths of the country’s current charcoal consumption could be reduced with
the use of anaerobic digestion of solid waste. For comparison, Germany has
twice the population of Tanzania and half the land, but has an installed biogas
capacity of 2,900 MW, supplied with feedstock from an area equivalent to
about 1% of Tanzania’s land area. Recent studies also document that black
carbon and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the burning of biomass
fuels are one of the major contributors to climate change. Thus, finding a
long-term solution that is economical, environmentally friendly and efficient
is important for Africa in general and East Africa in particular. During the
United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP21) held in Paris in 2015,
Africa pledged its support for renewable energy by announcing the launch
of the African Renewable Energy Initiative. In the context of global concern
 I. Renewable Energy for Climate Change Mitigation | 17

over climate change mitigation and addressing problems at the energy-poverty

nexus,2 biogas energy is receiving growing attention in developed and devel-
oping countries. This interest is due to the unique ways to achieve sustainable
development with biogas energy, which provides clean and renewable energy
while simultaneously preserving the local and global environment.
Biogas has been used for several years in East Africa, and interest in it has
increased in recent years due to the high costs and rapid depletion of fos-
sil fuels. The number of biogas installations across Africa is increasing in the
domestic energy sector, mainly due to the efforts of the National Domestic
Biogas Programs (NDBP), such as the African Biogas Partnership Program
(ABPP), as well as the Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) and
the Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation (HIVOS). The NDBP
aims to create a sustainable and commercially viable biogas sector in target
countries using a private sector strategy. Biogas has a huge potential in the
region’s future energy mix. However, due to lack of modernization of this tech-
nology, it has mainly been used for cooking and heating purposes. A reported
71% of waste in Kenya, 51% in Ethiopia, and 68% in Tanzania can be used
for biogas production, due to the organic nature of the waste. These countries
therefore have substantial potential if they effectively use their waste materi-
als. In addition, by adopting biogas upgrading technologies, purified methane
(CH4) can be used to generate electricity. Standalone biogas electricity genera-
tion, which could spark development in areas that are not connected to the
national electric grid, has not yet been achieved and developed.
Based on an extensive literature review and discussions with key inform-
ants, this paper attempts to explore the potential use of household biogas di-
gesters in the rural areas of Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania. Primary challenges
related to climate change are discussed, as well as how biogas technology can
be further improved with innovative finance and upgrading technology for
highly efficient energy conversion systems, including electricity generation.
The paper goes on to discuss incentive policies, challenges and solutions, and
provides policy recommendations.

Biogas for climate change mitigation

Many biomass and bioenergy technologies exist. A technology with great po-
tential in the bioenergy sector is biogas production using anaerobic digestion
(AD). Domestic biodigesters decompose biodegradable waste, such as live-

2. The term “energy-poverty”, has traditionally been used to capture problems of inadequate access to
energy in developing countries, involving a host of economic, infrastructural, social equity, education
and health concerns [12].
18 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

stock manure, agricultural waste, and human excreta, through an AD process.

The fixed dome model is commonly used in East Africa. Biogas can mitigate
several contributing factors to global warming.
At the local level, biogas technology reduces the need to collect fuel wood,
which allows women to reallocate time previously spent on wood collection
to social, educational and productive activities, which bring further benefits.
From an environmental perspective, biogas technology can significantly re-
duce carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and also
helps reduce the fuel wood deficit. By reducing fuel wood and charcoal con-
sumption, biogas also contributes to reducing the rate of deforestation, con-
serving more trees that can help sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Local
benefits of reduced deforestation include the reduction of soil erosion, reduced
desertification, reduced soil fertility loss, and fewer landslides. Subedi et al.
(2014) estimate that the use of biogas has the potential to reduce the rate
of deforestation by 23%. Biogas also contributes to waste management by
reducing the flow of organic waste to open landfills. In doing so, biogas can
help reduce the methane emissions from landfills directly to the atmosphere.
From a health perspective, biogas improves indoor air quality and reduces the
health burdens associated with smoke from burning fuel and cow dung among
women in rural areas.
From a national perspective, with the proper utilization of bio-slurry as a
fertilizer,3 the by-product can reduce the use of chemical fertilizers. This will
lead to an increase of crop yields through the use of organic fertilizers, also
increase income by reducing farming costs on chemical fertilizers. A National
Biogas Programme of Ethiopia (NBPE) report shows that 43,662 kt (kilo-
tonnes) of organic matter has been made available as organic fertilizer as a
result of biodigesters constructed so far by the program. Not only does biogas
recovers the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil, but it also
increases farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change by increasing their resil-
ience. In other words, by making them more self-sufficient in terms of energy,
agricultural inputs, and through income diversification, if they sell the bio-
slurry, for example. Other benefits include the protection of fragile ecosystems
and the avoidance of freshwater pollution from the use of chemical fertilizers
in agricultural production.
From a global perspective, deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels re-
sult in GHG emissions, including CO2, whereas the use of biogas is generally
carbon neutral(organic materials used to feed the biodigester are renewable
and there is no methane leakage from the plant). In addition, by helping to
reduce forest loss and degradation and by enhancing soil conditions, biogas
plants can conserve forests, which act as a carbon sink and reduce CO2 emis-

3. Bio-slurry, a by-product of biogas, is a high quality organic fertilizer.

 I. Renewable Energy for Climate Change Mitigation | 19

sions. In countries where wood production is non-sustainable, biogas plants

can help to reduce the use of firewood and charcoal, also avoid waste in land-
fills (which release methane), leading to an overall GHG emissions reduction.
Additionally, biogas directed towards electricity generation can replace a por-
tion of electricity from non-renewable energy sources.

Estimation of biogas potential, avoided CO2 emissions and amount

of firewood replaced

Estimation of biogas potential

Residents of Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania produce 0.4, 0.48 and 0.49 kg/
day/person of waste, respectively. Approximately 60% of waste in Ethiopia is
organic, whereas in Kenya 62% of waste is organic and in Tanzania 58% of
waste is organic. Several studies report that an average of 0.05 m3 of biogas
can be obtained from each 1 kg of organic waste. Biogas yield depends on sev-
eral factors, including temperature, type of organic waste, C/N ratio, among
other factors. By adopting upgraded biogas technologies, the lower heating
value of biogas can be increased from 20 MJ/Kg to 49 MJ/kg. Moreover, by
using state of the art biogas-to-electricity generation systems, an approximate
45% conversion efficiency can be achieved. Based on these assumptions, ap-
proximately 430.4 MW, 248 MW and 259 MW of electricity can be gener-
ated in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania, respectively.

Estimation of avoided CO2 emissions

If the produced biogas is used for electricity generation, it can replace a por-
tion of electricity generated from the burning of fossil fuels. Bates et al. (2009)
show that, using biogas, CO2 emissions per MWh can be reduced by approxi-
mately 23 kg. Using the full potential of organic waste for biogas production, a
total of 237,605 kg of CO2e per MWh can be avoided daily in Ethiopia, along
with 136,906 kg of CO2e per MWh in Kenya and 142,906 kg of CO2e per
MWh in Tanzania. Biogas generally consists of approximately 65% CH4 and
35% CO2, so it is possible to calculate the amount of pure methane production
from biogas plant. Based on the calculation, approximately 794,430 m3CH4
in Ethiopia, 457,739 m3CH4 in Kenya and 477,804 m3CH4 in Tanzania can
be generated daily from organic waste. Biogas plants play a significant role by
mitigating a substantial amount of methane that would otherwise be emitted
from landfills. The beneficial impact of reduced methane emissions is consid-
erable, given that methane has 24 times the global warming potential of CO2.
20 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Estimation of amount of firewood replaced

Pathak et al. (2009) report that 1m3 of biogas can replace 5.5 kg of wood.
Following this assumption, we estimated the biogas potential in Ethiopia,
Kenya, and Tanzania. Approximately 1,222,200 m3, 704,214 m3 and 735,083
m3 of biogas yield in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania, respectively, can be gener-
ated daily from organic waste. Thus, the equivalent of 6,722 tonnes of wood
in Ethiopia, 3,873 tonnes of wood in Kenya, and 4,042 tonnes of wood in
Tanzania can be replaced with biogas, leading to a potentially significant re-
duction in deforestation. Additionally, by replacing firewood with biogas, in-
door air pollution and associated death rates can be significantly reduced.

Biogas in East Africa: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania

Key renewable energy policies

Domestic energy demand in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania has been rising
rapidly in recent years, driven by increasing population size, urbanization,
and economic growth. The overall policy goal for the energy sector in these
countries is to meet the energy needs of the population through a diverse
range of strategies. The key energy policy objectives are to increase access to
affordable and reliable energy services to meet the basic needs of the poor,
emphasize renewable energy resources for sustainable development, stimulate
production capacity, and meet the energy needs for community services such
as schools, clinics, and water supply facilities. Even though the energy poli-
cies in these countries have undergone a number of adjustments, they do not
have a consolidated biogas policy. However, there exist scattered policies and
legislation that aim to promote development of biogas power plants, described
in Table 1.1. For example, in Kenya the 2015 Draft Energy Policy identifies
policies and strategies essential for the development of biogas energy projects.
In Ethiopia, biogas is identified in the national Growth and Transformation
Plan (GTP) and the Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) as a priority
area for reducing carbon emissions and creating access to efficient domestic
energy. In GTP 1 (2010-2015), there was a plan to disseminate 26,500 digest-
ers, but only 9,139 digesters were installed. The progress towards reaching
planned targets is low due to a number of factors, but the NBP has managed
to introduce appropriate measures for the management of a biogas program at
a national scale. Within GTP2 (2016-2020), the Ministry of Water, Irrigation,
and Electricity (MoWIE) plans to disseminate 31,400 biogas digesters.
Tanzania similarly reviewed its energy policies, and elaborated policies for
renewable energy sources, including biogas. The policy statements regarding
 I. Renewable Energy for Climate Change Mitigation | 21

gaseous biomass include: promoting proper management of bio-waste feed-

stocks for power generation and waste management, enhancing awareness of
the importance of gaseous biomass as an alternative fuel, promoting modern
use of gaseous biomass for electricity generation, and providing incentives for
private investment in bio-electricity generation, among other policies.

Tab. 1.1 Summary of key policies and strategies related to biogas. Source: Tanzania Energy
Policy. 2015; Kenya National Domestic Biogas Programme (KENDBIP). 2010; Ethiopian Na-
tional Energy Policy. Addis Ababa. 2015; Ethiopia. Ministry of Finance and Economic Develop-
ment, 2010, Growth and Transformation Plan 2010/11 – 2014/15; Kenya National Domestic
Biogas Programme (KENDBIP), 2010.

Ethiopia Kenya Tanzania

Energy Policy Draft Energy and Tanzania Development

(2015) Petroleum Policy Vision (TDV) – 2025
(2015)

Growth & The Energy Act Draft Energy Policy

Transformation (2006) (2015)
Plan (GTP1 & 2)
Policies

Climate Resilient Feed-In-Tariffs National Energy Policy

Green Economy Policy (2012) (2013)
(2011)

Biomass Energy National Biomass Energy Strategy

Strategy (BEST) Industrialization (BEST) Tanzania, 2014
Ethiopia, 2012-13 Policy (2015) Liquid Biofuel Strategy
Tariff Guidelines (2010)
(2015)

Status and trend of biogas development

Kenya was among the first countries in Africa to adopt biogas technology
in the early 1950s. However, uptake remained low until the Kenya National
Domestic Biogas Program (KENDBIP) was rolled out in 2010. During Phase
1 (2009-2013), 11,529 plants were constructed out of a target of 11,690 bi-
ogas plants. KENDBIP aims to reach the goal of installing 20,000 units before
the end of 2016, with the further goal of increasing the number of units in
subsequent years. According to the KENDBIP report, 30% of biogas systems
may not be in working condition due to poor design and construction, lack
of standards to govern the sector, inadequate water supplies and poor develop-
ment of the dairy industry.
22 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

During the first phase of the NBPE (2009-2013), 8,063 biogas plants
were constructed in Ethiopia out of a target of 14,500 in 163 Woredas (dis-
tricts). In the Amhara region, 1,892 plants were installed, along with 1,992
plants in Tigray, 2,480 plants Oromiya, and 1,699 plants in the Southern
Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region (SNNPR). In the second phase
(2014-2017), the program aims to install 20,000 plants. In 2014 alone, a
total of 1,762 plants were constructed, contributing to a total of 9,825 plants
constructed since 2009. Moreover, recent innovations have increased the com-
bustion power of biogas, making the baking of Injera, a traditional fermented
flatbread a possibility. In Ethiopia, 50–60% of household energy demand in
Ethiopia is used to bake Injera. However, biogas does not yet provide sufficient
energy to perform this task. The innovation is being tested across different
regions in the country, but has not yet reached the commercial stage.
In Tanzania, during the first phase (2009-2013) of the Tanzania Domestic
Biogas Program (TDBP) implemented under the Africa Biogas Partnership
Programme ABPP in 2009, 8,799 biogas plants were constructed out of the
target of 12,000. The second phase of the program (2014-2017) aims to
build on the foundations of the first phase, with a target of installing 20,700
biodigesters.

International Cooperation

In Africa in general and East Africa in particular, biogas technology has been
further stimulated by the participation of various development partners. In
2008, the Netherlands Directorate General for International Cooperation
(DGIS) planned to install approximately 14,500 biogas plants in Ethiopia,
as well as 6,500 plants in Kenya, and 8,000 plants in Tanzania. In addition,
ABPP, SNV (Netherlands), GIZ (German Technical Cooperation), HIVOS
(International Humanist for Cooperation), WINROCK International (US
NGO), and Biogas Institute of Ministry of Agriculture China (BIOMA) have
been actively involved in biogas plant construction across Ethiopia, Kenya
and Tanzania. The Africa Biogas Partnership Program (ABPP), financially sup-
ported by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has been implement-
ing national biogas programs in Ethiopia, Kenya, Burkina Faso, and Tanzania
starting in 2008 and 2009. ABPP is a partnership between HIVOS and SNV,
which aims to construct 100,000 biogas plants to provide access to a sustain-
able source of energy to approximately half a million people by 2017. As of
June 2013, a total of 29,500 biogas digesters had been installed since the pro-
gram began in 2009. These international organizations are contributing to cli-
mate change mitigation in East Africa. ABPP is in the process of selling carbon
credits derived from its constructed biodigester plants in Kenya and Tanzania
 I. Renewable Energy for Climate Change Mitigation | 23

in international carbon trading markets, the proceeds of which will be rein-

vested into the respective country program activities to continue supporting
the uptake of biogas technology in Africa. Though international partners have
been of great help, substantial research must still be done by African society
itself, and the role of the private sector should not be overlooked.

Challenges for widespread dissemination of biogas in East Africa

Despite the numerous benefits of biogas energy, challenges persist in terms of

sustainability and dissemination. The literature on the challenges of biogas in
Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania shows similar results. The main barriers to bi-
ogas dissemination in these countries can be categorized as financial, technical,
socio-cultural, and institutional.
From a financial perspective, the high costs of installing and maintaining
biogas plants, along with the low purchasing power of many rural African
households, present a significant barrier to the increased adoption of biogas
technology. Many farmers and residents of rural households work as day la-
bourers and have seasonal income, and therefore cannot afford to pay the high
initial investment costs. The heavy reliance on imported construction materi-
als contributes further to the high costs of the technology. In addition, flexible
credit institutions are not available.
From a technical perspective, technical support and sufficient training for
biogas users have not been provided by biogas installers or promoters. As a
consequence, many systems break down or are abandoned. It is common that
due to lack of knowledge and awareness, many biogas users do not take ad-
vantage of the full potential of biogas plants, especially when it comes to the
use of bio-slurry. According to key-informants with SNV-Ethiopia, the use of
bio-slurry is poorly understood and taught to biogas users by masons and even
officers from the Ministry of Agriculture. The lack of adequate coordination
among institutions, one of the most critical weaknesses of energy institutions
in Africa, is also an obstacle to good penetration of biogas technology into the
African market.
Biogas is not only at the centre of the “energy-agro-food nexus”,4 but also
at the centre of the “water-energy-food nexus.” Thus, another important fac-
tor affecting biogas dissemination is the necessity of large volumes of water. A
biogas plant requires the use of the same volume of water to process a given
volume of substrate (i.e. 1kg of waste requires 1kg of water). As a consequence,
the majority of biogas systems that have been installed in East Africa are aban-

4. Agro-food systems can provide renewable energy resources, and the promotion of “energy-smart”
food production processes can reduce the supply chain’s dependence on fossil fuels.
24 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

doned within one year.  In a country such as Ethiopia, which is facing one
of the worst droughts triggered by El Niño, the adoption of such water-de-
manding technology could be hindered. A survey conducted in Ethiopia, for
example, showed that 60% of 700 biogas digesters were non-operational due
to a lack of water or manure.
In many African countries, socio-cultural barriers have delayed the pro-
motion and dissemination of biogas technology. For instance, Mwirigi et al.
(2014) observe that in many Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries, biogas is
considered a dirty technology and social stigma exists against its use because
of social beliefs, such as objections to using animal or human waste. Rupf et
al. (2015) also found that a well-designed biogas system is of little use if it is
not socially or culturally acceptable. In their study in SSA, Bansal et al. (2016)
recommend that the use of household wastewater is important for the success
of the biogas digester, but that it is not done because it is deemed culturally
unacceptable.
Finally, institutional barriers include limited policies, unclear institutional
roles and weak coordination at multiple governance levels. Involvement of the
private sector also hinders the efficiency and sustainability of the technology.
Furthermore, unclear property right regimes in Africa create an unpredictable
environment for farmers to make long-term land investments.

Conclusion

The development and dissemination of domestic biogas plants appears to be

a promising intervention to address problems at the energy-poverty nexus
and associated socio-economic and environmental challenges. If effectively
managed, biogas can enhance the availability of energy for cooking, light-
ing, and other energy uses while mitigating waste management problems and
promoting environmental conservation, and the production of manure for
agricultural use. The current study shows that 237,605, 136,906, and 142,906
tonnes of CO2/MWh could be avoided daily in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania,
respectively, if the full potential of organic waste for the production of biogas is
harnessed. Daily methane production from organic waste in Ethiopia amounts
to 794,430 m3, whereas in Kenya and Tanzania daily methane production is
457,739 m3 and 477,804 m3, respectively. Consequently, biogas plants play
a significant role in preventing emissions of significant amounts of methane
from landfills. Furthermore, there are many advantages of biogas production
from organic waste in terms of avoiding deforestation, particularly in East
African countries. This study has found that it is possible to save 6,722, 3,873,
and 4,042 tonnes of wood daily in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania, respectively.
Moreover, by replacing firewood with biogas, carbon monoxide pollution and
 I. Renewable Energy for Climate Change Mitigation | 25

associated deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning can be reduced significant-

ly. By adopting biogas upgrading technologies and using the full potential of
organic waste, purified methane can be used to generate approximately 4,304
MW of electricity in Ethiopia, 248 MW in Kenya, and 259 MW in Tanzania.
There has not yet been development of standalone biogas electricity generation
in East Africa, which could spark development in areas that are not connected
to the national electric grid. Therefore, biogas energy will not only help avoid
production of CO2,, generate income for the poor, and reduce waste, but also
has the added benefit of generating electricity. Additionally, in Ethiopia the
cost of producing 1m3 biogas could be reduced from 93 USD (2000 ETB) to
as low as 65 USD (1500ETB)5 by using locally available materials.
As a final note, considering the growing population and energy demand
in Africa, the government must implement policies to incentivize renewable
energy resources in general and biogas in particular. Ethiopia is currently de-
veloping a Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) for the biogas
sector to upscale the National Biogas Program (NBP) using climate financing.
The biogas-NAMA will provide a financial instrument that facilitates farm-
ers’ access to capital to help cover the high up-front costs of installing biogas
digesters and related infrastructure. The NAMA will also incentivize the use of
bio-slurry. Furthermore, opportunities must be created to disseminate biogas
technology and enhance the sustainability of the sector. These would include
involving the private sector and other Alternative Implementing Partners to
coordinate and supply biogas appliances and accessories. Cooperation among
the various stakeholders in the sector should also be improved, because bi-
ogas is multi-sectorial, encompassing energy, agriculture, water, and health.
Technical knowledge and awareness should be created at all levels, from the
household level to community and national levels. The use of bio-slurry as a
high value organic fertilizer should be encouraged so as to enhance agricultural
productivity. New ways to make the technology more modern and affordable
for all, should be explored, such as lowering the cost of construction through
the use of locally available materials and innovative financing. In Ethiopia,
for instance, five micro-finance institutions have been integrated within the
NBPE, and approximately 57% of biogas plants constructed by the NBPE
used micro‐loans as a financing mechanism. Furthermore, the World Bank has
allocated 40,000 USD to improve micro‐credit access for renewable energy
sources, including biogas, managed by the Ethiopian Development Bank. The
World Bank also assists the Government of Ethiopia in realizing the genera-
tion of carbon revenues with the use of biogas. The World Bank-led Carbon
Initiative for Development (CI-Dev) is another financing mechanism. CI-
Dev’s objective is to improve living standards and promote sustainable energy

5. 1 ETB = 21.459 USD as of March 31, 2016.

26 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

development through results-based finance. The CI-Dev signed its first emis-
sion reductions agreement in January 2016 with SimGas, a Dutch private
company. SimGas will develop a project in East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania and
Rwanda) that produces low-carbon, cutting-edge household biodigesters. The
project will generate emission reductions that will then be sold to CI-Dev, cre-
ating revenue for the project. Most importantly, these results-based payments
for carbon will subsidize the price of biodigesters, making them more afford-
able to low-income households. Finally, further research and development is
important to further improving and adapting the technology.

References
Halidini Sarakikya, Iddi Ibrahim, Jeremiah Kiplagat, 2015, “Renewable Energy Policies and
Practice in Tanzania: Their Contribution to Tanzania Economy and Poverty Alleviation”.
«International Journal of Energy and Power Engineering», 4 (6): 333-341.
Birol F., 2010, World energy outlook 2010. International Energy Agency, 1.
World population datasheet. 2016.
World Energy Outlook Special Report, 2015, Energy and Climate Change.
World Health Organization, 2014, Burden of disease from household air pollution for 2012.
Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. Summary of Results.
World Health Organization, 2009, Handbook on indoor radon: a public health perspective.
World Health Organization.
Geist H.J., Lambin E.F., 2002, “Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical
Deforestation Tropical forests are disappearing as the result of many pressures, both local
and regional, acting in various combinations in different geographical locations”.  «Bio-
Science», 52 (2): 143-150.
World Bank, 2010, World development indicators. World Bank.
Investment Plan for Tanzania, 2013, Scaling-up renewable energy program.
Bond T., Venkataraman C., Masera O., 2004, “Global atmospheric impacts of residential
fuels”. «Energy for Sustainable Development», 8 (3): 20-32.
Ramanathan V., Carmichael G. 2008, “Global and regional climate changes due to black car-
bon”. «Nature Geo-science», 1 (4): 221-227.
Bazilian M., Nakhooda S., Van de Graaf T., 2014, “Energy governance and poverty”. «Energy
Research & Social Science», 1: 217-225.
SourceOECD (Online service), 2006, World energy outlook. OECD/IEA.
Tanzania Energy Policy. 2015.
Chung D., Cha M., Guss A.M., Westpheling J., 2014, “Direct conversion of plant biomass to
ethanol by engineered Caldicellulosiruptor bescii”. «Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences», 111(24): 8931-8936.
Subedi M., Matthews R.B., Pogson M., Abegaz A., Balana B.B., Oyesiku-Blakemore J., Smith
J., 2014, “Can biogas digesters help to reduce deforestation in Africa?”.  «Biomass and
Bioenergy», 70: 87-98.
Semple S., Apsley A., Wushishi A., Smith J., 2014, “Commentary: Switching to biogas–What effect
could it have on indoor air quality and human health?”. «Biomass and Bioenergy», 70: 125-129.
BIOGAS (NBPE II), 2014, National Biogas Programme of Ethiopia, Phase II. Addis Ababa:
SNV Ethiopia.
 I. Renewable Energy for Climate Change Mitigation | 27

Barry M.L., Steyn H., Brent A., 2011, “Selection of renewable energy technologies for Africa:
Eight case studies in Rwanda, Tanzania and Malawi”. «Renewable Energy»,  36 (11):
2845-2852.
Njoroge B.N.K., Kimani M., Ndunge D., 2014, “Review of Municipal Solid Waste
Management: A Case Study of Nairobi, Kenya”. «International Journal of Engineering and
Science», 4 (2): 16-20.
Gashaw, A., 2016, “Co-digestion of municipal organic wastes with night soil and cow dung for
biogas production: A Review”. «African Journal of Biotechnology», 15 (2): 32-44.
Senzige, J.P., Makinde, D.O., Njau, K.N., Nkansah-Gyeke, Y., 2014, “Factors influencing
solid waste generation and composition in urban areas of Tanzania: The case of Dar-es-
Salaam”. «Am J Environ Prot», 3 (4): 172-178.
Minale, M., Worku T., 2014, “Anaerobic co-digestion of sanitary wastewater and kitchen
solid waste for biogas and fertilizer production under ambient temperature: waste gene-
rated from condominium house”.  «International Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology», 11 (2): 509-516.
Agrahari, R., Tiwari, G.N., 2013, « The production of biogas using kitchen waste”. «International
Journal of Energy Science», 3 (6): 408-423.
Li, R., Chen, S., Li, X., Saifullah Lar, J., He, Y., Zhu, B., 2009, “Anaerobic codigestion of
kitchen waste with cattle manure for biogas production”. «Energy & Fuels»,  23 (4):
2225-2228.
Luostarinen, S., Normak, A., Edström, M., 2011, Overview of biogas technology. Baltic manure,
WP6 Energy potentials.
Bates, J., Edberg, O., Nuttall, C., 2009, Minimising greenhouse gas emissions from biomass energy
generation. Bristol: Environment Agency.
Pathak, H., Jain N., Bhatia A., Mohanty, S., Gupta N., 2009, “Global warming mitigation
potential of biogas plants in India”. «Environmental monitoring and assessment», 157 (1-
4): 407-418.
Kenya National Domestic Biogas Programme (KENDBIP). 2010.
Ethiopian National Energy Policy. Addis Ababa. 2015.
Ethiopia. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, 2010, Growth and Transformation
Plan 2010/11 – 2014/15. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development.
Ministry of Water, Irrigation & Energy, 2015, Bio-fuels Program. GTP2. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:
MoWIE.
Kenya National Domestic Biogas Programme (KENDBIP). 2010.
Eshete G., Sonder K., Ter Heegde, F., 2006, Report on the feasibility study of a national pro-
gramme for domestic biogas in Ethiopia.  Addis Ababa: SNV Netherlands Development
Organization.
Alemayehu T., 2014, Interview with Tesfaye Alemayehu, Chief Engineer at the NBPE 30/4/2014.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Gebreegziabher Z., 2007, Household Fuel Consumption and Resource Use in Rural-Urban
Ethiopia. PhD Thesis Wageningen University.
Kamp M., Forn, B., 2015, Bottlenecks and divers in Ethiopia’s domestic biogas sector.
Ng’wandu E., Lehada C.S., Ter Heegde F., 2009, Tanzania Domestic Biogas
Programme. Programme Implementation Document.
Mulinda C., Hu Q., Pan K., 2013, «  Dissemination and Problems of African Biogas
Technology”. «Energy and Power Engineering», 5 (08): 506.
Wang J., 2014, “Decentralized Biogas Technology of Anaerobic Digestion and Farm Ecosystem:
28 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Opportunities and Challenges”.  «Frontiers in Energy Research»,  2 (10), doi: 10.3389/

fenrg.2014.00010.
Orskov E. R., Anchang K. Y., Subedi M., Smith J., 2014, “Overview of holistic application of
biogas for small scale farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa”. «Biomass and Bioenergy», 70: 4-16.
Mengistu M. G., Simane B., Eshete G., Workneh T.S., 2015, “A review on biogas techno-
logy and its contributions to sustainable rural livelihood in Ethiopia”.  «Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews», 48: 306-316.
[43]. Rupf G. V., Bahri P. A., de Boer K., McHenry M.P., 2015, “Barriers and opportunities of
biogas dissemination in Sub-Saharan Africa and lessons learned from Rwanda, Tanzania,
China, India, and Nepal”. «Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews», 52: 468-476.
Amigun B., Aboyade A.O., Badmos A.S., Musango J. K., Parawira W., 2012, Anaerobic biogas
generation for rural area energy provision in Africa. INTECH Open Access Publisher.
Mwirigi J.W., Makenzi P.M., Ochola W.O., 2009, “Socio-economic constraints to adoption
and sustainability of biogas technology by farmers in Nakuru Districts, Kenya”. «Energy
for Sustainable Development», 13(2): 106-115.
Bansal V., Tumwesige V., Smith J.U., 2016, Water for smallscale biogas digesters in Sub Saharan
Africa, GCB Bioenergy, 10.1111/gcbb.12339.
Eshete G., Sonder K., & ter Heegde, F., 2006, Report on the feasibility study of a national
programme for domestic biogas in Ethiopia. SNV Netherlands Development Organization:
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Challenges for Energy in Sub Saharan
Africa: The Role of Biofuels
Jean-François Brun,1 Pascale Motel Combes and Eric N. Kéré

Abstract

Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries have exhibited brilliant growth perfor-

mance since the beginning of the 2000s. This growth stems from major chan-
ges introduced by drastic policy reforms in the 1980s that targeted economic
openness and trade liberalization. The reforms initiated a tax transition in SSA
countries, which is reputed to enable more efficient fiscal revenue collection.
This may act as a prerequisite for better growth performance. Nevertheless, one
can wonder whether these growth rates are just a “flash in the pan” and think
about the features of a sustainable growth path in Africa. The path should,
arguably, look quite different from that in countries that developed early. This
study argues that a sustainable Sub-Saharan growth path depends crucially on
how SSA countries will successfully handle the so-called growth-energy nexus.
It is also true that SSA countries should tackle environmental, demographic,
and distributional (i.e., poverty) issues. We analyze the issues while focusing
on the role of biofuels. The potential for biofuel production in the context of
SSA countries is reviewed. The potential may, however, be countervailed by
issues related to the substitution of food crops with fuel crops; the income ge-
nerating potential, especially for small and poor producers; and aspects related
to land governance.

Acknowledgements

This paper was presented at the Energy Agro-food Final Conference, held in
Addis Ababa in February 2016. The authors thank the participants for their
comments and Claudine Belot for her careful reading. Any remaining errors
in the paper are the authors’ own.

1. Corresponding Author.
30 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Introduction

World Bank indicators show that Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) represented only
4% of world energy consumption in 2011.2 Slow growth performance certain-
ly played a role. Growth performance in SSA has been consistently lower than
that in other regions of the world for many years, as documented, for instance,
by the Maddison Project (Bolt & van Zanden 2014). Therefore, economic
growth in SSA has been presented as dismal. Several authors quoted this phe-
nomenon as an African growth tragedy (Artadi & Sala-i-Martin 2003). In
addition, slow growth may have choked energy demand, as economic growth
goes hand in hand with an increase in energy consumption.3
Growth performance in SSA since the beginning of the 21st century may,
however, challenge the traditional view of slow economic development. The
development path in SSA is undergoing major changes and has opened new
perspectives. Recently, authors have emphasized that macroeconomic funda-
mentals have improved and have tried to identify further impediments for sus-
tained growth. For instance, Rodrik (2014) drew attention to the fact that the
continent needs to follow a growth model that is substantively different than
the model pursued by countries that developed early. SSA countries might
find their growth path using agriculture – or service-led growth. One may,
however, consider that this renewed growth model is crucially linked to energy
availability and environmental constraints. Indeed, sustainable development
in SSA entails better environmental and poverty performance. Therefore, as
evidenced by the aspirations of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),4
the energy sector will play a key role. It is worth remembering that energy
aspects were not considered in the Millennium Development Goals. In 2011,
the United Nations (UN) Secretary General tried to fill this gap by launching
the Sustainable Energy for All (S4all) initiative, which aims at achieve three
ambitious goals by 2030: (i) ensure universal energy access, (ii) support renew-
able energy resources, and (iii) double energy efficiency growth rates.5
These objectives have a particular flavor in SSA. First, SSA countries should
undertake the challenge of meeting the increasing the demand for energy under
a carbon budget constraint, similar to other countries that have a bigger respon-

2. World Bank indicators are available at http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.

aspx?source=world-development-indicators
3. One cannot, however, confirm the direction of causality between energy demand and economic
growth (Ozturk 2010; Wolde-Rufael 2005).
4. The SDGs were approved by the United Nations in September 2015. They build on and enlarge the
Millennium Development Goals. They characterize the mobilization of the international commu-
nity towards social and environmental targets. See the complete list of SDGs at http://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
5. See for more details the S4all initiative website at http://www.se4all.org/
 II. Challenges for Energy in Sub Saharan Africa | 31

sibility in past greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Second, they should tackle
energy poverty issues, since poverty and energy access are intrinsically connected
(Pachauri & Spreng 2004). SSA countries still heavily rely on biomass to meet
energy needs and have agricultural potential. One can, therefore, wonder wheth-
er biofuels can play a role in sustainable development in SSA. The aim of this
study is to scrutinize this particular aspect of the renewed SSA growth model,
which is related to the role of biofuels in this growth–energy nexus.
The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 will further describe the
roots of SSA countries’ new growth perspectives while focusing on energy-re-
lated development issues. Section 3 examines whether biofuels can play a role
in relaxing the energy constraint on sustainable development in SSA countries.

Growth background of African countries

After SSA countries gained independence in the 1960s, they adopted a state
intervention strategy involving state-owned companies created either through
public investments or by nationalization. Moreover, almost every single de-
veloping country adopted strong trade protections. The promotion of a large
sector of state-owned companies encouraged the development of inefficient
activities due to conflicts of interest. The lack of autonomy of the leaders of
state-owned companies with regards to the state and, in particular, to the need
to respond to the authorities’ demand for job creation and/or services under
conditions that would not allow for economic balance in state-owned com-
panies, led them to drift away from economic efficiency. In addition, price
regulation intended to satisfy consumers contributed to the state-owned com-
panies’ difficulties. State-owned companies did, however, benefit from both
direct support (trade protection and budget subsidies) and implicit support
(most notably, exemptions with regard to taxation). The latter gave rise to an
imbalance in public finances. The scale of these difficulties became abundantly
clear when development aid was reduced.
Trade protection measures also benefited private companies, which accrued
rents (Krueger 1974, 2002) and had no incentive to improve their economic
efficiency. Employers’ pressure groups lobbied to obtain protection measures
that brought the most advantageous rents. A part of the protection measures
consisted of quantitative restrictions (QRs), which did not bring in revenue
(prohibition) or brought in relatively low revenue (quotas). Quantitative re-
strictions were the reason behind particularly high levels of protection that
were often not well-known. The multiple interventions that companies used
in order to obtain ad hoc protection measures led to the construction of incon-
sistent systems of protection through the successive superposition of different
measures, as they were modified to suit the interventions and specific interests.
32 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Apart from the harmful effect of the countries in question on economic

competitiveness (increase in production costs) as well as on the real standard
of living of consumers, heightened trade protection brought about a reduction
in real household incomes through an increase in consumer prices, which went
in hand with the effect of internal indirect taxation.

Major change in the development strategy in the 1980s

Economic growth remained slow in most African countries until the end of
the 1990s, which resulted in the poor performance of real per capita gross do-
mestic product (GDP) growth and poverty reduction. Considering these poor
results, African countries started to implement policies of economic openness
and trade liberalization. The policies aimed at removing non-tariff barriers as
well as lowering and rationalizing tariffs, with the first of the policies begin-
ning as early as the 1980s (e.g., in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, and Senegal).
Non-tariff barriers were removed as a priority, whilst tariffs were lowered
and simplified. During the course of the reforms, the consistency of the tariff-
based protection systems was improved, since the level of tariff taxation gen-
erally depends on the extent of the transformation, and a limited number of
product categories were singled out (e.g., three categories in the West African
Economic and Monetary Union are outside the zero rate). These reforms were
often applied in a regional integration area; this helped to partially avoid the
influence of pressure groups, which were less influential at the regional level
initially.
Meanwhile, during the first stage, liberalization had a limited impact on
tariff revenues, because additional revenues were mobilized once quantitative
restrictions were lifted and because of the trade development that liberaliza-
tion leads to (Ebrill, Stotsky, & Cropp 1999). As liberalization intensifies, it
leads to a significant decline in tariff revenues, which tax transition policies
aim to compensate for.
When overall revenues remain unchanged, trade liberalization requires a
modification of the tax levy structure insofar as tax revenues that are more eco-
nomically neutral than tariffs must be developed. The new tax levy structure,
which causes fewer distortions, raises the optimal level of tax levies.

Modification of the tax levy structure

A change in the tax levy structure is intended to substitute taxes (particularly

tariffs), which are the cause of tax distortions that are costly from a collective
point of view, with economically neutral taxes, such as VAT, supplemented
with excise duties. In addition to improving the tax levy structure, the tax tran-
sition must enable each country to have an optimal level of revenue. Regarding
 II. Challenges for Energy in Sub Saharan Africa | 33

SSA countries, Fig 2.1 shows both the change in the tax levy structure in favor
of internal indirect taxation and compensation for the drop in tariff revenues
through an increase in internal indirect tax revenues.

Fig 2.1 Tax transition in Sub-Saharan Africa. Unit: % of GDP. Source: Government
Finance Statistics (International Monetary Fund, various years), national
data, and authors’ calculations.

Impact on growth performance

The impact of the change in development strategy on growth performance

can be seen in Tab 2.1 and Tab 2.2. Although growth performance was poor
during the period starting after Independence and until the beginning of the
2000s, growth clearly accelerated in the 2000s.
The performance of western and eastern Africa during the period of 2000–
2013 was almost equivalent to the performance observed in Asia or Latin
America. Of course, the change in strategy is not the only explanation of this
good growth performance. The growth in the export of ores and hydrocarbons
is also in part responsible for this performance, notably in central Africa.
This performance also resulted in an increase in GDP per capita in many
countries. In most African countries, for the first time since Independence, the
GDP per capita increased since 2000, particularly in eastern and western Africa.
However, these figures should also be considered in light of poverty: SSA is one
of the regions where the poverty headcount remains high (see Fig 2.2).
34 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Tab 2.1 Real growth according to regional grouping

1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2000-2005 2005-2013 2005-2008 2008-2013

South Africa 3.1 1.4 2.1 3.9 3.8 2.7 5.0 2.2
World 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.1 3.3 2.2
Developed economies 3.4 3.2 2.7 1.7 2.1 0.7 1.9 0.9
Developing economies 5.8 3.5 4.9 6.1 5.4 5.7 7.0 5.4
Africa 4.3 1.8 2.6 5.3 5.3 4.2 5.9 3.5
Eastern Africa 2.8 2.6 2.9 5.4 4.2 6.6 6.4 6.9
Central Africa 2.5 2.5 1.4 8.3 7.5 6.4 10.6 4.8
Northern Africa 7.0 2.8 3.0 5.0 4.9 2.9 5.3 1.4
Southern Africa 3.2 1.5 2.3 3.9 3.8 2.8 5.0 2.3
Western Africa 3.8 -0.5 2.6 6.6 8.1 6.0 5.5 6.4
South America 6.0 2.2 3.1 4.3 2.9 4.1 5.9 3.6
Asia 6.2 5.3 6.2 7.2 6.6 6.7 7.9 6.3
Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Developmen database

Tab. 2.2 Real growth per capita according to regional grouping

1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2000-2005 2005-2013 2005-2008 2008-2013

South Africa 0.5 -1.0 0.1 2.5 2.3 1.6 3.6 1.2
World 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 0.9 2.0 1.0
Developed economies 2.6 2.6 2.0 1.1 1.5 0.2 1.3 0.4
Developing economies 3.4 1.3 3.1 4.7 3.9 4.3 5.6 3.9
Africa 1.5 -1.0 0.1 2.8 2.8 1.6 3.3 1.0
Eastern Africa -0.2 -0.5 0.1 2.6 1.4 3.3 3.5 3.2
Central Africa -0.1 -0.4 -1.5 5.3 4.4 3.5 7.5 2.0
Northern Africa 4.4 0.2 1.1 3.2 3.2 1.6 3.5 0.7
Southern Africa 0.5 -0.9 0.2 2.5 2.4 1.6 3.6 1.3
Western Africa 1.1 -3.1 0.0 3.8 5.3 3.2 2.7 3.5
South America 3.6 0.1 1.5 3.0 1.6 3.0 4.7 2.5
Asia 3.9 3.2 4.7 6.0 5.3 5.5 6.7 5.2
Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Developmen database
 II. Challenges for Energy in Sub Saharan Africa | 35

Fig 2.2 Poverty headcount ratios in developing regions in 2011. Source: World
Bank Indicators. Population living below $2 ($1.25) a day is the percentage
of the population living on less than $2 ($1.25) a day at the 2005
international prices. World average percentage of the population living
below $1.25 was 14.5% in 2011.

Prospects of future energy demand in SSA

The growth in GDP and GDP per capita will probably lead to higher demand
for energy by both households and firms. Other leviers of energy demand
should also be considered; they will have a both quantitative and qualitative
impact on energy consumption.
First, according to the medium fertility scenario from the UN population
projections,6 SSA population is expected to represent 22% (35%) of the world
population in 2050 (2100), in comparison to the current 15%. In that respect,
one should keep in mind that energy consumption goes hand in hand with
development and population growth. Over the past 200 years, world energy
consumption has increased by more than 20 times, which is far greater than
world population growth, which has only increased by a factor of six (Grubler
2010); this is a major feature of the so-called energy transition. If one consid-

6. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, Population
Estimates and Projections Section. Projections available at http://esa.un.org/wpp/Excel-Data/popula-
tion.htm accessed on February 6, 2015.
36 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

ers that SSA is at the beginning of its energy transition, energy growth along
the extensive margin is expected. Even if energy consumption per capita re-
mains at the level of the 2000s, as depicted in Fig 2.3, population growth in
SSA will boost African aggregate energy demand.

Fig 2.3 Energy use in developing regions. Source: World Bank Indicators and
International Energy Agency statistics.

Second, SSA countries are not only suffering from poverty but also from en-
ergy poverty. The extent of population that lacks access to electricity is a rough
measure of such a situation: in 2012, 621 million people in Africa were living
without any access to electricity, with severe discrepancies between rural and
urban areas (Tab 2.3). It may be feared that the current prospects of energy de-
mand in SSA may be understated if poverty alleviation is not accurately taken
into account (Wolfram et al. 2012). This can be qualified as a distribution
of growth effect on energy demand, which should deliver substantial welfare
benefits for households. Indeed, enhanced energy and electricity services gen-
erate many health, education, and women empowerment benefits (Cabraal et
al. 2005).
 II. Challenges for Energy in Sub Saharan Africa | 37

Tab 2.3 Electrification rates in Africa in 2012. Source: International Energy Agency (2014)

Population National Urban electri- Rural electri-

without electrification fication rate fication rate
electricity rate (%) (%) (%)
(million)

Africa 622 43% 68% 26%

Sub- 621 32% 59% 16%

Saharan
Africa

North 1 99% 100% 99%

Africa

Third, energy transition also embodies the qualitative structural changes in

energy demand. Heavy reliance on biomass is a striking feature of primary en-
ergy demand in Africa (Fig 2.4). Africa is the largest biomass energy consumer
in the world (wood, agricultural and husbandry wastes, and charcoal). Many
people depend on biomass energy resources, and especially on charcoal, for
cooking. One paradoxical point of view is that reliance on biomass is consid-
ered a pathway toward less carbon intensive activities in developed countries,
whereas biomass is seen as a regressive source of energy in Africa. One rea-
son might be that forest resources are subjected to increasing pressure despite
substantial efforts devoted to the dissemination of improved cook stoves. In
addition, use of biomass energy by households may also contribute to indoor
particulate matter pollution, which is damaging to health. Several authors,
however, emphasized that in Africa and several developing regions, supply of
biomass exceeds demand and that successful energy policies should also pay
attention to better articulation of biomass energy with other energy resources
during the African energy transition (Owen et al. 2013).
The next point targets this aspect precisely while paying attention to the
development of biofuels.
38 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Fig 2.4 Current and expected total energy primary demand in Africa, Million tons
of oil equivalent. Source: World Energy Outlook http://fr.slideshare.net/
internationalenergyagency/141013-africa-energyoutlookslides/5-
Biomass_remains_at_the_centre accessed June 1, 2016.

Role of biofuels in SSA countries

Biofuel7 production in Africa represents a minor part of the world production

and has increased at a lower rate than the world production has (Tab 2.4).
Trends in world biofuel production drew attention when the rapid increase in
ethanol and biodiesel production coincided with a spectacular increase in ag-
ricultural commodity prices (corn, wheat, and plant oils) in 2007–2008 after
years of price stagnation or decrease. Biofuel production gained official sup-
port in SSA when several countries formed the Pan-African Non-Petroleum
Producers Association (PANPP) in 2006. Indeed, African biofuel promoters
saw economic advantages.
Biofuel production might be a key element in energy security, since most
SSA countries are net energy importers and may even spend a large part
of their foreign export earnings on fuel imports. For instance, Senegal and
Burundi’s coverage of fuel imports by total merchandise exports exceeded 75%
in 2007 according to the World Trade Organization. A related argument is
that biofuels could contribute to reducing trade imbalances, especially when
fossil fuel prices are increasing. Socio-economic benefits can also be expected if

7. Biofuels are derived from biomass, whether it is of animal or vegetal origin. See Biofuel definition Box
1 in the Appendix for further definitions. The following mainly discusses vegetal biomass.
 II. Challenges for Energy in Sub Saharan Africa | 39

biofuel production allows diversification of agricultural incomes and generates

extra-incomes, especially for the poor, as well as provides energy resources at
lower cost. Finally, environmental benefits could be generated by upgrading
degraded lands as well as mitigating GHG emissions.
In the following, we will discuss the sustainability of biofuels on several
salient features pertaining to the SSA case: land availability (paragraph 3.1),
competition between food and fuel cropping, which is intrinsically linked to
poverty alleviation issues (paragraph 3.2), land grabbing (paragraph 3.3), and
environmental impacts (paragraph 3.4).

Tab 2.4 Evolution of biofuel production in the main world regions. The production is
represented as thousand barrels per day and percentages of world production. Source:
International Energy Statistics https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.
cfm?tid=79&pid=79&aid=1 accessed June 1, 2016.

2000 2005 2010 2011 2012

North America 109 265 916 1005 976

35% 40% 49% 52% 51%

Central and South America 185 285 588 519 533

59% 43% 32% 27% 28%

Europe 17 77 255 254 239

5% 12% 14% 13% 13%

Middle East 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Africa 0.2 0.2 1.0 0,8 0,7

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Asia and Oceania 3 28 102 133 149

1% 4% 5% 7% 8%

World 315 656 1866 1916 1901

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

40 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Potential and advantages of Sub-Saharan African countries for biofuel

production

Land resource is a major input for biofuel production. Future expansion is,
therefore, based on the condition of available arable land. It appears that the
potential of rain-fed cultivation expansion is located mainly in developing
countries. This potential is, however, concentrated in a limited number of
countries: more than half of it is found in only ten countries, five of which
are located in Africa (Deininger & Byerlee 2011). Overall, Africa is endowed
with about 200 million hectares of available land over a total of 445 million
hectares throughout the world (Tab 2.5). This availability constitutes a major
comparative advantage for African biofuel producers.8 A related advantage of
SSA is its climate. In the tropical regions of SSA, ethanol can be produced
from sugarcane or castor beans, whereas jatropha and oilseeds can be culti-
vated for biodiesel production (Jumbe et al. 2009). African countries have
already developed various biofuel crops owing to their diverse agro-ecological
conditions. For example, Malawi is the biggest African producer of ethanol,
which allows the country to cover about one quarter of its domestic fuel use.
East African countries also contribute to ethanol production mainly for export
purposes. Biodiesel production from jatropha has been introduced in Mali.
One crucial question is whether these initiatives benefit poor households.
The argument pertaining to the global availability of agricultural land
should, however, be tempered owing to the highly heterogeneous agro-ecolog-
ical conditions in arid and semi-arid countries of Africa where land availability
still represents the major impediment for biofuel crops (Wicke et al. 2011).

Food versus fuel and poverty alleviation

Benefits from biofuels should be balanced against a potential trade-off between

food and fuel production, especially when producers shift resources from food
toward biofuel production. This may be qualified as a ripple effect of biofuel
expansion.9 Therefore, food prices might be under pressure, which is dramati-
cally important in SSA. Indeed, existing household surveys in SSA show that
the share of income spent on food is high: from 40% in South Africa to 85%
in Tanzania and an average of 64% in the surveyed countries. Figures are even
higher when they emanate from poor households (Chauvin et al. 2012).

8. It should be noted that available estimates on land availability should be cautiously used. On one
hand, potential arable land expansions may come at the expense of pasture lands or biodiversity hot
spots. On the other hand, estimates do not take improvements into account, which could turn unfer-
tile lands into fertile ones.
9. See a simple, partial equilibrium graphical illustration in Naylor et al. (2007, p.38).
 II. Challenges for Energy in Sub Saharan Africa | 41

Tab 2.5 Potential availability of uncultivated lands in different regions Source: Deininger &
Byerlee (2011, p.xxxiv) and Fischer & Shah (2010).

Share of land with travel

time to market (%)

Total Area (1,000 ha) < 6 hours > 6 hours

Sub-Saharan Africa 201,546 47 53

Latin America and the 123,342 76 24

Caribbean

Eastern Europe and 52,387 83 17

Central Asia

East and South Asia 14,341 23 77

Middle East and 3,043 87 13

North Africa

Rest of World 50,971 48 52

Total 445,624 59 41

Regarding prices, partial equilibrium simulations seem to confirm the food

versus fuel assumption with dramatic increases in world prices for several ag-
ricultural feedstock types: maize, oilseeds, sugar, cassava, or wheat (Rosegrant
et al. 2008). Other results derived from Computable General Equilibrium
(CGE) modeling seem to corroborate the idea that if countries worldwide
meet their commitments for biofuel production, they give a significant im-
pulse to the demand for biofuel feedstocks and their prices (Cororaton &
Timilsina 2014). The results of very few studies were contradictory to this
scenario; for example, in the case of Thailand, biofuel promotion scenarios
boosted biofuel prices without necessarily having the same effect on food pric-
es (Asafu-Adjaye & Wianwiwat 2012). These concerns regarding food security
have, among other reasons, incentivized several governments to either suspend
biofuel investments in Tanzania (see the story of UK biofuel companies which
ended in landlessness and joblessness Carrington 2011) or exclude maize from
ethanol production in South Africa (Amigun et al. 2011).
Other CGE modeling exercises in the Tanzanian case showed that biofuel
expansion had a beneficial effect on households’ welfare: poverty rates declined
in most simulated scenarios. However, the effect on the creation of new jobs
42 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

was mixed (Arndt et al. 2012). Micro-simulated CGE modeling showed that
jatropha has positive macroeconomic and distributional impacts whenever it
is cropped on idle lands in Mali (Boccanfuso et al. 2013). There also exists
micro-evidence of improvements in food security in the case of Ethiopia. Land
was diverted from food cropping, but this was compensated by an increase
in the productivity of food crops (Negash & Swinnen 2013). Finally, several
existing studies showed that biofuel production does not necessarily induce a
decrease in land allocated to food production when considering the spill-over
effects taking place in the economy. Biofuel expansion that generates cash can
also support the adoption of technological innovation in the agricultural sec-
tor, especially in traditional agriculture, which faces climate risk in Africa.

Land grabbing and institutional considerations

Agricultural market structure may also be impacted by biofuel development

strategies in SSA countries. Wolde-Georgis & Glantz (2009) identified several
biofuel development patterns. One pattern attracts attention as it is related to
foreign direct investment (FDI) in agricultural lands, which has been called
“landgrabbing” or an emanation of neo-colonialism in developing land-rich
countries (Robertson & Pinstrup-Andersen 2010). Under this strategy, biofu-
els are produced on large plantations that are part of large commercial farming
systems and often result from FDIs. FDIs are well represented in all regions of
SSA. For example, in West Africa, Ghana has succeeded in attracting foreign
investors in its energy sector. Another example is the Democratic Republic
of Congo where China acquired 2.8 million hectares to install the world’s
largest palm oil plantation (Amigun et al. 2011). Land deals in this country
accounted for more than 12 million hectares between 2006 and 2012.10 In
Tanzania, foreign investors have massively entered the agricultural sector since
2005 (Gordon-Maclean et al. 2009). High-potential agricultural lands have
been shown to be “pull factors” for FDIs in the agricultural sector (Arezki et al.
2013). Weak tenure security for existing occupants also had a positive effect on
land acquisition, whereas weak investor protection did not necessarily discour-
age foreign investors. Several authors, therefore, warned against population
displacements and disruption in traditional land use. Poor farmers and herders
are particularly exposed. Contentious consequences of land grabbing are prob-
ably less prominent in other contexts. For example, the Malian experience of
small producers growing biofuel crops alongside food crops deserves further
attention (see Wolde-Georgis & Glantz 2009).

10. For more details, see the report on land-grab deals at https://www.grain.org/article/entries/4479-
grain-releases-data-set-with-over-400-global-land-grabs accessed June 1, 2016.
 II. Challenges for Energy in Sub Saharan Africa | 43

Environmental impacts

Biofuel production may also entail environmental impacts. At first glance,

biofuel cropping can be considered a cleaner way to satisfy energy demand,
since it recycles atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, potential environ-
mental concerns may arise from increased pressure on forests, negative GHG
emissions and energy balances, increased use of water, and soil degradation
(Escobar et al. 2009).
Several forest-rich Asian countries such as Malaysia or Indonesia have al-
ready experienced the clearing of pristine, high-biodiversity forests alongside
the implementation of palm oil plantations (Zhou & Thomson 2009). Several
scholars also pointed out that biofuel expansion may be characterized by net
GHG emissions: biofuel plots may emit more GHGs than they save (Pearce &
Aldhous 2007). It seems that there is still a paucity of studies. In addition, the
studies are mainly conducted in developed countries (Hill et al. 2006; Tilman
et al. 2009) or in major biofuel producers like Brazil, where it was documented
that ethanol from sugarcane has the greatest net GHG mitigation potential
(Naylor et al. 2007). One can suspect that energy and GHG balances vary
greatly with crops and local contexts. Thus, there is a need for more case stud-
ies in the context of SSA.
Another ripple effect from biofuel expansion is related to water resources.
Water for biofuels may compete with other water uses, that is, water for sani-
tation, drinking, and food cropping. In addition, biofuel yields may be re-
sponsive to irrigation. Water footprint (WF) calculations show that jatropha
cropping has the highest WF whilst maize is less water consuming. The WF
of energy feedstocks is larger than that of other forms of energy. It is, how-
ever, worth noticing that the WF does not depend on whether agricultural
feedstocks are used for food or fuel (Gerbens-Leenes et al. 2009). A related
idea is that biofuel production in SSA countries will be integrated in the in-
creasing international trade flows of virtual water (Hoekstra & Hung 2005).
Whether virtual water trade flows contribute to better allocation of water re-
sources is an open question, especially with respect to their consequences on
undernourished people. Finally, if biofuel production goes hand in hand with
intensification and monoculture, detrimental consequences of pollution and
soil impoverishment can be feared in the long run.

Concluding remarks

Existing literature on biofuel in developing countries, and in SSA in particu-

lar, have emphasized that the promised benefits of biofuel production expan-
sion have not really been brought into reality. For instance, examples of for-
44 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

est encroachment, failure of foreign biofuel companies to generate inclusive

development, mixed results on poverty alleviation, and the ripple effects still
pervade biofuel sustainability assessments (see e.g. Amigun et al. 2011; Arndt
et al. 2011; Gasparatos et al. 2015; German et al. 2011). The sustainability
of the biofuel sector is far from granted. One reason might be that the actors
(biofuel companies, governments, and local communities) do not share the
same interpretation of sustainability (Maconachie & Fortin 2013). In addi-
tion, one may still cast doubt on the strategic importance of the biofuel sector.
This is particularly true for solar and hydro energy, whose potential is high in
SSA (International Energy Agency 2014).
One way forward is for SSA countries to devote more efforts toward not
only more efficient legal and regulatory frameworks at the national economy
level, but also the bioenergy sector (Janssen & Rutz 2012). Regulations should
target small producers in order to minimize the social cost of bioenergy in-
dustry. Land governance deserves particular attention in the African context,
where unwritten customary land rights appear to be vulnerable (Toulmin
2009). Another pathway toward biofuel sustainability may come from greater
environmental awareness of bioenergy firms, which could be incentivized by
voluntary approaches (certification).

References
Amigun B., Musango J.K., Stafford W., 2011, “Biofuels and sustainability in Africa”.
«Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews», 15(2): 1360–1372.
Arezki R., Deininger K., Selod H., 2013, “What Drives the Global ‘Land Rush’?”. «The World
Bank Economic Review», p.lht034.
Arndt C., Msangi S., Thurlow J., 2011, “Are biofuels good for African development? An
analytical framework with evidence from Mozambique and Tanzania”. «Biofuels», 2(2):
221–234.
Arndt C., Pauw K., Thurlow J., 2012, “Biofuels and economic development: A computable
general equilibrium analysis for Tanzania”. «Energy Economics». Available at: http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988312001648 [Accessed December 2, 2013].
Artadi E.V., Sala-i-Martin X., 2003, “The Economic Tragedy of the XXth Century: Growth
in Africa”. «National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series», No. 9865.
Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9865.
Asafu-Adjaye J., Wianwiwat S., 2012, “A CGE Approach to the Analysis of Biofuels for
Promoting Energy Self Sufficiency and Security Policy in Thailand-Methodology”. Procedia
Engineering, 49: 357–372.
Boccanfuso D. et al., 2013, Macroeconomic and Distributional Impacts of Jatropha-Based
Biodiesel in Mali, Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/
abstract=2284670 [Accessed June 3, 2016].
Bolt, J., van Zanden J.L., 2014, “The Maddison Project: collaborative research on historical
national accounts”. «The Economic History Review», 67(3):.627–651.
Cabraal R.A., Barnes D.F., Agarwal S.G., 2005, “Productive Uses of Energy for Rural
 II. Challenges for Energy in Sub Saharan Africa | 45

Development”. «Annual Review of Environment and Resources», 30(1): 117–144.

Carrington D., 2011, “UK firm’s failed biofuel dream wrecks lives of Tanzania villagers”.
«The Guardian». Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/30/
africa-poor-west-biofuel-betrayal.
Chauvin N.D. et al., 2012, Food production and consumption trends in sub-Saharan Africa:
Prospects for the transformation of the agricultural sector. United Nations Development
Program – Regional Bureau for Africa. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/pro-
file/Francis_Mulangu2/publication/263257182_Food_Production_and_Consumption_
Trends_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa_Prospects_for_the_Transformation_of_the_Agricultural_
Sector/links/55f1561008aef559dc470917.pdf.
Cororaton C.B., Timilsina G.R., 2014, “Biofuels and Poverty”. in Timilsina G. R., Zilberman
D. eds., The Impacts of Biofuels on the Economy, Environment, and Poverty. Natural Resource
Management and Policy. Springer New York. pp. 79–89. Available at: http://link.springer.
com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-0518-8_6.
Deininger K., Byerlee D., 2011, Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can It Yield Sustainable and
Equitable Benefits?. Washington: World Bank Publications. Available at: http://reliefweb.
int/report/world/rising-global-interest-farmland%C2%A0-can-it-yield-sustainable-and-
equitable-benefits.
Ebrill L. P., Stotsky J. G., Cropp R., 1999, Revenue Implications of Trade Liberalization,
Occasional Paper, 180, International Monetary Fund.
Escobar J.C. et al., 2009, «Biofuels: Environment, technology and food security”. «Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews», 13 (6–7): 1275–1287.
Fischer G., Shah M., 2010, Farmland Investments and Food Security. Laxenburg: International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Available at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/exter-
nal/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/09/09/000386194_20110909014150/
Rendered/PDF/644450WP00publ00Security0BOX361537B.pdf.
Gasparatos A. et al., 2015, B”iofuels in sub-Sahara Africa: Drivers, impacts and priority policy
areas”. «Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews», 45: 879–901.
Gerbens-Leenes W., Hoekstra A.Y., Meer T.H. van der, 2009,” The water footprint of bioen-
ergy”. «Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences», 106 (25): 10219–10223.
German L., Schoneveld G.C., Pacheco P., 2011, “The Social and Environmental Impacts of
Biofuel Feedstock Cultivation: Evidence from Multi-Site Research in the Forest Frontier”.
«Ecology and Society», 16 (3). Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss3/
art24/.
Gordon-Maclean G. et al., 2009, Biofuel Industry Study, Tanzania. An Assessment of the Current
Situation, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Available at: http://www.tnrf.org/files/E-
INFO-WWF-TPO_Biofuel_Industry_Study_Tanzania.pdf.
Grubler A., 2010, Energy transitions. Encyclopedia of Earth. Available at: http://www.eoearth.
org/article/Energy_transitions [Accessed June 2, 2010].
Hill J. et al., 2006, “Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodies-
el and ethanol biofuels”. «Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences», 103(30):
11206–11210.
Hoekstra A.Y., Hung P.Q., 2005, “Globalisation of water resources: international virtual water
flows in relation to crop trade”. «Global Environmental Change», 15(1): 45–56.
International Energy Agency, 2014, Africa Energy Outlook. A Focus on Energy Prospects in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Paris: OECD/IEA. Available at: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
africa/.
46 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

International Energy Agency, 2011, Technology Roadmap. Biofuels for Transport. Paris: OECD /
IEA. Available at: http://www.iea.org/papers/2011/biofuels_roadmap.pdf.
Janssen R., Rutz D., 2012, “Keynote Introduction: Overview on Bioenergy Policies in Africa”.
in Janssen R., Rutz D. eds. Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa. Springer
Netherlands, pp. 165–182.
Jumbe C.B.L., Msiska F.B.M., Madjera M., 2009, “Biofuels development in Sub-Saharan
Africa: Are the policies conducive?”. «Energy Policy», 37 (11): 4980–4986.
Krueger A.O., 2002, Political Economy of Policy Reform in Developing Countries. Cambridge
MA: MIT Press.
Krueger A.O., 1974, “The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society”. «The American
Economic Review», 64 (3): 291–303.
Maconachie R., Fortin E., 2013, ‘New agriculture’ for sustainable development? Biofuels and
agrarian change in post-war Sierra Leone”. «The Journal of Modern African Studies», 51
(2): 249–277.
Naylor R.L. et al., 2007, «The Ripple Effect: Biofuels, Food Security, and the Environment”.
«Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development», 49 (9): 30–43.
Negash M., Swinnen J.F.M., 2013, “Biofuels and food security: Micro-evidence from Ethiopia”.
«Energy Policy», 61: 963–976.
Owen M., der Plas R., van & Sepp, S., 2013, “Can there be energy policy in Sub-Saharan
Africa without biomass?”. «Energy for Sustainable Development», 17(2): 146–152.
Ozturk I., 2010, “A literature survey on energy–growth nexus”. «Energy Policy», 38(1):
340–349.
Pachauri S., Spreng D., 2004, “Energy Use and Energy Access in Relation to Poverty”.
«Economic and Political Weekly», 39(3): 271–278.
Pearce F., Aldhous P., 2007, “Biofuels may not be answer to climate change”. «New Scientist»,
196 (2634) 6–7.
Robertson B., Pinstrup-Andersen P., 2010, “Global land acquisition: neo-colonialism or devel-
opment opportunity?”. «Food Security», 2(3): 271–283.
Rodrik D., 2014, An African Growth Miracle?. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20188 [Accessed July 3, 2015].
Rosegrant M.W. et al., 2008, «Global Scenarios for Biofuels: Impacts and Implications”.
«Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy», 30 (3): 495–505.
Tilman D. et al., 2009, “Beneficial Biofuels—The Food, Energy, and Environment Trilemma”.
«Science», 325 (5938): 270–271.
Toulmin C., 2009, “Securing land and property rights in sub-Saharan Africa: The role of local
institutions”. «Land Use Policy», 26(1), pp.10–19.
Wicke B. et al., 2011, “The current bioenergy production potential of semi-arid and arid re-
gions in sub-Saharan Africa”. «Biomass and Bioenergy», 35 (7): 2773–2786.
Wolde-Georgis T., Glantz M.H., 2009, Biofuels in Africa: A Pathway to Development?.
International Research Center for Energy and economic development, occasional papers:
Number Forty-Three. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=1589101 [Accessed March 31, 2015].
Wolde-Rufael Y., 2005, “Energy demand and economic growth: The African experience”.
«Journal of Policy Modeling», 27 (8): 891–903.
Wolfram C., Shelef O.,Gertler P.J., 2012, How Will Energy Demand Develop in the Developing
World?. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/
w17747.
Zhou A, Thomson E., 2009, “The development of biofuels in Asia”. «Applied Energy», 86,
Supplement 1: S11–S20.
 II. Challenges for Energy in Sub Saharan Africa | 47

Appendix

Biofuel definition

“… [T]he term biofuel refers to liquid and gaseous fuels produced from bio-
mass – organic matter derived from plants or animals.
There is considerable debate on how to classify biofuels. Biofuels are com-
monly divided into first-, second – and third-generation biofuels, but the same
fuel might be classified differently depending on whether technology maturity,
GHG emission balance or the feedstock is used to guide the distinction. This
roadmap uses a definition based on the maturity of a technology, and the
terms ‘conventional’ and ‘advanced’ for classification […]. The GHG emis-
sion balance depends on the feedstock and processes used, and it is important
to realise that advanced biofuels performance is not always superior to that of
conventional biofuels.
Conventional biofuel technologies include well-established processes that
are already producing biofuels on a commercial scale. These biofuels, com-
monly referred to as first-generation, include sugar – and starch-based ethanol,
oil-crop based biodiesel and straight vegetable oil, as well as biogas derived
through anaerobic digestion. Typical feedstocks used in these processes include
sugarcane and sugar beet, starch-bearing grains like corn and wheat, oil crops
like rape (canola), soybean and oil palm, and in some cases animal fats and
used cooking oils.
Advanced biofuel technologies are conversion technologies which are still
in the research and development (R&D), pilot or demonstration phase, com-
monly referred to as second – or third-generation. This category includes hy-
drotreated vegetable oil (HVO), which is based on animal fat and plant oil,
as well as biofuels based on lignocellulosic biomass, such as cellulosic-ethanol,
biomass-to-liquids (BtL)-diesel and bio-synthetic gas (bio-SG). The category
also includes novel technologies that are mainly in the R&D and pilot stage,
such as algae-based biofuels and the conversion of sugar into diesel-type bio-
fuels using biological or chemical catalysts”.
Source: (International Energy Agency 2011, p. 8)
Biofuels and Food Security: Future
Challenges and Opportunities
Maria Sassi,1 Monserrath Ximena Lascano Galarza

Abstract

Recently there has been an increase in the production of first-generation bio-

fuels, particularly ethanol and biodiesel, from food-crop biomass. Ethanol is
mainly extracted from sugar cane and maize, and biodiesel mainly from rape-
seed, palm, soy, and jatropha. Therefore, the production of first-generation
fuels competes with food agricultural production.
Biofuels offer opportunities in terms of energy security, environmental im-
pact mitigation, and climate change mitigation. They also help provide cheap
and locally produced energy. In this way, 4 million people living in rural areas
who otherwise have no access to electricity can find resolution on this energy
issue (Diouf 2008).
With these benefits come important risks, especially with respect to food
security. Concerns regarding these negative effects first surfaced during the
2007–2008 global financial crisis, during which numerous studies identified
increased biofuel production as one of the leading causes of soaring food prices
on international markets. This was an increase in production that, moreover,
sees similar forecasts to the year 2050, with no indication of slowing. The
publication of world population estimates prepared during the same period
indicated that by 2050, there would be more than 9 billion people worldwide.
Under this scenario, the ability of the primary sector to satisfy the projected in-
crease in food needs is in doubt. This debate has highlighted critical elements
that relate to competition between food and agricultural energy production
and possible negative effects.
This article looks to analyse this debate. It starts by introducing the concep-
tual framework that defines food security and its determinants. Subsequently,
the conflict between food production and biofuels is taken up, with a focus
on the supports that first-generation biofuel production has received by way
of specific policies. Thereafter, analysis is undertaken of the main risks relat-
ing to competition between agricultural production for food and for energy,
as well as the various production factors. The conclusion presents the main

1. Corresponding Author.
50 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

recommendations for preventing or otherwise mitigating the negative effects

of conflict between food and bioenergy production efforts.

Food security and biofuels

When there is food security, all people at all times have economic and physical
access to sufficient and adequate food to satisfy the nutritional requirements of
conducting active and healthy lives (World Food Summit 1996). This concept
is based on the pillars of food availability, access, stability, and utilization.
Food availability refers to the guarantee, in terms of both time and space,
to have safe food of sufficient quantity and quality; this food can derive from
domestic production (i.e. the agricultural sector or through imports), includ-
ing commercial imports and food aid.
In the context of food, having access means that food must be locally avail-
able and economically accessible. Food security depends on the capacity of
countries to generate enough resources to pay for imports, and of families to
generate the income needed to purchase food. Physical access to food relates to
factors such as infrastructure and the availability of storage and commercializa-
tion facilities.
For an individual to be healthy and well fed, food must be used optimally.
In other words, food needs to be sufficient in quantity, quality, and variety, in
line with the individual’s needs (Sassi 2010).
Fig 3.1 highlights the main elements behind these dimensions, and the
interdependencies therein. It is useful to understand how the production of
biomass for use in energy may adversely affect nutritional status at the family
and individual levels. As shown by Sassi (2012), the food economy describes
the various means used by households to access food. Family members gener-
ate income through productive activities, using the natural, human, financial,
physical, and social resources at their disposal. The family revenue – which
includes both public and private transfers and loans – is spent on food or non-
food genres, or it is saved. A portion of the agricultural production is directly
consumed, while ‘leftovers’ are placed on the market. These products, together
with food stocks, imports, and food aid, constitute food availability. The price
of this food is defined by the interaction between food supply and demand.
A family’s level of food access is represented by the quantity of food it buys
from the market after comparing food prices to its income. At the individual
level, the nutritional status of each family component is complex, since it is
determined by a combination of socioeconomic factors.
 III. Biofuels and Food Security | 51

Fig 3.1 Determinants of food security. Source: Sassi, 2012

The most important elements are the purchase of food from the market and
the production quota for self-consumption; also important are the distribu-
tion of food among family members, the application of basic nutritional prin-
ciples, disease treatment, and health condition management. Food security
is a dynamic concept, given the implications of nutritional status on labour
productivity, and therefore the ability to generate income.
The food economy and the family context are influenced by confounding
factors that operate at international, national, and subnational levels. These
include demographic, economic, political, and socio­cultural elements, as well
as environmental conditions and risk and shock factors.
The production of biomass can have negative effects on various facets of
food security, whose main centres of origin are circled in red in Fig 3.1.
The availability of food can be threatened by a shift in resources from food
production to agriculture for energy-use purposes. Access to food can be lim-
ited by increased food prices, and the consequent reduction in purchasing
power among families that is linked to reduced food production. Another
effect can stem from family members’ use of food in ways that stem from the
impact of biomass earmarked for energy purposes on the availability of food
52 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

in terms of quantity, variety, and nutrients. The potential risk to food security
that relates to biofuel production therefore stems from two types of competi-
tion: namely, production and resource competition.

Biofuel production and the role of policies

The starting point of this debate is the first-generation production of biofuel,

within the last decade. As shown in Fig 3.2, between 2000 and 2012, the
world’s daily production of ethanol and biodiesel, expressed in barrels, has
increased more than six-fold.

Fig 3.2 (Production of ethanol and biodiesel thousands of barrels per day (2000–
2012). Source: nd. EIA data processing (http://www.eia.gov)

In 2012, the world’s major biofuel producers were the United States (i.e. 49.4 per-
cent of the world’s production of ethanol and biodiesel), followed by Brazil and
Europe. Argentina and China have only recently entered the biofuel market,
but have achieved within only a few years worldwide shares of about 2.7 and
3.1 percent, respectively. Today, approximately 108 billion litres (i.e. gigalitres)
of biofuels are produced worldwide each year, of which 88 gigalitres are ethanol
and 20 gigalitres are biodiesel. The use of ethanol has grown—particularly in the
transport sector, where it is blended with gasoline in ratios of 10:90 and 40:60 in
 III. Biofuels and Food Security | 53

the United States and Brazil, respectively (Mendes Souza et al. 2015). In Europe,
biofuels constitute the main source (61.2 percent) of renewable energy. In 2013,
Europe’s biofuel consumption level doubled relative to that in 2001, and related
mainly to heat production (Calderon et al. 2015)
Biomass production has increased worldwide, due to incentives and strong
supports available through policies introduced in the manufacturers’ countries.
The aims of these measures are to promote the use of bioenergy to achieve en-
ergy security objectives, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and develop rural areas
(FAO 2010). Table  3.1 summarizes the policies enacted by the three leading
manufacturing countries of biodiesel and ethanol. The interventions introduced
by the main producers of first-generation biofuels can be classified as direct pro-
duction supports, binding and nonbinding objectives, commercialization and
productivity stimulation, and offer efficiency measures. These interventions can
take place anywhere along the production chain (Blanco et al. 2010).
In developing countries, biomass production levels are still relatively low,
compared to those of developed countries. In 2011, Africa produced 0.8
thousand barrels of biofuels per day.2 However, since these economies are wit-
nessing the introduction of policies by which to promote the creation of re-
newable energy from biomass, this scenario is changing. For example, by the
end of 2010, 40 countries in Africa—the continent that was last to introduce
such measures, but also where there is more food insecurity than other conti-
nents—had either implemented or prepared biofuel policies (UNECA 2012).
Table 3.2 proposes some examples. In 2012, the Conference of Ministers for
Energy Policy in Africa adopted the African Policy Framework and its related
guidelines, to assist in promoting a sustainable bioenergy sector. This docu-
ment highlights the need to define and adopt sustainability criteria that could
enhance issues that relate to food security (CEMA, AAEW, PAIF 2012).

2. See http://www.eia.gov/
54 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Tab 3.1 Biofuel policies introduced by manufacturing countries. Source: Adapted from Diop
et al., 2013

Objective Production in- Commercial policy

centive

United mandatory tax credit of $ Ethanol: the $ 0.54

States objective: 36 billion 0.45 per gallon price per gallon
gallons of biofuels for ethanol for and an ad valorem
in 2022 from blending and duty of 2.5
which 15 billion $ 1 per gallon percent. Biodiesel:
from conventional for biodiesel for ad valorem duty
sources blending both equivalent to 1.9
from agricultural percent
crops

European mandatory Member States specific tariff of

Union objective of 10 may apply a € 0.192 / liter of
percent idle for reduction of ethanol under-
transport fuel from taxes and provide natured and €
renewable fuels by production 0.102 / liter of
2020 incentives denatured ethanol.
Ad valorem duty of
6.5% on biodiesel

Brazil mandatory Tax incentives ad valorem duty

objective for for ethanol and of 20% imported
the blending of biodiesel. Tax ethanol from
ethanol from 20- incentives for the countries outside
25% mandatory vehicles poly-fuel the Mercosur. ad
objective of use ethanol valorem duty of
of 5% biodiesel 14% for biodiesel
(B5) from 2012
(proposed increase
to 10% by 2020)
 III. Biofuels and Food Security | 55

Tab 3.2 Biofuel policies introduced by some African countries. * Blending targets: manda-
tory blending of a certain percentage of biofuels with different types of available fuels. **
E10: fuels consist, for the most part, of fossil­based fuels; the remainder (10 percent) is ethanol.
Source: Adapted from Diop et al., 2013.

Strategy Intervention Raw material

strategy concerned

Angola Biofuels policy Investment Sugar cane

2010 incentives

Ethiopia Biofuels strategy Biending targets Sugar cane,

2007 jatropha

Kenya National Biofuels Pilot mixing E10 Sugar cane,

Policy (2011) jatropha, cassava,
sorghum

Malawi Malawi Energy Mixing Sugar cane,

Regulatory mandatory targets jatropha
Authority (2009)
Subsidies and tax
exemptions

Mali National Biofuels Research and Jatropha

Development pilot studies
Strategy (2009)

Mozambique National Biofuels Targets for Sugar cane,

Policy and biofuel. jatropha,
Strategy (2009) sorghum
tax incentives

Nigeria Biofuels policy Ethanol blended Cassava,

and incentives E10 and B20 sorghum, sugar
(2007) biodiesel cane, jatropha

Senegal National Biofuels Production Sugar cane,

Strategy (2007) incentives and jatropha
investment
56 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Once initial problems associated with the implementation of these meas-

ures are overcome, the production of first­generation biofuels is expected to
proliferate. This phenomenon will increase biomass demand, resulting in ad-
ditional pressure on agricultural resources. In Africa – a continent where the
population is rapidly growing and food insecurity still poses a serious threat
– there is a need for increased food production, and this will conflict with
biomass-oriented pressures.
Africa’s low income per capita and limited growth in the use of conven-
tional energy imply that first-generation biofuels represent a major share of its
total energy supply, and that it is expected to increase (Table 3.3). Some esti-
mates suggest that this increase will be equal to the rate of population growth
(IEA 2003), and they envision an increase in the share of energy produced
from biomass.

Tab 3.3 Biofuels and total energy offered in 2020, and growth rate (2002–2020). Source: IEA,
2003 in UNIDO (2008)

% of biofuels offer over Rate of supply growth

total energy of biofuels 2002-2020

Africa 43 1.9

Developing Countries 18 1.1

Total World 10 1.4

Production competition

The main issues addressed in the literature focus on food-price increases and
volatility, and increased integration between the prices of raw agricultural ma-
terials and the use of energy.
First-generation biofuels have seen a rapidly increasing production rate—
so rapid, in fact, that these economies have been unable to make necessary
adaptations to counterbalance any negative effects. The shift in demand for
agricultural commodities from food use to energy use is therefore considered
a factor that has contributed to higher food prices on international markets.
Recent scientific studies have estimated that this impact tends to accord
with the direction in which food prices change: as the impact grows, so too do
the food prices. However, the magnitudes of those price changes differ, rang-
ing from 3.4 percent to over 60 percent (Tab 3.4).
 III. Biofuels and Food Security | 57

Tab 3.4 Quantitative studies of the impact of raw agricultural materials for energy purposes
on the price of agricultural commodities). Source: Own representation.

Author Publication Period of Estimated impact

year analysis refrence

Bese et al. 2008 2008-2020 Between 7% and

12%

FAO 2008 2008-2018 Between 7% and

15%

OECD 2008 2008-2018 Between 5% and

16%

Rosegrant 2008 2000-2007 30%

Mitchell 2009 2002-2008 66%

Tangermann 2011 2006-2008 Between 10% and

30%

Brockmeler et al. 2013 2004-2020 Between 3.4% and

21.1%

Other studies do not consider as relevant the impact of biofuels on the prices
of raw agricultural materials (Baffes and Dennis 2013; Baffes and Haniotis
2010; Gilbert 2010). Still other studies emphasize the difficulty or impossibil-
ity of measuring this impact in isolation from other determinant factors of
agricultural and food-price crises (Tangermann 2011).
The literature also stresses the contribution of first-generation biofuel pro-
duction to food-price volatility. Responsibility is attributed to the constraints
of essential consumption; these constraints are introduced by energy policies
that ultimately make biofuel demand inelastic. It should be noted that food-
price volatility is more harmful to food security than are long­term growth
trends thereof; this is because many consumers – particularly the poorest ones
– have a low capacity to adapt to short­term market changes.
The contribution first-generation biofuel production to any intense (or not-
intense) increase in or volatility of international food prices is bound to have
a particularly adverse effect on those countries that are net importers of food.
As shown in Tab 3.5, almost all of these countries have developing economies.
58 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Tab 3.5 (Number of net importing and exporting countries of food products, by region
(2005–2009). Source: nd. data processing, Faostat.

Net food Net food % Net importers

importers exporters of total countries

East Asia and Pacific 14 6 70

South Asia 7 1 88

Latin America and 22 8 73

Caribbean

Europe and Central 13 7 65

Asia

Middle East and 12 0 100

North Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa 43 3 93

Brockmeler et al. 2013 2004-2020 Between 3.4%

and 21.1%

The adverse effects of food-price increases are thought to be more severe for the
54 countries classified by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as low-
income countries and which have a food deficit.3 It would be difficult for these
countries to increase domestic production and/or transfer higher food prices to
exportable products. Under such circumstances, they would likely see exacerbat-
ed their poverty levels and food insecurity. These considerations have motivated
a number of studies that evaluate the impact of biofuel policies on the prices of
agricultural commodities and food (HLPE 2013: 124–125). In the agricultural
sector, those policies that have secured the required bonds for first-generation
biofuel consumption have been strongly criticized (Oxfam 2012).
There is consensus in the literature that the net consumers of food will be
the ones to suffer from an increase in the prices of raw agricultural material.
On the other hand, those farmers who can produce an excess of such goods
(i.e. beyond their own food needs) will benefit by receiving a higher income.
The nature of the net impact will depend on several variables, the main ones
of which are the socioeconomic structure of the country, the type of feedstock
affected by the price increase, the volumes produced by individual farmers,

3. For a list of these countries, see http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/LIFDC/en/.

 III. Biofuels and Food Security | 59

and the ability of farmers to fetch higher prices. In developing countries, poor
farmers are not able to practice commercial agriculture or to produce an agri-
cultural surplus, and they frequently need to turn to the market to fulfil their
food needs. Therefore, they will not benefit from the positive effects of produc-
ing certain raw agricultural materials; however, they will need to pay higher
food prices (Wright 2011).
An additional element of risk is that biofuel prices are increasingly tied to
that fossil-fuel prices, on account of a correlation between the prices of agri-
cultural commodities and the price of oil. Recent studies have shown that, in
some cases, the increased demand for raw agricultural material for energy use
has almost produced an intervention system and a minimum price for agri-
cultural products. At the same time, since the cost of raw agricultural material
constitutes most of the cost of biofuel production, food and agricultural prod-
uct prices cannot exceed the price of energy, if biofuels are to remain competi-
tive in the energy market. The price of energy is, therefore, the maximum price
for agricultural commodities (FAO 2008; Schmidhuber 2006).

Resource competition

Increased production of first-generation biofuels may lead to competition for

production-factor access – particularly access to land, water, and labour.
The first concern regards the surface area needed to fulfil biomass produc-
tion for current and future energy use. Considerable attention has been paid to
this issue, as production should be compatible not only with global availabil-
ity, but also with the need to produce more food to meet projected increases
in demand (HLPE 2013). Some studies point out that land availability is such
that it will give rise to a competitive effect. Timilsina et al. (2012) and Nunez
et al. (2013) support this idea, asserting that increased biofuel production
in developing countries would have only marginal effects on land use. This
should hold true, even when taking into account indirect changes that relate
to deforestation and the destruction of pastures. In support of this thesis, it is
noted that biomass earmarked for energy use can be generated on land consid-
ered marginal. On this point, a strand of the literature points out that many
such lands take traditional land-use forms, such as grazing areas; other studies
highlight their importance in terms of biodiversity protection.
It should be noted that these studies were mostly developed at the global level
or with regards to specific geographical areas. For this reason, they cannot pro-
vide any conclusion about the actual scope of competition with respect to land,
which would closely correlate with local conditions. The results of studies carried
out at the local level suggest a much more complex situation. First, they point
out strong competition for land, induced by strong demand for agricultural
60 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

land to be allocated to biomass production; this phenomenon can be readily ob-

served in countries such as Benin, Ghana, and Burkina Faso (AUC­ECA­AFDB
Consortium 2011). In Indonesia, large palm oil plantations have been declared
alleged invasions of land, and associated with human rights violations (Aglionby
2008). A study by Cotula et al. (2008) highlights cases of land expropriation
from poor families in Tanzania and Mozambique; that study also identifies the
concentration of land in the hands of influential actors in Brazil, Indonesia, and
Papua New Guinea, and the coerced loss of land rights in Colombia. A further
example is the case of Senegal, where a national, government-launched program
for promoting biofuels has planned for the production of 1,000 ha of jatropha
in each of the 321 rural communities comprising the country, without taking
into account that such an area is not available in some of these communities.
Tensions with respect to land possession may arise, since this program requires
either the expropriation of land, or a change of use from food production to
biomass production (Diaz­Chavez et al. 2010).
Similar considerations have developed with regards to access to water. In
countries with water shortages, competition for that resource could be strong;
additionally, there could be negative effects on water availability for the gen-
eral population, and increasingly frequent droughts (Diaz­Chavez et al. 2010).
Competition for water and land has resulted in price increases for these re-
sources; these have naturally increased the cost of agricultural production, and
they will inevitably reflect in food prices. While an increase in land value is
advantageous to landlords, the poor population of many developing countries
will see no benefit from this increase. This lack of benefits derives from the
fact that, frequently, the land rights of poor people are not even formalized. A
second issue debated in the literature concerns the extents to which plans to
expand biofuel production have given rise to large-scale land acquisition, in
what is known as ‘land-grabbing’ (HLPE 2013). In 2008, a substantial body
of research emphasized the strong correlation between the two phenomena.
Subsequently, while emphasis on the issue has ameliorated, the fact remains
that numerous large-scale investments in biofuel production for energy use
have been made, and they affect very large areas (Fig 3.3).
In Mozambique, Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia, some communities have al-
ready lost their access to land as a result of land-grabbing for large-scale jat-
ropha production (Foe 2011; Makutsa 2010).
On this issue, some studies highlight the benefits that this new form of
foreign direct investment can provide to developing countries, in terms of
employment generation, income, and transfers of capital and technology. The
literature shows that poor farmers may be excluded from these benefits and
suffer consequent land expropriation, as resources become increasingly con-
centrated among a few large companies. Furthermore, when biomass produc-
tion is undertaken through the use of technology in order to save work, there
 III. Biofuels and Food Security | 61

will be an adverse effect on local-level income, and therefore on food access.

Those most affected are landless rural families who are net buyers of food and
energy (Faaij 2008).
A final issue considered in the literature concerns the impact that biomass
production for energy use will have on employment in rural areas, where
70  percent of the poor and undernourished population live. This is one of
the main objectives addressed by national government-launched programs in
many developing countries. The expectations attached to these programs are
optimistic. In Kenya, it has been estimated that the labour and investment ear-
marked for biofuel production was 100 times larger than that leveraged for oil
production. German et al. (2011) and Schut et al. (2011) each emphasize that
increased demand will mainly affect seasonal work, rather than provide ben-
efits that relate to increased full­time work demand; indeed, this situation was
found in Zambia and Mozambique. Additionally, benefits will more closely
relate to labour demand from the industrial sector, as is already happening in
Tanzania. The Zambia-based study by Haywood et al. (2008) showed that the
production of first-generation biofuels requires skilled labour, and this raises
the problem of unskilled-labour inclusion.

Achieving a food – energy balance

This analysis highlighted the need to understand the relationship between

food security and biofuel production in developing countries – particularly in
Africa, where the two issues are closely interrelated. If energy sources are not
available, food security will be unachievable. At the same time, the produc-
tion of first-generation biofuels can have negative effects that could further
jeopardize already-dramatic states of poverty and hunger (FAO 2014). For this
reason, it is crucial that there be coordination among agricultural, food, and
energy policies, to achieve food security among the almost 800 million people
who continue to suffer from hunger. There is some consensus within the litera-
ture with respect to some recommendations vis-à-vis agricultural production
for food and energy, land, income, and pricing. Regarding biofuel production,
it is recommended that the generation of bioenergy from waste or residue be
encouraged, and that research into second, third, and fourth-generation bio-
fuel production be encouraged. (Second-generation biofuels derive from ined-
ible residues drawn from agricultural food production, other nonfood crops,
and industrial waste, while third and fourth-generation biofuels exploit algae
and yeast).
62 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Fig 3.3 Surface area used to produce biomass for energy uses, derived through
land-grabbing. Source: nd. data processing, grain (www.grain.org).
 III. Biofuels and Food Security | 63

A second feasible area of development is in the development of co­products.

Subproducts derived from cereals and used to produce bioethanol and oil-
seed—and which are used to generate biodiesel—are rich in protein and can
be used as animal feed. In such cases, co­products could help reduce pressures
on agricultural land and on feed prices (Hamelinck 2013). Increased produc-
tivity in the agricultural sector is not only the centrepiece in addressing issues
of poverty and food insecurity, but also a prerequisite for the development of
the bioenergy sector (Ogonna et al. 2013). This brings to the fore improve-
ments to infrastructure, the strengthening of investments in research, and
enhancements to agricultural disclosure, the ability to attract capital, access
to markets, and the development of small-scale agriculture. With respect to
small-scale producers, it is recommended that inclusive business models be
embraced—models that favour their inclusion in the biofuel value chain, as
both producers and consumers, and their participation in any benefits that
derive from land-grabbing (FAO 2012).

Conclusion

It is believed that the acquisition of land for biomass production should follow
transparent procedures introduced by governments, in respect of the com-
munities that use them. The Committee on World Food Security (2014) sug-
gests the use of the FAO’s voluntary guidelines concerning responsible invest-
ment in agriculture. Efforts on the part of the international community will be
needed to promote responsible actions that integrate bioenergy into sustain-
able-development strategies, while concurrently fighting hunger and poverty
(Diouf 2008). Future research should evaluate the possibility of generating
spillover effects from bioenergy to food production.
As for prices, recommendations within the literature pertain to reducing
the effect of biofuels on food prices, and the containment of the effects of ris-
ing food prices on the poorest segments of the population. Several recent stud-
ies speak to subsidies, consumer objectives, and trade restrictions introduced
by virtue of the emergence of biofuels; these studies propose total or partial
dismantling of such mechanisms (Achterbosh et al. 2013). Local research re-
mains a priority, as well as the need to strengthen the capacity of developing
countries in assessing their need for biofuel development, as well as resulting
food-safety implications. In this regard, the FAO’s approach as documented in
Bioenergy and Food Security is the latest instrument proposed to support coun-
tries in the preparation and implementation of sustainable bioenergy policies
and strategies. The goal of this initiative is to encourage the development of a
sector that could contribute to food security and energy, in tandem with agri-
cultural and rural growth.
64 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

References
Aglionby J., 2008, Indonesia faces dispute over biofuels fields. Jakarta: Financial Times.
Achterbosh T., Meijerink G., Slingerland M., Smeets E., 2013, Combining bioenergy production
and food security. Utrecht: NL Agency, Ministry of Economic Affairs.
Auc-Eca-AfDB Consortium, 2011, Land Policy in Africa: West Africa Regional Assessment.
Ethiopia: Auc-Eca-AfDB Consortium.
Baffes J., Dennis A., 2013, Long-term drivers of food prices. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Baffes J., Haniotis T., 2010, Placing the 2006/07 Commodity Price Boom into Perspective. The
World Bank Development Prospects Group, Working Per 5371.
Banse M., van Meijl H., Tabeau A., Woltjer G., 2008, “Will EU biofuel policies affect global
agricultural markets?”. «European Review of Agricultural Economics», 35 (2): 117–141.
Blanco M., Burrell A., Gay H., Henseler M., Kavallari A., M’Barek R., Pérez I., Tonini A.,
2010, Impacts of the EUbiofuel target on agricultural markets and land use: a comparative
modelling assessment. Luxembourg: Jrc Reference Reports, Eur 24449, Publications Office
of the European Union.
Calderón C., Gauthier G., Jossart J.M., 2015, AEBIOM Statistical Report 2015 – European
Energy Outlook. Brussels: European Biomass Association (AEBIOM).
CEMA, AAEW, PAIF, 2012, Renewable Energy for Sustainable Development in Africa. Addis
Ababa: Executive Summaries of Background Papers.
Committee on World Food Security, 2014, Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture
and Food Systems, Cfs. Roma.
Cotula L., Dyer N., Vermeulen S., 2008, Fuelling exclusion? The biofuels boom and poor
people’s access to land. London and Rome: International Institute for Environment and
Development and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Diaz-Chavez R., Mutimba S., Watson H., Rodriguez-Sanchez S., Nguer M., 2010, Mapping
Food and Bioenergy in Africa. Ghana: A report prepared on behalf of Fara, Forum for
Agricultural Research in Africa.
Diop D., Blanco M., Flamini A., Schlaifer M., Kropiwnicka A.M., Markhof M.M., 2013,
Assessing the impact of biofuels production on developing countries from the point of view of
Policy Coherence for Development. European Commission.
Diouf J., 2008, La sicurezza alimentare in tempi di cambiamento climatico e produzione
Bioenergetica. Energia, Ambiente e Innovazione.
Fao, 2008, The state of food and agriculture. Roma.
– 2010, Bioenergy and Food Security. Roma: The Befs Analytical Framework.
– 2012, Trends and impacts of foreign investment in developing country agriculture Evidence from
case studies: Roma.
– 2014, Energy, Fao and the post-2015 development agenda issue papers.
Faaij A., 2008, Bioenergy and global food security. Utrecht: Berlin.
FoE, 2011, Jatropha: money doesn’t grow on trees ten reasons why jatropha is neither a profitable
nor sustainable investment. London: Friends of the Earth.
German L., Schoneveld G.C., Gumbo D., 2011, “The local social and environmental impacts
of smallholder-based biofuel investments in Zambia”. «Ecology and Society», 16 (4): 12
Gilbert C.L. 2010, “How to Understand High Food Prices”. «Journal of Agricultural
Economics», 61 (2): 398-425.
Godfray H., Chares H., Beddington R., Crute I.R., Haddad L., Lawrence D., Muir J.F., Pretty
J.N., Robinson S., Thomas S.M., Toulmin C., 2010, “Food Security: The Challenge of
Feeding 9 Billion People”. «Science», 327: 812-818.
 III. Biofuels and Food Security | 65

Hamelinck C., 2013, Biofuels and food security. Risks and opportunities. Utrecht: Ecofys.
Haywood L., von Maltitz G., 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, Pretoria: Csir Oxfam
draft report for comment. Natural Resources and the Environment.
Hlpe, 2013, Biofuel and food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security
and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Cfs, Rome.
Makutsa P., 2010, Land grab in Kenya: Implications for smallholder farmers. Nairobi: Eastern
Africa Farmers Federation.
Mendes Souza G., Victoria R.L., Joly C.A., Verdade L.C., 2015, Bioenergy and
Sustainability:Bridging the Gaps, Paris: Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment
(SCOPE).
Mitchell D., 2008, A note on rising food prices, Policy Research Working Paper 4682. Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank.
Nunez H.M., Onal H., Khanna M., 2013, “Land use and economic effects of alternative
Biofuel Policies in Brazil and the United States”. «Agricultural Economics», 44: 487-499.
Oecd, 2008, Economic Assessment of biofuel support policies.
Oxfam, 2012, The hunger grains: the fight is on. Time to scrap EU biofuel mandates.
Ogbonna J.C., Nomura N., Aoyagi H., 2013, “Bioenergy production and food security in
Africa”. «African Journal of Biotechnology», 12 (52): 7147-7157.
Rosegrant M.W., 2008, Biofuel and Grain Prices: Impacts and Policy Responses. Testimony for
the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Schut M., van Paassen A., Leeuwis C., Bos S., 2011, “Space for innovation for sustainable
community-based biofuel production and use: lessons learned for policy from Nhambita
community. Mozambique”. «Energy Policy», 39 (9): 5116–5128.
Sassi M., 2010, “Politiche di sicurezza alimentare”, in Sodano V., Sassi M., Marchini A.,
Economia agroalimentare: mercati e politiche. Milano: McGraw-Hill.
-, 2012, “Short-term determinants of malnutrition among children in Malawi”.  «Food
Security», 4 (4): 593-606.
Schmidhuber J., 2006, Impact of an increased biomass use on agricultural markets, prices and food
security: A longer-term perspective.
Taheripour F., Hertel T., Tyner W.E., Beckmann J., Birur D.K., 2010, “Biofuels and thir by-
Products: Global economic and environmental implications”. «Biomass and Bioenergy»,
34: 278-289.
Tangermann S., 2011, Policy Solutions to Agricultural Market Volatility: A synthesis. Icts
Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development, Issue Paper, 33, June.
Timilsina G.R., Beghin J.C., Van Der Mensbrugghe D., Mevel S., 2012, “The impact of bio-
fuels targets on land-use change and food supply: A global Cge assessment”. «Agricultural
Economics», 43: 315-332.
World Food Summit, 1996, Rome Declaration on World Food Security, Rome: Fao.
Wright B., 2011, “Addressing the Biofuels problem: food security options for agricultural feed-
stocks”, in Prakash A. (ed.), Safeguarding food security in a volatile global market. Rome: Fao.
 Part 2
Bioenergies in Ethiopia, Kenya and
Tanzania
Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector:
Evidence from the Literature and a
Preliminary Survey in Ethiopia
Aregawi Gebreeyesus Gebremichael, Gebremeskel Berhane Tesfay, Haileleoul
Sahle, Masresha Eskeziaw, Daria Zizzola, Matteo Vittuari, Marco Setti

Abstract

Limitations on energy access and use are the main constraints on the sustaina-
ble progress of low-income communities and individuals’ welfare. The major
causes of the gap between the supply and demand of energy and their conse-
quences will likely worsen. In light of these problems, this study focuses on
the bioenergy sector in Ethiopia and on the role that innovation can play in
moving toward a modern energy supply and improved energy access. Based
on a review of the literature, a survey of 93 local stakeholders was conducted,
and data were collected through individual interviews using a structured que-
stionnaire and focus groups. The high complexity of the bioenergy–innovation
nexus and the results of this study highlight the need for closer integration of
technological and organizational innovation.

Keywords: Innovation, Biomass, Bioenergy, Energy supply chain, Ethiopia

Introduction

Economic growth is often undermined by increasing inequalities and growing

gaps between individuals and among communities’ quality of life. Although
energy itself is not included among the basic human needs, it represents a cru-
cial driver especially in developing countries often affected by energy poverty
(Bradbrook et al. 2006).
As suggested by several factors the different phases of economic growth
often amplify disparities in energy access and use. An increase in the aver-
age standard of living together with rapid population growth, as in the Sub-
Saharan countries, fosters an increased demand for energy services and re-
sources (Cushion et al. 2009). In general, this demand for increased energy
access involves both urban and rural areas and is motivated by both produc-
70 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

tive requirements (e.g., in the agricultural, industrial, and service sectors) and
non-productive needs (e.g., household and communities activities, and public
services). Nevertheless, according to the authors, growth in per capita income
might not be sufficient to enable households to switch from using biomass to
using modern energy grids.
Moreover, while the demand for energy access is growing, the supply of
energy is severely inadequate, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.
When the analysis is limited to the endowment of bioenergy sources,1 it
can be observed that low-income countries, and particularly those of Sub-
Saharan Africa, are rich in biomass (despite the increasing fuelwood scarcity,
biomass often represents the largest and most widespread energy source in
these regions)2 and have a large renewable energy potential (UNECA 2011).
Despite these resources, the bioenergy supply remains poor.
Limited investments in energy infrastructures (e.g., plants and grids) and
services (e.g., maintenance and information), low availability and diffusion of
modern bioenergy technologies, and meager research for coordinated solu-
tions strongly restrict energy access and lead to an unequal distribution of
energy among rural, peri-urban, and urban zones. The energy divide becomes,
in turn, an additional cause of the increasing disparities. Because of unavail-
ability, the increasing energy needs are satisfied by directly collecting available
biomass and using it in uncontrolled, intensive, and dangerous ways.
The above-mentioned activities, conducted mainly in remote and marginal
areas, place a heavy burden on women and girls, and tend to be rooted in so-
cio-cultural practices. They cause a progressive overuse and misuse of biomass,
environmental depletion, and propagation of inefficient and unhealthy energy
generation systems in households and firms.
Furthermore, differences emerge among households, organizations, and ar-
eas in terms of the availability of bioenergy sources and access thereto, which
affect socio-economic conditions. Disparities among individuals’ quality of
life and opportunities are exacerbated, and the sustainability of the develop-
ment processes is weakened (Bradbrook et al. 2006). This self-feeding, regres-
sive cycle can be addressed by enhancing the entire energy value chain and,
in particular, the supply of bioenergy services and resources; only a reliable
system for making bioenergy affordable and broadly available can ensure wide-
spread benefits with enduring growth.

1. Bioenergy is the solid, liquid, or gaseous energy derived by biomass: solid biomass (agricultural and
livestock residues, fuelwood, charcoal, wastes), biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel), and biogas.
2. A critical controversy highlights that bioenergy can be generated from scarce resources: not only the
production of biomass through energy crops can subtract inputs (e.g. land, water) to food production
activities and reduce the food security (fuel-food trade-off: Heltberg et al. 2000), but also the use of
biomass can find alternative destinations, from the environmental endowment—such as forest safe-
guard—to the allocation of residues to maintain the land agricultural productivity.
 IV. Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector | 71

With special reference to the peri-urban, rural, and remote areas, the en-
visioned action would include investments in the research and development
of mini – and off-grid solutions, sustainable practices, and end-use devices
(e.g., improved cookstoves, biogas systems, effective operating chimneys, and
decentralized and community-based plants), and the diffusion of services (e.g.
assistance and information) and cleaner processed biomass (e.g. pellets, bri-
quettes, and biogas).
Accordingly, innovation emerges as the pivotal issue that is capable of tran-
sitioning low-income regions, communities, and households from traditional
energy generation to access to modern energy (Kilkiş Ş. 2016; Swilling M.
2016; Tigabu A.D. et al. 2015).
In addition to the projected trends in bioenergy demand, empirical analysis
confirms that there are several factors that can affect the adoption of bioenergy
innovation, not limited to its cost-effectiveness ratio (Jaffe and Stavins 1995).
Based on this background, this study provides a (not exhaustive) literature
review regarding bioenergy innovation in low-income countries (2) with a focus
on Ethiopia (3.1), and, through a survey of 93 Ethiopian stakeholders (3.2),
contributes to a better understanding of the main obstacles and determinants
influencing the introduction and diffusion of innovation in this sector (4).

Bioenergy innovation in low-income communities

In low-income countries, agriculture remains the mainstay of household live-

lihoods, and it is usually characterized by mixed crop-livestock systems with
limited available resources. Regarding bioenergy innovation in these primary
sectors, the results of many empirical analyses demonstrate that there is a huge
heterogeneity in the technical and economic performance of alternative bio-
mass uses (this renewable source covers more than 90% of the primary energy
in low-income countries, according to FAO 2014) and potential (Drabik et
al. 2016), in the adoption of new organizational and technological solutions
to provide and gain access to bioenergy, and in the competitive dynamics be-
tween food security and bioenergy generation.
In this regard, an empirical work focused on biomass utilization in
Zimbabwe analyses the economic profitability of crop residues used for soil
amendment or livestock feeding (Homann-KeeTui et al. 2014). The study ex-
plores different biomass production options to demonstrate that crop rotation
(e.g., maize–mucuna) can reduce the trade-offs between two alternative uses.
The conclusions suggest that all of the considered biomass allocation scenarios
for primary production purposes fail to raise people out of poverty, while call-
ing for further research.
The case of the introduction of a biogas system in a local community in
72 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Tibet is examined by Feng et al. (2009). The authors focus on the productive
use of bioenergy by rural households in an ecologically fragile area. The au-
thors investigate how the comprehensive exploitation of bioenergy integrated
with residential biogas digesters, vegetable greenhouses, and livestock sheds
enable the iterative recycling of biomass. Consequently, they demonstrate that
advanced biogas systems favor the replacement of firewood, agricultural resi-
dues, and cattle dung with significant economic, environmental, and social
benefits. These findings confirm that the amount of saved cattle dung could
be used to cultivate land, maintaining the balance of soil nutrient elements,
and thereby enhancing productivity. Together with the conflict between food
security and biogas generation, the crucial issue here is the labor opportunity
cost for a woman, which directly correlates to a wide range of implications
for her welfare, and to a household’s human capital development. The results
demonstrate that the adoption of biogas-centered solutions can reduce labor
opportunity cost when compared to the use of traditional bioenergy sources.
Research conducted by Kabir et al. (2013) identifies socio-economic factors
as the main drivers of biogas technology adoption in rural areas of Bangladesh.
According to this work, educational status, income level, the number of bred
cattle, and gender covariates play a significant role in undertaking a biogas plant
installation. Household behavior towards biogas deployment is influenced by
the possibility of gaining environmental, economic, social, and technological
benefits. In this light, awareness achieved through print and electronic media
and communications about biogas represents another determining factor.
In addition to identifying factors that drive the adoption of bioenergy so-
lutions in different countries, these empirical studies characterize the debate
on this topic as mainly focused on the competition for resources, related ef-
ficiency problems, and more effective measures to be proposed. Nevertheless,
it is often stressed that academia should reach a consensus on recommended
solutions that are validated in the field, to avoid the risk of creating food inse-
curity at the household level, which would lead to negative effects.
A study conducted by Edwards and Langpap (2005) sheds light on the
influence that start-up costs and credit access have on the decision to switch
from firewood to gas fuel consumption in Guatemala. Since firewood remains
a key source of energy for households in low-income countries and contributes
to forest degradation and deforestation that lead households to live in poverty,
the crucial question is that individuals cannot afford the startup costs needed
to switch to alternative energy sources. Accordingly, the adoption of different,
safer fuels by households may be resisted due to high start-up costs and credit
restriction or unavailability in the study area. Results confirm that individu-
als who have access to credit are more willing to purchase modern gas stoves,
but that the effects are small; subsidizing gas stoves would be a more prom-
ising policy for reducing firewood consumption. According to the authors,
 IV. Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector | 73

this implies that decreasing a household’s financial liquidity constraints affects

biomass use and reduces environmental degradation.
Similar dynamics are observed in Malawi, where Openshaw (2010) exam-
ines household energy supply and demand with an emphasis on the biomass
supply chain. The resulting findings show that biomass is the principal traded
energy source in the study area, accounting for 89 percent of the demand.
In particular, the market value of traded wood fuel is about 3.5 percent of
the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). This evidence supports the reli-
ance of many poor households in low-income countries on the biomass supply
chain, and implies that, when carefully supervised, bioenergy can represent a
feasible opportunity for employment and poverty alleviation.
Similarly, Terrapon-Pfaff et al. (2014) analyze the results achieved by 23
small-scale and community-based renewable energy projects in rural areas of
18 low-income countries. The study explores factors that influence the adop-
tion of innovation by measuring and comparing their impact on the living
conditions of the local community and their ex-post sustainability against the
United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The research cor-
roborates the fact that technological solution reliability is a necessary but not a
sufficient condition for the success of such action. A sense of ownership, users’
satisfaction, motivation and involvement, availability of adequate knowledge
and skills, network connections, and feasible financial schemes are essential
determinants for a concrete and durable initiative.
Research by Barry et al. (2011) regarding renewable energy technology in
eight case studies, in Rwanda, Tanzania, and Malawi, achieves analogous find-
ings. Elements that influence the sustainability of the adopted solutions are
identified (e.g. the ease of maintenance and support over the technology life
cycle, the transfer of knowledge and skills, adoption by the community, finan-
cial capacity, and business management).
To summarize, two main elements emerge from the surveyed literature:
first, the complexity of the relationship between bioenergy issues and low-
income communities that involves economic, behavioral, technological, and
social features and, second, the synergy among technological, organizational,
and socio-economic innovations that sustainable development requires.

The bioenergy sector in Ethiopia

Current situation and specificities

According to the International Energy Agency, energy demand in sub-Saharan

Africa grew by about 45% in the last decade (from 2000 to 2012), both for
economic and demographic reasons (OECD/IEA 2014). Consistent with this
74 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

trend, Ethiopia (the second largest primary energy consumer in sub-Saharan

Africa,3 but with a relatively low demand per-capita) exhibits an increasing gap
between bioenergy demand and supply. While a growing share of Ethiopia’s
population gained access to electricity since 2000, the majority of Ethiopians
(70% in 2012, ibid.) still lack such access. Indeed, large differences exist be-
tween urban and rural modern energy consumption: about 90% of urban
households use electricity for lighting, while kerosene is the main energy
source used for this purpose in rural areas (Tucho et al. 2014).
Consistent with the practices of the majority of the sub-Saharan popula-
tion, due to reasons of habit and cost, 80% of Ethiopia’s urban households
and nearly all rural households (OECD / IEA 2014) rely on the consumption
of solid biomass for cooking, with inadequate stoves in deficiently ventilated
spaces. Specifically, it is estimated that more than half of the fuelwood de-
pleted in the country is used to cook injera 4 (Beyene et al. 2015).
Currently, the use of low-quality fuel and traditional cooking stoves is inef-
ficient and harmful in many regards, including the opportunity cost of labor,
misuse of scarce biomass that causes deforestation, low energy conversion fac-
tor (about 90% of the energy is lost during cooking, Tucho et al. 2014), and
in-house pollution and its sanitary consequences.
Conversely, switching from conventional to modern (i.e. clean, safe, and
efficient) stoves is one of the major innovations expected to improve health
conditions and social welfare for 2.7 billion people worldwide (Takama et
al. 2012). In the context of the Ethiopian situation, the authors analyze the
theoretical and empirical dimensions of households’ decision-making regard-
ing cook stove choice. According to the study, price, usage cost, and product
(stove) specifics are the main factors affecting stove and fuel innovation, al-
though price and usage cost do not affect the choice for high wealth respond-
ents. These findings imply that consumers are willing to pay for higher quality
fuel and modern cooking stoves in place of traditional ones, and that this
preference tends to rise with increasing wealth.
The pivotal role that household income and wealth (together with level of
education, availability of information on biomass fuel and stove prices, and acces-
sibility of alternative modern solutions) play in influencing the adoption of new
cooking technologies is corroborated by the results discussed by Beyene and Koch
(2013), Guta (2014) and, for urban households, by Gebreegziabher et al. (2011).
Consistent with the above studies and given the different local cooking
patterns in the country, the frequency with which households use modern
biomass cook stoves increases when these tools are distributed for free (but
weaker relationship or no relationship exists between use and monetary treat-

3. The Ethiopian consumption amounts to about 45 Mtoe in 2012 (Ibid.).

4. The Ethiopian staple bread.
 IV. Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector | 75

ment), and when community-level user networks are supported (Beyene et al.
2015a, 2015b).
According to Guta, when innovation consists of energy substitution with
modern fuels, the process of adoption is more difficult, not only because of
the diffusion and persistence in Ethiopian households of “multiple fuel use”
practices (so-called “fuel stacking,” Mekonnen and Köhlin 2008), but also be-
cause neither agricultural fuels nor kerosene appear to be fuelwood substitutes.
However, the prospect of fuel transition is still achievable, as a function of
living standards improvements, household access to electricity, and an increase
in (cleaner) biomass supply through afforestation (Guta; Gebreegziabher and
van Koote 2013). Accordingly, biogas is a potential economic alternative to
the major traditional energy sources (firewood and dung) in rural Ethiopia
(Gwavuya et al. 2012), due, in part, to advantages arising from the use of
slurry as a fertilizer.5 Public investments in biofuels might have beneficial spill-
over effects for smallholder agricultural productivity and household welfare
(Gebreegziabher et al. 2013).

Survey and focus groups

This study extends the above literature review on innovation in the bioenergy
sector in Ethiopia (3.1) through a field-based analysis conducted in 2014,
targeting 93 stakeholders and experts belonging to local private and public
organizations (Tab 4.1) of the Oromia and Tigray regions.

Tab 4.1 The sample of Ethiopian experts on bioenergy

Participants in the survey and in the focus groups N.

Experts in private organizations 19

Entrepreneurs (primary and secondary sectors) 18

Experts / Researchers of public organizations 35

Policymakers 10

Others 11

TOTAL 93

5. Studies focused on urban contexts (e.g. Addis Ababa, Jimma) show that biogas can be efficiently ge-
nerated by (mixed) municipal solid waste treatment (Getahun et al. 2014; Minale and Worku 2014).
76 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

These primary data were gathered via a self-administered survey questionnaire

and two focus groups held in Addis Ababa and Mekelle (Annex 1).The main
aim of the survey was to provide an overview of the current situation and of
the expected evolution of the Ethiopian bioenergy sector from the actors’ per-
spective. Emphasis was placed on the role that innovation, both in its techno-
logical and organizational dimensions, can play in the bioenergy supply chain
(e.g., development of new solutions to improve the biomass processing and
use, production of modern bioenergy services, and so forth).
In particular, the core of the questionnaire was structured in three main
sections:
• obstacles to the adoption of innovation,
• drivers that lead to the introduction of innovation, and
• diffusion of innovation in the Ethiopian bioenergy sector.
The issues proposed in each section were measured with a Likert scale based
on values ranging from 1 to 9 in ascending order (from not important to ex-
tremely important).

First results

Respondent experts show, in general, a strong interest in the strategic function

that innovation could perform in enhancing the efficiency of bioenergy end-
use sectors (residential, production, transport, and services) in Ethiopia. When
asked to indicate the level of importance that different types of innovation (i.e.
organizational or technological) can reach, they often assign high average val-
ues. Nevertheless, some differences emerge among interviewees. Private actors
(experts and entrepreneurs belonging to businesses and associations) express a
higher degree of awareness of innovation when compared to the appraisal of
public bodies’ representatives (Tab 4.2). Organizational and process techno-
logical innovations are the higher scored solutions.
Regarding obstacles that can limit adoption of innovation in the bioen-
ergy sector (Tables 4.2– 4.5), stakeholders’ evaluations identify, again with
differences between private and public respondents, the existing gap between
research activities and the needs of enterprises, as well as the lack of informa-
tion regarding new technological solutions, as the major current constraints.
Significant barriers to the introduction of innovation are perceived to in-
clude inadequate knowledge of expected social and environmental benefits,
and financial and organizational burdens (e.g. high risk due to technological
uncertainty, difficulties in obtaining private or public funding, and selection
and identification of qualified staff in the local area).
 IV. Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector | 77

Tab 4.2 Level of interest toward types of innovation for the bioenergy domain in Ethiopia
(averages).

Radical biomass or bioenergy

Radical biomass or bioenergy

Incremental biomass or bioe-

Incremental biomass or bioe-

Organizational innovation

nergy product innovation

nergy process innovation

product innovation

process innovation

Total
Private
8.79 7.68 7.39 8.58 7.63 8.01
experts

Entrepreneurs 7.94 7.18 6.72 8.24 7.00 7.42

Public experts 7.54 7.15 6.96 7.04 6.93 7.12

Policy makers 7.00 7.11 6.89 7.63 6.89 7.10

Total 7.86 7.27 6.93 7.74 7.05

Finally, the lack of technical assistance and difficulties in establishing technical

and financial partnerships are identified as additional obstacles. Conversely,
possible competition between bioenergy and food production activities in the
use of limited resources (e.g. land and water) does not appear in the survey to
be an element that can restrict, even from an ethical perspective, the deploy-
ment of innovation.
78 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Tab 4.3.1 Major obstacles to the introduction of bioenergy innovation (averages).

Resources avai-

Ethical reasons

Potential com-
in identifying
qualified staff

petition with

benefit ratio
Difficulties

food crops

High cost-
lability

Total
Private experts 1.69 1.38 8.81 7.88 7.44 5.44

Entrepreneurs 2.00 1.67 6.86 6.43 6.86 4.76

Public experts 4.50 2.00 5.97 5.66 5.20 4.67

Policy makers 3.08 1.25 7.75 5.80 6.08 4.79

Total 3.37 1.47 7.05 6.27 6.12

Tab 4.3.2 Major obstacles to the introduction of bioenergy innovation (averages).

private financial support
Difficulties in obtaining

Difficulties in obtaining
public financial support
High perceived risk due

High perceived risk due

to financial conditions

to market variability
due to technological
High perceived risk

availability

Total

Private experts 6.50 8.94 6.56 7.06 8.73 7.56

Entrepreneurs 6.29 6.29 5.57 6.71 8.00 6.57

Public experts 5.76 5.75 4.78 6.63 5.97 5.78

Policy makers 6.42 7.83 6.33 7.58 7.55 7.14

Total 6.10 7.04 5.51 7.03 7.09

 IV. Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector | 79

Tab 4.3.3 Major obstacles to the introduction of bioenergy innovation (averages).

nizing the production

Difficulties in reorga-

Lack of technological

Lack of knowledge of

of public benefits for

environmental bene-

Lack of knowledge
High fiscal burden

fits for your area

(heavy taxation)

information
process

society

Total
Private experts 5.75 5.44 8.50 8.69 8.81 7.44

Entrepreneurs 6.00 6.14 7.86 8.29 8.00 7.26

Public experts 4.62 5.86 6.89 6.58 6.32 6.05

Policy makers 5.00 5.25 7.92 7.67 6.75 6.52

Total 5.10 5.75 7.63 7.32 7.09

Tab 4.4 Major obstacles to the introduction of bioenergy innovation (averages).

Research activities not

financial partnerships
Lack of linkages with

addressing the needs

loping technical and

Difficulties in deve-
Market difficulties

of the enterprises
Lack of technical

research centers
assistance

Total

Private experts 7.13 4.31 7.38 9.00 4.44 6.45

Entrepreneurs 6.43 5.86 6.57 8.00 6.43 6.66

Public experts 6.89 6.46 6.92 7.05 7.00 6.87

Policy makers 6.33 4.92 7.00 8.17 6.75 6.63

Total 6.97 5.79 7.11 7.69 6.42

80 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

On the other hand, the results of the survey reveal that the main factor in favor
of the introduction of bioenergy innovation is an increase in energy demand
in the local market.
Respondents identify further drivers that stimulate the adoption of new
bioenergy-based solutions in social and environmental benefits that can be de-
rived from improved use of renewable energy sources (e.g. reduction of GHG
emissions, improvement of the local environment and the community quality
of life, and CSR issues). In this regard, collaborations with customers are more
significant than relationships with other stakeholders (e.g. services suppliers,
other enterprises, research centers, and institutions). Economic conditions and
financial supports are identified as additional elements that boost the intro-
duction of bioenergy innovation.

Tab 4.4.1 Major factors that favor the introduction of bioenergy innovation (averages).
Investments / finan-

Contribution to the
the quality of life of

environmental qua-
Research and deve-

lity of your region

your community
Contribution to
Growing energy

cial support

lopment
needs

Total
Private experts 9,00 7.31 4.67 7.69 8.38 7.41

Entrepreneurs 8.43 7.14 5.29 7.29 7.71 7.17

Public experts 8.16 6.66 7.03 7.62 7.81 7.46

Policy makers 8.08 6.00 5.42 6.67 6.92 6.62

Total 8.42 6.90 6.32 7.60 7.74

The results also show that the main factors that trigger the diffusion of innova-
tion in the bioenergy sector are the expected growth of energy requirements
and the environmental advantages derived from innovation. In the opinion of
the respondents, managerial issues, such as organizational strategies and the
entrepreneurs’ propensity to change, appear to have a significant influence in
favor of the propagation of new bioenergy solutions.
 IV. Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector | 81

Tab 4.4.2 Major factors that favor the introduction of bioenergy innovation (averages).

Reduction of greenhou-

Obtaining public gra-

Collaboration with

Collaboration with

Collaboration with
technical assistants

other enterprises
se gas emissions

customers
titude

Total
Private Experts 8.88 7.06 5.63 9.00 6.53 7.42

Entrepreneurs 8.00 6.57 6.71 7.57 6.86 7.14

Public Experts 7.61 5.95 6.62 7.24 6.76 6.84

Policy makers 7.58 6.00 5.75 6.83 5.75 6.38

Total 8.02 6.29 6.36 7.61 6.66

Tab 4.4.3 Major factors that favor the introduction of bioenergy innovation (averages).
(benefit for the entire
local research centers

foreign research cen-

Social responsibility
ters and universities

Expected economic
Collaboration with

Collaboration with

Collaboration with
and universities
institutions

society)
returns

Total

Private experts 6.13 6.50 7.44 6.56 8.75 7.08

Entrepreneurs 6.71 6.00 6.71 6.57 8.29 6.86

Public experts 7.13 7.26 6.68 7.50 7.11 7.14

Policy makers 5.75 5.75 5.67 5.75 7.25 6.03

Total 6.79 6.87 6.87 7.02 7.75

82 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Tab 4.5.1 Major factors that favor the diffusion of bioenergy innovation (averages).

environmental quality of
Human resources (skills)
Behavior of entrepre-
neurs (availability to
Expected increase in

Contribution to the

Contribution to the
quality of life of the
change; imitation)

local communities
energy demand

the region

Total
Private experts 8.63 8.50 7.38 7.88 8.25 8.13

Entrepreneurs 7.71 7.14 7.00 7.71 7.43 7.40

Public experts 7.92 6.92 7.38 7.45 7.72 7.48

Policy makers 7.75 7.17 6.42 7.17 6.92 7.08

Total 8.14 7.44 7.26 7.62 7.79

Tab 4.5.2 Major factors that favor the diffusion of bioenergy innovation (averages).
Organizational
greenhouse gas

Obtaining pu-

Social respon-
blic gratitude

Research and
Reduction of

development
emissions

strategy
sibility

Total

Private experts 7.98 6.27 7.39 7.50 7.04 7.97

Entrepreneurs 8.43 7.14 8.14 6.71 6.43 7.37

Public experts 7.39 6.08 6.58 7.40 7.28 6.95

Policy makers 7.50 5.67 6.67 6.67 5.67 6.43

Total 8.14 7.44 7.26 7.62 7.79

 IV. Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector | 83

Tab 4.5.3 Major factors that favor the diffusion of bioenergy innovation (averages).

partnerships (with

partnerships (with

Credit availability
Social capital and

Social capital and

foreign partners)

Private business
Policy measures
local partners)

investments
Public in-
vestments
Private experts 6.81 7.75 6.13 6.19 5.44 7.88

Entrepreneurs 6.71 6.43 5.86 6.29 5.86 7.43

Public experts 6.46 6.34 6.71 6.71 6.22 6.25

Policy makers 5.92 6.33 6.42 5.58 5.00 6.08

Total 6.67 6.89 6.58 6.59 6.06 6.93

Conclusions

Bioenergy innovation is recognized, both in the surveyed literature and by the

experts surveyed (especially the entrepreneurs and private professionals), as a
key tool to increase local per-capita access to renewable energy sources and
reduce the gap between energy demand and supply.
In this respect, modernization of the bioenergy value chain can play a cru-
cial role in enhancing the sustainability of the country’s development pro-
cess regarding poverty reduction, gender equality, healthcare, natural resource
safeguards, and, according to some authors and the large majority of experts
consulted, food security.
Because of the peculiarities of the Ethiopian bioenergy sector and consump-
tion patterns (noted above in “Current situation and specificities”), research
activity regarding innovation tends to focus on (rural) households’ choices;
new solutions for a more efficient bioenergy supply and use are analyzed and
advocated as ways to ensure a larger provision of high-quality biomass and a
widespread diffusion of adequate and affordable cooking stoves.
There is, however, an overwhelming need for a closer connection between
research regarding bioenergy and operators and consumer requirements, and
for the availability of accurate information regarding technological innova-
tions. Specifically, scientists should extend their investigations from residential
end-user behavior and decision-making to the bioenergy system as a whole
84 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

(with particular focus on productive uses of energy and related sectors, includ-
ing agriculture, industry, services, and transport), supply-side limitations to be
overcome, and larger scale (meso-) use levels (e.g. communities and networks).
The high complexity of the bioenergy and innovation nexus (as observed in
low-income countries) suggests interdisciplinary research approaches to deal
with the multiple subjects (social, behavioral, economic, and technological)
that are related to the bioenergy domain, and to account for local differences
that characterize the country (e.g. biomass endowments, cooking habits, and
so forth).
As noted by several authors, organizational innovation appears to be a stra-
tegic condition necessary to ensure the deployment and propagation of new
technological solutions, increase the efficiency of the bioenergy supply chain,
and support diffused energy access. The interviewed experts identify this or-
ganizational issue with elements such as the recalled interaction between re-
search and operational worlds, introduction of shared innovations at the com-
munity level, necessity of technical assistance, involvement of qualified staff,
and establishment of technological and financial partnerships.
Finally, public policy measures are required to support relationships among
operators in the bioenergy chain and with institutional bodies, to establish
user networks especially in remote areas of the country; to create the opera-
tional, economic, and financial conditions that allow actors to build strate-
gies and plan their activities; and to stimulate synergies among organizational,
technological, and socio-economic innovations.

References
Barry M.L., Steyn H., Brent A., 2011, “Selection of renewable energy technologies for Africa:
Eight case studies in Rwanda, Tanzania and Malawi”. «Renewable Energy», 36: 2845-
2852. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.04.016
Beyene A.D., Bluffstone R., Dissanayake S., Gebreegziabher Z., Martinsson P., Mekonnen
A., Toman M., 2015, Do Improved Biomass Cookstoves Reduce Fuelwood Consumption and
Carbon Emissions?. World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 7324. Available at: http://
econ.worldbank.org
– 2015, Can Improved Biomass Cookstoves Contribute to REDD+ in Low-Income Countries?.
World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 7394.
Available at: http://econ.worldbank.org
Beyene A.D., Koch S.F., 2013, “Clean fuel-saving technology adoption in urban Ethiopia”.
«Energy Economics», 36: 605–613.
Available at: http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/31724?show=full
Bradbrook A. J., Gardam J. G., 2006, “Placing Access to Energy Services within a Human
Rights Framework”. «Human Rights Quarterly», 28 (2): 389-415.
Available at: http://muse.jhu.edu/article/196895
Cushion E., Whiteman A., Dieterle G., 2009, Bio-energy Development: Issues and Impacts for
Poverty and natural Resources Management. The World Bank.
 IV. Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector | 85

Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Bioenergy.pdf

Drabik D., de Gorter H., Timilsina G.R., 2016, “Producing biodiesel from soybeans in
Zambia: An economic analysis”. «Food Policy», 59: 103–109.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.01.001
Edwards J.H.Y., Langpap C., 2005, “Start up Costs and the Decision to Switch from Firewood
to Gas Fuel”. «Land Economics», 81 (4): 570–586.
Available at: http://le.uwpress.org/content/81/4/570.short
FAO, 2014, Evidence-based Assessment of the Sustainability and Replicability of the Integrated
Food – Energy System. Environment and Natural Resources Management Working Paper
57, Rome.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3669e/i3669e.pdf
Feng T., Cheng S., Min Q., Li W., 2009, “Productive use of bioenergy for rural household in
ecological fragile area, Panam County, Tibet in China: The case of the residential biogas
model”. «Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews», 13: 2070–2078.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.02.001
Gebreegziabher Z., Mekonnen A., Kassie M., Köhlin G., “Urban energy transition and technol-
ogy adoption: The case of Tigrai, northern Ethiopia”. «Energy Economics», 34: 410–418.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.07.017
Gebreegziabher Z., Mekonnen A., Ferede T., Guta F., Levin J., Köhlin G., Alemu T., Bohlin
L., 2013, The Distributive Effect and Food Security Implications of Biofuels Investment in
Ethiopia: ACGE Analysis. Environment for Development Discussion Paper Series, 13–02.
Available at: http://www.efdinitiative.org/sites/default/files/efd-dp-13-02-1_0.pdf
Gebreegziabher Z., van Koote G.C., 2013, “Does community and household tree plant-
ing imply increased use of wood for fuel? Evidence from Ethiopia”. «Forest Policy and
Economics», 34: 30–40. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.03.003
Getahun T., Gebrehiwot M., Ambelu A., Van Gerven T., Van der Bruggen B., 2014, “The poten-
tial of biogas production from municipal solid waste in a tropical climate”. «Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment», 186: 4637-4646.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.10007/s10661-014-3727-4.
Guta D.D., 2014, “Effect of fuelwood scarcity and socio-economic factors on household bio-
based energy use and energy substitution in rural Ethiopia”. «Energy Policy», 75: 217-227.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.09.017i
Gwavuya S.G., Abele S., Barfuss I., Zeller M., Muller J., 2012, “Household energy econom-
ics in rural Ethiopia: A cost-benefit analysis of biogas energy”. «Renewable Energy», 48:
202–209.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.04.042
Heltberg R., Arndt T.C., Sekhar N.U., 2000, “Fuelwood consumption and forest degradation:
a household model for domestic energy consumption in rural India”. «Land Economics»,
76 (2): 213–232. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3147225
Homann-KeeTui S., Valbuena D., Masikati P., Descheemaeker K., Nyamangara J., Claessens
L., Erenstein O., van Rooyen A., Nkoboni D., 2014, “Economic trade-offs of biomass use
in crop-livestock systems: Exploring more sustainable options in semi-arid Zimbabwe”.
«Agricultural Systems». Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.06.009.
Jaffe, A.B., Stavins R.N., 1995 “Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects
of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion”. «Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management», 29 (3): S43-S63.
Available at: http://live.belfercenter.org/files/Dynamic%20Incentives.Stavins.Jaffe.JEEM.pdf
86 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Kabir H., Yegbemey R.N., Bauer S., 2013, “Factors determinant of biogas adoption in
Bangladesh”. «Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews», 28: 881–889.
Available at: http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:rensus:v:28:y:2013:i:c:p:881-889.
Kilkiş, Ş., 2016, “Sustainability-oriented innovation system analyses of Brazil, Russia, India,
China, South Africa, Turkey and Singapore”. «Journal of Cleaner Production», 130:
235-247.
Available at: DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.138
Mekonnen A., Köhlin G., 2008, Biomass Fuel Consumption and Dung Use as Manure Evidence
from Rural Households in the Amhara Region of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Environment for
Development Discussion Paper Series, 08–17.
Available at: http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/EfD-DP-08-17.pdf.
Minale M., Worku T., 2014, “Anaerobic co-digestion of sanitary wastewater and kitchen solid
waste for biogas and fertilizer production under ambient temperature: waste generated from
condominium house”. «International Journal of Science and Technology», 11: 509-516.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.10007.s13762-013-0255-7.
OECD / IEA, 2014, International Energy Agency, Africa Energy Outlook, A Focus on Energy
Prospects in Sub-Saharan Africa. Paris: World Energy Outlook Special Report.
Available at: www.iea.org
Openshaw K., 2010, “Biomass energy: Employment generation and its contribution to pov-
erty alleviation”. «Biomass and Bio-energy», 34: 365–378.
Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09619534/34/3.
Takama T., Tsephel S., Johnson F.X., 2012, “Evaluating the relative strength of product-specific
factors in fuel switching and stove choice decisions in Ethiopia. A discrete choice model
of household preferences for clean cooking alternatives”. «Energy Economics», 34: 1763–
1773. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.07.001.
Terrapon-Pfaff J., Dienst C., König J., Ortiz W., 2014, “A cross-sectional review: Impacts and
sustainability of small-scale renewable energy projects in developing countries”. «Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews», 40: 1–10.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.161.
Tigabu, A.D., Berkhout, F., van Beukering, P., 2015, “Functional evolution and accumulation
of technological innovation systems: The case of renewable energy in East Africa”. «Science
and Public Policy», 42 (5): 614-631.
Available at: DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scu073
Tucho G.T., Weesie P.D.M., Nonhebel S., 2014, “Assessment of renewable energy resourc-
es potential for large scale and stand alone applications in Ethiopia”. «Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews», 40: 422–431.
Available at: doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.167.
Swilling M., (2016), “Africa’s game changers and the catalysts of social and system innovation”.
«Ecology and Society», 21 (1).
Available at: DOI: 10.5751/ES-08226-210137
UNECA (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa), 2011, Critical Issues in Bio-
energy for Africa: Exploring the Opportunities, Constraints and Trade-offs. Addis Ababa:
African Climate Policy Centre Working Paper 11.
Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10855/21171.
 IV. Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector | 87

Annex 1

Individual interviews on bioenergy innovation in Ethiopia via a structured

questionnaire: summary of variables and their definitions.

Tab 4.6 What are the major obstacles to the introduction of bioenergy innovation?

Variable Definition

Difficulties in Problems related to selection and/or identification

identifying qualified of qualified staffs in local markets to develop
staff products or assist in activities (to add value and/
or introduce ideas, processes, products, methods,
technological competence, and skills) in bioenergy

Potential competition Fear of failure to secure food if lands are used to

with food crops cultivate biomass (use of crops for either energy or
food)

High cost-benefit ratio Potential benefit that could be attained after

(low economic return) investing one’s money might not be as expected

High perceived risk Not confident enough with new or existing

due to technological technologies, in relation to the asserted synergy of
availability energy and agro-food

High perceived risk due Not confident with the consistency of existing
to market variability demand in local markets or fear of high
competition

Difficulties in obtaining Little or no (fear of ) financial assistance from the

private financial support private sector in sharing initial investment

Difficulties to obtain Little or no (fear of ) financial assistance from the

public financial support private sector in sharing initial investment

High fiscal burden Possibility of heavy taxation of profits (income tax)

(heavy taxation)
88 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Lack of information Lack of knowledge or information regarding

regarding innovative existing technologies and/or their potential to
solutions/technologies maintain or incrementally develop technology for
this sector

Lack of clear knowledge Lack of a clear image, idea, knowledge, or

of the driving information for sustainable environmental
environmental benefits development in your area, and its potential for
for your area public or personal advantage

Lack of clear knowledge Lack of information/knowledge regarding the

on the driving public community or society’s real-life problems and needs
benefits for your for sustainable development or maintaining or
community or for upgrading quality of life
society

Research and Little or no attention given by R&D office to

development activities address needs in this sector
not addressing the needs
of the enterprises
 IV. Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector | 89

Tab 4.7 What are the major factors that favor or can favor the introduction of bioenergy in-
novation?

Variable Definition

Growing energy needs Currently observed and increasing energy demand

in local market

Investments or financial Potential to obtain or gain financial support for

support investment in this sector

Research and The availability and potential R&D office or firms

development that can support this bioenergy sector

Contribution to the Individual or group interest or need to increase

quality of life or wellness the quality of life of the community
of your community

Contribution to the Individual or group interest or need to participate

environmental quality of in activities that could increase the environmental
your region quality of the region or the continent

Reduction of greenhouse Individual interest to act or participate in

gas emissions activities that could reduce CO2 and related
greenhouse emissions

Obtaining public or Need or interest in obtaining acknowledgment

social acknowledgement from the public or society by doing or
participating in activities that benefit society

Collaboration with Need for bilateral collaboration between actors,

providers and technical technology providers, and technical assistant
assistants firms, or actors asserting bio-energy innovation

Collaboration with Need for bilateral collaboration between

customers customers or users

Collaboration with other Need for bilateral collaboration between private

enterprises business firms for communal goals with fair
economic profits that might gained directly from
the user
90 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Collaboration with Need for bilateral collaboration between institutes

institutions like public organizations to strengthen and
facilitate to realize the need in a short period

Collaboration with local Need for bilateral collaboration between different

research centers and R&D centers with the higher education sector,
universities to share resources and foster problem-solving and
addressing of the need

Collaboration with Need for bilateral collaboration between local

foreign research centers and foreign R&D centers and universities for
and universities technology transfer and assistance in human and
material resources to effectively address the need

Expected economic Potential for high-profit return in the future

returns

Social responsibility Community and social responsibility sharing for

(benefit for the entire the benefit of local people and the earth
society)
 IV. Innovation in the Bioenergy Sector | 91

Tab 4.8 What are the main factors stimulating the diffusion of innovation in the bioenergy
field?

Variables Definition

Expected increase in energy Continual increase in energy demand

demand

Behavior of entrepreneurs Entrepreneurs’ attitudes or business strategies

(availability to change, regarding acting in a new market
willingness to change, and
imitation)

Human resources (skills) Availability of skilled labor in the bio-energy

sector

Contribution to the quality Use as a platform that supports a changing

of life or wellness of local quality of life for local communities
communities

Contribution to the Use as a platform or system that enforces

environmental quality of the and sustains the quality of the region’s
region environment

Reduction of greenhouse gas Use as a platform that is a means of reducing

emissions and/or balancing greenhouse gas emissions

Obtaining public or social Interest in obtaining or securing public or

acknowledgement social acknowledgment by some enterprise or
firms

Social responsibility (benefit Interest in asserting or satisfying social

for the entire society) responsibility by different organizations

Organizational strategy Availing oneself of clearly defined

(clearly defined vision or organizational strategies for the
strategy and established implementation of actions
norms for innovation
promotion)
92 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Research and development Availability of strong research and

development centers, which could be
sustainable in the long-term

Social capital and Availability of strong social capital among

partnerships (with local local partners as a good communication
partners) channel

Social capital and Availability of strong social capital with

partnerships (with foreign foreign institutions as a communication
partners) channel

Policy measures (subsidies, Establishing or strengthening policies to foster

fiscal deductions, and norms diffusion with various benefits, which can be
and regulations) easily articulated between educators and actors

Public investments Need to make public investments

(infrastructure investments) in infrastructure to strengthen the
communication channel

Private business investments Need to make private investments

in infrastructure to strengthen the
communication channel

Credit availability Need to use credit to subsidize initial

investments or to transfer assets to actors
The Economics of Biodiesel Production in
East Africa: The Case of Ethiopia
Zenebe Gebreegziabher,1 Alemu Mekonnen, Tadele Ferede, Gunnar Köhlin

Abstract

This paper analyzes the economics of biodiesel production in East Africa by

taking Ethiopia as a case in point. Specifically, the study analyzes the viability
of biodiesel from various feedstock in the context of East Africa, and suggests
an oil price threshold beyond which biodiesel may be economically viable for
Ethiopia through a case study using estimates based on field visits. We draw on
investment theory as our underlying conceptual framework and employ unit
cost analysis for our empirical analysis. Our findings reveal that the biodiesel
production in East Africa in general and Ethiopia in particular is not viable (at
least currently), and the viability and competitiveness of biodiesel production
will largely depend on the cost/price of feedstock. This suggests that the viable
alternatives of coproduction through value addition from byproduct seedcake
and intercropping options need to be considered to enhance the economic
viability of biodiesel production. Moreover, R&D (reaearch and development)
effort/knowledge support to the biofuel industry, including a search for better
adaptive/higher-yielding biofuels crops with quality oil-producing varieties, as
well as better regulatory framework and follow-up studies.

Keywords: biodiesel economics; viability; oil price threshold; East Africa

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this work pro-
vided by Sida through the Environment for Development (EfD) initiative,
Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg.

1. Corresponding Author.
94 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Introduction

An increasing number of developing countries have initiated biofuel produc-

tion to meet the demand of domestic and international markets. Some rea-
sons for engaging in biofuel production include diversifying energy sources,
alleviating dependence on imported fossil energy, and reducing greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions (OECD-FAO 2008; Elbehri et al. 2009). Increases in
fossil fuel prices create the potential for profitable biofuel industries in de-
veloping countries. This has been accompanied by the development of new
technologies for using biomass for biofuels (Slater 2007). Biofuels are said to
have a lower environmental footprint than fossil fuels because their use is ex-
pected to release fewer GHGs into the atmosphere, although that contention
is debatable. It is important to note that developing countries pursue different
feedstock-biofuel (bioenergy) pathways and that the net effect of biofuels on
the environment is heavily determined by the type of pathway used to produce
biodiesel (Mortimer et al. 2008; Zah et al. 2007).
Nevertheless, many uncertainties remain about the future of biofuels, in-
cluding the competition from unconventional fossil fuel alternatives and con-
cerns about environmental tradeoffs. Moreover, the volatility of world fuel pric-
es leads to variability in prices of both biodiesel and feedstocks. Uncertainties
in prices in turn influence viability of biodiesel investments. Therefore, the key
questions are as follows: Can biodiesel be profitably produced in East Africa?
What is the oil price threshold beyond which biodiesel production in East
Africa (be it for import substitution or export promotion) becomes viable and
profitable? Therefore, the main objective of this study is to investigate the eco-
nomics (viability) of biodiesel investment in the East African context, taking
Ethiopia as a case study. Specifically, this study attempts to
• analyze the viability of biodiesel production, and
• suggest an oil price threshold beyond which biodiesel production may be
profitable.
Our findings reveal that the biodiesel production in the East African con-
text in general and Ethiopia in particular is not viable (at least currently) and
the viability (and competitiveness) of biodiesel production in Ethiopia will
largely depend on cost/price of feedstock.
Although the bioethanol production started earlier (i.e., during the mid-
eighties), and a 10% alcohol–gasoline blends were being practiced, the bio-
diesel sector in Kenya is at initial stages. In June 2007, National Bio-diesel
Committee was formed by the Ministry of Energy (MoE) to address only bio-
diesels (Wachira 2007).
Ethiopia is one of the most suitable nations in Africa for tapping renew-
able energy sources because of its location. The country has also been look-
ing at enhancing its energy capacity, especially over the past two decades
 V. The Economics of Biodiesel Production in East Africa | 95

(Gebreegziabher and Mekonnen 2011). Ethiopia is a country with a total land

mass of 1.2 million km2 and is said to have an estimated potential area of
about 25 million hectares of land suitable for the production of biodiesel feed-
stock (Gebremeskel and Tesfaye 2008). The recently issued biofuel strategy by
the government to encourage domestic biofuel production with an objective
of reducing the dependence on high-cost fossil oil is also a manifestation of
this endeavor (MoME 2007). Accordingly, there are biofuel investment ac-
tivities in different regions of Ethiopia with a focus on biodiesel production.
That is, several local and international private and public biofuels companies
(developers) have registered in the country since 2006. For example, by 2010,
there were more than 82 registered biofuel investors, most of which were reg-
istered for the cultivation of energy crops for biodiesel production. Although
the recently launched Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) strategy by
Ethiopia envisages a 5% biodiesel blending in transport fuel by 2030 (FDRE
2011), the biodiesel blending in transport fuel has not yet started in Ethiopia.
Amidst low success during the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) I pe-
riod (i.e., 2010/11–2014/15), the Government of Ethiopia plans to revive the
biodiesel production (i.e. 450million liters a year) within the next five years
(during the GTP II period) and envisages to start a 5% biodiesel blend in
transport fuel (MoWI&E 2015).
However, the opportunities created and challenges posed by an increased
production of biofuels have been a subject of considerable policy debate
(Searchinger et al. 2008; Azar 2011), which is still ongoing. Although many
countries engage in biofuel production to diversify energy sources and reduce
GHG emissions and/or reduce dependency on imported fossil fuels, the prof-
itability of biofuel production has been less explored. Moreover, the volatility
of world fuel prices leads to variability in prices of both biofuel and feedstocks;
the uncertainties in prices in turn influence the viability of biofuel investments.
Therefore, it is natural to ask, “will it be economically feasible to produce bio-
diesel?” This study contributes to the very limited existing literature on the
viability of biodiesel production. Specifically, it broadens our understanding
of whether and how the biodiesel production can be economically viable and
internationally competitive by providing insights from a country-specific case
study. The results indicate an oil price threshold beyond which biofuels can be
profitable in this context.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we
review the related literature. Section 3 provides the conceptual framework of
the study. Section 4 presents the empirical approach, including data and study
considerations. Section 5 presents the results and discussion, while Section 6
concludes and draws implications for policy.
96 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Literature Review

Azam et al. (2005) assess the prospects and potential of fatty acid methyl esters
of some non-traditional seed oils for use as biodiesel in India. They conclude
that these selected plants have a great potential for biodiesel. Barnwal and
Sharma (2005) also assess the prospects of biodiesel production from vegeta-
ble oils in India. Their economic feasibility analysis shows that the biodiesel
obtained from non-edible oils is cheaper than that from edible oils. James and
Swinton (2009) find that the break-even biomass prices and yields provide
benchmarks for evaluating the profitability potential of converting current
cropland to bioenergy crops, especially when adapted to individual grower
conditions.
Quintero et al. (2012) analyze the social and techno-economic aspects of
biodiesel production in Peru. In their work, the costs of biodiesel production
from oil palm and jatropha were analyzed under different scenarios. The total
production costs for oil palm biodiesel production ranged between USD0.23
and USD0.31 per liter, while those for jatropha biodiesel were between
USD0.84 and USD0.87 per liter. These production costs are analyzed and
compared to biodiesel ex-factory prices and diesel fuel production cost factors.
Their results, under some conditions, suggest that involving smallholders in
the supply chain can be competitive with liquid biofuel production systems
that are purely large scale. Felix et al. (2010) identified the scenarios that best
match Tanzanian conditions: ethanol from sugar-cane juice with feedstock
supply from a combination of out-growers (small scale farmers) and com-
mercial estates, and biodiesel from jatropha with feedstock supplied by out-
growers. However, they also find that the production of biodiesel from palm
oil is not economically viable and places too much risk on oil palm use for
food, and hence is not recommended for Tanzania.
Janaun and Ellis (2010) highlight some of the perspectives for the biodiesel
as an alternative fuel, while they also discuss the benefits and limitations of
biodiesel. The benefits include the improvement of the conversion technology
to achieve a sustainable process at cheaper cost, environmentally benign and
cleaner emissions, diversification of products derived from glycerol, and policy
and government incentives. They also provide an overview of ways to make
the production process more economical by developing high conversion and
low cost catalysts from renewable sources, and utilizing waste oil as feedstock.
Moreover, they emphasize the need for public education and awareness of the
use and benefits of biodiesel, while promoting policies that will boost not only
the industry but also effective land management.
Rosa (2009) analyzes the dimension and profitability of the integrated bio-
diesel chain with different organizations as well as their effectiveness in differ-
ent industrial organizational contexts in the EU. She suggests that the optimal
 V. The Economics of Biodiesel Production in East Africa | 97

size of plants with a higher level of exploitation of their capacity within an

integrated organization is an important part of the cost-reducing process.

Conceptual Framework

Two approaches commonly employed include farm budget (James and

Swinton 2009) and investment theory or analysis (Rosa 2009). The farm
budget approach provides details of the revenue and cost structure of the bio-
diesel industry. It involves a break-even analysis of yields and prices. That is,
it consists of determining either break-even prices given yield or break-even
yield given prices. By doing so, the economic viability of biodiesel production
can be assessed.
The investment analysis approach takes a long-term perspective. That is, it
involves a more detailed valuation and analysis of future streams of costs and
benefits of biodiesel ventures, including assessing associated risks arising due
to changes in prices, technology, etc. Competitiveness and viability of the bio-
diesel industry are largely determined by fossil oil and biofuel prices in the in-
ternational market. It is important to determine the production cost per unit
(a liter) of biodiesel. Therefore, in our case, we applied the investment theory
or analysis as our conceptual framework (Dixit and Pindyck 1994).
Consider a biodiesel firm (processing plant) that operates independently
from the farm unit to maximize profit obtained from the difference between
revenue and cost cash flow. Hence, following (Rosa 2009) the gross margin for
a firm can be specified as:

π = MtQgt – CpQgt = (Mt – Cp)Qgt; (1)

for Mt=coPot + cpPgt – Pgt; Rt = coPot + cpPpt,

where Mt is the composite market price for processing one unit of feedstock
seed; Qgt is the quantity of feedstock seeds; Cp is the operation cost; co is the
seed/oil conversion coefficient; cp is the conversion coefficient oil/cake; coPot
and cpPgt, respectively, are the price equivalents of oil and panel revenues per
unit of feedstock seed processed; and Pgt is the production cost of the feed-
stock seed at time t.
Note that a firm (investor) seeks to maximize the discounted value of the
future cash flow less the current cash outlay for the physical capital of the plant
(K[Qct]). Hence, a “capitalized profits” form of the expected present value
with anticipation of the rate of price increase net of the cost of processing plant
K is given by
98 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

VANet = ƩNi=1(RNet /(1+r*)i) – K. (2)

The VAN must be considered as a rent to be capitalized, obtained from a plant

of appropriate size with respect to the supply of feedstock. Hence,

VANet = πet / r* Kf(Qgt) (3)

where πet is the expected net future income discounted at rate r; the superscript
e is the expectation about a future event and the subscript t identifies the refer-
ence period; r* is the real discount rate; and Kf(Qgt) is the capital function of
the firm (processing plant), which is a non-linear U-shaped function of the
quantity of feedstock processed (returns to scale).
Note that r* is an adjusted real interest rate that allows all possible changes
in future prospects (price changes) and incorporates the risk implied in the
realization of future profits. Hence,

r* = r −α +φρσ, (4)

where α is the anticipated growth rate (varying between 0 and 1) in product

price; φ, ρ, and σ, respectively, represent the risky prospects of the market
price, the correlation between biofuels profit and the market portfolio, and the
standard deviation of the percent change in biofuels processing price.
The first order condition from Equation (3) (expected present value crite-
rion) provides a rule for optimal capital growth. According to Tobin’s q, the
capacity (K) should increase until the capitalized value of the marginal invest-
ment is equal to the purchase cost.
Alternatively, the marginal profitability can be decomposed to obtain the
usual competitive pricing rule as

(5)

Empirical Approach and Data

In this section, we present the approach employed in the study. Note that
the biodiesel production is being considered in the analysis. In this regard,
jatropha, castor seed, and oil palm are crops/plants mainly grown as feedstock
for biodiesel production in East Africa. Plants such as argemone mexicana and
croton macrostachyus are also being promoted and tested (Keriko 2007). The
conceptual framework and empirical approach outlined in this paper apply to
these biodiesel and feedstock. In what follows, we discuss the empirical proce-
dure, data and context, as well as study considerations.
 V. The Economics of Biodiesel Production in East Africa | 99

Empirical procedure

The conceptual framework presented above suggests that the optimality condi-
tion holds when the price (i.e. marginal revenue [MR]) equals the marginal
production cost (MC) that includes the operating and capital cost components
for a biodiesel venture to be economically viable. Therefore, we consider the
unit cost analyses that capture both the operating and capital cost components
for empirical calculation of the economics (viability) of biodiesel production,
as well as for international comparison.

Data and context

The decision to produce biodiesel depends on considerations of a host of fac-

tors, including institutional arrangement (biofuel business model), choice of
processing technology (capital cost and firm size), labor cost or wages, pro-
ductivity, energy and transport costs, and types and prices of feedstocks. The
crops/plants for biodiesel production are mainly jatropha, castor seed, and
palm oil. However, plants such as argemone mexicana and croton macrostachyus
are also being considered, promoted, and/or demonstrated in some parts of
Ethiopia, such as in Tigrai by the Africa Power Initiative (API).
In 2010, a survey on biofuel investment was conducted by the Environmental
Economics Policy Forum for Ethiopia (EEPFE) at the Ethiopian Development
Research Institute (EDRI). According to this survey, there are about 15 biofuel
companies, including NGOs, involved in the biofuel production in Ethiopia.
The survey revealed that only one company exported biodiesel at least once,
and two companies are at the product testing stage. The rest are still at a nas-
cent stage. The survey also determined that there are complementary local
innovations continuing in the biofuel sector, including the invention of bio-
diesel stoves, processors/distilleries, and biogas-driven vehicles. All these sug-
gest that the sector requires policy attention and could possibly be one way to
reduce poverty and enhance growth. However, the survey also found that the
sector suffers from a lack of appropriate institutional setup in terms of better
regulatory framework and follow up, particularly at the regional levels. Tab 5.1
provides an overview of the characteristics of this sector in Ethiopia by using
the survey results.
As for production characteristics, while large-scale sugarcane is mainly
plantation-based, jatropha and castor bean production activities are undertak-
en by a combination of plantation-based and smallholder production through
out-grower schemes. Tab 5.1 provides the biodiesel production characteristics.
According to the recent biofuel investment survey, sugarcane accounted for a
larger share of the total land allocated to biofuel crops (Fig 5.1). However, it is
important to note that a small proportion of the total land allotted to biofuel
100 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

production was utilized in 2007. For instance, while a fifth of the total land al-
located for biofuels is utilized in castor bean, the figures for jatropha and palm
oil are very small, that is, 1.5% and 0.8%, respectively, in 2009 (Fig 5.2). A
little more than half of the total land allotted to sugarcane has been utilized
over the same period.

Study considerations

Biodiesel production in Africa in general and Ethiopia in particular is at its

early stage. Much of the effort in Ethiopia thus far has also focused on nurtur-
ing the feedstock market (i.e., the inputs needed for biodiesel production).
Most importantly, of the companies registered for large-scale commercial de-
velopment of biodiesel, very few are in operation. Most of the firms in op-
eration are still immature and lacks a detailed record of production costs and
inputs use. Therefore, the estimates based on field visits and literature (i.e.,
experiences elsewhere) are used as the second data source. That is, we use our
own cost estimation based on field visits and literature reviews, especially for
the unit cost analysis of the biodiesel production. In this regard, the key ques-
tions are as follows: What does a biodiesel plant of a certain capacity cost?
How much will it cost to produce biodiesel? How does the production cost
relate to the selling price? From the field visit, it was possible to determine
the types of feedstock crops being promoted for biodiesel production that
are at a trial stage, feedstock costs, and oil content or seed to oil conversion
coefficient of the feedstocks considered. The information on the setup of the
biodiesel processing plant, technology alternatives on processing capacity and
costs, and necessary chemical supplies and associated costs are obtained from
the literature review (i.e., review of experiences elsewhere). Box 1 provides the
considerations that are used in the viability analysis of biodiesel.

Results and Discussion

As previously noted, this study focuses on analyzing the economics (viability)

of biodiesel production in Africa, taking Ethiopia as a case in point. Further,
biodiesel production in Africa in general and Ethiopia in particular is at its
early stage. Therefore, the estimates based on field visits and literature reviews
are used to analyze the viability of biodiesel production in Ethiopia. The three
biodiesel feedstock crops are considered in the unit cost analysis: argemone
mexicana, jatropha, and castor bean. As can be seen in Tab 5.2, the production
costs for biodiesel varies across crops, ranging between ETB 17.02 and ETB
29.02 per liter. The results suggest that the production cost of biodiesel in
Ethiopia can reach up to about USD2.00 per liter.
 V. The Economics of Biodiesel Production in East Africa | 101

However, to draw meaningful insights, the above-mentioned results have to

be compared with the world oil prices and international experience. For exam-
ple, in Peru, the production costs of biodiesel from oil palm and jatropha are
USD0.23–USD0.31 per liter and USD0.84–USD0.87 per liter, respectively.
Therefore, if world oil prices are expected to vary between USD25–USD30
per barrel (Balat 2007; Dufey 2006) or USD42–USD200 per barrel (Arndt et
al. 2010), biodiesel firms in East Africa/Ethiopia must be able to produce at
less than USD1 per liter.
The world biodiesel price (Central Europe FOB) increased to USD4.82
per gallon in 2008. This was driven by high demand (as EU countries at-
tempted to achieve their biofuel targets) and by high crude-oil prices (FAPRI
2008). However, the expanded production in Argentina and Brazil led to a
decline in biodiesel prices in 2009. Because of lower exportable surpluses from
Argentina due to its B5 mandate (i.e., mandatory biodiesel blend of 5%), and
driven by higher petroleum and vegetable oil prices, the world biodiesel price
increased to USD4.14 per gallon in 2010. Subsequently, the world biodiesel
price increased to USD4.77 per gallon in 2011, driven by higher petroleum
prices, demand expansion due to growing domestic mandates in several coun-
tries (Brazil, Argentina, the EU, and the US), and higher vegetable oil prices.
According to OECD-FAO (2013), the world biodiesel price declined in 2012
from the high level recorded in 2011. The vegetable oil, which is the main
feedstock used to produce biodiesel, experienced high price increase in 2012,
partly because of the reduction in supply caused by the American drought. In
general, it takes two years following such a drought for the world price ratio
between biodiesel and vegetable oil to return to the long-term equilibrium
(OECD-FAO 2013). Because the vegetable oil price is falling in real terms, the
biodiesel price is also correspondingly falling from the historically high levels.
The crude oil price has a much smaller influence on the world biodiesel price
than it does on the world ethanol price, simply because the consumption is
determined by government regulations and rarely by demand. In general, the
price of biodiesel is expected to reach USD5.97 per gallon by 2025.
From the foregoing analysis as well as international perspective, it turns out
that the biodiesel production in Ethiopia is currently not viable. This raises the
question: How can it be made viable? Considering the various cost items, first,
it appears that the viability (and competitiveness) of biodiesel production in
Ethiopia will largely depend on the cost/price of feedstock. Therefore, meas-
ures that drive down the cost/price of feedstock could be envisaged to enhance
viability. Obviously, research and development (R&D) efforts or knowledge
that support the biofuel industry, a search for better adaptive high – yielding
biofuels crops with quality oil producing varieties could be envisaged to play
a significant role in this regard. However, this could be viewed as a long-term
endeavor, given the time needed to discover new varieties. In addition to R&D
102 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

efforts or knowledge support focusing on higher seed-yielding biofuels crops

with quality oil varieties, other options could be considered to enhance profit-
ability; these include viable alternatives for co-production through value addi-
tion from byproduct seedcake and intercropping options.
Second, the cost of supplies (chemicals) became the next most important
component. This is largely due to the high cost of the chemicals used for
methanol esterification. Hence, shifting from methanol to ethanol esterifica-
tion could be envisaged as an important strategy for cost minimization.
Overall, the biofuel/biodiesel industry can be viewed as a way out of pov-
erty in the East African context. For example, the empirical evidence from
both micro – and macro-economic perspectives using Ethiopian case suggests
that biodiesel might have a “win-win” outcome, and that the biofuel industry
can be a way to break out of poverty. Specifically, Gebreegziabher et al. (2013)
and Ferede et al. (2013) find that biodiesel production in the Ethiopian con-
text might be a “win-win” solution that can improve smallholder productiv-
ity (food security), enhance economic growth, and improve the welfare of
most rural poor households, particularly when spillover effects are considered.
Besides, Negash and Swinnen (2012) also find that households producing cas-
tor beans are significantly better off in terms of food security, measured as a
“food gap” and food caloric intake, and argue that “fuel” and “food” are com-
plements rather than substitutes at the micro level. However, much remains to
be done to enhance its viability.

Conclusions and Implications

The viability analysis of biodiesel and determination of the oil price threshold
beyond which it can be profitable is useful to guide policy. The main objective
of this study is to investigate the economics/profitability of biodiesel produc-
tion in Ethiopia. Specifically, the purposes of this study are to analyze the
viability of investment in biodiesel and to determine the oil price threshold
beyond which biofuels may be profitable, taking Ethiopia as a case in point.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of this study:
• Biodiesel production from various feedstocks in the East African context in
general and Ethiopia in particular is not viable at least currently.
• The viability (and competitiveness) of biodiesel production in Ethiopia will
largely depend on the cost/price of feedstock.
Now, the implications for policy making to enhance the viability of biodies-
el production in the East African context in general and Ethiopia in particular:
• Viable alternatives of co-production through value addition from bypro-
duct seedcake and intercropping options need to be considered to enhance
profitability.
 V. The Economics of Biodiesel Production in East Africa | 103

• R&D effort/knowledge support to the biofuel industry should include the

search for better adaptive higher seed – yielding biofuels crops with quality
oil varieties.
Interestingly, there are complementary local innovations going on in the
biofuel sector, including the invention of biodiesel stoves, processors/distiller-
ies, and biogas driven vehicles. All these suggest that the sector requires policy
attention and could possibly become one way to reduce poverty and enhance
growth. However, we also found that the sector suffers from a lack of appro-
priate institutional setup concerning the regulatory framework and follow up,
particularly at the regional level. Therefore, better regulatory framework and
follow-up studies are necessary.
This is a case study involving few observations because of the small size
of the population of producers studied. Hence, further analysis is required as
the sector expands. In general, the biofuel industry in Ethiopia can be viewed
as a possible pathway out of poverty. However, much remains to be done to
enhance its viability, especially as it relates to biodiesel.
Although most of the companies registered had the intention of pursuing
large-scale commercial development, especially those registered for the cultiva-
tion of energy crops for biodiesel production, only a very few of them are in
operation. This posed a data limitation in our study.

References
ABN (African Biodiversity Network), 2007, AGRO Fuels in Africa: The Impacts on Land, Food
and Forests. http://www.africanbiodiversity.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Agrofuels%20
in%20Africa-Impacts%20on%20land%2C%20foods%20%26%20forests.pdf (accessed
on May 30, 2011).
Arndt C., Msangi S., Thurlow J., 2010, Are Biofuels Good for African Development? An Analytical
Framework with Evidence from Mozambique and Tanzania. UN-WIDER Working Paper
No. 2010/110.
Azam M.M., Waris A., Nahar N.M., 2005, “Prospects and Potential of Fatty Acid Methyl
Esters of some Non-traditional Seed Oils for use as Biodiesel in India”. «Biomass and
Bioenergy», 29 (4): 293-302.
Azar C., 2011, “Biomass for Energy: A Dream Come True... or a Nightmare?”. «Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change», 2 (3): 309-323.
Barnwal B.K., Sharma M.P., 2005,”Prospects of Biodiesel Production from Vegetable Oils in
India”. «Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews», 9 (4): 363-378.
Dixit A., Pindyck R., 1994, Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton U. Press.
Elbehri A., McDougall R., Horridge M., (2009), A global model for agriculture and bioenergy:
application to biofuel and food security in Peru and Tanzania. Paper presented at the 27th
Conference of the Association of Agricultural Economists, Beijing, 16–22 Aug 2009.
FDRE (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia), 2011, Ethiopia’s Climate-resilient Green
Economy (CRGE) Strategy, FDRE, Addis Ababa.
Felix E., Cardona C.A., Quintero J.A., 2010, “Technical and Economic Viability of Biofuel
104 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Production Chains”. In Maltsoglou I., Khwaja Y. (Eds.), Bioenergy and Food Security: The
BEFS Analysis for Tanzania. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
Ferede T., Gebreegziabher Z., Mekonnen A., Guta F., Levin J., Kohlin G., 2013, Biofuels,
Economic Growth, and the External Sector in Ethiopia: A Computable General Equilibrium
Analysis. RFF Discussion Paper EfD 13-08. Environment for Development (EfD) Initiative
and Resources for the Future (RFF), Washington DC, July 2013. (http://www.rff.org/
RFF/Documents/EfD-DP-13-08.pdf ).
FAPRI (Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute), 2008, US and World Agricultural
Outlook, FAPRI Staff Report 08-FSR 1. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University and University
of Missouri-Columbia.
FAPRI (Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute), 2011, Overview of the FAPRI-ISU
2011 World Agricultural Outlook, FAPRI Staff Report 11-FSR 1. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University and University of Missouri-Columbia.
Gallagher P.W., Brubaker H., Shapouri H., 2005, “Plant Size: Capital Cost Relationship in the
Dry Mill Ethanol Industry”. «Biomass and Bioenergy», 28 (6): 565-571.
Gebreegziabher Z., Mekonnen A., 2011, “Sustainable Financing of Ethiopia’s Energy
Infrastructure: An Economic Analysis”. In: Alemu G., Gebeyehu W. (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 9th International Conference on the Ethiopian Economy, Volume II. Addis Ababa: EEA
(Ethiopian Economics Association): 155-176.
Gebreegziabher Z., Mekonnen A., Ferede T., Guta F., Levin J., Kohlin G., Alemu T., Bohlin
L., 2013, The Distributive Effect and Food Security Implications of Biofuels Investment in
Ethiopia: A CGE analysis, EfD DP 13-02. Environment for Development Initiative and
Resources for the Future.
Gebremeskel L., Tesfaye M.. 2008. “A preliminary assessment of socioeconomic and envi-
ronmental issues pertaining to liquid biofuel development in Ethiopia”. In Heckett T.,
Aklilu N. (Eds), Agrofuel Development in Ethiopia: Rhetoric, Reality and Recommendations.
Forum for Environment, Addis Ababa.
Janaun J., Ellis N., 2010, “Perspectives on Biodiesel as a Sustainable Fuel”. «Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews», 14 (4): 1312-1320.
MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development), 2010, The Five Years (2010/11-
2014/15) Growth and Transformation Plan. MoFED, Addis Ababa.
MoME (Ministry of Mines and Energy), 2007, The Biofuel Development and Utilization
Strategy of Ethiopia. MoME, Addis Ababa.
Mortimer N.D., Ashley A., Evans A., Hunter A. J., Shaw V. L., 2008, Support for the Review of
the Indirect Effects of Biofuels. Sheffield, UK: North Energy Associates Limited.
OECD–FAO (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development–Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2008, OECD–FAO Agricultural Outlook
2008–2017. Paris.
OECD–FAO (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development–Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2013, Chapter 3: Biofuels. OECD-FAO
Agricultural Outlook 2013.
Quintero J.A., Felix E.R., Rincón L.E., Crisspín M., Baca J.F., Khwaja Y., Cardona C.A.,
2012, “Social and Techno-economical Analysis of Biodiesel Production in Peru”. «Energy
Policy» 43: 427-435.
Rosa F., 2009, “The Profitability of Biodiesel Chain with Different Organizations”. In Fritz
M., Rickert U., Schiefer G. (Eds) System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks 2009,
 V. The Economics of Biodiesel Production in East Africa | 105

Proceedings of the 3rdInternational European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation

in Food Networks, organized by the International Center for Food Chain and Network
Research, University of Bonn, Germany February 16-20, 2009, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria:
563-581.
Searchinger T., Heimlich R., Houghton R.A., Dong F., Elobeid A., Fabiosa J., Tokgoz S.,
Hayes D., Yu T.H., 2008, “Use of US Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases
through Emissions from Land Use Change”. «Science», 319: 1238-1240.
Slater R., 2007, Biofuels: Starving People to Feed Cars? Or Growing Our Way Out of Poverty? ODI
http://www.odi.org.uk/events/2007/06/27/203-presentation-rachel-slater.pdf (accessed 19
September 2009).
Zah R., Boni H., Gauch M., Hischier R., Lehmann M., Wager P., 2007, Life cycle assessment
of energy products: Environmental impact assessment of Biofuels. ETH-EMPA, St. Gallen.

Figures

Fig 5.1 Share in Total Biofuel Crop Land by Biofuel Crop Type (%). Source: Biofuel
investment survey, 2010.

Fig 5.2 Ratio of Utilized Land to Total Land Allocated to Each Biofuel Crop (%).
Source: Biofuel investment survey, 2010.
106 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Tab 5.1 Biodiesel Production Characteristics/Technical Coefficients. Source: Biofuel invest-

ment survey, 2010

Jatropha/castor bean diesel

Land employed (ha) 3,284.00

Biofuel crop production (tons) 200.00

Farm workers employed (in number) 4,384.00

Land yield 0.06

Farm labor yield 0.05

Land per capita 0.75

Capital per hectare 0.00

Labor-capital ratio 0.00

Biofuel produced (liters) 2,880.69

Processing workers employed 0.00

Feedstock yield (L/ton) 14.40

Processing labor yield

 V. The Economics of Biodiesel Production in East Africa | 107

Tab 5.2 Analysis of Biodiesel Production Costs in Ethiopia. Source: Authors’ own analysis
based on estimated data.

Item Argemone Jatropha Castor seed

mexicana

Feedstock (oilseeds) 9.00 18.00 21.00

Machinery, plant, power 1.26 1.26 1.26

Supplies 6.50 6.50 6.50

Labor 0.16 0.16 0.16

Others 0.10 0.10 0.10

Total cost (ETB/L) 17.02 26.02 29.02

Total cost (USD/L) ≈1.00 ≈1.50 ≈1.70

Tab 5.3 Study Considerations for Biodiesel Economics/Viability Analysis. Source: Authors’ es-
timates based on field visits and literature review.

1. 2000 liters/day biodiesel processing plant

2. 6 days/week for 52 weeks

3. ETB 1,000,000 investment on plant and building

4. 2 operators + 1 chemist

5. 15 years at 9% interest rate, maintenance 3.8% of plant cost

6. Feedstock (oilseed) purchase price of ETB 3,6,7/kg

108 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Tab 5.4 Overview of Characteristics of the Biofuel Sector in Ethiopia. Source: Results of bio-
fuel investment survey, 2010.

Indicator Number/description

No of firms/companies >15 (incl. NGOs)

No of firms already at 2
production stage

No of firms that started export 1

No of firms at production test 2

stage

Total investment (capital) Multimillion >1.3 b ETB (>0.1 billion

USD)

Investment (type) Largely foreign but also domestic

Land (000’ ha) >308 (currently operated); >101

(additional)

Year in operation Since 2005

Installed plant capacity 492 to 28,800 liters/day

Employment opportunities >17,714 (Temp), >236 (Perm)

Crop types Sugarcane, jatropha, castor bean, palm oil

Technology Plantation, out-growers, and community

development

Regions All regions, Oromiya, SNNPR, Amhara,

etc.
Biodiesel Policy Review for a Sustainable
Agro-Food-Energy Nexus in East Africa:
with Special Reference to Kenya
Gichuki Muchiri

Abstract

Fossil fuel net importers and signatories of the Kyoto Protocol East African
Common Market countries have adopted strategies for biodiesel production,
subject to fossil fuel prices. Each of the countries is guided by a vision to eli-
minate poverty, energy poverty, and excess GHG emissions.

A review of past studies shows that, whereas land-endowed agricultural produ-

cers stand to benefit from increased biofuel production, often as a result of ri-
sing fossil fuel prices, net food importers and vulnerable urban food purchasers
suffer food commodity price increases. The success of cash crops, compared to
the poor performance of food crops, suggests a case for the adoption of holistic
models that impose total commitment on all group members. A sustainable
agro-food energy balance should have the following policy objectives:
• Creation of viable economies of scale for both food and biofuel cropping
systems
• Social security to shield small scale farmers and vulnerable urban food
purchasers
• Development of appropriate technologies for efficient production and job
creation

Keywords: biofuels, conservation agriculture, economies of scale

Introduction

East African Common Market countries are traditionally net importers of fos-
sil fuel products, although recent oil discoveries may change that fact signifi-
cantly. The current implicit biodiesel policy is based on the Kyoto protocol,
which explicitly sets targets regarding biodiesel substitution for fossil fuels.
Accordingly, Kenya, in particular, has a biodiesel strategy with five objectives:
110 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

• Develop biodiesel resources.

• Minimize dependency on fossils fuels.
• Substantially reduce consumption of fuelwood, charcoal, and kerosene, as
well as the number of people using them, by 50% by 2030.
• Contribute to efforts to adapt to climate change by preventing deforesta-
tion and supporting reforestation, as well as via an earned carbon credit.
• Contribute to poverty alleviation by increasing rural income by 30% by
2030.
For the purpose of this paper, these objectives constitute the basis for an
analysis that leads to identification of appropriate policy interventions that can
propel EA, and Kenya specifically, to the 2030 vision of becoming a middle-
income nation. The relevant goals are:
• Contribute to poverty alleviation by increasing rural per capita GDP above
one dollar per day by 2030.
• Contribute to efforts to adapt to positive climate change by reducing con-
sumption of fuelwood, charcoal, and kerosene, along with the number of
people using them, by 50% by 2030.
Significant progress toward achieving these two objectives through bio-
diesel policy interventions has far-reaching implications in addressing rural
poverty, rural energy poverty, and climate change. Thus, the policy interven-
tions identified in this paper will go a long way toward defining the Agro-Food
Energy Nexus necessary to guide development of education curricula, which is
expected to create a needed legacy for future generations.
The methodology used in this paper is a review of recent literature regard-
ing biofuel crops’ impact on poverty and food security in vulnerable commu-
nities. The review includes recent developments in the promotion of conserva-
tion (CA), which is often synonymous with climate-smart agriculture (CSA).
This review will be the basis for the conclusions and recommendations, which
constitute this paper’s contribution to the formulation of policies for a sustain-
able Agro-Food Energy balance, for the purpose of future education programs
in the EA sub-region.

Literature Review

In its final report, the Global Environment Facility (2012) summarized com-
prehensive information regarding biodiesel projects that have generated a wide
range of biofuel crop data, including data regarding genetic potential, crop
husbandry, harvesting, post-harvest processing, and other value added activi-
ties. Other information includes the greenhouse gas (GHG) lifecycle and eco-
nomic performance for various biofuel crops. In other words, data that can
support decisions for biofuel investment projects is available for a wide range
 VI. Biodiesel Policy Review for a Sustainable Agro-Food-Energy | 111

of production conditions. The main limitations likely to be faced by less devel-

oped economies are inadequate quantities of:
• Baseline information regarding soils and other ecological factors,
• Support infrastructure for the supply of machinery services, fertilizers,
seeds, chemicals, and other materials,
• Harvesting and post-harvest equipment,
• Support infrastructure for processing and marketing, and
• Skilled human resources for value chain production.
Competition between food crops and biofuels, which is likely to exacerbate
food insecurity, has been the subject of debate. A comprehensive study by
Huang et al. (2012) summarized the situation as follows:
• Increased fuel prices and opportunities for biofuel substitution are the pri-
me movers in demand for biofuel production.
• Expanded biofuel production increases the price of food commodities via
reduced food production.
• This development has positive effects on agricultural producers who have
adequate land. However, it has negative effects on poor urban food purcha-
sers and countries that are net food importers. These negative effects can be
addressed through the establishment of social security measures to shield
vulnerable groups that are likely to be affected by food price increases.
• Increased biofuel production is likely to generate employment for field pro-
duction, as well as for post-harvest processing and marketing.

Interventions

Poverty Reduction

In Kenya, available land resources, especially for the main food crops, can be
developed to address the food insecurity problem highlighted above. There is
1 mha currently allocated to commercial maize cultivation, producing three
million tons of maize annually. Most of this maize is sold through the National
Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB). About thirty years ago, the average yield
of maize under good crop husbandry was 5 tons per ha. Current varieties can
yield over 10 tons per ha. The question to be addressed is: What happened
to maize yield potential in the last thirty years, in spite of major efforts in re-
search, development, and extension?

The Problem

According to Allan (1971), there are six factors that affect maize crop yield:
time of planting, time of weeding, seed selection, plant nutrients, plant spac-
112 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

ing, and plant protection. Substantial research, development, and extension

have been conducted, including maize breeding and variety improvement,
plant nutrition, plant protection, and plant spacing. Accordingly, there is a set
of recommended practices, including seed variety, fertilizer application, crop
spacing, and crop protection for the typical ecological zones. However, only
general recommendations for the time of planting and time of weeding are
available. There are no clear specifications for land preparation or soil organic
matter (SOM) management. Consequently, continuous shallow plowing and
harrowing after burning or grazing of trash, which is a common practice, has
resulted in soil degradation.
Plow pan or subsurface hardpan is present in virtually all maize growing
areas. Roots spread horizontally instead of reaching a soil profile of about
one meter in depth. Removal of trash and stubble has resulted in low SOM
content and, generally, low water holding capacity, as well as low infiltration
rates. Shallow rooting restricts access to nutrients and water in lower horizons.
Hardpan restricts water infiltration, resulting in high runoff and soil erosion
(Charreau 1977).

Poverty reduction interventions

In response to those problems, researchers in the Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) and the African Conservation Tillage Network (ACT),
among others, have been promoting conservation agriculture (CA), which is
based on three principles:
• Minimum soil disturbance,
• Permanent vegetative cover, and
• Crop rotation.
After twenty years of extension efforts, the CA adoption rate of the targeted
small-scale (less than 3 ha) farmers has been low, at 4%. Limitations include:
• Traditional mindset,
• Lack of training in herbicide weed control, and
• Inadequate mechanization for sub-soiling and direct seeding through trash.
There are no service providers for herbicide weed control, sub-soiling, or
direct seeding, which combines the cutting of trash, furrow opening, place-
ment of seed and fertilizer, and simultaneous covering and pressing. In other
words, the five operations required for direct seeding are carried out simulta-
neously. Alternative hand-operated equipment is labor intensive. Attempts to
carry out sub-soiling with animal-drawn chisel plows often require more than
one run to achieve a reasonable depth (Muchiri 2012).
To address the problems highlighted above, a number of interventions
have been suggested in a proposed project by the African Conservations
Tillage Network (ACT), authored by Gichuki Muchiri, Joseph Kariuki, and
 VI. Biodiesel Policy Review for a Sustainable Agro-Food-Energy | 113

Nyambura Rugoiyo (2015). The main interventions identified after field visits
and a consultative stakeholders workshop are:
• Awareness creation of decision making at all levels, including farmers, rese-
archers, and policymakers.
• Development of a set of recommended practices for the relevant ecological
zones.
• Training of farmers and service providers.
• Establishment of an R&D system to support CA and address farmers’ pro-
blems as they arise.
• Establishment of a network connecting farmers, farm machinery dealers,
financiers, service providers, and produce market outlets.
To make these interventions possible, there is a need for a policy framework
that defines the responsibilities of each category of stakeholders and the con-
ditions under which public funds can be made available through established
financial institutions. This constitutes the agricultural component of the Agro-
Food Energy Nexus.

Energy Self-Reliance

The next challenge in the 2030 vision is energy self-reliance or reduced de-
pendency on fossil fuels.

The Problem

East African countries are currently net importers of fossil fuels. However,
more than half of the total energy they consume comes from fuelwood. The
result is deforestation at an alarming rate. Fossil fuel importation takes a heavy
toll on foreign exchange, while deforestation has serious implications for cli-
mate change. To address the national energy problems, the following renew-
able resources are considered: hydroelectricity, geothermal electricity, wind
power, solar electricity, and biomass energy.
For the purpose of electricity generation, a lot of progress has been made
with hydro and geothermal sources. The problem is the distribution costs are
beyond the reach of most rural people. To a limited extent, wind and solar
sources are contributing in the private sector, but they are expensive for ordi-
nary rural people.
Biomass has been considered as a substitute for fossil liquid fuels, in the
form of biodiesel. This would require large plantations of food biofuel crops
such as maize, sorghum, and cassava, or nonfood biofuel crops such as jat-
ropha, croton, or crambe. With the current food insecurity problem, biofuel
plantations are untenable. Biofuels are, therefore, being considered with the
114 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

following conditions:
• Direct income generation for the rural poor to alleviate poverty,
• Direct contribution to rural energy poverty, and
• Positive contribution to climate change through reduced deforestation.
A study by G12 (Duchrow 2008) shows that the supply of raw materials
from potential jatropha, croton, and castor crops is limited and falls short
of meeting the current liquid fuel demand for transport vehicles. However,
croton, which is a hedge crop with agroforestry qualities, can contribute to
bio-oil production for domestic heating and cooking. Similarly, castor is an ag-
ricultural crop that is inter-cropped with cereals and legumes. It is also a good
rotation crop for cereals. It can, therefore, contribute to bio-oil for domestic
cooking and heating.
The challenge for both croton and castor is the cost of collection and pro-
cessing. Technology for post-harvest processing, preservation, and storage is
necessary. A processing plant to serve a village, similar to a grain mill (for maize
grinding), is needed for custom oil processing. Production of animal feed from
by-products, such as the cake and husks, would trigger the creation of rural
industries with far reaching implications for rural employment. Availability of
affordable animal feed would introduce a livestock industry producing meat,
dairy, and other products that could create income and employment. Zero
grazing is a good source of biogas; it is ideal for domestic heating and cooking
not to mention the environmental and climate benefits.

Energy Self-Reliance. Interventions

The Kenya biodiesel strategy document (Ministry 2010) has made suggestions
for the development of biodiesel. The main focus is on utilization of non-
agricultural land and waste biomass from industry. However, for the purpose
of domestic energy requirements, there is no clear strategy. It is suggested that
nonfood biofuel crops that have crop rotation qualities, such as castor and
crambe, among others, be considered. A clear policy is needed for this pur-
pose. The policy must be based on valid research findings across the value
chain. Specifically, post-harvest processing, preservation, and storage are criti-
cal. Oil and cake are industrial raw materials with far-reaching implications for
employment creation.

Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

The main interventions for increased food crop production under CA princi-
ples will include crop rotation, which will be readily available due to the bio-
fuel nonfood crops mentioned above. Rural energy poverty can be addressed
 VI. Biodiesel Policy Review for a Sustainable Agro-Food-Energy | 115

through the integration of biofuels in CA and a form of agroforestry with eco-

nomic benefits, including livestock production and associated agro-industries,
which will require electricity generated by bio-oils. The necessary supporting
R&D should include modifying engines to use straight bio-oil instead of bio-
diesel, which requires a sophisticated industrial process.

Conclusions

• Biodiesel production is likely to continue because of its contribution to

energy security and positive climate change.
• The degree of biofuel crop expansion will depend on fossil fuel prices and
access to land.
• Increased biodiesel production is beneficial to agricultural producers be-
cause demand for biodiesel raw materials increases the price of food
commodities.
• Urban poor communities and countries that are net food importers will be
adversely affected by increased food prices.

Recommendations

• There is a need to create policies to ensure a good balance between food se-
curity, energy security, and climate change, with reference to available land
resources; conservation agriculture should be applied.
• There is a need to create a capacity for R&D in the research institutes and
universities in order to establish programs and projects that use limited
resources efficiently; human resources should be included.
• The benefits of increased biofuel crop expansion and the associated biodie-
sel production processes should trickle down to the poor in the form of job
creation, self-employment, and associated income generation.
• For the purpose of implementing recommendations 1 to 3 above, the crea-
tion of a policy formulation team is recommended.

References
Allan A.Y., 1971, The influence of agronomic factors on maize yields in Western Kenya with specific
reference to time planting. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of East Africa.
Charreau C., 1977, “Some controversial technical aspects of farming systems in semi-arid
West Africa”. in G.H. Cannell (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rainfed
Agricultural in semi-arid regions. Riverside, CA University of California, pp. 313-360.
Duchrow A. (Ed.), 2008, Biofuels development in drylands. Panacea or Empty Promise. Eschborn,
Deutche Gesellschaft Fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).
Global Environment Facility, 2012, Global Assessments and Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid
Biofuel Production in Developing Countries. Final Report.
116 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Huang J., Yang J., Msangi S., Rozelle S., Weersink A., 2012, “Biofuel and the Poor”. «Food
Policy», 37: 437-451.
Ministry of Energy, 2010, Strategy for Developing the Biodiesel Industry in Kenya (2010-2015).
Muchiri G., 2012, Effect of Tillage and Equipment on Maize Production. Unpublished PhD
Thesis: University of Nairobi.
Muchiri G., Kariuki J., Rugoiyo N., 2015, Concept Note on Entrepreneurial Conservation
Agriculture Services Provision to Medium and Smallholder Farmers in Africa. Nairobi Kenya:
African Conservation Tillage Network.
Sharma A.R., Behera U.K., 2012, Modern Concepts of Agriculture. Indian Agricultural Research
Institute.
Bioenergy Utilization in Eastern Africa:
Prospects and Challenges for Ensuring Food
and Energy Security
Damas Philip

Abstract

Several solutions have been suggested to tackle the twin problems of fossil fuel
price volatility and the climate change attributed to factors such as increase
in greenhouse gas emissions. One of the suggested solutions is to increase
the production and use of liquid biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. The
production of biofuels requires feedstocks like sugarcane, maize, cassava, oil
palm, and jatropha, and this inevitably removes the dividing line between the
food and energy markets, thus strengthening the energy-food nexus. While the
merger of the energy and food markets provides new opportunities for small-
scale farmers, the farmers would have to overcome new challenges to benefit
from the increasing demand for biofuels. This paper examines the biofuel in-
dustry in Tanzania with specific emphasis on the challenges and opportuni-
ties for small-scale farmers due to the strengthening linkage between the food
and energy markets. This study is mainly based on a review of the literature
on biofuel production in Tanzania and elsewhere. The study shows that the
main challenges from the increasing demand for climate-friendly transport
fuels include the fear of land grabbing, which entails driving out small-scale
farmers from the land they have been relying on for livelihood for many years,
increasing food prices, and the loss of biodiversity. The main opportunities in-
clude increased market access and the possibilities for technology spillover. In
order to address the challenges associated with the global demand for climate-
friendly transport fuels, which is driving vast commercial biofuel projects in
countries such as Tanzania, we need a production model that ensures large-
scale biofuel production without compromising the food security of the poor-
est of the poor.

Keywords: liquid biofuels, ethanol, biodiesel, food security

118 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Introduction

The majority of households in Eastern Africa rely on the energy derived from
biomass. Further, there is a growing interest in the production and use of
biofuels throughout the world. The increase in biofuel requirements is mainly
due to the unprecedented demand for alternative sources of energy in order
to reduce the ever-growing demand for fossil fuel, which is one of the main
factors for climate change. Among the most threatening environmental effects
of the increased use of fossil fuels is global warming. According to a report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if governments con-
tinue to allow the unfettered use of fossil fuels, global temperatures would rise
by at least 2.4oC in the next 100 years. Thus, increasing the production and
use of environmentally friendly energy sources such as biofuels is important
for reducing the rate of global warming. Globally, biofuels have now become
very important and are apparently attracting significant business investments.
Countries such as Brazil, the United States, France, and Germany are leading
the race to produce and use ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol produced from
sugarcane has been used as fuel in Brazil since 1925, but a national program
toward consistent policies for the production and use of ethanol was intro-
duced only in 1975. The program, called ProAlcool, was enacted by presiden-
tial decree in November 1975 in response to Brazil’s increasing dependence
on oil imports and the impact on its balance of payment (World Bank 2011).
Biofuels have long been promoted as a feasible substitute for conventional
fossil petrol and diesel fuels. Historical records indicate that Rudolph Diesel,
the inventor of the diesel engine, used vegetable oil for his engine in as early as
1900. The use of biofuels to power engines was practiced not only in Europe
but also in other parts of the world; for instance, the first diesel engine in
Argentina in 1916 used castor oil. The interest in biofuels continued in various
parts of the world during the Second World War, but later when peace was re-
stored, the relative abundance of inexpensive fossil fuels rendered the research
into substitutes for conventional petrol and diesel unnecessary. However,
the organization of petroleum exporting countries’ (OPEC) embargo of the
1970s, the subsequent rise of oil prices, and the fear of fuel shortages revived
the interest in alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel for petrol and
diesel engines.
The production of biofuels requires large quantities of feedstock. Therefore,
one of the important determinants of the feasibility of producing ethanol and/
or biodiesel is the availability of arable land. Since the developing countries are
widely assumed to have vast tracts of wasteland awaiting someone to put them
to good use, multinational companies are intensifying their efforts to invest
in this energy sub-sector in these countries (Anderson 2008). Thus, substan-
tial investments are taking place in this regard in Nigeria, where both cassava
 VII. Bioenergy Utilization in Eastern Africa | 119

and sugarcane are used as feedstock to produce ethanol, and in Cote d’Ivoire,
where ethanol is produced using sugarcane, maize, and sweet sorghum; more-
over, efforts are under way to produce biodiesel with cottonseed and cashew
nut residue as feedstock.
In East Africa, initiatives have been made toward producing biofuels in
Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. In Tanzania alone, over 14 companies have
already started or are in the process of establishing biofuel production systems,
and given the abundance of arable land in this country, more companies are
likely to join. Moreover, Eastern African countries are promoting the use of
bioenergy in order to ensure energy security and reduce the use of their mea-
ger foreign currency reserves on fossil fuel imports. Thus, it is not surprising
that many countries in the region are in the process of introducing policies
or guidelines to manage the development of large-scale bioenergy production
projects.
In East Africa, Kenya and Tanzania are targeting liquid bioenergy produc-
tion to first meet their domestic market needs before considering exports.
While many individuals and companies are looking for opportunities to in-
vest in biofuel production, some serious environmental, social, economic, and
ethical concerns are being raised globally and nationally (Popp et al. 2014).
Since the production of biofuels requires feedstocks such as sugarcane, maize,
cassava, oil palm, and jatropha, it inevitably erases the dividing line between
food and energy markets. While the merger of the energy and food markets
provides new opportunities for small-scale farmers, these farmers have to over-
come several challenges before benefitting from the increasing demand for
biofuels. In this paper, we comprehensively review the challenges and oppor-
tunities of small-scale farmers in the face of the strengthening linkage between
food and energy markets. Specifically, we focus on how the production and
use of liquid biofuels impact food security, the environment, and poverty. The
findings of this study can help policy makers understand on how best the pro-
duction and use of liquid biofuels could lead to a win-win situation for both
energy and food security in the region. The study can also contribute to the
body of knowledge on the emerging but highly contentious literature on the
energy-agro-food nexus.

An Overview of Biofuel Production

The term biofuels generally refers to fuels derived from biological sources.
Biofuels come in various forms. They can be in liquid form, like ethanol and
biodiesel, or gaseous form, like biogas and hydrogen. The present study focus-
es on liquid biofuels, that is, ethanol and biodiesel, which are the most widely
used liquid biofuels for transport (Green Facts 2013). Biofuels can be produced
120 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

from a variety of feedstocks. The feedstock required for biofuel production de-
pends on the type of biofuel produced. For instance, ethanol can be produced
from starchy and sugar crops. The starchy crops used as feedstocks for ethanol
production include maize, rice, millet, sorghum, and cassava, to mention a
few. The main sugar crops commonly used in the production of ethanol are
sugarcane and sugar beet. On the other hand, the most common feedstocks for
biodiesel production are generally the vegetable oils derived from oilseed crops
such as oil palm, jatropha, sunflower, and rape seed. Biodiesel can be blended
with traditional diesel fuel or used in its pure form in compression ignition
engines (Agarwal 2007).
The feasibility of biofuels production and use depends on a number of
factors specific to the local situation. These factors include (i) the cost of
feedstocks, which varies across countries depending on land availability and
quality, agricultural productivity, and labor costs; (ii) processing costs, which
depend on plant size and location; (iii) the cost of fossil petrol and diesel,
which depends on world oil prices; and (iv) the availability and cost of labor,
which determine the availability and cost of feedstocks for producing biofuels.
Consequently, countries like Tanzania, which have abundant arable land and
cheap labor, are well placed to produce biofuels at lower costs compared to
developed countries, where in most cases land is scarce and labor is relatively
more expensive. Thus, it would be more economical for developed countries
to import biofuels from countries such as Tanzania.

The Importance of Biofuels in the Tanzanian Energy Sector

The Tanzanian energy sector is dominated by biomass, which accounts for

about 88% of the total 20.7 million tons of oil equivalent (MTOE) primary
energy supply. Most of the Tanzanian households depend on biomass such as
wood or charcoal for their main energy source. Efforts are under way to ex-
plore other forms of biofuels such as biogas and liquid biofuels. The country
consumes almost 1 million tons of charcoal annually (URT 2015).
The high dependence of Tanzania on biomass as source of energy has led to se-
rious environmental problems. For instance, on average, the country loses about
100,000 hectares of forest every year. In addition to the loss of forest, the use of
wood and charcoal as energy source has other negative environmental effects such
as emission of carbon dioxide. The production and burning of 1 million tons of
charcoal is estimated to emit about 30 million tons of carbon dioxide.
The energy consumption per capita in Tanzania is estimated at 0.48 tons of
oil equivalent (TOE). This is one of the lowest rates in the world and only two-
third of the average consumption in sub-Saharan African developing countries
(AfDB 2015). Thus, we can argue that energy poverty poses a serious chal-
 VII. Bioenergy Utilization in Eastern Africa | 121

lenge to not only the socio-economic development of Tanzania but also its
environment.

Impact of Expansion of Biofuels Production on Food Security

The Link between Biofuels Production and Food Security

The rapid expansion of biofuels production in various parts of the world has
raised concerns over the potential negative social and environmental impacts
at the local and global levels (White and Dasgupta 2010). One major concern
is that food production and food security will be negatively affected either
from switching land, labor, water, or other factors of production to biofuel
production or from the diversion of existing volumes of food crop from the
food to biofuel market. The 1996 World Food Summit defined food security
as a situation “when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic
access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and
food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO 1996). The 2009 World
Summit on Food Security extended this definition, describing the four pillars
of food security as availability, access, utilization, and stability, and highlighted
the centrality of nutrition in the concept of food security. The production of
biofuels may affect the various pillars of food security as described hereunder.

Biofuels Production and Food Availability

One of the main pillars of food security is food availability. This pillar focuses
on the supply side of food security. Food availability is determined by, among
other factors, the level of production, stock levels, and food imports. Thus,
obviously, the use of land previously used for the growth of food crops to
produce feedstocks for the production of biofuels will reduce food production
and hence affect the availability of food.
However, some staunch proponents of biofuel production argue that to
counter the likely negative effects of biofuel production on food crops produc-
tion and hence food availability, the dedicated energy crops should be grown
on marginal land. The problem is that no comprehensive studies have been
made to estimate the size of such lands in the countries promoting the pro-
duction and use of liquid biofuels. Moreover, recent trends show that most
of those who invest in biofuel production in countries such as Tanzania have
actually targeted arable land.
122 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Biofuels Production and Food Access

Food access is one of the main pillars of food security. This pillar focuses on
the economic and physical access to available food, mainly from the house-
hold perspective. This can be through purchases, gifts, or transfer of food. A
household’s economic access to food is determined by the overall household
income, disposable income for food, and food prices. The ease of physical
access to food markets is influenced by the proximity of markets and other
food sources and the existence and quality of infrastructure. The expansion of
biofuel production can affect the household access to food in various ways. For
instance, the use of crops such as maize as feedstock to produce biofuels will
increase their demand significantly and thereby exert an upward pressure on
their prices. The increase in prices of such crops will inevitably affect the ability
of poor households to access food.
Further, the production of feedstocks for biofuel production is likely to in-
crease the demand for factors of production such as labor, which in turn could
lead to an increase in factor prices. High factor prices will increase the produc-
tion costs and hence lead to high prices for agricultural products, including
food crops. High prices for food crops are known to have a negative effect on
food access, especially for the poorest of the poor, who are net food buyers.
On the other hand, high demand for labor is likely to have a positive impact
of rural incomes. If the incomes of rural farm workers increase significantly, it
might offset the effect of high food prices on the food access of the rural poor.
Therefore, the net effect of the expansion of biofuels production on food ac-
cess will depend on, among other factors, how such investment increases the
demand for labor and wages.
The number of jobs created varies significantly from one type of biofuel to
another depending on the type of feedstock and production technology used.
The employment opportunities due to bioenergy production falls under three
main categories according to Domac and Richards (2005) direct employment,
indirect employment, and induced employment.
Direct employment results from operation, construction, and production
activities. In case of biofuel production, this type of employment entails the
total labor necessary for producing the feedstocks used for producing biofu-
els, construction, operation, and maintenance of the biofuel production plant
and for transportation of the feedstock. Indirect employment refers to the
jobs generated within the economy on account of the expenditures related to
biofuel production. Indirect employment results from all activities connected,
but not directly related, to biofuels production, and they include the jobs cre-
ated in the supporting industries and services, to name a few. The increase in
income associated with direct and indirect jobs may also create opportunities
for new secondary jobs, which may attract people to stay or move in. These
 VII. Bioenergy Utilization in Eastern Africa | 123

latter effects are referred to as induced employment. The main issue is, will the
increase in income attributable to the production of biofuels be large enough
to counter the effect on prices and hence the food access of the rural poor who
are net food buyers? Tab 7.1 gives a detailed description of the job creation
potential of different types of bioenergy.

Tab 7.1 Job creation potential of different biofuels

Biofuel type Jobs creation potential per TWh

Biodiesel 16,318

Bioethanol 3,770

Biogas 1,341

Biofuels Production and Food Utilization

This pillar of food security focuses on how individuals are able to consume
food; this has a direct impact on nutritional status and is closely linked to
the feeding practices, preparation, and distribution of food among household
members. Unlike the first two pillars, biofuels production is not likely to have
a significant effect on food utilization.

Biofuels Production and Stability

This pillar focus on the maintenance of food security through time. While
an individual or household may temporarily enjoy food security, outside
shocks such as food price volatility, unemployment, or harvest failure may
undermine food security. Shifting demographics within a household, such
as the birth or death of a child or other household member, may also affect
the stability of food security over time. Similar to the third pillar, this is
also not likely to suffer significantly from the increased production or use
of biofuels.

The Contribution of Biofuels Production to Poverty Alleviation

The abundance of arable land and cheap labor in countries such as Tanzania
have led to an influx of multinational companies seeking investment oppor-
tunities in biofuels production in those countries. Although the production
of biofuels can contribute significantly to the poverty alleviation efforts of
developing countries and the environment (e.g. growing of drought-resistant
124 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

crops such as jatropha on land that would have otherwise been bare), it can
also have detrimental effects on the environment, biodiversity, and even on the
availability of crops that can be used as feedstock for producing biofuels for
their traditional uses.
The production of biofuels was blamed for the increase in prices of maize
flour in countries such as Mexico. Thus, despite the possibility of having a
positive effect on the welfare of the poor in developing countries, if no precau-
tions are taken, the net effects on the welfare of the poor and on the environ-
ment may be negative. Thus, to be able to make appropriate decisions, policy
makers need to be well informed. The only way to enhance the capacity of
decision makers to make right decisions is through studies. Unfortunately, the
current review has not found any comprehensive study on the performance
of biofuel business and on the existing and potential strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats to the environment, biodiversity conservation, and
socio-economic aspects in Tanzania. Several studies are available in the lit-
erature, but they are not detailed enough to make a meaningful contribution
to the policy making process with regard to the role of biofuels in ensuring
energy and food security. Thus, we can argue that comprehensive studies need
to be made on how best to exploit the vast biofuels production potential in
East Africa without compromising the ability of the poorest of the poor in the
region to access food.

Challenges for Bioenergy Utilization in Tanzania

Compromising Food Security

Although no comprehensive studies have been made on the potential impact of

biofuels production on food security in Tanzania, the fact is that the production
of feedstock for biofuels has similar requirements in terms of resources as those
needed for the production of food crops. Thus, we can argue that in case farmers
find it more profitable to grow crops for use as feedstock for producing biofuels
than for growing food crops, they will allocate more resources to the production
of feedstock for biofuel production, and this will affect food production.
If farmers choose to allocate, say, more land to the production of feedstocks
for producing biofuels, then food availability, which is one of the important
pillars of food security, will be affected significantly. This warrants serious con-
sideration for countries like Tanzania, where, according to FAO (2015), al-
most 35% of the population are malnourished.
In addition to allocating more land to growing feedstocks meant for biofu-
els production, the use of food crops such as maize and cassava as feedstocks
for biofuels production can lead to the prices of such crops rising and thereby
 VII. Bioenergy Utilization in Eastern Africa | 125

affecting food access, which is one of the important pillars of food security.
This is important as, according to Pinstrup-Andersen (2009), most of the mal-
nourished in sub-Saharan Africa have serious problems accessing food due to
insufficient resources to acquire it by production, barter, or purchase.

Environmental Risks

The increase in demand for liquid biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel is
likely to lead to intensified agricultural systems for the production of biofuel
feedstocks and to the conversion of existing and new croplands. Such meas-
ures will have environmental effects beyond the impacts of greenhouse gas
emissions. The nature and extent of these impacts will depend on factors such
as scale of production, type of feedstock, cultivation and land-management
practices, location, and downstream processing routes.
Since we do not have comprehensive studies on the potential impacts of the
production and use of liquid biofuels in the East African region, our evidence
on the impacts specifically associated with intensified biofuels production re-
mains limited. However, the effects are not likely to differ significantly from
those attributed to conventional agricultural production, such as water deple-
tion and pollution, soil degradation, nutrient depletion, and the loss of wild
and agricultural biodiversity.
Despite the paucity of studies on the environment effects of biofuels pro-
duction in Tanzania, the fact that some of the large-scale biofuel projects are
located in ecologically sensitive areas makes it reasonable to argue that the
expansion of liquid biofuels production in Tanzania, if not properly regulated,
will have serious environmental effects. For instance, some of the large-scale
investments on feedstocks production for biofuels have resulted in the de-
forestation of valuable forest areas. For example, a biofuel project in Kilwa
District resulted in harvesting valuable coastal and miombo woodlands to be
replaced with jatropha plantations. Jatropha is among the feedstocks used for
biodiesel production.

Conclusion

This paper attempted to analyze the prospects and challenges of producing bi-
ofuels in Eastern Africa without compromising the food security of the poorest
of the poor. The study is based on a review of the literature on biofuels pro-
duction in the region. One of our main findings is that the potential impact
of biofuels production on food and energy security has not been adequately
studied. While some studies show that producing biofuels will benefit East
African countries, others caution that biofuels production can have serious
126 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

negative social, economic, and environmental effects. Unfortunately, neither

the studies arguing for nor those arguing against the increase of liquid biofuels
production in the region are comprehensive and rigorous enough to merit seri-
ous consideration. In view of this observation, we recommend that deliberate
efforts be taken by the relevant stakeholders in the region to conduct compre-
hensive and rigorous studies on how biofuels can be produced without having
negative effects on the majority of the East African rural population, most of
whom are net buyers of food. Such studies will provide the basis for a biofu-
els production model that will ensure large-scale biofuels production without
compromising the food security of the poorest of the poor, which is very cru-
cial for the country to achieve the twin objectives of food and energy security.

References
ActionAid, 2009, Implication of Biofuels Production on Food Security in Tanzania.
AfDB, 2015, Renewable Energy in Africa: TANZANIA Country Profile.
Agarwal A.K., 2007, “Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal com-
bustion engines”. «Progress in Energy and Combustion Science», 33: 233–271.
Anderson T., 2008, Agrofuels and the Myth of the Marginal Lands. Gaia Foundation Publications.
Domac J., Richards K., 2005, “Socio-economic drivers in implementing bioenergy projects”.
«Biomass and Bioenergy», 28 (2): 97-106.
FAO, 1996, World Food Summit Report. available at: http://www.fao.org/wfs/index_en.htm
– 2008, The State of Food and Agriculture 2008. Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and Opportunities.
– 2015, Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. Number
2015 in The state of food insecurity in the world. Rome: FAO.
Green Facts, 2013, Liquid Bioenergy for Transport. Prospects, risks and opportunities.
Pinstrup-Andersen P., 2009, “Food security: definition and measurement”. «Food Security»,
1(1): 5–7.
Popp J., Lakner Z., Harangi-Rakos M., Fári M., 2014, “The Effect of Bioenergy Expansion
on food, energy, and the environment”. «Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews», 32
(2014): 559–578.
Sosovele H., 2010, “Policy Challenges Related to Biofuel Development in Tanzania”. «Africa
Spectrum», 45 (1): 117-129.
Thompson B.P., 2012, “The Agricultural Ethics of Biofuels: The Food vs. Fuel Debate”
«Agriculture», 2: 339-358, doi:10.3390/agriculture2040339.
URT, 2015, The Tanzanian Energy Sector.
White B., Dasgupta A., 2010, “Agrifuels Capitalism: A View from Political Economy”. «Journal
of Peasant Studies», 37 (4): 593-607.
World Bank, 2011, Biofuels Production in Africa: Opportunities, Prospects and Challenges.
Biogas from Livestock Waste (Cow Dung).
Institutional Case Study: College of Agriculture
and Veterinary Sciences, University of Nairobi,
Kenya
A. N. Gitau,1 W. Kogi – Makau, M. W. Kimani, D. Ndunge

Abstract

Livestock waste is a potential source of domestic and institutional energy; ho-

wever, it is a major contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and surfa-
ce and groundwater resource pollution. To reduce GHG production and live-
stock waste pollution, biogas production from waste is an effective solution. As
such, biogas production from livestock waste is increasing in Kenya as a way of
improving access to power and reducing its cost. Therefore, this paper studies
the biogas production potential of livestock waste, considering an institutional
case study at the University of Nairobi, College of Agriculture and Veterinary
Sciences Biogas Production Plant. A project is implemented by the University
in partnership with the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum to promote use of
green energy through the implementation of a 120 m3 biogas pilot project that
utilizes available livestock waste. Additionally, the study includes a financial
and economic analysis of the plant, presenting the economic viability of biogas
production from livestock waste.

Keywords: biogas, livestock waste (dung), digester, mixing chamber, bioslurry,

economic and financial analysis

Introduction

In Kenya, the main energy sources for electricity are biomass, petroleum, and
hydropower. Traditional biomass use accounts for about 70%, petroleum
21%, and electricity 9% of the energy consumption.2 Kenya has an installed

1. Corresponding Author.
2. https://energypedia.info/wiki/Kenya_Energy_Situation
128 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

electricity capacity of 2,127 MW against a demand of 8,000 MW, hence ex-

periencing a supply deficit of around 5,900 megawatts. The installed capacity
is of 820.6 MW hydropower, 717 MW thermal, 588 MW geothermal, 25.5
MW wind, and 26 MW cogeneration (Power Sector MTP 2015).
As a result, there is strong demand for the available forest resources within
the nation, and forests are being depleted, leading to higher effects of global
warming. In addition, the use of fossil fuels generates high carbon emission,
which is not absorbed by the depleted forest cover, leading to adverse climate
change effects. As such, adoption of clean renewable energies would reduce
these effects.

Livestock Waste Management in Kenya

The Kenyan livestock sector is dominated by small-scale farmers. Additionally,

over 60% of the livestock population is concentrated within the Arid and Semi
Arid Lands), which cover about 75% of the total land surface. The livestock
sector accounts for about 10% of the entire GDP and about 42% of the ag-
ricultural GDP (MLD 2008), creating over 50% of the country’s agricultural
sector labor force and encompassing around 90% of the rural population.
This sector also contributes substantial earnings to households through sale
of livestock and their products, and provides raw material for agro-industries.
Consequently, the government of Kenya has significantly developed the live-
stock industry, targeting increasing the production of livestock and livestock
products through various sectoral reforms, capacity building, provision of in-
centives to farmers, and extension services.
Livestock waste (commonly known as manure) is a valuable source of crop
nutrients and a potential source of renewable energy. However, most of the
waste is collected in lagoons or left to decompose in the open, which poses a
significant environmental hazard. The air pollutants emitted by manure in-
clude methane, nitrous oxide, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic
compounds, and particulate matter, which can cause serious environmental
concerns and health problems.3 A significant proportion of the estimated 35%
of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions deriving from agriculture and land
use comes from livestock production. Including deforestation for grazing land
and feed production, soil carbon loss in grazing lands, the energy used in
growing feeds and in processing and transporting feeds and livestock products,
nitrous oxide released by nitrogenous fertilizers, and gases from animal manure
(especially methane) and enteric fermentation, the sector accounts for around
18% of global GHG emissions (McMichael et al. 2007). Moreover, methane

3. http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/anaerobic-digestion-biomass
 VIII. Biogas from Livestock Waste (Cow Dung) | 129

emissions from animal manure, although much lower in absolute terms, are
considerable and growing rapidly to become a global warming threat accord-
ing to Gerber et al. 2007).
Therefore, increasing livestock sector production creates the need to counter
subsequent environmental effects. To reduce GHG production and pollution
from livestock waste, biogas production from this waste is a better solution.
Since the environmental impacts of bioenergy (energy that is derived from
biomass) are smaller than those of conventional (fossil and nuclear) energy
systems (FAO 2010), biogas production from livestock waste is on the rise in
Kenya as a way of improving access to power, as well as reducing power cost.

Biogas Generation Theory and Process

Biogas is a source of renewable energy produced when biomass is digested

under anaerobic conditions to produce a methane-rich gas. Biomass is any
organic matter derived from plants or animals available on a renewable basis,
including manure, wood and agricultural crops, herbaceous and woody energy
crops, municipal organic wastes, and algae. Biogas is composed of 50–75%
methane (CH4), 25–50% carbon dioxide (CO2), 0–10 nitrogen, (N2), 0–1%
hydrogen (H2), 0–3% hydrogen sulfide (H2S), 0–2*% Oxygen (O2) (Jensen
J., Jensen A. 2000).
Anaerobic digestion is a series of biological processes in which microorgan-
isms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. Anaerobic
digestion of animal manure converts animal waste into two categories of valu-
able products: biogas, a renewable fuel further used to produce green electric-
ity, heat, or as vehicle fuel; and the digested substrate, commonly named diges-
tate, used as an agricultural fertilizer (Braun and Wellinger 2008). Digestate
can be further refined into concentrated fertilizers, fiber products, and clean
water, all suitable for recycling. Co-digestion of animal manure with various
biomass substrates increases the biogas yield and offers a number of advantages
for the management of manure and organic wastes and GHG emission mitiga-
tion. Anaerobic co-digestion of manure and digestible organic wastes from the
food industry is very important for both biogas plant corporate economy and
for socio-economic reasons (Braun and Wellinger 2003).
Anaerobic digestion of animal waste involves four stage processes: hydroly-
sis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis. Hydrolysis involves use
of enzymes to decompose high molecular organic substances such as proteins,
carbohydrates, cellulose, and fats into low molecular compounds. During the
second stage, acidogenesis, acid-forming bacteria continue the decomposition
process into organic acids, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia.
Acid bacteria form acetate, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen during acetogenesis.
130 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

The fourth stage, methanogenesis, involves methane-forming bacteria produc-

ing methane, carbon dioxide, and alkaline water. Fig 8.1 shows the anaerobic
digestion process stages.

Fig 8.1 Anaerobic digestion process stages (Source:Hamilton, 2009)

Major Considerations for a Biogas Plant

Biogas production from livestock manure is influenced by five major factors,

namely pH, temperature and carbon–nitrogen ratio of the feedstock, solid con-
centration in the feed material, and hydraulic retention time (HRT). Biogas
plants work optimally at a neutral pH level and a mesophilic temperature of
around 35oC, with a carbon–nitrogen ratio of the feed material ranging be-
tween 20:1 and 30:1. Solid concentration in the feed material is also crucial for
ensuring sufficient gas production, as well as easy mixing and handling. HRT
is the most important factor in determining the volume of the digester, which,
in turn, determines the cost of the plant; the larger the retention period, the
higher the construction cost.

Components of a Biogas Production Plant

A standard biogas production plant has the following components.

 VIII. Biogas from Livestock Waste (Cow Dung) | 131

Mixing Chamber

Raw livestock waste is pre-treated by mixing, removing unsuitable matters,

and water dilution at the mixing chamber.

Digester

The digester, also called the fermentation tank, is the most important component
of any biogas production plant, since it provides the anaerobic conditions for bac-
teria to generate biogas. The substrates have to be constantly heated and stirred in
order to ensure their homogeneity and a consistent discharge of gas. The four cat-
egories of digesters are the covered anaerobic lagoon digester, which is sealed with
a flexible cover, with methane recovered and piped to the combustion device; the
plug flow digesters, which are long, narrow concrete tanks with a rigid or flexible
cover, the tank being partially or fully built below grade to limit the demand for
supplemental heat; the complete mix digesters, which are enclosed, heated tanks
with a mechanical, hydraulic, or gas mixing system; and dry digesters, which are
silo-style digesters made of concrete and steel, with a rigid cover.

Gas Handling System

A gas handling system removes biogas from the digester and transports it to
the end-use. Gas handling includes funneling, gas pump or blower, gas meter,
pressure regulator, and condensate drain. Biogas produced in the digester is
trapped under an airtight cover placed over the digester.
The gasholder is typically an airproof steel container that, by floating like
a ball on the fermentation mix, cuts off air to the digesters (anaerobiosis) and
collects the gas generated. In one of the most widely used designs, the gas-
holder is equipped with a gas outlet, while the digesters are provided with an
overflow pipe to lead the sludge out into a drainage pit.

Residue Collector

The digester residues are high quality fertilizers. During the digester process,
carbon is degraded and the manure carbon-nitrate ratios converge. Therefore,
the nitrate is better handled and the fertilizer-effect is easier to calculate.
Additionally, volume is reduced and the manure is more fluent. Additional
advantages are decreased malodor and the deadening of pest plant seeds.
Another important component in a biogas production plant is the gas pip-
ing system, which transports biogas from the digester to the gasholder and
from the gasholder to the point of use.
132 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Fig 8.2 Basic material flow in anaerobic digestion system

College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences (CAVS) Biogas

Production Plant

The plant is located at the University of Nairobi, Upper Kabete Campus,

15 km West of Nairobi, Kenya. The College of Agriculture and Veterinary
Sciences (CAVS), in partnership with the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum
(MoEP), is promoting the use of green energy through the implementation
of a 120 m3 biogas pilot project that utilizes livestock waste available in the
College. The aim of the pilot project is to supply gas to one of the student
kitchens for cooking and, thereby, reduce reliance on electricity, liquefied pe-
troleum gas (LPG), and wood fuel, hence reducing the College’s energy bills.
This would also act as a demonstration site for technology transfer and expe-
riential learning for students. Moreover, with the planned upscaling of the bio
digester technology, the project will contribute to climate change mitigation.
The unit houses 100 heads of cattle and serves about 500 students in the colle-
ge. The mixing chamber has a capacity of 240 kg of dung mixed with water at
a ratio of 1:1. A 1.3 km long, 50 mm PVC underground pipe delivers gas from
the digester to the consumer unit, where a 100 m3 plastic gasholder is installed.
The effluent from the digester is used as fertilizer within the college farm.The
biogas production plant has provided various monetary, non-monetary, direct,
and indirect benefits to the college and its environs, including clean renewable
energy production, cheap and environmentally healthy animal waste manage-
ment and recycling, production of enriched organic manure, environmental
benefits on a global scale from lower GHG emissions, and less nuisance from
odors and flies.
 VIII. Biogas from Livestock Waste (Cow Dung) | 133

Fig 8.3 Mixing chamber

Fig 8.4 Underground digester

134 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Fig 8.5 Plastic gasholder

Fig 8.6 Residue collector

 VIII. Biogas from Livestock Waste (Cow Dung) | 135

Economic and Financial Analysis of the CAVS Biogas Plant

The analysis of the economic and financial viability of the CAVS Biogas
Production Plant uses a discounting rate of 12% and a lifetime of 20 years,
being based on the two major products of a biogas plant, including biogas and
bio-slurry (used as fertilizer). The analysis includes a capital cost of USD 75,000
and annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of 30% of the capital cost.
The annual income generated by the biogas project is the amount of money
saved by the university on LPG purchase, to meet their kitchen energy needs,
and bio-slurry sale (organic fertilizer). Assuming a biogas use efficiency of re-
placing LPG of 60%, the total direct benefits (biogas and bio-slurry) realized
by the biogas plant are estimated at USD 52,801 per year. Other benefits are
estimated at USD 2,400 per year. Details on the input data are as shown in
Tab 8.1. The economic and financial analysis of the CAVS Biogas Production
Plant indicates that the project is economically viable, with a benefit cost ratio
(BCR) of 1.03, an internal rate of return (IRR) of 15%, and a payback period
of three years, as per Tab 8.2.

Table 8.1 Summary of input data.

Description Value Units

Number of cattle 100 heads

Bags of raw manure produced 12 bags of 90 kg

each

Cost of raw manure (without the Biogas 2.5

Plant) per 90 kg bag

Capital cost of the Biogas Plant 75,000 USD

Operations & maintenance 22,500 USD/year

Discounting rate 12 %

Biogas use efficiency in replacing LPG 60 %

Savings on LPG costs 9,601 USD/year

Savings on fertilizer costs (bio-slurry benefits) 43,200 USD/year

Other benefits 2,400 USD/year

136 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Total present value of costs (3-year basis) 129,041 USD

Total present value of benefits (3-year basis) 132,584 USD

Benefit–Cost ratio (BCR) 1.03

Total net present value (NPV) (3-year basis) 3,543 USD

Internal rate of return (IRR) 15 %

Pay-back period 3 years

Table 8. 2 Summary of economic and financial analysis results

Description Value Units

Benefit–Cost ratio (BCR) 1.03

Total net present value (NPV) (3-year basis) 3,543 USD

Internal rate of return (IRR) 15 %

Pay-back period 3 years

Conclusions

Biogas generation from anaerobic digestion of livestock waste has great poten-
tial in Kenya owing to the tremendous development of the livestock industry
aimed at increasing production of livestock and livestock products. Several
benefits can be attained from livestock waste biogas generation, including
clean renewable energy production, cheap and environmentally healthy ani-
mal waste management and recycling, production of enriched organic ma-
nure, environmental benefits on a global scale from lower GHG emissions,
and less nuisance from odors and flies. However, further studies on ways to
improve livestock waste biogas use efficiency are required.
 VIII. Biogas from Livestock Waste (Cow Dung) | 137

References
Abubakar B.S.U.I., Ismail N., 2012, “Anaerobic digestion of cow dung for biogas production”.
«ARPN Journal Engineering and Applied Science», 7 (2): 169-172.
Braun R., Wellinger A., 2008, Biogas from energy crop digestion. IEA Bioenergy Task 37 –
Energy from Biogas and Landfill Gas.
– 2008, Potential of co-digestion. IEA Bioenergy Task 37 – Energy from Biogas and Landfill
Gas.
Cantrell K.B., Ducey T., Ro K.S., Hunt P.G., 2008, “Livestock waste-to-bioenergy generation
opportunities”. «Bioresource Technology», 99 (2008): 7941–7953.
El-Mashad H.M. Zhang R., 2010, “Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and
food waste”. «Bioresource Technology», 101 (11): 4021-4028.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2010, BIAS: Bioenergy
Environmental Impact Analysis – Analytical Framework. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Environment and Natural Resources Management
Series n. 46.
Gerber P., Wassennar T., Rosales M., Castel V., Steinfeld H., 2007, “Environmental impacts
of a changing livestock production: overview and discussion for a comparative assessment
with other food production sectors”. in Bartley et al. (Eds.), Comparative assessment of the
environmental costs of aquaculture and other food production sectors: methods for meaningful
comparisons, Vancouver, Canada: FAO Fisheries Proceedings, (10): 37–54.
Girard M., Palacios J.H., Belzile M., Godbout S., Pelletier F., 2007, Biodegradation in Animal
Manure Management. Québec (Qc), Canada: Research and Development Institute for the
Agri-Environment (IRDA).
Hamilton D.W., 2009, Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Manures: Understanding the Basic
Processes. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. BAE-1747.
Jensen J., Jensen A., 2000, Biogas and Natural Gas Fuel Mixture for the Future. 1st World
Conference and Exhibition on Biomass for Energy and Industry, Sevilla.
Kenya Vision 2030, 2015, Power Sector Medium Term Plan 2015-2020.
McMichael A.J., Powles J.W., Butler C.D., Uauy R., 2007, “Food, livestock production, en-
ergy, climate change, and health”. «The Lancet», 370 (9594): 1253–63.
Recebli Z., Selimli S.,. Ozkaymak M., Gonc O., 2015, “Biogas Production from Animal
Manure”. «Journal of Engineering Science and Technology», 10 (6): 722 – 729.
Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Livestock Development, 2008, Session Paper No 2 of 2008 on
National Livestock Policy.
Assessment and Design of Biogas Use and
Generation: HEWO Hospital Community
Case Study
Aregawi Gebreeyesus Gebremichael,1 Gebremeskel Geytse, Desalegn Hndeya,
Tekleab Nguse

Abstract

This work aims to assess the efficiency of the biogas energy production and
utilisation in the HEWO community hospital in order to design a new
technology system to upgrade its energy generation capacity. The case study
investigates the biogas generation needed to satisfy the hospital energy de-
mand, especially for cooking purposes that are generally dependent on fuel
and charcoal supply in the majority of households lacking biogas facilities.
This research seeks to increase the renewable energy production, thus, leading
to a significant reduction of costs incurred by the hospital for charcoal and
fuel purchasing. This is done by assessing and designing an upgraded biogas
technology system for the HEWO2 hospital. Data were collected via structu-
red questionnaires, interviews, and images captured by cameras. Thus, both
qualitative and quantitative methodologies were used. Based on the results of
this case study, the installation of a biogas plant as an alternative energy source
can be recommended. The utilisation prospects of slurry and the use of biogas
for cooking should be promoted to enhance the beneficial aspects of biogas
and reduce the payback period of the biogas installation.

Key words: Assessment, Design, Biogas Use, Generation, HEWO Hospital

Introduction

The biogas experience in the United States between the 1970s and 1980s has
demonstrated that biogas technology is not applicable to all farms. The de-
velopment of biogas technologies in Georgia started in 1993-1994 with the

1. Corresponding Author.
2. This acronym stands for Hansenian Ethiopian Welfare Organization.
140 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

assistance of GTZ (Technical Cooperation Agency of Germany) (Hauser and

Deublein 2008). The technical support provided by GTZ allowed Georgia’s
experts and engineers to study advanced designs and adaptation technologies
for Georgia’s climate and economic conditions.
Biogas production is best suited for farms that handle large amounts of
manure as liquid, slurry, or semi-solid waste with little or no bedding added.
Its systems require a financial investment and a management responsibility.
Biogas reactors, working in a thermopile regime, can be introduced in agri-
cultural farms where the number of livestock exceeds five. It is produced on
such farms for cooking, heating water, cooling, to generate electricity, and
for dairy production (Hauser and Deublein 2008). Biogas is produced when
organic materials – derived from crop residues, animal and human manures,
municipal organic wastes, and food processing by-products – break down in
an oxygen-free environment. The process is called anaerobic digestion and usu-
ally occurs in a specialized tank.
The Quiha HEWO (Hansenian Ethiopian Welfare Organization) hospi-
tal invests 11,642 ETB3 per month to supply the hospital with fuel and gas
because the existing biogas system does not satisfy the high-energy demand
of the community. This study aims to tackle this problem by focusing on the
wastage inputs in order to save costs and upgrade the biogas energy technology
to satisfy the energy demand of the community hospital. Therefore, the cen-
tral objective is to discover the best methodology to increase the efficiency of
the existing biogas; this can be done by expanding the plant inputs, currently
based on animal manure, to include liquid and solid human manure and other
environmental wastage in and around the HEWO hospital. The generated re-
newable energy can be a sustainable and green source to cook ‘wot’ and ‘Injera’
for the kindergarten children and in hospital patients.

Literature review

Biogas technology represents a viable alternative as an environmentally friend-

ly generation and consumption of green energy that can entirely replace fossil
fuels, which are intensively used for domestic cooking, lighting, refrigeration,
and for industrial purposes (Sudi and Ngowi 1999). Additionally, it can have
a positive impact on deforestation and, as a side benefit, it can reduce, at least
in Ethiopia, the socio-economic burden on women of gathering firewood for
household consumption. Furthermore, it eliminates the ophthalmic and res-

3. Ethiopian Bir is the local currency in Ethiopia. In 2015, the medium average exchange rate with the
US dollar was 1 ETB to 0.04735 USD (source Infoeuro http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/
info_contracts/inforeuro/index_en.cfm).
 IX. Assessment and Design of Biogas Use and Generation | 141

piratory diseases that typically arise from traditional cooking practices (Bruce
et al. 2002). Biogas is a clean combustible renewable gas, made from organic
waste. The most commonly used waste is agricultural waste, manure from
cows and pigs, but sewage sludge, energy crops, and industrial organic waste
is also compatible (Balat and Balat 2009). The essential ingredients for biogas
production are organic waste, bacteria, anaerobic conditions, and heat. In the
biogas process, bacteria convert organic waste into methane gas in a non-ox-
ygen environment called anaerobic digestion (Fleming and Soos 2009). The
biogas consists of 55-65% methane, 35-45% carbon dioxide, 0-3% nitrogen,
and 0-1% hydrogen and hydrogen sulphide (Balat and Balat 2009). Biogas
slurry is the by-product of the biogas generation process. After the digestion,
the residues come out in liquid form, and this slurry can be a valuable fertiliser
to supplement the use of inorganic fertilisers (Fjørtoft and Grimsby 2011).
The biogas slurry contains high amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous and po-
tassium, which are essential nutrients for the crops (Ghamunga and Ngowi
1999). The biogas slurry enriches the soil, supplying it with essential nutrients
and enhancing its water holding capacity (Vasudeo 2011).
The biogas plant is composed of an influent collecting tank, inlet and outlet
pipes, a digester, a gasholder, a gas pipe, valves and accessories, and stirring fa-
cilities. The digesters can be made from steel vessels, concrete vessels, masonry,
plastics, and wood materials. There are different patterns to be followed for the
construction of gasholders in a simple biogas plant. These are floating-drum
gasholders, fixed-dome gasholders, plastic gasholders, and separate gasholders.
At least 60% of the non-functioning biogas units are attributable to defecting
gas piping. Utmost care has to be taken for proper installation and standardi-
zation; it is advisable to select a single size for all pipes, valves, and accessories
(ISAT GTZ 1999). Optimum stirring substantially reduces retention time;
moreover, for simple household plants, poking with a stick is the simplest and
safest stirring (SNV 2001).

Methodology

Study area and period

The study was conducted at the HEWO community hospital in the Quiha
town, which is located 16 km east of Mekelle and 780 Km from the capital
city of Ethiopia, East Africa. The period considered was February 01, 2015 to
June 20, 2015. The HEWO-Quiha Hospital is a non-governmental welfare
organisation established in 1985. It was established mainly to support poor
people suffering from leprosy, TB and HIV/AIDS. It has a capacity of 86 beds
and provides patients with services free of charge, thanks to the work and co-
142 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

operation of a group of Italian volunteers. The hospital’s four kitchens are em-
ployed to prepare food for both inside patients and the 160 children attending
the community kindergarten.

Research methodology

The methodologies used to collect primary data for this study are qualitative
and quantitative. The qualitative research is mainly based on semi-structured
interviews, whereas a self-administered questionnaire allowed for the collec-
tion of quantitative data. The questionnaire for the semi-structured interviews
was used to triangulate the data collected via the self-administered question-
naire. Observation helped researchers examine the availability of the neces-
sary inputs for the biogas technology, such as human excrement and animal
manure, the distance of the biogas from the digester, the parts of the existing
plant, the position, location, and diameter of the digester, the height and di-
ameter of the stirring or mixing tank, and the length of the inlet pipe, in order
to design the biogas technology in a better way. Secondary data were collected
from scientific articles, text-books, and web sites to get base line information
to develop the renewed system of biogas technology for the hospital.
Data collected from the self-administered questionnaire and interviews
with the hospital workers were complemented by visits to the biogas plant
to examine its technology and working principles. In parallel, the researchers
used cameras to capture images for further analysis. The data collected from
the questionnaires were processed, cleaned, and coded to make them ready
for analysis. The following elaboration was done using parameters expressly
designed for the biogas plant of the HEWO hospital. The qualitative data were
analysed via content analysis.

Results and Discussion

Input parameters and basic assumption of functional working of the existing bio-
gas plant

As a preliminary step, the researchers analysed the working system of the exist-
ing biogas technology. The observations revealed that the biogas energy pro-
duced was not enough to generate the required power to fulfil the needs of
the whole hospital community but only covered the needs of the 160 children
attending the kindergarten program. The available inputs for the generated
biogas energy consisted of the manure of eight cows that were used also as a
source of fresh milk. To address this energy gap, the hospital invested 3200
ETB per month to buy firewood. The cooking machine was equipped with
 IX. Assessment and Design of Biogas Use and Generation | 143

eight stoves that used energy from the biogas, but only one was fully opera-
tional with biogas; additionally, different activities were necessarily performed
with the one stove – like cooking wot, making tea, and warming milk – and
the process took time, as it was done on a one by one basis; sometimes it
stopped functioning because of a shortage of the inputs needed for the bi-
ogas generation. To compensate, the hospital bought charcoal at 300 ETB per
quintal.
Therefore, the following parameters were used to determine the energy
generation capacity of the existing biogas digester:
• Height of the stirring tank = 63cm & Deepness of the digester = 3.25metre,
• Diameter of the digester = 2.8 metre (radius =1.4 metre),
• Diameter of the stirring tank = 91cm & Diameter of Inlet pipe =80mm,
• Length of the inlet pipe = 2.23metre and Volume of the digester = 20m3,
• Retention time (depending on the temperature and amount of substrates);
it was agreed that RT = 90 days
Then, to calculate the daily feed substrate (cattle manure or dung), the re-
searchers used the equation Vd = Sd * RT; so Sd = Vd/RT (m3 per day) since
Vd = π r2h = 20m
3
3
because the digester had a cylindrical shape 20m3 = Sd * 90
days, sd 90 days = 0,22 m3 per day = 220 liters/day.
20 m

Financial sustainability of the existing system

Since the existing biogas technology was not sufficient to satisfy all the com-
munity needs, the hospital purchased 400 litres of fuel per month at the
price of 15.98 ETB/litre, leading to total expenditures of 6932 ETB/month.
Moreover, seven gas cylinders per month were added at the price of 750 ETB
per cylinder and this implied a disbursement of 5250 ETB/month. The over-
all expenditure for energy additional to that provided by the biogas plant was
calculated at 6932 ETB plus 5250 ETB, equal to 11,642 ETB/month.

Designing components of the proposed biogas technology system

To design the components of the upgraded digester the following parameters

were considered.
The researchers increased the volume of the digester by considering up to
455 as the number of consumers to be served every day. Then, the volume of
the digester was increased from 20m3 to 60m3.
From the 60m3 volume, the height and the diameter of the digester were
calculated:
• the shape of the digester is cylindrical; thus, the volume of the digester
should be = πr2 * h=60 m3
• in a fixed dome cylinder digester, the diameter height = 2*radius
144 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Vd = πr2 *2r = 60m3

2 * 3.14 r3= 60m3

6.28 r3 = 60 m3

r3 = 9.554 m3

r = 2.12m

Therefore, d = 2r = 2* 2.12 = 4.24m height; because in a cylindrical fixed dome

biogas h = d, then:
• Retention time was inferred as equal to 70 days. Practical experience shows
average retention time of 60-80 days, depending on the soil or environ-
mental temperature, on the input substrate, and on the optimum mixing
(stirring) process. Optimum stirring substantially reduces the retention
time. Consistent with the criteria, the researchers settled on a retention
time up to 70 days.
• Diameter of the inlet and outlet pipes = 110mm. The length of the inlet
pipe = 3m. The designed inlet pipes were two; one for the cattle manure
and other biodegradable wastes, the other for human excrement. The length
of the outlet pipe = 4m and will be made of non-corrosive material (i.e.,
plastics). This way the wastage outlet from the digester would be smoothed
in the pipe.
• The diameter of the stirring tank = 1.5m, including the wall thickness and
height = 1m. The considered mixing ratio of the organic dry matter, such as
cattle manure and water, in this tank should be 1:3.
• The gasholder (collector) was designed with a conical shape fixed dome on
the top of a cylindrical shape digester.
• For gas piping (gas energy flow pipe), four pipes will be needed to distribute
the gas energy from the digester to the four kitchens of the hospital, each
4
3
th inch made of non-corrosive metal. Plastic pipe will not be used in or-
der to avoid any possible damage from the gas energy.

Calculating the digester volume

In line with the above information, the researchers calculated the daily sub-
strate feed to the digester using the formula below:

Vd = Sd × RT [m3 = m3/day × number of days]

60m3 = Sd/day * 70 days

 IX. Assessment and Design of Biogas Use and Generation | 145

Sd/day = 60m3/70 = 0.857 m3 = 857 liter, from this the organic dry matter
is 1:3 of water (B: W) therefore, 857
3
=285,67 liter is the daily input of organic
dry matter (B) and the remaining 571.33 litre is the daily input of water.

Calculating the daily gas production

From the above given parameters and substrates, the researchers derived the
daily gas production (G)
• G = volatile solid * specific gas production, since the volatile solid is the
organic dry matter that is equal to the biomass or B and specific gas yield =
Gy = Sd/moist mass
• G = VS * GY, where Vs. = B
• G = 285.67 * GY
• Gy = SD/W(moist water) = 857 litre per day/571.33 liters per day
• Gy = 1.5 per day
• G = B * Gy= 285.67 litres per day *1.5=428.5 litres/day = 0.4285m3/day
From this value, the daily efficiency of the biogas system can be calculated
put
as: efficiency (e) = daily out input * 100% = 428.5 liter per day/857 liter per
day* 100% = 50%

Calculating the specific gas production (Gp)

From the daily gas production, the specific gas production is calculated using
the following equation.

Gp = G/Vd = 428.5 litres/day / 60m3 = 7.14 liters/m3

Calculating the total load for the digester

Then, the digester load (Ld) was based on the following equation from the
above calculated values:

LdT = TS/d ÷ Vd[kg/ (m3 d)] OR LdV = VS/d ÷ VD [kg/ (m3 d)]

LdT = 285.67 liter per day / 60 m3 = 4.74 liter/m3

Calculating the hourly gas production

From the daily gas production (G), the hourly gas production was inferred:

Gh = hourly gas production [m3/h] = G ÷ 24 h/d

146 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Gh = 428.5 liter per day /24h per day = 17.854 liter per hour

Calculating the gasholder capacity

The required gasholder capacity and size are important planning parameters. If
the gasholder capacity is not proportioned to the gas produced.
The ratio Vd ÷ Vg (digester volume ÷ gasholder volume) is a major factor
with regards to the basic design of the biogas system. The gasholder is a conical
shaped so the gasholder capacity can be calculated using the formula of cone
volume. Volume of a cone = 1/3 πr2h , where r = 2.12m, the same for the ra-
dius of the cylinder and height of the cone shaped gasholder. Therefore, it was
assumed that: = 1.2m, then Vgh

= 1/3 πr2h = 1/3 * 3.14 (2.12 * 2.12) * 1.2 =5.6449 m3

Then, the ratio of the digester volume to the gasholder volume (Vd: Vgh)

= 60m3 / 5.6449m3 = 10.63 unit litres

The whole process would lead to the development of a biogas technology as

depicted in the fig 9.1 below:

Fig 9.1 Fixed dome biogas system design. Legend: 1) Mixing tank with inlet pipe
and sand trap; 2) Digester; 3) Compensation and removal tank; 4)
Gasholder; 5) Gas pipe; 6) Entry hatch with gastight seal; 7) Outlet pipe; 8)
Reference level; 9) Reference level; 10) Supernatant scum broken up by
varying level.
 IX. Assessment and Design of Biogas Use and Generation | 147

Tab 9.1 Budget requirement and cost description in ETB

Cost items by categories Unit Quantity Unit Total

price price
(in (in Birr)
Birr)

A. Constriction work
of the bio gas digester

1 Cost of cement Quintal 50 270 13500

2 Sand m3 20 470 9400

3 Gravel 2cm dia m3 27 340 9180

4 Stone m3 37 100 3700

5 Iron rod 12mm dia Berga 6 265 1590

6 Binding wire Kg 5 30 150

7 Dome pipe Pcs 1 370 370

8 Mixer Mixture 1 370 370

9 Template Pcs 1 560 560

Sub-total A 38,820

B. Major fitting materials

1 B – class G.1.pipe Pcs 16 390 6,240

3/4thinch

2 Elbow 3/4th galvanized Pcs 6 15 90

3 Nipple 3/4th galvanized Pcs 5 15 75

4 T-socket3/4th galvanized Pcs 3 15 45

5 PVC pipe 110 dia metre 10 300 3,000

Sub-total B 9,450
148 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

C. Appliance

1 Pressure gage 16 bar Pcs 4 255 1,020

2 Dry gas metre Pcs 1 355 355

Sub-total C 1,375

D. Professional and labour

cost

1 Cost of construction Lump 5000 5,000

Masonry work sum

2 Cost of design Lump sum 10.000 10,000

specification system.
Installation, training
for operators/users
and supervision and
technical advice
(biogas expert)

3 cost assistant workers Lump sum 2.500 2,500

Sub-total D 17,500

Total(Sub-total A, B, C 67,145
&D) ETB

Contingency cost (10%) 6,714.5

73,859.5
Birr

Tab 9.1 reports a total cost of 73,859.50 ETB. This cost is the total budget re-
quired to build the digester with the upgraded biogas technology. The cost can
be paid back in less than six months considering the current hospital monthly
expenditure of 11,642 ETB for fuel.
 IX. Assessment and Design of Biogas Use and Generation | 149

Conclusion

It can be concluded that biogas energy production and utilisation in the

HEWO hospital is both viable and sustainable. The aim of the study was to
develop an upgraded technology to feed the four kitchens in the HEWO hos-
pital from the renewable biogas energy plant. This objective has been achieved
by assessing the required daily/hourly energy to be generated by the biogas
plant in order to fulfil the energy demand of the 455 people staying in the
hospital. The empirical results conform with the hypotheses that guided this
study that a number of socio-economic factors influence biogas production
and utilisation, and biogas production is a profitable and sustainable venture
for the HEWO hospital. The study has revealed that there is a potential to pro-
duce gas energy from cattle manure and human manure as well as liquid waste;
hence, the study focused on the design of the biogas technology system and
single components to increase the generation of renewable energy. Moreover,
the research sought to compare existing and future energy consumption to
save the monies invested in building the proposed new technology. Results
from the study highlight the benefits that come from the site implementation
in terms of environmental protection – with a special focus on forest degrada-
tion – stemming from the replacement of wood or charcoal with green biogas
energy. Finally, the recycling and utilisation of different types of waste limits
the impact of waste disposal and reduces pollution, thus improving the health
of the local community.

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our sincere appreciation for their valuable contribu-
tion to EiT-M, Mekelle University, EDULINK II Energy_Agro-Food project
members and the Department of Agriculture and Food Sciences, Alma Mater
Studiorum University of Bologna.

References
Balat M., Balat H., 2009, “Biogas as a Renewable Energy Source – A Review” «Energy Sources,
Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects», 31(14): 1280 – 1293. Available
at: http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/15567030802089565 (accessed: 16.06.11).
Biogas Support Programme (SNV/Nepal), Advanced Course in Biogas Technology, February
2001.
Bruce N., Perez-Padilla R., Albalak R., 2002, WHO: The health effects of indoor air pollution
exposure in developing countries. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_
SDE_OEH_02.05.pdf (accessed: 16.06.11).
Fjørtoft K., Grimsby L. K., (2011), A brief comparison of biogas digesters, appropriateness of bi-
150 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

ogas for development of rural areas, and potential issues related to mitigation of climate change
with biogas technology, Available at: http://www.bistandsnemnda.no/newsread/ReadImage.
aspx?DOCID=316&QUALITY=10 (accessed: 16.06.11).
Fleming R., Soos M., 2009, The Impact of Rumensin on the Production of Biogas. Available
at: http://www.ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca/research/documents/fleming_Rumensin_in_AD_
Systems_Nov_2009.pdf (accessed: 16.06.11).
Ghamunga S., Ngowi H. Z., 1999, ”Experiences with the National Biogas Programme in
Tanzania (1975-1997)”. in Mshana R.R., Ischebeck O. (Eds), Sustainable Development
Through Renewable Energies in Tanzania. München: AkademischerVerlag.
Hauser S., Deublein, D., (2008), Biogas from waste and renewable resources: an Introduction.
Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag.
ISAT GTZ, 1999, Biogas Digest Volume II, Biogas – Application and Product Development
Information and Advisory Service on Appropriate Technology.
Ludwig S., 1988, Biogas Plants. A Publication of the Deutsches Zentrum für Entwicklungs
technologien.
Sudi G., Ngowi H.Z., (1999), “Experiences with the National Biogas Programmed in Tanzania
(1975 – 1997)”. in Mshana R.R., Ischebeck O. (Eds), Sustainable development through
renewable energies in Tanzania. München: Akademischer Verlag.
Vasudeo, G. 2011, Biogas Manure (BgM): A viable input in sustainable agriculture – an in-
tegrated approach. Available at: http://unapcaem.org/Activities Files/A01/BiogasManure
(BgM) a viable input in sustainable agriculture %E2%80%93 an integrated approach.pdf
(accessed: 16.06.11).
List of Authors
Alemu Mekonnen
Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Economics,
Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Economic development and the environment
• Forestry, energy, poverty and the environment

Aregawi Gebreeyesus Gebremichael

School of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, EiT-M,
Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Assessment and design of biogas use and generation
• Profit planning of textile industry using linear programming approach
• Research demand assessment of metal processing industries in Ethiopia
• Value chain analysis for micro, small and medium enterprises

Betelhem Mulugeta Negede

Junior Research Fellow, Environment and Climate Research Center,
Ethiopian Development Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Forest management practices
• Climate and forest (REDD+)
• Value chain analysis of forest products
• Forest sector contribution for inclusive and green growth
• Renewable energy for climate change mitigation
152 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Brun Jean-François
Senior lecturer in economics at CERDI,
University of Auvergne, France
Co-director of Master of Public Finance in Developing Economies at the
School of Economics.
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Public finance in developing economies
• Prices of raw materials

Combes-Motel Pascale
Full Professor of Economics at the School of Economics,
University of Auvergne, France
Co-head of the Master in Sustainable Development in Developing and
Transition Economics and the Master in Development Economics.
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Sustainable development economics
• Tropical deforestation and protected areas
• Ecological economics
• Environment and resource economics

Desalegn Hndeya
Quality Inspector I,
Mesfin Industrial Engineering PLC, Mekelle, Ethiopia
Email: [email protected]

Monserrath Ximena Lascano Galarza

PhD. candidate at the University of Pavia, Department of Economics and
Management,
University of Pavia, Italy
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Human development and education
• Food security and humanitarian aid

Gebremeskel Geytse
Quality Inspector I,
Mesfin Industrial Engineering PLC, Mekelle, Ethiopia,
Email: [email protected]
 List of Authors | 153

Gitau Ayub Njoroge

Chairman Department of Environmental and Biosystems Engineering,
University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Power and machinery
• Energy
• Process and food engineering
• Water Resources and irrigation
• Solid waste management
• Rainwater harvesting

Haileleoul Abte Sahle

Lecturer at the School of Mechanical Engineering, Addis Ababa Institute
of Technology
Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Green Technology
• Mechanical Engineering
• Energy

Éric Nazindigouba Kéré

Research economist in the Complex of the Chief Economist of African
Development Bank (AfDB), Côte d’Ivoire
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Energy and development economics
• Bioenergy
• Sustainable management of natural resources (deforestation, protected are-
as and biodiversity)
• Climate change and development economics (food security, water and
sanitation)
154 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

M. W. Kimani
Chairman Department of Real Estate and Construction Management,
University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Urban and physical planning
• Energy
• Water Resources and irrigation
• Real estate and construction
• Rainwater harvesting
• Solid waste management

Wambui Kogi – Makau

Chairman Department of Food Science Nutrition and Technology,
University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Food science and nutrition
• Energy agro-food
• Food and nutrition safety

Köhlin Gunnar
Associate Professor, Department of Economics,
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Management of natural resources in developing countries
• Non-market valuation techniques
• Household production models and impact evaluations

Masresha Eskeziaw
Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Economics)
Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Optimization of smallholders’ welfare
• Risk analysis in agriculture
• Production and marketing systems
• Food security
• Climate change and adaptation strategies
 List of Authors | 155

Muchiri Gichuki
Department of Environmental and Bio-systems Engineering
University of Nairobi, Kenya
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Biofuels
• Conservation agriculture
• Economies of scale

Ndunge Duncan
Graduate Assistant, Department of Environmental and Biosystems
Engineering,
University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Energy
• Water Resources and irrigation
• Rainwater harvesting
• Environmental management

Philip Damas
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness,
Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania
Emails: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Agricultural development
• Food security
• Farm management
• Agribusiness
• Agricultural statistics

Sassi Maria
Associate Professor of Food Economics and Agricultural Development,
Department of Economics and Management,
University of Pavia, Italy
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Food security
• Food assistance
• Agricultural development
156 | Bioenergies in East Africa: between challenges and opportunities

Setti Marco
Associate Professor, Department of Agriculture and Food Sciences
Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Italy
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Behavioural economics
• Common resources economics
• Food economics and policy
• Environmental economics and policy

Tadele Ferede
Assistant Professor, Department of Economics,
Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Growth, structural transformation
• Poverty, trade
• Agricultural-non-agricultural linkages
• Labour market issues

Tekleab Nguse
Planning, Wukro Sheba Tannery,
Mekelle, Ethiopia
Email: [email protected]

Vittuari Matteo
Senior researcher, Department of Agriculture and Food Sciences
Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Italy
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Food waste and losses
• Economic and social aspects of agro-food and bioenergy systems
• Rural development policy
 List of Authors | 157

Wondwossen Bogale
Director of University Industry Linkage and Technology Transfer,
Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Biogas upgrading technologies
• Waste-to-Energy plants
• Pyrolysis of waste tire
• Biochar production from flower waste
• Small scale wind blade design
• Simulation of conventional power plant

Zenebe Gebreegziabher
Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Economics,
Mekelle University, Ethiopia
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Economics of energy, forestry, environment and bioenergy
• Energy efficiency, and transitions

Zizzola Daria
Research Fellow, Department of Agriculture and Food Sciences
Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Italy
Email: [email protected]
Research Activities:
• Sustainable development in the horn of Africa
• Socio-economic impact of bioenergies in Africa