Botswana Biomass Energy Strategy

BOTSWANA MINISTRY OF MINERALS, ENERGY AND WATER RESOURCES ENERGY AFFAIRS DIVISION

Main Report

FINAL REPORT

March 2009

ii

FINAL REPORT

Date of Report: March 2009

Reporting Period: 31 March 2008 – 14 April 2009

Prepared By:

Dr. Peter P. Zhou: Lead Consultant (Energy, Environment and Climate Change Specialist) Mr. Bothwell Batidzirai: Consultant (Biomass Energy and LEAP Modelling Specialist) Mr. Tichakunda Simbini: Consultant (Biofuels and Cost-Benefit Analysis Specialist) Mr. Mothusi Odireng: Working Group member (Renewable Energy & Stakeholder Consultations Specialist) Ms. Nozipho Wright: Working Group member (Energy and Gender Specialist) Mr. Thomas Tadzimirwa (GIS Specialist)

Project Title: Biomass Energy Strategy

Funded by: GTZ

Country: Botswana

Consultant:

EECG Consultants (Pty) Ltd P.O. Box 402339

Gaborone Botswana

Contact Person: Dr Peter P. Zhou Tel: +267-3910127 Fax: +267-3910127 Mobile: +267-71371845 e-mail: pzhou@global.bw; pzhou@eecg.co.bw

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The consultants and working group members would like to acknowledge the valuable assistance offered by many during the development of the Botswana Biomass Energy Strategy. Many contributed but it will not be possible to mention all by name. We would, however, like to extend our special thanks to the following:

1. GTZ, for having the confidence in us to undertake the project and for the many useful comments and advice. We are particularly thankful to Anne Rehner (project manager), Holger Liptow, Christoph Messinger and David Hancock (who braved an early morning flight to be at one of the BEST workshops).

2. The Acting Director of Energy Affairs, Mr. Molosiwa, and his colleagues for tirelessly supporting the project in many ways - providing transport, organising steering group and stakeholder meetings, actively participating in the community surveys and distributing reports. Also of special mention are Mr. B Mabowe and Ms. Gina Wright, the Lead Agent’s representatives.

3. The Members of the Steering Committee: the Acting Deputy Director of EAD and his colleagues (Mr. C. Matshameko, Mr. G. Kumar and others), Mr. A Tema of the Department of Forestry and Range Resources and Dr Andrew Mears of Rural Electrification-Botswana, who patiently guided the process and provided valuable technical assistance. We hope that together with them we can be proud of the final product.

4. The many stakeholders from government, traditional authorities, the private sector, NGOs, research institutions and technology organisations for providing information and participating in workshops. All have been listed in an Annex. Of special mention are the efforts made by Kgosi Thabo Masunga of Masunga, Kgosi George Domy Thwane of Kgatleng and Kgosi Marumola of Pitsane for travelling long distances to attend workshops and represent community wisdom in how to make the strategy relevant. Also the many other chiefs and traditional and district authorities who hosted us during community surveys and accommodated meetings and interviews in Ditlhakane, Artesia, Kachikau, Masunga, Pitsane, Komana, Toteng, Sehitwa, Tsootsha and Tsabong.

5. Biogas Renewable Energy, BSE Warehouse and others who shared their technical information, which was used in the cost-benefit analysis.

6. All those met at the regional BEST workshop in Johannesburg in June 2008 from GTZ and other countries participating in the BEST initiative, for sharing their valuable experiences.

7. Matthew Wright, for his tremendous efforts in editing the report in various drafts.

8. Matthew Owen, for providing advice on restructuring and finalisation of the report

9. Last but by no means the least, our beloved ones who stood by us during the busy schedules.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Rationale for a Botswana Biomass Energy Strategy .............................................................. 1 1.2 Strategy Background ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Strategy Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4.1 Approach ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Consultation .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.4.3 Timetable .................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Report Outline ..................................................................................................................................... 4

2. BOTSWANA COUNTRY CONTEXT ........................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Physical Features and Climate ....................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Population and Socio-economics .................................................................................................. 7

2.2.1 Population .................................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Economic Performance ........................................................................................................................................ 9 2.2.3 Poverty Trend ......................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Energy Sector .................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3.2 Energy Supply ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3.3 Energy Demand ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.4 Fuel Cost Comparison ......................................................................................................................................... 13

2.4 Institutional, Policy and Legal Framework ............................................................................ 15 2.4.1 Biomass Energy Institutions ............................................................................................................................ 15 2.4.2 Visions and Plans................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.4.3 Policies ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.4.4 Strategies .................................................................................................................................................................. 20 2.4.5 Legislation ................................................................................................................................................................ 21 2.4.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... 22

2.5 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 23 2.5.1 Supply-side Information .................................................................................................................................... 23 2.5.2 Demand-Side Information ................................................................................................................................. 25

2.6 Summary of Biomass Energy Challenges ................................................................................ 30

3. BIOMASS ENERGY DEMAND.................................................................................................................. 32 3.1 Consumption patterns ................................................................................................................... 32

3.1.1 Household Consumption ................................................................................................................................... 32 3.1.2 Urban and Rural Institutions ........................................................................................................................... 34

3.2 Energy Supply Chains ..................................................................................................................... 35 3.2.1 Supply options ........................................................................................................................................................ 35 3.2.2 Supply sources........................................................................................................................................................ 35 3.2.3 Commercial Fuelwood Trade ........................................................................................................................... 36

3.3 Perceptions of Fuelwood Use ...................................................................................................... 38 3.4 Energy Burden of Fuelwood Users ............................................................................................ 38 3.5 Fuel Preferences .............................................................................................................................. 39 3.6 Fuel Switching ................................................................................................................................... 40

3.6.1 Urban households ................................................................................................................................................. 40 3.6.2 Urban Government Institutions ...................................................................................................................... 41 3.6.3 Rural Households and Other Sectors ........................................................................................................... 41

3.7 Cooking –Food types, Habits and Cooking Devices .............................................................. 42 3.7.1 Food types and Habits......................................................................................................................................... 42 3.7.2 Fuel-efficient Wood Stoves ............................................................................................................................... 43

3.8 Kitchens Designs .............................................................................................................................. 44 3.9 Findings of Community (Kgotla) Meetings ............................................................................. 47

3.9.1 Fuelwood availability and collection patterns ......................................................................................... 47 3.9.2 Fuel Preferences, End uses and Cooking devices................................................................................... 48

v

3.9.3 Community-proposed fuelwood Interventions ....................................................................................... 50 3.10 LPG and Kerosene Use ................................................................................................................. 50

3.10.1 Survey Size and Geographical Coverage .................................................................................................. 50 3.10.2 Income and Household Size ........................................................................................................................... 50 3.10.3 Reasons for Use ................................................................................................................................................... 51 3.10.4 Frequency and Quantity of Purchase......................................................................................................... 51 3.10.5 Comparison with the Past............................................................................................................................... 52

3.11 Gender Perspectives .................................................................................................................... 52 3.12 Woody Biomass Demand Modelling ....................................................................................... 53

4.WOODY BIOMASS SUPPLY ..................................................................................................................... 59 4.1 Natural Woodlands ..................................................................................................................... 59 4.2 Planted Trees ................................................................................................................................ 61 4.3 Woody Biomass Supply Baseline Modelling ...................................................................... 61

5. WOODY BIOMASS SUPPLY-DEMAND BALANCE ................................................................. 68 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 68 5.2 Overall Energy Demand Analysis ........................................................................................... 73 5.3 Baseline Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................... 74 5.4 Evaluating Accessibility of Fuelwood and Sustainability Indicators ........................ 76

6. NON-WOODY BIOMASS SUPPLY .............................................................................................. 78 6.1 Residues .......................................................................................................................................... 78

6.1.1 Municipal solid waste .................................................................................................................................... 78 6.1.2 Livestock manure .................................................................................................................................................. 81 6.1.3 Chicken manure and abattoir waste ............................................................................................................. 82

6.2 Wet Biomass .................................................................................................................................. 83 6.2.1 Municipal waste water .................................................................................................................................. 83 6.2.2 Livestock Abattoir Waste ............................................................................................................................. 84

6.3 Energy Crops ................................................................................................................................. 87 6.4 Summary of Non-Woody Biomass Energy Resources ....................................................... 88

7. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS .................................................................................................. 89 7.1 Technology Framework ............................................................................................................ 89 7.2 Biomass Feedstock and Products .......................................................................................... 91 7.3 Technology Choices .................................................................................................................... 93

8. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS ........................................ 94 8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 94 8.2 Poultry Manure ............................................................................................................................ 95 8.3 Livestock Manure ........................................................................................................................ 98 8.4 Municipal Solid Waste ............................................................................................................. 101 8.5 Municipal Liquid Waste .......................................................................................................... 103 8.6 Wood Stoves ............................................................................................................................... 105 8.7 Gasification ................................................................................................................................. 106 8.8 Biofuels ......................................................................................................................................... 108

8.8.1 Biodiesels ......................................................................................................................................................... 108 8.8.2 Bio-ethanol ...................................................................................................................................................... 109

8.9 Summary Cost Benefit Analysis ........................................................................................... 110

9. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND RISK ASSESSMENT FOR POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 112

9.1 Environmental Assessment .................................................................................................. 112 9.1.1 Woody Biomass Technologies ................................................................................................................ 112 9.1.2 Wet Biomass and Residues Technologies.......................................................................................... 112 9.1.3 Energy Crops Technologies...................................................................................................................... 112

9.2 Social Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................... 113 9.2.1 Woody Biomass Technologies ................................................................................................................ 113

vi

9.2.2 Wet Biomass/Residues Technologies ................................................................................................. 114 9.2.3 Energy Crops .................................................................................................................................................. 114

9.3 Risk Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 115 9.3.1 Woody Biomass Technologies ................................................................................................................ 115 9.3.2 Wet Biomass ................................................................................................................................................... 116 9.3.3 Residues (Landfill gas/MSW) ................................................................................................................. 116 9.3.4 Energy Crops Technologies...................................................................................................................... 116

10. PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS ................................................................................................ 118 10.1 Technologies Identification ............................................................................................. 118 10.2 Intervention Deployment Path ....................................................................................... 122 10.3 Time frames for deployment of Interventions .......................................................... 123 10.4 District Potential for Biomass Energy Development .............................................. 124 10.5 Expected Results and Impacts on Energy Mix ........................................................... 127

11. BIOMASS ENERGY STRATEGY ............................................................................................... 130 11.1 BEST Vision and Strategic Goals ..................................................................................... 130 11.2 Identification of Issues, Barriers and Potential Interventions ........................... 131 11.3 Policy and Legal Implications .......................................................................................... 140 11.4 Financial Requirements .................................................................................................... 144 11.5 Recommended Partnership Framework..................................................................... 145

11.5.1 Institutional Responsibility for Policy and Legal Framework ............................................ 147 11.5.2 Institutional Responsibility for Financing BEST ....................................................................... 148 11.5.3 Institutional framework for Implementation ............................................................................. 150

11.6 Action Plan for BEST ........................................................................................................... 151 11.7 Communication Strategy ................................................................................................... 153 11.8 Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................................... 154

12. ANNEXES ...................................................................................................................................... 157

ANNEX A : ABRIDGED BEST TERMS OF REFERENCE ...................................................................... 157

ANNEX B : WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................................. 159

ANNEX C : REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 161

ANNEX D : LEAP ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................ 163

ANNEX E : KEY WOODY BIOMASS ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................... 164

ANNEX F : ASSUMPTIONS IN COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES............................................................... 167

vii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AFREPREN African Energy Policy Research Network BDC Botswana Development Corporation BEDIA Botswana Export Development and Investment Authority BEMP Botswana Energy Master Plan BEST Biomass Energy Strategy BMC Botswana Meat Commission BoBS Botswana Bureau of Standards BOTEC Botswana Technology Centre BPC Botswana Power Corporation BRET Botswana Renewable Energy Technology project BSAP Botswana Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management CBO Community Based Organisation CDM Clean Development Mechanism (Kyoto Protocol) CEDA Citizen Entrepreneurial Development Agency CJSS Community Junior Secondary School COD Chemical Oxygen Demand CSO Central Statistics Office DAHP Department of Animal Health Production DC District Committee DCP Department of Crop Production DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DFRR Department of Forestry and Range Resources DOL Department of Lands DWA Department of Water Affairs DWMPC Department of Waste Management and Pollution Control EAD Energy Affairs Division EC European Commission EDRC Energy and Development Research Centre (now ERC, Energy Research Centre) EDG Energy and Development Group EECG Energy, Environment, Computer and Geophysical Applications Ltd. EHF Environmental Heritage Foundation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ESCO Energy Service Company ESMAP Energy Sector Management Project EU European Union EUEI PDF European Union Energy Initiative Partnership Dialogue Facility FAB Forestry Association of Botswana FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United Nations) FIMP Fuelwood Inventory and Monitoring Programme GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation HIES Household Income and Expenditure Survey IEA International Energy Agency IPCC Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change IRP Integrated Resource Planning IUCN World Conservation Union/International Union for the Conservation of Nature IVP Indigenous Vegetation project KCS Kalahari Conservation Society LEA Local Enterprise Authority LEAP Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning

viii

LPG Liquified Petroleum Gas M&E Monitoring & Evaluation MEWT Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism MFDP Ministry of Finance and Development Planning MLG Ministry of Local Government MLH Ministry of Lands and Housing MLW Municipal Liquid Waste MMEWR Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources MOA Ministry of Agriculture MSW Municipal Solid Waste MWTC Ministry of Works, Transport and Telecommunications NAMPAADD National Master Plan of Arable Agriculture and Dairy Development NCCC National Committee on Climate Change (Botswana) NCS National Conservation Strategy NDB National Development Bank NDP National Development Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NRP Natural Resources and People O&M Operation and Maintenance OKRC Okavango Research Centre PDL Poverty Datum Line PL Penetration Level ProBEC (GTZ) Programme for Basic Energy Conservation PV Photovoltaic R&D Research and Development RDC Rural Development Council RE-Botswana Rural Electrification Botswana RG Reference Group RIIC Rural Industries Innovation Centre RIPCO (B) Rural Innovations Promotions Company (Botswana) RSA Republic of South Africa SACU Southern African Customs Union SADC Southern African Development Community SMME Small Medium and Micro Enterprises ST Someralang Tikologo TA Tribal Authority UB University of Botswana UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organisation VDC Village Development Committees WAD Women’s Affairs Department WMA Wildlife Management Area WRI World Resources Institute

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

kJ kilojoule (1 x 103 joules)

MJ MegaJoule (1 x 106 joules)

GJ Gigajoule (1 x 109 joules)

TJ Terajoule (1 x 1012

joules) kWh kilowatt hour MW Megawatt (1 x 10

6 Watts)

MWh Mega Watt hour

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale for a Botswana Biomass Energy Strategy

Biomass energy is defined for the purposes of this Strategy as:

1. Woody biomass: Taken to mean fuelwood, given that charcoal is an insignificant energy source in Botswana.

2. Wet biomass: Municipal sludge and animal waste.

3. Energy crops: Tree and agricultural crops producing biofuels (biodiesel, ethanol and derivatives such as ethanol gel fuel).

4. Residues: Agricultural, forestry and urban wastes, including primary residues (e.g. fallen trees, caged poultry waste), secondary residues (e.g. sawmill waste) and tertiary residues (e.g. municipal solid waste).

Woody biomass energy contributes significantly to Botswana’s energy balance and is estimated to account for 30% of the country’s primary energy supply and 38% of total final energy consumption. Over 90% of this energy is consumed by households, of which 75% is accounted for by rural households. In turn, 90% of household biomass energy consumption is in the form of fuelwood. Fuelwood is the most significant woody biomass energy used in Botswana, for household consumption, and especially for households in rural areas.

Botswana’s level of dependency on biomass energy is significantly lower than most other African countries, where biomass often accounts for 80-90% of primary energy consumption. Nevertheless, for a relatively wealthy and fast-growing regional economy, the proportion is still considered high and results from limited availability and affordability of alternatives (e.g. coal and liquefied petroleum gas, LPG). There is also a virtual absence of “modern” derivatives of biomass (e.g. from biomethanation or gasification).

While this study will show that current levels of woody biomass consumption are within sustainable limits at national level, there are serious and growing shortages in the more densely populated parts of the country, where fuelwood harvesting (especially for commercial purposes) is in excess of sustainable yields. This is resulting in depletion of standing stocks and an increasing financial and labour burden for fuelwood users. The widespread use of fuelwood by poor households, both rural and urban, together with a poorly regulated harvesting regime, is expected to result in growing depletion of woodlands and to adversely affect agricultural productivity [Prasad, 2006].

Localised and selective decline of fuelwood species is already occurring in some parts of the country, especially in the east where 80% of population is concentrated. Preferred species of fuelwood have been depleted close to settlements and harvesters now travel up to 100 km to source marketable fuelwood [EAD, 2006]. Households experiencing fuelwood poverty are forced to turn to lower-quality fuel options such as dung, shrubs and hedges. The alternative is to switch to costlier fossil fuels such as paraffin or LPG, for which price and accessibility are barriers. As well as exposing the population to inadequate and unaffordable energy services, the use of fuelwood by poor households in inefficient end-use devices (mainly open fire) exposes family members to health and safety hazards from indoor air pollution and the burden of collecting fuelwood from far afield.

The widespread use of biomass energy in the domestic sector nevertheless suggests that biomass, even in its traditional form, plays an important role in Botswana’s socio-economy [EAD, 2006]. The dilemma is that in Botswana, as in many other African countries, biomass energy seldom receives significant attention in policy and planning debates, unlike energy sources seen as the drivers of economic growth such as electricity and petroleum. The institutional framework responsible for biomass energy management is fragmented and this fails to engender cohesive programme development. Many communities are not exercising good stewardship towards natural

2

woodlands. The legislation and policies that should support community participation in sustainable woodland management - such as forestry policy and fuelwood policy - are also inadequate

1 [EAD, 2006].

In spite of the availability of more modern sources of energy within Botswana, biomass will remain an important fuel for most households (and some institutions and industries) for the foreseeable future. Planning for adequate and affordable energy services that will cater for the country’s socio-economy therefore demands a timely intervention that will ensure supply and use of biomass energy on a sustainable basis. This is the main rationale for developing a Biomass Energy Strategy (BEST) for Botswana. Opportunities also exist to modernise biomass to provide cleaner energy alternatives.

1.2 Strategy Background

The initiative to develop a BEST for Botswana was launched by GTZ and the Partnership Dialogue Facility of the EU Energy Initiative (EUEI PDF) as part of a wider effort underway in several African countries. Support was provided for the process in the form of technical assistance, provision of methods and tools, organisation and moderation of regional workshops, facilitation of national dialogue with relevant stakeholders and support for local facilitators and consultants.

The strategies are expected to focus on the specific problems encountered in each participating country, taking the needs of end-users of biomass energy as the starting point. In most countries, the focus of BEST development has been thermal applications of biomass, primarily cooking, space heating and water heating, in homes, institutions and industry. In Botswana, however, the BEST Terms of Reference, which were developed jointly by GTZ and the Energy Affairs Division (EAD) in the Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources (MMEWR), went beyond this definition to include also the conversion of biomass to electricity, to methane (to compete with coal and LPG), to biodiesel and ethanol (for automotive use) and to ethanol-based gel fuels (as substitutes for methylated spirit and LPG). [Refer to the abridged Terms of Reference in Annex A.]

The latter are examples of the desirable modernisation of biomass that incorporate processes such as bio-methanation, gasification and distillation to produce derivatives that can potentially compete on an economic basis with electricity and fossil fuels. These derivatives, however, rarely offer the potential to substitute for fuelwood because of their cost, availability, combustion characteristics or a combination of these factors. The Botswana BEST report therefore addresses woody biomass as a distinct sub-sector and groups wet biomass, energy crops and residues together as a separate sub-sector. Woody biomass can be seen as traditional fuel, largely (though not exclusively) consumed in the domestic sector and primarily relating to fuelwood. Meanwhile the other forms of biomass offer the potential for fuel-switching by (mainly) industry and represent opportunities for modernisation of the sector. The two are somewhat distinct and it is important to be clear on which of the interventions outlined in this report are aimed at which sector – the traditional woodfuels sector vs. industry, transport and commerce.

The Strategy was expected to develop a coordinated framework of short-, medium- and long-term interventions for sustainable management of biomass energy resources and provision of better energy services to citizens. The development of the strategy considered both energy and forestry activities, in fulfilment of the nation’s goal of promoting sustainable fuelwood management practices, appropriate combustion equipment, community management of natural resources and switching to alternative energy sources (Draft National Energy Policy, 2008).

1 Some of these policies and Acts are under review, as this report will outline.

3

1.3 Strategy Objectives

Given the challenges facing the biomass energy sector, the main objective was to develop a national BEST that will ensure biomass energy is produced, supplied and used in a socially, economically and environmentally sustainable manner. Specific attention was to be given to gender issues, improving the welfare of the poor and contributing to the socio-economic development of Batswana in general.

The specific objectives in developing the Strategy were to:

• assess the importance of biomass to socio-economic development and the environment; • assess how best to integrate traditional biomass energy into modern energy resources; • carry out situation analyses of biomass supply and usage, highlighting bottlenecks and constraints; • propose and analyse options and alternatives for sustainable biomass supply and utilisation; • undertake a cost-benefit analysis of biomass energy options/alternatives; • propose actions to meet sustainability targets and implementation aspects (ensuring stakeholder

involvement in achieving sustainable biomass production and use); • propose how to mobilise financial resources for the proposed BEST options; and • present a monitoring and evaluation framework for set targets in the proposed BEST interventions.

1.4 Methodology

1.4.1 Approach

The consultants contracted to develop the Strategy2 began by assessing the availability of biomass resources in

Botswana and projected future levels of demand, focusing mainly on thermal applications. This allowed issues of concern, barriers and constraints to be identified and helped to frame the Vision and Strategic Goals of the Strategy.

Interventions were then proposed that might address the identified issues, barriers and constraints. These proposed interventions where screened and prioritised through cost-benefit analysis, environmental and social impact assessments, and risk analysis, in order to determine which were sufficiently viable to include as part of the final Strategy. For those to be included, a supporting programme of R&D, capacity building, data collection, management systems, demonstration initiatives and awareness-raising was developed.

The final Strategy therefore builds upon a process of data analysis, problem identification, solutions development and feasibility assessment, resulting in a set of proposed interventions that not only respond to actual identified problems, but also represent viable, sustainable and cost-effective implementation opportunities.

1.4.2 Consultation

The strategy development process was led and coordinated by the EAD, in close cooperation with other key government institutions, among them the Department of Forestry and Range Resources (DFRR). A wide range of other stakeholders and decision-makers were involved in order to enhance awareness of the importance and potential of biomass energy within the country, and to bring as many ideas as possible into the process.

A Steering Committee was formed to provide feedback and give guidance to the BEST consultants. The committee comprised representatives of EAD, DFRR, Rural Electrification (RE)-Botswana and the Bioenergy Association of Botswana, and was convened seven times during the course of Strategy development and re-drafting.

A stakeholder workshop was organised in May 2008 to solicit inputs at the inception stage, and another in August 2008 to deliberate at the interim stage. The workshops were attended by 24 and 30 participants respectively, as per the lists in Annex B. Members of EAD and the consultancy team also benefited from participation in a Regional

2 From the Gaborone-based company Energy, Environment, Computer & Geophysical Applications (EECG).

4

BEST workshop organised by GTZ in Johannesburg in June 2008, where lessons from other BEST countries were shared.

The BEST team carried out extensive literature review of official plans, policies, strategies, legislation relevant to the biomass energy sector; and of past and ongoing studies and other country experiences in biomass energy. A bibliography is in Annex C.

Community meetings were held at kgotla (village) level in 11 villages in 9 of the 10 Districts to verify supply and demand data and obtain views on concerns, perceptions, experiences, bottlenecks and constraints related to energy needs.

1.4.3 Timetable

The BEST development process got underway in March 2008 and outputs were delivered according to the following timetable:

April 2008: Inception report

August 2008: Interim report , following 1st

stakeholder workshop

November 2008: Strategy report, 1st

draft, following 2nd

stakeholder workshop

15th

December 2008: Strategy report, 2nd

draft, further to feedback from GTZ and Steering Committee

The projected timetable for completion of the process is now as follows:

23rd

Feb 2009: Strategy report, 3rd

draft, further to additional feedback from GTZ and Steering Committee, and input from regional BEST advisory consultant.

30th

March 2009: Final report.

1.5 Report Outline

The BEST report is divided into eleven chapters as follows:

Chapter 1 presents the national biomass environment, background to the BEST programme and its objectives.

Chapter 2 presents the Botswana’s physical, climatic, population, socio-economic context, the policy and legal frameworks as it affects the biomass sector including an overview of the energy sector and the biomass sub-sector.

Chapter 3 presents the biomass energy demand indicating consumption patterns, supply chains, perceptions, burden of fuelwood collection, fuel preferences, fuel switching, kitchen designs and cooking habits and devices; gender perspectives and woody biomass baseline modelling.

Chapter 4 presents woody biomass supply and baseline analysis

Chapter 5 provides woody biomass energy supply and demand balance

Chapter 6 presents other biomass types that include residues, wet biomass and energy crops and their potential resource base in Botswana.

Chapter 7 discusses potential biomass feedstocks products and available conversion options.

5

Chapter 8 contains a cost-benefit analysis of possible intervention options, based on the estimated biomass resource potential in Botswana

Chapter 9 presents environmental, social and risk analysis of the potential intervention options.

Chapter 10 presents the proposed interventions and proposed deployment paths

Chapter 11 presents Botswana’s Biomass Energy Strategy itself, encompassing the BEST Vision, strategic goals, critical issues being addressed, selected interventions; policy and legal implications, a financial plan, recommended partnerships, action plan and Monitoring and Evaluation framework.

6

2. BOTSWANA COUNTRY CONTEXT

2.1 Physical Features and Climate

Botswana is a landlocked country with mean altitude above sea level of 1,000 m and an area of 582,000 km2. Much

of the country is flat, with gentle undulations and occasional rocky outcrops. Features that punctuate the terrain are the Okavango Delta in the north-west and the Makgadikgadi Pans in the Central District, the latter consisting mainly of calcrete and salty soils. In the east, along the north-south railway line, more favourable climate and soils support agricultural activity and this is where 80% of the population is concentrated. The rest of the country (66%) contains sand layers that support a vegetation of shrub and grasses with almost complete absence of surface water. Refer to Figure 1 for a map of population and rainfall.

Figure 1: Map of Botswana

7

Mean annual rainfall ranges from 250 to 650 mm. Rainfall is lowest in the south-west, gradually increasing towards the north and north-east around Maun and Kasane; vegetation intensifies into some form of forest in the north-east. The temperature range is wide and varies from –5°C to 43°C, with the lowest temperatures occurring in the south-west part of the country where early morning frost occurs between June and August.

The bulk of the country has soils classified as desert to semi-desert, supporting Kalahari bush savannah and grass savannah.

2.2 Population and Socio-economics

2.2.1 Population

According to the last census (2001), Botswana’s population was 1.68 million spread over ten districts. The population was estimated to be growing at 1.2% per annum (down from 2.6% p.a. in 1997) so the population in 2008 was estimated to be 1.78 million.

55% of the population reside in urban areas and the remaining 45% in rural areas. The urban population is estimated to have increased from 41.9% in 1990 to 57.4% in 2005 and is projected to reach 64.6% in 2015 (draft National Development Plan 10). Significant increases in urbanisation are attributed not only to migration from rural areas and in situ growth, but also to reclassification of small settlements from rural to “urban villages” when their population reaches 5,000

3. The lifestyle, and therefore the energy choices and demand, in these urban

villages, lies somewhere between that of true urban areas (towns and cities) and the rural setting.

Table 1 shows the population of Botswana by district for the last census in 2001 and that projected for 2008 based on growth rates adopted in 2001 (CSO, 2001). From these data, it is evident that there are more people living in urban villages (32% of total population) than towns and cities (22%). These shares are maintained in the projected population of 2008. However, some settlements within this classification (e.g. Mogoditshane, Tlokweng and Gabane) are effectively suburbs of larger urban centres.

3 “Urban villages” are defined as settlements with a population of at least 5,000, where less than 25% of the population relies on agriculture.

8

Table 1: Population by district, 2001 and projected for 2008

2001 2008

District Urban

popn. Urban Village popn.

Rural popn.

Total Popn.

Urban popn.

Urban Village popn.

Rural popn.

Total Popn.

Central 61,879 200,668 300,713 563,260 65678 212985 330445 609108

South East 186007 47,005 13,618 186007 197425 49890 14454 261769

Kweneng 0 127,523 102,812 230,335 0 135351 109123 244474

Southern 44868 57,550 114,102 186,831 47622 61083 121108 229813

North East 83,023 0 49,399 132,422 88119 0 52431 140550

Ngamiland 0 52531 72,181 122,024 0 55756 76612 132368

Kgatleng 0 39,349 34,159 73,507 0 41764 36255 78019

Kgalagadi 0 6,591 35,458 42,049 0 6996 37635 44631

Ghanzi 0 9,934 22,547 32,481 0 10544 23931 34475

Chobe 0 7,638 10,620 18,258 0 8107 11272 19379

Other 0 0 3,377 3,377 0 0 3584 3584

Total 375,777 546,101 758,986 1,680,863 398,844 582,476 816,850 1,798,170

Source: CSO, 2001; projected to 2008

On a district basis, the Central District has the largest share of the population (34%) followed by the South East (15%), Kweneng (14%) and Southern (13%) of the projected 2008 population. The rest of the districts each have less than 10% of the total population (see Figure 2). From the shares in 2001, the shares of the Southern District increased by 2% from 11% to 13% share, with a corresponding drop in shares of 1% in Kweneng and Ghantsi District.

9

Figure 2: Share (%) of Population by district (2008)-projected from 2001 Census data

Figure 3 shows the urban-urban village rural split in each district. The South-East District is predominantly urban and North East Districts also has a larger urban population than urban village and rural populations. Kweneng and Central also have significant urban village populations; otherwise in the other districts the rural population is predominant.

Figure 3: District population by urban-urban village and rural-2008 projected from 2001 census data

2.2.2 Economic Performance

Botswana has been enjoying a fast-growing economy with an average real per capita GDP growth rate of 8.7% p.a. between 1996 and 2001 and 4.6% between 2001 and 2006. By global standards these have been impressive rates, although the recent rate falls short of the Vision 2016 target of 8% p.a. that was to be achieved between 1996 and

10

2016. Table 2 presents the GDP grow rate targets set for Vision 2016 versus those actually achieved, and shows that growth rates fell short of the targets between 2001 and 2006 but were higher than the targets before then.

Table 2: Growth targets for Vision 2016

GDP Actual Targeted

1996-2001 2001-06 2006-16

GDP: Vision target 8.0% 8.0% 7.5%

GDP: actual 8.7% 4.8%

GDP/capita: Vision target 6.0% 6.0% 6.6%

GDP/capita: actual 6.6% 3.7% Source: NDP10 drafts

The economy is largely driven by the mining sector, particularly diamond mining, which contributed 42.2% to GDP in 2006/07 [Bank of Botswana Financial Statistics, Sep 2008]. National development projections are based mainly on the expected performance of the diamond industry versus the non-mining sector. The current forecast is that diamond revenue will fall by 65% by the end of NDP11 in 2022 and will decline to zero by 2028, suggesting that diversification of the economy will be required during the next 20 years if GDP growth is to be sustained at past levels.

Agriculture is important to the socio-economy of Batswana but its contribution to GDP fell from 40% at independence in 1966 to only 1.8% in 2006/07. Botswana has a large cattle population, which provides feedstock for the meat processing industry, but the livestock sector has stagnated during the period of National Development Plan (NDP) 9 (2002/3 to 2008/9) due to disease outbreaks and drought. There are also concerns about over-grazing and associated soil degradation from the large numbers of cattle.

Arable production is characterised by low inputs, low outputs and diminishing returns which cannot support subsistence farming in most areas. Cereal productivity has levelled off among small-scale farmers at 300 kg/ha while commercial farming in Pandamatenga and other arable areas in the Southern Region is only around 2.5 t/ha. As far as the biomass energy sector is concerned, this suggests that very little residue is being generated from arable agriculture.

2.2.3 Poverty Trend

The percentage of households with incomes below the Poverty Datum Line (PDL) has been declining since the 1983/84 household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES). Similarly, the percentage of individuals with incomes below the PDL has continued to fall (Table 3).

Table 3: Successive poverty estimates (1985-86 to 2002-03)

Year of survey % of households below PDL

% of individuals below PDL

1985/86 49% 59%

1993/94 38% 47%

2002/03 22% 30% Source: HIES 1985/86; 1993/94; 2002/03

Despite this significant progress in addressing poverty, the reduction of income poverty lags behind the Vision 2016 targets, which require that the proportion of people in income poverty be halved (to 23%) by 2006 and to zero by 2016.

The Gini coefficient shows that income inequality increased in rural areas and urban villages between 1993/94 and 2002/03. There was, however, an encouraging reduction in income inequality in urban areas, as Table 4 shows.

Table 4: Gini coefficient for income distribution in Botswana

11

Location Disposable Income

1993/4 2002/03

Cities/towns 0.539 0.503

Urban villages 0.451 0.523

Rural 0.414 0.515

National 0.537 0.573 Source: HIES 2002/03

Botswana’s Human Development Index fell from 0.68 in 1990 to 0.57 in 2004. This was primarily because of declining life expectancy at birth due to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The country has one of the world’s highest rates of HIV/AIDS prevalence at around 37% of the adult population.

In summary, while there has been significant success in reducing income poverty in Botswana, income inequality is increasing in rural areas and urban villages, and life expectancy has been declining. The government must continue to plan for the poor, including for their energy needs, if higher incomes and greater income equality are to be achieved by all Batswana.

2.3 Energy Sector

2.3.1 Overview

The latest published energy balance for Botswana is for 2005, but neither the 2004 nor 2005 energy balances included biomass energy due to lack of reliable data. The last energy balance that covers biomass energy is therefore for 2003.

Botswana’s total primary energy supply in 2003 was 76,342.2 TJ (54,534 TJ being commercial) against final consumption of 64,675 TJ (42,867 TJ commercial)

4. The more limited 2005 statistics show that primary supply of

commercial energy had increased to 59,915 TJ while commercial consumption was stagnant at 42,063 TJ. There was little change in the overall energy mix (compared to 2003), apart from slight relative declines in the consumption of coal and increases in LPG, electricity and paraffin.

2.3.2 Energy Supply

In 2003 (the latest year for which biomass data were included in the statistics), petroleum products5 contributed

the largest share of primary energy supply (33%), followed by wood (30%) and coal (29%). Electricity contributed 5% and LPG 1%. Renewable energy sources

6 were hardly recorded and solar, which is highly promoted in the

country, at that time contributed only 0.03%.

Net energy supply was also dominated by petroleum products (38%), followed by wood (35%) and coal (14%). Electricity contributed 11% (from both local generation and imports) and LPG 2% [EAD, 2006] (refer to Figure 4).

4 Energy consumption is less than primary supply due to system losses in production and distribution. 5 Petrol, aviation gas, Jet-A1, paraffin, diesel, fuel oil and lubricants. 6 Taken to mean solar and wind.

12

Figure 4: Net Energy Supply for Botswana (2003 data)

Electricity self–sufficiency remains very low, with the Morupule Power coal-fired station contributing only 20% (120 MW) of total national demand (500 MW). The balance of 380 MW is imported, mainly from South Africa. The region as a whole is experiencing a power supply deficit, which most national power utilities, including the Botswana Power Corporation (BPC), are grappling with.

Currently all petroleum products consumed in Botswana are imported through South Africa. Constraints are foreseen in sustainable supply arising from limited storage, strategic reserves and high oil prices, which in 2008 reached record levels.

Botswana has abundant coal reserves estimated at 212 billion t., of which 3.3 billion t. are proven. The coal is semi-bituminous with a relatively high percentage of ash (18.7%) and sulphur (0.92%). There is only one operating mine, the Morupule Colliery, with annual production of about 1 mill. t. The challenge is to make coal clean and available across the whole country. In order to address its low quality, a 40,000 t/mth coal washing plant was commissioned in March 2008. The government is addressing the availability challenge through the establishment of coal depots. The government puts up the infrastructure for these coal depots and identifies private sector entities to operate them. So far two depots are operational (in Gaborone and Francistown) supplying unwashed coal but uptake for domestic use is still minimal. Introduction of washed coal should improve the uptake level although the price of coal is likely to also go up.

There is considerable uncertainty with regard to the amount of wood resources that can be used for energy, as no nationwide assessments have been carried out in recent years. A few site-specific surveys can be extrapolated to estimate national fuelwood resources and this study attempts such extrapolation using the “LEAP” model in Chapter 4.

Botswana has abundant solar energy resources, receiving over 3,200 hours of sunshine per year with an average insolation on a horizontal surface of 21 MJ/sq.m. This rate of insolation is one of the highest in the world. Solar energy is recognised as a very promising renewable energy source in Botswana but the costs of installation per kW are still high compared to the country’s relatively cheap grid electricity (the domestic tariff is 4 US cents per kWh). More competitive opportunities exist, however, for use of direct solar energy for heating water.

There are no reliable data for biomass resources that can be used to generate biogas. This information gap has been filled as part of this BEST study (refer to Chapter 6).

13

2.3.3 Energy Demand

According to the 2003 energy balance, the household sector consumes most of the country’s energy (38%), followed by industry (27%) and transport (25%). Government consumes 8% and agriculture only 1% (Figure 5). The household sector meets 90% of its energy needs from fuelwood, 75% of which is consumed by rural residents. Meanwhile the transport sector uses 63% of all liquid fuels, of which 85% goes to road transport.

Figure 5: Proportion (%) of Final Energy Consumption by Sector 2003 data

In the industrial sector, mining consumes the bulk of the energy supplied (66%). Other industrial energy consumers are manufacturing (9%) and meat and food processing (11%). Coal supplies 50% of energy consumed in industry followed by liquid fuels (47%) and electricity (28%).

Fuelwood currently supplies nearly 100% of biomass energy in Botswana. In 2003, 1.363 million t. of fuelwood were consumed, of which the household sector consumed 95% (74% of this by rural households-[1.04million t.] and 26% by urban households- [0.373 million t.]). Fuelwood is the most widely used energy source particularly for poor households, since many of the households gather it for free or buy it from local sellers [Prasad, 2006]. Among fuelwood users, average consumption by urban household (including urban areas and urban villages) is 186 kg of fuelwood/mth. Compared with 402 kg./mth in rural households. Consumption by the average urban household is lower (100-140 kg/mth) than those in urban villages (200-240 kg/mth).

There has been an overall decline in the quantity of fuelwood consumed in rural areas and a significant shift towards the use of LPG [EECG/RIIC, 2001; EDRC/EDG/FAB, 2001; CSO, 2001; EECG, 2004]. The level of use of fuelwood varies seasonally and 85% of the households indicate that they use more fuelwood in winter than in summer, due to need for space heating [ProBEC, 2006].

Studies conducted in 2000 showed that households use multiple fuels, even for one end-use, depending on the availability of both the fuel and financial resources. Most of the lowest-income urban households are still largely dependent on fuelwood as their principal source of energy. There is promising potential to boost the use of LPG in rural villages as a cooking fuel, judging by the increase in households using LPG from 4% in 1996 to 17% in 2001 and 40% in 2004.

According to BPC, by July 2008 the level of household electricity connectivity was 40.8% in rural areas and 71.8% in urban areas, up from 4% for rural areas and 50% for urban areas in 1996 [EAD, 2006; BPC database, March 2008]. Electricity is used for cooking by fewer than 10% of urban households and fewer than 1% of rural households. This shows that connectivity does not automatically lead to a switch to electricity for cooking as there is general perception among Batswana that cooking with electricity is more expensive that LPG for instance.

2.3.4 Fuel Cost Comparison

Table 5 presents the prices of Botswana’s main energy sources in 2007 (EECG, 2007). Only coal was cheaper than fuelwood per unit of energy and paraffin; LPG and electricity were at least eight times the price. Biofuels (in the form of bio-gel and bio-oil) were found to be over 60 times more expensive than fuelwood.

14

Table 5: Unit costs of energy sources/fuels

Energy source Unit Unit cost (Pula7)

Lower Calorific Value (MJ/unit)

Cost per unit of energy

(Pula/MJ)

Coal kg 0.2 27 8

Fuelwood Kg ( based on pack8) 1.7 17 10

Electricity kWh 0.3 3.6 83

Paraffin litres 4.8 44.3 135

LPG kg 10.3 46.1 224

Gel fuel litres 10 16.1 621

Bio oil litres 27 20 1,350

Source: EECG, 2007

Comparing cooking with the different fuels and devices, Table 6 and Fig 6 shows that cooking with electricity, LPG, paraffin and coal using common appliances is cheaper by half than cooking with fuelwood on an open fire. This however applies only to those who buy their wood, whereas the majority of fuelwood users collect their own fuel, including some of those in urban areas.

Table 6: Comparative Costs of Various Energy Source/Fuel for Cooking a Meal

Fuel Appliance Unit Fuel price per unit (P) from

field surveys

Energy content

(MJ/unit)

Appliance efficiency9

Cost to cook a meal

with 5.4 MJ (P)

Comparison with fuelwood (3-stones)

Electricity hot plate kWh 0.30 3.6 65% 0.697 0.3

oven kWh 0.30 3.6 65% 0.697 0.3

microwave kWh 0.30 3.6 60% 0.756 0.3

Paraffin wick litre 2.25 37 27.5% 1.203 0.5

primus litre 2.25 37 42.5% 0.778 0.3

LPG ring kg 5.20 49 50% 1.155 0.5

Fuelwood 3-stone kg 1.03 17 14% 2.354 1.0

Efficient cook stove kg 1.03 17 25% 1.318 0.6

Coal Efficient coal stove kg 0.22 27 25% 0.177 0.1

brazier/mbawula kg 0.22 27 8% 0.554 0.2

Gel Safety stove kg 10.00 16 45.2% 7.522 3.2

Cook Save kg 10.00 16 57.9% 5.872 2.5

Genius kg 10.00 15.3 63.2% 5.626 2.4

Source: Based on BEMP (2004) and EECG (2007). Note: (i) The figure of 5.4 MJ to cook a meal come from a University of Cape Town study, but any figure could be assumed as

the intention is only to derive a comparative cooking cost.

7 Pula (P) is the national currency. In January 2009 there were P7.75 per US$ and P10.4 per euro. The prices presented have been determined in previous surveys. 8 A pack costs P17.50 and is about 10kg

9 Share of the input energy that is converted into useful energy delivering the service e.g. cooking

15

(ii) Gel stove efficiencies are laboratory-based and may be higher than actual kitchen settings.

Figure 6: Relative cost of cooking with different fuels

Note: Firewood on open fire taken as baseline against which other fuels are compared

2.4 Institutional, Policy and Legal Framework

Given that the development of BEST should take account of the existing institutional structures and policy environment governing biomass energy, it is important to consider those structures and the policy, strategic and legal provisions that exist in Botswana pertaining to the sector.

2.4.1 Biomass Energy Institutions

The government, through the EAD, has responsibility for energy planning and regulation and the setting of fuel prices and electricity tariffs. It also facilitates, monitors and regulates producers and consumers of energy. EAD promotes accessibility, affordability and awareness (via extension services) of available energy sources, energy issues and programmes. EAD has a Biomass Section that addresses such issues as they relate to biomass energy.

It has, however, been observed that biomass activities are fragmented between government institutions and NGOs [ProBEC, 2006]. During the previous Energy Master Plan (1996) most of the responsibility for managing biomass energy was allocated to the Ministry of Agriculture and progress was limited since biomass energy was not its core interest. The new Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism (MEWT) is expected to take a stronger co-ordinating role in biomass resource management, with EAD maintaining a leading role in energy policy formulation and implementation.

Coordination between MEWT and MMEWR/EAD on biomass energy planning and management is necessary to promote sustainability of biomass as an energy source for households [EAD, 2006].

Other institutions with an interest in biomass energy include:

Botswana Technology Centre (BOTEC), which is involved in technology development, research and information dissemination in renewable energy technologies;

Rural Industries Innovation Centre (RIIC), which is involved in the testing, development and dissemination of appropriate technology including biomass combustion technologies; and

the Department of Forestry and Range Resources (DFRR) under MEWT, which is charged with conserving and

16

managing the country’s forests, range resources and other flora natural resources and associated ecosystems.

Current capacity within EAD for integrated energy planning is limited and needs to be strengthened. This particularly applies to the areas of economic analysis, externality assessment and Integrated Resource Planning framework development and assessment [EAD, 2006].

Data on fuelwood are scanty and outdated, impacting negatively on policy planning. Data for BEST were collected through socio-economic surveys for energy demand and use of satellite imagery for woody biomass supply. In this regard there are opportunities for R&D to inform policy and programme development through strategic partnerships with research institutions, and for EAD to manage data collection and storage and to appropriately synthesise such data.

2.4.2 Visions and Plans

Vision 2016 Botswana’s Vision 2016 is the cornerstone of development and, since its formulation in 1997, has guided all sectors of national socio-economic planning. In relation to natural resources, the Vision stipulates that Botswana will have attained a prolonged use of its natural resources, particularly non-renewable resources such as minerals. Vision 2016 recognises energy as a pre-requisite for successful industrialisation and that Botswana should develop cost-effective sources of energy and cooperate regionally in energy delivery, particularly for electricity, as a way of reducing costs of utilities by benefiting from economies of scale. There is a special focus on developing the solar energy potential as a source of electricity in schools and homes in remote areas.

Vision 2016 has no explicit targets for biomass energy, stipulating only that communities should be in the forefront in the use and exploitation of natural resources and wildlife management.

Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources Vision The Vision of the MMEWR (under which energy falls) is to be “…fully committed to complete customer satisfaction in the provision of products and services in accordance with best international practice”. The EAD (according to its Mission Statement) aims “…to formulate and coordinate national energy policy and programmes and facilitate availability of effective, reliable and affordable energy services to customers in an environmentally sustainable manner...”. This gives the Ministry a responsibility to address issues of fuelwood scarcity and affordable alternatives.

NDP 9 NDP 9 (2002/3 to 2008/9) is based on Vision 2016 and emphasises sustainable development through competitiveness in global markets. In NDP9, the government aims to provide energy at prices that reflect the true costs of supply. Emphasis is placed on avoiding risks of supply disruptions. NDP9 recognizes the importance of gender and social equity in energy provision.

It is acknowledged that over 90% of the rural population depends on fuelwood. To address this problem, a community fuelwood management project to empower communities on how to utilise their wood resources sustainably was conceptualised and was to be implemented during the Plan period, but pilot projects that had been designed were not in fact implemented.

The following were also planned during NDP 9:

Complete the Forestry Policy and review Legislation;10

Continue with implementation of Chobe management plans11

as a starting point for developing forest coverage in the country;

10 The Forestry Policy, Act and Guidelines are under preparation. 11

The Chobe District has been associated with timber logging and is also an environmentally sensitive area being close to wild life resort areas.

17

Carry out forest inventories to facilitate implementation of community-based woodland management programmes; and

Establish community-based woodland management areas. The NDP 9 energy policy for the fuelwood sub-sector was to:

Ensure sustainable use of fuelwood; and

Inventorise and monitor woody biomass resources12

through the following means:

establish a biomass database

monitor and control fuelwood use by government institutions.

introduce efficient fuelwood stoves13

promote community-based natural resource management. In spite of the stated intentions, most of these activities (except where noted) were not achieved in the NDP 9 period. Botswana Energy Master Plan The Botswana Energy Master Plan (BEMP, 2004) highlights the linkages between energy and the achievement of the socio-economic and environmental goals set out in Vision 2016 and NDP 9. BEMP identifies issues for integrated energy planning, the demand sectors, supply sectors (electricity, oil and gas, biomass, coal and new and renewable sources of energy), energy efficiency, cross-cutting issues, governance and regulation in the energy sector. The Master Plan highlights priorities, measures and policy goals for each of these issues.

In relation to the biomass demand-side, BEMP focuses on addressing energy poverty at household level, particularly for low-income households, with the objective of facilitating a move to cleaner and modern sources of energy. Opportunities are also identified for government institutions to move away from using fuelwood, since they can afford alternative fuels through their government-allocated budgets.

At the time of drafting BEMP, 200414

, fuelwood was the most popular fuel in households and in government institutions. However, institutions such as the Botswana Defence Force, prisons and some government schools have since been encouraged to stop using fuelwood. In spite of these efforts, a sizeable number of institutions in the rest of the country are still using fuelwood as a source of energy. Such institutions resort to using fuelwood when alternative fuels they are supposed to use are not available.

On the biomass supply-side, BEMP focuses on sustainable use and harvesting of biomass energy resources and the need to engage with key stakeholders in developing policies and legislation that can support community-based fuelwood management.

BEMP cites land clearing for agriculture, harvesting for construction and infrastructure development as the major causes of deforestation in Botswana, while fuelwood harvesting is said to make a minimal contribution. This implies that the fuelwood economisation and substitution debate is more about raising people’s standards of living and health than it is about environmental protection. This is in contrast with most other countries in Africa, where the use of woodfuels is often associated (correctly or not) with environmental degradation. On the institutional side, BEMP identifies a need for proper co-ordination of stakeholders in the various government departments such as the Ministries of Lands and Housing, Agriculture, and Environment, Wildlife and

12 This will only be achieved in NDP10 as no new national assessment surveys have been conducted. 13 Efforts are being made under ProBEC and RE- Botswana to introduce efficient wood stoves 14 The previous BEMP was developed in 1996 and recommendations were made in BEMP 2004 to revise the Plan every five years.

18

Tourism to avoid management of the biomass energy sector being fragmented. BEMP also recommends the enactment of legislation and policies that allow for development of new technologies that can be adapted for biomass production for fuel and support community participation in woodland management.

2.4.3 Policies

Draft National Energy Policy The Draft National Energy Policy (EAD, 2006; 2008) defines national development principles and objectives that energy should address through a selection of key energy goals, measures and strategies. The Policy was partly derived from BEMP and further stakeholder consultations.

In relation to biomass, the policy aims to:

lessen deforestation caused by fuelwood collection; and

ensure access to adequate and affordable energy services for all households and community services.

There are also aspects of promoting fuel switching from fuelwood to coal and LPG for government institutions. Specifically, the policy is intended to “promote sustainable fuelwood management practices, appropriate combustion equipment, community management of natural resources and switching to alternative energy sources”.

The policy recognises the role that women play in the selection and procurement of energy (especially fuelwood) and health problems, such as indoor pollution, arising from the use of traditional biomass fuels in poorly-ventilated environments. To that end, the policy seeks to integrate gender issues into all facets of energy service provision process and to empower fuelwood collectors on sustainable use of the resource for subsistence and other purposes.

Forestry Policy (draft) The Forestry Policy is under revision but will support: (1) the development of sustainable forest management options based on sound ecological principles; (2) domestication and commercialisation of forest products such as fruits and medicines; and, (3) restoration of degraded land using afforestation and plantations to make the land reusable. There will be synergies with developing mechanisms for sustainable biomass energy supply and use.

Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Policy The goal of the CBNRM policy is to create a foundation for conservation-based development, in which the need to protect biodiversity and ecosystems is balanced with the need to improve rural livelihoods and reduce poverty. The policy proposes the provision of diversified livelihoods and economic options, opportunities and incentive by managing and sustainably exploiting the country’s natural resources by communities.

The specific objectives of the CBNRM Policy are to:

specify land tenure and natural resources user rights, which may be devolved to communities;

establish a framework that provides for incentives to manage natural resources in a sustainable manner;

create opportunities for community participation in natural resource management;

promote conservation and CBNRM strategies that are based on sound scientific principles and practices;

enhance the relationship between protected areas’ management and CBNRM;

protect the intellectual property rights of communities with regards to natural resources and the management of such natural resources;

encourage communities to participate meaningfully in the monitoring of CBNRM;

facilitate capacity building within communities to engage in natural resource-based tourism;

establish an institutional support framework for the implementation of CBNRM; and

promote communication, education and public awareness on CBNRM.

19

Policy for Wastewater and Sanitation Management The policy seeks to promote the health and wellbeing of the country through the provision of appropriate and sustainable wastewater/sanitation management, thus ensuring waste water re-use and sustained supply of potable water. The policy establishes linkages between potable water supply and wastewater utilisation by recognising waste water as a resource that can be used for irrigation and even, after appropriate treatment, human consumption. Furthermore, the policy estimates that 300,000 m

3 per day of treated wastewater will be

produced in Botswana by 2020, providing an opportunity for its use in irrigation of commercial crops and contributing to the growth of the agricultural sector.

Though the policy does not address biomass directly, opportunities exist in the utilisation of wastewater in the commercial production of biomass and adopting the existing wastewater treatment facilities with the commercial production of biogas and possibly electricity generation; hence meeting the objective of cost-recovery as embedded in the policy.

Other policies of lower relevance for BEST are as follows:

National Policy for Rural Development (2002) The Rural Development Policy aims to improve the quality of life for those in Botswana’s rural areas through implementation of policies and strategies that maximise socio-economic well-being and enhance their ability to live dignified lives with food security. The broad objectives are to reduce poverty, provide opportunities for economic participation through income-generating activities and employment, and to enhance participation in sustainable development. On issues pertinent to biomass, the policy indirectly implies sustainable utilisation of natural resource and cost-effective regeneration of depleted renewable natural resources as part of the strategy for the attainment of the policy’s environmental objectives.

National Agricultural Policy The main objective is the diversification of the agricultural production base (e.g. into pulses, dairy, poultry, piggery, forestry, beekeeping, ostrich farming and veld products) as well as conservation of scarce agricultural and land resources for future generations. This objective is consistent with the broader agricultural strategy for developing the sector, while conserving natural resources.

Indigenous Livestock Species Policy (draft) The policy ensures the conservation of indigenous livestock species to achieve food security and to guarantee a future supply of animal products and biodiversity in Botswana.

Plant Genetic Resources Policy (draft) The Policy was formulated after the realisation that sundry varieties of crops are being replaced by modern cultivars that are often less diverse and the policy also supports institutions concerned with agro-diversity with the objective to conserve and maintain the diversity of plant genetic resources material through in situ and ex situ conservation.

Tourism Policy (draft) The policy promotes low-volume, high-value tourism in Botswana aimed at middle- to high-income patrons. It aims to ensure relatively fewer disturbances to the natural environment through restricted tourist traffic.

Industrial Development Policy (1997) The Industrial Development Policy is aimed at diversifying the economy from dependence on mining through the establishment of viable manufacturing exports and services industries. It is envisaged that this can be achieved through technological innovation and value-addition to local raw materials such as diamonds, salt, soda ash, hides and skins, and timber for export. In addition to ensuring that the economic fundamentals are in place, the policy seeks to facilitate creation of service and small-scale manufacturing industries to support the export sector. Priority will also be given for employment creation and SMMEs in rural areas by extending the cooperation of government with CBOs and NGOs.

20

Policy on Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises The main aims of the policy are to create an enabling environment within which SMMEs can flourish, provide an integrated approach to SMME development and reduce dependence on government. Policy-specific objectives are to empower citizens through economic diversification whilst also promoting the export sector. Further objectives are to encourage the development of a competitive and sustainable SMME community that generates sustained employment, promotes vertical integration between SMMEs and primary industries in agriculture, mining and tourism and improves the efficiency of SMME service delivery. The policy sets the foundation for the establishment of a viable commercial biomass industry.

2.4.4 Strategies

National Conservation Strategy (NCS, 1990) The NCS demonstrates Botswana's commitment to the sustainable use and conservation of the biodiversity. It seeks to increase the effectiveness with which natural resources are used and managed, and to integrate the efforts of ministries and non-governmental interest groups to maximise the conservation of natural resources.

Poverty Reduction Strategy The primary focus of the Poverty Reduction Strategy is to provide opportunities for the population to achieve livelihood sustainability. This is to be achieved through employment creation through geographically broad-based development by ensuring that all districts achieve economic growth based on effective utilisation of their resources. The policy identifies the need to review the Land Policy to ensure security of tenure. In addition, six programmes for sustained livelihoods are identified: small-scale horticulture development; employment through rain-fed crop production; increasing small stock production; strengthening the community-based natural resource management programme; creating employment opportunities in the tourism industry; and building capacity for small- and medium-scale citizen businesses. This strategy, coupled with the Rural Development Policy, supports the sustainable utilisation of natural resources for social development and poverty reduction. Biomass could indirectly play a pivotal role in the attainment of these national goals.

Strategy for Waste Management The strategy outlines Botswana’s vision for waste management through cost-effective methods that protect human health and the environment based on principles of prevention, polluter accountability and socio-cooperation. The hierarchy of waste management in the strategy is based on prevention, re-use/recycling, treatment and disposal. The document affirms the government’s commitment to encouraging the development of markets for recycled materials and to promoting the re-use of waste through research and development of recycling technologies customised for Botswana, market development of recycled products by enforcing use of recycled products within the government system, optimising the collection and sorting systems, and reducing the external costs of re-use and recycling. In addition, it outlines strategies for specific types of waste such as household waste, paper, agricultural waste, scrap metal, food industry waste and sewerage sludge. Some of the waste can contribute to the residue component of the biomass resource base.

Other strategies of lower relevance for BEST include the following:

Botswana Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP) The goal of BSAP is to contribute to the long-term health of Botswana’s ecosystems and to encourage sustainable and wise use of resources through the framework for specific activities designed to improve the way biodiversity is perceived, utilised and conserved.

The goal is supported by the following 11 objectives:

better understanding of biodiversity and ecological processes;

long-term conservation and management of biological diversity and genetic resources;

efficient and sustainable utilisation of all components of biodiversity through appropriate land and resource use practices and management;

21

an institutional environment, including human capacity, conducive to effective biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and management;

coping with changes to environmental threats to biodiversity;

appropriate valuation/appreciation of biological diversity, and raised public awareness on the role of biodiversity in sustainable development and public participation in biodiversity related activities and decision making;

fair access to biological resources and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources;

safe industrial and technological development and other services based on national biodiversity resources for future prosperity;

improved availability and access to biodiversity data and information, and promotion of information exchange;

recognition of national and regional roles with regard to biodiversity; and

implementation of the biodiversity strategy and action plan.

Revised National Food Strategy The vision of this strategy is the realisation of stable and sustainable access of all to basic, adequate and safe food in order to live healthy and productive lives. To achieve this, the strategy seeks to improve national socio-economic security, provide household economic access to food by attainment of broad income security, and ensure food availability through imports and national production and guaranteeing food security and nutritional security. The strategy aims to ensure food availability through a combination of production, imports and reserves.

The strategy’s emphasis is on food security rather than self-sufficiency, so additional food required is imported to meet demand rather than depending only on domestically produced food. The strategy also suggests an opportunity to use land for other purposes (e.g. biofuels) as long as food can be secured from other sources elsewhere. The recent emergence of global food shortages raises questions about the security of international food supply.

2.4.5 Legislation

Botswana has laws covering land use and land use rights, abiotic and biotic resources, and the use and management of natural resources areas. The legislation is strongest when it comes to land use, control and rights, and it is also quite clear in terms of protecting certain resources. Much legislation is outdated, however, so the government is in the process of revising and consolidating several laws that relate (directly or indirectly) to the energy sector.

The main pieces of legislation relevant to the biomass energy sector are:

Forest Act (1976): the Act provides for the declaration of forest reserves, protected trees and the control of forest products.

Agricultural Resources (Conservation) Act (1973): provides for the conservation of agricultural resources (animals, birds, plants, waters, soils, vegetation and vegetation products, fish and insects)

Herbage Preservation (Prevention of Fires) Act (1978): makes it compulsory for all persons to acquire permission from the Herbage Preservation Committee before setting fire to any vegetation when not the land owner or lawful occupier.

The Forest, Agricultural Resources and Herbage Preservation Acts are now being amalgamated into one Forestry Act.

Tribal Land (Amendment) Act (1993): allows for determination of land use zones. Land grants must not conflict with the zoned land use. The Act gives power to Land Boards to determine management plans for use and development of the zones.

22

Tribal Land Act (1970): in areas of tribal land, the Act controls land use rights and makes provision for the imposition of restrictions.

Both Tribal Acts impinge on land tenure/ownership for the purpose of exercising rights over management of land resources such as biomass.

Waste Management Act (1999): regulates management of controlled and hazardous waste. The Act makes provisions for waste management plans, identification of waste management sites and control of groundwater pollution.

Atmospheric Pollution (Prevention) Act (1971): provides for the prevention of pollution of the atmosphere by the carrying on of industrial processes and for matters incidental thereto.

The Atmospheric, Wastewater and Waste Management Acts are being amalgamated into one Act.

Water Act (1968): the Act defines ownership, rights and use of public water. It also prohibits the pollution, fouling or poisoning of, interference with, or flow alteration of public water.

Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act (1992): enables the declaration of certain area as national parks, game reserves and Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) in which wildlife conservation and use is the primary land use. The WMA Regulations could be a useful tool for managing wetlands in WMAs.

Environmental Impact Assessment Act (2005): This is the overarching legislation governing the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in Botswana. Its main object is to make provisions for EIA to be used as a tool for assessing the potential effects of planned developmental activities; to determine and to provide mitigation measures for effects of such activities as may have a significant adverse impact on the environment; to put in place a monitoring process and evaluation of the environmental impacts of implemented activities; and to provide for matters incidental to the foregoing.

2.4.6 Summary

Although Vision 2016 alludes to the sustainable utilisation of natural resources, it highlights minerals and electricity as examples of pillars of development and is silent on the potential that biomass can play in the attainment of national development objectives.

Various government Plans elaborate important elements related to biomass energy that need to be addressed, but implementation of Plan goals has been lacking and they are rarely accomplished. BEMP acknowledges the role of woody biomass energy in the national energy mix, but focuses on fuel switching amongst low income households, rather than means to achieve more efficient and modern utilisation of biomass.

At policy level, the key policies for both energy and forestry are still in draft form. The National Energy Policy has been in draft form since 2004. It also does not specify targets that need to be achieved and hence fails to guide BEST on its expected achievements. The Forestry Policy is also under revision and will need to be coordinated with the existing CBNRM Policy. The Wastewater and Sanitation Policy emphasises the use of treated wastewater for irrigation, but is silent on exploitation of this resource for energy. Other policies seek to empower communities and put them at the forefront of sustainable management and utilisation of natural resources, but means of implementation are not well articulated to achieve results.

Government strategies encompass aspects of biodiversity protection, social enhancement and management of wastes. Land issues need to be addressed in the context of the Poverty Reduction Strategy.

With respect to Acts, the Forestry Act (which is important in relation to woody biomass) is under revision and will be amalgamated to cater for forestry, agricultural resources and their protection particularly from veld fires. Tribal Acts are important in that they attempt to address the land tenure/ownership aspect that affects where woody biomass can be harvested or biofuel crops can be grown.

23

Though the current regime of Vision, Plans, policies, strategies, and legal framework, are not explicit on the sustainable utilisation of biomass for energy and adoption of modern forms of biomass energy, they form a good foundation on which BEST can be built upon. Chapter 11 proposes enhancements that are required to emphasise the importance of biomass to the national economy and means of exploiting it in a sustainable manner.

2.5 Literature Review

A selection of key studies and surveys on the biomass supply and demand situation in Botswana are outlined below. These provided much of the data used in the following chapters.

2.5.1 Supply-side Information

Data on above-ground woody biomass in Botswana are unreliable and scanty. Although secondary data are available, there are no regular nation-wide surveys that can provide reliable information. This makes biomass energy planning rather difficult.

There have, however, been site-specific studies in different parts of the country which are important indicators of woody biomass supply under particular conditions and were used as the basis for estimating woody biomass resources nationally. EAD has also commissioned a number of studies that provide data on the supply-side. The major ones from which information can be extracted for BEST development are discussed below.

Woody biomass assessment around Mochudi and Bobonong (NRP, 2000) and Expansion of the fuelwood/woody biomass inventory and monitoring programme (FIMP) Eastern Botswana (NRP, 2003): MMEWR commissioned two fuelwood/woody biomass assessment studies with the aim of creating an inventory of woody biomass and designing and testing inventory techniques. The first examined the woody biomass inventory in the areas of Mochudi and Bobonong and led to the development of a prototype Fuelwood Inventory and Monitoring Programme (FIMP I). In 2001-2002, a second study (FIMP II) used satellite imagery to extend the coverage of woody biomass assessment to include eastern Botswana (i.e. Borolong, Jwaneng, Orapa, Limpopo Lephephe, Mmashoro and Maitengwe). Both studies were intended to provide a benchmark assessment of woody biomass in Botswana against which future changes in the resource could be compared. Some important findings from this study are as follows:

The use of satellite imagery and the vegetation classification process provides a good estimate of the woody biomass base, although this does not translate directly into fuelwood availability. Even where there are good woodland stocks, villagers still travel long distances to collect fuelwood as they search for certain preferred species. Deadwood is insufficient in many areas, and there is evidence of cutting live trees for fuel in some areas without clear indication whether that is for own use or fuelwood trading.

Fuelwood is undoubtedly becoming scarcer around key urban centres studied under FIMP, thereby imposing tremendous hardship on the poorest, which are least able to cope with such shortages.

Regeneration of woody biomass is often hampered by over- grazing by goats and cattle.

Mopane (Colophospermum mopane) woodlands in the studied areas have high resilience, as heavy harvesting does not necessarily cause environmental degradation. However, this conclusion cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the country without further investigations.

In both Mochudi and Bobonong, local people were generally utilising the fuelwood resource in a sustainable manner. Clearance of live trees appeared to be unrelated to the supply of fuelwood, but rather to the need for poles; even then there appears to be a minimum density of trees beyond which people will not clear.

On the basis of experiences in Bobonong and Mochudi, the capacity for community-based fuelwood monitoring systems to be established and maintained is extremely limited. Traditional structures such as VDCs and District Councils are clearly overstretched in their duties with such a fuelwood monitoring system regarded as placing an unnecessary and largely unworkable, extra burden upon them.

24

Investigation of Fuelwood Management Practices in Botswana (2002): This project was commissioned by EAD with the objectives of assessing the applicability of CBNRM in fuelwood management in Botswana, learning from the experiences of past CBNRM activities in the country; identifying sites and design pilot CBNRM projects with the respective communities; and drawing recommendations on strategies Botswana can adopt to achieve sustainable fuelwood management. Some important insights derived are that:

CBNRM will work as a fuelwood management tool but, in the case of fuelwood supply, products with short maturity periods such as vegetables and flowers should be incorporated. The success of CBNRM for fuelwood management will also depend on the skills available for project planning, management, product packaging and marketing. Further, communities need to be empowered to decide on their choice of projects. Facilitation from government, NGOs and the private sector should be through provision of technical support and resources. CBNRM projects will be easily coordinated and meaningful when policies for both forestry and CBNRM are in place; government is urged to speed the process of finalising both policies

15.

Woodlots were intended for demonstration purposes and their success depends on the supply of water, choice of species, level of community management and extension services, among other factors. It was also confirmed that woodlots planted with eucalyptus are not suitable for fuelwood as communities prefer specific indigenous species.

Makomoto Study (2008): The Department of Forestry and Range Resources undertook a vegetation resources assessment at Makomoto-Sese area in response to concerns over possible unsustainable utilisation of forest and range resources for commercial fuel production in the area. The objective was to carry out a detailed forest inventory of the standing biomass and diameter distributions for both live and dead trees that could potentially be utilised for fuelwood production and other purposes (such as provision of construction materials, fencing materials etc). An important findings was that there was no extensive harvesting of Colophospermum mopane (except for a few localised areas) concluding that there was no extensive damage to the woodland around Makomoto as the communities seemed to practice selective harvesting. Where communities practice such resource management, chiefs and their communities apply their indigenous knowledge to select what species and when and where to cut them for various end uses.

Feasibility study for the production and use of biofuels in Botswana (2007). This study was commissioned by MMEWR through EAD and sought to assess the potential of producing biofuels in Botswana; in particular, ethanol, biodiesel and bio-gel. This involved market assessment, assessment of feedstock production potential, identifying appropriate technologies and a cost-benefit analysis of biofuels production. In addition, it examined the environmental, policy, legal, institutional, job creation and capacity-building implications if Botswana was to implement biofuel production and use. Of the various energy crops evaluated, only jatropha and sweet sorghum were found to have the potential to grow. Jatropha was identified as the most promising energy crop for biodiesel production. The Central District was found to have the best potential for jatropha production. Sweet sorghum would grow with normal rainfall and for better ethanol yields supplemented by irrigation where feasible, such as in Chobe District.

The Indigenous Vegetation Project (IVP; 2004-2007): This was a 4-year regional initiative funded jointly by GEF and the Government of Botswana. It was a demonstration project for biodiversity conservation and dry-land ecosystem restoration in arid and semi-arid zones of Africa, and also covered Kenya and Mali. The project combined community-based indigenous knowledge, the findings of scientific research and past practical experience to rehabilitate degraded ecosystems and conserve biodiversity by developing sustainable natural resource management systems. Specific results delivered by the project were: (i) appropriate indigenous management systems for sustainable use of biodiversity; (ii) arid zone database and Geographic Information System (GIS), (iii) rehabilitated indigenous vegetation; (iv) improved livestock production, marketing and alternative livelihoods; and (v) technology transfer, training and regional comparative learning.

15 The CBNRM Policy is in place but the Forestry Policy is under revision

25

Summary The most useful of the above studies are FIMP I (2000), FIMP II (2003), the Makomoto Forest Inventory Report of 2008; ERL, 1985; and Kgathi, 1994. These studies provide data on standing stocks, annual increments and, to a lesser extent, removal and regeneration rates. These data were used in BEST to develop the woody biomass baseline.

Although woody biomass resource studies have not covered most of the country, the FIMP outputs represent a significant advancement in the understanding of woody biomass resources using satellite remote sensing techniques. The accuracy of FIMP results is about 67%, which is acceptable by international classification standards [NRP, 2003] since there is also currently no satellite sensor that is suitable for the direct assessment of fuelwood. Estimation of fuelwood within the stocks was based on known percentages expressed as fraction of standing stock.

The coverage of FIMP I and FIMP II studies was mapped using Arc View 9.2 to show the extent of data availability for the country. The data show the land use distribution in each sub-district, including areas restricted for fuelwood harvesting (e.g. national parks and forest reserves), as well as areas under cultivation. Using these data, woody biomass resources were estimated in terms of standing stocks, as well as potentially accessible fuelwood at district level. This gives an indication of wood biomass supply in the different parts of Botswana. The standing stocks were then discounted for estimated wood used for poles and construction to provide the woody biomass balance as well as estimates of fuelwood availability. Extrapolation of estimation of standing stocks and hence fuelwood supplies were based on the vegetation map of Botswana by considering similar vegetation types similar to those where FIMP data were evaluated. The GIS map constructed from these data is presented in Chapter 3.

Other Supply Activities In addition to the studies outlined above, there have been various projects and activities conducted by government and NGOs in the forestry sector from which lessons can be derived for BEST. These include:

Government:

Development of the Botswana National Action Plan to Combat Desertification;

National Tree Planting Days;

Assessment of community woodlots in Botswana;

Construction of the National Tree Seed Centre by Botswana College of Agriculture;

Upgrading of the Forestry and Range Ecology Programme to diploma level at Botswana College of Agriculture;

On-going social forestry and backyard nurseries;

Initiation of an inventory of major species, regeneration, dead wood yields in Chobe and Ngamiland and to be continued in NDP10 for the whole country;

Indigenous and exotic species trials; and

Intensification of indigenous tree planting in schools.

NGOs:

Several tree planting initiatives

Community-based woodland management projects at Lehututu and Serowe areas that was facilitated by FAB;

Capacity-building in community-based veld resources management project;

Indigenous tree seed collection; and

2.5.2 Demand-Side Information

The main sources of information on biomass consumption used in this report are clusters of energy studies conducted between 2000/01 and 2007/2008 by and for the EAD and other organisations such as the World Bank, ProBEC and RE-Botswana. Older studies have only been included to supplement information where more recent data were not available (e.g. AFREPREN research projects conducted in the 1990s). Results were also corroborated by results of population census and Household Income and Expenditure surveys conducted by the Central Statistical Office (2001; 2003).

26

The Urban Fuelwood & Rural Energy Needs and Requirements Study (2000/01)was financed by the Government of Botswana to determine fuelwood consumption patterns in selected urban areas, investigate the influence of socio-economic development on fuelwood use and design long-term strategies to reduce fuelwood consumption. The study was conducted by a consortium comprising the Energy & Development Research Centre (EDRC), the University of Cape Town, the Energy & Development Group (EDG); and the Forestry Association of Botswana (FAB). A second study on Rural Energy Needs and Requirements was also financed by the government and covered selected rural settlements in each of the country’s ten districts. The sectors targeted included rural households, institutions, commercial enterprises and agricultural businesses. This study was conducted by EECG and the Rural Industries Innovation Centre (RIIC).

These two studies provide comprehensive information on energy fuel mixes in both urban and rural areas, and how the socio-economic setting influences energy choices. These two surveys provide data for the base year (2000) with regard to energy consumption.

Another study (Energy Use, Supply and Sector Reforms, 2003/04) was funded as part of the World Bank’s Energy Sector Management Project (ESMAP) conducted in four countries: Botswana, Honduras, Ghana and Senegal. The country activities were managed by the Energy Research Centre (ERC) of the University of Cape Town, in consultation with the ESMAP Task Manager. The study focussed on the impact of energy use, supply and sector reforms on the poor in Botswana. The project was a combined household and community study that provided information on community structures, household socio-economics, energy consumption, energy supply chains and impact of income and expenditure on the uptake of modern energy services. This is the most recent comprehensive energy demand (and supply) survey (in 7 of the 10 districts) that has been concluded, from which baseline information for BEST was derived.

Ditlhale, N and Wright, M. (2003): The Importance of Gender in Energy Decision-making: The case of Rural Botswana. The study was conducted under the auspices of the AFREPREN Research Programme and investigated energy use in rural Botswana to see if the gender of decision-makers in households affects the choice of energy. This was undertaken to assess the extent to which the general population would benefit from a rapid expansion of the availability of electricity to rural areas that the government had commenced. The survey data were examined in the broader context of Botswana’s rapid economic and social development including the government’s commitment to reduce poverty and expand economic opportunities for women. The study was also testing the hypothesis that female decision-makers are more likely to opt for modern energy due to its potential for time saving, as compared to men who may be more likely to exploit the availability of cheap (mainly female) household labour. The conclusions from the study are as follows:

More rural households collect their fuel more than they purchase and on gender basis, similar proportions of male and rural female-headed households collect or purchase their fuelwood. More female-headed households mix collection and purchasing. More rural male-headed households use fuelwood for cooking because they can also access it by carts or cars. The range of incomes for those interviewed also testifies to the disparity with their women counterparts.

Considering gender disparity in access to electricity, more male households have connected to electricity than their female counterparts and this is a result that male households tend to have higher and steady incomes to pay for the electricity connection scheme. Divided between male-headed and female-headed for rural households, the indications are that electricity is hardly used for cooking and this was in the case of very poor rural households with incomes below P100 for male-headed households and P250 for female-headed households

Similar proportions of rural households among males use other modern fuels as for females and in this case requirement for special policies for gender balance does not seem necessary except to

27

induce more use of LPG for both gender groups. There is a significant share of both male -headed and female-headed households using a mix of fuels for cooking. This is often dictated by what is available at the time as money for energy purchase may not always be available and households resort to collecting traditional fuels.

In male-headed households males and females make fuelwood procurement decisions almost equally and yet in female-headed households the females make most of the decisions. This is not surprising as in female-headed households the only males that may be available to make decisions are the children hence the head tend to make the decision on procurement of the fuel.

The decision making framework in female-headed households could be an advantage where adoption of cleaner energy fuels/sources is to be made as it is clear as to who will have a final say. In male-headed households, males tend to make decisions that are implemented by others. The adoption to collect and use fuelwood may be made by the male head but it would be females and children who may end up doing the work.

EAD/Mabowe (2007): Biogas Utilisation in Botswana: A review of experiences and way forward EAD assessed experiences with biogas technology in Botswana as a prelude to mapping the way forward regarding biogas utilisation. The way forward considered whether primary or secondary schools currently using fuelwood as the main source of energy for cooking could use biogas generated from either cow dung and/or waste food. The exercise also assessed the level of activity and success of organisations and private firms currently promoting biogas technology.

This study concluded that continued use of biogas plants is possible if there is proper dissemination strategy by a promoting organisation such that installation is followed by frequent information dissemination and planned monitoring and support to the users. Households should also be able to have individual biodigesters but experience from other countries shows that financial support from government is required. In the case of large digesters, government could also support farmers practicing zero grazing, as well as those running piggeries and chicken farms to install biogas plants on farm for cooking, lighting, water heating, water pumping and possible electricity generation. Biogas production at community level can only function if there is proper targeting and cost effectiveness and this has not been the case before. Community biogas plants are expected to succeed if schools are targeted. With regard to municipal waste water, global progress in generating energy and minimization of sludge has recently been adopted in waste water treatment. For Botswana potential is realized mainly for Gaborone and Francistown waste treatment plants where some level of biogas is already being generated. ProBEC/RE-Botswana, 2007: Assessment of Energy Efficient Cooking Devices in Botswana This study was commissioned by RE-Botswana and ProBEC with the primary objective being to provide reliable feedback on energy efficient cooking and heat retention devices so as to guide the design packages on offer in the RE-Botswana Programme. Additional specific objectives of the study were to identify and assess the end-user perception and acceptability of three energy efficient stoves (Rocket Stove, Vesto Stove and Sunstove) and two heat retention devices (Hot Bags from Lesotho and South Africa) and to identify and assess supply-side issues and barriers. The major findings of the report were on media access, device acceptability and benefits to the user, affordability, fuel and time savings, device supply issues, and barrier to local manufacture of device. The report recommended the following media channels for marketing and product awareness raising, i.e. Village Chiefs or Headmen, Kgotla meetings, daily news, Radio Botswana 1 (RB1) and lastly Botswana Television (BTV). In terms of device acceptability, the villagers preferred the Rocket Stove as they perceived it to be more durable than the Rocket Stove and the preferred heat retention device was the Lesotho Hot Bag. The preferred devices were also perceived to be affordable and hence the villagers expressed willingness to purchase and own the devices. In addition to being affordable the devices were reported to have resulted in fuel savings of at least 50% both in fuel quantity and monetary terms. On the supply-side of the devices, the report notes that manufacturers were willing to manufacture the devices provided the market was well established. Doubts were raised on whether local manufacture could be done cost

28

effectively as the raw material supply chain was long and this made some of the raw material to be unaffordable. This was further compounded by the fact that most potential manufacturers were small and had no access to cheap finance to expand their business and support marketing campaigns associated with new products. In addition most retail shop were unwilling to offer flexible payment terms to potential customers of the devices and hence the report concludes by recommending that stove dissemination should be part of a government supported program through RE Botswana. ProBEC 2008 Baseline study determining consumer behaviour with regard to kitchen management and efficient cooking habits in Botswana. This study was commissioned by ProBEC with primary and secondary objectives of the study as follows:- Primary Objective: • To obtain baseline information on the extent to which households practice kitchen and firewood management practices. Specific Objectives: • Assess the kitchen design and location. • Assess fuel management practices. • Assess food preparation prior to cooking. • Assess the cooking habits of participating households. The Kitchen Management baseline study on appropriate kitchen management practices outlines the extent to which households, specifically those members involved in cooking, implement efficient kitchen management strategies in their daily cooking activities.

EAD/Wright, Sept 2007: Utilisation of Fuelwood by Government Primary Schools in the Central District Having observed that government institutions are the major buyers of fuelwood from traders, EAD consulted with relevant departments to encourage them to switch from the use of fuelwood to other energy sources. The government installed modern kitchens with LPG-operated stoves in 707 primary schools, leaving only 18 schools without fitted kitchens. However, the installation of these gas-fitted kitchens has not resulted in the schools shifting from using fuelwood for cooking completely. The study was intended to investigate the extent of use of LPG kitchens and why schools do not switch completely to fuelwood. The conclusion derived is that construction of new kitchens in Government Primary Schools has not resolved the problem of excessive fuelwood consumption in schools due to poor maintenance of equipment and inadequate supply of LPG in these schools. The recommendation made was that Councils should come up with a periodical inspection and maintenance of installed gas pots and stoves. The Council were also urged to ensure an adequate and reliable supply of LPG. Community Surveys Community kgotla

16 and household surveys were carried out in 2008 as part of this BEST at 11 villages representing

the country’s ten districts, namely Ditlhakane (Kweneng), Artesia (Kgatleng), Pitsane (Southern), Kachikau (Chobe); Masunga (NE), Tonota (Central), Sehitwa, Toteng and Komana (Ngamiland); Tsootsa (Ghantsi), Tsabong (Kgalagadi).

The kgotla meetings sought to assess the supply situation for both fuelwood and alternative fuels; and, on the demand-side, the end uses including technologies used. The other purpose was to seek interventions which communities felt could be applied in their villages/district to alleviate the energy shortage particularly as it pertains to fuelwood. It was also important to understand if the communities have considered the issues of energy

16 These are the chief’s premises where village deliberations take place.

29

resources in their usual community deliberations. There was balanced participation of both men and women in these meetings and often women provided the interventions that have been captured in the survey. In addition to the literature reviewed above, current ongoing demand side activities that are relevant to this BEST for Botswana have been summarised in Chapter 4. ProBEC The Programme for Basic Energy Conservation (ProBEC) his being implemented in the Southern African region in phases and at the conclusion of a four-year phase the programme had delivered 600,000 efficient biomass stoves in the seven participating countries. Botswana joined ProBEC in 2008. The programme is transforming from its emphasis of rural development and appropriate technology to providing development support for private sector to deliver development solution. Its activities are implemented through national and regional advisory groups. There are some useful lessons which can be drawn from the successful implementation of ProBEC initiatives, especially the dissemination of efficient stoves.

Internationally, there are efforts being made to promote efficient stoves and affordability is seen as the greatest hindrance to dissemination. Good stoves that are cleaner also tend to be more complex and more expensive. Experience also shows that subsidies and giving away stoves does not result in sustainability, but there is scope to explore some smart subsidies, e.g. loan schemes to support upfront costs of devices. Combining in-country manufacturing, imports of stoves or parts will also bring in cost effectiveness with respect to quality and cost. Marketing of stoves to different user categories call for different types of marketing strategies, supported by market research and training stove promoters. Apart from promoting stoves, communities will need training on cooking techniques. The need for space heating and cultural need of sitting around a fire, are still not resolved by providing the stove. Designers should then welcome the challenge posed by users to make them more acceptable.

Biogas RE Biogas RE Pty. Ltd. is involved in building domestic and institutional biogas digesters in Botswana. One of its most successful plants is a 10 cum. biogas plant operated by a hotel in Lobatse. This hotel has already realised a 30% saving in LPG bills. Biogas RE also reported that a household in Pitsane (2 cum.) has stopped using firewood for cooking after they installed a small bio-digester at the homestead. The company was also installing a biogas plant to substitute diesel use in incineration at Richmark poultry farm (400 cum.) in the Tuli Block. It reported that the farm will save about 150 litres of diesel per day with extra benefits such as reduction in blood contaminated wastewater. According to Biogas RE, demand for biogas in other countries such as Lesotho is driven by the need to dispose of waste; therefore, the success rate is high as opposed to Botswana where biogas development is about reducing energy costs.

RE-Botswana RE Botswana is a project to remove barriers that prevent the successful implementation of renewable energy technologies. This project is a result of a realisation that rural electrification through grid extension is costly, while average electricity consumption at domestic level is low, and therefore not cost effective. Alternatives to grid electrification are seen in low-cost renewable energy options and fuelwood-efficient devices (stoves and heat retention). With the realisation that households are likely to continue using fuelwood in the future, RE Botswana is designing a package that includes solar PV systems and improved wood stoves to minimise fuelwood consumption. Already, they have done market assessment studies and the market potential is estimated at 194,000 households, which is 49% of all households in Botswana.

BSE Warehouse/Bush Energy Bush Energy, a company in South Africa, is exploring gasification, charcoal making and pellet technology options from invasive bush species in Botswana. Opportunities are envisaged in the short-term on freehold farms. Government would need to assess the resource from bush encroachment to allow such activities to utilise natural

30

woody biomass resources. The market for such charcoal is not well established but similar charcoal produced in nearby Namibia is for export.

2.6 Summary of Biomass Energy Challenges

The fuelwood upon which most low income households depend has become increasingly scarce and often requires a means of transport to bring it from afar. Scarcity incurs a high purchase cost to those who buy their fuelwood. The current practice of carrying fuelwood on the head or in a wheelbarrow that is mostly undertaken by women and children creates a burden due to walking long distances, and the long time spent fetching fuelwood.

In Botswana, government institutions have been using fuelwood for cooking and efforts are being made to switch to alternative fuels; but some of the institutions are still competing with households for this scarce resource. Some government institutions, such as the Botswana Defence Force (BDF), prisons and secondary schools (both senior and junior), have already shifted from using fuelwood for cooking to LPG. LPG kitchens are also being installed at primary schools, but the shift from fuelwood has not been fully achieved: about 7% of the surveyed schools do not use their LPG facilities, and 76% are under-utilised (alternating with fuelwood) (EAD/Wright, 2007). Poor maintenance and unreliable supply of LPG by local councils are reasons why LPG kitchens are not fully utilised where they already exist. Councils have been mandated to supply LPG to Primary Schools as these primary schools fall under Council jurisdiction, so councils have the budgets for such fuel provision. In the case of fuelwood, schools have been collecting by themselves as financial resources were not involved.

Trade in fuelwood is mostly conducted by rural communities to generate income and, as the commodity gets scarce, fuelwood traders may resort to cutting live trees to augment their stock. If unchecked, these unsustainable practices can contribute to environmental degradation and increased deforestation. Localised and selective decline of fuelwood species is occurring in most of the country, especially the eastern part where 80% of population is concentrated. Preferred species of fuelwood have been depleted closest to human settlements, hence people have to travel longer distances to collect good fuelwood [EAD, 2006]. In the case of those who collect using vehicles distances can be as long as 100km even where fuelwood is still for own use -rather than for trading.

There is also no fuelwood pricing and tax mechanism in place to take into account the costs resulting from unsustainable harvesting of fuelwood [ProBEC, 2006; Kemoreile et al, 2008]. Some form of regulation is, however, now being introduced to control fuelwood trading through issuance of permits for traders.

The sustainable use of fuelwood resources is generally given lower priority in the political agenda than it merits. This has resulted in communities losing sense of stewardship towards natural woodlands, aggravated by a situation where traditional leaders such as the chiefs and headmen are not effective in their role of conservation of natural resources. The legislation and policies that should otherwise support community participation in woodland management such as the Forest Act, forest policy and fuelwood policy are also inadequate.

Previous efforts to support the sustainable supply of fuelwood and poles have not been very successful. Woodlots were established in several villages throughout Botswana but were not successful because of a lack of incentives for the communities and the long time it takes to realize benefits from planted trees [ProBEC, 2006]. Past efforts to introduce efficient fuelwood stoves have been unsuccessful (BRET, 1984; FAB/EECG, 2002). Energy and community studies conducted in 2000 and 2001 indicated that where there is shortage of fuelwood people are willing to use fuelwood efficient stoves and to switch to other fuels. However, the cost of procuring such stoves or using these fuels remains a barrier for them [EAD, 2006; ProBEC, 2006]. Further market assessment has been carried out to gauge opportunities for re-introducing fuelwood efficient stoves and heat retention devices (ProBEC/RE-Botswana, 2007).

31

Among alternative energy services supplied by LPG, paraffin and electricity, government has no control over LPG prices which continue to rise. Paraffin and electricity are only used for cooking by a few households (1% in the case of electricity).

In poor households, fireplaces generally have no chimney, and long exposure to indoor air pollution from wood fires can lead to respiratory and other diseases.

32

3. BIOMASS ENERGY DEMAND

3.1 Consumption patterns

3.1.1 Household Consumption

These consumption patterns are based on the ESMPA 2004 survey.

Cooking: Wood remains the main cooking fuel for rural households at 53% compared to 13.1% of urban households with a national average of 49.1%. However in urban households wood is preferred as second and third fuel sources for cooking by 41.4% and 45.5% respectively. LPG is generally more expensive than wood. It is however widely available in the country hence its prevalence use as the main energy source for cooking in urban areas by 70.7% of the households. The use of LPG is also significant in rural households as 40.5% of them use it as the principal energy source for cooking up from 4% in 1996. The use of kerosene as principal fuel for cooking is not significant for both rural and urban households with shares of 4.5% and 13.1% respectively. The greater use in urban areas reflects the use by the poor who cannot afford LPG or electricity and have limited access to fuelwood. Cooking with electricity is still at low levels as only 1% among rural households and 3% among urban poor households are using it as their principal energy source for cooking

In conclusion, wood and LPG remain the major sources of fuel for cooking across the urban-rural divide. However wood is the main source of fuel for cooking in rural areas while LPG is the main source of fuel for cooking in urban areas. The availability of fuelwood is greater in rural areas than in urban areas, making it a preferred fuel used in rural areas since it is also obtained free of charge except for the opportunity cost of time spent collecting the fuel. LPG is already widely used in both urban and rural areas, but cooking with electricity is still perceived as expensive. Both cooking with LPG and electricity require procurement of appropriate appliances such as stoves, but LPG has been successful probably because of the drive of the liberalized market for the fuel. The use of more than one fuel for cooking involving LPG and wood is evident across the urban-rural divide for several reasons among them availability of fuel source to a household during a certain time, the size of the household, the type of food to be cooked and the duration to cook a given type of food.

The results of the ESMAP study (2004) shows that households appear to shift from fuelwood to LPG as income increases. Use of LPG ranged from 5% of households in the 1

st income quintile to 14% in the 5

th income quintile.

Above the 2nd

income quintile there were more households using LPG than fuelwood in Botswana (Fig 7). Electricity was only used for cooking by households above 3

rd quintile and there was also little use of kerosene for

cooking in Botswana.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1 2 3 4 5

Quintiles (income level)

% o

f H/H

s coo

king

with

each

ener

gy so

urce

in ea

ch q

uint

ile

electricity

kerosene

LPG

Wood

Source: ESMAP, 2004

Figure 7: Proportion of households that cook with an energy source by household income quintile

33

Water heating: The principal fuel for water heating in rural households was wood for 72.6% of households while kerosene was the principal fuel for water heating in urban areas for 41.4 % of the households. The use of electricity as the principal source of water heating was low among both rural and urban households as represented by 7% and 15.2% of the households respectively. However the use of LPG as principal fuel for water heating was significant for urban households, with 30.3% of urban households using LPG for water heating compared to 16.9% in rural households.

Wood is a traditional source of fuel in rural areas and its use for water heating has been extensive, over a long period of time into the past. The water heating normally takes place over fires made in special structures in open spaces located within the household compound for rural households. This approach to heating water also serves for warming household members as well as family gathering place, particularly during winter. The same fire made for cooking could be used for water heating as well.

Other reasons for the high usage of fuelwood for heating water in rural areas include availability of cheap or free wood; and the availability of a number of appliances in households, which can be used for water heating.

In conclusion, kerosene was the principal fuel for water heating in urban households followed by LPG. It is evident that wood was hardly used for water heating in urban areas. The scarcity of fuelwood appliances and structures for water heating using wood are major drawbacks for fuelwood use in urban areas, a situation exacerbated by problems of sourcing free wood in urban areas. Kerosene is a preferred source of water heating in urban areas because of several reasons: households in urban areas have appliances that are designed for use with kerosene for boiling water; the readily available and the relative cheapness of kerosene, compared to electricity, makes it affordable by urban households. Many poor households in urban areas do not have electric appliances for water heating, even in cases where they have access to electricity. LPG is second preferred fuel for heating after kerosene. LPG in this respect is a more modern energy fuel (although more expensive) than kerosene, hence is a second preference after electricity. The usage of LPG in urban households is however limited by the requirement for having LPG appliances among households and its relative high price.

Ironing: Wood is the principal source of fuel for ironing in rural households (64.3%) compared to 25.3% in urban households. LPG has higher shares of households that use it as a principal fuel for ironing among rural (31.3%) and urban (25.3%) households than fuelwood. To a smaller extent kerosene was used as principal fuel for ironing by 12.1% of urban households. The usage of LPG as principal fuel for ironing involves 14.6% of rural households.

Wood is the principal source of ironing in rural areas for several reasons: the fuelwood is available, cheap or free; many households have appliances using fuelwood for ironing; the prevalent use of fuel for other applications such as water and space heating, cooking increases the use of fuelwood for ironing. LPG, which is second preferred fuel for ironing in rural areas is expensive compared to wood. Other end uses of LPG are not significant in terms of increasing its use. For urban households, the use of wood for ironing is second to LPG. However for urban households LPG enjoys a greater end use for ironing owing to availability of appliances for ironing among urban households.

Table 7 Compares proportion of households consuming fuelwood in the government sponsored survey of 2000 and in the ESMAP 2004 survey. The ESMAP survey did not measure household or per capita consumption but emphasized the proportion of households using fuelwood as the main fuel for cooking (among other end uses) as a result, the baseline scenario was built on household or per capita consumption figures obtained in 2000 surveys.

34

Table 7: Proportion of households and per capita consumption in 2000 and 2004 surveys

Household sub-sector

Population 2000

Households using fuelwood

as main fuel

per capita t/year

Population 2004

Households using fuelwood

as main fuel

Per capita t/year

Rural 708,131 77% 0.45549 736,801 53% 0.45549

Urban 388,077 13% 0.35678 408,699 13% 0.35678

Urban Village 546,101 72% 0.45243 575,120 30% 0.45243

Total 1,642,309 1,729,579

Fuelwood gathering and buying by urban and rural households Source: Derived from EDRC/EDG/FAB, 2001; EECG/RIIC, 2001 and ESMP, 2004

3.1.2 Urban and Rural Institutions

The last comprehensive survey on both urban and rural institutions was conducted in 2000 (EDRC/EDG/FAB, 2001 and EECG/RIIC, 2001) hence the results presented here are based on those surveys.

In terms of fuelwood provision, the urban study showed that the responsibility of paying for fuelwood used at Senior Secondary Schools (SSS) and Community Junior Secondary Schools (CJSS) is borne by both the Ministry of Education and the institutions themselves. In the case of Primary Schools, however, the responsibility is mainly borne by the parents, and pupils are sometimes asked to bring firewood to school. Lack of funding for alternative cooking appliances has also contributed to the extensive use of fuelwood in Primary Schools. The Ministry of Education provides funding for appliances of alternative fuels in most SSS and CJSS, but supports only a few Primary Schools. Most Primary Schools receive their appliances funding from their Local Council. This leads to disparities in appliance provision at different Primary Schools, since a particular school’s appliances would depend on the financial strength of its Council. The urban study also shows that it is mostly Primary Schools and CJSS that are not using the electric or gas appliances they have. The main reason is that electricity or gas are found to be expensive and, that appliance maintenance is also costly. In the case of other rural sectors, those who collected fuelwood (46%) were also more than those who bought (30%), while 19% engaged in both buying and collection. A smaller proportion (4%) was supplied with fuelwood by Councils (in the case of government institutions) and other agencies. For the majority of the sectors, employees or students or family members collected fuelwood in 75% of the cases followed by hawkers or hired people (17%) and the rest by owners themselves. Decisions to collect fuelwood are mostly made by owners/administrators (72% of sectors collecting) and the rest mainly by employees. The estimated mean distance to the collection points was 21 km and the mean time for collection was 3 hours. The estimated mean distance to collection points 2 to 5 years before was 9 km showing that the distance had more than doubled. This is also supported by 93% of fuelwood collectors who said the distance is increasing. The burden of fuelwood collection is not large for these sectors as they mostly collect using vehicles /school trucks for 78% of fuelwood collectors followed by scotch carts (13%) and only in a few cases was fuelwood carried as head loads (9%). The majority of the sectors bought fuelwood from hawkers/traders (62%) and 19% from homestead sellers. The rest bought from other sources including road-side supply points. Fuelwood buyers bought

35

their supplies in loads largely supplied by vehicles (70%), scotch carts (36%) loads and the rest as head (19%), wheelbarrow (4%) and bicycle loads (4%).

3.2 Energy Supply Chains

3.2.1 Supply options

Basing on the 2000 surveys, it is was found out that, out of the 43% of the urban households using fuelwood, about a half of them buy all the fuelwood they use whilst about 40% gather all the fuelwood they use. For the other 10%, they buy some of their fuelwood and gather the rest themselves. In the case of rural villages, the majority of households (50%) collect their fuelwood in winter compared to those who buy (17%) and those who combined buying and collection (33%). In summer, collectors increased to 64.1% with buyers remaining nearly the same at 19%. The share of those who combined buying and collection decreased to 11%. It appears that many rural households supplement their fuelwood supply through buying when the demand is higher in winter, but can afford to use the fuelwood they collect in summer. Those who always buy fuelwood mostly buy it from homestead sellers (55% of cases). Another 41% buy from hawkers and the rest (4%) from other sources. Those who buy fuelwood included occasional collectors.

3.2.2 Supply sources

The sources of fuel supply as found out in the 2004 ESMAP survey are as follows:

Fuelwood: For those who purchase fuelwood, 28.7% of rural households are supplied from other members of the community. In the case of urban households, 1% and 28.7% are supplied by local neighbouring shop and members of the community respectively.

The loads of fuelwood bought were not presented but the frequency of procurement was once a week for 50.7%, every day (30.1%) and every second day (17.8%) for those rural households that responded while in the case of urban households 77.8% procured fuelwood once a week and the rest (22.2%) every day.

Electricity: The source of electricity for the majority is the utility. Electricity is supplied and charged to customers in two ways: through bills and by prepayment method

17. Survey results show that 15.3% of rural households made

their prepayment for electricity at vending machines.

Kerosene: Shops, petrol stations, or specialist dealerships are the predominant sources of supply for kerosene to rural and urban locations.

For kerosene, local neighbourhood shops, petrol filling stations and specialist dealer shops, supply 46.9%, 30.6% and 5.3% of rural households respectively. In the case of urban households the shares are 19.8%, 54.5% and 4.0% respectively. The largest suppliers of kerosene in rural areas are the local shops and in urban areas are the petrol filling stations.

The sizes of kerosene quantities mostly procured are the 5litres (44.1% rural households and 44.6% urban households) and 2.5 litres (25.3% rural; 9.9% urban) and the 1.25 litres (18.2% rural; 5% urban). Very few households in both rural and urban areas procure the other quantities.

Most households procure kerosene once per month (52.1% rural households; 38.2% urban households) followed by those that procure fuel once a week (16.4% rural; 19.1% urban). In rural areas the category that follows next are

17

Prepayment simply means a household pays for electricity before using it while billing refers to billing the customer based on what has been consumed over a certain period of time past

36

those who purchase kerosene twice/week (11.5%) while for urban are those that purchase 3times/week (13.2%) and then twice a week (11.8%). The rest procure kerosene at other times in both rural and urban areas.

The distribution and supply of kerosene involve a reform entailing reduced taxes on the price to allow the majority of the poor to afford.

LPG: Shops, petrol stations, or specialist dealerships are the predominant sources of supply for LPG to rural and urban locations.

For LPG, local neighbouring shops, petrol filling stations and specialist dealer shops, supply 18.2%, 5.3% and 27.8% of rural households respectively. In the case of urban households the shares are 15.8%, 14.9% and 55.4% respectively. In the case of LPG, specialist LPG dealers who source the gas from bottling companies and redistribute largely supply both rural and urban households.

The cylinder sizes mostly bought are 19kg (28.8% rural households; 43.6% urban households) followed by the 48kg cylinder (15.9% rural’ 29.7% urban). The rest of cylinder sizes are bought by 5% or less households in both rural and urban areas.

Frequency of buying LPG is mostly once per month for 58.3% rural households and twice per month for urban (60.9%) followed by those who buy LPG as needed but cannot remember how often (27.1% rural; 24.6% urban). Those that buy LPG at other times are less than 10% for each of the stipulated frequency.

Government is also encouraging setting up of retail service stations for petroleum fuels (liquid and LPG) in rural areas. Care however needs to be taken to ensure that minimum standards in supply of these products are not compromised for lower income households. To that effect BEMP, 2004 stipulates that policies that promote adequate supply, quality, safety and minimum health safety and environment (HSE) standards throughout the country must be adhered to for these products.

Coal: Coal is supplied by neighbouring shops to 0.5% of rural households and 1% of urban households. The few that buy coal do so in sacks (one, two or four). Coal and charcoal for use in household are obtained from household neighbourhood shops, petrol stations and other sources linked to the coal depots. There is perceived low uptake of coal by households despite great efforts by Government to promote its use. The slow uptake is attributed to scarcity of availability of clean coal and appliances, and poor affordability level by the target market that are the poor households. Further households are not fully aware of implications of using coal. Creating awareness on the use of coal and related implications will be imperative in order to build confidence in the market. One way is to create incentives to promote the private sector participation in the beneficiation and distribution of coal.

3.2.3 Commercial Fuelwood Trade

While most rural households in Botswana collect their own fuelwood, evidence of trade in wood (mainly Colophosermum mopane) is evident, particularly on major roads and closer to urban settlements. Increasing population, urbanisation and energy scarcity have steadily increased opportunities to generate an income from supplying fuelwood.

Sources of Fuelwood The fuelwood sold is harvested from the natural woodlands that are considered a common good. The village, its chief and the village parliament (kgotla) are important institutions with respect to natural resource management, including fuelwood. Trees are used primarily for fuel and for construction of houses and cattle kraals.

Officially, all land which is not free-hold belongs to the state. However, it has been customary for particular sub-tribes within Botswana to regard local resources as their own common property, and to be allowed to do so. Villages are permanently sited, surrounded by a grazing zone, an outer ring of bushland and ultimately, some

37

kilometres away, by farmland. A village's farm lands can be up to 12 km away and its cattle rearing areas even further. Concentric circles of ownership, each with differing rules, surround the village:

Village amenity area: Chiefs can ban the cutting of trees within the village itself because they are valued for shade and ground cover;

Village women's fuelwood area: Within a 2-3 km radius, trees are regarded as the exclusive property of the village for firewood provision, and non-villagers are chased off. Collectors (women and children) are expected to leave the most accessible wood for the elderly; they are also expected to walk straight outwards from their homes so as not to use the fuel resources from the other side of the village; and cannot take live wood. No poles can be taken from this area;

Sub-tribe men's fuelwood area: Collectors with transport (always male) have to go beyond the "collection by foot" area if they want to harvest fuel, and must go even further away if they are after poles. They share this area with other men from the same tribal sub-section;

Open access areas: Commercial traders from outside the area are encouraged to travel to still remoter sections. Heavier tools are used and live trees are sometimes felled. These outsiders have little respect for indigenous zoning rules.

There is also a common practice that those who own cattle rearing farms (posts) collect fuelwood from their posts where usually fuelwood is in abundance and of varied species.

Structural Setting As the fuelwood shortage has become more acute as a result of scarcity close to the settlements, women have tended to be freed from the task of collecting wood because it is too far away. Boys take over the job, or, if a husband has transport, he will collect the wood, or villagers will buy from other villagers with transport. Commercialisation is reducing the willingness to help elderly relatives or neighbours by collecting for them.

In the early 1980's, Kgathi (1984) found that most fuelwood traders were rural-based, middle-aged men, of low socio-economic status, who engaged in this activity to supplement their income from agricultural production. The intensity of the activity increased during droughts and winter when their labour was less needed for agricultural purposes. By the late 1980s, ESMAP (1991) found that although most fuelwood traders still collected the wood themselves, they were urban-based and earned as much as unskilled industrial workers. Sekhwela (1997b) noted that stationary roadside sellers had become a common sight along main roads leading to urban centres and major villages in southeast Botswana.

Volume of Business There are no recent data on the scale of the fuelwood trade and even past surveys were isolated. Based on wood for sale at the roadside near Maun in Ngamiland District, the annual fuelwood trade then was estimated to have a value of P2.6 million for that area alone (White (1979). Maun is considered one of the hot spots in the country where fuelwood is traded due to proximity to urban markets and due to local scarcity. The other ‘hot spots’ in the country are Nata (Central District), Makomoto (Central District), Maparangwane (Kweneng District) and Artesia (Kgatleng District) where similar trading activities take place. In the absence of recent comprehensive fuelwood survey studies, it is difficult to make a national estimate of the volume of business related to fuelwood trade. This calls for a countrywide fuelwood survey to be carried out as part of the strategy.

Regulation The government recently introduced permit system whereby those who harvest fuelwood are required to show the harvest to a DFRR officer in the region before trading the fuelwood. The effectiveness of the system has not yet been evaluated but communities consulted during the community surveys indicated that the process is cumbersome as the officers are not always available. Communities preferred that they police outsiders that come to harvest from their own villages.

38

3.3 Perceptions of Fuelwood Use

In the 2000 surveys, more than 60% of urban households perceive they were using less fuelwood now compared with the past. Among urban fuelwood gatherers, the percentage of households that had the same perception was even higher. There was hence a clear perception that fuelwood consumption was dwindling. When asked why, over 75% of urban households said it was because it was more difficult to find fuelwood; this response was strongest amongst lower income groups. It appears that fuelwood use depends on rational decision-making in terms of availability of fuelwood resources and access to other fuels.

59% of rural households indicated that their energy needs were not adequately met, compared to 39% who said they were met. Over 70% of rural households at that time experienced a fuelwood problem. On the contrary, fewer of the other rural sectors

18 (42%) expressed the scarcity of fuelwood as a serious problem.

Factors reported to be causing reduced availability of fuelwood were given as increased and unregulated collection by hawkers and government institutions, village expansion, over-consumption at weddings and funerals, and lack of affordable and available alternative fuels.

3.4 Energy Burden of Fuelwood Users

The burden on rural fuelwood users is expressed in terms of labour for fuelwood collection. In the case of urban areas, it is rather expressed by the level of expenditure on fuelwood. The urban study in 2000 (ERDC/EDG/FAB, 2001) showed that fuelwood gathering was not a significant burden on children below 15 years. In over 50% of the households collecting fuelwood, the chore was mainly in the hands of adults. It further showed that fuelwood collection was not only the responsibility of women but also of men. On the other hand, in the majority of the cases of rural villages (38% of households), fuelwood was collected by people other than the household male heads or their wives. These were children and other relatives staying in the rural homes. The next largest category in rural areas comprised female spouses and female-heads (24%). Male heads only collected fuelwood in 12% of cases. The decisions to collect fuelwood also lie mainly with female spouses and female-heads in more than half of the rural households. The burden of fuelwood collection was said to be exacerbated by long walking distances and this was voiced by more than half of fuelwood collectors in rural households, who collect in head loads (50%) and wheelbarrows (12%)-EECG/RIIC, 2001. Although distances to fuelwood collection points vary depending on means of transport, the range in the 2000 surveys was 300 m to 38 km with an average of 5.8 km. Comparing the observed situation to the last 2 to 5 years before, over 85% of the households said the distance to fuelwood collection points had increased. In terms of time taken to collect fuelwood, the maximum times were up to 10 hours with an average time for all the villages of 3.3 hours, compared to 2.3 hours 2 to 5 years before. Energy expenditure, in the case of urban households, was more of a burden for households using fuelwood than those not using fuelwood. This is illustrated in Figure 8 which shows that the percentage of urban households’ budget spent on energy for fuelwood-using households was higher than that for those not using fuelwood. The graph also shows that this burden was greatest on lower income households.

18

These include schools, clinics, general dealers, bars/restaurants, nurseries, other government organizations such as police posts

39

Energy Expenditure as % Total Exp

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1 2 3 4

Income Group

Wood Users

Others

Source: EDRC/EDG/FAB, 2001

Figure 8: Urban Energy expenditure as a % of total household expenditure

Figure 9 shows that urban monthly expenditure on fuelwood is quite a significant portion of the household energy budget in the lower income households. In the lowest income group

19 (where most of the fuelwood users belong)

this expenditure constitutes more than half the energy budget. There is a possibility that what households are already paying could allow them to shift to alternative energy options. This would require education on the part of households that can afford.

WoodExp as % EnergyExp

53%

46%

40%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4

Income Group

Source: EDRC/EDG/FAB, 2001

Figure 9: Proportion of urban household energy budget spent on fuelwood

3.5 Fuel Preferences

Fuel Preferences among sampled households for urban and rural areas are captured in Table 8 for the following end uses: lighting, cooking, water heating, and ironing. The pattern that emerges from the survey results show that 92.8% and 86.4% of sampled urban and rural households respectively prefer electricity as fuel for lighting over other fuels. Similarly survey results reflect preference for electricity over other fuels for cooking (78.9%, 81.8%),

19

First income group P1500/month and 4th

Group >P8000/month in 2000

40

water heating (76.9%, 86.7%), and ironing (76.3%, 86.5%). This is strong evidence that electricity is the preferred fuel for all the end uses indicated among both rural and urban households.

LPG comes second best as preferred fuel for cooking behind electricity with 13.5% and 12.1% of sampled rural and urban households respectively indicating the fuel as their second preference after electricity for cooking.

Coal was indicated by 13.1% and 7.3% of sampled rural and urban households respectively as the second preferred fuel for ironing to electricity.

The proportion of rural and urban households that prefer the other fuels among each other, except electricity, were insignificant and below 10%;

Table 8: Energy preferences among rural and urban households

End Use 1st

Preference 2nd

Preference 3rd

Preference

Lighting Electricity Solar Kerosene

Cooking Electricity LPG Wood

Water Heating Electricity LPG Wood

Ironing Electricity Coal LPG

Source: ESMAP, 2004

It is evident that electricity is the preferred fuel in all categories of end-uses defined above. In lighting solar is next preferred after electricity, and finally kerosene. For cooking, electricity is most preferred, followed by LPG, which is then followed by wood. For heating, electricity is most preferred, followed by LPG, which is then followed by wood. For ironing electricity is most preferred, followed by coal, which is then followed by LPG.

The preference for electricity may be understood from the perception that electricity is the cleanest and most convenient modern energy source. More importantly electricity supply to households can be designed to match all types of household energy demand for specified types of household appliances. Additional demand can be met without further investment in the supply.

Electricity supply to meet aspiration of both rural and urban areas places an overwhelming social demand on government to provide electricity to all citizens irrespective of their socio-economic condition. The social need for electricity as a result has forced a policy response, which sets annual targets on electrification in general, and rural electrification in particular.

3.6 Fuel Switching

The fuel switching presented here is largely based on the surveys of 2000 (EDRC/EDG/FAB, 2001 and EECG/RIIC, 2001) and synthesized by Yaw and Zhou, 2001.

3.6.1 Urban households

LPG cooking: The urban study showed that the main motivations of households for gas use for cooking are the relative cheapness of the fuel considering its higher use efficiency, the easy use of the fuel and the easy access to the fuel. It is surprising that the fastness and cleanliness of use did not feature prominently here. This probably shows the extent to which urban dwellers have shifted in their thinking concerning the usual perception against the safety of gas use.

Fuelwood cooking: Although only about 2% of the urban town households are mainly using fuelwood for cooking, almost a third of the urban town households would actually like to cook with fuelwood. In the urban villages, about a third of the households are currently using fuelwood as the main cooking fuel but about two-thirds of the households actually like cooking with the fuel. This indicates some tendency of reverting to fuelwood use depending on its availability and pricing.

41

Fuel switching from fuelwood to LPG and electricity: The urban study showed that there is a strong willingness amongst urban households to switch from the use of fuelwood for cooking to other energy sources particularly gas and, to a lesser extent, electricity. About 41% of the 43% urban households using fuelwood were willing to switch to other fuels with majority being in the villages. Whilst about two-thirds of all willing households would like to switch to gas, about a quarter would like to switch to electricity. Similar proportions of fuelwood users in both urban towns and urban villages (about a third) would like to switch to electricity for cooking. However, urban village households preferred switching to gas most (over 70%) since access to electricity is limited. 29% of fuelwood users in electrified households liked to switch to either electricity or gas in similar proportions (about 50%). Out of the 43% of urban fuelwood users in the non-electrified households willing to switch from fuelwood use, about 70% prefer switching to gas whilst about 19% would like to switch to electricity.

Since it is clear that gas has successfully made huge in-roads in the households’ sector in the last decade it is imperative to improve its distribution in order to make it more accessible and affordable. Although some households would still continue to use fuelwood where necessary for cooking meals that require a lot of calories, urban lifestyles are changing fast, and coupled with the scarcity of cheaper fuelwood of reasonable quality, many would like to switch either completely or partially to gas. 3.6.2 Urban Government Institutions

It is encouraging to note that about three-quarters of the urban institutions using fuelwood are willing to switch to other energy sources if their conditions could be improved. The willingness to switch from fuelwood use is also very high (over 70%) amongst government institutions. This shift was such a very strong trend that it will need only little further support. The level of willingness is highest amongst the Primary Schools who constitute the majority of fuelwood-using institutions. The main reason why the Primary Schools and the CJSS would like to quit using fuelwood is that it has become too expensive for them. They are also concerned about the impact on the environment and about the fact that it cannot be found in the neighbourhood anymore and it has to be collected from far distances. For the Prisons, fuelwood collection by their inmates often leads to escape of inmates and as such, they would like to stop collecting fuelwood. In addition, the Prisons are concerned about the environmental impacts. Amongst the institutions which use fuelwood most (the Primary Schools and the CJSS), there is general lack of knowledge about fuelwood-saving stoves but there is high willingness to own them. 3.6.3 Rural Households and Other Sectors

An assessment of potential of rural households to switch from fuelwood to other fuels revealed that the majority of households (77% of total households or 87% of fuelwood users) could switch to other fuels for particular end uses. 40% of the total households (51.4% of those using fuelwood) indicated that they could move from fuelwood to coal for cooking and another 10% to gas for cooking. Other interests expressed were switching to electricity for lighting (11% of total households) and for powering of electrical appliances (11%). The reasons why rural households have not switched were given as the high costs of the alternative energy sources/fuels for the majority of the households and scarcity of these alternative fuels/sources for only a few of the households. The reason why the majority of households chose coal as an alternative to fuelwood is probably because of its price that is lower than that of the other fuels/energy sources higher on the energy ladder. It is also easy to convert the open-hearth fireplace to accommodate coal. Coal can be used for the same end uses as fuelwood and can be stockpiled like fuelwood. These could be some of the reasons why those households made the consideration to switch to coal. When asked about their preferences for energy fuels/sources, rural households preferred to use gas (38.5% of the total households) and electricity (28.8%) for cooking. The other fuels were not that popular even the coal to which the majority would switch to if they stopped using fuelwood. Electricity was popular for all the considered end-uses with 63% of the total households favouring it for lighting, another 43.2% for space heating, 35% for water heating and 7% for other end uses which include powering appliances.

42

Switching to preferred fuels is also hindered by inability to pay as 71.4% of the total rural households said they could not switch to their favourite energy source/fuel because they could not afford to. Only 9% could not switch because their favourite fuels/sources were not available. Hence, accessibility to the various alternative fuels in rural areas can be improved if rural incomes increase or fuel prices are subsidized. A further step tested was that of willingness of rural households to switch to alternative energy fuels/sources for various end uses. This result was considered to give idea of the potential market/demand for alternative fuels. The majority of households are mostly willing to use electricity and solar; electricity for cooking, lighting and powering appliances; and solar for cooking, lighting, water heating and also powering of appliances. Gas and coal can be in demand for cooking; and biogas for cooking and water heating. For the other rural sectors, electricity is the most favoured energy source for cooking, lighting, water and space heating, and powering of appliances. Firewood and gas are also desired for cooking but there is limited willingness to use coal.

3.7 Cooking –Food types, Habits and Cooking Devices

3.7.1 Food types and Habits

Table 9 below is a summary of the foods that constitute the diet of the families that participated in the study (ProBEC /RE Botswana, 2008).

Table 9: Common foods cooked by participating households in the three villages

Meal Time Type of Meal

Breakfast Tea, Bread, Eggs, Motogo20, Vegetables, Magwinya

Lunch Bogobe, Samp, Beans, Meat, Rice, Paleche, Madombi, Vegetables

Supper Bogobe, Motogo, Tea, Bread, Meat, Rice, Paleche, Madombi, Vegetables, Tsabana, Macaroni

Sources: ProBEC/RE Botswana, 2008; ProBEC, 2008 All households in the three areas had similar eating habits. The only slight variation was in the case of Medie where samp and beans was most prevalent in 90% of the households, much more than in the other two villages (Dikwididi and Mankgodi).

Basing on the 2000 survey (EECG/RIIC, 2001) the cooked food could be for consumption by household members or to sell or both. Most homes (82% to 90%) prepared their three meals a day (10) with all members present to eat the meals in 80% of the cases.

Table 10: Preparation of Meals in Rural Households

Meals Count of households preparing meal

% of households preparing meal

Morning/breakfast 400 89.5

Lunch 367 82.1

Dinner 386 86.4

All members eating at home 356 79.6

Source: EECG/RIIC, 2001

Of those who did not prepare all the 3 meals a day (26.8%), only 10% of them cited lack of fuel as the reason and another 30% indicated that the meals were not required. Since rural people do not go far away for their daily activities they are inclined to eat their meals at home more often than their urban counterparts.

20

Motogo is sorghum porridge; magwinya is flour cake, Bogobe is samp and beans ; paleche is maize meal; tsabana is food ration for children; madombi is a flour meal

43

60% of households had not changed their diet in the last 2 to 5 years, while 26.8% had changed. The rest (13.2%) did not indicate whether their diet had changed.

The main method of cooking was boiling in all the meals for most households. For breakfast, lunch and dinner, proportions of 71.8%, 37.4% and 54.8% of the households cook by boiling respectively. However for lunch and dinner two or more methods of cooking such as frying and steaming were used in 39.8% of households for lunch and 32.2% of households for dinner. It is interesting to note that cooking by boiling can even be achieved with solar cookers for lunch preparation.

Just a few households (3.1% of households) made separate fire for preparing food that was sold and the main fuel used was fuelwood. It was however not possible to measure the amount of fuelwood used in this case separately.

Other end uses that required separate fires in some instances were water heating for bathing (76.1% of households), washing clothes (25.3%), beverages (16.3%) or beer brewing, and ironing. On average, it was indicated that households made fire for water heating about 13 times per month, and for ironing alone about 5 times/month. The breakdown derived from the survey shows that 65.4% of the households made separate fire to heat water daily, 1.6% weekly and 20.4% occasionally. 12.6% never made such fire. Water was heated for bathing in 60% of the cases, for washing clothes in 1.6% cases and for beverages in 2.1% cases. The rest of the households heated water for a combination of uses (32.3%) or did not heat water at all.

Comparing seasonally, 62.7% of the households used less hot water in Summer than in Winter, another 30.9% used the same amount and only 1.4% used more. The rest did not state or did not heat water in Summer. Similarly for space heating, 7.1% made a separate fire daily, 0.9% weekly, 30.9% occasionally and 61.1% never made fire for space heating in Summer.

For ironing in Summer, 6.2% make a separate fire daily, 21.7% weekly and 45.8% occasionally while 26.3% never make fire just for ironing.

Heating water for beer brewing or other beverages ranged between 1 to 3 times per month on average. For beer brewing, it was estimated that it could take about 0.4kg of wood for each litre brewed. For those who brewed beer in Summer, 62 brewed the same amount as in Winter, 20% brewed more and 18% brewed less.

3.7.2 Fuel-efficient Wood Stoves

There is evidence in literature that wood-saving stoves have been tried in Botswana since the mid-eighties but traces of these stoves in the urban study were extremely scanty. Improved fuelwood stoves are usually expensive compared with their energy savings and this might be the reason why this strategy has not been sustainable. However, the urban study showed that there is considerable willingness (40-60%) to use these stoves and therefore there is a need to pilot the technology in order to harness its potential.

According to the 2002/03 HIES report, very few households were found to use or own a coal or wood stove, in spite of the abundant availability of both fuels in Botswana and the extensive use of fuelwood for cooking among the rural population. The same survey showed that only 1.4% of households own coal stoves nationally, 9% of households own electricity stoves, 24.5% own paraffin stoves and 55.5% own gas stoves. The study does not provide statistics on ownership of wood stoves.

In addition, the preference for gas cookers and electric stoves increases with income increases, whereas interest in coal stoves seems to be distributed evenly across the various income groups using the devices. Gas stoves and electric stove ownership is highest in cities and urban villages whereas ownership in rural areas is minimal (Table 11 and Table 12).

44

Table 11: Percentage ownership of household items by disposable cash income strata (2002-2003)

Item Total

Disposable Cash-Pula

<200

200 – 400

400 - 600

600 - 800

800 - 1000

1000 - 1500

1500 - 2000

2000 – 4000

4000 - 6000

6000 - 10000

10000+

Total Households

394,2

72

66,7

72

54,934

40,526

31,312 23,181 38,111 25,658 56,102 24,416 19,340

13,92

0 Electric Stove 9 0.7 1 2.1 2.8 4.1 5.3 6.1 15 24.5 34.6 50.9 Gas Cooker 55.6 22.4 26.7 43.7 53.1 62.9 70.3 78.1 84 85.9 82.5 70.5

Coal Stove 1.4 1.2 1 0.9 1.8 1.3 1 2.3 1.3 1.7 1.4 2.7 Paraffin Stove 24.5 19.8 27.1 35.8 34.2 35 35.2 27.6 17.4 12.8 7.5 1.7

Source: (HEIS, 2002/03)

Table 12: Percentage ownership of household items by location

Item National Cities/Towns Urban Villages Rural Areas

Total Households 394,272 109,556 121,321 163,395 Electric Stove (%) 9 17.9 10.3 0.9 Gas Cooker (%) 55.6 77.4 72.2 11.9 Coal Stove (%) 1.4 1.3 1.7 0.5 Paraffin Stove (%) 24.5 32.3 25.7 7.6

Source: (HEIS, 2002/03)

In the ESMAP survey (2004), about a third of the urban households expressed the willingness to use solar cookers, and about a half of the households would like to use solar water heaters (SWHs). However, solar water heaters are very expensive and are usually found in government houses and in higher income households. In spite of the big support SWHs have enjoyed from the Botswana Government, SWHs have had maintenance problems and have not caught on to the general public. Furthermore, there are no financing schemes in place for ordinary households to obtain SWHs. In order to reduce fuelwood demand through promotion of SWHs, a bigger market of poorer households would have to be targeted since they are the ones who use most of the fuelwood.

3.8 Kitchens Designs21

Kitchen designs in Botswana, material of construction and location varies from district to district. The ProBEC/RE-Botswana (2007) survey found out that 48% of homesteads in the surveyed villages have cooking sites outside in front of the homestead. Over 82% were either square or rectangular and made of walls as high as 2m with and sometimes without roofs. The preferred materials of construction of the walls were corrugated iron sheets and mud. The roofs were made of either grass thatch or corrugated iron sheets. None of the households had energy efficient cooking devices (such as energy efficient cook stoves). Other kitchens that were observed during the BEST village consultative meetings were made of grass and wooden droppers. Figure 10 below illustrate some of the common kitchen designs across the country.

Surveyed households were aware of energy saving techniques such as reduction of height of grate (i.e. height of tripod), use of wind shield, and quenching of fire after use. On the other hand, the least known techniques were splitting of fuelwood into small pieces and use of very dry wood.

Compared to awareness on energy saving techniques, awareness on energy saving cooking methods was lower. The most common techniques are use of pot lid, slicing of food into small pieces, monitoring of heat during

21

Based on ProBEC/RE- Botswana 2007

45

cooking and soaking of food overnight. Methods such as the use of the hay box/hot bags and cooking in the least amount of liquid were the least known. None of the households reinforced their pot lids and all of them prepared some foods with lids partially opened pots and in open uncovered utensils for applications such as water heating (especially for bathing water).

Though the level of awareness was high, over 50% of the households were either observed or acknowledged that though they were aware of energy saving techniques or cooking methods, they did not practice them. In areas where fuelwood was abundant, the villagers did not quench the fire after use. In addition most households said methods such as soaking of food impaired the taste of the food.

46

District: Kgatleng: Village: Dikwididi District: North East Village: Masunga

District: Ngamiland : Village: Maun District: Ghanzi : Village: Tsootsha

Village: Stabbing: District: Kgalagadi

Source: ProBEC, 2008

Figure 10: Illustration of kitchen design across Botswana

47

3.9 Findings of Community (Kgotla) Meetings

3.9.1 Fuelwood availability and collection patterns

The community survey undertaken as part of the BEST study indicated disparities in fuelwood availability in the different districts of Botswana. Table 13 shows that fuelwood is not much of a problem in Chobe (Kachikau) and Ngamiland (Toteng, Sehitwa, Komana), but is scarce in all the other districts. In Ghantsi, there are indications that other villages do not have as much fuelwood as Tsootsha. Where fuelwood is scarce, it is over harvested because neighbouring villages, and even government institutions that use fuelwood, collect wood in those villages, e.g. In Tsabong and Tsootsha. In six of the villages, fuelwood collection is in other villages; in another four, villagers take the whole day to collect wood; while, in three of the villages, villagers take the whole morning. Communities where fuelwood is available close to the villages (it is often within 2 km) take about 1-3 hour to fetch the wood. Where the fuelwood resource is still healthy, villagers were worried that harvesting by neighbouring villagers, where fuelwood is scarce, would accelerate the rate of depletion in their area. In other areas, like Ditlhakane and Makomoto in Tonota, government has imposed restrictions on wood harvesting through permits.

Communities indicated that women and children (both boys and girls) collect fuelwood where the fuel is close to the villages (1-3km). Where distances are long, men collect using scotch carts or light duty vehicles, and such wood is often sold to women. Men also collect for ceremonies (e.g. funerals) and events (weddings) using vehicles and donkey carts. Wood is mostly collected by women and children for household use and, at a small scale, carried by head and wheel barrows. The price of fuelwood varies widely across the country, but typical price ranges are P40-75 per cart, P100-P150 per pick-up truck and P200 per lorry (3 t. capacity).

Apart from Ditlhakane which is close to Gaborone, where the community may collect any deadwood, communities in the other villages preferred specific species that they collect for fuelwood. The species of wood harvested included from mongana, mosu and mophane and other burnable trees depending on the availability of the common species in the area.

48

Table 13: Fuelwood situation derived from community surveys District Village Size of

meeting (women in brackets)

Fuelwood availability

Distance/time

Who collects Species Change in consumption since 4 yrs ago

Preferred fuels and ability to pay

Devices used

Kweneng Ditlhakane

20(5) Available

Reachable

Both men & women

All species

less LPG/electricity

Open fire

Kgatleng Artesia 33 (18) scarce

30-60 km

Men collect- women buy

specific Increase Wood Open fire

Barolong-Southern

Pitsane 50:50** Dire scarcity

Using donkey manure

Nothing to collect-unless cut and wait to dry

- less Biogas/coal

Chobe Kachikau 51(20) abundant

1-2 km Men, women, boys, girls

specific Same Fuelwood - Tripod/open fire

North East Masunga 13 (2)* scarce

Up to 45 km/all day

Large qty by men Many female heads

specific Increased Coal Tripod/3stone

Kgalagadi Tsabong 11(5) scarce

5-15 km/all morning

Mostly men Specific Reduced Coal/electricity

-

Ghantsi Tsootsha 20(8) available

within 5 km

Women & children

Specific Increased - -

Ngamiland Toteng 11(7) Available but far

2 km (2-3 hrs)

Women and children

Specific - Wood Open fire

Ngamiland Sehitwa 53(20) plenty

- Women/children

specific -

Ngamiland Komana 23(11) Available-being depleted

within walking distance

Women/children

specific Major fuel Electricity/LPG

Open fire

Tonota World Environment day

*-headmen of records attended representing their wards ** - a large gathering where Ministers of Agriculture and Environment were also present

Source: Community surveys, 2008

3.9.2 Fuel Preferences, End uses and Cooking devices

Where fuelwood is abundant, communities prefer to continue with fuelwood. On preferred fuels, LPG was mentioned as preferred in eight of the ten villages, while electricity was preferred in four villages, paraffin in four villages and coal and biogas in two villages. When asked about fuels the communities could afford, only coal and paraffin were mentioned. Coal is considered a realistic substitute for fuelwood for those who cannot afford LPG and electricity. Electricity is currently rarely used for cooking in rural households anywhere.

49

The most common use of collected fuelwood is cooking and space heating at household level, but, when collected in large quantities, the wood is used for ceremonies (weddings & deaths). The other significant uses of wood are for brewing beer and, in some cases, for trading (e.g. in Masunga; Fig 12 picture below). In some villages, fuelwood consumption has increased because other fuels are becoming expensive: most people are unemployed and cannot afford to purchase alternative modern fuels, while increased use of fuelwood is causing further depletion (e.g. in the North West District). Where fuelwood can still be fetched in reasonable times, there were indications that fuelwood consumption has increased (mainly due to population growth), but where scarcity is reported, such as in Pitsane, Tsabong, Artesia and Ditlhakane, consumption is said to have reduced.

Figure 11: Wood for sale at a household in Masunga; NE District.

Communities prefer to use LPG and electricity because of reliability, convenience and availability where wood is scarce while paraffin is preferred only for lighting. In instances where affordability is a problem, dung and crop resides are sometimes used, e.g. in Pitsane where they even use donkey dung.

The devices commonly used are open fires, three legged pots and tripods. People are not very aware of other technologies except in Tsabong and Komana where fuelwood stoves were sold in the late seventies to early eighties. Fig 13 shows an example of a disused fuelwood stove in Tsabong.

Figure 12: Example of a disused fuelwood stove (right) and coal stove (left) used in Tsabong

50

3.9.3 Community-proposed fuelwood Interventions

The main interventions that were proposed by the communities relate to:

permits for fuelwood collection by those from villages other than their own;

introduction of alternative energy fuels/sources and efficient technologies;

awareness on new technologies and conservation measures.

Regarding permits, in Kweneng, where fuelwood trade is prevalent, communities want permits to be removed and to be allowed to monitor harvesting themselves under a Community Based Natural Resources Management framework. In three other villages, in Chobe, Kgatleng and Ngamiland, the communities proposed introduction or intensification of permits to limit over harvesting and regulate those from other villages who collect fuelwood in their areas. However, the suggestion is that the enforcement of the permits should reside with the communities, e.g. through Dikgosi or appointed community committees.

On the introduction of alternative fuels, coal was the most proposed alternative fuel, mentioned by eight villages in Kgatleng, North East, Kgalagadi, Ghantsi, Ngamiland and Southern Districts. Biogas was requested as an intervention in two villages in Southern and Ghantsi Districts because of the abundance of cattle in the area. Electricity (2 villages, in Kgalagadi and Ngamiland), paraffin (1 village, Southern), solar (1 village, Ghantsi), use of efficient stoves (1 village, Kgatleng) and reforestation (1 village, Kgatleng) were also mentioned. From the kgotla deliberations it was clear that communities were not very aware of efficient fuelwood stoves and CBNRM; but, in the case of the latter, villagers indicated their willingness to form committees to monitor fuelwood collection/harvesting.

3.10 LPG and Kerosene Use

3.10.1 Survey Size and Geographical Coverage

The results are based on surveys (one each for paraffin and LPG) conducted at various locations in 2008 as part of BEST (principally sales outlets, but also interviews conducted in villages Kgotla meetings). This was a relatively small sample survey (214 respondents) covering both urban

22 and rural

23 households.

3.10.2 Income and Household Size

The respondents were predominantly in the lower income groups (Table 14). Only 13% of respondents in the two surveys combined had monthly incomes greater than P3000/month, while the largest group (39%) was in the range P500-1000/month. For the purpose of this analysis, this group will be referred to as ‘low income’, while those with incomes falling below P500/month (24%) level will be referred to as ‘poor’.

24

Respondents were mainly from medium-size households with 57% in household sizes of 3-6. Smaller (1-2) and larger (>6) households accounted for 24% and 19%, respectively.

Table 14: Use of LPG and paraffin by income group

Income (Pula) LPG Paraffin Total

No Response 8 13.3% 10 6.5% 18 8.4%

<500 9 15.0% 24 15.6% 33 15.4%

500-1000 16 26.7% 68 44.2% 84 39.3%

1000-2000 10 16.7% 24 15.6% 34 15.9%

2000-3000 7 11.7% 10 6.5% 17 7.9%

22 Mostly data from Gaborone and its-urban villages. 23 From the villages where community surveys were conducted. 24 Note, however, that these income bands do not precisely match the national definition used to calculate official poverty statistics in Botswana.

51

>3000 10 16.7% 18 11.7% 28 13.1%

60 100.0% 154 100.0% 214 100.0%

Source: Field Surveys, 2008 3.10.3 Reasons for Use

The use of LPG is reported as almost entirely concentrated in heating and cooking, especially the latter. No respondents used LPG solely for any purposes other than cooking, while 83% used it only for cooking; only a single respondent used LPG for lighting. It may appear surprising that no households reported using LPG for heating purposes, given the possible option (especially for higher income groups) of using electricity for cooking.

In contrast, the uses for paraffin were more diverse. The main use was for lighting (67% of respondents, either as the sole use (49%) or in combination with other uses), followed by cooking (34%) and heating (13%). There were also some more specialist uses, not related to energy, with both making polish (6%) and glass cutting (1%) being reported.

The consumption of paraffin by income group appeared in line with prior expectations being most heavily concentrated among low-income households, which accounted for 44% of respondents. Poor and higher-income households accounted for 22% and 34% of respondents, respectively. Use among poor households was heavily concentrated in lighting where this was the sole use among households with incomes below P500/month; in contrast, for low-income households use was much more evenly spread across cooking and heating. This may indicate the impact of purchasing power constraints among the poorest households.

For LPG, consumers were more evenly spread across income groups. The largest number of respondents was again in the low-income group (27%) but, in contrast to paraffin, this was less than the combined total for higher income households (45%). This result is in line with the expectation that LPG is, when compared to paraffin, a relative luxury.

25

3.10.4 Frequency and Quantity of Purchase

For paraffin, purchases were concentrated on middle sizes (1-3 litres) regardless of income group: 70% usually purchased in this range, with a mean of 62% across all income groups. However, there was some apparent impact of income on how long purchases were made to last. While, overall, 60% of respondents usually made purchases to last for up to one week, the figure was only 25% for poor households and 20% of the same group stretched use longer than one month. The highest income group also made purchases that last longer, but this probably reflected availability of other options rather than income constraints. Household size had no apparent impact on how long purchases lasted: at least 50% in each group were in the shortest period.

There was some evidence however that frequency and size of purchase was influenced by geographical location. In Gaborone, only 13% of respondents made purchases of more than 3 litres and 82% made purchases at least once a week (64% reported daily purchases). This is likely to reflect a combination of more sales outlets and higher income among urban households. In contrast, there was some tendency in other survey areas for larger and less frequent purchases. Purchases outside Gaborone, although only 42% of respondents, accounted for 61% of purchases made less often than once a month; similarly 64% of purchases of more than 3 litres were made outside Gaborone.

For LPG, purchases were concentrated in the middle size (19kg) both overall (63%) and for most income groups. However, as might be expected, there was a tendency for poor households to buy in smaller sizes

26(57%) and for

higher income groups (35% of households with incomes over P3000/month) to purchase the largest size (48kg). Overall, purchases were made to last from 1-3 months (61%), with little clear distinction across income group. As would be expected the largest size purchases also tended to be less frequent. Both poor household and those in the highest incomes showed some tendency to make purchases last longer. This may reflect divergent income

25 That said, the survey also indicates that a substantial proportion of users of LPG come from poor households (28%, including the substantial group who reported having no income). 26 9kg& 14kg

52

effects: poor households have to conserve consumption or revert to fuelwood, while those with larger incomes have more access to other energy sources

3.10.5 Comparison with the Past

Not surprisingly, given the environment of rising cost of petroleum products (exacerbated by the rising global oil prices) at the time the survey was undertaken, there was an overwhelming perception of rising prices for both paraffin and LPG. In the two surveys combined, only one respondent did not report that prices had been rising. However, despite rising prices, there appeared to be only a limited tendency to adjust consumption pattern. For paraffin, only 7% of respondents indicated that they had switched from paraffin to alternative energy sources (of these, all were reported outside Gaborone). Moreover, while 45% reported reduced usage compared to 3 years ago, almost as many indicated increased usage. While there was no obvious correlation by income group, an impact of income constraints may be apparent in larger households reporting reduced consumption (for household sizes larger than 4, more than 50% of respondents reported reduced consumption). There were no obvious systematic differences between Gaborone and other areas.

For LPG, switching was similarly low at 10%, with not clear differences according to income group or location. In terms of usages, 72% of respondents either unchanged (23%) or increased (48%) usage. Among the 28% who did indicate reduced usage, there was no clear trend by household size or income group.

3.11 Gender Perspectives

While there is considerable overlap in their functions, men and women retain different gender roles, both in society and in the household. For example, men provide resources and protection, while women are more concerned with ensuring that family members have eaten, and the children have bathed and have enough clothes. In order to perform the gender roles, different technologies and services are required to make life easier for both men and women. Energy is no different. Men and women have different energy needs, which impacts on fuels and energy technologies that are used for tasks performed by either group, in the household and community; in turn this calls for gender sensitivity when policies and strategies are being developed.

In the 2008 community survey, it was found out that fuelwood is still being used by many households in Botswana for cooking. It was found, during kgotla meetings undertaken during the survey work that more women than men (33% and 11% respectively) collect fuelwood. The reason for this is that the gender roles for women in the household require that they perform more cooking than men. LPG, which indicates a step up the energy ladder, is becoming more expensive, leading some households to revert to fuelwood. However, some households continue to use LPG together with fuelwood, where fuelwood is used to cook such foods as beans, samp, etc, and LPG is used for faster cooking foods.

In the case of paraffin, households are forced to continue purchasing it even though its price has escalated. This is due to limited alternatives: paraffin is the main source of fuel for lighting, i.e. for poor households that are not connected to the grid.

There have been conflicting responses from members of the same community – men would say there was enough fuelwood while women say it was becoming scarce. One woman said the reason for the differentiated answers was that a man, who gave a different answer to the situation as she perceived it, lived in a cattle post where there is usually sufficient fuelwood.

In many cases women and children collect fuelwood by head loads, while men collect using donkey carts, wheelbarrows or motorised transport. This leads to more women than men complaining about the scarcity of fuelwood as they experience the burden of collecting fuelwood. In addition, as shortages intensify, distances travelled to collection points also increase. The longer distances and increased collection times both contribute to fatigue and inability for women to engage in, e.g., income generating activities, a situation that contributes to continued poverty. However, men complain that even with donkey carts they also have to travel longer distances.

53

Men usually collect fuelwood for use in community ceremonies such as weddings, funerals, etc. Fuelwood scarcity has more negative implications for women (who use it for cooking) than for men (who use it at community ceremonies). The ceremonies do not take place regularly and, when they do, necessary time can be set aside. But cooking in a household has to be done on a daily basis; this makes women, particularly those in poor communities, spend a large part of their time on fuelwood collection.

3.12 Woody Biomass Demand Modelling

Demand for wood is split between firewood, and poles and construction materials. Other applications of woody biomass are considered insignificant compared to these major wood uses. Poles and construction material are assumed to be a function of firewood demand. According to ERL (1985) demand for poles and construction material are estimated to be about 44% of firewood demand. This was based on another study, Arntzen and Veenendaal (1986) which estimated annual requirements for specific applications such fencing kraals (170,000 tonnes) and construction (34,000 tonnes).

Firewood demand was estimated from a bottom-up approach, i.e. by aggregating per capita fuelwood use to national level for each biomass consumer type (Households, government) considered. LEAP was employed as the tool for demand-side analysis. The key sectors included in the analysis are the household (which accounts for about 95% of fuelwood demand), government institutions (5%). Other sectors play a minor role in biomass energy demand. Because of the dynamics in the household sector, it was further disaggregated into rural, urban towns/cities and urban villages; in 2000 rural households contributed 66% to fuelwood consumption against 7% in towns/cities and 22% in urban villages. In 2005, the contribution had shifted to 74%, 7% and 15% for rural, towns/cities and urban villages respectively. In addition, the fuel mix and accessibility of various energy carriers is different for the three household sub sectors. This then requires that each sub sector be modelled separately to allow for evaluation of impact of interventions and energy policies. The following sectoral breakdown was adopted in LEAP:

• Rural households (as the main woody biomass user) • Urban (towns/cities) (as a destination of commercial fuelwood and potential market for modern energy

carriers such as biogas and electricity from biomass resources) • Urban villages (as major woody biomass user and dynamic sub sector shifting towards urban practices) • Government institutions (as major fuelwood users and potential market for alternative fuels) • Transport sector (as a major market for biofuels) • Meat and poultry industry (as a major market for biogas from animal & abattoir waste) Only those end-uses which are relevant as current application of biomass energy or potential applications are considered. The terms of reference also constrained this study to thermal applications of biomass energy. Analysis was therefore confined to cooking, water heating and space heating

27 , as well as process heat and fuel for internal

combustion engines. For each of these end uses, the contribution of various fuels was defined as a percentage for each sector. Corresponding energy intensity (from past surveys) was specified for each fuel and end uses, indicating the micro-level energy demand for each activity. When aggregated at sector level, this summarises the contribution of each fuel to the end uses.

End use data were derived from two comprehensive surveys conducted in 2000 for both urban, urban villages and rural areas (EECG/RIIC, 2001; EDRC/FAB, 2001). Measurements were undertaken in rural villages in all the ten Districts. The urban and urban village survey was conducted in five Districts in eastern Botswana. From these surveys it was possible to derive proportion of households using fuelwood as the main cooking fuel and per capita

27 It was assumed that firewood end use is split into 50% cooking, 25% water and space heating each. This was extrapolated from the survey data which showed a doubling of firewood use in winter when water heating and space heating are predominant (537 kg – winter against 267 kg- summer per household per month) (EECG/RIIC, 2001).

54

consumption of fuelwood by sub District. In 2004, another comprehensive survey was conducted in seven Districts for the World Bank (EECG, 2004) and provides a basis for evaluating trends in fuel consumption patterns

28 .

Table 15 and Table 16 show the fuel use characteristics for rural households, urban villages and urban (towns and cities). It shows that while fuelwood is predominantly used for cooking by rural households and to much less extend in urban areas it is rapidly being substituted by alternative fuels such LPG even in rural areas. Surveys done in 2004 indicate that fuelwood use has decreased to around 53% of rural households as shown in Table 17.

Table 15: Household fuel use patterns by end use (2000)

Location Fuel Energy service

Cooking Water heating

Space heating

Rural Electricity 1.0% 1.3% 2.4%

LPG 21.0% 0.9% 1.0% Paraffin 3.0% 0.4% 1.3%

Wood 78.0% 44.5% 82.7%

Urban village Electricity 2.0% 6.6% 12.6%

LPG 59.0% 24.5% 1.6%

Paraffin 5.0% 4.4% 0.5%

Wood 35.0% 58.4% 48.5%

Urban town Electricity 7.6% 30.3% 35.3%

LPG 57.7% 40.0% 1.6%

Paraffin 10.5% 9.9% 1.9%

Wood 22.8% 9.2% 5.1% Source: EECG?RIIC, 2001

The average fuel consumption rates from socio-economic surveys alluded to above is given in Table 16. As would be expected, annual per capita fuelwood consumption for rural households (1,158 kg) is much higher than for their urban counterparts (430 kg). Likewise, annual LPG consumption in urban areas (at 53 kg) is approximately double the rural per capita rate (of about 26 kg).

Table 16: Annual per capita fuel use by location (2000)

Fuel Rural Urban village Urban town Electricity (kWh) 489.59 789.25 2,476.87

LPG (kg) 25.63 35.67 53.33

Paraffin (l) 29.16 17.83 29.97

Wood (kg) 1,157.74 560.33 428.62 Source: EECG/RIIC, 2001.

Based on per capita consumption of main cooking fuel. i.e. don’t total the columns. Includes all uses (cooking, water heating and space heating).

Future energy demand was projected using population as the major driver while energy consumption patterns were projected on the basis of historical trends, particularly the penetration of LPG. Important government policies such as the thrust to eliminate the use of firewood in government institutions as well as targets set in both NDP10 drafts and Vision 2016 were also incorporated in the baseline scenario. Energy intensity of end use devices was assumed to remain static during the study period, i.e. no device efficiency improvements are expected in the baseline period up to 2020. Results from the community survey and the LPG and paraffin surveys have contributed to constraining the baseline.

28 Socio-economic surveys on household energy use patterns indicate different fuel use pattern for winter and summer. Such differences are difficult to model and thus the annual seasonal fuel use is averaged.

55

Table 17: Baseline fuel mix by end use for the rural domestic sector (%)

End use Fuel type 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Urb

an

Cooking Open fire 22.8 13.1 11.11 9.87 7.11

Efficient stove - - - - -

Paraffin 10.5 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1

LPG 57.7 70.7 72.48 73.37 75.75

Electricity 7.6 3 3.31 3.66 4.04

Water heating Open fire 30.3 30.3 27.99 25.88 23.76

Efficient stove - - - - -

Paraffin 9.2 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1

LPG 40 41.4 42.12 42.49 42.68

Electricity 9.9 15.2 16.78 18.53 20.46

Space heating Open fire 39.86 28.41 26.47 24.32 22.39

Efficient stove - - . - -

Paraffin 1.9 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97

LPG 3.35 3.35 4.07 4.94 5.52

Electricity 12.54 23.92 25.14 26.42 27.77

Cooking Open fire 35 13.1 11.11 9.87 7.11

Urb

an

Vil

lag

e

Efficient stove - - - - -

Paraffin 5 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1

LPG 59 70.7 72.48 73.37 75.75

Electricity 2 3 3.31 3.66 4.04

Water heating Open fire 58.4 30.3 28.21 26.34 24.49

Efficient stove - - - - -

Paraffin 4.4 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2

LPG 24.5 41.4 42.12 42.49 42.68

Electricity 6.6 13.1 14.46 15.97 17.63

Space heating Open fire 48.5 45.28 43.93 42.45 40.82

Efficient stove - - - - -

Paraffin 0.5 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97

LPG 1.6 3.35 3.39 3.43 3.48

Electricity 12.54 12.54 13.85 15.29 16.88

Cooking Open fire 77.3 53 53.4 52.8 52.2

Ru

ral

Vil

lag

e

Efficient stove 0 0 0 0 0

Paraffin 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

LPG 17 40.5 40.97 41.48 41.99

Electricity 1.1 1 1.1 1.22 1.35

Water heating Open fire 44.5 72.6 72.2 71.1 70

Efficient stove 0 0 0 0 0

Paraffin 0.4 3 3 3 3

LPG 0.9 16.9 17.1 17.3 17.5

Electricity 1.3 7 7.73 8.53 9.42

Space heating Open fire 82.67 79.5 78.7 77.9 77.1

Paraffin 1.29 3 3 3 3

LPG 0.9 2.1 2.6 3.2 3.5

Electricity 2.44 2.69 2.97 3.28 3.63

Source: EECG/RIIC (2001); EDRC/FAB (2001); EECG (2004)

As shown in Table 17, the baseline assumes that no efficient fuelwood stoves are being used in rural households for either cooking or water heating in the baseline. The population for rural, urban and urban villages in the baseline between 2000 and 2020 used to estimate energy demand is presented in Table 18 and was based on the CSO 2001 population census and total population projections made to 2021.

56

Table 18: Population projections by (sub-)district

District Sub-district 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Central Rural Bobonong 41,424 42,570 44,923 48,167 51,443

Central Rural Boteti 33,095 34,011 35,891 38,483 41,099

Central Rural Mahalapye 58,783 60,410 63,749 68,352 73,000

Central Rural Serowe/Palapye 78,551 80,724 85,187 91,338 97,549

Central Rural Tutume 88,860 91,319 96,366 103,326 110,352

Chobe Rural Chobe 10,620 10,914 11,517 12,349 13,189

Ghantsi Rural Ghantsi 22,547 23,171 24,452 26,217 28,000

Kgatleng Rural Kgatleng 34,158 35,103 37,043 39,719 42,419

Kgalagadi Rural Kgalagadi 35,458 36,439 38,453 41,230 44,034

Kweneng Rural 102,812 105,657 111,497 119,549 127,678

NE Rural 49,399 50,766 53,572 57,441 61,347

Ngamiland Rural Ngamiland 72,181 74,178 78,278 83,931 89,639

Southern Rural Ngwaketse East 114,104 117,261 123,743 132,679 141,701

SE Rural 13,618 13,995 14,768 15,835 16,912 Sub-total Central District (urban) 755,610 776,518 819,440 878,616 938,362

Central Urban Orapa 9,151 9,404 9,924 10,641 11,364

Central Urban Selibe Phikwe 49,849 51,228 54,060 57,964 61,905

Central Urban Sowa 2,879 2,959 3,122 3,348 3,575

NE Urban Francistown 83,023 85,320 90,036 96,538 103,103

SE Urban Gaborone 186,007 191,154 201,720 216,287 230,995

Southern Urban Southern 44,868 46,109 48,658 52,172 55,720

Sub-total Central District (rural) 375,777 386,175 407,521 436,950 466,663

Central Urban village

Bobonong 25,540 26,247 27,697 29,698 31,717

Central Urban village

Boteti 14,962 15,376 16,226 17,398 18,581

Central Urban village

Mahalapye 51,028 52,440 55,339 59,335 63,370

Central Urban village

Serowe/Palapye 74,484 76,545 80,776 86,609 92,499

Central Urban village

Tutume 34,654 35,613 37,581 40,295 43,035

Chobe urban village

7,638 7,849 8,283 8,881 9,485

Ghantsi Urban village

9,934 10,209 10,773 11,551 12,337

Kgalagadi Urban village

Kgalagadi 6,591 6,773 7,148 7,664 8,185

Kgatleng Urban village

39,349 40,438 42,673 45,755 48,866

Kweneng Urban village

127,523 131,052 138,295 148,282 158,366

Ngamiland Urban village

52,531 53,985 56,969 61,083 65,236

SE Urban village

47,005 48,306 50,976 54,657 58,374

Southern Urban village

Ngwaketse East 57,550 59,142 62,412 66,919 71,469

Sub-total other districts: 548,789 563,974 595,148 638,126 681,519

Grand Total: 1,680,176 1,726,666 1,822,108 1,953,692 2,086,544

57

Source: Projected from 2001 census

The residential sector is the major consumer of woody biomass when compared to government institutions (which has been the other woody biomass consumer). Table 19 shows that at most government institutions contributed only 4% to the total woody biomass demand. This is to decline to zero by 2016 as the government policy of eradicating fuelwood use in government institutions is being affected. Senior and Junior Secondary Schools, BDF and Prisons have already stopped using fuelwood for cooking.

Table 19: Baseline fuelwood demand by district (tonnes)

Sub-District 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Central-Bobonong 50,740 42,850 45,257 49,501 52,486

Central-Boteti 38,173 32,869 34,838 38,218 40,689

Central-Mahalapye 78,442 64,512 67,807 73,824 77,855

Central-Orapa 1,874 1,505 1,425 1,391 1,265

Central-Serowe 107,562 87,785 92,136 100,174 105,476

Central-S. Phikwe 10,207 8,199 7,763 7,577 6,890

Central-Sowa 590 474 448 438 398

Central-Tutume 100,087 86,867 92,197 101,308 107,986

Sub-total Central District: 387,674 325,061 341,871 372,431 393,046 Chobe 13,484 11,259 11,867 12,954 13,705

Ghantsi 25,892 22,327 23,670 25,982 27,661

Kgatleng 49,803 39,919 41,754 45,246 47,456

Kgalagadi 36,788 33,292 35,649 39,531 42,550

Kweneng 153,855 122,430 127,878 138,387 144,913

Northeast 64,255 57,115 59,510 64,273 67,107

Ngamiland 90,743 76,002 80,153 87,546 92,673

Southern 143,350 122,168 128,513 140,041 147,820

Southeast 71,575 54,361 53,207 53,897 51,784

Total Domestic: 1,037,418 863,934 904,072 980,288 1,028,713

Primary Schools 39,796 30,396 25,725 - -

CJSS 11,188 5,622 - - -

BDF/Prisons 1,071 1,071 - - -

Grand Total: 1,089,472 901,023 929,797 980,288 1,028,713 Despite a decline of about 18% from year 2000 to 2005, fuelwood demand is expected to grow by up to 15% by 2020. While demand for fuelwood increases by 28% from 2005 to 2020 in rural households, demand in urban cities and towns decrease by 16% in the same period. Similarly demand in urban villages decrease by 9%.

Table 20: Baseline fuelwood demand by sector (tonnes)

Sector 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Rural Households 722,812 665,216 713,133 790,957 852,051

Urban Towns/cities 76,909 61,777 58,488 57,092 51,913

Urban village 237,697 136,941 132,451 132,240 124,749

Sub-total Domestic 1,037,418 863,934 904,072 980,288 1,028,713

Government institutions 52,054 37,089 25,725 - -

Grand Total: 1,089,472 901,023 929,797 980,288 1,028,713

Demand for fuelwood is expected to decline to zero in line with government policies as shown in Table 20. Already, fuelwood use in the army and prison services has been stopped. However, at least 57% of primary schools are still using fuelwood for cooking and water heating, even those equipped with LPG kitchens

58

Cooking accounts for about 60% of woody biomass use in households (see Table 21). Other energy services such as water heating and space heating are more important during winter. In reality, there is a fine line between these end uses as households in most cases simultaneously use the same fuel to cook, boil water and achieve space heating.

Table 21: Baseline fuelwood demand by end-use (tonnes) Location Use 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Rural households Cooking 449,130 327,365 341,727 364,413 384,199

Water heating 61,476 123,379 148,398 191,897 221,649

Space heating 212,206 214,473 223,009 234,647 246,204

Urban TC Cooking 36,723 22,221 19,840 18,941 14,486

Water heating 21,718 25,698 25,023 24,777 24,280

Space heating 18,468 13,857 13,625 13,374 13,147

Urban villages Cooking 107,036 42,191 37,670 35,964 27,505

Water heating 83,941 48,793 47,851 47,755 47,456

Space heating 46,721 45,957 46,930 48,521 49,788

Total Cooking 57% 45% 44% 43% 41%

Water heating 16% 23% 24% 27% 29%

Space heating 27% 32% 31% 30% 30%

59

4.0 WOODY BIOMASS SUPPLY

4.1 Natural Woodlands

Over 80% of Botswana has significant tree and shrub cover to be classed as ‘forests’ under FAO classifications, but only 20% (mostly in the north-east) is sufficiently tall and dense enough to be called a forest in the Southern African sense. Gazetted forests occupy an area of 4,555 km

2. The total standing stock of above-ground woody

biomass is estimated as 1,277 million t. and the mean annual increment as 40.8 million t. [MWTC, 2001].

Figure 13: Ecosystem types by area in Botswana (1992-93)29

; Source: WRI, 2003

The land cover is dominated by savannah (mixed tree and grass systems) of various forms (See Table 22 and Figure 13). The major plant communities found include shrub savannah, tree savannah, and closed tree savannah on rocky hills, semi-arid shrub savannah, aquatic grassland, dry deciduous forest and woodland. The south-western parts of the country are characterised by shrub savannah, while the extreme southwest (the driest region) has sparse vegetation and rolling sand dunes. Vegetation becomes denser towards the north and east, changing to open tree savannah, then woodlands and dry forest [MWTC, 2001].

29 The data are old but will be verified with recent data that may be already available.

60

Table 22: Land cover based on Landsat interpretation Cover type30 Area (km2) Annual growth

rate (t/ha) Dense mainly broadleaved and acacia savannah forest 114,477 1.3 Moderately dense mainly broadleaved and acacia savannah forest 207,302 0.3 Sparse mixed savannah woodland and grassland 85,728 0.1 Floodplains and bare soils 35,159 - Mixed savannah, including bush encroachment 37,141 1.0 Dark soils including pan grasslands 26,277 - Very sparsely vegetated woodland and bare soils including burn scars 28,592 - Agricultural fields 1,337 - Flooded areas, hills and dark soils 17,089 -

Note: Total area covered was 553,103 km2 (95% of total land area); Source: MWTC, 2001.

Table 23 below shows the assessments by the World Resources Institute of changes in forest area, both natural and man-made. The assessment shows that from 1990 to 2000, natural forests decreased by 9% while plantations increased by about 4%. Botswana, having mainly a semi-arid to arid environment has vegetation that has a limited capacity to provide fuelwood. The Acacia species are dominant in the sand-veld savannah. The vegetation found in the densely populated areas of Eastern Botswana falls under the hard-veld vegetation group characterized by Peltophorum, Combretum, Terminalia, Colophospermum and Acacia species. The vegetation structure varies from open shrub and tree savannah to denser woodlands. Riparian woodlands are only found along rivers and, in particular, along the lower reaches of the Limpopo and Shashe rivers.

The average wood-stocks in Botswana’s typical savannahs and woodlands in the hard-veld and sand-veld areas are low at 10-15 tonnes of air-dry wood per hectare. The fuelwood productivity is higher for Mopane woodlands at 30-40 t/ha and can be as high as 100 tonnes/ha in the North East, mostly in freehold farms that are not accessible to communities in those areas. The annual fuelwood resource increment was estimated to range from 0.33 t/ha to 2 t/ha but both overexploitation of woodlands for timber and fuelwood extraction, clearing land for agriculture, overstocking and overgrazing has continued to put pressure on the available fuelwood resources resulting in fuelwood being only available in distant areas

Table 23: Forest area and change Total forest area, 2000 (ha) 12,427,000 Natural forest area, 2000 (ha) 12,426,000 Plantations area, 2000 (ha) 1,000 Total land area 57,993,000 Change in forest area: Total forests, 1990-2000 -9% Natural forests, 1990-2000 -9% Plantations, 1990-2000 4% Original forest as a % of total land area 2% Forest in 2000 as % of total land area 21% % of tropical forests protected, 1990 19.9% Forest Area by crown cover, 2000 (ha): Greater than 10% 11,674 Greater than 25% 2,718 Greater than 50% 64 Greater than 75% 0

Source: WRI, 2003

Considerable stress on the available forest resources is aggravated by the population growth and fast rate of urbanisation, as evidenced by deforestation and land degradation around village settlements, particularly in

30 There are some minor variations in various studies with regard to vegetation classification.

61

settlements in the Kgalagadi, Southern and South-East Districts of Botswana. Deforestation or cutting of live trees is prompted by clearing forests for arable lands and road building and the need to provide for fencing material and building poles for homes. Trees are also cut for commercial purposes such as fuelwood, woodworking and basketry. Non-timber resources such as fruits, medicines and mophane worms are also extracted from the natural woodlands for which trees may be cut in case where sustainable harvesting methods are ignored.

4.2 Planted Trees

Current estimates put the plantation area at about 1,200 ha in the country. This comprises government and private woodlots, which were 85% and 15% respectively (FAB/EECG, 2002). Woodlots were planted mainly with Eucalyptus species of unknown provenance to provide for poles and fuelwood.

A review of past studies and literature has revealed that there were approximately 52 community woodlots operating in Botswana (MoA, 2001 and 55 CBOs (IUCN, 2001); but communities have continually failed to sustain woodlots on their own after project support is withdrawn and they fell into disuse. The woodlots are small, in the order of 5-10 ha.

Data on production levels of these woodlots is lacking, but Tietema (1986) estimated the yields of one of the largest woodlots in Molepolole at 1.46 t/ha/year, similar to that of unattended savannah woodland. Such indications suggest that some indigenous species, which are more drought tolerant, could be more productive than exotic species such as Eucalyptus.

4.3 Woody Biomass Supply Baseline Modelling

The biomass supply was analysed separately from biomass demand and integrated into an energy balance using LEAP. Analysis of the supply-side entailed estimating the various biomass resources and projecting their contribution to the total energy mix for the study period. The baseline established the current status of the biomass sub sector and its expected development over the planning period (for BEST this is year 2000 to 2020). Woody biomass is not only the most important biomass resource in Botswana, but also the most challenging to estimate (Box 1). Accurate data on above-ground woody biomass are generally unavailable. Although several studies have attempted to quantify woody biomass stocks using different estimation techniques at various sites in the country, there has been no nationwide assessment of woody biomass resources. This is because traditional methods to accurately quantify wood resources (manual, field-based observations) are resource intensive, hence costly.

Box 1: Challenges associated with estimating woody biomass data

Satellite imagery coupled with ground-truthing has been employed in previous studies undertaken to estimate woody biomass stocks but these have some limitations. Woody biomass estimated this way does not directly translate into available fuelwood. In fact, there is currently no satellite sensor available that is suitable for the direct assessment of fuelwood as the dominant spectral signals relate to the green canopy [NRP, 2003]. Nevertheless, these satellite imagery estimates provide a good basis for quantifying woody biomass stocks which can be used as a reasonable proxy for fuelwood availability.

Fuelwood availability around localities/communities can also be estimated on the basis of socio-economic surveys. In fact, detailed socio-economic studies of consumption patterns at settlement scale provide information on demand proportions at those settlements. Repeated surveys provide useful indices of increasing fuelwood scarcity. While socio-economic surveys have improved over the last two decades, knowledge of the supply-side has marginally improved.

Data from past surveys were used to estimate standing stocks, off take rates, annual fossil increment and regeneration rates. The critical surveys used to estimate these parameters were FIMP I and FIMP II. These mainly

62

covered the eastern part of the country where 80% of the population resides. Woody biomass data for other areas was taken from other isolated surveys (such as Sekwela, 2000; Kgathi and Mlotshwa, 1997; White, 1999; ERL, 1985). The map showing the coverage of these surveys is shown in Figure 14.

Estimates of woody biomass supply were determined at district level to match demand and also to enable application of interventions at district level where possible. The Central District is the largest district covering 146,018 km

2 or about 25% of the country and has heterogeneous vegetation types in its sub-districts. This makes it

more complicated to model, so for the Central District woody biomass was estimated at sub-District level. Furthermore, evaluating the woody biomass resource at sub district level allows disaggregated assessments and formulation of intervention activities at a manageable scale.

The land/vegetation types that were considered based on FIMP II studies are the tree31

, bush, shrub-savannah; riparian, rocky hills/kopjes, hills, abandoned fields and settlements. FIMP determined standing stocks per hectare for each vegetation classification but did not allocate the corresponding areas occupied by each vegetation category in the study areas. Standing stocks in each district were therefore estimated in combination with a more informative GIS map. The GIS map gives details of the spatial distribution of vegetation classification by species type (see Figure 14).

31 FIMP provides density of vegetation categories as disaggregated data into high density, medium and low density for tree, bush & shrub savannahs. To facilitate modelling these categories were aggregated and averaged into tree, bush and shrub standing stocks per ha.

63

Figure 14: Vegetation map showing woody biomass survey sites

To estimate the woody biomass stocks in each region, the following procedure was used. Data from FIMP I and FIMP II provides woody biomass stocks at more than 7,000 sites and each site gives average above-ground biomass amounts (in tonnes per hectare) for dominant vegetation types under the key vegetation categories. For each of the areas studied (i.e. Lephephe, Limpopo, Mmashoro, Orapa, Maitengwe, Jwaneng, Barolong, Bobonong and

64

Mochudi), the average occurrence of each major vegetation type was derived and then the average biomass stocks for all areas was estimated. The average biomass stocks for each biomass type are derived as a weighted average value based on the relative frequency of occurrence of the biomass type and corresponding biomass density. These average stocks are then taken to represent biomass stocks for other areas with similar vegetation type. Table 24 gives the biomass yields by vegetation type and region.

Table 24: Woody biomass stock by region and vegetation type District Tree savannah

(t/ha) Bush savannah

(t/ha) Shrub savannah

(t/ha)

Central-Bobonong 94.91 275.0 60.3 Central-Boteti 29.04 328.2 37.81 Central-Mahalapye 104.59 370.42 - Central-Orapa 29.04 328.2 37.81 Central-Serowe/Palapye 68.98 326.59 2.5 Central-Selibe Phikwe 94.91 275.0 60.3 Central-Sowa 94.91 458.56 60.3 Central-Tutume 69.44 458.56 - Chobe 69.44 458.56 - Ghantsi 29.04 328.35 37.81 Kgatleng 50.44 357.08 - Kweneng 29.38 402.14 42.29 Kgalagadi - 402.14 42.29 Northeast 69.44 458.56 - Ngamiland 77.14 375.83 47.68 Southern 29.38 402.14 42.29 Southeast 50.44 357.08 -

Only those areas that are accessible for harvesting wood for fuel and other applications are included in the calculation. Protected areas, national parks and commercial farms in each District are excluded in woody supply estimates. The total area considered accessible for woody biomass harvesting is about 48% of the total land area of Botswana. Most of this land area (42%) falls under the Central district and Ngamiland (22%).

Other key forestry data, vegetation growth and harvesting patterns were derived from past studies. For example ERL (1985) gives the annual growth increment (Table 25). Deadwood across tree vegetation is estimated to be 4.5% of standing stocks while for bush and shrub savannah vegetation, the annual fossil increment was estimated to be 8%.

Table 25: Woody biomass growth by type of vegetation Type of vegetation Annual growth

Increment (t./ha) Annual growth Increment (%)

Sparse vegetation 0.3 8.3

Low density woodland 1 5.2

Medium density woodland 1.4 5.4

High density woodland 2.1 4.3 Source: ERL, 1985

There has been no recent assessment of similar data on annual growth increment but DFFR have started undertaking an assessment in the Chobe and Ngamiland Districts to capture the standing stocks, regeneration rates and death rates with the intention to cover the whole country. Ten major species are currently being analysed and results are expected during NDP10 (2009 – 2016).

65

Using the LEAP, wood stocks were estimated from the specified data for each district or sub district, also provided as an output is the biomass supplies for both yields and stocks. Table 26 gives baseline results for the distribution of wood stocks by (sub) District

32 in Botswana.

Table 26. Distribution of woody biomass stocks by district (‘000 tonnes) (Sub)District 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Central-Bobonong 30,538 37,105 43,692 50,264 56,817

Central-Boteti 31,188 38,972 46,772 54,559 62,333

Central-Mahalapye 31,259 38,213 45,196 52,156 59,087

Central-Orapa 16 4 0.3 0.6 0.2

Central-Serowe 51,926 63,390 74,895 86,367 97,801

Central-S.Phikwe 107 53 1.1 0.5 0.7

Central-Sowa 377 457 538 618 699

Central-Tutume 116,359 141,423 166,525 191,597 216,632

Chobe 374 359 347 328 299

Ghantsi 11,476 14,255 17,044 19,825 22,597

Kgatleng 1,489 1,470 1,468 1,449 1,407

Kweneng 20,346 24,681 29,073 33,418 37,709

Kgalagadi 3,001 3,713 4,438 5,152 5,854

Northeast 12,889 15,285 17,705 20,105 22,483

Ngamiland 77,933 95,232 112,565 129,870 147,143

Southern 5,259 5,523 5,857 6,165 6,440

Southeast 1,332 1,129 916 637 272

Grand total: 395,867 481,265 567,033 652,513 737,572

Woody biomass stocks were estimated to be about 396 million t. in the base year (2000). About 66% of these stocks are located in the Central District (which is also the largest accounting for 25% of the Botswana’s land area and about a third of the national population). The Central District falls in the hardveld belt which is dominated by high yielding mopane woodlands.

Overall, Botswana’s wood stocks are expected to increase by 10% from 396 million tonnes in 2000 to 436 milion tonnes in 2020. The increase in stocks is not uniform throughout the country as some district are expected to start experiencing fuelwood shortages in the short term. Examples include the Southeast District which could already face fuelwood shortages after 2015. The interpretation of this result should not be taken to mean that by 2020, there would be no standing tree in the Southeast District. These modelling results should be taken as an aid in planning, that given the potential demand in this district and the estimated aboveground biomass within the area, future fuelwood stocks may be inadequate to meet demand. Practically, it means many communities in the district may already be facing fuelwood shortages. In fact, recent socio-economic surveys have shown that fuelwood scarcity is increasing in many areas in the country. This is inspite of the availability of fuelwood albeit at a distance from villages. Fuelwood scarcity is therefore more of an accessibility issue than degradation of the resource base in each district. Thus total stocks representing available wood resources in each district represent a potetnial resource but does not provide an indication of the distribution of the resource vis-à-vis population settlements and hence accessibility and utility of the resource.

Final woody biomass supplies are made up of ‘yields’ and ‘harvested stocks’. ‘Yield’ is defined as the mean annual woody biomass increment, or the amount of wood that can be collected without reducing the standing stock of wood. Some of this wood is fresh ‘green’ wood growth and some is the annual fossil increment (deadwood). To ensure sustainability, the standing stock should be constant, which means the rate of green growth shall be balanced by the rate of removal of standing stocks. Since most of the accessible woodlands in Botswana are not

32 The Central District has been analysed at sub District level since its size is huge and in order to improve on resolution of results.

66

managed33

in a strict sense, it is assumed that harvesting of both annual yields and tree stocks to meet wood requirements is allowed in the model. In any case, construction poles are normally derived from live trees.

Table 27 gives the distribution of woody biomass supplies by (sub-) District and shows the uneven distribution of biomass resources in the country. Although the larger Central District has most of the resources (estimated at 66%), supply requirements (which are a function of demand) are less than 40% for the Central District. The results also show that the Southeast District is already facing supply constraints, as will major urban centres such as Orapa and Selibe Phikwe, as represented by a decrease in supplies.

Table 27: Woody biomass supplies from yield only, by district (‘000 tonnes) 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Central-Bobonong

75,684 67,588 70,320 73,924 77,617

Central-Boteti 57,110 50,995 53,056 55,775 58,562

Central-Mahalapye

117,300 104,738 108,970 114,555 120,279

Central-Orapa 808 273 - - -

Central-Serowe 160,605 143,419 149,216 156,864 164,701

Central-S.Phikwe 4,860 2,611 - - -

Central-Sowa 1,389 1,216 1,264 1,329 1,395

Central-Tutume 148,589 132,743 138,112 145,190 152,445

Chobe 16,553 15,956 15,461 14,677 13,506

Ghantsi 38,637 34,507 35,902 37,742 39,628

Kgatleng 67,716 66,266 66,837 66,047 64,266

Kweneng 228,942 204,505 212,775 223,680 234,856

Kgalagadi 54,332 48,562 50,528 53,118 55,772

Northeast 95,847 85,607 89,068 93,633 98,312

Ngamiland 134,684 120,324 125,191 131,608 138,184

Southern 213,447 187,441 191,768 198,380 205,062

Southeast 64,668 55,602 46,098 33,636 17,320

Total: 1,481,172 1,322,352 1,354,564 1,400,157 1,441,904

While results of this model provide a good basis for planning and policy-making, it is important to keep in mind some of the limitations this analysis presents as discussed in Box 2.

Box 2: Wood stocks and yields.

The amount of fuelwood available for use by consumers (households, institutions and small industries) is not equivalent to the aboveground biomass standing stocks in a specific location. Usually consumers prefer certain species because of their superior heating characteristics. For example, according to Kgathi and Mlotshwa (1994) Combretum spp. is preferred in Kweneng district while Colophospermum mopane is preferred in the Northeast District. This is also supported by Tietema et al. (1991) and the community surveys conducted as part of this BEST study. At the same time standing stocks include both live trees and deadwood; and while live trees represent potential fuelwood, they should not be treated as available for energy use. However, shortages of deadwood forces consumers to harvest live trees, especially fuelwood traders. For example, NRP/EAD (2000) surveys in Mochudi show very low availability of deadwood - 56% of sites had no standing deadwood; 40% had no deadwood in litter, while 94% were classified as having low availability of deadwood. In addition certain species may not necessarily

33 In managed woodlands, trees are assumed to be sustainably managed so that net stocks never decrease (i.e. only annual yields are cut). Managing woodland also entails protecting re-growth of vegetation until it reaches a certain level of maturity (in terms of tonnes of biomass stocks per hectare).

67

be available for use as firewood because they may be unsuitable for use as firewood, some may be fruit trees or culturally sacred among other reasons. Furthermore according to NRP/EAD (2000), fuelwood collectors favour larger stems (greater than 3cm in diameter on the basis that wood in tree savannah has higher value than bush savannah). On the other hand poles are harvested from live trees and are therefore derived from standing stocks. But still not all vegetation types are suitable for various types of construction applications. For instance, households prefer to use construction poles taken from live trees that are greater than 8cm in diameter (ibid).

68

5. WOODY BIOMASS SUPPLY-DEMAND BALANCE

5.1 Introduction

As alluded to earlier, woody biomass applications principally fall into two categories; fuelwood and construction materials/building poles. Total woody biomass demand has been estimated to decrease from the base year value of 1.5 million t. in 2000 to less than 1.4 million t. in 2005 and thereafter increasing to 1.6 million t. by 2020. The initial decline is attributed to the rapid diffusion of alternative fuels such as LPG, in the latter part of the study period, and the impact of population increase drives the demand for fuelwood up again.

Most of the wood demand is met from the annual available yields (about 75% of supplies) and the rest is derived from harvesting tree stocks. As shown in Table 28, at national level, the analysis shows a woody biomass deficit of between 17,000 t. and 19,000 t. This does not necessarily mean the whole country has insufficient woody biomass available for use as fuelwood, but rather indicates possible localised shortages that may be experienced in various locations especially in urban centres and the densely populated eastern districts.

Table 28: National woody biomass balance (‘000 tonnes) Years 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Fuelwood 1,089 901 932 980 1,029

Building Poles 456 475 494 515 536

Total woody biomass requirements 1,546 1,376 1,427 1,495 1,565

From Yields 1,481 1,322 1,355 1,400 1,442

From Stocks 65 54 55 7 104

Total Supplies 1,546 1,376 1,410 1,477 1,546

Deficit 17 8 19

This table shows the aggregate national woody biomass balance, by comparing demand for fuelwood and building poles and available supplies from a combination of sustainable yields and supplies from cut stocks.

Demand for fuelwood at national level drops from year 2000 to 2005 because of the measured switch in rural households from fuelwood to LPG. The percentage of rural households using fuelwood as a primary fuel decrease from 77.3% in 2000 to 53% in 2005 while the those using LPG increase from 17% in 2000 to 40.5% in 2005. Thus the initial decline is attributed to the rapid diffusion of alternative fuels such as LPG and electricity, while in the latter part of the study period, the impact of population increase drives the demand for fuelwood up again. Demand for building poles is a function of fuelwood demand and thus it simply follows the fuelwood demand. Total national supplies are also simply following demand levels, i.e. in the LEAP model, for whatever demand, sufficient supplies have to be found within each District to fulfil that demand. The first priority is given to sustainable yields, if those are exhausted, then demand has to be met from stocks. Hence the supplies from stocks are much smaller indicating that most of the supplies are derived from yields. Since demand decreases in the initial period, woody biomass resources in most Districts are not under pressure of harvesting. However, as population increases, demand also grows and gradually some Districts begin to suffer deficits. By 2020, supplies from stocks doubles indicating growing scarcity in some parts of the country. The overall deficit shown in the last row does not imply that the whole country is short of woody biomass. It is simply an aggregation of deficits in several Districts of the country. By design the model does not allow transfer of woody biomass resources from one District to another. In practice, wood traders bring fuelwood and poles from other Districts to those facing deficits cancelling out any shortages experienced there. Districts with wood deficits are given in Table 29. The last row is irrelevant is useful information to estimate the amount of supplies required for intervention purposes at national level. For example if one wants to design a coal substitution programme for the whole country, then one needs to know how much coal to supply, etc.

Table 29: Woody biomass balance in districts where demand exceeds yield (‘000 tonnes)

69

Sub District 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Central-Bobonong

Demand Fuelwood demand 53,384 44,150 45,686 48,034 50,407

Poles 22,300 23,438 24,633 25,890 27,210

Total Demand 75,684 67,588 70,320 73,924 77,617

Supply From Yields 75,684 67,588 70,320 73,924 77,617

From Stocks 0 0 - 0 0

Total Supplies 75,684 67,588 70,320 73,924 77,617

Deficit - - - - -

Central-Boteti

Demand Fuelwood demand 40,310 33,338 34,498 36,271 38,062

Poles 16,800 17,657 18,558 19,504 20,499

Total Demand 57,110 50,995 53,056 55,775 58,562

Supply From Yields 57,110 50,995 53,056 55,775 58,562

From Stocks 0 0 - 0 0

Total Supplies 57,110 50,995 53,056 55,775 58,562

Deficit - 0 - - -

Central-Mahalape

Demand Fuelwood demand 82,800 68,478 70,861 74,502 78,182

Poles 34,500 36,260 38,109 40,053 42,097

Total Demand 117,300 104,738 108,970 114,555 120,279

Supply From Yields 117,300 104,738 108,970 114,555 120,279

From Stocks

Total Supplies 117,300 104,738 108,970 114,555 120,279

Deficit - - - - -

Central-Orapa Demand Fuelwood demand 2,179 1,802 1,865 1,961 2,057

Poles 800 841 884 929 976

Total Demand 2,979 2,643 2,748 2,889 3,034

Supply From Yields 808 273 - - -

From Stocks 2,171 2,370 - - -

Total Supplies 2,979 2,643 - - -

Deficit - - 2,748 2,889 3,034

Central-Serowe

Demand Fuelwood demand 113,305 93,706 96,967 101,950 106,986

Poles 47,300 49,713 52,249 54,914 57,715

Total Demand 160,605 143,419 149,216 156,864 164,701

Supply From Yields 160,605 143,419 149,216 156,864 164,701

From Stocks

Total Supplies 160,605 143,419 149,216 156,864 164,701

Deficit - - - - -

Central-S.Phikwe

Demand Fuelwood demand 10,895 9,010 9,324 9,803 10,287

Poles 4,500 4,730 4,971 5,224 5,491

Total Demand 15,395 13,740 14,295 15,027 15,778

Supply From Yields 4,860 2,611 - - -

From Stocks 10,534 11,129 - - -

Total Supplies 15,395 13,740 - - -

Deficit - - 14,295 15,027 15,778

Central-Sowa Demand Fuelwood demand 1,089 901 932 980 1,029

Poles 300 315 331 348 366

Total Demand 1,389 1,216 1,264 1,329 1,395

Supply From Yields 1,389 1,216 1,264 1,329 1,395

From Stocks - - - - 0

Total Supplies 1,389 1,216 1,264 1,329 1,395

Deficit - - - - -

Central-Tutume Demand Fuelwood demand 104,589 86,498 89,508 94,108 98,756

Poles 44,000 46,244 48,603 51,083 53,688

Total Demand 148,589 132,743 138,112 145,190 152,445

Supply From Yields 148,589 132,743 138,112 145,190 152,445

From Stocks - - 0 0 0

Total Supplies 148,589 132,743 138,112 145,190 152,445

Deficit - - - - -

Chobe Demand Fuelwood demand 14,163 11,713 12,121 12,744 13,373

70

Poles 5,900 6,201 6,517 6,850 7,199

Total Demand 20,063 17,914 18,638 19,593 20,572

Supply From Yields 16,553 15,956 15,461 14,677 13,506

From Stocks 3,510 1,959 3,177 4,917 7,067

Total Supplies 20,063 17,914 18,638 19,593 20,572

Deficit - - - - -

Ghantsi Demand Fuelwood demand 27,237 22,526 23,309 24,507 25,718

Poles 11,400 11,982 12,593 13,235 13,910

Total Demand 38,637 34,507 35,902 37,742 39,628

Supply From Yields 38,637 34,507 35,902 37,742 39,628

From Stocks 0 0 0 0 -

Total Supplies 38,637 34,507 35,902 37,742 39,628

Deficit - - - - -

Kgatleng Demand Fuelwood demand 52,295 43,249 44,754 47,054 49,378

Poles 21,900 23,017 24,191 25,425 26,722

Total Demand 74,195 66,266 68,945 72,479 76,100

Supply From Yields 67,716 66,266 66,837 66,047 64,266

From Stocks 6,479 0 2,109 6,433 11,835

Total Supplies 74,195 66,266 68,945 72,479 76,100

Deficit - - - - -

Kweneng Demand Fuelwood demand 161,242 133,351 137,992 145,083 152,250

Poles 67,700 71,153 74,783 78,598 82,607

Total Demand 228,942 204,505 212,775 223,680 234,856

Supply From Yields 228,942 204,505 212,775 223,680 234,856

From Stocks 0 0 - 0 -

Total Supplies 228,942 204,505 212,775 223,680 234,856

Deficit - - - - -

Kgalagadi Demand Fuelwood demand 38,132 31,536 32,633 34,310 36,005

Poles 16,200 17,026 17,895 18,808 19,767

Total Demand 54,332 48,562 50,528 53,118 55,772

Supply From Yields 54,332 48,562 50,528 53,118 55,772

From Stocks 0 0 - - 0

Total Supplies 54,332 48,562 50,528 53,118 55,772

Deficit - - - - -

Northeast Demand Fuelwood demand 67,547 55,863 57,807 60,778 63,780

Poles 28,300 29,744 31,261 32,855 34,531

Total Demand 95,847 85,607 89,068 93,633 98,312

Supply From Yields 95,847 85,607 89,068 93,633 98,312

From Stocks - - - 0 0

Total Supplies 95,847 85,607 89,068 93,633 98,312

Deficit - - - - -

Ngamiland Demand Fuelwood demand 94,784 78,389 81,117 85,285 89,498

Poles 39,900 41,935 44,074 46,323 48,686

Total Demand 134,684 120,324 125,191 131,608 138,184

Supply From Yields 134,684 120,324 125,191 131,608 138,184

From Stocks - - - - 0

Total Supplies 134,684 120,324 125,191 131,608 138,184

Deficit - - - - -

Southern Demand Fuelwood demand 150,347 124,341 128,668 135,280 141,962

Poles 63,100 63,100 63,100 63,100 63,100

Total Demand 213,447 187,441 191,768 198,380 205,062

Supply From Yields 213,447 187,441 191,768 198,380 205,062

From Stocks - - - - -

Total Supplies 213,447 187,441 191,768 198,380 205,062

Deficit - - - - -

Southeast Demand Fuelwood demand 75,174 62,171 64,334 67,640 70,981

Poles 31,500 31,500 31,500 31,500 31,500

Total Demand 106,674 93,671 95,834 99,140 102,481

Supply From Yields 64,668 55,602 46,098 33,636 17,320

71

From Stocks 42,006 38,069 49,736 65,503 85,161

Total Supplies 106,674 93,671 95,834 99,140 102,481

Deficit - 0 - - -

TOTAL Demand Fuelwood demand 1,089,473 901,023 932,377 980,288 1,028,713

Poles 456,400 474,856 494,252 514,639 536,065

Total Demand 1,545,873 1,375,879 1,426,629 1,494,927 1,564,778

Supply From Yields 1,481,172 1,322,352 1,354,564 1,400,157 1,441,904

From Stocks 64,700 53,527 55,022 6,853 104,062

Total Supplies 1,545,873 1,375,879 1,409,586 1,477,010 1,545,966

Deficit - 0 17,043 7,917 18,812

Table 29 shows in detail the supply and demand balance of woody biomass for each of the (sub) Districts in Botswana. In general, the projections show that in most parts of the country, woody biomass demand will be sufficiently met from sustainable yields. For example, most sub-Districts in Central Districts can adequately meet demand from sustainable yields. However, there are some districts where woody biomass demand will exceed sustainable yields and stocks will have to provide additional supplies. These include Southeast, Kgatleng and Chobe Districts. In the long term, these areas will face supply deficits as stock levels decrease. In some Districts, it is estimated that demand will be in excess of yield plus stocks and this is of immediate grave concern. These areas include Orapa, Selibe Phikwe and to a large extend the Southeast district (where 83% of wood supplies are modelled to come from stocks by 2020). Orapa and Selibe Phikwe are urban areas with significantly large population densities over small areas and naturally woody biomass demand is expected to outstrip supplies in the short term as population grows. The Southeast District is also densely populated area

34 and surveys already show that many areas in this District are

facing fuelwood shortages.

Chobe is another District where potential fuelwood shortages are likely in the medium to long term. It is expected that by 2020, about a third of the wood biomass demand will be met by stocks up from 10% in 2005. Similarly, stocks meet about 15% of demand by 2020 for Kgatleng District up from almost zero percent in 2005. Given the structure of supply and demand across the country, it is therefore important to select appropriate biomass energy interventions in each District. For those Districts where demand exceeds supplies from yields and stocks such as Orapa and Selibe Phikwe, fuelwood is soon to become an unsustainable option. Therefore these areas can be targeted for efficient stove dissemination as well as alternative fuel dissemination e.g. coal, biogas. For those areas such as Southeast, Kgatleng and Chobe where stocks are still adequate to meet demand, efficient wood stoves should be introduced to reduce the demand and thereby stabilise stock levels to sustainable levels. These areas are also good candidates for alternative fuels dissemination to reduce pressure on wood demand, targeting especially urban dwellers who can afford the alternative fuels. For example, the capital Gaborone falls under Southeast district and is especially suitable for developing modern biomass energy alternatives such as biogas. Furthermore, good woodland management practices can go a long way in ensuring sustainable harvesting of woodlands in those areas.

For the other remaining areas where supplies are still firm, it is important that the resources are well managed so as to continue providing this important energy resource for the residents of those areas. Therefore, woodland management can be one of the key priority interventions in those areas.

However, experience from surveys show that there are pockets of areas with localised shortages and identifying those areas and providing interventions specific to their needs is imperative. For example, DFFR reports that some parts of Serowe/Mahalapye face serious wood shortages but overall, the whole District appears to have sufficient

34

50% of Botswana’s population lives within 100km of Gaborone.

72

wood resources. It might as well therefore be necessary to design interventions that seek to meet specific challenges faced by specific communities such as those identified by DFFR and other surveys.

Figure 15: Map showing woody biomass balance in Botswana

Since most of the wood demand is derived from yields rather than tree stocks, standing stocks are not expected to diminish rapidly in the short term. This allows regeneration of stocks to meet future demand which is ideal for sustainable management of woody biomass resources.

However, in practice, sustainability is still an issue as socio-economic surveys show wood resource scarcity near settlements. The distribution of wood resources in each District is not even and density of vegetation is typically inversely related to the distance from settled areas. FIMP I notes that around Mochudi, the Medium-density Bush

73

Tree Savannah to Low-density Shrub Savannah are under pressure as these areas are the ones closest to settlements.

5.2 Overall Energy Demand Analysis

For the sectors considered in this study, fuelwood dominates the energy balance at the beginning of the study period contributing about 80% to the energy demand (excluding petrol and diesel for transportation). However, the contribution of fuelwood declines by 20% in 2020 to about 63% due to anticipated fuel switching in both domestic and government institutions. Fuel switching is expected to be significant for LPG (increasing from 8% to about 13%) similarly electricity demand is expected to increase from 7% in the energy balance to about 13% by 2020 (results in Table 30).

Table 30: Baseline energy demand by fuel type (TJ) Fuel 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Electricity 1,431 2,054 2,426 2,985 3,515

Paraffin 147 279 308 333 358

Diesel 4,810 6,563 8,646 13,011 15,747

LPG 770 1,131 1,238 1,358 1,488

Coal 907 1,136 1,419 1,911 2,200

Wood 17,432 14,416 14,918 15,685 16,459 Biogas 18 19 20 21 22

The contribution of coal is expected to double from 4% in 2000 to 8% in 2020. Most of this increase is coming from fuel switching in government institutions. As shown in Table 31, coal demand in government institutions is estimated to increase from 907 TJ to 2,200 TJ by 2020. Coal is expected to largely displace fuelwood in government institutions in line with the government’s plans to stop the use of firewood in its institutions and promote the use of coal (according to NDP10 draft chapters).

Table 31: Baseline energy balance (TJ) Sector Fuel 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Rural Households

Electricity 50 104 134 183 235

Paraffin 37 71 76 86 94

LPG 78 214 232 260 285

Wood 11,565 10,643 11,451 12,655 13,633

Biogas 18 19 20 21 22

Urban Town/cities Households

Electricity 792 1,128 1,297 1,519 1,776

Paraffin 78 102 120 128 136

LPG 349 444 480 521 571

Wood 1,231 988 936 913 831

Urban Village Households

Electricity 250 392 462 554 661

Paraffin 32 106 112 120 128

LPG 315 432 466 504 552

Wood 3,803 2,191 2,119 2,116 1,996

Government Institutions

Electricity 339 430 532 728 844

LPG 28 41 61 74 80

Coal 907 1,136 1,419 1,911 2,200

Wood 833 593 412 - -

Transport sector Diesel 4,810 6,563 8,646 13,011 15,747

74

5.3 Baseline Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to evaluate the impact of different economic growth rates on energy use practices in the domestic sector. NDP10 assumes three possible GDP growth patterns, a Base case scenario with 7% growth rate of the non-mining private sector, an Optimistic scenario with 9% growth of the non-mining private sector and a Pessimistic scenario with 5% growth of the non-mining private sector Table 32). Table 33 gives the relative trends in GDP growth over the period 2000 to 2020. It is interesting to note that all scenarios envisage positive economic growth albeit at marginally different rates.

Table 32: GDP growth rates by sector for base case, optimistic and pessimistic scenarios

NDP10 average growth rate

Mining sector growth rate

Non-mining sector growth rate35

Base Case 6% 12% 7%

Optimistic 7% 14% 9%

Pessimistic 5% 12% 5%

These scenarios would result in different demand for modern energy services and hence the energy mix. It is not possible to determine exactly what the impact of a particular rate of GDP growth will be on the country’s fuel mix and fuel switching patterns. This study takes the Base Case as the “business as usual” scenario and will result in switching from fuelwood to LPG at current rates maintaining similar energy mix, while the Optimistic and Pessimistic cases are assumed to result in higher and lower rates of fuel-switching from fuelwood to LPG, respectively.

Table 33: Relative GDP growth drivers for NDP10 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Base Case GDP

1.00 1.27 1.57 2.15 2.49

Optimistic GDP

1.00 1.27 1.74 2.56 3.18

Pessimistic GDP

1.00 1.27 1.55 2.02 2.23

The fuel mix derived for each of the scenarios is presented in Table 34.

Table 34: Fuel mix assumptions used in scenarios Fuel GDP growth 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Electricity Pessimistic Case 1,431 2,054 2,425 2,981 3,506

Base Case 1,431 2,054 2,426 2,985 3,515

Optimistic Case 1,431 2,054 2,431 2,997 3,538

Paraffin Pessimistic Case 147 279 308 332 356

Base Case 147 279 308 333 358

Optimistic Case 147 279 309 336 362

LPG Pessimistic Case 770 1,131 1,239 1,354 1,477

Base Case 770 1,131 1,238 1,358 1,488

Optimistic Case 770 1,131 1,246 1,372 1,511

Coal Pessimistic Case 907 1,136 1,419 1,911 2,200

Base Case 907 1,136 1,419 1,911 2,200

Optimistic Case 907 1,136 1,419 1,911 2,200

Wood Pessimistic Case 17,432 14,416 14,913 15,591 16,297

Base Case 17,432 14,416 14,918 15,685 16,459

Optimistic Case 17,432 14,416 15,028 15,947 16,884

35 Non mining comprises agriculture, manufacturing, construction, water and electricity production, various private sector services (commerce, transport and communication, and financial, etc) as well as government.

75

The impacts of different economic growth rates were factored into LEAP as drivers for modern energy demand in households. The effect of the different economic growth trajectories is to marginally increase LPG demand by factors given in Table 33. The scenario analysis compares for the years 2010 to 2020 but actual data were used for the period 2000 to 2005.

The Optimistic scenario results in a 2.6% increase in fuelwood demand by 2020 while the pessimistic scenario results in about 1% decrease in demand compared to base case. This shows that the projected economic growth patterns do not have a significant impact on the fuelwood demand in the domestic sector. Changes in demand are more pronounced for rural households (Table 35). This is attributed to the impact of income growth on water heating; the market for water heating is saturated for urban households according to recent surveys while only 55% of rural households currently heat water. LPG penetration is expected to stagnate at current level, rising marginally for each sub sector and thus also fuelwood substitution is also insignificant.

Table 35 Comparison of domestic fuelwood demand for different GDP growth rates (tonnes) GDP growth Sub sector 2010 2015 2020

Base Case GDP

Rural Households 713,133 790,957 852,051

Urban Towns/cities 58,488 57,092 51,913

Urban village 132,451 132,240 124,749

TOTAL 904,072 980,288 1,028,713

Optimistic GDP

Rural Households 724,679 811,250 885,095

Urban Towns/cities 57,773 55,752 49,669

Urban village 131,093 129,697 120,488

TOTAL 913,545 996,699 1,055,251

Pessimistic GDP

Rural Households 714,868 784,023 838,927

Urban Towns/cities 58,667 57,474 52,933

Urban village 132,790 132,966 126,686

TOTAL 906,325 974,464 1,018,546

Similarly, there is no significant departure for the wood energy balance under both the Optimistic and Pessimistic scenario compared to the Base case scenario as shown in Table 36. There is no significant change in wood deficit across the scenarios.

76

Table 36: Comparison of wood energy balance for different economic growth rates (‘000 tonnes) Years 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Optimistic Fuelwood demand 1,089 901 939 997 1,055

Case Building Poles 456 475 494 515 536

Total demand 1,546 1,376 1,434 1,511 1,591

Supplies from Yields 1,481 1,322 1,360 1,414 1,464

Supplies from Stocks 65 54 56 79 109

Total Supplies 1,546 1,376 1,416 1,493 1,572

Deficit - 0 17 18 19

Base Case Fuelwood demand 1,089 901 932 980 1,029

Building Poles 456 475 494 515 536

Total demand 1,546 1,376 1,427 1,495 1,565

Supplies from Yields 1,481 1,322 1,355 1,400 1,442

Supplies from Stocks 65 54 55 77 104

Total Supplies 1,546 1,376 1,410 1,477 1,546

Deficit - 0 17 18 19

Pessimistic Fuelwood demand 1,089 901 932 974 1,019

Case Building Poles 456 475 494 515 536

Total demand 1,546 1,376 1,426 1,489 1,555

Supplies from Yields 1,481 1,322 1,354 1,395 1,434

Supplies from Stocks 65 54 55 76 102

Total Supplies 1,546 1,376 1,409 1,471 1,536

Deficit - 0 17 18 19

5.4 Evaluating Accessibility of Fuelwood and Sustainability Indicators

The baseline assessment of woody biomass supply conducted in this study provides an overview of the availability of wood resources in each (sub) District and scarcity is taken as a function of the differential between total potential biomass supply and woody biomass demand. This does not however, provide an insight into the accessibility of the estimated biomass resource as the estimated quantities are aggregated for the whole (sub) District. It is necessary therefore to augment this analysis with socio-economic survey data which provides indications of fuelwood accessibility around community settlements. Additional comments are therefore provided here to supplement the baseline assessment using feedback from the community survey conducted during the development of BEST as well as data from previous surveys.

A major deduction from this study is that although there is apparently no significant fuelwood deficit in most areas (except Southeast District and around major urban centres), there is increasing localised scarcity of wood around communities.

Apart from the experiences of 2000 and 2004 surveys already alluded to in Chapter 3, the socio-economic surveys conducted during the development of BEST also provide some insights into the availability and accessibility of fuelwood across the country.

In Ditlhakane village (Kweneng District), the villagers indicated that there is generally no fuelwood scarcity. Even deadwood is readily available as the villagers know the woodland intimately. It is important to note that for this area, fuelwood collection is restricted by permits, which in itself is a woodland management strategy. The distances travelled and the time spend collecting wood varies and depends on knowledge of the woodland (those who know the area well spend little time collecting fuelwood).

77

For Artesia (in Kgatleng District), the fuelwood is scarce. Villagers blame fuelwood traders from surrounding urban centres such as Gaborone and Ramotswa as well as schools from Mochudi for over harvesting wood stocks in the area. Distances travelled to collect fuelwood vary between 30 to 60 km and collection times range from 12 hours up to two days (overnight). This provides evidence that severe scarcity especially in the Southeast District (as predicted by the model) will eventually lead to trans-district fuelwood procurement.

The fuelwood situation is very dire in Pitsane (Southern District) as villagers are now using cow dung and donkey manure for energy purposes. This observation is in agreement with the baseline analysis which show wood resource deficit in the Southern and Southeast district.

Kachikau (in Chobe District) has no fuelwood problems as the resource is readily available (deadwood is found easily as elephants fell trees). Distances travelled to collect fuelwood vary from 1 to 2 km but can increase considerably especially during period after bush fires. Collection times vary from 30 minutes for the young and much longer for the elderly.

Fuelwood is scarce in Masunga (Northeast District) due to over harvesting and also because the communities are surrounded by commercial farms which are not accessible for fuelwood collection. Villagers travel from 2 to 45 km and may take up to the entire day to collect fuelwood. Sometimes, villagers go beyond their jurisdiction to collect fuelwood in other villages.

In Tsabong (Kgalagadi District), fuelwood is no longer found easily and villagers blame government institutions such as schools from over harvesting their woodlands. Distances to collect wood vary from 5 to 15 km and it takes villagers up to half a day to collect fuelwood.

Fuelwood is readily available in Tsootsha (Ghantsi District) and fuelwood traders from neighbouring urban centres surrounding Ghantsi also collect wood in Tsootsha. This is expected to lead to fuelwood scarcity.

Fuelwood is available in Toteng (Ngamiland District) but it is not readily accessible as villagers now have to travel longer distances to collect wood and it takes villagers up to 3 hours to do so. Sehitwa also in Ngamiland is fortunate to have plenty of fuelwood readily accessible. For the other village in Ngamiland (Komana), fuelwood is still available, but there are signs that the resource is getting depleted. Traders from Maun collect fuelwood in Komana increasing the pressure on this village.

Scarcity and deficit is therefore a function of fuelwood stock availability and accessibility to the right species of fuelwood for a community concerned.

78

6. NON-WOODY BIOMASS SUPPLY

The supply of the following non-woody biomass resources was considered was considered in this study:

• Residues (municipal solid waste (MSW), livestock manure and chicken manure)36

• Wet Biomass (Municipal liquid waste (MLW) and abattoir animal waste) • Energy Crops (Jatropha curcas, sweet sorghum sunflower, etc)

6.1 Residues

6.1.1 Municipal solid waste

The prominent form of biomass residue in Botswana is municipal solid waste (MSW). The Department of Waste Management and Pollution Control (DWMPC) has built a database of municipal landfills that provides a reasonable amount of information on locations and volumes of MSW, although the information on volumes is incomplete.

The challenge is that the MSW for Botswana landfills (domestic, commercial, industrial, garden, carcasses, clinical, rubble, paper & cardboard, inert, metal, glass and tyres) do not always indicate which proportion is biodegradable, and hence capable of producing energy (gas) through bio-methanation. The BEST analysis used the shares of the wastes being sorted and allocated proportions of biodegradable waste using expert judgement (e.g. building rubble, metals, tyres, glass were assumed to have 0% biodegradable potential, garden waste 100%, domestic 30%, carcasses 100%, and clinical waste 0%,). A weighted proportion of biodegradable waste was then derived for each landfill.

Table 37 shows solid waste statistics for five major urban centres in Botswana to show types of MSW found in landfills of Botswana. It is also surprising that the study by Mazibuko (2003) showed varied composition among the cities studied.

Table 37: Composition of waste for selected urban centres

Gaborone Francistown Lobatse

Waste type % Waste type % Waste type %

Inert 40.13 Building rubble/soil 47.74 Metal 43.60

Domestic 35.10 Domestic 45.38 Industrial 21.80

Building rubble 16.34 Garden 3.29 Domestic 19.00

Biodegradable 7.81 Condemned food + sludge 3.25 Garden 15.30

Tyres 0.29 Tyres 0.25 Commercial 0.20

Metal 0.26 Salvaged material 0.10 Tyres 0.10

Glass 0.04

Other 0.04

Paper & cardboard 0.03

Source: Mazibuko, 2003

Only residues that can be harnessed are considered for generation of methane for energy in this BEST study. In the case of MSW, relevant data includes the waste generated at constructed landfills (cities, towns, large villages). There are 20 existing landfills inclusive of landfills owned by all District councils. Construction of landfills is underway in Kasane, Kang, Ghantsi as well as a regional landfill being built in Gaborone. All landfills are now designed with weighbridges to allow the measurement of waste being delivered.

36

Crop residues and forestry residues in Botswana are insignificant and were not considered in this strategy. Conventional crop

residues generated from sorghum and maize are very limited and are used for cattle feed and mulching of fields. Even in the large free-hold farms of Pandamatenga, sorghum stocks are very small and are kept on the fields for soil mulching. Unless domestic crop production increases further, this resource can be discounted.

79

Potential solid waste for use as biomass energy was estimated from municipal records of solid waste disposal and the biodegradable portion of the waste. Not all urban centres have waste generation data and for such centres, waste generation was estimated using per capita waste generation for similar centres where data were available. These per capita waste values were also used to project waste generation for corresponding urban settlements and consequently biomass energy production as shown in Table 38 and illustrated in Figure 16.

Table 38: Municipal solid waste generation in main urban centres Facility Landfill

capacity Population

(2001) waste

generated (t/capita/yr)

Total potential resource

(t/yr)

Available qty (t/yr)

Selibe Phikwe

Medium 49,849 344 17,154,021 2,665,611

Francistown Large 83,023 28,569,846 4,879,483

Gaborone Large 186,007 31,462,860 5,373,584

Lobatse Medium 29,689 10,216,568 283,984

Jwaneng Medium 15,179 5,223,392 892,110

Masunga Medium 3,110 12 37,320 38,078

Serowe Medium 42,444 509,328 429,865

Maun Medium 43,776 525,312 360,748

Ramotswa Medium 23,232 287,752 197,609

Pilane Small 47,109 565,308 96,550

523,418 94,551,707 16,850,144

Source: CSO, 2001 – population data Note: Pilane includes populations of Mochudi, Bokaa, Morwa, Rasesa and Pilane

80

Figure 16: Map showing municipal solid waste availability in Botswana

81

In the year 2000, Botswana had nearly 17 million tonnes of exploitable municipal solid waste from the 10 major urban centres from the landfills and the waste was estimated to grow to over 31 million tonnes by 2020 driven by population growth as shown in Table 39.

Table 39: Baseline municipal solid waste by location Facility Amount of solid waste generated (tonnes)

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Selibe Phikwe 2,929,759 2,940,984 3,059,059 3,240,313 3,474,111

Francistown 4,879,483 5,373,585 5,937,685 6,470,871 6,966,912

Gaborone 5,373,585 12,280,137 13,701,966 15,057,734 16,317,408

Lobatse 1,744,902 1,750,191 1,826,361 1,929,154 2,054,575

Jwaneng 892,110 952,176 1,031,460 1,118,503 1,212,127

Masunga 25,629 24,216 24,640 25,600 27,104

Serowe 349,771 346,000 363,600 385,704 411,864

Maun 360,748 336,648 339,288 349,376 364,352

Ramotswa 197,608 197,152 213,536 231,008 248,576

Pilane 96,550 384,952 407,856 436,328 468,896

Total 16,850,144 24,586,042 26,905,450 29,244,591 31,545,926

Municipal solid waste can be utilized as a feedstock for energy production through the use of either landfill gas or incinerating combustibles and raising steam for electricity generation. This is an example of biomass being exploited to generate energy, rather than being a substitute for other forms of biomass (e.g. fuelwood). The projected electricity production potential at the Gaborone landfill is 7GWh/year (enough to power 5,600 households) in the base year and is projected to rise to 10GWh/yr (enough to power 8,000 households) by 2020.

6.1.2 Livestock manure

Table 40 gives a summary of the livestock statistics in the country, as the meat sector is a possible source of energy through bio-methanation of dung and other waste. Livestock numbers will determine the wet biomass that is derived from animals. The population of cattle has been hovering between 2 and 3 million and is affected by drought conditions and diseases prevalent in some parts of the country. Small stocks have also been fluctuating e.g. 2.1 million for goats in 2001 to 1.2 million in 2007. Similarly sheep were 301,000 in 2001 and in 2007 were estimated to be 250,000.

Table 40: Domestic livestock statistics Type Number Cattle (beef and dairy) 2,005,500 Sheep 250,000 Goats 1,200,000 Swine 12,800 Poultry 31,330,000 Ostrich 3,500

Source: MoA, 2007

Biogas potential from animal waste collected from rangelands has not succeeded in the past, but new opportunities were investigated in the case of zero grazing for dairy farming. Dairy farms are currently small and thus do not constitute significant biogas potential. In fact, preliminary estimates done under the National Master-Plan for Arable Agriculture and Dairy Development (NAMPAADD) programme on the possible exploitation of waste from dairy farms for biogas production showed that it is not a viable proposition. Therefore farmers are being

82

encouraged to inject the manure into their fields to improve soil fertility for fodder production even though the waste from a bio-digester is a good fertilizer. However, there are proposals in NDP10 to increase the stock of dairy cows at NAMPAADD Sunnyside Farm from 100 to 600 dairy cows by 2016. This may boost the potential for biogas production at this site.

6.1.3 Chicken manure and abattoir waste

The number of chicken has increased tremendously to about 31 million broilers produced per year and 330,000 layers (MoA, 2007) compared to 2 million in 2001 (MWTC, 2001).

Poultry waste can also be harnessed for biogas production. There are 31 registered poultry farms and 10 abattoirs in the country ranging in capacity from 5,600 to 5.8 million broilers per year. The population of layers in 2008 is estimated at 355 thousand per year. Unlike livestock waste, chicken manure is generated at centralised locations and can be captured during the chicken rearing stage. No manure is produced at the abattoir as the chickens are starved prior to slaughter. Furthermore, wastewater, feathers and blood are also generated during slaughter at the poultry abattoirs. This additional waste is an important resource for generating biogas. Table 41 shows key data on chicken production and slaughter.

Table 41: Chicken production statistics

Item Quantity

Amount of manure generated per bird 3-3.4 kg Amount of wastewater generated per bird 13-17 litres

Feathers generated (kg) 50 kg/1,000 birds

Blood generated 50 kg/ 1,000 birds

Broiler life-span 6 weeks

Layers Life-span 52 weeks

Coal consumption for brooders (winter) 1 t./1,000 birds

Coal consumption for brooders (summer) 0.4 t./1,000 birds Source: Tswana Pride.

Over 86,000 t. of manure (and feathers), as well as 439 million litres of waste water and blood, and 1.3 million t. of feathers are produced annually from poultry farms in the country (refer to Table 42). From these resources, there is potential to produce 245,000 cum. of biogas (equivalent to about 680 MWh/yr of electricity). One biogas unit at a poultry farm in Tuli Block is nearly complete and the biogas is intended for incineration purposes on-site as a diesel substitute, and the plant has been commercially financed by the farm owner.

Table 42: Waste generated from poultry

District

Location

Total Estimated Waste Generated at Abattoir

Wastewater (litres)

Blood (litres)

Sub-total Manure (kg)

Feathers (kg)

Sub-Total

Central Urban village 134,917,100 396,815 135,313,915 26,983,420 396,815 27,380,235

South East Urban village 194,253,900 104,000 194,357,900 38,850,780 104,000 38,954,780

Southern Urban village 24,811,500 571,335 25,382,835 4,962,300 571,335 5,533,635

North West Urban village 76,614,750 72,975 76,687,725 15,322,950 72,975 15,395,925

Ghanzi Rural 1,060,800 225,338 1,286,138 212,160 225,338 437,498

Layers Urban village 6,035,000 3,120 6,038,120 1,207,000 3,120 1,210,120

Grand Total 437,693,050 1,373,583 439,066,633 86,331,610 1,370,463 87,702,073

83

6.2 Wet Biomass

6.2.1 Municipal waste water

The main resources under this category are municipal waste water and sludge; livestock waste generated at abattoirs

37.

Municipal liquid waste is another potential source of biogas where the amount of effluent determines the amount of biogas that can be generated. Similarly the liquid waste resource was determined for the 6 cities/towns and 9 large urban villages where water treatment plants exist or are being constructed.

Botswana has an estimated waste water treatment capacity of over 35 million m3 of which 22.5 million m

3 can be

harnessed as shown in Table 43. Other wastewater treatment plants that could be implemented in the short term include the ones at Kanye, Molepolole and Kasane. Apart from municipal plants, there are also some institutional water treatment plants at Otse Police College, RIIC Prisons Kanye, Matsheng College, Molepolole Prisons and Maun Prisons. However, these institutional plants are considered uneconomic as the potential for energy (biogas) is currently small.

There are already biogas plants at the Gaborone and Francistown municipal waste water treatment plants that already produce biogas to provide heat energy to biodigesters and incinerators. These biogas plants were built by the Government of Botswana. The Gaborone plant produces 876,000m

3/yr (2,400m

3/day) of biogas and 26% (i.e.

230,000m3/yr) is used for maintaining the digester temperature while the rest is flared whereas the excess biogass

in Francistown is used for waste incineration at the treatment plant. The opportunity exists at the other towns and urban villages where DWMPC has installed sanitation facilities to install similar biogas plants. Data made available by DWMPC on the treatment plants include maximum design capacity, outflow for some of the plants. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) data were available for limited plants – mainly Gaborone, Francistown and smaller waste water treatment plants. The ratios of biogas to COD were derived for the plants with data and then used to estimate for the other treatment plants of similar sizes.

Wastewater production projections are also driven by population. To estimate future waste water generation, current waste water generated per capita was calculated for the centres and projected to 2020 using CSO population projections for the urban centres. Per capita wastewater generation was calculated based on the current (2008) actual waste water generation and estimated population in 2008. The calculated waste per capita was assumed to remain constant throughout the study period. Total waste water is expected to increase to nearly 27 million m

3 by 2020.

37

Discussed above in section 6.1.3. To determine the amount of methane produced from abattoir waste and chicken manure, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2006) emission factors were used.

84

Table 43: Wastewater Treatment Plants in Botswana District Total Wastewater Produced (cum.)

Potential Harnessed (2008)

2010 2015 2020

Gaborone Urban 14,640,150 12,450,150 13,013,367 14,386,134 15,604,793

Francistown Urban 7,665,000 2,190,000 2,280,033 2,501,982 2,693,774

Central Urban Village 3,029,865 2,888,975 2,943,104 3,096,933 3,279,819

Lobatse Urban 2,883,500 1,460,000 1,487,293 1,573,432 1,670,265

Jwaneng Urban 1,879,750 1,332,250 1,375,766 1,495,235 1,619,087

Kgatleng Urban Village 1,752,000 164,250 168,361 180,747 193,556

South East Urban Village 1,102,300 153,300 158,165 158,165 183,525

Orapa Urban 1,095,000 912,500 924,667 924,667 924,667

Kweneng Urban Village 306,600 324,850 11,715 12,685 13,592

North West Urban Village 259,150 167,900 168,717 173,023 198,705

Chobe Urban Village 211,700 182,500 189,684 189,684 189,684

Southern Urban Village 142,715 93,075 98,489 99,975 103,211

Sowa Urban 142,350 153,300 159,164 159,164 159,164

Kgalagadi Urban Village 60,225 41,975 42,617 44,520 46,428

Ghanzi Urban Village 21,900 36,500 36,500 36,500 36,500

Total 35,192,205 22,551,525 23,057,643 25,032,846 26,916,770

6.2.2 Livestock Abattoir Waste

The available data for abattoirs were the livestock numbers slaughtered per unit period. To determine the volume of abattoir waste, the amount of waste generated per head at the Botswana Meat Commission (BMC) (Lobatse and Francistown) was used. Waste data were calculated for the BMC abattoirs and the other local council and private abattoirs.

There are 12 municipal abattoirs, 30 private abattoirs and 2 government abattoirs (operated by BMC) for which wet biomass has been estimated. The livestock slaughtered at the abattoirs determine the amount of wet biomass generated at each abattoir.

Animal waste was calculated using estimates of dung and wastewater generated per beast as well as animal production data from the Ministry of Agriculture. According to BMC reports the amount of dung generated per cow is about 20 kg while the amount of wastewater generated in abattoirs per cow is between 2.3 to 2.5 m

3.

Production figures for the abattoirs were obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture.

Table 44: Waste generated from livestock38

38 Details on resource potential is provided in Chapter 8 under Cost and Benefit Analysis

85

District Location Total Estimated Manure Generated (kg)

Manure (kg) Total Waste Water (litre) Total

Cattle Goats Sheep Cattle Goats Sheep

Central Urban village 632,468 50,665 28,885 712,018 79,058 15,200 8,666 102,923

Kgatleng Urban village 57,120 5,580 2,480 65,180 7,140 1,674 744 9,558

South East Urban 784,000 784,000 98,000 98,000

North East Urban 1,248,000 5,200 5,600 1,258,800 156,000 1,560 8,400 165,960

North West 4,900 4,900

Ghanzi Urban village 39,200 2,080 1,300 42,580 650 624 1,950 3,224

Kgalagadi Rural 5,200 260 260 5,720 218,500 78 78 218,656

Southern Urban 1,748,000 1,748,000 9,603 9,603

Jwaneng Urban village 76,823 76,823 - -

Chobe Urban village - - 79,130 79,130

Ngamiland Urban village 633,039 633,039 652,981 652,981

Grand Total: 5,223,850 63,785 38,525 5,326,160 1,305,962 19,136 19,838 1,344,935

Livestock waste from cattle, goats and sheep slaughter at abattoirs amount to over 5,000 t. /yr., most of which is cattle waste (98%) as shown in Table 44 and in Figure 17. Manure is only captured during slaughter and thus is far less than the potential manure that can be produced from each beast during its lifetime. Collecting manure in an open grazing cattle management system is however uneconomic and laborious. Waste water is also generated at abattoirs amounting to 1.3 million litres per annum. This represents a significant resource which can be tapped for biomethanation. The estimated national biogas potential from abattoirs is 155,000 m

3 of biogas (equivalent to 403

MWh/yr of electricity), and the plant has been commercially financed by the farm owner.

86

Figure 17: Animal Waste Distribution in Botswana

87

6.3 Energy Crops

Energy crop production has been assessed as part of the “Feasibility Study for the Production and Use of Biofuels in Botswana” (EECG, 2007). This study identified Jatropha curcas for biodiesel production and sweet sorghum for bio-ethanol production as the most promising energy crops in the country. Land availability is not seen as a serious constraint for production of these two crops as only 29% of the land allocated to arable agriculture (300,000ha) is currently under cultivation. About 28.3 million hectares were assessed in the feasibility study to be suitable for the identified energy crops and that can be utilised for energy crop development (Table 45). According to EECG (2007), land use change is minimal with Jatropha as the land is often tilled once and thereafter plant management does not require much churning of the soils. The Jatropha trees present an ecosystem improvement in the cases where planted land is originally marginal. Soil conditions are said to improve as tree leaves that fall to the ground during winter contribute to soil mulching. Unlike land resources, water availability and resource competition is a major issue as Botswana is a semi-arid to arid country with low rainfall in most areas. This eliminates water intensive energy crops such as sugarcane from being cultivated in the country for biofuels, hence, drought-tolerant crops such as sweet sorghum and Jatropha have been found to be suitable. Unlike sugar cane, sweet sorghum can be grown on rain-fed basis, although yields can be improved through irrigation. Furthermore, irrigation can also allow planting of the crop twice per year. Biotechnology on drought resistant and high yielding crop variety could be a R&D option in this regard. On the other hand Jatropha can withstand long periods of drought and is thus competitive with regard to water intensity of production. Minimal fertilizer and pest control is necessary to sustain the plants. The yields however increase in areas of higher soil moisture or higher rainfall.

Table 45: Potential land availability for energy crop production by district District Land area

(ha) Arable (ha) Pastoral/

residential (ha)

Balance (ha) Available Ploughed % Utilisation

Central 12,581,432 98,300 28,131 29% 20,247 2,462,885 Chobe 1,265,352 28,700 19,243 67% 93 1,236,559 Ghanzi 5,128,175 17,447 5,110,728 Kweneng 1,087,148 52,200 10,459 20% 25,498 1,009,450 Ngamiland 8,200,674 14,000 4,391 31% 47,101 8,139,573 North East 416,989 40,500 4,391 11% 2,181 374,308

Total: 44,778,108 233,700 66,614 - 112,567 28,333,503 Source: EECG (2007)

Table 46 summarises the potential feedstock that can be produced if all the land available (least, marginal, moderate, suitable and most suitable) is used in each of the promising districts.

Table 46: Jatropha seed and oil production in selected areas for 100% and 2.5% land utilization Level

District Total land area

@ 100% PL

Total land area

@ 2.5% PL

Total feedstock production @ 100% PL

Total feedstock production @ 2.5% PL

Seeds (t.) Raw oil* (t.)

Central 12,581,432 314,536 38,356,401 958,910 287,673

Chobe 1,265,352 31,634 3,811,294 95,282 28,585

Ghanzi 5,128,175 128,204 12,995,488 324,887 97,466

Kweneng 1,087,148 27,179 2,983,107 74,578 22,373

Ngamiland 8,200,674 205,017 21,881,847 547,046 164,114

North East 416,989 10,425 1,441,014 36,025 10,808

Note: PL: penetration level - the level of usage that can be achieved.

88

* - 1 t. of raw oil produces 1 t. of biodiesel (assuming 40% oil content and 75% extraction efficiency). Source: EECG, 2007

The potential feedstock production and potential ethanol that can be produced for sweet sorghum are shown in Table 47.

Table 47: Total feedstock and ethanol production in the selected areas for 10% land utilization level

District Total land area

@ 100% PL

Total land area

@ 10% PL

Total feedstock production @ 100% PL

Potential feedstock production @ 10% PL

Feedstock production (t.)

Ethanol production (l.)

Central 12,581,432 1,258,143 148,469,103 14,846,910 593,876,412

Chobe 1,265,352 126,535 41,296,200 4,129,620 165,184,800

Ghanzi 5,128,175 512,818 28,562,080 2,856,208 114,248,320

Kweneng 1,087,148 108,715 8,104,910 810,491 32,419,640

Ngamiland 8,200,674 820,067 197,695,556 19,769,556 790,782,224

North East 416,989 41,699 7,085,065 708,507 28,340,260

Note: For conversion of feedstock to ethanol, assumed 40 l/t. Source: EECG, 2007.

6.4 Summary of Non-Woody Biomass Energy Resources

A summary of the baseline biomass resource base in Botswana is presented in Table 48. While every district has some woody biomass stocks which can be exploited for energy purposes, the other biomass resources are only available in significant quantities in selected districts. Only those districts with large urban centres such as South East (Gaborone), Southern (Lobatse) and North East (Francistown) have economically exploitable municipal solid and liquid waste. This overview is useful for selecting BEST interventions on the basis of the resource endowment for each district.

Table 48: Summary of baseline biomass resources by type District Biomass Resource

Wet biomass (‘000 m3 of biogas) Residues Energy crops MLW Livestock

abbattoir waste Poultry waste

MSW (GWh

electricity)

Raw Jatropha oil @2.5% PL

(‘000 t.)

Ethanol @ 10% PL (mill. l.)

Central 33.97 70.00 287.67 593.88 Chobe 28.59 165.18 Ghantsi 2.37 0.55 97.47 114.25 Kgatleng 2.94 Kweneng 18.35 22.37 32.42 Kgalagadi 0.42 Northeast 39.79 37.17 10.88 28.34 Ngamiland 2.76 164.11 790.78 Southern 52.44 12.87 Southeast 876 23.52 100.78 7 Total: 876 155.47 245.07 7 611.02 1,724.85

89

7. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS

7.1 Technology Framework

Supply-Side On the supply-side, the choice of biomass technology depends largely on the type, amount and quality of biomass feedstock available. The identified biomass feedstock is thus quantified, taking into account the seasonal, annual and long-term supply variation. The inventory assessment should look at the geographical and seasonal distribution of biomass, as well as the available transport infrastructure where it is feasible to transport feed stocks.

Demand-Side The market for the various biomass end-products is identified inclusive of efficient technological options for use at end-user level. Once the technology has been identified, a cost benefit analysis is done to determine the economic feasibility of the option. This was done by taking into account the capital and operating and maintenance costs of the technology, expertise, displaced baseline costs (benefits) and technologies are filtered through environmental, social impact and risk assessment.

Technology Options For each biomass feedstock, there are multiple finished product options as well as multiple conversions technology options. The biomass feedstock can either be used in isolation or combined with other raw materials to suit a certain technology option, improve the end-product, or ensure annual security of supply of the biomass feedstock to operate the technology at high capacity factors.

Figure 18 provides an overview of biomass feedstock, technology and product options. The most suitable technological option depends on the factors mentioned above.

90

Figure 18: Biomass energy conversion technologies (FAO, 2004)

91

7.2 Biomass Feedstock and Products

The biomass available and the potential for feedstock production is assessed with a view to ascertain the potential for each biomass feedstock. The supply chain from production, transportation, storage, processing and distribution was also assessed so as to aid in the cost-benefit analysis of each option.

Wood Wood is the largest biomass resource in Botswana; however, the exact or approximate quantities need to be ascertained so as to assess the sustainability of utilising the resource. Additional sources such as sawmill residues (from timber companies) are assessed to determine complimentary sources of the woody biomass. Table 49 below provides a summary of the feedstocks and products that can be made from woody biomass.

Wood is a major source of energy for rural households in Botswana (90%) in the form of fuelwood, and is mostly used for cooking, space heating, lighting and water heating. There are other forms of wood transformation technologies to generate other wood-based energy products. Pellets made from wood can be ground into wood powder and used for co-firing in coal power plants or in biomass power plants. Bio-oil, produced through pyrolysis, has low commercial value, but additional special chemicals can be extracted from it. Wood gasification to produce syngas, which can be processed in biodiesel, is still at pre-commercial stages. Wood can also be fermented into ethanol or gasified and turned into methanol or synthetic natural gas. The last processes have not yet been commercialised.

Table 49: Woody biomass feedstock and energy products

Biomass Feed stocks Energy Products

Wood Sawmill residues Bark Wood from Plantations (woodlots)

Electricity

Heat

Ethanol

Pellets

Synthetic natural gas

Bio-oil Methanol

Biodiesel (Fischer-Tropsch)

Agricultural Residue Agricultural waste such as crop residue and liquid and solid animal waste can also be used for energy. Crop residue (straw) can be burned directly for cooking at a household level or for driving steam turbines at a commercial level. Animal residue can either be composted without heat recovery or anaerobically digested to produce biogas that can be directly combusted for cooking or to produce heat and electricity. Furthermore, biogas can be purified and compressed and sold to the public as an alternative to LPG, or for use on natural gas vehicles, or converted to methanol. The residue from the digester can be used as fertilizer. The feedstock potential of the agricultural residues then needs to be quantified in order to determent the feasible technological option and scale of use that can be achieved.

Municipal Bio-waste and Landfill Gas Municipal biowaste can also be anaerobically digested to produce biogas. Anaerobic digestion also takes place at landfill but at a much slower rate. The landfill gas produced can be captured and used to produce electricity or thermal purposes in commercial and industrial processes situated close to the landfill (Table 50).

92

Table 50: Energy Products from Municipal and Agricultural Feedstocks

Biomass Feed stocks Energy Products

Municipal Bio waste (Landfill & Sewage) Food waste (abattoirs etc) Agricultural Waste (crop residue & animal liquid and solid waste)

Synthetic natural gas Methanol

Municipal solid waste can also be gasified to produce electricity or heat.

Plant and Animal fat Plant oils and animal fat can be processed into biodiesel through transesterification. The biodiesel produced can be used in all diesel applications, though it has a higher viscosity, which means for some purposes engines may need to be adapted for its use. Biodiesel can also be produced from vegetable oil seeds through use of extraction technologies, and a chemical process of esterification. Alternatively, they can be mixed with other feed stocks and processed in anaerobic digesters to produce biogas (refer to Table 51; Figure 19).

Ethanol can be made directly from sugar/starch-bearing crops, and indirectly by converting the cellulosic portion of biomass into sugar.

Figure 19: Overview of Conversion Routes from Crops to Biofuels

Source: Hamelinck,C.N & Faaij, A.P.C in Energy Policy, 2006)

Apart from biodiesel and ethanol, there are biomass-derived fuels in form of gel/oil that are already being distributed in Botswana.

Table 51: Energy Products from Oils and Fats

Biomass Feed stocks Energy Products Vegetable oil (Used or virgin oil) Animal Fat Starch/sugar

Synthetic natural gas Methanol Biodiesel; bio-oil Ethanol, biogel

93

7.3 Technology Choices

An overview of all the biomass energy technologies is done considering the most feasible options that can apply to a country. In the case of Botswana, the following technologies were identified in the BEST development process.

anaerobic digestion using chicken manure, livestock manure (in centralized sites), poultry and livestock abattoir waste, and food waste;

anaerobic digestion using municipal waste- solid waste in land fill and liquid waste in bio-digesters;

direct combustion using municipal solid waste for incineration and steam raising;

Gasification-Combustion- using wood from bush encroachment/invasive species; and MSW

biofuels using sweet sorghum for ethanol and jatropha for biodiesel

The following constituted part of the review for each technology.

Cost benefit analysis considering technology type, feedstocks and products, potential market ,capital costs and scale of process

Environmental Impact assessment considering emissions and waste streams

Social Impact analysis considering benefits to communities and national development

Risk analysis considering the level of achievability and sustainability of the results

94

8. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS

8.1 Introduction

Cost-benefit analysis was carried out on a number of the potential BEST intervention options.

The methodology used in undertaking the cost benefit analysis for the poultry manure, animal waste and the municipal liquid waste is summarised in Figure 20 below. Steps included an initial estimate of the gross national resource potential by district and resource type. This was followed by an analysis of the range of sizes of the establishments generating each resource across the country, which culminated into the classification of the establishments into three broad categories namely small scale (e.g. at household level), medium scale (e.g. at institutional level) and large scale (e.g. at abattoirs, farms or local authority level).

A cost benefit analysis was then done based on these three broad categories. The feasibility of each project category was determined and based on the results, the minimum economic sizes for each resource type were recommended. The results also formed a basis for the assumptions made on the penetration rate of each resource, and ultimately a basis for estimating the exploitable national resource potential.

Figure 20: Methodology for the Cost-Benefit Analysis for poultry waste, animal waste municipal solid waste and

municipal liquid waste

The cost-benefit analysis for the energy efficient woodstove and other energy efficient cooking devices (i.e. hot bags) was adopted from the analysis that was done by RE Botswana for the promotion of the devices in the country. Furthermore the analysis for the municipal solid waste (i.e. Landfill gas) was based on the prefeasibility study of a methane landfill gas recovery project, for the Gaborone landfill (EU, Synergy).

95

The key assumptions made in the cost-benefit analyses are summarised in Annex F. Bio-digester costs, feedstock requirements and biogas production were obtained from a local company (Renewable Energy Pty. Ltd.) that is installing all sizes of bio-digesters in the country using food waste and manure. The investment costs for generating biogas from municipal liquid waste were adopted from that for Gaborone City Council. For MSW, costs were derived from a pre-feasibility study for Gaborone (EU-Synergy project).

8.2 Poultry Manure

Introduction The information used in this part of the assessment was based on an inventory of the major poultry farms and abattoirs obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture and this is summarised in Table 52. Estimates show that there are 31 registered poultry farms and abattoirs in the country with sizes (and thus slaughter rates) ranging from a minimum of 5,600 broilers per year to a maximum of 5.8 million broilers per year and averaging 886,000 broilers per year. Meanwhile the population of layers is estimated at 355,000 layers per year.

Table 52: Inventory and classification of poultry farms

Number of Farms 31

Min Chickens per year 5,600

Max Chickens per year 5,840,000

Average Chickens per year 886,182

Classification

Small Scale (Broilers per year) 14,000

Medium Scale (Broilers per year) 240,000

Large Scale (Broilers per year) 3,500,000 The first step in determining the viability of exploiting the biomass resource from the poultry farms in the country was a determination of the gross national resource potential in terms of the potential amount of biogas that can be produced and the equivalent amount of grid electricity, LPG, coal and wood that can be displaced. The results show that the resource has a potential to produce 245,000 cu.m. of biogas, which is equivalent to about 680 MWh/yr of electricity, or 212 t. of LPG, or 413 t. of coal or 612 t. of fuelwood (Table 53).

Table 53: Gross national biogas potential for the poultry sector

District Biogas (m3/yr)

Electricity (MWh/yr)

LPG equivalence (kg)

Coal equivalence (kg)

Wood equivalence (kg)

Central 69,998 194 60,813 123,234 174,838

Kweneng 18,346 51 15,938 32,298 45,823

South East 100,783 280 87,559 177,432 251,732

Southern 12,873 36 11,184 22,663 32,153

North East 37,174 103 32,296 65,446 92,852

North West 2,575 7 2,237 4,534 6,433

Ghanzi 550 2 478 969 1,375

Total Layers 2,769 8 2,406 4,875 6,916

Sub-Total 245,069 680 212,912 431,451 612,121

Cost-Benefit Analysis The results of the cost-benefit analysis shown in Table 54 below indicate that establishment of bio-digesters at small scale farms would be uneconomic as these will be characterised by a negative NPV, low IRR, and ultimately long payback periods. Furthermore it would not be feasible to use the biogas produced for all farm sizes to substitute coal (in places where coal is used for heating purposes) as shown by the negative NPV, IRR and extra-

96

ordinarily long pay back periods. However projects in the medium to large scale category would be financially viable where the biogas produced will be used to substitute diesel and LPG as these would have a positive NPV, high IRR (greater than 15.5%), payback period less than 4 years and cost-benefit ratio less than one.

Table 54: Poultry bio-digesters Cost, Benefit Analysis results

Farm size (broilers per yr)

Fuel substituted NPV (P)

IRR (%)

Payback Period (Yrs)

Cost-Benefit ratio

14,000 Coal -12,508 negative 85 negative

Diesel -7,197 2% 16 2.61

Gas -7,346 4% 13 2.16

240,000 Coal -46,897 negative 80 negative

Diesel 34,598 27% 4 0.59

Gas 66,207 37% 3 0.44

3,500,000 Coal -586,192 negative 59 negative

Diesel 596,713 31% 3 0.52

Gas 1,086,410 44% 2 0.38

Sensitivity Analysis Fuel Price The results in Figure 21 below show that the project profitability for medium and large scale projects increases with an increase in the prices of diesel and LPG. However small scale projects would not be viable even with significant increases in fuel prices. Given the prevailing fuel prices, there is a low risk that significant price variation of both diesel and LPG would affect the project viability of medium and large scale projects since the price for both fuels would have to fall to less than P3.00/litre for the project not to be viable.

Coal Diesel LPG

Discount Rate (15.5%)

Figure 21: Sensitivity of poultry projects to fuel price variation

Investment Cost and Plant Size Figure 22 below shows that the minimum investment cost per cubic metre required for project viability would be anything less than P3,000. However small scale bio-digesters would not be viable even with a radical reduction in the investment costs per cu.m. Further analysis (refer to Figure 23) on the project viability versus size indicates that minimum viable project size would be supported by 100,000 broilers per year. However those with capacity

97

less than 100,000 up to 25,000 broilers per year would only succeed with some support such as loans with reduced interest (e.g. CEDA loans).

Figure 22: Sensitivity to investment cost

Figure 23: Sensitivity to plant size

Conclusion Based on the above assessment, Table 55 below summarises the number of potential projects and estimated biogas production by district. Of the 31 registered poultry establishment in the country 26 have enough capacity to support biogas initiatives. These are split into 16 potential projects which will be viable versus 10 which will be marginally viable, with a source of cheap finance.

20,000 to 34,000 birds/yr

1,000 birds/yr

98

Table 55: Summary of registered viable projects

Projects requiring minimal support

Projects Viable without support

District Number of projects

Potential biogas yield (m

3/yr)

Number of projects

Potential biogas yield (m

3/yr)

Central 5 2,707 6 67,157

Kweneng 1 18,346

South East 1 840 3 99,666

Southern 2 12,555

North East 1 483 1 36,691

North West 2 2,575

Ghanzi 1 550

Total Layers 2 1,279 1 1,411

Total 10 5,859 16 238,402

8.3 Livestock Manure

Introduction The animal wet biomass resource considered in this study was mainly from centralised locations such as abattoir (slaughtering cattle, sheep and goats) and dairy farms. These have the advantage of having a ready source of cow dung and water, two very important resources necessary for the efficient operation of a bio-digester.

According to interviews with officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, feedlots are mainly used by the BMC during the drought seasons and were not considered as potential exploitable resources. In addition preliminary estimates done under the NAMPAAD program on the possible exploitation of waste from dairy farms for biogas production showed that it was not a viable proposition. Therefore farmers are being encouraged to inject the manure into their fields to improve soil fertility for fodder production even though the waste from a bio-digester is a good fertiliser. Given these conflicting views and the prevailing low electricity tariffs, the potential of this resource was not explored further.

The gross national resource potential from abattoirs and dairy farms in the country that are registered with the Ministry of Agriculture is summarised in Table 56 below. The estimated gross national biogas potential from cattle abattoir (inclusive of abattoirs slaughtering sheep and goats) is 155,000 m

3 of biogas equivalent to 403 MWh/yr, or

135,067 kg, or 273,703 kg or 388,317 kg of electricity, LPG, coal and fuelwood respectively.

Table 56: Estimated gross national resource potential from animal waste

District Biogas Electricity LPG equivalence Coal equivalence Wood equivalence

m3/yr MWh/yr kg kg kg

Central 33,974 73 29,516 59,812 84,858

Kgatleng 2,942 7 2,556 5,180 7,349

South East 23,520 65 20,434 41,408 58,747

North East 39,793 106 34,572 70,057 99,394

Ghanzi 2,374 5 2,062 4,179 5,929

Kgalagadi 424 1 368 746 1,058

Southern 52,440 146 45,559 87,321 130,982

Total 155,467 403 135,067 273,703 388,317

Based on the inventory of abattoirs in the country, there are 56 registered abattoirs and slaughter slabs ranging in capacity from a minimum of 12 beasts per year to a maximum of 87,400 beasts per year and average capacity

99

being 3,817 beasts per year. For the purposes of the cost-benefit analysis, the abattoirs were classified into small scale (1,000 beasts per year), medium scale (20,000 beasts per year) and large scale (87,400 beasts per year) - see Table 57.

Table 57: Inventory and classification of abattoirs

Number of Abattoirs 56

Min Cattle per year 12

Max Cattle per year 87,400

Average Cattle per year 3,817

Classification

Small Scale (beasts per year) 1000

Medium Scale (beasts year) 20000

Large Scale (beasts per year) 87400

Cost-Benefit Analysis A cost-benefit analysis on the various sizes shows that the biogas would be viable for all subcategories, where the biogas is used to substitute high value fuels such as diesel and LPG. In such a scenario, (Table 58) shows that the projects would be characterised by a positive NPV and IRRs ranging from 21% to 59%. This is also mirrored by a short payback period (not exceeding four years) and a cost-benefit ratio of less than one. However, this is not the case where the biogas is used to displace low cost fuels such as coal as these would have a negative NPV and IRR for all the three subcategories.

Table 58: Cost-benefit analysis results for abattoir waste

Digester Fuel substituted

NPV (P)

IRR (%)

Payback period (Yrs)

Cost-Benefit

ratio

1,000 Coal -14,656 negative 105 17.27

Diesel 8,075 25% 4 0.66

Gas 15,327 31% 3 0.53

20,000 Coal -181,428 negative 43 7.02

Diesel 266,815 37% 3 0.44

Gas 452,056 51% 2 0.32

87,400 Coal -670,821 negative 34 5.63

Diesel 1,281,046 42% 2 0.39

Gas 2,097,680 59% 2 0.28

Sensitivity Analysis Fuel Prices The results of the fuel price sensitivity analysis, indicates that medium and large scale abattoir waste biogas projects would be marginally profitable where they are used to substitute low cost fuel costing not less than P1.50. Conversely small scale installation would tolerate a minimum fuel price of P3.00. Therefore at the prevailing fuel prices these projects would be viable except in cases where coal is the displaced fuel (refer to Figure 24).

100

Figure 24: Sensitivity of abattoir bio-digesters to fuel price

Abattoir Size A summary of an assessment to determine the viability of setting up bio-digesters at abattoir capacities ranging from 50 beasts per year to 100,000 beasts per year (as shown in Figure 25 below) shows that the projects at abattoirs with capacities between 500 and 1,000 beasts per year would be marginally profitable and require a cheap source of finance. However smaller abattoirs (less than 500 beasts per year) would not be profitable and larger abattoirs (greater than 1,000 beasts per year) would be profitable. Water would not be a constraint as most of those facilities produce enough waste water to feed into the bio-digester.

Figure 25: Sensitivity of abattoir biogas projects to abattoir annual capacity

Conclusion Based on the results above and the inventory of abattoirs in the country, there are a total of 17 potential projects with a combined total biogas potential of 133,569 m

3/yr. These projects are split between 13 abattoirs which

would be supported through private sector initiatives and 4 that would require a cheap source of finance or could be delayed until fuel prices are favourable (Table 59).

Diesel

Discount Rate (15.5%)

Coal LPG

101

Table 59: Summary of feasible abattoir biogas projects

Projects requiring minimal support

Projects without support

District Number of projects

Potential biogas yield

(m3/yr)

Number of projects

Potential biogas yield (m3/yr)

Central 1 336 7 17,817

Kgatleng 2 840

South East 2 23,520

Southern 1 52,440

North East 2 37,440

North West

Ghanzi 1 336 1 840

Kgalagadi

Sub-Total 4 1,512 13 132,057

8.4 Municipal Solid Waste

Introduction The cost-benefit analysis of the biomass resource at the landfills is based on the potential exploitation of landfill gas for electricity generation. Part of the electricity generated would be used to meet the municipality’s electrical energy needs and with the excess being sold to the national grid. Assumptions that were used in this assessment were based on the a pre-feasibility study on the utilisation of landfill gas at the Gaborone landfill as a CDM project (EU Synergy), and these are summarised in Table 60 below. The projected electricity production potential is 7GWh/yr (enough to power 5,600 households) in the first year and is projected to rise to 10 GWh/yr (enough to power 8,000 households) by the 21

st year.

Table 60: Assumptions for made for landfill gas project

Value Units

INCOME

Unit price of kWh of electricity sold 0.4 P/kWh

Unit price of Carbon Credits 70 P/t. CO2-equiv.

FIXED COSTS

Transaction cost of CDM 40,000 P

Investment cost 50,000,000 P

VARIABLE COSTS

Maintenance cost 0.10 P/kWh

Monitoring cost 40,000 P/yr

Personnel cost 100,000 P/yr

Miscellaneous project expenses 120,000 P/yr

Administrative overheads 120,000 P/yr

Cost-Benefit Analysis The cost-benefit analysis results summarised in Table 61 below indicate that a landfill gas project for the sole purpose of producing electricity would not be viable as both the NPV and the IRR could be negative through the project life of 21 years. However, if the project were to be made a CDM project, the revenue from the carbon

102

credits would be significant to improve the return on investment of the project as there is a 44% change in the NPV (from -P34 million to –P19 million) and a corresponding 55% improvement in the simple pay-back period (SPP) (i.e. from 29 years to 13 years). However this would not be sufficient to make the project viable.

Table 61: Economic assessment of electricity generation from landfill gas

Variable Value Unit

Electricity Tariff 0.4 kWh

NPV (excl CERs) (34,122,160) P

NPV (including CERs) (19,012,976) P

IRR (excl CERs) negative %

IRR (including CERs) negative %

SPP (excl CERs) 29 years

SPP (including CERs) 13 years

Sensitivity Analysis An analysis of the project sensitivity to fuel prices (refer to Figure 26) shows that the project economics would improve if the tariff were to rise above 1P/kWh or if the landfill gas is used to displace a more expensive fuel such as diesel or LPG. However the quantity of diesel used for incineration (e.g. 2000 litres per month for Ramotswa landfill) would not be sufficient to absorb all the landfill gas produced. The figure shows that the project IRR would be above 15.5% when the tariff is above P2.50/kWh. The CDM component improves the economics of the project by a wider margin when the tariffs are low and this margin gradually diminishes as the tariffs increase.

Figure 26: Sensitivity of the electricity generation from landfill gas to electricity tariffs

Conclusion Based on the assessment described above it would not be economic to produce electricity from the Gaborone Landfill Gas at the prevailing tariff regime unless there is significant government support in paying a favourable electricity tariff for such projects or in reducing the investment costs. Since the Gaborone landfill is the largest in the country, it can therefore be concluded that it would not be economic to explore the feasibility of setting up a similar initiative at other landfills in the country at the moment. However the exception might be the Ramotswa landfill, which will be fed by three cities and this will be a long term project as it is still in its infancy.

103

8.5 Municipal Liquid Waste

Introduction According to the database kept by the Department of Waste Management and Pollution Control, there are 72 wastewater treatment plants across the country, with size averaging 1,159 m

3/day and ranging between 5m

3/day

to as much as 34,000 m3/day. Using this data the plants were classified into small scale, medium scale and large

scale plants as shown in Table 62. Biogas is currently being produced at the Gaborone and Francistown wastewater treatment plants only. The Gaborone Wastewater treatment plant produces 876,000m

3/year (2,400m

3/day) of

biogas and 26% (i.e. 230,000m3/year) is used for maintaining the digester temperature and the rest is flared.

Table 62: Inventory and classification of wastewater treatment plants

Number of Wastewater Treatment Plants 72

Min Capacity 5

Max Capacity 34,000

Average Capacity 1,159

Classification

Small Scale (m3 per day) 60

Medium Scale (m3 per day) 10,000

Large Scale (m3 per day) 30,000 To facilitate the cost-benefit analysis, the biogas production for the defined scales was derived by relating the biogas produced per cubic metre of wastewater from the Gaborone treatment plant to the wastewater COD. The figure obtained was then used to estimate the biogas production of the rest of the facilities across the country based on the COD of wastewater at the various facilities.

Cost-Benefit Analysis A cost-benefit analysis of the production of biogas from municipal wastewater yielded results that are summarised in Table 63 below. Based on the investment assumptions adopted (refer to Annex F), the results show that it would not be viable to venture into biogas production to displace coal for all the scales defined in the assessment. The viability pertaining to the substitution of biogas for other high value fuels such as diesel and LPG indicates only marginal feasibility for all scales at the current prevailing fuel prices. Therefore the projects are only feasible if they are financed by the government.

Table 63: Summary of the economic benefit of wastewater biogas projects

Digester (Litres)

Fuel Substituted NPV (P)

IRR (%)

Pay-Back Period (Years)

Cost-Benefit Ratio

1,000 Coal -83,121 negative 72 negative

Diesel -56,387 negative 23 3.78

Gas -48,433 2% 16 2.60

20,000 Coal -973,399 negative 77 negative

Diesel -618,483 0% 19 3.18

Gas -492,487 4% 13 2.20

874,000 Coal -34,289,528 negative 401 negative

Diesel -4,128,928 13% 7 1.14

Gas 7,936,951 20% 5 0.81

Sensitivity Analysis Fuel Price Assessment of the sensitivity of the municipal wastewater biogas projects to the price of fuels displaced shows that the small and medium scale projects would be deemed viable at fuel prices higher than the current price

104

regime and if they are funded through cheap finance or the government. Large scale projects would be viable at the prevailing LPG and diesel prices with government support and at higher fuel prices through private sector initiatives (Figure 27).

Figure 27: Sensitivity of wastewater biogas projects to fuel prices

Scale and Investment Cost Results of the capital cost sensitivity analysis displayed in Figure 28 indicate an inverse relationship between the investment cost per cubic metre and profitability of the biogas projects. Reducing the investment cost per cubic metre of bio-digester would increase the profitability of the municipal wastewater biogas initiative. Significant reductions in the capital cost would be possible for medium and large scale bio-digesters given the calculated volumes of the bio-digesters. However capital cost reduction for the small scale bio-digesters would be limited by the complexity of the municipal wastewater bio-digesters.

Figure 28: Sensitivity of municipal wastewater treatment projects to investment cost/m3

Diesel

Discount Rate (15.5%)

Coal LPG

Social Discount Rate (6%)

Discount Rate (15.5%)

Social Discount Rate (6%)

105

Results of a further analysis on the relationship between wastewater volume and plant size (summarised in Figure 29) shows that the plant sizes viability threshold depends on the fuel substituted (i.e. LPG or diesel) and the financier (i.e. private or government). The figure shows that the minimum plant size for a government financed project would be 1,000m

3/day where biogas is used to substitute LPG and 10,000m

3/day where diesel is

substituted. However these thresholds are higher for private sector initiatives (i.e. 30,000 m3/day) for both LPG

and diesel substitution provided the investment cost is reduced to below P1000/m3 of bio-digester. However since

most of the wastewater establishments belong to the government, there is a strong possibility that private sector participation in this sector would be limited unless PPP is applied.

Figure 29: Size threshold for viable wastewater treatment plants

Conclusion Table 64 below provides a summary of possible biogas projects within the country by district. Of the 76 wastewater treatment plants in the country, only 8 facilities have the potential to viably produce biogas with government support.

Table 64: Possible projects using Municipal Liquid Waste by district

District Projects requiring minimal support

Projects without support

Number of projects

Potential biogas yield (m3/yr)

Number of projects

Potential biogas

yield (m3/yr)

Central 3 92,311

Jwaneng 1 51,284

Francistown 1 82,054 1

Southern 1 9,231

Gaborone 1 876,000

Sub-Total 6 234,880 2 876,000

8.6 Wood Stoves

Dissemination of energy efficient stoves and cooking devices in Botswana has been initiated by RE Botswana in collaboration with ProBEC and therefore the information used in this section is based on the assumptions that

106

were made by RE Botswana for dissemination of the stoves through the non-grid rural electrification program. The major assumptions are summarised in Table 65.

Table 65: Assumption for energy efficient stoves dissemination in Botswana

Item Value (P) Unit

Investment Cost 100 per stove

Total Number of potential Households 194,000 households

Savings/Household 228 P/yr

CO2 reductions per year per household 0.927 t.CO2/yr

Penetration Rate 15,000 households/yr

Cost Of CERs 70 P/tCO2 eq.

It is assumed that each device will cost P100 and this will result in equivalent savings of P19/month in the form of wood savings (monetary and time savings). At this rate of return an average household would be able to recover investment costs within at least 5 months and 6 months at most, provided they do not change their cooking habits and therefore realise the wood savings from the device.

RE Botswana further assumes that there are 194,000 households that could buy wood stoves (based on HIES, 2002/03) and a penetration rate of 15,000 households per year and thus all the targeted households would have an energy efficient device in 13 years. If the program were to be made a CDM

39 project, this will translate to a

yearly income amounting to P12million by the 13th

year compared to a yearly investment of P1.5million in the same year. By the 13

th year the total cumulative capital expenditure (P19.5million) will be eclipsed by the total

project cumulative revenue from carbon emission reduction revenue (P89million) at constant prices.

However as the government, through EAD pursues a parallel program to promote the use of coal in rural households across the country, the market potential of the efficient wood stove would be reduced, especially in areas with an acute shortage of wood ( e.g. Kgalagadi, Barolong/Southern, NE and Kgatleng Districts). By using the same assumption as RE Botswana, and assuming a 100% penetration rate in areas with severe wood shortages, the number of projected households may be reduced from 194,000 households to P154, 000. However this will by no means affect the economic benefits of the energy efficient stoves.

8.7 Gasification

The Gasification cost-benefit analysis was based on a model supplied by Bush Energy (Pty) Ltd, a company exploring gasification, charcoal making and pellet technology options from invasive bush species in Botswana. Modelling was also extended to Gasification of municipal solid waste to produce electricity so as to assess the potential of also using the combustible component of solid waste from landfills.

The establishment of a wood gasifier and generator-set in a rural community, which will produce electricity from invader bush species (Acacia mellifera), will have multiple purposes:

- Land restoration. Acacia mellifera is indigenous invader bush specie which grows in profusion across the Savannah grazing lands of Western Botswana. With its large root system it is able to extract water and minerals from deep sinks, which is the reason why Acacia outlive and take over other plant species. As a result, Acacia encroachment poses a serious threat to biodiversity and land use options, since there is no space left for grazing or agricultural practices. Through the harvesting of Acacia mellifera, land will be restored, biodiversity increased and grazing of cattle and other end use options made possible again.

39 This would have to be a programmatic CDM Activity and currently there are no methodologies for PoAs but methodology should be ready by 2012

107

- Job creation. Running the gasifier, as well as harvesting of Acacia, are labour intensive and will create jobs within the rural community where the proposed project will be implemented

- Clean rural electrification. Preference is given to implement the gasifier in communities where no grid infrastructure is available. The gasifier will supply the community with electricity which is based on renewable resources and therefore will not pollute the environment.

- Community upliftment. By providing the community with access to electricity, new initiatives can be applied. We propose that the government plays an active role in initiating new community based businesses which require energy access. Examples of this are: a grain mill and bakery, a water pump and other agricultural equipment, sewing machines and wood processing equipment which are run on electricity produced by the gasifier.

- Skills development. People will be trained in harvesting and gasifier operating procedures. These skills could be useful for other activities, outside of work.

- Proving new technology. Biomass gasification is a relatively young technology. By operating this technology and proving it to work in a business model, biomass gasification will be demonstrated and sufficiently stimulating to be implemented and developed on a larger scale.

Cost-Benefit Analysis Results Table 66 and Table 67 below summarise the capital costs, raw material requirements and economic analysis for a 2GWh/yr plant and 3GWh/yr plant respectively. The number of households that can be supplied with electricity (based on the BPC 2007 household electricity consumption) by theses gasification plants ranges from 1800 to 2400 households.

The economic assessment of the two plants indicate that Gasification plants will be viable at electricity tariffs greater than P1.60/kWh as this region of tariff is characterised by a positive NPV and an IRR greater than 22%. However Table 66 shows that the projects are sensitive to economies of scale since the 3 GWh/yr plant has a significantly higher IRR (e.g. 22% at P1.60/kWh) than the 2 GWh/yr gasifier (5% at P1.60/kWh). Variation in the feedstock price would also affect the economics of the biomass gasification project. For example, for a 3GWh/yr plant the IRR will change from 25% to 22% if the raw material changes from P100/t. to P120/t. at an electricity tariff of P1.60/kWh (Table 67).

The Investment Cost of an electricity generation through gasification project is P2.58/kWh and is lower compared to that of producing electricity from landfill gas, which is P7.01/kWh. Furthermore the projected economic tariff rate for a biomass gasification electricity project is P1.60 compared to P2.50 for an electricity landfill gas project. Therefore electricity from biomass gasification projects should be given higher priority given the lower capital outlay per kWh generated. Raw material options include utilisation of the combustible waste from landfill and the invader species. These can be complimented by coal, where the resource is scarce.

108

Table 66: Options for electricity from gasification

Option Raw material type Yearly raw

material requirement (t)

Capital expenditure

(P)

Yearly electricity generation (GWh/yr)

Households supplied

1 Invasive species 3,600 6,079,861 2 1,812

2 Municipal Solid Waste 4,800 8,106,481 3 2,417

Table 67: Economic analysis results of gasification plants

Option Raw material

price

Tariff (P/kWh)

0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

1 120

IRR negative negative negative negative 5% 24%

NPV negative negative negative -3,054,633 -964,898 1,124,838

2 120

IRR negative negative negative 3% 22% 40%

NPV negative negative -4161910 -1,375,596 1,410,718 4,197,032

100 IRR negative negative negative 6% 25% 44%

NPV negative negative -3,652,522 -866,209 1,920,105 4,706,419

8.8 Biofuels

8.8.1 Biodiesels

The Biofuels study estimated the market potential for biodiesel by 2017 to 56 million litres per year, assuming and B10 blend. A cost-benefit analysis was therefore done for a 50 million litre plant producing biodiesel from Jatropha. The economic feedstock price was estimated to range from P530 to P610/t. of seed.

Cost-benefit Analysis Results The results of the cost-benefit analysis on the biodiesel plant are summarised in Table 68 and a price sensitivity analysis displayed in Figure 30 below. The report therefore concludes that the feasibility of biodiesel production in Botswana is dependent on the biodiesel wholesale price, which in turn is dependent on the feedstock price and limited by the prevailing petroleum diesel wholesale price. Based in 2007 prices, the report recommended a preferential tariff regime, favouring biodiesel such as a 75% reduction in fuel levies charged on biodiesel (when compared to those already charged on petroleum diesel). It further concludes that biodiesel would not require any levy reduction for feedstock prices lower than P600/t. and for petroleum diesel prices greater than P4.75/litre (at 2007 prices).

109

Table 68: Financial Analysis Results at Various Biodiesel Prices (I$- P 6.2)

Selling price of Biodiesel ($/litre)

IRR % Net Present Value $ '000

Payback Period (yrs)

0.40 negative 50,160 NIL

0.50 negative 20,755 Nil

0.60 11.20 1,963 9 0.65 16.54 11,938 7

0.70 21.03 21,913 6

0.80 28.45 41,863 5

0.90 34.60 61,814 5

1.00 39.95 81,764 4 Source: EECG 2007

Internal Rate of Return against biodiesel prices

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Biodiesel sale price(US$)

Inte

rna

l Ra

te o

f R

etu

rn(I

RR

) %

Source: EECG, 2007

Figure 30: Internal rate of return against biodiesel prices

8.8.2 Bio-ethanol

The Biofuels feasibility study estimates the ethanol demand to satisfy an E5 blend to be 20 million litres/year by 2017, supported by sweet sorghum plantation within a 25 km radius of the ethanol plant. Estimated maximum potential based on land availability, is 90 million litres/yr. A cost-benefit analysis was done on a 20 million litre/year plant and the results are summarised in Table 69. Figure 32 displays the bioethanol wholesale price sensitivity analysis results.

Cost-Benefit Analysis Based on the results displayed in Table 69 and Figure 31, the study concluded that the viability of bioethanol production in Botswana would be very sensitive to the feedstock price and bioethanol wholesale price. The study noted that the economics of the bioethanol plant improved if the bagasse was used to produce the plant electricity and selling the rest to the grid. Under such a scenario, a 50% reduction of levies charged on bioethanol (relative to petrol) would be necessary if the feedstock price is P100 and the petrol price is less than P3.35. However no support was recommended in a scenario where the feedstock price is less than P100 and the petrol price is greater than P4.75/litre.

110

Table 69: Ethanol and Co-generation Plant (Scenario 1 at $0.04 (P0.25)/kWh) (1$- P6.2)

Ethanol Sale Price

Internal Rate of Return

Net Present Value

Payback period

$ 0.30 negative $18,513 nil

$0.4 6.09% $6,067 10 yrs

$0.5 12.39% $4,040 7 yrs

$0.6 17.87% $14,134 6 yrs

$0.7 22.87% $24,227 5 yrs

$0.8 27.54% $34,321 4 yrs

$0.9 31.96% $44,414 3 yrs

$1.0 36.19|% $54,508 3 yrs

Ethanol and co-generation plant at 0.05US$/kWh

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0.30 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Sales price (US$)

Inte

rnal

Rate

of

Retu

rn(I

RR

)

%

Figure 31: The correlation between IRR and selling price

8.9 Summary Cost Benefit Analysis

Woody Biomass The cost benefit analysis results show the woodstoves as the most profitable intervention identified as they have the least pay-back period of between 5 to 6 months and the largest potential carbon emissions reduction revenue (amounting to P89 million) over a 13 year period if a hundred percent (100%) of the target market is accomplished. Parallel programs by the EAD such as coal depots in districts facing an acute shortage of fuelwood would not affect the economic viability of a stoves program.

Gasification of invasive wood species on private land to produce electricity is affected by a non cost reflective electricity tariff being charged by BPC and therefore will only be viable if supported by a feeder tariff greater than P1.60/kWh. However gasification has other social benefits such as employment creation for communities and potential to support other downstream rural industries such as bakeries and grinding mill projects; therefore could be a subject for demonstration and further R&D

Wet-Biomass The wet biomass component of this BEST study and cost benefit analysis includes utilisation of Poultry waste, abattoir waste and municipal liquid waste to produce biogas for either thermal or electricity generation applications. Only thermal applications have been considered and the cost benefit analysis has shown that it would

111

not be viable to produce biogas for thermal applications were coal is used, but would be viable where it is used to displace diesel or LPG depending on the size of the establishment.

Furthermore it has been concluded that there is potential for 26 poultry biogas projects, 17 cattle abattoir projects and 8 municipal liquid waste biogas projects. Of these potential projects 16 poultry biogas projects and 13 cattle abattoir biogas projects would require government support and can be financed directly by private entities. However the balance (i.e. 10 poultry farm biogas projects and 4 cattle abattoir biogas projects) are marginally viable and would require some government private sector partnership. All of the 8 municipal liquid waste biogas projects would have to be funded through the government because of the lower discount factor required for their viability.

Residues Municipal solid waste has been classified under residues and the results of the cost benefit analysis on the exploitation of landfill gas to generate electricity would not be available without a favourable tariff being offered for such an initiative. However, since the calculation has been based on theoretical assumptions, this could be a subject for further investigation in the form of a feasibility study and demonstration to determine the actual yield of the landfill gas and the investment costs.

Energy Crops The Biofuels Feasibility study showed that viability of Bioethanol/Biodiesel production and hence energy crop production is a function of the retail price of petroleum fuels (i.e. petrol and diesel). In the case of bioethanol, viability increases as the bagasse residue is used for electricity production. Therefore production of both energy crops should be supported by an incentive scheme, which is dependent on the gazetted retail of petroleum fuels. Given the volatility of the crude oil prices, this should be an essential component of any energy crop initiative spilling off from BEST.

112

9. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND RISK ASSESSMENT FOR POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS

Impact and risk assessment was carried out for those strategic options that were analysed for cost and benefits, as well as others suggested as potential BEST interventions.

9.1 Environmental Assessment

The environment impacts that are considered important for Botswana were provided by stakeholders and these have been allocated to each of the strategic option analysed (Table 70). The BEST options were analysed for their potential impact with respect to GHG emission, air pollution, soil, water, biodiversity and waste management. 9.1.1 Woody Biomass Technologies

Efficient wood stoves and other energy efficient appliances would preserve the biodiversity and they also contribute to reduction of GHGs by burning less fuelwood more efficiently. Well-designed wood stoves can also reduce indoor air pollution but methane produced by stoves will contribute to GHGs emitted to the atmosphere. Coal is dirty with respect to GHGs and the coal stoves, while sparing the fuelwood (if substituting fuelwood), will contribute to GHGs, pollution and the ash if not properly managed can pollute both soils and water regimes. Positive contributions are mainly from the carbon sink created by tree planting and natural resource management. The same options improve the biodiversity and soil conditions. While exotic tree planting will improve the landscape and also present a carbon sink, it will have a negative impact on water demand. Gasification and charcoal production that can be produced from invasive species will reduce carbon sink and contribute to GHGs. While improving the grazing areas and freeing arable land for the farmers, the tree cutting may disturb the biodiversity, unless the source of woody biomass is sustainable. 9.1.2 Wet Biomass and Residues Technologies

The wet biomass and residues options will produce clean energy that can displace fossil LPG or diesel and coal-based electricity and will improve waste management, contributing to reduction of both GHG emissions and air pollution. Waste management also contributes positively to prevention of water pollution, as the waste that would otherwise pollute the water regimes is harnessed. While incineration will improve waste management, it will contribute to pollution if the combustion is not properly controlled. 9.1.3 Energy Crops Technologies

Environmental assessment has been provided for the two selected energy crops namely sweet sorghum for ethanol production and Jatropha for biodiesel production.

Land use change is minimal with Jatropha, as the land is often tilled once and thereafter plant management does not require much churning of the soils. The Jatropha trees present an ecosystem improvement in the cases where planted land is originally marginal. Soil conditions improve as tree leaves that fall to the ground contribute to soil mulching. The plantations will provide a carbon sink. The plant can withstand long periods of drought and is thus competitive with regard to water intensity of production. No fertilizer and pest control is necessary to sustain the plants

While sweet sorghum is not as water intensive as sugar cane and can be grown on rain-fed basis, yields can be improved through irrigation thus creating demand on the scarce water resources in Botswana.

113

Table 70: Analysis of possible environmental impacts caused by BEST

Strategic Technology Options Reduction of GHGs

SOx NO

x

CH4 Production

Effects on soil

Effects on water

Effects on biodiversity

Waste management

Air pollution

Improved wood stoves for households/ (RE Botswana estimates)

+ + + - +

Coal depots (2 depots per annum) - coal stoves for households - - - - - + Indigenous tree planting programme and CBNRM

+ + +

Charcoal production from bush encroachment on freehold farms

- - -

Exotic Tree Plantations for treated poles

+ - -

Briquettes from sawdust/dung and paper

+

Gasification using woody biomass - - MSW-Land fill gas (electricity- local authority level)

+ + + +

Incineration (at landfills) - + Household biogas + + + Institutional biogas + + + SME (chicken runs; abattoirs, dairy, swine)

+ + + + +

Pilot Biodiesel plant-jatropha + + - ? Bio-oil production (substitute paraffin for lighting & cooking)

+

Ethanol and biogel production-sweet sorghum

+ - +

+ Positive environmental impact (26) and – negative impacts (14).

Where there are no symbols the strategic option has not significant impact.

Implementation of these strategic technological options results in an overall positive environmental impact as indicated in Table 70.

9.2 Social Impact Assessment

Social indicators analyzed for the BEST options are economic development, affordability, job creation; gender impacts, community participation; environment and health, and private sector/SME participation (refer to Table 71).

9.2.1 Woody Biomass Technologies

The gender aspect is mostly addressed at household level using stoves, but the other initiatives in villages such as planting and managing forest resources and production of biofuels feedstock will benefit the community as a whole.

114

There are a few negative social impacts related to affordability by households of the technologies proposed for BEST particularly household wood stoves and biogas plants and also the potential environment/health impact from coal distribution and combustion on households. Private participation is seen in supply of energy efficient devices (fuelwood and coal) and taking over coal distribution depots. Establishment of coal depots will also create national infrastructure contributing to economic development. 9.2.2 Wet Biomass/Residues Technologies

Implementation of the wet biomass and residue technologies will create jobs. However, bio-digesters require very little operation and maintenance and therefore will result in few jobs. The opportunity exists for private sector participation in establishing and operating the commercial bio-digesters that can supply institutions and small businesses. In addition to producing biogas, the bio-digesters are an important source of organic fertiliser, which can be used to reclaim and recondition the soil fertility of Botswana’s agricultural land. Utilisation of waste will create an improved healthy environment and also reduce demand for waste storage capacity, hence saving government investments – money that can be channelled to social needs such as health and education. 9.2.3 Energy Crops

There is a general positive social impact brought about by energy crops technologies. The biofuels plants to be established add to the national infrastructure and also job creation and have opportunities for both private sector and community participation. Communities can create new incomes through production of feedstock and have also an opportunity to produce bio-oil for small-scale users. Private sector can produce feedstock and also produce biofuels. Harvesting of jatropha is amenable to manual labour, and thus creates a high level of employment and does not entail significant fossil fuel consumption, hence limiting on production of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. The production of biofuels, electricity and coal depots will contribute to development of infrastructure and import substitution of petroleum requirements.

115

Table 71: Socio-Economic benefits of BEST interventions

Strategic Technology Options

Economic Development

affordability

Job creation

Gender impacts

Community participation

Environment and health

Private sector/SME participation

Improved wood stoves for households/ (RE Botswana estimates)

- + + + + +

Coal depots (2 depots per annum) + + - + coal stoves for households + - + Indigenous tree planting programme and CBNRM

+ + +

Charcoal production from bush encroachment on freehold farms

- +

Exotic Tree Plantations for treated poles

+

Briquettes from sawdust/dung and paper

+ +

Gasification using woody biomass + MSW-Land fill gas (electricity- local authority level)

+ +

Incineration (at landfills) + Household biogas - + Institutional biogas + + SME (chicken runs; abattoirs, dairy, swine)

+ +

Pilot Biodiesel plant-jatropha + + + + Bio-oil production (substitute paraffin for lighting & cooking)

+ +

Ethanol and biogel production-sweet sorghum

+ + +

+ Positive environmental impact (34) and – negative impacts (4) Where there are no symbols the strategic option has not significant impacts

The social indicators presented for each of the BEST options has been debated in stakeholder workshops. The overall social impact is also assessed to be positive with the major contribution emerging from aspects of private sector/SME participation and the environment/health benefits.

9.3 Risk Analysis

The risk analysis has taken into consideration volatility of cost-benefits, technology and resource availability, and market response. The analysis has emphasis on the options that were analyzed for cost and benefits. Table 72 summarises the level of risk (low, medium and high) and reasons for the rating. 9.3.1 Woody Biomass Technologies

Wood and coal stoves, whilst ready for deployment, may still face competition from LPG which Batswana are more familiar with and the stoves have to pass the acceptability test. Planting and management of indigenous species may not present immediate benefits to communities, and that may discourage continued implementation of the option. Exotic tree planting faced a similar dilemma and still hold no significant promise to meet the fuelwood demand.

116

Gasification and production of charcoal from invasive species will need demonstration to verify the viability of the project in Botswana. 9.3.2 Wet Biomass

Bio-digesters The global crude oil price reduced from a peak price of $145/barrel to $45/barrel and this has been mirrored by a reduction in the local diesel prices. This will affect the profitability of biogas. LPG prices may also be regulated if Botswana creates an energy regulator, but the cost- benefit analysis shows that price changes will not significantly affect the viability of the medium- and large-scale bio-digesters using waste from cattle abattoirs and poultry. Household bio-digesters are high risk from an economic point of view and face competition from cheaper woodstove, coal and LPG since people are familiar with LPG than biogas. If coal prices continue to be cheap and provided at suitable locations, those who use it for on-farm activities such as space heating for chicken may opt for it. This will destroy the market for biogas. As reflected in the cost-benefit analysis, small-to-medium scale projects will require government support, without which the projects will have viability problems. 9.3.3 Residues (Landfill gas/MSW)

At the moment, the landfill gas to electricity option is not profitable, even with carbon offsets. The profitability of landfill gas to electricity depends on scale, electricity prices offered and carbon prices. The scale will increase towards the end of the BEST time horizon, but there is nothing to suggest a dramatic increase in tariffs for electricity (from P0.4 to P2.5/kWh) and carbon. The technology although used in other countries will require skills for landfill design. 9.3.4 Energy Crops Technologies

The price of crude oil, which has fallen from $146/barrel to $45/barrel, will also reduce viability of biofuels. Analysis done as part of the feasibility showed that biofuels will be viable without government support at crude oil prices above $65/barrel. Ethanol and biodiesel production will also risk facing competition in the form of cheap imports from other SADC countries that can produce the biofuels cheaply. The production cost in Botswana will be high due to a number of variables, the main one of which are the unfavourable climatic conditions and cost of establishing new infrastructure to support the industry.

117

Table 72: Risk Assessment of BEST interventions

Strategic technology options

Low risk

Medium risk

High risk

Comments

Improved wood stoves for households

x Affordability is the risk and possibility of competition with coal stoves and LPG if prices become competitive

Coal depots (2 depots per annum)

x Government is already installing depots and all what is required is to put more investment. The coal must however be suitable and clean enough for household use

coal stoves for households x Designs must be such that coal can be used without serious pollution

Indigenous tree planting programme and CBNRM

x Community mobilization is the challenge and keeping them interested in maintaining a common good. Giving ownership rights might be a solution

Charcoal production from bush encroachment on freehold farms

x It is happening in Namibia but the market for the charcoal may be a challenge including keeping a sustainable supply of the charcoal if only bush encroachment is used

Exotic Tree Plantations for treated poles

x Previous experience was not a success due to poor management by community and long periods to wait for benefits

Briquettes from sawdust/dung and paper

x Scale may be too small to be economic

Gasification using woody biomass

x Both the resource and technology uptake may limit the impact of the option

MSW-Land fill gas (electricity- local authority level)

x Affected by electricity prices, which may not rise substantially during the BEST time horizon.

Incineration (at landfills) x May not be viable without government support Household biogas x Investment cost per m3 too high Institutional biogas x Provided biogas is accepted as much as LPG to

displace it and if LPG and diesel prices remain high SME (chicken runs; abattoirs, dairy, swine)

x Provided biogas is accepted as much as LPG to displace it and if LPG and diesel prices remain high, otherwise that is cost effective.

Pilot Biodiesel plant-jatropha

x Receiving government support and many initiatives starting to produce feedstock. Land allocation may be the constraint

Bio-oil production (substitute paraffin for lighting & cooking)

Bio-oil prices also still too high

Ethanol and biogel production-sweet sorghum

x Weather for crop production unpredictable and biogel prices still too high

118

10. PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS

10.1 Technologies Identification

Woody Biomass The technologies proposed for woody biomass mainly focuses on energy efficient stoves, charcoal production, indigenous species plantations and community woodland management. As a way of prioritizing the various project ideas, the advantages and disadvantages of each project were examined in order to reach feasible/viable projects given the circumstances in Botswana.

Previous surveys have already shown a large potential for households that could take up on the efficient cooking appliances (up to 194,000 households in 13 years) – RE Botswana BEST presentation.

Charcoal production using natural forest resources is not encouraged and is not promoted in communal lands but potential is seen in private freehold lands such as ranches where charcoal can be produced from bush encroachment/invasive species. There is experience of such charcoal production in nearby Namibia.

There is potential recognized on planting indigenous tree species to maintain biodiversity and create opportunities for developing commercial hardwood timber. The only hindrances are that indigenous species take long to grow. Experiences with exotic tree planting were not that successful especially with respect to providing fuelwood and it is being noticed that some exotic species can be invasive.

The woody resources could also be gasified but the technology is not yet adopted in the country. Using natural forestry resources may not be encouraged on a large scale. Similarly producing chips and pellets are not seen as feasible for Botswana in the BEST time horizon. Pellets and briquettes could be viable locally for certain niche markets (these markets would have to be created), but it is highly unlikely that enough demand would be generated in the country. Export markets are available but logistic costs would be prohibitive given Botswana’s landlocked position. Similarly chips could be used locally but would be too expensive for external markets.

Production of Fischer Tropsch fuels is highly unlikely in Botswana given the scale at which such plants become viable and the small market in Botswana for the products and by-products. However CIC Energy is studying the feasibility of a coal to liquids plant in Botswana.

Table 73 lists the interventions that have been selected for woody biomass.

Table 73 Interventions selected for Woody biomass

1. Improved wood stoves for households

2. Coal depots (more than 2 depots per annum)

3. coal stoves for households

4. Indigenous tree planting programme and CBNRM

5. Charcoal production from bush encroachment on freehold farms

6. Exotic Tree Plantations for treated poles

7. Briquettes from sawdust/dung and paper

8. Gasification using woody biomass

Cost-benefit analysis was however done for improved stoves and gasification only as it is challenging to allocate the cost and benefits to other interventions such as community natural resource management.

Wet Biomass The major opportunity realized is to produce biogas for heating applications and depending on the scale, for electricity generation (Table 74). The relative cost of bio-digesters at household level are high hence households may not be able to afford since they are concerned about immediate upfront costs rather than the long term

119

benefits households may take up biogas plants if the government provides some form of subsidy. Thus the economic uptake is seen mainly for the medium scale and large scale applications. Opportunities for such medium and large scale applications are found in schools, farms, abattoirs, hotels and hospitals. The end use opportunities are for space heating for poultry and hot water for the poultry abattoirs; cooking energy in hotels, schools and on farm. Where economies of scale allow generation of electricity, this would provide energy for on farms and abattoir activities. The gas can also be used for incineration at poultry and livestock abattoirs.

Table 74Selected Interventions for wet biomass

Technologies

1. Household biogas digesters

2. Institutional biogas digesters

3. SME biogas digesters (chicken runs; abattoirs, dairy, swine)

Residues From municipal solid waste (MSW), three potential technology projects were identified namely landfill gas production for electricity generation, process heat production as well as delivery of methane to nearby communities. Secondly, the MSW can be incinerated to raise steam and generate electricity or process heat. Thirdly, the MSW can be sorted and gasified to give a producer gas, which can be used for electricity generation or for process heat generation (Table 75).

Table 75Selected interventions for Residues

Technologies

1. MSW-Land fill gas (electricity- local authority level)

2. Incineration of MSW

3. Gasification of MSW for electricity generation

Energy Crops Whilst there are many energy crops that can be used to produce biofuels (sweet sorghum, jatropha, sunflower, algae, castor oil, cassava, sweet potatoes, maize, soya, canola, Jerusalem artichoke etc.) only sweet sorghum (for ethanol production) and Jatropha (biodiesel) were found to be cost effective. The other feedstock that will require further assessment is the algae.

Since the publicization of the Biofuels Feasibility study, there are already many enquiries and initiatives that are going on regarding producing feedstock from Jatropha to produce biodiesel. The government is also planning a pilot biodiesel plant that will use Jatropha seed oil as feedstock. Applications for biofuels are for blending with fossil fuels and in the case of biodiesel for use in boilers.

Bio-gel can be produced from the ethanol and Bio-oil can also be produced from Jatropha oil. These are fuels that are already on the market in Botswana, but their prices are still prohibitively high. The selected interventions for BEST are presented in Table 76.

Table 76Selected technologies for energy crops

Energy Crops (biofuels Report)

Pilot Biodiesel plant

Bio-oil production (substitute paraffin for lighting & cooking)

Ethanol and biogel production

120

Table 77 summarises the analysis of interventions that has been made and prioritises the projects according to their ranking based on cost-benefit analysis indicators, also taking into consideration the environmental, social, risk analysis results and applicability.

121

Table 77: Technology assessment and prioritisation

Application Resource Intervention National Potential

NPV IRR Cost Benefit Ratio

Payback Period (years)

Priority

Cooking or heating

Wet biomass Household biogas digesters medium

Institutional biogas digesters medium

Woody Biomass

Improved wood stoves for households 194,000 households

Positive 0.44 5 - 6 months

medium

Coal stoves for households high

Electricity generation

Residues

MSW-Land fill gas (electricity- local authority level) 1 Landfill

dependent on electricity tariff otherwise negative at current tariffs

low

Gasification of MSW for electricity generation

2 MW 1 Landfill 16% 7 medium

Woody Biomass Gasification of bush encroachment on freehold farms

2 MW Positive 16% 7 medium

Liquid Fuel Energy Crops

Biodiesel plant 50,000,000 litres/year

Positive depends on fuel price high

Ethanol and biogel production 20,000,000 litres/year

Positive depends on fuel price medium

Process Heat or Incineration

Wet biomass

Medium Scale Abattoir Biodigesters

Poultry 10 Abattoirs Positive 27% 0.59 4 low

Cattle 4 Abattoirs Positive 37% 0.44 3 low

MLW 6 Plants negative 0% 3.18 19 low

Large Scale Abattoir Biodigesters

Poultry 16 Abattoirs Positive 31% 0.52 3 medium

Cattle 13 Abattoirs Positive 42% 0.39 2 medium

MLW 2 Plants negative 13% 1.14 7 medium

Security of Supply

Woody Biomass

Coal depots (more than 2 depots per annum)

high

Indigenous tree planting programme and CBNRM high

Exotic Tree Plantations for treated poles low

122

10.2 Intervention Deployment Path

The technology deployment path shows the stages that the proposed technologies should take in the implementation of BEST. Some technologies require interventions to start with R&D, proceeding to pilot/demonstration stage before full deployment, while others may start at demonstration stages. The last category is for those that are ready for deployment. Table 78 summarises the technologies that have been selected and what deployment path they should take as part of BEST.

Woody Biomass Referring to woody biomass technologies, wood stoves and proliferation of coal depots are ready for deployment, as an acceptability survey for stoves has recently been undertaken by RE-Botswana and ProBEC, and coal depots are already being installed by EAD. Appropriate coal stoves are however still to be designed and, hence, will require further R&D to come up with an acceptable and efficient stove design. The work being undertaken by DFRR on selection of appropriate indigenous species will address the R&D requirements for indigenous tree planting and management. Lessons from villages practicing community natural woodlands resource management (e.g. Rasesa, Jakalasi No 1) should then be collated for dissemination across the country in achieving a national deployment of the technology. For gasification of invasive species, the technical option is proven and demonstration is required to test potential with the proposed feedstock before deploying the technology for electricity at localized freehold sites.

Table 78: Deployment paths for the technologies recommended for BEST

Resource Type

R&D, Pilot Plants Demonstration and Initial Technology Testing

Scale and Technology Deployment

Wet biomass

Bio-digester designs that are cost effective and affordable

Poultry waste bio-digester Medium scale bio-digesters & Large scale centralised biogas production at abattoir sites and poultry farms

Abattoir scale demonstration bio-digester

Community managed centralised bio-digester

Centralised community biogas plants in schools for cooking.

Woody Biomass

Demonstration of Indigenous resource species management (ideally in Makomoto).

Countrywide promotion of indigenous species resource management.

Energy efficient wood stove dissemination. Construction of coal depots.

Design of energy efficient coal stoves

Demonstration and acceptance surveys.

Energy efficiency coal stove dissemination.

Demonstration of invader species gasifier for performance.

Electricity production through wood gasification on freehold farms.

Energy Crops

Feedstock species selection and plantation management

Feedstock plantations. Biodiesel, Bioethanol processing plants for blending with fossil fuels.

Demonstration of centralized production of bio oil for various applications.

Production of electricity from centralised bio oil production in remote non-electrified villages.

Residues

Municipal solid waste gasifier

Demonstration plant at a selected municipal landfill.

Electricity production through gasification of municipal solid waste at cities/towns.

Assessment of landfill gas potential in MSW and landfill designs

Demonstration plant at a selected municipal landfill.

Electricity production landfill sites starting with large cities/towns.

123

Wet Biomass In the case of wet biomass, R&D is required for designing cost-effective and affordable bio-digesters. The current unit cost per m

3 of bio-digester is high, particularly for small/household biogas plants (~P8,000/cu.m.). Coming up

with a more affordable bio-digester will increase viability of the investments and hence the uptake of the technology. The household and some community biogas plants have been implemented before, but demonstration projects are necessary with the most recent technology to have lessons on performance (with various feedstock e.g. chicken manure) and how best the biogas plants should be operated and managed. Deployment can be at all scales, but currently medium- and large-scale bio-digesters have been found to be viable. Both large scale and medium scale bio-digesters can be promoted at abattoir, chicken farms and some institutions, where both manure/waste and water can be easily harnessed for the purpose.

Residues Gasification of MSW is not new but considering diversity in materials that can be combusted, some research is required to experiment with the types of waste dumped at landfill sites in Botswana. The right technology and equipment size will also need to be identified and tried. Similarly, research is required to estimate the potential landfill gas that can be produced from a landfill site in Botswana. The research will entail analyzing the waste composition and the best conditions for generation of the landfill gas. In addition to that, research will address how best to design landfill sites to produce and tap landfill gas for electricity generation. Both gasification and landfill gas exploitation will need to be demonstrated at selected landfill sites before countrywide deployment is implemented. The two options will also show which of the two technologies would be more cost-effective in providing energy from MSW.

Energy Crops Growing of the energy crops recommended for Botswana is new and will need to be supported by research. The critical research that is required is selection, through experimentation, of feedstock species of both jatropha and sweet sorghum that can be profitably produced in Botswana, their yield, oil and sugar contents respectively. For the selected varieties of crops selected, demonstration of their performance will need to be done in form of pilot plantations. Demonstration of the model to produce feedstock will also need to be determined and how feedstock production should be shared between large plantations and community-scale production. This will have to be complemented by research in most appropriate farming technology for production of the energy crops. Both large- and small-scale production plants for biodiesel and bio-oil can also be deployed, but will need to be piloted to learn the operation and management implications of such plants. On the utilisation level, demonstration of quality of the blended fuel and the process and costs of blending biofuels and fossil fuels also need to go through testing phase, as it has not been done in Botswana by setting the relevant standards through BoBS.

10.3 Time frames for deployment of Interventions

Figure 32 presents the technology prioritization and possible deployment of selected technologies within the BEST time horizon up to 2020. Stoves and Jatropha biodiesel are ready for implementation and have been allocated a high priority up to 2020. Large-scale bio-digesters and gasification of either municipal solid waste or invader species for electricity generation have been allocated medium priority up to 2015, but high priority by 2020.

124

Medium- scale bio-digesters have been given a low priority from 2010 but will be gradually elevated to high priority by 2020 as more large-scale projects would have been exploited by 2015. It is expected that, by 2020, the economics of medium-scale bio-digesters may improve with rising demand for clean energy and possibly another rising of fuel prices.

Small-scale abattoirs and landfill gas have been assigned the lowest priority. However landfill gas will have to be revisited once much larger landfills (such as Ramotswa and Kweneng) are constructed.

Figure 32: BEST Technology prioritisation (2010-2020)

10.4 District Potential for Biomass Energy Development

This section presents some opportunities for biomass energy development that have been realized at district level through a combination of resource availability, cost-benefit analysis, village consultations and literature review of the studies that have been conducted in the various districts in Botswana. The level of resource availability or scarcity differs from district to district; therefore, the BEST interventions have been tailor made to take into account these variations. Central The Central District is the largest district in Botswana and it is no surprise that it holds the greatest potential for biomass initiatives. The district was singled out as having the most land and the greatest potential for biodiesel production. Fuelwood availability in the Central District varies from being very scarce in Orapa, Selibe Phikwe and Sowa, thus making these areas suitable for the development of coal depots and provision of coal stoves. In addition to these, the remainder of the sub district (i.e. Mahalapye, Tutume, Serowe, Mahalapye and, partly, in Boteti and Bobonong) would be suitable for energy-efficient wood stoves as wood is projected to be in abundance in these areas, without a guarantee that it will be close to the settlements. The Makomoto community has gained a national reputation in fuelwood trading. Therefore, it would be ideal for a demonstration CBNRM project in

125

which government and the community develop a model on how communities could sustainably earn a living from their natural resources. The Central District has further potential for 5 medium-scale poultry bio-digesters, 6 large scale poultry bio-digesters, one (1) medium scale cattle abattoir bio-digester, 7 large scale cattle abattoir bio-digesters and 3 medium-scale bio-digesters. Furthermore, the central region has a total of 9,821 cattle holdings with a total population of 324,958 cattle (i.e. an average of 40 cattle per holding). There is, therefore, potential for bio-digester syndicates in this region. Chobe The Chobe District is characterized by a high availability of fuelwood but is surrounded by national parks and forest reserves and, hence, may not be amenable to biofuels activities

40. This region would, therefore, be a prime target

for community-based indigenous resources management, and energy efficient stoves. Communities in this area could be made to benefit from the abundant wood resource by charging a levy to those who are engaged in fuelwood trading, with the proceeds benefiting the community. This way there will be an incentive for the community to manage their woodlands/forests. The waste water treatment works in Chobe are not large enough to sustain viable biogas projects. There are however 694 cattle holdings with a total cattle population of 13,910 cattle (thus averaging 28 cattle per holdings). Manure and an abundance of water in the region make the Chobe District an attractive location for promoting community bio-digesters. Ghanzi The Ghanzi District is endowed with the highest cattle density in the country, averaging 91 cattle per holding from 810 holdings and a total cattle population of 65,555. This high cattle density would make this region the best for centralized bio-digesters for on-farm or centralised use. In addition, Ghanzi has potential for 1 medium-scale poultry abattoir bio-digester, one 1 medium-scale cattle abattoir bio-digester and 1 large-scale cattle abattoir bio-digester. The municipal liquid waste treatment plants in this region are too small for profitable biogas production. Ghanzi has some remote villages where alternative cooking fuels such as LPG would not be distributed economically. Projections indicate that fuelwood is available in this region and this was confirmed during the village consultation meetings held in Tsootsha. This would also make the region a candidate for the promotion of energy-efficient wood stoves. It is also the region most affected by the Acacia mellifera invader bush specie which can be debushed and gasified to produce electricity. Kgalagadi The Kgalagadi region is the most affected by the fuelwood shortages. The district is mostly characterized by shrub savannah. The situation in Tsabong and Bokspits is dire, making the region prime for coal depots, coal stoves and serious afforestation efforts. Villagers in these areas stressed the urgent need for coal in the area, so this could be a candidate for the coal depots to be established as part of BEST. Due to water scarcity in this region, exacerbated by the poor rainfall patterns, the region would not be suitable for bio-digesters, in spite of the high cattle density (60 cattle per holding from 698 holdings) and a relatively high cattle population (36,252 cattle). However, this would be a subject for further investigation. Kgatleng Woody biomass projections for the Kgatleng region show a projected sustainable fuelwood supply for the district. However, the contrasting results obtained during the consultative meeting at Artesia point to localised shortages within the villages. For instance, fuelwood in Artesia is scarce and communities travel long distances (up to 80km) to collect fuelwood. Hence, such villages could also be candidates for coal depots and dissemination of coal stoves. Communities, however, indicated that their first choice of fuel is fuelwood, so wood stoves could also be

40

Chobe is suitable for sweet sorghum and is close to the Zambezi water but is also politically sensitive are in terms of protecting parks and to use the Zambezi water will require agreement from 7 other riparian states.

126

disseminated alongside coal stoves. Villagers were also keen to form committees to manage neighbouring woodlands and to police those who collect fuelwood and fencing poles from their villages. It would also be easier to introduce pilot indigenous tree planting and woodland management in such an area.

The district has further potential for 2 medium scale cattle abattoir bio-digester projects. Low cattle density (26 cattle per holding) from 1,676 holdings indicates low potential for centralised bio-digester projects as the raw material might also be dispersed. Kweneng Woody biomass projections and village consultations conducted in the Kweneng district indicate that fuelwood is available in the Kweneng district. However, this might not be so around villages with high population densities as there may be localised scarcity. Therefore, it is prudent to promote energy efficient wood stoves complemented by natural woodlands management in this district. The district also has potential for 1 large-scale poultry waste bio-digester. The cattle density per holding varies from 18, 35 and 46 in the south, north and west respectively. The population varies between 11,191 in the south, 30,238 in the north and 51,733 in the west. Therefore, the northern and western parts of the district would be suitable for centralized cattle waste bio-digesters. Ngamiland Similar to the Central District, the Ngamiland District was also identified as suitable for biodiesel production. However, because it is situated far from the major markets in the south eastern part of the country it would be less suitable compared to the Central District. Fuelwood availability varied within the region between Maun, which had localised scarcity due to over exploitation and the rest of the district (i.e. Komana, Sehitwa, and Toteng) where wood is available but villagers are beginning to notice the signs of depletion as the distance to collection points is increasing. This would, therefore, make the district suitable for the promotion of energy efficient wood stoves and community woodland management. Communities in this areas could also benefit from the permit system if a fee was levied on commercial fuelwood traders from neighbouring villages/towns (e.g. from Maun). North East Fuelwood projections in the North East District indicate that fuelwood is available in the region. However, some of this fuelwood is not available close to villages as it is in private farms, as is the case in Masunga. Therefore, both coal and energy efficient wood stove should be promoted in this district. Furthermore the district has potential for 1 medium-scale poultry bio-digester, 1 large-scale poultry bio-digester, 2 large-scale cattle abattoir bio-digesters, 1 medium-scale municipal liquid waste bio-digester, and 1 large-scale municipal liquid waste bio-digester project already in operation in Francistown. South East The South East District is projected to have a critical shortage of fuelwood. Hence both coal stoves and energy efficient fuelwood stoves should be promoted in this district. Fuelwood shortages may persist due to the increasing population. A coal depot already exists in Gaborone, providing an opportunity for promoting coal usage. However this will require appropriate coal stoves and awareness on the proper use of coal. Promotion of community woodland management complimented by indigenous woodlands would be critical in this region. The district also has potential for 1 medium-scale poultry bio-digester, 3 large-scale poultry bio-digesters, 2 large-scale cattle abattoir bio-digesters, one large-scale municipal liquid waste bio-digester project (already in existence in Gaborone and being expanded), and potential for 1 municipal solid waste gasification pilot project ( also in Gaborone). If a favourable feeder tariff were to be enforced within the BEST framework, then the district would have potential for a landfill gas-to-electricity CDM project.

127

Southern The Southern District is projected to have an abundance of fuelwood. However there are parts of the district, such as Pitsane, where there is a shortage of fuelwood, and where conflicts have already arisen between farmers and villagers when communities collect fuelwood from freehold farms. Given the diverse variance of fuelwood availability in the district, energy-efficient wood stoves should, therefore, be promoted in areas where fuelwood can be available and coal stoves (complimented by coal depots) should be aggressively pursued in areas such as Pitsane were there are fuelwood shortages. In terms of other biomass energy resources, the Southern District has potential for 2 large-scale poultry waste bio-digesters, 1 large-scale cattle abattoir bio-digester (at Lobatse-BMC) and 1 medium-scale municipal liquid waste bio-digester (also in Lobatse). The average cattle density in this district is 23 cattle per holding and 7,915 cattle holdings, with a total cattle population of 149,927. Therefore, there is additional potential for centralized bio-digesters in this area. The biofuels feasibility study also indicated potential for bioethanol production from sweet sorghum in this district, in Barolong Sub District.

10.5 Expected Results and Impacts on Energy Mix

The strategic results are based on consideration of the energy impact that can be made by the proposed BEST strategic technology options on the fuel mix and consumption in the baseline, mainly as it pertains to demand for fuelwood. A penetration rate has been assumed for each of the interventions that were subjected to cost-benefit analysis, in terms of the projects that will be implemented in the time horizon 2010 to 2020, and what fuels they are likely to substitute and the level of substitution.

Table 79 shows the fuels modelled in LEAP for the baseline scenario and Table 80 shows the potential impact on those fuels from the suggested BEST interventions.

Table 79: Baseline Energy Balance

Baseline Energy (TJ)

Years 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Electricity 1,431 2,054 2,426 2,985 3,515

Electricity - gasification 0 0 0 0 0

Petrol 8,866 12,097 15,937 23,983 29,026

Paraffin 147 279 308 333 358

Diesel/gas oil 4,810 6,563 8,646 13,011 15,747

Biodiesel 0 0 0 0 0

LPG/bottled gas 770 1,131 1,238 1,358 1,488

Biogas 18 19 20 21 22

Coal 907 1,136 1,419 1,911 2,200

Wood 17,432 14,416 14,918 15,685 16,459

128

Table 80: BEST Energy Balance

Intervention Scenario Energy (TJ)

Years 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Electricity 1,431 2,054 2,426 2,942 3,473

Electricity - gasification - 42 42

Petrol 8,866 12,097 15,937 23,983 29,026

Paraffin 147 279 308 333 358

Diesel/gas oil 4,810 6,563 15,193 12,156 13,651

Biodiesel - - - 855 2,096

LPG/bottled gas 770 1,131 1,238 1,308 1,428

Biogas 18 19 20 71 82

Coal 907 1,136 1,419 1,911 2,200

Wood 17,432 14,416 13,529 10,822 8,124

Figure 33 and Figure 34, which display the baseline energy balance (excluding petrol) and the BEST energy balance, respectively, show that the most significant impact on the energy balance would be on fuelwood due to the promotion of energy efficient woodstoves between 2010 and 2020. If all the penetration estimated of 194,000 wood stoves is achieved there will be a reduction on fuelwood demand of 44% by 2020 compared to the demand in 2005. Coal usage, particularly in government institutions, will be 27% of the fuelwood demand in 2020 compared to 8% in 2005. Biogas contribution will be 6% of LPG demand in 2020 compared to 2% in 2005. Electricity from gasification can be as much as 1.2% of the coal based electricity in 2020 compared to zero in 2005.

In addition, the introduction of biodiesel would reduce the 2020 fossil diesel consumption by about 10% (i.e., assuming biodiesel penetration of B5 by 2015 and B10 by 2020).

Figure 33: Display of Baseline Energy Balance (excluding petrol) in Terajoules

129

Figure 34: Display of BEST Energy Balance (excluding petrol) in Terajoules

130

11. BIOMASS ENERGY STRATEGY

11.1 BEST Vision and Strategic Goals

The vision for the biomass energy sub sector has been derived from stakeholder inputs to be:

Vision

Improved access to sustainable and affordable biomass energy for all by 2020.

Strategy Goals

The following strategic goals were also derived to fulfil the vision for Botswana’s BEST:

1. Improving access to adequate energy services through improved supply of biomass and alternative energy fuels.

2. Sustainable production and use of woody biomass energy. 3. Derived modern energy from available biomass resources. 4. Creation of a conducive environment for the promotion of new and improved biomass technologies.

The contribution that has been made by the stakeholders in formulation of the BEST vision and strategic goals reflect the contemporary situation with respect to the potential of biomass energy in Botswana including the new opportunity of modernizing biomass energy.

The vision and strategic goals are aligned to the content of the draft National Energy Policy (NEP), the Botswana Energy Master Plan, as well as the aspirations of the NDP 10 and Vision 2016. These strategic development plans for government aim for economic efficiency (affordable energy services), energy security (access), social and gender equity as well as environmental sustainability. Key objectives of NDP10 and NEP policy goals are summarized in Box 1 and Box 2, respectively, for ease of reference.

Box 1: Specific policy objectives in NDP10 relevant to biomass energy

Promotion of community based natural resource management of fuelwood.

Promotion of other alternative biomass energy sources e.g. biogas.

Eradication of fuelwood utilization in Government institutions.

Collaboration with DFRR on the enforcement of the veld products (fuelwood) regulation.

Introduction and promotion of energy efficient biomass equipment and technologies.

Implementation of a biodiesel pilot project intended to produce 11 Mega litres of biodiesel per annum by 2016.

Box 2. NEP Policy Goals Relevant to BEST

Broad Policy Goals

Increased access to affordable energy services.

Energy stimulating sustainable economic growth.

Improved institutional arrangements and governance in the energy sector.

Improved capacity for all players in energy delivery chain.

Improved availability of information for policy and planning.

Negative Energy related environmental and health impacts minimized.

Improved energy security.

131

Sectoral Policy Goals

Woodfuel

Policy Goal: Sustainable development, harvesting and utilization of wood fuel as an energy source for the majority of the population:

secure sustained supply of biomass through management of indigenous woodlands and afforestation;

promoting programs for biomass resource assessment;

encouraging fuel wood demand mitigation programs such as the improved wood stoves and coal-for-wood substitution;

encouraging more industrial and institutional organisations to switch to coal for cooking and other heating applications;

strengthening the current institutions e.g. DEA to be able to carry out effective interventions in biomass policy enforcement and management;

Accelerated programs on capacity building for Government and local communities.

Biogas

Policy goal: Maximum potential of biogas to contribute to the energy needs of the country realized

The potential for biogas production at cattle slaughter houses will be explored and developed. from Goal1- Improved security of Supply and reliability of energy supply to all sectors of the economy)

Electricity

Sustainability and security of supply in the electricity sub sector, by awarding cost reflective tariffs and instituting effective and efficient regulation that promotes private sector participation in the ESI.

Petroleum and gas

A significant role for biofuels (and coal-to-liquids) as complementary fuels to petrol and diesel and to cut down on the fuel import bill

Wider adoption of LPG for domestic use to substitute for fuel wood.

Coal

Policy Goal: Maximum potential of coal and coal bed methane as environmentally friendly energy sources realized

Encouraging the development and operation of (new coal mines and) distribution networks in different parts of the country in order to widen the coal market.

11.2 Identification of Issues, Barriers and Potential Interventions

The major biomass energy issues that were raised and deliberated by stakeholders and communities during the course of BEST development are presented by each resource type. The strategic intervention framework presents the issues and barriers that BEST is meant to address: the strategic interventions and tasks to be undertaken; the institutional role in each of the strategic tasks; and the time frame envisaged to accomplish the strategic tasks.

132

The information has been presented for each biomass resource type giving a summary of the issues (separated into supply and demand sub-sectors) to be addressed, the strategic interventions and tasks that need to be undertaken.

Woody Biomass

The issues on woody biomass call for the collection of adequate planning data, how to reduce the excessive demand of the existing fuelwood resources, and opportunities for increasing fuelwood supply to a sustainable level. The targets that should be aimed for in woody biomass are to achieve the estimated dissemination of 194,000 wood stoves, complete switching of government institutions from fuelwood use by 2020 and achieving 44% reduction in fuelwood demand. The target for electricity from gasification of woody biomass should be above 1% of coal-based electricity by 2020, as per the estimated potential in the country.

Issues and Barriers

Supply Demand

Lack of data on inventory of woody biomass resource and fuelwood trade in the country

Wood depletion due to over harvesting in certain areas.

Lack of alternative affordable forms of energy in villages

Villagers have intimate knowledge of local forests

Trans-district fuelwood harvesting

Use of fuelwood by government institutions.

Inefficient use of woody biomass resource by households

Use of fuelwood by government institutions

Lack of awareness on energy efficient cooking devices.

Supply intervention Demand Intervention

Developing reliable planning systems for woody biomass resources and mechanisms for achieving sustainable fuelwood supply and use.

Promoting energy efficient devices in households and fuel switching in Government institutions to reduce demand on fuelwood.

The proposed strategic tasks to address these issues and implement the interventions are summarized below. The numbering of the strategic tasks corresponds to the issues being addressed. Below each strategic task is the corresponding stakeholder to carry out the task and also the time frame when the task should be carried out. The strategic tasks will also be implemented together with the selected technologies and the policy/legal frameworks proposed in Section 11.3.

On the supply side, the emphasis is on efforts to improve energy access through increasing fuelwood supply by management of natural woodlands, and supply of alternative fuels such as coal, biogas and electricity from woody biomass. In the case of woody biomass, data for planning is necessary to track the improvement (or otherwise) of the fuelwood resource (and also the supply-demand balance) as a result of the measures that are implemented.

On the demand side the tasks focus on efficient use of fuelwood through use of wood stoves and also fuel switching by introduction of cooking devices for coal. Tariff setting is also necessary where electricity from renewable energy, in this case gasification of woody biomass, is introduced to the national grid.

133

Strategic Tasks

Supply strategic tasks Demand Strategic Tasks

1. Establish woody biomass energy resource data management system within EAD.

2. Undertake fuelwood trade surveys 3. Community indigenous tree planting and management

3.1 Promote CBNRM through encouraging communities to manage forest woodlands around their villages by disseminating lessons from villages already practicing CBNRM.

3.2 Establish community indigenous tree planting through community participation.

3.3 Capacity building for communities to manage woodland resources.

3.4 Empower villagers to enforce permit system and police trans-district wood harvesting.

4. Build Coal Depots starting with areas with an acute shortage of fuelwood.

5. Build centralised bio-digesters managed by community syndicates to supply government institutions with biogas for thermal applications. 5.1 Involve communities in the initiation, design,

construction, operation and even financing of the bio-digesters to give them a sense of ownership, and capture socio-cultural needs.

6. R&D and Pilot Plant demonstration of decentralised electricity generation through gasification of invader bush species.

6.1 Once technology has been tested develop a demonstration plant.

6.2 Full deployment of gasification plant on free-hold farms.

1. Awareness and education on energy efficient kitchen management 1.1 Carryout a country wide market

assessment of the energy efficient cooking devices (both coal and wood).

1.2 Empower women through capacity building on kitchen energy management.

1.3 Disseminate at least 15,000 energy efficient wood stoves per year and heat retention devices through a government supported scheme with flexible and affordable payment terms.

1.4 Build local capacity for stove design and cost effective manufacture. Communities should be consulted in the stove design to capture cultural preferences.

2. Support local design and production of energy efficient coal stoves.

3. Establish standards and testing procedures for minimum stoves efficiency to avoid proliferation of low quality energy efficient devices.

4. Introduce a special feeder tariff for electricity generated from renewable energy sources such as invader bush species.

Organisations/Departments to Undertake Tasks

1. EAD, 2. EAD 3. DFRR, DEA 4. EAD 5. EAD, MoA, Kgotla 6. EAD, BPC, Private Sector; freehold farmers

1. RE Botswana, ProBEC, EAD, community leaders

2. EAD, RIIC, community leaders 3. BOBs, BOTEC, RIIC, RE Botswana, ProBEC,

EAD 4. EAD, BPC, MFDP, Energy Regulator,

Private Sector

Completion Date for the tasks

1. By 2010 2. By 2010 3. On going to 2020 4. 2010-2016 5. Demonstration village by 2010 6. Demonstration gasifier 2009; full deployment 2010-

2020

1. Short term by 2010 1.1 Have full market penetration of wood

stoves by 2020 1.2 Awareness and capacity building-on

goping to 2020 2. Short term:- 2010 3. Short term:- 2010 4. By 2010

134

Wet Biomass

Issues for wet biomass relate to lack of knowledge on the energy potential presented by the resource and, hence, the absence of efforts to exploit the resource. Interventions then are to create an environment for realization and harnessing of the wet biomass resource for energy through production mainly of biogas. Biogas contribution to the energy balance has been below 1% of final energy consumption. Based on the estimated penetration rates, a reasonable target is for at least to achieve the estimated share of biogas of 6% of the LPG demand by 2020.

Issues and Barriers

Supply Side Demand Side

1. Low awareness on the resource potential as an energy source

2. Resource base is not well known or too low to warrant investment in some locations.

3. Lack of investment for such projects 4. Low capacity for developing such projects

1. Low acceptability of this energy source to date

Interventions for wet biomass

Realization and harnessing of the potential in wet biomass to produce biogas to meet thermal end uses at institutions and business sites

Awareness campaign on the potential of energy from wet biomass

On the supply side, the strategic tasks required are:

To build awareness on the available potential and selected technologies to exploit the resource.

Creating the necessary incentives/schemes to enable uptake of the wet biomass technologies.

Creating data systems for evaluating the potential.

Creating the necessary laws for proper waste management so that it can be easily harnessed for energy production.

Promoting technology uptake and producing the requisite capacity for plant designs.

Establishing the necessary standards for the technology.

On the demand side, the focus is on identifying the market for energy produced from the biogas and the fertilizer that is a by-product of the bio-digesters. The potential to be tapped is for government institutions to switch from fuelwood to alternative fuels including biogas where applicable, and also substitute part of imported LPG with biogas.

135

Strategic Tasks for Wet Biomass

Supply Side Demand Side

1. Awareness campaigns on bio-energy from wet biomass targeting medium and large scale Poultry producers/abattoirs, cattle abattoirs, municipal wastewater treatment facilities, government institutions.

2. Financial incentives for investments in biomass energy projects 3. Financial scheme for rural households and medium scale

biodigesters biogas projects 4. Data collection systems for resource base and potential energy

substitution. 4.1 Develop a model for determining biogas potential for

specific wet biomass resource types 5. Enforcement of animal husbandry waste disposal regulation for

all farming communities 6. Establish centralized demonstration bio-digesters at a cattle

abattoir, poultry farm, rural village, and municipal wastewater treatment plant. 6.1 Encourage schools and communities to form centralized

bio-digester projects to supply government institutions and rural households with biogas.

7. Capacity building for project design & development 8. Biogas digesters design standards

1. Awareness campaigns on benefits of bio-energy from wet biomass

2. Promote the use of organic fertiliser obtained from biodigesters for soil conditioning and marginal land reclamation.

3. Investigate the potential use of biogas produced from municipal waste water treatment works

4. Encourage government institutions to switch from fuelwood to biogas targeting specifically those institutions that are experiencing inconsistent supply of alternatives such as LPG.

Organisations/Departments to Work with in attainment of Goal

1. EAD, MoA, AHPD, BMC, LEA, Municipal Abattoirs, Kgotla, Bioenergy Association, Poultry Producers Association,

2. MFDP, CEDA, LEA, BEDIA, 3. EAD, MFDP 4. EAD, BOTEC, RIIC, MoA 5. MLG, DWMPC, MoA, AHPD, Municipalities, Community

leaders, 6. EAD, MoE 7. EAD, BOTEC, RIIC 8. BOBS, EAD

1. EAD, Bioenergy Association, NGOs 2. MoA, CPD, AHPD, NAMPAAD 3. Local Government ; DWMPC 4. EAD, MoE, BDF, MLG

Completion Date

1. 2010-2020 2. 2010-2020 3. 2010-2020 4. 2010-2015 5. Immediate to and ongoing 6. 2010 – 2020 7. 2010-2020 8. 2010-2012

1. Immediate to ongoing 2. Immediate to ongoing 3. by 2010 4. 2010 to 2015

136

Residues

The issues presented for residues call for interventions that exploit the residues for generation of energy particularly as electricity. Such electricity would be for absorption into the national grid to contribute to security of supply, but requires a cost-reflective tariff for the venture to be viable. Targets have not been estimated as the viability of the interventions will largely depend on what the electricity tariff will be. However, any contribution up to 1% of coal electricity contributed from MSW gasification or incineration or landfill gas can be a reasonable target by 2020.

Issues and Barriers

Supply Side Demand Side

1. Untapped resource from MSW, livestock and poultry but also needs quantification

2. Limited crop and forestry residues- with competitive use of this resource

3. Technology exists but low uptake 4. Low awareness on potential of the resource 5. Currently poor waste management e.g. no proper

sorting 6. There is no deliberate policy to tap on the

resource.

1. Low awareness on potential of the resource 2. Non Cost reflective electricity tariff

Interventions Required to Meet Goals

1. Transforming waste into energy from various sources of residues that mainly is municipal solid waste (MSW) through production of landfill gas or through incineration to produce electricity

1. Awareness raising on opportunities for energy-emanating from residues- both for investment and utilization

2. Special feeder electricity tariff to create demand for electricity produced from renewable energy sources

The strategic tasks that are to be carried out in relation to residues on the supply side relate to:

strengthening laws on waste sorting and management including incineration;

financing mechanisms for MSW projects;

awareness of MSW potential to municipalities, other governments departments and funders;

scientific assessment of landfill gas in the MSW;

designs and standards before deployment.

On the demand side, the focus is on: evaluation of the energy potential from residues; examine the players in the value chain; and a special tariff that will make electricity generated from MSW viable.

137

Strategic Tasks

Supply side Demand Side

1. Enforcement of existing legislation should be enhanced to maximize the amount of waste that ends up at the landfills. 1.1 Enhance waste management plan encourage separation of combustible

and non combustible waste at source and biodegradable from non biodegradable.

1.2 Enhance Waste management laws (including pollution prevention from poultry and livestock residues & waste sorting.

1.3 Incineration feedstock regulation 1.4 Enforce data collection, storage and information management systems

for landfills 2. Set-up a financing mechanism to support tapping of the energy resource

potential of municipal solid waste and this will include 2.1 Renewable energy fund 2.2 Loan scheme for landfill/biogas/gasification plant 2.3 Financial Incentive scheme

3. Awareness campaigns on incineration/gasification technologies using MSW targeted mainly at local government, other policy makers and financiers

4. Investigate the feasibility of producing landfill gas 4.1 Assessment of resource compositions and qualities and model landfill

gas potential at a pilot site 4.2 Establish a land fill gas demonstration project at Gaborone landfill 4.3 Deploy technology at large landfills-in cities/towns/large villages

5. Put in place landfill design Standards which enable exploitation of landfill gas.

6. R&D on MSW gasification of municipal solid waste to produce electricity 6.1 Establish a pilot plant at a selected landfill to demonstrate feasibility of

producing electricity from gasification of combustible solid waste 6.2 Fully deploy technology to other landfills if feasibility of technology is

proven.

1. Make an economic impact assessment of the residue based-energy potential in Botswana and disseminate information to potential investors and users

2. Independent power producer policy & feeding tariffs for grid power 2.1 Institute a

preferential cost reflective electricity tariff for electricity produced from landfill gas and gasification municipal solid waste

Organisations/Departments to Work tasks

1. DEA, Local Government, DWPC 2. EAD, MFDP, CEDA, LEA, Local Government, DWPC 3. EAD, Bioenergy Association, NGOs 4. EAD, RIIC, BOTEC, Local Government, DWMPC 5. BOBs, DWPC, Private Sector, EAD 6. EAD, RIIC,BOTEC, Local Government

1. EAD, 2. BPC, Energy

Regulator, MFDP

Completion Date

1. Immediate to ongoing 2. 2010-2020 3. 2010-2012 4. 2010 – 2015 5. by 2012 6. 2010 – 2015

1. 2010-2012 2. 2012

138

Energy Crops

Issues for energy crops relate to lack of any existing production chain from feedstock to infrastructure for biofuels production, compounded by the fact that it is a new venture to the country.

Issues and Barriers

Supply Side Demand Side

1. Biofuels technology not utilized in Botswana 2. Seedlings not produced in the country 3. Infrastructure non existent 4. No policy framework for biofuels 5. Lack of experience with energy crops 6. No land designated for Biofuels in the country 7. Erratic rainfall patterns will affect water

availability

1.Biofuels utilized in Botswana

2.Low awareness on biofuels potential

Interventions

Developing a biofuels industry and market Creating awareness on the role biofuels can play in the Botswana economy

The critical intervention with biofuels is, therefore, to build infrastructure and establish the value chain for production, as well as create a market for the new fuel and demonstrate its impact on the economy: e.g., in the form of import substitution, creating new incomes for the communities and businesses. The target that has been proposed in the Biofuels study is to achieve B10 for biodiesel (blending of 10% with fossil fuel) and E5% (blending up to 5% of ethanol with fossil gasoline).

The tasks proposed are linked to both the supply side and demand side issues. The proposed biofuels policy is intended to address land allocation, creation of seedling supply systems, incentives for feedstock production all of which relate to the supply side. Pricing of biofuels and any subsidies on the costs of biofuels production will also influence demand.

139

Strategic Tasks

Supply Side Demand Side

1. Develop a biofuels policy for Botswana including (subsidy, pricing; land allocation policy, seedling/seeds banks etc)

1.1 Develop investor financial Incentives for biofuels sector. 1.2 Develop a pricing and incentives mechanism which takes into

account crude oil price fluctuations.

1.3 Set-up green levy on petroleum products to finance biofuels activities in Botswana.

1.4 Introduce carbon tax for fossil fuels to finance biofuels activities in Botswana.

2. Set aside land for biofuels production in districts with land suitable for biofuels production in collaboration with Land Boards and Ministry of Agriculture. Allocations should take into account the land already set-aside for food production to strike a balance between food and energy production.

3. Set up biofuels research priorities for energy crop production (from various crop types, variety selection, farming and harvesting methods, crop yield and oil content) and processing technology.

4. Establishment of centralised feedstock production plantations. 4.1 Provide leased land to large scale commercial producers. 4.2 Organization of Community feedstock production supported

by appropriate incentives (e.g. supply of free seedlings , technical support, de-bushing and land tillage)

4.3 Organise communities (especially women and children) for small scale bio-oil production for use in electricity generation, lighting and other income generation projects such as soap making.

5. Develop road infrastructure in areas designated for biofuels production.

6. Establishment of centralised biofuels production plants.

1. Set-up mandatory target (B10 and E5)

2. Establish blending facilities. 3. R&D on safe blending ratios for

various applications. 4. Awareness raising on the socio-

economic and environmental benefits of biofuels firstly amongst legislators, community leaders and the general public.

Organisations/Departments

1. EAD, MFDP, Bioenergy Association, Oil Companies, BEDIA, BDC, 2. EAD, Land Boards, MFDP, MoA, DEA, Kgotla 3. EAD, UB, BOTEC, MoA, DFRR, DEA, RIIC 4. Private Sector, EAD, Biofuels Association, CEDA, YFF, Land Boards,

Kgotla 5. Transport Ministry 6. Private sector, EAD

1. EAD/oil companies 2. EAD/Oil companies 3. UB/BOTEC/RIIC 4. Bioenergy Aasociation

and NGos

Completion Date

1. 2010 2. 2010 3. 2010-2015 4. Medium term:- 2015 5. On going 6. 2015 – 2020

1. 2012 2. 2012 3. 2010-2012 4. On going

140

11.3 Policy and Legal Implications

The policy and legal frameworks proposed are meant to support achievement of the proposed interventions. Both enhancement and enforcement of existing and the required new policies are presented.

Woody Biomass Existing policies and areas that need enforcement or enhancement The draft National Energy Policy (NEP) propounds important elements for sustainable supply and use of biomass energy in the country. Government is to promote sustainable fuelwood management practices, appropriate combustion equipment, community management of natural resources and switching to alternative energy sources. It recognizes the absence of a mechanism to account for externalities by fuelwood traders and proposes the introduction of a fuelwood pricing and tax mechanism which takes into account the costs resulting from unsustainable harvesting of fuelwood. The policy also aims to increase access to affordable and modern energy services. All government institutions are to be persuaded to switch from fuelwood to coal and LPG. Most government institutions are now fitted with LPG kitchens for cooking, although sometimes they revert to using fuelwood when LPG is not supplied on time. There is a pilot programme initiated to install coal stoves in several primary schools. Households are also to be targeted for substitution from fuelwood to coal through provision of coal of improved quality, availability of appropriate coal appliances as well provision of incentives to potential consumers. There are targets to improve coal delivery by establishing at least two coal depots in all districts in the country during NDP10 (2009-2016) but there are no targets for the other policy objectives to guide the strategy. The Forest Policy. The Forestry Policy is being revised and is expected to focus on supporting development of sustainable forest management options, restoration of degraded land using afforestation, and building synergies through sustainable biomass energy supply and use. Forestry Act The Department of Forestry and Range Resources is also currently revising the Forestry Act of 1968 which is being amalgamated with the Conservation Act and the Agricultural Resources Act. The contents of the Forestry Act being revised were not available but the new forestry law should to deal with fuelwood production and management of woody biomass resources as well as transport and taxation of fuelwood. This proposition stems from the realization that DFRR cannot possibly manage all the resources in the country, and it is better to devolve control and management from the national to the village level. Villagers are thus given the usufruct rights to the resources on the land that traditionally belongs to them. At the same time, a regulatory framework/fiscal changes are introduced to support proper village level management of wood resources by way of a tax on the transport of fuelwood. Given that fuelwood costs much less than other fuels, the tax does not increase the price of fuelwood significantly, especially if the proceeds are used to better manage the fuelwood sector and make supply sustainable. The transfer of responsibilities for managing wood resources to the village level, as well as the taxation system to support this is to be introduced in the new forestry law. This allows the rural population to benefit from wood resources and motivates villagers to guard against encroachment by outsiders. The tax can be designed such that the bulk of it remains in the production zones and only a small part goes to the Ministry of Finance. Villages can negotiate the price of fuelwood but the level of the tax is non-negotiable. Villagers can set up small village businesses that sustainably harvest the wood resources. There is need for EAD and DFRR to coordinate and manage the implementation of such a law. In particular, there is need to: 1) create the capacity to manage wood resources at the village level and enable villagers to do this 2) Implement and verify compliance of the tax on transport of fuelwood.

141

Conditions which the villages need to comply with are: 1) to be organized in a management structure that is officially recognised and that has a bank account 2) to have a long term management plan for the resources on their land that maintains or even improves the

resource conditions 3) to sign a long term contract with the Ministry of Environment, Wild Life and Tourism (MEWT) A similar system has worked well in Chad where villagers designate land resources for cultivation and fuelwood harvesting. The total volume to be cut is guided by a quota set for the village. This quota is based on the estimated mean annual increment for the standing stock in that village, and should initially result in an increase in the volume of wood. The quota is adjusted with time when village gains management experience and after revaluation of standing stocks. Similar strategies have been used in Mali and Niger with success (van der Plas and Abdel-Hamid, 2003). For the villagers to understand and satisfy all the conditions required they will require some training. NGOs and CBOs in collaboration with EAD and DFRR can train villagers for this purpose. DFRR provides technical backup to the villages and reviews rough compliance with the village management plan. The following outlines a probable scheme for implementing the localised woodland management programme.

Steps for creating a scheme for localised woodland management programme

1) Create a village management structure for the purpose of managing the wood resources on its territory,

the village needs to be officially registered and own a bank account; a manager, an accountant, and a technical specialist are the minimum number of officials elected to the village management committee

2) Together with representatives from neighbouring villages, the territory is delineated and surveyed 3) A simplified wood inventory is made, based on which an annual quota is established; the quota is below

the mean annual increment of the standing stock so that a restitution and increase of the standing stock can be expected

4) Rules for exploitation are established (cutting techniques, types of trees and diameters, rotation of exploitation, etc) This results in a simple management plan

5) The village committee signs a contract with MEWT

6) The village committee receives tax coupons in line with its annual quota; it now has the right to levy a tax on the transport of fuelwood on behalf of the government; most of the proceeds remain in the village, and a small portion goes back to Treasury

The villagers can forbid exploitation of wood resources by outsiders. There is need to have control posts and mobile brigades (through the police) manned day and night to control the fuelwood transporters, especially on the major (direct and easiest) roads leading into towns. Any transporter trying to avoid paying the tax has to deviate from the normal route and make considerable effort in doing so. The Community-Based Natural Resources Management policy aims to create a conservation-based development culture, and has some very useful elements which, if synergised with other policies, can bring about tremendous improvements in biomass resource conservation. The key elements which need to be further developed include revisiting land tenure and natural resources user rights as well as providing incentives for managing natural resources in a sustainable manner. It is not yet clear how the CBNRM policy will be complemented by the new Forestry Policy. Permits for collection of fuelwood have been introduced in a few villages, but the permit system may also need to discriminate against those from outside, so that communities can have the incentive to manage their own fuelwood resources and enforce the permit system in their own villages. The permit system also needs review as experience so far indicates that it is cumbersome as fuelwood harvesters are required to show the harvested fuelwood before trading or using the fuelwood. Villagers in areas where permits have been introduced believe that

142

permits should not apply to them but to those who come from other villages/districts to collect their fuelwood. Instead, villagers propose that they monitor fuelwood collection by collectors from outside their villages and, in that regard; they can also manage their resources. A significant programme on reducing pressure on fuelwood resource has been the standing order for government institutions to shift from using fuelwood to alternative fuels such as LPG, electricity and coal. However, the programme is facing challenges in the supply system for the alternative fuels used: e.g., when LPG supply to schools is not consistent or there is equipment failure, institutions end up reverting to fuelwood. The supply system for alternative fuels to government institutions may need to be changed from a centralized one to institutions getting own budget for fuels or outsourcing it to private suppliers who sign contracts of supply. Proposed Policies/Regulatory Framework Introducing efficient wood stoves is one way of reducing fuelwood demand, but efficient stoves may be too costly for low-income households, which are the target market. Studies (RE Botswana, ProBEC, 2007) establihsed that locally fabricated stoves would be more expensive than imported stoves, e.g. from China. To make the stoves affordable, it will be necessary to provide some form of financing or credit scheme to the target group. Furthermore, it is proposed that import duties on such energy appliances be removed to make them more affordable. It will also be necessary to establish standards for the stoves so that quality and reliability is maintained.

Wet Biomass Existing policies and required enhancement and enforcement A Waste Management Plan exists, but it does not address the utilisation of waste for energy. It is necessary to enact some regulatory provision which ensures that waste is dumped in designated areas for each type of waste and to sort it into stipulated categories, making it easier to exploit for energy. Proposed Policies/Regulatory Framework To stimulate biogas digester dissemination, it is proposed that strict quality control be enforced through an approved technical design for all biogas plants. Apart from thorough quality control, there is a need for monitoring of production, installation and after-sales services. It is proposed that biogas construction companies should provide maintenance and after-sales services guarantees for at least three years following installation. Like other renewable energy technologies, investment in biogas digesters is costly and requires financial support for end-users through credit schemes. Financial incentives are also to be provided for investments in biogas projects, especially for the larger institutional digesters.

Residues Existing and Proposed policies Similar to wet biomass, residues are also covered by the Waste Management Policy. It is necessary to develop a waste management plan and laws that stipulates waste sorting and accounting and develop a data collection system. Incentives in form of financial schemes will also be needed to encourage uptake of technologies that use this resource. Price is the key barrier to the commercialization of generation of electricity from MSW, as the cost of producing power from MSW is higher than that generated from coal in the case of Botswana. A price support mechanism in the form of feed-in tariff is proposed for electricity generated from MSW. It is also proposed that grid connection and power purchasing regulation be enacted which require BPC to purchase all electricity generated from those renewable energy producers who can be connected to the national grid. This regulation can accord renewable energy generators a guaranteed power price, coupled with a purchase obligation by BPC, hence stimulating the development of this source of energy.

143

Tax incentives are another flexible mechanism that can be designed to target, among other things, different institutions, geographical areas, or stages of the investment. It can be implemented in the form of incentives such as tax deductions or offsets for investment in the power plants – rewarding the building of facilities, but not the production of energy from those facilities. Another proposal is to reduce import duty for equipment – but, in the long term, this should be balanced with promotion of local fabrication of such equipment. Companies or institutions that undertake R&D can receive tax credits for investing in the development or improvement of these technologies. It is also proposed that preferential loans with subsidized interest rates be made available for energy from waste projects. This will make it easier and cheaper for project developers to obtain finance, and will help to overcome the difficulties (and higher prices for finance) caused by financiers’ reluctance to invest in the perceived higher-risk area of renewable energy projects. To be most effective, loans for projects should: be available both for large developments which will feed into the grid, and for small projects in remote

communities which are not currently linked to the grid; be for long timeframes, as energy installations take some time to build and longer to recoup the costs of

construction; provide for substantial draw-down over the preparatory and development phases of the project; and Include quality standards or inspections as a condition of the loan.

Energy Crops Proposed Policy/Legal Framework Production of energy crops production, particularly for biofuels, is a relatively new phenomenon in Botswana; thus there are no policies to guide biofuels development and this study recommends the formulation of a biofuels policy to guide and attract investments and avail incentives for such investment to take place. The policy should stipulate targets and standards for biofuels production and use, pricing regime, land and phytosanitary policy frameworks. For promoting biofuels it is important that the government enact: blending mandates; tax incentives; government guarantees and purchasing policies; support for biofuels-compatible infrastructure and technologies; R&D policy (including crop research, conversion technology development, feedstock handling, etc.); and Public education and outreach. Examples of the application of some of these aspects of the biofuels policy are presented below: Excise tax credit for biofuels Fuel levy reduction is an incentive-based approach, and is the most direct and widely-used instrument to help biofuels compete with fossil fuels. A tax/levy (e.g. green levy) would be levied on the consumption of petrol or diesel, and a fuel levy reduction on biofuels lowers the cost of biofuels relative to petrol or diesel. A tax credit is a subsidy to the processor (some of which is passed to the farmer) and, therefore, raises their surplus whereas it is neutral from a consumer’s standpoint. The ability to use this instrument depends on the level of levies on petroleum fuels and the prevailing price. Fiscal support is important, and a variety of mechanisms can be used to encourage investment and consumption of biofuels. For example, Brazil provides support for investment concessions for new plant construction. The USA provides a variety of federal and state-level incentives, including excise tax exemption and subsidies.

144

Direct controls – renewable fuel standards and mandatory blending These instruments allow government to exert direct control over fuel markets. Blending mandates are key to creating and guaranteeing a market for biofuels. In addition to mandatory blending legislation, other regulatory mechanisms may be used to accelerate the market transformation of biofuels. For instance, in the USA, the Clean Air Act and the Reformulated Gasoline Program legislation enforced the addition of oxygen to gasoline and created mandated or captive markets for bioethanol in the early 1990s. A form of carbon tax on the fossil fuels could be implemented in the case of Botswana. R&D Policy Research and development on biofuels technologies has the potential to increase productivity and reduce costs. R&D typically has knowledge spillovers into the public domain. The private sector does not reap the full social benefits of their innovations, hence government support for R&D investments is crucial.

11.4 Financial Requirements

The total capital cost for the attainment of BEST objectives is estimated to be P300 million. The financing summarised Table 81 estimates the capital and installation costs of the interventions that have been identified for BEST, but excludes additional indirect costs for awareness-raising, promotion of intervention, training, R&D, setting up of schemes that might be required to stimulate the sector or to increase uptake/investment of the technology etc. These have not been factored in as these are variable, and would need to be examined in greater detail on a case-by-case basis as the projects are being implemented and the level of support is determined.

Table 81: The Budget estimated for Investment in high priority BEST interventions Options

Intervention Scale Penetration Unit Price (P)

Sum (P)

Energy-efficient Stoves 15,000 stoves/yr 100 19,400,000

Household bio-digesters -

Poultry bio-digester Medium-scale

10 digesters by 2020 46,872 468,720

Large-scale 16 digesters by 2020 804,602 12,873,634

Abattoir waste Medium-scale 4 digesters by 2020 46,872 187,488

Large-scale 13 digesters by 2020 193,006 2,509,083

Gasification -

Municipal Solid Waste ( with tariff support) 4 gasifiers by 2020 5,400,000 21,600,000

Invader species (with tariff support ) 1 gasifier by 2020 - 3,600,000

Municipal Liquid Waste (MLW) Medium-scale 25,328,991 25,328,991

Large-scale -

Plantation development 82,368,000

Biodiesel plant B10 by 2020 131,471,000

Total: 299,806,916

145

11.5 Recommended Partnership Framework

Stakeholder Analysis Figure 35 specifies the potential stakeholders that could play a role in the development and implementation of BEST. The EAD as the Lead Agent through its members in the Biomass section and the Planning Unit in MMEWR have the responsibility of coordination, policy formulation, regulation, awareness building, data collection and information management, accountability, implementation and M&E of BEST. All the key stakeholders (including ministries such as the MEWT, MOA, MFDP, MLG, MLH and departments such as DFRR, DEA, DCP, DAHP, CSO, Traditional authorities, DC and DOL) play a pivotal role in supply of information relevant to legislation, strategies, production, user preference and land availability for biomass production and use. Organisations, including that include RE Botswana, BOTEC, RIIC and ProBEC, play the role of advising on efficient use of biomass in households and SMMEs through deployment of technologies. Research organisations such as UB, RIIC and RIPCO(B) are also involved in the production and dissemination of technologies. NGOs are crucial with regard to awareness raising amongst biomass users and can champion community projects, e.g. forestry projects. There is an opportunity to introduce new and strengthen existing ESCOs to be providers of services for the new technologies to be implemented under BEST, particularly stoves and modern biomass technologies. Involvement of research and development organisations such as the UB, RIPCO, BOTEC, and BCA is crucial in addressing any technological or information requirements and aligning their research activities with BEST. BEST should provide a framework for funding and corporation with such research organisations. Funding institutions such as CEDA and Donors such as GEF, UNDP, and GTZ can contribute significantly to the development and propagation of the options identified under BEST.

146

Department of Energy (Policy, Coordination, regulation, awareness, Data Bank, M&E)

Steering Committee DFRR, MFDP, DL, FAB, DM, DAP, DCP, DEA, DMWPC

Finance Monitoring and Evaluation

Dissemination/ Awareness

Capacity Building, Research and Development

CEDA, LEA Financing (Young Farmers Fund),

Investment advice

Donors GEF, UNDP, GTZ

(financing & Technical Assistance)

World Bank, ADF, ENERGIA

(Financing, Biomass development fund)

Local Government Enforcement, Data

(abattoir dung, municipal waste)

DCP, DAP, Data (crop residue and

animal production)

DFRR, DEA Awareness,

Production Data (Forestry Inventory)

Private Companies, RE Botswana, Veld Products, BOCCIM

Production and Marketing, experience

NGOs FAB, ProBEC, EHF, KCS Somareleng Tikologo,

(Awareness and Training)

Tribal Authorities, CBOs, VDC

(Awareness, enforcement, promotion,

concerns

University of Botswana

(Research, Training)

Botswana College of Agriculture

(Research, Training)

RIIC, RIPCO (B) Research, Technology

development and dissemination

OFRC, BOTEC, KCS (research and development)

Department of Curriculum

Development Curriculum

development

Private Companies Technology

development & supply

DOE Awareness, Data

(Prices, households, consumption)

Bioenergy Association of Botswana (Awareness, promotion,

demonstration

BMC, Abattoirs Data (dungs, pilot

projects)

Wena Magazine, DOI (Awareness, promotion)

Emang Basadi, WAD Gender Issues (Awareness, promotion)

DMWPC Enforcement, Data (waste, investment

options)

Figure 35: Stakeholder responsibilities

The main expectation for government is for it to be fully committed to promoting biomass energy including allocation of resources and creating an enabling environment for it. It should also coordinate the various key stakeholders in the biomass energy sector, R&D and required capacity building. Private sector entities are believed to be key in providing technical expertise, technology and investment for BEST.

147

Development agencies such as donors and multilateral organisations are expected to be sources of funding for both development and implementation of BEST. They can also engage governments to see potential in biomass and to provide the necessary technical assistance and experiences gained elsewhere.

Consultants are seen as facilitators and experts in the development and implementation of BEST, including generation of the necessary data and project development/design. NGOs are key in creating awareness on the new opportunities that will accrue from biomass energy and can lobby governments to refocus on that important energy sub-sector.

11.5.1 Institutional Responsibility for Policy and Legal Framework

The responsible government organisations have been identified with regard to enforcement, enhancement and formulation of the proposed policies and laws. Table 82 below summarises the organisations that should be responsible for the policy/legal framework for BEST.

Table 82: Government ministries and responsibilities in the policy and legal framework for BEST

Resource type

EAD MFDP MOA MEWT Parastatals/NGOs

MLG MTI MoE

General Finalise NEP and enforce

Woody Biomass

Feeder tariff for electricity from gasification (&BPC)

Financial scheme for efficient stoves

Conclude and enforce forestry & CBNRM policies

Woody & coal stove standards (BOBS)

Fuel switching of rural institutions

Enforce fuel switching of govt schools

Wet Biomass

Financial scheme /incentives for bio-digesters

Animal husbandry waste disposal regulation

Waste management policy & Act enhanced & enforced

Bio-digester design standards (BOBS)

Animal husbandry waste disposal regulation

Promotion of SME industries

Residues Feeder tariff for electricity (&BPC)

Financial scheme /incentives for landfill gas- electricity projects

Waste management policy & Act enhanced & enforced

Landfill design standards (BOBS)

Promotion of SME industries

Energy Crops

Biofuels policy

Financial scheme /incentives for plant investors; green levy/carbon tax

Feedstock research & production policy

Land allocation policy

Land allocation policy (BEDIA); SME industries

148

11.5.2 Institutional Responsibility for Financing BEST

Financial responsibilities have been developed for the proposed BEST options and indicate the various stakeholders and what strategic options they can support (Table 83). Government is expected to make contributions to funding in many ways. For new technologies and projects of significant social value (e.g. meeting households requirements), subsidies, e.g. through loan schemes, will be required. This mainly applies to household bio-digesters and wood/coal stoves/appliances, landfill gas to electricity, waste water treatment plants, and biofuels pilot plants. Some of the investment falls within direct government interest, among them those that will be implemented at local authority level; in those cases government will be the funder. Government funding here includes resources channelled through CEDA, NDB, BDC, BEDIA, etc as well. The government will pay more in terms of creating an enabling environment for BEST projects to function, e.g., through the establishment of policies, legal systems, loan schemes, R&D, capacity building and data collection systems. Although the budget for household bio-digesters is not included, government is likely to support initiatives that will promote household biogas digesters and lower the cost of installation through subsidies or loan schemes. Government is already installing coal depots in the country, which is an additional contribution to its funding, since one of the BEST interventions is the proliferation of coal depots across the country as well as making coal stoves available. NGOs in Botswana are not well funded, but they can contribute in the form of awareness raising to communities on the new and clean biomass energy technologies and safe use of coal. From the negative experience of over-dependence on aid, the role of development partners should continue to be in the area of promoting good technology designs, and CDM project design. Government also has the responsibility to initiate and sustain community projects by providing seedlings, training communities and maintaining the extension services to the communities. Government has other costs that are within usual budget lines such as for policy formulation, capacity building, awareness, R&D and data collection surveys. Other projects could be implemented, such as for large biogas plants, in partnership with the private sector, provided the investment is worthwhile in terms of profits being significant. The private sector is expected to invest where projects are profitable and within the technology options analysed for cost-benefit. Only medium and large bio-digesters will be profitable when displacing LPG or diesel. The private sector may only put resources into projects that are marginal if the government shares the risk. This may be the case for waste water treatment plants and landfill gas to electricity (with carbon finance included), and biodiesel plants.

149

Table 83: Financial responsibility for BEST options

BEST options Government

Project Financing / investors

Development agencies

NGOs Communities Individual households

Other

Improved wood stoves for households

x x x

Coal depots (2 depots per annum)

x

coal stoves for households

x x x

Indigenous tree planting programme and CBNRM

x X Adaptation fund of the UNFCCC

Charcoal production from bush encroachment on freehold farms

x

Exotic Tree Plantations for treated poles

x X

Briquettes from sawdust/dung and paper

X

Gasification using woody biomass

X

MSW-Land fill gas (electricity- local authority level)

x PPP

Incineration (at landfills)

x GEF/ World bank

Household biogas x x x Micro financing

Institutional biogas x x SME (chicken runs; abattoirs, dairy, swine)

x x Carbon financing

Pilot Biodiesel plant-jatropha

x x x

Bio-oil production (substitute paraffin for lighting & cooking)

x x

Ethanol and biogel production-sweet sorghum

x x

Communities have a role to contribute in kind or financially to community natural resources management, developing and managing plantations and also when engaging in biofuels feedstock production. Households have a

150

responsibility to fund procurement of their household stoves and bio-digesters, even loan schemes if they are provided by government. The demonstration plants, with or without carbon offsets, can be supported through GEF/UNDP and other carbon financing institutions. The UNFCCC Adapation Fund could also be accessed for management of woodlands. Private Banks in Botswana are not likely to contribute much to supporting energy projects, unless by way of managing a government loan scheme. 11.5.3 Institutional framework for Implementation

Strong cooperation and coordination amongst different government ministries with overlapping responsibilities is very essential for the effective implementation of the Biomass Energy Strategy. As a summary, the organisations that should closely cooperate under each biomass resource types are presented below. Key to the proposed BEST institutional arrangements would be the immediate formation of a BEST Task Force, which will champion the implementation of the strategy and will consist of stakeholders from key government bodies (relevant departments and parastatals), NGOs (including research institutions) and the private sector. There is also a need for a one-stop-facility for investors that would like to invest in biomass energy projects. The facility will provide facilitation of enquiries on potential projects for investment and how to obtain service, i.e., improving/facilitating the environment for doing business in Botswana. Figure 36 below shows a proposed one- stop-facility that will cater for information required by potential investors. This is in order to achieve a quick approval process for their projects.

Figure 36: The proposed one-stop BEST investment facility

The one-stop facility presents the elements that are necessary to improve “Doing Business on BEST” which include providing information on project prospects, financing opportunities, land acquisition prospects (e.g. for biofuels production) and costs of doing business in Botswana. The cost of doing business will include meeting legal requirements, utilities and accessing incentives. Additional responsibilities will include facilitation for the

151

acquisition of necessary licences, company documentation. Potential investors will also require research information (including market research) that will assist the investors to strategize the businesses. The one-stop-facility will be a source of information but will be advised by the Task Force. Membership will include the key stakeholders related to investment, e.g. government departments, BEDIA, relevant business associations etc. The creation of a one stop facility would ensure that all relevant information regarding BEST implementation can be provided by the facility to those who need it. Before the facility is created, EAD could act in that position but EAD is advised to allocated dedicated personnel for that purpose. The activities of the one stop facility will be another channel for communication.

Woody Biomass For woody biomass, the critical government institutions to be engaged are those in charge of energy (MMEWR, EAD), agriculture (MoA), forestry (DFRR), environment (DEA), rural electrification (RE Botswana) and standards (BOBS). Rural authorities such as VDCs, DCs, tribal authorities and farmers are important as they interact with the natural resources and the communities that use them. Institutions that develop technology, e.g. stoves, are also important for woody biomass: these include BOTEC and RIIC. Development agencies such as GTZ, UNDP are involved in the promotion of woody biomass technologies such as stoves. NGOs and associations are seen to have a role in promoting community projects.

Wet Biomass/Residues For the wet biomass and residue, energy (EAD/MMEWR), agriculture (MoA), organisations in charge of waste management (DWMPC, local authorities), funding (CEDA, LEA, BDC, NDB and Ministry of Finance and Development Planning) should be the major players. The Department of Meteorological Services as the DNA is important where carbon financing and procurement of Adaptation Fund from UNFCCC is applicable. There are also associations related to production of the resource such as the Botswana Poultry Association and Farmers associations, the Bio-Energy Association, and energy and gender associations such as GENBO that should be involved in the promotion of modern biomass energy.

Energy Crops The government departments with main responsible for energy (EAD), land (DOL; Land Boards), agriculture (DAR, Crop Production), environment (DEA), and water (DWA) are crucial in the production of biofuels feedstock, setting research priorities, including involvement of councils and land boards that allocate land. Among parastatals, BEDIA will be crucial to promote biofuels’ production in the country and sourcing land for feedstock production. CEDA, BDC and NDB are also potential financial providers, especially for feedstock production and infrastructure development. BOBS will formulate biofuels standards and the research organisations will support technology development in the country, among them UB, BOTEC and RIIC. International funders such as IFC, GEF, GTZ and ADB can have a role in biofuels development by supporting technology procurement.

11.6 Action Plan for BEST

The action plan presents the objectives of BEST to be achieved after the completion of the study, the activities, responsible organisations and time frame (Table 84).

152

Table 84: Action Plan for Implementation of BEST in Botswana

Objective Activities Responsible Organisation Timing41

Capacity building at EAD Provide training to EAD officers to implement BEST. Enhance the Institutional capacity of EAD to implement BEST (e.g. by increasing number of Biomass personnel).

MMEWR Short term

Increased awareness on Government intention to implement BEST

Print and disseminate the Report widely Workshop of key stakeholders to present findings

EAD Short term

National Structures for implementing BEST

Appoint Task Force. MMEWR, MEWT, EAD, DFRR, DEA

Short term

BEST support Systems Create One-stop-facility for investors- to provide all the necessary information and support to potential investors on biomass energy Energy crops for biofuels Data collection System & impact assessment

EAD/MMEWR/MFDP EAD/One- Stop- Facility

Short term Short term On-going

Develop necessary policy, legal and support system framework for BEST

Credit /loan schemes/remove import duties Levy on fuelwood harvesting Financial incentives/subsidy for BEST Timed national targets for biomass energy Enhanced waste management plan & laws Biofuels policy Stds for energy technologies- stoves, bio-digesters, landfill designs, biofuels

CEDA, NDB, BDC; BURs; MFDP EAD DWMPC EAD BOBS

Short -Medium Term

Demonstration projects Stove designs and fabrication. Coal Stoves. Gasification. Biogas digester (SME & Communities). Biofuels feedstock production.

EAD/RE- Botswana RIIC Private sector EAD

Short term

Awareness building on technology options

Awareness campaigns on modern bio energy options, carbon financing, energy crop production, safe use of coal

EAD & NGOs, DFRR On-going

Capacity Building Community indigenous tree planting and management.

DFRR

On-going

R&D on Biomass energy Suitable indigenous species MSW Gasification Cost-effective bio-digesters & biofuels plants

DFRR BOTEC/RIIC/UB/EAD EAD

On-going Short-medium

Funding Mechanisms for BEST Options

Sensitise local Financial institutions (CEDA, BDC, NDB etc.) International soliciting of investors (BEDIA; LEA)

EAD/ MMWER/MFDP MTI

Short to Medium

Support carbon projects emanating from BEST

EAD, DMS supported by carbon market experts

on-going

Investment support Support projects investments Facilitate imports of production plant

EAD, BDC, BEDIA, NDB, CEDA, MFDP

On- going

BDC: Botswana Development Corporation; BEDIA: Botswana Export Development and Investment Authority

41

Short term-2010; Medium term- 2015; Long term- 2020; Immediate- before 2010

153

BoBS: Botswana Bureau of Standards; DAR: Department of Agricultural research DFRR: Department of Forestry and Range Resources DMS: Department of Meteorological Services LEA: Local Enterprise Authority MEWT-Ministry of Environment, Wildlife & Tourism MFDP: Ministry of Finance and Development Planning MMWER: Ministry of Minerals Energy and Water Resources MOA: Ministry of Agriculture MTI-Ministry of Trade & Industry NDB: National Development Bank RIIC-Rural Industries Innovation Centre

11.7 Communication Strategy

A communication strategy is required to ensure that the BEST findings are disseminated widely to the public and potential investors, and to create awareness among stakeholders with respect to their responsibilities. Important instruments for dissemination of the BEST findings and recommendations will be the report itself. Similar to what EAD did for the Biofuels Study report, the report needs to be professionally printed and distributed to the key stakeholders in Botswana and interested parties from outside the country. It will also be crucial to create a website where the report and subsequent documents and information will be posted for accessing by enquiring parties within and outside the country. The stakeholder workshop proposed to disseminate the BEST findings is to be organized by EAD; in a similar fashion they organised one for the Biofuels project. Both local and international participants are to be invited to the workshop. Governments with development agencies in Botswana can, where necessary, be represented by their embassy officials. Beyond sharing the study results among key stakeholders in government and other organisations, there is a need to reach out to the public in general for informed decisions and for possible feedback into the BEST process. Some of the key issues that need to be communicated with respect to BEST are outlined below. The key content of the messages relate to:

awareness on biomass energy situation and potential;

understanding the advantages attached to the use of Biomass energy;

contribution of Biomass energy towards environmental management;

explanation of the macro and micro economic advantages of Biomass energy;

job creation possibilities;

the dangers associated with use of biomass energy and alternative fuels. Table 85 summarises the messages that need to be communicated to targeted audiences, including who should communicate the message through which media and when that should be done.

154

Table 85: Communication Task Framework for disseminating information on BEST to the wider public.

Resource Type

Target audience

Messages to communicate

Communicator Proposed media

Timeframe

Woody Biomass

Households, traditional leaders, school children, women associations, NGOs

Environmental, social and economic benefits associated with harvesting and use of biomass energy from woody biomass

EAD & DFRR Extension Office GENBO

Kgotla/council meetings; radio and Daily News

Ongoing starting immediately

Wet Biomass Farming community Abattoir owners City authorities

Existing and future potential of deriving clean energy from wet biomass in Botswana and the resource potential at their premises. Carbon financing options.

EAD, MoA, Bioenergy association DMS

Council meetings; Daily News, Agricultural Shows, farmers Meetings workshops

Ongoing starting immediately

Residues City authorities Waste disposal companies Households and businesses

How to manage waste at source, in transit to landfills and disposal

DWMPC, EAD Council meetings; Daily News workshops

Ongoing starting immediately

Energy Crops/Biofuels

Legislators, Village Authorities Oil companies Fuel retailers Feedstock farmers Equipment suppliers Motorists Associations NGOs

Relevancy of, end uses-technical aspects and socio-economic benefits of Biofuels.

EAD, Bio-Energy Association of Botswana

Meetings with Oil Industry Committee Daily News

Ongoing starting immediately

11.8 Monitoring and Evaluation

The M&E proposed for BEST is not for the individual projects/options but for high-level objectives to oversee the general progress in achieving the proposed interventions. The project activities can be monitored at the project level using detailed indicators that include inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts. The M&E proposed here is for monitoring the achievement of broad objectives in the context of the biomass energy sector and national development.

155

The important objectives that are to be monitored under BEST are summarised in Table 86 below. The objectives to be monitored are at two levels- those at broad national level and the direct impact on BEST options.

Table 86: The proposed M&E framework for BEST

Item Objective What to measure Indicator Key Stakeholder in charge of M&E

Broad national objectives

Importance of biomass energy in the economy

Energy balance statistics

Share of biomass energy in the energy balance by sector

EAD

Modernization of biomass energy

Energy balance statistics

Share of modern biomass energy balance

EAD

Resource allocation to Biomass energy projects

Budgets Amount allocated to BEST

EAD/MFDP

Project financing Budgets Share of BEST budget for projects

BDC/CEDA/NDB/BEDIA

Contribution of biomass energy to Botswana economy

Amount of traded biomass energy and GDP contribution

Biomass energy revenue

EAD/MFDP

Stakeholder coordination

Biomass planning coordination

Organisations represented in planning

EAD

BEST objectives Promotion of energy efficient stoves

Level of dissemination

Fabrication facilities, supply depots and stoves sold

EAD /RE Botswana/ProBEC

Technology Options

Community projects using indigenous species

Areas with such projects

Demarcated community woodlands/plots sizes

DFRR

Enhanced coal depots

Rate of coal depot establishment

No of depots installed per year above the 2/year in the NDP10

EAD

Biogas technology uptake

Biogas plant installations

No of biogas plants installed and working in total

EAD/DWMPC/ Councils

Biofuels production and use

Biofuels produced from energy crops

Plant size and production capacity

EAD

Utilisation of MSW for energy

Landfill gas capture and incineration

No of sites with installations operating

EAD/DWMPC/Councils

Charcoal production

Potential of charcoal production

Farms undertaking charcoal production

DFRR/EAD

Gasification technology

Uptake of technology

No of gasification operating plants in the country

EAD

Implementation Biomass energy Data base system DBS generated EAD

156

Item Objective What to measure Indicator Key Stakeholder in charge of M&E

Framework data collection & management system

statistics

Creation of Credit scheme

Establishment & operationalization

operating scheme and loans processed

EAD/ MFDP

Incentives scheme

establishment Specific benefits EAD/MFDP

R&D Established programmes

No of Biomass R&D programmes and value

EAD/DAR/DFRR

Legal framework Laws revised- on waste management and utilisation; Standards for stoves & designs

Acts Standards in BOBS approved list

EAD/DWMPC/ AG BOBS

Policy Framework

Biofuels policy in place

Policy Document EAD

Monitoring would be periodic and continuous after rolling out the programmes for implementing strategic options, but impact evaluation will be conducted at specific times (e.g. in 2010, 2015 and 2020) to assess the effectiveness of the interventions. The institutions listed as responsible for the indicators will take charge of overall collecting and analyzing monitoring information and devising appropriate mitigating actions to achieve programme indicator objectives. These lead organizations will seek all the necessary support from other relevant departments and institutions. The M&E framework is also dynamic in terms of changing the objectives and activities to be monitored. A review of indicators to be monitored can also be done after evaluations e.g. 2010, 2015 and 2020.

157

12. ANNEXES

Annex A: Abridged BEST Terms of Reference 1. Background Upon the request of the Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources (MMEWR) of Botswana, a Biomass Energy Strategy (BEST) will be developed for Botswana. The objective is to establish a coordinated framework of short-term, medium-term, and long-term interventions for sustainably managing biomass energy resources and providing better energy services to the people.

2. Immediate Objective The biomass energy strategy should aim at a socially, economically and environmentally sound supply and use of resources. The BEST will determine the interventions, strategies and lines of action by which this goal can be achieved in Botswana. This includes a general concept as well as concrete assignments of responsibilities and time frames. Special attention should be given to stakeholder identification and involvement.

3. Content of BEST in Botswana

The overriding objective in Botswana is to use biomass resources at a rate that is in balance with their replenishment. BEST will predominantly target the thermal utilisation of biomass for cooking and heating in private households, social infrastructure and government institutions. However, other uses of biomass energy, as well as alternatives such as LPG, can be taken into consideration. To what extent biofuels should be covered will depend on the results of the feasibility study currently undertaken by the Energy Affairs Divisions (EAD).

The Biomass Energy Strategy will cover the following aspects:

Woody biomass: The strategy will entail sustainable use of resources such as woodlands, fuelwood and grasslands. Woody biomass conservation through the use of efficient and effective wood stoves will be exploited. Methanol will also be exploited through gasification of woody resources.

Wet Biomass: The potential for exploitation of biogas through anaerobic fermentation using municipal sludge and cow dung will be assessed.

Energy crops: Forestry or agricultural crops with biofuels (biodiesel, ethanol and biogel) as a main product will be exploited. The BEST can build on the findings of a survey currently undertaken by the EAD.

Residues: Agricultural, forestry and urban: The strategy will include such sub-types as primary (dispersed e.g. fallen trees & concentrated e.g. caged poultry), secondary (sawdust, sawmill, bark etc) and tertiary (municipal solid waste).

Alternatives: The strategy will also assess alternatives to traditional biomass energy use, such as substitution with LPG (liquid petroleum gas).

4. Work Scope

The following group of actors will contribute to the BEST development:

Lead agent: The Lead agent will consist of a team from the EAD within MMEWR. Main tasks are decision-making, steering of the process and accountability for the final result. Regular consultative meetings should take place.

158

Lead consultant: The lead consultant will predominantly manage the overall work flow, stakeholder engagement and will focus on the provision of methodology inputs. It will be the consultant’s task to moderate between different stakeholders and between working group and lead agent. The outlined deliverables in the Terms of Reference can be delegated to local project partners (working group). The consultant will also monitor the outcomes of BEST and ensure the quality and approach of outputs and tasks.

Working group: The working group will undertake the daily work of developing a BEST, following the steps as indicated in the BEST Guide. This includes data collection, scenario development, formulation of lines of action, etc. The working group should contain a team member with a good knowledge of the energy sector in Botswana and include local consultants.

Reference group: The reference group will be made up of relevant stakeholders that have to be included in the BEST process, especially representatives of the Department of Forestry and Range Resources. It will provide input to BEST development in the form of comments, concerns, expert opinions and knowledge of problems and solutions related to biomass energy issues. Members of the reference group can also be part of the working group and vice versa.

5. Tasks and Responsibilities of the Lead Consultant The lead consultant will carry out tasks as set out in the full Terms of Reference, in close cooperation with the Department of Energy and other relevant stakeholders, under the headings of:

Project Coordination

Inception period

Assessment of framework conditions and Initial analysis of the biomass energy sector

Scenario Development and Prioritisation of Interventions

Strategy Formulation

Deliverables 6. Tasks and Responsibilities of the Lead agent (EAD) The lead agent will be responsible for the following tasks, which are described in detail in the full Terms of Reference:

Steering of the Process and Final Results:

Inception Period

Assessment of framework conditions and initial analysis of the biomass energy sector

Scenario Development and Prioritisation of Interventions

Strategy Formulation 7. Timeframe for the BEST development and deliverables The timeframe for the strategy development is 12 months, starting in October 2007 at the latest. The personnel (lead consultant + working group) will contribute to the strategy development with a total of 540 expert days. The lead consultant will prepare, organise and conduct workshops as described under 2.1 in coordination with the local GTZ office. He will give due notice and provide a corresponding budget overview for approbation before each workshop. The lead consultant will deliver the relevant documents and report to Botswana EAD and GTZ.

159

Annex B: Workshop Participants Workshop 1 Participants

Organisation Name Designation

1 Botswana Technology Centre Mr Aaron Aupa Somolekae Renewable Energy Engineer

2 Botswana Technology Centre Mrs Nozipho Wright Acting Principal Comms. Officer

3 Chinhoyi University, Zimbabwe Mr Batidzirai Bothwell Lecturer

4 Department Of Water Affairs Mrs Bogadi Mathangwane Principal Water Engineer

5 EECG consultants Dr P Zhou Director

6 EECG consultants Mr Tich Simbini Consultant

7 Energy Affairs Division Mr Bidoh Kgaimena Energy Engineer

8 Energy Affairs Division Mr Boiki R Mabowe Senior Energy Officer

9 Energy Affairs Division Mr Gamu Mpofu Energy Economist

10 Energy Affairs Division Mr Kenneth Kerekang Principal Energy Officer

11 Energy Affairs Division Mr Kesetsenao Molosiwa Acting Director

12 Energy Affairs Division Mr Leabaneng Matsuane Assistant Energy Engineer

13 Energy Affairs Division Mr Lebogang Brown Energy Statistician

14 Energy Affairs Division Mr Thuso Cyril Matshameko Acting Deputy Director

15 Energy Affairs Division Mrs Cathrine Rita Popo Secretary

16 Energy Affairs Division Ms Mareledi Gina Wright Energy Officer

17 Ministry Of Agric/Crop Production Mrs Moremedi Keikanelwe Principal Agric Officer

18 Renewable Energy Pty. Ltd. Mr Nair Raghesh Marketing Director

19 Renewable Energy Pty. Ltd. Mr Ranganathan Ramharith Chairman

20 Rural Industries Innovation Centre Mr Mothusi Odireng Chief Engineer

21 Somarelang Tikologo Mr Victor Senome Environmental Officer

22 UNDP/RE-Botswana Dr Andrew Mears Chief Technical Advisor

23 US Embassy Ms Bigani Setume Envtl. Science & Tech Officer

160

Workshop 2 Participants

Organisation Name Position

1 A.S.A. Enterprises Mr Ajit Anuja Managing Director

2 A.S.A. Enterprises Mr Otwoma Thomas Business Development Manager

3 Arts & Horts LandPower Mr Rajeeu Bakshi Director

4 Arts & Horts LandPower Mr Thakur Saroj Plantations Manager

5 Bio-Energy Association Mr Cirilo Vista Interim Chairman

6 Biofuels Botswana Mr Tich Simbini Working group

7 Botswana Technology Centre Mr Aaron Somolekae Renewable Energy Engineer

8 Botswana Technology Centre Mrs Nozipho Wright Working group

9 BSE Warehouse Ms Karolina S. Van Hulst Renewable Energy Expert

10 Chinhoyi University, Zimbabwe Mr Bothwell Batidzirai Working group

11 Dept of Forestry Mr Anthony Tema Research Officer

12 Dept. of Environmental Affairs Ms Dineo Oitsile Natural Resources Officer

13 Dept. of Lands Mr Samuel Mabiletsa Principal Land Officer

14 EECG Consultants Dr Peter Zhou Director

15 Embassy of Brazil Ms Patricia Leite Deputy Chief of Mission

16 Energy Affairs Division Mr B Mabowe Senior

17 Energy Affairs Division Mr Girish Kumar Principal Energy Engineer

18 Energy Affairs Division Mr K Molosiwa Acting Director

19 GIS Map Solutions Mr Thomas Tadzimirwa Managing Director

20 GTZ ProBec Mr David Hancock Programme Manager

21 Local Govt. Finance & Procurement Mrs Ednah Namogang Senior Educ. Procurement Officer

22 RE-Botswana Dr Mears Andrew Chief Technical advisor

23 Renewable Energy Pty Ltd Mr Raghish Nair Marketing Director

24 Rural Industries Innovation Centre Mr Mothusi Odireng Working group

25 Rural Innovations Promotions Company Mr Truman Phuthego Technical Director

26 Somarelang Tikologo Mr Victor Senome Environmental Officer

27 Southern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub Mrs Gloria Magombo Energy Advisor

28 Tribal Administration, Kgatleng Mr George Domy Thwane Senior Chief Representative

29 Tribal Administration, Masunga Mr Thabo Masunga Kgosi

30 Tribal Administration, Pitsane Kgosi Marumola Kgosi

161

Annex C: References

Afrane-Okese Y. and Zhou P., 2001. Urban and Rural Energy In Botswana: Needs and Requirements. Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Affairs (July). GABORONE. Botswana.

BIOCAP, 2008. An information guide on Pursuing Biomass Energy Opportunities and Technologies in British Columbia. BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range Canada. www.biocap.ca

Botswana Energy Master Plan (BEMP), 2004. Final Report. Ministry of Minerals Energy and Water Resources, Department of Energy, Republic of Botswana.

Botswana Technology Centre, 2006. Gender Audit of Energy Policies and Programmes: The Case of Botswana. Intelligent Energy Europe/Energia/EC.

Central Statistical Office (CSO), 2001. Preliminary Results for the 2001 National Population Census. Ministry of Finance and Development Planning. Gaborone. Botswana.

Central Statistics Office, 2001. Population and Housing Census. Ministry of Finance and Development Planning. Gaborone.

Ditlhale, N and Wright, M. (2003) The Importance of Gender in Energy Decision making: the case of Rural Botswana. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa. Vol. 14 No 2

EAD, 2006. Botswana Energy Master Plan. White Paper on Energy Policy. Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources.

EECG, 2004. Energy Use, Energy Supply, Sector Reform and the Poor in Botswana. Report 2, Energy Sector Management Project – World Bank.

EECG, 2007. Feasibility Study for the Production and Use of Biofuels in Botswana. Report for Department of Energy, Ministry of Minerals Energy and Water Resources, Gaborone.

EECG/RIIC 2001 Rural Energy Needs and Requirements. Energy Affairs Division, MMRWA, Botswana.

EECG/RIIC, 2001. Rural energy needs and requirement needs in Botswana. Final report of tender no. TB/10/1/9/99-2000. Ministry of Energy Minerals and Water Resources, Department of Energy, Republic of Botswana.

Energy Affairs Division, 2003. Expansion of the Fuelwood/Woody Biomass Inventory and Monitoring Programme (FIMP) – Eastern Botswana, Vol. 1. Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources.

ERDC/EDG/FAB 2001 Urban Fuelwood Study. Energy Affairs Division, MMRWA, Botswana.

ERL (energy Resources Limited), 1985 Study of energy utilization and requirements in the rural sector of Botswana. Ministry of Minerals Energy and Water Resources, Gaborone, Botswana

Government of Botswana, 1998a. Botswana’s Strategy For Waste Management.. Ministry of Environment, Wild Life and Tourism

Government of Botswana, 1998b. Industrial Development Policy For Botswana. Ministry of Trade and Industry

Government of Botswana, 2002. Community-revised National Policy For Rural Development.Ministry of Finance and Development Planning

Government of Botswana, 2004. Botswana Energy Master Plan. EAD, Ministry of minerals, Energy and Water Resources

Government of Botswana, 2007. Community-Based Natural Resources Management Policy. Ministry of Environment Wild life and Tourism

Government of Botswana, 2008. Draft Energy Policy.

IUCN, 2001. CBNRM – Investing in the future. National CBNRM Conference. November 14th

to 16th

GABORONE. Botswana.

Keapoletswe, K.K., 1998. Forestry Data on Botswana. Ministry of Agriculture. Gaborone. In: Proceedings of Sub-Regional Workshop on Forestry Statistics for SADC Region, Mutare, Zimbabwe, Nov/Dec 1998.

Kemoreile, K.S., Mosimayana, E. Philimon, B. & Basalumi, L., 2008. Makomoto Forest Inventory Report. Department Of Forestry & Range Resources, Ministry Of Environment, Wildlife & Tourism, Gaborone.

Kgathi D and Mlotshwa CV 1994 Utilization of fuelwood in Botswana: Implications for energy policy. African Energy Policy Network (AFREPREN). Biomass research Group. Nairobi Kenya

Leipego, A.K., 1998. Tools and Methods for IRP for Developing Countries. In: Pretorius, B. and Fletcher, R.

162

(eds). Energy and Environment: Integrated Resource Planning – Tools and Methods. Vol. 6, Proceedings of a workshop held in Cape Town, South Africa.

Mabowe, B. R., 2006. Above-ground woody biomass assessment in Serowe woodlands, Botswana. ITC, Enschede.

Mazibuko, B., 2003. Solid Waste Management in Selected Towns in Botswana.. Department of Waste Management and Pollution Control. Ministry of Environment Wild Lifwe and Tourism

MCI, 1999. Policy on Small Medium and Micro Enterprises in Botswana.. Ministry of Trade and Industry. Government Printers Gaborone, Botswana

Ministry of Agriculture, 2001a. Woodlot Assessment Study. Draft Report.

Ministry of Agriculture, 2007. Poultry Annual Report 2006-2007. Department of Animal Production.

Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism, 1990. Tourism Policy.

Ministry of Finance and Development Planning, 2000. Revised National Food Strategy.

Ministry of Finance and Development Planning, 2003. National Strategy For Poverty Reduction.

Ministry of Local Government, 2001. Policy for Water and Sanitation Management.

Ministry of Works, Transport and Communications, 2001. Botswana Initial National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

NRP (Pty) Ltd., 2000. Study on Fuelwood/ Woody Biomass Assessment Around Mochudi and Bobonong. Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Affairs

NRP (2003) Expansion of the fuelwood/woody biomass inventory and monitoring programme (FIMP) Eastern Botswana Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Affairs:

Prasad, G., 2006. Energy Sector Reform and the Pattern of the Poor: Energy Use and Supply, a Four Country Study: Botswana, Ghana, Honduras and Senegal. Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme, World Bank, USA.

ProBEC, 2006. http://www.probec.org

Sekhwela MBM, 1994 Environmental Impact of woody biomass utilization in Botswana- the case of fuelwood (Final Report) African Energy Policy Network (AFREPREN). Biomass research Group. Nairobi Kenya

Uganda Ministry of Energy and Minerals Development, 2001. Plan for Development of Uganda’s Biomass Energy Strategy.

van der Plas, R.J. and Abdel-Hamid, M.A., 2005. Can the Fuelwood Supply in sub-Saharan Africa be Sustainable? The case of N'Djaména, Chad. Energy Policy, Vol. 33, Issue 3, pp 297-306.

Vision 2016, 1997. Long Term Vision for Botswana- Towards Prosperity for All. Government Printers. Gaborone. Botswana.

White, R, 1999 Fuelwood flow paths study in Francistown (Final report). EAD, Ministry of Minerals Energy and Water Resources.

World Resources Institute, 2003. Forests, Grasslands, and Drylands—Botswana. http://earthtrends.wri.org

163

Annex D: LEAP Assumptions The biomass baseline and alternative scenarios were developed using the LEAP 95 model. LEAP is a flexible scenario based integrated energy planning tool with an end-use, needs based approach for performing energy assessments. It allows integrated analysis of biomass supply and demand at user defined regional levels as well as sector and sub sector levels. LEAP comprises of three main program elements relevant for the biomass sub sector – a Biomass module, an Energy Demand module and a Transformation module.

The LEAP Biomass programme is a tool for assessing the current and future status of biomass resources – wood, residues and other energy crops – under different scenarios of land use changes, and energy supply and consumption patterns. The program is readily applicable to the study of modern as well as traditional biomass fuels and, with its close integration with the Demand and Environmental Database, allows the end use and upstream environmental impacts of biomass energy supplies to be analysed. The basic unit of the program is land – data on present land areas, wood stocks, wood yields, dung, crop and crop waste production for each type of land use should be specified, creating a base year inventory of biomass resources

42. The inter-regional allocation of wood and other biomass requirements is also specified as well as

expected changes in land uses and biomass productivity. Alternative scenarios can then be created to investigate the alternative assumptions about changing patterns of land use and biomass production. After assessing supplies of wood, dung, crop and crop wastes biomass resources, LEAP is then used to compare these supplies to the energy and non-energy requirements (such as poles and building materials). The Biomass program calculates the balance between biomass supplies and biomass requirements. Biomass energy requirements such as fuelwood and charcoal are specified in the Energy Scenarios while non-energy requirements such as poles are specified in the Biomass module. Results either show that future supplies are adequate to meet demand or there is a deficit. These results are provided for each specified region. The Demand program is a disaggregated, end-use tool for the analysis of energy requirements. Economic, demographic and energy use data can be used in different scenarios to project total and disaggregated consumption of various end-use fuels in all sectors and sub sectors of the economy: households, government, commerce, etc. Energy demand data is assembled in a hierarchical format from Sector, Sub sector, End-use and Device. While a sub sector can be e.g. rural households, and endues can be cooking, water heating, etc while at the end devices are the stoves with specified energy intensity. Different scenarios can be developed into the program by manually changing variables in each branch, but ‘drivers’ can also be specified. Drivers are macroeconomic or other independent time series variables which can be used to project future energy demand. LEAP Assumptions

42 In LEAP, biomass data (e.g. wood stocks and yields) may be represented at different spatial levels depending on analytical needs (in the case of Botswana at District and sub-District level) and also for different land use and vegetation types.

164

Annex E: Key Woody Biomass Assumptions

Supply side assumptions

1. Land use characteristics a. Areas:

i. Botswana divided into districts and sub-districts for the Central districts ii. Only areas that are accessible for collecting and harvesting woody biomass were

included, i.e. all protected areas, national parks and farms were subtracted from the total land area of each district

b. Zones: no agro ecological zone classification was used – the whole country assumed to be one zone

c. Land types i. land/vegetation classification follows FIMP format: land was classified into one of three

savannah land types, i.e. Tree savannah, Bush savannah and Shrub savannah. Although FIMP disaggregates these savannah types into High density, moderate density and low density, this approach was not used as it would have complicated the analysis. Hence for each type of land type, average values were used.

ii. For those areas which were surveyed under FIMP and other studies, the woody biomass stocks, yields and regeneration rates were taken from these surveys.

iii. However, FIMP and other studies determined only average aboveground biomass standing stocks per hectare by dominant vegetation type but did not allocate the corresponding areas occupied by each vegetation category in the study areas. Standing stocks in each District were therefore estimated in combination with a more spatially informative Geographical Information System (GIS) map. By summing up areas with similar vegetation types, it is possible to read the total area under each vegetation type from the GIS map.

iv. Since FIMP only covered part of the country, the GIS map was used to further extrapolate results of FIMP to areas with similar vegetation patterns.

v. There is no data to indicate conversion of one land type to another, and thus, the default method was assumed for future land use changes. Rather a cycle of regrowth is assumed for each land type.

2. Biomass product requirements a. Only the requirements for fuelwood and building poles were specified under the product module b. The requirements are allocated for each district using results from the Demand module, i.e.

aggregate fuelwood requirements for the various end-uses for each district c. It was assumed that each area supplies its own needs and thus there is no inter-district wood

movement 3. Biomass resources

a. It was assumed that stocks can be felled (cleared) during harvesting under an unmanaged woodland regime

b. Since protected areas were removed from land areas, it was assumed that access to the remaining areas was 100%.

c. Under the unmanaged woodland system, it was also assumed that cleared areas would regrow and the maximum stocks are similar to the current standing stock in each district.

d. It was also assumed that no harvesting is done until the vegetation density exceeds 600 kg per hectare

165

Demand side assumptions

a. Baseline scenario

i. Sectors considered important in biomass energy consumption include households, government institutions such as schools, prisons, hospitals; transport

ii. Under households sector, the sub sectors are rural households, urban households and urban village households. This is because these classes have distinct characteristics which influence their biomass energy demand

iii. Important end-uses selected include cooking, water heating and space heating iv. It was assumed that firewood end use is split into 50% cooking, 25% water and space heating each. This

was extrapolated from the survey data which showed a doubling of firewood use in winter when water heating and space heating are predominant (537 kg – winter against 267 kg- summer per household per month)

v. Actual data from 2000 and 2004 surveys (such as sectoral energy use, end use patterns, proportion of households using particular fuel, etc) was used for base year (2000) and intermediate year (2005).

vi. LPG penetration was projected from historical demand and expected to stagnate due to high prices vii. Firewood demand was assumed to be driven by mainly population growth for the household sector, while

government policy influenced demand in government institutions (It was assumed government institutions would stop using firewood by 2016)

viii. Future population based on business as usual population growth rates ix. Energy intensity of firewood devices was assumed to remain constant over study period (2000 – 2020),

i.e. assumes no efficient device dissemination. Energy intensity only decreases when efficient stoves are introduced in the efficient stoves scenario.

x. Consumers assumed to mostly switch from wood to LPG for cooking and heating. xi. Rural electrification is assumed to have limited impact on fuel used for cooking

xii. Wood to continue dominating space heating in rural areas xiii. Paraffin use to remain static (assuming dangers of burns, poisoning, etc are discouraging its use) xiv. Assumes base case GDP growth as in NDP9 and NDP10

b. Pessimistic scenario i. Assumes pessimistic economic growth (slow GDP growth from NDP10)

ii. Assumes decline in LPG use iii. Gradual return to wood for cooking and water heating for rural households

c. Optimistic scenario i. Assumes optimistic economic growth (higher GDP growth from NDP10) ii. Assumes marginal increase in LPG use iii. Assumes increase in the proportion of households heating water

Relative GDP projections

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Base Case GDP 1.00 1.27 1.57 2.15 2.49

Optimistic GDP 1.00 1.27 1.74 2.56 3.18

Pessimistic GDP 1.00 1.27 1.55 2.02 2.23

Source: NDP9 and NDP10

166

Baseline fuel mix projections as percentage

Rural % % % % %

Cooking 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Open fire 77.3 53 45.1 36.0 27.0

Efficient stove 0 0 0 0 0

Paraffin 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

LPG 17 40.5 49.2 58 66.7

Electricity 1.1 1 1.22 1.48 1.80

Water heating 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Open fire 44.5 72.6 67.9 61.7 56.5

Efficient stove 0 0 0 0 0

Paraffin 0.4 3 3 3 3

LPG 0.9 16.9 20.6 24.9 27.9

Electricity 1.3 7 8.51 10.36 12.60

Space heating 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Open fire 82.67 79.2 78.1 76.7 75.4

Efficient stove 0 0 0 0 0

Paraffin 1.29 3 3 3 3

LPG 0.9 2.1 2.6 3.2 3.5

Electricity 2.44 2.97 3.61 4.39 5.34

167

Annex F: Assumptions in Cost-Benefit Analyses

Investment Costs

Digester size (cu.m.) Investment cost (P/ m3) Ref.

>400 1,500 RE (Pty) Ltd

>16 1,700 RE (Pty) Ltd

>6 2,500 RE (Pty) Ltd

>3 4,200 RE (Pty) Ltd

>2.5 4,400 RE (Pty) Ltd

>2 5,000 RE (Pty) Ltd

>1.5 6,700 RE (Pty) Ltd

1 8,000 RE (Pty) Ltd

Biogas Yield

VSS (kg/hd/day)

Bo (cu.m. CH4/kg VS)

Poultry 0.01 0.36 IPCC/ RE (Pty) Ltd

Cattle 1.50 0.10 IPCC/ RE (Pty) Ltd

Dairy 1.90 0.13 IPCC 2006

Sheep 0.32 0.13 IPCC 2006

Goat 0.35 0.13 IPCC 2006

Municipal liquid waste 11.9 GCC 2008

Municipal Solid Waste (landfill gas)

Volume of LPG to be generated (m3 CH4/t. waste) 50 EU/Synergy

Amount of Waste (kg/person day) 2.38 EU/Synergy

LFG recovery rate (%) 50 EU/Synergy

LFG CH4 Content (%) 50 EU/Synergy

System operating hours (hrs/yr) 8,664 EU/Synergy

System failure Rate (% year operating hours) 10 EU/Synergy

Lower Heating Value of methane (kWh/Nm3CH4) 9.05 EU/Synergy

CH4 density (t./m3) 0.00067 EU/Synergy

Financial Assumptions

Discount rate 15.5% BoB

Social discount rate 6% BoB

Project life (yrs) 20

Fuel Properties

Coal calorific value (kJ/kg) 22,700 Morupule

Diesel calorific value (kJ/kg) 46,000

Diesel density (kg/m3) 0.880

Waste Generation

Biodegradable waste generation per beast (kg) 20 BMC

Waste per bird for 6 wks (kg) 3.4 Star Poultry

Wastewater generation per bird (l) 17 Star Poultry

Wastewater generation per beast (l)

Fuel Prices

Diesel (P/l) 8

LPG (P/kg) 16

Coal (P/kg) 0.04