The Charcoal Sector in

Sub-Saharan Africa:

A selected overview

Klas Sander, PhD

Senior Environmental Economist Environment & Natural Resources

Global Practice, The World Bank

Sustainable Tree-Based

Bioenergy in Sub-Saharan

Africa Conference

ICRAF, Nairobi

May 27, 2015

Starting Point

The technical, policy, and research discussion on the charcoal sector in Sub-Saharan Africa is commonly dominated by the following:

1. … unreliable data and information.

2. … antiquated contextualization.

3. … technical misconceptions & shortcomings.

4. … unclear definitions & tendency for miscommunication.

5. … well-embedded stereotypes.

6. … perpetuating stigmatization.

7. … regressive policy approach.

8. … unrealistic desires and objectives.

9. … wisdom from the past continues to serve as the fountain of knowledge for future solutions

Consequences

1. Wood energy in SSA is still approached as a household energy use issue, not as a commercial, nor industrial use

2. (Over-)emphasis on the problems, neglect of opportunities

3. It is good for some, bad for others

4. Neglect of economic context Africa has and continues to change dramatically

5. Rural and urban aspects of wood energy use often mingled together

Definitions (1)

The use of charcoal is generally categorized as being a “traditional” use of biomass

energy…

Definition of “traditional” biomass energy (use):

WEO 2010: Consumption in the residential sector in developing countries and refers to the often

unsustainable use of wood, charcoal, agricultural residues and animal dung for cooking and

heating (IEA 2010a).

Renewable Energy Market Report (IEA 2014c): Traditional biomass use refers to the use of

fuelwood, animal dung and agricultural residues in simple stoves with very low combustion

efficiencies. Traditional biomass use is estimated – in line with the methodology used in the IEA

WEO 2010 – as the use of solid biomass in the residential sector of non-OECD countries,

excluding countries in non-OECD Europe and Eurasia.

WEO 2014 Special Report on Africa: Traditional use of solid biomass refers to basic technologies

used to cook or heat with solid biomass, such as a three-stone fire, often with no or poor operating

chimneys. Modern use of solid biomass refers to improved cookstoves using solid biomass and

modern technologies processed biomass such as pellets.

WEO 2014: Traditional use of solid biomass as the use of solid biomass with basic technologies

such as a three-stone fire, often with no or poorly operating chimneys.

Definitions (2)

REN21 (2014) defines traditional biomass as solid biomass, including gathered fuel wood, charcoal,

agricultural and forest residues, and animal dung, that is usually produced unsustainably and typically

used in rural areas of developing countries by combustion in polluting and inefficient cookstoves,

furnaces, or open fires to provide heat for cooking, comfort, and small-scale agricultural and industrial

processing.

IRENA (2012): Traditional biomass use as the use of wood, charcoal, agricultural residues and animal dung for

cooking and heating in the residential sector. It tends to have very low conversion efficiency (10% to 20%)

and often relies on unsustainable biomass supply” (from IEA 2012).

IRENA REmap (2014): The estimate of traditional biomass use in 2010 follows the IEA definition, which

assumes that all biomass use in the building sectors outside countries of the OECD is traditional,

unless a REmap country provided a more detailed breakdown which allowed for more comprehensive

reporting.

Modern Biomass Energy:

(REN21, 2014): Energy derived from combustion of solid, liquid, and gaseous biomass fuels in efficient small

domestic appliances to large-scale industrial conversion plants for modern applications of space heating,

electricity generation, combined heat and power, and transport.

WEO 2014 methodology for Energy Access Analysis: A household having reliable and affordable access to

clean cooking facilities and to a minimum level of electricity consumption which is increasing over time.

This definition includes provision of cooking facilities which can be used without harm to the health of those in

the household and which are more environmentally sustainable and energy efficient than the average

solid biomass cookstove currently used in developing countries.

How much scientific progress have we made?

Title Source Year

Fuelwood Consumption and Deforestation World Bank 1984

Fueling Nairobi the importance of small-scale charcoaling enterprises

FAO 1987

Deforestation from the overexploitation of wood resources as a cooking fuel

Energy Economics 1988

Fuelwood Deficits in Rural South Africa Biomass and Bioenergy 1991

An economic analysis of woodfuel management in the Sahel: Case of Chad

World Bank 1997

The charcoal trap: Miombo forests and the energy needs of people

Carbon Balance and Management

2011

Towards sustainable energy utilization: An analysis of various cooking fuel options in Malawi

Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research

2013

Overuse of wood-based bioenergy in selected sub-Saharan Africa countries: review of unconstructive challenges and suggestions

Journal of Cleaner Production

2014

Selected examples of analytical work:

30 years have passed – what is different?

Urbanization – Driver of Charcoal Use in Africa

Urbanization in Africa is accelerating:

Between 2000 – 2030 population in SSA is expected to double

By 2030 50% of Africans will live in cities

52 cities with ≥1 million people (same as Europe and more than North America)

Population growth & migration to cities

Shift of fuels: fuelwood charcoal

Rapid urbanization is a global trend:

Since 2008, 50% of the world’s population lives in cities

By 2050 this number will increase to 5

billion

Lagos is growing at a rate of about 6% per

year. Dar-es-Salaam at about 4.3% per year.

1% increase in urbanization 14%

increase in charcoal consumption.

Shift from fuelwood to charcoal can reduce IAP

by 90%

Urbanization – The Big Ones

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Tho

usa

nd

s

Aggregated urbanization trend for Sub-Sahara Africa 1950-2030

10 million or more

5 to 10 million

1 to 5 million

500 000 to 1 million

300 000 to 500 000

Fewer than 300 000

Rural population

Source: based on UN WUP 2014

Urbanization – Dynamic Trends

City ‘50 ‘70 ‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘25 SF [%] PG 05-10 PG 10-25

Kinshasa 202 1,070 3,520 5,414 8,415 14,535 69 4.46% 3.71%

Maputo 92 371 776 1,019 1,132 1,823 65 1.10% 3.23%

Kampala 95 340 755 1,097 1,594 3,540 74 3.83% 5.47%

Dar es Salaam 67 357 1,316 2,116 3,415 7,276 80 4.94% 5.17%

Wood Energy, Charcoal and Deforestation

Population and Forests

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

19

60

19

62

19

64

19

66

19

68

19

70

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

20

12

Tho

usa

nd

s sq

. km

Mill

ion

s

Aggregated total population and forest cover for selected African countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique)

Population, total

Forest area (sq. km)

Source: WDI database

We sure have lost closed, natural forests, but… is it because of woodfuel use?

What does the loss of dense natural forest mean for woodfuels?

Charcoal and Forest Management

Attributability (multiple drivers of deforestation and forest degradation)

Deforestation => permanent land-use change

Charcoal production as “side-effect” of agricultural development, but not principle cause

Forest cover ≠ wood supply

Unreliable supply and demand data modeling?

A never materializing “woodfuel crisis”

Wood energy provides economic benefit => incentive to manage forests, not to cut down

“Deforestation / forest degradation ” versus “forest management regimes”

Charcoal use commonly associated with deforestation and forest degradation.

Issues for considerations:

Deforestation or Forest Management?

Original satellite image Complete classification of land

use classes for the same area

9 different land-uses (excl. water), 8 with variations of woody biomass

1 “very dense natural forest”, 6 variations of “degradation”

2 variations of deforestation conversion to agriculture

More Examples

We need:

Accurate growth and yield data for all forest types

We need to measure all woody biomass (outside forests AND <10cm dbh)

Deforestation / Degradation versus Forest Management

Deforestation Forest degradation Closed forest

The forest frontier is history (with a few exceptions) “Mosaic” forests

Forest management in a productive landscape:

Some call it “deforestation” – others “forest management systems”

For woodfuels, short-rotation is an optimal, high-yield targeted management systems (often through coppicing)

Often trees have dbh of 10cm or less not accounted for in forest inventory

Forest (Cover) versus Tree (Cover) – The Case of Haiti

Conventional anecdote: Only 2% of Haiti’s original forest cover remains

Then Churches et al. 2014 came and did the following analysis:

More Examples

Rwanda: Increase in satellite image resolution changed woodfuel supply-demand deficit modeling from 61% to 21% between 2006 and 2009 (Drigo et al. 2013)

Fraction Non-Renewable Biomass (fNRB) assessments:

Early assessments applying the criteria as defined by the CDM indicated extremely high fNRB, commonly ranging above 80% and 90% for most countries.

The most recent global assessment of fNRB commissioned by the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, resulted in significantly lower estimates of NRB fractions now averaging 27%-34% (Bailis et al 2015).

Consequence:

Forest management in the landscape requires adapting data capture, analysis, and information management

Hypothesis:

If all trees were to be counted, may be there is no woodfuel deficit after all?

Probably not…

No doubt we have lost a lot of contiguous forest cover and forests have become more fragmented, but not because of woodfuel use

If so, it should have long turned into a supply “crisis”

Forest loss and fragmentation of forest ecosystems due to land-use change triggered by agriculture production extension (incl. livestock) and settlement extension

Some areas with highest “woodfuel crisis” projections have more people and more forest cover than before

Demand for wood products due to urbanization is exponential impacts should be much higher

Continued limited understanding of causes and drivers of land-use change (correlation ≠ causality)

But we don’t know !!!

To demystify the wood energy sector, debunk common misconceptions (or confirm them), and to make informed policy and investment decisions…

…we need data, data, data !!! (That nobody has)

Is there a Woodfuel Crisis (once again)?

So, there is no woodfuel crisis after all?

Or what?

Well…

While these guys do move from A to B…

… is it sustainable (economically, socially, and environmentally)?

Charcoal consumption will grow or remain at very high levels

“Alternative” sources of energy will increase in price

Accelerated electrification is needed, but will not replace charcoal use

Need to cut energy subsidies and to achieve cost recovery will continue

Climate change calls for enhanced forest management: mitigation and adaptation

$$$ needed for sustainable forest management

Why still urgency in Charcoal Sector Reforms?

Challenges to Sector Reforms

There are no real technical challenges!

Lack of leadership

Vested interests & political commitment

Governance

Forest rights & benefit sharing

Forest service delivery vs. command & control

Challenges to Charcoal Sector Reforms

Less Forests – More Trees

What we did not talk about

What I did not talk about today

Macro- and microeconomics of wood energy

Political economy, policy framework, and reform

Jobs and livelihoods

Fossil fuel subsidies and wood energy

Wood energy, climate change, and Green Growth

Charcoal, biomass, and power production

Health, gender, and charcoal

Charcoal, wood energy trade and (household) wood energy use in developed countries

Charcoal trade as a source of conflict financing

Technical considerations and best practices

What next?

Modern & Holistic Approach

Woodfuels deserve to be treated as any other commodity:

• Unnecessary degree of reservation and discomfort – especially in developing country context

• In many countries realities have caught up with aspirations

• Modernize policy framework

• Facilitate supply chain management enhancements

• Catalyze private sector investments, but no crowding out

Let’s Learn from other Sectors

Comparing basic need challenges and responses in two related sectors:

Food Security (Biomass) Energy Security

Facilitate trade Impose bans

Provide extension service Implement command and control forest governance

Educate farmers Charge bribes

Award best practices Throw people into jail

Engage in research Still don’t have a clue

Provide seeds Buy law enforcement equipment

Decentralize responsibilities to the field

Recentralize control in capitals and line ministries

… to be continued

A simple “Road Map”

1. Filling knowledge gap

2. Enhance policy dialogue, capacity building, and policy reforms

3. Facilitating cross-sectoral collaboration

4. Mobilizing Investments

… the usual stuff…

Action items:

Put all natural forests under conservation

Focus on planted forest / restoration / reforestation, etc.

Create forest service, not police

Modernize governance framework, collect revenues and reinvest

Use REDD+ as seed funding, but not eternally

Thank You !!! Asante Sana !!!