Unraveling biofuel impacts on ecosystem services, human wellbeing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Unraveling biofuel impacts on ecosystem services, human wellbeing and poverty alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa

Alexandros Gasparatos ESPA 2013 Inception Workshop, London

Background

Aims and Objectives

Aim Provide clear and consistent empirical evidence on whether (and how) biofuel production and use can alleviate poverty in low income countries of Africa. Objectives Compare the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of different biofuel production modes (and uses) for the main feedstocks in the region; jatropha and sugarcane. Elucidate the mechanisms through which biofuel-driven ecosystem change affects the flows of ecosystem services, and how this links to human wellbeing. Identify operational examples of novel institutional arrangement in biofuel projects that have enhanced poverty alleviation effects

Team

University of Oxford, UK * Kathy Willis, PI Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), South Africa * Graham von Maltitz, co-I Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Sweden * Francis Johnson, co-I Centre for Agriculture Research and Development (CARD), Malawi Charles Jumbe, co-I University of Tokyo, Japan * Alexandros Gasparatos, co-I

Case studies

Dwangwa Malawi SWADE Swaziland BERL Malawi Niqel Mozambique

Case studies: by feedstock/production mode

Jatropha

• BERL Malawi, smallholder-based project that works

together with 25,000-30,000 farmers

• Niqel Mozambique, large-scale plantation (2,250 ha)

Sugarcane

• SWADE Swaziland, large-scale plantation comprised
• f land pooled from family farms
• Dwangwa Malawi, plantations with a mix of land

tenure mechanisms (e.g. pooled land, outgrowers)

Low density Medium density High density Original landscape Large scale plantations Small scale plantations

Case studies: by use

Transport BERL, Niqel, Dwangwa and SWADE produce feedstock that is (or will be) converted into liquid fuel to be blended into fossil fuel for domestic transport Cooking CleanStar Mozambique produces ethanol from cassava and promotes it as a cooking fuel (ethanol stoves) to poor urban households as a substitute to charcoal Lighting BERL blends jatropha oil into paraffin

www.biodiversity.ox.ac.uk/biofuel_landscapes

Information/data flow

WP1 ES Assessment (Oxford) WP2 Rural Development (SEI) WP3 Food Security (Tokyo) WP4 Offsite co-benefits (CSIR) IWP1 ES & HW tradeoffs (Oxford) IWP2 Multidimensional Poverty (CSIR) IWP3 Policy Recommendations (SEI)

WP1: Ecosystem Services assessment

Hypothesis 1 “Large-scale feedstock production has a much higher detrimental impact on non-fuel provisioning ecosystem services, regulating ecosystem services, supporting ecosystem services and cultural ecosystem services than small-scale feedstock production”.

WP1: Ecosystem Services assessment

Feedstock  Fuel …may displace, divert and degrade other ecosystem services such as

• Food, fodder, fibre
• Woodland products (e.g. timber, medicinal plants, wild food)
• Water
• Climate regulation
• Cultural services (e.g. religious/spiritual values, aesthetic and

recreational values, etc)

• Pollination
• Pest regulation
• Soil-related services

WP2: Rural development

Hypothesis 2i “Biofuel projects provide higher income opportunities than

• ther agricultural activities”

Hypothesis H2ii “Smallholder-based biofuel projects offer higher income and employment benefits (more equitably spread) than large plantations”. Hypothesis 2iii “Extra income from smallholder feedstock production increases the resilience of households to livelihood shocks”

WP3: Food security

Hypothesis 3 “Biofuel expansion (both large- and small-scale) affects negatively local food security”

WP2 and WP3

Identify the resilience outcomes of each feedstock production mode on (a) employment/income generation, (b) food security and (c) livelihood resilience:

• Expert interviews
• Focus groups
• Household level interviews/surveys

Two levels of comparison:

• Grower vs. non-grower households in the same

community

• Grower vs. non-grower communities

WP4: Offsite co-benefits of biofuel use

Hypothesis 4i “Substitution of charcoal with biofuels for cooking has a lower negative impact on ecosystems”. Hypothesis 4ii “Substitution of traditional cooking/lighting fuels with biofuels offers energy security and public health benefits” Suggested methods:

• Expert interviews
• Focus groups
• Household level interviews/surveys
• Energy and econometric modelling

Information/data flow

WP1 ES Assessment (Oxford) WP2 Rural Development (SEI) WP3 Food Security (Tokyo) WP4 Offsite co-benefits (CSIR) IWP1 ES & HW tradeoffs (Oxford) IWP2 Multidimensional Poverty (CSIR) IWP3 Policy Recommendations (SEI)

IWP1: ES and HW trade-offs

Bring together the biophysical and socioeconomic data collected by WP1-3:

• Generalized Linear Models (GLM) or Generalized

Linear Mixed Models (GLMM)

• Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA)

IWP2: Multi-dimensional poverty

Derive a biofuel-relevant measure of multidimensional poverty; maybe a composite indicator. Aspects of income, employment, assets, energy poverty/security, food security, education and health quantified mainly in WP2 and 3. …aim to have its components easily decomposed into single indicators in order to allow the communication of disaggregated information to end-users.

IWP3: Policy implications and recommendations

Timeline and progress-to-date

• 2 project workshops (24-25 Oct 2013 & 14 Jan 2014)
• PDRA recruitment under way
• site visits at Malawi (BERL, Dwangwa) and Swaziland (SWADE) (4-18 Dec 2013)
• identification of potential matched sites
• remote sensing work under way

Deliverables

Knowledge

• … the direct and indirect environmental and socioeconomic impacts of biofuel

production (and use) in low income countries of Africa;

• … the mechanisms through which different biofuel production modes affect ES flows

and contribute to poverty alleviation (or not);

• … the co-benefits of substituting charcoal/fuelwood with biofuels for cooking;
• … novel institutional arrangements of biofuel projects for maximizing poverty

alleviation benefits. Academic output

• Journal papers
• Presentations in conferences workshops

Non-Academic dissemination

• Policy report and/or policy briefs
• Side-event during a major policy event; e.g. CBD-COP12 (Oct. 2014, South Korea)
• Workshop(s) at case countries

Knowledge partners

Private sector and local stakeholders

• BioEnergy Resources Limited (BERL) Malawi
• Niqel Mozambique
• SWADE Swaziland
• EthCo Malawi
• Dwangwa sugarcane growers’ association

Certification bodies

• Bonsucro
• Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB)

NGO

• Solidaridad southern Africa

Policy-makers

• New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)

Thanks

www.biodiversity.ox.ac.uk/biofuel_landscapes