Lee et al. 2013; Cerutti et al. 2015) (Sects. 2.3 and 2.4). This is compounded by the
high prevalence of subsistence agriculture often using slash-and-burn methods in
rural SSA, which is characterised by low productivity and high GHG emissions
(Palm et al. 2013; Johnson and Jumbe 2013). This suggests some important uncertainties at the interface of SDG2, 13 and 15.
Some trade-offs might also emerge due to institutional and/or cultural factors. For
example, improving energy access (or similarly reducing energy poverty) is a key
enabler of economic development (Sovacool 2012), and at the same time a major
possible outcome of clean bioenergy transitions. With increasing income or wealth,
households and businesses can switch to higher quality fuels, following the so-called
energy ladder, which leads to better energy services (Leach 1992). As the low access
to modern energy services in SSA leads to high reliance on the lowest rungs of the
energy ladder for cooking and heating, it has been suggested that the thrust of the
efforts seeking to catalyse bioenergy transitions should be on accelerating these
shifts up the ladder (Bazilian et al. 2010; IEA 2014; Johnson and Diaz-Chavez
2018). However, strong policy incentives for moving up the energy ladder are not
always appropriate or desirable, as such shifts also need to consider the prevailing
cultural, practical and socio-economic factors (e.g. reliance on multiple fuels and
stoves for flexibility at the household and community levels in meeting energy
needs) (Masera et al. 2000; Takama et al. 2012).
Identifying such sustainability synergies and trade-offs would be necessary for
informing different bioenergy transition pathways. This knowledge would undoubtedly provide a much-needed evidence base that can inform bioenergy transitions in
SSA, not the least by allowing them to reach their full potential by maximising
multiple positive sustainability outcomes. Integrated research approaches based on
sustainability science or the ecosystem services approach have been shown to hold
great potential in SSA contexts for synthesising current evidence, assessing the
multiple impacts of bioenergy systems and identifying pathways to maximise the
positive synergies (Gasparatos et al. 2011; von Maltitz et al. 2016; Baumber 2017;
Johnson et al. 2018; Gasparatos et al. 2013, 2018).
2.3 Choose the Most Appropriate Scale, Markets
and Production Modes for Modern Bioenergy Options
Until the past decade or so, bioenergy was considered to be primarily a local
resource, with international trade being rather limited (Sect. 2.1). Some of the few
exceptions were major biofuel programmes and markets in Brazil and United States,
and solid biomass for heat and power in a few OECD countries. However, this
perception has shifted considerably in the past decade, as the rapidly growing
bioenergy demand has also boosted the international trade and commoditisation of
liquid biofuels and solid bioenergy (e.g. wood pellets) (Junginger et al. 2011; Faaij
et al. 2014; Olsson and Johnson 2014).
58
F. X. Johnson et al.
high prevalence of subsistence agriculture often using slash-and-burn methods in
rural SSA, which is characterised by low productivity and high GHG emissions
(Palm et al. 2013; Johnson and Jumbe 2013). This suggests some important uncertainties at the interface of SDG2, 13 and 15.
Some trade-offs might also emerge due to institutional and/or cultural factors. For
example, improving energy access (or similarly reducing energy poverty) is a key
enabler of economic development (Sovacool 2012), and at the same time a major
possible outcome of clean bioenergy transitions. With increasing income or wealth,
households and businesses can switch to higher quality fuels, following the so-called
energy ladder, which leads to better energy services (Leach 1992). As the low access
to modern energy services in SSA leads to high reliance on the lowest rungs of the
energy ladder for cooking and heating, it has been suggested that the thrust of the
efforts seeking to catalyse bioenergy transitions should be on accelerating these
shifts up the ladder (Bazilian et al. 2010; IEA 2014; Johnson and Diaz-Chavez
2018). However, strong policy incentives for moving up the energy ladder are not
always appropriate or desirable, as such shifts also need to consider the prevailing
cultural, practical and socio-economic factors (e.g. reliance on multiple fuels and
stoves for flexibility at the household and community levels in meeting energy
needs) (Masera et al. 2000; Takama et al. 2012).
Identifying such sustainability synergies and trade-offs would be necessary for
informing different bioenergy transition pathways. This knowledge would undoubtedly provide a much-needed evidence base that can inform bioenergy transitions in
SSA, not the least by allowing them to reach their full potential by maximising
multiple positive sustainability outcomes. Integrated research approaches based on
sustainability science or the ecosystem services approach have been shown to hold
great potential in SSA contexts for synthesising current evidence, assessing the
multiple impacts of bioenergy systems and identifying pathways to maximise the
positive synergies (Gasparatos et al. 2011; von Maltitz et al. 2016; Baumber 2017;
Johnson et al. 2018; Gasparatos et al. 2013, 2018).
2.3 Choose the Most Appropriate Scale, Markets
and Production Modes for Modern Bioenergy Options
Until the past decade or so, bioenergy was considered to be primarily a local
resource, with international trade being rather limited (Sect. 2.1). Some of the few
exceptions were major biofuel programmes and markets in Brazil and United States,
and solid biomass for heat and power in a few OECD countries. However, this
perception has shifted considerably in the past decade, as the rapidly growing
bioenergy demand has also boosted the international trade and commoditisation of
liquid biofuels and solid bioenergy (e.g. wood pellets) (Junginger et al. 2011; Faaij
et al. 2014; Olsson and Johnson 2014).
58
F. X. Johnson et al.