Whereas OECD countries invested in modern bioenergy long after phasing out
traditional biomass fuels, most developing countries and emerging economies only
started investing in modern bioenergy recently and alongside the traditional uses that
dominate their energy systems. This has opened up different development pathways
for modern bioenergy transitions (Johnson and Jumbe 2013; Johnson and Silveira
2014). For example, in Malawi and Ethiopia, ethanol production for fuel blending in
the transport sector has developed over the past decades (see Chap. 3 Vol. 1; Chap. 5
Vol. 2), but traditional biomass still overwhelmingly dominates their domestic
energy market (as in practically every other SSA country except for South Africa)
(Sect. 2.1).
The growing demand for modern bioenergy (including at the household level)
could influence SSA countries to develop both markets simultaneously, targeting
both exports and domestic demand (Faaij et al. 2014). In this respect, international
trade aspirations could also support domestic agro-industrial development
(Batidzirai and Johnson 2012), while the resulting north–south and south–south
relations could offer different impetus for trade, technology transfer and land
investment in bioenergy, agriculture and forestry (Mathews 2007; Dauvergne and
Neville 2009).
However, the actual feedstock type and mode of production can have significant
interdependencies with scale economies and market orientation (Batidzirai and
Johnson 2012; Gasparatos et al. 2015). Furthermore, the feasible scale of feedstock
production and end use can vary considerably between areas. For example, the
characteristics of the local economy can determine the availability of labour and
agricultural inputs. Similarly, the logistics and economics of bioenergy production
and/or conversion may constrain the sourcing of feedstock (e.g. feedstock production becomes uneconomic outside of a certain radius from the conversion facility)
(FAO/UNEP 2011).
Figure 2.1 outlines some of the major bioenergy production and use alternatives
according to a simple bimodal division between markets (local vs. export) and scale
of feedstock production (small vs. large). Small-scale bioenergy production and
local use (Type 1) can in principle can have greater development benefits, although
these benefits can only be realised when the economic viability is assured, either
through public support (e.g. quotas or mandates) or strong local institutions
(Gasparatos et al. 2015). On the contrary large-scale bioenergy production has
mainly been associated with feedstock production for national and international
markets (Type 4) (Gasparatos et al. 2015). Sometimes small-scale production can
also be combined with national and/or export markets (Type 3), which has often
been the case in some SSA countries for sugarcane production (Mudombi et al.
2018a; von Maltitz et al. 2019) (see Chap. 3 Vol. 1). We should note that both
Fig. 2.1 and the examples outlined above are for liquid biofuels (Gasparatos et al.
2015). However, the underlying logic would not be much different for other
bioenergy options available in SSA such as solid biomass for heat and power
production, biogas or multi-product biorefineries.
Regardless of the scale of bioenergy production and use, there is a need for
substantial investments in infrastructure and institutions for enabling bioenergy
2 Enabling Sustainable Bioenergy Transitions in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic. . .
59
traditional biomass fuels, most developing countries and emerging economies only
started investing in modern bioenergy recently and alongside the traditional uses that
dominate their energy systems. This has opened up different development pathways
for modern bioenergy transitions (Johnson and Jumbe 2013; Johnson and Silveira
2014). For example, in Malawi and Ethiopia, ethanol production for fuel blending in
the transport sector has developed over the past decades (see Chap. 3 Vol. 1; Chap. 5
Vol. 2), but traditional biomass still overwhelmingly dominates their domestic
energy market (as in practically every other SSA country except for South Africa)
(Sect. 2.1).
The growing demand for modern bioenergy (including at the household level)
could influence SSA countries to develop both markets simultaneously, targeting
both exports and domestic demand (Faaij et al. 2014). In this respect, international
trade aspirations could also support domestic agro-industrial development
(Batidzirai and Johnson 2012), while the resulting north–south and south–south
relations could offer different impetus for trade, technology transfer and land
investment in bioenergy, agriculture and forestry (Mathews 2007; Dauvergne and
Neville 2009).
However, the actual feedstock type and mode of production can have significant
interdependencies with scale economies and market orientation (Batidzirai and
Johnson 2012; Gasparatos et al. 2015). Furthermore, the feasible scale of feedstock
production and end use can vary considerably between areas. For example, the
characteristics of the local economy can determine the availability of labour and
agricultural inputs. Similarly, the logistics and economics of bioenergy production
and/or conversion may constrain the sourcing of feedstock (e.g. feedstock production becomes uneconomic outside of a certain radius from the conversion facility)
(FAO/UNEP 2011).
Figure 2.1 outlines some of the major bioenergy production and use alternatives
according to a simple bimodal division between markets (local vs. export) and scale
of feedstock production (small vs. large). Small-scale bioenergy production and
local use (Type 1) can in principle can have greater development benefits, although
these benefits can only be realised when the economic viability is assured, either
through public support (e.g. quotas or mandates) or strong local institutions
(Gasparatos et al. 2015). On the contrary large-scale bioenergy production has
mainly been associated with feedstock production for national and international
markets (Type 4) (Gasparatos et al. 2015). Sometimes small-scale production can
also be combined with national and/or export markets (Type 3), which has often
been the case in some SSA countries for sugarcane production (Mudombi et al.
2018a; von Maltitz et al. 2019) (see Chap. 3 Vol. 1). We should note that both
Fig. 2.1 and the examples outlined above are for liquid biofuels (Gasparatos et al.
2015). However, the underlying logic would not be much different for other
bioenergy options available in SSA such as solid biomass for heat and power
production, biogas or multi-product biorefineries.
Regardless of the scale of bioenergy production and use, there is a need for
substantial investments in infrastructure and institutions for enabling bioenergy
2 Enabling Sustainable Bioenergy Transitions in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic. . .
59