For bioenergy transitions geared towards exports, it is important to achieve
economies of scale and high economic efficiency for bioenergy production and
export. This would require the adoption of at least some level of large-scale
production models that can possibly lead to faster transitions and have broader
impacts. However, such approaches can also be risky in terms of negative impacts
and their effectiveness being curtailed by multiple factors (von Maltitz et al. 2014;
Ahmed et al. 2019; Iiyama et al. 2014). The collapse of the jatropha sector across
SSA was a painful reminder of the multiple factors that can affect negatively the
viability of bioenergy production for exports (von Maltitz et al. 2014; Ahmed et al.
2019). In such models, value addition and export potential could be greater if
bioenergy pathways are based on international commodities such as palm oil or
sugar/ethanol that are already well-established in terms of agronomic knowledge and
international markets (Batidzirai and Johnson 2012; Johnson and Seebaluck 2012;
Faaij et al. 2014).
In a sense this issue of choice between local and global markets is inherently
reflected in the wide range of global bioenergy potential estimates.
4 At the low end
of the spectrum, these estimates correspond to bioenergy catering for less than 10%
of the forecasted global energy demand in the year 2050, while at the high end,
bioenergy could supply more than the entire global energy demand in 2050 (IPCC
2014). It can thus be argued that the lower end estimates reflect a view of bioenergy
as a largely local resource, whereas the higher end estimates view bioenergy as a
global market commodity. This divergence implies the emergence of two schools of
thought concerning bioenergy in a climate and development context, with the first
advocating considerable caution for the possible ecological/environmental impacts
of a major global expansion (Beringer et al. 2011), and the other focusing on the
possible considerable energy, socioeconomic and environmental benefits of such an
expansion (Souza et al. 2015).
Emphasising the domestic use of bioenergy in SSA (rather than export markets) is
sound in principle. This is especially true when considering the potential synergies
with agricultural development and the significant economic and environmental
benefits of shifting away from traditional biomass (Sect. 2.2). However, the scale
of energy demand is also low in most SSA countries, and is compounded by the lack
of infrastructure and investment options (Chap. 1 Vol. 1), making it difficult to
attract sufficient and stable investments to reach economies of scale and/or centres of
demand (IEA 2018). Consequently, focusing solely on domestic markets to achieve
modern bioenergy transitions can be a lengthy process. In the meantime, the
prevailing business-as-usual patterns of traditional biomass production and use can
further deepen the cycle of poverty and resource degradation (Sect. 2.2). On the
4 Modeling results suggest that the global bioenergy potential is largely situated in Latin America
and SSA mainly due to climatic and demographic factors (Hoogwijk et al. 2005; Smeets et al. 2007;
WGBU 2009; Haberl et al. 2010; van Vuuren et al. 2009; Beringer et al. 2011; Chum et al. 2011;
IPCC 2014). A common starting point of these modelling studies is that “food/fibre” should be
prioritised, with sustainable bioenergy potential calculated after accounting for the land needed for
food production and also excluding deforestation (IPCC 2014; Batidzirai et al. 2016).
2 Enabling Sustainable Bioenergy Transitions in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic. . .
61
economies of scale and high economic efficiency for bioenergy production and
export. This would require the adoption of at least some level of large-scale
production models that can possibly lead to faster transitions and have broader
impacts. However, such approaches can also be risky in terms of negative impacts
and their effectiveness being curtailed by multiple factors (von Maltitz et al. 2014;
Ahmed et al. 2019; Iiyama et al. 2014). The collapse of the jatropha sector across
SSA was a painful reminder of the multiple factors that can affect negatively the
viability of bioenergy production for exports (von Maltitz et al. 2014; Ahmed et al.
2019). In such models, value addition and export potential could be greater if
bioenergy pathways are based on international commodities such as palm oil or
sugar/ethanol that are already well-established in terms of agronomic knowledge and
international markets (Batidzirai and Johnson 2012; Johnson and Seebaluck 2012;
Faaij et al. 2014).
In a sense this issue of choice between local and global markets is inherently
reflected in the wide range of global bioenergy potential estimates.
4 At the low end
of the spectrum, these estimates correspond to bioenergy catering for less than 10%
of the forecasted global energy demand in the year 2050, while at the high end,
bioenergy could supply more than the entire global energy demand in 2050 (IPCC
2014). It can thus be argued that the lower end estimates reflect a view of bioenergy
as a largely local resource, whereas the higher end estimates view bioenergy as a
global market commodity. This divergence implies the emergence of two schools of
thought concerning bioenergy in a climate and development context, with the first
advocating considerable caution for the possible ecological/environmental impacts
of a major global expansion (Beringer et al. 2011), and the other focusing on the
possible considerable energy, socioeconomic and environmental benefits of such an
expansion (Souza et al. 2015).
Emphasising the domestic use of bioenergy in SSA (rather than export markets) is
sound in principle. This is especially true when considering the potential synergies
with agricultural development and the significant economic and environmental
benefits of shifting away from traditional biomass (Sect. 2.2). However, the scale
of energy demand is also low in most SSA countries, and is compounded by the lack
of infrastructure and investment options (Chap. 1 Vol. 1), making it difficult to
attract sufficient and stable investments to reach economies of scale and/or centres of
demand (IEA 2018). Consequently, focusing solely on domestic markets to achieve
modern bioenergy transitions can be a lengthy process. In the meantime, the
prevailing business-as-usual patterns of traditional biomass production and use can
further deepen the cycle of poverty and resource degradation (Sect. 2.2). On the
4 Modeling results suggest that the global bioenergy potential is largely situated in Latin America
and SSA mainly due to climatic and demographic factors (Hoogwijk et al. 2005; Smeets et al. 2007;
WGBU 2009; Haberl et al. 2010; van Vuuren et al. 2009; Beringer et al. 2011; Chum et al. 2011;
IPCC 2014). A common starting point of these modelling studies is that “food/fibre” should be
prioritised, with sustainable bioenergy potential calculated after accounting for the land needed for
food production and also excluding deforestation (IPCC 2014; Batidzirai et al. 2016).
2 Enabling Sustainable Bioenergy Transitions in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic. . .
61