other hand, stronger linkages with the larger export markets in the EU and elsewhere
could stimulate technology transfer and investment in SSA countries that would
otherwise not materialise (Mathews 2007; Johnson 2011; Johnson and Mulugetta
2017) (Chap. 4 Vol. 1). However, strengthening institutions and investment scrutiny
would be also needed to increase the long-term viability of modern bioenergy
investments, as evidenced from the collapse of the jatropha sector throughout SSA
(von Maltitz et al. 2014; Ahmed et al. 2019).
In this regard, the development of bioenergy systems that are flexible enough to
cater to both domestic and export markets could be valuable. For example, bioenergy
feedstocks such as wood pellets and bioethanol could offer this flexibility (Table 2.2),
whereas feedstocks such as biogas and some types of waste (e.g. municipal waste)
can be more appropriate for domestic markets for logistical and economic reasons.
In any case, the rural poor must be involved in bioenergy transitions in terms of
energy demand and land use if modern bioenergy options are to reach domestic
markets in SSA (Johnson and Diaz-Chavez 2018). Subsistence farmers and the rural
poor in SSA are extremely constrained in terms of cash and often have almost no
disposable income for investing in modern energy options after meeting basic needs
(Takama et al. 2012; Mudombi et al. 2018a). Yet they play a major role in their
respective national economies through informal markets, especially those related to
food and energy (Leach 1992; Sola et al. 2016) (Chap. 5 Vol. 1). The shift from
fuelwood to charcoal is a prominent example of a shift from non-cash to a cash
economy that occurs partly through urbanisation. This shift has important environmental ramifications (Sect. 2.2) depending on the extent to which charcoal markets
are regulated (Zulu 2010).
5
2.4 Promote Integrated Landscape Approaches
for Feedstock Production
Traditional bioenergy production systems can have substantial negative impacts on
terrestrial ecosystems in SSA. For example, charcoal production is often associated
with various negative environmental impacts such as deforestation and land degradation, particularly in semi-arid areas (IPBES 2018) (Chaps. 1 and 7 Vol. 1). For
example, land degradation from unsustainable charcoal production in Kenya and
other eastern African areas threatens local livelihoods through declining yields,
biodiversity loss and other environmental impacts (Kiruki et al. 2017; Ndegwa
et al. 2016). However, the actual links between bioenergy and land degradation
5 Despite its negative environmental impacts, charcoal production and trade can improve rural
livelihoods in terms of cash income (Openshaw 2010; Smith et al. 2015; Karanja and Gasparatos
2019). However, charcoal production does not necessarily reduce poverty in SSA, as revealed by
multi-dimensional poverty indicators that incorporate health, housing and other fundamental
indicators of well-being (Vollmer et al. 2017).
62
F. X. Johnson et al.
could stimulate technology transfer and investment in SSA countries that would
otherwise not materialise (Mathews 2007; Johnson 2011; Johnson and Mulugetta
2017) (Chap. 4 Vol. 1). However, strengthening institutions and investment scrutiny
would be also needed to increase the long-term viability of modern bioenergy
investments, as evidenced from the collapse of the jatropha sector throughout SSA
(von Maltitz et al. 2014; Ahmed et al. 2019).
In this regard, the development of bioenergy systems that are flexible enough to
cater to both domestic and export markets could be valuable. For example, bioenergy
feedstocks such as wood pellets and bioethanol could offer this flexibility (Table 2.2),
whereas feedstocks such as biogas and some types of waste (e.g. municipal waste)
can be more appropriate for domestic markets for logistical and economic reasons.
In any case, the rural poor must be involved in bioenergy transitions in terms of
energy demand and land use if modern bioenergy options are to reach domestic
markets in SSA (Johnson and Diaz-Chavez 2018). Subsistence farmers and the rural
poor in SSA are extremely constrained in terms of cash and often have almost no
disposable income for investing in modern energy options after meeting basic needs
(Takama et al. 2012; Mudombi et al. 2018a). Yet they play a major role in their
respective national economies through informal markets, especially those related to
food and energy (Leach 1992; Sola et al. 2016) (Chap. 5 Vol. 1). The shift from
fuelwood to charcoal is a prominent example of a shift from non-cash to a cash
economy that occurs partly through urbanisation. This shift has important environmental ramifications (Sect. 2.2) depending on the extent to which charcoal markets
are regulated (Zulu 2010).
5
2.4 Promote Integrated Landscape Approaches
for Feedstock Production
Traditional bioenergy production systems can have substantial negative impacts on
terrestrial ecosystems in SSA. For example, charcoal production is often associated
with various negative environmental impacts such as deforestation and land degradation, particularly in semi-arid areas (IPBES 2018) (Chaps. 1 and 7 Vol. 1). For
example, land degradation from unsustainable charcoal production in Kenya and
other eastern African areas threatens local livelihoods through declining yields,
biodiversity loss and other environmental impacts (Kiruki et al. 2017; Ndegwa
et al. 2016). However, the actual links between bioenergy and land degradation
5 Despite its negative environmental impacts, charcoal production and trade can improve rural
livelihoods in terms of cash income (Openshaw 2010; Smith et al. 2015; Karanja and Gasparatos
2019). However, charcoal production does not necessarily reduce poverty in SSA, as revealed by
multi-dimensional poverty indicators that incorporate health, housing and other fundamental
indicators of well-being (Vollmer et al. 2017).
62
F. X. Johnson et al.