are rather complex, with charcoal production often being a by-product of other
livelihood activities such as land clearing for agriculture (Iiyama 2013; IPBES
2018) (Sect. 2.2). Some countries have attempted to criminalise charcoal trade, but
this has been largely unsuccessful due to the lack of affordable energy alternatives
and enforcement challenges (Zulu 2010; Smith et al. 2015) (Chap. 1 Vol. 1). On the
other hand, fuelwood collection in rural areas is rather different than charcoal use in
that it can often be environmentally sustainable (Swemmer et al. 2019), although not
necessarily socially desirable in terms of development goals (Sect. 2.2).
However, as discussed above modern bioenergy production can also be rather
land-intensive compared to other energy options, especially for Type 2 and 4 modes
of production (Sect. 2.3) (Fthenakis and Kim 2009; Emberson et al. 2012;
Gasparatos et al. 2017). Land competition between bioenergy feedstock production
and food crop production has emerged as a major concern for bioenergy expansion
in SSA, especially for first generation liquid biofuels sourced from food crops
(Rosillo-Calle and Johnson 2010; WGBU 2009; Gasparatos et al. 2015) (see
Chap. 3 Vol. 1; Chap. 5 Vol. 2).
6 Furthermore, bioenergy feedstocks and food
crops can compete for water, nutrients and other resources or agricultural inputs,
having thus multiple linkages to food security (Wiggins et al. 2015; Jarzebski et al.
2020) (see Chap. 3 Vol. 1).
7 At the same time, there can also be complementarities
and co-benefits when food and energy crops are produced and/or used across
common systems or landscapes (Johnson and Virgin 2010; Bogdanski 2012;
Souza et al. 2015; Kline et al. 2016; Mudombi et al. 2018a).
Landscape approaches across scales, sectors and/or markets can potentially
address the competition for land, water and other resources, and help break down
the, sometimes unnecessary, distinction between traditional and modern bioenergy.
Landscape integration approaches can create opportunities to exploit synergies
between food, fibre and fuel production (Dale et al. 2013).
8 Such synergies can
occur through common supply chains and infrastructure development. Economic
linkages in inputs and outputs can offer complementarities with food production, in
terms of the flexibility afforded to producers to adjust over time the production of
food, fuel, feed and fibre according to market signals (Bogdanski 2012; RosilloCalle and Johnson 2010; Kline et al. 2016).
6 This has included in some cases the issue of indirect land use change. Indirect land use change
(ILUC) can occur when non-food (e.g. bioenergy) production expands onto agricultural land and
displaces food production, which then leads to additional land use elsewhere for food production to
compensate the shortfall; ILUC cannot be measured empirically but instead is estimated through
assumptions and modelling (Berndes et al. 2013; Finkbeiner 2014; Wicke et al. 2015).
7 It is worth noting that modern bioenergy systems normally include multiple co-products or waste
streams such as bagasse and molasses, respectively, in the case of sugarcane ethanol. The use of
such co-products and waste streams can increase land and water efficiency and reduce competition
with food (Ackom et al. 2013).
8 Integrated food-energy systems are a particular class of such systems that can be very important in
some SSA countries as they offer both synergies and complementarities between food and
bioenergy production (Bogdanski 2012).
2 Enabling Sustainable Bioenergy Transitions in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic. . .
63
livelihood activities such as land clearing for agriculture (Iiyama 2013; IPBES
2018) (Sect. 2.2). Some countries have attempted to criminalise charcoal trade, but
this has been largely unsuccessful due to the lack of affordable energy alternatives
and enforcement challenges (Zulu 2010; Smith et al. 2015) (Chap. 1 Vol. 1). On the
other hand, fuelwood collection in rural areas is rather different than charcoal use in
that it can often be environmentally sustainable (Swemmer et al. 2019), although not
necessarily socially desirable in terms of development goals (Sect. 2.2).
However, as discussed above modern bioenergy production can also be rather
land-intensive compared to other energy options, especially for Type 2 and 4 modes
of production (Sect. 2.3) (Fthenakis and Kim 2009; Emberson et al. 2012;
Gasparatos et al. 2017). Land competition between bioenergy feedstock production
and food crop production has emerged as a major concern for bioenergy expansion
in SSA, especially for first generation liquid biofuels sourced from food crops
(Rosillo-Calle and Johnson 2010; WGBU 2009; Gasparatos et al. 2015) (see
Chap. 3 Vol. 1; Chap. 5 Vol. 2).
6 Furthermore, bioenergy feedstocks and food
crops can compete for water, nutrients and other resources or agricultural inputs,
having thus multiple linkages to food security (Wiggins et al. 2015; Jarzebski et al.
2020) (see Chap. 3 Vol. 1).
7 At the same time, there can also be complementarities
and co-benefits when food and energy crops are produced and/or used across
common systems or landscapes (Johnson and Virgin 2010; Bogdanski 2012;
Souza et al. 2015; Kline et al. 2016; Mudombi et al. 2018a).
Landscape approaches across scales, sectors and/or markets can potentially
address the competition for land, water and other resources, and help break down
the, sometimes unnecessary, distinction between traditional and modern bioenergy.
Landscape integration approaches can create opportunities to exploit synergies
between food, fibre and fuel production (Dale et al. 2013).
8 Such synergies can
occur through common supply chains and infrastructure development. Economic
linkages in inputs and outputs can offer complementarities with food production, in
terms of the flexibility afforded to producers to adjust over time the production of
food, fuel, feed and fibre according to market signals (Bogdanski 2012; RosilloCalle and Johnson 2010; Kline et al. 2016).
6 This has included in some cases the issue of indirect land use change. Indirect land use change
(ILUC) can occur when non-food (e.g. bioenergy) production expands onto agricultural land and
displaces food production, which then leads to additional land use elsewhere for food production to
compensate the shortfall; ILUC cannot be measured empirically but instead is estimated through
assumptions and modelling (Berndes et al. 2013; Finkbeiner 2014; Wicke et al. 2015).
7 It is worth noting that modern bioenergy systems normally include multiple co-products or waste
streams such as bagasse and molasses, respectively, in the case of sugarcane ethanol. The use of
such co-products and waste streams can increase land and water efficiency and reduce competition
with food (Ackom et al. 2013).
8 Integrated food-energy systems are a particular class of such systems that can be very important in
some SSA countries as they offer both synergies and complementarities between food and
bioenergy production (Bogdanski 2012).
2 Enabling Sustainable Bioenergy Transitions in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic. . .
63