Box 1 (continued)
competition for the fuel itself with the transport sector. The Ethiopian government has tended to prioritise the transport sector for energy security reasons
(Chap. 3 Vol. 1), posing a major barrier for the development of a household
bioethanol market, as consumers want a fuel whose availability is assured
(Rogers et al. 2013).
Ethanol for cooking was introduced in Maputo (Mozambique) in the early
2010s to divert some of the rapidly increasing charcoal demand (Chap. 5 Vol.
2). This has been the only successful large-scale promotion of ethanol stoves
in SSA (Karanja and Gasparatos 2019). The initial success of the large-scale
introduction was due to a favourable policy environment, with adoption rates
increasing fairly rapidly until supply constraints prevented further expansion
(Mudombi et al. 2018b) (Chap. 5 Vol. 2). However, the collapse of the
domestic supply for the Cleanstar project, compared with technical and
market-related problems also reduced some of the original motivation for
ethanol market development as it was intended to boost local production
(Chap. 5 Vol. 2).
Kenya has a high national ethanol production capacity that can potentially
meet a large share of the domestic household energy demand. However, this
bioenergy potential is hampered by unfavourable policies. For example, ethanol is treated as an alcoholic beverage regardless of its end use levying heavy
taxes (Karanja and Gasparatos 2019) (Chap. 3 Vol. 1). At the same time, the
largest sugarcane factory in Kenya has an annual production capacity of 22 mL
of ethanol, but it is not fully utilised. Even though the acceptability and
potential of ethanol as a cooking fuel has been strongly demonstrated in
pilot studies in Western Kenya, the slow policy progress has prevented uptake
of ethanol for household energy use. Instead, this ethanol is used for potable
applications or industrial processes, targeting both the local and European
markets. The elimination of taxes could make ethanol price competitive to
charcoal or kerosene, and possibly contribute to its long-term adoption for
household energy use (Karanja and Gasparatos 2019).
Finally, effective bioenergy transitions in SSA must include meaningfully the
household sector. If this does not happen then bioenergy transition cannot be
effective due to the overwhelming household dependence on traditional biomass
and the significant sustainability impacts of this dependence. At the same time, the
small scale of the household sector and its informal nature present barriers to the
overall bioenergy transitions. The informal nature of the fuelwood and charcoal
markets presents considerable sustainability and governance challenges that have
created substantial barriers for effective bioenergy transitions. In this sense, transition pathways emphasising fuel-switching are likely to be more effective (van de
Ven et al. 2019).
2 Enabling Sustainable Bioenergy Transitions in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic. . .
71
competition for the fuel itself with the transport sector. The Ethiopian government has tended to prioritise the transport sector for energy security reasons
(Chap. 3 Vol. 1), posing a major barrier for the development of a household
bioethanol market, as consumers want a fuel whose availability is assured
(Rogers et al. 2013).
Ethanol for cooking was introduced in Maputo (Mozambique) in the early
2010s to divert some of the rapidly increasing charcoal demand (Chap. 5 Vol.
2). This has been the only successful large-scale promotion of ethanol stoves
in SSA (Karanja and Gasparatos 2019). The initial success of the large-scale
introduction was due to a favourable policy environment, with adoption rates
increasing fairly rapidly until supply constraints prevented further expansion
(Mudombi et al. 2018b) (Chap. 5 Vol. 2). However, the collapse of the
domestic supply for the Cleanstar project, compared with technical and
market-related problems also reduced some of the original motivation for
ethanol market development as it was intended to boost local production
(Chap. 5 Vol. 2).
Kenya has a high national ethanol production capacity that can potentially
meet a large share of the domestic household energy demand. However, this
bioenergy potential is hampered by unfavourable policies. For example, ethanol is treated as an alcoholic beverage regardless of its end use levying heavy
taxes (Karanja and Gasparatos 2019) (Chap. 3 Vol. 1). At the same time, the
largest sugarcane factory in Kenya has an annual production capacity of 22 mL
of ethanol, but it is not fully utilised. Even though the acceptability and
potential of ethanol as a cooking fuel has been strongly demonstrated in
pilot studies in Western Kenya, the slow policy progress has prevented uptake
of ethanol for household energy use. Instead, this ethanol is used for potable
applications or industrial processes, targeting both the local and European
markets. The elimination of taxes could make ethanol price competitive to
charcoal or kerosene, and possibly contribute to its long-term adoption for
household energy use (Karanja and Gasparatos 2019).
Finally, effective bioenergy transitions in SSA must include meaningfully the
household sector. If this does not happen then bioenergy transition cannot be
effective due to the overwhelming household dependence on traditional biomass
and the significant sustainability impacts of this dependence. At the same time, the
small scale of the household sector and its informal nature present barriers to the
overall bioenergy transitions. The informal nature of the fuelwood and charcoal
markets presents considerable sustainability and governance challenges that have
created substantial barriers for effective bioenergy transitions. In this sense, transition pathways emphasising fuel-switching are likely to be more effective (van de
Ven et al. 2019).
2 Enabling Sustainable Bioenergy Transitions in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic. . .
71