Fasse icraf 2010
-
Upload
world-agroforestry-centre-icraf -
Category
Documents
-
view
331 -
download
0
Transcript of Fasse icraf 2010
Value Chain Analysis of Bioenergy in Tanzania:
A Case Study in Tandai Village
Anja Fasse
Institute for Environmental Economics and World Trade (IUW), University of Hannover, [email protected]
09. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi
Outline
• Introduction to Better-Is project• Research issues of IUW related to Better-is
2
• Research issues of IUW related to Better-is– Description of the research area– Extended environmental social accounting matrix – Village equilibrium modeling
09. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi
“Strategies to use biofuel value chain potential in Sub-Saharan Africa
to respond to global change”
3
Source: FAOSTAT (2009), based on data from 2007
?
09. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi
Biofuel Evaluation for Technological Tanzanian Efficiency using Renewables - Integrated Strategies
Strategies to use Biofuel Value Chain
www.better-is.com
Strategies to use Biofuel Value Chain Potential in Sub-Saharan Africa to respond
to Global Change
Enhancing low-productivity Farming in Tanzania and linking to SMEs
409. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi
Objectives Better-iS
• To identify the potential for linking low-productivity
farming to small and medium enterprises (SME) to
enhance livelihoods through biofuel value chains
• To provide farmers, regional organizations and local • To provide farmers, regional organizations and local
authorities in sub-Saharan Africa with feasible
strategies
– to benefit from biomass production potential
and
– to mitigate food insecurity.
09. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi 5
Project Consortium
The International Food Policy Research Institute
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research e.V.
World Agroforestry Centre
Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy
Environmental Economics and World Trade
Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Africa
University of Agriculture, Sokoine (now involved)
609. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi
Project Design
The International Food
Policy Research Institute
Wuppertal Institute for Climate,
Environment and Energy
Modeling Statistics Appraisal Expertise
Coordination & value chain analysis
Biomass consumption patterns
global energy and agricultural modeling
Partners
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural
Landscape Research e.V.
Environmental Economics
and World Trade
Association for Strengthening
Agricultural Research in Africa
World Agroforestry Centre
Stakeholder processes
Stakeholder processes
Village modeling & certification appraisal
Coordination & value chain analysis
09. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi 7
Survey Area: Tandai Village• Location within the
– Uluguru Nature Forest Reserve (UNR)
– Community forest
• Tandai: 1040 households including 4211 individuals
• Sample size 30% (stratified random sampling): 314 households
• Wood value chain (firewood, charcoal, timber..)
• Jatropha as a host plant for spices e.g. black pepper, vanilla, also passion fruit.
909. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi
What has been done so far:• Survey 314 households on agricultural production patterns and
interlinkages between households• Energy consumption and production • Focus on important value chains of cash crops (banana, pineapple, • Focus on important value chains of cash crops (banana, pineapple,
spices) and agroforestry.• GPS coordinates including altitude of 80% of the households• Timepreferences of the farmer• Perception of soil erosion and yield losses
09. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi 12
Value chain analysis: Applied methods:
• Development of a social accounting matrix (SAM) extended by natural resource accounts for soil on village levelnatural resource accounts for soil on village level– Impact assessment via multiplier analysis
• Scenario analysis supported by an economy-wide planning model developed for the village economy– Feasibility study comprising different biofuel value chains
• Consumer surveys in selected European countries – Exploring WTP for certified biofuels (and ecosystem services) from Sub-
Saharan Africa
1309. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi
ProducersProducers
Factor Factor MarketsMarkets
HouseholdsHouseholds GovernmentGovernment Saving/INVSaving/INV
FactorFactorCosts Costs
WagesWages& &
Rents Rents
Demand for Demand for IntermediateIntermediate
TaxesTaxes
Domestic Private SavingsDomestic Private Savings
Gov. SavingsGov. Savings
Village Social Accounting Matrix (SAM)
09. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi
ProducersProducers
Product Product MarketsMarkets
Rest of the Country Rest of the Country and Worldand World
IntermediateIntermediateInputs Inputs
SalesSalesRevenues Revenues
PrivatePrivateConsumption Consumption
GovernmentGovernmentExpenditureExpenditure
Investment Investment DemandDemand
ImportsImportsExportsExports Foreign SavingsForeign Savings
Demand for Final GoodsDemand for Final Goods
TransfersTransfers
Source: IFPRI Training Material 2003
14
Linear Activity Model &
Forest Land Water
Farm I Farm II Farm III Farm IV
Commercial Resource Use ActivitiesManagement S
ystem
Village
Logistic growthmodel
Mathematical Planning Model
Model & Additive Utility
exogenousprices
endogenous prices
Farm I Farm II Farm III Farm IV
Village Factor and Product Market
-Production -Forest & Water Extraction-Storage-Consumption-Transport-Processing
SalesPurchases
Management S
ystem
Village
Trade with the neighboring region1609. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi (Etti Winter, 2008)
Comparison Firewood and Jatropha Collection and Processing
HouseholdsType (fam) ha
Distance to forest in km
Hours/Day
Wood (man days/month)
Jatropha(man days/month)
H1 (4.1) 0.52 1 3 7.2 8.6 (7.1)
17
H2 (6.1) 1.17 2.5 4.5 16.1 12.8 (10,5)
H3 (4.5) 1.38 2.5 4.5 11.7 9.3 (7,6)
H4 (5.1) 1.89 5 7 21 10.7 (8,9)
2kg wood per hh member per day*365=730 kg wood equivalent to 55 l plant oil per person & year. 15kg wood/Trip
Collection: 3kg Seed/h Extraction: 20% (30%) Processing 1,5h/ l
09. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi Winter, E. and Fasse, A. 2009
H1 Min Labor Max profit Max Utility Min Labor No grazing
Max ProfitNo grazing
Max Utility No grazing
Subsistence [€] 665 665 665
Surplus [€] 0 151 127
Labor [h] 527 700 673
Leisure [h] 173 0 27
Z (Shadow Wage) 0,86
Wood [kg] 11906 17035 16242 13807 16294 16749
18
Wood [kg] 11906 17035 16242 13807 16294 16749
Labor [month] 1,2,3,4,7,12 All All but 3
Land [month] 6,7,8 6,8 6,8
Forest Income % 65 76 70
% Labor +14 0 +2
% Income 0 -8 -18
09. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi Winter, E. and Fasse, A. 2009
Max Utility, No Forest Use, Jatropha ProductionHousehold H1 H2 H3 H4
Z (Shadow Wage) 0.52 0.69 0.68 0.72
Surplus [€] 0.6 412 401 6196
Labor [h] 699 1424 687 1220
19
Labor [h] 699 1424 687 1220
Leisure [h] 1 54 53 0.4
Utility 1 22 21 2500
Own Land [ha] 0.53 1.17 1.38 1.89
Community Land [ha] 0.44 8.12
Sold Labor [%] Yes: 0.53 Yes: 0.84 Yes: 0.67 No: 1.8Winter, E. and Fasse, A. 2009
How might Certification Schemes be Designed ?
1. Standard → principles and criteria to guarantee certain characteristics, certain methods etcmethods etc
2. Principles → guidelines describing how to meet a standard
3. Criteria → requirements describing how to achieve the principles
4. Indicators → concrete measures to verify that principles and criteria are met
Source Segerstedt 2009
09. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi
• How could Co-Benefits between Biofuel production, Carbon savings and other ecosystem services be handled and what kind of market regulation is necessary?
• How could persistent funding and provisioning of ecosystem
21
• How could persistent funding and provisioning of ecosystem services be secured ?
• What certification scheme is best ?• What are the preferences of consumers and suppliers?
09. June 2010, ICRAF Nairobi