Economic viability of Jatropha curcas L. plantations in Northern Tanzania Assessing farmers’ prospects via cost-benefit analysis Nepomuk Wahl, Ramni Jamnadass, Henning Baur, Cristel Munster and Miyuki Iiyama

The World Agroforestry Centre, an autonomous, non-profit research organization, aims to bring about a rural transformation in the developing world by encouraging and enabling smallholders to increase their use of trees in agricultural landscapes. This will help to improve food security, nutrition, income and health; provide shelter and energy; and lead to greater environmental sustainability.

We are one of the 15 centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, we operate six regional offices located in Brazil, Cameroon, India, Indonesia, Kenya, and Malawi, and conduct research in eighteen other countries around the developing world.

We receive our funding from over 50 different investors. Our current top ten investors are Canada, the European Union, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the World Bank.

Economic viability

of Jatropha curcas L. plantations

in Northern Tanzania Assessing farmers’ prospects via cost-benefit analysis

Nepomuk Wahl, Ramni Jamnadass, Henning Baur, Cristel Munster and Miyuki Iiyama

II

Correct citation:

Wahl N, Jamnadass R, Baur H, Munster C and Iiyama M. 2009. Economic viability of Jatropha curcas

L. plantations in Northern Tanzania – Assessing farmers‟ prospects via cost-benefit analysis. ICRAF

Working Paper no. 97. Nairobi. World Agroforestry Centre.

Titles in the Working Paper Series aim to disseminate interim results on agroforestry research and

practices and stimulate feedback from the scientific community. Other publication series from the World

Agroforestry Centre include: Technical Manuals and Occasional Papers.

Published by the World Agroforestry Centre

United Nations Avenue

PO Box 30677, GPO 00100

Nairobi, Kenya

Tel: +254(0)20 7224000, via USA +1 650 833 6645

Fax: +254(0)20 7224001, via USA +1 650 833 6646

Email: icraf@cgiar.org

Internet: www.worldagroforestry.org

© World Agroforestry Centre 2009

Working Paper no. 97

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the World

Agroforestry Centre.

Articles appearing in this publication may be quoted or reproduced without charge, provided the source

is acknowledged.

All images remain the sole property of their source and may not be used for any purpose without written

permission of the source.

III

About the authors

Nepomuk Wahl Nepomuk Wahl holds a Bachelor‟s degree in Agricultural Sciences

from the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. He is currently doing a

Master‟s in Agribusiness at the University of Hohenheim, Germany.

Ramni Jamnadass Dr. Ramni Jamnadass is a specialist in tree genetic resources as well

as in biochemistry and molecular genetics. From 2004 to 2007 she

headed the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Genetic Resource

Unit, which holds the largest collection of tropical agroforestry

species in Africa. Currently, Ramni leads the ICRAF Global

Research Project 1 (GRP1) focusing on Tree Genetic Resources and

Domestication.

Henning Baur Dr. Henning Baur was ICRAF‟s Regional Coordinator for Eastern

Africa until March 2009 and now works as a principal advisor on

food security in Yemen.

Cristel Munster Cristel works as a post-doc scientist at The World Agroforestry

Centre. Her work is dedicated to biofuels with a special focus on

Jatropha curcas L., looking at agronomical and domestication related

issues. She holds a PhD in plant physiology and molecular biology in

poinsettia flower abscission from the Norwegian University of Life

Sciences.

Miyuki Iiyama Miyuki Iiyama is a post-doc scientist at ICRAF. She holds a PhD in

economics from the University of Tokyo. She is assigned to do

research on the evaluation of economic viability of biofuel provision

within agroforestry systems in eastern Africa including the

assessment of socio-economic and environmental impacts of biofuel

feedstock production. She also has been engaged in policy research

on biofuel development and economic assessment of natural resource

management.

IV

Abstract

The oil-containing seeds of Jatropha curcas L., a shrub prevalent in many African countries,

were recently rediscovered as a possible feedstock for biodiesel production. This study

examines the economic viability of jatropha seed production in three northern regions of

Tanzania where a jatropha-based bioenergy value chain is about to emerge. Interviews with

several farmers growing jatropha in the regions were conducted to create primary data on costs

and benefits. Along with data from literature and assumptions made, a cost-benefit analysis

reveals future prospects of jatropha cultivation. The net present value of a five-year investment

was found to be negative (USD -65 ha-1

) when yielding 2000 kg of seeds per hectare and only

slightly positive (USD 9 ha-1

) when yielding 3000 kg ha-1

. On rather fertile soils jatropha is not

able to compete with alternative sunflower cultivation. For the specific case of Northern

Tanzania, the authors therefore advise not to sacrifice scarce fertile land to a rather risky

investment because of insecure prospects. On the contrary, jatropha hedges, that are low in

opportunity costs, are a proven additional source of income and seem more appropriate under

current conditions.

Keywords

Jatropha curcas L., Tanzania, bioenergy, biodiesel, cost-benefit analysis

V

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible through a GTZ-ICRAF collaboration. I am grateful to both

organizations and the people who work there for giving me the wonderful opportunity and

support to undertake this research in Tanzania. On behalf of GTZ this is Marlene Diekmann and

Wolfgang Kasten, at ICRAF it is Claire Momoh and Hellen Ochieng who took care of me. I

express my gratitude to Meshack Nyabenge, GIS Unit Manager, for the GIS support he

provided me.

I am especially grateful to my former lecturer at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Barbara Wick

for pointing out the GTZ-CGIAR cooperation.

Special thanks go to all the people who supported my research in Tanzania and helped me to get

in touch with the farmers. This is Lilian Maliva, Albert Mshanga and Magdalena from JPTL,

Janske van Eijck, Enil Kiwia and Allen Taeku from Diligent Tanzania and SNV Arusha with its

two interns Lauren Parker and Lode Messemaker.

Last but not least I would like to thank all the farmers who contributed much of their valuable

time to provide input for the questionnaires and showed me around to see and evaluate their

jatropha plots. This paper is dedicated to them hoping it will contribute to proper future

investment.

VI

“In the beginning we thought it is a bush plant and can tolerate even no good management.

But we realized that jatropha requires a full management as for any other cash crop,

like coffee, etc.”

Ismael Manang,

Manager of a 32-ha plantation near Arusha, Tanzania

1

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2

2 Overview of bioenergy policies in Africa, jatropha, and the study area..................... 4

2.1 Recent policy developments in Africa towards biofuel production..................... 4

2.2 Bioenergy policy in Tanzania .............................................................................. 5

2.3 Introduction into Jatropha curcas L. ................................................................... 5

2.4 Study country: Tanzania ...................................................................................... 8

2.5 Study area: Arusha, Manyara and Kilimanjaro region ...................................... 11

3 Method and data ........................................................................................................ 16

3.1 Method ............................................................................................................... 16

3.2 Data .................................................................................................................... 18

3.3 Limitations ......................................................................................................... 19

4 Assessment of factors influencing jatropha cultivation and marketing .................... 20

4.1 Production economics ........................................................................................ 20

4.2 Agronomic factors affecting costs and yields .................................................... 21

4.3 Output markets in Northern Tanzania ................................................................ 25

4.4 Stakeholders involved ........................................................................................ 28

5 Analysis & Results .................................................................................................... 32

5.1 Characteristics of the planting sites visited ........................................................ 32

5.2 Detailed analysis of single cost factors .............................................................. 35

5.3 Necessary adaptations ........................................................................................ 37

5.4 Scenario I ........................................................................................................... 41

5.5 Scenario II .......................................................................................................... 41

5.6 Scenario III......................................................................................................... 42

6 Conclusions & Recommendations ............................................................................ 43

Appendix .................................................................................................................. 49

References ................................................................................................................ 54

Currency exchange rate

USD 1 = TZS 1160

2

1 Introduction

“The worldwide recognition of limits in the availability of major fossil energy sources and the

related rapidly rising energy prices (…) have introduced a massive search for new energy

sources for world economic development (FAO 1981).” This quote from a FAO expert

consultation entitled “Energy cropping versus food production”, held 28 years ago in Rome

raises the two main issues we still discuss today: How can energy from sustainably produced

biomass be provided in large quantities and at competitive prices without compromising food

production? While the search for the panacea is still under way energy prices continue to soar

and African smallholders‟ agricultural production is threatened more than ever by continued

low inputs into degraded soils, climate change and high energy prices. High population growth

rates, especially in developing countries, put additional pressure on the agricultural sector and

the individual farmer alike. Compared with 1980 an additional 1.5 billion people need to be fed

today (UN Population Division 2008).

Bioenergy use today – Biomass is already the main energy source for Tanzania and many other

African countries (WRI 2003). However, the problem is the unsustainable and inefficient use of

biomass, e.g. fuelwood. Furthermore, traditional energy sources such as fuelwood and charcoal

cannot provide the energy sources needed for modern energy systems. Liquid fuels of different

kinds are the main energy source for transportation, lighting and processing. Bioenergy

promises to reduce foreign currency spending while reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the

same time.

Jatropha – the bioenergy feedstock – One widely discussed new source of bioenergy is the

physic nut tree, Jatropha curcas L. Its oil-containing seeds constitute a good feedstock for

biofuel production. First trials by GTZ in Mali in the 80‟s and early 90‟s to make jatropha oil a

diesel substitute failed because of relatively high feedstock costs compared with rather low

prices for fossil diesel at those times (Wiesenhütter 2003). But with real energy prices in 2007

soaring to even higher levels than during the second oil crisis in 1979 (McMahon 2008) and

general perception of a steady increase in the long term, prospects for jatropha biodiesel

production seem better than ever. This may explain why many companies, private investors,

NGO, farmers, national as well as local governments from developed and developing countries

are embarking on jatropha ventures although viability of jatropha seed production has not been

3

thoroughly assessed yet (Jongschaap et al. 2007). With unknown real production costs for

jatropha many uncertainties remain to profitability of investments into biodiesel

manufacturing.

However, the numerous potential benefits from the “multi-purpose tree” sound promising:

reduction of costly fuel imports, energy security, new employment opportunities for farmers

and skilled engineers, a new export commodity, reduction of greenhouse gases and prospects

for the marketing of carbon credits while combating erosion and desertification at the same

time.

Viability unclear – Tomomatsu and Swallow (2007) examined the market feasibility of a

jatropha-based biodiesel production chain and its profitability for smallholder farmers in

Kenya, and concluded that jatropha is not a viable cash crop under current economic

conditions. Other authors in turn, like Philip (2007), see jatropha as a high-potential bioenergy

tree and recommend massive and immediate cultivation. None of these analyses though relies

on actual data from existing jatropha plantations in Eastern Africa because such data is still

rare. Available figures on inputs and yields are mainly assumptions (Tewari 2007) or incorrect

extrapolations (Achten et al. 2008), often taken from plantations outside of Africa. Reliable

data for the East African region will only be available in a few years time after evaluating the

many plantations being set up today.

Urgent need for reliable data – Despite missing facts on the actual performance of jatropha

cultivation more than 10,000 small-scale farmers are currently establishing jatropha plantations

in Tanzania (Loos 2008) and many more all over East Africa. There is an urgent need to provide

a reliable ex-ante analysis that incorporates already available facts from existing plantations

while filling the gaps with conservative assumptions to arrive at figures that small-scale

farmers, investors, development agencies and the government can rely on for further decision

making.

Study objective – This study examines profitability and competitiveness of jatropha seed

production in Northern Tanzania where a jatropha based biofuel value chain is about to emerge.

The tool applied is cost-benefit analysis that examines expenditures and revenues over a certain

period of time which will lead to economic indicators that allow simple judgement on viability.

4

Structuring of the paper – Chapter two gives an overview on recent developments in bioenergy

policy in Africa, the jatropha plant itself and the study area. Chapter three describes the

research method applied and the kind of data obtained. Chapter four discusses factors found to

influence jatropha cultivation and marketing while chapter five presents the results of the

analysis and different scenarios. Chapter six then sums up the findings and concludes the paper

with recommended action.

2 Overview of bioenergy policies in Africa,

jatropha, and the study area

The following chapter gives a brief overview on the development of biofuels promotion on the

African political agenda, on jatropha as a traditional hedge plant and a modern energy shrub as

well as an introduction into the study country and the study regions.

2.1 Recent policy developments in Africa towards biofuel

production

Bioenergy and liquid biofuels in particular have been on the political agenda of many African

countries already since 2004. A large group of African ministers signed the Statement on

Renewables in Africa in Nairobi in 2004, which calls for, inter alia, promoting the sustainable

production of biomass and its efficient use in all sectors and enhancing the development of

renewables. Then in 2007, the first “High-level Biofuels Seminar in Africa” was held in Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia. The seminar concluded with the adoption of the “Addis Ababa Declaration on

Sustainable Biofuels Development in Africa” and an Action Plan (Conliffe and Kulovesi 2008).

The Plan encompasses the development of ethanol, biodiesel, biogas, biomass gasification, and

cogeneration as priority sectors, and contains a number of cross-cutting programme areas,

including policy and institutional frameworks, financing mechanisms, resource assessments,

capacity building and strengthening technical expertise. Both conferences represent official

statements confirming that a large number of African countries are willing to promote

bioenergy in general and liquid biofuels in particular. Despite political willingness, biofuel

production in Africa is still at an infant stage.

5

To foster activities towards biofuel production the Kenyan Ministry of Agriculture in

collaboration with GTZ (German Agency for Technical Cooperation) recently published a

Roadmap for Biofuels in Kenya (MoA/GTZ 2008). The roadmap identified jatropha as a major

future biodiesel feedstock.

2.2 Bioenergy policy in Tanzania

In 2005, Tanzania established the Rural Energy Agency (REA). According to its own mission

statement, the purpose is to promote development of modern energy services in rural areas by

facilitating administrative processes and project implementation and also by working on the

policy level. Facilitating activities of key stakeholders includes providing grants and subsidies

to developers of such projects. This is done through the Rural Energy Fund (REF). In addition

to the REA, which does not exclusively focus on bioenergy and biofuels, the Tanzanian

government established the National Biofuels Task Force (NBFT) in March 2006. Different

ministries and the private sector are involved in it. Stated activities of NBTF are to deal with

policies, set up a regulatory framework, and legislation issues.

However, Philips (2007) notes that despite the political will to promote biofuels, economic

feasibility is still unclear and lacks detailed analyses. Because of that and because a clear policy

framework is still missing, e.g. taxation of biofuels is still a matter of discussion, biofuel

production and use are still at an infant stage.

2.3 Introduction into Jatropha curcas L.

Jatropha curcas L.1, commonly known as jatropha or physic nut

2, is a succulent shrub or small

tree, which belongs to the large Euphorbiaceae family. It originated from Central America but

has been naturalised in most tropical and subtropical countries from South-America to Africa

and Asia (Heller 1996). Its tolerance of various soil and climatic conditions allows a vast

distribution within the so called “jatropha belt” stretching between 30° N and 35° S

(Jongschaap et al. 2007).

Traditional use – People in many of these countries use it as a live fence to protect their crops,

for demarcation of properties or to fence livestock. At the coastal region of Madagascar,

1 In the following referred to as “jatropha”

6

jatropha is used as a support plant for vanilla trees. Due to its toxicity the plant also possesses

medicinal properties to induce diarrhoea and regurgitation. Traditional doctors mention wound

sealing properties of its sap (latex). Medicinal research on jatropha„s toxicity started more than

hundred years ago when in 1893 Siegel published his examination of the toxicity of jatropha

seeds and oil. The oil-containing seeds nonetheless were never of much interest to the farmers

as the oil is non-edible and only suitable for soap making3 but not for cooking nor is the

protein-rich press-cake suitable for animal feeding. From 1987 to 1997, the Special Energy

Programme carried out by GTZ in Mali used jatropha oil as a feedstock for soap production and

as a diesel substitute. The latter practice was not found to be price competitive in Mali or in

Zambia at those times because of relatively high feedstock and processing costs (Benge 2006).

Renewed interest in jatropha as biodiesel crop – However, as the new millennium began,

soaring oil prices and concerns about the environmental impact of fossil fuel combustion led to

a search for new sustainable biodiesel feedstocks. Jatropha suddenly became very popular and

is touted since then as one of the most promising future major oil crops by developed and

developing countries alike. Companies from developed countries recognize jatropha as a new

export crop for developing countries to supply western economies with “green fuel” while

developing and newly industrialising countries like India see mainly their potential to reduce

dependency from costly oil imports (New-Dehli - Planning Commission 2003).

Claimed properties of jatropha – The alleged advantage of jatropha lies in its greater tolerance

of environmental conditions. This is supposed to make jatropha an alternative oil crop to palm

oil there where the latter is not profitable or even impossible to cultivate. Especially arid and

semi-arid regions as well as marginal soils are in the focus for extensive jatropha plantations.

Much of Tanzania„s land has been identified suitable for jatropha cultivation4.

Unrealistic expectations – Many characteristics such as being high yielding, low in water use,

drought-resistant, low in nutrient requirement, not susceptible to pests nor diseases were and

are still attributed to jatropha. These properties are not necessarily incorrect but not always

achievable in combination, e.g. low nutrient and water requirement with high yields (Jongshaap

2 Botanically Jatropha curcas L. does not produce nuts but fruits

3 Some West African countries, the Cape Verde Islands and Madagascar exported Jatropha seeds during the 20th century for soap

production to Marseille (Heller 1996).

4 Meshack N. 2008. ICRAF GIS Unit

7

et al. 2007). Expectations that jatropha will yield up to 12 t ha-1

of dry seeds result from

illegitimate extrapolation from individual plants (Achten et al. 2008). Also, being adapted and

suitable for unfavourable conditions should not be confused with being viable from an

economic point of view. Harsh climatic conditions and marginal soils will not allow high yields

unless intensive inputs are applied which in turn will affect profits negatively.

Theoretical oil yield potential – The theoretical annual oil production potential of jatropha lies

between 539 - 2720 kg ha-1

under the assumption that all incoming radiation is intercepted and

50% of the dry matter is accumulated in fruits (Openshaw 2000). The variation is due to the

differing Net Primary Production (NPP5) depending on the longitude and the applied

simulation model (Jongshaap et al. 2007). The northern part of Tanzania (Arusha, Kilimanjaro)

is located very close to the equator (2 - 4° S) and allows a very high NPP of about 1000 gC m-2

yr-1

. Compared to the oil yield that is achieved from oil palm plantations (3240 t ha-1

yr-1

6) the

maximum possible yield from jatropha is still significantly lower but an alternative worth

considering, given the annual oil yields of crops such as sunflower (315 L ha -1 7

), or castor

(270 L ha -1 8

). This comparison of the potential oil yield with actual yields from grown crops is

improper but nevertheless points out the potential that is there.

Critical issues for investors and farmers – Apart from agro-ecological conditions, viability of

jatropha seed production also depends highly on good genetic material as well as on actual field

conditions, adjusted management, and input practice. Among the problems that need to be

urgently addressed are:

Unavailability of genetically improved or selected seeds

Knowledge on best fertilisation practices: What kind of fertilisers need to be applied in

what quantity and frequency on what soil type to:

achieve highest yields

maximise profit

5 NPP is the net production of all types of plant biomass

6 Average Yield achieved by smallholder producers (National Agricultural Census of Agriculture 2002 / 2003)

7 Assuming an average yield of 0.9 t ha-1 and an oil content of 35%

8 Assuming an average yield of 0.6 t ha-1 and an oil content of 45%

8

achieve high yields in relation to low input as an adapted strategy for poor

farmers

Water requirements

Best spacing for different agro-climatic conditions

Threshold level of damage through pests, diseases, and fungi that requires phytosanitary

measures

Under such suboptimal conditions farmers embark on jatropha cultivation in Tanzania.

2.4 Study country: Tanzania

The United Republic of Tanzania, located in East Africa at the Indian Ocean, lies just south of

the Equator. The boundaries stretch between 1° to 12° S latitude and 21° to 40° W longitude

covering a total surface of 945,000 sq km. Tanzania borders with Africa„s deepest lake, Lake

Tanganyika in the south-west and Lake Victoria, Africa„s largest lake in the north-west (Fig. 1).

40 million people live in Tanzania today. The population growth rate is about 2% annually

(CIA 2008) and therefore the population is expected to reach 60 million people by 2025 (WRI

2003). The population consists of about 130 tribes united by one common language of

communication, Swahili.

Fig. 1 Location of Tanzania on the African continent. Source: Wikipedia User:Vardion 2006, modified.

Agro-ecological zones – Tanzania„s coastline is flat but quickly ascends towards the centre

tableland, which remains constant between 1000 and 1500 m. Mountains dominate the country

in the southwest and especially in the northeast where high mountains up to 5895 m

Equator

9

(Kilimanjaro) can be found. As a result, Tanzania„s mainland consists of diverse ecological and

climatic zones. The country can be divided in four major agro-ecological zones that receive

different rainfall levels. Precipitation levels range from less than 500 mm to above 1500 mm.

The narrow coastal region is consistently hot and humid with an annual mean temperature of

25°C and 1142 mm of rain (Dodoma), while in the lowland central regions a temperate

savannah climate prevails. Average annual rainfall shows great variation depending on the

location. Highest precipitation is found towards the southeast and a small area close to Lake

Victoria reaching up 2500 mm and least on the central plain receiving only 500 mm (FAO

2008).

2.4.1 State of small-scale agriculture on Tanzanian mainland

12 million ha of farmland are allotted to smallholders from which 80% (9.5 million ha) are used

for annual crops (7.2 million ha), permanent crops including trees (1.3 million ha) and

permanent-annual mixed stands (1.0 million ha) (NBS 2006). Only a very small percentage of

all crops are cultivated on irrigated land (184,000 ha) (CIA 2008). Agriculture is practised

throughout the entire country but characterised by low density of arable land and permanent

crops per unit of area (FAO 2008). The two prevailing farming systems are the maize mixed

farming system in the central plains and the root crop farming system in the south and

northwest (Dixon, Gulliver and Gibbon 2001). Maasai people are traditionally pastoralists but

nowadays engage often into farming activities in addition to extensive livestock keeping.

Tanzania„s small-scale farmers are mainly subsistence farmers. Available land area is a major

limiting factor to agricultural production. The average area utilized by smallholder farmers is

little more than 2 ha per household. 46% of agricultural households reported having insufficient

land. Due to scarcity of land and other limiting factors farmers are mainly producing for own

consumption. Maize, cassava, beans and rice constitute the staple food for all Tanzanians and

therefore occupy large areas of the arable land. Cash crops play a minor role but still significant

quantities of export commodities are produced such as cotton (180,000 t), coffee (60,000 t),

and tobacco (50,000 t). Important oils crops grown by smallholders are groundnuts, oil palms,

and sunflower (NBS 2006).

Productivity of all crops is generally low and even dropped dramatically with the beginning of

the new millennium. While in the 1980s average maize yield reached almost 2 t ha-1

it is less

10

than 1 t ha-1

today. Production increase of a million tons in two decades was only possible due

to a triplication of the area under maize cultivation (FAO 2008, NBS 2006).

Concerning the current status of small-scale agriculture in Tanzania, the National Sample

Census of Agriculture concludes the following (NBS 2006):

The average planted area of 1.61 hectares per household for annual crops is low to support

an average size smallholder household and is insufficient to allow smallholders to move

beyond subsistence existence. The most fertile areas have even less available land for

cultivation per household. In regions like Kilimanjaro the average land area per household

is only one hectare.

The percentage of utilised land compared to available land is high and in some regions all

available land is utilised.

With the exception of seeds, there is virtually no investment in crop production. More than

90% of the households use only farmyard manure and compost for fertilisation and

virtually no pesticides, insecticides, etc.

There are practically no credit facilities and most households purchase implements through

the sale of crop products.

A large amount of support is required to transform these subsistence farms into profit

making entities.

2.4.2 Economy and energy

Tanzania ranks among the poorest countries of the world being a so-called Least Developed

Country (UN-OHRLLS 2008). The annual GDP per capita is low, only US$ 1100. The

Tanzanian economy depends heavily on agriculture, which contributes more than 40% to GDP,

provides 85% of exports, and employs 80% of the labour force (CIA 2008). Especially in the

rural areas, agriculture is of great importance since almost all rural labour force is occupied by

agricultural activities. These figures clearly show that economic development of Tanzania is

not possible without the development of the agricultural sector. Because small-scale agriculture

forms the basis for the livelihood of millions of Tanzanian farmers, agricultural development

needs to tackle their problem and to assess their needs. However, development is not possible

without energy. Provision of sustainable and locally produced energy is therefore crucial for the

whole country.

11

Energy consumption – Today the agricultural sector consumes only 3% of the total energy

whereas the biggest share, almost 80%, is residential energy consumption9. The main energy

sources are by far renewables – mainly primary solid biomass (fuelwood) – providing 94% of

total energy consumed. Fossil fuels play a minor role in total energy provision10

but are crucial

for traffic and electricity generation where there is no hydropower available11

.

High expenditures on oil imports – Tanzania is among the countries with no known oil reserves

(CIA 2008). Therefore, the entire industrial and transport sector depends heavily on foreign oil

imports which value accounted in 2007 for 1.5 billion US$ an increase of over 30% compared

to 2006 (Bank of Tanzania 2008). The 2007 spending on oil imports was equal to 40% of the

country„s total export earnings. This share is likely to increase in 2008 due to continuous hikes

of world oil prices. The ever-aggravating situation made the Tanzanian government think about

the possibility of displacing fossil fuels with liquid biofuels (Philip 2007).

2.4.4 Biodiesel production today

Only recently has Tanzania started production and marketing of straight vegetable jatropha oil

for use in adapted car engines, and for this reason the output is still negligible. Nationally

produced biodiesel is so far not available at competitive prices. At least two ambitious investors

are currently active in jatropha propagation and processing: Diligent Tanzania Ltd. in Arusha

and PROKON Renewable Energy Ltd. Prokon is a German company that provided jatropha

seeds and cultivation knowledge to more than 10 000 small-scale farmers in Mpanda, Rukwa

region (Loos 2008). For more details on Diligent please refer to chapter 4.4.

2.5 Study area: Arusha, Manyara and Kilimanjaro region

The study on the economic viability of jatropha seed production was conducted in three regions

bordering each other in Northern Tanzania. They are Arusha region, the northern part of

Manyara region and the northern part of Kilimanjaro region. Arusha and Kilimanjaro border

Kenya in the north while Manyara is found south of these two and stretches towards the centre

of Tanzania. The three regions are mainly known for their extensive national parks and game

9 1999: 10 697 tmtoe (tmtoe: thousand metric tons of oil equivalent) (WRI 2003)

10 1999: 762 tmtoe (WRI 2003)

12

reserves covering a total area of 10 720 sq km and for, Mount Kilimanjaro (5895 m) and Mount

Meru (4566 m), the highest and fourth highest in Africa respectively (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Map of Tanzania with the three regions indicated where the study took place: Arusha, Kilimanjaro

and Manyara. Source: CIA 2008, modified.

Geography – The agro-ecological conditions of the study area depend much on their specific

geography. The Rift Valley cuts through the middle of Arusha region in the north-south

direction, resulting in significant differences in altitude and creating diverse microclimates

within the region. The western plain towards Ngorongoro Crater is dry and hot, allowing few

crops to grow viably without irrigation. In this area, only the Maasai people live, practicing

livestock rearing for their livelihood. In contrast, most mountainous sections of the highlands in

the western Arusha and Kilimanjaro regions are humid unless not situated in the rain shadow of

a mountain. All kinds of agricultural activities, including a variety of food and cash crops,

livestock keeping, dairy production are potentially viable there.

11 Electricity production by source: fossil fuel 18.9%, hydropower: 81.1%. Electricity production: 1.88 billion kWh (2005) (CIA

2008)

13

Temperatures – The average annual temperature is 21°C in the highlands and 24°C in the low

lands (The Regional Commissioner‟s Office 2009). Highest temperatures occur during the

rainy seasons from October to April where the average ranges from 23 to 25°C. From May to

September temperatures are a little lower with monthly means ranging from 20 to 22°C

(weatherclimat.com 2009).

Rainfall – Agricultural activities in most districts are influenced by a bimodal rainfall regime –

a short rainy season from November to December and the long and heavy rainy season from

March to June (Fig. 3). Total precipitation in the three regions varies between <1000 and

>2000 mm y-1

(Fig. 4).

Fig. 3 Average monthly precipitation in four different locations. Source: Hoare 2008.

14

Fig. 4 Average annual precipitation in four different locations. Source: Hoare 2008.

Soils – Arusha and northern Kilimanjaro region have neogene soils characterized by typical

alkaline volcanic rock material like olivine basalt, alkali basalt and others. In Manyara region

we find mainly granite and crystalline limestone series as parent material.

Major enterprise forms – Because of good climatic and soil conditions, west Arusha and

Kilimanjaro attract both small- and big-scale farmers. Huge flower, sugar, aloe vera and (often

abandoned) sisal farms can be found around the cities Arusha and Moshi.

2.5.1 Smallholder household characteristics

Population density differs a lot between the three regions but also within each region depending

on the agro-ecological conditions. On average only 23 and 35 people sq km-1

live in Manyara

and Arusha respectively while density is high in Kilimanjaro region with 104 people sq km-1

(NBS 2005). All rural agriculture households of the three regions together account for 11.1% of

all rural agriculture population of Tanzania. The average household size is between 5.2 and 5.6

persons.

The majority of agriculture households cultivate crops and rear livestock. In Manyara about one

third is cultivating crops only. In Manyara and Kilimanjaro region there are virtually no

pastoralists relying on livestock keeping only. In Arusha, many Maasai still practice their

traditional way of livestock rearing but this represents only 10% of all households that do

livestock.

15

Two thirds of the households use their livelihood income mainly for subsistence purposes. Only

≤9% use more than the half of their livelihoods for non-subsistence purposes. As for all

Tanzanians maize constitutes the staple food for people in Arusha, Manyara, and Kilimanjaro

region too. The average yield per hectare of small-scale farmers in these regions varies between

0.8 and 1.1 t ha-1

. The average area planted with maize per maize growing household is highest

in Manyara (1.3 t ha-1

) and rather low in Arusha and Kilimanjaro (0.7 and 0.5 t ha-1

respectively). Almost all farmers practice intercropping. Typically maize gets intercropped

with beans or cabbage because beans are the usual side dish for ugali12

or rice.

Land ownership is characterised by prevalence of customary law (>70%). Only a rather small

percentage of smallholder farmers hold an ownership certificate. Land availability for

smallholders is a critical issue in all of the three regions. 76 to 86% of the households use all

their available land for agricultural production. Only 23% (Arusha) to 41% (Manyara) of the

households consider having sufficient land. Food insecurity is an issue in all three regions but

differs highly; in Kilimanjaro less than 50% never face problems in satisfying the household

food requirements compare to Arusha and Manyara where the figure is much higher.

In all three regions farmers have relatively good access to roads compared to other regions

(≥70% of the first fields are within one kilometre to the nearest road).

Almost no small-scale farmer is making use of credits (<2%). Most of them even do not know

how to get credit or state that credit is not available.

2.5.2 Traditional role of jatropha in agro-ecosystems of Northern Tanzania

It is difficult or even impossible to determine when physic nut was first introduced into

Tanzania. The only record confirming early jatropha cultivation in Africa was found on the

Cape Verde islands reporting extensive plantations that were established at the beginning of the

19th century (Freitas 1906 and Serra 1950 in Heller 1996). In Tanzania no such records are

known of till date. Nonetheless jatropha has been around for many generations as the elder

people who visited villages remember seeing jatropha trees when they were young.

Appearance of jatropha within the agricultural systems differs remarkably from one village to

another. In some jatropha is not cultivated at all either because people have never been heard of

12 Ugali is made from maize flour and water. It is the staple starch component of most Tanzanians.

16

it or those that have may not possess the planting material or the custom to grow it. In a few

communities jatropha is perceived as a graveyard plant and therefore only planted around

tombs. The willingness of those villagers to grow jatropha in a different context is very low

because they believe this will bring them bad luck. In many other places jatropha can be found

abundantly. Jatropha trees, shrubs and hedges are exclusively located in rural areas there where

men dwell and work – in villages, near plots and beside roads. This is because the plant hardly

spreads by itself. The notion that jatropha is a weed that invades existent ecosystems and

spreads uncontrollably can be rejected for the area surveyed. A very high percentage of today‟s

existing trees and bushes were planted by humans in a specific place to fulfil a specific

function. This function in most cases is to act as a “living fence”. A survey of 125 households in

the year 2002 by Mshanga showed that 95% grew jatropha as a hedge on their compound and

5% as a graveyard plant. None of the interviewed households cropped a jatropha plot for

commercial purposes.

The bushes achieve heights of two meters or more unless they are pruned. The hedges fulfil

multiple purposes along roads, around houses and plots, as crop protection, property

demarcation, fencing of livestock and erosion control. The seeds were never of much interest to

the farmers except for medicinal purposes13

.

3 Method and data

The method applied to evaluate economic viability, the various data sources used and the

limitations encountered will be described in this chapter.

3.1 Method

In order to determine the economic viability of jatropha seed production we first need to define

the term “viability”. We look at viability in two ways:

13 A traditional healer in the Maasai village of Engaruka, western Arusha, is aware of the purgative and diarrheic properties of the

seeds due to their toxicity. Also he observed that application of sap stops minor cuts from bleeding and that a very small quantity

of oil administered orally cures from stomach worms. Furthermore to stop toothache teeth should be brushed with the cut off end

of a jatropha branch, he says.

17

Is jatropha cultivation profitable? Will the farmer be able to earn enough from oil or seed

sale to cover his input and labour costs and gain a net profit >0.

Is jatropha cultivation competitive? Here we look at whether the farmer can earn more by

cultivating jatropha than when he would allocate his land, labour and capital to alternative

crops.

The tool applied to evaluate the current situation is cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Data was

collected on the cost factors for the cultivation and on the profits from selling the seeds. This

data was entered into a MS Excel-sheet to sum up the discounted costs and benefits for every

single year up to the fifth year. This data then built the foundation for the calculation of four

economic indicators:

The net benefit (NB) is calculated as the remaining profit after subtracting all costs that

incurred within one period from the value of all products produced within the same period.

The discounted net benefit (DNB) discounts the values of future earnings and losses to

provide their today„s values. An appropriate discount rate needs to be chosen.

The net present value (NPV) presents today„s value of the whole investment summing up

discounted future earning and losses based on a given discount rate and.

The internal rate of return (IRR) is an indicator of the efficiency of an investment. It is the

annualized effective compounded return rate which can be earned on the invested capital.

A discount rate has to be set for the calculation of DNB, NPV and IRR. We decided on a

realistic discount rate of 12%, similar to the one used by Wiskerke (2008) (11.8%). This rate is

based on the latest available lending rate (16.6%, March 2007) for long-term loans (3-5 years)

(Bank of Tanzania 2009) minus an inflation rate of 4.6%. Thus the discount rate applied does

not include a risk premium which reflects the various uncertainties involved in jatropha

cultivation.

The analysis is divided in three different scenarios: The first scenario does a CBA to calculate

the NPV and IRR14

with and without intercropping. To demonstrate viability of jatropha

cultivation itself intercropping is left out at first. Then intercropping of jatropha with food crops

is included because it is common practice and improves revenue per unit of land. The second

14 IRR is only given when applicable

18

and the third scenario constitute a sensivity analysis. The second scenario assumes higher seed

yields of jatropha. Better management practice and improved germplasm are likely to increase

productivity in future. In the third scenario higher food prices are assumed to check whether

jatropha is a viable alternative when food prices increase.

From various possible intercrops we decided to use sunflower exemplarily. Like jatropha

sunflower is an oil crop that could be used as a biodiesel feedstock. Sunflower oil is an

important cooking oil and used in almost every household. Sunflower is grown by a total of

34,200 households in Arusha, Kilimanjaro and Manyara region. Because of much better yields

in Manyara (1.48 t ha-1

) and Kilimanjaro (1.73 t ha-1

) in contrast to Arusha (0.99 t ha-1

)

sunflower is cultivated mainly in the two first regions. In total sunflower covers an area of 6348

ha in the relevant regions.

3.2 Data

The applied data was derived from three different sources: Firstly primary data collected via

interviews and survey of the region, secondly secondary data from local institutions and

literature and thirdly ex ante estimates. Objective was to obtain as much primary data as

possible from the interviews and to use secondary data and ex ante estimates only to fill

inevitable gaps. The final figures therefore incorporate a mix of newly generated data from own

field survey plus available data from literature and local institutions plus ex ante estimates

based on conservative assumptions rather than actual results.

The data collection took place in April and May 2008 up to 100 km around Arusha town in

three northern regions of Tanzania, namely Arusha, Kilimanjaro and Manyara. The

semi-structured questionnaires consisted of two parts. The first one was to get detailed

information about the jatropha plot especially on the amount of inputs and labour invested but

also if possible on seed yields. The second part were open questions to gain a better

understanding of the farmers„ motivation and concerns (for questionnaire see Appendix A). In

total ten small-scale farmers, two commercial farmers and two households that gather from

hedges were interviewed. Additionally interviews were also done with NGO and private

enterprises promoting jatropha cultivation and buyers of seeds and oil.

To incorporate sunflower production as an intercrop into jatropha cultivation the following data

is utilized (Table 1):

19

Table 1 Sunflower gross margin for one hectare

Market price (USD kg-1) 0.1552

Sunflower yield (kg ha-1) 1809

Total revenue (USD ha-1) 281

Total production cost (USD ha-1) 150

Annual profit (USD ha-1) 131

Source: Faida MaLi (2007)

Other required input data is jatropha yield and the market price for the seeds. Unfortunately

only one full yielding jatropha plantation was found in all three regions. The yield achieved on

this farm is rather discouraging though: 875 kg ha-1

y-1

in the sixth year. Ouwens et al. (2007)

compiled yield data from all over the world ranging from 250 to 5000 kg ha-1

y-1

. The low yield

might have been caused by wrong management, disadvantageous environmental conditions or

poor quality. Because this yield is not necessarily representative for the whole region and

literature approves that higher yields are possible a seed yield of 2000 kg ha-1

in the fifth year is

assumed for the following calculations. The market price for one kg of jatropha seeds varies

greatly between USD 0.09 (TZS 100) and 4.31 (TZS 5000) (Messemaker 2008). However,

Diligent – the biggest buyer in all three regions – pays mostly USD 0.13 kg-1

(TZS 150). In the

following calculations this is considered to be the market price. Considering the tight market

conditions buyers of jatropha seeds operate in a much higher price does not seem feasible

anyway (see chapter 4.3).

3.3 Limitations

The quantity of interviews conducted (14) is far too small for a quantitative evaluation of the

data obtained. That is why from a statistical point of view the study is not representative and

results are not given in per cent but in absolute figures, e.g. 5 from 14. Also the average value

for cost factors or yields are not representative but we still believe that the data obtained does

reflect the actual situation of jatropha farmers in a sufficient way. Sufficient enough to allow

further calculations that give the desired economic indicators.

The reason why so little interviews were possible is typical for an ex ante analysis: Until now

not many jatropha plantations exist and most of the existing plantations are still at an infant

stage. Jatropha is a perennial with a long gestation period until it develops its full yield

potential. These circumstances made it difficult to collect sufficient data especially on the

20

output/revenue side – still a major problems in all jatropha calculations. Additionally to the

problem that not many plots are available for evaluation small-scale farmers neither keep exact

record of their actual inputs and labour invested nor have they exact records of their yields.

Also, jatropha is almost always intercropped with other annual or perennial crops. The time and

inputs allocated exclusively to jatropha often can not be distinguished completely from the

intercrops. Thus, the data and results presented in this study should be understood as an

indication rather than be taken as exact figures.

The cost-benefit-analysis does not take into account any possible non-market goods nor any

externalities. This is because external effects and non-market goods are difficult to monetarise

and the calculation of these would be beyond the means of this study.

4 Assessment of factors influencing jatropha

cultivation and marketing

Jatropha is recognized as a multi-purpose tree and its products too. Especially the oil and the

seedcake can be used for different purposes. Despite a few exceptions though, farmers market

the harvested seeds to buyers and do not process them themselves any further. However, in both

cases – direct selling of seeds or further processing – production economics are of great

importance for possible profits. How production and the demand side influence economic

viability of jatropha seed production will be looked at in the following sub-chapters.

4.1 Production economics

The profit obtained depends on the quantity produced, the obtained price per unit and

production costs. Some production costs are fixed, i.e. not varying with the quantity produced

others are variable, i.e. increasing with an increasing output. Progress in technology can also

play an important role to either increase production or decrease production costs. For the

calculations the following simple equation is used:

Profit = Revenue – Total Costs

Profit = (Units produced x Price per unit) – (Units of inputs x Costs per unit)

21

Profit is defined as the difference between total revenue and total costs. Assuming that farmers

can neither influence the price of their product nor the price for the inputs applied it is clear that

the only ways they can optimise their profit is through reducing the amount of inputs and/or by

increasing the output quantity. Input prices and the market price for his product depend on the

market situation, namely supply and demand, in case of a free market (Mankiw 2003).

Seeds are the only output considered. Other possible external effects such as erosion control,

CO2 sequestration etc. are not taken into account. Several input factors such as labour,

(opportunity) cost for land, and agricultural inputs are included in the calculation.

4.2 Agronomic factors affecting costs and yields

Seed yield – “Yields can not yet be predicted at any degree of accuracy.” This statement from an

expert committee that discussed small and large scale jatropha project development in

Wageningen, the Netherlands, in 2007 (Ouwens et al. 2007), reveals the biggest challenge for

jatropha investment be it a small-scale farmer or a multi-national company. A somewhat

precise prediction of the seed quantity a farmer will harvest from his specific spot with specific

climate and soil conditions is absolutely crucial for his decision on investment. Reported

figures on yields exhibit a very wide range though, varying from 0.4 to 12 t ha-1

yr-1

(Openshaw

2000). Many different reports on yields under various different conditions from all over the

world are more confusing than clarifying. Affirmations of high yielding mature trees should be

handled with caution because systematic yield monitoring just started recently (Achten et al.

2008). Because jatropha performs very different under different agro-ecological conditions

yield figures need to be looked at in relation to the prevailing environmental conditions and

applied management practices.

Mature plantations in sufficient numbers do not yet exist in Tanzania to allow proper evaluation

of yields. Nonetheless viability of jatropha seed production in Tanzania has already been

examined by several authors (Mshanga 2002, Philipp 2007, van der Land 2007, Wiskerke

2008). The authors use different yields projections, which represent expectations and estimates

rather than actual findings. The assumptions range from 2 t ha-1

yr-1

for semi-arid Shinyanga

(Wiskerke 2008) to 9.9 t ha-1

yr-1

(no specification of conditions) (van der Land 2007).

For hedges literature data on yields is even scarcer. Henning (2003) reports an average yield of

0.8 kg m-1

seeds in Mali. Older not pruned hedges yielded 2 kg m-1

.

22

Harvesting, drying and shelling – In jatropha cultivation labour costs play an important role

because none of the works can be done mechanically except initial ploughing. Especially in the

case of small-scale farmers field work is often done by family members. Harvesting, drying and

shelling constitute a main cost factor because they are labour intensive. Wiskerke (2008)

calculated that harvesting – including shelling of the fruits – consumes 80% of total time for

seed production (Fig. 5). Other labour cost factors were weeding (12%) and manuring (4%).

Wiskerke also estimated the total production cost for 1 kg of seeds to be USD 0.10. His

calculations revealed a negative NPV of USD -229 ha-1

.

Fig. 5 Breakdown of total production costs

Source: Wiskerke 2008, modified

Gestation period – Depending on the environmental conditions the gestation period varies

tremendously. First flowering can occur even within the first year but not in four years

under harsh conditions.

Age – The age of a plantation and the seed yield are positively correlated. This can be seen

from a survey of plantations in Paraguay and Nicaragua: The older the trees are the higher

the seed yield is. For Nicaragua even until the eighth year an increase was monitored

(Achten et al. 2008).

Water demand – As for every other plant water availability is substantial for the

functioning of all bio-chemical processes of jatropha. The more water is available the better

is the growth rate. Because jatropha belongs to the succulent Euphorbiaceae family it can

survive well in tropical low precipitation areas (< 600 mm y-1

) (Jongschaap et al. 2007) but

seed production is likely to be minimal and therefore cultivation is economically not viable.

Higher water availability due to higher precipitation or irrigation does not automatically

increase seed yield but is a prerequisite to it. Achten et al. (2008) analysed the relation of

23

annual rainfall and dry seed yield from several plantations all over the world. Seed yield in

high precipitation areas (> 1000 mm) varies tremendously between 337 and

5000 kg ha-1

yr-1

. For plantations though receiving less than 1000 mm of water per year

seed yield seldom exceeds 2000 kg ha-1

yr-1

.

Although jatropha does respond well to better water availability it does not support

water-logging conditions which occur typically in clayish soils (Ouwens et al.) and

therefore prefers well drained soils with good aeration (Heller 1996).

Nutrients – Jatropha does grow on marginal soils but however responds well to fertilizer

application. To assure continuous seed production on a high level the soil needs to be

replenished with at least the amount of nutrients that are exported through harvesting.

When jatropha cultivation is supposed to be in conjunction with a CDM project

nitrogenous mineral fertilizers need to be applied moderately or omitted completely15

.

Doing without any mineral fertilizers though can have a great impact on the yield potential:

Results from Patolia et al. (2007) show that “the seed yield of jatropha was significantly

influenced by application of nitrogenous and phosphate fertilizers”.

Propagation method – Three different propagation methods are commonly used. All three

have advantages and disadvantages, from an agronomical and an economical point of view.

To discuss these in detail is not subject of this study and therefore will only be mentioned

briefly:

Direct seeding is the easiest and cheapest way to establish a plantation and requires

good soil and weather conditions for the initial growth phase.

Seedlings get raised in a nursery where they receive optimal treatment. On the one hand

keeping the seedlings in the nursery becomes more expensive every day, on the other

hand the longer they stay the more hardy they get. High transport costs need to be taken

into account especially for seedling older than three months.

Cuttings are easy to establish and yields can be achieved earlier than from plants

propagated generatively. To obtain cuttings, elder jatropha shrubs and trees need to be

available. Cuttings do not develop a tap root which makes it impossible for them to tap

water from deeper soil layers.

15 The global warming potential of N2O is 296 times greater than CO2 (IPCC 2007). When only a small percentage (2–5%) is

released from the soil the assumed GHG emission gains can be reduced significantly (The Royal Society 2008) or completely

out-balanced.

24

Pests, diseases and fungi – Contrary to common believe jatropha is susceptible to a broad

variety of pests, diseases and fungi (Dadang, Suastika and Dewi 2007). Plant health can be

affected at every part of the plant – at the roots, the stem and the leaves. Infection and insect

attacks will result in reduced nutrient and water uptake, lower photosynthesis, slower

biomass increment and decreased fruit production and should therefore be prevented or

cured when a certain threshold is reached.

The case of hedges – Hedges are planted in line with a very short distance to one another of 5 to

50 cm. Typically people use distal, thick branches as cuttings because they fruit quicker and

have a higher survival rate than thinner ones. Not much labour needs to be invested into the set

up of a “live fence”. Hedges generally receive neither inputs nor maintenance except for

pruning and are therefore low in maintenance and labour costs. Hedges are claimed to have a

positive influence on nearby annual crops through protection from animals and as a wind brake.

Competition for water, nutrients and radiation is likely to reduce growth of crops next to the

jatropha fence (Felske 1991).

Because hedges are planted on land that is not under cultivation there is neither land

competition with food crops nor are there any opportunity costs.

The case of plantations – To grow jatropha on a plot, each of the three propagation methods can

be used. Clearing of land can be labour intensive depending on former vegetation. Planting

distance depends on the environmental conditions – mainly water availability and nutrients. On

marginal soils with low precipitation a wider distance is recommended to reduce intra-specific

competition. Generally 1111 to 2500 shrubs are planted per hectare. This refers to a spacing of

2 x 2 m and 3 x 3 m respectively. If irrigation and nutrient inputs are applied 10 000 trees ha-1

are possible during the first one or two years, afterwards thinning might be necessary. High

density assures maximum utilisation of land and reduces weeds due to soil covering.

Intercropping with annuals is often done during the first years when the jatropha trees are still

small and do not cover the whole plot. This is very important to maintain the productivity of the

land until jatropha reaches maturity and starts to produce itself. Unless jatropha is not grown on

former scrublands opportunity costs need to be taken into account to compensate for the

replaced crops.

25

Jatropha cultivation is very labour intensive because the work cannot be mechanised so far.

Theoretically site preparation could be done with a tractor but this is an unlikely option for

small-scale farmers in Tanzania. Labour is required for clearing the site, ploughing, pitting,

planting, weeding, irrigate, spraying of crop protection chemicals, fertilization and pruning.

Because labour costs amount for a high percentage of total costs, scale effects are unlikely

when establishing a jatropha plantation on a bigger scale. The labour requirement will increase

almost linear with the increment of the area. Transportation costs could be lowered when

transporting inputs or seeds at a larger scale but this is a rather small portion of the total costs.

4.3 Output markets in Northern Tanzania

Farmers sell seeds to buyers or process seeds themselves. The latter option is less common.

However, in any case the seed price that farmers obtain is very important for profitability of

their activities. The seed price depends, of course, on the market situation namely on supply and

demand. In the case of Engaruka village in the western part of Arusha region, the seed price of

one kilogram tripled due to increased demand from USD 0.09 (TZS 100) in 2005 to 0.26 (TZS

300) in 2008 (Messemaker 2008). Generally a big variation in farm gate prices for seeds is

observed. While high seed prices benefit the farmers and gatherers of seeds it has adverse

effects on buyers and processors; high seed prices threaten their profits.

To better understand the demand side the three major uses of jatropha oil shall be explained:

Soap production – Soap production on a jatropha oil basis is possible with only two additional

ingredients: lye and carbonate. The soap is said to have medicinal properties. Due to relative

high production costs jatropha herbal soap is not competitive with conventional soap. Only

with a price six times higher gross margins of 7 to 24% were possible, depending on the seed

price (Messemaker 2008).

Domestic energy use for lighting & cooking – The oil can also be used for lighting purposes. A

floater with a wick in the middle is put in the oil and lighted up. Two cooking stoves for

vegetable oil were tested in Arusha region. The so-called “Kakute stove” does not function at

all. The “protos” developed by the Bosch and Siemens Home Appliances Group (BSH) does

work but didn„t prove to be a competitive alternative to existing systems (GTZ 2007). The

development of an affordable, easy-to-use plant oil stove holds the potential to reduce CO2

26

emissions by a far greater amount than substituting all diesel consumed with biodiesel in

Tanzania. Because almost all Tanzanians rely on firewood and charcoal for cooking an

alternative cooking system would have a major impact on the Tanzanian ecosystem and CO2

emissions from biomass.

Fuel – The calorific value of 38 – 42 MJ kg-1

(Achten et al. 2008) makes straight jatropha oil

(SJO) a possible fuel substitute. SJO though can only be used in modified diesel engines. Only

a few, mainly stationary diesel engines run on straight vegetable oil without any modifications

at all. Oil extraction can be done either mechanically or chemically. The latter one is only

recommended for large-scale biodiesel production facilities > 50 t biodiesel per day (Adriaans

2006). Because such high volumes are still not a reality for Tanzania mechanical expellers are

the appropriate option. Different sizes of expellers from a manually operated ram-press to huge

electricity powered machines are available. Mechanical extraction offers a valuable by-product

in form of a press cake. This press cake is rich in nutrients and has a high energy content which

makes it a good feedstock for biogas plants and a good organic fertilizer, both creating

additional profit. The toxicity prohibits the use of the press cake for animal feeding.

An Arushan biofuel company pays approximately USD 0.93 for seeds, transport and oil

extraction per litre of jatropha oil assuming a seed price of USD 0.16 kg-1

(TZS 180). To be

somehow competitive with fossil diesel the price of SJO (straight jatropha oil) cannot be higher

than for conventional diesel. The current pump price for diesel in Arusha is about USD 1.72

(TZS 1995) per L16

. Table 2 reveals that biofuel companies have to spend much capital on the

feedstock itself and only a small contribution margin is left to cover overhead and investment

costs. Such costs include expenditures inter alia for office rent, staff, cars, fuel, and oil

expellers.

16 Price from June 18th, 2008

27

Table 2 Gross margin for SJO. Difference in energy content between the units kilogram and litre is

neglected to keep calculation simple. All costs in USD.

Medium seed price variant High seed price variant

Seeds (kg-1) (TZS 180) 0.16 (TZS 300) 0.26

4 kg seeds17

4 x 0.16 = 0.64 4 x 0.26 = 1.04

Transportation 4 x 0.03 = 0.12 4 x 0.03 = 0.12

Oil extraction (kg-1) 0.17 0.17

Total (kg-1) (TZS 974) 0.93 (TZS 1438) 1.33

Diesel price at pump (L-1

) (TZS 1995) 1.72 (TZS 1995) 1.72

Gross margin18

0.79 0.39

Source: Mitchell 2008

Straight jatropha oil is also a possible feedstock for biodiesel production. Via transesterification

the vegetable oil‟s viscosity gets increased to be adapted to modern diesel engines. Depending

on the engine type the biodiesel can be used either pure (100%, B100) or in a blend up to a

certain value (e.g. 20%, B20). This additional step in processing requires a special

transesterification plant, a chemical reactant and a chemical catalyst. While man powered oil

extraction is still in reach for small-scale farmer associations, biodiesel production is rather

unlikely because it requires relative high capital investment which small-scale farmers usually

lack. Under current conditions competitive biodiesel production is ruled out because not even

the feedstock for it, SJO, is produced competitively19

.

Use of SJO to power a Multi Functional Platform – The Multi Functional Platform (MFP) is a

platform that consists of different smaller machines that can be combined as needed. The core

component is an engine that runs on either diesel or straight vegetable oil to produce

mechanical power. This power can then be used to run different devices such as an oil expeller,

an electricity generator, a mill machine or a water pump. The MFP can be used to extract oil

from jatropha seeds and then use this oil to power the other devices (Sawe 2008,

Brew-Hammond and Crole-Rees 2004). Two pilot MFPs are currently installed in Northern

Tanzania in the villages of Engaruka and Leguruki. A feasibility study from Wijgerse (2007)

shows that a platform with some extra income from other services next to the electricity supply

can run viable on jatropha oil. TaTEDO (Tanzania Traditional Energy Development and

17 About 4 kg of seeds are necessary to extract 1 kg of oil when using a mechanical press.

18 For reasons of simplicity we neglect here that 1 kg of SJO does not have the exact same energy content as 1 L of diesel.

19 June 2008

28

Environment Organisation) is responsible for the design, installation and co-management of the

MFP. The rural electrification project is intended to be scaled up to 50 MFP countrywide

(Messemaker 2008).

In all cases – soap production, fuel for domestic cooking and fuel for engines – producers

struggle with relative high feedstock costs what makes their products too expensive or

significantly reduces the profit margin: Jatropha herbal soap is not competitive on the regional

market, a competitive plant oil stove for domestic use of SJO is not available and biofuel

companies can only offer SJO as fuel at a competitive price but no biodiesel20

. And even for

SJO the contribution margin is rather low what makes it difficult for biofuel companies to cover

their overhead costs and assure profits.

Among the many options to make jatropha products profitable or increase the profit margin is

to lower the seed price because the feedstock price is one of the biggest cost factors. Producers

of seeds benefit from high seed prices but will loose their market when jatropha-based

businesses become unviable.

4.4 Stakeholders involved

Several stakeholders are involved into the market of jatropha seed production and processing.

Because the seed price farmers receive is inter alia influenced by the demand the study also

looks at the different stakeholder parties involved in the value chain. Figure 6 gives an

overview of the manifold stakeholders involved and their relation to one another. TaTEDO,

KAKUTE and JPTL are NGOs promoting jatropha cultivation, GGWG is a producer

cooperative, Faida MaLI is meant to give business support, SARI and CAMARTEC provide oil

extraction technology, KAMA and Diligent are buyers of seeds and processors and MEM,

NBTF, REA and REF are political institutions supporting renewable energies. For detailed

description of all stakeholders see Messemaker‟s value chain analysis (2008).

20 For straight plant oil to become biodiesel further costly processing (transesterification) is necessary.

29

Fig. 6 Actor constellation for Northern Tanzania with regional and national integration (Messemaker

2008)

The main stakeholders in Arusha, especially in view of seed marketing options for the farmers,

are described below. They can be distinguished into five different groups:

1. Seed supply Gatherers of seeds from “public” and private hedges

Small-scale farmers

Large-scale commercial farms

2. Oil extraction Women groups using manual ram-presses

Medium-scale enterprise using mechanised oil-extraction

technique, capability of biodiesel production

3. Soap production Small-scale soap producers (women groups)

Commercial soap factory (KAMA)

4. Provision of training

and knowledge

NGOs promoting jatropha to small-scale farmers and setting up

Multi Functional Platforms

Private companies, providers of knowledge, training and other

jatropha related services

5. Regional government Does not play a major role.

30

1st group: seed supply – Seed gatherers from “public21

” and private hedges still provide the

bulk quantity of all seeds traded. Several hundred small-scale farmers recently started to

cultivate jatropha on plots. Only very few are already producing seeds because most of them

did not reach maturity yet. Two commercial large-scale farms can be found in the three regions.

These are Kikuletwa Farm (8 ha) and Agriflora Ltd. (32 ha). Figures on how many seeds are

harvested from hedges and how many are already obtained from plots do not exist. The authors

estimate this to be more than 90%. This is about to change within a few years time when all the

plots currently established will start yielding.

2nd group: oil extraction and trading – Small-scale oil extraction is done by a few women

groups that were provided with a manual ram-press. The press fabricated by CAMARTEC

(Centre for Agricultural Mechanisation and Rural Technology) costs approximately USD 200.

Diligent Tanzania Ltd. is a branch of Diligent Energy Systems BV, a Dutch enterprise. Diligent

Tanzania is based in Arusha town where it runs four mechanical oil expellers and a small

biodiesel refinery plant. Annual production is about 1500 T of straight Jatropha oil per year.

The seed cake is used as feedstock for the nearby biogas plant which supplies a kitchen with

cooking gas for the 400 workers of a nearby flower farm. Diligent„s main objective is to

produce SJO or even biodiesel for the export market in Europe. Currently Diligent produces

only medium quantities of SJO which is sold for TZS 2000 L-1

. As fossil fuel is still slightly

cheaper than Diligent„s SJO (May 2008) the company can only supply a niche market of safari

companies in Arusha that are willing to pay a higher price in order to offer “green” safari tours.

Usage of SJO in cars requires engine modifications. Biodiesel production is economically not

viable under the current situation. Methanol, a required catalyst for the transesterification

process, is not available in Tanzania. Also, the biodiesel would not be competitive because the

SJO is already more expensive than diesel at the pump.

Diligent buys mainly from 150 middlemen who set up their collection points at central spots

like market places or administrative buildings. Contracted and not contracted farmers can come

there to sell their seeds for about USD 0.13 kg-1

(TZS 150). Diligent will buy the seeds for about

USD 0.16 kg-1

(TZS 180) from the owners of a collection point. Diligent offers a minimum seed

price to its contacted farmers of USD 0.09 kg-1

(TZS 100). Seed prices of USD 0.26 kg-1

(TZS

21 With the term “public” the authors refer to the many hedges that are not grown on private but on public ground.

31

300) such as in the village of Engaruka are not viable in the long-term for an enterprise like

Diligent that has to compete with actual fuel prices (see 3.3).

Diligent‟s high demand of jatropha seeds might have caused this tremendous increase in prices

because the demand can not be met by the current supply that consists mainly of seeds gathered

from hedges. To further increase the production, Diligent actively encouraged farmers to plant

new jatropha plantations and is supporting their contracted farmers with extension officers.

A big problem for Diligent is that the Tanzanian government did not decide yet whether

biofuels will be taxed or not. So far taxes are included in the fuel price of TZS 2000 L-1

.

Diligent is the biggest buyer of seeds in the region. A very high percentage of the purchased

seeds originate from the innumerable hedges all around Arusha town. To further increase seed

production and ensure future supply, Diligent works together with several hundred small-scale

outgrowers in Arusha, Kilimanjaro and Manyara region.

3rd group: soap production – A few women groups trained by Kakute and JPTL produce small

quantities of soaps. Because of the high price for a bar of soap (90 gr) of USD 0.43 there is no

market in the smaller villages. Bigger soap bars are available for a fifth of the price (USD 0.09).

The only marketing options on a regional level for jatropha soap exist in bigger towns such as

Arusha which higher income earners.

KAMA Herbal Products Ltd. is a private company run by several shareholders. It emerged from

Kakute Ltd. as a result of an workshop on Value Chain Development (VCD) organised by

Match Maker Associates Ltd. (MMA) that is one of the shareholders. KAMA„s objective is to

deliver herbal soaps based on jatropha oil for the national or even international market. Because

KAMA evolved from a VCD-workshop, one if its key interest is the creation of value in local

villages by small-scale farmers. To achieve this, to reduce transportation costs and to simplify

the production, KAMA prefers to buy jatropha oil from local farmers instead of seeds. KAMA

is just started up its business and is therefore not a buyer of large quantities yet.

4th group: provision of training and knowledge – Kakute Ltd. was founded in 1995. Already in

1998 Kakute started jatropha activities in Arusha region and became a pioneer for the whole

county. The long existence of jatropha in many parts of Arusha region simplified the

introduction of a jatropha based value chain. Farmers owning jatropha hedges were and are still

exited to learn that the seeds they considered to be without any value actually can be sold.

32

Together with CAMARTEC (Centre for Agricultural Mechanization and Rural Technology,

Arusha) Kakute developed and introduced the manual ram-press to jatropha growers for oil

extraction. The training activities and soap production were handed over to JPTL and KAMA

in 2007. Today, Kakute provides training, workshops and knowledge transfer.

JPTL (Jatropha Products Tanzania Ltd.) is a private company but acts like a NGO. JPTL

emerged from Kakute in 2007. JPTL„s clear focus is on training smallholder households and

specific women groups in the technical aspects of jatropha cultivation and soap production and

to inform them about various other possibilities. This does not include thorough evaluation of

market potentials and economic viability studies. JPTL„s objective is to teach 2000 households

until 2010. Instead of creating market access for the trained soap producing groups JPTL buys

the jatropha oil from them to supply its own soap production.

5th group: regional government – The regional government of none of the three regions is

much involved in jatropha activities. Some district governments purchased manual ram-presses

to distribute them to farmer groups and upon request village governments linked the

jatropha-promoting NGO JPTL to existing farmer groups (Messemaker 2008).

5 Analysis & Results

This chapter describes the results obtained through the analysis of both qualitative and

quantitative data. In addition to the scenario that is based on the actual situation (scenario I) a

sensivity analysis is carried out. The results of this analysis are presented in scenario II and III.

5.1 Characteristics of the planting sites visited

Location: The plots visited are located between the 2° and 3° S latitude and 35° to 37° W

longitude.

Elevation: The altitude in the area surveyed differs considerably between 835 and 1382 m,

a difference of 547 m.

Age: The average plot age of jatropha is 3 years. Plots surveyed where between one year to

over 5 years.

Land tenure: Mainly all land used for jatropha is owned by the farmers themselves.

33

Plot size: The average size of a smallholder jatropha plot it 0.4 ha, which is about one acre.

There are two commercial farms with plantations sizes of 8 and 32 ha respectively.

Planting density: The average planting density is 1940 shrubs ha-1

. That is equal to

2.3 m x 2.3 m spacing. A big variation in spacing was observed ranging from 1 m x 3 m

(3333 shrubs ha-1

) to 3 m x 4 m (833 shrubs ha-1

).

Planting material: The planting material is either derived from existing hedges (seeds and

cuttings) or given by promoting organisations (Kakute/JPTL, Diligent). Seedlings are used

rarely because of higher investment costs.

Dead shrubs: Farmers take care of dead shrubs and replace them in most cases in order to

maintain future productivity of the plantation.

First yield: First harvest takes place on average during the second year. A big variation

occurs here too: Some farmers were able to collect a small amount of fruits already in the

first year, whereas others waited up to four years for their first harvest. Quantities of this

first harvest are mainly negligible. Small quantities on each tree makes harvesting

uneconomic because the time needed is not compensated by the small profit earned.

By-product: The seedcake is not used as fertilizer because farmers sell the seeds and the

buyer keeps the seed cake for its own purposes. Diligent uses the seed cake to feed its own

60 m3 biogas plant.

Arable land: The soil jatropha is planted on land ranging from rather fertile to very fertile.

None of the farmers planted jatropha on marginal dry land not suitable for food crops. In

Engaruka one farmer intends to plant jatropha on dry rain-fed land because he has been told

that jatropha is well adapted to such conditions.

Competition with food crops: Farmers tend to replace food crops with jatropha. Nine out of

twelve farmers planted jatropha on a plot where they grew exclusively food crops before.

During the first years the impact is low and mainly not noticeable because the jatropha

plant is still small and does not cover much of the arable land. One Maasai farmer explained

his wife was complaining about fewer potatoes from a field where he decided to grow

jatropha as well.

Intercropping: Intercropping is very common. Farmers integrate jatropha in their existing

intercropping system by either adding jatropha as an additional crop or replacing another

one with it. Jatropha was found to be often intercropped with maize, beans and elephant

grass (Pennisetum purpureum) but also with lablab beans, cassava, pumpkin, and potatoes.

34

Fertilization: Only 3 out of 12 farmers applied farm yard manure. A single commercial

farm applied inorganic fertilizer. Small-scale farmers do not use mineral fertilizer at all.

Plant health: On 8 out of 12 plots insects were observed. The two main insects that where

found almost everywhere are a scutellarid bug (Scutellera nobilis Fabr.) and a flea beetle.

The effect was negligible up to medium. A borer (Pempelia morosalis) and powdery

mildew did occur as well.

Source of capital: To finance the investment farmers never made use of credit.

Market access: Market access is good where a collection point is already set up by Diligent.

These collection points are always situated at strategic points, e.g. market places. Market

access is difficult for villages that are not provided a collection point and where there is no

local demand from a soap producing women group. Theoretically even small quantities can

be sold directly to Diligent in Arusha town but this is a rather unlikely option for poor

small-scale farmers living in remote areas.

Imposition: Trading of seeds does not get taxed so far.

35

The results from the quantitative part of the questionnaires are displayed in Table 322

.

Table 3 Primary input data for cost-benefit analysis

Cost type Cost factor Average costs23

(USD ha-1) Observed range

1. Investment costs Total 98 25–431

Site clearing, preparation,

planting

47 4–36

Planting material 51 0–138

Average costs (USD ha-1

y -1

) Observed range

2. Annual costs Total 74 16–330

Land 3 0–32

Fertilizer (organic) 0.36 0–4

Fertilizer (inorganic) 0.48 0–6

Transport of fertiliser 0 0

Irrigation 15 0–117

Weeding 41 0–213

Crop protection chemicals 6 0–48

Application of chemicals 0.82 0–8

Sprayer 4 0–21

Pruning 5 0–27

Average costs (USD kg-1)

3. Harvest and post

harvest processing

Total 0.3924

Harvesting 0.19 n/a

Drying and shelling 0.20 n/a

5.2 Detailed analysis of single cost factors

The following observations refer to the average costs displayed in Table 3.

Farmers invest on average USD 98 ha-1

in the setting up of a plantation. Expenses differ

heavily between USD 25 and 431 ha-1

.

Site clearing was not necessary in most cases because arable land was chosen for

cultivation. Hence ploughing and planting contributed the most to this cost factor.

22 Due to rounding small deviations in numbers may occur. The calculations however are based on precise numbers to provide

accurate results.

23 The average calculated is the arithmetic mean based on the summed up values obtained from the interviews divided by the

number of interviews.

24 Based on a very few not transferable figures!

36

Costs for planting material depend heavily on the chosen propagation method. Seeds for

direct seeding and cuttings are available for free – only family labour costs need to be taken

into account. Seedlings in contrary cost USD 0,09 per piece. Considering an average

number of 1940 seedlings per hectare USD 167 need to be invested. This significant cost

factor forces farmers to use mainly seeds or less favoured cuttings.

Annual costs account to 75 ha-1

y-1

on average. The annual maintenance costs differ

between USD 16 and 330 ha-1

. In the initial year, investment costs for planting etc. need to

be added to the annual costs.

The biggest maintenance cost factor for the farmers interviewed is weeding. On average

farmers spend USD 17 on weeding per hectare per year. Second biggest cost factor is

irrigation which counts for USD 7 per year.

Irrigation, although widely practised during the dry season, does not contribute much to the

total costs because farmers use their irrigation system in place. The irrigation method

applied is surface flooding once every one or two months depending on water availability

during the dry season. Because the water is diverted from nearby streams onto the field in

already existing channels farmers do not have to pay for the water itself; the only costs are

labour costs.

Other maintenance is hardly undertaken: Neither mineral nor organic fertilizers are applied

much. Plant protection chemicals were only applied on the two commercial farms.

Pruning was found to be necessary by only four farmers with plantations older than two

years.

Only two farmers are paying for land tenancy. All the others own the land cultivated and

therefore do not need to pay any rent for it.

The recorded figures for harvesting, drying and shelling were derived from a single

plantation. We had the impression that the harvesting and post harvest processing was done

very inefficiently so that the figures given here are not representative. Still this should not

be neglected as it shows how much training could still be necessary.

To account for the opportunity costs that arise from family labour the usual wage for a field

worker was applied to integrate the costs into the calculation. The average wage for one

man-day is set to be USD 1.72 (TZS 2000). The actual wages paid vary between USD 1.03

and 2.15 depending on the location and season.

37

5.3 Necessary adaptations

The above listed average costs are the basis for further calculations of economic indicators. In

the first year investment costs plus annual costs incur. It is assumed that the maintenance costs

remain the same every year with the exception of costs for weeding. Because of increased

shading by jatropha trees appearance of weeds will be reduced to zero. Thus some adaptations

for weeding and some other factors have to be made to further calculations:

We assume that the costs for weeding will decrease from 100% to 0% over a period of five

years because the canopies will close resulting in complete shading of the ground.

Opportunity costs for the land need to be included into the total costs to account for the loss

of profit when rented out instead of using it for jatropha cultivation. The monetary renting

price is assumed to be the opportunity cost of land. The renting price for arable land is

about USD 32 per hectare and year for fertile land. Rather dry and less fertile land is

available for USD 21 ha-1

y-1

. Because most jatropha plantations are established on fertile

arable land we use the first value. This value is coherent with figures from Wiskerke (2008)

for arable land in Shinyanga region where the average renting cost of land is about USD 34

ha-1

y-1

.

Adapt costs for pruning. The pruning costs displayed in table 3 were retrieved from four

farmers only. The average pruning costs of four farmers are calculated (USD 13.84 ha-1

y-1

)

and then divided by four so we get an annual value because we assume that pruning will be

done every four years. The value now used is USD 3.46 ha-1

y-1

.

Get more reliable data for harvesting and shelling costs from literature. Because the only

values obtained from a single farm seem unnecessarily high, different data should be used

for further calculation. Unfortunately such data is scarce. Henning (2004) reports that in

Mali 3 kg of seeds were picked in one hour. Applying an average wage of USD 1.72 d-1

we

obtain harvesting costs of USD 0.0716 kg-1

of seeds25

. Van Eijck (2007) estimates the

harvesting efficiency to be 2-10 kg h-1

what leads to harvesting costs of USD 0.1075 to

0.0215 kg-1

. Because no figures on drying and shelling were found we simply use a rather

high value for picking (USD 0.0716 kg-1

equal to 3 kg h-1

) and assume that those costs are

included.

25 Average daily wage divided by 8 working hours per day divided by 3 kg of seeds harvested per hour.

38

When now recalculating the costs considering the necessary changes the total sums are as

follows (table 4):

Table 4 Aggregated main cost factors for a jatropha plantation of one hectare

Cost type Total average costs (USD ha-1)

1. Investment costs 98

Total average costs (USD ha-1 y

-1)

2. Annual costs Year 1 234

Year 5 202

Total average costs (USD kg-1)

3. Harvest and post harvest processing 0.07

The amount of annual costs is reduced significantly by more than USD 30 per hectare per year

within five years. This is because of less labour needed for weeding. Figure 7 displays the four

main cost groups of the annual costs. Weeding is by far the biggest cost factor but is assumed to

turn to zero within a few years because the jatropha canopy will cover all soil and make

weeding unnecessary. Because weeding and irrigation is mainly done by family members the

costs consist mainly of opportunity costs for family labour. This is the same case for the second

biggest factor, land.

Fig. 7 Breakdown of main cost groups within the annual costs.

Table 5 demonstrates how important high yields are to cover the fixed costs in order to achieve

a positive gross margin. Table 5 also reveals that with a yield ≤ 1000 kg ha-1

y-1

jatropha seed

39

production is not viable even when neglecting investment costs and lower yields until trees

reach maturity.

Table 5 Influence of yield on profitability of a ≥5 year old jatropha plantation

Yield (kg ha-1 y

-1) 1000 2000 3000

Seed price (USD kg-1) 0.13 0.13 0.13

Fixed annual costs (USD ha-1 y

-1) 99 99 99

Variable harvesting costs (USD kg-1) 0.07 0.07 0.07

Total harvesting costs (USD ha-1) 72 144 216

Total costs 171 243 315

Total revenue 129 259 388

Gross margin -42 16 73

The breakdown of total costs reveals that the major cost factor is the harvesting cost (variable

annual costs), which account for a large portion of total annual costs depending on the yield

(Fig. 8 and 9).

Fig. 8 Breakdown of total costs (USD) for a yield of 1500 kg ha-1

y-1

Fig. 9 Breakdown of total costs (USD) for a yield of 2500 kg ha-1

y-1

40

This rough estimate of profit lacks a very important component, namely time. Jatropha is a

perennial with a gestation period of several years before it gives its maximum yield. This results

in investment costs for the set up of the plantation plus maintenance (annual) costs during the

first years that are not covered with revenue from yields. First yields worthwhile to harvest can

be expected from the second year onwards but these early yields are still not as high as the

maximum yield after some additional years. To reflect this matter the following yield increment

is assumed (Table 6):

Table 6 Assumed increment of jatropha yield until maximum yield is reached in year 5

Year 1 2 3 4 5

Jatropha yield (% of max. yield) 0 0 40 70 100

Tewari (2007) assumes a similar yield increment for his Indian projections but even expects

jatropha to reach its highest yield not before the eighth year.

Jatropha is generally not grown as a single crop but intercropped with annual crops or other

perennials or trees. Intercropping increases the productivity of the land compared to jatropha

only, functions as soil cover, and provides immediate additional income to the farmer. This is

needed most during the first years when jatropha yield is still small or zero but maintenance and

opportunity costs for the land need to be paid. The bigger the jatropha plants become, the more

soil they cover, the less space is left in between the rows for intercrops. So over time a

decrement of the intercrop yield takes place. This decrement though is not equal to the

increment of the jatropha yield. While jatropha grows bigger in the first years it occupies space

but does not produce any seeds yet. This results in a lower total yield for the land cultivated.

The following model is used (Table 7):

Table 7 Assumed increase of jatropha yield and decrease of intercrop yield26

Year 1 2 3 4 5

Jatropha yield (% of max. yield) 0 0 40 70 100

Intercrop yield (% of max. yield) 90 60 30 0 0

26 The model underlying here is completely devised

41

5.4 Scenario I

In scenario I the economic indicators are calculated over a period of 5 years based on a

2000 kg ha-1

seed yield, and average input-output prices derived from the field trips and

interviews. To better analyse the performance of jatropha itself the indicators are given for

jatropha only as well as for jatropha intercropped with sunflower (Table 8).

Table 8 Net benefit, discounted cost-benefit flow, net present value and internal rate of return for a

jatropha plantation of one hectare. Variant with and without sunflower intercropped. The jatropha yield

from year 5 on is assumed to be 2000 kg ha-1

.

Year 1 2 3 4 5

(USD ha-1)

Costs jatropha 197 99 148 175 202

Costs intercrop 135 90 45 0 0

Revenue jatropha 0 0 103 181 259

Revenue intercrop 253 168 84 0 0

Net benefit jatropha only -196 -99 -45 6 57

Net benefit intercropped -79 -21 -6 6 57

Discounted net benefit jatropha only -208 -88 -36 4 36

Discounted net benefit intercropped -91 -18 -5 4 36

NPV jatropha only (USD ha-1) -261

NPV intercropped (USD ha-1) -65

Discount rate (%) 12

Table 8 shows that under the current conditions and the assumptions made neither jatropha as a

sole crop nor intercropped with sunflower is economically viable. Profits from sunflower partly

compensate for losses from jatropha in the first three years but not fully, which is why until the

fourth year losses incur. Profits of USD 57 ha-1

y-1

from jatropha only in the fifth year are lower

than possible profits from sole sunflower cultivation (USD 131 ha-1

y-1

, see Table 1 in chapter

3.2). In both cases, monoculture and intercropped, the NPV as well as the IRR remain negative.

5.5 Scenario II

In scenario II we assume a 50% higher jatropha seed yield, i.e. 3000 kg ha-1

. Because jatropha

management still lacks experience, yields are likely to be below what is actually achievable.

With progress in management practice and with new varieties, a yield increment of 50% in the

medium term is imaginable. Table 9 reflects this expectation.

42

Table 9 Net benefit, discounted cost-benefit flow, net present value and internal rate of return for a

jatropha plantation of one hectare. The jatropha yield in year 5 is assumed to be 3000 kg ha-1

.

Year 1 2 3 4 5

(USD ha-1)

Costs jatropha 196 99 177 225 274

Costs intercrop 135 90 45 0 0

Revenue jatropha 0 0 155 272 388

Revenue intercrop 253 168 84 0 0

Net benefit intercropped -79 -21 17 46 114

Discounted net benefit intercropped -91 -18 14 33 73

NPV intercropped (USD ha-1) 9

IRR intercropped (%) 14

Discount rate (%) 12

Under the assumption of a 3000 kg yield, jatropha cultivation intercropped with sunflower

becomes economically viable. Although positive, the NPV remains small: Only USD 9 ha-1

for

a period of five years.

5.6 Scenario III

In scenario III we assume a 50% higher sunflower seed price to examine the impact of further

increasing food prices on the economical viability and competitiveness of jatropha cultivation.

In Table 10 the sunflower seed price is now set to be USD 0.23 kg-1

.

Table 10 Net benefit, discounted cost-benefit flow, and net present value for a jatropha plantation

intercropped with sunflower and variant with sunflower as a sole crop.

Year 1 2 3 4 5

(USD ha-1)

Costs jatropha 197 99 148 175 202

Costs intercrop 135 90 45 0 0

Revenue jatropha 0 0 103 181 259

Revenue intercrop 379 253 126 0 0

Net benefit intercropped 47 64 36 6 57

Net benefit sunflower only 271 271 271 271 271

Discounted net benefit intercropped 36 57 29 4 36

Discounted net benefit sunflower only 253 242 216 193 172

NPV jatropha intercropped (USD ha-1) 144

NPV sunflower only (USD ha-1) 1111

Discount rate (%) 12

43

In the case of higher food prices both variants, jatropha cultivation and sole cropping of

sunflower, are economically viable. However, sunflower cultivation is again far more

profitable than jatropha with a NPV more than seven times higher.

6 Conclusions & Recommendations

The operating costs for one hectare of jatropha were found to be roughly USD 200 annually

assuming a yield of 2000 kg y-1

from mature trees. This confirms the findings reported by

Rijssenbeek et al. (2007) that operating costs range between USD 200 (India) and 400 (China).

In conjunction with rather low yields it must be stated that jatropha cultivation is only profitable

under certain conditions and never competitive to the alternative crop sunflower. Under such

economical constraints jatropha is unlikely to substantially increase employment and income in

rural areas.

We have also found that annual costs depend highly on the yield because picking and post

harvest processing does contribute much to the total costs. Because jatropha cultivation is

labour intensive, high labour costs are a challenge to gain or maintain economic viability.

Rijssenbeek et al. mention that with labour costs of USD 2 per day profitability dwindles. This

is very close to the average value used in our calculations, which is USD 1.72 d-1

(TZS 2000).

What are the reasons that jatropha which is widely promoted was found to be not viable in this

specific case and are the results transferable to other places and conditions?

Reasons – The reasons for not being competitive or not being profitable are manifold. First

there is a high requirement for labour which results in high opportunity costs for family labour.

Additional to this, opportunity costs for fertile land need to be accounted for. Even if land

would not be in use for cropping considering opportunity costs might be necessary (Wiskerke

2008). Secondly the high costs are not outbalanced by high revenue. On the income side we

have two main factors: The first one is the price obtained and the other one the quantity

produced. The market price, although still fluctuating, cannot be influenced by a single

small-scale producer. They are price-takers. Farmers therefore have to accept the current

market price of approximately USD 0.13 kg-1

of seeds. The output quantity is the other crucial

factor which depends on various other factors farmers can influence more or less. Ergo, the

44

subsequent question is how to increase the yield the most economic way with the small amount

of capital given to smallholders. This is still a matter of intensive research and experimentation.

What combination and quantities of nutrients on what kind of soil is adequate to boost plant

growth the most efficient way27

? What is the best frequency for pruning in which

agro-ecological zone? What spacing is best under what conditions? What is the threshold level

for insecticides and how does integrated pest management for jatropha could look like? Is there

variation in germplasm? Are there varieties or cultivar more suited to some places than others?

And last but no least: What yield can farmers expect from their plots under site specific

conditions? All these and many more factors have an important impact on the output but cannot

be answered yet to a sufficient level. The output level observed on a six year old plantation near

Moshi is not promising at all. To cover all his costs the farmer has to sell his seed for USD 1.72

kg-1

. Such inconvenient truth has to be kept in mind when today promoting jatropha as a species

with high potential because potential simply signifies to “have the capacity to become or

develop into something in future” (New Oxford American Dictionary 2005). That today there is

still a huge lack of knowledge, which prevents farmers to apply best practice to achieve most

efficient production methods, and that jatropha is still a wild species with no selection towards

any cultivation objectives makes investing in jatropha a risky business venture. The situation is

worsened by the fact that many farmers tend to intercrop jatropha with food crops on arable

land. Scarcity of arable land for smallholder households is likely to lead to an unwanted

competition with food crops in a few years time when the jatropha trees become mature and

occupy much of the farmers‟ arable land. Whether the yield at this time then will be sufficient to

bring additional profit to the farmer is questionable. It is not even sure whether a market will be

still in place then. Only one big buyer is present in the moment hence the reliability of a future

market is not given. Future profits must be high to justify investment today. Possibly even

higher prices for replaced food crops need to be paid and additionally a long gestation period of

jatropha of one to four years until it gives its maximum yield demands for extra capital

investment. Because of all the before mentioned reasons jatropha cultivation on a plot,

especially on scarce arable land needs to be considered as a long-term investment with very

insecure prospects and high opportunity costs.

27 Please refer to Justus von Liebig‟s and Carl Sprengel‟s “Law of the Minimum”.

45

Transferability of results – To what extend are the findings transferable to other conditions or

locations? Some of the before mentioned problems like no improved germplasm and the lack of

knowledge on production methods are likely to be similar in every other case. If the relative

performance will be better under different climatic or soil conditions is not clear though.

Jatropha is often claimed to be well adapted to suboptimal conditions like arid and semi-arid

areas or marginal soils. That plant growth and performance does depend heavily on water and

nutrient availability is unquestionable but still it could be that jatropha does better than other

species under such conditions. Field visits by the authors in Kenya showed plantations that

looked astonishingly promising when compared to the harsh conditions they were situated in.

Improving viability – In the medium- and long-term it is clear that intensive research and

experimentation is required to tackle the numerous problems that affect economic viability.

Increasing seed prices are unrealistic because it would make jatropha products less competitive.

Consequently the only way is to reduce production costs and to increase seed yield per unit of

land. Achieving this still requires intensive and long-term research. Breeding for high yielding

varieties is one option. But the question also should be how profitability can be improved in the

short-term for farmers having already invested into jatropha plantations. To answer this the

main cost factors need to be looked at again: Cost for land, harvesting and weeding. The latter

one though decreases with an increasing canopy. Then there is harvesting, which does increase

with a growing canopy because more fruits ripen. In this case pruning techniques for an

easy-to-harvest canopy and a small picking tool to speed up the work could be the way forward.

Lastly opportunity costs for land are difficult to alter. It requires a change of land allocated to

jatropha cultivation. Other land than arable land seems to be the option where opportunity costs

are lower. But when thinking of marginal lands and arid areas economic viability becomes even

more questionable again due to unfavourable conditions. Because of so these numerous risk

factors Ouwens et al. (2007) recommend “not to engage in large-scale plantations now” but

instead to set up smaller experimentation plots to gather sufficient experience before investing

in bigger plantations. Is this the end to immediate cultivation of jatropha? Not at all, there is one

way to avoid high opportunity costs for land and labour without the need to evade to less

suitable land. It is the traditional use of jatropha as hedges and fences.

The way forward – Until now long existing hedges provide the bulk quantity of all seeds

collected, traded and processed in Arusha, Kilimanjaro and Manyara region. Opportunity costs

46

for land in the case of hedges are zero because they only occupy existing stripes not used for

any other agricultural purposes. Seeds from hedges therefore provide an additional source of

income instead of only substituting other crops be it cash crop or food crop. However, hedges

are planted often on fertile soil even with irrigation water available from the field they enclose.

Hedges also can be established almost everywhere even within villages or near home avoiding

long distances. But most importantly hedges are the only proven system when it comes to

economically viable jatropha seed production and trade. Further relying on hedges rather than

on plantations seems to be the more appropriate way in the short-term. Tomomatsu and

Swallow came to the same conclusion when analysing the possibilities of jatropha biodiesel

production in Kenya in 2007: “In terms of income generation from jatropha, at this moment it

may be better to promote the production of jatropha as a live fence (…)”. Research therefore

should not only focus on jatropha plantations but also look at how to improve productivity of

hedges. Hedges might not have the same production potential as plantations do but because

they are a low input variant with zero opportunity costs for land the yield does not have to be as

high as on a plot. On arable land jatropha has to compete with other crops – as a hedge it does

not. So, lower yields are indeed acceptable and still offer real additional income. Another very

important advantage of hedges is that they help to solve the chicken-and-egg problem of how to

start a jatropha value chain. An investor is unlikely to invest into a processing plant and

necessary infrastructure until sufficient seed supply is guaranteed. The farmers in turn can

hardly be convinced to start jatropha cultivation as long as no buyer is in place. With hedges

though it is different because often they exist already and even if not setting them up and let

them grow is not a big investment at all. Because of the high abundance of hedges already in

place in Arusha, Kilimanjaro and Manyara region a jatropha value chain was able to emerge.

Multi Functional Platform – Jatropha seeds gathered from hedges are a good source of income

to several hundred people in the whole area but jatropha can be more than a new cash crop. The

installation of a Multi Functional Platform holds a lot of potential that needs to be further

explored. A MFP offers different energy related services to rural communities such as

electricity for lighting and mobile phone charging and milling.

A core device of the MFP is a mechanized oil expeller that allows decentralized and efficient oil

extraction of far higher volumes than possible with a manual ram-press. Local extraction not

only bring several advantages to traders of oil like Diligent but also to the community:

47

The oil becomes available for use in rural households. When extracted centrally in Arusha

town jatropha oil is unlikely to become available to remote rural markets.

The oil can be used as an alternative fuel to petroleum for lighting. In future the

introduction of a price competitive and easy to use plant oil stove could contribute largely

to protect trees from being chopped down for fuelwood and reduce time to collect

firewood. Planting jatropha shrubs and using jatropha oil as an alternative energy source

would increase carbon sequestration while reducing emissions from deforestation.

Decentralized oil extraction would also benefit oil traders and processors like Diligent and

KAMA. Jatropha seeds are very lightweight and voluminous what makes transporting them

an expensive venture. Extracting the oil locally would reduce transport weight by three

quarters and volume even more.

Local extraction would also open up an additional niche for the by-product – the energy and

nutrient rich press-cake. It can be used for biogas production in fermenters and for

fertilization of either food or cash crops. This way jatropha could even increase food

production when applying the nitrogen rich press-cake to maize.

Capital spent for jatropha oil based energy services would continue to circulate within the

community instead of being spent on petroleum and diesel.

Although this sounds very promising economic viability has to be ensured in order to come to a

sustainable solution. Wijgerse (2007) examined a pilot MFP in the village of Engaruka (Arusha

region) where jatropha fences exist already since decades and concluded that with extra

services additionally to electricity supply the platform can indeed run viable. “Viable in this

case means affordable to the villagers (between USD 0.30 and 0.38 per kWh), profitable for the

owner of the system and availability of seeds needed for fuelling the system”.

The following calculation is nothing more but an assumption to give an idea of the length of

hedges necessary to power one MFP (Table 11):

48

Table 11 Estimating the length of hedges needed to power a MFP

Vegetable oil consumption of the engine kg h-1 2 kg

Running time per day h d-1 6

Running time per year d y-1 350

Extraction rate % (4 kg of seeds per kg of oil) 25

Total seed consumption kg y-1 16.800

Seeds per metre of hedge kg m-1 0.5

28

Total length of hedge to cover annual

MFP consumption m 33.600

A length of 33.6 km of a hedge might sound a lot but when breaking it down to many

small-scale farmers it is achievable in fact. Already if one farmer fences a one-hectare plot he

gets at least 400 m of hedge. When 75 farmers now each plant a 400-m-hedge they could

provide 30 km of jatropha hedge in total. The missing 3600 m could be planted around

compounds and along roads.

28 The value chosen is far lower than the value reported by Henning (2003) from Mali (0.8 kg m-1). This is to deal with rather

conservative figures.

49

Appendix

Appendix A: Questionnaires used for interviews

Jatropha curcas Production Evaluation Sheet

Part 1 Farmer-No. ________________

Date _______________________

Name of the farmer

Study area

Country Tanzania

Province Arusha

District

Division

Village

Address

Physical conditions of study area

Altitude (m asl)

Annual precipitation (mm)

Duration of rainy season

Mean temperature during

rainy season (°C)

Soiltype very fertile ⎔ rather fertile ⎔ rather not fertile ⎔ not fertile ⎔

sandy ⎔ loamy ⎔ clayish ⎔

Distance to market (km)

Background of Farmer

Livelihood sources % of income

Cropping

Jatropha

Livestock

Employment

Trading

Remittances

Other

50

Main agricultural activities

Crop Acreage % Subsistence Market price Quantity

bought last

season

Livestock (what

animals and how many)

Type of energy

consumed Charcoal ⎔ Wood ⎔ Kerosine ⎔ Diesel ⎔

Price per unit

Charcoal Wood Kerosine Diesel

What means of

transport does he/she

uses?

How much earns one

worker per day (TZS)?

Family: Hired labour:

Ethnic group (maybe

don„t ask!)

Motivation, Expectations & Trade-Offs

How did the farmer got to know about Jatropha?

What are his reasons to cultivate jatropha? What does he/she expect from it (revenue,

crop protection, etc.)?

Is there already a buyer/market?

Who taught him how to cultivate?

51

Does he/she get the seed-cake back, how much does one unit cost, and what does

he/she use it for?

Who is doing what work (gender-question)? How does he/she cope with the

additional labour demand?

Where did he/she get the money for the investment from?

How does the farmer see the future prospects of his plantation? Will he/she expand

the plantation and why/why not?

Remarks by interviewer:

Part 2

JCL PRODUCTION COST-BENEFIT Cash-Flow

Statement

Farmer No. __________ Plot No.

_______

Plot Information

GPS-Coordinates S______E_____ Altitude ________m asl Planting

date (mm/yy)__________

Own land ⎔ Rented land ⎔ State-owned ⎔ Communal ⎔ Individual ⎔

Other: __________

Propagation Method: Seedlings ⎔ Direct Seeding ⎔ Cuttings ⎔

Source of planting material _________ How many planted initially?_____

How many are still alive? ________

Size of Plot/Length of fence ___acres/m Spacing ___

Plant population/ac or 1000 m ___ Acres/km additionally available __

Intercropped with ____________ % allocated to Jatropha_______

Former vegetation ______________

If food or feed-crop, which _____ Annual yield of replaced crop (kg/ac)

_

Type of organic fertilizer used ______ Type of inorganic fertilizer used __

Insect attacks yes ⎔ no ⎔ Severity no effect ⎔ medium ⎔ devastating ⎔

Location and distance to homestead ____

Distance (km) to market/processing point and time to get there

(hrs)_______

52

Costs

Uni

t

unit

cost units costs units costs units

co

sts

u

nit

s costs

(TZS) year 1

year 1 year 2 year2 year 3

year 3

year 4+ year 4+

1. PLANTING SITE

Land (if rented)

Preperation

2. PLANTING

Planting material

Transport planting material

Planting

3. Maintenance

Fertilizer (organic)

Fertilizer (inorganic)

Transport of fertiliser

Irrigation

Weeding

Insecticides, herbicides, etc.

Sprayer

Application of

insecticides etc.

Pruning

Firebreak

4. HARVESTING & TRANSPORT TO MARKET

Harvesting

Transport to market

53

5. INTERCROPPING

Ploughing

Seed

Seeding

Irrigation

Weeding

Plant protecion chemicals

Application of PPC

Harvesting

Transport to market

YIELD

Yield Jatropha Seeds

kg

Yield intercrop kg

REVENUE

Price Jatropha Seeds

TZS

Revenue

Jatropha Seeds

TZS

Price intercrop

T

ZS

Revenue

intercrop

TZ

S

Total Revenue Jatropha + Intercrop

PROFIT

54

References

Achten WMJ, Verchot L, Franken YJ, Mathijs E, Singh VP, Aerts R, Muysa B. 2008. Jatropha

bio-diesel production and use. Biomass and Bioenergy (2008). Elsevier Ltd.

Adriaans T. 2006. Suitability of solvent extraction for Jatropha curcas. Eindhoven: FACT

Foundation While they are not peer reviewed, working papers do need to be approved by one of the Centre's senior scientists. While they are not peer reviewed, working papers do need to be approved by one of the Centre's senior scientists. While they are not peer reviewed, working papers do need to be approved by one of the Centre's senior scientists.

Bank of Tanzania. 2008. Monetary Policy Statement – The Midterm Review. (Available from

http://www.bot-tz.org/Publications/MonetaryPolicyStatements/2008_Jan_MPS.pdf)

(Accessed on 2 August 2008)

Bank of Tanzania. 2009. Tanzania: Interest Rates Structure. Dar es Salaam. (Available from

http://www.bot-tz.org/Publications/EconomicIndicators/InterestRates.htm) (Accessed

on 5 September 2009)

Benge M. 2006. Assessment of the potential of Jatropha curcas (biodiesel tree), for energy

production and other uses in developing countries. ECHO-website. Florida. (Available

from

http://www.echotech.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gi

d=179) (Accessed on 2 August 2008)

Bhardwaj A. and Scanlon XCh. 2007. First High-level Biofuels Seminar in Africa Bulletin.

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). Volume 9, No. 1. New York.

(Available from http://www.iisd.ca/africa/pdf/arc0901e.pdf) (Accessed on 1 August

2008)

Brew-Hammond A and Crole-Rees A. 2004. Reducing Rural Poverty through Increased

Access to Energy Services. A Review of the Multifunctional Platform Project in Mali.

UNDP Mali office, Bamako, Mali

CIA. 2008. The 2008 World Factbook. Tanzania. (Available from

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tz.html) (Accessed

on 2 August 2008)

Conliffe A and Kulovesi K. 2008. Renewable Energy in Africa Bulletin. Volume 149 Number

1. Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

55

(Available from http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/sdrea/html/ymbvol149num1e.html) (Accessed

on 2 August 2008)

Dadang, Suastika G. and Dewi RS. 2007. Pests and Diseases of Jatropha (Jatropha curcas

Linn.). Bogor: Surfactant and Bioenergy Research Center.

Dixon J, Gulliver A and Gibbon D. 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty. FAO and World Bank

Rome and Washington D.C.

FAO. 2008. United Republic of Tanzania - Maps. FAO Country Profiles and Mapping

Information System. (Available from

http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/maps.asp?iso3=TZA&lang=en) (Accessed on 2

August 2008)

Felske W. 1991. Untersuchungen zur Nutzung der Purgiernuss im “Alley Cropping” System.

Institut für Pflanzenproduktion in den Tropen und Subtropen der Universität

Hohenheim.

Heller J. 1996. Physic nut. Jatropha curcas L. Promoting the conservation and use of

underutilized and neglected crops. 1. Gatersleben: Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop

Plant Research/Rome: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute

Faida MaLi. 2007. Gross Margin Analysis for producing 1 Acre of Sunflower. MS Excel-Sheet.

Arusha: Faida Market Link Company Ltd.

Wikipedia User:Vardion. 2006. Tanzania Location. Published by the Free Software Foundation

under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (Available from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationTanzania.svg) (Accessed on 15 August

2008)

GTZ. 2007. Plant Oil Stove Project. Final Report. Arusha. Dar es Salaam: GTZ

Henning RK. 2003. The Jatropha Booklet. Weissensberg: bagani GbR

Henning RK. 2004. “The Jatropha System” – Economy & Dissemination Strategy.

Weissensberg: bagani GbR

Hoare R. 2008. Website worldclimate.com. (Available http://www.worldclimate.com/)

(Accessed on 10 August 2008)

56

IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. ribution of working group 1 to

the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL

(Eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,

USA

Jongschaap REE, Corré WJ, Bindraban PS, Brandenburg WA. 2007. Claims and Facts on

Jatropha curcas L. Global Jatropha curcas evaluation, breeding and propagation

programme. Wageningen U.R. Report 158. Plant Research International B.V. (Available

from http://www.fact-fuels.org/media_en/Claims_and_Facts_on_Jatropha_-WUR)

(Accessed on 10 August 2008)

Loos T. 2008. Socio-economic Impact of a Jatropha-Project on Smallholder Farmers in

Mpanda, Tanzania. Master‟s thesis at University of Hohenheim, Institute for

Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences. Stuttgart, Germany

Mankiw NG. 2003. Principles of Macroeconomics. 3rd

edition. USA: South-Western College

Pub

McMahon T. 2008. Inflation Adjusted Monthly Crude Oil Prices in April 2008 Dollars.

(Available from

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Ch

art.htm) (Accessed on 10 August 2008)

Messemaker L. 2008. The Green Myth? Assessment of the Jatropha value chain and its

potential for pro-poor biofuel development in Northern Tanzania. MSc thesis at Utrecht

University, the Netherlands

Mitchell A. 2008. Personal communication.

MoA/GTZ. 2008. A Roadmap for Biofuels in Kenya. Ministry of Agriculture Kenya. Nairobi.

(Available from

http://regionalenergy-net.com/images/GoK-GTZ%20Biofuels%20Study.pdf) (Accessed

on 1 August 2008)

57

Mshanga AS. 2002. Viability of jatropha plant as a commercial crop in Tanzania. Not

published. Available from Kakute Ltd., Arusha and Jatropha Products Tanzania Ltd.,

Arusha, TASO Ground, Tanzania.

NBS. 2005. Environment Statistics - Tanzania Mainland. National Bureau of Statistics

Tanzania. Dar es Saalam: President Office, Planning and Privatization.

NBS. 2006a. National Sample Census of Agriculture 2002/2003. National Bureau of Statistics

Tanzania. Volume II: Smallholder Agriculture. Dar es Salaam.

NBS. 2006b. National Sample Census of Agriculture 2002/2003. National Bureau of Statistics

Tanzania. Volume IV: Smallholder Household Characteristics and Access to Services

and Natural Resources. Dar es Salaam.

New Oxford American Dictionary. 2005. USA: Oxford University Press.

Ouwens KD, Francis G, Franken YJ, Rijssenbeek W, Riedacker A, Foidl N, Jongschaap R,

Bindraban P. 2007. Position paper on Jatropha curcas. State of the art, small and large

Scale Project Development. Eindhoven: FACT Foundation. (Available from

http://www.fact-fuels.org/media_en/Position_Paper_on_Jatropha_Curcas) (Accessed on

10 August 2008)

Patolia JS, Ghosh A, Chikara J, Chaudhary DR, Parmar DR and Bhuva HM. 2007. Response of

Jatropha curcas grown on wasteland to N and P fertilization. Presentation at FACT

expert seminar on Jatropha curcas L. Agronomy and genetics. 26-28 March 2007,

Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Philip D. 2007. An Exploration of the Potential of Producing Biofuels and the Prospective

Influence of Biofuels Production on Poverty Alleviation among Small-Scale Farmers in

Tanzania. Inaugural-Dissertation. Hohe Landwirtschaftliche Fakultät der Rheinischen

Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn. (Available from

http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de/diss_online/landw_fak/2007/philip_damas/1182.pdf)

(Accessed on 2 August 2008)

Planning Commission. 2003. Report of the Committee on Development of Bio-Fuel. New

Delhi: Government of India.

58

Renner A, Zelt T and Gerteiser S. 2008. Global Market Study on Jatropha. Berlin: GEXSI LLP.

(Available from http://www.jatropha-platform.org/traitement1.php) (Accessed on

9 August 2008)

Rijssenbeek W. 2007. Report: Expert Meeting Jatropha, Brussels 07/12/07. Brussels:

European Commission Research Directorate-General Directorate E – Biotechnologies,

Agriculture, Food

Sawe EN. 2008. Decentralized (off grid) rural electrification through Biofuels. The case of

Jatropha oil powered Multifunctional platforms (MFPs). Presentation held at the

“Workshop on Biofuels Production from Jatropha” on February, 20 2008 in Dar es

Salaam, Tanzania

Siegel A. 1893. Ueber die Giftstoffe zweier Euphorbiaceen. Inaugural – Dissertation.

Hochverordnete Medicinische Facultät der Kaiserlichen Universität zu Dorpat. Dorpat:

Schnakenburg's Buchdruckerei.

Tewari, D.N. 2007. Jatropha & Bio-Diesel. Delhi: Narula Printers.

The Regional Commissioner‟s Office. 2009. Climate, Soil and Topography.

(http://www.arusha.go.tz/english/Pages/About_Us/About/index.php) (Accessed on

4 September 2009)

The Royal Society. 2008. Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges. Policy document

01/08. London: The Royal Society 2008. p 40

Tomomatsu Y and Swallow B. 2007. Jatropha curcas biodiesel production in Africa:

economics and potential value chain development for smallholder farmers. Working

Paper 54. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre

UN-OHRLLS. 2008. List of Least Developed Countries. (Available from

http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/ldc/list.htm) (Accessed on 3 August 2008)

United Nations Population Division (DESA). 2008. World population totals for 1980 - 2050,

According to the 18 United Nations revisions of world population estimates and

projections (medium-fertility variant projections). (Available from

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/worldpoptotals.doc)

(Accessed on 3 August 2008)

59

van der Land H. 2007. The Jatropha sub sector: With emphasis on Jatropha Soap Value Chain.

Arusha: Match Maker Associates Ltd.

weatherclimat.com. 2009. Weather Arusha. Climat Arusha. Temperature Arusha.

(http://weatherclimat.com/tanzania/arusha.html) (Accessed on 4 September 2009)

Wijgerse I. 2007. Jatropha for rural electrification in Tanzania; a case of Engaruka.

Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven University of Technology

Wiesenhütter J. 2003. Use of the Physic Nut (Jatropha curcas L.) to Combat Desertification

and Reduce Poverty. Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Convention

Project to Combat Desertification (CCD Project). Bonn, Germany

Wiskerke W. 2008. Towards a sustainable biomass energy supply for rural households in

semi-arid Shinyanga, Tanzania. Utrecht University: Department of Science, Technology

and Society.

WRI. 2003. Earthtrends. Tanzania. Washington: World Resources Institute. (Available from

http://earthtrends.wri.org/) (Accessed on 3 August 2008)

60

Working Paper Series

1. Agroforestry in the drylands of eastern Africa: a call to action.

2. Biodiversity conservation through agroforestry: managing tree species diversity within

a network of community-based, nongovernmental, governmental and research

organizations in western Kenya.

3. Invasion of prosopis juliflora and local livelihoods: Case study from the Lake Baringo

area of Kenya.

4. Leadership for change in farmers organizations: Training report: Ridar Hotel, Kampala,

29th March to 2nd April 2005.

5. Domestication des espèces agroforestières au Sahel : situation actuelle et

perspectives.

6. Relevé des données de biodiversité ligneuse: Manuel du projet biodiversité des parcs

agroforestiers au Sahel.

7. Improved land management in the Lake Victoria Basin: TransVic Project’s draft report.

8. Livelihood capital, strategies and outcomes in the Taita hills of Kenya.

9. Les espèces ligneuses et leurs usages: Les préférences des paysans dans le Cercle

de Ségou, au Mali.

10. La biodiversité des espèces ligneuses: Diversité arborée et unités de gestion du terroir

dans le Cercle de Ségou, au Mali.

11. Bird diversity and land use on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro and the adjacent plains,

Tanzania.

12. Water, women and local social organization in the Western Kenya Highlands.

13. Highlights of ongoing research of the World Agroforestry Centre in Indonesia

14. Prospects of adoption of tree-based systems in a rural landscape and its likely impacts

on carbon stocks and farmers’ welfare: The FALLOW Model Application in Muara

Sungkai, Lampung, Sumatra, in a ‘Clean Development Mechanism’ context.

15. Equipping integrated natural resource managers for healthy Agroforestry landscapes.

17. Agro-biodiversity and CGIAR tree and forest science: approaches and examples from

Sumatra.

18. Improving land management in eastern and southern Africa: A review of policies.

19. Farm and household economic study of Kecamatan Nanggung, Kabupaten Bogor,

Indonesia: A socio-economic base line study of Agroforestry innovations and livelihood

enhancement.

20. Lessons from eastern Africa’s unsustainable charcoal business.

21. Evolution of RELMA’s approaches to land management: Lessons from two decades of

research and development in eastern and southern Africa.

22. Participatory watershed management: Lessons from RELMA’s work with farmers in

eastern Africa.

23. Strengthening farmers’ organizations: The experience of RELMA and ULAMP.

24. Promoting rainwater harvesting in eastern and southern Africa.

25. The role of livestock in integrated land management.

26. Status of carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges to

scaling up.

27. Social and Environmental Trade-Offs in Tree Species Selection: A Methodology for

Identifying Niche Incompatibilities in Agroforestry [Appears as AHI Working Paper no.

9]

28. Managing tradeoffs in agroforestry: From conflict to collaboration in natural resource

management. [Appears as AHI Working Paper no. 10]

29. Essai d'analyse de la prise en compte des systemes agroforestiers pa les legislations

forestieres au Sahel: Cas du Burkina Faso, du Mali, du Niger et du Senegal.

30. Etat de la recherche agroforestière au Rwanda etude bibliographique, période

1987-2003.

31. Science and technological innovations for improving soil fertility and management in

Africa: A report for NEPAD’s Science and Technology Forum.

32. Compensation and rewards for environmental services.

33. Latin American regional workshop report compensation.

61

34. Asia regional workshop on compensation ecosystem services.

35. Report of African regional workshop on compensation ecosystem services.

36. Exploring the inter-linkages among and between compensation and rewards for

ecosystem services CRES and human well-being.

37. Criteria and indicators for environmental service compensation and reward

mechanisms: realistic, voluntary, conditional and pro-poor.

38. The conditions for effective mechanisms of compensation and rewards for

environmental services.

39. Organization and governance for fostering Pro-Poor Compensation for

Environmental Services.

40. How important are different types of compensation and reward mechanisms shaping

poverty and ecosystem services across Africa, Asia & Latin America over the Next two

decades?

41. Risk mitigation in contract farming: The case of poultry, cotton, woodfuel and cereals in

East Africa.

42. The RELMA savings and credit experiences: Sowing the seed of sustainability.

43. Policy and institutional context for NRM in Kenya: Challenges and opportunities for

Landcare.

44. Nina-Nina Adoung Nasional di So! Field test of rapid land tenure assessment (RATA) in

the Batang Toru Watershed, North Sumatera.

45. Is Hutan Tanaman Rakyat a new paradigm in community based tree planting in

Indonesia?

46. Socio-Economic aspects of brackish water aquaculture (Tambak) production in

Nanggroe Aceh Darrusalam.

47. Farmer livelihoods in the humid forest and moist savannah zones of Cameroon.

48. Domestication, genre et vulnérabilité : Participation des femmes, des Jeunes et des

catégories les plus pauvres à la domestication des arbres agroforestiers au Cameroun.

49. Land tenure and management in the districts around Mt Elgon: An assessment

presented to the Mt Elgon ecosystem conservation programme.

50. The production and marketing of leaf meal from fodder shrubs in Tanga, Tanzania: A

pro-poor enterprise for improving livestock productivity.

51. Buyers Perspective on Environmental Services (ES) and Commoditization as an

approach to liberate ES markets in the Philippines.

52. Towards community-driven conservation in southwest China: Reconciling state and

local perceptions.

53. Biofuels in China: An Analysis of the Opportunities and Challenges of Jatropha curcas

in Southwest China.

54. Jatropha curcas biodiesel production in Kenya: Economics and potential value chain

development for smallholder farmers

55. Livelihoods and Forest Resources in Aceh and Nias for a Sustainable Forest

Resource Management and Economic Progress

56. Agroforestry on the interface of Orangutan Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods

in Batang Toru, North Sumatra.

57. Assessing Hydrological Situation of Kapuas Hulu Basin, Kapuas Hulu Regency, West

Kalimantan.

58. Assessing the Hydrological Situation of Talau Watershed, Belu Regency, East Nusa

Tenggara.

59. Kajian Kondisi Hidrologis DAS Talau, Kabupaten Belu, Nusa Tenggara Timur.

60. Kajian Kondisi Hidrologis DAS Kapuas Hulu, Kabupaten Kapuas Hulu, Kalimantan

Barat.

61. Lessons learned from community capacity building activities to support agroforest as

sustainable economic alternatives in Batang Toru orang utan habitat conservation

program (Martini, Endri et al.)

62. Mainstreaming Climate Change in the Philippines.

63. A Conjoint Analysis of Farmer Preferences for Community Forestry Contracts in the

Sumber Jaya Watershed, Indonesia.

64. The highlands: a shared water tower in a changing climate and changing Asia.

65. Eco-Certification: Can It Deliver Conservation and Development in the Tropics.

62

66. Designing ecological and biodiversity sampling strategies. Towards mainstreaming

climate change in grassland management.

67. Towards mainstreaming climate change in grassland management policies and

practices on the Tibetan Plateau.

68. An Assessment of the Potential for Carbon Finance in Rangelands.

69 ECA Trade-offs Among Ecosystem Services in the Lake Victoria Basin.

69. The last remnants of mega biodiversity in West Java and Banten: an in-depth

exploration of RaTA (Rapid Land Tenure Assessment) in Mount Halimun-Salak

National Park Indonesia.

70. Le business plan d’une petite entreprise rurale de production et de commercialisation

des plants des arbres locaux. Cas de quatre pépinières rurales au Cameroun.

71. Les unités de transformation des produits forestiers non ligneux alimentaires au

Cameroun. Diagnostic technique et stratégie de développement Honoré Tabuna et

Ingratia Kayitavu.

72. Les exportateurs camerounais de safou (Dacryodes edulis) sur le marché sous

régional et international. Profil, fonctionnement et stratégies de développement.

73. Impact of the Southeast Asian Network for Agroforestry Education (SEANAFE) on

agroforestry education capacity.

74. Setting landscape conservation targets and promoting them through compatible land

use in the Philippines.

75. Review of methods for researching multistrata systems.

76. Study on economical viability of Jatropha curcas L. plantations in Northern

Tanzania assessing farmers’ prospects via cost-benefit analysis.

77. Cooperation in Agroforestry between Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia and International

Center for Research in Agroforestry.

78. China's bioenergy future. an analysis through the Lens if Yunnan Province.

79. Land tenure and agricultural productivity in Africa: A comparative analysis of the

economics literature and recent policy strategies and reforms.

80. Boundary organizations, objects and agents: linking knowledge with action in

agroforestry watersheds.

81. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in Indonesia:

options and challenges for fair and efficient payment distribution mechanisms.

82. Mainstreaming climate change into agricultural education: challenges and

perspectives.

83. Challenging conventional mindsets and disconnects in conservation: the emerging role

of eco-agriculture in Kenya’s landscape mosaics.

84. Lesson learned RATA garut dan bengkunat: suatu upaya membedah kebijakan

pelepasan kawasan hutan dan redistribusi tanah bekas kawasan hutan.

85. The emergence of forest land redistribution in Indonesia.

86. Commercial opportunities for fruit in Malawi.

87. Status of fruit production processing and marketing in Malawi.

88. Fraud in tree science.

89. Trees on farm: analysis of global extent and geographical patterns of agroforestry.

90. The springs of Nyando: water, social organization and livelihoods in Western Kenya.

91. Building cpacity toward region-wide curriculum and teaching materials development in

agroforestry education in Southeast Asia.

92. Overview of biomass energy technology in rural Yunnan (Chinese – English abstract).

93. A pro-growth pathway for reducing net GHG emissions in China.

94. Analysis of local livelihoods from past to present in the central Kalimantan Ex-

Mega Rice Project area.

95. Constraints and options to enhancing production of high quality feeds in dairy

production in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda.

96. Agroforestry education in the Philippines: status report from the Southeast Asian

Network for Agroforestry Education (SEANAFE)

2010

97. Economic viability of Jatropha curcas L. plantations in Northern Tanzania- assessing

farmers’ prospects via cost-benefit analysis.

About the Working Paper series