The state of knowledge: socioeconomic and environmental impacts of wood energy value

chains in Sub-Saharan Africa

Dr. Phosiso Sola, East Africa DRYDEV Program Coordinator, World

Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) p.sola@cigar.org

Dr. Paolo Cerutti, Senior Scientist, Center for International Forestry

Research (CIFOR),

Wen Zhou, Research Officer, Center for International Forestry

Research (CIFOR)

Co-authors:

Denis Gautier, Miyuki Iiyama, Jolien Shure, Audrey Chenevoy, Jummai Yila, Vanessa Dufe, Robert Nasi, Gillian Petrokofsky, and Gill Shepherd

TICAD IV Side Event: The Future of Wood-Based Energy

25th August 2016

World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi

Why this systematic map?

• >70% of people in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) rely on woodfuel as their primary household energy source

• Woodfuel value chains are often associated with detrimental health and environmental impacts

• Lack of sound evidence and limited understanding of impacts woodfuel policy interventions are not based on the best available evidence

Objectives and Research Questions

• Provide a balanced and comprehensive review of the role and impacts of woodfuel value chains across SSA.

• Primary review question: • “What are the socio-economic, health, and environmental impacts of

woodfuel supply and demand in Sub-Saharan Africa?”

Methodology

Peer-reviewed protocol (Cerutti et al. 2015)

“What are the socio-economic, health, and environmental impacts of woodfuel supply and demand in Sub-Saharan Africa?”

Searches conducted on Web of Science, CAB Abstracts, and Scopus

Quality assessment

131 papers

Full text screening

198 papers

Title and abstract screening

659 papers

Search results

3979 hits

Reviewer additions

21 papers

English, French, Japanese

Sources of the evidence base

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

NU

MB

ER O

F PA

PER

S

YEAR

Evidence base

0 20 40 60 80 100

Tree growing

Management of natural trees

Harvesting

Processing

Transportation

Trade/Marketing

Consumption

Number of studies

Wo

od

fuel

inte

rven

tio

ns

stu

die

s

2 3

28

58

19

0

20

40

60

Trees on farm Shrubs Forests Savanna/Woodlands Mixed

Nu

mb

er o

f st

ud

ies

Ecosystem type at study site

Environmental impacts and indicators

Changes in environmental indicators

Forest cover (natural or

planted)

Forest condition, including forest

structure

Biodiversity C stocks GHG emissions Soil quality

Decrease 43 31 18 8 1 5

Neutral 9 8 3 3 0 1

Increase 3 2 2 2 3 5

Mixed 9 6 5 2 1 5

Total 64 47 28 15 5 16

Environmental impacts and indicators

Changes in environmental indicators

Forest cover (natural or

planted)

Forest condition, including forest

structure

Biodiversity C stocks GHG emissions Soil quality

Decrease 43 31 18 8 1 5

Neutral 9 8 3 3 0 1

Increase 3 2 2 2 3 5

Mixed 9 6 5 2 1 5

Total 64 47 28 15 5 160 10 20

deadwood-domestic

deadwood-commercial

livingwood-domestic

living wood-commercial

mixed-domestic

mixed-commercial

trees on farm-domestic

trees on farm-commercial

Number of studies

Wo

od

fuel

so

urc

e an

d p

rim

ary

use

Decrease

Neutral

Increase

Mixed

Environmental impacts and indicators

Changes in environmental indicators

Forest cover (natural or

planted)

Forest condition, including forest

structure

Biodiversity C stocks GHG emissions Soil quality

Decrease 43 31 18 8 1 5

Neutral 9 8 3 3 0 1

Increase 3 2 2 2 3 5

Mixed 9 6 5 2 1 5

Total 64 47 28 15 5 160 2 4 6 8

< 10 km

10-30 km

30-60km

>60km

Number of studies

Dis

tan

ce f

rom

mar

ket

Decrease

Neutral

Increase

Mixed

Health and socioeconomic impacts and indicators

0

10

20

Indoorpollution

Illness

Nu

mb

er

of

case

s

Outcomes of Woodfuel consumption

No change

Mixed

Increase

0 10 20 30 40 50

Assets

Employment

Equity

Costs

Profit

Income

Number of studiesSo

cio

eco

no

mic

ou

tco

mes

Decrease

Neutral

Increase

Mixed

The gaps

How much confidence do we have in the results of the studies

Nature of the evidence base: geographical distribution and scale

0 5 10 15 20

Kenya

Nigeria

South Africa

Tanzania

Zambia

firewood

charcoal

both

• Regional bias• Country dominance• Few countries for environmental

impact studies

0

10

20

Cam

ero

on

Co

ngo

DR

Ch

adG

abo

nTa

nza

nia

Uga

nd

aK

enya

Eth

iop

iaSu

dan

/So

uth

Su

dan

Som

alia

Sou

th A

fric

aZa

mb

iaM

alaw

iM

oza

mb

iqu

eB

ots

wan

aZi

mb

abw

eM

adag

asca

rN

iger

iaG

han

aM

ali

Sier

ra L

eon

eSe

neg

alN

iger

Togo

Be

nin

Bu

rkin

a Fa

so

Multicountry

Central Africa East Afica Southern Africa West AfricaN

UM

BER

OF

STU

DIE

S

LOCATION

Nature of the evidence base: geographical distribution and scale

0 20 40 60

Plot/ Sample

Designated area/ Reserve

Village/City

County/District/Department

Province/Region

National

Multi country

Number of studies

Geo

grap

hic

sco

pe

of

stu

dy

• Small scale for general conclusions

Nature of the evidence base: attribution

• Methodological design• 56% of the studies did not include comparators

Comparator Total Environmental studies

Socio economic studies

Health studies

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Total 152 93 60 27BACI (before-after & control-impact)

4 3 3 3 4 7 0 0

Before-After 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Control-Impact 34 22 26 28 3 5 7 26Counterfactual 7 5 2 2 4 7 3 11Multiple cases 25 16 10 11 16 27 1 4Single case 61 40 38 41 30 50 13 48Time series 18 12 14 15 3 5 3 11

Nature of the evidence base: attribution

• Methodological design• Did not always

separate impacts of woodfuelinterventions from other activities

0 10 20 30

History of woodfuel…

Property rights and tenure

Infrastructure development

Woodcutting

Lack of employment

Governance

Fire

Urbanisation

Livestock grazing

Location

Gender

Biophysical factors

Agriculture expansion

Number of studies

Co

nte

xtu

al f

acto

rs

Discussion and Conclusion• Renewed interest in the topic since 2000

• Presence of trade-offs between socioeconomic outcomes (largely positive) and health and environmental outcomes (largely negative)

• 40% of the studies did not meet the quality assessment criteria of this systematic map

• Most studies did not meet the methodological standards• inadequate baseline information • lack of comparators • limited geographic scope

• No concrete evidence differentiating the impacts of woodfuel value chain from other activities

• Major limitation – accessing non digitalised literature especially pre 1980

Implications for Research

• Urgent need to design and undertake research using robust methodologies • At appropriate scales in order to make

substantial conclusions

• Use of appropriate comparators for rigor and reliability of results

• Long-term studies with corresponding baseline studies of initial socio-economic and environmental conditions

Implications for policy

• Woodfuel will remain important to millions of people (70-90%) in SSA, and thus should be a priority for national and international policy and development strategies

• Woodfuel use does have impacts on the environment and livelihoods; however, policy formulation must also consider contextual factors as equal or even greater determinants or sources of impact

• Policy formulation should adopt a multisectorial approach across health, environment, and livelihood issues

• Important to recognize trade-offs between socioeconomic and environmental outcomes