Chapter 8 Overview of Jatropha Production Conclusions ... · Meta Evaluation of 6 Hivos Biofuel Projects Chapter 8 Overview of Jatropha Production Conclusions, Comparisons and Lessons

Meta Evaluation of 6 Hivos Biofuel Projects

Chapter 8

Overview of Jatropha Production Conclusions, Comparisons and Lessons Learned

Written by:

Sona Prakash (Environment & Development Consultancy)

1 Chapter 8: Overview (Evaluation report for Hivos by Sona Prakash)

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS 2 II. AGRICULTURE: YIELD, LABOUR & INCOME 8 II.1 INCOME FROM SEED PRODUCTION 7 II.1.1 Seed Price 9

II.1.2 Seed Production Rate 9 II.1.3 Competition for Labour 11

II.2 FOOD SECURITY 12 II.3 IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT 12 II.3.1 The Process 12 II.3.2 Experience & State of Knowledge on Jatropha Management 13

III. PROCESSING: TECHNOLOGY & VALUE ADDITION 23

III.1 PPO PRODUCTION COST 23 III.2 OIL EXTRACTION 24 III.3 FUEL STANDARDS 25 III.4 ENGINE ADAPTATION 26 III.5 INNOVATIVE USE & APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY 28 III.6 OTHER PRODUCTS & USES 29 III.6.1 Soap 29 III.6.2 Bio‐pesticide 31 III.6.3 Lanterns & Stoves 32 III.6.4 By‐products: Seedcake, Shells & Husks 32

III.7 BIODIESEL 34

IV. PROFIT SHARING & MARKETING 34 V. CREDIT ACCESS & RISK SHARING 37 VI. GENDER 38 CONCLUSIONS & LESSONS LEARNED 40


I. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS

Jatropha is not a wonder crop1. In the last couple of years, producers and Jatropha‐based projects around the world have all come to this conclusion. The high expectations raised at the height of the Jatropha hype have had to be scaled down over the last four years or so‐‐roughly the period over which the six projects evaluated here have been operational. While some of its properties (see Chapter 1) enable Jatropha to survive on marginal and degraded land without irrigation or other inputs, the returns are too low under these conditions to be viable in terms of labour input and volumes required for PPO production. Like any crop, it needs favourable climatic conditions, input supplements and maintenance in order to give sufficient returns. The labour requirements for Jatropha production are substantial, and lead to competition for labour with other crops. This has been experienced in all the six projects evaluated here. At least in the initial years Jatropha seems to need more investment in terms of labour to income ratio than other crops. In particular the harvesting, weeding and shelling stages were reported by producers as overly time‐consuming. Jatropha also has a long gestation period of up to seven or eight years after planting before it reaches optimal yields. And the yields attainable, even under favourable conditions have been lower than the estimates made at the height of the Jatropha hype when most of these projects were initiated. Finally, Jatropha production for oilseed was a completely new venture in most places, and involved many uncertainties relating to crop production and processing. Some of these have been resolved while others have been identified for further research. Some of these realities were being realised soon after most of these projects began, and many had to readjust their expectations. In short, the last few years have constituted a learning period for all Jatropha projects. While expectations regarding the crop and its potential benefits for smallholders need to be reset, reactions to the other extreme that completely reject the potential of Jatropha for providing alternative incomes for smallholders and access to energy in remote off‐grid areas are also overblown. There is still a niche for smallholder Jatropha production within a larger diversified production system‐‐consisting of other crops as well as value adding activities derived from Jatropha itself. Whether this potential for generating significant income benefits from Jatropha is realised will depend on a number of factors. Many of these have been identified and discussed in the context of individual projects in the concluding section (III.2) of each of the Chapters 2 to 7, and will be discussed further in this chapter. In general these concern improved crop management and agricultural extension, better prices for seed from more efficient PPO production (and higher fossil fuel prices), improved production technology including shelling and oil extraction, involvement of producers in value adding activities, and business models that enable profit sharing by producers and offer long‐term credit and risk sharing benefits on flexible terms. In the absence of these measures, it may be better not to engage any more producers in Jatropha cultivation until the sector has taken off—and better crop management, higher

1 P. Kant and S. Wu, The Extraordinary Collapse of Jatropha as a Global Biofuel, Environmental Science and Technology, July 2011.


diesel prices and better processing efficiency can result in demonstrable income benefits for smallholders. The six projects covered different aspects, and had a different focus, so taken together they cover close to the entire range of issues involved in smallholder Jatropha production. However, one common foundation of all projects was the prospect of using Jatropha seed to produce PPO (either within the project or by an external buyer of seed) for energy generation: as fuel in engines (replacing diesel) or in lamps and stoves (replacing kerosene and/or firewood). PPO production for use as fuel in engines is not yet viable in any of the projects. For it to be viable, the production cost has to be lower than the local price of diesel. In turn, the seed price that would enable PPO production at such a low cost gives very poor returns for labour to farmers for seed production. Thus the situation is a bit of a double bind. In all six projects at the moment, the price paid to farmers for seed for processing is on the one hand too low to provide adequate returns for labour and on the other hand too high to enable a profit from PPO production for use as fuel. However, this situation can change with a rise in oil prices, more efficient oil extraction and quality control, and an improvement in returns for labour from seed production via yield improvement, genetic breeding and the use of shelling machines. These factors will be discussed further in the following sections, along with the potential for PPO use in stoves and lamps—which depends mostly on the development and cost‐effective production of stoves and lamps that can compensate for the high viscosity of Jatropha PPO. While none of the six projects under evaluation here can be said to have attained all of their stated objectives, in many cases the objectives were overly ambitious, having been set at a time when the hype surrounding Jatropha was at its pinnacle. The projects have coped in different ways to this setback to achieving the central goal of seed production for processing into PPO to be used as fuel. In that respect the flexibility of the Jatropha system offers a diverse range of alternatives in terms of products and uses, and some projects have taken advantage of this while others have not—or producers have resorted instead to diversified crop production for supplementing their incomes. The following paragraphs summarise the six projects and describe their evolution over the last few years in this context. The Gota Verde (or ‘Green Drop’) project in Honduras (2007‐2010) was set up to demonstrate the economic and technical feasibility of small‐scale biofuel production for local use in Yoro province. Under this project around 330 producers planted a total of around 350 ha of Jatropha (as intercrop, monocrop and on slopes) to provide Jatropha seed to the project. The producers were distributed over 4 zones, each headed by a technical officer for agricultural extension work. Its original focus was on PPO production for use as fuel in adapted engines of local vehicles. However, large‐scale PPO production has not been viable so far, and vehicle engine adaptation may be too expensive for local users. In the meantime the project showed a good degree of flexibility by branching out into developing other products like biodiesel from waste vegetable oil, soap, degreaser and shelling machines. Biodiesel production from Jatropha PPO is one of the eventual goals, but is currently not viable. It is expected to


become viable in the near future as the price of mineral diesel rises, Jatropha production volumes increase, and more efficient expellers can be procured. Some preliminary trials have also been done on biogas generation. The processing and marketing enterprise BYSA (Biocombustibles de Yoro Sociedad Anonima) set up by the project provides a unique business model, offering producers a share of the ownership and ultimately also of the profits from value‐adding activities. At the time of the evaluation, a total of around 185 producers were BYSA members. However, all profits will have to be re‐invested in the enterprise for 3 to 4 years, and can be shared only thereafter. BYSA has just started (in 2010‐2011) to make a net profit but past losses still need to be made up. So far project beneficiary producers have only been involved as sellers of Jatropha seed to the project. In the meantime BYSA is supporting producers by accessing special Jatropha seed markets paying high prices (for seed for planting), but only over short periods. It has also provided marketing support for a few food crops. The project also did very well by providing credit for inputs as well as insurance possibilities to participating producers on flexible terms. It also provided credit and support for the installation of a few irrigation systems. The later phase of the project was co‐funded by Technoserve2 that helped support credit provision. The Gota Verde project is managed by FUNDER3, which provides business and marketing advice to BYSA via its Centro de Negocios, administrates the credit scheme via its Gota Verde Investment Fund, and undertakes research in the agricultural area via its Gota Verde Centre. The project has also introduced a special currency, Peces, in order to optimise the benefits of Jatropha production for the local economy. Various follow‐up proposals were in the pipeline in 2011 for funding aspects like biogas generation and stove development. The TaTEDO project in Tanzania (2008‐2012) aimed to improve access to integrated modern energy services for poverty reduction in a total of 100 villages spread out across the country. They planned to achieve this using a combination of Multi‐Functional Platforms (MFPs) powered by engines running on Jatropha oil and Productive Use Containers (PUCs) powered by solar photovoltaic cells. Fifty of the 100 villages would be equipped with an MFP consisting of an oil expeller, engine, and other elements to enable energy generation for powering grain mills and other applications, and eventually also for providing household electricity. However there were delays in procurement of equipment, which only started arriving in 2011. In the meantime, the agricultural component of the project was not developed and little support or training was provided to Jatropha farmers, which raises concerns as to whether there will be enough Jatropha production volume to run the MFPs, and enough engagement on the part of farmers. Farmers were not recruited to produce for the project, but a survey was done to establish the numbers of farmers already growing Jatropha in the areas targeted for MFP installation. A few were trained directly, though training of farmers and extension work were delegated to government departments and other organisations, depending on the area. The project was based on farmers’ pre‐existing Jatropha hedges, though some farmers supplemented these with more trees after the project began. Two pilot MFPs (from before the project) had 2 Technoserve specialises in business solutions and providing support for production 3 FUNDER is a private non‐profit organization that stimulates participative processes of management development


been established but were beset by problems ranging from bad management to lack of profitability, lack of demand for the services, and engine breakdown. All these aspects need to be addressed to make the project work. Benefits for Jatropha farmers will depend on the type of contracts established with MFP owners enabling sale of seed and usage of facilities like oil extraction. Benefits for the wider local community can depend on the selection criteria for ownership of MFPs. Soap production could be a spin‐off but is not directly supported by the project. The project’s eventual goals are ambitious, and especially the provision of household electricity can facilitate transformational development. But additional funding is needed (and is being sought) for this last goal, since the mini‐grids needed to enable it were not covered by the project. The MFPs are not yet operational. The FACT/ADPP project in Mozambique (2007‐2010) aimed to test the feasibility of enhancing rural development by using locally produced Jatropha oil to run (adapted) diesel engines, as well as for the local production of soap and lamp oil. Under this project, around 1850 producers in five districts of Cabo Delgado province (probably one of the poorest corners of the world) planted a total of around 600,000 Jatropha trees as hedges between 2008 and 2010. They were organised in 36 Farmer’s Clubs (FCs), most of which had their own nurseries for producing seedlings. Training and support on construction of wells and hand pumps as part of the project enabled access to basic irrigation for nurseries, which was a great benefit especially given the impoverished soils characteristic of the area. The project was based at the teacher training college EPF‐Bilibiza4 within Quirimbas National Park. A few diesel engines were adapted—one vehicle engine and two stationery engines based at the BBC (Bilibiza Biofuel Centre), which was set up by the project. Of the latter, one was for powering the processing workshop and providing a backup for the training college. The other was for driving the maize mill of the EPF. However, Jatropha PPO production has not been viable so far for use as fuel, and these engines are running on sunflower oil, which has to be bought externally. The project benefited from a high level of international expertise on agricultural crop management and on processing and technology. Workshops and trainings and alliances with Mozambican universities helped disseminate knowledge, although trained personnel usually did not remain in the area thereafter. Producers have so far only been involved as sellers of seed to the project. Traditional cultivation patterns have involved ‘slash and burn’ subsistence agriculture, with producers moving on to clear new land when the soil is exhausted, though the project and other projects in the area may be changing this pattern a bit, and preventing further deforestation. Inputs (fertiliser, pesticide etc.) are not used or provided by the project, and producers are not involved in value addition. However a little soap was produced during a workshop, and profit margins as well as local demand for soap appear to offer promising income benefits for producers. Lanterns running on Jatropha are not yet viable, and PPO‐based stoves may not be an attractive option for farmers given the local overabundance of firewood. In the meantime, support for food crop production from a parallel ADPP project has supplemented farmer incomes and improved food security while facilitating the production of cash crops like

4 Established and run by ADPP and the Ministry of Education of the Government of Mozambique


sesame. There was a period of inactivity at the BBC after project termination in 2010, but the acceptance of new proposals on biogas and renewable energy would have enabled the rejuvenation of activities. In general the project centre at Bilibiza is very isolated, which hampers regular monitoring as well as the retention of trained technical personnel. The CEDISA project in Peru (2009‐2011) aimed to increase the income of small‐scale cultivators on the slopes of San Martin via sustainable management of agro‐forestry systems with Jatropha Curcas. Under this project 100 ha of agro‐forestry systems were installed on the slopes of San Martin by 100 producer households (1 ha each), with Jatropha as a component intercropped with food crops and fast producing tree species (for wood). While income benefits from Jatropha seed production have not yet materialised, the integrated agro‐forestry system had started reaping net income benefits already in its second year from the sale of other crops like beans and peanuts and wood species. It also has other benefits like soil conservation and prevention of soil erosion in sloped areas with degraded soils. The agroforestry systems are located on poor soils, and most producers are also cultivating a diversified range of more lucrative crops like plantains and sacha‐inchi outside of these systems. Producers’ role in the Jatropha production system was however restricted to the sale of seed to external buyers, and markets for seed for processing have not been lucrative. CEDISA is trying to negotiate better deals with potential buyers. In general there are many initiatives on Jatropha production in the area, and the local government department DRASAM has been supporting it, as well as using Jatropha PPO for running its own vehicles. DRASAM was also supporting the CEDISA project (with inputs and extension work), but withdrew its support in 2010 due to funding cutbacks, with the result that the second batch of CEDISA producers (who started in 2010) has no access to inputs. The project also maintains contacts with a leading local agricultural institute INIA and other members of the Mesa Técnica de Biocombustibles that can enable more optimal crop management and access to markets. Producer involvement in processing activities was relegated to a later stage. The BiOEx project in Zambia (2008‐2010) aimed to improve the household food security situation of ‘small but viable’ Jatropha outgrowers in selected areas of North‐Western Province on a sustainable basis. It was the only project in this series where the implementing partner was a private company, NWBP (North Western Bio Power). The project was run on the outgrower model, with over 8000 farmers recruited between 2008 and 2010 to produce Jatropha seed for processing by the company. They formed liability groups of five or more to sign contracts with NWBP. The contracts oblige them to sell all their Jatropha seed to NWBP at 8% of the diesel price5. However most farmers reported net losses as a result of an excessively high labour to income ratio for Jatropha cultivation that reduced their income from other crops without providing income benefits from Jatropha. Extension workers were too few (10 to 12 for 8000 farmers) and, though their work was to be supported by government extension workers, this support did not materialise. Zone leaders who were trained and supposed to

5 With seed in kg and diesel in litres


train other farmers were often not able to due to lack of mobility—only a few could be provided with bicycles due to funding shortages, and distances are large in Zambia, even within zones. In an independent spin‐off initiative, producers of one cooperative are starting to produce soap for local use. However, since they were obliged to sell all their seed to NWBP, they were buying it externally at a considerably higher price. More recently they started buying back Jatropha PPO from NWBP in an ‘oil for seed’ barter system. Coordination between project partners was sub‐optimal in this project, with only NWBP and SNV participating in the end, while BAZ, Hivos Zambia and MACO6 were not involved much. With the termination of the project, the farmers’ association NOWEGA7 will be taking over extension work from NWBP, and will be representing the 8000 odd BiOEx producers (all producers will be NOWEGA members). There may then be scope (at association level) for renegotiating contracts with NWBP. NOWEGA may also help strengthen farmers’ negotiation power on seed prices as well as facilitate their engagement in value adding activities. The Environment Africa project in Zimbabwe (2008‐2010) aimed to increase access to modern energy services in Mudzi district in Zimbabwe while reducing poverty in an environmentally friendly manner via the use of renewable energy, specifically biofuel and solar. Work on this project was disrupted in 2008‐2009 due to political disturbances in the area, compounded by a cholera epidemic. The Jatropha farmer community was remobilised into new EAGs (Environmental Action Groups) in 2009. A total of 18 EAGs were formed in five wards of Mudzi district, with a membership of between 20 and 60 members per EAG, and a total of around 750 farmers, 80% of which are women. Though originally a total of 2950 farmers were reported in early 2011, the dropout rate seems to have been very high. For several reasons (including the withdrawal of a prospective foreign partner from the project due to political instability in Zimbabwe), the project also had to move its focus from improving energy access to facilitating small‐scale PPO and soap production from Jatropha seed for local use. The EAGs are now producing soap and a few other products from Jatropha PPO, which they extract using hand presses (each EAG has one). Soap has been in high local demand, but the use of oil for lanterns is still not viable due to inadequately designed lanterns. Profit margins are very low, and most EAGs are still incurring net losses. However some are starting to make a profit. Each EAG has its own autonomous decision‐making process, and each has decided to use the income from processing in a different way. Some have decided to distribute it over all members, others to invest in social welfare (education, pensions) while yet others have invested in community enterprise (bakeries and so on). While income benefits remain marginal, a viable structure is in place for benefit sharing if the labour to income ratio can be reduced through partial mechanisation of processing, access to inputs and better crop management. Extension work was relegated to government extension (AGRITEX) officers who were not trained on Jatropha, and little attention was paid to good Jatropha cultivation practices. However, in a follow‐up project funded by the EC (2011‐2015) EAfrica is working

6 Ministry for Agriculture and Cooperatives, Zambia 7 North Western Growers Association


with WWF and the University of Zimbabwe on developing better cultivation practices and optimising community utilisation of Jatropha‐based products. In general a lot of knowledge has been acquired on Jatropha crop management and processing the world over in the last few years. Remaining open questions and mutually contradictory observations from different corners of the world still need to be addressed. While an increasingly wide database is becoming available, effective mechanisms for exchange of first‐hand knowledge are still lacking. The experiences of these six projects can make a significant contribution in this regard. It is hoped that this overview (supplemented by earlier chapters on specific projects) will contribute to the dissemination and exchange of information on the various issues affecting Jatropha production by smallholders. In the following sections the information gleaned from the experiences of the six projects and their working environments (local partners, research institutes) has been organised as follows: Section II deals with the entire agricultural component. It is further divided into section II.1 (dealing with the factors responsible for a lack of viable income generation for producers), section II.2 (food security), and section II.3 (agricultural management: the process and the current state of knowledge on Jatropha management—both at research level and at the level of farmers’ own experiences). Section III deals with processing (the factors responsible for the current lack of viability of Jatropha PPO as fuel for replacing diesel, as well as the other value adding alternatives offered by the Jatropha system for providing income benefits in the meantime and also on the long term). Section IV deals with marketing (including the various business models adopted by the projects and the potential they offer for equitable profit sharing), Section V with credit access and risk sharing, and Section VI with gender (i.e. how the six projects fared in terms of reducing gender‐based disparity). II AGRICULTURE: YIELD, LABOUR AND INCOME II.1 INCOME FROM SEED PRODUCTION In all the projects under evaluation, low prices and low production rate have prevented producers from benefiting from seed production. In the case of the Gota Verde project, a short‐term solution has been found by selling quality/certified seed for propagation (planting) purposes to external markets at much higher prices. Seed production for processing purposes is not a viable activity for producers in any of the projects. However, in some cases, additional value‐adding opportunities for producers are starting to improve overall returns for labour from Jatropha production. Soap production by EAGs as part of the Environment Africa project in Zimbabwe is an example. In other projects there is potential for small‐scale value‐adding activities that has not yet been exploited (to be discussed further in section III).

Table 1: Daily income from seed production vs. Daily minimum wage for agricultural labour

Project Country Seed Price per kg (USD equivalent)

Income (USD equivalent)

Minimum Wage (USD equivalent)

Gota Verde (for processing)

Honduras 0.16 2.9 9.0 to 11.0


Gota Verde (for propagation)

Honduras 2.00 26.0 9.0 to 11.0

CEDISA Peru

0.26 3.2 7.0 to 9.0

TaTEDO Tanzania

0.18 1.5 2.5

FACT/ADPP Mozambique

0.18 2.2 3.0

BiOEx Zambia

0.12 0.4 to 0.5 2.0

EAfrica Zimbabwe

0.10 0.8 to 1.6 2.3

II.1.1 Seed price Volatile oil prices affect the viability of Jatropha production for use as fuel, i.e. as a substitute for mineral diesel. The price of biodiesel needs to stay competitive with the market price of mineral diesel, and the price of PPO needs to stay well below it (PPO is an input for biodiesel production, and furthermore the use of PPO in diesel engines usually involves expensive adaptation technology). This has not been possible in any of the projects, with Jatropha PPO production costs generally remaining too high locally to be competitive as fuel. On the other hand, the prices paid to producers for seed have been too low for seed production to be viable in terms of returns for labour (see Table 1). An exception to this is the case of the limited and short‐term market for seed for planting (at a high price that is relatively decoupled from fossil fuel prices) in the case of the Gota Verde project. In order to keep Jatropha production sustainable until fossil fuel prices rise further and the production efficiency of seed and PPO improves, farmers need some kind of guaranteed price to enable returns for labour that are at least comparable to the minimum wage. II.1.2 Seed Production Rate The main setback faced by all these projects, and by Jatropha projects in general the world over, is that the yields being achieved (and indeed possible under local conditions) are substantially lower than originally envisaged when Jatropha was identified as a ‘wonder’ crop for biofuel production. The yields currently attained by producers under the six projects are estimated to vary between 0.2kg and 2.0 kg of dry shelled seed per plant, in comparison to claims at the height of the Jatropha hype, of a potential of 15 to 20kg per plant. In addition the time taken to attain the optimal yield possible is—at seven to eight years—longer than envisaged. Yield improvement is generally considered the primary goal of good crop management. However, returns for labour and therefore production rate (kg seed produced per hour), and not yield (kg seed per hectare) are the crucial factor determining the viability of crop production in all six projects evaluated here. In these projects, and in many areas where Jatropha is planted, it is not the availability of land but the labour input required that constitutes the major constraint to viable production. Improved yield can improve returns for labour to a limited extent. Better crop management will be crucial for improving yield, but also for soil conservation and ensuring that Jatropha production can be combined


with that of other (food) crops so as to optimise the gains from both. Most of these projects involve production on sub‐optimal soils, where food production efficiency also needs improvement, so this element is important. Crop management issues are discussed in section II.3. Returns for labour from Jatropha seed production depend on the price and the production rate of the shelled seed. The production rate is approximately determined by the picking rate and the shelling rate, since time spent on planting and crop management contributes comparatively little per kg of seed produced. As discussed in Chapters 2 to 7, and shown in Table 2 below, the greatest impact on the production rate of dry shelled seed (and thus the daily income) will be made by increasing both picking and shelling rates. The picking rate can be increased to some extent via improved yields, in the sense that it will take less time to harvest the same amount of fruit from a smaller number of trees. Higher seed weight (possible by breeding new accessions, see section II.3.2) will have a greater impact on the picking rate; doubling the seed weight will more or less double the picking rate (in kg per hour).

Table 2

Returns for Labour: Potential Multiplicative Impact of Increased Picking and Shelling Rates

(Picking rate increases with both yield and seed weight)

Assuming daily income of one unit at current yield and seed weight with manual shelling

Shelling Technique vs. Yield

Seed Weight

Manual Shelling

Hand‐Operated Machine

Motorised Machine

x 1.0 1.8 1.9 Yield y 2x 1.3 3.2 3.7

x 1.3 3.0 3.4 Yield 3y 2x 1.5 5.1 6.3

x 1.4 4.1 4.9 Yield 12y 2x 1.6 5.6 7.1

Source: Own calculation The shelling rate can be improved by the introduction of shelling machines. Manual shelling rates reported by producers over the six projects showed a wide variation, ranging from 15 minutes per kg (Gota Verde, Honduras) to two hours

per kg (BiOEx, Zambia). This huge difference may be due to a difference in seed weight or other characteristics of the Jatropha accessions being used, with in general faster shelling rates reported from Latin America than from Africa. The stage at which the fruit is picked and its consequent level of moisture may also be a factor. Gota Verde producers reported that

Manual Shelling Machine, Gota Verde Project (Source: Gota Verde Project)


shelling was more efficient when carried out on seed that was still a bit moist. Shelling by stamping the fruit underfoot was found to be easier and quicker, but this often damaged the seed, making it inadequate for sale for propagation. At the EAfrica project in Zimbabwe, producers were shelling seed by putting it in a sack, which they beat with a stick—this removed most of the shells and the remaining ones were removed manually. In any case, a hand‐operated shelling machine (of the kind produced by the Gota Verde project) can improve the shelling rate to 2 minutes per kg (30 kg per hour) which, when combined with an improved picking rate (either via improved yield or via increased seed weight) can make a significant difference to returns from labour, as is evident from the lower part of the fourth column in Table 2. A motorised shelling machine can improve the shelling rate further to around 100 kg per hour, but the overall improvement in returns for labour are not that much better than with the hand‐operated machine, and may not be worth the much higher cost8. II.1.3 Competition for Labour Another constraint that has exacerbated poor returns for labour from Jatropha seed production is the competition for labour with other crops. Producers in all the projects reported that the period of Jatropha harvest overlapped with the harvest of their major food crops, thus creating a labour shortage. In some cases producers had to hire external labour (Honduras, Peru, Zambia) as a result, often leading to a decrease in net annual income. Certainly in the case of BiOEx producers in Zambia, a decrease in net income was consistently reported as a result of the introduction of Jatropha. In other cases (Zimbabwe, Mozambique), producers often left the Jatropha fruit on the trees or let it fall to the ground during the peak harvest season for other crops. While this was earlier thought not to constitute a problem, it is now believed that the oil produced from dried out brown‐black seed may have a high acid content9 and therefore may not be adequate for use in engines. However this finding from Peru has not yet been universally accepted, since there are some contrary findings from Africa10 (see section III.3). In principle there are three ways to overcome the problem of competition for labour between Jatropha and crops: one is of course by hiring extra labour, which is not tenable for most smallholders. The second is by tuning the harvest seasons of various crops with irrigation so that they don’t overlap, which is not viable in most areas where Jatropha is being produced. The third—as suggested at FHIA11‐‐is by adjusting the pruning cycle of Jatropha so as to change the flowering period, and thus the fruiting period. This last suggestion needs investigation, and might indeed offer a way out.

8 Hand‐operated machines are sold by the Gota Verde project for USD 250 while motorised ones were priced at around USD 1600 in Peru, 9 See Annex 2 in Chapter 4 (CEDISA, Peru) of this meta evaluation 10 Tested by Niels Anso (Dajolka, Denmark) and reported by Jan de Jongh (Arrakis and FACT Foundation); see Chapter 3 (FACT‐ADPP, Mozambique) of this meta evaluation 11 Discussion at FHIA (Fundacion Hondureno para Invetigacion Agricola), Honduras, March 2011.


II.2 FOOD SECURITY In general, food security has not been affected in terms of competition for land between Jatropha and food crops. If there is any potential effect on food security, it is in terms of competition for labour (as described above), competition for soil nutrients (and maybe light) in the case of intercropping given the impoverished soils, and competition for investment capital. Given its long gestation period, the initial investment needed is high and can occur at the cost of investment in other crops. However, large production volumes are needed for cost‐efficient oil extraction for fuel and other purposes. It remains to be seen whether Jatropha production at the required scale can be achieved by smallholders without interfering with the labour and land needs of other crops. Another possible risk is that further delay in adequate Jatropha production and quality control issues hampering its use in engines might incentivise the use of edible oil in engines in its place in projects designed for this purpose. II.3 IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT While availability of land may not be the primary constraint in most of these projects, yield improvement will also help improve current meagre returns for labour—which is the primary constraint, as described in section II.1. Furthermore, most of the Jatropha production in these six projects is being done on poor soils, where soil conservation and the improvement of soil quality are important concerns that can be addressed via better agricultural management. II.3.1 The Process Three essential aspects or stages will be key to improving agricultural management for Jatropha production. The first has to do with maintaining contact with local agronomic research on the Jatropha crop. Given the numerous uncertainties that still prevail regarding Jatropha characteristics and yield potential under differing local conditions, the projects and farmers need periodic updating on new developments and knowledge. The projects in Honduras, Peru, and Mozambique have been mindful of this aspect from the beginning, while the Zimbabwe project has made a start more recently. The Gota Verde project in Honduras maintains regular contact in this connection with the Honduran Agricultural Research Institute (FHIA), and the (Agricultural) University of Zamorano. In particular FHIA was a direct participant in the earlier phase of the project, and also maintained personnel in the field, who followed up on the activities of selected producers. The Peruvian National Institute for Innovation in Agriculture (INIA) was involved with the CEDISA project from its early stages, assisting with capacity building on crop management issues. They maintain direct contact, as well as through the Mesa Técnica de Biocombustibles of the San Martin region, of which both INIA and CEDISA are members. The FACT‐ADPP project in Mozambique had an agricultural research component built into it from the beginning, managed by Flemming Nielsen of Banana Hill Consultants, and involving the Mozambican Institute for Agricultural Research (IIAM) and the Maputo‐based Eduardo Mondlane University (UEM), as well as the Agricultural University of Wageningen in the Netherlands. Finally, the EAfrica project in Zimbabwe is now working with the Department of Soil Science and Agricultural


Engineering of the University of Zimbabwe on the optimisation of cultivation practices and soil quality research. The remaining two projects, TaTEDO in Tanzania and BiOEx in Zambia, have not involved contact with agronomic research institutes. The second crucial stage for improved agricultural management has to do with the dissemination and implementation of this knowledge among producers—directly, or via adequately trained extension workers and ‘paratechnicians’. Special training on Jatropha management is needed but not always adequately provided. Some improvement is needed in all the projects in this regard. In some cases like at the EAfrica project in Zimbabwe, extension work is being done by government (AGRITEX) extension staff who have not been trained at all on Jatropha. At the TaTEDO project in Tanzania, again extension work has been relegated to government departments and DiSEDCs12 who are in general not well informed on Jatropha properties. In some cases it is being sub‐contracted to organisations like JPTL but there was little clarity on who is responsible for what. At the CEDISA project in Peru, the three extension workers from the project were supplemented by two from the government department DRASAM; however the latter did not maintain adequate presence in the field. Similarly, the supplementary extension support from government (MACO) extension staff that was planned into the BiOEx project in Zambia did not materialise. The ratio of extension workers to farmers was also low in general for a new crop like Jatropha that involves many uncertainties and in which farmers have little experience. At the higher end were the CEDISA project (3 for 100), and the Gota Verde project (4 for 326); at an impossibly low level the BiOEx project in Zambia (10 or 12 for 8000). While in most cases the work of extension workers was to be reinforced by selected farmers (the 77 zone leaders in the case of BiOEx in Zambia, or 1 paratechnician per village in some other cases) who received some training and were supposed to train others, such secondary training often did not take place, or was ineffective. In the case of BiOEx for example, some of the zone leaders got bicycles that improved their mobility but others could not due to a funding shortage. This brings us to the third‐‐and very crucial stage‐‐of ensuring the effectiveness of dissemination by periodically monitoring the actual knowledge and awareness levels of farmers. Adequate monitoring was found to be lacking in all the six projects. Though there were a few exceptions (generally farmers who had been trained directly), the content of trainings and knowledge of Jatropha management was most often not filtering down adequately to farmers in the field. This was particularly the case where some farmers were trained and left to train others without any monitoring. II.3.2 Experience & State of Knowledge on Jatropha Management Planting Apart from the documented pros and cons of the various planting methods (direct sowing, planting from cuttings and from pre‐cultivated seedlings from

12 District Sustainable Energy and Development Centres; see Chapter 5 of this meta evaluation


nurseries, see section II.1.3 in Chpater 1) there were mixed reports across the six projects. In general plants grown from seed gave better yield over the long term and have better resilience in dry conditions due to their taproots. However, many farmers were attracted to the faster growth and production characteristics of cuttings. Direct sowing was often characterised by low germination rates (Zambia, Peru) and loss to insects (Honduras, Peru). In Peru a devastating attack on young saplings by leaf cutter ants led to the decision to transplant older seedlings (between 40 days and 2.5 months old) at the beginning of the rainy season. On the other hand in Zambia it was reported that seedlings transplanted in the rainy season were often attacked by grasshoppers. Plants grown from cuttings were found to be more susceptible to termites. In general, experience seems to point towards the use of seedlings pre‐cultivated from seed in nurseries. In the case of slopes this is definitely the most viable alternative due to the taproot that counters erosion. In the case of direct sowing the germinated seed gets washed away. In most projects farmers had made an informed choice due to project intervention, or seedlings/seed had been distributed by the project, whereas in others (like in Tanzania) where this was not the case, they tended to prefer cuttings for their fast growth. At FHIA in Honduras11 they emphasized the importance of soil preparation for Jatropha planting. Just making furrows for example makes a lot of difference for plant growth. They used tractors or animals for this purpose in their fields. While producers in most of the projects do not have access to tractors, more attention for soil preparation‐‐manually or using animal traction‐‐might be a factor to keep in mind. Configuration In three of the projects (Tanzania, Mozambique and Zimbabwe), the emphasis has been on Jatropha cultivation as hedges. This has been the traditional pattern of Jatropha cultivation in these countries (for keeping away livestock and wild animals from homesteads and fields), and was in general also motivated by concerns of food security at both local and national levels (the fear that Jatropha plantations would reduce land availability for other crops). In Tanzania and Mozambique, Jatropha plantations are discouraged by the government for this reason, and in the case of Mozambique also for reasons of nature conservation (the project is located within Quirimbas National Park). In Zimbabwe and Tanzania, this choice was also dictated by the fact that farmers were used to growing Jatropha as hedges around their homesteads. In Mozambique farmers chose to grow it as hedges around their fields. While they originally hoped it would also protect the fields from wild animals, this turned out not to be the case for the wild pigs, elephants and baboons that are the main threat in the area. Subsequently it was decided to concentrate on improving yield—and a 1‐metre spacing between trees was chosen for this reason. But they find the hedges also useful for delineating property, since the plant is easily distinguishable from other plants. In Zimbabwe however, Jatropha trees have been planted at a 0.3 metre spacing (sometimes even closer) in hedges around the homesteads. While this is effective for protection purposes, farmers are now more interested in improving seed yield and may need to reconsider.


In the other three projects (Honduras, Peru and Zambia), intercropping has been the prevalent mode of cultivation. Though farmers in the Gota Verde project have employed both monocropping and intercropping, as well planting on steep slopes to avoid erosion, most of the farmers interviewed preferred to intercrop Jatropha with common food crops (maize, beans, watermelon) in order to reduce risk as well as Jatropha production costs. It was maintained however (including at FHIA) that yields were always higher with mono‐cropping than with intercropping. Farmers in the CEDISA project have planted Jatropha within agroforestry systems with intercropping. In general the jury is still out regarding the potential for intercropping Jatropha with other crops. Its viability can be questioned for various reasons. Researchers at the University of Zimbabwe13 felt there could be problems in intercropping Jatropha with other crops. The Jatropha plant absorbs a lot of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, etc.) via its root network in the topsoil, which is likely to lead to intense competition for nutrients with other plants. This was corroborated by farmers (for example in Mudzi, Zimbabwe and in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique) who observed that crops planted closer to Jatropha hedges tended to wilt. The success of intercropping also depends on which crops are combined with Jatropha. In the case of maize, the competition for light can make the Jatropha trees grow vertically without branching—leading to reduced yields. This was observed by many producers in Honduras, Peru and Zambia where intercropping is being practiced. In addition there were indications in Honduras of a disease spreading from maize to Jatropha (see Table 3). Many producers reported that Jatropha trees benefited from combining with low‐lying nitrogen fixing plants like beans and peanuts. However, as the Jatropha trees grow, the shading effects were not beneficial for the other plants. In general farmers don’t want to combine crops with trees because of competition and shading effects. The latter become significant in the case of Jatropha after a couple of years, when the canopy closes. If intercropping is practiced, it therefore seems that the spacing between Jatropha trees needs to be wider (4 to 5 metres) than that practiced in many cases (2 to 3 metres) in order to allow light to enter and enable a better nutrient sharing. Otherwise intercropping would only be possible during the first couple of years, when shading effects from Jatropha are minimal. On the other hand wider spacing can cause the trees to grow taller, making it harder to harvest and prune. In the end spacing decisions should be based on the local environment, the competition among trees for water, light and nutrients, soil fertility and nutrient replenishment levels, the nature of other crops being grown around the Jatropha, as well as on availability of labour. This underscores the importance of maintaining links with local research institutes for arriving at optimal solutions for local conditions. Researchers at FHIA in Honduras felt that Jatropha intercropped well with soybean, sesame, sweet potato, gourd (ayote), papaya, peanuts and beans. Farmers in Zambia also found that soybean and sweet potato combine well with Jatropha.

13 Interview with Professor Mafongoya (June 2011), University of Zimbabwe (Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering), project partner in continuation of EAfrica project in Zimbabwe.


Over the longer term however, genetic breeding for plants with smaller canopies might improve the viability of intercropping. In any case it looks like the replenishment of soil nutrients will be necessary to prevent soil exhaustion (this has been discussed further in a following section), and enable viable yields from Jatropha as well as any intercrops. Weeding and Pruning Weeding around Jatropha has been very labour intensive, and was cited by most producers as among the most time‐consuming stages of Jatropha cultivation, apart from harvesting and shelling. In Mozambique, it was found to constitute around 35% of total labour during the rainy season. In Zambia, farmers were spending a total of eight days per year on weeding. Weeds have been among the foremost problems for Jatropha cultivators in Peru. While the local soil and climate are especially prone to the occurrence of weeds, the problem was worse with Jatropha than with other crops. This was partly because Jatropha plants had more open space around them. In addition, a representative of Agrobiofuels Peru (that has its own plantation) said the root system of weeds interferes more with Jatropha than with other crops because the auxiliary root system of Jatropha is weak (only the main taproot is strong). Jatropha also lets in more light through its canopy, thus encouraging weeds. However, the last aspect is expected to correct itself within a couple of years, as the Jatropha canopy closes. Many farmers did not have adequate information on pruning, and instructions (when given) for pruning varied with projects and institutes, as well as within projects. Sometimes producers from the same project had mutually contradictory information. The Honduras, Peru and Mozambique projects had clear pruning instructions but these did not always filter down to producers. In many cases (for example in Mozambique) the concept was hard for farmers to absorb while in others there was uncertainty regarding when and how. In Mozambique many farmers started to do it once they observed the effect on plant health and yield. While the literature recommends pruning during the rainy season (because that enables the wounds to heal better), trials at the FACT‐ADPP project indicated that wet season pruning led to fungus growth and dry season pruning gave better results. At FHIA in Honduras it was also mentioned that the ‘India Salvadorena’ accession does not need pruning. In Zimbabwe and Tanzania most farmers were not pruning at all—or only to keep away snakes or if the tree was giving too much shade to other crops. They didn’t know about pruning to improve plant health and yield. In many places it was claimed (including by agricultural scientists, for example at FHIA) that pruning cycles should follow the phases of the moon. The reasoning given was that nutrients accumulate at the bottom of the plant during a new moon, and that is therefore the best time to cut off the tops (in particular for the first pruning). It might be useful to explore the scientific base of this contention given the large numbers of people who believe in it. In general there were too many different recommendations on pruning to reproduce here, but they can be looked up in section II.1.4 of the project‐specific Chapters 2 to 7. On the average pruning was recommended once a year, or every time the plant reached a certain height.


Fertiliser, Pest Control, Organic Farming and Jatropha byproducts Since the Jatropha plant takes up a lot of soil nutrients (N, P, K)14 that are removed from the system via the fruit, replenishment is needed in order to avoid soil exhaustion and enable better yields. Jatropha nutrient requirements (N, P2O5, K2O) have been estimated in the Jatropha Handbook published by the FACT Foundation15, as well the fertiliser equivalent needed (both chemical and organic) to provide them. On the other hand, soil research done in Mozambique (in connection with the FACT‐ADPP project) by a student from the University of Wageningen16 indicated that nitrogen and potassium levels did not influence Jatropha plant development, but that higher phosphorus levels led to more branching and higher plants. While there is little scope for manipulating phosphorus levels within the current farming systems in Cabo Delgado‐‐somewhat unfortunate for the Mozambique project—this may be something worth verifying in other areas. Levels of nutrient uptake by Jatropha and soil replenishment requirements can be estimated via soil research that compares plants and soils where fruit has been harvested with others where it has not. Researchers at the University of Zimbabwe13 are starting to do this. Replenishment can be achieved by returning Jatropha organic waste (seedcake, shells and husks) to the soil or by applying the chemical equivalent of removed nutrients, and to some extent by combining with nitrogen‐fixing species.

Of the projects covered by this meta evaluation, only producers in the Gota Verde and CEDISA projects were fertilising their Jatropha plants. They had access to credit for inputs and were using chemical fertiliser, not Jatropha by‐products or organic waste. Gota Verde project staff reported good results in Honduras in terms of speed of growth, ramification, number of branches, number of fruits and seeds with 62g to 70g fertiliser (a 12‐24‐12 mixture of Urea, Casaele and Litratocine) per plant per application and with two applications per year. Fertiliser was found most effective when applied around and not directly at the plant. The first batch of producers of the CEDISA project (the 60 who joined in 2009) in Peru used chemical fertiliser (80 gm per plant of INKAFER(NPK)) on their Jatropha plots. This was applied within 4 months of installation. A second dose of fertiliser was applied in 2010 to the same plots, within a year of planting—this time 500 gm per plant of organic fertiliser (guano de la isla). However the 40 producers that joined the project in 2010 did not have access to fertiliser because funding was cut off. They also did not use organic fertiliser. Producers in most of the projects have not had access to seedcake, since oil extraction is not being done by producers in most cases. In the case of the Gota Verde project, a little extraction is being done at the BYSA facility, and the little seedcake produced is being used for experimenting with biogas generation. At

14 Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium. 15 The Jatropha Handbook: From Cultivation to Application; FACT Foundation, April 2010. 16 MSc. thesis Josema Albeniz Larrauri, WUR; see https://sites.google.com/site/mozambiquejatropha/research-program/research-activities/12-soil-biomass-research-1


the FACT‐ADPP project, oil extraction is only being done for testing (quality control) purposes. At the BiOEx project seed is taken away for oil extraction to NWBP’s facility near Lusaka, quite far from NWP where farmers are based, and seedcake is not brought back. One exception to the above, where producers have had access to seedcake, is the EAfrica project in Mudzi, Zimbabwe, where producers have been extracting the oil themselves (for soap production) using hand presses. They have been using the seedcake for fertilising their maize fields, often composting it with manure and leaf mould, and have all observed positive impacts on maize growth. Jatropha leaves on the other hand are not good for mulch. The low CN ratio means they degrade very fast. At the agronomic research facility of the University of Zimbabwe13 they also found that the application of Jatropha seedcake had a huge positive effect on maize yield. However the seedcake needs to be ground finely for faster N release. Otherwise there can be problems with mineralisation13 since nitrogen release is not fast in general. Farmers are not mindful of this aspect, and tend to just use what’s left over from extraction. And while Mudzi farmers are using Jatropha‐based organic fertiliser on other crops like maize, they are not fertilising their Jatropha trees; there is a shortage of fertiliser, and what is available is (understandably) used for food crops. But in other parts of the world there are doubts regarding the effectiveness of Jatropha seedcake as fertiliser. Experiments at INIA in Peru have indicated problems with seedcake use for fertiliser17 because it is toxic and kills worms that aerate and fertilise the soil. For this reason the Leoncio Prado cooperative as well as CEDISA project staff felt that seedcake might be more effectively used for briquette production (see III.6.4). Finally, from the perspective of optimal exploitation of the nutritional as well as the calorific content of the seedcake15, the most viable way to use it directly would be for biogas generation; then the effluent or residue can be used as more concentrated fertiliser (see III.6.4).

Less is known about the use of Jatropha shells and husks as fertiliser. This is indeed a pity because this is one element of jatropha organic waste that all producers have access to, since they all shell the Jatropha seed themselves. But there was little knowledge on how to use them. At most some producers threw the shells into their fields where convenient—but in most cases not even that because the fields were often far from the homesteads where the shelling was done, and it was too tedious to take the shells back to the fields. In particular it has been noted that composting would be the most effective, enabling storage for use whenever needed. However none of the projects had paid attention to this aspect. In general poor smallholders cannot afford external inputs, but the cultivation of Jatropha, especially on sub‐optimal soils, calls for regular replenishment. In this

17 Interview with Professor Ronald Echeverria (May 2011), INIA (Instituto Nacional para Innovación Agraria), Ministry of Agriculture, a CEDISA project partner in Peru.


respect organic farming initiatives can be particularly interesting. Jatropha also responds well to organic fertiliser in general. One such experiment was carried out by Professor Thomson Sinkala of the Biofuels Association of Zambia (BAZ), a project partner in the BiOEx project. He has developed an integrated approach to income generation from the Jatropha system that includes biological control. Among the elements used in this system are goats for weed control and fertilisation, honeybees for pollination, poultry for termite control and fertiliser, Jatropha seedcake for fertiliser and the leaves of Tephrosia Vogelii for controlling golden flea beetles and various other pests. Using this system and without other external inputs, yields of around 10 kg per plant were obtained at Sinkala’s experimental farm in Lusaka. In addition, the goats, poultry and honeybees contributed a substantial supplementary income. While it is not clear that the same results can be obtained by small‐scale farmers on poor soils, something similar would be worth trying as a pilot experiment. Biological control methods are also being investigated as part of Jatropha research at INIA in Peru. The plagues and diseases related to Jatropha in San Martin (over 20 in total) as well as biological control methods (12 species) for the most serious ones have been catalogued by INIA18. Biological control methods include natural predators and bio‐pesticides based on extract of neem leaf (against ‘acaros’ and ‘cigarritas’; see Table 3), tephrosia leaves, and fungal extracts (against beetles). They advise rotation of these methods to avoid resistance development. In general, Jatropha is attacked by a host of different pests and plagues. Some are common over countries and even over continents (see picture), but in general each location had a different set of problems in this respect. Pests and diseases

signalled by producers and project staff across the six projects are listed in Table 3. In Honduras, Gota Verde producers were having serious problems with insect plagues. Pest control was done both manually (removing insects by hand from the plants) and using chemical insecticide. The project planned to start trials in 2011 with bio‐pesticide made from Jatropha oil. In Mozambique, preliminary research was done on combating locally occurring Jatropha pests and diseases by Flemming Nielsen and a student from UEM19 as part of the FACT‐ADPP project. Chemical pesticides

(containing Chlorpyrifos or Cyphenothrin) were found to work well against the devastating yellow flea beetle in Manica, but are not a feasible option for the poor small‐scale farmers targeted by the project in Cabo Delgado. However damage 18 Identificación de plagas, controladores biológicos y enfermedades en el cultivo de Piñón blanco (Jatropha curcas). INIA (Peru), 2010. 19 Implemented by Pomme Christiane Gagnaux (2007‐2009), Superviser Prof. Dr. Luisa Santos, UEM.

Redspotted beetle on Jatropha leaves in Kahama, Tanzania; observed in Africa as well as Latin America Redspotted beetle infesting Jatropha leaves in Tanzania


has been much less in Cabo Delgado than in Manica. At the time of the evaluation, the main problem reported by producers in Cabo Delgado was a termite infestation. Though no pesticide has been used so far, a kind of lime sediment (dichotomous earth) seems to be effective20, and could possibly be brought from nearby coastal areas. In Peru, the destruction of young Jatropha saplings by leaf‐cutter ants led to the decision to transplant seedlings from nurseries at a later stage. This reduced the damage but the ants still eat the leaves, stunt plant development and lead to reduced yields. A specific chemical pesticide was used for this (Tifon). Natural control methods were also used by cultivators, but were less effective than the pesticide.

Table 3: Jatrophainfesting pests and diseases signalled across the six countries Country Pest/Disease

(Local names and description) Damage characteristics

Honduras ‘Paloma Blanca’ or ‘Frijolera’ (White bird, not a pigeon or dove)

Picks and eats seed, even though poisonous (bird doesn’t seem to suffer)

Honduras Peru

Tanzania Zimbabwe Zambia

‘Chinche Punto Rojo’ (Red‐spotted black beetle)

Sucks the sap (including oil) from the fruit and damages leaves

Honduras ‘Chinche Pata de Hoja’ (Leaf‐footed bug) ‘Mosca Blanca’ (White fly)

Not known

Honduras Rats Eat the sowed seed from the ground

Honduras Leaf Spot (Common disease affecting maize that gets transmitted to Jatropha)

Transmitted by Helminihosporium Tetrameric and Cescosporas sp.

Mozambique Zimbabwe

Termites Infest plants that are already weak due to dry or water logged soils, can kill plants

Mozambique Yellow flea beetle (Aphthona dilutipes) Reduces plant growth, often killing the plants

Mozambique Golden flea beetle Not known Mozambique Rainbow shield bug (Calidea dregii) Not known Mozambique Green leaf mining caterpillar

(Stomphastis thraustica) Not known

Peru ‘Hormigas cortadoras de hojas’ (Leaf‐cutter ants, Atta cephalotes)

Attack and destroy young saplings

Peru ‘Cigarrita verde’ (Empoasca sp.) Attacks the leaves (causing them to curl up), retards florification and fructification; reported in extreme dry conditions

Peru ‘Ácaro blanco’ or ‘Hialino’ (Polyphagotarsonemus latus)

Sucks the sap from the leaves and arrests plant development

20 Flemming Nielsen (Banana Hill Consultants) and Jan de Jongh (Arrakis), informal communication


Zimbabwe Zambia

Beetles (brown,blue‐black, yellow‐black, red‐black)

Attack and damage leaves and fruit

Zimbabwe Leaf‐miner Attack leaf veins and damage leaves

Zimbabwe ‘Kind of black beetle’ Makes a ring around the stalk, causing stalk to break and tree often dies as a result

Zambia ‘Small yellow insect’ Forms white patches and causes leaves to curl up

Zambia Caterpillars Eat stalks Zambia Grasshoppers Attack small plants

In general when a species is introduced on a large scale (even though it may have been grown before on a small scale, like Jatropha in this case), it can take a while for the pests to set in. Typically there can be an intermediate period of susceptibility to pests, after which natural enemies have time to evolve/develop and pest infestation again recedes. However, pest damage was generally most severe in areas that showed signs of low soil fertility. Thus managing soil fertility could be an important means of controlling pest damage. Finally, some preliminary findings from Mozambique indicated that the time of planting affected insect density years after the Jatropha had been established. When planting is done during periods of high pest infestation, the pest pressure is also high in subsequent years.

Harvesting Harvesting is being done manually in all the projects. Apart from the capital investment involved in procuring a mechanical harvester that makes it difficult for smallholders, mechanised harvesting of Jatropha is complicated. The fruit don’t ripen together, and have to be harvested in stages over an extended period. The stage of maturity of the fruit is important for oil quality (see III.3). Though mechanical harvesters have now been developed for Jatropha harvesting and are being used for large‐scale production by some companies (in particular in Latin America, for example the Honduran company AGROIPSA has a mechanical harvester developed by BEI International using the ‘Jatropha Wave Picking Mechanism’)21, the initial investment costs (USD 180,000) and farming conditions (lack of space) make them unviable for smallholders. Some ‘partially mechanised’ harvesting alternatives may be worth considering where applicable. For example, the use of a trailer driven by a tractor (with picking still done by hand, and dropped in the trailer) enabled a picking rate of 12 to 20 kg per hour (only picking, no shelling) in Southern Mozambique. This would only be viable for widely spaced Jatropha plantations without intercrops. Different Accessions of Jatropha Curcas L. Jatropha is indigenous to Central America, and the maximum genetic diversity of Jatropha is observed in Central America and the northern part of South America. However at the Gota Verde project in Honduras, Central America, it was decided

21 Information source: Martijn Veen, SNV, Peru


to work with the foreign accessions Cabo Verde and India Salvadorena for their higher yields. But yields obtained by producers have turned out to be much lower than expected from these accessions. Moreover, suboptimal environmental conditions and climatic events led to considerable losses. The indigenous wild accessions give lower and unreliable yields (varying from plant to plant) but have other useful properties like resistance to pests and diseases and high tolerance for local soil conditions. Research on grafting between the high‐yielding Cabo Verde and wild indigenous varieties is underway at FHIA, and might offer some scope for the development of plants that are more tolerant as well as high yielding. The Gota Verde project has plans for setting up a seed bank for germplasm research in collaboration with Zamorano University, and might involve the FACT Foundation as well as the Jatropha network in Latin America. At the time when the CEDISA project was set up in Peru, the locally available accession ‘Totorillayco’ was identified17 by INIA as the most suitable material to work with, for its good adaptability to local conditions as well as good productivity (seed production) and oil content per seed, compared to other local material22. Since then, INIA has analysed 95 different accessions (both local and from elsewhere)22 for oil content and are analysing other properties like resistance to plagues, droughts and other local realities. In the end there is not much variation in oil content between the various accessions, and the amount/weight of fruit per tree as well as resilience to local conditions are considered more important. So far there are still large variations in fruit yield per tree for a given accession. INIA is also experimenting with grafting a different variety of Jatropha (not Jatropha Curcas but Jatropha Vocifellia, also called Pinon Rojo, which has high resistance against plagues and drought), onto a high‐yielding Jatropha Curcas accession like Cabo Verde. Genetic breeding experiments are also ongoing, for example between local Totorillayco and Caballococha accessions to attain an optimal combination of characteristics. Furthermore, accessions are being compared for their response to various crop management techniques like pruning, organic vs. chemical fertiliser etc. But it takes at least 3 years cultivation without maintenance techniques to establish a baseline, so it will still take a few years before concrete results can be obtained. In general a lot of genetic material is being used from the centre of origin of Jatropha Curcas (Central America), apart from foreign accessions, in order to have the most diverse genetic base.

There is very little genetic variation among accessions of Jatropha Curcas found in Africa. Since Jatropha was most likely brought to Africa from Central America via Cape Verde (by the Portuguese), it is believed that African accessions are all closely related to the Cabo Verde accession. However this has not yet been confirmed via research on genetic properties. One of the problems is the substantial amount of variation in properties of plants from a single accession. This could in principle come from difference in soil nutrient levels, other soil characteristics, or just management. Projects in Africa were in general not in contact with research institutes probing these questions, with the exception of Zimbabwe. At the University of Zimbabwe13, they have collected samples of 8

22 See Annex 4 in Chapter 4 (CEDISA project, Peru)


accessions from regions with different climate and soil types across Zimbabwe (including 2 from the project area of Mudzi), and are planning to collect germplasm from elsewhere as well to assess the yield possible from all accessions under local conditions. They also plan to do correlation studies to establish whether variations (in yield and other properties) come from the soil or from genetic factors. A lot of research is needed, and they don’t expect a newly bred accession for another ten years. In general, genetic breeding for better Jatropha accessions has tended to concentrate on optimising yield and oil content. However in the cases discussed in this meta evaluation, the main factor limiting viable crop production is insufficient returns for labour. While improved yield, can improve returns for labour to some extent, higher seed weight can do so more effectively, and should be one of the goals of further genetic research. For example a Nicaraguan accession with larger seed has been reported in the literature, and would be worth looking into, especially for projects in Central America and the vicinity. The optimisation of other characteristics like resistance to drought and to locally occurring pests and diseases will also be of great importance in improving returns from Jatropha production, especially for smallholders who cannot afford expensive inputs. Farmers in most of the projects involved here have suffered substantial Jatropha losses to drought. Finally, accessions with a smaller leaf canopy could enable more efficient intercropping. III PROCESSING: TECHNOLOGY AND VALUE ADDITION In general, the production cost of Jatropha PPO is still not viable. If biodiesel from Jatropha is to be competitive it should be priced at most at the same value as mineral diesel. Jatropha PPO (which is one stage before biodiesel in the production chain, and requires additional expenditure on adapting engines) should therefore be priced significantly below mineral diesel to be viable. Most projects—and other producers in the project areas‐‐are still not able to do this. The reason has to do with the economic double bind described in section I: seed price is either too low for adequate returns for agricultural labour or too high for cost‐effective PPO production that can compete with diesel, or—as is currently the case in most projects‐‐both. Oil quality control issues and‐‐in many cases‐‐the lack of efficient oil expellers, expensive engine adaptation technology and insufficient seed production volumes add to this economic double bind, as factors hampering viable PPO production. III.1 PPO PRODUCTION COST Jatropha PPO production costs remain too high for it to be viable for use as fuel to replace fossil diesel. This has been the case equally for PPO extraction within the project (as in the Gota Verde project in Honduras, the EAfrica project in Zimbabwe, and the FACT‐ADPP project in Mozambique) as for PPO production by buyers of seed from the project (the CEDISA project in Peru and the BiOEx project in Zambia). At the Mozambique project, the production cost of PPO (including VAT) was around 51 MZN (USD 1.9) per litre whereas diesel was priced locally at around 50 MZN per litre. Still PPO did not pass fuel standards, and quality control would add more costs to its production. At the BiOEx project in Zambia, the implementing partner NWBP (a private company) buying seed from farmers and


doing the oil extraction, is selling PPO at ZK 7000 per litre. The local price of diesel is around ZK 7860 per litre. Information on quality control was not available. According to NWBP, the price they pay farmers for seed (ZK 600 per kg) barely allows them to break even at this PPO price; however farmers are suffering a net loss at this seed price, which is not tenable. At the EAfrica project in Zimbabwe, PPO was being bought and sold at USD 3.0 per litre whereas fossil diesel costs USD 1.32 locally. There was little demand for PPO, and most of it was used to make soap for which there is demand, and quality control is not necessary for soap production. The CEDISA project in Peru was not involved in processing, but one of its local partners, the Leoncio Prado cooperative that buys seed from CEDISA producers, is extracting PPO and selling it for use as fuel to DRASAM. Their PPO production cost is 14.4 Peruvian soles per gallon (at a seed price of 1.0 soles per kg, which they pay their own producers) and 10.8 Peruvian soles per gallon (at a seed price of 0.7 soles per kg, which they pay other producers, like those of CEDISA). The local price of fossil diesel is 12.5 soles per gallon, which is also the price at which DRASAM buys Jatropha PPO for its vehicles. The LP cooperative is thus operating at a net loss by subsidising their own producers, and the price paid to CEDISA producers has again involved net losses from seed production on the part of producers. The main technical issues involved in improving the viability of using PPO as fuel have been described in sections III.2. to III.4 below. The potential for PPO use as fuel remains a central element in determining the viability of the Jatropha system, but it might take time to address all these issues. In the meantime however, the Jatropha production system offers the possibility for branching out to other products, as well as other uses of PPO (apart from in engines). PPO use in non‐fuel applications can avoid both the issue of price competitiveness with diesel, and issues relating to fuel quality standards. Production of other commodities like soap can enable better incomes via further value addition. And when PPO use as fuel does become viable and widespread, the oil that does not meet fuel standards can still be used to make soap and for other purposes. These possibilities have been discussed in section III.6. III.2 OIL EXTRACTION A wide range of extraction methods have been employed in the six projects, from basic hand presses used for soap production by the EAGs of EAfrica, Zimbawe to motorised presses used in Mozambique, and those ordered in large quantities (but not yet operational) by the TaTEDO project in Tanzania. Access to motorised presses seems to have been easier in Africa, possibly because the commonly used Sayari and Sundhara presses are manufactured in Tanzania. At the FACT‐ADPP project in Mozambique however, they have a Tanzanian Sayari press as well as a Double Elephant press made in China, and have ultimately found the latter to be more reliable. However technical expertise from Dajolka (Denmark) was needed to get it working smoothly. Expertise was not available locally, and the remoteness of the project location made it difficult to bring technicians from Maputo. This underscores the importance of local availability of technical expertise.


Two kinds of hand presses used in the Zimbabwe project could extract 1.0 and 2.7 litres of oil per hour respectively, using around 6 kg seed to produce 1 litre of oil. The more efficient one cost USD 50023 and the other cost USD 250. A farmers’ initiative at Kapiri Mposhi in Zambia (a separate initiative supported by SNV, not part of BiOEx) was using a hand press for soap production that could extract 1 litre from 3 kg seed. The two motorised presses (Sayari and Double Elephant) at the BBC (Bilibiza Biofuel Centre) of the Mozambique project can both extract around 12 litres of oil per hour, using around 5 kg seed for 1 litre of oil. The newly ordered Sayari presses at the TaTEDO project in Tanzania can extract 25 litres of oil per hour, using around 4 kg seed for producing 1 litre. On the other hand, at the BYSA plant of the Gota Verde project they were using a motorised expeller put together locally from used parts. It can extract around 2.2 litres of oil per hour, using between 7 and 9 kg seed to produce a litre. The extraction rate is around that of a hand press, and the efficiency even worse—certainly a better alternative should be possible for a centralised processing facility with technical personnel as is the case with BYSA. In any case, there seems to be significant variation in extraction capacity as well as efficiency in the case of both hand presses and motorised ones—and verification is needed as to whether the extraction capacities and efficiencies are indeed so different, or whether the different results had to do with difference in extraction conditions and quality of seed. Open sharing of information on pricing, sourcing and procurement would also be very helpful, since many projects did not have access to the first‐hand knowledge they needed to make an informed choice. III.3 FUEL STANDARDS Effective oil quality control is important if PPO is to be used as fuel in engines, otherwise it will not work efficiently and can damage the engine. In particular, the oil needs to pass fuel quality standards in terms of its FFA (free fatty acid) content, phosphorus content, and particulate matter content. The only project out of the six being reviewed here where the levels of these contaminants were actually measured is the FACT‐ADPP project in Mozambique24, where the oil was found to be too acidic for use in engines. In general the acid content should be lower than 2% for the oil to pass fuel quality standards. The levels of the other contaminants (mainly phosphorus and particulate matter) tend to reduce with acidity levels, and often don’t need independent control. While acid levels can be somewhat reduced via a neutralisation process involving the addition of caustic soda (in the Mozambique project, they managed to reduce it from 17% to 3% this way), this is tedious to do every time and a lot of oil gets lost as sediments in the process. Quality management along the entire seed and oil production chains will be a much more effective and sustainable way of improving oil quality over the long term. This will require monitoring of all activities for their potential impact on oil quality: from soil preparation for planting to training farmers at what stage to pick the seeds, to drying and storage techniques, processing conditions and distribution methods. In particular, there are indications that storage conditions and the stage at which seed is harvested 23 Manufactured in Zimbabwe by Tanroy Engineering 24 See section II.4.2 of Chapter 3 (FACT‐ADPP project, Mozambique) of this meta evaluation for details on quality control.


can affect oil quality. The temperature at which oil is extracted also affects oil quality. In terms of storage conditions15, high temperatures, temperature variations, and exposure to light and contact with fresh air should be avoided as much as possible. High temperatures activate enzymes in the oil that promote auto oxidation and an increase in FFA content. Exposure to fresh air under unstable storage conditions (like high temperature or temperature variation) can lead to the formation of peroxides that exacerbate oil instability. Storage in galvanised tanks can lead to the creation of polymers that can block fuel filters. Research from different sources indicates that the state of ripeness of fruit when it is picked (as indicated by the colour of the shells) can influence the acidity of the oil extracted. However mutually contradictory results have been reported on this from tests carried out in different places. At INIA in Peru it was found9 that oil from blackened and dried out fruit is the most acidic. On the other hand, testing10 at ASG Labs (Germany) of seed samples from Mali indicated that the green plus brown/black are within acceptable acidity levels, but the yellow ones were too acidic and had too much phosphorus. Information exchange on these aspects will be crucial for identifying the reasons for such different test results. In the absence of conclusive evidence, it seems safest to pick seeds when they are light brown, but not black. Access to laboratory expertise will thus be crucial for projects involving the use of Jatropha PPO as fuel in adapted engines, at least in the early stages, and may be difficult in the case of remote areas. However, remote areas have been identified as the most appropriate for energy generation via PPO use in diesel engines, since they are the least likely to be connected to national grids. This is therefore an issue that needs some forethought. Once factors determining quality are identified and addressed successfully, less frequent testing would be necessary to ensure sustained quality—in which case testing facilities don’t need to be on‐site, if it is convenient to send samples elsewhere for periodic analysis. In the case of the Mozambique project, samples were being sent to Germany for testing but now some possibilities within Mozambique24 have been identified in this regard. At the Gota Verde project, contact has recently been established with a laboratory in El Salvador to estimate the costs of oil quality control. While the CEDISA project is not producing PPO itself, quality control of Jatropha PPO produced in the region (and used in vehicles) has been possible at INIA, which has been a project partner. One project for which this issue needs urgent addressing is the TaTEDO project in Tanzania, where 50 MFPs are being installed in remote villages, each with a diesel engine that is to be powered by Jatropha PPO. Possibilities of quality control had not yet been addressed, and need serious attention in terms of access to laboratory expertise for each of the 50 installations. III.4 ENGINE ADAPTATION The original focus of the Gota Verde project (in terms of PPO use) was to run adapted vehicle engines on Jatropha PPO. A number of engines were adapted at


CEVER25 using single‐tank technology because kits were available from Denmark (via Niels Anso of Dajolka). However these vehicles are currently running on diesel or biodiesel because PPO production volumes have not been sufficient, and quality control issues have not yet been addressed. Furthermore, at USD 900, the engine conversion kits are not affordable for most people in the area. For this reason it was concluded that PPO use may not be viable for the transport sector. However they are still interested in exploring its use in other engines (i.e. to drive grain driers, milling machines, irrigation pumps etc.) for which simpler and cheaper adaptation technology should be adequate. For the transport sector the project decided to focus on biodiesel production. Biodiesel is currently being produced at the BYSA plant from waste vegetable oil. The plan is to later also produce biodiesel from Jatropha PPO, when greater production volumes are possible, more efficient expellers available, and mineral diesel prices high enough to make it viable (see next section). At the FACT‐ADPP project in Mozambique, two Chinese Feidong (Lister‐type) engines were adapted to run on PPO using two‐tank technology. One was used to supply power to the workshop (water pump, oil expellers etc.) and as a backup for the school centre. The two‐tank engine and stabiliser cost about USD13,000 all together. The other Feidong engine functions as the drive engine of the maize mill of the EPF school. There is also a plan to use such engines/generators for powering electric fences against elephants and other animals that are a major threat to crops in the area. The modifications included the addition of an extra tank for PPO and was carried by Niels Anso (of Dajolka) using imported parts from Denmark, at a total cost of around € 200 (USD 264). Contrary to claims in the literature that Lister‐type engines can be run on both diesel and PPO without modification (except for adding an extra filter), it was found that modifications were necessary for dealing with the high viscosity of the Jatropha PPO. An independent study of the Engaruka MFP in Tanzania also26 concluded that adaptation (a second tank) was needed even for Lister engines. The principle employed at the FACT‐ADPP project was to use the diesel tank for starting up the engines (since Jatropha PPO is too viscous in a cold state), and thereafter to use the water circulating in the pipes (used for cooling the engines) to pre‐heat the Jatropha PPO to reduce its viscosity. In addition, one vehicle (a Nissan 4Wd) was adapted using single‐tank technology (also by N. Anso of Dajolka) at a cost of around € 700 (USD 925). However, none of these modified engines is currently running on Jatropha PPO. Production costs (see III.1), quality control issues (see III.3) and lack of sufficient production volume have prevented Jatropha PPO use in engines. All the engines have been running since last year on edible (sunflower) oil bought externally. Before last year, fossil diesel was being used. Sunflower oil is being bought to run the engines at 45 MZN/litre. Diesel costs 50 MZN/litre locally, possibly a bit more in remote areas due to transport costs.

25 Processing and technology‐related activities of BYSA and the project were originally taking place at CEVER, a technical training institute in Yoro town. BYSA now has its own facility.

26 Jatropha oil for rural electrification in Tanzania; a case of Engaruka; MSc. Thesis Inge Wijgerse (TU Eindhoven, 2007)


In Peru, the CEDISA project has not been involved in processing and technology aspects. However, Jatropha PPO produced by a few local partners like the Leoncio Prado (LP) Cooperative and Grupo Tello (and some also by Agrobiofuels Peru) is being used in a few vehicles (two pick‐up trucks belonging to DRASAM27 and one transport truck belonging to the Leoncio Prado Cooperative). The engines have

been adapted for the purpose using single‐tank technology with imported kits from Elsbett, Germany that cost between USD 1200 and 1500. While the cost is again not tenable for repetition on a regular basis, local technical experts (from Grupo Tello for instance) felt the adaptation was actually quite simple and could be done locally for around 500 Peruvian soles (USD 185). Apart from charging a lot more, companies like

Elsbett do not share the adaptation technology (the adaptations are carried out by their own experts), so their interventions are not beneficial for the local economy. III.5 INNOVATIVE USE & APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY From the perspective of enabling appropriate technology for sustainable development, two important categories of PPO use as fuel can be identified that can engender multiplicative benefits for producers, and that should be prioritised:

1. Innovative self‐enhancing production: PPO use as fuel for powering applications that feed back into the production system and increase its efficiency. Some examples are: tractors, motorised oil expellers, irrigation pumps, grain driers and grain mills. Another example that may be useful in Mozambique is for powering electric fences to keep wild animals away from crops. Such applications serve the dual purpose of boosting production (of Jatropha and PPO itself, or of other crops) while enhancing demand for PPO and enabling a self‐contained production system. 2. Spurring transformational development: PPO use as fuel in applications that improve access to household electricity, especially in areas not covered by national grids or where grid electricity is either too expensive or unreliable. While there are several benefits, just the single one of light provision for reading and education purposes is enough to justify the need for this type of application. This has also been identified as their top priority by almost all beneficiaries of all the projects.

27 The agricultural organ of the regional government of San Martin, where the CEDISA project is based

DRASAM vehicle running on Jatropha PPO

(San Martin, Peru)


While the circumstances already discussed have prevented the use of Jatropha PPO in such applications in any of the six projects, adapted engines at the FACT‐ADPP project in Mozambique are powering a grain mill, oil expeller and water pump, and serving as a backup for the school centre. They are currently not running on Jatropha PPO but can do so when enough is available and quality control issues have been addressed. The MFPs in the TaTEDO project in Tanzania are also geared towards providing some of these services, but have not yet been installed—and have not yet looked into engine adaptation and quality control issues. The objective of improving household electricity access can also not yet be achieved because there was not enough money for mini‐grid installation. Finally, at the Gota Verde project, they are using irrigation pumps already and might explore the potential of running these on Jatropha PPO once this is viable, as well as of using PPO to power a motorised expeller—and possibly a motorised shelling machine, since they are manufacturing shelling machines themselves. III.6 OTHER PRODUCTS AND USES In principle there are several other possible uses for Jatropha PPO apart from replacing diesel as fuel in engines. While its use as fuel is currently not viable because of the various reasons discussed above, its other uses for (among other things) soap production, bio‐pesticide, biodiesel, and in lanterns and stoves should be developed further. There are also several uses for its by‐products (seedcake, shells and husks) as fuel and fertiliser.

III.6.1 Soap Soap production in principle offers substantial income benefits to producers compared to mere seed production for sale, as described in section II.4.5 in Chapters 2 to 7, and the associated tables. When oil is viable for use as fuel, the oil that does not meet fuel standards can still be used for soap. However, only two of the six projects have actually engaged in soap production: Gota Verde in Honduras, and the Environment Africa project in Mudzi, Zimbabwe. At Gota Verde, the soap was produced at the BYSA plant by technical staff. Producers were not involved. The soap is of high quality (and relatively high price) and therefore more geared towards wider national markets; local demand for it has been low. Some soap was sold in 2010 in bars of 100g for around USD 1.05 (production cost USD 0.50). At the EAfrica project in Mudzi, Zimbabwe, the situation was more or less the polar opposite. Producers in Mudzi are extracting their own Jatropha oil using hand presses and making soap, which is in high local demand. It is being sold locally for USD 1.0 per 750g bar as opposed to the other soap on the market, which costs USD 2.0 per kg. Many shops in Mudzi are stocking the Jatropha soap. But the profit margin for producers has been low. Returns for labour are around USD 3.0 per day, considerably better than from seed sale at USD 0.8 to 1.6 per day. However, when compared to the minimum wage for agricultural labour of USD 2.3 per day, this is not a very favourable income generation rate for an activity that is quite advanced along the production chain, and should therefore benefit a lot more from value addition. The paradox is that oil production generates around USD 6.0 per day. There is thus a distortion in the Jatropha


micro‐economy. The profit margin is negative for producers who buy seed or oil for making soap. Normally this would mean that the chain should stop at oil

extraction—but there is demand for soap, and not for PPO. A number of other factors (apart from high demand for soap vs. low demand for oil) also contribute, including the disproportionately inflated price set for PPO locally ($3 per litre while diesel costs $1.32 and paraffin $2 per litre), and the high price of chemicals like caustic soda in Zimbabwe (between USD 5.0 and 6.0 per kg, slightly cheaper if bought in bulk), and inefficient seed and oil production rates. Improved seed production efficiency (from improved yield and mechanised

shelling) combined with more efficient oil extraction (motorised presses) will reduce the labour input in PPO production. The price of PPO can then be reduced, and profit margins from soap production increased.

However there is scope for expansion incorporating these two opposite experiences. At the Gota Verde project, soap production can be an opportunity for directly involving producers in value adding activities. Oil extraction could be carried out within the communities to make cheaper soap that can be sold locally. On the other hand BYSA could market its quality soap at higher prices in national markets for better profit margins. In the communities oil could be extracted with hand presses, or by using a mobile oil extractor (mounted on a truck), possibly facilitated by BYSA. Alternatively, oil could be bought from BYSA via an ‘oil for seed’ barter arrangement for making soap in the villages. The CEDISA project in Peru might also consider such a model for a follow‐up to the project, in order to enable producers (especially women) to supplement their incomes. At the EAfrica project on the other hand they could explore the potential for production of better quality soap (possibly incorporating natural and indigenous aromas) to enable better profit margins for producers. This could be sold in wider national markets for health and nature products. Cheaper soap production could continue for local markets. Among other aspects, testing at FHIA in Honduras11 showed that the white inner kernel of the seed was better for (quality) soap than the whole brown seed. For PPO and biodiesel production there was no difference between the two.

Estimates have also been made during the evaluation of the potential for soap production as part of the other projects in Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia. In general in these three countries producers could earn between 8 and 14 times what they would earn from selling seed. This has been shown in section II.4.5 and Table 4 of Chapter 3, section and II.4.5 and Table 2 of Chapter 5, and section II.4 of Chapter 6, though these estimates don’t take into account initial costs of equipment and of equipment depreciation with use. At the FACT‐ADPP project in

Fadzanai EAG members with box of soap, one bar placed on top (EAfrica project, Zimbabwe)


Mozambique, some trials were done and some soap sold locally for 100 MZN (USD 3.7). Even though this is not cheap, there appeared to be enough demand for it in Cabo Delgado for its special properties and better appearance than the cheapest brown soap. In Zambia, the BiOEx project only buys seed from producers. However, some producers of Kasempa cooperative in NWP took their own initiative and starting making soap using a hand press for oil extraction. As out‐growers they were contracted to sell all their seed to NWBP, so had to buy seed externally at a higher price (they sell at ZK 600 per kg and buy at ZK 850 to 1000 per kg, as part of this strange construction). Now they are starting to buy PPO back from NWBP in an‘oil for seed’ barter arrangement (involving seed at ZK 600 per kg for oil at ZK 7000 per litre) for making soap. There is a SNV‐supported precedent in Kapiri Mposhi in Zambia where producers make and sell 100g bars for ZK 2500 (USD 0.48). Again this is more expensive than other soaps on the market, but people buy it for its special properties. Finally, in Tanzania, two TaTEDO partners (JPTL and Kakute) have been making and selling Jatropha soap for TZS 500 per 100g bar, and significant benefits for producers could be facilitated via soap production while PPO is not yet used as fuel in MFPs. When MFPs are operational, local soap production would augment demand for MFP oil extraction services, as well as provide a market for oil that does not meet fuel quality standards. III.6.2 Biopesticide At the Gota Verde project they have started to explore the effectiveness of bio‐pesticide made from Jatropha PPO. They used a formula obtained from Brazil that was reputed to work well against many pests that infest Jatropha plants (among others). Trials would begin with the first occurrences of infestation in 2011. The Honduran agricultural institute FHIA has also been involved in investigating whether it can be effective against other crops—in which case the market would be substantially larger. While no oil extraction is taking place under the CEDISA project in Peru, the Leoncio Prado Cooperative (set up by DED), which is a local CEDISA partner in San Martin (and buyer of seed from CEDISA producers) has been selling Jatropha PPO for use as bio‐pesticide at a profitable price of 18.0 Peruvian soles per gallon, compared to the price of 12.5 Peruvian soles per gallon (equal to the local diesel price) that they get for PPO that is used for diesel replacement in adapted vehicle engines. There are thus indications of a burgeoning market for bio‐pesticide production from Jatropha PPO in Latin America. In the African projects on the other hand there was little knowledge of this possibility. It was mentioned however that some of the trials involving bio‐pesticide by project partner UEM of the FACT/ADPP project in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, had included Jatropha soap/PPO. But they had thereafter discontinued their collaboration and the results of the trials were not available. None of the other 3 projects in Africa—or their local partners in the area—were considering this potential use of Jatropha PPO. However it appears that an organisation in Tanzania had done some trials some years ago and found it to be effective on cotton. It would be useful to carry


out some trials and explore the potential for a wider market in Africa, as well as to share experiences. III.6.3 Lanterns and Stoves While access to electricity for better quality household lighting must remain the most important goal (in line with education, health and development priorities), portable lanterns will remain indispensable for many other purposes. Replacement of kerosene by Jatropha PPO in lanterns can result in substantial long‐term savings (especially if running on self‐produced Jatropha PPO) and health benefits. Kerosene is expensive; kerosene lanterns also consume twice as much fuel and are known to cause respiratory illness. TaTEDO project partner JPTL in Tanzania claim to have surmounted the problem of high viscosity with a simple wick lantern that runs on Jatropha PPO and is constructed from spare parts that are easily available even in rural Tanzania. The main element here is a central copper rod that enables fast heating and thinning out of the PPO so it can rise easily in the wick. The lantern has a glass cover locally used for kerosene lanterns that is held in place with used bicycle spokes. Its base is made from an old coffee container that is filled with oil. It can run for 80 hours on 1 litre of Jatropha PPO. The cost of the lamp was estimated at TZS 3500 (USD 2.2). However not much has been done in terms of dissemination of this model. In Zimbabwe the Binga lamp was devised by Binga Trees to run on Jatropha oil. It was based on a floating wick design, which kept the wick at a constant short distance (1 or 2mm) above the oil surface. However, an attempt to reproduce this in Mudzi was not very successful, though it helped when the oil was pre‐heated. Producers ultimately preferred to use paraffin lamps. Candles made of Jatropha seed strung together are also being used. Firewood is the preferred fuel in cooking stoves in the local communities involved in all these six projects, and a viable alternative based on Jatropha PPO can offer considerable benefits. The replacement of firewood would help reduce deforestation, create better opportunities for women by eliminating the need for wood collection, and improve respiratory health. A number of projects have expressed interest in the pressure stove that can run on Jatropha PPO, developed in Germany by the University of Hohenheim (see Chapter 1, section II.8.4), but have not been able to procure one to try it out. In terms of local technology development, JPTL and Kakute in Tanzania have been experimenting with various stove models, including those that can use Jatropha seed directly (without oil extraction). At the moment these are not very energy‐efficient, but JPTL are working on improvements. These stoves can function for about 1.5 hours on 700g of Jatropha seed. In collaboration with the University of Dar‐es‐Salaam, JPTL is also working on improved stoves that can run on Jatropha PPO, whose high viscosity still poses a problem. In addition there is potential for using briquettes (made from Jatropha seedcake or shells and husks; see next section) in cooking stoves to replace firewood. This is an area that has been comparatively unexplored, and needs further investigation. III.6.4 Byproducts: Seedcake, Shells and Husks


Jatropha seedcake has both high calorific and high nutritional content. The calorific value gets wasted by using it solely as fertiliser, whereas the nutritional content remains more or less intact in the effluent or residue left over after biogas generation, or the ash left from briquette burning. It would therefore appear that the primary optimal use of seedcake would be as fuel for biogas generation or for making briquettes. In the absence of such possibilities, its direct use as fertiliser should be facilitated in order to ensure the replenishment of soil nutrients. While its effectiveness as fertiliser is generally accepted, there appear to be doubts from some quarters based on the fact that its toxicity can reduce soil aeration by killing worms (see section II.3.2), which need verification. In most of the projects producers have not had access to seedcake since they are not extracting oil themselves. One exception is the EAfrica project in Zimbabwe, where they are extracting oil for soap production using hand presses. They have used the seedcake to fertilise their maize fields, and have found it effective, though they may not be using it optimally (see II.3.2). As far as biogas production is concerned, trials have been done at BYSA in the Gota Verde project for using biogas (generated from Jatropha seedcake) to provide electricity for the BYSA processing centre at the outskirts of Yoro town in Honduras. So far there is not enough seedcake for anything more than trials, since very little oil is being extracted, seed production volumes are low, and a lot of seed is being sold for planting purposes at higher prices. However the project was planning a follow‐up proposal for funding for its biogas generation facility. None of the other projects have engaged in biogas generation, though the TaTEDO project in Tanzania might consider it once seed production volumes are high enough, and depending on how things go in terms of electricity generation via the MFPs. In case they decide to go into it, there is enough expertise available at the SEDC28 facility (see Chapter 5) and with Diligent in Tanzania. At SEDC at the outskirts of Dar‐es‐Salaam, they have set up three models of biogas digester at the SEDC Centre, for research purposes. They were all operating on kitchen waste (vegetable and fruit peels, etc.) and animal dung. The plan is to try them out with Jatropha seedcake once enough is available. The EAfrica project also originally had plans for engaging in biogas production from seedcake, but these had to be shelved due to the withdrawal of a prospective project partner that was to provide support in this area. The government of Zimbabwe is currently looking into the potential for large‐scale Jatropha seedcake production for use as fodder (after detoxification) for the pig industry—a very important sector nationally, also for export to countries like South Africa. Briquette production from seedcake (to substitute firewood in cooking stoves) has not been tried by any of the projects. The energy (calorific) content of

28 Sustainable Energy and Development Centre


briquettes is very high, but a lot of smoke is emitted when they burn. They are therefore not recommended for indoor use. Projects like the EAfrica project might want to try to encourage briquette production by the EAGs, since producers have easy access to seedcake. The ash left over from briquette burning is still usable as fertiliser, but concrete results on its efficacy were not available. Briquette production is also possible from Jatropha shells and husks. However very little knowledge was available on this. This is one area that could be useful for all projects to develop (if viable) since all producers have access to shells and husks. Since they tend to do the shelling near their homesteads, briquette production may be more viable than direct use of shells as fertiliser, which many producers don’t exploit because their fields are often far from their homesteads. The ash left over after briquette burning would be also more compact and easier to transport to the fields. III.7 BIODIESEL None of the projects is producing biodiesel from Jatropha PPO. This does not look viable at the moment, since even PPO production is not viable in most cases. In any case biodiesel production is recommended only when it can be done in large quantities at centralised facilities by technically qualified personnel. At the Gota Verde project where they do have such a centralised processing facility at the BYSA plant, they have been producing biodiesel from waste vegetable oil (WVO) instead. Methanol that evaporates during biodiesel production is recuperated with a specially devised methanol recuperator and re‐used; this also prevents its leakage. Biodiesel production from WVO has turned out to be quite lucrative since the used oil can be bought very cheap from fast food chains, and it will also enable continuity (same equipment and expertise) when biodiesel production from Jatropha oil becomes viable in terms of price. This is expected to happen when the market price of mineral diesel reaches around L.81 to 85 per gallon; it is currently (in 2011) L.73 per gallon. Biodiesel from WVO is being produced at a cost of L.38 per gallon. IV PROFIT SHARING AND MARKETING The six projects evaluated here have employed a wide range of different business and marketing models. 1. Gota Verde, Honduras: Producers as shareholders in the private processing

enterprise BYSA, ultimately sharing the profits 2. FACT‐ADPP, Mozambique: Producers as sellers of seed to the project for

running generators for EPF school and training centre, and project processing workshop (BBC)

3. TaTEDO, Tanzania: Producers as sellers of seed to MFPs that would ultimately provide energy services to the community

4. CEDISA, Peru: Producers as sellers of seed to local processing enterprises 5. BiOEx, Zambia: Producers as outgrowers for NWBP, Zambia, a private

company


6. Environment Africa, Zimbabwe: Producers organised in Environmental Action Groups (EAGs) extracting oil from seed and making soap and other products

Among these, two in particular can be identified as innovative and equitable business models that can optimise producers’ share of gains. Though neither has yet generated net income benefits for producers, the structure is in place for equitable benefit sharing once the Jatropha system becomes more profitable: • BYSA model (Honduras): With the formation of BYSA, an enterprise partly

owned by producers themselves and partly by FUNDER, the Gota Verde project offers unique possibilities in terms of combining pro‐poor small‐scale biofuel production with efficiency and economy of scale. The model employed, whereby BYSA buys up all seed produced and finds the most lucrative markets and applications, (with producers ultimately sharing the profit) seems the most efficient and equitable in the long term.

• EAG model (Zimbabwe): The EAG model introduced by Environment Africa has enabled farmers to organise in groups for collective processing (oil extraction and soap production) and income generation activities. Each EAG is autonomous, and has created its own business model within this structure, some choosing to divide the profit, others to spend it on local social welfare like education and pensions for senior women, while yet others have chosen to re‐invest it in community bakeries.

The enterprise BYSA at the Gota Verde project has been operating at a net loss so far. While it started making a net profit in 2010‐2011, the profit made over the next three to four years will have to be re‐invested in the enterprise, especially for procuring better equipment. Only after that will it be divided among shareholders. While the structure of the enterprise is very promising in terms of eventual gains for producers, the long gestation period of Jatropha as a crop combined with the short‐term horizons of small‐scale producers results in an augmented risk that producers might lose interest in the meantime. However BYSA’s role in the Gota Verde project as an intermediary between producers and eventual buyers has been an asset for negotiating prices, administration and access to technology for processing. For example, the development and marketing of Jatropha shelling machines and the sale of quality Jatropha seed (for planting/propagation) at high prices have been lucrative stopgap measures enabling income for BYSA during the gestation period of the Jatropha system. Part of the profit from selling seed for planting is shared with producers, giving them substantially better returns for labour (see Table 1) than is possible from seed produced for processing. However, this is a short‐lived market, and more work (development and marketing) is needed to promote the local use of Jatropha PPO for soap, bio‐pesticide, and possibly in stoves. Along with the use of PPO as fuel when viable, these will contribute much more to the entrenchment of a Jatropha‐based micro‐economy. The introduction by BYSA of Peces, a special local currency for transactions within this micro‐economy can enhance this effect, and has already created a sense of ownership within the community of participant small enterprises.


The EAGs in the EAfrica project in Zimbabwe have also been operating at a net loss, though some are just starting to make a small profit. Profit margins on soap production, the main activity, are very low, but can be improved substantially with the introduction of shelling machines, motorised oil expellers and better crop management. Via autonomy in terms of ownership and decision‐making, the model offers long‐term empowerment potential for the community, especially for women, since 80% of the EAG members involved in Jatropha processing are female. The equitability of the business model of the TaTEDO project in Tanzania will depend on the type of contract signed between the MFP owners/entrepreneurs and producers. It will be important to monitor these contracts to ensure economic benefits and fairness for producers, in particular that: o Farmers defaulting (in case of crop failure due to weather conditions or other uncertainties related to Jatropha production) on contracts with the MFP owner to provide a certain volume of seed are protected and not held liable

o The price paid for seed is upgraded regularly so that Jatropha production remains competitive with other farm activities

o Producers can sell their excess seed elsewhere or process it for their own use (for soap, lanterns etc.) or for sale (for instance for bio‐pesticide production or other potentially lucrative uses)

At the BiOEx project in Zambia producers formed liability groups of five or more to sign a contract with NWBP. The contract obliges them to sell all their seed to NWBP for eight years at a price that is 8% the price of diesel. Currently farmers are being paid ZK 600 per kg for seed, and have incurred net losses by cultivating Jatropha. Those who want to make their own soap have to buy seed externally at higher prices because all their own seed goes to NWBP. However, with the termination of the project, the farmers’ association NOWEGA7 will be taking over extension work from NWBP, and all producers will be NOWEGA members. There may be scope (at association level) for renegotiating contracts on the grounds that farmers had no support in analysing the consequences of the original contracts. NOWEGA may also help strengthen farmers’ negotiation power on seed prices and the possibility of engaging in value adding activities. At the FACT‐ADPP project producers sell seed to the project processing facility BBC (Bilibiza Biofuel Centre). However farmers have sold outside the project since external buyers do come round and offer higher prices, especially for seed for planting, and this could be a potential hurdle for the project since there has been some loss of trust between the project and producers. Alternative models for distribution and marketing of seed might alleviate this problem, like the BYSA model whereby the sale of seed and other products would be the responsibility of a central cooperative enterprise that could decide to take advantage of such lucrative short‐lived markets, with profits shared by member producers. The cooperative could double as a centre for marketing other crucial cash crops like sesame, eliminating the profits pocketed by middlemen.


While CEDISA producers in Peru have benefited from other components of the agro‐forestry system, the net income from Jatropha has been negative. Producers’ involvement in Jatropha is restricted to the sale of seed. The project is looking for viable markets among the various local Jatropha processing initiatives, but income benefits for producers were minimal in prospective agreements, and terms often involved unfavourable terms like the use of producers’ land as collateral in mortgage arrangement with banks providing credit (a risky business given the losses that are being incurred by climatic events and plagues that jeopardise producers’ ability to pay back) and commitments to sell all their seed to the company at a fixed price for a long period of time (while prices are likely to increase considerably in the coming years). The project might want to expand to processing activities itself to avoid getting into such deals. V CREDIT ACCESS AND RISK SHARING (INSURANCE) Access to long‐term credit for inputs under flexible conditions can be a determining factor for the viability of Jatropha production by smallholders, given the long gestation period of the crop and all the associated uncertainties, as well as the short‐term horizon of most smallholders. Only the Gota Verde project has managed to facilitate this, via their Gota Verde Investment Fund. They allow for longer‐term payback of credit for Jatropha under more flexible conditions than for other crops. Payback conditions are based on productivity, and repayment is usually with seeds. The scheme was designed so that producers are not in default if the land is not producing enough. In addition debts incurred by losses that could not be covered were forgiven. This was the part where non‐payment could be attributed to reasons like bad seed germination, loss of plantations to hurricane 16 in 2008, low yields and losses due to heavy rains, bad selection of terrain and low population density. Insurance against climatic events was introduced in the scheme from 2010 in order to alleviate future adverse impacts on producers. Credit was also extended for the provision of irrigation systems with support from the project. While in most countries credit is crop‐based, and available for major food crops from the government, credit unions or banks, this is not yet the case for Jatropha. Also in many cases the conditions for payback are unfavourable and producers prefer not to apply for it (for instance in Peru). In Zimbabwe Jatropha has been declared a national crop, so may be eligible for credit from the government or the Zimbabwe Farmers Union (ZFU). But again smallholders generally don’t apply for it because of unfavourable conditions, For example, if there’s a drought, they cannot pay back on time and their assets can be confiscated. The interest charged is also rather high at 16 to 18%, and inputs are expensive in Zimbabwe. In terms of agricultural insurance again the Gota Verde project is to be lauded as the only one that provided access to it for producers. Producers did need some support for selecting appropriate policies and for understanding terms and conditions. As a result some had not managed to claim on time. However this was their first year with the policy—and presumably will not happen again too often. Agricultural insurance is generally not available for any crop in any of the other countries, except perhaps for large commercial plantations. For Jatropha it is even less likely, given that its agronomy is comparatively less understood. Given


the uncertainties regarding Jatropha and the losses producers have suffered to drought and other calamities, the lack of access to risk sharing arrangements is a serious disadvantage. VI GENDER Some projects involved a higher proportion of female beneficiaries than others, but in general the proportion of female beneficiaries remained between 5% and 25%, with the EAfrica project being an exception at 80% female participation, probably due to the soap production element. In the case of crop production activities it is not clear whether mere inclusion of women improves gender equality when other aspects like land ownership and related decision‐making processes are clearly male‐dominated. The African projects all operate in areas where land ownership is governed by customary law. While formal legal systems have changed to allow for female ownership, the de facto situation is that ‘traditional’ or ‘customary’ systems of land allocation, universally overseen by men (as chiefs and headmen), favour the allocation of land to men29. Often even widows don’t inherit their husband’s land. Most women work on the land of their spouses for little remuneration. They tend to work more hours on the average than men, participating equally in agriculture while also tending to domestic chores and child rearing. In the two Latin American projects, most producers have land titles now (even in indigenous communities), but male ownership is still the pattern, except in the case of single women and widows. In Peru a recent legislation allowing for collective ownership led to some cases among producers of joint ownership by a couple. However female representation was low in the two projects (5% for the CEDISA project, and 11% for Gota Verde). One reason is that land ownership was a condition for inclusion in the Gota Verde project, so all the 36 women involved own the land they work on. While this condition restricts the entry of most women, it could also have positive knock-on effects of demonstrating the advantages of land ownership by women. In general it was found (in both Honduras and Peru) that the inclusion of women from indigenous communities was sometimes easier due to communal land rights. Their inclusion enabled some indirect intervention and support by the CEDISA project in cases of domestic violence, which is quite high among the Quechua communities of Peru. Involvement in processing activities offer a way out for facilitating female ownership of Jatropha income generation processes and production systems. In that sense there has been more progress in Africa than in Latin America, especially for the production of soap from Jatropha. The Jatropha production system has often involved more women than men in Africa. This has been attributed30 to a number of factors: firstly, because Jatropha‐based products (soap, floor polish, oil for lanterns, etc.) have household applications that are interesting to women. Secondly because benefits from Jatropha production accrue over a period of time and the initial levels of return are low. Women tend to have higher levels of patience and long‐term planning abilities in this regard. 29 Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Myths and Realities, Scoones et al., James Currey, London, 2010. 30 Women’s Roles in the National Jatropha Growing Project (by Sithabiso Gandure)


Among the African projects being reviewed here, the EAfrica project in Zimbabwe is the only one to have realised the potential for female entrepreneurship in remunerative activities. Membership of EAGs is 80% female, often with female presidents. Members of each EAG autonomously select a profit sharing system (see section IV). While income benefits are still low, the engagement of women in prospectively

lucrative activity has often forced a renegotiation of the traditional division of tasks, which could work towards women’s benefit and empowerment. For example the women of Chimukoko EAG reported that they had made arrangements with the men for an adjustment of responsibilities when they started out on this project, so the men now fetch the water and the firewood, and tend to the gardens while the women engage in soap production. In the other three African projects there is also a lot of scope for such activity. At the FACT‐ADPP project

in Mozambique, women of the Bilibiza farmers’ club were trained in soap making at a workshop. They were allowed to take back the soap for their own use, and are now interested in producing larger amounts for sale, for which there appears to be considerable potential (see III.6.1). They might soon procure oil from the BBC via an ‘oil for seed’ barter system. Soap production initiatives are burgeoning among the producers of the BiOEx project (independently of the project) in Zambia, despite the fact that they have to sell all their seed to NWBP and buy seed or oil externally, and could do with some support. In Tanzania there are many precedents on Jatropha soap making (see III.6.1). Follow‐up activities in this direction involving women can be set up quite easily. Small-scale processing activities like soap production by local communities have occurred less frequently in Latin America, which might explain the lower female participation in the Jatropha production system. In principle this model (decentralised oil extraction and soap production, see III.6.1) is something that could be considered by the Gota Verde and CEDISA projects to enable female participation in value addition, including female members of producer families. The replacement of firewood as fuel for cooking stoves by Jatropha PPO, biogas or fuel briquettes is another element that can improve gender equality by freeing up women’s time for educational and more remunerative activities, as can partial mechanisation (with shelling machines and motorised expellers) in the case of seed production and oil extraction. In this case parallel support might help women engage in small enterprises (bakeries, soap production, mat‐making etc.) instead of increasing their domestic non‐remunerative activity.

Women of Chimukoko EAG (EAfrica Project, Zimbawe)


Apart from land ownership and participation in (and ownership of) value‐adding activities, the presence of women in leadership positions (extension workers, technical officers, para‐technicians, MFP owners) can go a long way in addressing gender disparity. In this respect, none of the six projects did very well. Only one project (Gota Verde) had a female technical officer (out of the 4 technical officers for the project). Female leadership can have knock‐on effects in terms of serving as a role model for other female project beneficiaries. In the four African projects, it can also play an additional role since interaction between men and women is often discouraged in the rural areas where the projects are based, and extension workers and local project staff are almost always male. As a result female producers often don’t have access to first‐hand training and information.

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

Returns for labour from Jatropha seed production for processing are not viable for farmers at present. Returns for labour can be improved over the long term with: o Higher Seed Price: More efficient PPO production and a rise in fossil fuel prices will facilitate this

o Larger seed and higher seed weight: Selection of accessions, hybridisation and genetic breeding will enable this

o Better Yield: Better understanding of Jatropha agronomy and improved crop management will be crucial, underscoring the need for regular upgrading via contact with research facilities

o Shelling Machines: These are already available and procurement is recommended

Meanwhile, producers’ incomes can be supplemented by accessing lucrative markets for seed for planting. While these are short‐lived, the high prices offered can help tide over initial investment costs and losses due to the long gestation period of Jatropha productivity. These prices will also be less subject to volatility than prices for seed for processing. Such stopgap arrangements can best be made via a central marketing facility like BYSA that buys up seed from producers and finds the most lucrative markets.

Gota Verde Technical Officer

Noelia Bonilla


A better ratio of extension workers to producers will be necessary for Jatropha, a crop with relatively uncertain agronomic characteristics. Regular updating and monitoring of producers knowledge levels to gauge the need for extra training is also crucial. Integrated organic Jatropha farming methods employing biological control, organic fertiliser and bio‐pesticide, animals for weeding and fertilisation and pest control, and honeybees for pollination should be explored for potential improvement in returns for labour PPO production for use as fuel is still not viable. Its viability will improve with: o Better extraction facilities: Efficient oil expellers are already available, and information sharing between projects can be helpful

o Rise of fossil fuel prices: Expected over the long‐term, though there may be fluctuations, emphasising the need for stopgap measures to enable a sustained income for producers

o Quality control: The entire Jatropha production chain (from seed planting to oil distribution) will need to be monitored for impacts on oil quality

While PPO is not viable for use in engines, other income benefits possible from the Jatropha system should be facilitated for producers. These include soap production and PPO use as bio‐pesticide. PPO use in lanterns and stoves has much potential but will depend on the development of effective and cost‐effective models. Again a central marketing facility as well as information sharing will be important for identifying markets for less developed products like bio‐pesticide, and for assessing markets for adapted stoves and lamps. The use of Jatropha by‐products (as fertiliser, for making briquettes and for biogas generation) needs optimisation, which can be greatly facilitated by information sharing on the practicalities of implementation in smallholder communities. Where possible, their primary use as fuel (biogas, briquettes) followed by the use of the residue for fertiliser would be most efficient. When PPO is viable for use in engines, these other applications will provide a market for oil that does not meet fuel standards. Their parallel development (by the same projects) can thus enable eventual complimentary use instead of competition for the same raw material. When PPO is viable for use in engines, the following applications should be prioritised for their knock‐on effects facilitating sustainable development: o Innovative technology for selfenhancing production: Applications that boost demand for PPO while enhancing production efficiency (for example: irrigation pumps, grain mills, oil expellers)


o Access to household electricity: Enabling transformational development goals like education for children (and adults)

The following aspects will be crucial for reducing gender disparity: o Female ownership of Jatropha income generation processes and production

systems: while female ownership of crop production systems is hampered by prevailing structures that favour male land ownership, women’s engagement in lucrative Jatropha processing enterprises offers potential for control of income and decision making, as well as a re-negotiation of traditional and non-remunerative tasks

o Female Leadership: More women technical officers, agricultural extension officers, trainers and para‐technicians, zone leaders and MFP entrepreneurs to serve as role models, and also to enhance first‐hand training of female producers

o Replacement of firewood as fuel: Firewood collection is generally delegated to women, and is time‐consuming, tedious and often dangerous. The us of PPO or fuel briquettes in cooking stoves will free up time for women to engage in more educational or lucrative activities

Jatropha projects all over the world face similar obstacles, and often devise solutions that can be of help to other similar projects. However little contact is maintained between projects, especially when they are located on different continents. More clarity and information sharing are needed to address open questions and mutually contradictory observations relating to the Jatropha production system, both among different projects and between projects and research institutions. Open information sharing via a website would be one way to facilitate this. Among these issues are: o Seedcake use as fertiliser: While most researchers claim seedcake is effective as fertiliser, there are also contradictory reports from leading research institutes

o Optimal use of shells and husks: More information on this could go a long way, since all producers have access to this material

o When to harvest seed for best quality oil: Different sources provide different information

o Progress on research in developing new accessions and genetic breeding: The development of Jatropha accessions with higher seed weight and yield, higher resistance to drought and water logging and to locally occurring pests and diseases

o Information on biological control methods: Many of the same pests and diseases infest Jatropha in different regions


o Engine Adaptation:

• Lister engines: It is not clear whether all Lister or Lister‐type engines need adaptation to run on Jatropha PPO. The literature says they don’t, whereas practical experience so far has found that they do

• Openaccess technology: Engine adaptation technology is often too expensive (mostly due to copyrights) for use in developing countries. Information sharing for local development of open‐access technology would be very beneficial

o Potential for Jatropha crop cycle adjustment: There are reports that this can be done by adjusting pruning cycles, and can be very improtant for reducing competition for labour between Jatropha and other crops

o Biodiesel: The literature and many people say diesel engines can run on blends with up to 10 to 20% biodiesel without modification and without problems. However vehicles in Central America have been running with un‐adapted engines on 100% biodiesel

o Stoves and Lanterns: Regular updating is needed regarding the development of models of stoves and lanterns that can run on Jatropha PPO

o Equipment: Open sharing and updating of information on capacity, costs, sourcing and procurement of shelling machines, oil expellers, engine adaptation technology and other equipment and technology related to the Jatropha system would be very useful. Many projects did not have access to the first‐hand knowledge they needed to make an informed choice.

o Alternative markets: Markets for PPO as bio‐pesticide and Jatropha seed for planting that offer better prices than fuel‐related markets are an example

Documents

Chapter 8 Overview of Jatropha Production Conclusions ... · Meta Evaluation of 6 Hivos Biofuel Projects Chapter 8 Overview of Jatropha Production Conclusions, Comparisons and Lessons