The state of knowledge: socioeconomic and environmental

impacts of wood energy value chains in Sub-Saharan Africa

Dr. Phosiso Sola, East Africa DRYDEV Program Coordinator, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) p.sola@cigar.org

Dr. Paolo Cerutti, Senior Scientist, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR),

Wen Zhou, Research Officer, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

Co-authors:

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

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

25th August 2016

World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi

Why this systematic map?• >70% of people in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) rely

on woodfuel as their primary household energy source

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

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

Objectives and Research Questions

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

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

woodfuel supply and demand in Sub-Saharan Africa?”

Methodology

Peer-reviewed protocol (Cerutti et al. 2015) “What are the socio-economic, health, and environmental impacts of woodfuel supply and demand in Sub-Saharan Africa?”

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

Quality assessment

131 papers

Full text screening198 papers

Title and abstract screening 659 papers

Search results3979 hits

Reviewer additions

21 papers

English, French, Japanese

Sources of the evidence base

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20150

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Year

Num

ber o

f pap

ers

Evidence base

Tree growing

Management of natural trees

Harvesting

Processing

Transportation

Trade/Marketing

Consumption

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of studies

Woo

dfue

l int

erve

ntion

s stu

dies

Trees on farm Shrubs Forests Savanna/Woodlands Mixed0

20

40

60

2 3

28

58

19

Ecosystem type at study site

Num

ber o

f stu

dies

Environmental impacts and indicators

Changes in environmental indicators

Forest cover (natural or

planted)

Forest condition, including forest

structure

Biodiversity C stocks GHG emissions Soil quality

Decrease 43 31 18 8 1 5

Neutral 9 8 3 3 0 1

Increase 3 2 2 2 3 5

Mixed 9 6 5 2 1 5

Total 64 47 28 15 5 16

Environmental impacts and indicators

Changes in environmental indicators

Forest cover (natural or

planted)

Forest condition, including forest

structure

Biodiversity C stocks GHG emissions Soil quality

Decrease 43 31 18 8 1 5

Neutral 9 8 3 3 0 1

Increase 3 2 2 2 3 5

Mixed 9 6 5 2 1 5

Total 64 47 28 15 5 16

deadwood-domestic

deadwood-commercial

livingwood-domestic

living wood-commercial

mixed-domestic

mixed-commercial

trees on farm-domestic

trees on farm-commercial

0 10 20

DecreaseNeutralIncreaseMixed

Number of studies

Woo

dfue

l sou

rce

and

prim

ary

use

Environmental impacts and indicators

Changes in environmental indicators

Forest cover (natural or

planted)

Forest condition, including forest

structure

Biodiversity C stocks GHG emissions Soil quality

Decrease 43 31 18 8 1 5

Neutral 9 8 3 3 0 1

Increase 3 2 2 2 3 5

Mixed 9 6 5 2 1 5

Total 64 47 28 15 5 16

< 10 km

10-30 km

30-60km

>60km

0 2 4 6 8

DecreaseNeutralIncreaseMixed

Number of studies

Dist

ance

from

mar

ket

Health and socioeconomic impacts and indicators

Indoor pol-lution

Illness0

10

20

No changeMixedIncrease

Outcomes of Woodfuel consumption

Num

ber o

f cas

es

Assets

Employment

Equity

Costs

Profit

Income

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

DecreaseNeutralIncreaseMixed

Number of studiesSo

cio

econ

omic

out

com

es

The gaps

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

Nature of the evidence base: geographical distribution and scale

Kenya

Nigeria

South Africa

Tanzania

Zambia

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

firewoodcharcoalboth

• Regional bias• Country dominance• Few countries for

environmental impact studies

Cam

eroo

nCo

ngo

DR

Chad

Gab

onTa

nzan

iaU

gand

aKe

nya

Ethi

opia

Suda

n/So

uth

Suda

nSo

mal

iaSo

uth

Afric

aZa

mbi

aM

alaw

iM

ozam

biqu

eBo

tsw

ana

Zim

babw

eM

adag

asca

rN

iger

iaG

hana

Mal

iSi

erra

Leo

neSe

nega

lN

iger

Togo

Beni

nBu

rkin

a Fa

so

Multi

country

Central Africa

East Afica Southern Africa West Africa

0

10

20

LOCATIONN

UMBE

R O

F ST

UDIE

S

Nature of the evidence base: geographical distribution and scale

Plot/ Sample

Designated area/ Reserve

Village/City

County/District/Department

Province/Region

National

Multi country

0 20 40 60

Number of studies

Geog

raph

ic sc

ope

of st

udy

• Small scale for general conclusions

Nature of the evidence base: attribution• Methodological design• 56% of the studies did not include comparators

Comparator Total Environmental studies

Socio economic studies

Health studies

No. % No. % No. % No. %Total 152 93 60 27 BACI (before-after & control-impact)

4 3 3 3 4 7 0 0

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

Nature of the evidence base: attribution

• Methodological design• Did not always

separate impacts of woodfuel interventions from other activities

History of woodfuel productionProperty rights and tenure

Infrastructure developmentWoodcutting

Lack of employmentGovernance

FireUrbanisation

Livestock grazingLocationGender

Biophysical factorsAgriculture expansion

0 10 20 30

Number of studies

Cont

extu

al fa

ctor

s

Discussion and Conclusion• Renewed interest in the topic since 2000

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

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

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

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

• Major limitation – accessing non digitalised literature especially pre 1980

Implications for Research

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

substantial conclusions • Use of appropriate comparators for rigor

and reliability of results• Long-term studies with corresponding

baseline studies of initial socio-economic and environmental conditions

Implications for policy• Woodfuel will remain important to millions of people (70-90%) in SSA, and

thus should be a priority for national and international policy and development strategies

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

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

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

THANK YOU