Date post: | 26-Jan-2017 |
Category: |
Science |
Upload: | world-agroforestry-centre-icraf |
View: | 105 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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) [email protected]
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