Livelihoods, charcoal, ecosystem… • Indigenous forests of precious hardwood species, breeding sites for wild animals • Lack of alterna9ve livelihoods, need for pasture, promp9ng tree felling for charcoal for
small return • Difficulty of controlling produc9on and trades and to conserve with complex directories
and lack of clear responsibili9es among ministries in charge
Drivers of degradation
across landscape
Activities, actors, formal/informal multi-sectoral regulatory frameworks across
different stages of value chain/landscape
Rural forests, woodlands, range- lands, farmlands
Production & processing
Transport
End-use
Value chain
Road networks
Urban markets, settlements
Retail by city traders
Consumption by urban households
Carbonization by farmers / charcoal burners
Wood harvest by farmers
Collection by middlemen
Wholesale by dealers
Energy Sector
Local Authority,
Police
Forestry Sector
Agricul. Sector
Land, tree tenure
Growing demand for
charcoal along urbanization
Extensive tree exploitation
Poverty, income needs
Unclear regulatory
frameworks, room for
corruption, bribes
Damaged ecosystem services, loss of resilience
Perceived free resources
Lifestyle change
Trade-offs
Unaffordability of alternative energy
Lack of incentives to
adopt sustainable
technologies
Squeezed margins for
charcoal producers
Longer supply
distance, higher
footprints
Charcoal Economics in Landscape Context – Conceptual Framework
goal – sustainable charcoal • Compara9ve studies between African countries, and even Asia/La9n America…
Rwanda Case Price (RWF) /32kg
Price (USD)/kg
Producer margin
Nyungwe 4,000 RWF 0.18 $/kg Butare city 5,500-‐6,000RW
F 0.24-‐0.26 $/kg
66-‐72%
Kigali city 7,500 RWF 0.33 $/kg 53%
Kenya Case Price (KSH) /35.7kg
Price (USD)/kg
Producer margin
Farm gate price KFS -‐ 438 Ksh (Mara -‐ 100ksh)
0.14 $/kg (0.03$)
Nairobi price 1,949ksh 0.61 $/kg 22% (5%) (casual interview during Nov 2014) (Kenya figures from KFS 2013)
Rwanda • Only Forestry Dep – Ministry of Natural
Resources is a responsible authority. • A land owner to clear a plot over 0.25 ha,
transporters obtain permits from District Gov which controls all the revenue, while Na9onal Government does not interfere.
• Charcoal is a rela9vely profitable business while the same Eucalyptus can serve mul9-‐purposes – firewood, 9mber, bean stakes.
• In sum, the impacts of centralized policies, decentralized implementa9on, higher margins for landowner/producers, mul9-‐purpose trees compa9ble with local crop-‐livestock systems, are key
Expected outcomes
across landscape Landscape approach for sustainable
charcoal
Rural forests, woodlands, range- lands, farmlands
Production & processing
Transport
End-use
Value chain
Road networks
Urban markets, settlements
Multi-stakeholder management structure to
handle externalities
Tree planting, regeneration Sustained income
Clear regulatory frameworks, little room for
corruption, bribes
Enhanced ecosystem services, Improved resilience
Right valuation of resources
Synergies
Retail by city traders
Carbonization by farmers / charcoal burners
Wood harvest by farmers
Collection by middlemen
Wholesale by dealers
Inter-sectoral coordination to get the policy
environment right
Consumption by urban households
Affordability of efficient devices
Lifestyle change
Shorter supply
distance, lower
footprints
Moderate demand for
charcoal along
urbanization
Adoption of sustainable
technologies
Higher margins for
charcoal producers
Charcoal Economics in Landscape Context – Conceptual Framework
Top Related