Jatropha and Sustainable Livelihood of Small-scale Farmers

Jatropha and Sustainable Livelihood of
Small-scale Farmers
Tanja Ladefoged, Rasmus Bo Hansen, Tilde Anker Worsøe and Helle Momsen 
Fredslund 

Teksam, K2 – University of Roskilde, spring 2009 

 

SUPERVISORS 

Ole Jess Olsen and Rikke Bak Lybæk

Jatropha and Sustainable Livelihood of Small-scale Farmers

University of Roskilde, Teksam
Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change - ENSPAC.

Titel: Jatropha and Sustainable Livelihood of Small-scale
Farmers

The gruppe: Tanja Ladefoged

Rasmus Bo Hansen

Tilde Anker Worsøe

Helle Momsen Fredslund

Supervisors: Ole Jess Olsen

Rikke Bak Lybæk

Date of submitting: Maj 26, 2009

Word count: 120,377 Characters = 50,16 pages

2 RUC, K2 - 2009


”Jacob thought, that if he stood on the bottom rail of a bridge and
lent over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath him, he
would suddenly know everything there is to be known”.

(Winnie the Pooh and friends)

RUC, K2 - 2009 3


Acknowledgement

As the 8th semester assignment We present the thesis on ”Jatropha and Sustainable
Livelihood for Small-scale Farmers”. The thesis represents the outcome of four years
of interesting studies at Teksam, University of Roskilde.

We would like to thank all informants for their participation in the thesis. A special
thanks are given to Alex Hanyuma and Ibrahim Togola for their immense
contribution throughout the writing of the thesis. Moreover, We wish to thank Lars
Olav Freim for making use of his data collection.

Roskilde – May 19, 2009

4 RUC, K2 - 2009


Table of Content

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  4 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  8 

PART ONE 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION  10 

1.1 PROBLEM AREA ...........................................................................................................................11 
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION ..................................................................................................................13 
1.2.1 PROCESSING OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................. 13 
1.2.2 CLARIFICATION OF TERMS ....................................................................................................................... 14 
1.2.3 DELIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 15 
1.3 PROJECT DESIGN ..........................................................................................................................17 
1.3.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................ 18 

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL DESIGN  20 

2.1 EMPIRICAL DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................................20 
2.1.1 LITERATURE REVIEWS .............................................................................................................................. 20 
2.1.2 INTERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 21 
2.1.3 CHOICE OF CASE AND GENERALISABILITY ............................................................................................. 23 
2.2 THE SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD APPROACH .............................................................................24 
2.2.1 INDICATORS ................................................................................................................................................ 25 
2.2.2 ELABORATION OF INDICATORS ............................................................................................................... 27 
2.2.3 THE THEORY USED AS ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................... 30 

PART TWO 

CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDY  32 

3.1 ZAMBIA ........................................................................................................................................32 
3.1.1 JATROPHA IN ZAMBIA ............................................................................................................................... 33 
3.1.2 THE REGION CENTRAL PROVINCE .......................................................................................................... 34 
3.2 CASE – MARLI INVESTMENTS .....................................................................................................35 
3.2.1 THE PROJECT DEVELOPER ........................................................................................................................ 36 
3.2.2 MARLI INV. PROJECT COMPONENTS ....................................................................................................... 36 
3.2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................ 36 

RUC, K2 - 2009 5


3.2.4 OUT GROWERS SCHEME ............................................................................................................................ 37 
3.2.5 THE FARMING PRACTICES ........................................................................................................................ 38 
3.2.6 FINANCIAL SITUATION .............................................................................................................................. 38 
3.3 GARALO BAGANI YELEN (EXAMPLE FOR INSPIRATION)............................................................39 
3.3.1 THE PROJECT DEVELOPER ........................................................................................................................ 39 
3.3.2 THE LOCATION AND CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................. 39 
3.3.3 THE CONTENT AND SET UP OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................ 39 

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS  41 

4.1 JATROPHA CURCAS L. ..................................................................................................................41 
4.2 NATURAL ASSETS ........................................................................................................................44 
4.2.1 LAND USE .................................................................................................................................................... 44 
4.2.2 SOIL .............................................................................................................................................................. 47 
4.2.3 WATER ........................................................................................................................................................ 49 
4.2.4 CONCISE CONCLUSION: NATURAL ASSET IMPACTS .............................................................................. 49 
4.3 ECONOMIC ASSETS ......................................................................................................................50 
4.3.1 GROWTH...................................................................................................................................................... 50 
4.3.2 EMPLOYMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 55 
4.3.3 CONCISE CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 58 
4.4 HUMAN ASSETS ...........................................................................................................................59 
4.4.1 HEALTH ....................................................................................................................................................... 59 
4.4.2 SKILLS .......................................................................................................................................................... 60 
4.4.3 CONCISE CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 61 
4.5 SOCIAL ASSETS ............................................................................................................................61 
4.5.1 LOCAL PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................................. 61 
4.5.2 EQUITY ........................................................................................................................................................ 63 
4.5.3 CONCISE CONCLUSSION: SOCIAL ASSETS .............................................................................................. 64 

PART THREE 

CHAPTER 5: IDENTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS  66 

5.1 SIX KEY ISSUES IMPACTING THE LIVELIHOOD OF SMALLSCALE FARMERS ...............................66 
5.1.1 KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND INTERCROPPING ...................................................................................... 67 
5.1.2 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE FARMERS .................................................................................................. 67 
5.1.3 TO CULTIVATE OR NOT TO CULTIVATE JATROPHA ON MARGINAL LAND ......................................... 68 
5.1.4 LOCAL VALUE CHAIN – OUT GROWERS SCHEME ................................................................................... 69 

6 RUC, K2 - 2009


5.1.5 ACCESS TO FINANCE ................................................................................................................................. 70 
5.1.6 GOVERNMENT’S CONSIDERATION FOR SMALL‐SCALE FARMERS IN BIO‐POLICY ............................ 70 

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION  71 

6.1 ANSWERING THE FIRST PART OF THE RESEARCH QUESTION ....................................................71 
6.2 ANSWERING THE SECOND PART OF THE RESEARCH QUESTION .................................................73 

CHAPTER 7: PERSPECTIVES  74 

CHAPTER 8: REFLECTIONS  75 

8.1 DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................................................75 
8.2 CONSIDERATIONS OF CASE APPLICATION – AND RELATION TO INSPIRATIONAL EXPERIENCE 76 

CHAPTER 9: REFERENCES  78 

9.1 BOOKS ..........................................................................................................................................78 
9.2 REPORTS ......................................................................................................................................78 
9.3 ARTICLES .....................................................................................................................................80 
9.4 CONFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................81 
9.5 INTERNET SOURCES .....................................................................................................................82 
9.6 MISCELLANEOUS: ........................................................................................................................84 

CHAPTER 9: ANNEX  85 

ANNEX 1 – INTERVIEW WITH IBRAHIM TOGOLA 15. MAY 2009 ..................................................85 
ANNEX 2 EMAIL INTERVIEW WITH PER CHRISTIAN CHRISTENSEN 06. MAY 2009 ....................90 
ANNEX 3 EMAIL INTERVIEW WITH LARS OLAV FREIM 07. MAY 2009........................................92 
ANNEX 4 E MAIL INTERVIEW WITH LARS OLAV FREIM 12.MAY 2009........................................94 
ANNEX 5 EMAIL INTERVIEW WITH ALEX HANYUMA 08. MAY 200..............................................96 

RUC, K2 - 2009 7


Executive Summary
This thesis explores the possible livelihood impact from Jatropha production and
utilization. Specifically, the thesis explores how livelihood aspect can be taken into
account in Jatropha projects.

The research question of this thesis thus asks: “How does the Jatropha production
and utilization impact rural livelihood for small scale farmers in the central province
of Zambia; and which recommendations can be drawn on how Jatropha could
contribute to rural livelihood improvements?”

The research question has been answered through an analytical framework developed
from a combination of case studies, interviews and theories on Sustainable Livelihood
leading to elaboration of indicators used for analyzing how livelihood are impacted
from Jatropha production and utilization. The theoretical framework is built on
livelihood assets: Natural, Economic, Human and Social. Indicators for analysing the
impact on livelihood, have further been elaborated, thus constructs the applied
analytical tool of the thesis. The analysis is carried out though a case in Zambia where
25,000 small-scale farmers are involved in Jatropha production through out-growers
scheme. The project aims at domestic sale of biofuel and is initiated by the investment
company, Marli Investment.

Results on the analysis show that livelihood is impacted in different ways.

The analyse also served as inspiration to what could have been done to improve
livelihood impacts leading to an identification of six pivotal elements inflicting on the
impact on the farmers’ livelihood. The thesis concludes on six recommendations
concerning production and utilization of Jatropha for improving livelihood for small-
scale farmers.

8 RUC, K2 - 2009


PART ONE

RUC, K2 - 2009 9


Chapter 1: Introduction
Most nations of sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception of South Africa and a few
others, fall into the category of “Least Developed Countries” (LDCs), typically with a
per-capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) below USD 2,000 (AEO, 2007).

Poverty levels, the fraction of people with an income below USD 1 per day, are in
general above 40%. Economic development depends to a large extent on the abilities
of the LDCs to put in place a physical, financial and organizational infrastructure,
including energy infrastructure. While provision of basic services such as clean water
and sanitation seems to be improving in many LDCs, access to modern forms of
energy such as electricity remains extremely low (Risø, 2008).

Eradicating poverty and providing energy is crucial for achieving the Millennium
Development Goals (MDG’s). Although there is no specific Millennium
Development Goal (MDG) for energy, it is widely accepted that access to energy is
essential to the achievement of all the MDG’s (Risø, 2008; Modi, V., S. McDade,
2005:17-32). Without access to modern energy services, the poor people in the
developing countries are deprived of many potential income-generating opportunities
(UN-DESA, 2007).

Thus, sub-Saharan Africa has one of the world’s lowest per-capita consumption rates
of modern energy. More than 80% of the population, especially the rural population,
lack reliable access to modern energy. In addition, this group also constitutes the
poorest part of the population (Modi, V., S. McDade, 2005:9-13).

With regard to the climate change problem, the LDC’s of sub-Saharan Africa
contribute very little to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (EIA, 2004:73),
Hence the concerns for mitigation are not as high on their policy agenda, as the need
for energy. The overriding issue is thus how to provide increased energy for
development. In the cases where it is possible also to integrate the concerns of climate
change and emissions, for instance by replacing high-carbon fuels with low-carbon
alternatives such as biofuels, this would create more long termed energy pathways, as
long as these solutions are economically, environmentally and socially advantageous.

10 RUC, K2 - 2009


Scientists, oil companies, governments and politicians around the world are therefore
promoting biofuels as part of the future energy supply, as it can be a renewable and
environment-friendly alternative to crude oil and coal (Newton, 2007).

1.1 Problem area
Developing countries are continuing the uphill battle for economic growth and
poverty reduction. At the same time, they also have to struggle with global climate
changes threatening exactly these countries the most. Many of the most vulnerable
developing countries are increasingly concerned about how to adapt to climate change
(DIIS, 2009). However, climate change policies rarely consider potential synergies
with sustainable development (URC, 2006). Furthermore, these policies push aside
any considerations and debate on how developing countries can contribute to a more
carbon neutral world and on how low carbon technologies can contribute to overall
development in these countries (DIIS, 2009).

Thus, for LDC’s, the challenge is how to address economic development and poverty
alleviation while at the same time engaging in climate change adaptation and low-
carbon development efforts. The options for combining low carbon development with
direct poverty alleviation need to be better understood (DIIS, 2009). Biofuels
production may represent an opportunity for the Southern African region to increase
energy supply security, their macroeconomics and to decentralised energy access.
This could give a boost to rural economies by opening markets for agricultural
surpluses, job creation, and increased health status etc.

There are already some experiences with biofuels production in Southern Africa. In
most sub-Saharan African countries, the new initiatives tend to concentrate on
biodiesel production based on oil seed crops. Jatropha curcas L. (Jatropha) is among
the most promising species. Jatropha is receiving increased attention due to its
specific characteristics of being drought resistant and able to grow on marginal lands.
Oil-based biofuels from Jatropha (Jatropha oil) can be used in old diesel engines, and
if applied in diesel generators it could potentially support rural energy production.
The oil is also useful in cooking stoves or in oil lamps or for soap production..

RUC, K2 - 2009 11


Furthermore, waste from pressing the oil (seed-cake) can be used as fertilizer and for
biogas production.

Though biofuels might have the potential for bringing more reliable energy,
development and reduction of emissions, different biofuels types has also been
criticised:

“African countries could explore the possibilities of small-scale farming of
biofuels crops for households or local energy needs. But the consequences
of growing fuel for export to the wealthy developing countries, instead of
food for Africans, could be severe”. (Teresa Anderson - Anderson, 2006).

“The development of biofuelss poses risks as well as complex and often
expensive trade-offs”(Clement Chipokolo - Newton, 2007).

Thus, to realize the full potential development benefits of biofuelss, without creating
new development stress, the promotion for biofuels production needs to be carefully
planned and implemented in a sustainable manner if at all possible.

A biofuels project in Zambia – the Marli Investments case (Marli Inv.) – has been
chosen as an example for this thesis to analyse how the farmers are impacted from
biofuels production and utilization. The project involves 25,000 rural farmers who
have planted Jatropha. The farmers are in a process of drawing up a contract with the
investment company – Marli Inv. – for the production of Jatropha. Some are very
optimistic about the potential of the project as well as the local benefits and
development it could bring. Others are more sceptical though:

“This Jatropha reminds me of cotton. Many years ago when Dunavant came
here, they promised that if we grew cotton, we would be paid lots of money.
We stopped growing our maize to make more money from cotton. But when
the time to sell it came we were paid very little. We went hungry because we
had neglected growing our traditional crop maize.” (Local small-scale
farmer - Mundia, 2007).

Thus, in order to achieve a holistic view on the potential development benefits or
12 RUC, K2 - 2009


impact on poor people of producing and utilization of Jatropha, it is essential to
consider a wide range of elements affecting the livelihood of poor people. The
livelihood term relates to the range of assets out of which people value their way of
living. It is a holistic way of looking at possible impacts Jatropha activities on the
everyday life for small-scale farmers.

1.2 Research question
Jatropha oil may constitute a low carbon alternative to traditional fossil fuels, and the
mitigating benefits have hence been prior to the consideration of local benefits and
sustainable development. However, the production and use of Jatropha oil may also
constitute other general development impacts, positive as well as negative.
Consequently, as the aim of this thesis is to analyse the impact of producing and
utilizatio of Jatropha oil for the livelihood of rural small-scale farmers, the following
research question will be subject to investigation:

• How does the production and utilization of Jatropha impact rural
livelihood for small-scale farmers in Central Province of Zambia?
• Which recommendations can be drawn, on how Jatropha could
contribute to rural livelihood improvements?

1.2.1 Processing of research questions
The first question is the primary constituent of the thesis. To be able to investigate
this it is important to understand the discussion on Jatropha potentials and specific
advantages and disadvantages of Jatropha. Furthermore it is important to understand
and define livelihood criteria’s together with livelihood indicators that can be applied
in order to measure possible impacts of the Jatropha production and utilization –
negative or positive. The Marli Inv. case will be the main object to the analysis in
order to test the livelihood indicators on a specific Jatropha project. Concise
concluding notes in the analysis will answer the first part of the research question

RUC, K2 - 2009 13


The second research question is supplementary to the other. Based on the analysis of
the livelihood impact of Jatropha production and utilization, the following section will
bring forward and discuss how the central factors could influence the impacts on
livelihood positively. Experiences will be drawn from a Jatropha project in Mali
(Garalo), which will serve as inspiration to the identification to the recommendations,
by presenting benefits of alternative ways of organising production and utilizing
Jatropha products. This will subsequently lead to the answering of the second research
question. The recommendations are a guide to what should be taken into account for
ensuring sustained or improved livelihood of small-scale farmers.

1.2.2 Clarification of terms

Sustainable The concept Sustainable Livelihood is the fundamental
livelihood approach theoretical basis of this thesis. The applicable approach will
be presented in section 2.2. The perception of the term
livelihood in this thesis, inspired by Scones (1998): […] the
capabilities, assets (including both material and social
resources) and activities required for a means of living.

Marginal land Land, which is defined as unsuitable for agricultural crop
production due to low nutrient content in soil or climate
constraints (Jongschaap et. Al. 2007:5).
Out-grower schemes Also called Contract-farming schemes. A way of organising
the agricultural production. The terms describe ways of
vertical integration between small-scale farmers and agro
processors or traders. Out-growers schemes do not have
exact forms, but enclose a wide variety of institutional
arrangements of vertical integration (Brüntrup, 2006:1).
However, the term is normally used about farmers who
produce and sell to a buyer, which in return support the
farmer with for instance, fertilizer and seeds.

14 RUC, K2 - 2009


1.2.3 Delimitations
In continuation of the research area described above, a scope definition and a
clarification of the central concepts is necessary in order to delimit the research area,
to the central questions and avoid confusions about concepts.

GHG The urgency of reducing GHG emissions is on the political agenda in
reductions more and more industrialized countries. The future climate change
scenarios posses for changes in energy use and supply. However, GHG
emission is not a large concern in Zambia as they currently emit very
little amount of GHG (HDR, 2008). Responses to emission reduction as
a focus og Jatropha production, is in this thesis not an appropriate
focus, as the present objective is on the livelihood impacts and
improvements for the rural poor. The critical need for those are to a
greater extend to access energy at all. Having said this, Jatropha
production could be an important contribution to ensure a green
pathway, but the specific details of the mitigation benefits have not
been analysed. Consequently this thesis will not involve an outline of
the GHG balance of Jatropha, in a life cycle perspective. However, if
GHG emission had been included as one of the livelihood indicators,
the utilization of fertilisers and chemical pressing of the seeds would
have been analysed differently.

Gender The thesis delimits from gender discussions, of who does and
could benefit the most from the production and utilization of
Jatropha. Other projects focus on the women’s involvement in the
production of Jatropha, as they argue that women use the income
better than men and create more side effects. This could have an
important impact on the livelihood, but as it has not been possible
to achieve information about the sex ratio of the farmers in the
selected case, we are not capable of carrying out analysis of this.

RUC, K2 - 2009 15


Medical It is mentioned in some Jatropha reports, that the tree can be used
uses of
Jatropha for different medical purposes as for instance: malaria medicine
and to reduce bleeding from wounds. But the medical uses is not
proved scientific, thus it will not be used in the thesis (FACT-
foundation, 2006).

Local The production of Jatropha can be understood as a production
value
chain. This chain consist of different stages; cultivation,
chain
processing/manufacturing, (transport), end-use and by-
product/waste disposal. Local value chain implies that the added
value from the activities in these different stages is kept locally,
thus it supports local development.

16 RUC, K2 - 2009


1.3 Project design

RUC, K2 - 2009 17


1.3.1 Chapter Overview
The following narrative outlines the project chapters. Brief explanations of the
content of each chapter are made in order to support the project design with
comprehensive exposition of the correlation between the chapters.

Ch. 1 Overall frame of the relevance of the research area and an introduction to the
objectives of the research – with clarification of the terms and chosen
delimitations.

Ch. 2 Methodology of the thesis, with regard to empirical data collection and
constraints as well as an introduction to the theoretical framework. The
Sustainable Livelihood Approach represents the framework for the analysis,
as it presents the frame of what constitutes sustainable livelihood. A set of
sustainable livelihood indicators are elaborated and introduced as the
practical way of measuring the livelihood impact of Jatropha.

Ch. 3 A brief outline of the chosen case study, the Marli Inv. Jatropha project in
Zambia. The case represents an opportunity for analysing the livelihood
impact of a typical biofuel project within the framework of the Sustainable
Livelihood Approach. Lessons learned with Jatropha from the Garalo project
will be introduced concurrently, in order to assure a holistic inclusion of
various Jatropha practices in the identification of recommendations.

Ch. 4 Review of the advantages and disadvantages of the Jatropha tree is the basis
for analysing the livelihood impact of Jatropha. Subsequently the chosen
indicators will be a frame for the analysis of the Marli case, and work as a
systematic way of analysing what impact Jatropha can have on the small-
scale farmers’ livelihood – positive and negative. The chapter contains
concise conclusions of the findings.

Ch. 5 Identification on recommendation with brief discussion on barriers and
potentials for livelihood improvements. This leads up to practical
recommendations as to how to assure Jatropha activities contributing to an
overall improvement of the livelihood of rural farmers.

Ch. 6 Conclusion of the thesis. Jatropha production and utilization impact on

18 RUC, K2 - 2009


livelihood will be outlined on the basis of the analysis in chapter 3 and
finally, drawn from chapter 4, the general recommendations will be outlined
- containing core practices which preferably should be emphasized to
improve livelihood.

Ch. 7 Reflections on how the future for Jatropha production could look. The
chapter presents additional issues, of an external character, which could be
significant factors for dissemination of Jatropha production in developing
countries, and consequently impact, the livelihood of the farmers.

Ch. 8 Closing remarks on methodology and findings. In relation to the chosen
analytical framework and empirical data, the results of the thesis will be
validated for potential limitations. Furthermore, considerations of what other
methodological choices could have been introduced in order to answer the
research question will be accounted for.

RUC, K2 - 2009 19


Chapter 2: Research methodology and analytical
design
In this chapter the data collection, the selected theory and the different
methodological considerations regarding the theory and case of choice, the
elaboration of the indicators, as well as the analysis are all presented. This is done in
order to provide the reader with an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the
framework chosen for the thesis.

The first part – section 2.1 – presents the data collection procedure, and the
methodological practicability and capability will be evaluated. The second part –
section 2.2 – contains a review of the theory of choice – the Sustainable Livelihood
Approach (SLA). Finally, – in section 2.2.1 – the choice of indicators and reflections
of these are outlined as a concrete tool for analysis. Subsequently, a short narrative
follows on the proposed use of the theory as an analytical framework.

2.1 Empirical data collection
The scientific foundation of the thesis is primarily based on information gathered
from different reports, organizational web-sides and Jatropha studies supplemented by
interviews with selected informants.

2.1.1 Literature reviews
The data material on the Marli Inv. Jatropha project, originates from different sources.
Primarily, information on the project activities, objectives and technologies has been
extracted from the Project Idea Note (PIN) submitted to the Zambian Designated
National Authority (DNA) in October 2006. Additional information on the status and
description of the project has been drawn from the GEXSI study “Global Market
Study on Jatropha”, in which the Marli Inv. project is outlined. Furthermore, the
master thesis by Lars Olav Freim (2008), “How will small-scale farmers in Zambia
benefit from growing of Jatropha”, which includes studies on the Marli Inv. project,

20 RUC, K2 - 2009


has supported the collection of data for the current thesis. Especially, information on
the out-grower scheme has been extracted.

The data collection from the inspirational project in Garalo originates mainly from
review of information on the project activities provided by Mali Folkecenter and
especially from the Practical Action case study of the livelihood impacts from small
scale bio energy initiatives (2009).

2.1.2 Interview
To suppliment the information gained on the specific agricultural conditions
concerning Jatropha and the case of Marli Inv., contacts have been made to several
experts on the subjects in question. Thus, two interviews have been carried out
accompanied by several email responses on clarifying questions. The interviews made
are categorised as a semi-structured interview, which is a guided interview where only
some question had been pre-selected, and where new themes could arise during the
interview (Kvale, 1996). The abbreviated transcriptions of the interviews can be
found in annex 1 and 5.

Interview

Alex Local consultant at the Zambian Energy consultancy CEEEST,
Hanyuma currently working at UNEP Risø Center. The interview took place in
his Risø office in March 2009. The interview served primarily as a
background interview to obtain detailed understanding of the situation
in the case area together with introduction of the Marli Inv. project.
The atmosphere was relaxed and the interview was very informative.
A. Hanyuma was selected for the interview, as he is working as a
consultant for Marli Inv. in terms of facilitating the CDM application
procedure.

Ibrahim Mali Folkecenter director, which is the main facilitating Malian NGO,
Togola behind the Garalo Jatropha initiative. Experienced in Jatropha
production for rural development and electrification, I. Togola
constitutes a core informant to supplement literature reviews on the

RUC, K2 - 2009 21


Jatropha initiative. The interview took place in the outskirts of an
“International Meeting on Climate Dialogue” in Copenhagen on 15.
May 2009. The interview served as inspiration as to what perspectives
Jatropha production for rural development might be.

Experts on questionnaire emails

Lars Olav Graduated in 2008 from the Norwegian University of life Science -
Freim department of international environment and development, with the
master thesis: “How will small-scale farmers in Zambia benefit from
growing of Jatropha?” Lars Olav was contacted in order to include an
additional source of information on the general experience on
Jatropha cultivation status in Zambia, Jatropha production and for
secondary knowledge about the Marli Inv. case. He did not have a
large amount of data material from the Marli Inv. project, but a lot of
information about the Jatropha production impact on small-scale
farmers and useful information from his fieldtrip to the Central
District District in Zambia.

Per C. Forest supervisor from the Danish Forestry Extension, which
Christensen cooperate with different organizations such as Danida, FAO and the
World Bank, in projects concerning development and agro forestry.
He has been, and is still, working with Jatropha cultivation in West-
Africa, thus he has practical experience with the cultivation,
production and use of Jatropha. The contact was established at a
UNEP Risø conference (concerning the role of the developing
countries at the COP 15 meeting in Copenhagen December 2009),
where he agreed to answer questions via email. He has no knowledge
of the Marli Inv. case in particular or the Central District in general.
Hence, the gained information relates to cultivation and production of
Jatropha in general.

22 RUC, K2 - 2009


2.1.3 Choice of case and generalisability
The analytical approach of this thesis is framed as a case study. Usually, the case
study is employed due to its relevance for empirical investigations with the aim of
covering contextual conditions relevant to the phenomenon posed in the research
question (Yin, 2003). Furthermore, a case study is a way to produce concrete, context-
dependent knowledge, which can be used to assess existing theories and explanations.

In this thesis, the case study is employed with a slightly different use than proposed
by Yin. Zambia is foreseen to be one of the leading countries in Jatropha production.
Hence, many other countries might see the Zambian way of production as a role
model. The Marli Inv. case is employed in this thesis, as it constitutes an example
covering overall issues related to Jatropha oil production. Thereby, the Marli Inv. case
selection provides an adequate baseline for analysing Jatropha relative to the chosen
theoretical foundation as described in section 2.2. By analysing the selected case in
Zambia and through those identifying barriers for livelihood improvements, a baseline
for elaboration of recommendations for sustained livelihood is established. Hence, the
thesis will focus on an inductive approach, as the aim is to draw some general
conclusions from specific observations. However, as general knowledge on the
characteristics of the Jatropha tree is used to analyse the livelihood impact of the
Marli Inv. case, the thesis furthermore embraces a deductive approach.

Introduction and reflections of the fundamental empirical basis for the thesis have
been presented in this section. The following section presents the chosen theoretical
framework for analysing the livelihood impacts of Jatropha production and utilization.

RUC, K2 - 2009 23


2.2 The Sustainable Livelihood Approach
SLA provides a framework to help understand the main factors that affect poor
people’s livelihood (NZAID, 2009). Livelihood approaches are conceptual
frameworks that generate a deeper understanding of the complexity of poverty
(Scoones, 1998).

The Sustainable Livelihood (SL) concept is central to the debate about rural
development, poverty reduction and environmental management (Scoones, 1998). It
is an attempt to go beyond the traditional definitions and approaches to poverty
eradication, as these focuses primarily on certain aspects of poverty, such as low
income, or does not consider other vital aspects of poverty such as vulnerability and
social exclusion. Even though economic growth may be essential for poverty
reduction it all depends on the capabilities of the poor to take advantage of expanding
economic opportunities. Hence, poverty is not just a question of low income, but also
lack of knowledge; lack of social services; vulnerability; etc (Scoones, 1998).
Therefore more attention should be paid to the various factors and processes, which
either hinder or improve poor people’s ability to make a sustainable living. According
to The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED), SL can serve as an integrating factor that allows policies to address
development, sustainable resource management, and poverty eradication
simultaneously (UNDP, 1997). Thus, the SL concept offers the prospects of a more
reasoned and holistic approach to poverty eradication (Krantz, 2001).

The term SL relates to a broader debate about the relationship between poverty and
environment. Subsequently there is often little clarity about the exact definition of SL.
Ian Scoones, Institute for Development Studies (IDS) at Sussex University, proposes
the following definition, which is a modified version of the original definition
elaborated by Chambers and Conway (Chambers et.al., 1992):

“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material
and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A
livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses
and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not
undermining the natural resource base” (Scoones, 1998).

24 RUC, K2 - 2009


While SLA can be applied at a range of different levels – from individual, to
household, village, region or even nation – it is used most commonly at the household
level (Scoones, 1998; Krantz, 2001).

Of the various components of a livelihood, the most complex is the range of assets out
of which people construct their living, which includes both material assets and
resources, and non-material assets such as claims and access (Krantz, 2001). SL is
developed on the basis of the available assets and the ability to pursue SL therefore
depends on the basic assets that people have in their possession (Scoones, 1998).
Every individual should have the freedom to comply whatever needs it may have and
through that the freedom to improve on its own livelihood. To fulfil this, individuals
needs free access to a wide range of assets (Halsnæs et.al, 2007). Thus, it is important
to examine the asset base of various individuals, households and communities
(Jongschaap, et. al., 2007). The SL approach does not necessarily aim at addressing
all aspects of the livelihood of the poor. The intention is rather to draw a holistic
perspective in the analysis of livelihood, to identify those issues of subject areas
where an intervention could be strategically important for effective poverty reduction
(Krantz, 2001).

Four different assets can be identified as basis for SL (after Scoones, 1998):

• Natural assets – natural resources (soil and water), environmental conditions
of land use.
• Economic assets – income generation, costs, employment and investments.
• Human assets – health, skills, know-how and training.
• Social assets – participation and equity.

2.2.1 Indicators
In order to assess how the Jatropha production potentially can impact the SL assets,
indicators on the basis of a UNEP RISØ Centre (URC) methodology has been chosen.
The set of indicators, is based on case study work in six developing countries, and
used as a sort of measurement point for factors influencing SL. The starting point is
from the study, is that SL can be assessed through a range of indicators, which

RUC, K2 - 2009 25


influence SL assets. Thus, URC proposes a number of quantitative and qualitative
indicators that can be used to address these assets (URC, 2006).

The URC indicators have inspired the elaboration of the applied indicators in this
thesis. They have been merged into the framework of the SLA and further elaborated,
in order to comply the analytical tool with the main factors in production of Jatropha,
which potentially influences the SL assets. The following table shows the elaborated
indicators:

SL asset SL Indicator

Natural
Land use • Land types
• Scale
• Deforestation
• Cultivation practices
• Additional input
o Fertiliser and pesticides
o Irrigation
• Land use competition
• Policy
Soil • Erosion
• Reclaim of land
• Exposure to pollutants
Water • Competition of scare resources
Economic
Growth • Income generation
o Selling price per kg/seeds
o Yield
• Costs
o Fertilizer and pesticides
o Seeds
• Substitution
o By-product
o Multiple use of oil
o Food safety – intercropping, marginal land
• Energy access

26 RUC, K2 - 2009


• Policy
Employment • Labour intensiveness
o Elapsed time
o Labour, man-hours
• Competing income generating activities
Investments • Technology
• Policy
Human
Health • Air pollution
o Lightning
o Cooking
• Improved hygiene.
o Soap

Skills • Education and training
• Know-how
Social
Participation • Institutional capacity
o Corporative
o Ability to organize
o Influence on decisions
• Legal rights (contract)
Equity • Strengthening social structures
• Wealth distribution
• Distribution of land
Figure 1: Overview of SL assets and indicators

2.2.2 Elaboration of indicators
The incentive for elaborating the indicators is due to the relevance of framing the
contextual circumstances present in the objective of this thesis – the livelihood impact
of Jatropha production and utilization on rural small-scale farmers.

The selection of indicators is based on literature reviews of various Jatropha projects
in developing countries focusing on different methods of production and their social,
economic and environmental impact. Especially the biology and characteristics of the

RUC, K2 - 2009 27


Jatropha tree in terms of cultivation and end-use in a development context, have
strengthened the knowledge base for the selection and elaboration of indicators.
Moreover, the debates around past and present unsustainable biofuels projects have
inspired the selecting of indicators, which includes the typical pitfalls, mainly related
to impacts on environment and food crop competition. In the following, the selected
indicators will be explained in relation to their relevance in this thesis.

Natural asset indicators
Indicators, which impact on the natural asset, have been chosen due to the fact that the
activities related to the land-use are the main drivers of the environmental condition.
The reason is that the type of soil used for the production – whether it is arable
agricultural land or an area is being deforested – and the agricultural practices under
which Jatropha is grown, are essential factors, affecting the environment. As the
majority of land in Zambia is defined as customary land – where a lot of non-
agricultural land seems available – a reflection on the alternative use of the land must
also be included. “Marginal land” could be utilized for other purposes than growing
Jatropha, such as collection of firewood, herbs, hunting areas or as pasturing land.
This must also be taken into consideration, as these resources will no longer be
available. Furthermore, water and soil are the natural resources most influenced by
Jatropha production. The reason for this is especially related to the qualities of
Jatropha – under the right agricultural practice – in terms of eliminating impacts on
soil and water resources. The existence or lack of policies (national, regional and
local) related to land rights, subsidies and prioritized plans in this field, does play a
role for the accessibility of land and penetration of Jatropha projects, and is thus an
arguable indicator.

Economical asset indicators
To assess whether Jatropha production and utilization contribute to economic growth
the selected indicators relate to the income and costs. The (selling) price of the
harvested seeds constitute the main income factor, whereas the main expenditures are
constituted by the price of the seeds/seedlings (or additional inputs, such as) fertilizer,
pesticides or machinery. There are also income generating factors not directly related

28 RUC, K2 - 2009


to cash flows. The potential substitution of other products with Jatropha oil and bi-
products - which would otherwise be purchased - is argued as an additional economic
factor, which could determine the profitability of Jatropha production. The access to
energy supply by Jatropha oil utilization could also bring synergies to improve
economic growth. When electrification results in more income generating activities,
energy access is thus an economic indicator.

To assess whether the production is economically favourable, the employment
conditions should be taken into account. The price of labour is the man-hour used in
production compared to other previous/available income generating activities, and
will reflect the cost-effectiveness of the labour in the Jatropha production. In order to
establish and sustain production and utilization of products, the investment in
technology is also a crucial issue. Indicators referring to policy issues in this asset are
argued to play a role, as requisite policies towards price settings and fuel subsidies
affect the profitability of selling Jatropha oil/seeds. Another important economic
indicator is whether there are policies directed at attracting investments in Jatropha
production and the establishment of an infrastructure.

Human asset indicators
The health impacts from Jatropha at the local level are seen as minor. Hence, it is only
relevant to examine whether the Jatropha oil is used for cooking, lighting and soap
production. The rationale for this is that a replacement of unhealthy lighting and
cooking fuel could reduce risks of air pollution as limited exposure to health
threatening pollutants. Furthermore, access to soap will improve hygiene. To analyse
whether human skills are improved or impacted negatively, the major factor will be
an analysis of the educational process, as this is viewed as a core part of the
development of skills. The procedure is therefore to focus on indicators such as
sufficient training and adequate know-how.

Social asset indicators
The social asset will be analysed in the thesis on the basis of the level of farmer
participation and equity. These factors are based on the perception that capacity
building is a core development objective in order to facilitate SL in social assets. The
RUC, K2 - 2009 29


selected indicators are institutional capacity, participation in decision-making
processes in the planning and production, and the manner in which the knowledge of
legal rights is strengthened.

2.2.3 The theory used as analytical framework
Biofuel production tends to focus on the mitigating benefits (URC, 2006). However,
biofuel production may also be assessed for SL impacts, and central development
benefits must be emphasized in order to reconcile a holistic approach towards other
central development benefits and impacts. Thus, it is essential to consider a wide
range of indicators affecting the livelihood of poor people. Studying production and
utilization of Jatropha oil based on SLA and the selected indicators are thus relevant
in order to achieve a holistic view on the potential development benefits or impact on
poor people.

SLA has been presented as the framework for further analysis as it presents the frame
of (what constitutes) sustainable livelihood. By using the indicators elaborated from
the UNEP RISØ methodology “Sustainable Development as a Framework for
Assessing Energy and Climate Change Policies”, this thesis seeks to analyse the
impact of Jatropha production and utilization on rural small-scale farmers. The
selected Marli Inv. case in Zambia will be the main object for the analysis, but
additional experience with other types of Jatropha projects will be included in order to
introduce various Jatropha activities and their related SL impact. Based on the result
of applying the indicators on the case selection, the impact on SL will be discussed. In
the following chapter, the case material is presented and followed by the analysis of
the SL impacts.

30 RUC, K2 - 2009


PART TWO

RUC, K2 - 2009 31


Chapter 3: Case study

3.1 Zambia
With a population of 12 million, Zambia covers an area of 752,614 square kilometres,
mostly savannah.

Map of Zambia

Zambia’s number one development challenge is to reduce poverty. Poverty remains
pervasive as the majority of Zambians continue to subsist on the equivalent of less
than one USD a day (PRSP, 2006). In 1991, 70% of the population lived below the
national poverty line. In 2004 this was hardly reduced (LCMCIV, 2004). This is
shown in table 1:

Residence/Province 1991 1993 1996 1998 2004
All Zambia (%) 70 74 69 73 68
Rural (%) 88 92 82 83 78
Urban (%) 49 45 46 56 53
Table 1: Population below the poverty line in the period from 1991 to 2004

32 RUC, K2 - 2009


As indicated in the table above, rural small-scale farmers had the highest incidence of
poverty at 78% (66% being extremely poor (PRSP, 2006)). Although the incidence of
the rural poor is slightly improving they still count the majority.

As acknowledged in the Fifth National Development Plan from 2007, Zambia needs
to improve agricultural production, productivity and market competitiveness in order
to combat poverty (PRSP, 2006). Agriculture in Zambia has great potential for
enhancing economic growth and reducing poverty. 70% of the Zambian population is
occupied in or dependent on the agricultural sector (Country Facts, 2009), which
means that there is a potential for fighting rural poverty by increasing the effective
income in agriculture.

Zambia enjoys abundant water resources and meets most of its energy needs from its
own hydroelectric stations, with 99.9% of produced electricity coming from hydro.
Yet, only 20% of the population have access to electricity (Sida, 2006:). No Major
power station, have not been built since the 1970’s even though the demand for power
has risen steadily over the years. However, according to a local consultant –
Bernadette Lubozhya – 97% of the population still relies on traditional fuels, such as
firewood and charcoal for heating and cooking (Lubozhya: 2008).

3.1.1 Jatropha in Zambia
Access to energy is essential for achieving all of the MDGs (Risø, 2008; Modi, V., S.
McDade, 2005:17-32). Without access to modern energy services, the poor people in
the developing countries are deprived of many potential income-generating
opportunities. Indigenous natural resources represent an opportunity for increasing
energy supply security and energy access. Zambia has a huge potential for natural
resources and Jatropha is among the most promising biofuels alternatives.

In Southern Africa the largest acreage of Jatropha under cultivation currently exists in
Madagascar and Zambia (GEXSI LLX Africa, 2008:4). Jatropha is not a new tree in
Zambia. For generations, farmers have protected their gardens with hedges of
Jatropha curcas, which is not eaten by animals and thus protects the food crops as a
living fence. Jatropha cultivation and biofuels production in Zambia have been
predicted good opportunities, as a lot of officially unused land and degraded bush

RUC, K2 - 2009 33


land seems available. According to Lybozhya there are approximately 75,180,000 ha
of landmass of which 16,500,000 ha are suitable for arable use and roughly 14% is
under cultivation (Lubozhya: 2008).

The cultivation of Jatropha in Zambia is mostly done through smallholder farmers
and, to a far lesser extent, medium-to large-scale plantations. Projects mainly rely on
out-grower schemes or a combined out-grower plantation scheme; that are privately
owned, mostly profit-oriented and to a less extend, development oriented (GEXSI
LLX Africa, 2008:48-50).

3.1.2 The region Central province
Zambia is divided into nine provinces, and the selected Marli Inv. case is placed in the
Central Province. The Central Province consists of 6 districts, Chibombo, Kabwe,
Kapiri Mposhi, Mkushi, Mumbwa and Serenje. The provincial capital is Kabwe
(Wikipedia, 2009).

Regional Central Province

The city of Kabwe is situated 150 km north of the capital Lusaka. The city has
300,000 inhabitants, which makes it the second largest in the country. It has grown as
a consequence of mining activities since 1902. Once it was the largest lead mining

34 RUC, K2 - 2009


city in Africa, which has also resulted in a position as the most polluted city in Africa
and the fourth most polluted city throughout the world1 (IRIN, 2006). The mining
activity stopped in 2000 after environmental safeguards were introduced in 1997. As a
result of this, some people are left with no other opportunity than extracting metal and
charcoal waste in the mines, even though it is very unhealthy (IRIN, 2006). Thus, the
city in particular and maybe also the district in general need new activities to create
employment less harmful to the environment and the people.

Kabwe city

3.2 Case – Marli Investments
The case, which will function as the main analytical object of the analysis, represents
an interesting example of how to involve local small-scale farmers in a large-scale
biofuels production.

1
Top 10 dirtiest cities in the world: Chernobyl, Ukraine; Dzerzinsk, Russia; Haina, Dominican
republic; Kabwe, Zambia; La Oroya, Peru; Linfen, China; Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan; Norlisk, Russia;
Ranipet, India; Rudnaya Pristan, Russia (Blacksmith Institute, 2009)

RUC, K2 - 2009 35


3.2.1 The project developer
The project is an initiative made by a private Zambian agro-company, Marli
Investments (red: Marli Inv.), which has been involved in biofuels production and the
cultivation of Jatropha since 2004.

3.2.2 Marli Inv. project components
The objective of the project is to produce biofuels from Jatropha seeds, cultivated by
25,000 farmers on an out-growers scheme, in the three districts of Kakwe, Kapiri
Mponshi and Chibombo districts (radius of 200 km) in the Central Province north of
Zambia’s capital Lusaka. (PIN, 2006:1).

The first seeds were harvested between 2006 and 2007 and used to enlarge the
nurseries (Jatropha Platform 1, 2008). In 2008, 8,500 ha of land were used for
Jatropha production. In 2009 this number is expected to be 30,000 ha of land with a
provided yield of approximately 175,000 tonnes of Jatropha seeds/year (PIN, 2006:1).
Marli Inv. aims at doubling the acreage cultivated under their scheme by 2010
(Jatropha Platform 1, 2008).

For the pressing of the seeds, Marli Inv. will establish a processing plant in Kabwe
city, with a capacity of 50,000 tonnes of biodiesel (PIN, 2006:1). The plant is an
ENERGEA biodiesel plant, which converts any virgin vegetable oil into Fatty Acid
Methyl Esters (FAME) biodiesel.

3.2.3 Project objectives
The objective of the Marli Inv. project is to produce fuel by mixing biodiesel with
conventional fuel (Jatropha Platform 2, 2008). The aim is to create biofuels that can
partly or fully substitute fossil fuel. The non-mixed fuel from the Jatropha seeds will
be sold for directly use in boilers and furnaces, and other robust engines such as
tractors and stationary engines. The mixed diesel is to be sold through Oil Marketing
Companies (OMCs) for diesel-engine vehicles, large fleet transporters, and farmers
based on purchase agreements (PIN, 2006:1). Their main business partner will be the
only oil refinery in Zambia, the Indeni Petroleum Refinery in Ndola (Jatropha

36 RUC, K2 - 2009


Platform, 2008).

The main activity for Marli Inv. is to produce the seeds, press the seeds - and at full
production rate, use the seedcakes for biogas and fertilizer production. The Jatropha
production is destined for the domestic market as the first priority, but it is possible
that export will be included later in the process (Jatropha Platform 2, 2008). Marli
Inv. is trying to target Carbon Credits under the UNFCCC2 Scheme. But the process
is complex and as of 2008, either Marli Inv. or other Jatropha projects in Zambia have
yet received CDM credits (Jatropha Platform 2, 2008).

3.2.4 Out growers scheme
The 25,000 farmers involved with the project are experienced farmers, who are
currently growing various crops including maize, groundnuts, tobacco and cotton.
According to the thirty-year contract, the farmers are expected to pay for these
expenses and also to replacing any trees that die, at their own cost. Marli Inv. works
directly with the farmers, thus there is no middleman. As part of the contract some
technical expertise on the management of the crops up to maturity stage will be
available. The farmers and their family obligate themselves to only sell their seeds to
Marli Inv. and not any other company. If the farmers break the contract, they will be
excluded from the project and taken to court (PIN, 2006). Marli Inv. is able to
determine both the price of the seeds and services, as well as the price at which they
buy back the product. To prevent such violations of the contract, Mali Inv. policy is to
put 5% of its profit into a Legal Trust Company. The money from the fund will then
be allocated to the out-growers’ community – to support community driven projects
related to health, education, and improved infrastructure (Freim, 2008:62-68).

The remuneration for the farmers consists of Jatropha seeds given to out-growers as
part of the contract and a monthly allowance of 75,000 Kwacha3 (13,62 USD) per 5
ha (or 5000 trees) for two years, until the trees are ready to be harvested (Freim,
2008:62-68). The out-growers are obliged to sell their harvest to Marli Inv., but seeds

2
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Convention entered into force on 21
March 1994 ( www.unfccc.int).
3
Monetary standart of Zambia. 75,000 Zambia Kwacha = 14.51 USD.

RUC, K2 - 2009 37


can be distributed in order to expand the area for cultivation under the Marli Inv.
project.

3.2.5 The farming practices
Marli Inv. has its own nurseries and they also make use of stems to quick-start the
creation of the plantations (Jatropha Platform 1, 2008). Marli Inv. has encouraged the
farmers to cultivate the tree on marginal- and wasteland and they are not allowed to
clear forestland for Jatropha production (PIN, 2006:1,2,8).

The farmers’ planting method is either through transplanting seedlings or cutting and
direct seeding. The farmers prune the tree and intercrop it with other food crops. On
average the tree is planted so far apart (spacing) that there can be 1,000 trees per ha,
and the expected yield is 5 tonnes dry seeds per ha per year (Jatropha Platform 3,
2008).

3.2.6 Financial situation
To make the project work capital is needed, both to assist the farmers and to make the
necessary investments in seeds, fertilisers and especially in machinery and
technology. According to the PIN, the project investment cost are ”…US$ 21.205
million comprising of US$16.8 million (total fixed investment cost), US$2.022
(preproduction expenditures) and US$2.283 (working capital)” (PIN, 2006 1-2). In
addition to this is, the annual operation and maintenance cost, which is estimated at
US$ 25 million from the third year of operation.

The financial resources to assist the out growers in the project are not included in
these calculations, as that money is sought separately (PIN, 2006:1-2). At the time of
writing, these financial resources are not yet found, which is a serious challenge to the
project and thus the impact.

38 RUC, K2 - 2009


3.3 Garalo Bagani Yelen (example for inspiration)

3.3.1 The project developer
The case is a Jatropha fueled rural electrification project developed and coordinated
by a Malian NGO - MFC Nyetaa (Mali Folkecenter). The main objective of the
project is ”to provide high-quality modern energy services to the local population and
stimulate the local economy”. The total budget for the project is USD 756,000. The
money was partly funded by the Malian Rural Electrification Agency (AMADER),
SHGW and DOEN Foundation (Netherlands) (Tologa/URC, 2009).

3.3.2 The location and context of the project
The project is situated in the village of Garalo in the Sikasso region of southern Mali,
two hours south of the regional town of Bougouni. The population is 10,000 and the
principal economic activity is agriculture, which is both subsistence food crops and
cash crops -particularly cotton (MFC Nyataa, 2007:3).

Garalo project location (Togola, 2007)

3.3.3 The content and set up of the project
The Garalo project was started in August 2006 and is supposed to continue for 36
months. In 2008, 600 ha were cultivated with Jatropha among 326 rural family fields

RUC, K2 - 2009 39


(Practical Action, 2009:50). Much of the Jatropha production has substituted the
cultivation of cotton. Of the 600 ha with Jatropha 326 ha are intercropped with food
crops.

Three hybrid generators of 100kW, converted to run on pure Jatropha oil instead of
diesel, were installed in 2007 to provide electricity (Clean Energy: 2007; Practical
Action, 2009:55). The farmers are essential to the business model as they are the only
ones supplying biofuel to the hybrid power plants, though the development of the
Jatropha supply chain is made by two main institutions: The Garalo Jatropha
Producers' Co- operative (CPP) and the power company ACCESS. At the commune
level, the CPP deals with the Jatropha seeds, production, sale of pure vegetable oil
and the seedcake, which is used for fertilizers and in the future maybe also biogas.
The CPP organizes the purchase, commercialization and processing of the Jatropha
seeds, via a co-operative owned press. The seeds are processed by the communal co-
operative and sold to ACCESS. It is the responsibility of the CPP to distribute the
revenues at least every second year to the farmers (Practical Action, 2009:51-53).

In 2008 the agreed price for one kg of seeds were USD 9.8 cents, which should allow
both a reasonable margin for the farmers and a competitive selling price of Jatropha
oil, though a final price has not been agreed because the production is still in an early
stage. (Practical Action, 2009:53).

The company ACCESS is responsible for the generation of electricity and the sales.
The seeds are to provide oil for the 300 kW power plants. An electrical minigrid
network has been established. 247 households are connected and pay a connection fee
of USD 30. In addition to this, the villagers pay a small amount for streetlight and a
monthly amount of USD 5-24. Even though the prices seem high, 90% still pay
(Practical Action, 2009:51-52).

MFC Nyetaa has helped setting up nurseries, distributing trees and making trainings.
In 2008, the agreed price for one kg of seeds was 9.8 cents, which should allow both a
reasonable margin for the farmers and a competitive selling price of Jatropha oil,
though a final price has not been agreed yet as the production is still in an early stage.
(Practical Action, 2009:53).

40 RUC, K2 - 2009


Chapter 4: Analysis
The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the livelihood impact for the small-scale
farmers producing and further use of the Jatropha seeds. In the following (section 4.1)
an introduction to the Jatropha tree will be given. Subsequently, the Marli Inv. case
and the characteristics of the Jatropha tree will be reviewed in relation to the SL
indicators developed in section 2.2.1 in order to analyse the possible impacts, positive
as well as negative, on the livelihood of rural small-scale farmers. In this regard Marli
Inv. is used as an example to draw general recommendations based on the SLA,
whereas the Garalo experiences are only used as inspiration in the following
elaboration of the recommendations.

The structure of this chapter is build according to the set up of the indicators in figure
1.

4.1 Jatropha curcas L.
Jatropha curcas L. (Jatropha) is a small tree/shrub receiving heightened attention due
to its specific characteristics of being drought resistant and able to grow on marginal
lands. Jatropha can be grown in arid and semiarid areas in the tropic and sub-tropics.
Even though Jatropha has its natural dissemination in the north-eastern part of South
America, it is now found abundantly in many tropical and sub-tropical regions
throughout Africa and Asia (see below) (Jongschaap et. al. 2007:1).

RUC, K2 - 2009 41


Global indication of the most suitable climate conditions for the growth of Jatropha (Jongschaap
et.al, 2007:1)

The fruits of the tree consist of different parts – husks, seeds, shells and the oil
containing kernels (see below).

Different components of the physic nut (Jatropha curcas L.): a – flowering branch,
b – bark, c – leaf veins, d – pistilliate (male) flower, e – staminate (female) flower,

42 RUC, K2 - 2009


f – cross-cut of immature fruit, g – fruits, h – longitudinal cut of fruit (Jongschaap
et.al, 2007:intro)

The oil-containing fruits can be used as oil-based biofuel, which can be used in old
diesel-motors, directly in a rural energyproduction (without grid connection),
modified generators which either can be connected or to the grid or used for oil
lamps. Jatropha oil for lighting can be adapted in simple oil lamps, for example the
Binga Lamp as shown below.

The binga lamp (Jatropha.de, 2009)

Furthermore, the residues from pressing the oil (seed-cake) can be used as fertilizer,
due to the nitrogen content, and for biogas production (FACT, 2006). Several reports
on Jatropha biofuel production point out, that the ability of using the residues as
fertilizer is one of the major benefits of Jatropha production.

The fruits are approximately 40 mm long, and each fruit contains three seeds. It takes
about 1.300 seeds to get one kg of oil, and the seeds contain more than 30% oil by
weight (FACT, 2006:8). The energy value in one tonne of Jatropha fruit yield gives
about 270 kg of oil, with a lower heating value of 39.5 MJ/kg4 (Reinhart et.al,
2007:8).

External factors such as rainfall, temperatures, soil nutrients and the agricultural
practices under which Jatropha is grown determine the yield. A plantation of Jatropha
normally consists of 1.000 trees per ha with 3x3 meters spacing. Even though the
yield varies a lot (from 0.3 kg to 12 kg per tree) (Freim, 2008:45), studies on Jatropha
account an average yield of 6 kg/year per tree (Freim, 2008:45, GTZ Jatropha
Manual, Jatrophaworld.org).

4
Diesel and petrol has a lower heating value of 43 MJ/kg and 42,5 MJ/kg respectively (Wikipedia,
2009).

RUC, K2 - 2009 43


Both the leaves from the branches and the oil in the fruits are considered toxic and
can because of that only be used for industrial or energy purpose (Jongschaap et. al,
2007:2-3). In Africa, due to its toxicity, the tree has mainly been used for hedges
around houses and arable land to keep animals out. However the tree has also been
used for its medical purposes (Reinhardt booklet, 2003:6,7&12), (PAC, 2009).

The root system of Jatropha has a length and a dept that can be important in the case
of reclaiming marginal land. The root system holds the soil together and can reach the
lower layers of soil, which contain nutrients that cannot be reached by small-rooted
crops (Reinhardt booklet, 2003:6,7&12).

The tree is overshadowing the soil slowing down evaporation and the leaves and fruit
husk can be used as green manure in the fields (FACT, 2006:10). Furthermore, the
tree can stabilize soils and store moisture while it grows. However, the influence of
the root system on desertification and erosion relies on the way the tree is planted.
Grown by seeding, the root system is developed better and can bind the soil together,
whereas grown by cuttings; the developed root system can be less efficient on erosion
(FACT, 2006:5-11). Thereby growing Jatropha, especially from seeding, reduces the
risk of desertification and erosion due to minimized evaporation.

4.2 Natural Assets

4.2.1 Land use
Land types

The ability of Jatropha to grow and be cultivated on marginal lands, which are not
normally used for agriculture, is one of the often highlighted benefits (FACT
Foundation, 2006:6, Jongschaap et. al, 2007:5). Other environmental benefits are
gained, as cultivation of Jatropha on abandoned agricultural, deforested or degraded
land has the potential to improve the nutrient content of the soil and reduce erosion.
According to Marli Inv., the farmers are only allowed to grow Jatropha ”…on
severely degraded land, waste land, and marginal land such as land along roads,
railroads and field boundaries” (PIN, 2004).

44 RUC, K2 - 2009


Scale

The impact on the natural environment when growing Jatropha depends to a large
extent in the individual scale of the production. According to the Biofuel Association
of Zambia, projections for set targets add up to 184,420 ha for biofuel production by
2015 (African Biodiversity Network, 2007:16). The trend shows that increasing
investment is being made in to plantation-sized projects, where revenue potential is
attractive aiming at exporting to developed countries. The objective of the agro
business is to assure a high yield and to lower the costs of production. Several reports
highlight the potential by negative impacts of plantation sized biofuel production
(African Biodiversity Network, 2007,Biofuelwatch et. al, 2007) with negative trends
such as the large-scale utilization of fertile land, expanded irrigation and fertilizer use
with potential negative impacts on the scarce water resources and biodiversity.
(Biofuelwatch et. al, 2007:22). In the Marli Inv. case, the accumulated size of all the
25,000 out-growers of Jatropha is large scale. However, due to the individual
cultivation the methods used for cultivating are not the same as those of large-scale
plantations.

Deforestation

Zambia has a problem with deforestation, both from mining, but particularly due to
the fact that 97% of Zambia’s population depend on wood-fuel (firewood and
charcoal) for cooking and heating. This leads to an annual deforestation of 350,000 to
400,000 ha of forest (Lubozhya, 2007). Clearing of forest can have many negative
effects, such as loss of biodiversity, erosion, habitat destruction, fragmentation, loss
of carbon sinks and compaction (CBD, 2007:9-11). When grown on marginal lands,
as demanded by Marli Inv., the production does not conflict with forest areas. In
addition, as Jatropha has a lifetime up to thirty years, the production of Jatropha could
even have a positive impact on deforestation, especially if the seedcake is used as an
alternative to wood-fuel. This is not yet the case in Marli Inv., but it could be a future
possibility (Modi et. al, 2005:25-27).

Cultivation Practices

RUC, K2 - 2009 45


As the Jatropha tree has not been harvested yet, there are variations of how many
fruits each tree produces. By using cuttings from productive trees, the production
could be secured as the new tree will have the same genetic structure as the old one
and would produce about the same amount of fruits. The disadvantage of this
cultivation method is that the root system will not be as developed as when grown
from seeds or seedlings, and the trees will have a shorter productive life period.

The yield of the tree also depends on how many branches the tree has, as the
inflorescence only develops at the end of a branch. Consequently it is important to
prune the tree in order to get as many branches as possible. When the branch is cut
back, three to five new shots of branches will be developed. (Rijssenbeek et. al.,
2007:5) Furthermore, pruning is essential for the possibility of intercropping the
Jatropha with food crops after the first three to four years (Annex 2).

In the Marli Inv. case, the farmers either grow the Jatropha from seeds or seedlings
provided by Marli Inv. Few are grown from cuttings. No information is available
about the pruning, but in the PIN they argue that training is provided and also Zambia
National Farmers Union do trains, which should include this essential knowledge.

Additional inputs

As there are only scarce studies on the relations between yield increase and irrigation,
it is hard to define how the future development of the production will be. However
studies show that regular and sufficient rainfall is important to secure high yield and
that fertilizer and irrigation are needed for the first three years, when cultivating in
arid and semi-arid areas (Biofuelwatch et. al, 2007:19). In the maturing stage fertilizer
would reduce the vulnerability of the young tree. Fertilizer can increase yield, but is
not essential to growing Jatropha.

In the Marli case, the majority of the small-scale farmers is currently not using
irrigation in the production of Jatropha, but according to the PIN, Marli Inv. will
provide fertilizer for the farmers (PIN, 2006:2). It is not clear what will happen with
the seedcake after the pressing, and whether the farmers are aware that the seedcake
can be used as effective fertilizer.

46 RUC, K2 - 2009


Land use competition

The expanding use of land for the Jatropha production, even though it is marginal
land, could mean that people living in the area would have to find other places for
collecting firewood, herbs and fields for pasture land etc.. This however but it depend
on the ownership of the land and how much space the production of Jatropha takes
up.

Policy

The Jatropha industry in Zambia is still in its infancy. Politically the Biofuels
Association of Zambia have influenced the process, as they in 2007 formulated a
framework draft for the development of biofuel with the Zambian Government. Thus
the government made an Energy Policy, which included biofuel (Sinkala, 2008:7-8).
The biofuel program is providing information related to opportunities and challenges
related to developing biofuel production (distribution network, environmental
requirements and broad incentives). However the framework is still under
construction in the Ministry of Energy and Water Development (Chomba, Zambia
Times). The local chiefs ownership of customary land, gives them an essential role in
securing land for the Jatropha production. Thus the local chiefs’ knowledge of
Jatropha and how to cultivate it is important for deciding if the land should be used
for the growing of Jatropha. No information about the local chiefs’ understanding of
Jatropha production has been achieved. Consequently the exact policies for biofuel
and the chiefs’ opinion about Jatropha are unclear.

4.2.2 Soil
Erosion

The growing of Jatropha can reduce soil erosion as the feedstock will increase the soil
cover. Moreover, the tree overshadows the soil and the soil will be covered in fallen
leaves. This can reduce the risk of desertification and erosion by minimizing
evaporation. However, the root system’s influence on desertification and erosion
RUC, K2 - 2009 47


relies on how the tree is planted. If it is grown from seeding, the root system develops
a strong root-system binding the soil together. In contrast, the root system will be less
developed, and might have less positive effect on desertification and erosion, if the
Jatropha tree is grown form cuttings (Jongschaap et. al. 2007:5-11).

As mentioned earlier, the majority of the trees were planted as seeds, a few others as
transplanted seedlings or cuttings in the Marli case (Jatropha Platform, 2008). A
problem related to growing from cuttings, besides the lack of positive effect on
erosion and desertification, is the loss of genetic variation leading to debilitation of
the crops’ resistance to sicknesses and other stresses.

Reclaim of land

Other potential benefits of planting Jatropha on degraded or marginal lands include,
increased soil productivity and perhaps increased carbon content (Rijssenbeek et. al.
2007:9) This happens because the root system of Jatropha has a dept that can make
the root system bind the soil together and thus can reach the lower layers of soil,
which contain nutrients that cannot be reached by small-rooted crops, such as
seasonal crops. Another advantage is that being drought resistant the tree is also more
adaptable for possible climate change, which is an essential element to consider when
planting a crop with a 30-year time scale. All these benefits exist in the Marli case, to
the extent that marginal land is used for the production, thus potentially increasing the
value of the land.

Exposure to pollutants

Though the Jatropha tree do not need fertilizer when it is full-grown, it still needs
nursing during the first three years. This includes protection against termites,
irrigation and perhaps small amounts of fertilizer. According to Freim (Annex 4) there
is a need for pesticides in the production. In general the use of fertilizers could have
negative effects on the environment, though the extent depends on the way it is used,
which nutrient it contains, the amount used, and when it is used. We are not aware

48 RUC, K2 - 2009


whether the farmers in the Marli case use pesticides,. It is likely that they use
traditional methods to deal with the termites.

4.2.3 Water
As Jatropha is generally are drought resistant, there is not much discussion about how
the water demand could impact on the tree itself. Thus, there is a lack of knowledge in
terms of deciding exactly how much water the individual Jatropha tree uses, and how
it could affect the proportions of the seeds and the amount of oil in the seeds.

The Jatropha tree coverings the soil in shadow, leaves and branches, but there could
still be a need for further water consumption in the area than without the tree. How it
inflicts the nearby environment depends on the general need for water in the area and
the availability of nutrients in the ground (Jongschaap et. al. 2007:13). According to
the Marli Inv. project, the farmers did not use irrigation to grow Jatropha (Jatropha
platform, 2008).

4.2.4 Concise conclusion: Natural asset impacts
The restrictions and directions of the land-use potential for Jatropha production from
Marli Inv., could create awareness about the possibility of growing Jatropha on
marginal land. This could give the farmers more land to cultivate and also improve
degraded land, thus increasing the value of it.

Land use competition seems to play a minor role as in the Marli inv. case, the
cultivation is promoted on marginal land. However policies could be essential for
assuring this. With priority on reduced risk from genetic failure, improved soil
condition, erosion control, and potential “reclaim of land”, longer lifetime of the tree
and the prevailing practice of growing from seedlings and seeds could be an
advantage and a potential positive impact on natural assets.

The possible yield benefits of using irrigation and fertilisers make intensified
cultivation methods likely. But increased use of these resources can have negative
impact on the natural asset.

RUC, K2 - 2009 49


Even though the project involves a large amount of farmers, the feedstock is
cultivated on small scale or individual basis, limiting the negative environmental
impacts seen on large-scale productions.

4.3 Economic Assets

4.3.1 Growth
The production of Jatropha has many potentials for increasing a rural farmers’
income, but the total number of economic benefits depend on how many of the value
chain activities are kept locally, the arrangements or the contract with the project
initiator or investors and which crop the production of Jatropha substitutes.

Income generation

The farmers are only involved in the first part of the production chain of the Jatropha
oil – cultivation. To be part of the Marli Inv. project, the farmers have to sign a 30-
year contract, which oblige the individual farmer and his household only to sell their
production of seeds to Marli Inv. In return the farmers are provided with seeds,
training and fertilisers. The price of these services will be deducted when the farmers
sell the seeds back to Marli Inv. This arrangement makes the farmers’ income very
dependent on how Marli Inv. price set the goods and service they provide and the
price they will pay for the produced seeds. The latter depends on the possible revenue
of Marli Inv., which is determined by the domestic market for Jatropha, the world
market price on crude oil, Jatropha oil and other oils suitable for biofuel and the
government’s regulations and substitution policies.

According to Freim, Marli Inv. is budgeting with a profit margin of 30 – 40% of the
diesel pump price. All of Marli Inv. production expenses – e.g. distribution of seeds,
and fertilisers; trainings; collection of harvested seeds; setting up the plant; processing
the oil; wages etc. – shall be covered from the sale of Jatropha oil. Of the remaining
revenue Marli Inv. obtain 30 – 40% and the rest determines the price of the seeds.

50 RUC, K2 - 2009


In 2007, the revenue from selling seeds in Zambia5 ranged from ZKwa6 110 to ZKwa
2500 per kg seeds (Freim, 2008:24-25) with a mean price of ZKwa 1159,2. According
to Freim, Marli Inv. offers ZKwa 400 per kg seeds (Freim, 2008;64), which is far
below average price. However, as the price comparison is based on numbers from
different years, the actual variation and unfavourable outcome for Marli Inv. should
be read with precaution.

A main factor determining the income gained from Jatropha production is the
production yield. As stated in section 3.2.2, 30,000 ha of land for Jatropha production
are distributed among 25,000 farmers, equal to 1.2 ha of land/farmer. With average
yield of 6 tonnes/ha/year seeds, and a price of 400 ZKwa/kg seeds offered by Marli
Inv., 1.2 ha of land thus provides average revenue of ZKwa 2,880,000/year, equal to
USD 555,25/year. A deeper discussion of the implications towards absolute poverty
will not be carried through in this thesis. However, it is worth mentioning, that the
farmer will receive additional revenue of approximately USD 1.5/day from growing
Jatropha, lifting the farmer from absolute poverty (= USD 1/day).

There are some uncertainties about the exact financial situation. One is that since the
production of Jatropha has not yet reached a productive level, some unofficial sources
state that the farmers are being paid to produce Jatropha the first three to four years,
as the tree is not fully productive. Thus the farmers are only getting a small income
from the yield. Another essential uncertainty is that the Marli Inv. project still needs
financing through the CDM- especially crucial for the construction of the processing
plant. Without the economic situation covered through CDM, there will be no
machineries to process the Jatropha oil in Zambia, thereby making further economic
support and selling guarantee for the farmers doubtful.

The positive element about the income uncertainty is the multiple uses of the Jatropha
tree and its possibilities for substitution, which we will elaborate on later in this
section.

5
Numbers are based on the investigated companies in Freims thesis.
6
Monetary standart of Zambia. 1 USD = 5168,85 ZKwa (06.05.2009).

RUC, K2 - 2009 51


Cost

According to the information available the farmers’ expenses relating to the
production of Jatropha are not a problem in the early stages of the production, as
Marli Inv. provides the farmers with the necessary resources. According to Mundia’s
understanding of the contract, the farmers must pay Marli Inv. back for the seeds,
fertilisers and training, but this can be done by deducting this sum from the sale of the
harvested seeds (Mundia & Chipokolo, 2007:15).

The plant for the processing of the seeds is a crucial element and an expensive
investment. Though it is not the farmers who will pay for the plant and thus not have
a direct impact on their economic situation, the provisions of finance for the plant is
crucial for the survival of project thus it also impacts the farmers. If the investors are
not founded, the seeds might be transported to South Africa (Mundia & Chipokolo,
2007:14). This would take all the benefits of processing and utilizing the oil in the
Central Province away.

Substitution

Besides the direct sale of seeds, which is the only revenue for farmers, there are other
potential indirect incomes generations if the use of all Jatropha products stays within a
local supply chain. It has not been possible to obtain any information about whether
the out-growers will keep some seeds for local pressing. A note must be made on this
though, as this ignores some of the positive economic benefits of producing Jatropha
for local use.

Other opportunities for improving the cost effectiveness of Jatropha production are
related to the use of the seedcake in, for example, biogas production along with other
materials such as leaves, branches and cow dung. After the biogas production, the
seedcake can serve as a good organic degassed fertilizer, thereby being a substitute
for chemical fertilisers or cow dung.

The seedcake contains nitrogen, and can be used as fertilizer, even after it has been
used in biogas production, as it will still contain nutrient and minerals (FACT, 2006).
Several reports on Jatropha biofuel production points out, that this ability of using the

52 RUC, K2 - 2009


seedcake as fertilizer, is one of the major benefits in Jatropha production - both for the
soil and the energy balance – as indirect energy saving, when avoiding expensive
commercial fertilizer (FACT, 2006).

Furthermore, the nutrients contained in the seedcake are much higher than in cow
dung used for fertilizer (see below).

One maize field showing the impact of Jatropha seed cake applied to the
portion on the left hand size vs. cow dung on the right side. (Photo BUN 1999)

Underneath: The units of nitrogen and phosphates amounts in Jatropha fertilizer from
seedcake with cow dung.

Source: Jatropha oil as fuel, GTZ Jatropha Energy Project, October 1995.

RUC, K2 - 2009 53


The extra nutrient in the fertilizer made of Jatropha seedcake, compared to cow dung,
is a great opportunity for supporting the growth of the farmers’ food crops, which will
have a positive influence on the food production, because the organic fertilizer from
Jatropha can benefit and secure the yield of the food crops.

Freim points out in the e-mail interview that the lighting in rural Zambia
(paraffin/diesel) constitute a major expense for small-scale farmers. His study showed
that 10% of a household’s income is spent on paraffin or diesel for lighting. This
figure could be reduced if the Jatropha oil could also be utilized locally (e.g. the
Binga lamp). However, Marli Inv. does not promote any potential use of the oil, other
than for biodiesel.

When debating the impact of cash crops on livelihood, the potential competition to
with food crops and resulting increase in food prices, is a core issue. Intercropping is
a way of overcoming this obstacle, and especially relevant in the first three years, the
time when the tree is not yet giving full yield. Projects with intercropping maize,
sesame and groundnuts gave positive results. When the tree is mature though, and if
the tree is not being pruned, the branches become too big making intercropping
difficult. Thus food crops, which require shadow, are more suitable to intercrop
(Annex 2). It is therefore essential to nurse the tree through pruning.

Marli Inv. advises intercropping, which is a major benefit as farmers do not have to
substitute food crop production with the cash crop – thereby reducing the farmers’
vulnerability – as food is still being produced and they do not only rely on the cash
crop production. It means that if the market price of Jatropha crops or the project fails
- there will still be food. Financially, in term of money this means that farmers do not
necessarily have to buy all food. But of course this has to be seen in comparison with
how much food crop being produced, the additional time used and the land available.

The production of seasonal food crops, such as the maize, is very dependent on the
rainy season. The Jatropha give the possibility to add a crop to the production, which
is not as dependent on the rainy season (Annex 1), thereby diversifying the farmers’
vulnerability.

54 RUC, K2 - 2009


Energy Access

If oil and the seedcake are used as local energy sources, in diesel generators or for
biogas production, access to modern sources of energy – especially electricity is
possible.

The PIN states that some of Marli Inv.’s costumers are farmers, who have made a
contract with Marli Inv. to buy some of the oil. This might be the out-growers, though
it is more likely that it is large-scale farmers who can effort the oil to optimise their
production by mechanisation. Marli Inv. expected in 2006 the price of the Jatropha oil
to be “US$0.70 per litre ex-factory and US$1.13 per litre pump price” (PIN, 2006:2).
As the Jatropha oil would only be cheaper than the current price of fossil fuel, if it
were to be subsidized by the government, the small-scale farmers might find it
difficult to afford the oil and maybe also a conversion of the accessible generator.

According to Hanyuma, diesel generators are present in many of the villages (Annex
5). If buying the oil is part of the contract between Marli Inv. and the out-growers, it
could give the farmers a possibility to utilize the oil for electricity, which would again
give the farmers an opportunity to optimize activities, such as milling the maize, and
thus either use it themselves or sell it for a higher price than the maize.

4.3.2 Employment
Labour intensiveness

The expenses for production of Jatropha originate from the farmer’s use of workforce
- his/her body, workers/family members, tools, working hours and transportation.

It is very difficult to make a precise count of how much time the farmers spend on
producing Jatropha. Freim tried in his study, but answers varied a lot – as the farmers
did not recall exactly how much time was used for the different nursing of the trees.
The estimates made are therefore made with caution from the information we have.

As the Jatropha tree is a perennial, one could think that it would only demand a small
amount of time. Freim opposes this general misunderstanding, as in order to maintain

RUC, K2 - 2009 55


a successful yield - pruning, weeding, pest control and harvest must be done carefully
– and are time-consuming processes (Annex 3).

The fruits should be harvested three times in a year, but in one period stretching from
December to March (Freim, 2008:42).

The reason for the need for three harvests is according to Christensen that the fruits
ripe at different speed, and the harvest therefore must be done two-three times/year
manually of ½ - one minute each (Annex 2), which obviously depends on the size and
the yield of each tree.

To give an overview of the time requirement for harvesting, according to
Christensen’s one-minute estimate, the harvest of one ha with 1000 trees, would all
together demand 2-3,000 minutes. This is equivalent to approximately 50 hours equal
to 6.25 working days/year (8 hours a day). This estimate does not include time
demanded for general cultivation such as pruning. This will constitute additional time
use.

Furthermore, with an estimated yield of 6 kg/tree, each farmer will in average produce
roughly seven tonnes/year seeds. Consequently, the transport of the seeds requires
time or expenditures for transport. As Marli Inv. situates picking up stations for the
harvested fruits in a radius of eight km from the farmers, the labour intensiveness
and/or income are influenced.

Competing income generating activities

As the farmers are experienced farmers in the cultivation of e.g. maize, tobacco and
cotton (PIN, 2006:2), and since many of the farmers started to grow Jatropha, as they
could not afford the fertilisers needed for their normal crop, we argue that the
Jatropha production, to some extent, must be seen as a substitute for the previous
production. In addition to this, the official unemployment rate in rural Zambia has
been declining since 1990 from 14.4% to 6.6% in 2005 (Sunday Times of Zambia,
2009), also making it more possible that the Jatropha production, maybe in relation

56 RUC, K2 - 2009


with intercropping, will not be additional to but rather substitute the previous
agricultural cultivation.

Even though the production of Jatropha will require more of the farmer’s time, the
most time demanding activities – the planting and the harvest – will not interfere
much with the activities need for the food crops (Freim, 2008:42). Planting of the
seeds will only be done once and then last for about 30 years. The harvest will not
interfere with maize, but if the farmer would grow groundnuts or beans, the last
month of the potential four months of harvesting could interfere with Jatropha.
Weeding, though, is needed almost in the same time frame. With lack of time to do
the weeding, it could become a problem that could impact the yield, but it could also
be a process of doing it all at the same time, which might optimise the time use. This
could argue that as Jatropha cultivation does not conflict with the cultivation of food
crops in a matter of time, intercropping would be possible.

Policy
The government’s role and its attitude towards biofuels and the policies it make, have
a considerate influence on the economic aspects of the Jatropha production. Before
any potential pervasive use of Jatropha diesel in the transport sector is feasible, the
essential infrastructure needs to be in place – which is both dependent on adequate
political prioritization and securing investments. Further more, Marli Inv. argues that:
“For the biodiesel to be sold requires introduction of incentives such as reduction on
taxes; excise duty and road levy and VAT” (PIN, 2006:4). An incentive of 50%
reduction on all taxes is being considered as part of the government’s biofuel
development framework, in order to encourage users to swhich to biodiesel (PIN,
2006:2). The final result of this framework, will her on impact on the price the
farmers will receive from the sale of seeds to Marli Inv., as a high incentive, would
give Marli Inv. a large profit. In addition to this, the oil might become affordable for
the small-scale farmers.

RUC, K2 - 2009 57


4.3.3 Concise conclusion
Since there have been made no accurate cost benefit analysis in the analysis, the
conclusion on the economic impacts, is an outlining of some overall trends of what
appear as potential positive and negative outcome in the project. Furthermore, the
project is not yet fully up and running, meaning that there are uncertainties of the real
practices.

The economic growth potential, which is determined by the selling price, and thus the
contract and the negotiations with Marli Inv, is surrounded with some unanswered
questions. The monopoly status of Marli Inv. is seen as a potential disadvantage for
the economic outcome for the farmers, as they are dependent on external factors and
act on Marli Inv terms; potential infrastructural constraints in distribution of biofuel;
policy frameworks for the encouragement of this; world market prices; the running of
the pressing plant and thus some uncertainties for the profitability of the project in
general. On the other hand, if these issues are overcome and the negotiated selling
price turns out beneficial, the farmers have accessed a secured and safe market for the
sale of the seeds for many years.

The time used for harvesting is relatively recoverable to the farmers. However, time
use for cultivation has to be taken into consideration making the elapsed time for
cultivation rather heavy. Furthermore transportation of heavy yield loads further
increase the labour intensiveness remarkable. Thus the economic asset seems to be
influenced by a relatively time consuming activity. However, the possible negative
impact of increased workload is determined by the amount of available work force
within the households. If the unemployment rate is high, the negative impact of
increased workload is limited. However, if the production substitutes other income
generating activities, Jatropha could impact the economic asset negatively.

The current absence of any priority towards local substitution of fertilizer, oil for
lighting and cooking stoves or fuel for generator with Jatropha products, is an
unutilized advantage in the project – and thus no economic benefit can be recorded
from this.

The further economical support for the project and selling guarantee for the farmers
are doubtful, as the investments for the processing plant is still not secured. This issue
could have a pivotal influence on the farmers’ income generation. Though, when the
58 RUC, K2 - 2009


processing plant is set up in the province where the farmers are situated, there could
be positive synergies to gain. Thus it can create employment, knowledge transfer and
electrification either through use of the oil in a converted generator or by making a
biogas production from the seed cake. But no positive impacts is currently derived
from this.

If fertilizers will be provided for free as somewhere stated – or sold at a very
beneficial price, the farmers would be able to increase their income and food
production, as outcome of better yield. The fact that intercropping is the present
practises, production of both food- and cash crop, appear as a positive impact on the
economy.

4.4 Human Assets

4.4.1 Health

Air pollution

The health related impacts from Jatropha cultivation are, as mentioned earlier, if the
Jatropha oil is kept for local use such as lighting. This utilization would give health
improvements as diesel and paraffin emits unhealthy particles.

As the oil in the Marli Inv. project is primarily aimed at transportation utilization, the
direct impact on the small-scale farmers is not relevant. One could argue that air
pollution from Jatropha use, in transport convoys in the region has impacts on health.
But since the objective in this thesis is merely on the direct local scale impacts, this is
not relevant in this content. However, could diesel generators be converted to run on
Jatropha oil for local use, the substitution could result in health improvements. There
are still NOx emissions from combustion (in engines) of Jatropha oil, but not at the
same extent as when diesel are used (Reinhardt et. Al., 2007).

Jatropha could benefit the health remarkably is if the seedcake were used to produce
biogas. The gas could substitute the wood-fuel and thus the emitted air pollution. This
utilization is not mentioned in Marli Inv., thus not a possible positive impact.

RUC, K2 - 2009 59


Access to electricity

Electricity is crucial for cooling systems at the health centres for medicine, and they
might benefit from the possibility of electric light at night. Furthermore electricity can
provide an opportunity for gaining information about healthcare and prevention
(television, radio etc).

These benefits could be assessable through generators in the Marli inv. case, but these
possible electrical gains might be too expensive for the small-scale farmer to access,
and there are no immediate plans for rural electrification from Marli inv..

Improved hygiene

If some of the oil from the Jatropha processing was used for soap production, one
could argue that there were hygienic improvements to gain. However, the possible
local soap production would rather be economic as they would not have to buy soap,
and moreover might gain income from selling. These positive impacts will not be part
of the Marli Inv. project as the Jatropha oil is for production of biofuel exclusively.

According to the managing director of Marli Inv. Hekkie Grobler, 5 % of the profit of
Marli Inv. project will be put into a Legal Trust Fund, which surplus will be lead back
to the outgrowers and support community driven projects on health improvements,
education etc (Freim, 2008:62). If this trust fund are realised, it can affect the health
positively.

4.4.2 Skills

Education and training

The Marli. Inv project includes training of the farmers (Annex 5), which is part of
improving the human assets. We do not know the exact extensiveness or quality of the
provided training, whether it is a onetime experience, or if there will be a follow up
evaluation and improvements of the training.

Know How

60 RUC, K2 - 2009


In the interview with Hanyuma, the lack of know-how was identified as an important
barrier (Annex 5). It is essential that the farmers have knowledge about the cultivation
of Jatropha and the possibilities of the utilization. Know-how is thus related to
education, which must be the main activity for assuring adequate know-how of land-
use and cultivation practices such as intercropping, pruning requirements and
irrigation and fertilizer needs. Know-how was provided through training from Marli
Inv., in use of fertilizer, intercropping and pruning, which is positive, though many
details need to be acknowledged to measure the overall positive impacts.

4.4.3 Concise conclusions

Summarizing the impact on human assets, it appears from the analysis that there will
be no direct positive impact from the Marli inv. case in substituting paraffin or diesel
use for lighting, as the farmers do not use the oil themselves. Furthermore, the air
pollution reductions from potential wood-fuel substitution is not evident, neither is the
possible positive benefits from electricity access and soap production.

Some level of training has been provided, but the presence of pruning and
intercropping practise is a rather vague basis, for concluding that adequate training
has taken place in Marli inv.. However indicators show that basic know-how have
been provided to the farmers.

The fund Marli inv. wished to establish could become an essential improvement of
the human livelihood, but this is determined by the generated profit and how it is
used.

4.5 Social Assets

4.5.1 Local participation

Institutional capacity

The main issue of the institutional capacity building, in relation to livelihood, is
whether or not the farmers have an influential part of the project and are capable of
influencing the decision-making processes of the project. This is only possible if
RUC, K2 - 2009 61


unions are formed to take care of the farmers’ joint interests. However, it has not been
possible to obtain any official information of whether such unions have been formed.
Moreover, it is not clear to what extend the farmers have had influence on the binding
formulations in the contract. Though, from Freim’s interview with Marli Inv., it is
known that the timeframe of the contract ended up being 30 years instead of 10 years,
due to - according to Marli inv. – the wish of the farmers themselves, as it would
assure them a buyer of the seeds throughout the hole life period of the trees. This
indicates that the farmers have had some influence on the process. Detailed
information of the farmers’ involvement in the project, whether they have organized
themselves and discussed and debated the content of the contract would have been
beneficial to the analysis. Access to such information would have made it possible to
deeper analyse to what extend the institutional capacity have been improved and thus
impacted the farmers’ livelihood.

According to the PIN, the farmers have received training on cultivation and utilization
possibilities of Jatropha (PIN, 2006:2). The provided know-how and networking
possibilities in connection with the training sessions could help create empowerment
and support further development within the community.

In the long-term such training and possible well-informed; well functioning; and
locally available unions of the farmers could improve the farmers’ organizational
capacity. Thus, additional benefits from the production and utilization of Jatropha
could be achieved.

Legal rights

As mentioned the farmers wanted a contract, which would last for 30 years for the
safety of the income from the Jatropha production. Many of the farmers used to
produce cotton, from which the price was determined from year to year and thus
presented great insecurity of the income, which influenced the opportunities of
investments and loans. A contract for 30 years is therefore perceived by the farmers to
provide more security due to the secured income from the Jatropha production.
However, by giving up the theoretical opportunity for a yearly negotiation of the yield
price they are very dependent on the good will from Marli Inv. in the determination of
the price-level. Thus, if the market price should change in favour of the Jatropha oil,
62 RUC, K2 - 2009


they might not have a good foundation for negotiation, depending on the formulation
in the contract. To be able to say more about the specific inflicts from the Jatropha
production on the legal rights of the farmers, it will be necessary to know the exact
formulations in the contract. Thus the content and the transparency of the contract are
essential for how the productions of Jatropha in an outgrower-scheme impact the
small-scale farmers.

Depending on whether the farmers are members of Zambia National Farmers Union,
this union should be able to help the farmers with knowledge about their legal rights
and possibilities. Such a possible membership would impact their understanding and
access to right positively.

4.5.2 Equity

Strengthening of social structures

As the involvement and participation of the farmers in the decision-making processes
seem very limited, it does not appear to be a driver for strengthening social structures.
This is especially the situation if the farmers do not organize themselves and
potentially end up being competitors instead of colleagues.

Wealth Distribution

Whether wealth distribution are influenced by Marli Inv. depend on the price the
farmers will get for their seeds; if there are any rules of the amount of Jatropha the
out-growers are allowed to grow; and who can access land. Thus, distribution of
wealth is related to land rights and access, which will be further discussed in the
following section.

The farmers have the right to distribute seeds to family friends and neighbours
(Freim, 2007:64), which could contribute to a wealth distribution within the society if
the know-how of Jatropha is passed on as well.

Distribution of land

RUC, K2 - 2009 63


The distribution of land will be determined of the landownership, which most likely
would be the local chief and how he prioritises allocation of land. Policymaking from
the government could also influence the land distribution, and by that the benefits
from the production on the land.

The Marli Inv. project will not influence this directly, but through the possible
distribution of seeds and knowledge from the farmers, production and general benefits
of Jatropha could be spread out on more land. The distribution of the land also
depends much on Marli Inv.’s relation to the local chiefs and whether they have asked
permission to grow Jatropha in their districts and how the chief benefits from the
production of Jatropha.

4.5.3 Concise Conclussion: Social Assets
Merely little analysis of the farmer’s participation in the process around the project
and the status of equity conditions could be derived from the information on the
project. Moreover, the above analysis served as an outline of those important factors,
which could have had positive impact on social assets. They are included due to the
fact that strengthening capacity for handling price setting; knowledge of rights; and
organization among the farmers is especially important in relation to contract farming.

The above mentioned conditions, under which social assets could be impacted, are for
a large part not incorporated in the Marli Inv. project, thus the absence of this could
imply that social assets was not improved noticeably. However, the changes in the
contract, on the farmer’s request, do indicate that there had been some extend of
participation in the drawing up of the contract.

As for institutional capacity it is uncertain whether unions are formed. However
unions play a vital role for strengthening involvement and influence of the farmers.
The scale of participation in the draw up the contract is highlighted as an essential
factor for determining a positive outcome for the farmers. Whether the ability to
negotiate a favourable contract for the farmers was present, is not completely clear.
But some influence did the farmers have, and from their point of view with a positive
outcome – a contract for 30 instead of 10 years. Whether this is a result of clear
understanding of what this implies could though be questioned – from an outcomers
point of view, 30 years is a long time for a binding agreement.
64 RUC, K2 - 2009


PART THREE

RUC, K2 - 2009 65


Chapter 5: Identification of Recommendations
From the analysis it has become clear that the production and utilization of Jatropha
impact the four SL assets in diverse ways. The more specific impact of Jatropha in the
Marli Inv. case has been difficult to define due to lack of information. Though, the
analysis showed that potential benefits of keeping some of the Jatropha products and
by-products for local use is left out. The potential economic benefits from this are
essential factors, which are not utilized. Furthermore some constraints from the model
of contract farming have been highlighted as impacting negatively, as it puts the
farmer in a vulnerable situation.

In the following, essential constraints will be discussed. Garalo have provided the
thesis with inspiration to support the identification of recommendations. Hence this
chapter briefly discusses potential improvements of Jatropha production and
utilization. Preferred recommendations will sum up each section.

5.1 Six key issues impacting the livelihood of small-scale
farmers
Trough the analysis and with inspiration from the Garalo project and Togola, key
issues can be identified pivotal for how the livelihood of the small-scale farmers will
be impacted:

• Knowledge sharing and intercropping
• The organization of the farmers
• To do or not to cultivate Jatropha on marginal land
• Local value chain – out-growers scheme
• Government’s consideration for small-scale farmers in bio-policy making
• Access to finance

66 RUC, K2 - 2009


5.1.1 Knowledge sharing and intercropping
For the small-scale farmers to benefit from the cultivation of Jatropha, it is crucial that
the farmers obtain know-how on all possible uses of Jatropha, so that all benefits of
the tree are improving the local livelihood in as many aspects as possible.

By that the farmer will potentially become more empowered and be able to determine
the price of the seeds better. If the price offered is not good enough, the farmer may
choose to keep the seeds himself instead of selling, and thus benefit from the multiple
utilization possibilities. If the farmer is aware of the intercropping possibilities of
Jatropha with seasonal food crops, the farmer will diversify his income opportunities
and thus reduce food insecurity.

- Knowledge sharing should be supported, especially on the importance and
methods of intercropping.

This could be done by regional research centres, which also do research on local
appropriate technology. They could train a number of engaged, interested and
foresighted villagers, who will share their knowledge in the local community.
Reinhard K. Henning has developed a detailed manual towards this (Jatropha Booklet,
2003).

5.1.2 The organization of the farmers
For the farmers to benefit more from the Jatropha production, organization of farmers
is essential. By joining hands the farmers can share experiences and invest
collectively and thus get the possibility to invest in technology, which could give
them access to more parts of the value chains of Jatropha. A unity/cooperative of the
farmers will help raise their voice and thus their negotiation power with a possible
investor or the government. In addition to this, a well functioning cooperative could
strengthen the social network/interaction.

- Farmers should be motivated to organize themselves and find a common
strategy and voice for lobbying.

Aiming this recommendation at any present well functioning union or village
organization is preferable in order to make the existent organizational structure a

RUC, K2 - 2009 67


carrier for new responsibilities. According to Togola, an appointed local champion,
who is respected and has the capacity for leading the way, should be encouraged in
absence of an existing union or corporative (Annex 1).

5.1.3 To cultivate or not to cultivate Jatropha on marginal land
Due to recent year’s food crisis, which has been the immense argument against
biofuel production, one of the most highlighted benefits of Jatropha is that Jatropha
can be cultivated on marginal land. Thus Jatropha does not necessarily compete with
food crops for land.

However, according to Togola, the experience from the Garalo project shows that
even though there are land-improving benefits from growing Jatropha on marginal
land, the yield is better if grown on arable land. Put in another way, this implies that:
“growing on marginal land gives marginal yield” (Annex 1). Furthermore, when
pruned properly, Jatropha can be intercropped with seasonal food crops on arable
land. Compared with the opportunity of using intercropping on marginal land, this
practice is not very beneficial yield-wise. However, Jatropha can be used to reclaim
marginal land, but it will mostly become feasible where access to arable land is
scares. However, the total amount of food crops produced can be influenced if
Jatropha is cultivated on arable land, which previously used for food crops. The land
use issues has to be carefully planned, so that the farmers are not left with increased
expenses of buying more expensive food crops, due to decrease in cultivation of food
crops. However, as Togola argues, the farmer is the cleverest and as long as she/he
gets the necessary information, she/he knows best how to improve his livelihood
(Annex 1).

- Carry out feasibility studies of suitable and available land.

The local context has to be taken into consideration when deciding whether Jatropha
production has to be limited to marginal lands, or if there is enough lucrative arable
land to produce both food and Jatropha.

68 RUC, K2 - 2009


5.1.4 Local value chain – out growers scheme
A risk of Jatropha production is that it will be utilized as any other cash crop such as
cotton, where the farmers only benefits from the first part of the value chain, which is
usually production of raw materials. This constitutes a classic development problem,
where the farmers are kept in poverty. Keeping more of the Jatropha value chain
locally will thus impact local livelihood positively.

Garalo is a very good example of how the value chain can be kept local, which leaves
the added value of each stage of the value chain local. As stated by Togola, “The
biofuel shall be used locally to boost the development and add value to the local
environment” (Annex 1). The farmers are part of the whole project and have
influence as they cooperatively have bought the seed presser with support from
donors/MFC leaving the farmers with an ownership of 49%. This give them access to
both the benefits from the oil and the seed cake. The oil opens the possibilities of
electrification, which can help them processing more of their goods, such as milling
the maize for the local basis food. The access to the seed cake is a beneficial fertiliser
and an economic and natural benefit if chemical fertiliser is substituted The Garalo
project is an example of how small-scale farmers, can become part of the value chain
process and through that improve their local livelihood.

- As many parts of the value chain locally should be kept locally, in order to
secure synergies within the community.

The out-grower scheme or contract farming that Marli Inv. project is founded upon
gives the farmers access to almost none of the value chain, except for the first part –
depending on the specific content in the contract. This puts farmers in a very
vulnerable situation and will surely impact their livelihood less positively compared
to a full local utilization of the complete value chain. The benefit of a fully livelihood
focused project is that the farmers are provided with seeds and fertilizers for
production, and training. However, whether the objective of the project is improving
livelihood or the project is profit oriented, the initial investments and establishment of
production is crucial.

RUC, K2 - 2009 69


5.1.5 Access to Finance
Absolute critical for the start up of a Jatropha project is access to finance. Donors can
be a possibility, but this is not always either a sustainable or a reliable source. Other
possibilities are investors like Marli Inv. However, private investors could preferred
be restricted from policies in order to assure livelihood in the Jatropha production.
Access to finance could also be provided by access to loan at an affordable rate. This
would furthermore improve the financial market of the area. Yet two other
possibilities for finance, is micro financing or CDM with sale of CERs.

‐ Financial possibilities should be analyzed and involve suitable local partners
in this, aimed at accessing finance to Jatropha projects which focus on
benefiting small-scale farmers.

5.1.6 Government’s consideration for small-scale farmers in bio-
policy
The government can play a vital rule for securing beneficial conditions of Jatropha
production, by securing effective policies, regulatory and legal frameworks, with
standards for a sustainable biofuel production, industry and utilization. The
government’s position in the field can have a crucial impact on the possible access to
finance

‐ Capacity building should be initiated, at government level, to include priority
of the livelihood for the farmers in policy making.

The accurate knowledge on Jatropha production, different practices and the derived
impacts on livelihood are essential, in order to create the suitable policy frameworks.

70 RUC, K2 - 2009


Chapter 6: Conclusion

6.1 Answering the first part of the research question
- How does the production and utilization of Jatropha impact rural livelihood
for small-scale farmers in Central Province of Zambia?

The theoretical framework of the Sustainable Livelihood Approach has served as an
applicable basis for understanding the content of rural livelihood. The Sustainable
Livelihood concept is especially relevant to address issues concerning reduction of
poverty and reducing environmental impacts. The concept contains a basket of assets,
upon which people construct their lives. The basis for livelihood, withdrawn from the
SLA is Natural assets; Economic assets; Human assets; and Social assets.

In order to analyse how these assets have been impacted, indicators have been
elaborated as part of constructing an analytical framework for answering the first part
of the research question.

The production and utilization of Jatropha in Central Province in Zambia, is an out-
grower project including 25.000 small-scale farmers, which is aimed at cultivating
30.000 ha of Jatropha. The Jatropha tree, has several beneficial characteristics for
livelihood improvements with its soil requirements and multiple use of the oil
containing fruit and the by-product, hence it is an attractive feedstock for small-scale
farming. To what extent these potential benefits have impacted the livelihood of the
farmers involved in the project is questioned.

Due to the restriction for cultivation on marginal land in the Marli Inv. project,
Jatropha production gives positive outcome on natural assets. As deforestation can be
avoided and thus the soil condition improved, utilizing available marginal land thus
has a positive impact on livelihood, as these resources are not violated. The resources
are therefore preserved or even improved and value added to the land. If fertiliser is
required to establish production, these however implicate additional cost for the
production. Subsequently the seed-cake can be used as organic fertiliser, but this is
not currently included in the Marli Inv. project. Furthermore, there are positive
impacts from growing Jatropha from seeds/seedlings in relation to the potential

RUC, K2 - 2009 71


reduced risk from genetic failure, improved soil condition, erosion control, and
potential “reclaim of land” and longer lifetime of the tree.

The size of yield is crucial for the potential income generation and consequently an
important factor when growing cash crops, as more crops provides more income.
Marginal land gives marginal yield, and growing on marginal land could imply
increased fertiliser and irrigation needs.

Intercropping plays a vital role thus affecting livelihood in several ways. First the
food competition risk is reduced and moreover economic improvement can also be
achieved, as the self-supply of food crops will reduce cost for purchasing this if
intercropping was not the case. This, however, has to be seen in the light of the fact
that potential degraded land provides less yield compared to arable land, and fertilizer
and irrigation inputs could be required to obtain high yield.

The unused potential of substituting for example oil for lighting, soap, diesel for
generators and fertilizer with Jatropha products could have been advantageous for the
livelihood, but is not prioritized in the Marli Inv. project, thus no benefits can be
drawn from this. In the Marli Inv. project the farmers are only involved with the first
part of the value chain, which neglect many of the possible benefits of Jatropha.

As the farmers work as out-growers for Marli Inv. they only produce the raw material
and do not benefit from the added value in the processing of the seeds and utilization
of the oil. Furthermore the farmers are very vulnerable to the world market price
instability and even more, as they have contracted themselves only to sell to Marli
Inv. for the next 30 years.

There are great uncertainties concerning the contract. The consequence of this puts
the farmers in an unfavourable position as profitability of the project is determined by
external factors. The sustainability lies within balancing the different needs and aims
of the involved and affected stakeholders.

Through the Marli Inv. project the farmers’ livelihood has been impacted positively
from the know-how they gained about possible uses of Jatropha and cultivation
methods. This has opened new opportunities and given access to more knowledge.
However, capacity lack is still a major constraint. According to the information

72 RUC, K2 - 2009


accessible no significant efford has been made on capacity building the small-scale
farmers, which could though play a vital role for livelihood improvements.

6.2 Answering the second part of the research question
- Which recommendations can be drawn, on how Jatropha could contribute to
rural livelihood improvements?

Through the analysis of the Marli Inv. project on how the Jatropha production an
utilization impact livelihood, inspiration of ways how Jatropha could improve the
farmers livelihood, was obtained. From this and with inspiration from the Garalo
project and the interview with Togola, it was possible to identify the following
recommendations, in terms of how Jatropha could contribute to rural livelihood
improvement:

• Knowledge sharing should be supported, especially on the importance and
methods of intercropping.
• Farmers should be motivated to organize themselves and find a common
strategy and voice for lobbying.
• Carry out feasibility studies of suitable and available land.
• As many parts of the value chain should be locally, in order to secure
synergies within the community.
• Financial possibilities should be analysed and involve suitable local
partners in this, aimed at accessing finance to Jatropha projects, which
focus on benefitting the small-scale farmers.
• Capacity building should be initiated at government level to include
priority of the livelihood of the farmers in policy making.

RUC, K2 - 2009 73


Chapter 7: Perspectives
The following chapter contains a final reflection on how the future for the Marli Inv.
project could look.

Developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa are not yet fully benefiting from the
Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) due to lack of cost-
effective CDM-potential, and lack of capacity in government and private sector
institutions to develop and manage CDM-projects. CDM project has mostly been
established in countries like India and China, with industrialisation that needs severe
technology-transfer for reducing emissions and improve the environmental standards.
Generally, the potential for CDM-projects in LDCs is limited due to the low level of
emissions, which is related to the low level of economic development.

At the 12th session of the parties to the UNFCCC in Nairobi in 2006, the “Nairobi
Framework on capacity building for CDM” was adopted in acknowledgement of the
need to provide assistance to developing countries to improve their level of
participation in CDM. Danida has expressed its commitment to support sub-Saharan
African countries in becoming more engaged in the CDM market by focusing on
project development and capacity building. This will be implemented through the
CDM Green Facility, which seeks to focus the need to address climate change in the
context of development cooperation. The CDM Green Facilily project are designed
and implemented by UNEP Risoe Centre (URC) in six countries: Benin, Burkina
Faso, Ghana, Mali, Niger and Zambia. The Marli Inv. project is a part of this
programme, and if the project succeeds in registration it could become a pioneer
project in leading the way for other Jatropha projects under the CDM. Thus it is even
more crucial to secure that livelihood of the involved farmers is not negatively
impacted. The securing of appropriate investment for the establishment of the
pressing plant is crucial for the succeeding of the project. The CDM finance could
thus be an essential determination for whether the project will survive in Zambia.

74 RUC, K2 - 2009


Chapter 8: Reflections
The quality of scientific research depends on whether it is possible to render probable
that the study and its results are credible. A discussion of the validity and reliability of
the study will be undertaken, and deliberations about the applicability of the results
will be described.

8.1 Data collection
Two people with different backgrounds were selected as informants for interviewing.
They were selected due to their immense knowledge about the research field as each
of them individually work in direct relation to the selected cases. Furthermore email
questionnaires were forwarded to a range of resource persons. Especially answers
from the two informants played a vital role for the analysis (see annex 1 and 5).

Furthermore information gained from additional email questionnaires has provided
substantial background knowledge for the analysis of the thesis. By combining two
key informants, who have different sources of their knowledge, with the answers from
the email questionnaires source triangulation has been used, and the credibility of the
study has thus been further strengthened.

However, with regard to extracting data from Freim, some of his results in his thesis
build on only two respondents and he was only in the area in a very short period. This
could thus have limited the applicability of his results. Hence, only his experiences
with the Jatropha production and utilization in general related are used in this thesis.

It is worth acknowledging, that the conclusions of the thesis are based on data
immediate accessible at the present time of writing. The data collection of the Marli
Inv. case has been challenging as the project developers of Marli Inv. refrained from
respond to the inquiry for an email interview. Furthermore multiple attempts have
been done to reach the project developers by phone, but it has show not to be
possible. Thus, essential information on the Marli Inv. case, e.g. the contract between
the out-growers and Marli Inv. has not been possible to access. This put, to some
extend, limits to the data available. In addition, some of the before mentioned replies
on the additional email questionnaires, rise questions if the contract is even finished

RUC, K2 - 2009 75


or signed. This is an important uncertainty to be aware of. Consequently, the
constrains of this thesis making use of the Marli Inv. project PIN as the only empirical
basis for investigation needs to be acknowledge. The PIN represents an appraisal from
2006 showing the intended outline of the project. However, the PIN does not include
information on what the reality looks like here three years later. Thus the credibility
of the thesis is to some extend compromised. Though, the interviews have
supplemented the information obtained from the PIN, and the information is thus
perceived to be applicable to this thesis.

No fieldtrip has been carried out, as the thesis has not aimed at investigating the
specific perception of the individual farmer towards Jatropha. Consequently the lack
of fieldtrip is not interpreted to compromise the reliability of the results remarkable.
However, a fieldtrip would have provided the thesis with detailed in-depth knowledge
on the Marli Inv. project, which we have not been able to access through empirical
studies or interviews with the Marli Inv.project developer. Furthermore, it would have
been appropriate and interesting to involve the farmers in the elaboration of SL
indicators in order to obtain real life constrains towards the livelihood impacts of
Jatropha. If it had been chosen to involve the farmers in the elaboration of the SL
indicators, the study would have been based on a Participatory Rural Appraisal
(PRA). PRA embraces a series of techniques for using people’s knowledge and skills
to learn about local conditions, identify local development problems and plan
response to them (Theis, 1991). However general theoretical consideration towards
the livelihood impact of Jatropha has been found appropriate in terms of analysing the
overall potentials and constrains for improved livelihood of rural small-scale farmers
related to Jatropha oil production and utilization. Thus, even though a fieldtrip would
have improved the reliability, validity and credibility of our results, we argue that
through our method we have still been able to do a research and develop results which
are validt and credible to a fine extend.

8.2 Considerations of case application – and relation to
inspirational experience
Validity is addressing to what extend the empirical material and the processing of it
indicates something about the observed reality (Kvale, 1996). It is not claimed that the

76 RUC, K2 - 2009


findings from this case study are valid in other country contexts, but it can contribute
to provide knowledge about the relations between Jatropha production and sustainable
livelihood. Further empirical analyses in similar countries would be needed to
confirm or modify the findings.

The aim of this thesis is occasioned on an overall level. The case study is thus chosen
as method for analysing general livelihood impacts of Jatropha and not as the basis
for examining specific perceptions of Jatropha among rural small-scale farmers. The
Garalo Jatropha initiative presents a suitable baseline for drawing experiences of
diverse Jatropha activities. Experiences from this project is included in the thesis as
inspiration for ways of utilizing Jatropha different from Marli Inv. in order to obtain
additional views, in the analysis, of the livelihood impacts of Jatropha production and
utilization. In terms of critically reviewing the different prospects and constrains of
the Marli Inv. case, the Garalo project served only as additional experiences fed into
the analysis, thus, the presented information on Garalo, was not as extensive as the
Marli Inv. case. Regardless of the obvious difference between the two Jatropha
initiatives, there are relevant impacts to extract from both of them. As the objectives
of the projects are pronounced diverse in terms of organizational structure and
financial situation, any attempt to make comparative analysis, in order to pick the
winner could not be justified. Consequently, the Marli Inv. case is chosen as the core
object to the analysis of the impact of Jatropha production and utilization on
livelihood. Garalo experiences was just included, in areas where the practices differ
significantly from each other. Thus, the experiences from Garalo have supported the
elaboration of recommendations on how the considerations of livelihood can be
integrated in Jatropha projects similar to Marli Inv.

We have not been critical towards the Garalo case, though this kind of projects also
have constrains.

RUC, K2 - 2009 77


Chapter 9: References

9.1 Books
Halsnæs, K.; Andersen, P. og Larsen, A.: Miljøvurdering på Økonomisk Vis, Djøf
forlag, 2007. (Kapitel 2 – “Miljøøkonomiske Analyser, Beslutningsgrundlag,
Usikkerhed, Bæredygt)

Kvale, Steiner: “An introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing”. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE Publications, 1996.

Kvale, S: ”Interview - En introduktion til det kvalitative forskningsinterview”. Hans
Reitzels Forlag, København, 1997.

Theis, Grady: “Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Community development”, IIED,
London, 1991.

WCED: “Our Common Future”. World Commission on Environment and
Development, Oxford University Press, 1987.

Yin, R.: “Case Study Research: Design and Methods”. Sage Publications, USA,
2003.

9.2 Reports
African Biodiversity Network: “Agrofuels in Africa - The impacts on Land, Food
and Forests”, July 2007.

Biofuelwatch: "Agrofuels - towards a reality check In nine key areas". Carbon Trade
Watch/TNI, Corporate Europe Observatory, Econexus, Ecoropa, Grupo de Reflexión
Rural, Munlochy Vigil, NOAH (Friends of the Earth Denmark), Regenwald and
Watch Indonesia:, June 2007,

Brüntrup, Michael: “Perspectives of contract farming in this reader”, found in the
report “Outgrowers – a key to the development of rural areas in Sub-Saharan Africa
and to poverty reduction” German development Institute and DEG, 2006

78 RUC, K2 - 2009


Energy Information Administration: “World Energy Use and Carbon Dioxide
Emissions, 1980-2001”, May 2004.
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/energycarbon2004.pdf)

FACT Foundation: “Jatropha Handbook”, March 2006.

Freim, O., L.: “How will small scale farmers in Zambia benefit from growing of
Jatropha?”, Norwegian University of Life Science, Department of International
Environment and Development Studies, Master Thesis, 2008.

Gerber, N.: “Bioenergy and Rural Development in Developing Countries: a review
of existing studies”, ZEF – Discussion Papers On Development Policy No. 122,
Center for Development Research, Bonn, June 2008.

Jongschaap, R.E.E., Corré, W.J., Bindraban, P.S. and Brandenburg, W.A.:
“Claims and Facts on Jatropha curcas L. – Global Jatropha curcas evaluation,
breeding and propagation programme”, Plant Research International B.V.,
Wageningen Stichting Het Groene Woudt, Laren. Report 158. October 2007.

Krantz, L.: “The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction - An
Introduction”. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA),
Division for Policy and Socio-Economic Analysis, February 2001.

Practical Action Consulting: “Small-Scale Bioenergy Initiatives: Brief description
and preliminary lessons on livelihood impacts from case studies in Asia, Latin
America and Africa”, Prepared for PISCES and FAO by Practical Action Consulting,
January 2009

Reinhardt G., Gärtner S., Rettenmaier N., Münch J. and Falkenstein V. E.: “Screening
Life Cycle Assessment of Jatropha Biodiesel, Institue of Energy and Environmental
Ressearc Heidelberg GmbH, Heidelberg, December 11, 2007.

Rijssenbeek, Winfried, Reinhard and Raymond Jongschaap: “Expert Meeting
Jatropha, Brussels 07/12/07”. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, RESEARCH
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL, Directorate E – Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food.
December 2007.

Risø: “Energy Report 7: Future low carbon energy systems”. Risø, 2008.

RUC, K2 - 2009 79


9.3 Articles
Chambers, R. and Conway, G.: “Sustainable Rural Livelihood: Practical
concepts for the 21st Century”. IDS Discussion Paper 296, IDS, Brighton, UK,
February 1992.

Chipokolo, Clement and Mundia Matongo,”Biofuel case study: Zambia”, article in
report on Agrofuels in Africa: “The impacts on Land, Food and Forests, 2007 African
Biodiversity network”.

Modi, V., S. McDade, D. Lallement, and J. Saghir: “Energy and the Millennium
Development Goals”. New York: Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme,
United Nations Development Programme, UN Millennium Project, and World Bank,
2006.

NZAID: “Sustainable Livelihood Approach: Why use the Sustainable Livelihood
Approach?”. New Zealand International Aid and Development Agency (NZAID),
2009.

Scoones I.: “Sustainable Rural Livelihood: A Framework for Analysis”. Sussex
University, Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Working Paper No. 72, 1998.

UN-DESA: “Small-Scale Production and Use of Liquid Biofuelss in Sub-Saharan
Africa: Perspectives for Sustainable Development”. United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs. Commission on Sustainable Development, Fifteenth
Session, New York. Background Paper No. 2, DESA/DSD/2007/2, 30 April - 11 May
2007,

UNDP: “Promoting Sustainable Livelihood: A briefing note submitted to the
Executive Committee”. United Nations Development Programme, June 4, 1997.

URC: “Sustainable Development, Energy and Climate – Exploring Synergies and
Tradeoffs”. UNEP RISØ Centre (URC), Energy, Climate and Sustainable
Development, September 2006.

80 RUC, K2 - 2009


URC 1: “Balancing Energy, Development and Climate Priorities in India – Current
Trends and Future Projections”. UNEP RISØ Centre (URC), Energy, Cliamte and
Sustainable Development, September 2007.

URC 2: “Electricity Supply Options, Sustainable Development and Climate Change
Priorities – Case Studies for South Africa. UNEP RISØ Centre (URC), Energy,
Cliamte and Sustainable Development, September 2007.

URC 3: “Practical Guidance Material for the Development, Energy and Climate
Country Studies”. UNEP RISØ Centre (URC), Energy, Climate and Sustainable
Development, September 2007.

9.4 Conferences
Carney, D: “Sustainable Rural Livelihood: What Contributions can We Make”.
London, Department for International Development’s Natural Resources Advisers’
Conference, July 1998.

CBD, UNEP and SBSTTA: “New and emerging issues relating to the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity – biodiversity and liquid bioduel production” Note
by the Executive Secretary, 25 April 2007.

CBD and UNEP: “The potential impacts of biofuels on biodiversity – matters
arising from SBSTTA recommendations XII/7” Note by the Executive Secretary, COP
9, 24 April 2008.

DIIS: Ravnborg, H.M., Funder, M., og Fjalland, J. – Study report on ”Low Carbon
Development and Poverty Reduction in Low Income Countries – Opportunities and
Challenges for Development Assistance”. Conference held on 13’ of Januar 2009.

MFC Nyetaa: “Garalo Bagani Yelen - a new paradigm of energy for sustainable
Development” A photo journal of the Jatropha-fuelled rural electrification project for
10 000 people in the Municipality of Garalo, 2007.

Sinkala Thomson, Chairman, Biofuels Association of Zambia: “Approach to the

RUC, K2 - 2009 81


development of liquid biofuels industry in Zambia” Presented at the Global
Renewable Energy Forum in Brasil May 2008.

UNIDO: Biofuels Workshop, Accra, Ghana, Dec 2007, by Ibrahim Tologa, found at
http://www.ics.trieste.it/Portal/ActivityDocument.aspx?id=5120

9.5 Internet sources
ACP: “Republic of Zambia Agricultural Development Support Project for
Smallholder Commercialization”. World ” – 2001. Available at

http://www.worldbank.org/afr/padi/ZM_ADSP_Project_Concept_Note.pdf

AEO: African economic Outlook 2007. Paris: OECD/African Development Bank.
Available at

http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3343,en_2649_15162846_38561046_1_1_1_1,0
0.html

Chomba Ruben,Times of Zambia: ”Zambia poised for biofuel development”.
Found 18.05.2009. Available at
http://www.times.co.zm/news/viewnews.cgi?category=8&id=1178358360

Country facts: Embassy of Denmark, Zambia - Country Facts – 2009. Available at
http://www.amblusaka.um.dk/da/menu/InfoOmZambia/ØkonomiskSituation/Makrooe
konomiskSituation/

Country Report: Country Report for Zambia. “Joint Evaluation of the Trust Fund for
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (TFESSD). Evaluation report
2/2008”. NORAD (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation), 2008.
Available at

82 RUC, K2 - 2009


http://www.norad.no/default.asp?ACTION=ITEM_SEARCH&SEARCH_ID=S1&V_
ITEM_ID=1786&EQ_F_textindex=Joint+Evaluation+of+the+Trust+Fund+for+Envir
onmentally+and+Socially+Sustainable+Development+&submit.x=0&submit.y=0

EIA, USA’s Energy Information Administration: GHG emissions from Zambia.
Found 11.05.2009. Available at
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_time_series.cfm?fips=ZA#co2

Energy Information: Country energy information Zambia 2006. Available at
http://www.energyrecipes.org/reports/genericData/Africa/061129%20RECIPES%20c
ountry%20info%20Zambia.pdf

HDR: UNDP’s Human Development Report 2007/2008. “The Human Development
Index: Going
Beyond Income” – Country Fact Sheets – Zambia. Available at
http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_ZMB.html

IRIN news, website for humanitarian news and analysis: ”The world’s must polluted
city”. Found 13.05 2009. Available at:
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=61521

Jatropha: The Binga lamp. Found 24.03 2009. Available at:
http://www.Jatropha.de/zimbabwe/rf-conf1.htm

Jatropha platform, 2008 case study of Marli Invensment Jatropha project. Found
17.04. 2009.
Available at: http://www.Jatropha-platform.org/case_studies/Marli/Marli_3.htm

LCMSIV: The Living Conditions Monitoring Survey IV of 2004. Available at
http://www.zamstats.gov.zm/lcm.php

Lubozhya, Bernadette: ”Biofuel Experiences in Zambia” Former Chair, Board of
Trustees for Kasisi Agricultural Training Center, Lusaka, Zambia. At an ”Expert
Gropu meeting on small-scale production and use of liauid biofuels in Sub-Saharan

RUC, K2 - 2009 83


Africa: Perspectives for sustainable development, March 2007, UN – New York.

Ministry of Energy and Water development found the 27.03. 2009. Available at:
http://www.mewd.gov.zm/

PRSP: Fifth National Development Plan, 2006 – 2010. Available at
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2007/cr07276.pdf

Wikipedia:”higher heating value”. Found11.05.2009. Available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_heating_value

Sunday times of Zambia: “CSO says 3 million educated Zambians without work.
Found 16.05. 2009. Available at
http://www.times.co.zm/news/viewnews.cgi?category=12&id=1098238126

9.6 Miscellaneous:
CDM – Executive Board (methodology): “Proposed new methodology: Baseline
(CDM-NMB) – Version 02”, July 2005.

Marli Investment, Project Idea Note (PIN):”Biodiesel production from Jatropha
curcas”, October 2006.

84 RUC, K2 - 2009


Chapter 9: Annex

Annex 1 – Interview with Ibrahim Togola 15. May 2009

Based on notes from the interview

1. You argue that projects like Garalo will be possible all over Africa and create
development.
There are a lot of discussions about biofuel. Some criticize it and argue that it is just
the same experience as from cash crops like coffee, cacao and so on – complicated
technology transfers with no local experts - and it is not very beneficial for the
development and industrialization.

Biofuels is not perfect but it is there and when it is done well – sustainable - it can
provide development to rural communities – who can benefit from the energy – and
there is a big need for energy for development. Electricity can make processing
possible, which can diversify the income source, so the productivity do not only rely
on the rainy season.

2. How can “Africa” benefit?
The energy from the biofuel will create industrialization along with other
developments.
– Even more importantly then the Jatropha, will prepared the villages for climate
changes as the Jatropha is already somewhat resistant for the climate changes, with
the drought resistance and the flexibility to both wet and dry climate.
But the production can only benefit if it can be produced and used locally so that the
Jatropha for biofuel doesn’t become just another cash crop. Thus export should not be
the first aim, rather to satisfy the need in the country, to support the local economy –
afterwards maybe export.

The farmer doesn’t care about the big picture – he needs money – how can he sustain
his income? He doesn’t care about mono-crops, he need is focused on food and how

RUC, K2 - 2009 85


to survive. The biofuel shall be used locally to boost the development and add value
to the local environment.

3. What or who are the main drivers to spread projects like Garalo?
First of all human is needed - not the money, but the committed people. One who is
committed, one who can mobiles and be a rolemodel – “a rural champion”.

(He started to talked about some of the projects)
80.000 people (10 villages) would benefit in Mali form the rural electrification project
– People (investors) has to see the goal for the project – the aim, and how many
people is going to benefit.
The Garalo project cost about 500.000 euro – 300 KW/h., 13 km grid. And it is
keeping the young people in the areas and draw more people to the area – hence,
create development in the area.

(His answer to who are the drivers)
Four types of partners:
‐ An engaged community, there have to be local developers – a rural champion who
wants the project to succeed, one who has sight for the future.
‐ The government has to be supportive, provide access to land, and accept that
people/unions of farmers for instance are selling energy – and not only state-
owned.
‐ Local financial institutions – you can’t give money to everyone, so there has to be
local finance institutions, which can provide loans to the locals (not to the project
it self). This is essential for the sustainability of the project and for small
businesses to grow.
‐ After these things are in place, look for donors.

Hence the conditions in the countries are important – are the banks willing to make
investments and loans and is the government supportive?

4. Is it easy to get the money for the donors?
Not at all easy – you need to build up reputation.

86 RUC, K2 - 2009


How to secure the price for the Jatropha and the electricity is essential – The presser
for the seeds, is own cooperatively in the Garalo project. To secure the farmers then
they own 49% (they should not be a complete minority), 51 % is to much. It is a
balance – for the project to success. The Mali folkcenter own 51 % through the
donors now. After the project-end it will be their business – the farmers. Then they
will be professional and can form their own union.

Most governments are confused about the biofuel scheme, could it be just the same as
for cotton and coffee? The government sometimes make good rules – but some
doesn’t work – they don’t know what the people need – as well as the donors, they
sometimes also don’t know.

Sometimes the population has another need than what the donors/investors think.
There need to be shown good examples – so that people gets aware that something
else exist – biofuel for electrification.

5. Can projects aimed at local supply chain – like Garalo - be cost effective after
the first investments?
a. Main barriers for projects like Garalo

3 main barriers:
Land tenure. It is crucial – who own the land! When you bring a project like
Jatropha – people gets interested, they see the possible income and wants more land
for the production. There might be some rich families in the village, who normally
rent out their land, they might want to take it all back and grow Jatropha when they
heard about the project. Thus there has to be some kind of contract for securing that
many gets benefits from growing Jatropha, instead of few. In the Garalo project, each
farmer could only cultivate tree hectares! Otherwise it can be a barrier for local
development because it only benefits few.

Knowledge:
The farmer is the cleverest and the biggest capitalist/liberalist. He is a fast learner and
will copy the methods if they see them, the benefits and the income they can copy it

RUC, K2 - 2009 87


better than learned by foreigners, but they need to see the progress – not been told by
others.
But they need to know about the different uses of Jatropha – they have to intercrop,
and they should know not to produce for export!
They know Jatropha already – they just have to know about the different uses – let
the word go around.
Local production for local transformation!

6. I do not understand how Jatropha can both grow on marginal land and at the
same time be used for intercropping with food crops?
We have to stop talking about marginal land – then you will have marginal yield.
They want a big yield and they will grow where this opportunity (yield) is – but show
them how to intercrop at their own land, for food security – the marginal land
thinking is only the donors’.

7. Is knowledge a barrier?
The Jatropha is not new to the farmers, they know it. They need to know the
measures, two people to show them –in the Garalo case it is the corporative members
who show the farmers, and there is one responsible in each village.

Access to finance:
‐ The policy for privatization – is the government open for new energy-suppliers?
‐ And there should be local drivers instead of donor drivers the local champion.

8. Do you have any good example of Jatropha production via outgrower
Scheme?
Very risky - but better if it is for the domestic use, than if it is for exports.
The project should not be so that a village just cultivate the Jatropha – they should
benefit from all the different uses of Jatropha – they should benefit from the
electricity for processing.

(we opened the question)

88 RUC, K2 - 2009


Africa needs more social/pure investors. – Doesn’t need investors that benefit from
keeping others down. Thus the investors should be willing to support the development
in the country.
But it is essential that the people know about the uses of Jatropha and biofuel and that
it are kept local.
Inform the farmer so that they can benefit and show the good cases so they can see for
them self – and the governments can see.

Develop biofuel for the small-scale villages.

RUC, K2 - 2009 89


Annex 2 E-mail interview with Per Christian Christensen 06.
May 2009

1. Er det muligt at intercroppe Jatropha og under hvilke omstændigheder?

Ja. For Jatrophaens skyld må afgrøderne ikke være for store de første år. Fra anden
eller tredie år kan blandes med større afgrøder. Helt unge Jatropha planter tåler
hverken meget stærk solvarme eller meget skygge, så ved det rigtige valg af anden
afgrøde, kan man fint hjælpe Jatrophaen på vej. Hvis hensynet i stedet er for er den
anden afgrøde, er der naturligvis andre forhold. Specielt skal man regne med at
Jatropha bliver en ret stor busk, hvis den ikke beskæres.

2. Er der nogen erfaringer med hvilke afgrøder der gror bedst med Jatropha?

Bedst - kan jeg ikke rigtig udtale mig om. Det kommer jog meget an på jordtype
m.m.m., men der er erfaringer med jordnødder vandmeloner hirse sorghum Hibiscus
sabdariffa Fonio (Digitaria xilis) kaffe og andre buske i mindre omfang.

3. Kan du sige noget om hvor lang tid det vil tage en bondemand at høste en
mark med 1 ha Jatropha (1000 træer) som er intercroppet?

Uhyggelig svært. Nogle steder tales der om 10 min pr busk, men det mener jeg er
ALT for meget. nok nærmere ½ -1 minut pr busk - pr gang ! Og for at komme
igennem en hel sæson, skal man nok over det 2-3 gange.

4. Under hvilke omstændigheder tror du at Jatropha kan være med til at
forbedre bøndernes levevilkår?

Virker som en cash crop -ved at bruge olien lokalt til at drive en simpel motor, kan
man lade batterier op, male korn, presse olie m.m. og dermed åbne for yderligere
lokale muligheder, som den manglende adgang til strøm eller den reducerede adgang
til fossile brændstoffer har forhindret.

- desuden kan pressekagen bruges til jordforbedring.

90 RUC, K2 - 2009


5. Kan Jatropha produktion være negativt for bønderne?

Man skal være opmærksom på den potentielle konkurrence om jorden med "natur" og
med fødevare-afgrøder. - markedet for cash crops har det med at svinge og mange
bønder har fået sig nogle gevaldige skuffelser med jordnødder, bomuld m.m. gennem
tiderne. Denne risiko er der også ved Jatropha, men mindre hvis det er til lokal
udnyttelse.

RUC, K2 - 2009 91


Annex 3 E-mail interview with Lars Olav Freim 07. May 2009

1. What we want to ask you about is, if you have any materials from the
specific case of Marli investment, interview or other documents, you have not
used in you thesis - but would be relevant for our specific subject?

Min kontakt med Marli er nokså begrenset. Jeg har snakket med feltansvarlig i
Lusaka-området og var gjest hos a.d hvor vi snakket litt løst om Marli's engasjement.
Det inntrykket jeg fikk av M.I er at de neppe har rent mel i posen. Det foregår en del
triksing, bestikkelser og forfalskede løyver sirkulerer med deres navn på. For videre
arbeid vil jeg heller foreslå å benytte Southern Biofuel.

2. Economic - is Jatropha increasing the income for the farmers, compared to
the working hours?
Det ligger et potensiale for både inntekt og sparete utgifter i Jatropha. En
gjennomsnittsfamilie bruker ca 10% av hh.inntektene på parafin/disel til belysning,
noe som er ganske mye. Da dekker de minimumsbehovet.Disel og parafin er dyrt i
Zambia (ca 10kr/l), gir dårlig inneluft og mye soting. Egenprodusert olje ville betydd
sparte kostnader, renere inneluft og mer lys. Noe som igjen er bra for ungenes
lekse/skolearbeid hjemme. Da Jatropha-produksjon må foregå som kontraktsdyrking,
vil inntektene vil være helt avhengig av promotørens velvilje. Tidligere erfaringer fra
kontraktsdyrking av bomull og tobakk viser dessverre at viljen til å gi bonden en
anstendig betaling for råstoffene mangler og bøndene blir dermed gående på
husmannskontrakter som så vidt dekker deres kostnader til de mest nødvendige ting i
husholdningen. Noen hevder at Jatropha krever lite arbeid fordi det er en flerårig
plante. Det er ikke riktig. For å lykkes kreves det en betydelig innsats på beskjæring,
luking og insektbekjempelse. Høsting og rensing av frukt/frø er også en meeeeget
tidkrevende prosess.

3. And do the farmers use the different opportunities/uses of the Jatropha
shrub? (Oil for lamps, soap making, compost, fertilizer and so on)

92 RUC, K2 - 2009


I Zambia forteller bøndene at tradisjonelt har de ikke sett nytten av frøa så de har bare
blitt feid opp og kastet. I de siste par årene har stadig mer frø blitt solgt til
promotørene. Jatropha har en historie i Zambia som levende gjerde rundt buskap og
avling og eiendomsgrenser. Om enn i begrenset omfang.

4. Human - do the farmers have enough knowledge about the Jatropha crop and do
they learn more about it? (It's purposes and so on)

Farmerne har minimalt med kunnskaper og det de vet er ofte feil. ZNFU (Z. Nat.
Farmers Union) gjør imidlertid en god jobb for å spre kunnskaper og er en seriøs
samarbeidspartner. Promotørene sprer også en del god kunnskap, men de er ofte for
optimistiske i sine vurderinger.

5. Social - in the participation in decision-making between the farmers?

Den Z. bonden er generelt individualist og tar sine egne, subjektive beslutninger. Alle
landsbyer har imidlertid sine samlinger og råd der aktuelle anliggende blir diskutert.
Å få bøndene til å samarbeide er en utfordring.

RUC, K2 - 2009 93


Annex 4 E- mail interview with Lars Olav Freim 12.May 2009

1. Hvor meget af dine data er fra Marli investment?

De eneste data jeg har fra MI er de opplysningene som a.d gav meg da jeg var gjest
hos ham i Kabwe et par dager. MI var noe skeptiske/ikke interesserte til å la meg
møte sine kontraktsdyrkere så jeg har bare møtt et par av dem. Det var forresten
ganske tilfeldig.

2. Blev der brugt intercropping i Marli casen (hos small-scale farmerne)? -
hvis der blev: hvilke afgrøder/crops brugte man almindelig vis?

I sine instruksjoner til farmerne foreslår MI intercropping med enten mais eller
ground nuts (peanøtter). Jeg så imidlertid aldri dette utført i praksis.

3. Bruger de fertilizer og insektbekæmpelses midler?

På stadiet jeg gjorde mitt arbeid i Zambia var det etablert få plantasjer. Promotørene
var mest opptatt av å formidle frø eller planter til sine farmere. Man kan ikke unngå å
bruke insektsbekjempende midler mot termitter en til to ganger pr år. Disse utgjør den
største kjente insekttrusselen mot Jatropha. Jatropha er nøysom i sine vekstkrav, så
fertilizer er strengt tatt ikke nødvendig. Det er litt delte meninger om det skal
gjødsles eller ei. Kritikerne hevder at det først og fremst fremmer den vegetative
veksten.

4. Hvad er din erfaring omkring hvor lang tid der kan intercroppes, hvis der
bliver brugt pruning - hvor mange år - ubegrænset?

Ubegrenset ja, forutsatt at trærne beskjæres slik at veksten imellom får nok lys. For å
opprettholde gode vekstvilkår bør imidlertid ulike omløp benyttes (vekseldyrking).
Etter min mening bør det iblant plantes vekster som fixerer Nitrogen som feks
belgplanter.

5. Hvor mange gange bliver der høstet om året?
94 RUC, K2 - 2009


Etter planting vil det gå et par år før det kan høstes. Full avling kan først forventes
etter 5-7 år. Det høstes kun en gang pr år.

6. Ved du om Marli investment donerede Jatropha seeds, eller om de
blev købt af farmerne?
Etter sigende blir de donert. Hva kontraktene sier om evt tilbakebetaling i form av
avling senere vet jeg ikke.

RUC, K2 - 2009 95


Annex 5 E-mail interview with Alex Hanyuma 08. May 200

1. Firstly we would like you to shortly explain your relation to the Marli
project?

- What role did you have?

Project Consultant

- Did you ever visit the project manager or the farmers?

Contacted Project Manager

2. What impact does the Jatropha production have on the individual farmers
economy - now and when the project is fully up and running?

Improve their standard of living by getting extra income from sell Jatropha seeds

3. How much time/hours do they use to produce Jatropha?

5 hours

4. Do the farmers need more work or did most of them already have enough?

Yes, more hours are needed in cultivation because Jatropha is not the only crops
grown by these farmers

5. Do the farmers use fertilisers?

No

6. Do the farmers use irrigation?

No

96 RUC, K2 - 2009


7. Do the farmers pay for the seed they need for establishing production?

Yes

8. How much of the land the farmers have would he/she use for the Jatropha
planting?

It varies but 1000 plants will take approximately 0.25hectares

9. What type of land do they grown Jatropha on?

Marginal

10. Do they intercrop with other crops?

a. If yes which?

Jatropha with maize and ground

b. And will they continue to do this?

Yes, these other crops are seasonal crops, while Jatropha takes years upto 35 to 40
years

11. How will the Jatropha production impact the individual farmer’s food
production – and do they still produce food crops as well?

Positive impact because money ealised in sell of seeds can be used to buy
seeds/fertiliser/implements and inputs for food crops of these farmers

12. What gender was the majority of the farmers?

Males

RUC, K2 - 2009 97


13. What do the farmers gain from growing Jatropha?

Extra income, agroskills improved standard of living.

14. Do the farmers use the oil themselves?

If yes for what?

Oil is used for lighting in their lamps and residues are used to produce soap locally

15. How did the farmers get to know about the project?

NGO are involved in sensitisation

16. How do they learn about Jatropha production?

Training through organized cooperatives ie Farmers Union

17. Have they been educated?

Yes

a. If yes, how is this learning process?

Slow but not consistent

18. Do the farmers pay for the training?

No

19. Do you have the content of contract?

98 RUC, K2 - 2009


No

a. If yes can we see it?

20. How was the contract made – who was involved?

21. Do you think the project will make a difference in Central district?

Yes

a. In which way?

Economy of Kabwe will grow since more investors will invest in Jatropha, road
network will be improved, technology transfer through processing plants that will be
installed by investors

22. What kind of Jatropha project would you recommend if the improvement
of rural livelihood was the overall aim?

The one described above

RUC, K2 - 2009 99

Jatropha and Sustainable Livelihood of Small-scale Farmers

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Jatropha and Sustainable Livelihood of Small-scale Farmers (20)

More from ZK8 (16)

Recently uploaded (20)

Jatropha and Sustainable Livelihood of Small-scale Farmers