40 | Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) Report

Table 2-2. Biomass energy use in sub-Saharan Africa (2003).

Country
Combustible
renewables and
waste (% of total
energy)
GDP per capita
(constant 2000 US$)
South Africa
11
3,181
Namibia
15
3,181
Senegal
53
445
 
 
 
Gabon
59
3,867
Zimbabwe
60
479
Congo, Rep.
62
935
Angola
66
740
Cote d’Ivoire
66
573
Ghana
67
296
Benin
69
325
Togo
71
243
Kenya
78
418
Cameroon
79
723
Nigeria
79
387
Sudan
81
423
Zambia
81
327
Mozambique
86
262
Ethiopia
91
120
Tanzania
92
300
Congo, Dem.
Rep.
94
85
Sub-Saharan
Africa
57
528
Latin America
& Caribbean
15
3,749
South Asia
39
498
High income:
OECD
3
28,055

Source: World Bank, 2006.

problems by increasing energy conversion efficiency, reducing indoor air pollution and alleviating the strain on the surrounding environment. Consequently, access to modern energy services is generally viewed as a necessary, albeit in no way sufficient requirement for economic and social development and efforts are underway in many African countries to gradually transition to more efficient fuels (World Bank, 2004). It should be noted that this transition is not a linear process, but involves, depending on the local circumstances, several steps, including wood, charcoal, LPG, kerosene and eventually electricity. In most cases during this transition, several different sources of energy are used simultaneously for different end-uses within each household (IEA, 2002; Karekezi et al., 2004).

Modern bioenergy, i.e., the efficient production of modern energy services such as liquid biofuels, electricity and heat from biomass, offers one of several options to

 

ernize the supply of energy services. Generally, the costcompetitiveness of bioenergy with respect to other sources of energy is highly dependent on local circumstances, e.g., the availability and price of alternative energy sources, the nature of energy distribution networks, the special distribution of energy consumers, availability of sufficient biomass feedstock, etc. While the generation of electricity through biomass digesters or cogeneration plants is often associated with net social benefits and there seems to be ample potential in Africa, the benefits of producing liquid biofuels for transportation are less clear and subject to fierce debate. The economics as well as certain environmental and social externalities are heatedly debated and no consensus has yet developed in the scientific community (see Global Report, Chapters 3, 4 and 6).

Several African countries have invested in modern sources of bioenergy, most prominently in cogeneration facilities to generate electricity and process heat and in the production of biofuels. In total, it is estimated that such modern bioenergy contributes about 4.7% of primary energy in Africa today (Kartha et al., 2005).

Malawi has been at the forefront of fuel ethanol development in Africa, being the only country outside of Brazil to have consistently blended ethanol into gasoline for more than 20 years (World Watch Institute, 2006). Similarly, Mauritius has been able to successfully produce electricity through cogeneration plants, predominantly from sugar cane bagasse. Several other African countries, e.g., Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Mali, Nigeria, Zambia and Benin currently have, or are planning to introduce, active biofuels policies (Dufey, 2006; IEA, 2006; World Watch Institute, 2006).


2.6 Sociocultural Issues
The peoples of sub-Saharan Africa belong to several thousand different ethnic groups. Each ethnic group has its own language, tradition, history, way of life and religion. These cultural differences and resource endowments affect agricultural practices in the region.In particular they are reflected in land use strategies. Different strategies requiring different types of expertise will be needed, in the transfer of technology to pastoral herders, for example, in contrast to permanent field agriculturalists.

Women and men are assigned both distinct and complimentary roles in agriculture. Time allocation studies have been done which aimed at determining which household members are tasked with specific farm tasks (Saito et al., 1992).

A typical farm household in SSA is based on the clear distinction between men’s and women’s roles, including management of different types of production either individually or together; individual responsibility for mobilizing the factors of production through barter or monetary exchanges for individual or joint use; defined patterns for the exchange of goods and services among the household members; and elaborate arrangements that determine who makes decisions with regard to selling, consuming, processing and storing agricultural products (Box 2-2). In Kenya women reported that men were responsible for building the granary while women were responsible for hand digging, harvesting and transporting crops. Though tasks may be viewed as the