Bioenergy resource assessment for Zambia

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 93–104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Bioenergy resource assessment for Zambia Agabu Shane a,b, Shabbir H. Gheewala a,b,n, Bundit Fungtammasan a,b, Thapat Silalertruksa a,b, Sébastien Bonnet a,b, Seveliano Phiri c a

The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, 126 Prachauthit Road, Bangkok 10140, Thailand Centre for Energy Technology and Environment, Ministry of Education, Bangkok, Thailand c School of Engineering, Civil Engineering Department, Copperbelt University, P.O. Box 21692, Kitwe, Zambia b

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 3 June 2015 Received in revised form 16 July 2015 Accepted 17 August 2015

The study in this paper makes an assessment of the bioenergy potential from crop residues, forest residues, livestock waste, semi-arid areas energy crops, municipal solid waste (MSW) and water hyacinth in Zambia. A total technical bioenergy potential of about 310 PJ per annum has been estimated and using quantum geographical information systems (QGIS) the spatial distribution shown. Of the total, crop residues contributes 64%, forest residues 17%, livestock waste 9%, jatropha cultivation in semi-arid lands 8% and 2% from MSW and water hyacinth together. Formulation of an integrative bioenergy policy, creation of a bioenergy resource database, conducting of research and development, creation bioenergy unit, engagement and involvement of all stakeholders, education and capacity building, feedstock value chain analysis, dissemination of information, creation of decentralized models, devolution of powers and financing models are very critical aspects if the bioenergy sector has to be sustainably adopted in Zambia. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bioenergy potential Crop and forest residues Animal waste Municipal solid waste Water hyacinth Zambia

Contents 1. 2.

3.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 2.1. Agricultural residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 2.2. Forest residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 2.2.1. Logging residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 2.2.2. Saw milling residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 2.2.3. Plywood residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 2.3. Municipal solid waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 2.4. Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 2.5. Cultivation of jatropha in semi-arid areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Results and discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 3.1. Policy guideline and strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 3.1.1. Forestry policy and act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 3.1.2. Agricultural policy and act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 3.1.3. Bioenergy policy and strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 3.2. Crop residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 3.3. Forest residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 3.4. Municipal solid waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 3.5. Livestock waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 3.6. Semi-arid areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 3.7. Water hyacinth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 3.8. Total technical bioenergy potential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

n Corresponding author at: The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand. Tel.: þ 66 866227564. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.H. Gheewala).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.045 1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

94

A. Shane et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 93–104

3.9.

Recommendations for successful implementation of bioenergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.1. Integrative policy and strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.2. Bioenergy and feedstock value chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.3. Bioenergy resources database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.4. Decentralized models and devolution of powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.5. Research and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.6. Dissemination of information, institutional coordination and stakeholder engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9.7. Education and capacity building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction Biomass energy is a very important source of energy if used properly with appropriate technology. It is able to replace conventional fuels and reduce greenhouses gas emissions, reduce energy poverty and contribute to rural development [1,2]. The lower content of sulfur, nitrogen and ash in biomass results in lower emissions of sulfur dioxide, NOx and soot as compared to fossil fuels [3]. Biomass resources can be sub-divided into agricultural, forestry and aquatic biomass, waste biomass and planted biomass. It is estimated that by 2050, the demand for bioenergy from biomass will be 77–155 EJ y  1 and synthetic biomaterials will be at about 20 EJ y  1. By 2050, bioenergy will contribute 15% of the total world energy supply amounting to 130–270 EJ y  1[4] Globally, the energy contribution from biomass is 9–15% [5–7]. In developing countries, the use of biomass as a source of energy ranges between 75–90%. While developed countries used biomass in the form of electricity or liquid energy, developing countries use biomass for domestic cooking and heating on inefficient stoves [8]. Increase in fossil fuel prices, depleting fossil fuel reserves, rising energy and modern technology have become the drivers for conversion of energy from biomass [9]. Due to high energy demands, there is need to source more energy from biomass sources as compared to fossil fuels which are being exhausted every day [10]. In most instances biomass in the sub-Saharan countries like crop residues and forest residues get burnt and this is a major source of atmospheric pollution [11]. It is estimated that globally 1–5 Pg of carbon are burnt every year in form of biomass. The estimated carbon emissions vary from one fifth to one third of carbon emissions that come from the burning of fossil fuels [12]. In Zambia, biomass contributes 83% to the energy requirements; the remaining 17% comes from hydroelectricity. This is mainly in form of charcoal, firewood and animal dung [13]. Agricultural residues from crops include: maize, rice, wheat, forest residues, livestock waste, municipal waste and water hyacinth are a good source of bioenergy. Livestock production of animals such as cattle, goats, sheep, pigs and poultry can contribute immensely to bioenergy production more especially biogas [14–17]. Extension of the grid to provide electricity to rural and remote parts of a country in the third world and more especially in the sub-Saharan Africa is uneconomically feasible. This calls for use of agricultural and forest residues generated in these remote areas to provide energy which could otherwise have been provided by the grid mix [18]. Disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) is a problem of concern in some of the big cities of developing countries. Food waste coming from households, hotels, restaurants, canteens and markets is rich in organic matter and accounts for 40–45% of the total waste [19–20]. Due to the large amounts of the generated MSW in cities in both developing and industrialized countries, sustainability of disposal management cannot be underestimated [21]. The conversion of MSW into energy solves an environmental problem as well as provides energy to the community [22]. In

101 101 102 102 102 102 102 102 103 103

Zambia a lot of municipal solid waste is generated and 75% of this comes from households, restaurants, lodges, hotels and canteens and only a smaller percentage is taken to the dumpsite [23]. Another possible source of biomass for energy is the presence of water hyacinth in the Kafue River, Karina dam and Kafubu River. Due to application of fertilizer by sugar estates on their farmlands and discharge of process wastewater, wastewater from the wastewater treatment ponds and release of nutrient effluent from the fertilizer producing factories, water hyacinth has thrived in the Kafue river [24]. The first section reviews and discusses the agricultural, forestry and energy policies and strategies as this has a direct impact on the bioenergy potential. Thereafter the study quantifies the bioenergy resources available in Zambia and uses GIS to pinpoint where these resources are located. It finally gives policy and bioenergy development recommendations. The study is the first of its kind for Zambia. Not only does it makes an assessment of the bioenergy resource but it also reviews the agricultural and forests policies as they are key to bioenergy production. This is what makes it different from the other similar studies. The study fills in data gaps for Zambia's bioenergy resources in terms of availability of data on amount of each feedstock available and its spatial distribution. It forms the basis for future further studies of how (technical, economic, environmental and social aspects) this bioenergy potential can be exploited and future research directions. Policy makers, the academia, analyst and bioenergy practitioners will find the data and recommendations very useful because they will be able to access the data, make reference to and use it for policy formulation and other applications.

2. Methodology Apart from data and information from published journals in Zambia, the sub-Saharan Africa and other developing countries, data and information from official reports at the central statistics office, government ministries, NGOs and the food and agriculture organization (FAO) statistics database were used in the study. To produce resource assessment maps, Quantum Geographical Information Systems 2.6.1 – Brighton (QGIS) was employed. 2.1. Agricultural residues Procedures and formulas for the estimation of bioenergy from agricultural residues were adopted from Hiloidhari and Baruah, Terrapon-Pfaff et al., and Hiloidhari et al. [25–27]. The crop residues are by-products of the crop production systems and were subdivided into the gross residue potential and the surplus residue potential. It is this surplus potential which is available and can be used for bioenergy. The gross residue depends on the area covered by the crop, yield of the crop and the residue to product ratio of the crop as given in formula (1).

A. Shane et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 93–104

95

Table 1 Bioenergy potential from crop residues Crop

Residue type

Production (106 kg) RPR

Maize

Stalk Cob Husks Bagasse Tops/leaves Stalks Husks Ball shells Stalk Peelings Straw Husks Stalk

2852.7

Sugarcane Cotton

Cassava Groundnuts Millet Sorghum Wheat Rice Tobacco Soybeans

Straw Husks Straw Stalks Stalks Straw Pods

3900.0 447.4

1062.0 278.8 28.4 15.4 253.5 45.3 61.5 203.0

2.00 [62,,63] 0.27 [32,62] 0.200 [30] 0.25 [32] 0.32 [32] 2.10 [32,60,65] 1.10 [27] 1.10 [27] 0.40 [32, 60, 64] 0.25 [62] 2.30 [62,64] 0.42 [62] 2.00 [27,66] 2.00 [62,63] 1.30 [60, 64] 0.23 [32] 1.40 [30,69] 1.50 [70] 1.00 [70,72] 2.66 [32] 1.00 [73] 1.4 [32] 0.76 [73] 0.40 [32]

Pulses 32.0 Potatoes leaves 30.0 Sweet potatoes Leaves and 163.5 peels Sunflower Stalk 20.5 3.00 [27] Fruits Peels 107.6 2.00 [74] Other crops Total available bioenergy potential from crop residues

Surplus availability factor

Surplus Residue (106 kg)

LHV (MJ/kg)

Bioenergy (PJ y  1)

0.800 [30] 1.000 [30] 1.000 [30] 1.000 [30] 0.800 [30] 1.000 [28] 1.000 [28] 1.000 [28] 0.800 [30] 0.200 [30] 1.000 [30] 1.000 [30] 0.800 [30] 0.800 [30] 0.290 [27] 0.290 [27] 1.000 [30] 0.830 [66] 1.000[72] 0.800 [30] 0.800 [30] 0.380 [27] 0.800 [30] 0.800 [30]

4564.3 770.2 570.5 975.0 998.4 939.5 492.1 492.1 339.9 53.1 641.2 117.1 45.5 24.6 95.6 16.9 63.4 56.4 61.5 432.1 162.4 17.0 18.2 52.3

14.7 [60] 12.6 [32] 12.6 [32] 17.9 [64] 15.8 [32] 25 [60,64] 16.70 [27] 18.30 [27] 5.60 [60–64] 10.61 [62] 25.0 [60,64] 15.56 [62] 15.51[18,24,66,67] 1724 [18,67,68] 15.60 [67] 12.90 [32] 15.56 [67] 13.10 [71] 16.10 [72] 18.00 [32] 18.00 [32] 14.7 [32] 16.00 [32] 16.00 [32]

67.10 9.70 7.19 17.45 15.77 23.49 8.22 9.01 1.90 0.56 16.03 1.82 0.71 0.42 1.49 0.22 0.99 0.74 0.99 7.78 2.92 0.25 0.29 0.84

0.850 [62] 0.700 [74]

52.2 150.6

17.53 [27] 3.20 [74]

0.91 0.48 0.45 197.72

n

R g (j ) =

∑ A (ij) × Y(ij) × RPR (ij)

(1)

i=1

Where; Rg(j) is the gross residue potential at the jth location from n number of crops in t y  1, A(ij) is the area of the ith crop at the jth location in ha, Y(ij) is the yield of the ith crop at the jth location in t ha  1 and RPR(ij) is the residue to product ratio of the ith crop at the jth location. The values of areas and yields are taken from Food and Agricultural Organization Statistics (FAOSTATS) database 2013 and the Residue to Product Ratios (RPR) given in table 1 are obtained from similar studies conducted in the sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and other developing countries like Thailand, China, etc. The gross residue is used competitively; part of it is plowed back into the soil to provide soil fertility, part of it is consumed as animal feedstock and for many other uses. The unused part, which is the surplus, is what is actually available for bioenergy production. To estimate this surplus residue potential, the surplus availability factor is used. The surplus availability factor, also called the recoverability factor of the crop residues, is ratio of the residues available for bioenergy production after part of it is used for other purposes to the total residue [27–30] produced and has been obtained from literature of similar studies done elsewhere. There have been no studies in Zambia to determine the surplus availability factors for crop residues. The surplus residue potential at location j is estimated using formula (2) according to Hiloidhari and Baruah, and Hiloidhari et al. [25,27]. The surplus availability factor (SAF) takes into consideration that the biomass generated is also used for other purposes other than bioenergy and only what remains after the other uses is available for bioenergy.

and SAF is the surplus availability factor or surplus residue fraction of the ith crop at jth location. The values for the surplus availability factors were obtained from similar studies carried out in Ghana, Thailand, India and China and are given in Table 1. The bioenergy crop residue potential is calculated from the available surplus residues using the Eq. 3. n

Ej =

∑ Rs (ij) × LHV(ij) i=1

where Ej is the technical bioenergy potential at the jth location in PJ y  1, Rs(ij) is the surplus residue available of the ith crop at jth location in t y  1 and LHV(ij) is the lower heating value of the ith crop at jth location in MJ kg-1. The lower heating values in Table 1 were obtained from similar studies carried out in the Sub-Saharan Africa, like Zimbabwe, Ghana, Uganda, Malawi, Mozambique, Cameroon and Nigeria. 2.2. Forest residues Forest residues can be subdivided into logging residues which are generated during timber harvesting and wood processing residues generated during saw milling and plywood processing. Logging residues include stumps, roots and branches, while wood processing residues include saw dust, off cuts, discarded logs and barks [31–32]. Data on quantities of round wood, saw logs and plywood were obtained the FAOSTAST database [33]. 2.2.1. Logging residues The gross energy potential from logging residues is estimated according to Eq. 4.

n

Rsj =

(3)

n

∑ Rg (ij) × SAFij

(2)

i=1 1

where Rsj is the surplus residue potential at location j in t y , Rg(ij) is the gross residue potential of the ith crop at the jth location in t y  1

EPLR =

∑ (Q RWi × Ri × LHVi) i=1

(4)

where EPLR is logging residues energy potential, QRWi is the quantity of round wood produced for wood category i, Ri is the

96

A. Shane et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 93–104

recovery rate for round wood category i and LHVi is the lower heating value of round wood category i.

3. Results and discussion 3.1. Policy guideline and strategy

2.2.2. Saw milling residues The energy potential from saw milling residues is estimated using Eq. 5. n

EPSR =

∑ Q RWi × Ri × LHVi i=1

(5)

where EPSR is annual energy potential from saw milling residues, QRWi is the quantity of round wood of category i consumed in saw milling, Ri is the saw milling recovery rate and LHVi is the lower heating value of round wood consumed in saw milling for category i. 2.2.3. Plywood residues The plywood residues potential was estimated using Eq. 6. n

EPPR =

∑ Q PW × R × LHV i=1

(6)

where EPPR is the bioenergy potential from plywood, Qpw is the plywood consumed, R is the recovery rate and LHV is the lower heating value of plywood. 2.3. Municipal solid waste Bioenergy Potential from Municipal Solid Waste was estimated using Eq. (7). n

EP(j) =

∑ N(ij) × Q (ij) × O(ij) × P(ij) × LHV i=1

(7)

where EP(j) is the bioenergy from municipal solid waste at jth location, N(ij) is the total human population in ith town at jth location, Q(ij) is the quantity of waste generated per capita (kg p  1 d  1), P(ij) is the waste collected in ith town at jth location (%) and LHV is the lower heating value of the municipal solid waste. 2.4. Livestock Bioenergy from animal dung is estimated using Eq. (8) n

Ej = 365 ∑ N(ij) × Do (ij) × η(ij) × LHV(ij) i=1

(8)

where Ej is the bioenergy potential from animal dung at location j in PJ y  1, N(ij) is the population of animals of ith species at location j, Do(ij) is the dry dung output per day for ith animal species at jth location, ?(ij) is the collection efficiency of the ith species animal dung at jth location and LHV(ij) is the lower heating value of the ith animal dung at jth location in MJ/kg. 2.5. Cultivation of jatropha in semi-arid areas The potential for Jatropha, cassava and woodfuel is determined by multiplying available land (ha) with land yield (t ha  1 y  1) and the lower heating value of Jatropha oil, cassava ethanol and woodfuel respectively. Semi-arid and arid areas are the available land for Jatropha, cassava and woodfuel production and defined as land that remains after excluding protected areas, biodiversity hotspots, forests and wetlands, agricultural land and unsuitable land such as cities/towns, bare rock, water bodies and steep slope [34].

Zambia's population growth rate is estimated at 2.8% [11]. Along with this population increase, crops and livestock production have also been on an increase which has brought about a number of challenges such as soil erosion and degradation, deforestation (250,000–350,000 ha deforestation per year [35– 39]) and other environmental risks. The bioenergy potential cannot be harnessed unless sound policy and strategy guidelines in agriculture, forestry, energy and other sub-sectors are in place. It is for this reason that the energy, agriculture and forest policies and strategies are reviewed and recommendations made. 3.1.1. Forestry policy and act Zambia's first national forestry policy of 1965 had a lot of shortcomings as central government controlled everything through the forestry department. A better one was put in place in 1998 which had broad based participatory management but its implementation has been limited [35]. The 1998 national forestry policy was revised and resulted into the national forestry policy of 2009. The national forestry policy of 2009 incorporates issues of climate change, bio-energy development, and broad-based participatory management of forests and prioritization of agriculture, eco-tourism and the environment. However, this revised policy has not been enforced. It is still in draft form and the specific strategies of how the national forestry policy can be achieved have not been drawn. This has resulted into failure to curb vices of deforestation, land degradation and environmental risks [40–41]. Such vices include encroachment of protected forests in form of settlements or cultivation, illegal logging, uncontrolled firewood cutting and charcoal burning [37,42]. The Forest Act of 1973 in place does not address issues of monitoring, license issuing, climate change and the role of forests in mitigating negative impacts. The responsible ministry is understaffed and inadequately funded. There are often no forestry management plans in place. Updates of forest resources is not done except for the integrated land use assessment carried out in 2008. The licensing system is not in conformity with Forest Act of 1973 requirements. The forest boundaries were not being maintained for some time. There were no monitoring reports to indicate that monitoring was being conducted and out of the 487 forest reserves, 253 representing 52% had been encroached on [39]. The forest act of 1973 Act does not provide for community participation and emphasized on governmental policing [43]. 3.1.2. Agricultural policy and act Of the total 75 million hectares of land in Zambia, 42 million hectares is classified as medium to high potential for agricultural production. Rainfall ranges from 800 to 1500 mm and a variety of crops, fish and livestock can be produced depending on the agroecological zone. It is estimated that only 14% of the agricultural land is being used. Zambia has one of the best surface and underground water resources in Africa in its dams, lakes, rivers and the aquifers [44]. The National Agricultural Policy was approved in 2004 and its main objective was to provide an enabling environment for the growth of the agricultural sector. Past agricultural policies were restrictive and constraining with strong government intervention and participation. The strategies pursued were not sustainable because of their heavy reliance on subsidies leading to these policies and strategies failing to stimulate the growth of the agricultural sector. The objectives of the policy were to increase food security, contribute to industrial development, increase agricultural exports, create employment and sustain the resource

A. Shane et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 93–104

base. This policy has well elaborated strategies in all sub-sectors of agriculture such as crops cultivation, seed and soils research, irrigation, land husbandry, farm power and mechanization, livestock, fisheries, co-operative development, marketing, credit and finance, training, risks and pesticide control. It conforms very well to the sixth national development plans. However the expected results have never been achieved due to shortfalls in implementing the strategies. For example re-introduction of subsidies in form of the Fertilizer Input Support Programme is in contradiction of the NAP of 2004 which demanded removal of subsidies [44–45]. 3.1.3. Bioenergy policy and strategy The bioenergy policy and strategies are not specific in the subSaharan Africa where the sector is mostly run by the private sector. There are no fiscal policies in most sub-Saharan African countries to encourage bioenergy technology introduction and bioenergy production. Energy policies and strategies put in place fail to achieve their intended goals of attracting both local and foreign investment in bioenergy production [46–51]. In Zambia, the national energy policy and the sixth national development plans makes puts much emphasis on hydroelectricity as compared to other forms of renewable energy. There are no specific strategies on how the bioenergy sector can be promoted. Energy policy and strategy development has been generally slow in Zambia. Development of a modern bioenergy sector has been hindered by inadequate policy, poor integration of renewable energy plans into the sixth national development plans and lack of commitment to implement the energy policy [52]. Bureaucratic systems hinder

97

policy and strategy formulation [51,53]. Bureaucracy exists in most sub-Saharan African countries and Zambia to be specific [22,54]. Bureaucracy has therefore affected policy and strategy formulation and issuance of certification and licenses. This has consequently affected economic sectors without excluding agriculture, forestry and bioenergy. Abrupt changes in investment policy have impacted negatively not only on the overall economy but also particularly on the bioenergy sector. On 18 May 2012, the Bank of Zambia Currency Regulation Statutory Instrument was passed prohibiting quoting, paying or demanding to be paid in foreign currency for any domestic transaction. On 25 June 2013, a statutory instrument called the monitoring of balance of payments regulations was passed requiring that the Bank of Zambia shall monitor the value of any imported goods and services, profits or dividends paid to shareholders that are outside Zambia and amounts of money remitted out of Zambia [55–56]. This implied that all transactions conducted in Zambia should be in Zambian currency and that money paid for goods or services sourced from outside the country or money paid to shareholder resident outside the country must be declared. These affected business in one way or another as investor felt they were not free to do business. However these two statutory instruments were revoked on the 22 April 2014 after the central government noticed how negatively business was affected. The bioenergy sector has a lot of challenges and among them are; inadequate policy and strategy, inadequate expertize and training, economic scarcity of the water resource, sudden policy changes, lack of bioenergy programs and strategies, social inequality, resistances

Fig. 1. : Bioenergy from crop residues by province.

98

A. Shane et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 93–104

Table 2 Theoretical bioenergy potential from forest residues Quantity (m3) Recovery rate (%)

Round wood 10,706,837 Saw logs Plywood Total

245,000 900

60 [32,60,68] 55 [64] 55 [64]

Logging residue

LHV (GJ m  3)

Potential energy (GJ y  1)

6,424,102

8.0 [32]

51,392,818

134,750 495

8.0 [32] 8.0 [32]

1,078,000 3960 52,474,778

to change, lack of collaboration, lack of political will, lack of capital, low investment in research and development, high installation costs and complexities in accessing CDM funds [57]. 3.2. Crop residues GIS Bioenergy Resource Assessment (Fig. 1) indicates that the Southern and Eastern provinces have the highest bioenergy potential from crop residues, followed by the Central and Northern provinces. Luapula, Copperbelt, South Western and Western provinces have the least potential of less than 15 PJ y-1. With this assessment it is clear that the government of the Republic of Zambia through the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock should enhance agricultural policy to maintain, sustain and increase the production of crops such as maize, soybean, groundnuts, sugarcane, etc. for possible bioenergy production in the provinces that have potential to grow these crops. The government through the Ministry of Energy and Water Development should motivate the private sector by means of appropriate policies, incentives and provision of subsidies to initiate bioenergy production from crop residues. The total available bioenergy potential from the surplus crop residues was estimated to be 198 PJ y  1, mainly from maize (42%) and sugar cane (17%). This is so because a lot of small household farmers grow maize (as it is the staple food) apart from the commercial farmers; however sugarcane is only grown by Zambia Sugar Plc, Consolidated Farming Limited (Kafue Sugar) and Kasama Sugar Limited. The rest of the bioenergy potential is contributed by various other crop residues. The surplus availability factors for each crop residue took into consideration the farming and harvesting practices in Zambia. For crops like cassava, cotton, groundnuts, tobacco, coffee and tea used availability 1.0 or close to 1.0 because almost all these residue types are not used as feedstock and/or plowed back into the soil but they are rather burnt right in the field and/or used as source of energy in a traditional manner. Baudron et al. [58] and Arslan et al. [59], attribute this burning of crop residues in Zambia as one of the reasons for the rapid soil degradation. The sugarcane leaves and tops are normally burnt in the field just before harvest to clear the way and chase snakes before the harvest starts. Shonhiwa estimated that in Zimbabwe, 30% of crop residues are either plowed back into the soil or used as animal feed. Currently the remaining 70% is left in the field where it is burnt by wild fires or eaten up by grazing animals [60]. Maize is widely grown in the Southern, Central and Eastern provinces followed by the Northern Province. The Western province has the lowest maize production. In the Southern province, most maize is grown in Choma, Monze, Mazabuka and Kalomo districts. These districts are on the plateau and are located in the agro-ecological zone IIa. In the Central province, most of the maize is grown in Chibombo, Mukushi and Kapiri districts. Kabwe district, though it is the provincial headquarter and located in agroecological region with favorable rainfall, has little land and therefore produces the least maize. In the Eastern province most

maize is grown Chipata, Lundazi and Petauke districts which are on the plateau and in Zone IIa of the agro-ecological zone. The maize resource assessment is in agreement with the agro-ecological zone assessment potential as it shows that most maize in Zambia is grown in agro-ecological zone IIa which is most suited for maize production and other crops [61]. Cassava, unlike maize, is widely grown in the Northern, Luapula and North Western provinces of Zambia. These provinces are mainly located in the agro-ecological zone III, which receives the most abundant rainfall. Most soybeans is grown in the Central province of Zambia, with most of it coming from the same districts which grow the most maize, followed by Lusaka province. 3.3. Forest residues A total 52 PJ y  1 of bioenergy potential is available from forest residues in Zambia as estimated in Table 2. Of the total bioenergy from round wood, 50 PJ y  1 is consumed as wood fuel. This is so because 9,381,837 m3 of the round wood is consumed as wood fuel (firewood and charcoal) as compared to only 1,325,000 m3 produced as industrial round wood. Of the total industrial round wood, only 245,000 m3 is saw logs ending up in saw mills. The other component is used for other industrial purposes such as construction, mining support, etc. 3.4. Municipal solid waste The total bioenergy from MSW was estimated to be about 5.62 PJ per annum as shown in Table 3. Data on provincial populations was obtained from the 2010 Census of Population and Housing Report: preliminary population figures [75]. The estimation was categorized in three sub-categories: cities (big towns), provincial headquarters and medium sized towns and small rural towns and newly created districts (smaller towns). The generated waste per capita of 0.50 kg per person per day [23] was used for the big towns. This compares very well with that with other low income countries ranging from 0.4–0.6 kg per person per day and in Zimbabwe which has a per capita waste generation of 0.5 kg for cities like Bulawayo and Harare [60,76]. In Ghana, it is 0.6 kg d  1 p  1[68] and in Nigeria, it ranges from 0.48–0.66 kg d  1 p  1 for big cities [77]. In Nigeria, much bigger cities like Kano, Lagos and Onitsha have much higher waste generation per capita ranging from 0.56 to 0.70 kg and small rural towns about 0.21 to 0.36 kg [78]. The Zambia Environmental Management Agency estimate of waste generation per capita of 0.5 kg Table 3 Bioenergy from municipal solid waste Town

Population MSW generated (kg y  1)

Lusaka 1,742,979 Livingstone 142,034 Ndola 455,194 Kitwe 522,092 Kabwe 202,914 Solwezi 239,051 Chipata 452,428 Kasama 238,035 Mongu 178,454 Choma 244,180 Chinsali 147,845 Mansa 217,603 Chingola 210,073 Mufulira 161,601 Luanshya 153,117 Chililabombwe 90,530 Rural towns 7,648,378 Total 13,046,508

50,894,987 4,147,393 13,291,665 15,245,086 4,740,071 5,584,231 10,568,718 5,560,498 4,168,685 5,704,045 3,453,659 5,083,206 4,907,305 3,774,999 3,576,813 2,114,781 160,799,499

Bioenergy potential (PJ y  1) 0.94 0.08 0.25 0.28 0.09 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.04 2.97 5.62

A. Shane et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 93–104

99

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock should enhance livestock production and its sustainability in those provinces with higher bioenergy potential through appropriate policy, programs and strategies. Through the Ministry of Energy and Water Development, the government must address technical, social and economic challenges that have hampered bioenergy production, full adoption and its sustainability. Through the Ministry of Finance and Planning, the government should formulate funding policy, introduce incentives and mobilize funding resources which livestock farmers can borrow from to enhance and sustain livestock production and harness bioenergy from animal waste. Development of livestock infrastructure such as dip tanks, pesticide and disease control and livestock development and research centres are cardinal. Restocking of livestock where necessary is very vital. Table. 6 Of the total cattle population, the highest is in the Southern and Western provinces followed by the Eastern and Central provinces. In the Southern and Eastern provinces, the same districts which produce a lot of maize are those which rear most cattle. It is difficult to rear cattle in the valley districts because of tsetse flies resulting from the presence of wild life. Most goats are reared in the Southern and Northern provinces followed by the Central and Eastern provinces. Most pigs are reared in the Eastern province followed by the Southern province. Though almost every small household rears poultry, Southern and Northern provinces rear the most, followed by Lusaka and the Central provinces.

was done for waste generated in Lusaka. There have been no studies for medium-sized and small rural towns to estimate the generated MSW per capita. In this study 0.50, 0.40 and 0.36 kg d  1 p  1 are used for big, medium and small towns, respectively. This takes care of the fact that the consumption patterns in these towns cannot be the same and consequently big towns generate more waste than medium towns; medium towns generate more waste per capita compared to the small towns. The waste collection rate at 40% [23] has not been so good in Zambia as compared to countries like Zimbabwe where it is about 90% [60]. This could be attributed to the perceived expensiveness of paying for waste collection. Residents dump the waste in undesignated areas all over residential and industrial areas. The organic waste content at 40% [23] compares very well with that of Zimbabwe at 0.45% [77]. 3.5. Livestock waste Livestock production can be categorized into commercial and noncommercial. The commercial farmers keep livestock in large numbers of the same species while the small household farmers keep a few animals and mixing two to four types of animals. The small households are normally located in rural areas and feed their animals by moving them to different places where there is pasture during the day and in the night the animals are brought back to the kraal. This is normally true for the cattle, sheep and goats. The pigs are normally kept in enclosures and fed from inside. This makes it easy to collect more of the pig manure. The commercial farmers however have a more organized system of feeding the animals [24]. In a similar study in Zimbabwe, 45% collection efficiency was used to determine bioenergy from all kinds of livestock; however another study used 45% for cattle, 35% for sheep and goats, 80% for pigs and 70% for poultry [60,77]. In this study, it was thought prudent to vary the collection efficiency depending on the livestock type as the raring and grazing patterns differed widely. However, there has been no study in Zambia to determine the collection efficiency of each animal species, as such the study adopted collection efficiencies from the Zimbabwe studies. The total bioenergy from livestock was estimated to be 26.56 PJ per annum, of which 63% is from cattle. This is so because cattle are larger in number and have the highest dry dung output per day. Most small household farmers have between 3 to 5 heads of cattle. Table 4 There are 2,491,000 households in Zambia. Of these 64% are in the rural and 36% in the urban areas. Going by province, the Copperbelt and Lusaka provinces are the most urbanized and have the highest number of households at 15% each. 1,631,000 households are engaged in agricultural activities, with 1,448,000 being in the rural and 183,000 in urban areas. The overall number of agricultural households in Zambia owning livestock is 588,000. Of the total number of agricultural households owning livestock, 561,000 were in the rural and 28,000 in the urban areas [11]. Table. 5 From Fig. 2, the Southern province has the highest bioenergy potential from livestock (11 PJ y  1), followed by the Eastern, Central and Western provinces. The least is in the Luapula, Copperbelt and Northwestern provinces with less than 1.5 PJ y  1 for each province. It is therefore very important that the government through the

3.6. Semi-arid areas Studies carried out by Wicke et al. estimated that Zambia has a technical potential of 26, 48 and 323 PJ y-1 for cassava ethanol, Jatropha oil and woodfuel respectively from semi-arid areas. From the total land of 75 million hactares, 16 million hectares is semiarid and only 1.7 million hectares is available for cassava, Jatropha and woodfuel cultivation of the semi-arid area. Cassava to ethanol conversion efficiencies of between 150 to 200 l per tons (L t  1), Jatropha mechanical oil extraction efficiency of 75% and Jatropha seeds oil content of 34% were used in the study to estimate the technical energy potentials. Cassava ethanol and Jatropha oil have densities 800 and 900 kg m  3[34]. Since the same piece of land is available, only one crop can be grown at a time. Jatropha has been proved to grow and survive in such land that is semi-arid, though the yields maybe much lesser in the absence of fertilizer and irrigation water; therefore this study adopts 50% of the potential from Jatropha due to the fact that the yields will be actually much lower than estimated in practice. Table 5 Semi-arid areas bioenergy potential [34] Crop

Available land (ha)

Jatropha 1,700,000 Cassava Fuelwood

Yield (kg ha 1 )

LHV (MJ kg 1 )

Bioenergy potential (PJ y  1)

2700 4900 9500

40.7 26.4 20

47.64 26.39 323.00

Table 4 Bioenergy potential from livestock Species

Population (million)

Dry dung (kg head  1 d  1)

Collection efficiency (%)

LHV (GJ t-1)

Potential Energy (PJ y  1)

Cattle Goats Pigs Sheep Poultry

3.052 2.350 0.725 0.230 36.500

1.80 [18,60,76,78] 0.40 [18,60,76,78] 0.80 [18,60,76,78] 0.40 [18,60,76,78] 0.06 [18,60,76,78]

0.45 0.35 0.80 0.35 0.70

18.5 [18,60,76,78] 14.0 [18,60,76,78] 11.0 [18,60,76,78] 14.0 [18,60,76,78] 11.0 [18,60,76,78]

16.69 1.68 1.86 0.16 6.15

Total bioenergy from livestock

[60,76] [76] [76] [76] [76]

26.56

100

A. Shane et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 93–104

Fig. 2. Bioenergy from livestock by province.

Table 6 Bioenergy potential from water hyacinth Water Body

Area covered by Harvest DM water hyacinth (t ha  1 y  1) (ha)

Total DM (t)

LHV (GJ t EP (GJ y  1) 1 )

Kariba Dam Kafue River

433 [79]

110 [82]

47,630

11 [82]

110 [82]

1210

16.65 [81,83] 16.65 [81,83]

Total

793,039 20,147 813,186

3.7. Water hyacinth Like in many other parts of the world, the problems posed by water hyacinth on Lake Kariba and Kafue River have been identified and include abstraction to navigation, irrigation, fishing and power generation [79–81]. Among the many solutions to solving the water hyacinth problems is the conversion of the water hyacinth biomass into bioenergy and the waste slurry can be used as organic fertilizer. A total of 0.81 PJ y  1 of bioenergy potential has been estimated from the water hyacinth on Lake Kariba and Kafue River. 3.8. Total technical bioenergy potential A total of about 310 PJ per annum of bioenergy can be harnessed in Zambia. The current energy supply in Zambia stands at 329 PJ y  1[84]. 83% of this is energy from biomass derived in a traditional manner as

firewood and charcoal. This does not include the 310 PJ derived from crop and forest residues, municipal waste and animal dung. Of the 310 PJ, crop residues is contributing 198 PJ, 52 PJ from forest residues, 27 PJ from livestock, 6 PJ from MSW and 24 PJ from growing of Jatropha in arid lands. Southern and eastern provinces have the highest bioenergy potential (68–86 PJ/y), followed by central province (51– 68 PJ/y). Central province is followed by northern, western and northwestern. Northern is higher than the other two though they are all in the same range. Copperbelt, Lusaka and Luapula provinces have the least potentials (Fig. 3). Southern has the highest potential from crop and livestock grown and kept in the provinces. This bioenergy potential is more than sufficient to supply energy for domestic energy needs. Studies by the International Finance Corporation, United Nations Development Programme and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have shown that temperatures may increase by 0.26–0.29 °C per decade [85] and rainfall may decrease by 1.9 mm per month per decade [86] in Zambia. For these reasons the study results will be valid for at least ten years and thereafter may require to be updated. Smallholder farmers account for more than 80% of agricultural and livestock rearing activities in Zambia. These smallholder farmers are mostly located in rural and remote areas and are not connected to the electricity grid. Utilization of livestock residues and crop residues to provide modern bioenergy to these rural areas can alleviate the problems that emanate from lack of clean modern energy. Most of these rural small households use biomass in an efficient traditional manner using inefficient cook stoves. The crop and agricultural residues are left to burn in the fields and forests by bush fires. The animal dung is either used to do the cooking on inefficient stoves or left laying unused. If bioenergy modern methods are used this energy from

A. Shane et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 93–104

101

Fig. 3. : Total Bioenergy Potential By Province.

biomass could be harnessed and properly utilized at a higher efficiency. The residues that result from production of modern bioenergy could be used as organic fertilizer to compensate for soil nutrient loss. Harnessing this potential of modern bioenergy cannot only solve energy poverty problem in rural areas but also solve environmental, social, health and economic problems faced by the rural communities. While major cities and towns of Zambia show inadequate bioenergy potential from livestock and crop residues, there is adequate potential from MSW. This is so because of the large consumption trends associated with cities and big towns. There is potential to supply market areas like chisokone in Kitwe and soweto in Lusaka and other markets with bioenergy as MSW generation is relatively high in these areas. Restaurants are the potential consumers of this bioenergy. Geographical information systems indicated that areas where maize is mainly grown are also areas where cattle and other animals are reared. This is an advantage in terms of bioenergy production. The larger part in the west of Zambia is covered by Arenosols and podozols. These soils are very infertile with a sandy texture, pH less than 4.0, very low nutrient retention capacity and hence very low agricultural potential. Gleysols occur along the Zambezi floodplains which are also located in the western part of Zambia but along the Zambezi River [61]. This is the reason for a relatively low bioenergy potential in the western part of the country. 3.9. Recommendations for successful implementation of bioenergy 3.9.1. Integrative policy and strategy The government through the ministry of energy and water development should establish a unit for bioenergy development

within the department of energy which should be responsible for the formulation of the national bioenergy policy and strategy. The bioenergy policy and strategy should integrate agricultural, forestry, water, food security, environmental, rural development, financial and other aspects that are relevant to bioenergy production. Policy could be more effective if it is directly connected to the target and should be directed at technological change and biomass utilization competitively. Policy should in the long run bring about reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, foster rural development and reduce poverty. The policy and strategies should bring about decentralization and devolution of powers to the locals so as to promote bioenergy access. The government should partner with civil society, the private sector and the international community in developing the bioenergy sector. It is important to encourage public–private partnership and incentives based bioenergy policy to ensure market development for bioenergy. Development of action plans, followed by implementation and monitoring and evaluation is also very crucial. Policy should make sure it avoids subsidies of any kind at all costs. Bioenergy policy should not only deal with direct effects of bioenergy production but also indirect environmental and social effects. The bioenergy policy formulation is a cross cutting issue and it should integrate agricultural, forests, environmental, land use and other land-use policies. Adequate consultation and assessment of environmental impacts associated with the bioenergy type value chain must be carried out. It should be a broad-based participatory process involving all stakeholders. The government should refrain from the current system where forests management is done wholly by the department of forests. Policy should be broad-based

102

A. Shane et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 93–104

and should facilitate and support bioenergy development, education and training, research and development, transport and infrastructure, and incentives to producers, distributors and consumers. The current national agricultural policy and its strategies should be implemented to the fullest. Policy that supports subsidies must be avoided. The draft national forest policy of 2009 must be enforced and the forest act of 1973 revised and updated to meet current needs of forestry management. Due to the high population densities in big towns and consequently high municipal solid waste generation, the government should formulate deliberate policy to encourage local authorities and the public to form public private partnerships to produce bioenergy from waste generated in homes, markets, hotels, restaurants and cafeterias. Policy on segregation of solid waste must be formulated and implemented. This involves municipal waste sorting practices and encourages the recycling and recovery of wood waste, bio-waste and other organic wastes and residues. There is a need for clear policy on how funds can be accessed in order to finance bioenergy projects. Co-operatives can be formed and these can be used to apply for loans to finance bioenergy projects as opposed to individuals applying for loans. Other sources such as funds for the clean development mechanism (CDM) and the carbon facility of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) should be explored in detail to see whether such funds can be accessed and used to develop bioenergy projects. The African Development Bank (AfDB) has funds such as the clean energy access and climate adaptation facility for Africa, clean energy investment framework, infrastructure and agency lines of credit which can be accessed for bioenergy project development. Sources of funds to finance the purchasing of equipment, infrastructure requirements, education and capacity building and research and development are also important aspects to consider in policy formulation. The government through appropriate departments should formulate policy that is clear on economic incentives and market mechanisms such as subsidies, mandates and protective trade barriers. These provide a degree of certainty to investors though they are subject to market manipulation and political decisions. Issues of land tenure must also be very clear in relation to bioenergy production policy. Abrupt changes to investment policy should be avoided at all costs. These bring about fears and speculation among both local and foreign investors which may result in withdrawing of an existing investment or channeling the potential investment elsewhere where the conditions are favorable. Bureaucratic systems may delay development. Investors prefer systems that are not only efficient but also flexible. 3.9.2. Bioenergy and feedstock value chains There is need to carry out a detailed study on bioenergy value chains, feedstock supply for bioenergy production and food security. There is need to exactly detain how much of each bioenergy type can be tapped and from which feedstock and in which location. The need for foliage, animal feedstock and bioenergy feedstock be assessed and compared. The competing needs for food, for bioenergy production and other needs should be accurately assessed. The applicable technology and its costs should also be assessed. 3.9.3. Bioenergy resources database The department of energy should make a database of bioenergy resources available, update the database on a periodic basis, the database should have a programme to estimate the bioenergy available at any time, available feedstock and come up with business models which locals can adopt. Data used in the estimations of bioenergy potentials must be harmonized between bioenergy data and other sectors that provide feedstock for

bioenergy. These include, but not limited to, data on forestry, crop cultivation, livestock, municipal solid waste generation, update of semi-arid lands and areas covered by water hyacinth on the Kariba dam and Kafue River. 3.9.4. Decentralized models and devolution of powers Due to the fact that bioenergy feedstock is bulky, it is recommended that small rural bioenergy facilities close to the feedstock source be modeled. This may include niche applications of farm scale biogas digesters or biomass for combined heat and power (CHP). This makes it easier for processing as it is closer to the source. Areas that are not connected to the national power grid can well be serviced with this kind of decentralized models. Centralized facilities will entail huge transportation costs. Policy formulation should take this into consideration. 3.9.5. Research and development Government through universities, scientific and industrial research institutes, agricultural, livestock, and soil and disease control research centers should conduct research to ascertain environmental and social risks such as soil degradation, biodiversity loss, stress on water resources, food supply tradeoffs and land use change impacts. Communication and publication of research results to stakeholders and the general public is very important. Full life cycle assessments should be carried out to determine direct and indirect impacts. Government should not rush into bioenergy development but first take necessary steps to assess risks involved in developing the bioenergy sector. Prioritize climate change mitigation, energy security improvement and research and development. This will enable to have a bioenergy sector that is sustainable. Some of the areas that require research may include but not limited to land use change, feedstock resources, technologies for feedstock transformation, financial schemes and marketing mechanisms, mandates and blending targets and an integrated comprehensive national policy with clear roles for bioenergy. 3.9.6. Dissemination of information, institutional coordination and stakeholder engagement Government should disseminate information and tools for bioenergy project implementation to farmers, investors and lending institutions, planning authorities, forest owners and local communities. Such information and tools may comprise business models, ownership and financing models. Institutional coordination and inclusive engagement of stakeholders should be prioritized. Ministries such as ministry of energy and water development, agriculture and livestock, finance and planning, education, early childhood and vocational training, science and technology, lands, natural resources and tourism should be part and parcel in all issues to do with bioenergy development in the country. Stakeholders such as chiefs and their local communities, local municipal authorities, civil societies, farmers and forests associations, local and foreign investors with interest in bioenergy should be engaged and consulted. 3.9.7. Education and capacity building Education and capacity building should be carried out to enhance good practices in agriculture and forestry. There is need of not only beefing up the staffing levels in two ministries but also educating and equipping the staff with the necessary skills to be able to carry out their duties and responsibilities effectively. Increasing funding to these ministries and any other relevant ministry is vital for capacity building. For example if the forestry department’s capacity is built forests management will improve, deforestation will decrease, re-forestation will increase and the national forestry policy and strategy will be fully implemented.

A. Shane et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 93–104

4. Conclusions The study has estimated a total of about 310 PJ y-1 and it shows that agricultural and forest residues followed by livestock waste can be major sources of bioenergy in Zambia. The spatial distributions of these technical bioenergy potentials have been presented. Small scale decentralized facilities could be located near the identified bioenergy potential and provide energy off the grid. This can fill the gap for those areas where the government has been unable to provide energy through the national power grid. Adoption of modern bioenergy can reduce deforestation and land degradation. The government should formulate policy in bioenergy that integrates agriculture, forestry, research and development, access to financing, institutional coordination and allinclusive engagement of stakeholders, environmental sustainability and many other aspects that affect bioenergy production. Bioenergy production has many benefits and among them are reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, improvement in energy security, opportunities for social and economic development, better usage of resources and mitigation of waste disposal problems. There is a need to make assessments to determine realistic capacities to produce feedstock for domestic needs and avoid overoptimistic projections. Promote sustainable agricultural, forest, energy and solid waste generation practices. Sustainable agricultural practices protect water and soil from contamination and degradation respectively. Maximizing the use of waste in bioenergy production is a good practice. Fostering research and development into modern bioenergy is imperative. Full life cycle assessments of bioenergy value chains should be conducted to determine impacts on biodiversity and adopt recognized standards and criteria for certifications under trade rules. Policy development should always consider full life-cycle impacts as well as direct and indirect effects of bioenergy production and use. A bioenergy statistical database must be developed, maintained and updated. The government should engage stakeholders with transparent communication and develop adaptive regulatory frameworks. Domestic bioenergy needs must be fulfilled before engaging in the export market. Policy should prioritize the use of locally available by-products and residues from forestry, forest industry, agriculture and organic waste streams.

References [1] Felix E, Dubois O. Energy-smart food at FAO: an overview-environmental and natural resources management working paper. . Rome: FAO; 2012. [2] Whittaker C, Mortimer N, Murphy R, Matthews R. Energy and greenhouse gas balance of the use of forest residues for bioenergy production in the United Kingdom. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:458–594. [3] Bilgen S, Keleş S, Sarıkaya I, Kaygusuz K. A perspective for potential and technology of bioenergy in Turkey: present case and future view. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;48:228–39. [4] Long H, Li X, Wang H, Jia J. Biomass resources and their bioenergy potential estimation: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;26:344–52. [5] Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, Vries B, Turkenburg W. Exploration of regional and global cost-supply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation crops at abandoned cropland and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:26–43. [6] Kim S, Dale BE. Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops and crop residues. Biomass and Bioenergy 2004;26:361–75. [7] Liu H, Jiang GM, Zhuang HY, Wang KJ. Distribution, utilization structure and potential of biomass resources in rural China: with special references of crop residues. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12:1402–18. [8] Sharma A, Pareek V, Zhang D. Biomass pyrolysis – a review of modelling, process parameters and catalytic studies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:1081–96. [9] Elbehri A, Segerstedt A, Liu P. Biofuels and the sustainability challenge: a global assessment of sustainability issues, trends and policies for biofuels and related feedstock. Rome: FAO; 2013. [10] Ericson S, Clini C, Rebuá M. The global bioenergy partnership sustainability indicators for bioenergy. 1st ed.. Rome: FAO; 2011.

103

[11] Vasco H, Costa M. Quantification and use of forest biomass residues in Maputo province, Mozambique. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:1221–8. [12] Soares Neto TG, Carvalho JA, Veras CAG, Alvarado EC, Gielow R. Biomass consumption and CO2, CO and main hydrocarbon gas emissions in an Amazonian forest clearing fire. Atmos Environ 2009;43:438–46. [13] Government of the Republic of Zambia. Living conditions and monitoring survey report 2006–2010. Lusaka: Central Statistics Office; 2012. [14] FAO. Biogas Technology: A training manual for Extension. Nepal: Consolidated Management Services; 1996. [15] Ral L. World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel. Environ Int 2005;31:575–84. [16] Broadhead J. Forests and energy; key issues: FAO forestry paper. Rome: FAO; 2008. [17] Lam J, Heegde FT, Eije SV. Reader for the compact course on domestic biogas technology and mass dissemination. Netherlands: University of Oldenburg; 2014. [18] Mohammed YS, Mokhtar AS, Bashir N, Saidur R. An overview of agricultural biomass for decentralized rural energy in Ghana. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:15–22. [19] Rao MS, Singh SP, Sing AK, Sodha MS. Bioenergy conversion studies of the organic fraction of MSW: assessment of ultimate bioenergy production potential of municipal garbage. Appl Energy 2000;66:75–87. [20] Rao MS, Singh SP. Bioenergy conversion studies of organic fraction of MSW: kinetic studies and gas yield–organic loading relationships for process optimization. Bioresour Technol 2004;95:173–85. [21] Li J, Liao S, Dan W, Jia K, Zhou X. Experimental study on catalytic steam gasification of municipal solid waste for bioenergy production in a combined fixed bed reactor. Biomass Bioenergy 2012;46:174–80. [22] Mbuligwe SE, Kassenga RG. Feasibility and strategies for anaerobic digestion of solid waste for energy production in Dar es Salaam city in Tanzania. Resour Conserv Recycl 2004;42:183–203. [23] Government of the Republic of Zambia. Zambia Environmental Outlook Report 3: Lusaka: Environmental Council of Zambia; 2008. [24] Sinkala T, Mwase ET, Mwala M. Control of aquatic weeds through pollutant reduction and weed utilization: a weed management approach in the lower Kafue River of Zambia. Phys Chem Earth 2002;27:983–91. [25] Hiloidhari M, Baruah DC. Crop residue biomass for decentralized electrical power generation in rural areas investigation of spatial availability. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1885–92. [26] Terrapon-Pfaff JC, Fischedick M, Monheim H. Energy potentials and sustainabilitythe case of sisal residues in Tanzania. Energy Sustain Dev 2012;16:312–9. [27] Hiloidhari M, Das D, Baruah DC. Bioenergy potential from crop residue biomass in India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;32:504–12. [28] Sajjakulnukit B, Yingyuad R, Maneekhao V. Assessment of sustainable energy potential of non-plantation biomass resources in Thailand. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;29:214–24. [29] Prasertsan S, Sajjakulnukit B. Biomass and biogas energy in Thailand: potential, opportunity and barriers. Renew Energy 2006;31:599–610. [30] Kemausuor F, Kamp A, Thomsen ST, Bensah EC, Ostergård H. Assessment of biomass residue availability and bioenergy yields in Ghana. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;86:28–37. [31] Smeets EMW, Faaij APC. Bioenergy potentials from forestry in 2050: an assessment of the drivers that determine the potentials. Clim Change 2007;81 (3–4):353–90. [32] Okello C, Pindozzi S, Faugno S, Boccia L. Bioenergy potential of agricultural and forest residues in Uganda. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;56:515–25. [33] FAOSTAT. http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-ateway/go/to/download/P/*/E; 2013 [accessed 20.07.14.]. [34] Wicke B, Smeets E, Watson H, Faaij A. The current bioenergy production potential of semi-arid and arid regions in sub-Saharan Africa. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:2773–86. [35] Chileshe A. Forestry outlook studies in Africa: a brief on the forestry outlook study on Zambia. Rome. FAO; 2001. [36] Chidumayo EN. Handbook on miombo ecology and management. Stockholm: Stockholm Environmental Institute; 1996. [37] Sekeli PM, Phiri M. Forest genetic resources working papers: working paper FGR/31E. Rome: FAO; 2002. [38] Shawa P. Deforestation in Mwekera forest no. 6: an ethical evaluation. Lusaka: University of Zambia; 2010. [39] Chifungula OA. Report of the auditor general on forest monitoring in Zambia. Lusaka: Auditor General's Office; 2010. [40] Government of the Republic of Zambia. National biodiversity strategy and action plan. Lusaka: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources; 1999. [41] Mwila GP, Ng’uni D, Phiri A. Country report on the state of plant generic resources for food and agriculture organization: Zambia: second report on the state of plant generic resources for food and agriculture final report. Lusaka: FAO; 2008. [42] Chundama M, Gumbo D, Mulolani D, Kalyocha G. Institutional and policy analysis for protected areas under the reclassification of Zambia's protected areas systems project final report. Lusaka: WWF; 2004. [43] Development and Initiative Services (DSI). Reclassification and effective management of the national protected areas system project: Review and synthesize of lessons learned concerning optimum forms of community management structures for multiple resources management in Zambia, Southern and Eastern Africa. Lusaka: United Nations Development Programme; 2008.

104

A. Shane et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 53 (2016) 93–104

[44] ECFA. Zambia: report of the study on national development-growth center in the Southern Africa. Tokyo: Engineering and Consulting Firms Association; 2006. [45] MACO. National Agricultural Policy (2004–2015). Lusaka: Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives; 2004. [46] Jumbe CBL, Msiska FBM, Madjer M. Biofuels development in Sub-Saharan Africa: are the policies conducive? Energy Policy 2009;37:4980–6. [47] Surendra KC, Takara D, Hashimoto AG, Khanal SK. Biogas as a sustainable energy source for developing countries: opportunities and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;3:846–59. [48] Mukumba P, Makaka G, Mamphweli S, Simon M, Meyer E. An insight into the status of biogas digester technologies in South Africa with reference to the Eastern Cape Province. Fort Hare Pap 2013;19(2):5–29. [49] Mwirigi JW, Makenzi PM, Ochola WO. Socio-economic constraints to adoption and sustainability of biogas technology by farmers in Nakuru Districts, Kenya. Energy Sustain Dev 2009;13:106–15. [50] Murphy JT. Making the energy transition in rural East Africa: leapfrogging an alternative? Technol Forecast Soc Change 2001;68:73–193. [51] Mwakaje AG. Dairy farming and biogas use in Rungwe district, South-west Tanzania: a study of opportunities and constraints. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12:2240–52. [52] Mfune O, Boon EK. Promoting renewable energy technologies for rural development in Africa: experiences of Zambia. J Hum Ecol 2008;3(24):175–89. [53] Lettinga G. Digestion and degradation, air for life. Water Sci Technol 2001;44 (8):157–76. [54] Osafa DD. Representative bureaucracy in Zambia: problems of gender balancing in selected public organizations. Lusaka: University of Zambia; 1988. [55] Government of the Republic of Zambia. Statutory Instrument No. 33 of 2012: The Bank of Zambia (Currency) Regulations. Lusaka: Bank of Zambia; 2012. [56] Government of the Republic of Zambia. Statutory Instrument No. 55: The Bank of Zambia (Monitoring the balance of Payments) Regulations. Lusaka: Bank of Zambia; 2013. [57] Shane A, Gheewala SH, Kasali G. Potential, Barriers and Prospects of biogas production in Zambia. J Sustain Energy Environ 2015;6:21–6. [58] Baudron F, Mwanza HM, Triomphe B, Bwalya M. Conservation Agriculture in Zambia: A Case Study of Southern Province. Nairobi: African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2007. [59] Arslan A, McCarthy N, Lipper L, Asfaw S, Cattaneo A. Adoption and intensity of conservation farming practices in Zambia-ESA Working paper No. 13-01. Rome: FAO; 2013. [60] Shonhiwa C. An assessment of biomass residue sustainably available for thermochemical conversion to energy in Zimbabwe. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;52:131–8. [61] Maki H. Agriculture and forestry in Zambia: present situation and issues for development. Tokyo: Japan Association for International Collaboration of Agriculture and Forestry; 2008. [62] Bilsborrow PE, Lye EL. Assessment of the availability of agricultural residues on a zonal basis for medium- to large-scale bioenergy production in Nigeria. Biomass Energy 2013;48:66–74. [63] Aregheore EM, Chimwano MA. Crop residues and agro-industrial byproducts in Zambia: Availability, utilization and potential value in ruminant nutrition Adis Ababa: African Feed Network; 1992. [64] Cuvilas CA, Jirjis R, Lucas C. Energy situation in Mozambique: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2139–46.

[65] Matengaifa R, Jingura RM. The potential for energy production from crop residues in Zimbabwe. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:1287–92. [66] Yang J, Wang X, Ma H, Bai J, Jiang Y, Yu H. Potential usage, vertical value chain and challenge of biomass resource: evidence from China's crop residues. Appl Energy 2014;114:717–23. [67] Ackom EK, Alemagi D, Ackom NB, Minang PA, Tchoundjeu Z. Modern bioenergy from agricultural and forestry residues in Cameroon: potential, challenges and the way forward. Energy Policy 2013;63:101–13. [68] Duku MH, Gu S, Hagan EB. A comprehensive review of biomass resources and biofuels potential in Ghana. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:404–15. [69] Cooper CJ, Laing CA. A macro analysis of crop residue and animal wastes as a potential energy source in Africa. J Energy S Afr 2007;18:10–9. [70] Dasappa S. Potential of biomass energy for electricity generation in subSaharan Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development 2011;15:203–13. [71] Maithel S. Biomass energy: resource assessment handbook. Asian and Pacific Centre for Transfer of Technology; 2009. [72] Zalengera C, Blanchard ER, Eames PC, Juma AM, Chitawo ML, Gondwe KT. Overview of the Malawi energy situation and APESTLE analysis for sustainable development of renewable energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:335– 47. [73] Koopmans A, Koppejan J. Agricultural and forest residue generation, utilization and availability, Regional Consultation on Modern Applications of Biomass Energy. Kuala Lumpur; 1997. [74] Jolli D, Giljum S. Unused biomass extraction in agriculture, forestry and fishery. Vienna: Sustainable Europe Research Institute; 2005. [75] CSO. Census of Population and Housing Report: preliminary population figures, 2011. Lusaka: GRZ; 2012. [76] Jingura RM, Matengaifa R. Optimization of biogas production by anaerobic digestion for sustainable energy development in Zimbabwe. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1116–20. [77] Agbro EB, Ogie NA. A comprehensive review of biomass resources and biofuels production potential in Nigeria. Res J Eng Appl Sci 2012;1(3):149–55. [78] Mohammed YS, Mokhtar AS, Bashir N. Sustainable potential of bioenergy resources for distributed power generation development in Nigeria. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;34:361–70. [79] MacDonald M. Integrated water resources management strategy for the zambezi river basin: rapid assessment – final report. Lusaka: SADC/ ZRA; 2007. [80] Phichai K, Pragrobpondee P, Khumpart T, Hirunpraditkoon S. Prediction heating values of lignocellulosics from biomass characteristics. Int J Chem Nucl Metall Mater Eng 2013;7(7):214–7. [81] Yokoyama S, Matsumura Y. The Asian biomass handbook: a guide for biomass Production and Utilization. Tokyo: Japan Institute of Energy; 2008. [82] Lindsey K, Hirt HM. A practical handbook of uses for water hyacinth from across the world. Anamed Int 2000. [83] Singh BP, Pandey DK, Verma SP, Raghuvanshi RS, Kumar YN, Rao PVS, Reddy MS. Proceedings of the 21st national children's science congressenergy: explore harness and conserve. Activity Guide. New Delhi; 2013. [84] IRENA. Renewable Energy Country Profile: Zambia. Abu Dhabi: IRENA; 2014. [85] Funder F, Mweemba CE, Nyambe I. The climate change agenda in Zambia national interests and the role of development cooperation. Denmark: Danish Institute for International Studies Working Paper; 2013. [86] GRZ. Zambia: Strategic Programme for Climate Resilience. Durban: Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience; 2011.