Jeffrey Gogo Climate Story
Three weeks ago, Zimbabwe began the process of formulating a national policy on bio-fuels (energy drawn from organic matter) to boost energy security and provide direction on the contentious path of agriculture-related energies.It is an attempt to resurrect, regulate and strengthen a bio-fuels industry, which thrived before the surreptitious termination of ethanol blending in 1992 after 26 years of use. A very well-timed effort.
The bio-fuels policy comes at a time Zimbabwe is keen to cut its $1,4 billion annual fossil-fuel import bill, and meet up with rising domestic fuel demands without compromising the integrity of the environment or disrupting food production.
The overall objective of the policy is to increase the share of bio-fuels to 10 percent or 230 million litres of national liquid fuel needs within two years, in line with the National Energy Policy objectives.
So far, and in the absence of a guiding national-level bio-fuels policy, Zimbabwe cannot be said to have done poorly.
Since 2013, the country has mandatorily blended ethanol with petrol at rates of between five and 15 percent, thanks to the 100 million-litre ethanol distillery plant at Chisumbanje in southern Zimbabwe.
But bio-diesel production nears zero due to feedstock shortages. The 35 million litre-capacity Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe-funded bio-diesel plant at Mt Hampden on the outskirts of Harare remains unused, 8 years since commissioning.
To produce ethanol and bio-diesel the country uses sugarcane and jatropha caucus, respectively. Both do not compete with food production in any serious way.
Food security threat
But the current policy development process remains unclear whether future production will only be limited to sugarcane and jatropha as feedstock.
The real danger is when bio-fuels start to encroach into the food production space, utilising important crops such as maize or sorghum as feedstock.
Across Africa, we have seen a growing number of land-grabbing multi-national corporations pushing out local farmers from their ancestral farmlands to pave way for the production of genetically modified maize, mainly for bio-fuels and private profit.
This may be one of the many reasons hunger remains entrenched within the continent.
Can Zimbabwe escape this trap, given as it is the bio-fuels industry is a capital intensive sector, driven mainly by private capital? Green Fuel is pumping $600 million at Chisumbanje.
The preamble to the planned national bio-fuels policy recognises the multiple threats from bio-fuels production, but provides little guarantees.
“The cultivation of bio-fuel feedstocks requires substantial amounts of land,” it says, noting, for example, that 10 000 hectares is required to produce enough sugarcane to sustain a 12 million litre capacity bio-ethanol plant per year.
“Such investments are, therefore, perceived as an emerging driver of habitat alteration, biodiversity loss, land degradation, food insecurity and community displacement and disenfranchisement.
“Consequently, they might not yield the desired results if not properly guided and responsibly implemented through appropriate and effective policy and legislative measures.”
Perhaps, this is what will shape the policy, set to be built around the four pillars of economic, environment, agriculture, and institutional and social capacity. And there is a broad target for minimising bio-fuels food production wars.
According to the policy framework, balance should be achieved between “bio-fuel feedstock production and food security at national and community levels. . .”
Community-investor conflict
Bio-fuels production will be most successful where empowerment of communities is strongest, even when they are not the primary partners. Some guarantee to that effect have been offered.
The four consultants that are developing the policy have been tasked to ensure the final document recognises and respects “community land rights in situations where their land is taken over and opened up for feedstock plantation development through clauses that minimise community displacements in land lease agreements.”
It further states: “In cases of any compensation, acquisition, or voluntary relinquishment of rights by land users or owners for bio-fuel operations, there should be negotiated agreements that include prior informed consent by affected communities.”
Such overbearing tendencies by private investors were already evident at Green Fuels’ Chisumbanje Ethanol Plant.
Of the total 1,754 households displaced from their communal lands in Chisumbanje and Chinyamukwakwa, only 516 had been resettled or partially compensated, according to a 2012 report by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Chisumbanje led by the then Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara.
Green Fuel was forced to stop production for some months, as a result. The bio-fuels policy delivers a suitable platform for ending such community-investor conflicts by setting out parameters that guarantee absolute community protection from exploitative private sector investors.
Economy-wise, the policy will seek to address the elements of blending ratios and modalities; pricing formula for the blend; and investor incentives.
Among other issues, the environmental pillar concerns with sustainability, whether the bio-fuel feedstock is grown in a manner that minimises environmental damage and avoids bio-diversity loss.
It does not say how it plans to cut greenhouse gases emissions from agriculture, the second largest polluting industry after energy in Zimbabwe, constituting 22 percent of national emissions.
The bio-fuels policy is still work in progress. On whether it is a truly comprehensive policy, its success or failures will be measured by its capacity to adequately protect the country’s food production systems, enhance community benefits while simultaneously yielding tangible economic and environmental benefits.
It must ensure a win-win for all, the community, investors and more importantly Zimbabwe.
God is faithful.
jeffgogo@gmail.com