Storage location of a mobile charcoal production facility in Baringo County, Kenya. (Beatrice Adoyo)

Utilisation of invasive species biomass for charcoal production (Kenya)

Utilisation of invasive species biomass for charcoal production

Description

Charcoal production from invasive Prosopis juliflora has several objectives. It has been promoted to control the spread and reduce the abundance of invasive Juliflora while generating income opportunities for poor rural households producing and selling charcoal. Wood pyrolysis is an efficient, environmentally friendly charcoal production technology through indirect heating of wood at high temperatures with the release of water vapor.

The use of invasive Prosopis wood for charcoal production is intended to control its spread, create space for agricultural or grazing activities and restore degraded land.
Tinder Eco fuels limited is a private company whose aim is to efficiently produce charcoal through modern, environmental friendly techniques using the ‘EURO’ line charcoal kilns. Approximately 60 tons of invasive Prosopis wood are collected weekly, ejecting an estimate of Ksh. 400,000 weekly income to the local community.
Prosopis, the only tree in Baringo permitted for charcoal production is cut by land users and dried for three days to lower its water content before being transported to the production firm. The trees are then weighed and cut into 15 cm lengths, a corresponding dimension of the loading and offloading trolleys. In the carbonizing chambers, the raw materials are subjected to indirect burning and consequent cooling by pyrolysis gas heated at 250 – 500 degree celcius, a process that takes 8-16 hours. Operations in the chambers are controlled and regulated by an assembly of sensors. Ready charcoal is offloaded into a winch which is covered and sealed by a sandy-clay mixture for further cooling to prevent combustion.
Land users prefer this technology to the traditional one as it is more efficient with a guaranteed income from the sale of Prosopis wood. The carbonization process is fine-tuned, minimizing smoke production and the number of point sources of pollution through household-based traditional charcoal production. A steady production process that is resilient to rainy seasons ensures market readiness and reduces price fluctuations. Clearing the land from invasive Prosopis increases the land's economic and ecological value and the provision of mutliple ecosystem services relevant for local people.

Location

Location: Marigat Sub-County, Baringo County, Kenya

No. of Technology sites analysed: single site

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 36.06328, 0.49471

Spread of the Technology: applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

Date of implementation: 2015

Type of introduction
Prosopis wood being cut into 15 cm lengths for loading into trolleys (Beatrice Adoyo)
Burning and heating chamber for wood pyrolysis (Beatrice Adoyo)

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
  • enhance provision of multiple ecosystem services
Land use

  • Forest/ woodlands - (Semi-)natural forests/ woodlands: Selective felling, Dead wood/ prunings removal
    Products and services: Fuelwood

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Number of growing seasons per year: n.a.
Land use before implementation of the Technology: The challenge with charcoal production from prosopis is that without supporting measures and interventions, prosopis may not be reduced. Therefore it is very important to define a clear goal before implementing the technology. If complete eradication of prosopis is the goal, then charcoal production from prosopis can only be a technology to cover the transition from prosopis to e.g. agriculture or pasture.
Livestock density: n.a.

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • biological degradation - Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
SLM group
  • natural and semi-natural forest management
  • pastoralism and grazing land management
  • energy efficiency technologies
SLM measures
  • vegetative measures - V3: Clearing of vegetation, V4: Replacement or removal of alien/ invasive species
  • management measures - M5: Control/ change of species composition

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
Author: Green Power Limited

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology unit (unit: Charcoal production plant volume, length: 1)
  • Currency used for cost calculation: n.a.
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 100.0
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: n.a
Most important factors affecting the costs
Weather conditions may affect transportation of wood due to poor rural road condition Power outages
Establishment activities
  1. Construction (Timing/ frequency: once during the plant establishment)
  2. Machine installation (Timing/ frequency: once during the plant establishment)
Establishment inputs and costs (per Charcoal production plant)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (n.a.) Total costs per input (n.a.) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
machine installation (35% of machine cost) Men 14.0 50000.0 700000.0 100.0
Equipment
‘EURO’ line charcoal kiln a set 1.0 2000000.0 2000000.0 100.0
welding machine unit 1.0 22000.0 22000.0 100.0
cutting disk unit 1.0 1800.0 1800.0 100.0
Construction material
Operations' shade building 1.0 100000.0 100000.0 100.0
Other
business operations permit operations permit 1.0 20000.0 20000.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 2'843'800.0
Maintenance activities
  1. Transportation of wood from land users (Timing/ frequency: daily)
  2. Cutting of wood (Timing/ frequency: daily)
  3. Loading into carbonizers (Timing/ frequency: daily)
  4. Packing of ready charcoal (Timing/ frequency: daily)
Maintenance inputs and costs (per Charcoal production plant)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (n.a.) Total costs per input (n.a.) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Technical employees monthly salary 12.0 60000.0 720000.0 100.0
Casual workers monthly salary 3.0 20000.0 60000.0 100.0
Plant material
wood tonne 3360.0 1200.0 4032000.0 100.0
water
Other
permit 1.0 20000.0 20000.0 100.0
electicity amperes 180.0 267.0 48060.0 100.0
water litres 54000.0 0.8 43200.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 4'923'260.0

Natural environment

Average annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Average annual rainfall in mm: 671.0
Average annual rainfall in mm: 671.0
Rainfall is characterized by seasonal and annual uctuations
The area is in a semi-arid zone with temperatures ranging
between 16 to 36 degrees, averagely 24.6 degrees, accompanied
by high evaporation rates of up to 6mm. It experiences an
average rainfall of 671 mm annually which are very erratic.
Slope
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitude
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Is salinity a problem?
  • Yes
  • No

Occurrence of flooding
  • Yes
  • No
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure
health

poor
good
education

poor
good
technical assistance

poor
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
good
markets

poor
good
energy

poor
good
roads and transport

poor
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
good
financial services

poor
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

crop quality
decreased
increased

fodder production
decreased
increased

fodder quality
decreased
increased

animal production
decreased
increased

wood production
decreased
increased

forest/ woodland quality
decreased
increased


Coppicing of the cut trees slightly increases the woody biomass of Prosopis weed.

product diversity
decreased
increased

land management
hindered
simplified


Land management is simplified on condition that other restorative measures are incorporated

farm income
decreased
increased

diversity of income sources
decreased
increased

economic disparities
increased
decreased

workload
increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts
community institutions
weakened
strengthened


Charcoal production has led to the establishment of community-based charcoal production associations which regulate all transactions relating to charcoal production, marketing and sale.

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved


Am initial directive restricting charcoal production to Prosopis trees enhanced the protection of indigenous trees , creating awareness on the need for their management.

Ecological impacts
Off-site impacts
impact of greenhouse gases
increased
reduced

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual rainfall increase

not well at all
very well
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
general (river) flood

not well at all
very well

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 10-50%
  • more than 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 10-50%
  • 50-90%
  • 90-100%
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Yes
  • No
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Fast and efficient means of producing charcoal compared to traditional technologies as it produced 3 times the amount of charcoal from the same quantity of wood within 16 hours compared to 1 week.
  • Readily available raw materials at affordable price
  • A reliable source of income to the community members
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Environmentally friendly technology of utilizing Prosopis weed with reduced number of point sources for air pollution.
  • Improved community well-being through assured high income from the sale of Prosopis wood compared to their initial practice of tideous traditional charcoal burning and sale.
  • Potentiality in sustainably managing Prosopis / invasive species if integrated with other restorative land management strategies.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Poor roads and power shortages during rainy seasons hinders transportation of wood and charcoal production processes as reliance on a fuel generator increases production costs Improving the road network
  • Corruption and associated assault by police during transportation of charcoal to the market. Establishment of transparent and clear laws on legal requirements related to charcoal production activities
  • Unsteady regulatory and policy frameworks disrupting charcoal production
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Unsustainability in controlling invasive species Integration with other land restoration measures to control re-invasion.

References

Compiler
  • Beatrice Otieno
Editors
  • Albrecht Ehrensperger
  • Christian Hergarten
Reviewer
  • Ross Shackleton
Date of documentation: March 27, 2018
Last update: July 22, 2024
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Spatial Evolution of Prosopis Invasion and its Effects on LULC and Livelihoods in Baringo, Kenya. Mbaabu et al. 2019.: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11101217
  • Experimental prosopis management practices and grassland restoration in three Eastern African countries. Eschen et al, 2023.: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-023-00163-5
  • Chapter 12. A REVIEW OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE CONTROL OF INVASIVE PROSOPIS TREES: Forthcoming (Schaffner et al. 2024)
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International