1. THINKING beyond the canopy Firing socio-economic questions in the forest: What are the impacts of fuelwood in the Democratic Republic of Congo? IUFRO August 2010 C-12 Energy forests – social impacts and environmental services– Jolien Schure, Verina Ingram, Abdon Awono

2. THINKING beyond the canopy Problem statement: fuelwood for the urban centers DRC covers 61% (98 million hectares) of the Congo Basin forest Kinshasa & Kisangani population 10 million and 2 million, urbanization Not sufficient access to alternative energy (91.5% is fuelwood) Deforestation, degradation, Increasing prices + Labor, (renewable) energy for cooking,

3. THINKING beyond the canopy Methodology: Theoretical background and concepts Livelihood perspective (capitals, institutions, power& access). (de Haan, 2000; de Haan & Zoomers, 2005; Wiersum, 2009;) Fuelwood commodity chain. (Ribot, 1998; Kaplinsky & Moris, 2000; Velde et al. 2006). Sustainable livelihoods: Capabilities + Natural resources base (Chambers & Conway, 1991; Scoones, 1998, Leach et al., 1999; Neefjes, 2000; Blaikie, 1994; Sen, 1981, 1984).

4. THINKING beyond the canopy Conceptual framework and methods Focus on livelihood systems and entire chain in order to understand individual and household choices and institutional arrangements. Mapping, interviews, surveys

5. THINKING beyond the canopy What are social and economic outcomes? - Consumers Consumers in the city use mainly charcoal for cooking, some electricity and firewood. Reasons: clean, little smoke, taste of food, hygiene rules of city. Almost no efficient stoves used (3%). Prices have raised over past 5 years. Costs for households Kinshasa: 21US$/ month! (+-15.6).

6. THINKING beyond the canopy Consumers

7. THINKING beyond the canopy Household energy Kinshasa

8. THINKING beyond the canopy Socio-economic outcomes for producers Producers: educated, long experience (more ‘new comers’ in Kinshasa), all ethnicities, also women (4%). Permanent vs temporary producers (61% permanent in Kinshasa, 41% in Kisangani). (42% of producers Kin. depend on fuelwood revenues vs 6% Kis.) Other activities: Agriculture (76% Kin, 92% Kis), Fishing (15% Kin), Timber exploitation (5% Kin, 2% Kis), Trade (2% Kis). Training pays off (21.4 percent received training). Factors influencing production: (informal) taxes, distances and transport costs, demand, period of ‘chenilles’, events and festivities (year’s end, return to school). Annual profit/city = (Bags sold*price)-(Costs transport+lmaterials+tax+access).

9. THINKING beyond the canopy Average yearly volume and profit charcoal producers Kinshasa and Kisangani

10. THINKING beyond the canopy Monthly income fuelwood producers

11. THINKING beyond the canopy And the natural resource base? 1 plantation that provides fuelwood (Mampu) Perception: traders, producers, consumers see diminishing source and increasing distances Volumes harvested SELELCTIVE Wood species IN kis WHERE HAVE CHOICE, IN KIN EVERYTHING IS USED, EVEN FRUIT TREES Reforestation VERY limited (only 4786.74 ha for 1986 – 2006, despite plan of 500/1000 ha/ year). 80.5% producers never planted tree, 19.5 did. Location OF RESOURCE-

12. THINKING beyond the canopy % FOR THIS ARE A? NO FOREST?!

13. THINKING beyond the canopy Actual and preferred collection location

14. THINKING beyond the canopy Conclusion Socio-economic outcomes: 1.Fuelwood provides essential access to energy and is important as livelihood income 2.Sector is not sustainable at present. 3.No incentives to producers to produce in more sustainable way. 4.ALTERNATIVES MODELS EG FUELWOOD PLANATION REQUIRE EXTENSIVE & LT SUPPORT Methodological insights: 1. Value chain approach helps to understand: supply, demand, value, profits AND SOURCES. 2. Important to map actors and institutions to grasp interests, power and opportunities for management. 3. Livelihoods approach reveal: alternatives and how people combine activities.

15. THINKING beyond the canopy Thank you for your attention Contact: Jolien Schure: J.schure@cgiar.org