Jatropha cultivation in southern India: assessing farmers' experiences

Together with 106 farmers who started growing Jatropha (Jatropha curcas L.) in 20042006, this research sought to increase the knowledge around the real-life experience of Jatropha farming in the southern India states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. Launched as an alternative for diesel in India, Jatropha has been promoted as a non-edible plant that could grow on poor soils, yield oil-rich seeds for production of bio-diesel, and not compete directly with food production. Through interviews with the farmers, information was gathered regarding their socio-economic situation, the implementation and performance of their Jatropha plantations, and their reasons for continuing or discontinuing Jatropha cultivation. Results reveal that 82% of the farmers had substituted former cropland for their Jatropha cultivation. By 2010, 85% (n = 90) of the farmers who cultivated Jatropha in 2004 had stopped. Cultivating the crop did not give the economic returns the farmers anticipated, mainly due to a lack of information about the crop and its maintenance during cultivation and due to water scarcity. A majority of the farmers irrigated and applied fertilizer, and even pesticides. Many problems experienced by the farmers were due to limited knowledge about cultivating Jatropha caused by poor planning and implementation of the national Jatropha program. Extension services, subsidies, and other support were not provided as promised. The farmers who continued cultivation had means of income other than Jatropha and held hopes of a future Jatropha market. The lack of market structures, such as purchase agreements and buyers, as well as a low retail price for the seeds, were frequently stated as barriers to Jatropha cultivation. For Jatropha biodiesel to perform well, efforts are needed to improve yield levels and stability through genetic improvements and drought tolerance, as well as agriculture extension services to support adoption of the crop. Government programs will -probably be more effective if implementing biodiesel production is conjoined with stimulating the demand for Jatropha biodiesel. To avoid food-biofuel competition, additional measures may be needed such as land-use restrictions for Jatropha producers and taxes on biofuels or biofuel feedstocks to improve the competitiveness of the food sector compared to the bioenergy sector. (c) 2012 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Achieving universal rural energy access in india: A low carbon pathway

India's energy challenges are three pronged: presence of majority energy poor lacking access to modern energy; need for expanding energy system to bridge this access gap as well as to meet the requirements of fast-growing economy; and the desire to partner with global economies in mitigating the threat of climate change. The presence of 364 million people without access to electricity and 726 million relying on biomass for cooking out of a total rural population of 809 million indicate the seriousness of challenge. In this paper, we discuss an innovative approach to address this challenge, which intends to take advantage of recent global developments and untapped capabilities possessed by India. Intention is to use climate change mitigation imperative as a stimulus and adopt a public-private-partnership-driven ‘business model' with innovative institutional, regulatory, financing, and delivery mechanisms. Some of the innovations are: creation of rural energy access authorities within the government system as leadership institutions; establishment of energy access funds to enable transitions from the regime of "investment/fuel subsidies" to "incentive-linked" delivery of energy services; integration of business principles to facilitate affordable and equitable energy sales and carbon trade; and treatment of entrepreneurs as implementation targets. This proposal targets 100% access to modern energy carriers by 2030 through a judicious mix of conventional and biomass energy systems with an investment of US$35 billion over 20 years. The estimated annual cost of universal energy access is about US$9 billion for a GHG mitigation potential of 213Tg CO2e at an abatement cost of US$41/tCO2e. It is a win-win situation for all stakeholders. Households benefit from modern energy carriers at affordable cost; entrepreneurs run profitable energy enterprises; carbon markets have access to CERs; the government has the satisfaction of securing energy access to rural people; and globally, there is a benefit of climate change mitigation.