Retrospective on the hype: bottlenecks for Jatropha curcas bioenergy value chain development in Africa - a Kenyan case

Jatropha curcas (Jatropha), a shrubby tree native to Central America, thrives in many parts of the tropics and sub-tropics in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Asia. Though an essentially undomesticated shrub, Jatropha suddenly emerged as a promising biodiesel feedstock during the period 2003-2009, when rising petrol prices fuelled global interests in bioenergy crops. Jatropha was claimed to produce high-quality oil, and had a wide adaptability to diverse climatic zones and soil types, minimum input requirements, short gestation period, easy multiplication, drought tolerance, pest and disease resistance and an ability to grow under marginal conditions without competition for resources for food production. It was considered a ‘silver bullet’ to solve energy insecurity in low-income countries and to support economic development. Similarly, investors from developed nations were eager to grow it in large commercial plantations in SSA and elsewhere for export. However, many claims made regarding Jatropha have proven highly exaggerated (GTZ, 2009). After some years of plantation, the Jatropha boom halted. By 2009, many media reports revealed disillusioning episodes across the developing world. Academics also began to question its commercial viability as a bioenergy feedstock, with low yields (if no inputs) being a significant concern (GTZ, 2009; Ariza-Montobbio and Lele, 2010; Iiyama et al., 2013; NL Agency, 2013). In SSA, the Jatropha hype left many affected smallholder farmers confused and disillusioned. Yet few assessments (NL Agency, 2013) have critically examined the crop’s rather disorganised promotion and analysed failures on the ground from the value chain (VC) perspective. Considering a Kenyan case, we examine the following hypothesis: the recent Jatropha boom failed to deliver the claimed benefits for energy security and economic development, because (i) the bioenergy VC remained under-developed in SSA, and/or (ii) lacked the enabling environment present in other bioenergy VCs, e.g. India.

---

• View source