Ecofys and Winrock - Sugar palm ethanol - August 2011

Sugar palm ethanol Analysis of economic feasibility and sustainability

A S USTAI N ABLE ENE RGY SUPPLY FOR EVERYONE

ECOFYS NETHERLANDS BV, A PRIVATE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE NETHERLANDS HAVING ITS OFFICIAL SEAT AT UTRECHT AND REGISTERED WITH THE TRADE REGISTER OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN MIDDEN NEDERLAND UNDER FILE NUMBER 30161191


Ecofys Netherlands BV

Kanaalweg 15-G

P.O. Box 8408

NL- 3503 RK Utrecht

The Netherlands

T: +31 (0) 30 66 23 300

F: +31 (0) 30 66 23 301

E: [email protected]

W: www.ecofys.com

-Confidential-

Ecofys:

Jasper van de Staaij

Arno van den Bos

Carlo Hamelinck

Winrock:

Endri Martini

James Roshetko

David Walden

Date: 29 August 2011

Project number: PEGENL085046

Sugar palm ethanol Analysis of economic feasibility and sustainability

GAVE090756

© Ecofys 2011

by order of:

NL Agency

29 August 2011 i


Summary

Most of the current biofuels today come from crops such as oil palm, rapeseed and soy

(biodiesel) and sugar cane, corn and wheat (ethanol). There are also several “new”

promising crops for biofuels of which little is known about their technical and

sustainability performance.

One example is sugar palm; although little empirical data from a small number of

sources is yet available, it seems under the right conditions sugar palm can be very

productive with high ethanol yields. Sugar palm grows in mixed stands (providing

opportunities for additional sources of income for farmers), has certain environmental

benefits and requires little maintenance.

This study evaluates whether sugar palm is a suitable crop for biofuels and how

production of ethanol from sugar palm in a large-scale setting is sustainably and

economically feasible.

Field data was collected from two areas with existing sugar palm plantings in

Indonesia; from eight villages in Batang Toru in North Sumatra and from six locations

in Tomohon, North Sulawesi. The empirical data showed large variations in yields per

productive sugar palm and number of productive palms per hectare. These variations

are explained by heterogeneous smallholder management systems, tapping skills,

local conditions and climate, and the lack of improved quality seeds / seedlings that

have been selected for high and uniform juice production.

Using the empirical data, we performed an economic analysis on different models of

large-scale sugar palm cultivation and ethanol production and analysed the

sustainability. These analyses revealed that sugar palm has the opportunity to provide

a source of sustainable and profitable bio ethanol. Under conservative assumptions,

the economic analysis showed an interesting business case. An aspect to consider is

the relatively long payback period (after 13.7 years) as for new plantings it will take 5

to 10 years before any flowering occurs and juice can be tapped. The main uncertain

parameters with the greatest implications for the business case are the density of

productive sugar palms and their yields per year.

Sugar palm does not need to be large-scale to be embraced as a source of biofuel

because of its sustainability performance and its positive contribution to smallholders.

Tapping of sugar palm already occurs with wild sugar palms and domesticated sugar

palms. However, a certain scale will be needed in order for a conventional ethanol

plant to be economically feasible and in order to be able to produce sufficient

quantities for international markets. The challenge will lie in scaling up from small

scale (or “greenfield”) to sufficiently large scale. Creating a suitable large-scale sugar

palm plantation might be done via two possible routes; either connecting a large

ii Sugar palm ethanol


collection of smallholders or via reforestation models, whereby degraded and unused

lands are reforested in mixed models, allowing more control over spacing and lay-out.

Successfully establishing new agro-forestry production systems and realizing high

yields - especially outside the area where sugar palm naturally occurs and the local

population has experience with growing and tapping palm trees - will be challenging.

In addition, the projections of empirical data from small plantings to large-scale in

mixed forest conditions still need to be proven in practice. Further research is also

needed to determine whether propagation by seed from what seems to be a wild plant

will result in uniform and high yields, as well as plants that are insusceptible to

disease/pests.

The next step in development of large-scale sugar palm cultivation, initially, should be

limited to pilots in areas of interested regencies (districts) to gain experience and

ensure proper understanding and management.

29 August 2011 iii


Samenvatting

De meeste van de huidige biobrandstoffen komen uit gewassen zoals palmolie,

koolzaad en soja (biodiesel) en suikerriet, maïs en tarwe (ethanol). Er zijn ook

verschillende "nieuwe" veelbelovende gewassen voor biobrandstoffen, waarvan nog

weinig bekend is over hun technische en duurzaamheidsprestaties.

Eén voorbeeld daarvan is suikerpalm; hoewel er slechts beperkte empirische gegevens

uit een klein aantal bronnen beschikbaar is, lijkt suikerpalm onder de juiste

omstandigheden zeer productief met een hoge ethanolopbrengst. Suikerpalm groeit in

‘mixed stands’ (wat mogelijkheden biedt voor aanvullende bronnen van inkomsten

voor kleine boeren), heeft bepaalde milieuvoordelen en vereist weinig onderhoud.

Dit onderzoek beoordeelt of suiker palm een geschikt gewas is voor biobrandstoffen

en hoe de productie van ethanol uit suikerpalm op grote schaal duurzaam en

economisch haalbaar is.

Veldgegevens zijn verzameld uit twee gebieden met bestaande suikerpalm aanplanten

in Indonesië; van acht dorpen in Batang Toru in Noord-Sumatra en van zes locaties in

Tomohon, Noord-Sulawesi. Er bleek grote variatie in de empirische gegevens wat

betreft opbrengst per productieve suikerpalm en het aantal productieve palmen per

hectare. Deze variaties zijn te verklaren door heterogene smallholder systemen,

tapvaardigheden, plaatselijke omstandigheden en klimaat, en het gebrek aan een

betere kwaliteit zaden / zaailingen die zijn geselecteerd voor een hoge en uniforme

sapproductie.

Met behulp van de empirische gegevens, hebben we een economische analyse van

verschillende modellen van grootschalige suikerpalmteelt en ethanolproductie

uitgevoerd en geanalyseerd op duurzaamheid. Uit deze analyses bleek dat suikerpalm

de mogelijkheid heeft om een bron van duurzame en rendabele bio-ethanol te bieden.

Onder conservatieve veronderstellingen, toonde de economische analyse een

interessante business case. Een aspect om uit te lichten is de relatief lange

terugverdientijd (na 13,7 jaar), doordat het 5 tot 10 jaar duurt voordat nieuwe

aanplant productief wordt. De belangrijkste onzekere parameters met de grootste

gevolgen voor de business case zijn de plantingsdichtheid van productieve

suikerpalmen en hun opbrengsten per jaar.

Suikerpalm hoeft niet per se op grote schaal te worden gecultiveerd om te worden

omarmd als bron voor biobrandstoffen vanwege de duurzaamheidsprestaties en de

positieve bijdrage aan kleine boeren. Het tappen van suikerpalm gebeurt nu al op

kleine schaal met wilde en gedomesticeerde suikerpalmen. Echter, om economisch

haalbaar te worden zal een zekere schaal nodig zijn voor een conventionele

ethanolfabriek, evenals om voldoende hoeveelheden te kunnen produceren voor

internationale markten. De uitdaging zal liggen in het opschalen van kleine schaal (of

iv Sugar palm ethanol


“greenfield”) naar voldoende grote schaal. Het creëren van grootschalige suikerpalm

aanplant kan via twee mogelijke routes; ofwel het bundelen van een grote collectie

kleine boeren, ofwel via herbebossingmodellen, waarbij gedegradeerde en ongebruikte

gronden worden herbebost (in ‘mixed stands’), waardoor er meer controle is over de

dichtheid en lay-out.

Het zal een uitdaging zijn om succesvol nieuwe agro-forestry productiesystemen op te

zetten en hoge opbrengsten te realiseren - vooral buiten gebieden waar suikerpalm

van nature voorkomt en de lokale bevolking ervaring heeft met het tappen. Daarnaast

moeten de projecties van gegevens van kleine aanplanten op grote schaal in gemengd

bos omstandigheden nog worden bewezen in de praktijk. Verder onderzoek is ook

nodig om te bepalen of de voortplanting door zaad van ogenschijnlijk een wilde plant

zal resulteren in uniforme hoge opbrengsten en planten die ongevoelig zijn voor

ziekten / plagen.

De volgende stap in de ontwikkeling van grootschalige suikerpalmteelt, moet worden

beperkt tot pilots in geïnteresseerde gebieden (districten) om ervaring op te doen en

een goed begrip en management zeker te stellen.

29 August 2011 v


Table of contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 7

1.1 Reading guide ....................................................................................... 7

2 Sugar palm characteristics and cultivation ............................................... 9

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 9

2.2 From sugar palm seed to ethanol............................................................. 9

2.3 Other uses of sugar palms .....................................................................13

2.4 Monoculture .........................................................................................17

2.5 Yields ..................................................................................................17

3 Data collection and empirical findings .................................................... 20

3.1 Study locations.....................................................................................20

3.2 Data collection methodology ..................................................................21

3.3 Overview of findings .............................................................................21

3.4 Description of findings...........................................................................23

4 Economic analysis .................................................................................. 32

4.1 Sugar palm establishment and cultivation ................................................33

4.2 Conversion to Ethanol (and/or Sugar) .....................................................38

4.3 Outcomes mixed model .........................................................................38

4.4 Outcomes monoculture plantation model .................................................41

4.5 Discussion of main parameters ...............................................................45

5 Sustainability analysis ............................................................................ 48

5.1 Introduction .........................................................................................48

5.2 Sustainability criteria of the RED.............................................................48

5.3 Other sustainability aspects ...................................................................54

5.4 Integration ..........................................................................................55

6 Bioenergy potential of sugar palm and recommendations ...................... 56

6.1 Conclusions..........................................................................................56

6.2 Recommendations and policy implications................................................58

vi Sugar palm ethanol


Reference sources ........................................................................................ 59

Appendix A Different types of palm ......................................................... 61

Appendix B Description of data collection locations ................................ 64

B 1 Batang Toru.........................................................................................64

B 2 Tomohon .............................................................................................65

29 August 2011 | 7


1 Introduction

Most of the current biofuels come from crops such as oil palm, rapeseed and soy

(biodiesel) and sugar cane, corn and wheat (ethanol). In addition, there are several

“new” promising crops of which little is known about their technical and sustainability

performance. One example is sugar palm.

However, little empirical data from a small number of sources is available on yields

and costs of sugar palm cultivation as energy crop. The claimed yields of sugar palm

in a large-scale and sustainable setting still have to be demonstrated. Analyses of the

sustainability of (large-scale) sugar palm cultivation and ethanol production are

lacking. At present there are few existing large-scale sugar palm plantings, and even

fewer that aim at biofuel production.

Although a limited number of scientific studies are available on sugar palm, they all

suggest that under the right conditions sugar palm can be very productive, with

ethanol yields even exceeding those of sugar cane. Furthermore, sugar palm is praised

for requiring little maintenance and growing in harmony with other natural forest

ecosystem components (including valuable timber trees and food crops such as

bananas, cocoa, vanilla and cloves) which can generate additional incomes to the

farmer from the same piece of land.

This study evaluates whether sugar palm is a suitable crop for biofuels and how

production of ethanol from sugar palm in a large-scale setting is sustainably and

economically feasible. Key questions are:

• Are the assumed high yields realistic in practice for sustained periods in large-

scale plantations?

• Can sugar palm indeed compete economically with other crops for biofuels?

• What are the effects of large-scale cultivation and processing of sugar palm for

the natural environment and the local community?

1.1 Reading guide

To answer these questions, Ecofys and Winrock have assessed the feasibility of large-

scale sugar palm cultivation for the production of ethanol using empirical data from

existing sugar palm plantings. We analysed two production models to investigate the

range of outcomes when varying important parameters: i) a conservative system,

whereby sugar palms are mixed with other crops and ii) an intensive system to

explore the theoretical maximum yield when solely focusing on sugar palm

As background, Chapter 2 first describes the process of sugar palm cultivation, the

“tapping” and conversion into ethanol. Chapter 3 describes the data collection by

Winrock. It presents an overview of the collected field data and explains the main

empirical findings. Chapter 4 elaborates the two production systems and presents the

8 | Sugar palm ethanol


results of the economic analyses (summarized in cash flow diagrams showing the

timing of costs and benefits). Chapter 5 analyses the possible sustainability risks and

benefits of sugar palm ethanol and investigates the integration possibilities of sugar

palm in agro-forestry systems with other crops. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes by

evaluating the potential of sugar palm as a source of biofuel and providing

recommendations.

29 August 2011 | 9


2 Sugar palm characteristics and cultivation

2.1 Introduction

Although the origin of sugar palm (Arenga pinnata, syn. Arenga saccharifera) or Aren

is not known with certainty, it seems to originate from North Sulawesi in Indonesia. It

was probably a source of plant sugar for human consumption long before sugar cane

was cultivated for that purpose. Today the palm grows in Southeast Asia, with its main

distribution and best varieties in Indonesia and some presence in Malaysia, Thailand,

Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Usually it grows close to human settlements where

anthropic propagation plays a major role. Otherwise it prefers secondary forest at the

border of primary rainforests1. Occasionally it is found in virgin forests where its fruits

are scattered by wild hogs, fruit bats and civet cats. Optimal growing conditions are

determined by temperature (warm climate), water availability (minimum of 1,200

mm/year for good productivity) and soil qualities. The palm is found on a wide variety

of soils (Widodo, 2009).

The sugar palm is a perennial C4 plant, which means that it has more efficient

photosynthesis than other C3 crops (e.g. wheat and barley) and needs less water. In

general, C4 crops are more efficient and can work at higher temperatures and light

levels than C3 crops, but they need higher temperatures and/or light levels to begin

photosynthesis. Other well-known C4 plants are generally limited to high productive

annual plants in tropical areas, such as corn and sugar cane.

Box 1 – Different types of palm

For thousands of years, several species of palm have been tapped to collect a juice very rich

in sugar (10 to 20%) which was used for local sugar production (and sometimes wine

production). Especially in Asia, highly sophisticated techniques of tapping were developed and

there exists an enormous amount of indigenous knowledge on the tapping of palms and use of

the sugar juice. Traditionally, palm cultivation has played a major role in sustainable farming

systems, thereby contributing to the alleviation of poverty throughout the tropics. Also in

more temperate regions the sugary juice from trees is collected, such as maple syrup in North

America (which contains only 3% of sugar) and birch water.

Appendix A presents an overview of other palm types that are tapped for their sugar juice.

2.2 From sugar palm seed to ethanol

Seed production

A precondition for the fast development of large-scale plantations is the availability of

planting stock. The germination of the seed is unpredictable and takes from one

1 In general, secondary forest is seen as forest which has re-grown after human interventions (e.g. timber harvesting). Primary forest is characterized by the absence of human interventions.



month to more than one year (WUR 2009). As with all species of plants – the use of

nurseries can help by producing seedlings of uniform age and size. The systematic

collection, sorting and pre-treatment of seeds will also help produce better quality

seedlings. Hence, the best method of producing planting stock is through nursery-

raised seedlings from selected seeds. Direct sowing is possible but the seed is short-

lived and seedlings take a long time to establish well (van Dam, 2007). Research is

underway on micro propagation (tissue culture) of sugar palm, effectively cloning

existing palms, but this technology is not yet applied commercially on sugar palms. In

order to give the plants a better chance to survive, selected seeds are brought to a

nursery to develop into small plantlets before planting in the field. In the nursery, the

plants are kept until the largest leaves are about two metres high which takes

approximately two years (personal communication Dr. Smits, August 2011).

Availability of seed and nursery requirements are determined by the following

assumptions: one palm will produce on average five (and more) female inflorescences

(flowering bunches) over its lifetime with on average 120 strings that contain 30 fruits

with three seeds (5 x 120 x 30 x 3 = 54,000 seeds per palm). Assuming an 80%

chance of emerging, 43,200 seeds will be available for propagation per source palm

(van Dam 2007).

Cultivation

Sugar palms have a relatively long youth phase before they start producing flowers

which can be tapped. The period from seedling to full grown sugar producing palm

(when the first flowers appear) varies between 5 – 12 years. The importance of a high

temperature shows from the slow growth at higher altitudes. At sea level, flowering

begins after 5-7 years and at 900m altitude after 12-15 years (Martin, 1999). Also the

amount of exposure to direct sunlight (it is suggested that some shade in early years

help the sugar palms to develop) and additional nutrient supplies play a role.

Sugar palm thrives best in warm tropical (equatorial) climate with plenty of sunshine

and abundant rainfall. Although sugar palm grows best on fertile soils, it grows on

various soils from heavy clay to loamy sand and laterite soils, provided they do not

regularly flood. The palm can even be discovered on infertile soils and on slopes.

Although sugar palm grows best near the equator, it can also be found at higher

latitudes (up to 30 ° latitude), characterized by a more intense dry period. Sugar

palms can reach heights of up to 24 meters with stems covered in strong fibres.

The sugar palm crop is highly resistant against pest and diseases. Pesticide application

is not used. Except for minor infestations with insects when the outer bark is

damaged, no serious threats are yet known in sugar palm production (van Dam

2007).

Nutrient requirements

The sugar palm is well adapted to many soil types and is know for its versatility. The

requirements for nutrients are relatively low and only essential in the first years of

29 August 2011 | 11


crop establishment. The mature palm possesses long and deep roots (up to 6.5m) and

is capable of efficiently collecting its nutrients.

The required nutrients can be supplied by adding compost plus 50 kg / ha TSP

fertilizer and for the first planting Calcium (25 kg / ha). The nutrient requirement only

in the second year after planting (maintenance) is (K, P, N) 100 kg / ha, Ca 50 kg / ha

and compost 0.3 bags per palm. To boost the palm for early production additional

fertilizer can be given in the year it is ready to produce its first inflorescence. Note

that most sugar palms used by local people do not receive any fertilizers.

About half of the minerals taken up by the palm are exported through the juice (the

other half is stored in the palm, which can be returned to the soil if it is left to

decompose) (van Dam 2007). Once the roots of the palm reach maturity they are able

to bring nutrients into the cycle from deeper soil layers. Hence, fertilisation application

is only useful during the early establishment years of the plants (personal

communication Dr. Smits, August 2011).

Tapping

The sugar juice from sugar palms is obtained by tapping the male inflorescence (called

‘mayang’, which do not contain any fruits). The male inflorescences start appearing

when the palm has reached its full height and stops growing (on average at a height

of 15 metres, but this can also be as high as 25 metres tall). Sometimes the juice is

obtained simply by tapping the inflorescence, making a cut from which the juice flows,

but more often the inflorescence needs to be beaten over a period of time with a

wooden stick, and then cut a little each day to keep the juice flowing. The terminal

buds and inflorescences are located at the top of the trunk, which is often over 10m

high. Climbing the palm and beating the inflorescence in the right way requires

considerable skill, and productivity is therefore largely a function of the tapper’s

experience. Figure 2 - 1 shows a tapper at work in an Aren palm, and the tools used

for beating the inflorescence (wooden stick) and plastic jerry can for juice collection.

Figure 2 - 1 Tapping an Aren palm (left) and tappers tools (right). Source: Winrock



Figure 2 - 2 Cut infloressence (left) and collection in jerry cans in a 10 meters high aren with 2

flowers (right). Source: Winrock

The juice that exudes is caught in a hollow joint of bamboo and typically collected in a

plastic jerry can (sometimes in bamboo containers), in which it can be transported to

a central collecting point.

Preserving the juice before conversion

The juice that is removed contains wild yeasts, which will ferment the sugar rapidly,

unless it is inhibited. In order to preserve the sugar until it reaches the conversion

plant, several techniques exist. The juice can be boiled to prepare a brown sugar. The

fresh juice can be consumed, but cannot be stored for long as it spoils rapidly.

For ethanol production, the best option is to increase the concentration of the juice as

close to the source as possible. This can be done through evaporation of water, which

is traditionally done in open kettles (see Figure 2 - 3) which requires a heat source

(firewood). Tapergie International has developed small-scale stoves that make

efficient use of available local biomass (branches, wood from other plants etc).

Figure 2 - 3 Traditional boiling stove and kettle for concentrating juice. Source: Winrock

29 August 2011 | 13


Conversion to ethanol

The direct fermentation of the sugar juice into ethanol is a well established method on

small and industrial scale. The stochiometric equation for the conversion of sugar into

ethanol is give here: C6H12O6 � 2 CO2 + 2 C2H6O

On a weight basis, the ethanol production from palm sugar has a maximal efficiency of

52% (theoretical). Well established ethanol fermentation systems may achieve more

than 90% of the theoretical efficiency, thus yielding 46-49 weight % ethanol.

For use of the ethanol as a bio-fuel in combustion engines, distillation is required to

remove the water content. The use of ethanol as source for electricity generation is

not recommended because of its relative low overall efficiency.

2.3 Other uses of sugar palms

The interest in ethanol from sugar palm as a transportation fuel is relatively new, but

sugar palms have traditionally provided people with many different products, such as

sugar, alcoholic beverages, starch, building materials and fibres. Below is an overview

of the products sugar palms provide.

• Sugar: Sugar palms are an important source of sugar for local people in the

visited areas2. If the sugar juice is to be used for sugar production, it will be

collected twice a day, as fermentation has to be avoided as much as possible. In

order to slow down the fermentation of the juice, containers in which the juice is

collected are rinsed after every use. In some cases, local farmers put the bark or

leaves from different tree species in the containers. These pieces of bark slow

down the fermentation. To produce a brown sugar, the sweet unfermented juice is

thickened by boiling the juice so the water evaporates, until a sufficiently thick

syrup is obtained out of which sugar will crystallize on cooling. Often this is done

by boiling in an open kettle. This inefficient process consumes a lot of fire wood.

Two different types of sugar are produced; gula batu, which is usually sold in half

coconut shells and gula semut, which is further refined. Because it takes more

time, energy and fuel wood to process gula semut, farmers are usually reluctant

to produce gula semut, unless they receive a special order with a better price.

2 Palm sugar is also the preferred sugar for certain cultural foods in various Southeast Asian cuisines.



Figure 2 - 4 Two type of sugar products that are marketed: gula batu (left) and gula semut (right).

Source: Winrock

• Alcoholic beverages: from the sugar juice people produce alcoholic beverages

with alcoholic content from 5% up to even 70% using distillation processes. If

nothing is done to prevent it, sugar juice will automatically ferment to produce

(low amounts of) alcohol and then acetic acid (vinegar). After fermentation, the

yeast can be removed from the sediment and used in bread baking.

In Tomohon there is some production in the area of tuak saguer (with <5% alcohol)

content and tuak cap tikus (with 45-70% of alcoholic content):

a) Tuak saguer: is produced by (natural) fermentation. From 1 litre of sugar juice,

1 litre of tuak saguer can be produced. For tuak saguer production, bamboo

containers are used as the bamboo contains fermented material which helps

fermentation of the juice (see Figure 2 - 5). In some cases fermented material

is specially added to the juice, in which case the tuak can be stored for 3 weeks

in stead of 3 days (without additives)

b) Tuak cap tikus: is produced using a distillation process. For tuak cap tikus, the

containers have to be cleaned from other material before tapping. Farmers

usually use plastic container instead of bamboo containers, as these are easier

to clean From about 10 litre of juice one bottle of tuak cap tikus is produced.

For tuak cap tikus production, a half oil drum is used to cook the tuak, as well

as at least 30 meters of bamboo to distillate the tuak and fire wood

29 August 2011 | 15


Figure 2 - 5 Tuak cap tikus with around 50-60% of alcoholic content (left). Bamboo container which

is used to produce tuak saguer. A common bamboo container can hold approx 10-15

litre (right). Source: Winrock

Figure 2 - 6 Stove to distillate Aren juice for tuak cap tikus production. Source: Winrock



Figure 2 - 7 Distillation stove for tuak cap tikus production. The installation is constructed from half

an oil drum and bamboo pipes. This installation in Tomohon consists of a bamboo pipe

of 6 meters high with diameter of 10-15 cm; a diagonal pipe of 18 meters with

diameter 5-10 cm and a 12 meter pipe of bamboo with a diameter of 5-10 cm that was

installed horizontally Source: Winrock

• Fruit: The sugar palm produces edible fruits (‘kolang-kaling’). The demand for

kolang-kaling is greatest during the annual Ramadan holiday. Local knowledge

dictates that if fruit is picked, sugar content in the juice will decrease. If fruit

harvesting takes place (where tapping also takes place), people will do this only

very selectively;

• Starch: When the sugar palms reach the end of their life, they are often cut

down. Starch can be obtained by cutting the palm and opening the trunk. The

interior fibrous parts of the trunk are cut into small pieces. These chips are then

crushed, pulverized and washed with water several times. The starch sinks, the

wood floats, and soluble substances stay in solution. Washing the starch in this

fashion several times results in a very fine, almost pure product. The wet starch is

dried in the sun and then ground (flour), or is dried on a hot plate over a fire to

produce starch pearls, such as tapioca. The starch-flour or pearls are used as

staple food in place of rice in numerous native dishes (e.g. for cakes and noodles),

but also as principal food for survival. It is estimated that a full-grown palm

contains about 50-70 kg of starch that can be extracted (Widodo, 2009).

• Fibres or thatch: The stem of sugar palms is a source of a tough, black fibre,

from which a durable rope can be made, tolerant of both fresh and salt water,

used for marine work and for thatching.

• Fuel: Old woody leaf bases, as well as the long leaves, are used for fuel.

• Timber: The very hard outer part of the trunk is used for a range of timber

products (e.g. building material). While the core of the palm is filled with a soft

starch, the cylindrical hardwood of the palm is 5 times stronger than oak and has

a rich, dark colour that makes it excellent for flooring, furniture, decorative

carvings, and other applications.

29 August 2011 | 17


• Insect repellent: Some indigenous peoples use the roots of sugar palm as insect

repellent.

2.4 Monoculture

Sugar palm does not grow well in pure monocultures (Personal communication

Winrock, Dr. Smits and Tapergie, April 2011). Sugar palm grows optimally in mixed

secondary forest and requires interaction and inputs from microorganisms and plants

in the forest to grow productively. The exact reasons for this are not yet clear. Some

suggest that mycorrhiza (symbiotic relation between fungi and plant roots), which

appear naturally when the palms grow in mixed-species environment, is the key

reason for this (www.sugarpalmethanol.com). Others have indicated that the main

reason that sugar palms are difficult to establish in monoculture is because of the high

water requirements (personal communication Winrock, April 2011). Their productivity

is closely related to the water availability and humidity at the site. As establishing

monocultures will stress water availability, this makes it harder for sugar palms to

survive in monoculture. Mixed systems usually result in less water stress and higher

humidity.

Theoretically sugar palm might be grown in a monoculture which might be productive

for a short period, a couple of years. However, after that, the soil water availability

might become a problem. Anecdotal evidence also confirms that palms in a

monoculture plot in Tomohon (Indonesia) did not appear in good condition (leaves are

yellowing and not fully expanded), while palms in a nearby mixed plot seem to grow

faster and better at the same age and location (personal communication Winrock, May

2011). At present, there are no monocultures of significant size in practice known.

As sugar palms are not likely to prosper in pure monoculture, this makes data

collection and analysis more complex (e.g. what is the exact cultivation area, how

many palms per hectare, etc). While certainly the mixed systems provide ‘messy

data’, they are also the types of systems that provide benefits to local populations

(particularly ‘risk mitigation’) and environmental conservation benefits (sustainability).

2.5 Yields

Sugar palm can be very productive under optimal growth conditions and proper

management. However, sugar juice yields are highly variable according to the genetic

material, management practices and environmental factors (availability of water,

sunlight and nutrients). In addition, the number of years a sugar palm can be tapped

also differs depending on the management regime for optimal juice production. Under

good conditions, sugar palms can be tapped during a period of 5 - 12 months per year

for several years (3 – 15 years).

Literature provides only a limited amount of measurements which can be used to

estimate overall yields per hectare by extrapolation. As sugar palm is not yet grown

on a large commercial scale for bio ethanol, there is no empirical data yet available on



large-scale sugar palm. Mogea et al. (1991) report about superior sugar palms in

Sulawesi that produce all year round, with an average of 30 litres a day. However,

note that one should be careful with extrapolating exceptional single palm yield figures

to a larger number of palms. Nonetheless, it illustrates the existence of superior

individuals, which gives confidence to the development of a selection and breeding

programme.

In order to extrapolate daily juice yields from sugar palms and make them comparable

with sugar yields from annual crops, the non-productive years of the palm need to be

accounted for. Also the density of sugar palms plays a major role when extrapolating

to a hectare. For example, with 50 productive palms on one hectare producing 17

litres of juice per day each during the last three years of their 12 year life-cycle, the

adjusted sugar production is 7.65 tonne/ha/year, assuming a juice sugar

concentration of 12% and 300 days of tapping. The corresponding ethanol yield is

then 4,780 litre/ha/year3

Estimates of the sugar yields from sugar palm under good conditions vary from 8.7 to

as high as 25 tonnes/ha/year over the total lifecycle of the palm. This corresponds to

4,610 litres to 12,000 litres of ethanol per hectare per year (WUR, 2009). Dalibard

(1995) estimates ethanol yields between 6,000 to 12,000 litre ethanol per year This is

remarkably high compared to even the productive Brazilian sugar cane which reaches

about 13.5 tonne sugar/ha/year4 (approx 8,100 l) under optimal conditions (van den

Wall Bake, 2006).

Table 2 - 1 show land use efficiency from literature for sugar palm in comparison with

common biofuel ethanol crops.

Table 2 - 1 Land use efficiency of liquid biofuels from different crops Source: IEA 2011 (except for

sugar palm)

Type of biofuel Annual yield (litres/ha)

Sugar palm ethanol* 4,600 – 12,000

Sugar cane ethanol 4,900 – 8,100

Sugar beet ethanol 4,000

Maize ethanol 2,600

Palm oil biodiesel 3,600

Rapeseed biodiesel 300

Soy biodiesel 800

* Dalibard, 1995; WUR, 2009.

3 With a conversion efficiency of 90%, and 1 kg of sugar yielding theoretically 0.51kg of ethanol. 4 Based on 90 Tonne of cane /ha/year, and 150 kg of recoverable sugars per tonne of cane

29 August 2011 | 19


These data suggest that sugar palm has the potential to produce sugar and ethanol

very efficiently. The next chapter describes empirical findings of sugar palm planting in

Indonesia.



3 Data collection and empirical findings

This chapter describes the method for data collection and the main empirical findings.

3.1 Study locations

In order to evaluate the feasibility of large scale sugar palm cultivation, we use field

data from two areas with existing sugar palm plantings collected by Winrock, see

figure and description in table below.

Batang Toru

North Sumatra - Indonesia

Tomohon

North Sulawesi - Indonesia

Batang Toru


Tomohon


Figure 3 - 8 Study areas in Indonesia

Table 3 - 2 Description of study locations

Study location Description

Smallholder villages,

Batang Toru, North

Sumatra

Eight villages where Aren contributes significantly to the livelihood

of many farmer families in the Batang Toru area (North Sumatra).

It still is a ‘non-timber forest product’, relying on natural

propagation, but with secure palm ownership and controlled

harvesting. In many parts of Indonesia, Aren is in a similar low

level of ‘domestication’ (Mogea et al. 1991). The Batang Toru area

is unsuited to large-scale commercial use of Aren due to rain

forest and orang-utan populations.

Smallholder villages and

Masarang Foundation,

Tomohon, North Sulawesi

Masarang Foundation is an environmental non-governmental and

non-profit organisation located in the highlands of the Indonesian

province of North Sulawesi that has established a smallholder

cooperative and a palm sugar factory. Besides the larger area of

plantings that are part of the Foundation, five other villages were

visited. In addition, Masarang has plans for large-scale

reforestation, including sugar palm cultivation for ethanol.

29 August 2011 | 21


3.2 Data collection methodology

The main research technique used during the field research was the semi-structured

interview. During these interviews, quantitative and qualitative data was collected.

The field visits typically started with establishing contact with people in the different

villages at the study locations. One village usually has the same type of Aren

management and harvesting techniques. Based on discussions with three to five

farmers in one village and based on direct observations in the landscape of each

village, Winrock summarised the information to represent village conditions. Before,

data collection templates were compiled to ensure consistent data collection for the

different locations. In total, 14 data sheets were compiled (eight villages in Batang

Toru; five villages and one for Masarang Foundation in Tomohon). Additional

information was provided by Masarang Foundation and Tapergie International during

different meetings in The Netherlands.

The data collected includes empirical yield and input data, as well as more qualitative

data on, for instance, sustainability and tapping techniques. The fieldwork in Indonesia

was conducted in June and July 2010. Actual visits to sugar palm plantings in Batang

Toru (North Sumatra) took place from 26 to 30 June 2010 and actual field work in

Tomohon (North Sulawesi) took place from 4 to 9 July 2010. In total, more than 40

interviews were held. The next sections present the main quantitative and qualitative

findings of the empirical research. A description of the data collection locations is

included in Appendix B.

The main challenges in the data collection and analysis relate to the variations in data

from the different locations. This is in part due to the nature of mixed systems and on

the other hand because of variation in palms/ha, management system, and

biophysical conditions. As the locations studied consist mainly of smallholder systems

which are heterogeneous in structure, management, farmer objective and main

products. In addition, most smallholders do not keep detailed records of the

management, inputs or outputs. We dealt with these problems by triangulation of

sources (different interviews per location and different locations) and iteration and

cross checking data/information until there was a consistence or pattern.

3.3 Overview of findings

The table below provides a summary of the main empirical data collected. This data is

used as a basis for the economic analysis in Chapter 4. Section 3.4 further describes

the numbers and parameters presented in the table.


A SUSTAI N ABLE ENERGY SUPPLY FOR EVERYONE

Table 3 - 3 Summary of data collected in Batang Toru

Parameter\ Village Unit Lumban

Lobu Pagaran Tulason

Simangumban sub district

Sigiring-giring

Hutaraja Banuaji

IV Hutagurgur

Paran Julu

Average (non-

weighted) Min Max

Total area Hectares 200 200 500 200 200 350 500 200 0 0 0

Average number of palms / ha Palms / ha 100 50 20 10 10 10 10 10 27.5 10 100

Average no. productive palms / ha Palms / ha 10 12 5 3 3 3 5 5 5.75 3 12

Average number of work hours per day to tap Hours / day 2.67 3.20 2.13 1.75 1.88 2.13 1.33 2.40 2.18 1.33 3.20

Average juice production per productive palm Litres juice / day

25 60 64 25 30 80 10 64 44.75 10 80

Average sugar content sugar juice (%) % 16.32 16.7 15.6 9.4 18.75 15.6 15 15.6 15.37125 9.4 18.75

Average monthly income per palm tapper € / month 113 183 239 103 150 164 59 163 147 59 239

Total number of palm tappers Persons 50 25 40 50 50 40 40 35 41 25 50

Ethanol Production5 litre/ha/year 7,112 20,958 8,701 1,229 2,941 6,526 1,307 8,701 7,184 1,229 20,958

Table 3 - 4 Summary of data collected in Tomohon

Parameter\ Village Unit Masarang Foundation Rokrok Tara-tara Pinaras Kayawy Rurukan Average (non-weighted) min max

Total size Hectares 10,000 100 100 100 100 100

Average number of palms / ha Palms / ha 60 50 20 20 20 20 31.7 20 60

Average no. productive palms / ha Palms / ha 7 6 7 5 6 4 5.8 4 7

Average number of work hours per day to tap Hours / day 12 2 2.55 1.5 2.4 2.1 3.8 1.5 12

Average juice production per productive palm Litres juice / day 17.8 50 82.5 80 108 60 76.1 17.8 108

Average sugar content sugar juice (%) % 13 12 11.83333 12 12 12 12.1 11.8 13

Average monthly income per palm tapper € / month 209 222 323 319 288 278 273.0 208.7 323.5

Total number of palm tappers Persons 6285 50 100 100 around 200 around 50 1633.8 50 6285

Ethanol Production5 litre/ha/year 3,435 6,275 11,911 8,367 13,554 5,020 8,094 3,435 13,554

Section 3.4 provides further clarifications and explanations of the parameters presented in the table.

5 Calculated assuming 300 tapping days per productive palm/year, a theoretical yield of 0.51 kg of ethanol per kg of sucrose, a conversion efficiency of 90% and ethanol density of 0.79kg/m3

29 August 2011 | 23


3.4 Description of findings

This section describes the collected data presented in Table 3 - 3 and Table 3 - 4 and

the assumptions made for the collection of these parameters. The economic analysis

in Chapter 4 will use these parameters. A justification of the data used for the

economic analysis can be found in section 4.2.

1 Total area

The total area where Aren occurs, the total amount of sugar palms and the

establishment date are difficult to estimate because Aren trees are mostly scattered all

over the landscape. Since in most locations, the sugar palm trees regenerate

naturally, there is no uniform establishment date, except for the locations that begin

to domesticate the Aren trees in the landscape (e.g. Lumban Lobu, Pagaran Tulason

and Banuaji IV). The total amount of hectares reported is based on the interviews with

farmers.

Masarang Foundation is by far the largest location included. At present, there are

6125 farmers in Tomohon that are a member of the Masarang Foundation.

Approximately 10,000 ha of land are managed by those 6125 farmers. Note that sugar

palm is only a part of their activities. The Aren density varies from 1-2 trees per ha to

60 trees per ha.

2 Average number of trees / ha

At most of the locations the sugar palm trees have grown naturally, causing a large

variation in the amount of sugar palm trees per hectare. The amount of trees per

hectare also varies significantly within the hectares of one location. The data reported

here presents conditions in the hectares with most trees (e.g. of the 200 hectares in

Pagaran Tulason some might have no sugar palm trees, while the most dense

hectares have 50 sugar palm trees).

Note that when establishing one’s own sugar palm plantings (in stead of using

naturally grown trees) there is more control over spacing and number of trees per

hectare.

3 Average no. productive trees / ha

Not all sugar palms will become productive, i.e. provide (significant amounts of) sugar

juice. In cases where the trees are domesticated, selection also plays an important

role. In communities where sugar juice and alcohol plays an important role higher

yielding trees are found (e.g. Christian communities), while for other communities

other products such as fruit or fibres are more important, leading to selection of other



genetic materials (e.g. Muslim communities)6. Note that also some farmers do not use

all potential productive trees (e.g. due to time limitations).

The amount of productive Aren trees was estimated based on the interviews with

farmers. In some areas the amount of sugar palms which become productive is quite

small (e.g. only 10% of sugar palms in Lumban Lobu become productive). This is

likely due to a high variation in trees and genetic material in different locations.

Further selection, propagation and management of the palms in its early years could

further improve the amount of productive trees.

In general, the production cycle period for an Aren tree is almost the same in

Tomohon and Batang Toru. In both areas, farmers said that Aren trees can be tapped

for 10 to 15 years depending on the amount of productive flowers of a tree. However,

in Tomohon farmers generally said 10 years is the productive period of an Aren tree.

After 10 years, farmers will go to other trees to be tapped. In Batang Toru, farmers

mostly said that 15 years is the general productive period of an Aren tree. Winrock

distinguished the general productive period of Aren trees for the two locations, i.e. 10

years for Tomohon and 15 years for Batang Toru. The differences maybe caused by

the fact that more Aren trees are available in Tomohon than Batang Toru, thus

farmers will have more options to tapped productive trees that they want.

The age of an Aren tree when it is ready to be tapped differs and is influenced inter

alia by the intensity of tree maintenance activity (e.g. the removal of Aren thatch).

4 Number of tapping days

In general, the number of tapping days in both sites is almost the same. When talking

to farmers, they said that tapping of the Aren trees occurs year round (with rare

exceptions of special holidays).

5 Average number of work hours per day to tap

Average number of hours per day to tap is estimated from time needed by the farmers

to tap one flower (i.e. 5 to 8 minutes in Batang Toru and 6 minutes in Tomohon) times

the amount of tappable trees visited per day. Farmers usually needed 0.5 to 1 hours

to travel from one trees to other trees. Note that most of the time a farmer spends on

sugar palm related work is not on the actual tapping itself, but on travel and

processing the juice (thickening).

Depending on the purpose (e.g. sugar or alcoholic beverage), farmers will visit a sugar

palm once or twice a day. A sugar palm should be visited almost daily in order to keep

the juice flow going. In extraordinary cases, for example during festivities, the farmers

will use ingenious ways to stop the juice flow for a limited period of time. They use

6 Tapping of sugar palm is very much related to local cultures. Muslim communities are traditionally not interested in tapping of sugar juice as the juice starts fermenting into wine spontaneously. This has led to quite a different selection than with Christian communities.

29 August 2011 | 25


natural coatings to cover the flower stem which prevents the tree from closing the

opening, enabling to continue tapping, even after a few days.

Figure 3 - 9 presents the average number of hours spent by the tappers per day

compared to the concentration of productive trees, in both Batang Toru and Tomohon.

The graph shows that tappers only spend a limited amount of time on actual tapping

of sugar palm. In some cases, this is because most time is consumed by collecting

firewood, thickening the juice and processing the sugar juice into sugar or alcoholic

beverage. In other cases, tapping is an additional source of income and occurs besides

other daily activities. The outlying dot (Masarang Foundation) on the graph is likely

due to organisation and specialisation in the process (i.e. a separation of people

tapping and further processing the sugar juice). It is unclear whether this is a shift

system with different tappers or tappers work 12 hours per day (at the other locations

smallholder households usually do tapping themselves, sometimes accompanied in the

processing of the sugar juice by a family member). The figure shows that, for

example, a tapper needs two hours for tapping three productive trees per day. This is

mainly determined by the distance between the trees. Hence there is only a small

increase in tapping time per day as the amount of productive trees per hectare

increases.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

productive trees per ha

Avera

ge n

um

ber

of

ho

urs

per

day t

o t

ap

Batang Toru

Tomohon

Figure 3 - 9 Tapping hours per tapper and productive tree density

6 Average juice production of productive tree

There is a significant variation in the amount of juice yields. It is difficult to specify the

quantity of ‘sugar juice’ the ‘average farmers’ harvests per period because within the

sites, between the sites and between farmers (both within and between sites) vary



greatly. In both areas, farmers’ annual activities and intensity of management are not

always the same because they opportunistically implement a variety of activities to

meet their livelihood needs. Those activities include annual crop production, perennial

crop production (including sugar palm), and off-farm activities. If flowers are available

to tap, most farmers will tap them daily. However, if other opportunities arise that

promise a better financial return farmers will forego Aren tapping. Even if all farmers

at both sites tapped the same number of flowers over the same time period yields

would not be uniform because: i) management intensities and technologies differ; ii)

age of trees differ; iii) origin of seed / seedlings differ and genetic material differ

(some selection of better performing material might have been done locally, but not

systematically); and iv) processing technologies are different. Also it should be

acknowledged that farmers don’t keep written records and the reported data are

estimates.

Juice production per productive sugar palm is influenced by several different aspects.

The main factors that explain differences in yield are: genetic material, tapping skills,

climate and local environment and climate (including soil, water and nutrient

availability), the amount of flowers (mayang) tapped, which flower is tapped (first or

later flowers), the season and time of day. Another reason why yields vary greatly is

that Aren grows on many soil types and survives on soil which may be considered of

low fertility.

Most of the time one flower at a time is tapped, but in some cases farmers tap 2

flowers at the same time (leading to higher juice production per day, but decreasing

the amount of time a tree can be tapped). Farmers indicated that tapping three

flowers at a time will cause the tree to die.

If the tree is tapped twice a day, the amount of juice is usually higher in the morning

than in the afternoon (e.g. in the range of 20 litre in the morning and 10 litre in the

afternoon). There is also a difference between the first flower and the following

flowers, whereby the first usually produces most sugar juice. After the pre-tapping

activities, the sugar juice production increases during the first month, remains stable

for a few months and than decreases in the last month before the flower is finished.

Usually, a flower can be tapped for 5 months, use of different flowers allows for

continuous tapping throughout a year.

Juice production per day is assumed from the amount of juice that was collected by

farmers in one day, which can be from 3 to 12 trees per day. The average juice

production was based on the average amount of juice collected by the farmers in the

last two to three years. Most of the farmers said that there is limited variation in

amounts of juice production except in the dry season, where usually juice production

is decreasing but the sugar production is still the same as the amount of sugar content

increases in the dry season.

29 August 2011 | 27


In Tomohon area, especially the Masarang Foundation keeps an elaborate

administration of juice per farmer per flower. At Masarang, farmers usually will

produce some 17.8 litres of Aren juice per day with maximum production around 25-

35 litres of Aren juice per day. In Kayawy exceptional amounts of 108 litre / day are

reported from an extraordinary tree.

7 Average sugar content sugar juice (%)

The average sugar content of Aren juice reported in Batang Toru is a bit higher than in

Tomohon. In Tomohon the average sugar content was measured using a brix meter7.

For Batang Toru, Winrock estimated the sugar content from the amount of sugar

produced from litre of Aren that was cooked. There might be biases for both methods,

however, based on the observation, the range for sugar water content in both sites is

from 9.40% in Sigiring-giring (elevation is 200 meter above sea level (masl)) to

18.75% in Hutaraja (elevation is 600 masl). In general, 12 to 14% sugar content is

the common situation in both sites, which matches with what was observed by Mogea

et al (1991).

Variations in sugar content can be explained by a combination of genetic material,

water availability, the season and time of day. In general, the sugar content will be

higher in the dry season compared to the rainy season. However, the amount of juice

will be lower in the dry season compared to rainy season. These effects level out for

sugar production, resulting in no significant difference in production during the dry or

rainy season, while for the tuak (alcoholic beverage) production, it will give a

significant difference. In one location in Tomohon (Tara-tara), the sugar content in the

morning varied between 10.1 to 12.5% (depending on the trees and the mayang

position) and in the afternoon the sugar content increased up with 5% compared to

the sugar content in the morning. In other places, this difference is not observed. The

first mayang usually has a higher sugar content compared to the next mayang.

Figure 3 - 10 presents the sugar content compared to the average juice production per

tree in both Batang Toru and Tomohon. The graph shows that there is no obvious

relationship between the two parameters and that a sugar concentration between 12%

and 17% can be expected. With the exception of two outliers in Batang Toru, the

sugar content is relatively stable.

7 A brix meter is used to measure the sugar content of liquids. The result is expressed in brix, a measure to indicate the percentage of sucrose by weight (grams per 100 millilitre of water)



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Average juice production per tree (litres/day)

Av

era

ge

su

ga

r c

on

ten

t o

f ju

ice

(%b

rix

)

Batang Toru

Tomahon

Figure 3 - 10 Sugar content and total juice production

8 Other sugar palm products

Research by Winrock in 2008 in four villages in Batang Toru (Paranjulu, Pagaran

tulason, Hutagurgur and Lumban lobu) revealed that at that time sugar provided a

weekly income for farmers (main source of income, 50% of weekly income). Thatch

provided a yearly income, contributing less than 10% of yearly income of Aren

farmers. Thatch can be harvested a maximum of 2 times a year. Alcoholic beverage

(‘tuak’) provided 40-50% of weekly income of producer families. Producers are mostly

Christian. Community members, who gather in Tuak cafés, commonly drink Tuak

daily. Aren fruits (‘kolang kaling’) provide a yearly income and contribute 20% of

yearly income of Aren farmers. Fruits are usually harvested once a year.

Although currently, the government in Tomohon prohibits tuak cap tikus production in

the area, there is still some production. For saguer it is usually sold at the price of Rp

1000/bottle (600 ml; € 0.09) or Rp 1500 to Rp 3000 per bottle on the market (€ 0.13

– € 0.26), while the tuak cap tikus is sold at Rp 7000/bottle (600 ml; € 0.61) and on

the market it can be sold up to Rp 10,000/bottle (600 ml; € 0.87). Tuak production

can be regulated by varying the way the flower is tapped. When the cut made before

tapping is thinner, less juice will be produced.

In Tomohon, thatch and fruits are not harvested nor sold except when there is a

special order, which is very rare. Traders for the tuak and sugar usually come

personally to the village, so no transport cost are incurred by farmers to sell their Aren

products.

29 August 2011 | 29


In most of the visited locations, sugar and alcoholic beverages are the main products

from the sugar palms. The table below indicates what products are collected and their

value. Note that

Table 3 - 5 Other valuable products from the Aren palm

Product Production

quantity

Product value8 Harvesting effort

Sugar 1:6

(kg sugar / kg

juice)

8,0009 - 9,000 Rp/kg

(€ 0.70 - € 0.78)

5-8 min per tree for juice

tapping; boiling and

processing

Tuak Saguer 1:1 (l/l) 1,000 - 3,000 Rp /

bottle (600ml)

(€ 0.14 – € 0.43 / l)

Natural fermentation

Tuak cap tikus

(45% alcohol)

11:1 (l/l) 7,000 - 10,000 Rp /

bottle (600ml)

(€ 1.01 – € 1.45 / l)

Distillation

Fruit10 1.260 - 3,600kg

/ha/year

2500 Rp / kg

(€ 0.22 / kg)

1 – 5.25 labour days/year

Thatch11 6.5 – 30 kg / ha

/ year12

13,000 Rp – 30,000 /

ha / year

(€ 1.13 – € 2.61 / ha /

year)

1 - 8 labour days/year

For a detailed description of other products from sugar palm, see chapter 2.3.

9 Ethanol Production

The ethanol production is calculated for each location based on the juice production

per tree per day, the productive trees per hectare and the sugar content of the juice.

These figures are not corrected for the unproductive years. Figure 3 - 11 presents the

theoretical yield of ethanol per hectare (assuming 0.51 kg of ethanol per kg of

sucrose, a conversion efficiency of 90% and ethanol density of 0.79kg/m3). The range

of ethanol yields per hectare varies significantly due to varying amount of productive

trees per hectare and sugar content, and large variations in sugar juice yields per

tree.

8 Note that there is not always a market for these products and some are consumed by the producers themselves. This is especially the case for thatch. 9 Price quoted at Masarang Foundation. Other villages sell for 9,000 Rp/kg. 10 Collected at five of the 14 locations. 11 Collected at six of the 14 locations. 12 Based on data collected at BanuajiIV-25. Note that thatch could be harvested from non productive trees as well.



0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

Mas

aran

gFou

ndat

ion

Rok

rok

Tara-

tara

Pinar

as

Kayaw

y

Rur

ukan

Lum

ban L

obu

Pagar

an Tu

laso

n

Siman

gum

ban

subd

istri

ct

Sigiring-

giring

Hut

araj

a

Banua

ji IV

Hut

agurg

ur

Paran

Jul

u

Mea

nM

inM

ax

Eth

an

ol p

rod

ucti

on

(litr

e/h

a/y

ear)

Batang ToruTomohon

Figure 3 - 11 Theoretical ethanol production per site

10 Average monthly income per palm tapper

For Tomohon, usually, farmers who tap Aren only for tuak cap tikus production

(alcoholic beverage with high alcohol content) tap Aren trees one time per day.

Farmers collecting sugar juice for sugar production usually tap twice a day.

Only in Tomohon a price is paid for the sugar juice, where the juice is sold to

Masarang Sugarpalm factory. The price paid varies from Rp 1000 to Rp 2000,

depending on the sugar content of the juice. In Batang Toru, average price paid per

litre of Aren juice can only be estimated in Hutagurgur or other Tuak producing

villages, with Rp 1000 to Rp 1700 per litre of Aren juice.

Average daily income per palm tapper was estimated based on the average of income

from different products that commonly produced by Aren farmers in the village, which

can be sugar, tuak, tuak cap tikus, kolang-kaling or thatch.

Technologies to tap, processing sugar, processing tuak (both the 5% and 45% alcohol

content), fruit processing for kolang kaling, and thatch harvesting are generally similar

in both areas. The difference will be, in Batang Toru, farmers use ‘hara-hara’ (natural

preservative) for sugar production and ‘raru’ (natural yeast) for tuak production. And

in Batang Toru farmers use 2 pans to boil the juice of sugar production, while in

Tomohon, they only use 1 pan. In Tomohon, farmers cook Aren juice for sugar

everyday while in Batang Toru farmers cook only maximum twice a week.

Labour and fuel wood are two main important things that in the reality were not

calculated in the operational cost by the farmers. Labour usually come from their

29 August 2011 | 31


family member, so farmers don’t have to pay them. Fuel wood is mostly collected

from the surrounding gardens or other tree-based land use types, so farmers rarely

buy fuel wood to produce sugar, tuak cap tikus or kolang-kaling.

Conversion rate used is Rp 11,500.00 equals 1 Euro. The average labour wage rate in

Batang Toru is Rp 30,000.00 per day, while in Tomohon is Rp 50,000.00 per day.

11 Total number of palm tappers

The total number of palm tappers per village is based on discussions with farmers. The

number varies from 25 persons per village (i.e. in Pagaran Tulason, Batang Toru) to

200 persons per village (i.e. in Kayawu, Tomohon).



4 Economic analysis

The economic feasibility of bio ethanol production from sugar palm is virtually

unknown (WUR, 2010). A positive factor is the potentially very high yields while the

long non-productive juvenile phase and the high labour are a negative factor. In order

to evaluate the technical and economic potential of sugar palm cultivation and ethanol

production, we have selected two different production systems. These systems are

summarised in the table below and provide insight into the range of possibilities and

highlights the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches of sugar palm

cultivation for ethanol. Note that these models can be considered extremes, and that

many intermediate models are possible. These models serve to give insights, and are

a starting point for further environmental, social and economic optimisation.

Table 4 - 1 Overview of selected production systems

System type Mixed system

(conservative)

Monoculture plantation model

(intensive)

Sugar palm tree spacing 10m x 10m 3m x 3m

Trees/ha 100 1090

Rotation 12 years

Tapping in years 10 – 12

12 years

Tapping in years 10 – 12

Productive trees 50% 50%

Establishment model - Establishment in strata (i.e.

planting in year 1-4-7-10)

- Total establishment time 12

years

- Establish plots (i.e. all trees in

one plot have the same age)

- Total establishment time 12

years

Maintenance - Fertiliser inputs in year 1 and 2

- No irrigation

- From year 5 onwards remove

thatch (2 times / year)

- Fertiliser inputs in year 1 and 2

- No irrigation

- From year 5 onwards remove

thatch (2 times / year)

Total area 10,000 ha 10,000 ha

Previous land-use Imperata grassland Imperata grassland

When comparing the systems, we allow for variations in parameters such as tree

density (trees/ha) and management system. The systems selected are a mixed

system (conservative), whereby sugar palms are intercropped with other (undefined)

crops. The aim for this business case is to analyse a conservative model from an

investor perspective with attention for benefits to the environment (biodiversity) and

local farmers (diversification of income). At the other end, we have added an extreme

business case to investigate the theoretical maximum as an intensive monoculture

model. The aim for this second model is to go for a practical and efficient model from

business perspective solely focussing on sugar palm cultivation. Note that such an

intensive spacing will likely lead to competition for water, sunlight and nutrients

29 August 2011 | 33


between different sugar palm trees. Also planting sugar palm in monoculture is

unlikely to lead to sustained yields (see also section 2.4). This intensive system has

nonetheless been included to explore the theoretical maximum when solely focusing

on sugar palm.

The reforestation model (as promoted by Dr. Smits), used by the Masarang

Foundation, lies within the range of these two systems with spacing of 3 x 9 m and

use of annual and perennial intercrops.

4.1 Sugar palm establishment and cultivation

4.1.1 Mixed System - Development

For the mixed model, we chose for establishment in strata. This means that no two

rows of palms of the same age are going to be standing next to each other, and

therefore there will be less competition for nutrients and water. Disadvantage is that

the distance to tappable trees is potentially larger. In this model Aren palms are

planted at 10m x 10m spacing (density of 100 trees per hectare). Palm trees are not

all planted at the same time, but progressively fill each plot, as indicated in Figure 4 -

1. For each hectare, 25% of the trees are planted at 3-year intervals. Planting starts

in a different year for each plot and the entire area is covered by year 12. This way,

each plot can be tapped continuously from the moment the first planted trees reach

maturity (at age 10). Furthermore, other crops can be planted between the rows of

sugar palms. For example, annual cash crops that provide income on the short term

and diversification of income on the long term. In the analysis below we only include

costs and revenues from sugar palm.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Plot 1

Plot 2

Plot 3

Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

Plot 1

Plot 2

Plot 3

Figure 4 - 1 Mixed Model plantation development year 1-6



Table 4 - 2 shows the plantation development of the total area, where each ‘q’

represents a quarter (25%) of each plot. The table illustrates that with this system, a

plot needs to be cleared entirely, before the first quarter can be planted (in year 1 of

each cycle). The tapping years are shown with green background and land clearing

with the red background.

Table 4 - 2 Plantation development, showing the state of each plot and plot sub-division

year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

q1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

q2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5

q3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2

Plot 1

q4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

q1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

q2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4

q3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1

Plot 2

q4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

q1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6

q2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3

q3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Plot 3

q4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Green = tapping year | Red = land clearing

4.1.2 Monoculture Model – Development

In this model, Aren palms are planted at 3m x 3m spacing (density of 1089 trees per

hectare). Palm trees are planted successively in four plots at 3-year intervals. This

means that planting only occurs in year 1, 4, 7 and 10 (see figure below). By year 10

the entire area is covered. Tapping occurs from the moment the first planted trees

reach maturity (at age 10), whereby each plot will be tapped for three years in a row

(year 10-12), replanted and tapping shifts to the next plot.

Year 1 Year 4 Year 7 Year 10

Plot 1

Plot 2

Plot 3

Plot 4

Figure 4 - 2 Monoculture Model plantation development year 1-10

29 August 2011 | 35


Table 4 - 3 shows the plantation development over the years. The table shows that

with this system, land clearing can be deferred over four phases, the last of which

occurs in year 9.

Table 4 - 3 Plantation development showing the state of each plot per year

year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Plot 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Plot 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5

Plot 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2

Plot 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Green= tapping year | Red = land clearing

This diagram shows that tapping can occur continuously from year 10, on a constant

land area, meaning a stable cash flow and need for workforce (mainly tappers).

4.1.3 Comparison of establishment models

Table 4 - 4 Comparison of advantages of selected production models

Mixed system

(conservative)

Monoculture plantation model

(intensive)

Density

Low density allows for other crops to

be mixed:

- this is good for both nutrient cycling

(demand is spread in time),

- some crops can be nitrogen fixers,

reducing need for fertiliser

- annual crops bring income at end of

year one

- possibility to satisfy more local needs

(especially diversity in food production)

High density means:

- Potentially higher sugar productivity.

- Trees are closer to each other, making

it relatively cheaper to install

scaffolding, and improving tapper

productivity (reduced costs)

- Lower costs of land per m3 ethanol

- smaller total area needed for same

ethanol output

Establishment model Plots have palms of different ages:

- less competition for resources (light,

nutrients, water)

Plots have palms of same age:

- area covered by tappers is smaller

4.1.4 Development activities and costs

The activities that need to occur on each plot depend on the state, and therefore age

of the sugar palms. The activities are listed below in the order they should be applied

to each plot.

Land clearing and site preparation (year 0)

To prepare grasslands covered with Imperata (‘Alang-alang’) for the planting of sugar

palm, the Imperata needs to be removed. Key operations required are: slash or roll



and then spray several times with glyphosate to kill the Imperata, plant legume cover

crops (this could for instance be a cash crop), fertilize the soil and install a basic

infrastructure including roads, pipelines for sugar juice and worker camps.

Box 2 – Establishment on Imperata grassland

Many natural tropical forests in Indonesia have become fallow or wasteland after being

cleared and burned and – as a result – have been overgrown by Imperata. This grass

prevents the land from developing naturally into secondary forest and is therefore considered

to be particularly problematic (Reinhardt et al., 2007). The total area of Imperata grassland in

Indonesia alone is estimated at 8.5 Mha (Garrity et al., 1997), compared to an area of 4.5

Mha planted with oil palm in 2007 (FAO, 2009).

Although known as a persistent weed on plantations, Imperata may fairly easily be controlled

through the establishment of cover crops until shading out by the trees takes place (UNU,

1995). Fairhurst and McLaughlin (2009) demonstrated that establishing oil palm plantations

on Imperata is economically attractive and helps to restore lands covered with Imperata.

Planting (Year 1)

Planting includes the cost of all seedlings (and nursery costs) and field labour by

workers to plant the sugar palms.

Maintenance and fertilisation (Year 1 and 2)

Maintenance operations include the weeding of the field in the first years and fertiliser

costs. No irrigation is applied, using only rain for irrigation. From year 5, thatch is also

removed regularly (two times per year). In our model we assume that the costs for

the removal of thatch are offset by the value of the fibrous material.

Tapping of sugar juice

Tapping of the sugar palms begins in year 10. Although many palms already start

producing flowers from an age of 5 or 6, it is expected that the total production of

juice from the tree will be less when tapped at a young age. Tapping is done twice per

day (in the morning and afternoon).

Transport of sugar juice to the conversion plant

The canisters that contain the juice are taken to local collection points, where the juice

is concentrated from 12-15% brix13 to 67% brix by boiling it in kettles on stoves, in

order to avoid unwanted fermentation and associated losses during transport (see

section 2.1). We assume that enough biomass is available from the plantations in the

form of branches, fruit bunches and deceased wood, to supply the thermal energy for

this concentration step. The 67% brix juice is then taken to a central conversion plant

where it is fermented into ethanol. Traditionally this is done by truck, or using oxen,

but plastic pipelines can also be used (Tapergie).

13 One degree Brix corresponds to 1 gram of sucrose in 100 grams of solution and thus represents the strength of the solution as a percentage by mass

29 August 2011 | 37


Harvesting Aren Palm (end of year 12)

The core of the Aren tree is filled with a soft starch, and the cylindrical outer part is

made of hardwood that is 5 times stronger than oak and has a rich, dark colour that

makes it excellent for flooring, furniture, decorative carvings, and other applications

(Tapergie). In our model we conservatively assumed that there are costs for felling

the palms. It might be the case that the market value of the wood covers the costs

and generates a positive revenue stream. This assumption likely leads to

underestimated revenues in case the wood is sold, but could lead to overestimated

revenues in case the trees are left to rot in situ (for nutrient cycling for instance).

Table 4 - 5 gives an overview of the plantation development and exploitation cost-

parameters that were used in the models.

Table 4 - 5 Summary of main cost parameters

Item Unit Value Source/comment

Price Ethanol (at plant gate) USD/m3 460 70% of price in Rotterdam (680 USD/m3).

Price palm wood (year 12) USD/tree 25 Conservative assumption, to cover felling costs (see below)

Land clearing / site preparation USD/ha 1200 Source = WWF. Based on previous land use = Alang-alang, and including infrastructure and glyphosphate.

Planting USD/ tree 4 based on 400 USD/ha (based on WWF) and 100 trees/ha

Maintenance USD/ha 300 Ecofys own estimate, including low level of fertilization

felling USD/tree 25 Ecofys own estimate based on felling costs eucalyptus trees with chainsaws

tapper wage USD/year 2500

Estimation (close to Income farmers Masarang / approx 2.5 times minimum salary Indonesia). Note difference between costs perspective investor vs. income tapper

tapper hours per day h/day 8 1 Fte

working days / year days/year 240 Own estimate

tapper cost USD/day 10.42 calculated

average tapper productivity trees/day 40.00 from field data Winrock (low end of range 5-8min /tree) -> unclear if 6-8 min is for 1 or 2 tappings per day

tapping cost USD/tree tap.day 0.26 Assuming 2 tappings/day

Planting density trees/ha 100 1089

for Mixed plantation for Monoculture

productive trees % 50% 50%

For mixed model (conservative estimate) For monoculture model (conservative estimate) Tapergie expect s maximum to be around 80%

Juice yield l / tree / day 17 Mean of all Masarang sample (provided by Masarang)

Juice sugar content kg sugar / kg juice 12.0% Average from Tomohon. In Batang Toru, average is 15.3

Sugar conversion yield kg etoh / kg sugar 0.50 Close to theoretical maximum of 0.52. However this could be less if energy used in conversion comes from ethanol

productive days/tree/year days/year/tree 360

Source: Winrock and Tapergie. Although one flower can be tapped for 5 months per year, use of other flowers allows for continuous tapping throughout the year.

ethanol produced yearly litre ethanol/ tree/year 193.67 calculated from above data

Total ethanol plant capacity m3/day

300 5000

For Mixed model For Monoculture Calculated from above data, based on a 10,000 ha estate

Distillery MUSD 40

Based on average from three suppliers for a capacity of 600 m3/day. Using a scaling factor of 0.7 this yields costs of 25MUSD for 300m

3/day and 175MUSD for

5000 m3/day



4.2 Conversion to Ethanol (and/or Sugar)

Conversion of the thick sugar juice (67% Brix) to ethanol is done in a centralised

distillery, where the juice from the different parts of the plantation is collected.

Energy needs

The processing plant will require energy, primarily in the form of steam, for the

production of sugar and ethanol. This energy is primarily consumed for the

concentration of sugar through evaporation, and for the distillation of ethanol. Typical

needs for distillation are 200 MJ/m3 of ethanol14. Assuming the heating fuel is oil (at

100 USD/bbl), the process heat costs come out at 3.3 USD/m3 ethanol. This is likely

an overestimate, as cheaper fuels are likely available locally. The Masarang plant is

using geothermal heat for example, which has a much lower cost and environmental

impact. Also firewood and other agricultural waste could be used as fuel for feeding

the boilers.

Costs of conversion plant

Costs of the ethanol plant are based on the average from quotations for sugar cane-

based distilleries (40 MUSD for a capacity of 600 m3/day) from three manufacturers in

200815. Note that a large number of parts needed for traditional sugarcane distilleries

are not needed here, like the mill and power station for excess electricity (since there

is no bagasse).

In order to determine costs for varying scales (capacities), we used the scaling law.

The scaling law describes a relation between increases in plant scale and resulting

reductions in capital costs (Blok 2006). The scaling law can be written as:

R

Scale

Scale

Cost

Cost

=

1

2

1

2

Where Cost1 and Cost2 are capital costs for conversion plants of capacities Scale1 and

Scale2 respectively. A scaling factor of 0.7 is used, which is common in ethanol

conversion technologies (de Wit et al, 2009).

4.3 Outcomes mixed model

Below the results are displayed, representing the sum of costs for producing ethanol

delivered at the plant gate, and the resulting cash flow. The cash-flow analysis is used

to determine the pay-back time, which is reached when the cumulative cash flow

becomes positive. The production costs have been calculated by dividing the Net

Present Value of each cost element by the Net Present Value of the total amount of

produced ethanol. A discount factor of 10% has been assumed in both cases.

14 Based on energy needs in a European distillery. 15 Plant manufactures are DSEC, KBK and Vogelbusch and include Engineering, transportation, installation and supervision costs.

29 August 2011 | 39


The averaged costs come at 450 USD/m3, which is equivalent to16 321 Euro/m3. When

sold to national markets (plant gate) at a price of 460 USD/m3, this leads to an IRR17

of 11%. When considering export to European commodity markets, the current price

for ethanol imported to Rotterdam (“T1”) is 690 USD/m3 CIF (Platts 2011). The price

has increased from about 570 USD/m3 in 2008 and can be expected to rise further for

ethanol that meets the RED sustainability requirements, especially as the volumetric

demand increases over the next years. This would leave margin of 230 USD/m3 for

freight and handling fees, which should leave room for a healthy profit.

4.3.1 Cost breakdown

Figure 4 - 3 presents the cost breakdown of a cubic meter of ethanol at plant gate.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

USD2011/m3

Opex

Capex

Tree harvesting (felling) (year12)

Tapping (year 10,11,12)

Maintenance (including fertilizer andweeding)

Planting (year1)

Land clearing / site preparation (year 0)

Feedstock

production

Conversion

Figure 4 - 3 Cost breakdown of one m3 of ethanol from the mixed model over 20 year lifetime

using a NPV calculation over

The figure shows that the majority of costs reside in the wages for the tappers (45%),

the capital costs for the distillery (19%) and the costs for the land clearing and site

preparation (17.5%).

16 At an exchange rate of 1 Euro = 1.4 USD 17 The internal rate of return (IRR) is a rate of return used in capital budgeting to measure and compare the profitability of investments.



4.3.2 Cash flow and payback time

Figure 4 - 4 shows the cash flow of the mixed model. It shows that the cumulative

cash flow becomes positive at the end of year 13, reaching the payback period after a

bit less than 14 years. It takes long to reach payback, because the sugar palms only

become productive after 10-12 years. From that moment onwards, income is stable. A

possibility to shorten the payback time is by planting and selling (annual) intercrops or

selling some of the by-products.

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

0 5 10 15 20

MU

SD

Yearly costs

Yearly revenue

Net Cashflow

Cumulative Cashflow

Figure 4 - 4 Cash flow diagram of mixed plantation model

The increase in costs noted in year 8 and 9 are due to the investment in the

conversion plant.

4.3.3 Sensitivity

Figure 4 - 5 shows how the cost of ethanol is affected by the most important

parameters. The most sensitive parameter is the sugar juice yield per day. Increasing

sugar juice yields would further strengthen the profitability. Tapper wages are an

important part of the operational costs and have a significant influence on the costs of

the ethanol.

Payback time = 13.7 years

29 August 2011 | 41


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

40% 140% 240% 340% 440% 540% 640%variation of parameter (%)

Co

st

(US

D/m

3)

Land clearing / site preparation

Juice yield

Cost conversion plant

tapper wage

100 l/day

15 MUSD

35 MUSD

10 l/day

3,000 USD/year

1,500 USD/year

Figure 4 - 5 Sensitivity of ethanol costs to variations in main parameters for the mixed model

4.4 Outcomes monoculture plantation model

The monoculture model shows what is theoretically possible if sugar palms could be

grown as a monoculture crop. Although this would lead to a number of disadvantages

like low biodiversity, and likely higher needs for fertilizers and pesticides18 etc, the

business case looks very attractive indeed. The averaged costs come out at 275

USD/m3, which is equivalent to about 200 Euro/m3. When sold to domestic markets at

a price of 460 USD/m3, this leads to an IRR of 43%. When considering export to

European commodity markets, where ethanol is traded around 690 USD/m3 CIF (Platts

2011), this would leave a margin of 415 USD/m3 for freight and handling fees, which

leaves significant room for profit.

4.4.1 Cost breakdown

The cost breakdown of a cubic meter of ethanol at the plant gate is given in Figure 4 -

6.

18 Note that with current (small-scale) mixed plantings sugar palms does not suffer from any serious pests or diseases. This could change when trying to grow sugar palm in monoculture.



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

USD2011/m3

Opex

Capex

Tree harvesting (felling) (year12)

Tapping (year 10,11,12)

Maintenance (including fertilizer andweeding)

Planting (year1)

Land clearing / site preparation (year 0)

Feedstock

production

Conversion

Figure 4 - 6 Cost breakdown of one m3 of ethanol from the monoculture model using a NPV

calculation

Since the production of juice per hectare is much larger in this case than in the mixed

model, the fixed costs per ha, such as land clearing and maintenance are relatively

lower in their share per cubic meter of ethanol. The wage for the tappers is very

dominant at over 73% of total costs, followed by the capital costs for the plant (13%)

and tree harvesting costs (10.5%).

4.4.2 Cash flow and payback time

The cash flow for the monoculture model is shown in Figure 4 - 7.

29 August 2011 | 43


-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

0 5 10 15 20

MU

SD

Yearly costs

Yearly revenue

Net Cashflow

Cumulative Cashflow

Figure 4 - 7 Cash flow diagram for monoculture model

The figure shows that the cumulative cash flow becomes positive after year 10, and

therefore that the payback period is approximately 10 years, for an IRR of 43%, which

is very attractive for the industry. The wave-like shape of the cumulative cash flow is

caused by the reoccurring investments in planting every three years (in stead of

annually as in the mixed model).

4.4.3 Sensitivity

Figure 4 - 8 shows how the cost of ethanol is affected by the most important

parameters.

Payback time = 10 years



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700%variation of parameter (%)

Co

st

(US

D/m

3)

Juice yield

Cost conversion plant

Discount rate

tapper wage

productive trees

90% productive trees

250 MUSD40%

prod.

trees

yield= 100 l/day/tree

yield= 10 l/day/tree

75 MUSD

1,500USD/year

3,000USD/year

Figure 4 - 8 Sensitivity of ethanol costs to parameters for monoculture model

We see that wages for the tappers allow for a large variation in the final price, which is

not surprising considering the labour intensive nature of the work. Furthermore, yield

of over 100 litre of juice per tree and per day have been reported in the field (Winrock

2010), which suggests that these numbers are technically possible. These numbers

show the potential for improvement of the business case, and make a case for

investing in further research in breeding and silvicultural management practices.

29 August 2011 | 45


4.5 Discussion of main parameters

Table 4 - 6 shows a summary of the main characteristics and outcomes of the two

models compared in this chapter.

Table 4 - 6 Summary table

Model Mixed model Monoculture model

Density 100 palms/ha 1089 palms/ha

Adjusted ethanol

production19

4,780 l/ha 52,000 l/ha

Additional outputs • High grade timber from

other trees

• Intercrops

Additional benefits • Higher biodiversity

• Less competition for

water and nutrients

• Diversification of income

for smallholders

• More similar to current

plantation management

models

Disadvantages • Requires ‘innovative’

plantation management

models

• High uncertainty about

feasibility of

establishment in

monoculture

• Likely higher fertiliser

needs

• Possible water stress

• Higher risk of pests and

diseases

• High dependence on

only one crop

• Longer period before

first revenue

Below the main parameters used in the calculations in this chapter are justified.

Number of productive trees

The factors that determine a sugar palm’s productivity are numerous and require

further investigation. When sugar palms are planted on a large-scale in a plantation

fashion, the environmental factors will be very similar for each tree, and genetic

qualities can be controlled through breeding programmes, improving the percentage

of productive trees. In our model we assumed that half the palms at potential

productive age are tappable. In practice the amount of productive trees is hard to

19 Average over the lifetime of a sugarpalm (over a period of 12 years, a tree can be productive 360 days per year, over 3 years). Conversion efficiency assumed: 0.08 l ethanol per litre of juice, and 12% sugar content of juice.



establish as the smallholders interviewed often only tap a selection of trees (and make

no further attempt with other trees as long as the old ones are still producing). The

50% assumption is based on conversations with Winrock and Tapergie. The amount of

productive trees can be improved via selection of seeds and through improved pre-

tapping techniques. Tapergie believes the amount of productive trees per hectare

could go up to 80% in the future.

Number of productive years and age

In our model we assumed that all trees are tapped from the same age, and are

harvested (felled) at the end of their 3 years of production. It is likely that many

palms are still productive after 4 or 5 years of tapping, although the juice production

would decline. In some of the villages sugar palms are tapped for 10 – 15 years

(albeit not always continuously, e.g. one flower per year). Tapping and felling at equal

age leads to a simplified operational plan (and modelling) but likely also leads to an

underestimate of the yearly adjusted ethanol potential of a plantation.

In our model we assume that palms reach maturity at 10 years of age. In practice and

literature, examples are known whereby sugar palms became productive already after

5-7 years, but also after 15 years. This depends to a large extent on the local

environment and climate (e.g. rainfall, temperature, sun light, soil and nutrient

availability) and genetic material. It is expected that in controlled environments

(plantations with added fertilizer, selected varieties from nurseries etc) the age of

maturity can be reduced significantly. Tapergie expects to start tapping palms from an

age as early as 7 years. We assumed that tapping starts at year 10.

Yields

Juice yields of tappable palms in existing plantings vary significantly. At the same

time, the sensitivity analysis shows that this is the parameter with most influence on

the costs and economic feasibility.

Therefore, we have used a conservative value for this important parameter. The value

used in our model (17 litres per tree and per day) is at the low end of data found

during this study. Only in the village of Hutagurgur a lower value is reported (10 litre

per day) (see also section 3.4).

In comparison, the average production of a sample of 93 Aren palms over 4 villages

and 28 tappers, during Q2 of 2009 in Tomohon was 17.2 litre per day (data provided

by Masarang foundation). The field data have shown that individual palms can produce

over even 100 litres per tree and per day. We expect that this figure comes from an

exceptional tree, but it gives a hint of what (theoretically) might be possible under

optimal conditions.

Furthermore, the number of days a single palm can be tapped in a year is reported to

be anywhere from 5 to 12 months. A single inflorescence can be tapped between 5 –

10 months (personal communication Winrock, March 2011). In reality, before a

29 August 2011 | 47


particular inflorescence stops producing, new ones will already have appeared, making

palms tappable throughout the year. Furthermore, the length over which an

inflorescence can be tapped is highly linked to the tapper’s skills and palm variety.

Tapergie expects productive palms to be tappable year-round, so our assumption of

tapping each productive palm only 360 days per year is leaves some room for five

special holidays when no tapping is done.

Tapper productivity

Average number of hours per day to tap is estimated from time needed by the farmers

to tap one flower (i.e. 5 to 8 minutes in Batang Toru and 6 minutes in Tomohon) times

the amount of tappable trees visited per day. When a tree is tapped twice a day, this

leads to an average productivity of around 40 palms tapped per tapper per (8-hour)

day. This number is likely to increase as the tappers gain experience and is relatively

conservative compared to Tapergie’s assumption of 60 palms per day.



5 Sustainability analysis

This chapter provides a qualitative analysis of the effects of (large-scale) sugar palm

cultivation in relation to the sustainability criteria of the EU Renewable Energy

Directive (GHG, biodiversity, carbon, and peatland) and other sustainability aspects

(soil, water, air, social, ILUC).

5.1 Introduction

The sustainability of a biofuel depends on the specific details of the supply chain it was

sourced from (e.g. how and where the feedstock was cultivated, the previous land use

and emissions from the different steps in the supply chain). Virtually all biofuels know

good and bad practice examples. For example, palm oil can be a very sensible

feedstock for biofuel, but draining peatlands to produce it causes GHG emissions that

offset any of the savings compared to fossil fuels for several decades. Nonetheless, it

is possible to do an analysis of the sustainability of sugar palm ethanol in general and

see whether specific risks or sustainability benefits can be expected. Note that to

assess the sustainability in a specific case, for example whether a batch of sugar palm

ethanol complies with the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), one needs to look at

the specific supply chain it originated from, including the feedstock production

location.

5.2 Sustainability criteria of the RED

The RED sets out a number of carbon and sustainability criteria for biofuels and

bioliquids20. Only biofuels that meet minimum criteria counts towards Member States’

renewable energy targets and may receive support from Member States.

The mandatory sustainability requirements fall within four categories, with additional

requirements for biofuels produced from feedstocks sourced from within the EU. The

four sustainability criteria relate to:

1 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions

2 Biodiversity

3 Carbon Stocks

4 Peatland

The sections below analyse sugar palm ethanol against these requirements.

20 The Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) contains the same sustainability critreia.

29 August 2011 | 49


GHG emission reductions (RED article 17.1)

Biofuels must achieve a minimum Life Cycle GHG emission reduction compared to

fossil fuels. This minimum reduction is increased until 2018, and must be:

a. 35% from the start (2011)

b. 50% from 2017

c. 60% from 2018 for installations whose production has started from 1

January 2017 onwards.

The RED provides default values for biofuels produced with no net carbon emissions

from land use change (see Figure 5 - 1). The default for sugar cane ethanol provides

the highest greenhouse gas emissions savings (71% compared to its fossil fuel

comparator).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

sugar

beet

sugar

cane

maize

wheat_NG

palm

rapeseed

soy

sunflower

fossil

Ethanol Biodiesel fossil

gCO2eq/MJ

Typical (RED)

60% Threshold

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

sugar

beet

sugar

cane

maize

wheat_NG

palm

rapeseed

soy

sunflower

fossil

Ethanol Biodiesel fossil

gCO2eq/MJ

Typical (RED)

60% Threshold

Figure 5 - 1 Typical default values for biofuels in the RED compared to the 60% threshold (from

2018 onwards for new installations)

The RED also sets out a mandatory methodology to ensure uniform calculation of GHG

emission reductions. As there is no default for sugar palm ethanol, greenhouse gas

emissions from the production and use shall be calculated as:

E = eec + el + ep + etd + eu – esca – eccs – eccr – eee

Where:

E = total emissions from the use of the fuel, expressed in grammes of CO2 equivalent

per MJ of fuel.

eec = emissions from the extraction or cultivation of raw materials;



el = annualised emissions from carbon stock changes caused by land-use change;

ep = emissions from processing;

etd = emissions from transport and distribution;

eu = emissions from the fuel in use;

esca = emission saving from soil carbon accumulation via improved agricultural

management;

eccs = emission saving from carbon capture and geological storage;

eccr = emission saving from carbon capture and replacement; and

eee = emission saving from excess electricity from cogeneration.

In general, we expect sugar palm ethanol to have a good GHG performance. Yields are

high and there are little emissions from cultivation (limited application of fertilisers or

pesticides; perennial crop so no tillage). Assuming establishment of plantings on

Imperata grasslands in reforestation models, there is no negative emission from land

use change expected (possible even some carbon storage via improved agricultural

management, see also section below). Emissions from processing will depend strongly

on the fuel source used in the ethanol plant and will likely form the biggest part of

emissions. Emissions from transport / distribution are usually relatively small (e.g.

typical transport and distribution default for palm oil biodiesel, which comes mainly

from Southeast Asia, is 5 gCO2eq/MJ. For sugar cane ethanol, mainly from Brazil is 9 5

gCO2eq/MJ).

Carbon effects of establishment on Imperata grassland

The establishment of plantations on Imperata grassland can provide additional

benefits such as carbon sequestration and soil protection via permanent groundcover.

Perennials such as oil palm or sugar palm typically have no negative impacts on soil

carbon due to no tillage. In addition, perennials store carbon in above-ground

biomass. Ecofys (2007) shows that conversion from Imperata grassland to oil palm

increases carbon stocks significantly, see Figure 5 - 2.

29 August 2011 | 51


-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

CP

O B

ase

Ca

se

CP

O c

on

ve

rte

d

Tro

pic

al R

ain

fore

st

CP

O d

rain

ed

Pe

at

So

il

CP

O c

on

ve

rte

d

Imp

era

ta

Gra

ssla

nd

Gre

en

ho

use

ga

s e

mis

sio

n (

kg

CO

2 e

qu

ivale

nt/

MJ

)

Peat land emissions

LUC above ground

End-use

Fossil indirect

Fuel distribution

Conversion

Feedstock transport

Feedstock production

0.46

Figure 5 - 2 GHG emissions of Crude Palm Oil (CPO) Base Case Scenario without LUC compared

with CPO scenarios with LUC. Source: Ecofys, 2007

Carbon benefits are gained mainly through increased carbon stocks in above ground

biomass. Research carried out in Sumatra and Kalimantan demonstrated that

Imperata grasslands contain around 39-47 ton C/ha while oil palm contains around 91

ton C/ha (Murdiyarso et al., 2002). Kamp et al. (2009) found comparable soil carbon

stocks for Imperata, secondary forest and primary forest in East Kalimantan, which

are, however, considerably lower than in Sumatra. Kamp et al. compiled the table

below based on own measurements (East Kalimantan) and those in other studies. It

should be noted that carbon stocks in Imperata grasslands (and forests) may vary in

different situations, due to local circumstances and variations (e.g. in soils and

climate).



Table 5 - 1 Aboveground biomass and carbon stocks in forests and Imperata grasslands (source:

Kamp et al., 2009)

Location

Land cover

Aboveground C

stocks (ton / ha)

Soil C stocks (ton /

ha)

Total Carbon

stocks (ton / ha)

Papua New Guinea

Imperata grassland 6.7 85.7 92.4

Sumatra

Primary forest 219.6 84.4 305

Secondary forest 133.6 85.6 219

Imperata grassland 2.4 44.6 47

East Kalimantan

Primary forest 154.7 33.2 187.9

Secondary forest1 43.8 40.0 82.8

Secondary forest2 22.7 40.0 61.7

Imperata grassland 3.5 36.2 39.6

1 33 years after fallow.

2 10-12 years after fire.

Biodiversity (RED article 17.3)

In order to protect areas with high biodiversity value, certain areas are excluded from

the production of raw materials for biofuels. The reference date for determining the

status of the land is January 2008.

Categories of land that do not qualify for biofuels production are:

• Primary forest and other wooded land

• Nature protection areas

o Areas designated by law or by the relevant competent authority for nature

protection purposes

o Areas recognized by the Commission for the protection of rare, threatened

or endangered ecosystems or species21

• Natural and non-natural highly biodiverse grasslands.

Exceptions to these rules are possible and include:

• Nature protection areas can be used if evidence can be provided that the

feedstock did not interfere with those nature protection purposes, or

• Non-natural highly biodiverse grasslands can be used if they require raw material

harvesting to maintain the grassland.

21 The Commission may recognise areas for the protection of rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems or species recognised by international agreements or included in lists drawn up by intergovernmental organisations, such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). This requires recognition of the Commission before such areas are excluded and differs from the previous type of areas that are excluded as soon as they are designated by (national) law or the relevant competent authorities as nature protection areas.

29 August 2011 | 53


The European Commission shall establish the criteria and geographic ranges to

determine which grasslands fall under the definition of highly biodiverse grasslands.

The criteria and geographic ranges are not yet published. This will be developed by a

Committee on the Sustainability of Biofuels and Bioliquids (so-called Comitology

procedure).

Note that the biodiversity criterion will be relevant only for plantations established in

or after January 2008, which represents a minority of the total feedstock used today.

However, in the case of new sugar palm plantations this is relevant.

The biodiversity aspects require further attention and investigation on a project level:

• Sugar palm seems to combine very well with nature protection purposes (e.g.

Masarang Foundation work in Sulawesi and Sumatra). As a perennial crop, it

contributes to biodiversity in case of reforestation in mixed models (note that a

monoculture model, if possible, would provide no significant biodiversity benefits)

and biodiversity conservation of forest when planted in secondary forests.

Interestingly, because of the long phase before the palms become productive, the

area will be relatively undisturbed in the first few years. It is unclear how

reforested low biodiverse grasslands would develop in such a period and how big

these effects are;

• The lay-out of any new plantation will also impact biodiversity (e.g. corridors and

buffer zones around riparian areas provide shelters and enable wildlife to cross the

plantation);

• Attention should be paid to the plantation management model and how trees are

replaced at the end of their life-cycle as this will have effects on biodiversity. For

instance, clear cutting whole areas for replanting will have a significant impact,

especially compared to (manually) replacing the old trees and replacing them.

• Note also that as currently the EC’s definition of highly biodiverse grassland is

unclear, it is uncertain how compliance with this RED criterion can be

demonstrated when grasslands are converted.

For the biodiversity, the carbon stock and the peatland criterion the status of the land

in January 2008 will need to be known and demonstrated.

Carbon stocks (RED article 17.4)

In order to protect carbon stocks, some areas are excluded from the production of raw

materials for biofuels. As for the protection of biodiversity, the reference date for

determining the status of the land is January 2008.


• Continuously forested areas, defined as land spanning more than 1 hectare with

trees higher than 5 metres and a canopy cover of more than 30%;

• Forested areas with 10-30% canopy cover, and

• Wetlands




• Production of biofuel feedstock is permitted if the status of the land has not

changed compared to January 2008 (e.g. it is still a wetland);

• Cultivation of feedstock in forested areas with 10-30% canopy cover can be

allowed if evidence can be provided that the land use still meets the appropriate

GHG threshold with the carbon stock loss taken into account

Note that all GHG effects of any land use change must be included in the GHG

calculation. Land use change occurs, for example, when forest land is converted to

crop land. Changing from one crop to another is not considered a land use change.

As for the biodiversity criterion, the carbon criterion will be relevant only for

plantations established in or after January 2008, which represents a minority of the

total feedstock used today. Nevertheless, in every case the status of the land in

January 2008 will need to be known.

In the case of sugar palm establishment on grassland in a (mixed) reforestation

model, this requirement is not likely to lead to non-compliance of sugar palm ethanol

with the RED.

Peatland protection (RED article 17.5)

In order to protect peatlands, biofuels should not be made from raw materials

obtained from land that was peatland in January 2008.


• Peatland


• Production of biofuel feedstock is allowed when evidence is provided that the

cultivation and harvesting of that feedstock does not involve drainage of

previously undrained soil

This requirement should be considered during selection of the location of new sugar

palm plantings.

5.3 Other sustainability aspects

In addition, to the mandatory sustainability requirements for biofuels in the RED, the

sections below discuss other sustainability aspects.

Soil, water and air

Sugar palm scores well on environmental benefits, under the condition that the

planting density is not too high, especially in mixed stands:

29 August 2011 | 55


• Sugar palms contributes to soil stabilization since the palm roots may penetrate

the soil to a depth of 3-6 m and can spread 10 m wide. In practice they are often

planted on steep slopes, which makes it easier to tap them, thereby preventing

soil erosion and using otherwise ‘unused’ land;

• Sugar palm is able to grow on different types of soils and increases soil fertility

and water conservation;

• Sugar palms need little maintenance or fertiliser and usually does not suffer from

any serious pests or disease. This also minimised impacts on soil and water as

minimal amounts of agrochemicals are applied.

Note that in a monoculture model these benefits might not occur or might even lead

to negative environmental effects.

Social aspects

Sustainability related to social aspects often have to do with employment

opportunities that are provided by new biofuel feedstock projects (strongly related to

degree of mechanisation), the quality of those employment opportunities, labour

conditions, effects on local communities and where profits are channelled to.

As sugar palm can provide different products, it offers diversification of income for

local people. The mixed type of systems, in which sugar palm grows best, are also the

types of systems that provide benefits to local populations (particularly ‘risk

mitigation’).

Enabling conditions that would enhance smallholder livelihood and welfare through

Aren activities as a RED or REDD project should include: integrated planning and

project design; establishing clear, stable and enforceable rules of access to land and

trees; managing high transaction costs; and ensuring dynamic flexibility for co-

generating other environmental services.

5.4 Integration

As sugar palms grow best in mixed stands, integration with other crops in an agro-

forestry model provide additional opportunities to use the land most efficiently. An

important consideration in selecting other crops for integration is the shade created by

full-grown sugar palms. Care should be taken when planting it as an agro-forestry

species: light demanding crops such as coffee and pineapple hardly yield under the

canopy of sugar palms. Also the density of planting should allow planting of other

crops without competing for sunlight.

Further research is recommended on what species are most suitable from an

agronomic perspective to integrate with sugar palm. Also the availability of local or

access to export markets will determine the choice of crops. In the locations visited,

sugar palm is combined with cloves, durian (fruit), trees for timber and cocoa.



6 Bioenergy potential of sugar palm and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

Sugar palm has the opportunity to provide a source of sustainable and profitable bio

ethanol. Chapter 4 showed the economic feasibility of large-scale sugar palm, whereby

the mixed model under conservative assumptions shows an interesting business

case22. An aspect to consider is the relatively long payback period as for new plantings

it will take 5 to 10 years before any flowering occurs and juice can be tapped. An early

positive cash-flow may be obtained from other crops in the agro-forestry system, but

this will only be realistic if markets can be found for these products (some of which

might be quite perishable and need proper (cold) storage facilities). The main

uncertain parameters with the greatest implications for the business case are the

density of productive sugar palms and their yields.

The variation in existing production is related to heterogeneous smallholder

management systems, tapping skills, local conditions, and, more importantly, the lack

of improved quality seeds / seedlings that have been selected for high and uniform

juice / juice production. There has been limited research to identify ‘best practices’ for

sugar palm production on large-scale. Limited domestification and selection, suggests

potential for improvement in the amount of productive trees and their yields. With

improved selection of genetic material and best practices identified/available sugar

palm ethanol becomes even more attractive.

Sugar palm does not need to be large-scale to be embraced as a source of biofuel

because of its sustainability performance and its positive contribution to smallholders.

Tapping sugar palm already occurs with wild sugar palms and domesticated sugar

palms. However, a certain scale will be needed in order for a conventional ethanol

plant to be economically feasible and in order to be able to produce sufficient

quantities for international markets. The challenge will lie in scaling up from small

scale (or Greenfield) to sufficiently large scale. Creating a suitable large-scale sugar

palm plantation might be done via two possible routes; either connecting a large

collection of smallholders (e.g. Masarang Foundation’s cooperative) or via

reforestation models, whereby degraded and unused lands are reforested in mixed

models, allowing more control over spacing and lay-out.

New large-scale sugar palm plantations require a different approach than that for

conventional biofuel crops cultivated in monoculture plantations (e.g. oil palm),

including a different way of establishment to ensure a practical design of the

22 In the Economic Analysis we have also included an intensive monoculture model to explore the theoretical economic maximum when solely focusing on sugar palm. In practice, we do not expect this model feasible, as sugar palms in monoculture are unlikely to lead to sustained yields. In addition, such intensive spacing will most likely lead to competition for water, sunlight and nutrients between different sugar palms.

29 August 2011 | 57


plantation. For example, (indigenous) tapping techniques play a very important role,

sugar palm requires mixed stands and will perform poorly in monoculture (if at all),

cultivation is very labour intensive and requires local smallholder involvement.

Reforestation on idle land / grasslands is preferred to optimize sustainability benefits.

Because of the high labour requirements also the organisation of smallholders or

labourers requires attention.

From an investor’s point of view sugar palm is an interesting crop, worth to be

investigated further, because of its high yields, environmental characteristics and its

sustainability benefits. However, successfully establishing new agro-forestry

production systems and realizing high yields - especially outside the area where sugar

palm naturally occurs and the local population has experience with growing and

tapping palm trees - will be challenging. In addition, the projections of empirical data

from small plantings to large-scale in mixed forest conditions still need to be proven in

practice. Further research is also needed to determine whether propagation by seed

from what seems to be a wild plant will result in a wide range of yields, as well as

plants that are susceptible to disease/pests and hence reduce considerably the

achievable yields.

The next step in development of large-scale sugar palm cultivation, initially, should be

limited to pilots in areas of interested regencies (districts) and provinces. This way, a

rush on a relatively new crop is prevented, while experience can be gained towards

commercial scale cultivation, ensuring proper understanding and management.

Opportunities

• High yielding perennial crop, which is relatively adaptable to most soil types

• Traditional production of sugar palm has not yet benefited from technology

innovation. The dissemination of technology will impact the productivity and

incomes of farmers. The adoption of the technology will help diversify farmers

business and employment opportunities

• Adoption of technology provides opportunity for agribusiness and research.

• Good possibilities for environmental and social benefits

Challenges

• Long juvenile phase, means a longer pay back period

• Knowledge distribution to local farmers and limited human resources with required

skills to cultivate and create added value.

• Difficulty to get superior quality seed/seedling

• Currently there is a minimum use of technology, production management and

processing

• Labour intense production system provides jobs, but might restrict larger scale

cultivation

• No experience yet with large-scale ethanol production from sugar palm



6.2 Recommendations and policy implications

• Select and propagate the most productive varieties and early-flowering palm

trees. Sugar palm, although planted and used for many centuries, is a relatively

new agro-forestry crop on which limited agronomic research has been done. From

such research great steps forward are to be expected to increase yields. However,

usually it takes many years before agronomic research findings find their way into

practical farming systems

• Identify and revitalize indigenous knowledge on palm cultivation and tapping of

juice

• Integrated pilot projects with current technology applications and agribusiness

orientation are required

• Opportunities to implement pilot projects should be prioritized to regency and

provincial governments that demonstrate interest and commitment. Support

should include financing, management and monitoring.

29 August 2011 | 59


Reference sources

Ecofys (2007) Commissie Blok: sourcing palm oil from sustainable sources.

van den Wall Bake, Cane as key in the Brazilian ethanol industry, 2006

Dalibard , C. 1995. Overall view on the tradition of tapping palm trees and prospects

for animal production. International Relations Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Paris,

France

De Wit, M., M. Junginger, S. Lensink, M. Londo, A. Faaij, Competition between

biofuels: Modeling technological learning and cost reductions over time, Biomass and

Bioenergy, 34(2), 2009, p. 203-217

Fairhurst, T. and McLaughlin, D. (2009) Sustainable Oil Palm Development on

Degraded Land in Kalimantan, WWF.

FAO (2009), FAOSTAT on http://faostat.fao.org, visited October 2009.

Garrity, D.P., Soekardi, M., Noordwijk, M. van, Cruz, R. de la, Pathak, P.S., Gunasena,

H.P.M., So, N. van, Huijun, G. and Majid, N.M. (1997) ‘The Imperata grasslands of

tropical Asia: area, distribution, and typology’, Agroforestry Systems 36: pp. 3 – 29.

Hamilton L S and Murphy D H 1988 Use and Management of Nipa Palm (Nypa

fruticans, Arecaceae): a Review - Economic Botany. 42(2): 206-213.

IEA, Technology Roadmap - Biofuels for Transport, 2011

Mogea J, Seibert B. and Smits W. 1991 Multipurpose palms: the sugar palm.

Agroforestry Systems 13: 111-129.

Reinhardt, G., Rettenmaier, N., Gärtner, S., IFEU, Pastowski, A. and Wuppertal

Institut für Klima, Umelt, Energie (2007) Rain Forest for Biodiesel?, WWF Germany.

Schick, R., Energetische Probleme bei der Palmsaftverarbeitung, TU Berlin, 2008

(Confidential)

Tapergie, Personnal communications with Tomás Fiege Vos de Wael, 2011

UNU (1995) In Place of the Forest: Environmental and Socio-economic Transformation

in Borneo and the Eastern Malay Peninsula, United Nations University, retrieved from

www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80893e/80893E0f.htm, visited July 2009.



Van Dam J.E.G., Validation Arenga Palm sugar production. WUR-Agrotechnology and

Food Sciences Group, September 2007 (Confidential!)

Widodo T.W., Elita R., and A. Asari (2009) Sugar Palm (Arenga pinnata Merr)

Plantation for Bio ethanol Production, Sustainable Development and Environmental

Conservation, Presentation Paper for “ Research Workshop on Sustainable Biofuel

Development in Indonesia, 4–5 February 2009, Indonesian Center for Agricultural

Engineering Research and Development (ICAERD)

Winrock and World Agroforestry Centre (2008) Sugarpalm (Arenga pinnata)

Agroforests as Source of Livelyhoods for Farmers and Orangutan in Batan Toru Forest

Block, North Sumatra, Indonesia,

29 August 2011 | 61


Appendix A Different types of palm

There are different palm types in the world that are being tapped to collect a juice

very rich in sugar (10 to 20%) or provide starch. The table below presents an

overview of palm species to give an impression of the wide range of characteristics of

different palm types that could be a source of biofuels.



Palm Type Short description and particularities

Geographic presence Yields (from literature)

Uses Remarks and reflections on large scale application for biofuels

Sugar palm (Arenga pinnata). Also known as Aren

palm23,24,25

Male inflorescences can be tapped for sugar juice. Can reach heights of up to 24 meters with stems covered in strong fibres and with the bases of the dead leaf stalks covering it as well. Flowering can begin after 5-10 years, with productive periods of 3 – 15 years.

In the humid tropics of Southeast Asia (0 – 1400 m), wide variety of soils, including steep slopes

Sugar yields are high, claims from 6,000 – 12,000 litres / ha and up

Sugar, sweet juice, alcoholic beverages, fruits, fibres, starch, timber

Requires mixed forests to thrive, labour intensive and different management models required compared to ‘conventional’ biofuel crops (e.g. sugarcane and oil palm)

Nipah or nypa palm (Nypa fruticans). Also known as the Attap Palm and Mangrove

Palm23,26,27

The Nypa palm grows in mangroves and brackish coastal waters (only palm found in mangroves). Grows in soft mud and slow moving tidal and river waters that bring in nutrients. Can survive occasional short term drying of its environment. Nypa palms can be tapped after they are 5 years old and continue to produce until they are about 50

Southern Asia to northern Australia (Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India and has invaded the Niger Delta in Nigeria)

Nypa palm has been reported to have ethanol yields ranging from 6480 to 20,000 litres/ha

Sugar, sweet edible juice, alcoholic beverage, rope-making and thatching (hence the palm's local name 'Attap Chee', from its use in roofing the traditional 'Attap house'), vinegar (cuka nipah), fruit (desserts) and animal feed

Limitation: Natural mangroves are an ecosystem which is already under threat from development. In Papua New Guinea successful propagation trials of nipah palm along the edge of irrigation channels.

Palmyra palm (Borassus flabellifer). Also known as lontar

palm28

Can live 100 years or more and reaches heights of 30 m. Young palmyra palms grow slowly in the beginning but then grow faster.

Tropical regions, southeast Asia and tropical Africa

Tapping; the juice flows for 5-6 months. Each male flower produces 4-5 litres per day; the female flowers yield 50% more. Rubbing the inside of the collecting receptacle with lime paste prevents fermentation.

Sugar juice, sugar, palm candy, alcoholic beverage, the juice is also used as a laxative, medicinal values have been ascribed to other parts of the plant, edible fruits, young plants are cooked as vegetables or roasted and pounded into a meal, construction, fibres (including paper, baskets,

Low germination is handicap to planning and cultivation. Another agronomic drawback is that seedlings are very sensitive; once sprouted they cannot be transplanted or planted-out.

23 Martin, F (1999) MULTIPURPOSE PALMS YOU CAN GROW - The World’s Best, available at www.agroforestry.net/pubs/multipalm.html 24 Elbersen, W and Oyen, L (2009) Nieuwe Grondstoffen voor Biobrandstoffen. Alternatieve 1e Generatie Energiegewassen, SenterNovem. 25 Mogea J, Seibert B. and Smits W. (1991) Multipurpose palms: the sugar palm, Agroforestry Systems 13: 111-129 26 Joshi, L, U Kanagaratnam, and D Adhuri (2006) Nypa fruticans: useful but forgotten mangrove reforestation programs? ICRAF (World Agroforestry Centre), Bogor, Indonesia.2 p. 27 Hamilton L S and Murphy D H (1988) Use and Management of Nipa Palm (Nypa fruticans, Arecaceae): a Review, Economic Botany 42(2): 206-213 28 Morton J.F., (1988) Notes on Distribution, Propagation, and Products of Borassus Palms, Economic Botany 42(3), pp 420 - 441

29 August 2011 | 63


Palm Type Short description and particularities

Geographic presence Yields (from literature)

Uses Remarks and reflections on large scale application for biofuels

hats, umbrellas). Sago palm (Metroxylon

sagu)23,29

Sago is the extracted starch of palms, often used as a staple food. Other palm species also provide source of starch (e.g. Arenga, Raphia and Metroxylon). The sago palm is the principal species of palm used for this purpose The tall heavy trunks accumulate starch and just before flowering is initiated, the entire trunk is cut to the ground, and prepared for the extraction of sago. The process is not necessarily destructive, for young basal sprouts immediately begin to replace the old trunk.

In tropical lowland forest and freshwater swamps across Southeast Asia, New Guinea and Micronesia. Tolerates wide variety of soils. In general, natural stands occur under either permanent flooding or flooding during part of the year and the remainder of the year with a sufficient water supply. Often the sago palm stands border on sometimes pure stands of nipah palm

Harvested between the age of 7 to 15 years, just before flowering, when the stems are full of starch stored for use in reproduction.

Major traditional staple food, construction and roofing materials (leaves), fibres (rope). The pith of the palm is also roasted, and the spent pith, after removal of the starch, is used as animal feed. Sago starch is not limited to the food industry, but can also be utilized as a key material input in paper, plywood, and textile industries. It can be fermented to produce biodegradable plastic and ethanol

There are about 2,250,000 hectares of wild stands (Papua New Guinea and Indonesia), 215,000 hectares of semi-domesticated stands (Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Malaysia). About 10,000 hectares of semi-domesticated stands in the Philippines, Thailand and other countries.

Raphia Palms23

The trunks tend to be short, and the leaves upright, making them the longest leaves of the plant kingdom.

Principally in West Africa, Raphia palms have been introduced to the Americas and one species has become wild in South America. Principally adapted to swampy conditions but also making dense stands on dry land

Unknown Starch, fibres, tapped for sugar juice, alcoholic beverage, fruit (which can also be pressed for oil)

N/A

29 Flach, M (1997) Sago palm - Metroxylon sagu Rottb, Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops 13, Institute of Plant Genetics and

Crop Plant Research, Gatersleben/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.



Appendix B Description of data collection locations

This appendix provides a description of the locations were empirical data was collected

for this study. The cultivation of Aren at both Batang Toru and Tomohon is primarily

based on natural regeneration and extractive management. Efforts to domesticate

Aren remain rare (as in most parts of Indonesia).

Batang Toru


Tomohon


Batang Toru


Tomohon


B 1 Batang Toru

Batang Toru is located in North Sumatra, Indonesia and covers approximately 105,000

ha in three districts - North Tapanuli, South Tapanuli and Central Tapanuli. Elevation

varies from 200-1500 masl, with annual precipitation of 1500-3000 mm. The

dominant vegetation is primary rainforest.

29 August 2011 | 65


Figure B - 1 Location of the study area in Batang Toru Forest Block, North Sumatra Province,

Indonesia

B 2 Tomohon

Tomohon is located in North Sulawesi, Indonesia and consists of around 14,000 ha of

land, consisting of 5 sub districts; with elevation ranges of 500-1500 masl and annual

precipitation of 1500-2000 mm.

Figure B - 2 Location of the study area in Tomohon, North Sulawesi Province, Indonesia

Documents

Ecofys and Winrock - Sugar palm ethanol - August 2011