The Politics of Jatropha-Based Biofuels in Kenya- Convergence and

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Clark University]On: 29 September 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918253168]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Peasant StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713673200

The politics of Jatropha-based biofuels in Kenya: convergence anddivergence among NGOs, donors, government officials and farmersCarol Hunsberger

Online publication date: 23 September 2010

To cite this Article Hunsberger, Carol(2010) 'The politics of Jatropha-based biofuels in Kenya: convergence and divergenceamong NGOs, donors, government officials and farmers', Journal of Peasant Studies, 37: 4, 939 — 962To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2010.512465URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2010.512465

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713673200

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2010.512465

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

The politics of Jatropha-based biofuels in Kenya: convergence and

divergence among NGOs, donors, government officials and farmers

Carol Hunsberger

This study explores the spread of Jatropha in Kenya and some implications of itstrajectory. Proponents of biodiesel in Kenya have adopted a near-singular focuson Jatropha but attach it to a wide variety of goals, including climate changemitigation, poverty reduction, and clean development. The priorities of actorswho promote the crop often differ from those of smallholder farmers who grow it.The persistence of multiple discourses of development linked to Jatropha createstensions between competing perspectives, manifested through allegations ofexclusion and shady business, but it also allows actors to deploy strategicflexibility by invoking Jatropha to pursue different ends. A case study of aninternationally funded project in Mpeketoni, Coast Province highlights dis-connects between the initial objectives of donors, coordinators, and farmers andexplores the project’s potential to produce outcomes that are satisfactory to allthree. The paper contributes to wider debates about biofuels and discourses ofdevelopment: Jatropha shares many features with past agricultural developmentinterventions, but as a biofuel it exhibits additional layers of contested meaningbecause of the politics of energy and the environment that are involved.

Keywords: development studies; political economy; biofuels; renewable energy;Jatropha curcas; Kenya

Introduction

Early enthusiasm over biofuels focused on discourses of clean energy, energysecurity, and combating climate change. Numerous governments endorsed biofuelsby establishing fuel-blending targets, while media reports spoke of ‘green gold’.More recently, some of these choruses of support for biofuels have diminished in theface of mounting social and environmental concerns. When oil and commodityprices rose sharply in 2008, charges that biofuel production competes with foodproduction came to the fore (Chakrabortty 2008, Muller et al. 2008, Pimentel et al.2009). At the same time, researchers questioned the carbon balance of biofuels(Creutzig and Kammen 2010) and introduced the concept of indirect land use change

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the ‘Biofuels, land and agrarian change’workshop hosted by the Journal of Peasant Studies, Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies(ICAS) and Saint Mary’s University International Development Studies Program in October2009. I am grateful to the other workshop participants for their insightful comments. Thanksalso to Mike Brklacich, Patricia Ballamingie, Blair Rutherford, and three anonymousreviewers for their thorough and helpful comments. This research was supported by a CanadaGraduate Scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)and a Doctoral Research Award from the International Development Research Centre(IDRC). I am also grateful to the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and Miyuki Iiyama forhosting me as a Degree Fellow in Nairobi during my fieldwork.

The Journal of Peasant Studies

Vol. 37, No. 4, October 2010, 939–962

ISSN 0306-6150 print/ISSN 1743-9361 online

� 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2010.512465

http://www.informaworld.com

Downloaded By: [Clark University] At: 20:24 29 September 2010

(Searchinger et al. 2008). Attention also turned to the negative impacts of biofuelproduction on people and environments at sites of production. In an Africancontext, land rights took centre stage in debates over large-scale investments inbiofuels (Cotula et al. 2008, Knaup 2008). Together, these events tarnished the imageof biofuels, particularly where their production was seen to divert food crops, occupyhighly productive areas, or disrupt local people’s access to land.

Jatropha curcas has continued to receive attention because of its potential toproduce biodiesel in a way that supposedly addresses these concerns. A small treethat produces oily seeds, Jatropha’s proponents champion its supposed ability togrow in semi-arid areas that are not considered arable. For these reasons, andbecause Jatropha is inedible, it appears to circumvent the direct trade-off of ‘foodversus fuel’. These claims have supported a perception that Jatropha could representa ‘sustainable’ means of producing biofuels.

This paper examines the means and implications of promoting Jatropha as abiofuel crop in Kenya, focusing on the motivations and perceptions of NGOs,donors, government officials, and farmers. The divergence and convergence ofinternational and local objectives in relation to the actions of development NGOsare given particular attention. A case study of an internationally funded Jatrophaproject examines the dynamics of such interactions in one place where donors’ andfarmers’ objectives meet.

It is argued here that the propagation of Jatropha in Kenya has been rolled out asa development strategy driven by multiple discourses that often (though not always)differ from the priorities of small farmers who are actually growing the crop. Afterreviewing some relevant conceptual tools of the analysis and introducing theagrarian context, the paper draws on interviews conducted in Kenya in February–July 2009 to describe the constellation of actors, pressures, and motivations thathave propelled and guided Jatropha activities in Kenya to date. The subsequentsection presents a case study of a project in Mpeketoni, Kenya involving over 1,400smallholder farmers. The paper concludes by discussing the tensions andcomplications created by actors’ divergent goals as well as some possibilities forcollaboration across these differences.

This paper is guided by literature on agrarian political economy, discourses ofdevelopment, and critical perspectives on NGOs. Bernstein’s (2010) four funda-mental questions for agrarian political economy (Who owns what? Who does what?Who gets what? What do they do with it?) provide a starting point for analysing theroles played by a variety of individuals and organisations in promoting Jatropha inKenya. Probing the political economy of Jatropha reveals motivations andinteractions that reflect competing discourses of development, which in turn shapesome broad features of the Jatropha ‘industry’. In particular, allegations of shadybusiness, suppression of dissent, and exclusion from ‘multi-stakeholder’ processesalign with Gaventa’s (2006) assertion that when powerful actors adopt inclusivelanguage or ‘participatory’ institutional structures, these can sometimes obscurerather than open up existing power relations.

These power dynamics need not produce a single, dominant discourse ofdevelopment.1 As Hilhorst (2001) observes, a plurality of discourses may persist,

1Here, discourse is interpreted broadly as a paradigm or narrative that includes language aswell as the assumptions and representations through which language is translated into socialmeaning (Grillo 1997).

940 Carol Hunsberger


leaving room for conflict between competing perspectives as well as ‘room tomanoeuvre’ for individuals and groups who may invoke particular discourses toachieve different ends. This concept of coexisting discourses rests on Long’s (1992,22) actor-oriented perspective, which recognises that although individuals and socialentities inhabit different social worlds that are conditioned by power dynamics, eachactor also has agency in the form of ‘the capacity to process social experience and todevise ways of coping with life’. In other words, actors have some flexibility tointerpret the conditions surrounding their lives and make decisions accordingly.The section on motivations and influences articulates two broad visions ofdevelopment that are associated with Jatropha in Kenya and begins to examinehow they interact.

The case study delves into the realm of global connections involving developmentNGOs and international donors. Here the paper builds on Ferguson’s (2006)observation that when international NGOs fund or deliver programs in particularplaces, the ‘point-to-point’ character of these interactions creates transnationalconnections that blur the distinction between ‘local’ and ‘global’. The JatrophaIntegrated Energy Project in Mpeketoni provides an opportunity to scrutinise theextent to which the perspectives of international and ‘local’ actors have becomeblurred in one such case. Critical scholarship on development warns about theconflict of priorities that can arise through such arrangements (Mosse 2005),highlights the importance of connecting small-scale projects to broader systems ofinfluence (Edwards and Hulme 1992), and questions the extent to which NGOs offergenuine alternatives to state or market mechanisms (Petras and Veltmeyer 2001,Bebbington et al. 2008). These critiques of international development actors resonatewith Tsing’s (2005, 8) observation that ‘those who claim to be in touch with theuniversal are notoriously bad at seeing the limits and exclusions of their knowledge’.With these cautionary words in mind, the paper probes the expectations of donors,project coordinators and farmers who approached a particular Jatropha project withdifferent initial objectives but appear to depend on achieving the same outcomes toreach their respective goals.

Jatropha in Kenya

Kenya’s history has been repeatedly marked by the introduction of new crops as wellas heated debates over the distribution of land. During the colonial period theseprocesses were linked as British land policy oversaw the allocation of the country’smost fertile land to settlers who established cash crops such as coffee, which Kenyanswere prohibited from growing at the time. After independence the governmentreversed this policy and encouraged both smallholder cash crop production andprivate foreign investment, with the result that transnational corporations and theirsubsidiaries played a central role in establishing the country’s sugar and teaindustries, while the government itself instigated other cash crops such as tobacco(Currie and Ray 1987). Freehold titles were entrenched in a manner that favouredthose with the resources to purchase land (KLA 2004), while patronage and elitecapture continued to provoke frustration (Klopp 2000). Approximately 500,000Kenyans were displaced during post-election upheaval in early 2008, many of whomface an uncertain future as fundamental questions about land remain unaddressed(Elhawary 2009). The introduction of Jatropha is therefore set against a history ofcontested land rights and ‘top-down’ agricultural schemes.

The Journal of Peasant Studies 941


Farmers have grown Jatropha in parts of Kenya for decades, most often as aliving fence or grave marker that animals will not graze due to the plant’s toxicity(Government of Kenya/GTZ 2008). Starting around the year 2006, several NGOsand a few businesses in Kenya encouraged farmers to plant Jatropha as an income-generating strategy, claiming that the plant needed minimal amounts of time, water,fertilizer and pest control to produce oil-containing seeds. Straight vegetable oil(SVO) from Jatropha can be used directly in modified lamps, stoves and some dieselengines, while further processing produces biodiesel that can be blended with fossilfuel diesel and used in a much wider range of engines. The following years saw a busyspread of Jatropha to farmers in many parts of Kenya, largely driven byinternationally funded NGOs.

Many farmers who planted Jatropha report that far from being a high-yieldingcrop, it has grown slowly and produced fewer seeds than they were led to believe(Wadhams 2009, GTZ 2009). Their observations are affirmed by studies that questionthe optimistic claims about Jatropha’s agronomic potential and call for caution untilmore is known about its performance under different ecological conditions andmanagement practices (Achten et al. 2008, Rajagopal 2008, Government of Kenya /GTZ 2008, Sanderson 2009). Reports suggest that it may never be economically viablefor Kenyan small farmers to sell Jatropha seeds to commercial processors(Tomomatsu and Swallow 2007, GTZ 2009). Meanwhile, Jatropha’s potentialcompetition with food crops for arable land, water, nutrients and labour, as well aswith livelihood activities such as livestock grazing, remains unresolved.

Nonetheless, Jatropha dominates discussions about biofuels in Kenya, asparticipants in this study articulated in a variety of ways. In strong terms, one NGOrepresentative stated that ‘The [government’s] biofuel strategy is basically the Jatrophastrategy. There’s no other oil that’s seen to come close’ (Personal communication, 12March 2009). Another said, ‘a name comes with a brand. Jatropha will initially be thebrand of biodiesel’ (Personal communication, 21 April 2009). A third commented withsome irony, ‘Jatropha is a bandwagon. We’re on it; even you are on it now. We don’tknow where the wagon is going but the band is playing’ (Personal communication, 17July 2009). Using more moderate language, government representatives describedJatropha as a ‘lead crop’, ‘flagship crop’ or simply ‘the feedstock’ for biofuel productionin Kenya. These phrases align with the government’s position that Jatropha is the toppriority in its renewable energy strategy (Government of Kenya 2008). Implicitly,acceptance of Jatropha’s dominant status could be observed at a June 2009 forum thatwas inclusively called the Kenya Biodiesel Workshop,2 though its presentations anddiscussions focused almost entirely on Jatropha (Ministry of Energy 2009).

Actors, pressures, implications

How did Jatropha assume this privileged position and what has kept it there?Answering this question involves delving into a tangle of actors, motivations andinfluences operating across sectors and scales. Interviewees expressed that a smallnumber of NGOs (and by extension, their donors) have played a leading role inpromoting Jatropha in Kenya, while government, private investors and researchershave supported (and at times contested) this trend. This section explores the rolesand activities of these groups of actors, drawing on interviews with 22 individuals

2Organised by the research subcommittee of the Kenya Biodiesel Association.



conducted between February and July 2009. All interviews took place in Nairobiexcept for DED/UNDP (Mombasa). Interviewees included representatives ofgovernment agencies,3 non-governmental organisations,4 private companies,5 researchorganisations,6 and donors, all of whom agreed to participate if identified by theirgeneral role rather than by name.7 These categories are not internally uniform nor arethey entirely separate from each other. Each group includes multiple perspectives andstrategies, while some interviewees acted in more than one capacity.8 As Lewis (2003,220) observes, ‘Organisations are filled with internal contradictions and conflicts andcannot be regarded as either unitary or predictable structures’. Recognising thisdiversity within and between organisations, the interviewees are nonetheless groupedhere based on their primary roles to look for common perspectives between membersof each group as well as to consider the perceptions of each group held by other actors.Bernstein’s questions are used as a guiding framework: the question of who ‘does’what is addressed through the description of the actors’ activities, while the mostrelevant of the three other questions are raised at the end of each subsection.

NGOs: early adopters, persistent promoters

A handful of NGOs conduct Jatropha-related activities among their main under-takings. They espouse different official mandates and priorities ranging fromenvironmental conservation to rural poverty alleviation. All of the organisationsconsidered here are based in Kenya and most are at least partially supported byinternational, non-governmental donors.9 The nature, scope and scale of theiractivities vary considerably. Some focus on distributing seeds or seedlings tosmallholder farmers, encouraging them to plant Jatropha and providing technicaladvice. Some liaise with investors who wish to establish large plantations. Otherswork to coordinate the formation of farmer groups in order to collectively grow andprocess Jatropha for household lighting or value addition projects. NGOs thusrepresent a highly heterogeneous collection of actors. Of these, participants in thisstudy identified three particular organisations10 as the most vocal and influentialpromoters of Jatropha in the country.

Several actors described how NGOs were the first to popularise the idea ofgrowing Jatropha in the country and remained ‘at the forefront’ of its spread.Another recurring theme was the role played by NGOs in building farmers’perceptions and expectations of the crop, often expressed with disapproval in

3Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Agriculture.4Green Africa Foundation, Vanilla Development Foundation, Vanilla-JatrophaDevelopment Foundation, UNDP/DED, Help Self Help Centre, Community ProjectSupport Organization, Africa Youth Initiative on Climate Change.5Better Globe Forestry Ltd, Energy Africa Ltd, Biogreen Technologies.6Endelevu Energy, Pipal Ltd, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Kenya Forest ResearchInstitute.7United Nations Development Programme – Small Grants Programme, Kenya AgriculturalProductivity Project (funded by the World Bank)8Some of these combinations of roles include researcher/private sector, researcher/government and NGO/government.9Including the World Bank, Prince Albert of Monaco Foundation, Norwegian Church Aidand the Global Environment Facility.10Green Africa Foundation, Vanilla Development Foundation and Vanilla-JatrophaDevelopment Foundation.



relation to raising false hopes. One participant directly attributed the sustained‘hype’ over Jatropha to NGOs’ ability to quickly adopt new ideas that can attract afunding base (Personal communication, 9 March 2009). A private sectorrepresentative more sympathetically commented, ‘I think some of these [NGOs]are seriously concerned that in the countryside people are very poor, so they haveinvested some of their survival capital in this Jatropha idea, so they cannot give it up’(Personal communication, 25 June 2009). These statements attest to the earlyadoption and persistence of particular NGOs in promoting Jatropha and link thesecharacteristics to the availability of donor funds.

Other actors spoke of NGOs’ input into the policy development process. Arepresentative of one NGO that was not involved in this process felt that anotherNGO had strongly influenced the biodiesel strategy prepared by the Ministry ofEnergy. A researcher went further, observing,

The early proponents of Jatropha were loud and organised . . . and they had a lot atstake in Jatropha because they had put so much into it. They had told all their donorsthat this was going to work . . . they needed to keep the confidence up, and the way todo that was to influence every decision to support Jatropha (Personal communication,20 April 2009).

Even a government representative echoed these sentiments, stating that ‘NGOadvocacy on biodiesel has been quite strong’, going on to suggest that if NGOs canattract funding by promoting an activity that is in line with global thinking, they willdo what they can to promote the idea to policy makers (Personal communication, 3April 2009).

These comments suggest that some NGOs aligned themselves with internationaldonors’ objectives to attain operating funds and worked to maintain thisarrangement by promoting these objectives through the policy development process.This strategic positioning aligns with Mosse’s proposition that the primary functionof policy is ‘to legitimise rather than to orientate practice’ (2005, 14). In response toBernstein’s question of who ‘gets’ what, NGOs who have harnessed externalresources appear to have been the main beneficiaries of Jatropha activities inKenya so far. This theme is explored in more detail in the section entitled ‘shadybusiness’.

Donors: providing crucial support

International donors were seen as a driving force behind the spread of Jatropha inKenya, largely by providing financial support that enabled NGOs’ activities. Thedonors referred to here all represent nongovernmental bodies; some are multi-lateral donors while others are bilateral. A member of the private sector underlinedthe importance of donors’ contribution by commenting, ‘All the NGOs in theforefront, they’re getting their funding from outside. If they’re not funded, they’renot going to promote [Jatropha]’ (Personal communication, 1 April 2009). Therelationship between a particular donor organisation and a Jatropha project isexamined in detail in the case study on Mpeketoni.

In addition to funding program activities, donors were credited with enablingresearch that otherwise would not have taken place. For example, one NGOrepresentative described how attracting international funds opened up newpossibilities ‘where we could now do research in a proper way’ and thus improve



the information on which the expansion of Jatropha was based. A private sectoractor summarised: ‘For us to have a better variety or a better provenance [ofJatropha], we cannot afford research locally funded. We have to wait for fundingfrom outside’ (Personal communication, 1 April 2009). A researcher responsible forcoordinating an internationally funded grant praised the donor for providingsupport without imposing a particular agenda on the work. In these ways donorswere seen to provide indispensable backing for the Jatropha projects and researchthat were already underway.

At the same time, interviewees acknowledged that these activities were vulnerableto a shift in donor priorities. Some thought that a decline in donor support forJatropha was already taking place. One NGO actor felt that this signalled a generallack of faith in African-led development projects as well as specific concerns aboutJatropha:

Right now the international community, particularly the donors, are not veryenthusiastic to support biodiesel or biofuels . . . They think that Africans areirresponsible in the sense that we will clear all the vegetation and turn our vegetationinto a monoculture of biofuels . . . Also, the lack of successful case stories is putting ontheir brakes (Personal communication, 21 April 2009).

A researcher described a similar shift in donor priorities for very different reasons:

I think the development money, there was so much hype and [with] the high oil pricesand all that, there was a lot of money, everyone was thinking biofuel was hot . . . andthen it got a black eye with food, and now oil prices are low, and no one isinterested . . . I think most of the interest globally is in cellulosic ethanol and algae andother things like that. Those are the areas where the big money is (Personalcommunication, 20 April 2009).

Whether or not they are already occurring, changes to donor priorities andconfidence levels could strongly affect the future of Jatropha projects, research and –indirectly – biodiesel policy in Kenya.

Here the most relevant of Bernstein’s questions is, who owns what? Donorsclearly ‘own’ the financial resources that have been mobilised to promote Jatropha inKenya. Like Currie and Ray’s (1987) description of transnational corporations inKenya in the 1970s and 1980s, these donors are a step removed from the farmers whoimplement their projects, in this case because NGOs (as opposed to subsidiaries) actas intermediaries. Several NGOs have tailored their activities to tap into theseresources and remain vulnerable to a shift in donor priorities.

Government: convening a policy process

As mentioned, the Kenyan government listed Jatropha as the top priority in its 2008strategy paper on biodiesel (Government of Kenya 2008). This represents a strongofficial endorsement; however, the government’s stated support for Jatropha has yetto be consolidated through policy. At the time of this study the government wasdrafting a biodiesel policy as well as a regulatory framework that would have majorimpacts on the economic conditions surrounding the crop. These documents willlikely clarify how biodiesel and crude Jatropha oil will be taxed and/or subsidised,specify conditions for exporting biofuels, and possibly establish a national fuel-blending mandate. A government representative stated that, ‘the initial focus in



development of the biodiesel industry was Jatropha. However, through variousstakeholder interactions it has come out that there is need to explore the potential ofother oil crops’, showing some readiness to consider alternative biofuel cropsalongside Jatropha (Personal communication, 3 April 2009).

Several ministries are involved in the policy development process with theMinistry of Energy playing a lead role. To produce the biodiesel strategy paper andthe eventual policy, The Ministry of Energy convened a National BiofuelsCommittee as well as a Kenya Biodiesel Association (KBDA). The BiofuelsCommittee comprises representatives of government ministries,11 research institutes,NGOs and private companies whose mandates relate to biofuels. The KBDA,created out of the committee’s recommendations, aims to bring together actors fromacross the value chain, coordinate and oversee the implementation of Jatrophaactivities in the country, and incorporate members’ perspectives into the policydevelopment process. In this way both the policy process and the body for overseeingJatropha activities in the country have been designed to include input from NGOsand the private sector in addition to government actors.

Those interviewed for this research varied widely in their views aboutgovernment’s role, approach and achievements. Some held the favourable opinionthat government was acting with appropriate leadership. Others felt the governmentwas neither leading nor following, citing a high number of workshops and meetingsas evidence that the process was marked by much talk and little action. Still otherswere critical, stating that government was ‘not owning the process’, but rather beingled by others.

The Kenyan government endorses Jatropha and is taking steps to regulate it. Butbecause the government, particularly the Ministry of Energy, has the officialauthority and mandate to perform these roles, its actions can also be viewed as aform of ownership. In this sense the government ‘owns’ the process of policyformation, which has major implications for all other actors. Crucially, thegovernment appears willing to share its ownership of this process with otherinterested parties through the ‘multi-stakeholder’ National Biofuels Committee andthe KBDA, creating space for direct input and lobbying. Issues of inclusion andexclusion in this process will be discussed under ‘suppression of dissent’.

Private sector: cautious or simply hidden from view?

A few private companies have initiated Jatropha projects in Kenya, generallythrough small pilot plantations or by working with a limited number of smallholderfarmers as outgrowers. Rumours abound (including in the mainstream media, e.g.Miriri 2008, Bii 2009) about investors negotiating access to large tracts of land toestablish commercial plantations, though few if any of these projects have reachedthe implementation stage. Securing access to land remains a challenge. One privatesector actor summarised:

11Including the Ministries of Energy, Agriculture, Cooperative Development and Marketing,Environment and Natural Resources, Finance, Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services,Higher Education, Science and Technology, Lands, Local Government, RegionalDevelopment Authorities, Trade, Transportation, Water and Irrigation, and Youth andSports.



The private investors as a group have really been reluctant to invest large-scale as ofnow. Small pockets here and there. For Jatropha to be viable for a private enterprise itprobably needs a 10,000 hectare-plus scheme, and we haven’t seen any of that. We justhear stories of potential ones but nothing has really come through. (Personalcommunication, 9 June 2009)

A government representative stated that private actors played a minimal role in thepolicy process at its early stages. While large scale investment may yet come, for nowmost actors agreed that the private sector is playing a limited role in promotingJatropha in Kenya. In a January 2010 update one of these businesses reported that itwas pulling out of major Jatropha efforts because of high costs and an unfavourablemarket.

Usually one would expect private sector actors to accumulate a surplus fromtheir business activities. However, in this case (aside from private nursery operatorswho sell seedlings) the companies that have invested the resources to create Jatrophagrowing schemes have not profited from doing so. The fact that Jatropha seeds arenot yet being processed into end products on any significant scale goes againstmarket logic and will be discussed in the section on distinctive features of theJatropha industry.

Researchers: an emerging collaboration

One could argue that within the research community there is a disproportionatefocus on Jatropha as opposed to other biodiesel feedstocks such as croton andcastor. This can be logically linked to the priorities of the institutions that provideresearch funds. For government research institutions this emphasis aligns with thebiodiesel strategy’s singular focus on Jatropha, and is thus a strategic decision.Initiatives run by other research centres, NGOs or consultants have been enabledby the availability of funds from international or private sources. Provenance andagronomy trials, as well as economic cost-benefit analysis, have formed the core ofmost studies. Research efforts are beginning to be coordinated through a BiodieselResearch Committee, a subcommittee of the KBDA tasked with keeping track ofresearch that is taking place, in order to avoid duplication and channel fundstoward appropriate institutions. Some actors expressed frustration over the slowpace of research. For their part, researchers felt it was inevitable that field trialswould be slow to produce results given that Jatropha plants take several years toreach full maturity.

Returning to Bernstein’s framework, researchers ‘do’ knowledge production,resulting in their ‘ownership’ of knowledge that is highly useful to other actors.Sometimes this knowledge is freely shared, while other times actors allege that it hasbeen strategically withheld. Even when results have been released, unfavourableresearch outcomes have not always been well received. This is discussed further inthe section ‘Responses to dissent’.

Actors revisited

The preceding sections have introduced the main groups of actors who are involvedwith Jatropha in Kenya and examined their activities in light of Bernstein’squestions. NGOs, donors, government, businesses and researchers all ‘do’ thingsthat affect the ways in which Jatropha has been introduced and regulated. What they



‘own’ and what they ‘get’ vary widely, both within and between groups. Whiledonors own the financial resources that have enabled NGO-led projects to occur,government officials ‘own’ (in the sense of controlling) the policy developmentprocess while researchers ‘own’ the process of knowledge production. The prevailingview among those interviewed for this study is that a small number of NGOs ‘get’ themost out of the production of Jatropha by way of donor funds needed to sustainthemselves, while so far there has been no appreciable surplus to distribute.The following section probes the motivations and influences of these actors, linkingtheir views to broader visions of development.

Motivations, influences and discourses of development

Many actors said that the initial idea and much of the drive for Jatropha came fromoutside Kenya. Since the most vigorous promoters of Jatropha have been NGOs withinternational funding, many of the outside motivations and influences that actorshave cited as creating motion in the industry can be linked to development objectivesthat were attached to the availability of donor funds. But why were donor fundsavailable? What made Jatropha appear to be a good idea to people both inside andoutside the country? Conversely, what has slowed or discouraged action on Jatrophain Kenya? Table 1 presents a summary of the international and domestic influencesthat actors in this study identified as having facilitated or inhibited the spread ofJatropha in Kenya.

These influences speak to at least two discourses of development that differgreatly in their scale and form. On one hand, the desire to achieve importsubstitution, commercial production for export or major reductions in carbonemissions motivate a model of national economic development through large-scaleplantations, centrally coordinated biofuel production or international partnerships.

Table 1. Summary of perceived influences on Jatropha activities in Kenya.

International Domestic

Motivators – Concern with climate change,emissions reduction, clean energy,carbon offsets

– Desire for poverty reduction– Desire for import substitution– Policy objectives on renewableenergy, agricultural development

– Potential for household use– Growing domestic energy market

– Food vs. fuel concerns (promoteinterest in Jatropha specifically)

– Biodiversity, land rehabilitation asdonor priorities

– High oil prices (2007–08)– EU fuel blending mandates– Large export market– Exposure to experience in othercountries

Inhibitors – Food vs. fuel concerns (dampeninterest in biofuels generally)

– Energy policy lacks guidanceon biofuels

– Declining oil prices (2009)– Perceived interference frominternational oil producers

– Limitations in education system,domestic knowledge, researchcapacity

– Perceived resistance from petroleumindustry



This approach, based on markets, production and value chains, is more likely to beof interest to private investors who see potential for an economically robust sector toemerge, particularly if oil prices rise again in future.

On the other hand, objectives related to poverty reduction and agriculturaldevelopment through value addition motivate an approach to economic and socialdevelopment that includes local processing and smaller scale applications such asusing Jatropha oil to power decentralised electricity production, tractors andirrigation pumps. This is rural development in a broader sense, where there is roomto consider the health and cost-saving benefits of replacing kerosene with Jatrophafor household lighting, as well as the possibility of increasing food security onindividual farms by using Jatropha fences to protect crops from wildlife andlivestock. This scenario, advocated for biofuels in general by Milder et al. (2008) andJatropha specifically by Achten et al. (2010), is perhaps better suited to NGO-runprojects that have few economies of scale, can use donor money to absorb start-upcosts, and are less profit-oriented than commercial operations.

Thus, broadly competing visions for Jatropha-led ‘development’ in Kenya werearticulated by the people who have been responsible for promoting and regulatingsuch a process, echoing Grillo’s (1997) view that development knowledge consists ofmultiple ideas that reflect diversity within as well as between groups. One of thesevisions advocates large-scale production of Jatropha as a cash crop to meet nationalobjectives, while the other promotes small-scale cultivation to support household orfarmer group objectives. That Jatropha can be seen as an instrument of both market-led national economic growth and community-led rural development helps toexplain why it appeals to actors with widely varying priorities. This ‘duality ofdiscourse’ (Hilhorst 2001) also adds confusion and tension to discussions about howto proceed, helping to explain the rather unusual features of Kenya’s Jatrophaactivities presented below.

Distinctive features of Jatropha activities in Kenya

Jatropha activities in Kenya exhibit some distinctive features. First, they are basedon an incomplete value chain that has so far failed to develop a market for any endproducts. Second, they are characterised by some unsavoury interactions, includingallegations that some actors have engaged in shady business and suppresseddissenting views. The following sections examine these phenomena in relation to theprimacy of NGOs in the sector and the persistence of multiple discourses ofdevelopment attached to Jatropha.

Partial value chain

Most on-the-ground Jatropha activities currently focus on distributing seeds andseedlings to farmers and providing training on how to manage the crop. Very littleprocessing and virtually no marketing and use of Jatropha products are taking place(Tomomatsu and Swallow 2007, GTZ 2009). The few projects that are extractingstraight vegetable oil from Jatropha are either doing so on an experimental basis orare at such a nascent stage that it is too early to tell whether lasting markets or localconsumption patterns will become established. As one participant lamented, ‘If youget oil, what will you do with it? There’s no market’ (Personal communication, 17July 2009). Without processors, the market for Jatropha feeds a cycle where seeds are



sold as planting stock rather than as feedstock for oil extraction. This creates asituation where the propagation of Jatropha is treated as an end in itself rather thanas a means to the end of energy production. This is highly unusual when comparedto cash crops such as coffee, tea and sugar, all of which were introduced in Kenya tofeed into existing markets.

With few exceptions, Jatropha’s proponents have so far not found it possible ornecessary to complete the production cycle. It is difficult to imagine such a scenarioplaying out if Jatropha activities were dominated by the private sector or if amarket-based approach to development occupied a position of clear priority. Underthese circumstances, if no products were produced to generate revenues it seemsunlikely that investment would continue for long. In this sense NGO activitiesappear to be able to persist in the absence of markets and financial incentives sincetheir funding does not need to be repaid to investors, nor is it generally tied toachieving outcomes measured in economic terms. Messemaker (2008) identifies asimilar phenomenon surrounding Jatropha in Tanzania, reporting that NGOsdistorted markets in such a way that businesses were unable to compete.

Shady business

Many actors in the biodiesel sector feel that some NGOs and brokers have benefitedfrom the spread of Jatropha in Kenya where farmers have not. Allegations aboundthat some actors have exploited farmers or acted opportunistically to keep themselvesfunded. Some criticised NGOs for raising farmers’ hopes about Jatropha withouthaving adequate knowledge about it. One NGO representative stated, ‘There are anumber of people, NGOs, foundations, who are very ignorant, but they will talk asthough they are seed scientists or seed technologists. Sometimes we are not honest withourselves (Personal communication, 21 April 2009). We want to promote Jatropha atwhatever cost’. A private sector actor echoed these views: ‘There’s somebody who hasno experience in crop or plant science, then they decide to promote a crop . . . evenbefore doing any research on it (Personal communication, 1 April 2009). They havemade money; they could earn salaries, allowances’. In this way donor funds were seento motivate some NGOs to prematurely push Jatropha.

Others had even harsher words for the dominant NGOs and their motives,including one researcher who said, ‘The people who have benefited are the ones whohave been able to raise some donor dollars to hold a conference or sell seeds for 2,000KSh (26 USD) a kilo to farmers . . . they’ve gamed the system. They’ve takenadvantage of people’ (Personal communication, 20 April 2009). One NGO actor sawthis behaviour as part of a broader pattern:

People are promoting Jatropha only because they have donor money to do it, with theresult that farmers suffer. It happens everywhere – NGOs get money and promote anidea without considering the impacts on the farmers they work with. In the end, theyjust close their books and leave (Personal communication, 9 March 2009).

Yet another NGO actor sharply criticised others for making false promises: ‘Thereare some quacks, I say, who want to tell farmers to grow Jatropha, and they’re givingthem the impression [the farmers] will sell the seed at a very high price. That ischeating. That is not being honest’ (Personal communication, 21 April 2009).

Actors’ critical portrayal of NGOs took several forms: that of nimble and astuteorganisations who spotted an opportunity, attracted funding and contributed to



shaping relevant policies; of unscrupulous players who misled and even exploitedfarmers for financial gain; and of benevolent development workers who sincerelywished to help farmers and were learning from mistakes along the way. For theirpart, NGOs were not the only ones to come under attack. Some actors also madeallegations concerning lack of fairness and representation in government processes,researchers guarding information, and private investors engaging in bribery. Afeeling of general discontent was summarised by one NGO actor: ‘Ugly things havehappened. Everybody sees money in Jatropha; that’s the problem’ (Personalcommunication, 13 May 2009).

Responses to dissent

Those who have most actively promoted Jatropha almost certainly did not anticipatethe problems farmers would encounter with production and yields. But knowingwhat they know now, several of them continue to act as they did before. At times,evidence that counters the narrative of Jatropha as a ‘wonder crop’ emerged and wasvigorously suppressed. For example, at a National Workshop on Biodiesel convenedby the Ministry of Energy in June 2009, actors gathered in Nairobi to share anddiscuss recent research findings about Jatropha. When one speaker presented anunfavourable economic outlook for farmers based on an extensive survey carried outacross the country, some delegates argued fervently that it was essential not todiscourage farmers by sharing these results with them – to ‘crush their hopes’ – evenin the face of decidedly discouraging evidence. This behaviour evokes Mosse’s (2005,2) question: ‘What if, instead of policy producing practice, practices produce policy,in the sense that actors in development devote their energies to maintaining coherentrepresentations regardless of events?’

In addition to such overt suppression of dissenting views, some suspected thatcovert forms of exclusion were also taking place. One NGO representativequestioned how the government’s steering committee was chosen, noting that someviews were not represented and some actors were not included despite havingactively taken part in workshops. Despite assurances from the Ministry of Energythat no one was prohibited from participating in the Kenya Biodiesel Association,one NGO representative who used to participate in the group stated, ‘There was anexclusion, slowly by slowly, with no word . . . you’re not called for meetings, andwhen they happen you don’t even know. You just get to meet with other committeemembers and they ask you, you were not in the meeting? . . . Only some of thestakeholders had the most correct and up-to-date information’ (Personal commu-nication, 2 April 2009). Finally, a private sector actor felt that the amount of timerequired to take part in the KBDA was too much to justify, saying, ‘I’m not fundedto attend those meetings. So I can’t be attending things where other people areearning salary’ (Personal communication, 1 April 2009). Whether overt, covert ormerely suspected, these anecdotes of exclusion and suppression of particular pointsof view cast a shadow over the supposedly participatory nature of decision-makingaround Jatropha.

Divergence and convergence

The actors involved with Jatropha in Kenya represent a plurality of goals andstrategic interests. The foregoing analysis has broadly linked these to two



discourses of development: one focused on markets, national and internationalobjectives; the other on rural development and community-based objectives. Thesedual expectations simultaneously broaden Jatropha’s appeal and confuse itsimplementation. While some actors have wielded different forms of influence,including input to policy processes and suppression of dissent, to try to establish adominant view of Jatropha, a plurality of visions and critiques persists. Thecontinued existence of multiple discourses enables a strategic flexibility thatdifferent actors use to pursue different ends (Hilhorst 2001). Taken together, thestrength of particular NGOs who have mobilised donor resources, the malleabilityof a policy process that explicitly seeks ‘stakeholder’ input, and the vagaries of amarket that has not yet materialised create a situation where Jatropha can begrown widely but processed nowhere, and where exclusion and shady business havethe potential to go unchecked.

But these outcomes are not inevitable. As Tsing (2005) observes, creative frictioncan also occur where apparently disconnected viewpoints come into contact with oneanother. The following section examines how these dynamics play out in relation to aspecific Jatropha project and considers the potential for diverse actors to achievemultiple goals.

Mpeketoni and the Jatropha Integrated Energy Project

The Jatropha Integrated Energy Project (JIEP) in Coast Province, Kenya providesan opportunity to examine a practical case where the objectives of internationaldonors, local coordinators and farmers meet. Headquartered in the town ofMpeketoni, Lamu District, JIEP encourages small farmers to grow Jatropha usingan outgrower model. The project aims to produce straight vegetable oil (SVO) forhousehold lighting as well as to support value addition enterprises for locallyproduced crops.

The population of the project area (about 30,000 in 2004) comprises a mix ofcoastal (Swahili) inhabitants and farmers from other communities who arrived aspart of the Lake Kenyatta Settlement Scheme from the 1970s onward. The Kenyangovernment actively promoted cotton production in the area and collaborated withthe German Technical Cooperation (GTZ/GASP) to establish the settlement’sinfrastructure (Kirubi et al. 2009). Several international NGOs continue to beinvolved in providing public services such as health care and education. A dieselgenerating station run by the Kenya Power and Lighting Company has providedelectricity at a nationally standardised rate since October 2008, though the cost ofconnecting to the grid remains prohibitive to most residents. Most settlers wereallocated 10-acre plots, and population growth in the area is still mainlyaccommodated by expanding the settlement rather than subdividing existing plots.Major crops include maize, beans, mangoes, cashew nuts, citrus fruits, cowpeas,coconut, chili peppers and bixa (a cash crop used to produce dye).

Agricultural challenges in the area include poor access to markets, declining soilfertility and crop damage caused by wildlife. Many farmers stopped growingcotton after a consolidation of ownership at nearby processing facilities droveprices down, drastically reducing farmers’ profits on what had previously been thearea’s most lucrative cash crop. Other cash crops such as cashew nuts are sold rawwith the result that the employment and value added through processing accrueelsewhere. Middle buyers control access to markets and effectively set the prices for



perishable crops such as mangoes, limiting farmers’ returns. Keeping the landproductive is another challenge; after clearing new land by burning, soil fertility ishigh for the first few seasons but declines over time. Some compensate by usingfertilizers while others practice crop rotation. Meanwhile, wildlife such as baboons,buffaloes and zebras continue to trouble farmers by causing considerable croplosses.

JIEP was established in 2007 by the Lamu Cotton Growers’ and IndustrialAssociation and Norwegian Church Aid (NCA). It has since become an organisationin its own right. The project plans to buy Jatropha seeds and raw agriculturalproduce from farmers, extract SVO from the Jatropha and use the resulting energy toadd value to the other crops through processing or cold storage. Finally, JIEP plansto sell the finished products, thus assuming responsibility for processing andmarketing. A second strategy of the project is to invite farmers to exchange Jatrophaseeds for SVO and compatible lamps.

Norwegian Church Aid is the sole sponsor of the project, providing financialsupport as well as training and capacity building. Its funds have been used toestablish an office, provide Jatropha seeds, hire trainers, purchase equipment andestablish a revolving loan fund for the project to buy Jatropha seeds back fromfarmers. One of its own staff members actively facilitates JIEP committee meetingsperiodically, working with project coordinators to develop business plans andadminister the budget. Clearly the project would not have taken flight withoutNCA’s financial and human resources.

By July 2009, approximately 1,470 farmers had registered with the project andplanted Jatropha in on-farm plots ranging from one-quarter acre to two acres in size.The farmers are organised into eight zones and 57 smaller committees covering atotal area approximately 75km in diameter. An NGO contracted by the donorprovided training on how to establish nurseries and plant Jatropha. Most farmersplanted between May and July 2008. In a January 2010 update, the projectcoordinator reported that the project began to purchase Jatropha seeds from farmersin December 2009 and had so far acquired about one half tonne, although a delay insecuring funds to buy the seeds meant that many farmers had sold their seeds toother brokers by the time the project began to buy.

A multifunctional platform (MFP) worth one million KSh (13,700 USD),purchased by NCA, arrived in Mpeketoni in March 2009. This machine is designedto extract straight vegetable oil from Jatropha seeds, produce electricity, and power amill for grinding grain amaranth. During a visit in July 2009 the machine was not yetoperating as no Jatropha seeds had been collected from area’s farmers. By January2010 it was reportedly producing some SVO, but due to a technical problem with themilling attachment, amaranth processing had not yet begun.

Interviewees in Mpeketoni included 26 farmers who had planted Jatropha, twofarmers who knew of Jatropha but had decided not to plant it and two coordinatorsof JIEP. Most were interviewed in May 2009 and revisited in July 2009. An extendedinterview with a Norwegian Church Aid official in Nairobi provided a donorperspective on the initiative.

Motivations and expectations

Donors, coordinators, and farmers expressed a range of motivations and initialhopes for the Jatropha project. An NCA representative explained how the



organisation started from a position of concern over climate change that was focusedon reducing greenhouse gas emissions: ‘We were struggling with this whole issue ofclimate change . . . we as NCA were struggling to find what would be the appropriateresponse to climate change from the perspective of communities, while feeding intothe big debates and the big discussions and the big responses that were being drivenfrom a Western point of view’ (Personal communication, 15 June 2009). Thispresented the immediate challenge of linking a Western desire for emissionsreduction with a locally relevant social development agenda in rural Kenya. NCAfound this match in the concept of renewable, accessible energy for development: ‘themotivation we saw was more to give farmers a way to reach their energy needswithout dipping their hands into their little cash resources . . . being able tosubstitute a product that you buy for one that you pick from your own farm . . . So itwas directly related to the poverty aspect, not having to spend money to meet yourenergy needs’ (Personal communication, 15 June 2009).

A JIEP coordinator used similar language to frame the project’s objectives,identifying a dual focus on climate change and poverty alleviation: ‘the main objectiveof the project [was] to fight poverty and the effects of climate change, and at the sametime to increase farmers’ income as part of poverty reduction’ (Personal commu-nication, 26May 2009). Using fuel derived from Jatropha to process or preserve othercrops was identified as a top priority: ‘The benefits of Jatropha oil are not in selling theoil, but in using the oil to add value or to support our other farm activities’ (Personalcommunication, 26 May 2009). Coordinators described how Jatropha oil could addvalue by producing electricity or directly fuelling equipment that would mill grain,juice mangoes, shell cashew nuts, separate cotton lint from seeds, or run a coldstorage facility. All these activities would yield finished products with higher profitsthan farmers currently earned by selling raw produce. In this way the Jatropha projectappeared to have potential to satisfy a longstanding desire in Lamu District. Acoordinator described how the pre-existing Cotton Growers’ Association had beenseeking ways to add value to local crops for several years, stating,

The objectives of value addition did not start recently, because we wanted to add valueto our mangoes. We also wanted to add value to our cashew nuts . . . the idea of valueaddition has been there all along. The biggest problem was that it was very difficult forthe association to find sponsors, or the required funding. We looked around and made alot of applications . . . It took us a long time, and thanks to NCA who came to our aidsome two years ago. (Personal communication, 26 May 2009)

In other words, the Cotton Growers lacked funds to put their value addition plansinto action and NCA appeared able to provide these funds through the Jatrophaproject. By approaching the project from different directions, NCA and the CottonGrowers both saw potential to realise their primary objectives.

NCA and JIEP representatives also spoke of the importance of using Jatropha oilin household lamps instead of kerosene. Both made an explicit link betweenhousehold use of Jatropha for lighting and improved educational opportunities forchildren who would be able to study longer in the evenings. One explained, ‘Thefarmers are keen on household use because they are poor, they cannot affordkerosene to light their lamps in the evening . . . Illiteracy levels are very high becausechildren cannot study in the evening. They lack light. Now the farmers feel that ifthey can get a source of light, that will be very welcome’ (Personal communication,26 May 2009).



Project leaders also hoped the initiative would provide electricity generation, fuelfor boats and buses, and eventually qualify for carbon credits under the CleanDevelopment Mechanism. One stated, ‘As [Jatropha] grows it will serve as a carbonsink. It stores carbon in its roots, and when it burns it also produces very littlecarbon dioxide . . . So this will help us generate more income and at the same time,fight the effects of climate change’ (Personal communication, 26 May 2009). Donorsand local coordinators thus spoke of anticipated benefits that ranged fromimproving household-level access to light in the evenings to combating the globalchallenge of climate change.

Farmers expressed high hopes for what Jatropha would bring them. When askedhow they hoped to benefit from it, the majority (19/26) wanted to use Jatropha oil forhousehold purposes (lighting and/or cooking). An equal number mentioned wantingto gain income from selling either seeds or oil products. Their specific goals wereambitious. One farmer said he was waiting for Jatropha to provide enough incomethat he could buy a motorbike and a solar panel – both major purchases.One woman hoped it would support her in her old age so that she would no longerhave to cultivate more labour-intensive crops, explaining, ‘I am old and I don’t havethe energy to look after things like maize. Jatropha is less work’ (Personalcommunication, 25 May 2009). Several described their plans to use Jatropha oil forlighting to save the expense of buying kerosene, for example, ‘We will minimisebuying kerosene – instead of buying from somewhere else, we will buy from thepeople here. Everybody will bring five kilos [of seed] and get their own oil; if there isextra, then [we will] sell it to neighbours’ (Personal communication, 21 May 2009).Others mentioned wanting to run irrigation pumps on fuel derived from Jatropha.Their spirit of overall optimism was captured by one farmer’s statement that ‘thisplant can change lives’ (Personal communication, 22 May 2009).

Four farmers mentioned environmental benefits that they hoped would comefrom planting Jatropha, using phrases such as ‘it will purify the air’ or ‘it enriches thesoil’. Three explicitly talked about climate change, for example, ‘[Jatropha] helpswith climate change . . . Trees have been cut all around. The rains are no longercoming as they used to. I hope and believe that Jatropha will clean the air – it willfight with the smoke emitted by factories’ (Personal communication, 26 May 2009).A few farmers also hoped Jatropha would allow them to avoid crop damage fromwildlife. For example, one whose farm was at the edge of the settlement describedhow difficult it was for her to grow food crops because ‘all manner of animals arearound the farm – so many buffaloes and zebras’. She explained that she had plantedJatropha on much of her land because ‘Jatropha can’t be eaten by wild animals’(Personal communication, 26 May 2009). Farmers thus hoped to gain access tohousehold energy, direct income, crop protection and environmental benefits.

These statements reflect divergent but overlapping expectations on the part ofdonors, coordinators and farmers. Each hoped that the Jatropha project wouldachieve a different primary objective: farmers focused on household use and incomegeneration; project leaders prioritised value addition; and donors emphasised thepotential for emissions reduction and carbon offsets. These goals represent a suite ofbenefits to be realised by different people across a range of scales and activities. Thisplurality of visions for Jatropha fits with the multiple discourses described earlier inthis paper, reinforcing the idea that Jatropha offers ‘something for everyone’. Thetensions associated with this scenario and the extent to which donors, coordinatorsand farmers have adopted each other’s objectives will now be explored.



Tensions and disconnects

Donors, local coordinators and farmers expressed very different initial goals andhopes for the Jatropha project. The NCA representative described a process ofmutual learning that unfolded as these different actors met to design and implementthe project. From NCA’s point of view,

. . . [we] realise[d] that communities can describe issues that we are dealing with, forinstance climate change, in their own vocabulary, using their own symbols, relating totheir own needs. That for us was a great learning . . . It forced us to say, the issue here isnot just about emissions. Emissions are critical but that’s only a Western perspective.But this lady, if she can’t afford even an hour of lighting, it has seriousconsequences . . . The issue was about affordability and access (Personal communica-tion, 15 June 2009).

This central tension between reducing emissions and increasing rural access toenergy became increasingly clear to the NCA representative through discussions withresidents of Mpeketoni:

It was in the process of interacting that energy poverty became evident to us. Then werealised that they are crying to use more energy, yes?While we are struggling to reduce ouremissions because of the energy that we aremisusing. So there’s a kind of disconnect in thiswhole debate. That was for us very humbling. (Personal communication, 15 June 2009)

The interactive process of establishing the project thus exposed a fundamentaltension between the donor’s officially declared desire to reduce emissions fromenergy use and the farmers’ desire to improve their economic opportunities and well-being through increased access to energy.

A second disconnect concerned the relative emphasis that different actors placedon using Jatropha oil to provide energy for value addition projects such as cold storageand grain processing. Very few farmers mentioned value addition among theirpriorities for the project – only three, and two of these held leadership positions withinthe project. This contrasted with the emphasis placed on value addition by localcoordinators, as well as the ‘popular consensus around the issue of energy and a focuson value addition using clean energy’ that the donor representative described. Acoordinator explained this difference by saying that farmers involved with the projectwere overwhelmingly concerned with securing their daily fundamental needs ratherthan with strategic thinking that could help to improve their livelihoods in more lastingways: ‘Most of the farmers are focused on household satisfaction before venturing intofactories and agroprocessing. But we are using the committees on the ground tosensitise the communities and the farmers, [so that they] know that we are going to dovalue addition’ (Personal communication, 26 May 2009). The current situationillustrates that project leaders prioritise value addition more highly than farmers do.

A third disconnect between donor, coordinator and farmer goals could beobserved on the topic of food security. Officially the project discourages farmersfrom planting Jatropha on land that is already cleared for cultivation. A coordinatorexplained,

Because we knew we could get out of the climate change problems and get into worse,hunger, problems . . . we don’t encourage people to convert land that they were using onfood production . . . we want farmers to open those areas that are just bushy with nothing,and not to replace the areas with food crops (Personal communication, 26 May 2009).



However, some of the farmers visited for this study had uprooted tomatoes,vegetables, maize or beans to plant Jatropha. Four of the farmers had converted foodor cash crop areas to monoculture plantations of Jatropha, while others had reducedtheir production of other crops to intercrop with Jatropha. Only two had plantedJatropha on formerly unused land, while one had converted an area formerly used forgrazing goats. Most (19/25) were intercropping Jatropha with other crops, althoughthis strategy may become less feasible in two to three years’ time when the Jatrophacanopy fills out and produces more shade. Thus, in at least a few instances, farmershad already sacrificed some food production in order to establish Jatropha on theirfarms, with further reductions likely to occur in the future. In one sense these farmerstook a risk, anticipating that the net benefits would outweigh their losses. However, itis also reasonable to expect that farmers would try to minimise their expenses whenexperimenting with a new crop. In this case it could be seen as a risk-averse decisionfor farmers to avoid incurring the expense of clearing new land if they were unsurewhether Jatropha would bring worthwhile returns. In this way, the desire of donorsand coordinators to avoid competition with other crops sits uneasily with farmers’desire to minimise their costs.

Achievements and challenges

In May 2009 farmers in Mpeketoni overwhelmingly expressed that they had notbenefited from growing Jatropha to date. Most had harvested few if any seeds in thefirst year. Only two said that they had benefited directly from growing Jatropha sofar. One had sold seeds to her neighbours for planting, while the other had fashioneda candle-like light out of Jatropha seeds which demonstrated to his children that theseeds can provide light: ‘The kids were excited. They now believe that it’s true;Jatropha is oil’ (Personal communication, 19 May 2009). Some had tempered theiroriginal expectations, for example, ‘[At first] I was excited about not having to buykerosene anymore if I could produce it in the farm. But I’m realising that it is slow incoming’ (Personal communication, 22 May 2009).

Most farmers accepted that it was too early to benefit from Jatropha because theproject was still in its initial stages and remained optimistic about receiving benefitsin the future, expressing this hope through statements such as, ‘when everybodyplants, we shall be benefiting’ and ‘when there’s a ready market, it will really benefitme’. One said the project was ‘like a pregnant woman’, expressing a sense of hopefulanticipation. Some whose plants had suffered heavily in drought conditions or beenattacked by pests planned to replant their damaged Jatropha plants. Perhaps thispatience can be linked to these farmers’ experience of tending other tree crops, whichtake several years to start producing fruits. Interestingly, when asked to identify thethree most important crops on their farms, several farmers included Jatropha – eventhose who said it had not benefited them whatsoever to date.

However, a few farmers expressed frustration or negative views about the project.For example, one stated that Jatropha was wasting his time; it was taking up his farmand his money without benefiting him in any way. Another said, ‘I have usedstrength and put energy into it but haven’t benefited yet. Like any other business, ifthis one doesn’t bring profits then it should raise questions’ (Personal communica-tion, 28 May 2009).

These frustrations were linked to several identified challenges for the project. Atthe time of this research JIEP had not yet started to buy and process seeds from



farmers as planned, which was a source of impatience. Farmers felt there was nomarket or they did not know where to take any seeds they produced. Coordinatorsgave several reasons for this delay, including waiting for approval from the fundingagency to establish a revolving loan fund for purchasing seeds and other rawproduce from farmers, needing to build a special structure to house themultifunctional platform, and deciding whether this machine should ultimately belocated at the site of its current offices or on another piece of land owned by theproject. Communication with farmers spread over such a large project areapresented another challenge. One farmer thought the project had been discontinuedbecause he had not heard any news from it in such a long time, while others felt thattheir farms were far from the central point where workshops were held. Finally,some farmers expressed worries that this project would fail ‘like others’ thatpromoted particular crops before it, or that Jatropha would end up having anunstable market like other cash crops in the area such as mangoes, cotton and bixa.

Donor and coordinator representatives were positive about the progress theproject had made, while acknowledging that challenges lay ahead. The NCArepresentative identified the main accomplishment as the contribution JIEP hadmade to building community capacity: ‘The social capital not only benefitsJatropha . . . It benefits the politics of the area, it benefits maize – because the samestructure, the same trust can be used to reduce the barriers of transacting business asa community’ (Personal communication, 15 June 2009). NCA saw this capacitybuilding as crucial in order for the project to achieve self-sufficiency and to movebeyond the resources and capabilities that were open to it in its current form:

[If the community can] address issues of climate, issues of livelihoods, issues of socialdevelopment, then for us that would be the most critical input that we could have made.Because it will have acquired its own life, it will be able to even draw in its ownresources, and even engage local structures and secure inputs that we as an organisationmay never be able to give to that group (Personal communication, 15 June 2009).

Thus, the donor organisation saw its main function as initiating not a single project,but a process of capacity building that could enable the community to further itsgoals in a variety of areas.

The JIEP coordinator summarised the project’s rationale by casting its aims inboth local and global terms, saying,

This project is based in Mpeketoni, but it is a global project because we are working ona global issue, and we are tackling climate change head on. Most people just talk aboutclimate change. They read about climate change and they argue about climate change,but they have not seen its effects. We are the sufferers . . . We are the ones who know itseffects, and we challenge [the world] to support us to do two things: grow and producemore clean energy, and establish clean energy industries at the local level (Personalcommunication, 26 May 2009).

Here the speaker appeals for international cooperation and implies that countrieswith means have a responsibility to assist those who are most affected by the effectsof climate change. He also expresses hope that in taking such a course of action,diverse actors can achieve goals at multiple scales.

The Mpeketoni project enjoys considerable support from NCA in terms ofcapacity building and finances, and the donor organisation has shown responsivenessto farmers’ priorities. These features place the project in a position to demonstrate the



best that is possible from such an attempt to organise farmers in Kenya to growJatropha for local processing and use. How the project handles the challenges ofachieving good yields of Jatropha, developing and executing a focused business plan,and making the transition to a self-sufficient enterprise will be instructive for otherswho are considering or already working with Jatropha on small farms. This case showshow donors, local coordinators and farmers are attempting to leverage the sameresources to satisfy different objectives through a particular project. These actors haveto varying extents adopted each other’s language in discussing the project and itspotential to address a variety of problems, demonstrating the creative flexibilityassociated with multiple discourses of development.

Reflections on Jatropha-led ‘development’ in Kenya

In the history of top-down cash crop introductions in Kenya, Jatropha stands outbecause it was introduced not as an economic development strategy linked to existingdemand for a product, but as an agent of multiple objectives spanning multiple scales.‘Globally’ it was tied to climate politics and the performance of oil on world markets;nationally it was endorsed as a means of reducing imports and alleviating poverty; and‘locally’ it was seen to promote rural electrification and household-level energysufficiency. These varied expectations for Jatropha speak to coexisting discourses ofdevelopment (Grillo 1997): one broadly market-oriented, another community-based.As a biofuel, Jatropha’s multiplicity of aims also encourages the involvement of energyand environment actors in addition to agriculture and ‘development’ ones. Thiscombination of diverse agendas and actors creates some deep tensions anduncertainties which are manifested through allegations of exclusion and exploitation.However, it also grants actors a degree of manoeuvrability (Hilhorst 2001) to invokeJatropha as a means to a variety of (perhaps incompatible) ends.

The Jatropha Integrated Energy Project in Mpeketoni provides a compellingexample of multiple actors working to apply the same set of resources to a variety ofgoals. Different actors initially hoped to gain different things from the project, butthe achievement of all of their goals depends on the same outcomes: Jatropha mustgrow and produce useful yields; the seeds must be processed into oil; and the meansof using this oil for household or value addition purposes must be put into place. AsTsing (2005, 13) notes, ‘There is no reason to assume that collaborators sharecommon goals. In transnational collaborations, overlapping but discrepant forms ofcosmopolitanism may inform contributors, allowing them to converse – but acrossdifference’. The mutual learning expressed by all three groups in this case opens thepossibility that in Mpeketoni, international resources that were allocated for one setof goals could be mobilised in a way that also meets others.

A broader view of Jatropha activities in Kenya suggests that not all coalitions ofinterests hold as much promise as that found in Mpeketoni. So far neither themarket-based nor the community-based vision of Jatropha-led development has beenrealised to a meaningful extent. Despite actors’ stated goals of producing cleanenergy, reducing poverty, improving food security and promoting rural develop-ment, small farmers have not (yet) benefited from growing Jatropha while a fewNGOs have benefited most. Seed yields have been low and most activities remainfocused on propagating the crop rather than deriving useful products from it.Allegations of shady business and unwillingness of Jatropha’s proponents toacknowledge dissent continue to cloud activities in this sector.



These contradictions between the stated motivations of influential actors and theobserved outcomes to date highlight the politics of Kenya’s Jatropha industry.Highly relevant is Ferguson’s (1994) observation that knowing the interests ofdevelopment actors is not sufficient to explain development outcomes. Here, actorswho compete for limited resources or try to secure their own positions are likelyinterfering with, rather than helping to create, the conditions that would be necessaryto actually reach their stated goals. Mosse’s (2005) proposition rings true in this case:that several actors have put as much energy into maintaining coherent representa-tions and legitimising their positions as they have into engaging with farmers on theirown terms. Whether influential actors will choose to use mechanisms such as thepolicy development process, the KBDA and their own projects on the ground topursue the degree of convergence observed in Mpeketoni will provide furthermaterial for debates over what kinds of development can be achieved using biodiesel.

Conclusions

The case of Jatropha inKenya provides insight into howdiscourses of development caninform broader discussions about biofuels. While some aspects of Kenya’s convolutedpolitical economy of biodiesel may be a function of the individuals involved, it is muchmore likely that the competitive and creative struggle between actors described here issustained and escalated by some unique features of Jatropha as a ‘new’ energy crop.Formany biofuels, contrasting pressures support very different visions of developmentatmultiple scales: internationally, climate change and energy security discourses push alarge scale, commercial agenda, while locally, the prospect of improved access toenergy for remote communities promotes a rural development agenda. Additionalstorylines related to food security, land rights and land use change open further sites forcompetition and manoeuvring among actors with different primary agendas. As inKenya, weak or absent biofuel regulations add to a ‘free-for-all’ atmosphere whereseemingly contradictory activities continue to operate side by side.

Compared to other agricultural development schemes, biofuels have additionallayers of contested meaning because of the politics of energy and the environmentthat are involved. The multiple discourses that this paper shows have been activatedto encourage the spread of Jatropha among small farmers in Kenya are equallyrelevant in other contexts where biofuels are concerned.

References

Achten, W.M.J., et al. 2008. Jatropha bio-diesel production and use. Biomass and Bioenergy,32(12), 1063–84.

Achten, W.M.J., et al. 2010. Jatropha: from global hype to local opportunity. Journal of AridEnvironments, 74, 164–5.

Bebbington, A.J., S. Hickey and D.C. Mitlin. 2008. Introduction. In: A.J. Bebbington,S. Hickey and D.C. Mitlin, eds. Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of developmentalternatives. London and New York: Zed Books, pp. 3–37.

Bernstein, H. 2010. Class dynamics of agrarian change. Halifax: Fernwood.Bii, B. 2009. Biofuel project set for Coast. Daily Nation, 16 Feb. Available from: http://

www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1927538,00.htmlChakrabortty, A. 2008. Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis: Internal World Bank study

delivers blow to plant energy drive. Guardian Online, 4 July.Cotula, L., N. Dyer and S. Vermeulen. 2008. Fuelling exclusion? The biofuels boom and poor

people’s access to land. London: IIED.



Creutzig, F. and D. Kammen. 2010. Getting the carbon out of transportation fuels. In:H.J. Schellnhuber, et al., eds. Global sustainability: a Nobel cause. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 307–18.

Currie, K. and L. Ray. 1987. The Kenya state, agribusiness and the peasantry. Review ofAfrican Political Economy 14(38), 89–96.

Edwards, M. and D. Hulme. Scaling-up the developmental impact of NGOs: concepts andexperiences. In: M. Edwards and D. Hulme, eds. Making a difference: NGOs anddevelopment in a changing world. London: Earthscan, pp. 13–27.

Elhawary, S. 2009. Post-election Kenya: land, displacement and the search for ‘durablesolutions’. Review of African Political Economy 36(119), 130–7.

Ferguson, J. 1994. The anti-politics machine: ‘development,’ depoliticization, and bureaucraticpower in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ferguson, J. 2006. Global shadows: Africa in the neoliberal world order. Durham: DukeUniversity Press.

Gaventa, J. 2006. Finding the spaces for change: a power analysis. IDS Bulletin 37(6),23–33.

Grillo, R. D. 1997. Discourses of development: the view from anthropology. In: R.D. Grilloand R.L. Stirrat, eds. Discourses of development: anthropological perspectives. Oxford:Berg, pp. 1–33.

Government of Kenya. 2008. Strategy for the development of the bio-diesel industry in Kenya2008–2012. Ministry of Energy, Renewable Energy Department.

Government of Kenya/German Technical Cooperation (GTZ). 2008. A roadmap for biofuelsin Kenya: opportunities and obstacles. Report prepared by Endelevu Energy and Energyfor Sustainable Development Africa.

GTZ. 2009. Jatropha reality-check: an independent assessment of the agronomic andeconomic viability of Jatropha and other oilseed crops in Kenya. Report prepared byEndelevu Energy, World Agroforestry Centre and Kenya Forestry Research Institute.

Hilhorst, D. 2001. Village experts and development discourse: ‘progress’ in a Philippine Igorotvillage. Human Organization, 60(4), 401–11.

Kenya Land Alliance. 2004. The national land policy in Kenya: addressing historicalinjustices. Nakuru.

Kirubi, C. et al., 2009. Community-based electric micro-grids can contribute to ruraldevelopment: evidence from Kenya. World Development, 37(7), 1208–21.

Klopp, J. M. 2000. Pilfering the public: the problem of land grabbing in contemporary Kenya.Africa Today, 47(1), 7–26.

Knaup, H. 2008. Green gold rush: Africa becoming a biofuel battleground. SpiegelInternational Online, 9 May.

Lewis, D. 2003. NGOs, organizational culture, and institutional sustainability. Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science, 590, 212–26.

Long, N. 1992. An actor-oriented paradigm. In: N. Long and A. Long, eds. Battlefields ofknowledge: the interlocking of theory and practice in social research and development.London: Routledge, pp. 3–43.

Messemaker, L. 2008. The green myth? Assessment of the Jatropha value chain and itspotential for pro-poor biofuel development in Northern Tanzania. Thesis (MSc). UtrechtUniversity.

Milder, J.C., et al. 2008. Biofuels and ecoagriculture: can bioenergy production enhancelandscape-scale ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods? International Journal ofAgricultural Sustainability, 6(2), 105–21.

Ministry of Energy, Renewable Energy Department (Government of Kenya). 2009.Proceedings of the Kenya Biodiesel Workshop, 9 June 2009. Unpublished report.

Miriri, D. 2008. Kenya sees $500 million biofuels investment in 2 years. Reuters Africa, 30 Oct.Mosse, D. 2005. Cultivating development: an ethnography of aid policy and practice. London:

Pluto Press.Muller, A., et al. 2008. Some insights in the effect of growing bio-energy demand on global

food security and natural resources. Water Policy, 10 Supplement 1, 83–94.Petras, J. and H. Veltmeyer. 2001. NGOs in the service of imperialism. In: J. Petras and

H. Veltmeyer. Globalization unmasked: imperialism in the 21st century. Halifax: Fernwood,pp. 128–38.



Pimentel, D., et al. 2009. Food versus biofuels: environmental and economic costs. HumanEcology, 37(1), 1–12.

Rajagopal, R. 2008. Best practices for long-term Jatropha development. Position paperpublished by KnowGenix.

Sanderson, K. 2009. Wonder weed plans fail to flourish. Nature, 461 (17 September 2009),328–9.

Searchinger, T., et al. 2008. Land-use change greenhouse gases through emissions from use ofU.S. croplands for biofuels increases. Science, 319 (29 February 2008), 1238–40.

Tomomatsu, Y. and B. Swallow. 2007. Jatropha curcas biodiesel production in Kenya:economics and potential value chain development for smallholder farmers. Working Paper#54, World Agroforestry Centre.

Tsing, A.L. 2005. Friction: an ethnography of global connection. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Wadhams, N. 2009. How a biofuel ‘miracle’ ruined Kenyan farmers. Time, 4 Oct. Availablefrom: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1927538,00.html

Carol Hunsberger is a PhD Candidate in Geography and Political Economy at CarletonUniversity in Ottawa. Her research interests include political ecology, social change,international environmental politics, and integrated approaches for addressing social andenvironmental issues in sub-Saharan Africa. Email: [email protected].



Documents

The Politics of Jatropha-Based Biofuels in Kenya- Convergence and