Annex 5: Economic feasibility of Jatropha

production and processing

A calculation model for business case development by small producer
organizations (SPO)

2013
Author: Mark van Dorp

Supported by the Global Sustainable Biomass Fund of NL Agency

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4

2. Value chain of Jatropha products ...................................................................................... 5

2.1 Value chain of Jatropha oil ............................................................................................... 5

2.2 Value chain of Jatropha seedcake .................................................................................. 9

3. Literature review of economic feasibility studies on Jatropha production and

processing ........................................................................................................................................ 14

3.1 Review of economic feasibility studies on Jatropha production .................... 14

3.2 Review of economic feasibility studies on Jatropha processing..................... 16

3.3 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 19

4. Economic calculation model for different business cases of Jatropha

production and processing ....................................................................................................... 21

4.1 The concept of cost-benefit analysis ......................................................................... 21

4.2 Economic calculation model for Jatropha production and processing by

small producer organisations.............................................................................................. 23

4.3 The case of Tanzania: application of the calculation model for a fictitious
SPO ................................................................................................................................................. 28

5. Final remarks and recommendations ......................................................................... 36

List of Literature............................................................................................................................ 37

Annex: User’s Guide to the Jatropha calculation model ................................................. 38

Acknowledgements

This report has benefited from the inputs and comments from the following
people, for which the author is extremely grateful:

Current and former members of the project team for the Feasibility Study
Fairtrade Certification Jatropha: Fenny Eshuis (Max Havelaar
Netherlands), Silvan de Boer (Eneco), Suzanne Kagchelland (formerly
Eneco), Gert de Gans (ICCO), Anne Marieke Schwencke (formerly ICCO)
and Ab van Peer (independent consultant).
Martha Djourdjin (Bridge Builders, Germany) for providing valuable input
to the calculation model.
Marg Leijdens for the literature review of socio-economic studies on
Jatropha.
Gerald Msilanga of KNCU in Moshi, Dunstan Ndamugoba of KCU in
Bukoba, Philip Mwakipesile of Kilicafé in Mbinga, as well as Christopher
Ndangala, independent consultant from Dar es Salaam, for their support
in the economic data collection in Tanzania.
Janske van Eijck (Copernicus Institute, University of Utrecht) for
providing comments on earlier versions of this report.

3
 1. Introduction
This report is part of the feasibility study on Fairtrade certification of Jatropha,
carried out by Max Havelaar Netherlands, ICCO and Eneco. The objective of this
report is to analyse the value chain of Jatropha seeds and oil, and to provide a
calculation model to assess the economic feasibility of Jatropha oil production
and processing by Small Producer Organisations (SPOs).

In this report, a number of key premises have been used that should be kept in
mind when reading:

The business model for Jatropha is set up around Fairtrade certified Small
Producer Organisations (SPOs), as the assumed initiators and owners of
Jatropha related business activities along the supply chain, in function of
benefit maximisation for their members.
In this model, organized smallholder farmers that are planting Jatropha
have a unique trade relationship with these SPOs and do not sell through
other market channels.
In this model, it is assumed that there will be an integration of Jatropha
production, transport and processing in existing logistical and export
chains for other Fairtrade certified products. For this feasibility study, we
have used the coffee chain as an example, but one could also think of
cotton, bananas, tea etc.

The report covers the following topics:

Analysis of the different steps of the value chain for the different products
derived from Jatropha (Pure Plant Oil, biodiesel, seedcake, shells/husks)
(Ch.2)
Literature review of economic assessment studies of the costs and
benefits of Jatropha production for small producer organisations (Ch.3)
Description of a calculation model to assess the economic feasibility of
Jatropha oil production and processing, based on four different business
cases of the use of Jatropha oil (Ch.4)
In the last chapter, a number of final remarks and recommendations are
made (Ch.5).

The calculation model will support SPOs in their decision making process before
getting involved in Jatropha production and processing, by making a rough
estimate of the financial costs and benefits of various business cases for
smallholders. In this report, the case of organized smallholder farmers in
Tanzania is used to illustrate the cost-benefit model, but the calculation model is
applicable worldwide if appropriate context-specific data are used to feed the
model. The data used have been obtained through extensive literature review as
well as field data collected in Tanzania.

For technical details on the various energy applications of Jatropha, please refer
to another report produced for this project, entitled Local energy utilization from
Jatropha curcas: state of the art and practical applications (November 2013).

4
 2. Value chain of Jatropha products
In this chapter, the value chain of Jatropha products is described. The major
products of the Jatropha value chain that we will focus on in this study are oil
(also referred to as Pure Plant Oil), biodiesel and seedcake.

2.1 Value chain of Jatropha oil

In the model as proposed in this feasibility study, Jatropha fruits are produced at
smallholder farmer level by means of intercropping and as hedges1. After the
fruits are harvested, collected and dehulled on the farm, the seeds are
transported to the Primary Cooperative Society (PCS)2. Next, the seeds are
pressed into Pure Plant Oil (PPO).

In the value chain charts below, the different steps are given for both local oil
pressing (figure 1a) and for central oil pressing (figure 1b). While the steps in the
value chain are similar in both cases, the processing takes place at different
locations. There are basically two options for the pressing of Jatropha seeds into
oil:
1) Pressing at local level (Primary Cooperative Society level) or
2) Pressing at central level (Small Producer Organisation level).

The choice between local and central pressing will to a large extent be
determined by the geographical distance to the final destination at which the oil
and seedcake will be used or sold.

Another important choice is whether or not to process the Pure Plant Oil into
biodiesel by a process called transesterification. Biodiesel production requires
more advanced technical skills and higher capital investments, leading to a
different cost benefit analysis compared to the sales of Pure Plant Oil. In our
calculation model, biodiesel production is included as well to be able to compare
the economic perspectives. However, it is recommended to SPOs to start with
pure plant oil production, as biodiesel demands more specialization and higher
investments, which may make it less suitable for small producer organisations.

Jatropha oil can be used directly, sold on local markets, or exported. Currently,
local demand for Jatropha oil is still limited, but it is expected that demand will
increase when it becomes more competitive compared to fossil fuels such as
diesel or kerosene. This includes Jatropha oil as fuel for transport, energy
generation, cooking or lighting, or as an ingredient for soap making. For Jatropha
biodiesel, local demand potentially exists as fuel for transport or energy
generation. Regarding exports, there has been increasing demand for Jatropha
oil from the transport sector (especially aviation), although this is still a volatile
and uncertain market3. Demand for other purposes, e.g. large-scale electricity

1 The details of the planting model can be found in the Jatropha Growing Manual by Ab van Peer.
2The Primary Cooperative Society is the smallest cooperative structure unit in Tanzania, often at
the village level.
3 Demand for aviation fuel is expected to increase by approximately 1.5 to 3% per year. Most
non-food promising feedstocks to be considered are short rotation coppice, woody residues,

5
generation, has not taken off as expected earlier on. This is mainly caused by
uncertain supply levels combined with high feedstock cost.

Figure 1a: Value chain of Jatropha oil: local oil pressing4

jatropha, camelina; for the longer term biojetfuels could include algae, and halophytes; IEA
Bioenergy, 2012.
4 In the case of local processing, the biodiesel option is not a very logical choice. It has only been
included to show the full range of options in theory.

6
Figure 1b: Value chain of Jatropha oil: central oil pressing

Looking at the value chain from a user’s perspective, the most important types of
local use of Jatropha oil are given in the figure below5. It should be noted that in
our calculation model, we have only incorporated those options that are based
on the use of Jatropha oil for energy purposes. This means that soap production
is not dealt with in the economic feasibility study. Nevertheless, given the fact
that many groups are working on Jatropha soap production, it has been included
in these figures.

5 For a more detailed description, see the report Local energy utilization from Jatropha curcas:
state of the art and practical applications (November 2013)

7
 Figure 2: Local use applications of Jatropha oil

Local use of Jatropha oil

Jatropha Oil

Use by SPO Use by Sales at Local markets

Farmers/Households

Oil as fuel for transport of Oil as fuel for cooking Oil or biodiesel (e.g. as
coffee and other cash (improved stove) or fuel for transport of safari
crops lighting companies or others)

Biodiesel as fuel for Oil or biodiesel for Power generation to

transport of coffee and power generation at supply national grid
other crops village level
(e.g.MFP/generator)
Oil or biodiesel to power
engine (e.g. for coffee
processing or jatropha
seed pressing)
8
2.2 Value chain of Jatropha seedcake
Jatropha seedcake provides a valuable by-product from the production of
Jatropha oil. It consists of the remaining biomass after pressing the oil from the
Jatropha seeds, and represents 65-75% of the total weight of the seed. The value
chain of Jatropha seedcake is given in the figure below, both in the case of local
(figure 3a) and central oil pressing (figure 3b).

An important consideration is how to use the seedcake. Either the seedcake can
be returned to the farm as an organic fertilizer, or it can be used as a fuel
feedstock, e.g. for briquette making or production of biogas. In the frame of this
feasibility study, it is assumed that seedcake will be used as fertilizer to increase
food crop productivity. In the context of Tanzania (and large parts of rural
Africa), most smallholder farmers do not use agro-chemicals while at the same
time they are facing depleted soils. When an intercrop model is used for
Jatropha, it is recommended to use Jatropha seedcake as a fertilizer on food
crops to ensure that the productivity of food crops is not threatened, while at the
same time improving soil conditions with limited use of agro-chemicals.

Another option is to use the seedcake for the production of biogas, after which
the remaining slurry can be used as fertilizer6. The slurry is a good fertilizer,
especially if combined with cow dung. However, as the press cake is usually
centrally available at the press and the cow dung is usually distributed at
people’s homes, it may be difficult to bring the two substrates together. In our
calculation model, we have not included the biogas option because of the
following reasons:

It is the preferred option to use the seedcake as fertilizer directly on-farm,

so it is normally not available for biogas.
The other residual parts of the Jatropha fruit, the fruit shells and seed
husks, could theoretically be used for biogas production. However, in
practice, this is not very realistic, as the shells and husks cannot be used
for biogas as they are too dry and woody. They do not decompose, not
sufficiently fast anyway.
o Fruit shells: The jatropha fruits are shelled on the farm , which
makes it logistically complex to collect and transport to a central
location.
o Seed husks: Usually, farmers do not de-husk the seeds before
pressing them, which means that the husks remain part of the
seedcake after processing the Jatropha seeds into oil.
Therefore, in our model it is assumed that the shells and husks do not
have any economic value to the farmers or to the SPOs.

An important factor that determines whether it is economically feasible to return

the seedcake to the farm is the distance between the processing facility and the
smallholder farm. It is expected that Jatropha produced by organised

6Diligent Tanzania is producing biogas from Jatropha seedcake, among others. This biogas is
used in kitchens as a fuel and the remaining slurry is used as fertilizer (Farioli & Portale 2009).

9
smallholders that are already involved in another value chain like coffee, would
be able to reduce transport costs significantly by integrating the transport of
seedcake to farmers in their logistical coffee chain. This basically means that they
could use their transport fleet to transport coffee cherries and Jatropha seeds
from the farm to the central processing level. During the same visit, the seedcake
that was pressed earlier on in the process - as a byproduct during the oil
pressing of the Jatropha seeds - could be transported to the farmers.7.

7For more information on the different studies on the use of seedcake as fertilizer, see the report
Local energy utilization from Jatropha curcas: state of the art and practical applications
(November 2013).

10
Figure 3a: Value chain of Jatropha seedcake: local oil pressing

Value Chain of Jatropha seedcake: local oil pressing

Smallholder farmer Jatropha production

Primary Collecting and Transporting seeds

Cooperative
Producing & Consuming country

Society
Oil extraction with local press Seedcake as fertilizer

PPO Seedcake Slurry as fertilizer

Eco-Briquette production Biogas production

Eco-Charcoal Fuel for cooking/heating

SPO (Smallholder
Producer Organisation)

11
Figure 3b: Value chain of Jatropha seedcake: central oil pressing

Value Chain of Jatropha seedcake: central oil pressing

Smallholder farmer Jatropha production

Producing & Consuming country

Primary Cooperative Long distance from

Society Collecting and Transporting seeds factory to farm -> use
coffee transport chain

SPO
(Smallholder
Producer Oil extraction with central press Seedcake as fertilizer
Organisation)
PPO Seedcake Slurry as fertilizer

Eco-Briquette production Biogas production

Eco-Charcoal Fuel for cooking/heating

12
 The different local use options of Jatropha seedcake are given below.

Figure 4: Local use options of Jatropha seedcake

Jatropha seedcake

Use by SPO Use by SPO members Sales at Local markets

Biogas for heat and/or Fertilizer to be used on Selling fertilizer to other

power generation farm farmers/
agri-businesses

Use of seedcake Sales of seedcake

briquettes or charcoal briquettes or charcoal to
for cooking consumers for cooking

Biogas for heat and/or

power generation

Slurry to be used as
fertilizer on farm 13
3. Literature review of economic feasibility studies on
Jatropha production and processing

This chapter provides a review of the literature on the economic feasibility of

Jatropha production (3.1) and processing (3.2). The focus will be on studies related
to smallholders. The chapter ends with a number of conclusions (3.3).

3.1 Review of economic feasibility studies on Jatropha production

Jatropha Assessment, Van Eijck et al. (2010)

A comprehensive assessment of economic feasibility studies for Jatropha, carried
out by Van Eijck et al. (2010), reports that most studies focus on East and
Southern Africa as well as India. CBAs (Cost-Benefit Analyses) have been
undertaken for smallholders, mostly for small-scale Jatropha plantations, while
some studies were done on intercropping and hedges. However, these studies
have no specific reference to business organisation and sizes of production. Van
Eick et al. found that there are still many gaps in the economic data. The
reliability of the CBA technique highly depends on accurate estimations of the
expected cash flows.

In the assessment, two types of problems appeared to be prevalent that were

found to have major effects on the results of the CBA. First, seed yield estimates
were either too low or too high, leading to overly optimistic or overly pessimistic
CBA outcomes. Secondly, often there was no valuation of resources, especially
land and labour, according to their opportunity costs, i.e. their productive value
in case the project would not take place. CBAs often take a limited time horizon
(10 years or less). Also, economic data about the cost of Pure Plant Oil and
biodiesel production in facilities of different scales are scarce, especially in Africa
where commercial oil production is only just beginning.

Some of the main conclusions of the assessment by Van Eijck et al. are:
The Jatropha value chain as a whole needs to become more profitable,
especially through finding higher-value uses for by-products, further
increasing oil processing efficiency, developing seed varieties with higher
and more reliable seed yields under semi-arid conditions, and optimizing
cultivation practices. These challenges are, however, unlikely to be
resolved within a few years.
Currently, the only possibly feasible scenario for Jatropha cultivation that
emerges from the studies is resource-extensive Jatropha hedge
cultivation. This is so because it has very low opportunity costs and can
yet be undertaken on fertile lands with good water access. The studies
seem to agree that Jatropha cultivation in any scenario other than hedge
plantings should not be recommended for the time being.
Local projects that link seed production closely to local processing and oil
use – like the FACT project in Mozambique – appear to have better

14
 potential for achieving financial viability than larger, non-local ones. The
reasons are: the ability to return the seedcake to farmers, thereby aiding
higher long term yields; low transport costs; and the use of Pure Plant Oil
rather than more expensive biodiesel produced through
transesterification.
Seed or oil production for export to the EU is unlikely to be profitable due
to stiff competition from highly subsidized US bio-oils, except in some
niche markets.

In the table below, an overview of Jatropha prices worldwide is given, as

reported by Van Eijck et al (2010). It can be seen that prices range from USD 0.07
to 0.20 per kilogram of seed.

Table 1: Prices of Jatropha seed worldwide (Source: Van Eijck et al. 2010, p.46)

Jatropha, retrospective and future development, FACT Foundation (2010)

In this report, a number of economic studies on Jatropha are analysed and
compared. Based on the outcomes of studies in Mali, Mozambique, Honduras,
India and Kenya, it is concluded that Jatropha cultivation is not profitable in a
low-input scenario, basically because yields are too low because very small
quantities of fertilizer are applied. In a high-input scenario, the revenues are not
high enough to cover the costs, and losses occur especially in the first years. On
the basis of a 10-year investment, no or very low earnings can be obtained. The
main problem observed by FACT Foundation in these studies is that most
projections were based on a combination of assumptions (including yields,
growth on marginal soils, low inputs), some of which were individually right, but
they were wrongfully assumed to be true in combination. Estimated average
Jatropha yields from monoculture plantations in the FACT studies ranged from
400 kg to 1.4 ton/ha/year, which is significantly lower than earlier estimates by
others. This has led some farmers to convert their fields back from Jatropha to
food crops, as they are more profitable. Many initiatives have failed and stopped,
and existing Jatropha business is still highly dependent on subsidies. The only
profitable business case is where farmers are planting Jatropha as hedges (which
is in line with the conclusion by Van Eijck et al. 2010, see above). Requirements

15
that could make Jatropha feasible include low wages, a lack of profitable
alternative crops, relatively fertile land and high market prices for seeds or oil.

Meta-evaluation of 6 Hivos Biofuel projects, Prakash (undated)

In an evaluation of six biofuel projects funded by Dutch NGO Hivos, there are
some interesting conclusions on the feasibility of Jatropha for smallholders.
Some of the most relevant outcomes for our study are as follows:

The labour requirements for Jatropha production are substantial, and

lead to competition for labour with other crops. At least in the initial years
Jatropha seems to need more investment in terms of labour to income
ratio than other crops.
Jatropha also has a long gestation period of up to seven or eight years
after planting before it reaches optimal yields.
The yields attainable, even under favourable conditions have been lower
than the estimates made at the height of the Jatropha hype when most of
these projects were initiated.
Finally, Jatropha production for oilseed was a completely new venture in
most places, and involved many uncertainties relating to crop production
and processing.

Jatropha sustainability assessment, data from Tanzania, Mali & Mozambique, Van
Eijck et al. (2013)
In a recently published Jatropha sustainability study, commissioned by NL
Agency, it is concluded that the prospects for smallholders are not very bright.
Until better plant varieties will become available, the value of Jatropha for
smallholders is limited to its use in environmentally and economically
disadvantaged areas, where people do not have alternative income earning
opportunities that are more attractive than Jatropha. Even in those
circumstances smallholders only value the crop in a hedge set up, because yields
are currently too low and unreliable for it to be a viable field crop. The average
income received from seed sales by Jatropha hedge growers in the survey ranged
between US$ 23.00 and US$ 0.48 per 100 metres of hedge.

3.2 Review of economic feasibility studies on Jatropha processing

In this section a review is presented of earlier studies on the costs and benefits of
processing of Jatropha seeds into Pure Plant Oil or biodiesel.

Jatropha Assessment, Van Eijck et al. (2010)

The authors conclude that data about the cost of Jatropha oil and biodiesel
production are scarce, especially in Africa where commercial oil production is
only just beginning.

Modelled on inside information about the business plans and practices of two
Jatropha investors in Tanzania, Van Eijck et al. presented some best estimates for
the expected financial profitability of a large centralized plantation setup and a
decentralized outgrower model with one (or a few) central oil processor(s). For
the outgrower model, two different input scenarios were estimated: “low input”,

16
meaning no fertilizers and no irrigation, and “intermediate input”, which
assumes some weeding, fertilizer and pesticide application and pruning. The
assumed yields between the two scenarios differ by about one tonne dry seeds
per ha per year. The assumed yields of respectively 1002 and 1981 kg/ha/y are
compatible with the realistic yield range reported by other studies.

For the outgrower scenarios, the main observation is that the estimated
profitability of the activities is bad, especially for the seed growers. For these
smallholder farmers (who receive a relatively ‘good’ market price of US$ 0,14/kg
seed), pay back periods of 16 to over 20 years, and real IRRs of 5.3% to 8.9%
(compared with a real discount rate of 6.5%) essentially imply zero profitability
over a 20 year period. The intermediate input scenario performs even worse
than the low input scenario because the extra costs of fertilizers are not made
good by sufficient extra revenues from higher yields.

The results for the processing company (in this case producing and selling SVO
rather than biodiesel, in view of the latter’s lower profitability) are only
marginally better than for the smallholders. Payback periods of 12-13 years are
long. The best IRR for the processor is 17.2% obtained in the intermediate
scenario, but in that scenario the supplier farmers are expected to make a loss, so
this scenario is infeasible. In the low input system, expected returns for the
smallholders are marginal, and with an IRR of 13.4% they are also very modest
for the processing company. The NPV for the processor looks high in absolute
terms, but is poor when seen in relation to the amount of required investment.

Cost/benefit analysis of biomass energy supply options for rural smallholders in the
semi-arid eastern part of Shinyanga Region in Tanzania, Wiskerke et al. (2010)
This study consists of a cost-benefit analysis in Tanzania of biomass energy
supply options, including Jatropha. It was concluded that Jatropha oil can be
utilized economically as a diesel substitute at observed diesel cost of USD 1.49
per litre, which is higher than the cost price estimated by Van Eijck et al (2012)
(see below). Based on a cost price of mechanical expellers of USD 2,000
(excluding fuel and maintenance costs), it is concluded that this is unlikely to be
affordable for smallholders, but that it would be possible under a cooperative
structure.

Jatropha, retrospective and future development, FACT Foundation (2010)

In this paper, data are presented on the production costs of Jatropha oil (see
Table 2 below). A reference fossil fuel diesel price is used of USD 1.17/litre
(excluding taxes). Based on this price, it is concluded that Jatropha oil production
would be competitive with fossil fuel. An interesting observation is that a carbon
credit project would give additional benefits of USD 0.02 per kg. of seeds, based
on the use of the seedcake for biogas production under a CDM scheme. Biogas
production itself would give additional benefits of USD 0.04 per kg of seeds.

17
Table 2: Production cost of Jatropha oil Mozambique
Source: FACT Foundation (2010)
Cost item USD/lt %
Pressing 0,36 31
Transport 0,22 19
Seeds (at seed price of USD
0.09/kg) 0,38 32
Profits 0,21 18
Total 1,17 100

The economic performance of jatropha, cassava and Eucalyptus production

systems for energy in an East African smallholder setting, Van Eijck et al. (2012).
A more recent study by Van Eijck et al. (2012) looks at the economic viability of
the use of Jatropha for the production of liquid biofuels, in comparison to
conventional diesel, for the case of Tanzania. It is concluded that Jatropha
biodiesel has higher costs than conventional diesel, while Jatropha PPO (Pure
Plant Oil) is competitive with conventional diesel, but only in a family labour
system (i.e. in case no hired labour is needed8). Van Eijck et al. found that the
feedstock cost of Jatropha seeds varies between USD 0.15 and 0.58 per litre, the
total costs for Pure plant Oil (or Straight Vegetable Oil) vary from USD 0.61-1.04
per litre, and for biodiesel varies from USD 0.88-1.32 per litre.

Government taxes are not taken into account, since there is no biofuel policy in
place in Tanzania (as in most parts of Sub-Saharan Africa). As taxes add up to
35% to the fossil fuel price at gas stations, this could lead to a substantial price
increase for biofuels as well. When biofuels have to be competitive with fossil
energy, this could lead to a downward pressure on the price farmers receive for
Jatropha seeds. In Table 3 below, a cost breakdown is given for the conversion of
Jatropha seeds into PPO and into biodiesel in case of a cost price of USD 0.88
(Van Eijck et al. 2012).

At the moment of Van Eijck’s study, conventional diesel had a CIF price (price at
point of import to Tanzania) of 0.80 USD. This means that Jatropha PPO was
competitive with conventional diesel, while Jatropha biodiesel was not. The
diesel consumption in Tanzania was almost 1 M ton in 2010, which means that
the local market for Jatropha oil or biodiesel is potentially substantial.

It is noted by Van Eijck et al. (2012) that the cost of transport could be reduced
when more efficient transport systems are in place; similarly, the cost of
transesterification could reduce when economies of scale are applied.

8 This implies that the opportunity costs for labour are not taken into account in Van Eijck’s
study. In our calculation model, these opportunity costs are priced at the value of the daily labour
rate under the assumption that paid work could have been found elsewhere.

18
Table 3: Feedstock cost of Jatropha SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil) production
and transesterification
Source: Adapted from Van Eijck et al. (2012)
Based on prices in Tanzania in 2008
Cost item TZS/lt US$/lt
Farm gate price Jatropha seeds 144 0.13
Transport seeds to refinery 278 0.25
Seedpress conversion to SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil) 222 0.20
Subtotal conversion of Jatropha seeds into oil 644 0.58

Depreciation equipment per liter SVO 33 0.03

Cost of electricity consumption 0 0.0001
Cost of methanol for biodiesel production (20 ml added/lt) 211 0.19
Water needed for production 11 0.01
Cost of caustic soda for production (4 gr per lt) 11 0.01
Labour 56 0.05
Subtotal conversion into biodiesel (transesterification) 322 0.29

Distribution of SVO or biodiesel 11 0.01

Total feedstock cost of Jatropha biodiesel - off factory 978 0.88
Exchange rate Tanzania Shilling to 1 USD 1111

Jatropha sustainability assessment, data from Tanzania, Mali & Mozambique, Van
Eijck et al. (2013)
In this study, it is concluded that the “business case” for processors who source
from outgrowers also remains largely unproven, as most projects are still in an
early stage of establishment and some distance removed from sufficient scale in
their operations. At a cost of roughly US$ 1.20 per litre, Jatropha oil is still
expensive. The authors also conclude that efforts and ambitions to export to
western markets have been abandoned. After 2008, these markets shrank as
buyers scaled down their ambitions to source sustainably produced bioenergy.
Companies now concentrate on local market development.

3.3 Conclusions
Based on a limited number of studies on the economic feasibility of Jatropha
production for smallholders (mainly focusing on East Africa), it is clear that
Jatropha production is not a very profitable business case. The only business
case that has clear economic potential is the planting of Jatropha as hedges.
However, as concluded in a literature review by Van Eijck et al. (2010), some of
these studies have serious shortcomings and the conclusions on economic
feasibility are very much dependent on local circumstances, including the level of
wages, availability of profitable alternative crops, land fertility and market prices
for seeds or oil. Also, the conclusions of studies that are very context-specific
cannot be extrapolated to other situations, and a more tailor made calculation
model is needed.

As for Jatropha processing, it can be concluded that the economic feasibility of

Jatropha oil or biodiesel is directly related to the price of conventional diesel.
Jatropha oil production becomes feasible under the condition that its production

19
cost is lower than the diesel price. If the price of Jatropha oil or biodiesel is
higher than the price of diesel, there will be no market for Jatropha because it
cannot compete with diesel. Overall, the studies provide a not too rosy picture: in
one case, it was found that Jatropha oil is not competitive unless labour is
provided at no cost (i.e. as family labour). The question is whether this is a
realistic assumption. Family labour has an opportunity cost that should be taken
into account, as is done in most economic studies on farming systems,

20
 4. Economic calculation model for different business cases
of Jatropha production and processing

This chapter starts with the objective of the calculation model developed for a
number of business cases of Jatropha production and processing, to be applicable
worldwide (4.1), then briefly describes the concept of cost-benefit analysis of
Jatropha production and processing (4.2). This is followed by an explanation of the
calculation model (4.3). The chapter ends with the case of a fictitious SPO in
Tanzania as an example to demonstrate the calculation model (4.4).

4.1 Objective
The objective of the economic calculation model is to assess the profitability of
Jatropha curcas for Small Producer Organisations (SPOs) by evaluating the
economic value of Jatropha trees planted by means of intercropping with food
crops and as fences, as explained in the agronomic part of the feasibility study.
The model is built around the SPO-business cases for 4 different use options of
Jatropha oil: 1) use of oil for transport, 2) use of oil to run a generator, 3) use of
oil for lighting purposes, and 4) export of oil. The purpose is to provide an
interactive tool for SPOs that allows them to:
input up-to-date data from their own context
update the data whenever new information is available
model different project sizes, based on the number of participating
farmers, or hectares of land included in the project over the years
vary a range of relevant variables simultaneously to model different
project scenarios

In this way, SPOs can compare a much wider range of scenarios, based on more
relevant data, than are available in any of the existing literature. This is
especially relevant for the evaluation of the potential impact of significant
developments in key variables, such as new seed varieties, developments in the
price of diesel, or increasing demand for exports, as suggested in the literature.

Nevertheless, the model allows only an initial, rough cost-benefit analysis. For a
more concrete and reliable model, the assumed values and dynamics need to be
refined further according the local context and expectations for the future
market developments, with the help of a business development expert.

4.2. The concept of cost-benefit analysis

In this section, the basic features of cost-benefit analysis are explained in relation
to our calculation model for Jatropha production.

Economic feasibility is determined by evaluating the financial net benefits of the

production of a certain agricultural crop. A financial analysis or cost-benefit
analysis is used to look at the costs and returns from the perspective of
individual farmers or the small producer organisation as a whole. As indicated

21
before, for this study we have taken the perspective of the small producer
organisation.

Below are the key tools used in our cost-benefit analysis9:

Net present value (NPV): The difference between the present value of
cash inflows and the present value of cash outflows. NPV is used in capital
budgeting to analyze the profitability of an investment or project. NPV
compares the value of a dollar today to the value of that same dollar in the
future, taking inflation and returns into account. If the NPV of a
prospective project is positive, it should be accepted. However, if NPV is
negative, the project should probably be rejected because cash flows will
also be negative.
Free cash flow (FCF): A measure of financial performance calculated as
operating cash flow minus capital expenditures. Free cash flow (FCF)
represents the cash that a company is able to generate after laying out the
money required to maintain or expand its asset base. Free cash flow is
important because it allows a company to pursue opportunities that
enhance shareholder value. Without cash, it's tough to develop new
products, make acquisitions, pay dividends and reduce debt.
Internal rate of return (IRR): The discount rate often used in capital
budgeting that makes the net present value of all cash flows from a
particular project equal to zero. Generally speaking, the higher a project's
internal rate of return, the more desirable it is to undertake the project.
As such, IRR can be used to rank several prospective projects a firm is
considering. Assuming all other factors are equal among the various
projects, the project with the highest IRR would probably be considered
the best and undertaken first.

With the help of cost-benefit analysis, it is possible to calculate the break-even

price of producing Jatropha seeds, which is a key input in the calculation model.
The break-even price is the cost price at which expenses and revenues are
equal: there is no net loss or gain, and one has "broken even".

In our model, costs and benefits of Jatropha production and processing are
assessed over a 15-year period. It is assumed that Jatropha starts to produce
substantial amounts of fruits around the third year, with maximum yields after 9
years. Even though Jatropha trees continue producing seeds for a period of 30 to
50 years, an economic lifetime of 15 years is considered realistic, because
benefits made in the far-away future will only make a small difference in the net
present value. The discount rate is an important variable in cost-benefit analysis,
as it adjusts financial values over time10. Usually, discount rates for agricultural

9 Source: http://www.investopedia.com/ (Accessed 6 November 2013)

10 The discount rate is effectively a desired return, or the return that an investor would expect to
receive on some other comparable proposal of equal risk. The discount rate reflects two issues:
1) the fact that a dollar available now is more highly valued than one received later, and 2) the
degree of uncertainty as to whether a future dollar will actually be received (source:
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/planning/costbenefitanalysis/primer/15.htm ).

22
projects vary between 5-15%. In our calculation model, the discount rate can be
adjusted to see the different outcomes.

In economic analysis, it is common practice to carry out a sensitivity analysis.

Such an analysis shows how the results respond to parameter changes, for
instance seedling cost, labour price, labour time, and discount rate. Our
calculation model is set up in such a way that anyone using the model can
calculate the profitability for different parameters by entering different values to
test for sensitivity to changes in these parameters, e.g. the price of diesel, the cost
of labour, the value of carbon credits etc.

4.3 Economic calculation model for Jatropha production and processing by

small producer organisations

In this section, a calculation model is presented for a number of business cases

that could be developed by small producer organisations. The business cases are
focused on the following use options of Jatropha oil11:

1) The use of oil or biodiesel for transport:

In this case, the main assumption is that the diesel that is currently used
by the SPO for transport (in trucks or other vehicles), will be replaced by
Jatropha oil or biodiesel.
2) The use of Jatropha oil or biodiesel to power generators:
In this case, the main assumption is that the diesel that is currently used
by the SPO for electric power generation will be replaced by Jatropha oil
or biodiesel.
3) The use of oil for lighting purposes:
In this case, the main assumption is that the kerosene that is currently
used by households for lighting purposes will be replaced by Jatropha oil.
4) The export of oil:
The main assumption is that the majority of the Jatropha oil produced will
be exported and traded in the international market, for instance for use
by the aviation industry.

A key feature of the calculation model is the way in which the potential income
for farmers and SPOs of Jatropha production and processing is calculated. The
following assumptions have been made:

We have assumed that the economic value of Jatropha oil or biodiesel can
be measured by taking the price of conventional fuel (diesel, kerosene, jet
fuel) as a proxy for the value of Jatropha oil or biodiesel.
For the first two business cases (Transport and Power generation), the
Jatropha oil is actually replacing diesel that would otherwise have to be
bought by the SPO or the farmer, for instance by using Jatropha biodiesel
to fuel a truck for coffee transport, or to power a stationary engine in a
coffee curing factory. In these cases, we have used the price of diesel as a

11 These options have been chosen based on an assessment of local energy utilizations from
Jatropha. See the report Local energy utilization from Jatropha curcas (November 2013).

23
 proxy for the value of Jatropha oil. The savings on fuel expenses are then
considered as income from Jatropha production, as the SPO can use the
money for other purposes instead of buying diesel.
For the business case of lighting, we have used the price of kerosene as a
proxy for the value of Jatropha oil, as most people in rural areas in
developing countries use kerosene to light lanterns. The use of Jatropha
oil by farmers for lighting leads to savings on kerosene expenses as they
can now use Jatropha oil to fuel their lamps. These savings are considered
as income from Jatropha production.
The remaining oil that is not used by the SPO is assumed to be sold on the
local market at the market price of Jatropha oil or biodiesel (where the
price of biodiesel is assumed to be equal to the price of conventional
diesel).
For the case of export, we have assumed that the Jatropha oil can be sold
at the market price of jet fuel, given the high demand for biofuels in the
aviation industry.

In addition, we have taken into account the economic value generated by

channelling back the Jatropha seedcake to farmers for use as fertilizer. Even
though we assume that the farmers will receive the seedcake at zero cost, the
replacement value of organic fertilizer can be monetized, as in our business case
farmers can use the organic fertilizer (e.g. cow manure) for other purposes. The
value attached to the seedcake is currently put at 50% of the market price of
Jatropha seedcake. This lower value is justified by the fact that the value of the
seedcake as fertilizer is necessarily less than what Jatropha takes out of the
ground, as some of the nutrients become part of the tree and some of them are
left with the oil.

Finally, we calculated the income flows from carbon credit generation, based on
the calculation model developed by Bridge Builders12.

Summarizing, for each business case, the following assumptions have been made
with regards to the cost savings and income flows made as a result of the use of
Jatropha (see Table 4).

Table 4: Overview of income flows from Jatropha for 4 business cases

Business case: 1: Use of oil or 2: Use of oil or 3: Use of oil for 4: Export of oil
biodiesel for biodiesel to lighting
transport power stationary
engines
Proxy used for Market price of Market price of Market price of Income from
the value of conventional conventional kerosene as a sales of Jatropha
Jatropha oil: diesel as a proxy diesel as a proxy proxy for the oil on export
for the value of for the value of value of Jatropha market (e.g.
Jatropha oil or Jatropha oil or oil aviation
biodiesel biodiesel industry)
Estimated 50% of market 50% of market 50% of market 50% of market
monetary value price of Jatropha price of Jatropha price of Jatropha price of Jatropha
of seedcake to seedcake seedcake seedcake seedcake
farmers:

12Please refer to the report Carbon Credits from Planting and Utilizing Jatropha Curcas,
Introduction for Small Producer Organizations (Bridge Builders, 2013),

24
Potential income Sequestration Sequestration Sequestration Sequestration
from carbon and emission and emission
credits reductions from reductions from
plant oil use for plant oil in
transport stationary
engines

The presented calculation model enables SPOs to make a first assessment of the
feasibility of Jatropha production and processing.

The model is built up in such a way that the financial consequences of these
different options can be easily assessed, to facilitate the decision making process.

In our model, the different project designs envisaged by the SPO can be
represented through the following variables that need to be filled in by the user:
The number of farmers participating in the Jatropha intercropping
scheme within the organizational setting of an SPO. For this variable, it
needs to be determined how many farmers will be involved in each year.
It is recommended to start with a limited number of farmers participating
in the beginning, with increasing numbers in consecutive years. This will
allow the SPO to train the farmers at a realistic pace and create a
revolving seed distribution system, in which farmers that have planted in
the beginning will deliver seeds to farmers that are adopting later in the
process. For inspiration purposes, three examples are given in the table
below, which includes scenarios for 3,000, 10,000 and 30,000 farmers.
The total land area used for Jatropha intercropping. SPOs need to fill in
the area planted in each year of the project. This can also be used to
calculate the average plot size and length of the Jatropha hedges. For
example, if 10,000 farmers plant on average 0.5 ha. of Jatropha
intercropping, with 300 m. of Jatropha fences around their plots
(assuming an average plot size of 50x100 m.), this means that they have
planted approximately 1.500 km. of Jatropha fences13.
The expected yield per hectare for Jatropha, which depends on the
climatic conditions (rainfall and temperature), ecological zone, and
altitude of the area. In our model, for Jatropha intercropping, a choice can
be made from 1 to 4 tonne of Jatropha seeds per hectare. For Jatropha
hedges, a choice can be made ranging from 0.10 to 1.00 kg of Jatropha
seeds per tree.
Is the SPO planning to use pure plant oil or process it into biodiesel (only
for the 1st and 2nd business case)?
Is the SPO planning to incorporate a carbon credit component as an
additional income generating activity?

13 5,000 ha times 300 metres of fence

25
Table 5: Examples of farmer participation scenarios of Jatropha production
Low Middle High
scenario scenario scenario
No.of No.of No.of
new No. of ha new No. of ha new No. of ha
Year farmers planted farmers planted farmers planted
0 125 62.5 250 125 250 125
1 125 62.5 250 125 500 250
2 250 125 500 250 1250 625
3 500 250 1000 500 2000 1000
4 1000 500 1000 500 2000 1000
5 1000 500 2000 1000 3000 1500
6 0 0 2000 1000 3000 1500
7 0 0 3000 1500 4000 2000
8 0 0 0 0 4000 2000
9 0 0 0 0 5000 2500
10 0 0 0 0 5000 2500
Total 3000 1500 10000 5000 30000 15000

Furthermore, the SPO is encouraged to fill context-specific variables relevant to

the cost-benefit analysis, such as:
the expected development of the diesel, kerosene or jet fuel price
throughout the timeframe of the project
the local opportunity cost of labour
the exchange rate between local currency and the USD and EUR
the local inflation rate
the local applicable tax rate
the relevant discount rate

The calculation model is based on a number of assumptions around the

economic value of Jatropha production. These values are based upon data that
were collected in two ways:

1. Literature review of economic studies on Jatropha (see Chapter 3)

2. Field data collected during the pilot carried out with three SPOs in
Tanzania between 2010 and 2012.

Assumptions for the costs and benefit analysis of Jatropha production

The introduction of Jatropha as an intercropping system does not lead to
decreased food crop production, based on a planting ratio of 40%
Jatropha and 60% food crops14. This assumption is based on higher
agricultural yields due to the introduction of best agricultural practices
and the use of Jatropha seedcake as fertilizer for the food crops. For this
assumption to hold true it is assumed that before introducing Jatropha, no
or very little amounts of fertilizer are used.
The Jatropha yield figures are expected to increase over the years at the
following rate:

14For a full explanation of the Jatropha planting model, please refer to the Jatropha growing
manual by Ab van Peer.

26
Table 6: Estimated growth rate of Jatropha seeds in the first 9 years of
production
Source: based on various studies and estimates by Ab van Peer
Year Yield in year X in % of
maximum yield
1 0%
2 5%
3 25%
4 40%
5 50%
6 65%
7 80%
8 90%
9 100%

Labour requirements for Jatropha production are estimated by combining

the average labour input from three cases, see table below.

Table 7: Labour requirements for Jatropha production

Sources: Van Eijck et al. 2012, Wiggins 2008 and GTZ 2009 (adapted where appropriate):
year 5
Activity year 0 year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 onwards
Land preparation 13
Manuring/Fertilization 4 3 3 3 3 3
Pest and disease control 3 4 4 4 4 4
Planting 11
Re-planting 0 2
Weeding/pruning 12 16 16 10 4 4
Total labour days 43 25 23 17 11 11

Labour requirements for harvesting are based on the assumption that 40

kg seeds can be harvested per person per day, 25 man days are needed to
harvest 1 ton of Jatropha seeds. Post-harvest activities (dehulling) are
assumed to require 10% of the labour demand for harvesting.

Assumptions for the costs and benefit analysis of Jatropha processing15

It is assumed that 1.05 litre of Jatropha oil is needed to replace 1 litre of
diesel for power generation or transport purposes, because of the lower
energy content. The same goes for biodiesel.
It is assumed that the Jatropha seeds are dehusked on the farm, and that
the volumes produced are net volumes after dehusking.
Conversion rates for oil and seedcake content and shells/husks volumes
for local mechanical expelling are assumed as follows:
o Oil content of 25% (4 kg of seeds needed to produce 1 lt oil)

15The sources of the data mentioned can be found in the calculation model in Excel (provided as
an annex to this report).

27
 o Seedcake content of 75% (1 kg of seeds gives 0.75 kg of seedcake).
This includes the shells, which are assumed to be pressed as well
during the processing into oil.
Farmer extension services are estimated at US$ 70 per farmer for 3
training cycles. This is based on the average costs of 4 Farmer Field
School programs in West-Africa.
The SPO buys the seeds from the farmer at cost price, which may differ
per location and which is calculated in the model. Worldwide, the prices
vary between USD 0.07 to 0.20 per kilogram of seed.
For the transport cost of seeds to the oil extraction unit, we have used an
average cost price of US$ 0.04 per kg. of Jatropha seeds (based on data
provided in Van Eijck et al. 2012).
For the oil extraction cost, we have used an average cost price of US$ 0.14
per liter, including labour, fuel cost and material cost (also based on Van
Eijck et al. 2012)
Management cost of oil extraction unit is estimated at 7% of oil extraction
cost
Taxes: no taxes are applicable when the oil is used directly by the SPO or
by farmers; in case the oil is sold on the local market or exported, the local
income tax rate is applicable.

4.4 The case of Tanzania: application of the calculation model for a fictitious
SPO

To illustrate the use of the calculation model, the model has been filled out for
the fictitious case of an SPO in Tanzania. While reading this chapter, it is
recommended to open the calculation model Excel sheet (provided as an annex
to this report). A user’s guide to the calculation model is provided in the Annex to
this report. All important inputs and outputs are found in the Cockpit of the Excel
sheet, and this is where the values below should be entered. The other tabs are
only for reference purpose, for instance if a user would like to know in detail
which costs and benefits are involved in the production or processing of
Jatropha, or in the generation of carbon credits.

For this case, the following project design inputs have been entered in the model
(same values for all 4 business cases):
A total of 1,000 jatropha plants per hectare of field is planted
The fraction of the field covered with jatropha plants is 40%
There are 3 trees per meter of hedge/fence planted around each plot
A total of 10,000 farmers is participating in the project, who are
increasingly participating during the first 8 years of the project
The average planting area covered with Jatropha intercropping is 0.5 ha,
amounting to a total area of 5,000 ha. for the SPO as a whole
An average of 5 kg of Nitrogen is applied per hectare as fertilizer for the
Jatropha trees

28
 Daily labour wage = 3500 TZS (Tanzania shilling)
Local price of diesel (per lt) = 2000 TZS
Local jatropha oil price (per lt) = 1500 TZS
Local jatropha seedcake price (per kg) = 100 TZS
Discount rate = 15%
Inflation rate = 3%
Applicable tax rate = 30%

In addition, the following project design inputs have been entered specifically
(same values for all business case):

Business case 1: Transport

Truck conversion cost for plant oil

Investment cost for modifying engine

of 1 truck for using Jatropha plant oil
(in local currency) 2.000.000

Additional maintenance cost for 1

truck per year (in local currency) 500.000

Number of trucks modified 10

Amount of diesel use expected

without the project (in tons) 5.000

Local price of Diesel (local currency

per liter) 2.000

Business case 2: Generator

Generator conversion cost for plant oil
Investment cost for modifying 1
generator for using Jatropha plant
oil (in local currency) 1.500.000
Additional maintenance cost per
year for 1 generator (in local
currency) 500.000

Number of generators modified 25

Maximum capacity per generator
(kW) 100
Amount of diesel use expected
without the project (in tons) 5.000
Local price of Diesel (local currency
per liter) 2.000

Business case 3: Lighting

Oil use planning

Local price of kerosene (local

currency per lt) 2000,00

29
Total number of households using
jatropha oil for lighting 15.000

Business case 4: Export

Export costs - Jatropha (in US$/ tonne)
Storage cost (SPO level) 25,00
Transport cost (from SPO to port) 60,00
Insurance cost 300,00
Storage cost (before exporting from
port) 50,00
Shipping cost (to country of
destination) 500,00
Freight charges 50,00

International market price - Jatropha

International market price for jet
fuel (US$ per gallon) 2,78
International market price for jet
fuel (US$ per liter) 0,73

Finally, for all four business cases we have selected the same scenarios to make
the outcomes comparable:
Hedge/
Key project design elements Intercropping - Fence -
scenario selection Seed yield yield in yield in
scenarios tonne/hectare kg/metre

Use of plant oil or

biodiesel Plant Oil Conservative 1,00 0,10
% of diesel
substituted 100% Average 2,00 0,20
Carbon credits for
biofuel use Yes Optimistic 3,00 0,50
Carbon credits for
jatropha planting Yes Maximum 4,00 1,00
Select Yield
Scenario 2,00 0,20

Diesel price scenario

(how the price of diesel changes over Carbon credit price scenarios
the years, ranging from -5% to +10%)
Select Price Scenario 1% Conservative $ 5,00
Average $ 7,00
Optimistic $ 9,00
Maximum $ 15,00
Select Price $ 7,00
Scenario

30
After filling in the above values, the results are summarized in a number of tables
and graphs in the Cockpit of the excel sheet (illustrated below for business case
1: Oil for Transport):
Total 15 years

98.952
Total project seed production (tons)

Total project seedcake production 74.214

(tons)

Total biofuel production 24.738

(plant oil or biodiesel, in tons)
% of targeted diesel use replaced by 94%
jatropha biofuel

Biofuel remaining for sale 19.810

(plant oil or biodiesel, in tons)

Figure 3.1.1: Plant oil and seedcake production (in tons)

14.000,00
12.000,00
10.000,00 Total project
seedcake
8.000,00
production
6.000,00
Total project plant
4.000,00
oil production
2.000,00
-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

Figure 3.1.2: Biofuel or biodiesel production for own use and for sale (in tons)
5.000

4.000 Total biofuel

3.000 substituting own
diesel use
2.000
Total biofuel
1.000 remaining for sale

-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

31
Figure 3.2.1: Annual cost of seed production divided in labor and cash costs

1.600.000

1.400.000

1.200.000

1.000.000

800.000 Total labor costs

600.000 Total cash costs

400.000

200.000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415

Figure 3.3.1: Breakdown of revenues

6.000.000

5.000.000 Value of Jatropha

seedcake used as organic
fertilizer (at 50% of
4.000.000 market price)
Value of Jatropha oil
3.000.000 available for sales on
local market or other use
2.000.000
Value of Jatropha oil
replacing diesel
1.000.000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415

Figure 3.3.2: Breakdown of costs

3.500.000
Diesel for start-up of
3.000.000 engine
Diesel for first years
2.500.000
Training cost
2.000.000

Management cost
1.500.000

1.000.000 Oil extraction

500.000 Maintenance cost

0 Investment cost
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

32
Figure 3.3.3: Net profit beforre tax

Net profit before Tax

800.000
700.000
600.000
500.000
400.000
300.000
200.000
100.000
0
-100.000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

-200.000

Figure 3.5.1: Total volume of carbon credits generated

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

From planting trees From using biofuels

33
 Yearly finance balance (plant Cumulative cashflow
oil) balance (plant oil)
€1.000.000 €4.000.000

€800.000
€3.000.000
€600.000
€2.000.000
€400.000
€200.000 €1.000.000
€0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 €0
-€200.000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415
-€400.000 -€1.000.000

Yearly cashflow Cumulative balance

As a final output to the model, the internal rate of return and net present value of
the different business cases are calculated. For our fictitious case, this leads to
the following results:
Results: Financial
projections for the Business case 1: Business case 2:
Business Case (in case of Oil for Oil for power Business case 3: Business case 4:
plant oil production) transport generation Oil for lighting Oil for export
-46% negative value* 5% negative value*
IRR 5 years
18% 17% 48% negative value*
IRR 10 years
26% 25% 50% negative value*
IRR 15 years
Total Net Present Value $ 505.841 $ 466.355 $ 766.008 $ -4.739.895
(over 15 years)
Total cashflow for $ 3.756.675 $ 3.657.014 $ 3.274.373 $ -22.894.519
business case (not
discounted)
NPV per hectare (over 15 $ 101 $ 93 $ 153 $ -948
years)
NPV per hectare (per $ 7 $ 6 $ 10 $ -63
year)
*: No result given in Excel model because values are too extreme.

For this fictitious case, the following preliminary conclusions can be drawn16:
The Internal Rate of Return is highest for the case of Lighting (50% after
15 years), compared to 26% for Transport and 25% for Power
generation.
The net present value over 15 years is also highest for the case of
Lighting, amounting to a total of around US$ 766,000, followed by
Transport and Power generation.
Interestingly, the total cash flow (not discounted) is highest in the case of
Transport, which is caused by the fact that towards the end of the project,

16N.B. these results should not be interpreted as general conclusions about Jatropha production
but serve as an example only.

34
 revenues are much higher than in the case of Lighting. Due to the
discounting method used for cost-benefit analysis, these revenues are
worth less than revenues earned earlier in the lifetime of a project.
The case of Export yields a negative IRR and NPV so should be
disregarded in terms of economic feasibility. The main reason for this
negative outcome is the low market price for jet fuel compared to diesel,
as well as the high transport cost for shipping Jatropha oil to export
markets.

The model allows users to compare investment levels of the different business
cases, for instance how much upfront capital is needed for setting up a Jatropha
processing capacity or for adaptation of engines.

When looking specifically at the potential revenues from carbon credit projects,
the following can be concluded:

The IRR from carbon sequestration is positive in all four business cases.
IRR amounts to 42% after 15 years, while NPV is around US$ 300,000.
For carbon credits from emission reductions, the IRR is negative (-6%)17.
This is caused by the fact that emission reductions only start to generate
revenues very late in the project cycle, while the expenses made earlier
on for registration are significant.

The results presented above offer only a first glimpse of the full range of
possibilities of the model. By changing the switches that determine a number of
key variables, specifically the use of plant oil or biodiesel, the % of diesel
substituted and the inclusion of a carbon credit generation project, users can see
which case provides the best economic perspective. The same goes for the
following variables that can be adapted: expected change in diesel price,
expected Jatropha seed yield and expected carbon credit price. This is best
demonstrated by using the model and “playing around” with it by changing the
key variables.

17 Only applicable in the cases of Transport and Power generation.

35
 5. Final remarks and recommendations

On the basis of a number of earlier economic studies and own field data
collection, an economic calculation model was designed for Small Producer
Organisations (SPOs) that are considering Jatropha production and processing.

The model can be used to assess the feasibility of Jatropha production and
processing based on specific inputs provided by SPOs that are considering to
start Jatropha farming. The added value of this model lies in the fact that it can be
used in the early stages of deciding on whether or not the use of Jatropha in an
intercropping model would make an interesting business case. This should
always be followed by a more rigorous exercise with the help of a business
development consultant, providing a more tailor made business plan.

The calculation model is based on the most recent academic insights as well as
the results of the Jatropha planting pilot in Tanzania. However, it is important to
realize that the model has not yet been field tested. After sharing the calculation
model for use by small producer organizations, it would be useful to incorporate
the feedback from the first generation of users, not only to improve the model
but also to find out whether the model is actually responding to the needs of
SPOs.

36
List of Literature

Beerens, P. (2007). Screw-pressing of Jatropha seeds for fuelling purposes

in less developed countries. Eindhoven University of Technology
Bridge Builders (2013) Carbon Credits from Planting and Utilizing
Jatropha Curcas, Introduction for Small Producer Organizations
Dorp, M. van (2011). Local energy utilization from Jatropha curcas: state
of the art and practical applications. Interim report for the Jatropha
Fairtrade Feasibility study
Eijck, J. van et al. (2010). Jatropha Assessment – Agronomy, socio-
economic issues, and ecology. Facts from literature. Commissioned by NL
Agency
Eijck, J. van, Smeets, E., and Faaij, A. (2012). The economic performance of
jatropha, cassava and Eucalyptus production systems for energy in an
East African smallholder setting. GCB Bioenergy 4, 828-845.
Eijck, J. van et al. (2013). Jatropha sustainability assessment, data from
Tanzania, Mali & Mozambique. Commissioned by NL Agency
FACT Foundation (2010). Jatropha, retrospective and future
development. Paper for Jatropha Conference, Groningen, Nov. 1-2, 2010
Farioli, F. & Portale, E. (2009). Good Practice Assessment for Bioenergy
Projects – Diligent Tanzania
GTZ (2009). Jatropha Reality Check – A field assessment of the agronomic
and economic viability of Jatropha and other oilseed crops
IEA Bioenergy (2012). The potential and role of biofuels in commercial air
transport – Biojetfuel.
Peer, A. van (2009). Growing Jatropha. Including propagation methods for
Jatropha curcas and production and use of Jatropha products. Manual
developed in the frame of the Feasibility study Fairtrade certification
Jatropha.
Prakash, S. (undated). Meta-evaluation of 6 Hivos Biofuel projects.
Vyahumu Trust (undated). Production of the Sayari oil expeller.
www.jatropha.de (accessed on 03/10/2011)
Wahl N. et al. (2009). Economic viability of Jatropha curcas L. plantations
in Northern Tanzania – Assessing farmers’ prospects via cost-benefit
analysis
Wiggins, S., Fioretti, E., Keane J. et al. (2008). Review of the indirect effects
of biofuels: economic benefits and food insecurity. Overseas Development
Institute, UK
Wiskerke, W.T., Dornburg, V., Rubanza, C.D.K. et al. (2010). Cost/benefit
analysis of biomass energy supply options for rural smallholders in the
semi-arid eastern part of Shinyanga Region in Tanzania. In: Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 14, Issue 1, January 2010,
p.148-165

37
Annex: User’s Guide to the Jatropha calculation model
In this annex, a short guide to the use of the calculation model is provided18.

Introduction to the calculation model

This calculation model is specifically designed for Small Producer Organisations
to enable them to assess the feasibility of Jatropha production and processing,
including the use of carbon credits. There are 4 different business cases under
this calculation model:
1) The use of oil or biodiesel for transport:
In this case, the main assumption is that the diesel that is currently used
by the SPO for transport (in trucks or other vehicles), will be replaced by
Jatropha oil or biodiesel.
2) The use of Jatropha oil or biodiesel to power generators:
In this case, the main assumption is that the diesel that is currently used
by the SPO for electric power generation, will be replaced by Jatropha oil
or biodiesel.
3) The use of oil for lighting purposes:
In this case, the main assumption is that the kerosene that is currently
used by households for lighting purposes will be replaced by Jatropha oil.
4) The export of oil:
The main assumption is that the majority of the Jatropha oil produced will
be exported and traded in the international market, for instance for use
by the aviation industry.

Choices to be made before using the model

In the calculation model, two important choices should be made:
1. Is the SPO planning to use Jatropha for the production of pure plant oil (PPO)
or will it be processed into biodiesel?
2. Is the SPO planning to incorporate a carbon credit component as an additional
income generating activity?

The model is built up in such a way that the financial consequences of these
different options can be easily assessed, to facilitate the decision making process.
The calculation model is meant to fit all circumstances and is therefore very
general. Hence, it helps with an initial cost-benefit analysis of a project. A more
customized model, developed with a business development expert, will be
needed for a more precise financial model of your particular project.

Using different scenarios

It is important to try out different scenarios, in order to understand how each of
the factors in your project affects the final result. For example, an increase in the
diesel price of 5% per year could have an enormous positive effect, but the same
decrease may make the project completely unviable. This type of projects involve
large fixed costs, and increasing the scale of the project (number of hectares
planted) may sometimes increase the profitability of the project.

18The calculation model is provided as an Excel sheet, which should be opened when reading
these instructions.

38
Key assumptions
The project also assumes that you are able to replace your own diesel
consumption with Jatropha oil or biodiesel, and sell the remaining Jatropha oil or
biodiesel at the price of conventional diesel. This may not be possible in all
circumstances. It is very important to assess the market for plant oil and
biodiesel and ensure you can sell these products before you undertake a project
of this type.

How is the model built up?

The calculation model consists of two parts, one part that allows users to enter
the key information about the project, and the remaining tabs allowing users to
get more detailed insight in the calculations. The different tabs are explained
here:
Cockpit This tab allows you to enter key information about your project
and summarizes the main outcomes. In this tab, you can do three
things: 1. You can enter the main project design inputs, 2. You can
indicate which scenario you want to calculate and 3. You can find
the results of the calculation model. The financial outcomes will
change automatically if you change the input variables and
scenarios, allowing you to play with the model.
Cashflow In this tab, you can see the cashflow that the business case
generates under the inputs and scenarios that you selected.
Values This tab includes the fixed values used for financial projections of
Jatropha production and processing
Oil Here you will find the volumes of Jatropha seeds and oil produced
and the volumes of diesel that will be replaced
Seed cost In this tab, you will see the break-even price of Jatropha seeds that
price will be used in the calculation model
Plant oil This tab provides a breakdown of the revenues, expenses and
financial results in case of plant oil production
Biodiesel This tab is similar to the "Plant oil" tab, but then in the case of
further processing into biodiesel
Carbon Here you will find the basic assumptions and conditions that you
Credits need to fulfill to become eligible for a carbon credit project
intro
Carbon Here you will see a breakdown of the revenues, expenses and
credits ER financial results in case of carbon credits generation through
emissions reduction (reduced carbon emissions by replacing fossil
fuels by Jatropha oil or biodiesel)
Carbon This tab is similar to the "Carbon credits ER" tab, but then in the
credits SEQ case of sequestration (storing carbon through the planting of
Jatropha trees)
References This tab includes a list of references that are used in the
calculation model

39