International Consultation on Pro-Poor Jatropha Development IFAD, Rome, April 10-11, 2008

1. International Consultation on Pro-Poor Jatropha DevelopmentIFAD, Rome, April 10-11, 2008 Foundation Perspectives on Financing Pro-Poor Jatropha Development: The Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (SFSA) Marco Ferroni Executive Director SFSA

2. „Benefiting Resource-Poor Communities in Semi-Arid Areas in Developing Countries through Sustainable Innovation in Agriculture“ • R&D (agronomy, genomics, ...). • Feasibility assessments (technical, economic, supply chain). • Business model and partnership development. • Stakeholder analysis. • Initial implementation. • Monitoring and evaluation. • Partnering and fundraising for scaling up (incl. carbon finance). „Proof of concept“

3. Bioenergy Supply Routes and Technology Options Primary production feedstocks Pre- processing/ transport Conversion Post- processing/ transport End use/ final energy vector Sector • Transport fuel • Electricity • CHP • Drying • Cooking and lighting Sector • Forestry • Agriculture • Waste Sector • Transport fuel • Electricity • Combined heat and power (CHP) • Polygeneration Supply Demand Preprocessing, such as drying, milling, dehusking Storage, blending, modification, additives Quality Composition Scale Logistics Quality Composition Scale Logistics R&D entry points • Breeding • Water use efficiency • Nutrient use efficiency • Environmental management • Biotechnology • Policy/social development R&D entry points • 1st generation – Fermentation – Esterification – Combustion • 2nd generation – Gasification – Enzymes – Catalysis (thermo) – Pyrolysis – Pelletization R&D entry points • Infrastructure – Refueling – Distribution • Scale – Large – Medium – Small/micro • Integration – Hydro – Solar thermal – Conventional Technology Source: J. Woods/IFPRI, 2006.

4. Small- and Large-Scale Bioenergy Development Options Large-scale bioenergy development • Sugarcane to ethanol • Palm/soy/jatropha to biodiesel Small-scale bioenergy development • Sweet sorghum microdistillery • Woodlot gasification electricity • Village-scale biogas system Jatropha Mill-owned estate • Very competitive globally Smallholder-led production • Higher cost base • Less globally competitive Multiproduct cropping (e.g., sweet sorghum) • Economics uncertain Single bioenergy product (e.g., multi-species woodlot) Complex value added to local communities • High risk • Complex food fuel-cash-crop interactions • Suitable for local markets • Social organization issues Value added to local communities • High risk • Suitable for local markets • Social organization issues Little value added to local communities • High export potential High value added to local communities • Low export potential Source: J. Woods/IFPRI, 2006 (adapted).

5. Elements of Hypothetical Pro-Poor Jatropha Project (Joint Venture): I Objectives: • Production (t of seed/year). • Processing (t of biodiesel/year). • Electricity (MWh/year), from seedcake and shells combustion. • Village energy needs (%/year). • Carbon credit generation (t CO2e). • Rural development: employment, income, energy security.

6. Hypothetical Project Structure Source: Eco-Carbone (Novartis Proposal), 2007.

7. Elements of Hypothetical Pro-Poor Jatropha Project (Joint Venture): II Business plan and financing: • Yield and production target. • Availability of inputs. • Processing capability. • Community (bio)diesel needs. • Partnership with biodiesel buyer. • Partnership with electricity producer. • Capitalizing on byproducts/glycerine. • Partnership with NGO/rural development. • Start-up funding; „patient capital“, link up with credit programs. • Training, capacity building.

8. Bioenergy and Rural Development • While food / fuel / cash crop / off-farm employment interactions are complex, value creation from biofuels in smallholder communities seems possible. • For an entity such as SFSA, biofuels thus are a potential area of intervention that cannot be ignored.