Comparative life cycle analysis of producing charcoal from bamboo, teak, and acacia species in Ghana

  • Samuel T. Partey
  • Oliver B. Frith
  • Michael Y. Kwaku
  • Daniel A. Sarfo


Background, aim, and scope

The rise in wood fuel consumption, particularly of charcoal, has been associated with increased deforestation in Ghana. Plantation developments from teak (Tectona grandis), bamboo (Bambusa balcooa), and Acacia auriculiformis are now being promoted to produce sustainable biomass for charcoal production. While all species have comparable charcoal quality, there is limited available data to elucidate the environmental impacts associated with their plantation development and use as biomass sources for producing charcoal. Therefore, this study quantified and compared the cradle-to-gate environmental impacts of producing charcoal from T. grandis, A. auriculiformis, and B. balcooa.


The study was conducted in accordance with ISO 14040/14044, an international procedural framework for performing life cycle analysis (LCA). For this study, the functional unit of charcoal used was 1 MJ energy produced from three species: T. grandis, A. auriculiformis, and B. balcooa. Data on B. balcooa plantations was collected from a B. balcooa-based intercropping system set up by the International Network for Bamboo and Rattan in Sekyere Central District, Ghana. Input data for A. auriculiformis and T. grandis came from the Forestry Commission of Ghana plantations established within the forest agroecological zone of Ghana. All input data came from primary local sources. Pollutant emissions were also calculated in order to analyze the contribution of all the flow processes to the emissions. The analysis used Simapro version 8, as well as life cycle inventory (LCI) databases of Ecoinvent V3 and Idemat 2015 (a database developed by Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands). The emissions were expressed as eco-costs and used as indicators in an impact assessment.

Results and discussion

The results showed that relative to B. balcooa, the total eco-cost (comprising of human health, ecosystem, resource depletion, and global warming eco-costs) of a cradle-to-gate production of 1 MJ of charcoal will be 140% higher with T. grandis and 113% higher with A. auriculiformis. The increased environmental impacts associated with T. grandis and A. auriculiformis occurred at their biomass production stage. As these species use comparatively large quantities of pesticides, weedicides, and fertilizers with high acidification, ozone depletion, and global warming potentials, their biomass production stage accounted for approximately 85% of their total eco-cost.


The study results suggest that B. balcooa plantations are the most environmentally viable option. In cases where T. grandis or A. auriculiformis plantations are widespread, improvement options at the biomass production stage are required in order to reduce their environmental costs.


Charcoal Eco-cost Forest plantation Life cycle analysis Wood fuels 



This research was carried out as an activity of BiomassWeb (grant no. 031A258A), a project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the context of the initiative GlobE “Securing the Global Food Supply”. BiomassWeb is managed by the Center for Development Research, Universität of Bonn, Germany. The authors wish to also thank Prof. J. Vogtländer, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, for sharing the Idemat 2015 database.


  1. Agyemang KO, Amponsah O, Braimah I, Lurumuah S (2012) Commercial charcoal production and sustainable community development of the upper west region, Ghana. J Sustain Dev 5:149–164Google Scholar
  2. Brentrup F, Küsters J, Lammel J, Kuhlmann H (2000) Methods to estimate on-field nitrogen emissions from crop production as an input to LCA studies in the agricultural sector. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brentrup F, Küsters J, Kuhlmann H, Lammel J (2004) Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment methodology: I. Theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored to crop production. Eur J Agron 20:247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eco-cost value website (2016) The model of the eco-costs/value ratio (EVR)
  5. Energy Commission of Ghana (2015) National Energy Statistics 2005–2014. Available at Accessed on 15th November 2015
  6. FAO (2010) Global forest resources assessment 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  7. FAO, JRC (2012) Global forest land-use change 1990–2005. FAO forestry paper, 169Google Scholar
  8. Fernández-Moya J, Alvarado A, San Miguel-Ayanz A, Marchamalo-Sacristán M (2014) Forest nutrition and fertilization in teak (Tectona grandis Lf) plantations in Central America. New Zeal J For Sci 44(Suppl 1):S6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fuwape JA (1993) Charcoal and fuel value of agroforestry tree crops. Agroforest Syst 22:175–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Growmore Biotech Ltd (2015) Development of Beema. Available at Accessed on 18th October, 2015
  11. Hauschild M (2000) Estimating pesticide emissions for LCA of agricultural products. In: Weidema BP, Meeusen MJG (eds) Agricultural data for life cycle assessment, vol II. Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  12. Heathwaite L (2000) Flows of phosphorous in the environment: identifying pathways of loss from agricultural land. In: Weidema BP, Meeusen MJG (eds) Agricultural data for life cycle assessment, vol 2. Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  13. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006). ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  14. ITTO (2005) Ghana country profile, Status of tropical forest management (2005). []. Accessed on 1st April, 2015
  15. Karmacharya SB, Singh KP (1992) Biomass and net production of teak plantations in a dry tropical region in India. Forest Ecol Manag 55:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kraenzel M, Castillo A, Moore T, Potvin C (2003) Carbon storage of harvest-age teak (Tectona grandis) plantations, Panama. Forest Ecol Manag 173:213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM, Haile SG (2009) Soil carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems: a feasibility appraisal. Sustainability impact assessment and land-use policies for sensitive regions. Environ Sci Technol 12:1099–1111Google Scholar
  18. Narayanaswamy V, Altham J, Van Berkel R, McGregor M (2002) A primer on environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) for Australian grains. Curtin University of Technology, Australia Google Scholar
  19. Ntiamoah A, Afrane G (2008) Environmental impacts of cocoa production and processing in Ghana: life cycle assessment approach. J Clean Prod 16:1735–1740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Obiri BD, Oteng-Amoako AA (2007) Towards a sustainable development of the bamboo industry in Ghana. Ghana J Forest 21:14–27Google Scholar
  21. Orwa C, Mutua A, Kindt R, Jamnadass R, Anthony S (2009) Agroforestree Database: a tree reference and selection guide version 4.0. (
  22. Oteng-Amoako A, Sarfo D (2005) Development of teak plantations in Ghana: propagation, processing, utilization and marketing. In ITTO/Kerala Forest Research Institute International Conference on Quality Timber Products of Teak from Sustainable Forest Management, Peechi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  23. Rousset P, Aguiar C, Labbé N, Commandré JM (2011) Enhancing the combustible properties of bamboo by torrefaction. Bioresour Technol 102:8225–8231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shanmughavel P, Francis K (1996) Biomass and nutrient cycling in bamboo (Bambusa bambos) plantations of tropical areas. Biol Fert Soils 23:431–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van der Lugt P, Vogtländer J, Brezet H (2008) Bamboo, a sustainable solution for Western Europe: design cases LCAs and land-use. Centre for Indian Bamboo Resource and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  26. Vogtländer J, Van der Lugt P, Brezet H (2010) The sustainability of bamboo products for local and Western European applications. LCAs and land-use J Cleaner Prod 18:1260–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel T. Partey
    • 1
    • 2
  • Oliver B. Frith
    • 1
  • Michael Y. Kwaku
    • 1
  • Daniel A. Sarfo
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR), International Forestry Research CenterFumesua-KumasiGhana
  2. 2.Faculty of Renewable Natural ResourcesKwame Nkrumah University of Science and TechnologyKumasiGhana
  3. 3.Center for Development Research (ZEF)University of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations