Biomass Energy Potential from Afforestation in Rajasthan

Biomass Energy Production Potential and Supply from Afforestation of
Wasteland in Rajasthan India
Mujgan Omary
Studentnr:
Utrecht University
Department of Science, Technology and Society
Master program: Energy Science
First supervisor (NL): Mr. B. Batidzirai MSc
Second supervisor (NL): Prof. Dr. A.P.C. Faaij
Supervisor (India): Prof. Dr V. V. N. Kishore

1
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................. 5
1.1.1 Research question........................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1.2 Scope and limitation ....................................................................................................................................... 6
2 WASTELANDS IN INDIA........................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 WASTELAND CATEGORIES.................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.1 Wasteland categorization by Directorate of Economics and Statistics........................................................... 8
2.1.2 Wasteland categorization by NRSA ................................................................................................................ 9
2.2 AVAILABILITY OF WASTELANDS IN INDIA AND THEIR SUITABILITY FOR PLANTATION ........................................ 10
2.2.1 Scrubland...................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.2 Degraded forest ............................................................................................................................................ 13
2.2.3 Sand dunes and sands-desertic..................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 REHABILITATION OF WASTELANDS .................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.5 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................................... 16
3 AFFORESTATION ................................................................................................................................................. 17
3.1 AFFORESTATION PROGRAMMES ......................................................................................................................... 18
3.1.1 Progress and achievements of afforestation programmes in India............................................................... 19
3.2 FEASIBILITY OF AFFORESTATION........................................................................................................................ 21
3.3 SMALL SCALE AFFORESTATION PROJECTS .......................................................................................................... 23
3.4 WASTELAND RECLAMATION AND BIOENERGY IN RAJASTHAN............................................................................ 25
3.5 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.6 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................................... 27
4 BIOMASS-BASED POWER................................................................................................................................... 29
4.1 BIOMASS POTENTIAL FROM WASTELANDS.......................................................................................................... 30
4.2 PROSOPIS JULIFLORA.......................................................................................................................................... 31
4.3 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................................... 33
5 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................................... 34
5.1 STATE AND WASTELAND SELECTION .................................................................................................................. 34
5.1.1 Study area..................................................................................................................................................... 37
5.2 YIELD ESTIMATION ............................................................................................................................................ 37
5.2.1 Soil................................................................................................................................................................ 38
5.2.2 Slope ............................................................................................................................................................. 42
5.2.3 Climate.......................................................................................................................................................... 44
5.3 SOIL AND TERRAIN, AND CLIMATE INDEX........................................................................................................... 44
5.4 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................................. 46
5.5 SUPPLY CHAINS PERFORMANCE.......................................................................................................................... 47
5.6 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... 49
5.7 LIMITATION IN METHODOLOGY AND DATA......................................................................................................... 49
6 DATA INPUT........................................................................................................................................................... 50
6.1 STATE AND WASTELAND SELECTION: RAJASTHAN ............................................................................................. 50
6.1.1 Soil rating ..................................................................................................................................................... 55
6.1.2 Climate rating............................................................................................................................................... 59
6.1.3 Climate rating and yield calculation............................................................................................................. 59
6.2 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................................. 60
6.3 SUPPLY CHAINS PERFORMANCE.......................................................................................................................... 62
6.4 FREIGHT TRANSPORT AND ROAD CONNECTIVITY................................................................................................ 64
6.4.1 Road connectivity and road density of Rajasthan......................................................................................... 64
7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................... 66
7.1 BIOMASS POTENTIAL.......................................................................................................................................... 66

2
7.2 COST OF BIOMASS PRODUCTION DISTRICT-WISE................................................................................................. 71
7.3 TRANSPORTATION COST OF SELECTED BIOMASS SUPPLY CHAINS ....................................................................... 73
7.3.1 Biomass supply to thermal power plants (Co-firing).................................................................................... 74
7.3.2 Supply of biomass to biomass-based power plants....................................................................................... 80
7.3.3 Large scale biomass power plant.................................................................................................................. 84
7.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN COSTS OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION ........................................................................... 85
7.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... 88
7.6 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 91
7.6.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 91
7.6.2 Data .............................................................................................................................................................. 92
7.6.3 Comparison with other studies ..................................................................................................................... 93
7.6.4 Achievability of large scale plantation ......................................................................................................... 93
8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION...................................................................................................... 95
8.1 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................................... 95
8.2 RECOMMENDATION............................................................................................................................................ 97
9 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................................... 98
10 APPENDICES........................................................................................................................................................ 105
10.1 APPENDIX I WASTELAND RAJASTHAN ............................................................................................................. 105
10.2 APPENDIX II SOIL CHARACTERISTICS OF RAJASTHAN ...................................................................................... 106
10.3 APPENDIX III SOIL MAPPING UNIT OF RAJASTHAN DISTRICT-WISE ................................................................... 114
10.4 APPENDIX IV SLOPE......................................................................................................................................... 115
10.5 APPENDIX V CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS........................................................................................................ 116
10.6 APPENDIX VI DISTRICT-WISE PRE-MONSOON GROUNDWATER LEVEL MAPS..................................................... 118
10.7 APPENDIX VII NURSERY RAISING COSTS.......................................................................................................... 131
10.8 APPENDIX VIII COST CALCULATION OF BIOMASS CHIPPING CO-FIRING............................................................ 132
10.9 APPENDIX IX COST CALCULATION OF BIOMASS DRYING (CO-FIRING).............................................................. 133
10.10 APPENDIX X COST CALCULATION OF BIOMASS SIZING (CO-FIRING)............................................................. 134
10.11 APPENDIX XI COST CALCULATION OF BIOMASS PELLETIZING (CO-FIRING).................................................. 135
10.12 APPENDIX XII COST CALCULATION OF CHIPPING FOR SMALL SCALE BIOMASS POWER PLANTS.................... 136
10.13 APPENDIX XIII COST CALCULATION OF DRYING FOR SMALL SCALE BIOMASS POWER PLANTS..................... 137
10.14 APPENDIX XII COST CALCULATION OF SIZING FOR SMALL SCALE BIOMASS POWER PLANTS........................ 138
10.15 APPENDIX XII COST CALCULATION OF PELLETIZING FOR SMALL SCALE BIOMASS POWER PLANTS .............. 139
10.16 APPENDIX XVI DISTANCE BETWEEN DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS.................................................................. 140
10.17 APPENDIX XIII STATE-WISE ROAD LENGTH AND ROAD DENSITY ................................................................. 141
10.18 APPENDIX XIV VILLAGE CONNECTIVITY..................................................................................................... 142
10.19 APPENDIX XIX PRICE OF NON-COKING COAL ............................................................................................. 143
10.20 APPENDIX XX RAILWAY FREIGHT RATE AND GOODS CLASSIFICATION ........................................................ 144
10.21 APPENDIX XXI ESTIMATED COST OF SELECTED SUPPLY CHAINS BIOMASS POWER PLANTS FROM DISTRICTS
WITH THE LOWEST COST OF SUPPLY .............................................................................................................................. 145
10.22 APPENDIX VXII DISTRICT-WISE ESTIMATED COST OF SELECTED SUPPLY CHAINS BIOMASS BASED POWER
PLANTS 147
10.23 APPENDIX XXIII COST OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION BIOMASS BASED POWER PLANTS .............................. 151
10.24 APPENDIX XXIV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS DISCOUNT RATE, LABOUR WAGES AND YIELD ............................. 153

3
List of Figures
FIGURE 1 SHARE OF HARD COAL TRADE ................................................................................................................................ 5
FIGURE 2 CUMULATIVE AFFORESTED AREA......................................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 3 AVERAGE SURVIVAL PERCENTAGE IN THE SAMPLED PLANTATIONS FOR DIFFERENT BIO-GEOGRAPHICAL ZONE... 21
FIGURE 4 YEAR-WISE SURVIVAL UNDER VARIOUS MODELS ................................................................................................. 22
FIGURE 5 BIOMASS-BASED INSTALLED CAPACITY ACROSS SOME STATES OF INDIA TILL 2009 (MW) .................................. 29
FIGURE 6 YEAR WISE CAPACITY INCREASE IN BIOMASS BASED POWER ............................................................................... 29
FIGURE 7 CRITERIA FOR THE STATE CHOICE......................................................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 8 STATE SELECTION ................................................................................................................................................ 36
FIGURE 9 SOIL MAP OF RAJASTHAN DISTRICT-WISE............................................................................................................. 38
FIGURE 10 SOIL RATING ...................................................................................................................................................... 39
FIGURE 11 SOIL RATING OF LAND WITH SCRUB AND DEGRADED FORESTS ........................................................................... 39
FIGURE 12 SOIL RATING BIKANER DISTRICT ........................................................................................................................ 40
FIGURE 13 SOIL’S TEXTURAL CLASSES ................................................................................................................................ 41
FIGURE 14 YIELD ESTIMATION SAND-DUNES ....................................................................................................................... 41
FIGURE 15 SLOPE MAP OF RAJASTHAN ................................................................................................................................ 42
FIGURE 16 SLOPE RATING STEPS.......................................................................................................................................... 43
FIGURE 17 SLOPE AND WASTELAND MAP OF BIKANER ........................................................................................................ 43
FIGURE 18 PRE-MONSOON GROUNDWATER LEVEL MAP....................................................................................................... 45
FIGURE 19 BIOMASS SUPPLY CHAIN..................................................................................................................................... 48
FIGURE 20 DISTRICT MAP OF RAJASTHAN ........................................................................................................................... 50
FIGURE 21: ANNUAL RAINFALL RAJASTHAN ....................................................................................................................... 51
FIGURE 22 DISTRICT-WISE WASTELAND AREA AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GEOGRAPHICAL AREA..................................... 51
FIGURE 23: WASTELAND MAP OF RAJASTHAN..................................................................................................................... 52
FIGURE 24 SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF A SELECTED WASTELAND AREA IN DHOLPUR RAJASTHAN.............................................. 53
FIGURE 25 SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF A SELECTED WASTELAND AREA IN JAISALMER RAJASTHAN............................................ 54
FIGURE 26 BIOMASS POTENTIAL AND COST OF PRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 71
FIGURE 27 SUPPLY OF BIOMASS FROM JHALAWAR .............................................................................................................. 74
FIGURE 28 SUPPLY OF BIOMASS FROM KOTA....................................................................................................................... 75
FIGURE 29 COST OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION CHHABRA THERMAL POWER PLANT........................................................... 75

4
FIGURE 31 SUPPLY OF BIOMASS FROM BHILWARA .............................................................................................................. 76
FIGURE 32 COST OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION FOR KOTA THERMAL POWER PLANT .......................................................... 77
FIGURE 34 SUPPLY OF BIOMASS FROM JHALAWAR .............................................................................................................. 77
FIGURE 36 COST OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION KALISINDH THERMAL POWER PLANT ......................................................... 78
FIGURE 37 SUPPLY OF BIOMASS FROM AJMER ..................................................................................................................... 79
FIGURE 39 COST OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION SURATGARH THERMAL POWER PLANT ....................................................... 79
FIGURE 40 COST OF SELECTED SUPPLY CHAINS FROM KOTA (BARAN) ................................................................................ 80
FIGURE 41 COST OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION POWER PLANT BARAN ............................................................................... 81
FIGURE 42 COST OF SELECTED SUPPLY CHAINS FROM ALWAR (GANGANAGAR).................................................................. 81
FIGURE 43 COST OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION POWER PLANT GANGANAGAR.................................................................... 81
FIGURE 44 COST OF SELECTED SUPPLY CHAINS (SIROHI).................................................................................................... 82
FIGURE 45 COST OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION SIROHI POWER PLANT ................................................................................ 82
FIGURE 56 WASTELAND IN DISTRICTS WITH HIGHEST BIOMASS YIELD PER HECTARE .......................................................... 84
FIGURE 57 SUPPLY OF LOGS TO AJMER................................................................................................................................ 84
FIGURE 58 COST OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION BIOMASS BASED POWER PLANT.................................................................. 85
FIGURE 49 COST OF POWER PRODUCTION FROM LOGS ......................................................................................................... 86
FIGURE 50 COST OF POWER PRODUCTION FROM PELLETS .................................................................................................... 86
FIGURE 51 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS DISCOUNT RATE, LABOUR WAGES AND YIELD................................................................ 88

5
List of Tables
TABLE 1 WASTELAND CLASSIFICATION BY DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS................................................. 9
TABLE 2 WASTELAND CATEGORIES ..................................................................................................................................... 10
TABLE 3 ESTIMATION OF WASTELANDS BY DIFFERENT AGENCIES ....................................................................................... 10
TABLE 4 WASTELAND AREA CATEGORY WISE (MHA) .......................................................................................................... 11
TABLE 5 STATE WISE WASTELAND COVER .......................................................................................................................... 12
TABLE 6 WASTELAND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES .......................................................................................................... 13
TABLE 7 THE GREEN INDIA MISSION TARGETS.................................................................................................................... 18
TABLE 8 PROGRESS OF AFFORESTATION .............................................................................................................................. 19
TABLE 9 PLANTED AREA (2006-2010)................................................................................................................................. 20
TABLE 10 PHYSICAL PROGRESS OF THE PLANTATION TILL 2007.......................................................................................... 24
TABLE 11 ARAVALLI AFFORESTATION PROJECT ................................................................................................................. 25
TABLE 12 BIOMASS POWER GENERATION INSTALLED CAPACITY AND POTENTIAL ............................................................... 29
TABLE 13 STATE-WISE BIOMASS POTENTIAL FROM WASTELANDS ...................................................................................... 30
TABLE 14 CAPITAL COST AND LOAD FACTOR ...................................................................................................................... 31
TABLE 15 TREE SPECIES FOR DIFFERENT RAINFALL REGIONS .............................................................................................. 31
TABLE 16 REPORTED YIELD OF PROSOPIS JULIFLORA IN LITERATURE.................................................................................. 32
TABLE 17 YIELD PROSOPIS JULIFLORA IN SAND DUNES OF RAJASTHAN ............................................................................... 32
TABLE 18 SUITABILITY OF DIFFERENT WASTELAND CATEGORIES FOR PLANTATION ............................................................ 34
TABLE 19 SUITABILITY OF DIFFERENT WASTELAND CATEGORIES FOR PLANTATION ............................................................ 35
TABLE 20 WASTELAND CATEGORIES ACCORDING WAI 2011.............................................................................................. 36
TABLE 21 USED SOURCES AND PROGRAMMES ..................................................................................................................... 37
TABLE 22 LAND-USE STATISTICS RAJASTHAN ..................................................................................................................... 50
TABLE 23 SOIL AND TERRAIN REQUIREMENTS USED FOR ESTIMATION OF YIELD FROM WL FOR PROSOPIS JULIFLORA......... 55
TABLE 24 SOIL BIKANER (SOIL MAPPING UNIT 3541) .......................................................................................................... 55
TABLE 25 RATING OF SOIL BIKANER (SOIL MAPPING UNIT 3541)........................................................................................ 56
TABLE 26 SOIL BIKANER (SOIL MAPPING UNIT 3882).......................................................................................................... 56
TABLE 27 RATING SOIL BIKANER (SOIL MAPPING UNIT 3882) ............................................................................................. 57
TABLE 28 AVERAGE RATING OF SOIL MAPPING UNITS ......................................................................................................... 57
TABLE 29 MECHANICAL COMPOSITION AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DESERT SOIL ............................................... 57
TABLE 30 MECHANICAL COMPOSITION AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SAND DUNES................................................ 57

6
TABLE 31 SLOPE RATING ..................................................................................................................................................... 58
TABLE 32 SLOPE RATING BIKANER...................................................................................................................................... 58
TABLE 33 CLIMATE REQUIREMENTS PROSOPIS JULIFLORA .................................................................................................. 59
TABLE 34 OVEN DRY WEIGHT OF 6 YEARS OLD PROSOPIS JULIFLORA.................................................................................. 59
TABLE 35 RECOMMENDED PLANTATION DENSITIES FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF PROSOPIS JULIFLORA PLANTATION ................. 59
TABLE 36 DISCOUNT RATE .................................................................................................................................................. 60
TABLE 37 FOREST NURSERY ................................................................................................................................................ 60
TABLE 38 COST OF PLANTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 61
TABLE 39 LABOUR WAGES .................................................................................................................................................. 61
TABLE 40 DATA FOR ESTIMATING COST OF PRE-TREATMENT .............................................................................................. 62
TABLE 41 EXISTING POWER PLANTS IN RAJASTHAN ............................................................................................................ 62
TABLE 42 PROPERTIES OF PROSOPIS JULIFLORA IN DIFFERENT REGIONS.............................................................................. 63
TABLE 43 CONVERSION FACTORS........................................................................................................................................ 63
TABLE 44 DENSITY OF PROSOPIS JULIFLORA ....................................................................................................................... 63
TABLE 45 ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS OF SMALL OPERATORS ESTIMATED BY WORLD BANK (RS) ..................................... 65
TABLE 46 DISTRICT-WISE AREA OF WASTELAND CATEGORIES 3, 4, 11 AND 17-19............................................................... 66
TABLE 47 DISTRICT-WISE SOIL MAPPING UNITS OF RAJASTHAN. ......................................................................................... 67
TABLE 48 SOIL AND TERRAIN, AND CLIMATE RATINGS FOR ESTIMATION OF AVERAGE YIELD PER HECTARE ....................... 67
TABLE 49 AVERAGE YIELD OF PROSOPIS JULIFLORA FROM WL CATEGORIES 3, 4 AND 11 (OVEN DRY)................................ 68
TABLE 50 YIELD OF PROSOPIS JULIFLORA PER SOIL MAPPING UNIT FOR 12 DISTRICTS WITH HIGHEST AVERAGE YIELD ...... 69
TABLE 51 BIOMASS YIELD FROM WL CATEGORIES 17-19 (OVEN DRY)................................................................................ 70
TABLE 52 COST OF PRODUCTION FOR AVERAGE BIOMASS YIELD ......................................................................................... 71
TABLE 53 PRICE OF COAL $/GJ (HHV)................................................................................................................................ 72
TABLE 54 AVERAGE FARMER SELLING PRICE OF MUSTARD HUSK........................................................................................ 72
TABLE 55 COST OF TRANSPORTATION FOR SELECTED BIOMASS SUPPLY CHAINS ................................................................. 73
TABLE 56 COST OF SELECTED SUPPLY CHAINS FOR THERMAL POWER PLANTS..................................................................... 74
TABLE 57 COST OF POWER PRODUCTION CO-FIRING ............................................................................................................ 74
TABLE 58 COST OF LOGS SUPPLY AND PRICE OF MUSTARD HUSK......................................................................................... 83
TABLE 59 COST OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION BIOMASS BASED POWER PLANTS ................................................................. 83
TABLE 60 HIGHEST AND LOWEST ESTIMATED YIELD OF PROSOPIS JULIFLORA VERSUS AVERAGE YIELD (TONNE/HA/YEAR)88
TABLE 61 DISTRICT-WISE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL FROM 30 OF WL AREA (MILLION OVEN DRY TONNE PER YEAR)........... 89
TABLE 62 YIELD OF PROSOPIS JULIFLORA BY VARYING THE RATING THE MOST LIMITING FACTORS (TONNE/HA/YEAR) ...... 89

7
TABLE 63 PRODUCTION POTENTIAL UNDER DIFFERENT SCENARIOS..................................................................................... 90

8
List of Appendices
Appendix I
TABLE I 1 DISTRICT AND CATEGORY WISE WASTELANDS OF RAJASTHAN.......................................................................... 105
TABLE I 2 DISTRICT AND CATEGORY WISE WASTELANDS OF RAJASTHAN.......................................................................... 105
TABLE I 3 WASTELAND AREA WASTELAND ALLOTMENT (HA)........................................................................................... 106
Appendix II
TABLE II 1 SOIL MAPPING UNIT 3541................................................................................................................................. 106
TABLE II 2 SOIL MAPPING UNIT3606.................................................................................................................................. 107
TABLE II 10 SOIL MAPPING UNIT 3781............................................................................................................................... 109
TABLE II 12 SOIL MAPPIN G UNIT 3797.............................................................................................................................. 110

9
Appendix III
TABLE III 1 SOIL MAPPING UNIT OF RAJASTHAN DISTRICT-WISE ....................................................................................... 114
Appendix IV
TABLE IV 1 SLOPE AND SLOPE RATING DISTRICT-WISE...................................................................................................... 115
TABLE IV 2 DISTRICT-WISE AGRO-CLIMATIC ZONE. GROUNDWATER LEVEL AND CONSTRAINS FOR PLANTATION.............. 117
Appendix V
TABLE V 1 CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS AND CLIMATE RATING ........................................................................................ 116
Appendix VI
TABLE VII 1 COST OF NURSERY RAISING .......................................................................................................................... 131
Appendix VII
TABLE VII 1 COST OF NURSERY RAISING .......................................................................................................................... 131
Appendix VIII
TABLE VIII 1 BIOMASS CHIPPING ...................................................................................................................................... 132
Appendix IX
TABLE IX 1 BIOMASS DRYING ........................................................................................................................................... 133
Appendix X
TABLE X 1 BIOMASS SIZING (HAMMER-MILL)................................................................................................................... 134
Appendix XI
TABLE XI 1 PELLETIZING OF BIOMASS............................................................................................................................... 135
Appendix XII
TABLE XII 1 CHIPPING OF BIOMASS................................................................................................................................... 136
Appendix XIII
TABLE XIII 1 DRYING OF BIOMASS.................................................................................................................................... 137
Appendix XIV
TABLE XIV 1 SIZING OF BIOMASS ..................................................................................................................................... 138
Appendix XV
TABLE XV 1 PELLETIZING OF BIOMASS ............................................................................................................................. 139
Appendix XVI
TABLE XVI 1 2ND
TRANSPORTATION DISTANCE THERMAL POWER PLANTS ......................................................................... 140

10
TABLE XVI 2 2ND
TRANSPORTATION DISTANCE BIOMASS BASED POWER PLANTS............................................................... 140
Appendix XVII
TABLE XVII 1 ROAD LENGTH AND ROAD DENSITY OF INDIA ............................................................................................. 141
Appendix XVIII
TABLE XVIII 1 DISTRICT-WISE VILLAGE CONNECTIVITY .................................................................................................. 142
Appendix XIX
TABLE XIX 1 PRICE OF COAL ............................................................................................................................................ 143
Appendix XX
TABLE XX 1 RAILWAY FREIGHT RATE PER TONNE ............................................................................................................ 144
TABLE XX 2 CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS .......................................................................................................................... 144
Appendix XXI
FIGURE XXI 1 COST OF SELECTED SUPPLY CHAINS FOR JAIPUR FROM AJMER ................................................................... 145
FIGURE XXI 2 COST OF SELECTED SUPPLY CHAINS JALORE FROM JALORE........................................................................ 145
FIGURE XXI 3 COST OF SELECTED SUPPLY CHAINS KOTA FROM KOTA ............................................................................. 145
FIGURE XXI 4 COST OF SELECTED SUPPLY CHAINS FOR NAGAUR FROM............................................................................ 146
FIGURE XXI 5 COST OF SELECTED SUPPLY CHAINS FOR TONK FROM TONK ...................................................................... 146
Appendix XXII
TABLE XXII 1 COST OF PRODUCTION AT THE POWER PLANT GATE BARAN DISTRICT ($/GJ) ............................................. 147
TABLE XXII 2 COST OF PRODUCTION AT THE POWER PLANT GATE GANGANAGAR DISTRICT ($/GJ).................................. 147
TABLE XXII 3 COST OF PRODUCTION AT THE POWER PLANT GATE JAIPUR DISTRICT ($/GJ).............................................. 148
TABLE XXII 4 COST OF PRODUCTION AT THE POWER PLANT GATE JALORE DISTRICT ($/GJ)............................................. 148
TABLE XXII 5 COST OF PRODUCTION AT THE POWER PLANT GATE KOTA DISTRICT ($/GJ)................................................ 149
TABLE XXII 6 COST OF PRODUCTION AT THE POWER PLANT GATE NAGAUR DISTRICT ($/GJ)........................................... 149
TABLE XXII 7 COST OF PRODUCTION AT THE POWER PLANT GATE SIROHI DISTRICT ......................................................... 150
TABLE XXII 8 COST OF PRODUCTION AT THE POWER PLANT GATE TONK DISTRICT ($/GJ)................................................ 150

11
Appendix XXIII
FIGURE XXIII 6 BIOMASS POWER PLANT JAIPUR............................................................................................................... 151
FIGURE XXIII 7 BIOMASS POWER PLANT JALORE.............................................................................................................. 151
FIGURE XXIII 8 BIOMASS POWER PLANT KOTA ................................................................................................................ 151
FIGURE XXIII 9 BIOMASS POWER PLANT NAGAUR............................................................................................................ 152
FIGURE XXIII 10 BIOMASS POWER PLANT TONK............................................................................................................... 152
Appendix XXIV
FIGURE XXIV 1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS DISCOUNT RATE.................................................................................................. 153
FIGURE XXIV 5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS LABOUR WAGES.................................................................................................. 154
FIGURE XXIV 9 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS YIELD ................................................................................................................. 155

List of abbreviations
BRAI Biomass Resource Atlas of India
DOLR Department Of Land Resources
CGP Central Gathering Point
CGWB Central Ground Water Board
GOI Government of India
HWSD Harmonized World Soil Database
COP Cost of Production
Gov of Raj Government of Rajasthan
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
JFM Joint Forest Management
kt Kilo tonne
MNRE Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
MOEF Ministry of Environment and Forests
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
MORD Ministry of Rural Development
mha million hectare
mt Million tonne
NAEB National Afforestation and Eco-development Board
NAP National Afforestation Programme
NBSS&LUP National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning
NFP National Forest Policy
NRSA National Remote Sensing Agency
NWDB National Wasteland Development Board
PC Planning Commission
RREC Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited
SPWD Society for Promotion of Wasteland Development
TGA Total Geographical Area
Wl Wasteland
WAI Wasteland Atlas of India

Summary
Population growth, poverty and utilization of natural resources in India have increased the pressure on arable
land and forests which led to land degradation. Degraded lands are called wastelands in India. The National
Wasteland Development Board defines wasteland as degraded land which is currently underutilized,
deteriorating due to lack of appropriate water and soil management or natural causes but it can be brought
under vegetative cover with reasonable efforts.
Based on available reports, the area of wasteland ranged from 30 to 175 million hectares in India. The
variation on the extent of wasteland was due to different definitions for different categories of wastelands, use
of different databases and methodologies for obtaining information on wastelands by diverse agencies.
National Remote Sensing Agency on behest of Ministry of Rural Development used three season satellite data
to estimate the area of different wasteland categories for 2006. In 2008, the three seasons satellite data was
harmonized by Indian Council of Agriculture Research and National Remote Sensing Agency and also a
practical and management-responsive estimation on wastelands was conducted. Wasteland is classified in 23
categories and the total estimated extent of wasteland was 47.2 million hectare, which is 15% of the total
geographical area of India. The results of estimated area were published in Wasteland Atlas of India in 2010.
After the publication of 2010, the change in area of different wasteland categories between 2006 and 2009 was
again estimated and the results were published in Wasteland Atlas of India 2011. The most recent estimation
of wasteland area is around 46.7 million hectare. The area of wasteland for all the states is presented by
category and district. The largest wasteland categories are land with dense-scrub, land with open-scrub and
under-utilized /degraded forest-scrub which cover 57% of total wasteland area. The largest area for the first
two categories can be found in the states of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Andhra
Pradesh. The wasteland category underutilized/degraded forest scrub-dominated is mostly located in the states
of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra. The states of Rajasthan, Jammu &Kashmir
and Madhya Pradesh have the largest area of wasteland with 18%, 16% and 9% respectively.
Deforestation and land degradation were the triggers for the government, private sector and foreign agencies
to come up with numerous attempts to stop deforestation, stimulate afforestation and rehabilitate wastelands.
The National Forest Policy in 1894 was the first move of the government to tackle forest degradation by
stressing on conservation of forests in order to maintain environmental stability and meet the basic needs of
communities living at the forest fringes. The National Forest Policy was the forerunner of the green movement
in India. In 1952, the policy was revised and it emphasized on increasing the tree cover behind the established
forests. One of the objectives was to bring 33% of the total geographical area under tree cover by 2012.
Afforestation started in the late 1950s and plantation activities were carried out under different programmes.
The main objectives of these programmes were conserving the environment and meeting the wood demand by
planting fast growing species suitable for fuel-wood and timber. Externally aided social forestry projects were
also implemented during 1980-1992 with the same objectives by targeting degraded forests. Community-land
plantations have also been launched on wastelands owned by the government and private. All the efforts
resulted in afforestation of almost 35 million hectare land from 1950 to 2005. In addition an area of 7.3 million
hectare was planted since the establishment of Twenty Point Programme in 2006. The average annual
plantation rate between 1980 and 2005 was 1.32 million hectare and the target annual plantation rate for 2010-
2011 was 1.8 million hectare per year. The annual plantation rate was and still is below the required plantation
rate to bring one third of the country under forest cover.
The government also launched many programmes like National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed
Areas, Watershed Development in Shifting Cultivation Areas, Drought Prone Areas Programme, Desert
Development Programme, Integrated Wasteland Development Programme, and Employment Assurance
Schemes to rehabilitate wastelands. Other aims of these programmes are to increase tree cover, meet the
growing wood and energy demand and to create rural employment. In 2009 the National Policy on bio-fuels
adopted a non-mandatory 20% blending of bio-diesel and bio-ethanol by 2017 and the plantation for biofuels
would only take place on wastelands.

1
The ministry of Environment and Forest brought four schemes with similar goals under National Afforestation
Programmes in order to prevent overlap between different schemes and create transparency. However, there
still exist other schemes with similar goals e.g. afforestation project under wasteland development
programmes. As part of rural and wasteland development programmes, large-scale plantations and social
forestry projects were launched in several states in the early 1980s. Because the supply of wood from
government-owned forests has been declining it is believed that afforestation of wasteland is emerging as a big
enterprise in India to meet the demand of wood-based industries. Consistent with a study on economic
performance of afforestation, afforestation of wastelands is financially feasible, even without taking non-
market benefits into account. However, the rate of return on the investments made on afforestation by Indian
government over the past decades was low. The reasons for low return were utilization of poor technology,
low quality seed, low yield and lack of maintenance. Even if afforestation is economically feasible, substantial
investments are needed for large-scale afforestation of wastelands.
Biomass provides about one third of India’s total primary energy supply. According to estimations of Ministry
of New and Renewable Energy around 540 million tonnes of biomass are available in India annually. This
includes residues from agriculture, agro-industry, forestry, and plantations. Biomass Resource Atlas of India
project was carried out to assess the biomass availability excluding the current usage. The atlas contains data
on agro-residues, biomass potential from forests and wastelands as extension of forests. The total estimated
biomass potential from wastelands is around 6.2GWe while the installed biomass-based capacity was 2.6GWe
at the end of 2010. The states of Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh have the highest installed capacities
whereas Punjab and Rajasthan have the lowest installed capacities. According to Ministry of New and
Renewable energy, biomass-based power plants use agro-residues and woody biomass from dedicated energy
plantations.
The main objective of this paper was to estimate the potential of biomass from most suitable wasteland
categories in the state of Rajasthan and to assess economic performance of biomass supply chains. The yield
per hectare was estimated for Prosopis juliflora tree because it can be planted on low nutrient and quality soils.
This tree species can survive in low rainfall region, provides high quality fuel-wood and has been used for
reclamation of degraded land in the arid and semi-arid parts of India. The reported yield of this plant is
between 11-20t/ha/year in India. Nevertheless low yield of 0.6-1.8t/ha/year has also been reported in low
rainfall regions.
The estimated biomass potential from plantation of wasteland categories land with open scrub, land with
dense scrub and degraded forests is around 19.3 million tonne per year based on the obtained results in this
study. The biomass potential from 30% of mentioned wasteland categories, as it was assumed that only 30%
of wasteland would be available for plantation, is around 5.8 million tonne per year. And the cost of
production ranges between 2 to 13.3 $/GJ. The cost of production is lowest in district of Ajmer and highest in
district of Jaisalmer.
The potential from wasteland categories sand-dunes and sands-desertic is around 1.2 million tonne per year.
If 30% of these categories would be used for plantation, it can deliver 0.4 million tonne per year. The districts
of Ajmer and Sirohi have the highest yield from these categories with 1.8 tonnes per hectare per year. The
lowest yield is obtained from Barmer, Bikaner and Jaisalmer which is less than 2 tonnes per hectare in six
years. The yields from these categories are too low to be used for energy plantation as the cost of production
of biomass would be very high.
The estimated cost of transportation in India is around $0.05t-1
km-1
and the calculated cost of transportation
from CGP to the thermal power plants ranges between $0.5-4.5 /GJ, $0.5-5/GJ for chips and $0.4-3.5/GJ for
pellets. The cost of transportation for pellets is lower than for logs, however due to low transportation cost in
India the difference is very small to have an impact on the cost of supplied biomass. Pre-treatment of biomass
for the purpose of decreasing transportation cost can only have opposing impact on the cost of biomass at the
power plant gate since cost of pre-treatment is much higher than the difference between costs of
transportation. In supply of biomass the cost of transportation plays less important role in India because of low
transportation cost. Nevertheless, connectivity of the villages by road plays a more important factor in supply
of biomass, because limited number of villages in Rajasthan with low population is connected by road.

2
The supply of biomass logs (production plus transportation) for coal-based power plants, under the study costs
3.4-6.1$/GJ, if it is supplied from Ajmer, Bhilwara, Jhalawar and Kota districts. The supply of biomass from
these districts is the most economic option compared to other districts. The price of different coal grades
ranges between 0.8-3.2 $/GJ without transportation costs. Most of the coal based power plants in India use
low grade coal. The price of low grade coal is around 0.8$/GJ which is much more economical than the usage
of biomass.
The cost of supplied logs to eight small scale biomass-based power plants also under the study in Rajasthan is
3.1-6.5$/GJ; if it is delivered from Ajmer, Alwar, Kota, Jalore, Sirohi and Tonk, while the price of mustard
husk used by these power plants ranged between 2.1-4.4$/GJ. Supply of biomass from other districts is
comparatively higher than the mentioned districts. Based on the yield estimations and considering the relevant
factors e.g. availability of wasteland and road connectivity the best location to setup a large scale biomass-
based power plant is between districts of Ajmer, Bhilwara, Pali and Rajsamand.
The cost of power production is lowest for co-firing and ranges 58-82$/MWhe for logs, 59-85$/MWhe for
chips and 62-81$/MWhe for pellets. For the thermal power plant located in Ganganagar, cost of power
production is the lowest if biomass supplied as pellets. The cost of electricity production for large scale power
plant is $86/MWhe for logs, $88/MWhe for chips and 91 $/MWhe for large scale biomass-based power plant.
The cost of power production for small scale biomass power plants in Rajasthan is between 149 and
233$/MWhe. For all the existing biomass based power plants in Rajasthan, supply of biomass and cost of
power production is the lowest if biomass is supplied as logs, except for the power plant located in
Ganganagar. The supply of logs at the power plant gate is the lowest for logs, however when looking at the
cost of power production, supply of pellets are more economical than logs.
The best option to increase the share of biomass-based power would be biomass co-firing. Not only the cost of
power production is low for biomass co-firing, the power plant can also keep operating if biomass would not
be available. Another advantage of co-firing is that up to 444MW biomass power capacity could be generated
by four coal-based power plants in Rajasthan by replacing up to 10% of their annual coal usage.

3
Preface
The topic of this research was chosen out of curiosity for energy plantation on degraded lands, and passion
and love for India and developing countries. This study wouldn’t have been possible without hard work,
interest in the topic and support of several people. This is a good opportunity for me to express my sincere
gratitude to:
André Faaij: thank you for making it possible for me to conduct this research and being the first one
providing me with details on the topic of my thesis
Bothwell Batidzirai: thank you for all your patience, intensive feedback, active involvement and moral
support
Birka Wicka: thank you for providing me the method you used in your own research and your time
explaining it, without your method I wouldn’t have been able to develop a method in this research
Judith Verstegen: thank you for your effort and patience explaining me how to use the slope function in
Arcmap
Jenske van Eijk: thank you for offering your help and providing me relevant papers
Dr.V.V.N. Kishore: thank you for making it possible to conduct interview at the Ministry of Environment and
Forests, for your hospitality at your University and mental support during my stay in Delhi.
Viren Lobo: thank you for giving your time and providing me information on wasteland, and explaining the
concept and history of wasteland in India
SN SriNivas: thank you for receiving me at UNDP and providing me information on Bioenergy for Rural
India project
Last but not least, thanks to my dear family and friends (Mariësse van Sluisveld, Seema Gogia and Ranjana
Sharma) for their support during my research.

4
1 Introduction
India is one of the emerging economies with a constant GDP growth exceeding 8% for the past years and the
expectation is that this growth will continue. Such a high growth is essential for India to eliminate poverty and
meet its economic and human developing goals. Energy is a key driver of this growth and its availability is
essential to sustain this growth. Based on official projections of the Planning Commission (PC), the energy
demand in India is expected to be three to four times of the current level in 25 years. Due to such an
extraordinary growth, India is expected to face challenges in meeting its energy demand (PC. 2005;
Ravindranath& Balachandra. 2009).
According to the World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2009, global energy demand is expected to increase by 1.5%
per year between 2007 and 2030 and India alone will account for 15% of the global energy demand growth
(IEA. 2009). To meet its energy demand, India is importing 30% of its energy needs. Along with the growing
demand, the share of fossil fuel is increasing, which makes India more dependent on import from oil rich
regions (PC. 2005). Above all, it is projected by International Energy Agency (IEA), that India would be
responsible for 2Gt energy-related CO2 emissions growth in 2030, which is 18% of the total global emissions
growth (IEA. 2009). To reduce its fossil energy related GHG emissions, India needs to increase its share of
renewable energy.
Afforestation/reforestation1
of degrade lands with energy plantation could be a solution to growing energy
demand and to increasing energy related CO2 emission. India has enormous areas of degraded land, which are
defined as wastelands. These wastelands are the result of either intrinsic characteristic such as location,
environment, chemical, and physical properties of the soil or lack of proper management (Balooni& Singh.
2003; Ravindranath et al. 2008). The soil fertility of wastelands is low and there is no or little irrigation
potential. Therefore, these wastelands are not suitable for food crops that require fertile soil and continuous
water supply.
Afforestation in India started in 1950, however, large-scale afforestation started in the 1980s.
Afforestation/reforestation in India was carried out under different programmes such as social forestry
programme started in the early 1980s, Joint Forest Management Programme started in 1990, and afforestation
under national Afforestation and Eco-development Board programmes started in 1992. One of the objectives
of the above-mentioned programmes is to increase forest cover through afforestation on degraded and
unproductive land to meet the demand of fuel-wood, fodder, and timber (Ravindranath et al. 2008).
Besides meeting the fuel-wood demand, afforestation can also provide socio-economic and environmental
benefits. The plantation activities create rural employment in establishing, protecting, and maintaining of
plantations. It also provides diverse biomass products like fodder, timber, non-timber forest products such as
fruits, oil seeds, leaves, gum, honey, etc. The environmental benefits include conservation of biodiversity and
watershed protection. In addition, forest carbon sinks would be conserved as biomass needs will be met from
afforestation/reforestation activities (Ravindranath et al. 2001).
Energy plantations (afforestation with dedicated energy crops) can help India to improve its energy security,
as the capacity for such plantations is significant. If 10 million hectares of wasteland is converted to fuel-
wood plantation with a sustained yield of 100 million tonnes of wood annually, 100 million tonnes of
domestic coal can be replaced since the calorific value of Indian coal is identical to wood. According to PC, if
fuel-wood plantations are developed in India, biomass can be a major source of energy (PC. 2005). Moreover,
if plantation of dedicated energy crops is economically feasible and environmentally sound, it will help India
to reduce its share in energy related CO2 emission.
1
Afforestation is the establishment of a forest in an area where the preceding vegetation or land use was not a forest. Reforestation is the
reestablishment of forest cover after the previous forest was removed

5
1.1 Problem definition and research objectives
As India alone contributes to 15% of global energy-consumption growth and to 18% of energy related CO2
emission, it is necessary to assess the availability and contribution of biomass from wastelands to power
generation, as more than 67% of power in India was being generated from coal in 2009. According to
projections by WEO 2010, India will surpass China as the biggest coal importer around 2020, see figure 1
(IEA. 2010; IEA. 2011).
Figure 1 Share of hard coal trade
Source: (IEA. 2010)
Biomass can be a major source of energy to meet this expected increase in energy demand yet continuous
supply of biomass needs production of energy crops e.g. fuel-wood plantations to meet the demand. India has
large areas of wasteland that can be used for production of biomass for power plants and for other commercial
uses, especially for rural area without electricity access. At the same time utilization of wastelands for energy
plantations, will help rehabilitate the degraded lands and prevents the overexploitation and destruction of
forests.
The extent of wasteland has been determined by many organizations in the past giving different estimations,
making an accurate estimation of biomass potential difficult. In addition, most studies until now focused
partially on economic performance of afforestation/reforestation. Less attention has been paid to supply chain
aspects of biomass energy from wastelands in India. Having insight on the logistics and supply strategies is
the key to a competitive bio-energy industry in the country.
Land availability, biomass productivity, economic performance of plantation and logistic infrastructure are
important factors in determining the economic potential of biomass in India. To assess the contribution of
biomass from plantation of wastelands with energy crops, it is essential to collect data on wastelands and
forestry activities intended to meet the biomass demand.
The aim of this study was to assess the potential supply of biomass from wasteland in Rajasthan India. A
method was developed to assess the potential of biomass from six wasteland categories. The economic
performance of wasteland afforestation of three suitable wasteland categories and multiple supply chains for
four coal-based power plants, eight small scale biomass-based power plants and a large scale non-existing
biomass-based power plant was estimated.
The objectives of this study were to gather accurate and recent data on estimation of wasteland area in India,
its suitability for energy plantation in order to identify major wasteland categories with best prospect for
biomass production and afforestation/plantation activities in India (i.e. progress, scale and economic
performance, suitable tree species). Subsequently, the technical potential of biomass obtained from plantation
of suitable wasteland categories; as well their economic performances were assessed. Lastly, the performance
of biomass supply chains in the state of Rajasthan from feedstock production to the gate of existing power
plants was assessed.

6
1.1.1 Research question
The main research questions in this study were:
1. How much wasteland is there in India and in particular Rajasthan and how large is the sustainable
technical potential of biomass from plantation of wastelands?
2. What is the economic performance of wasteland energy crop plantations?
3. What is the economic performance of biomass energy supply chains from production sites to selected
power plants sites?
1.1.2 Scope and limitation
The focus of this study was on the state of Rajasthan. Rajasthan has the largest area of wasteland compared to
other states of India and also to estimate the potential for all the states was beyond the scope of this study.
Further the scope of the research and methodology was dependent on availability of relevant data. The
potential of biomass as well the economic performance of plantation is determined for the most promising
wasteland types including wasteland categories open scrubland, dense scrubland and degraded forests. The
economic performance of supply chains is assessed only for logs, chips and pellets. The potential of biomass
is only determined for Prosopis juliflora as this species is suitable for the climate of all districts in Rajasthan.
The methodology is described in the following paragraph.
This report is structured as follows: Chapter 1 of this paper covers problem definition, research objectives,
scope and limitations. Chapter 2 discusses general information regarding wasteland in India whereas chapter 3
focus specifically on afforestation. Chapter 4 provides specific information regarding installed capacity of
biomass-based power, biomass potential in India and general information on Prosopis juliflora. Chapter 5
covers the methodology and chapter 6 contains the all the key data and general information on Rajasthan and
road transportation in India. Chapter 7 discusses the results of estimation and finally, chapter 8 discusses the
conclusion and recommendation.

7
2 Wastelands in India
Rapid industrialization, economic development and population growth have put an enormous pressure on land
leading to degradation of it in all parts of India. To increase biomass production and to restore the
environment, preventative and restorative measures are necessary for rehabilitation of degraded lands (MORD.
2010b). That is why, information on the nature, amount, and severity of degradation is necessary in attempt to
reclaim these degraded lands and use them for plantation.
The degraded lands are called wastelands in India and the concept of wasteland was introduced during the
British rule of India and originated from the perspective of revenue rather than ecology (Bhumbla& Khare.
1984). Lands that were not under cultivation, hence non-revenue lands, were classified as wastelands and its
proprietary rights were claimed by the state. In post-independence era, wastelands were viewed as empty land
available for expanding agriculture and setting agricultural labourers. The focus of the government was more
on expansion of agriculture in order to make the country more self-sufficient in food. However, this view
changed when the country achieved self-sufficiency in food in the 1970s and the degradation of forests and
shortages of fuel-wood and fodder were the main challenges. In the 1980s, a massive afforestation programme
was launched to bring 33% of the country under tree cover. Later, the emphasis shifted more towards
addressing the challenges of global warming (Bhumbla& Khare. 1984; Saigal. 2011).
To rehabilitate the degraded lands, National Wasteland Development Board (NWDB) was setup under the
Ministry of Environment and Forests by the Government of India in 1985 with the objective of reclaiming
5mha of degraded land each year for fuel-wood and fodder production through a massive programme of
seeding and afforestation. Subsequently, a separate Department of Wasteland Development in the Ministry of
Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation was created in 1992 and NWDB was transferred to this
department. This department was later renamed as Department of Land Resources to act as nodal agency for
land resources management. This department is implementing three area Development Programmes on
watershed basis namely, Integrated Wasteland Development Programme (IWDP), Drought Prone Areas
Programme (DPAP) and Desert Development Programme (DDP) with aim to treat barren lands (MORD.
2010a; MOEF. 2006).
The definition of wasteland according to oxford dictionary2
is an area of land that cannot be used or that is no
longer used for building or agriculture (OALD. 2011). The estimated productivity of wastelands compared to
agricultural land is less than 20% of constraint free yields 3
(Garg et al. 2011). The soil organic carbon levels
are severely reduced due to soil degradation process, which is primary caused, by low biomass productivity
and removal of crop-residues in large amounts (Balooni& Singh. 2003; Ravindranath& Hall. 1995).
Society for Promotion of Wasteland Development (SPWD) indicates that there is no consensus on the
definition for wastelands. An economic potential and actual returns based definition was accepted for a short
time, which stated that any land that gives less than 20% of its economic potential is a wasteland. According to
SPWD, this definition is not very practical for estimating the extent of wasteland because it is based on
productivity, which depends on the state of the technology and its actual application. Together with
improvement in technology, the productivity of land increases as well. However, the actual increase in
production will depend on the acceptance and application of improved technology over a period of time.
Therefore, this definition makes wastelands a function of state of technology, frequency of its acceptance and
time. A change in any of these factors shall change the description of a piece of land into wastelands. Based on
this definition, any land with ecological hazard is not considered as wasteland if the land has proper economic
returns (Bhumbla& Khare. 1984).
One of the objectives of SPWD is to develop a working definition for wastelands that helps to estimate the
wasteland area and at the same time considers ecological concern as well. The definition used by SPWD for
quantitative estimation of wasteland is: ―Those lands which are (a) ecologically unstable (b) whose top soil has
been nearly completely lost and (c) which have developed toxicity in the root zones for growth of most plants,
2
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
3
Maximum potential yield of a certain crop where factors such as soil suitability, moisture stress or workability parameter are not
taken into consideration(Stewart. 1981)

8
both annual crops and trees‖. This definition covers lands that are affected by water erosion, wind erosion,
floods, waterlogging, soil salinization and soil alkalinisation (Bhumbla& Khare. 1984). According to Ministry
of Rural Development, Department of Land Resources, wastelands are not currently being used and if these
wastelands cannot be reclaimed, they can be used for other commercial purposes (Chaudhary. 2011). In
contrast to MORD DOLR, SPWD stated that the so-called wastelands are being used by villagers in various
ways like grazing and marginal agriculture. Thus, the term wasteland is not a proper word to refer degraded
lands with and this view was shared by MOEF as well (Saxena. 2011; Baka. 2011).
The Wasteland Atlas of India uses the definition of NWDB for wasteland which defines wasteland as:
―Wasteland is degraded land that can be brought under vegetative cover with reasonable4
efforts and which
is currently under-utilized and or/land that is deteriorating due to lack of appropriate water and soil
management or due to natural causes. Wasteland occurs from inherent/or imposed constraints such as
location, environmental conditions, chemical and physical properties of the soil and/or financial and
management constraints‖ (WAI, 2010). Barren rocky areas are example degraded land due to inherent/ or
imposed constraints. In addition, social factors like population growth, poverty are the causes of land
degradation. Explosive population growth has increased the pressure on arable land leading to an increase in
utilization of natural resources (Ministry of Finance.; MOEF. 2001b).
According to SPWD, the definition of wasteland should include that some wasteland categories are currently
being used, but they can be used more productively. The definition of NWDB for wastelands does not define
what reasonable effort entails, nonetheless reasonable effort can be defined as maximum total cost per hectare
that does not exceed the released budget for a certain project per hectare for rehabilitation of wasteland.
Despite disagreement on the definition of wasteland, all scientific reports and government organizations use
the definition of NWDB for wastelands.
2.1 Wasteland categories
Wasteland categories have been identified by various government organizations and individuals (Baka. 2011;
Kalwar. 2008). The main sources of wasteland categorizations/classification are the estimations conducted by
National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) on behest DOLR MORD and the Directorate of Economics and
Statistics (MORD. 2010b; Baka. 2011). The identification by these two main sources is given in the following
sub-paragraphs.
2.1.1 Wasteland categorization by Directorate of Economics and Statistics
The Directorate of Economics and Statistics within the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA)
has classified wastelands into cultivable and uncultivable wastelands and this classification is usually referred
as Nine-Fold classification. The land use is categorized into nine land use categories and land that has not
been under cultivation for the past five years but was cultivated at some point in the past, have been brought
under cultivable wasteland. Land that never has been cultivated like desserts and rocky-land are classified as
uncultivable wastesland, see table 1 (Baka. 2011; Kalwar. 2008; Trivedi. 2010; Ramachandra& Kamakshi.
2005).
The assessments for wastelands are gathered annually with a two-year gap in the publication of the
assessments. The statistics are based on village land settlement records maintained by the village
administrative officer and the most recent statistics are from the year 2008. Every year in the month of May
or June, settlements are conducted at village-wide meeting. The directorate of Economics and Statistics passes
the settlement records along the district, state and central government levels and the records are merged
together (Baka. 2011; Kalwar. 2008). The area of wastelands is determined by assuming a certain percentage
of area under each category of land-use as problem area. Subsequently the problem area is estimated and
added to the assumed area in the first step.
4
What reasonable effort entails is not defined

9
Table 1 Wasteland classification by Directorate of Economics and Statistics
Classification Description
Forest
Includes all lands classed as forestry by the Revenue Department. It is not necessary that land is
occupied by forest
Barren and uncultivable land Mountains/hills and land affected by salinity
Land put to non-agriculture use
Includes all lands occupied by roads, railways, water bodies and other lands put to uses other than
agriculture
Other cultivable lands excluding current fallow Grazing lands both permanent pastures meadows
Miscellaneous tree crops and groves not included
in net sown area
Land under miscellaneous trees, thatching grass, bamboo bushes and other groves for fuel etc.
which are not included under orchards
Cultivable waste
Land once cultivated but not cultivated from the last five years in succession and other cultivable
lands not cultivated
Fallow land other than current fallow
All lands which are not cultivated for a period of not less than one year and not more than five
years
Current fallow Cropped areas, which are kept fallow during current year
Net sown area
In this classification, data of the following categories of wasteland are collected
1. barren and uncultivable land
2. cultivable waste
3. old fallow
4. grazing land and permanent pasture ( if the grazing land/pasture are degraded then
included in wasteland)
Source: (Baka. 2011; Kalwar. 2008)
The method used by MOA has been criticized by SPWD as the area under specific problem category has
already been accounted in the first step. Adding area under specific problem categories has therefore inflated
the estimate by double counting the areas. Additionally some of other estimates also suffer from the error of
overlapping categories. Therefore SPWD considers the estimation of wastelands by MOA on the higher side
(Bhumbla& Khare. 1984).
2.1.2 Wasteland categorization by NRSA
The first database on wastelands was made at the behest of MORD DOLR by NRSA of the Indian Space
Research Organization on a scale of 1:50.000. Satellite data for the period of 1986 until 2000 were used and
the spatial distribution of wastelands were released at district level. The results of this database were presented
in National Wasteland Atlas, which was published in 2000, and the wastelands were divided into thirteen
categories. For reclamation of wasteland programmes, it was necessary to update the data on severity of
degradation. Therefore another project ―National Wasteland Updation Mission was initiated by DoLR in
collaboration with NRSA in 2003 using one season satellite data. The project was completed in 2005 and the
status of wastelands in 28 categories was mapped in Wasteland Atlas of India 2005 (MORD. 2010b).
Another project was initiated by DOLR in collaboration with NRSA to monitor the spatial and temporal
changes in wastelands. Three seasons (kharif, rabi and zaid)5
satellite data for the year 2005-06 was used for
this study. The spatial statistics of different categories were compared between the year 2003 and 2006. The
results have been brought out as Wasteland Atlas of India 2010 and the wastelands are classified in eight
classes and fifteen categories, see table 2. According to WAI 2010, utilization of three-season satellite data of
2005-06 has led to significant improvements in the definition of wasteland categories. The most recent
estimation of wastelands is presented in WAI 2011, which gives further spatial changes in wasteland between
the year 2006 and 2009. The largest wasteland categories are land with dense-scrub, land with open-scrub and
under-utilized /degraded forest-scrub dominated with 18.6, 19.9 and 17.9 % of total wasteland area
respectively.
5
Monsoon, winter and summer

10
Table 2 Wasteland categories
Wasteland Category Wasteland Category
A Gullied/Ravinous land F Scrub Forest (Underutilized notified forest land)
1 Medium ravine 11 Scrub dominated
2 Deep/very deep ravine 12 Agricultural land inside notified forest land
B Scrubland (Land with or without scrub) 13 Degraded pastures/grazing land
3 Land with dense scrub 14 Degraded land under plantation crops
4 Land with open scrub G Sands (coastal/desert/riverine)
C Waterlogged and marshy land 15 Sands-Riverine
5 Permanent 16 Sands-Coastal sand
6 Seasonal 17 Sands-Desert sand
D Land affected by salinity/alkalinity 18 Semi-stabilized to stabilized (>40m)dune
7 Moderate 19 Semi-stabilized moderately high (15-40m) dune
8 Strong H Others
E Shifting cultivation 20 Mining wasteland
9 Current Jhum6
21 Industrial wasteland
10 Abandoned Jhum 22 Barren rocky area
23 Snow cover and/or glacial area
Source: (MORD. 2010b)
In WAI, detailed information on suitability of wasteland categories for plantation is missing, yet according to
the definition used in WAI, wastelands can be brought under vegetative cover with reasonable efforts, but
there are wasteland categories that cannot be considered as cultivable wasteland or at least cannot be brought
under vegetative cover with reasonable efforts. The availability and suitability of wasteland categories as
described in WAI are discussed in the following paragraph.
2.2 Availability of wastelands in India and their suitability for plantation
Availability of land is an important requirement for large-scale energy plantations. One option is the
utilization of wastelands to facilitate energy plantation without affecting the food security. The available
estimates of degraded lands in India ranged from around 30 to 175mha. However there exist variations in the
range of wasteland given by different government organizations. In the 11th
Five-Year Plan, a range of 55mha
to 175mha is given by the Planning Commission. The variations on the extent of wastelands were due to
different definitions for different classes of wastelands, use of different databases and having different
methodologies for deriving information on wastelands by different agencies (MORD. 2010b; MORD. 2010a).
Balooni (2003) states in his paper that the most accepted number for the extent of wasteland was 175mha
assessed by MOA in 1976. He further mentions that according to MOA, around 37mha of wastelands was
treated till the end of 1993-94. Out of this, about 20mha of degraded land was afforested during 1952–1992
(Balooni. 2003). According to SPWD, the amount of wasteland in India was around 93mha for the year 1984
excluding 33mha wasteland under forests when double counting was reduced. The estimates of wasteland by
some organisations are depicted in table 3.
Table 3 Estimation of wastelands by different agencies
Agency Area (mha) Criteria for delineation
National Commission on Agriculture (NCA 1976) 175 Based on the NCA’s estimates no systematic survey was undertaken
Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development (1984) 129.6 Based on the secondary estimates
MOA (1985) 173.6 Land degradation statistics for states
Department of Environment (Vohra, 1980) 95 1:1 million scale soil map
NRSA on behest of DOLR MORD 2000 63.6
NRSA on behest of DOLR MORD 2005 55.6
NRSA on behest of DOLR MORD 2010 47.2 Three-season remote sensing
NRSA on behest of DOLR MORD 2011 46.7 Three-season remote sensing
Source: (Trivedi. 2010; MOEF. 2001a; PC. 2002; Wani& Sreedevi. 2005)
6
In a Shifting cultivation practice tracts which are called jhum are cleared by burning, cultivated for limited time period and then
abandoned for a number of years to allow regeneration of the natural vegetation and soil nutrients (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2011)
.

11
The extent of wasteland estimated by NRSA on behest of DOLR MORD for the project ―National Wasteland
Updation‖ in 2003 was 55.64mha. For the year 2005-6, the three season satellite data revealed an extent of
47.2mha, which means that the area of wasteland was reduced with 8.4mha during 2003-06, see table 11.
These changes in spatial extent of wastelands can be ascribed to non-uniform usage of satellite datasets (single
season vs. three season), differences in the datum and projection of satellite data of these two periods. Besides,
inconsistencies in definition and number of categories of wastelands and implementation of reclamation
programs on wastelands by MORD and other Central and State Government agencies can be attributed for the
change in the spatial extent of wastelands. Therefore, to give a more accurate estimation of wasteland area data
for 2005-2006 project was harmonized by Indian Council of Agriculture Research and NRSA in 2008 and a
practical and management-responsive estimate of wastelands was conducted. The state-wise and district-wise
wasteland area for 2005-2006 was presented in WAI 2010 (MORD. 2010b).
The latest project sponsored by MORD was the National Wasteland Change Analysis with the aim to assess
further spatial changes in wasteland between the year 2006 and 2009. The results are presented in WAI 2011
with an area of 46.7mha, which is 15% of total geographical area of India. Undoubtedly, not all wasteland
categories can be considered as cultivable wasteland and used for energy plantation. The availability of
wasteland published in WAI 2011 is depicted category wise in table 4. Around 57% of the wasteland area
consists of categories land with dense scrub, land with open scrub and under-utilized/degraded forest scrub
dominated. The largest area amongst the first two wasteland categories can be found in the states of Rajasthan,
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. The wasteland category under-utilized/degraded
forest scrub-dominated is mostly confined in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and
Maharashtra (MORD. 2010b).
Table 4 Wasteland area category wise (mha)
Wasteland Category Area (mha) % WL Area (mha) % WL
Gullied and/or ravenous land-Medium 0.61 1.3 Degraded pasture/grazing land 0.68 1.5
Gullied and/or ravenous land-Deep/very
deep ravine
0.13 0.3 Degraded land under plantation crops 0.03 0.1
Land with dense scrub 8.70 18.6 Sands-Riverine 0.21 0.5
Land with open scrub 9.30 19.9 Sands-Coastal sand 0.07 0.1
Waterlogged and Marshy
land-Permanent
0.18 0.4 Sands-Desert Sands 0.39 0.8
Waterlogged and Marshy land-Seasonal 0.69 1.5 Sands-Semi-stabilized to stabilized (>40) dune 0.93 2.0
Land affected by salinity/
alkalinity-Moderate
0.54 1.2
Sands-Semi-Stabilized to stabilized moderately
high (15—40m) dune
1.43 3.1
Land affected by salinity/alkalinity-Strong 0.14 0.3 Mining Wasteland 0.06 0.1
Shifting cultivation area-Current Jhum 0.48 1.0 Industrial Wasteland 0.01 0.0
Shifting cultivation area-Abandoned
Jhum
0.42 0.9 Barren rocky area 5.95 12.7
Underutilized/degraded
forest-scrub dominated
8.37 17.9 Snow cover and/or glacial area 5.82 12.5
Agricultural land inside notified
forest land
1.57 3.4 Total 46.7 100
Degraded pasture/grazing land 0.68 1.5
Source: (MORD. 2011)
The states of Rajasthan, Jammu &Kashmir and Madhya Pradesh have the largest area of wastelands with
18.19%, 16.15% and 8.59% respectively, see table 5. In Rajasthan, around 18mha which is 26% of the total
geographical area of the state is under wasteland. The major wasteland category is land with dense scrub with
an area of more than 2mha. In Madhya Pradesh, around 13% of the total geographical area is under wasteland
and land with open scrub accounts for the largest area. In the state of Jammu & Kashmir, more than 72% of the
total geographical area is under wastelands. The major wasteland category in this state is Barren Rocky area
with an area of 4.6mha (MORD. 2010b).

12
Table 5 State wise wasteland cover
State Wl area ( mha) % Total Wl area State Wl area (mha) % Total Wl area
Andhra Pradesh 3.73 7.99 Maharashtra 8.10 8.1
Arunachal Pradesh 1.49 3.19 Manipur 1.21 1.5
Assam 0.85 1.81 Meghalaya 0.88 0.8
Bihar 0.96 2.06 Mizoram 1.06 1.3
Chhattisgarh 1.15 2.46 Nagaland 1.13 1.0
Delhi 0.01 0.02 Orissa 3.52 3.5
Goa 0.05 0.10 Punjab 0.20 0.2
Gujarat 2.01 4.31 Rajasthan 8.5 18.2
Haryana 0.21 0.46 Sikkim 0.70 0.7
Himachal Pradesh 2.23 4.79 Tamil Nadu 1.87 1.9
Jammu & Kashmir 7.54 16.15 Tripura 0.21 0.3
Jharkhand 1.10 2.36 Uttarakhand 2.75 2.7
Karnataka 1.30 2.79 Uttar Pradesh 2.12 2.3
Kerala 0.24 0.52 West Bengal 0.41 0.4
Madhya Pradesh 4.01 8.59 Union Territory 0.07 0.1
Total 46,7 100
Source: (MORD. 2011)
A field research was conducted on Bio-fuel and Wasteland Grabbing by Bakka in southern Tamil Nadu. Baka
states in her paper, that there is no guidance available on the precise wasteland categories that can be used for
plantation. It is concluded that categories used for plantation or will be used are land with dense-scrub, land
with open-scrub, degraded pastures and grazing lands and under-utilized/degraded forest (Baka. 2011). In
another study7
on biomass energy the wasteland categories are divided in three categories based on their
suitability as follow: suitable, moderately suitable and unsuitable, see table 18. Also, in a draft
recommendation by Ministry of New and Renewable Energy suitability of wastelands for dedicated energy
plantation, the suitability of wasteland for Prosopis juliflora and high yield plantation is discussed, see table
19. In table 19, some wasteland categories, like land with open scrub and land with dense scrub are considered
unsuitable. However these lands are more fertile than sand dunes and are considered unsuitable since these
lands are said to be used for pasture. This contradicts the definition of wasteland which gives under-utilized as
one of the characteristics wasteland.
Further as can be seen in table 19, categories sand dunes and sands-desertic (17-19) are considered suitable for
plantation with Prosopis juliflora which is in line with literature study, see chapter 4 (MNRE. 2011a).
According to personal communication with MORD, DOLR, wasteland category mining wastelands is
reclaimed after mining by compulsory afforestation, thus this category cannot be used for energy plantation.
The extent of wasteland under wasteland category degraded land under plantation crops is quite small.
Besides, this wasteland category is already under plantation, therefore this category should not be considered
for plantation either.
The estimation of wasteland by NRSA is the most recent and detailed data on extent of wastelands. Since the
estimations are based on satellite images of three seasons, it is so far the most reliable estimation of
wastelands. Therefore, in this study the latest estimation of wastelands published in WAI 2010 and WAI 2011
are used for estimation of biomass potential from wastelands. In this study, the potential of biomass wasteland
categories are determined for scrublands, degraded forests, sands-desertic and sand dunes (3- 4, 11, 17-19).
Below a short description of these categories are given.
7
Biomass energy-optimising its contribution to poverty reduction and ecosystem service

13
2.2.1 Scrubland
Scrubland is delineated into two categories: land with dense scrub and land with open scrub based on the
presence of vegetation cover. Scrubland is mostly prone to deterioration due to erosion and usually occupies
topographically high locations, excluding hilly/mountainous terrain. This category have shallow and skeletal
soil, sometimes chemically degraded, have extreme slopes and is subjected to excessive aridity with scrubs
dominating the landscape and has the tendency of intermixing with croplands. Land with open scrub is same
as land with dense scrub, except that it has sparse vegetative cover or is devoid of scrub and has then soil
covers (MORD. 2011).
2.2.2 Degraded forest
This category is confined to notified forest areas. There are 15 districts with percentage of this category
ranging between 15 to 50 per cent, 102 districts with percentage varying between 5 to 15, and 329 districts
that have an areal extent of less than 5 per cent (MORD. 2011).
2.2.3 Sand dunes and sands-desertic
Wasteland categories Sands-semi-stabilized to stabilized (>40) dune, sands-semi-stabilized to stabilized
moderately high (15-40m) dune and sands-desertic (sands-desert sand) placed under main category sands in
WAI 2010. Sand dunes and sands-desertic occur in regions where the rainfall is very low. Sand dunes vary in
size and height and have developed as a result of transportation of soil through aeolian process. The first two
mentioned categories are mapped based on their height: sand dunes higher than 40m and sand dunes having a
height of 15-40m (MORD. 2010b).
2.3 Rehabilitation of wastelands
There are six major programmes, namely National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas,
Watershed Development in Shifting Cultivation Areas, Drought Prone Areas Programme, Desert
Development Programme, Integrated Wasteland Development Programme, and Employment Assurance
Schemes to rehabilitate wastelands. Through these Watershed Development Programmes, around 30mha of
land has been developed up to the end of 9th
five-year plan (MORD. 2010a; Ramachandra& Kamakshi. 2005;
PC. 2002). The table 6 shows the above mentioned programmes and their main objectives.
Table 6 Wasteland development programmes
Programme Main objectives Started
Watershed Development Programme
Development of forests in non-forest areas, checking land degradation, sustainable use of
wasteland, increasing availability of fuel-wood, fodder and increasing agriculture production in
rain-fed areas
Drought Prone Area Programme Conserving the soil moisture in drought prone areas
1973-
1974
Desert Development Programme
Restore the ecological balance, conservation of soil and water and bringing a halt to
desertification through shelter belt plantation
1977-
1978
Integrated Wasteland Development
Programme
Development of government wastelands and common property resources 1989-90
National Watershed Development
Project for Rain-fed Areas
Improving agriculture production in in rain-fed areas and restoring ecological balance
1990-
1991
Watershed Development Programme
in Shifting Cultivation Areas
Controlling shifting cultivation practice
1974-
1979
Source: (Saigal. 2011; MORD. 2010a; Ramachandra& Kamakshi. 2005; PC. 2001)
India started a 5% bio-ethanol blending pilot program in 2001 to reduce the countries energy dependency. In
2009, the National Policy on bio-fuels was adopted and a non-mandatory 20% blending of bio-diesel and bio-
ethanol was proposed by 2017. The target is to be achieved through utilization of wastelands and fallow-lands
for the cultivation of oil seed plants in order to not affect the food security. The bio-fuel policy has identified
Jatropha curcas and Pongamia pinnata as the main feedstock for biodiesel. Under the IWD and other poverty
alleviation programmes, around 2mha wasteland was assessed for plantation of Jathropha. In addition, 4mha
of government wastelands were also assessed for plantation of Jathropha (PC. 2003; Centre for Jatropha
Promotion. 2011).

14
In 2011, the growth of Jatropha was promoted in different parts of the country through various incentives, for
instance community development programs, minimum support pricing for Jathropha seed and afforestation
programs. The most important characteristic of the bio-fuel program in India is to make use of
wastelands/degraded-lands only (Garg et al. 2011; Gunatilake et al. 2011).
Rehabilitation of wastelands through afforestation have the preference by the local population, but lack of
financial resources to initiate plantation activities, a low productivity of wasteland and scarcity of water are
said to be the reason for slow development of wastelands (MORD. 2010a; Palm. 2011).

15
2.4 Discussion
The data on wasteland categories estimated by NRSA on behest of DOLR MORD is the most recent data,
however the information needed for assessing the potential of biomass from wastelands like present and future
uses and soil fertility are missing. This lack of information makes it difficult to identify which wasteland
categories are cultivable. To give a more precise estimation of the economic performance of plantation with
dedicated energy crops, up to date data on soil fertility, present and future use, ownership and suitability of
wasteland categories for plantation are required. The data published in WAI 2011 is based on three-season
remote sensing, however SPWD states that for a better estimation of wasteland area, three-season remote
sensing should be combined with planning on ground level as remote sensing does not work during monsoon
season which gives a wrong estimation of wastelands.
The availability and the existence of wastelands are doubted by some. According to Kishore (2011),
wastelands exist in government reports, but in reality, they do not exist as these wastelands are being used by
villagers for grazing and marginal agriculture. When villages are visited there are no wastelands, however
according to DOLR MORD, wastelands do exist, but in a village the extent would not exceed above 1ha. An
example on existence and availability of wastelands was given by SPWD for the district of Jaisalmer in
Rajasthan where around 1mha land was considered as wastelands. Out of 1mha, only 30-40% could be used
for plantation of bio-fuel. However, the actual area available for plantation of bio-fuel in district of Jaisalmer
was only 38000ha (Lobo. 2011). Another example is the area of wasteland identified by Biofuel Authority
Rajasthan. The area of cultivable wasteland was identified for some districts of Rajasthan and compared to the
estimated area of wasteland in WAI 2011the identified cultivable wasteland area is quite small. For example,
the identified cultivable wasteland area in Baran district is around 1383 hectare, while according to WAI 2011
the area of degraded forests alone exceeds 116000 hectare (Gov of Raj. 2013b).
A study has been conducted by Baka on bio-fuels and wasteland grabbing in Tamil Nadu India. Baka studies
the effect of bio-fuel on wasteland grabbing between the years 2005-2006 based on the interviews with
affected farmers (Baka. 2011). Baka states in her paper that according to stakeholder such a thing as wasteland
does not exist, however not all the stakeholder meant the same with this statement. For corporate and
government stakeholders there is no wasteland, but wasted land that can be used more productively. On the
other hand, for civil society and village stakeholders wastelands does not exist since those so called wastelands
are currently being used and serve an important purpose in the villages (Baka. 2011; PISCES RPC
Consortium. 2011).
Another issue regarding wastelands is the disagreement on its definition. According to SPWD the definition
should include that wastelands are being used, however they could be used more productively. SPWD also
suggests that the emphasis of the definition should be more on the ecological aspects of wastelands rather than
on its economical return. According to SPWD, ecologically unstable lands, where the top soil is completely
lost and have developed toxicity in the root zones for growth of most plants, both annual crops and trees
should be considered as wasteland. As mentioned in the chapter wasteland, the definition of wasteland by
NWDB states that wastelands can be brought under vegetation with reasonable efforts. However, further
explanation on what reasonable efforts entail is not given.

Biomass Energy Potential from Afforestation in Rajasthan

Biomass Energy Potential from Afforestation in Rajasthan

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Ähnlich wie Biomass Energy Potential from Afforestation in Rajasthan

Ähnlich wie Biomass Energy Potential from Afforestation in Rajasthan (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Biomass Energy Potential from Afforestation in Rajasthan