236 Oliver W. Johnson et al.
within the energy, public health, and environment sectors view charcoal as a
dirty fuel that should be fully replaced by much cleaner alternatives, such as
LPG, ethanol, and biomass pellets burned in gasifier stoves. Interventions to
make these alternative fuels more available and affordable, particularly in urban
areas, may pose a significant risk to sustainable charcoal production activities. If
alternatives capture a sizeable share of the urban household energy market, it
might reduce demand for charcoal, with potentially negative implications on
charcoal- linked employment and livelihoods.
The final risk to greater pursuit of sustainable charcoal production is limited
capacity within charcoal producer associations to ensure compliance with
formal regulations. These regulations require registered charcoal producer
associations to establish a written constitution, develop a conservation and
reforestation plan, and document the kiln technologies and tree species they use
to make charcoal. But tracking biomass resources and developing forest management plans require significant expertise that many members of these associations
lack. Meanwhile, creating a constitution that all members agree upon is a challenge, especially as many fear formal regulation of informal and unregulated
livelihoods.
Consequential risks
Despite its potential benefits, greater sustainable charcoal production poses
some consequential risks (refer back to Figure 13.5). Many stakeholders perceive
a streamlined increased market price of charcoal as a potential consequential
risk to the long- term viability of sustainable charcoal, with actors along the
market chain likely to pass along to consumers the additional costs of doing
business formally. This includes transporters who may also continue to include
the cost of bribes due to strong enforcement of informal practices and weak
enforcement of formal rules.
There is also significant potential for loss of livelihoods if stricter enforcement of sustainable charcoal production takes place. The half a million people
actively engaged in the charcoal market chain support an estimated two million
dependants (Mutimba and Barasa, 2005). While the sustainable practices are
meant to support more livelihoods in the long run with minimal environmental
impacts, some stakeholders felt that only established businesses or community
organised groups are likely to benefit.
Finally, development of more efficient charcoal kilns and cookstoves might
lead to a rebound effect whereby more efficient use leads to fuel savings that in
turn increase fuel use. For example, people might use charcoal to boil water or
cook more often than they previously did (see Mwampamba et al., 2013). Reliance on biomass may increase, but scant research explores how greater efficiency
in production and consumption technologies will affect supply and demand
trends.
within the energy, public health, and environment sectors view charcoal as a
dirty fuel that should be fully replaced by much cleaner alternatives, such as
LPG, ethanol, and biomass pellets burned in gasifier stoves. Interventions to
make these alternative fuels more available and affordable, particularly in urban
areas, may pose a significant risk to sustainable charcoal production activities. If
alternatives capture a sizeable share of the urban household energy market, it
might reduce demand for charcoal, with potentially negative implications on
charcoal- linked employment and livelihoods.
The final risk to greater pursuit of sustainable charcoal production is limited
capacity within charcoal producer associations to ensure compliance with
formal regulations. These regulations require registered charcoal producer
associations to establish a written constitution, develop a conservation and
reforestation plan, and document the kiln technologies and tree species they use
to make charcoal. But tracking biomass resources and developing forest management plans require significant expertise that many members of these associations
lack. Meanwhile, creating a constitution that all members agree upon is a challenge, especially as many fear formal regulation of informal and unregulated
livelihoods.
Consequential risks
Despite its potential benefits, greater sustainable charcoal production poses
some consequential risks (refer back to Figure 13.5). Many stakeholders perceive
a streamlined increased market price of charcoal as a potential consequential
risk to the long- term viability of sustainable charcoal, with actors along the
market chain likely to pass along to consumers the additional costs of doing
business formally. This includes transporters who may also continue to include
the cost of bribes due to strong enforcement of informal practices and weak
enforcement of formal rules.
There is also significant potential for loss of livelihoods if stricter enforcement of sustainable charcoal production takes place. The half a million people
actively engaged in the charcoal market chain support an estimated two million
dependants (Mutimba and Barasa, 2005). While the sustainable practices are
meant to support more livelihoods in the long run with minimal environmental
impacts, some stakeholders felt that only established businesses or community
organised groups are likely to benefit.
Finally, development of more efficient charcoal kilns and cookstoves might
lead to a rebound effect whereby more efficient use leads to fuel savings that in
turn increase fuel use. For example, people might use charcoal to boil water or
cook more often than they previously did (see Mwampamba et al., 2013). Reliance on biomass may increase, but scant research explores how greater efficiency
in production and consumption technologies will affect supply and demand
trends.