6 The Status and Future of Charcoal in the Energy …
219
and market value (Nabukalu & Gieré, 2019). This fact also holds in
local markets, where African governments simply estimate the ‘foregone
revenue’ from the highly informal standard practices within this trade,
as Sander, Gros, and Peter (2013) discussed for the case of Tanzania.
Depending on the market, valuation methods for charcoal are highly
arbitrary because markets may set prices in non-standardized ways, using
either volume, weight and other factors, such as quality, which become
apparent only when charcoal is burnt by final consumers, through properties such as the release of visible smoke and length of time it takes for
charcoal to deplete on stoves (Nabukalu & Gieré, 2019).
6.9 Summary and Conclusions
Even as investments in alternative energy options continue to grow, charcoal has persisted as one of the most common sources of energy in
sub-Saharan Africa. However, its consumption, along with that of other
forms of biomass, has led to the notions of ‘energy poverty’ and ‘energy
insecurity’. Increased supply of electricity has not led to a decline in
charcoal consumption in the region nor can the secure supply of energy
be attained by more electricity (Owen, van der Plas, & Sepp, 2012).
Charcoal is often maintained as a backup for ‘modern’ or ‘improved’
alternatives (Pesa, 2017). Its demand has sustained a continuous supply
for decades and has left a recognizable trail of environmental damage
upstream due to unsustainable tree harvesting and production practices.
Owing to the detrimental effects of charcoal production to the environment, such as the increasingly noticeable forest degradation and loss
as well as risks of wild fires (Branch & Martiniello, 2018), restrictive charcoal policies, such as bans on production from freshly felled
trees, export quotas and bans, and limitations to the tools used in tree
harvesting (Mugo & Ong, 2006; Nabukalu & Gieré, 2019; WWF, 2018;
UNEP, 2018, 2019), have been put in place by formalized institutions
to limit or completely curb its production. Where charcoal production
is still legal but highly restricted, little is done to increase afforestation or
improve production practices to attain increased efficiency, better quality
outcomes and reduced pollution, and therefore, most of the upstream
219
and market value (Nabukalu & Gieré, 2019). This fact also holds in
local markets, where African governments simply estimate the ‘foregone
revenue’ from the highly informal standard practices within this trade,
as Sander, Gros, and Peter (2013) discussed for the case of Tanzania.
Depending on the market, valuation methods for charcoal are highly
arbitrary because markets may set prices in non-standardized ways, using
either volume, weight and other factors, such as quality, which become
apparent only when charcoal is burnt by final consumers, through properties such as the release of visible smoke and length of time it takes for
charcoal to deplete on stoves (Nabukalu & Gieré, 2019).
6.9 Summary and Conclusions
Even as investments in alternative energy options continue to grow, charcoal has persisted as one of the most common sources of energy in
sub-Saharan Africa. However, its consumption, along with that of other
forms of biomass, has led to the notions of ‘energy poverty’ and ‘energy
insecurity’. Increased supply of electricity has not led to a decline in
charcoal consumption in the region nor can the secure supply of energy
be attained by more electricity (Owen, van der Plas, & Sepp, 2012).
Charcoal is often maintained as a backup for ‘modern’ or ‘improved’
alternatives (Pesa, 2017). Its demand has sustained a continuous supply
for decades and has left a recognizable trail of environmental damage
upstream due to unsustainable tree harvesting and production practices.
Owing to the detrimental effects of charcoal production to the environment, such as the increasingly noticeable forest degradation and loss
as well as risks of wild fires (Branch & Martiniello, 2018), restrictive charcoal policies, such as bans on production from freshly felled
trees, export quotas and bans, and limitations to the tools used in tree
harvesting (Mugo & Ong, 2006; Nabukalu & Gieré, 2019; WWF, 2018;
UNEP, 2018, 2019), have been put in place by formalized institutions
to limit or completely curb its production. Where charcoal production
is still legal but highly restricted, little is done to increase afforestation or
improve production practices to attain increased efficiency, better quality
outcomes and reduced pollution, and therefore, most of the upstream