Charcoal ban: Alternatives must come first
Uganda must protect its forests without depriving households of affordable cooking fuel or destroying livelihoods. A gradual transition to clean cooking alternatives and sustainable tree plantations offers a practical way forward, writes David Mukholi
David Mukholi. (File)
______________
OPINION
Charcoal is a big story in Uganda. To households, it is the fuel that makes it possible to prepare a meal. To traders and producers, it is a source of income and employment. To environmentalists, it is a threat to forests, as trees are cut down to meet growing demand, worsening the effects of climate change.
Then the Government announces a ban on charcoal production, and the competing interests come into sharp focus. Families fear losing the means to cook, while traders and producers face the prospect of losing their livelihoods. The consequences extend beyond the kitchen. People need food to remain productive, and communities cannot easily absorb sudden losses of income.
When protests arose over the proposed restrictions, the Government appeared to retreat, clarifying that the ban applied only to Northern Uganda. But the controversy raises a bigger question: how can Uganda protect its forests without depriving people of an essential commodity or destroying livelihoods that depend on it?
Charcoal has become so embedded in daily life that many Ugandans regard it as a necessity they need not question. Sugar, salt and soap are recognised as essential commodities, but charcoal is often taken for granted. Consumers and traders are more concerned about its availability and price than where it comes from or how it is produced.
Charcoal comes from trees. As demand grows with the population, more trees are cut and converted into fuel. Without systematic replanting, forests shrink, and valuable tree species disappear. Even where trees are planted, replacing mature forests takes years.
The shift in charcoal production towards Northern Uganda illustrates the problem. Central Uganda and parts of Busoga were previously major sources, but declining forest cover and efforts to curb tree cutting pushed production further north. Even the shea tree, an important and increasingly threatened species, has not been spared.
Last year, President Yoweri Museveni issued an executive order banning charcoal production in Northern Uganda. Environmentalists and politicians from the region welcomed the move, while producers feared losing their income. Charcoal was being produced and transported to urban markets, particularly Kampala, sometimes concealed in containers. Consumers bought it without necessarily considering the environmental cost.
The Government has a responsibility to act, but enforcement alone cannot resolve the problem. People need to understand the connection between charcoal production, deforestation and climate change, and what continued destruction of forests means for their future. Uganda is already experiencing the consequences of environmental degradation, including indiscriminate tree cutting.
Nor is charcoal the only concern. Trees are also cut for timber and carpentry, often without adequate replanting. The response must therefore address the wider demand for wood, rather than place the entire burden on charcoal producers.
The current controversy presents an opportunity to develop sustainable sources of wood. Individuals, communities and businesses could invest in tree plantations specifically for charcoal production and carpentry. The Government could encourage such investment through incentives and establish a traceability system to distinguish products sourced from managed plantations from those obtained through destructive forest clearing. Sustainable production would protect forests while preserving employment and supplying the market.
Meanwhile, the Government is promoting alternatives such as electricity and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). These offer possibilities, but affordability, access and reliability remain significant obstacles. Uganda’s electricity generation capacity has grown from about 60MW in 1986 to more than 2,000MW. However, generation capacity alone does not guarantee reliable electricity at every household. Power interruptions can last for hours, while rural electrification remains incomplete. Transmission, distribution and the speed of response to outages also affect whether families can depend on electricity for daily cooking.
The cooking tariff offers a cheaper rate of sh412 per unit for consumption from the 81st to the 150th unit in a month. One unit, depending on the appliance and cooking habits, may be sufficient for several simple meals. If a small household uses one unit daily for cooking, it will consume about 30 units a month, costing sh12,360 at that rate. At three units daily, the monthly cost would rise to sh37,080.
However, there is a catch. The cooking rate applies only after the first 80 units. A household using 80 units for lighting, refrigeration, television and other needs would pay sh62,352 for those units at sh779.40 each, before taxes and the service charge. With these additional charges, the bill is about sh76,900.
Adding 30 cooking units at sh412 each brings the total to approximately sh91,500, including taxes and the monthly service charge, assuming the stated rates and charges apply. The cooking tariff may reduce the cost of additional consumption, but the threshold means households must understand how the system works before estimating their savings.
LPG is another alternative, but the Government’s programme to distribute free cylinders has made limited progress towards its promised one million. A more sustainable approach would help households acquire cylinders and afford refills, while allowing fuel companies to explore distribution arrangements that make commercial sense. Public education is essential so that people understand how to use these alternatives safely and economically.
The point is Uganda must reconcile three realities: forests need protection, households need affordable cooking fuel, and producers and traders need livelihoods. An abrupt ban without reliable, accessible alternatives risks imposing hardship without solving the underlying demand.
The answer lies in a gradual, practical transition: educate consumers, promote efficient cooking technologies, expand reliable electricity access, support affordable LPG, exploit solar energy and invest in sustainable tree plantations. Protecting the environment and enabling people to cook and earn a living should not be competing goals. The challenge is to pursue both through policies that people can realistically adopt and sustain.
X- @dmukholi1
dmukholi@gmail.com