Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
communities produce the charcoal that is transported to the urban centres. There
have been efforts to curb or ban the production of charcoal out of concern for
deforestation and unsustainable resource use. However, the portability and high
energy content of charcoal - nearly twice the energy density of wood - have
made it valuable to consumers and thus demand continues to grow. Lifecycle
management approaches could improve the sustainability of charcoal, but that
will require enabling institutions and policies (Kituyi 2004; Njenga et al. 2013).
In the whole value-chain of charcoal, those who benefit the least are the
producers. This is primarily due to unfavourable policies that have driven the
practice underground, leading to corruption and low income for small-scale
producers. Until recently, Kenya had conflicting and contradictory charcoal
policies, whereby it was legal to consume charcoal but illegal to produce it,
leading to an unfavourable policy environment. A similar situation is found in
other countries in eastern and southern Africa (Zulu 2010). Enforcement of such
laws not only denies government revenues, but also creates social exclusion, as
it targets poor people and small-scale operators, without affecting those who
are well connected and politically protected. Although energy and forestry
policies and acts have recently legalized sustainable charcoal production, players
in the industry continue to operate just as they did before the policies and
legislation were enacted, partly due to low awareness and complicated licensing
procedures. Under a regime of regulated wood supplies and unobtrusive
policies, it is estimated that a small-scale charcoal producer can on average earn
the equivalent of USD 2700 a year (PISCES 2011).
In ASALs, the negative image of charcoal production by government and
development agencies is reinforced by the long prevailing perception that coping
strategies that entail utilization of local environmental resources are degrading
to the environment and should not be promoted. Charcoal is acknowledged as a
drought-coping measure, but 'coping' is implicitly viewed as bad for adaptation,
as it diverts attention away from addressing structural problems, leading to a
focus on 'surviving' instead of 'thriving' (Speranza et al. 2010). Taken literally,
this view can lead to curbing of charcoal production as a means of promoting
adaptation, while leaving the community more vulnerable. Such vulnerability
can contribute to deforestation which further limits future livelihood strategies,
both on-farm and off-farm (Paavola 2008). As an example, the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment report (2005) focuses on unsustainable community
practices in the semi-arid zone, and how climate change will exacerbate the
situation. The report proposes soil and water management, while acknowledging
that poor farmers are reluctant to invest in such measures because they are unable
to forego the immediate income generated by conventional land-use practices in
favour of long-term benefits. According to Tschakert (2007: 382), such physical
environmental measures mirror anti-desertification plans, and the adaptive role
that these solutions offer to subsistence farmers, the vulnerable 'target' population,
is tangential at best
.
Further, Anderson et al.
(2004) attribute the failure of past
policies on drylands to being focused on the presumed limitations of the natural
Search WWH ::
Custom Search