Rapid urban population growth and acute
insufficiency of reliable and affordable forms of energy in Malawi have greatly
increased the domestic demand and use of charcoal for energy. The resultant
devegatation and other impacts on the environment have been wide and damaging.
On its part, government, reiterating its growing concern, is contemplating
legalising charcoal production by licensing all producers. The idea, though
still in its infancy, has already been massively criticised. Many fear that the
step amounts to authorisation of deforestation in the country. But considering that
Malawi’s deforestation rates rank first in southern Africa and second in African
and that currently there are thousands of, mostly underground, charcoal
producers, the need for the country to revisit its current ineffective policies
on charcoal cannot be overemphasised. This work is basically crafted in support
of government’s current proposal.
In the first place, the introduction
of a licence system will greatly minimise the challenge of monitoring and control.
Being a banned practice, the thousands currently involved in it do their
business behind the scene by among others engaging in night time production and
transporting the product through carefully negotiated routes. This makes the
industry slippery in the hands of the enforcing agents thereby precluding any
attempts to impose control over it. As a result, collection and management of
valuable data becomes challenging. Currently, the industry is characterised by
destructive harvesting and carbonation methods, which have prominently contributed
to the current environmental devastation. Licensing is, thus, a timely intervention.
It would make all producers accessible hence easy to conform them to standards
and expectations stipulated in the reformed policy.
In addition, since licensing will
make charcoal traders accessible, reaching them with support and innovative
technologies will be easy. There’s a general outcry that the traditional carbonation
system, currently in wide use, is very wasteful. Innovative interventions to
minimise biomass loss are needed. For instance, there is need to expand the
utilisation of modern carbonising kilns as well as researching extensively on
the possibility of value addition to the produced charcoal and charcoal-efficient
burning stoves. The huge volumes of by-products at the carbonation stage also
need to be properly recycled. All these require a steady interaction between
the stakeholders in the industry, which is currently so minimal given its banned
status. Turning the charcoal industry
into a fully regulated system by licensing will, therefore, connect stakeholders
making it possible for them to exchange vital information for the industry’s sustainability.
Although charcoal production and
selling is a source of livelihood for thousands of people, it unfortunately, remains
a largely disregarded sector. Its banned status only emphasises the wide perception
that charcoal is ‘forester’s enemy’. This overlooks the industry’s current economic
weight and its contributive potential towards national development. The
proposed licencing system will unlock this economic value turning charcoal
production into a sector useful in alleviating some of the country’s major
economic woes. It has the potential to create jobs, and if charcoal can attain
the official status of a ‘business commodity’, it can really help lift many
families out of dire poverty. The
revenue generated from licenses will help beef up the country’s enforcement
capabilities which are presently feeble owing largely to under-resourcing. Once
formalised, government would be looking at ways of addressing the industry’s
infrastructural challenges such as roads to link production sites and markets. Government
and other stakeholders would also be able to intervene in spheres such as pricing
mechanisms and equipping of producers and retailers with business loans and marketing
skills such as cooperative trading system. With such business support, it would be
possible for charcoal traders to diversify their businesses beyond charcoal,
which would be a significant milestone. So, as can be seen, formalising the
charcoal industry has benefits far much beyond environmental conservation.
Finally, as a country, we are in a
situation where we have already lost large volumes of vegetation. As such, we
need to couple conservation with restorative efforts. One of the approaches that
can be considered is the ‘individual reforestation approach’ of destroyed lands.
Currently in wide use in with many success stories in Madagascar, licensed
charcoal traders in Malawi can also fit in this schema. It really makes sense
to target those involved in deforestation, such as charcoalers, in forest
restoration initiatives. With the proposed intervention, each of the licensees
would be expected to develop a personal plantation on which charcoal will be
entirely produced. This would thin dependence on natural and protected forest
lands. This is not possible in the current set up where charcoal producers are
not formally known. If this is achieved, the charcoal-deforestation link will
be shattered since most charcoal will be produced from special energy plantations
owned by charcoal licence holders. That is why this work puts its weight behind
the idea of licensing charcoal producers.
However, if we are going to avoid the
repeat of the chaos caused by license holding harvesters in the ‘then’ Chikangawa
forest, significant amount of care needs to be taken by those superintending
discussions on the proposal. Sticking to the current business-as-usual model robs
future generations of their ability to supply their own energy needs. That is
why we all need to support the proposed reforms.
No comments:
Post a Comment