| European
Tropical Forest Research Network |
Table
of contents
News 47/48 homepage
WOODFUELS AND LIVELIHOOD AND SUSTAINABILITY GOALS
By Michael Arnold
Fuelwood and charcoal remain the principal sources of domestic energy for poor rural and urban households in much of the developing world. This has implications for the Millennium Development Goals that seek to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, and to ensure environmental sustainability.
Discussion of energy and MDGs in these regions has tended to focus on measures to accelerate shifts away from household use of fuelwood to energy sources perceived as being more efficient, convenient and environmentally friendly. However, though the share of fuelwood as a source of energy is now falling with increasing urbanisation and rising incomes (Whiteman et al. 2002, Barnes et al. 2005), the numbers who continue to use it remain huge. It has been estimated that if present patterns of energy use continue, the number of people using fuelwood and other biomass fuel in Africa will grow by 40% to 700 million by 2030 (IEA 2002). In addition, there would still be about 1700 million users in Asia. Moreover, charcoal is often the energy source to which such users shift to first, and its use is growing rapidly, notably in Africa.
It is therefore necessary to consider how to meet the needs of those for whom woodfuel is the only available source of energy. This has important implications for meeting their nutrition needs, and also for reducing poverty among those generating an income from woodfuel production. It also has implications for the sustainable use of woody resources.
Meeting subsistence needs
Most fuelwood used in rural areas is still gathered or harvested by user households. In both Africa and South Asia formal and informal privatisation of what were previously common pool resources has widely restricted public access to gatherable supplies. For many people, the main result of this has been an increase in the time spent gathering fuelwood. Others have dealt with this by seeking to: generate more fuelwood from existing trees or agroforestry; reduce fuel needs; downgrade to other biomass fuels; or purchase fuelwood.
Overall, recent research shows that most users can generally adjust to a declining availability of fuelwood. However, for those that are unable to adjust in the ways described above appreciable welfare losses can be expected (Arnold et al. 2003).
Generating household income
Ease of access to the resource and markets enables large numbers of people to generate some income from the production and sale of fuelwood and charcoal. This can be an important component of coping strategies for poor households. For some, it is a seasonal or transitional activity, but it can also become the main source of income for very large numbers of the poor, for example in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa where urban charcoal markets are expanding rapidly.
The low value of the product means that profit margins are usually very low. Research in Africa has shown that measures to put management on a more sustainable footing would raise costs to levels that would probably disadvantage both poor producers and poor urban users. There are therefore inherent conflicts between livelihood and sustainability objectives, which have yet to be resolved (SEI 2002, World Bank 2002). This is of particular relevance in the main charcoal producing areas in Africa where this trade is likely to play an even greater role in the future.
Woodfuel use and deforestation
The results of recent studies support earlier conclusions that fuelwood is seldom a primary cause of forest clearance, although in some concentrated areas of charcoal production this may be the case. In most countries a very large share of fuelwood supplies is drawn from trees and other woodstocks outside forests (RWEDP 1997). Where it is sourced from forests it is usually a by-product of clearance for agriculture. However, fuelwood harvesting can result in heavy depletion of non-forest tree stocks on or adjacent to farmland and settlements, and production of large quantities of wood for charcoal can substantially alter the structure of woodlands from which it is sourced (SEI 2002).
Implications for forestry
Overall, the information currently available is broadly consistent with the conclusions arrived at in the late 1980s – that in most regions there is not a fuelwood crisis of such a magnitude as to often require major interventions devoted just to the provision of fuelwood. However, it is also clear that woodfuel provision is not attracting levels of attention in forestry strategies and practices commensurate with its magnitude as an output of, and demand upon, forests and other tree resources.
Supply responses tend to be constrained by the fact that continued availability from natural resources keeps prices low, which discourages investment in renewing woodfuel stocks. However, a small but growing share of fuelwood supplies is now coming from planted sources, often as a by-product or co-product of other more valuable tree products. This fact needs to be better reflected in agroforestry programmes.
Woodfuels could also feature more prominently and effectively in shifts to local forest management. In practice, there have often been biases against fuelwood within new local management bodies. Community decisions about resource management are often dominated by men, who favour uses that produce higher value products for sale. Problems in developing sounder woodfuel production systems at local levels have also been aggravated by poorly designed and implemented regulations and charges, which often need to be revised or removed.
Overall, given its importance in pursuing the poverty, hunger and environmental aims of the MDGs, and the likelihood that in some regions demand will increase substantially, the woodfuel sub-sector of forestry appears to warrant closer attention than it has received over the past decade.
Note
This article is based on a review of recent research carried out for CIFOR. For a more detailed discussion and fuller references see: Arnold, J.E.M, Köhlin, G, and R. Persson. 2006. Woodfuels, Livelihoods and Policy Interventions: Changing Perspectives. World Development, 34(3): 596-611.
References
Arnold, M., Köhlin, G., Persson, R., and Shepherd, G. (2003). Fuelwood Revisited: What Has Changed in the Last Decade? Occasional Paper No. 39, CIFOR.
Barnes, D.F., Krutilla, K. and Hyde, W. (2005). The Urban Household Energy Transition: Social and Environmental Impacts in the Developing World. RFF Press.
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2002). Energy and Poverty. Chapter 13 In World Energy Outlook 2002 , Paris, ECD.
RWEDP (1997). Regional Study on Wood Energy Today and Tomorrow in Asia. Field Document No. 50, Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia, FAO, Bangkok
SEI (2002). Charcoal Potential in Southern Africa, CHAPOSA: Final Report. INCODEV, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm.
Whiteman, A., Broadhead, J., and Bahdon, J. (2002). The revision of woodfuel estimates in FAOSTAT. Unasylva 53 (4): 41-45.
World Bank (2002). Report of the AFTEG/AFTRS Joint Seminar on Household Energy and Woodland Management, World Bank, April 2002.
Contact information:
Michael Arnold
19 Hayward Road
Oxford
OX2 8LN
United Kingdom
Email: jem_arnold@yahoo.co.uk