Thank you, Jacob Marksons Oboth, and the Parliament of Uganda, for pausing the enforcement of the charcoal ban and demanding a proper explanation from government.
In my Daily Monitor article of January 22, 2024, Rethinking Approach to Plastic Waste Control, I used a simple question: why are there more cows than dogs in Uganda and on Earth? https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/oped/commentary/rethinking-approach-to-plastic-waste-control-4499128
A dog produces many puppies. A cow normally produces one calf. Yet we deliberately grow cattle herds. We feed cattle, treat them, protect them and breed them because cattle have value.
The lesson is that what we value grows, and what we do not value diminishes. In other words, what has economic value tends to increase, while what has none is neglected and may diminish, sometimes to extinction.
That same argument applies directly to charcoal and forests.
I do not support the stripping of natural forests for charcoal. But we must face an uncomfortable truth: stopping charcoal burning, without replacing the value trees give to their owners, may accelerate forest degradation faster than leaving a properly regulated charcoal economy in place.
Why? Because a tree that can no longer earn its owner an income becomes an obstacle on land that can grow cassava, coffee or tea.
The farmer will cut the trees. The charcoal bags may disappear from the road. But the forest will not remain. It will simply become a coffee garden, a tea plantation or a cassava field.
And then we shall congratulate ourselves for stopping charcoal while forest cover continues to fall.
A charcoal ban does not automatically create conservation. It can break the value chain that encourages people to grow, manage and replant trees. Once that value is removed, clearing the land for crops becomes the rational economic decision.
The answer is not to allow natural forests to be destroyed. The answer is to make forestry valuable and regulated: charcoal from planted woodlots, strict replanting obligations, traceable supply chains, firm protection of natural forests, and real income for communities that retain forest cover.
Government must also make gas, electricity and efficient cooking affordable. A free gas cylinder is not a solution when the refill is beyond the household budget.
We should not judge this policy by the number of charcoal bags impounded. We should judge it by whether Uganda has more forest cover after five years.
If a policy removes value from trees but gives greater value to clearing the land beneath them, it will not save forests. It will clear them faster.
https://www.parliament.go.ug/news/4664/speaker-halts-charcoal-trade-ban-pending-govt-statement
National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) Uganda
Parliament of Uganda
Hon Kahinda Otafiire
The post APOLLO BUREGYEYA: A charcoal ban may destroy more forest than charcoal appeared first on Watchdog Uganda.