With hiked costs for electricity units as a supplement to cover the recurring loadsheding which has now become part of the lifestyle of a Zambian, Charcoal must be left to lead as the source of energy at household level, at least for now.
Who is this uttering such nonsense? Someone is fuming and asking. Well, it is I, your fellow conservationist who perhaps is just putting across what you have tried to ignore for so long. Perhaps, you should ask yourself whether or not you are being a true conservationist.
In simpler terms Conservation implies protection as well as sustainable utilisation of resources.
Paying attention to the above stated description of Conservation will provide you a lense through which you can position yourself on a side as a conservationist based on what you have taught and done much so far. The question is, do you just talk about protection or you also share about sustainable utilisation?
What needs protection? I say, the threatened and or endangered plant and animal species or organisms. This takes affordable alternatives to prevent further damage to the protected if it’s a need.
What needs sustainable utilization? I say, the resources we need to support our day to day lives. This takes knowledge and awareness on the how.
Given the above contexts, think of Zambia today.
Where do forest resources (trees) that supply most Zambian households with Charcoal for daily energy needs stand? Do they require protection or sustainable utilisation? Bear in mind that protection is mostly a working solution when there are affordable alternatives (subsidized if need be), which Zambia pays so much less attention to as of today.
Let Charcoal lead as a source of household energy. Do not stop the average Zambians that cannot afford neither Solar nor Gas energy sources from using this product. Let the women collect the fire wood and keep up with the traditional knowledge that sustained generations before them, let Charcoal lead.
But remember sustainable utilization. It takes the knowledge about the how. So here it is. Teach this to them that are not aware and need to know:
– There are energy efficient Braziers, they take less amounts of charcoal. This means that one can use that K5 plastic bag of charcoal or a family can use that 25kg bag of charcoal for a little longer and prepare more meals than they currently do with that ordinary brazier. Are such braziers expensive? Well, they cost just a fraction more than the ordinary but the benefits outweigh the cost.
– There are certain trees that are not worth using only for Charcoal production: For example, people devalue Mukula, Mupapa, Mukwa and other high value timber worth tree species when they burn them to simply produce charcoal. It is not worth it. Let them produce charcoal from other tree species that are fast growing and those that can be pruned and not cut down entirely.
Let them that have decisions to make know that:
– Decision makers can be granted time to initiate a forest resource (trees) management plan that properly incorperates Charcoal production for people to use this resource sustainably. I mean, a practical plan, not one that will be accummulating dust because its budget is just too thick for our pockets. Am convinced beyond doubt that sharing this will lead to two possibilities:
1. – Deforestation due to charcoal production will be less detrimental. It will be maintained at reduced levels.
Win-Win Situation
– Decision makers need to devise a plan via which communities with high value forest resources (trees) will benefit from conservation of such, otherwise, not doing so but expecting change is a waste of commitment. Let revenue generated from the sales of high value trees feed development agendas for the locals hosting the resources.
Our forestry departments across the country should not be looking as disorganized as they do, they should not complain of lack of funds. IT IS NOT RIGHT, the department generates and can generate enough financial resources to decently sustain itself.
Charcoal is now called the New Gold amongst some suppliers that make some good and substantial income from it. It sure is and shall it be left to lead for now. Until someone worthy of turning the tables wills to do the needful for the sake of the resources and avoid the related risks ahead, let charcoal lead.
Again, I say, with hiked electricity unit costs, let charcoal lead, with lack of affordable alternative sources of energy, let charcoal lead, with overambitious forest management plans that are complicated to make practical or the lack of at least such, let charcoal lead, with delayed decision making for enhanced forest resource management, let charcoal lead!
Sustainable_Utilization
ExpeN 