by Alicia Gutierrez Brown

In Uganda, charcoal is both a vital cooking fuel and a key source of income, but it is also linked to deforestation and pollution. For researchers like Charles Galabuzi, the debate centres on how to balance environmental protection with the needs of people who rely on charcoal for energy, livelihoods, and survival.

For many Australians, charcoal is simply an alternative fuel, associated with backyard barbecues or camping. But in Uganda, it’s the main cooking fuel for much of the urban and middle-income population. Over 90% of the urban population use charcoal, and up to 70% rely on it as the primary source of cooking energy. 

Existing charcoal debates in Africa are dominated by themes of environmental degradation, deforestation and health concerns. Yet, it’s a much more complicated picture, one that involves history, culture, poverty, gender roles, land ownership, resource access and politics. 

In Uganda, it’s common to see sacks of charcoal sold at market stalls and used in households and small-scale enterprises. It’s also an important economic activity for the low-income earners in urban areas and a livelihood alternative for smallholder households in rural places. At the same time, charcoal production is often cited as a major driver of environmental degradation, blamed for air pollution and the loss of forests.

For Charles Galabuzi, a PhD candidate at UniSC's Forest Research Institute, charcoal is the centre of a much bigger story about poverty, energy access, land and tree rights, livelihoods, environmental policy, and social justice.

Charles’s PhD thesis, ‘Burning to Survive: Contexts of Smallholder Charcoal Production,’ focusses on what happens when policymakers try to solve environmental problems without understanding the people whose lives depend on the resource.

When Charles began his PhD, charcoal was not even on his radar.

"At first, I didn't really think I was going to study charcoal," he says. "My initial ideas were about woodlands in another part of my country, specifically Karamoja."

It was a conversation with his principal supervisor, Professor Francis "Jack" Putz, who suggested he investigate charcoal, an “interesting area that not many people have ventured into,” and an essential commodity for the people of Uganda.  

“Only a very small aspect of charcoal has been explored, mostly environmental issues associated with charcoal production and studies looking at the profitability of making charcoal,” Charles says. 

“I realised there is an important gap, the unclear contexts of smallholder participation in production of this important energy resource in my country."

Charcoal is also part of the country's food culture; for generations, families have cooked over charcoal stoves, and many remain convinced that the slow-burning fuel delivers a depth of flavour and authenticity that electric and gas cookers cannot reproduce.

Charles’s research aims to move the conversation away from assumptions and towards practical solutions aimed at the people whose lives are shaped by charcoal production every day.

"Charcoal is a status symbol among poorer sections of society, because the poorest households, especially in rural areas, use mainly firewood... some rural families also use charcoal because it is easier to handle and more efficient, and it’s affordable compared to alternatives such as natural gas, petroleum products, or electricity," Charles says.

Research snapshot

• Thesis title: Burning to Survive: Contexts of Smallholder Charcoal Production
• PhD Candidate: Charles Galabuzi
• Supervisors: Prof Francis 'Jack' Putz (primary), Prof Claudia Romero, Dr Shannon Brincat

Even households with access to modern energy sources continue to rely on charcoal for cooking.

"When I reflect on my own household in Uganda, even though I can afford electricity, I still use multiple energy sources like solar power, electricity, natural gas and charcoal for cooking, because cooking with electricity is expensive,” Charles says. 

It’s the challenge facing policymakers in many African countries. While governments promote the transition away from wood fuels, millions of households still stuck with charcoal because the alternatives are unaffordable.

"In Uganda, I do not see people abandoning the use of charcoal for cooking, yet the government continually says charcoal production should stop... when in fact, many of the people telling others to stop producing charcoal are using charcoal themselves in their own homes."

It’s a contradiction that sits at the heart of Charles’s research. The production and transport of charcoal can be treated as illegal, but once it reaches the market it is sold openly, on the roadside, and once it reaches homes, its use is perfectly legal. 

“It’s a confusing situation," Charles says. "If we truly believe charcoal is causing environmental destruction and should be eliminated, then we should also be prepared to stop using it in our own homes. But that is not realistic."

His research does not argue against environmental protection, it questions whether current policies adequately understand the people affected by them.

"The primary audience for this research is policymakers... at the moment, I feel that many policymakers are largely blind to the social and political circumstances surrounding this very important product," he says. 

Energy poverty is a real consequence of restricting access to traditional fuels, and the effects on families can be severe.

"In some communities, the cooking energy situation becomes so desperate that people will use almost anything they can find as fuel… when you see people cooking with plastic bottles or polythene bags, you realise there is a real crisis," Charles says. 

Some people turn to agricultural residues, such as maize stalks, to use as cooking fuel because access to wood is extremely limited, especially for communities living near protected forests.

"Forest reserves would traditionally have been the primary source of firewood and charcoal, but because protection has become heavily militarised, communities can no longer freely access these resources," Charles says. 

The result is a contradiction rarely discussed in conservation debates, where policies intended to protect forests can push vulnerable households into unsafe and unhealthy alternatives.

"When people face these kinds of fuel shortages, they become desperate… they begin burning whatever is available, including plastics which – especially in cooking – is extremely dangerous and unhealthy, but it’s one of the consequences of energy poverty and limited access to traditional fuel sources."

At the centre of Charles’s research are the small-scale producers, people who make charcoal, sell it, and depend on it for survival. His study aims to understand who they are, why they participate in charcoal production, and how factors such as gender, land rights, social status and wealth influence their involvement. 

"Unfortunately, research has often ignored the reasons people produce charcoal and the living and working conditions of producers," he explains. 

"Some communities are desperate for income, so during peak periods, such as when school fees are due, families can make charcoal, sell it, and quickly raise the cash they need."

"If a household needs extra money to buy food or diversify its diet, charcoal production is often the easiest way to generate income… for many poor rural families, it is a crucial safety net."

This perspective challenges the assumption that charcoal producers are simply callous environmental offenders. Charles’s research proposal identifies land tenure, resource access rights, gendered labour roles and social hierarchies as key areas of investigation. 

"Policies are often made in an oppressive manner, we hear, 'Let's protect the forest,' without considering that the people using and managing these resources also need to benefit from them," he says. 

"Access rights and land tenure are major issues in my country."

Who owns land? Who controls trees? Who decides who can access resources? Who benefits from conservation policies?

These are questions about power, social justice, and sustainability. Things that should be connected, Charles believes, rather than competing.  

"Instead of designing policies to prevent people from producing this important energy resource, we should be thinking about how to promote more realistic production thresholds to minimise environmental impacts," he says. 

"When charcoal production is forced underground and treated as illegal, when its production is criminalised, people will always find a way to continue producing charcoal. But when they do so illegally, they are less likely to care whether they are damaging the environment. We should focus on helping smallholder producers understand what practices are environmentally harmful, rather than relying on oppression and enforcement."

Charles is still in the early stages of his PhD research. A pilot study in Uganda will help refine his approach and build relationships with communities and local authorities.

He hopes his research will help foster more understanding between people in positions of influence and those who rely on charcoal for their everyday existence.  

"If policymakers understood who produces charcoal, why they do it, and how the system actually works, they might see the issue very differently," he says.