Uganda’s crackdown on charcoal production and trade has reignited debate over environmental conservation, household energy costs and whether the government has done enough to prepare citizens for the transition to alternative cooking fuels.
While officials at the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development say the restrictions will help restore the environment, reduce pollution and encourage cleaner cooking methods, some Ugandans argue that the alternatives remain too expensive or difficult to access.
Charcoal, alongside firewood, remains one of the most widely used cooking fuels in Ugandan households, particularly among low-income families. For many urban residents, it is a practical option because it is relatively accessible and can be purchased in small quantities, unlike cooking gas, which often requires an initial investment in a cylinder, regulator and burner.
The government’s push to promote liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), commonly known as cooking gas, has therefore raised questions about affordability, distribution and public confidence in alternative fuels.
Some residents say they are yet to benefit from government efforts to promote gas, while others remain apprehensive about using it. Others argue that they do not personally cut down trees to produce charcoal and should not bear the cost of restrictions without affordable alternatives.
“I handed in all my documents to get that gas, but nothing,” said Richard Mpiima, a boda boda rider, describing his unsuccessful attempt to access the government-promoted cooking fuel.
The concerns highlight a central challenge for the policy: discouraging charcoal use may be difficult if households cannot afford or reliably access the alternatives.
Peter Byamugisha, the executive director of ARDHI, an environmental conservation organisation, supports the restrictions, arguing that they could help protect forests and discourage destructive tree-cutting practices.
Byamugisha said the government had struggled to educate the public about the dangers of cutting down trees, but enforcement of the restrictions could strengthen awareness and encourage behavioural change.
“We have been struggling so much to educate the people about the dangers of cutting down trees, so I think now the volume will have to increase and people will understand that there is a consequence,” Byamugisha said.
Irene Bateebe, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, also defended the push towards alternative cooking methods, pointing to the environmental and health implications of traditional fuels.
“Cooking using other rudimentary forms is one of the key contributors, so we must look at this from the environment side and health side,” Bateebe said.
The environmental argument centres on the pressure charcoal production places on forests, particularly where trees are harvested unsustainably. Traditional cooking fuels can also expose households to harmful smoke, especially when used indoors or in poorly ventilated spaces.
However, the environmental and health benefits of a transition depend partly on whether households can obtain cleaner fuels and suitable cooking equipment at a cost they can sustain.
Byamugisha said promoting gas was not a bad idea but warned that the approach could become problematic if the government failed to account for the limited number of Ugandans who can afford it.
For low-income households, the cost of switching is not limited to buying fuel. It can also involve purchasing equipment and adjusting household spending to accommodate a different cooking method.
Uganda’s Dependence on Charcoal
Bateebe said Uganda remained heavily dependent on charcoal compared with some other countries in the East African region, while the number of people using cooking gas remained relatively low.
“Uganda consumes about 25,000 tonnes of liquefied petroleum gas per year,” Bateebe said.
The figure underscores the importance of expanding access to alternative cooking fuels, although the national consumption figure alone does not establish how many households use LPG or how affordable it is for different income groups.
A successful transition would require more than restricting charcoal. It would also depend on the availability of affordable fuel, reliable distribution networks, public education and alternatives suited to households with different incomes and cooking needs.
Without these measures, restrictions could place additional pressure on families already struggling with the cost of living, while creating incentives for informal trade in charcoal.
Some people argue that households, particularly in urban areas, could turn to electricity if charcoal becomes unavailable. Electric cooking can reduce reliance on wood-based fuels, but its practicality depends on the cost of electricity and appliances, as well as the reliability of supply.
Julius Wandera of the Electricity Regulatory Authority acknowledged that electricity transmission and distribution face challenges but said these could be addressed.
For households considering electric cooking, however, the question is not simply whether electricity is available. They must also consider the cost of cooking appliances, their power consumption and the reliability of the supply.
Frequent outages can complicate the transition for families that depend on electricity for cooking, particularly where there is no affordable backup option.
Expanding electric cooking would therefore require measures that make it financially viable for ordinary households, alongside improvements in electricity supply and distribution.
Who Changed the President’s Directive?
The debate has also been fuelled by uncertainty over the geographical scope of the charcoal restrictions.
In 2023, President Yoweri Museveni directed a crackdown on charcoal production and trade in northern Uganda as part of efforts to curb tree-cutting and environmental degradation.
Police recently announced enforcement operations to implement the directive. However, subsequent reports and public statements appeared to suggest that the restrictions extended beyond the original geographical scope, leaving traders and consumers uncertain about where the ban applies.
The distinction matters because a restriction targeting particular regions is different from a nationwide prohibition. The two approaches have different implications for charcoal producers, transporters, traders, consumers and enforcement agencies.
The government needs to clearly communicate the legal basis, geographical coverage and specific activities prohibited under the current measures. It should also explain whether the latest enforcement actions implement the original directive or reflect a subsequent decision expanding its scope.
Who, then, changed the President’s directive, if its scope has indeed been expanded? Establishing this requires clarification from the responsible authorities and examination of the relevant directives and enforcement instructions.
A Ban Is Not an Energy Transition
Ultimately, the question is whether restricting charcoal before affordable alternatives are widely accessible is a sustainable policy.
The government has legitimate environmental and public health concerns to address. But the success of the crackdown will depend on whether it can reconcile those objectives with the everyday realities of households that rely on charcoal because other fuels remain beyond their means.
A durable transition would require affordable cooking gas, accessible electric cooking options, sustained public education and clear, consistent enforcement rules. Support for low-income households would also be important to ensure that the cost of environmental protection does not fall disproportionately on those least able to afford it.
Without such measures, the restrictions could face resistance, deepen uncertainty among traders and consumers, and encourage evasion rather than lasting behavioural change.
The real test is not simply whether charcoal can be removed from the market, but whether Ugandans can switch to cleaner cooking methods without compromising their ability to feed their families.