1. 1
Environmental and socio-economic implications of charcoal production
and use in Kenya
K. Senelwaa
, E. E. Ekakoroa
; D. O. Ogwenoa
& K. O. Okacha
Department of Forestry & Wood Science, Moi University, PO Box 3900, ELDORET- 30100,
Kenya
Kenya's forests have declined in area, stocking and volumes of wood and biomass contained
therein over the last couple of decades, being blamed on charcoal production and use,
especially in peri-urban areas where the practice is outlawed. This work assessed
environmental, indoor pollution and the socioeconomic impacts of the production and use 1.6
million tonnes of charcoal in earth mound kilns in Kenya. Although the industry is a source of
employment and livelihoods for millions of Kenyans in the informal sector, it is associated
with vegetation and forest clearing estimated to range from 0.087 to 1.33 million hectares
annually due to the low charcoal recoveries of earth kilns. Besides, the use of the charcoal in
poorly designed appliances and houses exposed residents to high levels of carbon monoxide
emissions (4166–6147 mg/m3
) and other products of incomplete combustion. Improved kilns
and a shift in focus to on-farm wood production with high biomass densities should be part of
the solution in heavily degraded charcoaling areas to (i) relieve pressure on natural forests and
vegetation ecosystems; (ii) generate extra earnings through increased charcoal production with
remnant trees for alternative uses and/or rehabilitation.
Key words: Environment, deforestation, socioeconomic, charcoal, Kenya
Introduction
Over 90% of the wood in Kenya is harvested
for fuelwood (Senelwa et al. 2005; Senelwa
et al. 2004; Rweyemam, 2002; MoE, GoK,
2002) which provides over 70% of the final
energy requirements (Kahiga, 2000). Some
of this wood is harvested from fragile
ecosystems such as natural vegetation,
upstream water catchments and arid and
semi arid lands. The wood is converted and
or processed in poorly designed and
inefficient traditional technologies such as
earth mound charcoal kilns. It has been
estimated that 1.6 million tonnes of charcoal
is “illegally” produced annually (ESDA,
2005). The demand is expected to increase
gradually. In the absence of clear policies
that encourage efficient use of valuable
biomass resources, little effort is made to
improve conversion technologies or skills of
charcoal producers. The inefficient
technologies lead to deforestation and are
therefore unsustainable. For charcoal
producers, it influences the profitability of
the enterprises and therefore their livelihoods
as it limits the income generating activities.
This work assessed charcoal production
and utilization processes and the attendant
environmental, indoor pollution and its
socioeconomic impacts in Kenya. The
study (i) quantified the potential
implications of adopting and applying the
improved earth mound and metal kiln
technologies in mitigating the problems of
deforestation from current production
processes, and (ii) analysed the socio-
economics of the people in the charcoal
industry (users, transporters, traders and
producers). In addition, the gaseous
emissions associated with charcoal use
were analysed.
2. Methods
It was assumed that 1.6 million tonnes of
charcoal is produced and used in Kenya
annually (ESDA, 2005).
2. 2
Surveys
Surveys of charcoal producers,
transporters, vendors and consumers were
conducted in Makueni, Kitui, and
Machakos, Uasin Gishu and Narok
districts; and in two urban centers - Eldoret
and Nairobi. The data collected included
socio-economic characteristics, charcoal
production processes and types of kilns
used, problems resulting from charcoal
production, charcoal trade, combustion
appliances, charcoal quantities and
availability. Except Uasin Gishu district
that falls in the highlands, all the other
districts fall in the arid and semi arid lands
of Kenya, and supply the bulk of charcoal
used in Nairobi.
Charcoal production process
Thirteen earth mound and 10 interlocking
metal kilns were monitored to evaluate
charcoal production processes in
commercial field environments in Uasin
Gishu, Narok and Malindi Districts, Kenya
(Ekakoro et al. 2006). Recoveries
measured from this study - 15.03% for
earth mound; 32.26% for improved earth
mound; and 36.9% for interlocking metal
kilns were applied to evaluate the socio
economic and environmental implications
of charcoal production technologies. For
purposes of the analysis, we assumed that
the bulk of the charcoal in the country is
produced in the traditional earth mound
kilns at efficiencies of 15.03%.
Environmental implications of charcoal
production technologies
In estimating charcoal specific rates of
deforestation, the main objective was to
translate the annual amount of solid wood
required (in tonnes, t), but not supplied
from private sources (additional or
"deficit" wood), into the equivalent area of
woody biomass needed (in hectares) and
either managed on a sustainable basis
(using mean annual increment, MAI) or
deforested (using growing stock). This
required consideration of the annual
charcoal production / requirements,
efficiencies of production; solid wood
requirements, and the equivalent areas of
natural woody biomass required.
Three major growing stock specifications
were assumed for a low, medium, and high
woody biomass potential representing all
major ecosystems. "Low woody biomass
potential", included wooded grasslands,
shrubland, bushland and thicket averaging
8 (air-dry) tonnes per hectare (t/ha);
medium value of 27 t/ha of woody biomass
in farmlands; and "high woody biomass
potential" humid tropical and montane
forests, of 122 t/ha. Greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions implications were based on
established IPCC guidelines (IPCC, 1996).
Combustion emissions
Charcoal samples from common tree
species were tested for Carbon monoxide
(CO), Carbon dioxide (CO2), Nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) and hydrocarbon emissions
using a Flue gas analyzer (KM9106). Two
appliances were tested - traditional metallic
stove (TMS) and Kenya ceramic stove
(KCJ).
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In total, 370 households (consumers), 60
charcoal dealers, 90 charcoal producers, 40
transporters and 32 professionals (in
different fields associated with charcoal
production and use) were interviewed. All
the producers interviewed used the
traditional earth mound kiln. With the
exception of Uasin Gishu district, most
producers obtained their wood for charcoal
from communal and trust lands as a “free
good’, without any payment. In areas
where trust lands were limited or where the
vegetation had been cleared such as Kitui
and Uasin Gishu, wood was obtained from
private farms. Only a smaller percentage of
the charcoal producers (9.8%) reported to
have obtained permits for charcoal
production. Charcoal producers prefer
3. 3
Acacia spp and other indigenous species,
even though the preferences vary with
region and depended on availability. The
charcoal was mostly produced from green
wood in earth kilns with average
efficiencies of 15.03% (Ekakoro et al.,
2006).
3.1 Socio-economics of charcoal
production and use
Most of the respondents (71%) in the
charcoal utilization survey were females in
the age group of 36 years. Majority of the
respondents (54%) had primary level of
education and 35% had post primary level
education, and engaged in business as a
source of income (Fig. 1). The average
household monthly income was estimated
to be KShs 5241.00 (US $ 70).
Figure 1: Occupation of respondents
Most of the charcoal producers on the
other hand were married males with
average household size of 6 and with
monthly incomes of between KSh 3000
and 6000. Apart from charcoal, other
sources of income include farming (45%),
business (49%) and teaching (6%).
Majority of charcoal producers have low
education level, the majority having only a
primary level education. The charcoal was
produced for sale to wholesalers at the
production sites and along the transport
routes to major towns including Eldoret
and Nairobi. The producers used a very
small proportion of the total charcoal
output. All interviewed respondents said
charcoal business was an important
economic activity, providing employment
to a number of people in the study areas.
Fuel mix and combinations among
respondents
Households in the urban areas (Eldoret and
Nairobi) used different fuels and
combinations of different fuels (Table 1),
with the most common fuels being
charcoal and kerosene.
Table 1: Fuel use by different
households
Fuel type Kerosene Fire wood Charcoal LP
% % % %
Don't use the fuel 1 84 12 98
Using the fuel 99 12 74 2
No response 0 4 14 0
Total 100 100 100 100
The charcoal was used for domestic
cooking, household heating, water heating,
ironing, and for household businesses like
fish frying for sale. Kerosene was used for
lighting and cooking. Although LPG has
been proposed as an alternative to reduce
charcoal use, its application was low.
3.2 Environmental implications
The most obvious environmental problems
of charcoal production and utilization
activities are the level and extent of tree
felling, forest clearing and therefore
deforestation (Table 2).
Table 2. Deforestation and greenhouse
gas emission implications of charcoal
production in Kenya.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Farmers
Tailors
Businessmen/women
Office workers/civil
servants
Others (teachers,
Mechanics, Drivers,
Juakali artisans and
masonry
Casual workers
Unemployed
Occupat
ion
of
respondent
Respondents involved (%)
4. 4
To produce the estimated 1.6 million
tonnes (Mt) of charcoal, up to 10.65 Mt of
wood was required from different types of
ecosystems, and on land that is controlled
under a range of land tenure regimes and
management practices. Unfortunately, the
laws that currently apply to charcoal
production and use are incoherent - while it
is legal to sell, buy and cook with charcoal,
it is illegal to produce and transport it. As a
result, there is a paucity of data on charcoal
production, sources of wood and the
possible effects of the production activities
since the production is mainly done in
unregulated underground cartels that are
largely difficult to monitor. It is therefore
difficult to ascertain the proportion of
wood and or charcoal from the different
configurations (forests, private farms and
woodlands), even though it is widely
believed that the bulk of the charcoal
originated from woodlands with low
biomass densities of only 8 t/ha. The lack
of data notwithstanding, the magnitude and
overall effect of the huge demand for wood
to produce charcoal on vegetation clearing
and or deforestation, ranging from 0.087 to
1.33 million hectares of land annually is
clear (Table 2). Indeed, evidence suggests
that charcoal production has led to
deforestation of large tracts of wooded
savannah. Recent aerial studies have
indicated that charcoal production, among
other activities, has taken a serious toll on
some of Kenya’s few remaining closed-
canopy forest areas (Gathaara, 1999).
Additional technology scenarios and the
attendant recoveries (Table 2) show
opportunities to significantly reduce
vegetation clearing for charcoal
production, and therefore the significant
impacts on the extent of deforestation.
Inclusion of improved earth and
interlocking metal kilns in the analysis
should be viewed as providing practical
interventions to the massive degradation of
the fragile savannah-like grasslands. In the
short term, it will be feasible to focus on
incremental improvements on earth kilns,
taking advantage of traditional knowledge
and practical knowledge of operators of
‘best practice kilns’.
GHG emissions of 4.4 Mt attributed to
charcoal is significant especially since
household bio-fuel production and use in
Kenya represents 78% of the total national
CO2 emission budget (Kituyi, 2000).
Although the First Kenya Communication
to UNFCCC reported emissions of CO2 =
395.1; CH4 = 5.3; N2O = 0.31 and NOX =
11.5 from charcoal, the current assessment
did not consider CO2 emissions from
combustion of biomass fuels.
Other attendant environmental
implications of charcoal production
include effects on the species diversity and
fragmentation of wildlife habitats even
though no quantitative data exists on the
negative impacts of tree felling to wildlife
species such as birds, reptiles and
invertebrates. For woody plants in such
environments, it has been found that fire
kills the above ground biomass of
seedlings, while the underground part is
not killed. Thus only temporal dieback is
exhibited, and later resprouting occurs
(Chidumayo, 1991b). For instance, high
species diversity has been found on
chitemene (shifting cultivation) ash
High Forests (122
t/ha)
Farmlands
(27 t/ha)
Woodlands
(8 t/ha)
Traditional Earth Mound 1.6 15.03 10.65 87,257 394,273 1,330,672 4,431,240
Improved Earth Mound 1.6 32.26 4.96 40,653 183,693 619,963 4,431,240
Interlocking Metal 1.6 36.90 4.34 35,541 160,594 542,005 4,431,240
Kiln Technology GHG
Emissions (t
CO2 Eq).
Vegetation Clearing (Hectare Equivalents)
Kiln
Efficiency
(%)
Quantity of
Charcoal
(Mt)
Wood
Requirements
(Mt)
5. 5
gardens ranging in age from 1 - 25 years
(Stromgaard, 1986), which has been
attributed to the survival of stumps and
roots of the pre-felling woodland, which
apparently were not killed by fire. Kiln
covering destroys vegetation at the dug-up
site, and plant roots up to 15 cm deep. The
heat generated during wood carbonization
destroys all plants at the kiln site where
herbaceous vegetation from seed dispersal
may establish within a few years meaning
the negative impact is long term.
While technology does not appear to
influence GHG emissions, the reduced
wood requirements for the higher
efficiency kilns imply that the carbon
sequestration potential in the grasslands
would be maintained. It is assumed that the
enhanced earth kiln charcoal production
recoveries will result in reduced natural
vegetation harvesting with progressive
regeneration and rehabilitation of natural
vegetation. Thus, improved kilns should be
part of the solution in heavily degraded
charcoaling areas to (i) relieve pressure on
natural forests and vegetation ecosystems;
(ii) generate extra earnings through
increased charcoal production with
remnant trees for alternative uses and/or
rehabilitation; and (iii) soil protection and
improvement in watershed protection. The
ultimate goal is to promote better
management of natural vegetation and
wetlands and prevent further loss and
degradation of these natural resources by
involving local communities in a
participatory manner. In future, efforts to
encourage sustainable tree farming for
charcoal production should be encouraged
to reduce the natural vegetation clearing in
woodlands as these ecosystems are fragile
and take longer to recover, yet they support
Kenya’s wildlife heritage that is
increasingly threatened.
Charcoal combustion gaseous emissions
The emissions varied with species and also
with stove type and differed from the
World Health Organization (WHO) indoor
air quality guidelines (WHO, 1999).
Emissions varied significantly among the
different charcoal species and with stove
design (Tables 3 and 4) indicating varying
health risks to users.
Table 3: Emissions variation with
charcoal species
CO
(mg/m3
)
NO2
(mg/m3
)
Species Mean Mean
Balanites aegyptiaca 2904.2a
± 2533.0 0.0a
± 0.0
Ekebergia capensis 4073.9ab
± 2421.5 1.0a
± 1.3
Acacia tortilis 4098.5ab
± 3259.2 0.0a
± 0.0
Combretum schuminii 5306.3ab
± 2789.4 0.2a
± 0.7
Acacia mearnsii 5770.2b
± 2915.0 3.1ab
± 4.
Newtonia hildebrandtii 9794.0c
± 229.2 5.5b
± 7.0
abc
Means with same letters are not
significantly different at 0.05 level.
The improved stove (KCJ) emitted more
CO than the traditional stove (TMS).
However, stove type had no significant
influence on NO2, hydrocarbons and CO2
emissions (p=0.131, 0.823 and 0.356
respectively). The use of KCJ therefore
poses more health risks to consumers in
terms of exposure to CO emissions. SO2
was not detected in any of the combustion
tests.
Table 4: Charcoal combustion
emissions from different stoves
Stove type CO (mg/m3
) NO2 (mg/m3
) CO2 (%) Hydrocarbon
KCJ 6147.7±3190.0 1.9±3.2 3.1±2.0 151.6±114.2
TMS 4166.5±2539.2 0.8±3.0 2.3±1.7 154.4±108.5
Mean 5070.2±2998.0 1.3±3.1 2.6±1.9 153.1±110.1
TMS has no ceramic lining and thus looses
more heat to the surroundings, which heats
the ash box, which in turn heats the
incoming air as it flows into the fuel bed
through the perforated grating. Besides, the
design allows for more excess air
conducive for complete combustion
processes. The preheated air reacts faster
with the emitted volatiles, favoring the
formation of NO and CO2 rather than
6. 6
reduced compounds such as CO. With KCJ
most heat is trapped in the thick ceramic
wall and less preheating occurs. Thus, the
high levels of CO and hydrocarbons
emissions in KCJs largely result from
incomplete combustion attributed to low
carbon conversion efficiency to CO2 and
improper air turbulence and distribution
leading to partial oxidation of carbon to
CO. The low levels of excess air and
improper air distribution produce reducing
conditions.
4. CONCLUSION
The charcoal industry is a source of
livelihoods for millions of Kenyans. For
producers, it provides alternative
employment, providing additional income
to supplement other sources.
Unfortunately, the low recoveries of the
earth kilns have a negative influence on the
profitability and livelihoods of producers,
limiting the income generating and social
activities. For users, it provides ‘easily’
accessible energy in the form and
quantities that are affordable to the
majority of the poor even though charcoal
use applying the two common appliances
(the Kenya ceramic and the traditional
metallic stoves) exposed residents to high
levels of carbon monoxide emissions
(4166–6147 mg/m3
) and other products of
incomplete combustion. The most obvious
environment problems associated with
charcoal production and use was the extent
of vegetation and forest clearing estimated
to range from 0.087 to 1.33 million
hectares, depending of the sources of the
wood.
Improved kilns and a shift in focus to on-
farm wood production with high biomass
densities should be part of the solution in
heavily degraded charcoaling areas to (i)
relieve pressure on natural forests and
vegetation ecosystems; (ii) generate extra
earnings through increased charcoal
production with remnant trees for
alternative uses and/or rehabilitation; and
(iii) soil protection and improvement in
watershed protection. The ultimate goal is
to promote better management of natural
vegetation and wetlands and prevent
further loss and degradation of these
natural resources by involving local
communities in a participatory manner. In
future, efforts to encourage sustainable tree
farming for charcoal production should be
encouraged to reduce the natural
vegetation clearing in woodlands as these
ecosystems are fragile and take longer to
recover, yet they support Kenya’s wildlife
heritage that is increasingly threatened.
References
Kahiga, T. D., (2000). An insight into
Energy Situation in Kenya. A Ministry of
Energy Perspective, February.
Ekakoro E.E., K. Senelwa, L. Etiegni, K.
Okach (2006). Evaluation of Charcoal
Kiln Processes and Recoveries in Kenya.
(Paper to be presented at the World
Renewable Energy Congress IX (WREC
IX), Florence, Italy, 19-25 August, 2006
Rweyemamu L. (2004). Evaluation of
Fuelwood Energy Consumption in Dar er
Salam Schools. (In Press). Tanzania
Engineers Journal.
MoE GoK (2003). National Energy Policy
(Draft 1), Ministry of Energy, Government
of Kenya, Nairobi.
MoE (2002). Study on Kenya’s Energy
Demand, Supply and Policy Strategy for
Households, Small Scale Industries and
Service Establishments. Ministry of
Energy, Final Report, Kamfor Company
Ltd., Nairobi.
ESDA (2005) National Charcoal Survey:
Exploring the Potential for a Sustainable
Charcoal Industry in Kenya. Energy for
Sustainable Development - Africa,
Nairobi, Kenya. June.
IPCC (1996). Revised 1996. IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
7. 7
Inventories. Reference Manual (Volume
3). Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate
Change. IPCC Secretariat, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Kituyi, E., (2000), Atmospheric Emission
Budgets for domestic biomass burning in
Kenya, PhD Thesis, University of Nairobi.
Chidumayo, E.N. (1991). Woody biomass
structure and utilization for charcoal
production in a Zambian miombo
woodland. Bio-resources Technology 37:
43-52.
WHO (1999). Guidelines for Air Quality.
WHO Geneva.
Gathaara, G. N. (1999). Aerial Survey of
the Destruction Of Mt. Kenya, Imenti and
Ngare Ndare Forest Reserves: February -
June 1999. Nairobi, Kenya Wildlife
Service: 33.
K. Senelwa, E. E. Ekakoro, K. Okach, E.
Omutange and M. Njenga (2005).
Application of the LCA methodology in
evaluating environmental attributes of
forests and wood products: the case of
charcoal in Kenya. Proceedings, Kenya
Forest Research Institute (KEFRI)
Scientific Conference, KEFRI
Headquaters, Nairobi Kenya 1-4 November
2004.
K. Senelwa, D. Ogweno, L. Etiégni, D.
Okwara & F. Mburu (2004). East African
regional needs for forestry: Wood
requirements and the dimensions of
deforestation. East African Clonal Forestry
Conference. Proceedings. Windsor Golf &
Country Club Nairobi, Kenya. 26-27
January 2004. ISBN 1-892456-37-0
