Stacking the Evidence: Making Space for Biomass in Clean Energy Policy
shares
Story by: Ann Njuguna
Across much of sub-Saharan Africa, cooking is still very much a smoky affair for both rural and urban households. Despite decades of policy ambition and investment, biomass remains a dominant player in the cooking landscape. In Kenya, about 68% of households primarily depend on charcoal and firewood for cooking (KNCTS, 2024). Herein lies a dilemma. A thriving charcoal business value chain that provides a means of livelihood for many is a silent testament to depleting wood fuel hotspots which are concentrated in SSA and South Asia (Bailis et al., 2015; Steel et al., 2025). Deforestation, carbon emissions, and health impacts from household air pollution are among the major cited effects of continued use of biomass-related fuels such as charcoal and firewood.
This dilemma cannot remain ignored, especially by policymakers. But the challenge is how should the lawmakers respond?
The debate is not whether charcoal and firewood should be outrightly banned or criminalised, but whether these traditional fuels should be part of a staged, gradual transition toward clean and modern cooking. This is why evidence-informed policymaking around charcoal and firewood is essential to shape effective and practical practices in the subsector.
Why evidence matters in biomass-related policy
In the discourse on clean energy transitions, charcoal and firewood are rarely part of the conversation. They are often not framed as part of the solution, but as part of the problem that needs to be ‘done away with.’ However, the reality is more complex. Charcoal and firewood remain the primary energy source for over 80% of households in Africa (Bailis et al., 2017). They provide livelihoods for millions along the value chain, from rural producers to urban traders. To treat these fuels simply as “unwelcome” in transition debates is to ignore the social, cultural, and economic systems that sustain them.
This is why evidence matters, because it shows the lived realities and backs them with reliable data instead of assumptions. If evidence is overlooked, policies risk missing their intended impact. Data on the charcoal value chain in its entirety is a good start for shaping policy and regulatory frameworks in the industry (Chidumayo & Gumbo, 2013). Policies informed by good, reliable data prevent the unintended consequences of unfavourable frameworks such as blanket bans. For example, in 2018, the government issued a directive banning charcoal production and trade in Kenya, intended to protect forests and woodland resources. In theory, the policy seemed like a good solution. However, it had unintended consequences. The official trade of charcoal was reduced, but informal, illegal markets that were harder to regulate thrived. This undermined the very environmental goals the ban aimed to achieve (Bartlett et al., 2024; Wekesa et al., 2023). Evidence suggests that failure to recognise the socioeconomic role of charcoal and lack of parallel investment in affordable alternatives and livelihood support tend to push production underground and almost guarantees backfiring of policies such as blanket bans and prohibitions (Bartlett et al., 2024; Chidumayo & Gumbo, 2013).
Evidence also challenges the idea that charcoal and firewood can be replaced overnight by modern solutions. A recent study by Steel et al. (2025) revealed that global wood fuel extraction and charcoal production is 30% and 50% respectively, which is higher than previously recorded. In Africa alone, charcoal production estimates are 18% (~6 million tonnes more) higher than earlier FAOSTAT estimates[1] due to its expanding role as a primary cooking fuel, especially in urban areas (Steel et al., 2025). This means that many national policies have likely not grasped the full and accurate scale of wood fuel dependence, and this is why biomass-related fuels should still be treated as major players in energy policy. Ignoring them risks designing policies and transitions that do not reflect reality on the ground. The acknowledgement that biomass should be integrated in designing transition pathways is necessary.
Also, evidence suggests that many households stack both traditional and modern fuels mainly due a number of factors such as affordability, technical characteristics of cooking technologies and fuel supply issues (Perros et al., 2022). Charcoal and firewood act as a safety net, to supplement cleaner and modern sources and build household resilience to deal with energy poverty. This is why there is an increasing need to recognise that biomass remains a large part of the energy mix, and to gradually make it cleaner and sustainable.
There are also competing narratives regarding the sustainability of wood fuels, with the majority highlighting their role in deforestation and emissions associated with harvesting and combustion. In contrast, others view them as renewable through natural regrowth, residues and plantations (Bailis et al., 2015, 2017). Carbon offset projects often overestimate the fraction of non-renewable biomass in baselines, leading to inflated carbon emission savings claims for clean cooking solutions such as ICS (Gill-Wiehl et al., 2024; Schneider et al., 2023). These misconceptions and inconsistencies need a lot of debunking in the charcoal sector, as the lack of consistent data often negatively influences decision making (Mwampamba et al., 2013).
Pathways of EIPM for charcoal and firewood
So, what then can policymakers do to ensure that frameworks are backed by evidence and reflect on-the-ground realities?
- Evidence-informed transition does not involve a straight leap from biomass to modern solutions like LPG and electricity. Charcoal and firewood need to be recognised in the interim as part of the energy mix and included in energy policies due to their significant role in rural-urban energy systems, especially in developing countries (Mwampamba et al., 2013). Policymakers should therefore invest in evidence systems that track biomass value chains across production, trade and use at both subnational and subnational levels. Evidence-based interventions such as sustainable harvesting and improved kilns should be part of policy engagement. Studies in SSA show that introducing improved kilns, coupled with participatory forest management, reduces emissions and increases efficiency (Zulu & Richardson, 2013).
- Ground truthing of national targets is also essential. For example, Kenya’s target of achieving universal cooking by 2028 is ambitious, despite the scale of the challenge. Studies show that about 68% of households still depend on biomass for cooking. There is therefore good political will, which in turn must be tested against data that reveals affordability and accessibility constraints as major barriers to realising this goal.
- There is also a need to incorporate behavioural and cultural practices, since cooking is very cultural. Evidence shows that even when households adopt cleaner solutions like LPG and electricity, many continue to cook with charcoal and firewood for taste, traditional reasons or habitual use for specific dishes.
With finance channels increasingly tied to clean energy and carbon reduction, both national and county governments face pressure to modernise cooking. The kind of policies related to charcoal and firewood will inform the investments and partnerships done in the sector. This was also echoed in the Clean Cooking Week 2025 forum which spotlighted evidence-driven strides by the government to unlock the potential of bioenergy in the country. This includes derisking investments in the sector, improving technologies, forming a nexus with other sectors such as agriculture and forestry, and amalgamating policies related to biomass. For example, about 17 policy frameworks are related to bioenergy, but only about 7 directly inform on bioenergy. Adoption is not just about ICS or improved kiln technologies. Other complex factors such as affordability, accessibility, livelihoods and behavioural changes are needed to integrate sustainability for wood fuels in the country. Policies and regulatory frameworks therefore should be grounded in evidence to be able to incorporate these factors and build a better enabling environment for sustainability in the sector.
This blog draws from the project “Evidence Use in Biomass Cooking Policy: Understanding Stakeholder Influence and Framing in Kenya and Tanzania.” Read the full details here:
References
Bailis, R., Drigo, R., Ghilardi, A., & Masera, O. (2015). The carbon footprint of traditional woodfuels. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2491
Bailis, R., Wang, Y., Drigo, R., Ghilardi, A., & Masera, O. (2017). Getting the numbers right: revisiting woodfuel sustainability in the developing world. Environmental Research Letters, 12(11), 115002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/AA83ED
Bartlett, A., Alix-García, J., Abarca, A., Walker, S., Van Den Hoek, J., Murillo-Sandoval, P., & Friedrich, H. K. (2024). The unintended consequences of production bans: the case of the 2018 Kenya logging moratorium. Environmental Research Letters, 19(9), 094007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/AD661C
Chidumayo, E. N., & Gumbo, D. J. (2013). The environmental impacts of charcoal production in tropical ecosystems of the world: A synthesis. Energy for Sustainable Development, 17(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESD.2012.07.004
Gill-Wiehl, A., Kammen, D. M., & Haya, B. K. (2024). Pervasive over-crediting from cookstove offset methodologies. Nature Sustainability, 7(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41893-023-01259-6;SUBJMETA
Ministry of Energy and Petroleum. (2024). Kenya National Cooking Transition Strategy 2024-2028. https://www.energy.go.ke/downloads
Mwampamba, T. H., Ghilardi, A., Sander, K., & Chaix, K. J. (2013). Dispelling common misconceptions to improve attitudes and policy outlook on charcoal in developing countries. Energy for Sustainable Development, 17(2), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESD.2013.01.001
Perros, T., Allison, A. ʂL, Tomei, J., & Parikh, P. (2022). Behavioural factors that drive stacking with traditional cooking fuels using the COM-B model. Nature Energy, 7(9), 886–898. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41560-022-01074-X;SUBJMETA
Schneider, L., Gill-Wiehl, A., Haase, I., Reginato, G. A., Macedo, L. R., Lee, D., Spalding-Fecher, R., Fallasch, F., Wissner, N., Siemons, A., Broekhoff, D., Barata, P. M., Jones, D., & Holler, J. (2023). Cooking up Quality: Carbon credits from efficient cookstove projects face integrity issues worth fixing. Calyx Global. https://calyxglobal.com/research-hub/research/cooking-up-quality-carbon-credits-from-efficient-cookstove-projects-face-integrity-issues-worth-fixing/
Steel, E. A., Stoner, O., Podschwit, H., Paz, B., Bombelli, I., Simon, S. L., Peterson, E., Weimar, H., Glasenapp, S., Sikkema, R., Elhassan, N., Bailis, R., Steierer, F., & Souza, L. R. (2025). Global wood fuel production estimates and implications. Nature Communications , 16(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41467-025-59733-Y;TECHMETA
Wekesa, C., Mutta, D., Larwanou, M., Kowero, G., & Roos, A. (2023). Effects of charcoal ban on value chains and livelihoods in Kenyan coast – Stakeholders’ perceptions. Environmental Development, 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVDEV.2023.100809
Zulu, L. C., & Richardson, R. B. (2013). Charcoal, livelihoods, and poverty reduction: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development, 17(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESD.2012.07.007