In Dakar, Senegal, a woman who spent years cooking over a blue LPG flame is back to fanning a charcoal brazier on her doorstep. She is not alone. After Senegal restructured its cooking-gas subsidy program, thousands of urban households abandoned LPG and returned to charcoal, according to a peer-reviewed study published in 2024 in npj Climate Action, part of the Nature Portfolio. The most unsettling finding: even after LPG prices later dropped, many families never switched back. Upfront equipment costs, ingrained new purchasing habits, and deep skepticism that prices would stay low locked them into burning charcoal for good.
That pattern, documented in a single West African capital, reflects a much wider crisis. Across developing regions, volatile energy markets are pushing households backward along what energy researchers call the “fuel ladder,” trading cleaner modern fuels for wood and charcoal. The consequences ripple far beyond the kitchen. Each regression multiplies demand for biomass, strips trees from already fragile landscapes, and shrinks the habitat that wildlife depends on to survive.
A price shock that sticks
The International Energy Agency has tracked this dynamic in real time. Its analysis of demand-side responses to oil-price shocks found that rising fuel prices are already driving households in many rural areas to revert to charcoal and wood. The IEA treats this not as a theoretical risk but as an observable shift, one that accelerates when governments cut subsidies or fail to cushion price swings for low-income buyers. In practical terms, a family that recently adopted LPG can be pushed back to biomass within a single season if cylinder refills become unaffordable.
What makes the Senegal research so alarming is the persistence it documents. A temporary price spike did not produce a temporary change. Families that reverted to charcoal stayed there, even when the economic pressure eased. Researchers attributed the stickiness to several reinforcing factors: households sold or discarded LPG equipment, local charcoal supply chains expanded to meet renewed demand, and trust in stable pricing evaporated. A single affordability shock, in other words, can produce a lasting reversal in clean-energy adoption rather than a brief dip.
As of early 2026, the forces that trigger these reversals have not weakened. Global oil markets remain sensitive to geopolitical disruption, and many governments that subsidize cooking gas face fiscal pressure to scale back support. The IEA’s modeling suggests that without deliberate policy intervention, each new price spike risks ratcheting millions more households back to solid fuels.
From kitchens to vanishing forests
The environmental toll of that ratchet effect is severe. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on a page primarily focused on indoor air quality and household health risks, also notes that reliance on wood and charcoal is linked to forest degradation and land-use change. The EPA frames the problem first as a public health crisis driven by indoor air pollution, with environmental degradation, including pressure on ecosystems that support biodiversity, treated as a secondary but related concern. When millions of households turn back to biomass at once, the cumulative pressure on nearby forests, many already fragmented or poorly protected, intensifies rapidly.
Research published in Nature Communications reinforces that connection. A global analysis of wood fuel production found that unregulated and unsustainable harvesting of woodfuels, including charcoal, carries significant deforestation and forest degradation risk. The same study flagged a critical data problem: official statistics on wood fuel production rely on incomplete national reporting frameworks, meaning the true scale of charcoal harvesting and its ecological toll is almost certainly larger than published figures suggest. Informal producers operating outside licensing systems, and cross-border smuggling networks, are especially hard to capture in standard datasets.
That measurement gap matters because it blinds policymakers to the real magnitude of the threat. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization maintains statistical series on wood charcoal production and trade, but those numbers can lag by years and miss illegal output entirely. If the baseline is already undercounted, any surge triggered by new affordability shocks will be even harder to detect until the forest damage is visible from space.
Charcoal, conflict, and fragile states
In some regions, the charcoal economy is entangled with armed conflict. In 2023, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2696, which addressed the disposal of Somalia’s charcoal stockpiles and recognized that charcoal production and trade in the country are linked to both environmental harm and the financing of armed groups, including al-Shabaab. The resolution placed charcoal squarely on the international security agenda, acknowledging that demand for cheap fuel can fund insurgencies while stripping land of tree cover.
Somalia’s case is extreme but not unique in principle. Wherever charcoal exports are restricted on paper but continue informally through porous borders, enforcement is difficult and livelihoods are at stake. Resolution 2696 underscored that curbing illicit charcoal flows is not only about climate and conservation but also about stabilizing fragile states, a recognition that cooking fuel sits at the intersection of governance, trade, and peacebuilding.
What is still missing from the picture
Despite the strength of the evidence linking price shocks to fuel regression and fuel regression to habitat loss, several gaps remain. No primary study in the available literature has mapped the relationship between household-level charcoal demand and specific deforestation metrics at a granular scale. Satellite-based forest monitoring could, in principle, overlay tree-cover change with charcoal production zones and transport routes, but that work has not yet been done in a way that lets analysts convert a given increase in charcoal consumption into a quantified loss of hectares or species populations.
The Senegal study offers strong causal evidence for one urban context. Whether the same persistence effect holds in rural sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, or Southeast Asia, where supply chains, subsidy structures, and cultural relationships with wood fuel differ sharply, has not been established through comparable peer-reviewed research. Some communities treat charcoal as a commercial commodity purchased in markets; others rely on self-collected firewood. Extrapolating from Dakar to Dhaka or to remote villages in the Sahel requires caution.
The scale of cross-border charcoal smuggling and its precise contribution to habitat destruction relative to legal domestic production is also not quantified in the UN record. Without better tracking of these flows, designing enforcement strategies that reduce ecological damage without cutting off livelihoods overnight remains a guessing game.
Why affordable clean cooking is a conservation issue
Taken together, the evidence base is uneven but directionally consistent. Robust economic and policy studies show that fuel affordability shocks push families back to charcoal and keep them there. Environmental and health authorities warn that expanded charcoal use accelerates forest degradation and displaces wildlife. Global production data and security resolutions reveal that much of this activity remains poorly measured and, in some cases, intertwined with conflict economies.
The gaps, especially around precise production volumes and habitat-loss metrics, limit the ability to forecast exact outcomes. They do not, however, overturn the central finding: without stable access to affordable clean cooking fuels, efforts to protect forests and biodiversity will be repeatedly undermined by the basic need to cook a daily meal. Programs that treat clean cooking as a climate or health intervention alone are missing half the equation. Until energy policy and conservation policy are designed together, every spike at the fuel pump will echo in the tree line.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
