Next Article in Journal
Chlorination Treatment for Gold Extraction from Refractory Gold-Copper-Arsenic-Bearing Concentrates
Previous Article in Journal
Strategy Design and Performance Analysis of an Electromechanical Flywheel Hybrid Scheme for Electric Vehicles
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 17
10.3390/su141711018
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fuelwood in South Africa Revisited: Widespread Use in a Policy Vacuum

by
Charlie Shackleton
*,
Gisele Sinasson
,
Opeyemi Adeyemi
and
Vusumzi Martins
Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, Makhanda 6140, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(17), 11018; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711018
Submission received: 10 July 2022 / Revised: 11 August 2022 / Accepted: 31 August 2022 / Published: 3 September 2022
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
South Africa has experienced massive urbanisation and socioeconomic development over the past two decades. Concomitantly, the national energy policy focuses on the provision of modern fuels, notably electricity, for domestic use. Given this policy environment and socioeconomic development, we examine pertinent literature and policies from South Africa on fuelwood use, value, and sustainability to understand how it might have changed in tandem with the national shifts in urbanisation and socioeconomic development over the last 20 years. Recent literature shows that fuelwood is still used to some extent by 96% of rural households and 69% of low-income urban ones. We also estimate that the use of fuelwood by rural households alone is valued at approximately ZAR 10.5 billion (approx. USD 700 million) annually, with the probability of an equally high value to low-income urban households. However, despite the extensive use and high value, our analysis of cognate national policies related to energy, forestry, environment, and social development, show that fuelwood and its use is hardly considered, indicating a policy vacuum. This policy vacuum means that there is no strategic or apposite support or interventions in any localised areas where fuelwood demand might exceed supply, thereby undermining the livelihoods and energy security of affected citizens, most notably the poor.

1. Introduction

Fuelwood is a major biomass fuel used by households and small businesses globally, although concentrated in the Global South. It is the most widespread renewable energy source internationally [1], providing the equivalent of 9% of global energy supply [2]. Over two billion people rely on it, or charcoal made from it [2], to supply their basic household energy needs for cooking and heating. Natural forests, savannas, and thickets supply the bulk of the fuelwood used, with lesser contributions from woodlots, coppice stands, invasive alien species, agricultural and plantation residues, energy plantations, and urban forests. The mix between different sources is spatially variable at local scales. Given the widespread use and the supply from mostly natural and semi-natural landscapes, it is imperative that fuelwood be firmly embedded in national and global policies pertaining to energy, development, poverty, environment, and health. This is particularly pressing in relation to strategies to limit climate change, as well as the currently poor progress towards attainment of SDG 7, i.e., “to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all” [3]. Target 1 of SDG 7 seeks to “ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services by 2030” [3], which is only a few years away and is certainly beyond the reach of many Global South countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.
South Africa is a middle-income country experiencing many socioeconomic and environmental transitions common to other middle- and lower-income countries, such as rapid urbanisation, electrification and infrastructure development, a nascent commitment to renewable energies, and large-scale land transformation. These transformations are assumed to reduce reliance on fuelwood as a domestic energy source. Yet, despite these dynamics, a large segment of the population continues to make use of fuelwood to a greater or lesser degree, which is in contrast to official statistics. For example, both the International Energy Agency [4] and Stats SA [5] report that 1.29 million households (approx. 7.5% of all households) use fuelwood as their primary energy source for cooking, yet multiple, recent local-level studies [6,7,8,9] consistently show it to be above 70% of rural households (which comprise 32% of the national population). Prasad and Visagie [10] and Madubansi and Shackleton [11] observe that rural households do not automatically cease using fuelwood after they have access to electricity for a variety of reasons, with income poverty being a core one. Added to this is the widespread use of fuelwood in formal and informal urban and peri-urban areas [12,13,14], even if it is not the most used energy source.
There have been many studies in South Africa on different aspects of fuelwood use, but much of this scholarship is quite sectoral between studies on (i) energy, (ii)security and livelihoods, (iii) health effects, and (iv) environmental effects. Additionally, most is based on individual studies at a single period, and consequently, there is limited understanding of how the fuelwood sector and use is changing over a period of massive socioeconomic transformation in the country [15], especially since the last overviews are almost 20 years old [16,17]. Within those 20 years, much has changed in the country. For example, the proportion of households connected to electricity has increased from roughly 60% in 2000 to 86% in 2016, covering approximately 95% of urban households and 72% of rural ones [18]; almost 900,000 new connections were made between 2013 and 2016. Coupled to this has been the introduction of the policy of a Free Basic Electricity (FBE) allocation of 50 kWh per household per month to indigent households [12]. More broadly, there has been a large urbanisation transition, from 57% of the national population to 68% (or from 25.6 million to 40 million people) [19], accompanied by rural depopulation in some regions. The poverty headcount (at USD 3.20 per day) has declined from 53% to 32% [20]. All these changes are assumed to have reduced the extent of use or reliance on fuelwood, but there has been no systematic analysis of such. In contrast, both unemployment [21] and household energy poverty [22] remain high, which might result in continued high reliance on fuelwood.
Within the context of this pervasive socioeconomic change, we sought to assess recent work (last two decades) on the current state of the fuelwood sector in South Africa to identify core dynamics and potential lessons for similar Global South countries and developing economies. To that end we addressed the following four questions: (i) what is the current extent of use of fuelwood at household level? (ii) what is the economic value of fuelwood use? (iii) is fuelwood use ecologically sustainable? and (iv) in what way have national policies acknowledged and accommodated fuelwood use? In posing these questions, we hypothesised that (i) fuelwood use remains widespread due to high income poverty that constrains household’s ability to access modern fuels, and (ii) the high use, coupled with population growth, over the past two decades has led to increasing reports of locally unsustainable extraction.

2. Approach

We used a broad document analysis approach [23] to identify, read, and interpret information presented in published papers and book chapters and government policy documents relating to the four research questions posed above on fuelwood in South Africa in the last two decades. On 24 November 2021, we used Scopus to search for relevant literature from the last twenty years (2002–2021) on the use of fuelwood and its sustainability in South Africa, using the search string of ‘South Africa’ AND ‘firewood’ OR ‘fuelwood’. This yielded 147 English language articles. We scanned the titles and abstracts and eliminated 81 of these on the basis of them not being relevant to our research questions because of one or more of the following: (i) they dealt with the health effects of fuelwood use, (ii) they focused on the ethnobotany of selected fuelwood species, (iii) fuelwood harvesting was simply mentioned in passing as a land-use activity in a specific area, or (iv) they dealt with the archaeological aspects of fuelwood. Having scanned the broad literature, we then read the remaining 66 papers along with 15 others that we added from our personal knowledge. In reading each paper (more than once if necessary), we sought to identify and interpret any information presented regarding any of the four research questions we posed. Relevant information within each paper was coded into themes corresponding to the four research questions, and then brought together within the four themes. For the policy analysis, specific searches of government websites and documents were completed to assess the policy dimensions related to energy, forestry, social development, and poverty. Because papers reporting the value of fuelwood spanned different years, all values were adjusted to 2021 equivalents using an online value inflation adjustment tool (inflationtool.com). Values in South African Rands were converted to US dollars at a rate of USD 1 = ZAR 15.48.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. The Current Extent of Use of Fuelwood in South Africa

Given that socioeconomic and environmental contexts within which communities operate are changing, it is important to develop prognostic knowledge on how patterns of fuelwood use change over time. Two decades ago, it was estimated that more than 90% of rural households in South Africa made use of fuelwood to meet some or all of their household thermal energy needs [16]. More recent works show that this is little changed (Table 1). Across the 16 different villages or sites listed in Table 1, the proportion of rural households using fuelwood remains high, ranging from 82–100% (with a mean of 96 + 5.6%). One study that specifically spanned the pre- and post-electrification period at the same site reported little change in the proportion of households using fuelwood [24]. Comparative figures for urban areas show that between 30% and 91% of sampled urban households make use of fuelwood. Typically, surveys in urban areas have concentrated on the poorest neighbourhoods. The amount consumed per household is highly variable as a consequence of household characteristics (such as size, affluence, and location relative to sources of supply) as well local supply dynamics and abundance. Table 1 indicates a mean demand of 3.3 t/hh/yr in rural areas and 3.7 t/hh/yr in urban ones. Unit prices in rural areas are generally lower than in urban ones, reflecting the greater supply and proximity to fuelwood stocks. Thus, the mean annual value of fuelwood use by rural households (ZAR 2446) is only half that of urban households (ZAR 4840) (Table 1).
Accessing fuelwood may be via self-collection, purchase from vendors or some combination of both. The choice is dictated by the relative availability of sufficient local fuelwood stocks, household labour, and financial means. Importantly, fuelwood remains a ‘free’ energy source for the poorest households and communities, other than the opportunity costs of labour. It also provides some energy security against the regular and widespread load-shedding by the national electricity supplier (Eskom) over the past 15 years [32].

3.2. The Effects of Electrification

As with many dimensions of fuelwood use in South Africa, there has not been any in-depth examination of the effects of household electrification on fuelwood use. That would be best achieved by longitudinal studies of the same site and ideally even the same households. There are two studies [24,25] that documented some aspects of fuelwood use in the same villages before and after electricity was supplied. Although these are useful, it is quite probable that other changes also occurred in the intervening period (for example, increasing mean household income or declining wood stocks), and hence any changes in fuelwood use in these two villages cannot be directly ascribed to electrification only.
Both studies showed that the proportion of households still using fuelwood after electrification remained above 90%. This is corroborated by one-off studies in villages that do have electricity, which show that the majority of households still use fuelwood as a primary energy source for cooking and space heating (Table 1). For example, Masekela and Semenya [9] found that all households in a single village in Limpopo Province still used fuelwood despite electricity being available. However, 67% purchased the wood rather than collected it. Similarly, Chiguware [8] revealed that 94% of households in two rural villages in the Eastern Cape used fuelwood despite having access to electricity. With respect to urban areas, Davenport et al. [31] reported that 86% of township households in three urban areas in the Eastern Cape province regularly used fuelwood. Thus, it appears that the availability of electricity has, thus far, had relatively little effect on the proportion of households making use of fuelwood to some degree. Thus, our first hypothesis cannot be rejected.
The two longitudinal studies also showed that there was no decline in the quantity of fuelwood used after electrification. Although Madubansi and Shackleton [24] found that the mean per capita consumption per month did not change a decade after the introduction of electricity in five villages in Limpopo Province, Falayi et al. [25] found that it increased by 56% after electrification (from 4235 kg/hh/yr to 6599 kg/hh/yr). They interpreted that to be a consequence of increased fuelwood stocks close to the village due to woody plant succession in abandoned crop fields, and a greater number of fuelwood vendors. Indeed, both studies reported an increase in the proportion of households that purchased their fuelwood supplies rather than using household labour to collect it for themselves. In the Bushbuckridge region, the increase was quite modest, from 27% to 31% [24], but in the Kat River Valley it was marked, from 6% to 80% [25]. In townships, the proportion of households that purchase or collect their fuelwood supplies is highly variable, reflecting local conditions. For example, the majority of fuelwood users in Riebeck East and Alicedale in the Eastern Cape collected their own supplies, whereas in Makhanda (formerly Grahamstown) almost 60% of the fuelwood users purchased it from local vendors [12].
Several studies have considered why households make use of fuelwood even when they have physical access to electricity. Not unexpectedly, the reasons vary between households and even individuals within a household, as shaped by age, gender, education, income, and the like. Nevertheless, the more commonly mentioned reasons include that fuelwood is free or cheap relative to the costs of electricity and even other energy sources, such as paraffin or gas [9]. Indeed, Shackleton et al. [12] observed that the annual rate of increase in the price of fuelwood was well below that of electricity. The ready accessibility of fuelwood was also cited in some studies [7]. Others, albeit fewer, mentioned that the taste of food cooked on a fire was better than food cooked on an electric stove [7,12]. Other reasons reported include that it (i) provides good heat that lasts, (ii) is traditional and at times mandatory for certain rituals or celebrations, and (iii) is multipurpose because it provides heat for cooking and space heating at the same time [12]. Thus, the significance of income poverty in driving continued use of fuelwood is in accordance with our first hypothesis.

3.3. Economic Value of Fuelwood Use

The value of fuelwood use can be reflected by various means, such as the energy cost-saving, income from trade, as a secure fallback in adverse times, or through the food security gains that cooked food provides. However, the first two are the ones that have been most reported in the South African literature.

3.3.1. Value of Household Use

In rural areas, a mean of 96% of households make some use of fuelwood (Table 1), ranging between 82% and 100%. The mean value of fuelwood used per rural household per year is ZAR 2446 (+USD 158). With approximately 4.3 million rural households in the country, then the value of fuelwood use is roughly ZAR 10.5 billion annually (+USD 700 million). The annual value of fuelwood use per urban household is just about double that of rural ones, even though the amounts used are relatively similar. This is a reflection of the higher unit price in urban areas relative to rural ones. The data in Table 1 on urban use do not allow extrapolation to a national value because of (i) the wide variation in socioeconomic contexts in urban areas and (ii) the reported studies are all from low-income neighbourhoods or informal settlements which are not representative of the urban population at large. However, they do show that a significant majority (69%) of households in the low-income urban neighbourhoods use fuelwood to some degree.

3.3.2. Income from Trade

Although there is widespread selling of fuelwood in rural and urban markets throughout South Africa, they have hardly been examined. Two studies have enumerated some aspects of the trade at multiple sites. First, Mugido and Shackleton [33] reported from a random survey of 1200 rural households around the country that 2.1% engaged in fuelwood sales to some degree. This figure is a lot lower than the 20% of households selling fuelwood in three villages in the Matatiele area of the Eastern Cape as reported by De Neergaard et al. [34]. Given that there are approximately 4.3 million rural households in South Africa, the Mugido and Shackleton [33] figure suggests that there are about 90,300 rural households nationally earning some income from selling fuelwood. They [33] further reported that the mean annual income was highly variable depending on the level of engagement in the trade, but averaged ZAR 5610 + 6225 per year (USD 362 + 402). This results in a national estimate of approximately ZAR 507 million (USD 32.8 million) in rural fuelwood sales per annum.
With respect to urban areas, Guild and Shackleton [15] surveyed 39 towns in the Limpopo and Eastern Cape provinces and identified informal fuelwood markets in 80% of them. There was a significant, positive relationship between town size and number of vendors. Using the relationship to extrapolate to all urban areas in the two provinces, they calculated that there would be approximately 1400 fuelwood vendors, each selling an average of 743 kg ± 67 of fuelwood per week. The mean, gross, monthly income per trader from urban fuelwood sales was ZAR 3876 ± 1263 (USD 250 + 82), resulting in a combined income of approximately ZAR 65 million (USD 4.2 million) per year in just those two provinces alone.
At a more local level, Shackleton et al. [35] reported on the profile and incomes of 30 fuelwood traders in Makhanda, a secondary town in the Eastern Cape. The mean, gross, annual income was ZAR 4614 ± 813 per trader (current value = ZAR 10,712; + USD 692), ranging between ZAR 360 to ZAR 18,200 per year (current value = ZAR 832 to ZAR 42,064 (USD 54 to 2717)). There was a significant relationship between the number of hours per week engaged in trading and the income earned. The mean income per hour worked in the fuelwood trade was ZAR 9.88 ± 1.22 (the equivalent to ZAR 22.50 in current terms, which is equivalent to the national minimum wage).

3.4. Fuelwood Supply and Sustainability

There are differing perspectives around the sustainability of fuelwood use in South Africa. These arguments mostly emerged from the late 20th century predictions that human population growth would inevitably lead to fuelwood demand exceeding supply, which became known internationally as the “fuelwood crisis” or “fuelwood gap” model [36,37]. In contrast, others argued that such extrapolations were unjustified and that there was little evidence of such crises. In particular, the fuelwood crisis model was critiqued for ignoring or down-playing (i) the adaptive ability of natural resource-dependent communities [38], (ii) the regenerative ability of many savanna and woodland tree species [39], and (iii) the supply of fuelwood from home spaces and fields [40], even in urban spaces [14]. Overall, Damm and Triebel’s [41] review concluded that in South Africa, the national-scale supply of fuelwood was probably sufficient to meet demand. On the other hand, others claimed that fuelwood demand has overtaken the rate of supply based on empirical evidence in some local contexts (Table 2).
At the national level, an updated estimate provided by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) showed that in 2015, annual fuelwood production in South Africa was approximately 12.02 million m3, with the import of 469,000 m3, export of 182,202 m3, and consumption of 12.31 million m3 [47]. This indicated that at the national scale, the supply of fuelwood was marginally (2000 m3) in excess of the demand, calculated by adding national production to imports and then subtracting exports and consumption (though how the figures presented by UNEP were generated was not reported). If imports and exports are disregarded, then national demand is deemed to be marginally above supply. The estimated national consumption of 12.31 million m3 is hardly changed from the 13.0 million m3 reported two decades before [49], demonstrating the continued use of fuelwood despite widespread electrification, socioeconomic development, and the increasing population. However, the slight reduction in the face of population growth may also be some reflection of the greater number of households connected to electricity or due to urbanisation. Though supply levels change through time, there is however a likelihood that the demand for fuelwood is below the supply in South Africa as shown by several local level studies in Table 2. At the biome scale, Skowno et al. [45] reported that there was an uneven, net increase in the extent of tree thickening or invasion of the grassland biome of ~27,000 km2 over a 23-year period and an annual increase of 0.22%, which would suggest an increasing supply of fuelwood due to woodland expansion. Similarly, Hoffman et al. [50] reported that analysis of repeat, fixed-point photographs showed that woody vegetation cover has either remained unchanged or has increased at most locations they analysed. Additionally, there are increasing wood stocks (and other non-timber forest products) in the expanding extent of abandoned arable fields undergoing plant succession [25,51,52]. Thus, at the biome or larger scale, the available information seems to refute our second hypothesis relating to the increased probability of unsustainable use.
The narratives around fuelwood supply and sustainability at the community or local level may differ to that at the national scale. Several studies have reported localised fuelwood shortages which could be attributed to a high dependence on fuelwood, population growth, land clearance, or declining stocks. For instance, in the lowveld savanna of South Africa, Wessels et al. [43] reported that with the 67% of households that relied exclusively on fuelwood and a 2% annual reduction, the biomass will be exhausted by 2026. They stated that achieving sustainable use will require a 15% annual reduction in consumption for eight years with 20% of households using fuelwood [43]. In situations of calculated fuelwood shortages, residents have inevitably coped with the local scarcity through the creation of fuelwood markets based on wood harvested elsewhere and transported in, or by accessing fuelwood stocks at greater distances away or previously unavailable [28,53]. However, expansion to exploit fuelwood resources at greater distances or sites could potentially lead to conflicts if neighbouring communities also embark on similar expansion. Conversely, the creation of fuelwood markets can meet domestic energy needs while generating income [15,35]. However, extraction to satisfy the market must still be done within sustainable limits. This depends on the nature and abundance of fuelwood stocks, as well as local governance systems regarding access and extraction. For example, some vendors harvest invasive alien species, thereby contributing to ecological restoration through their harvesting efforts [35]. Others harvest fuelwood from private farms that may be clearing land for new fields or practicing bush-clearing in sites where the tree density is too high for the primary management objective (such as game viewing or livestock ranching).
Several local-scale studies have shown the potential of fuelwood supply to be sustainable in South Africa. For example, in the Khomani San resettlement farms in the southern Kalahari, Nott and Thondhlana [6] investigated fuelwood availability and reported that the current wood stocks and productivity rates of harvestable fuelwood were well above the fuelwood demand, indicating that fuelwood use was within sustainable limits, despite some evidence of fuelwood depletion in localised areas. In the Bushbuckridge area of Limpopo Province, Twine and Holdo [39] predicted that the resprouting ability of most savanna tree species can offset the impact of any removal or loss. They developed a local fuelwood model using the rural municipality of Bushbuckridge in Limpopo Province. The model included multiple stem-size classes and coppice production from cut stems, among other variables. The model suggested that current levels of harvesting (excluding changes in human population size) are relatively sustainable. Declines in total woody biomass were predicted to be modest (~20%), and the loss of intact stems of sapling size was predicted to be more than offset by increases in coppiced stems.
In summary, the available, albeit limited, evidence seems to indicate that at a national scale fuelwood supply is approximate to or greater than demand. It also suggests that many local-scale studies fail to include all sources of supply and coppice regrowth, which means supply is frequently underestimated. Nevertheless, a majority of local-scale studies still conclude that supply is greater than demand (Table 2), based on different methods and at different scales. However, some studies do show the ongoing depletion of wood stocks and a shortage of fuelwood in some localities and contexts. Thus, at the local scale, we are unable to accept or refute our hypothesis on the sustainability of fuelwood use. Further research is required to understand the local contextual factors that predispose some sites to unsustainable use. Additionally, such sites should receive priority attention from relevant government departments to augment supplies or other energy sources.

3.5. A Policy Vacuum

Access to sustainable and secure energy supplies is fundamental for human wellbeing [54,55]. Consequently, the government of South Africa has made considerable efforts to promote sustainable and secure access to energy for all. Towards this aim, several policies have been formulated and updated over the years to support government decisions and programmes on energy supply and use in South Africa. These include policies directly concerned with energy (in all its forms) and those that have indirect effects on energy supply, choices, or use, such as forestry in terms of the supply of fuelwood, and poverty in terms of energy affordability, as just two examples. The relevant policies are listed in Table 3. A key feature in all these policies is the absence of any clearly defined measures for the promotion of sustainable use and management of fuelwood resources, despite millions of South African households making regular use of fuelwood (Table 1). In other words, there is a policy vacuum.
Although some polices do mention fuelwood, especially its use by poorer communities, they do not engage in its promotion, local supply in areas with low access to alternative energy forms (including electricity), or sustainable management of wood resources to limit or avoid the incidence of energy poverty or land degradation. Rather, most details on fuelwood in the policies relate to the intended promotion of improved combustion technologies and appliances to alleviate the health and environmental risks associated with the use of fuelwood and other traditional fuels. Mention is made of strategies and technologies such as the installation of chimneys, improvement of ventilation in houses (WPEP, WPRE), biogas digestors, and gasification. Overall, the policies have a clear focus and stated intent to (i) increase household access to electricity and other modern fuels (e.g., LPG, hybrid mini-grid systems, gel fuel, solar cookers/and solar water heaters), (ii) ensure the efficient use of electricity, and (iii) gradually move households away from the use of fuelwood (WPEP, WPRE, NFSD). More recently, there is increasing mention of the development and promotion of renewable energy technologies (WPRE, APS), whilst ignoring that fuelwood is also a renewable energy source. According to the Department of Energy in the Integrated Energy Plan [55] (p. 178):
“an integrated household energy strategy is needed, which should amongst other factors, outline an aggressive implementation plan to move households to cleaner forms of energy in order to minimise the negative impacts”.
A couple of the policies note the importance of access to sustainable and secure fuelwood supplies for the survival of many rural households, as well as the need for a national social forestry programme, where appropriate, to facilitate the production and management of woodlots for the benefit of rural households (ASF, WPSFD, WPEP, WPRE). These policies identify this to be the responsibility of the forestry sector, through establishing and managing commercial plantations, indigenous woodlands, alien vegetation, and off-cuts from fruit-tree orchards. In the forestry sector, the important role played by the Working for Water programme (WfW) is identified as a means to (i) provide sustainable (albeit reduced) access to plant resources for fuelwood and charcoal production, through the removal of invasive alien plants, and (ii) to create enterprise development opportunities associated therewith (FSTC). Also acknowledged, in a generic way, is the fact that woodlands (which are the main sources of fuelwood for many rural areas) are increasingly under threat and that necessary actions need to be implemented for their sustainable management and to preserve their socioeconomic values (FRFS, NFAP, WSF). However, no systemic links are identified or promoted between the forestry policy and the energy policy.
It is noteworthy that the few policies that mention fuelwood, even if just in passing, are outdated, especially the White Papers from which the other documents derive. Thus, acknowledgement of fuelwood use and sustainability is dwindling in the South African policy environment, exposing the pressing need for updates based on the reality of energy consumption patterns in rural and urban areas of the country. Indeed, the majority of the policy and strategy documents are more than a decade old, formulated during periods when the national socioeconomic and environmental context were very different. For example, at that time there was a clear aspiration and anticipation that affordable and secure electricity supplies would be available to nearly all households within a decade or so, but it is now recognised that attainment of this target is increasingly unlikely [71]. Overall, there is a remarkable failure of the energy and forestry policies, programmes, and actions, both in the past and currently, to really incorporate fuelwood and promote sufficient supplies [72,73]. Most of the statements in the energy policies advocate moving populations away from fuelwood use, to reduce pressure on the resources and to more efficient fuels (e.g., electricity, paraffin, LPG, and renewables) [73,74,75]. This oversight undermines energy security, especially of the poor [54]. This contradiction has been highlighted previously [16,54]. According to the Department of Energy, the National Development Plan envisages that at least 95% of the population will have access to grid or off-grid electricity by 2030 [73], which is unlikely due to the lack of adequate investment in grid extension and a national electricity generation shortfall [71]. Moreover, what are the plans for the remaining 5% of households? In terms of forestry programmes promoted by the national department, the focus is mainly on forest protection and rehabilitation of degraded natural forests, with some mention of biogas initiatives. The forest policies, programmes (e.g., the Working for Forests in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal), and action plans make many references to sustainable natural resource management practices, job creation in the forest sector, and development of value-added industries from forest plantations in rural communities but do not provide details, nor link these to fuelwood supply and markets. No clear actions have been planned and undertaken around sustainable use and management of fuelwood resources [72,76,77,78]. Within the anti-poverty strategies and programmes, fuelwood and its role in energy security has not been recorded or mentioned as an important livelihood asset to poor rural communities [70,79]. Generally, fuelwood is mentioned only as an energy source to be replaced by electricity [66]. The main reason why fuelwood is neglected in policies and strategies is because its use is identified with potential health risks and environmental degradation [59,80]. Another important argument why fuelwood is not considered in the national and household-scale energy mix is that any increase in demand might heighten the risk of unsustainable harvesting, leading to fuelwood scarcity in some areas [59,81]. This may indeed happen in some contexts, but ignoring the current widespread use of and reliance on fuelwood as a primary energy source for millions will not address the possibility of unsustainable harvesting and perhaps land degradation in some parts of the country, even in areas with access to electricity. Only by acknowledging fuelwood use and attempting to augment supply where there are shortages, or reduce demand, will the risk of overharvesting be minimised.
Transforming energy types and use is central to global strategies to address climate change, mostly through a reduction in the extent of use of non-renewable and non-environmental-friendly energy sources, towards non-polluting and more environmental-friendly, or clean, energies [74,75]. This includes the use of sustainably grown and harvested biomass. In the Global North, biomass is seen as a clean energy that should be promoted to reduce use of unclean energies. However, in the Global South, including in South Africa, fuelwood is a widespread biomass energy, and yet is rarely promoted or managed as a biomass resource within national energy strategies. The health risks associated with fuelwood can be markedly reduced or eliminated through any of a range of simple to more sophisticated technologies such a wood stoves, internal chimneys, and gasification. The use of fuelwood is crucial in regions where electricity supply is absent, unreliable, or too expensive. Thus, policies to secure fuelwood supplies and investment in modern biomass technologies can be viewed as an anti-poverty strategy [54]. Specific actions should be considered in terms of (i) the sustainable provision of fuelwood for the wellbeing of households and communities that use it, (ii) the development and promotion of improved combustion techniques and appliances that alleviate the health and environmental risks associated with the use of fuelwood, and (iii) the sustainable management of forests, woodlands, and agricultural landscapes to provide much needed fuelwood supplies at local scales. Necessary actions include:
  • Unambiguous policy recognition of the reality of the widespread use of fuelwood amongst rural and urban communities in the country, even when electricity is available, as has been argued for other countries such as Papua New Guinea [82], France [83], Latvia [84], and previously for South Africa [54];
  • The development and implementation of appropriate policies and strategies to manage and use fuelwood as a modern biomass resource [85,86];
  • Mapping of biomass supply and demand at local scales to identify areas experiencing or likely to experience fuelwood deficits, such as was done in Nepal [87] and Portugal [88];
  • Establishment and management of community and private woodlots for fuelwood provision using community-identified species in regions with high demand but fuelwood supply deficits, as can be seen in Bangladesh [89] and Malawi [90];
  • Promotion of agroforestry approaches amongst smallholder farmers, based on preferred fuelwood species as practiced in many countries, including northeast India [91] and Cameroon [92];
  • In partnership with community-based organisations, identify and promote combustion techniques and appliances that alleviate the health and environmental risks associated with the use of fuelwood and other traditional fuels, such as gasification [85,93];
  • Promotion of charcoal industries, especially using wood from invasive species, such as use of Prosopis juliflora in arid areas of India [94] or Grevillea banksii in Madagascar [95];
  • Orientation of communities on the species to exploit, such as invasive species and those that coppice readily.

4. Conclusions

This paper has shown that fuelwood continues to be a widely used household energy source in both urban (69% of low-income households) and rural (96% of households) areas of South Africa, despite significant shifts in the national socioeconomic context in the last two decades, including massive expansion in the availability of electricity to rural and urban households. The average use per household per year was 3.3 tonnes in rural areas and 3.7 tonnes in low-income urban ones, with a value of ZAR 2446 and ZAR 4840 per household per year, respectively. The continued use of and reliance on fuelwood are likely due to a number of interacting factors at different scales, including the high cost of electricity relative to fuelwood which makes it beyond the financial means of the poor, regular interruptions to the national electricity supply making it an unreliable household energy source, widespread unemployment and attendant income poverty, and personal preferences. However, the current policy environment does not acknowledge the current widespread use and value of fuelwood, and consequently does not offer proactive frameworks and strategies to address potential and real fuelwood shortages at local scales. Thus, the household energy security of many South Africans, especially the poor, are compromised through the absence of any appropriate policy vision and strategies for the fuelwood sector.

Author Contributions

C.S.: conceptualization, literature review, writing sections of the original draft, reviewing, editing; G.S.: literature review, writing sections of the original draft, reviewing; O.A.: literature review, writing sections of the original draft, reviewing; V.M.: literature review, writing sections of the original draft, reviewing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Dept of Science and Technology and the National Research Foundation of South Africa (grant no. 84379).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

All authors acknowledge funding support given by the South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Dept of Science and Technology and the National Research Foundation of South Africa (grant no. 84379). Any opinion, finding, conclusion or recommendation expressed in this material is that of the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interest or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Lauri, P.; Havlik, P.; Kindermann, G.; Forsell, N.; Böttcher, N.; Obersteiner, M. Woody biomass energy potential in 2050. Energy Policy 2014, 66, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. FAOSTAT. Forestry Production and Trade; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  3. United Nations (UN). The Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 15 November 2021).
  4. International Energy Agency (IEA). Energy access outlook: From poverty to prosperity. In World Energy Outlook 2017 Special Report; IEA: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  5. Statistics South Africa. General household survey 2019. In Statistical Release P0318; StatsSA: Pretoria, South Africa, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  6. Nott, M.; Thondhlana, G. Fuelwood preferences, use and availability in the #Khomani San resettlement farms, southern Kalahari, South Africa. For. Trees Livelihoods 2017, 26, 156–169. [Google Scholar]
  7. Uhunamure, S.E.; Nethengwe, S.; Musyoki, A. Driving forces for fuelwood use in households in the Thulamela municipality, South Africa. J. Energy S. Afr. 2017, 28, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chiguware, T. Assessing the shifting trends in NTFP extraction and consumption in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. J. Hum. Ecol. 2018, 61, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Masekela, M.E.; Semenya, K. Factors influencing the use of firewood post-electrification in rural South Africa: The case of Ga-Malahlela village. J. Energy S. Afr. 2021, 32, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Prasad, G.; Visagie, E. Renewable Energy Technologies for Poverty Alleviation: Initial Assessment Report; Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town: Cape Town, South Africa, 2005; Volume 33. [Google Scholar]
  11. Madubansi, M.; Shackleton, C.M. Changing energy profiles and consumption patterns following electrification in five rural villages, South Africa. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 4081–4092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shackleton, C.M.; Gambiza, J.; Jones, R. Household fuelwood use in small electrified towns of the Makana District, Eastern Cape, South Africa. J. Energy S. Afr. 2007, 18, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Davenport, N.; Gambiza, J.; Shackleton, C.M. Use and users of municipal commonage around three small towns in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. J. Environ. Mgmt. 2011, 92, 1149–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kaoma, H.; Shackleton, C.M. The direct-use value of urban tree non-timber forest products to household income in poorer suburbs in South African towns. For. Political Econ. 2015, 61, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Guild, J.; Shackleton, C.M. South African informal urban fuelwood markets are resilient in the context of large-scale socio-economic change. Energy Policy 2018, 117, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Williams, A.; Shackleton, C.M. Fuelwood use in South Africa: Where to in the 21st Century? S. Afr. For. J. 2002, 196, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  17. Shackleton, C.M.; Grundy, I.M.; Williams, A. Use of South Africa’s woodlands for energy and construction. In Indigenous Forests and Woodlands in South Africa: Policy, People and Practice; Lawes, M., Eeley, H., Shackleton, C.M., Geach, B., Eds.; University of KwaZulu-Natal Press: Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 2004; pp. 337–366. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bohlmann, J.A.; Inglesi-Lotz, R. Analysing the South African residential sector’s energy profile. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 96, 240–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. World Bank. Urban Population (% of Total): South Africa. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?locations=ZA (accessed on 12 November 2021).
  20. World Bank. Poverty Headcount Ratio: South Africa. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty?locations=ZA (accessed on 12 November 2021).
  21. Mubecua, M.A.; David, O.J. So far so good? Tracking the poverty eradication goals of SDGs in Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. J. Public Aff. 2019, 19, e1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ye, Y.; Koch, S. Measuring energy poverty in South Africa based on household required energy consumption. Energy Econ. 2021, 103, 105553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bowen, G. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual. Res. J. 2009, 9, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Madubansi, M.; Shackleton, C.M. Changes in fuelwood use and species selection following electrification in the Bushbuckridge lowveld, South Africa. J. Environ. Mgmt. 2007, 83, 416–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Falayi, M.; Shackleton, S.E.; Kemp, G.C.; Shackleton, C.M. Changes in household use and sale of locally collected environmental resources over a 15-year period in a rural village, South Africa. For. Trees Livelihoods 2019, 28, 90–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ngorima, A.; Shackleton, C.M. Livelihood benefits and costs from an invasive alien tree (Acacia dealbata) to rural communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. J. Environ. Mgmt. 2019, 229, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vasicek, C.A.; Gaugris, J.Y. Household Firewood Utilization Around the Hlathikulu Forest Reserve, South Africa. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 2014, 12, 597–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Matsika, R.; Erasmus, B.F.; Twine, W.C. Double jeopardy: The dichotomy of fuelwood use in rural South Africa. Energy Policy 2013, 52, 716–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pote, J.; Shackleton, C.M.; Cocks, M.; Lubke, R. Fuelwood harvesting and selection in valley thicket, South Africa. J. Arid. Environ. 2006, 67, 270–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Schlesinger, J.; Drescher, A.; Shackleton, C.M. Socio-spatial dynamics in the use of wild natural resources: Evidence from six rapidly growing medium-sized cities in Africa. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 56, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Davenport, N.A.; Shackleton, C.M.; Gambiza, J. The direct use value of municipal commonage goods and services to urban households in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 548–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Akpeji, K.O.; Olasoji, A.O.; Gaunt, C.T.; Oyedokun, C.T.; Awodele, K.O.; Folly, K.A. Economic impact of electricity supply interruptions in South Africa. SAIEE Afr. Res. J. 2020, 111, 73–87. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mugido, W.; Shackleton, C.M. The contribution of NTFPs trade to rural livelihoods in different agro-ecological zones of South Africa. Int. For. Rev. 2017, 19, 306–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. de Neergaard, A.; Saarnak, C.; Hill, T.; Khanyile, M.; Berzosa, A.M.; Birch-Thomsen, T. Australian wattle species in the Drakensberg region of South Africa: An invasive alien or a natural resource? Agric. Syst. 2005, 85, 216–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shackleton, C.M.; McConnachie, M.; Chauke, M.I.; Mentz, J.; Sutherland, F.; Gambiza, J.; Jones, R. Urban fuelwood demand and markets in a small town in South Africa: Livelihood vulnerability and alien plant control. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2006, 13, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dewees, P.A. The woodfuel crisis reconsidered: Observations on the dynamics of abundance and scarcity. World Dev. 1989, 17, 1159–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Arnold, M.; Kohlin, G.; Persson, R. Woodfuels, livelihoods and policy interventions: Changing perspectives. World Dev. 2006, 34, 596–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mortimore, M.J.; Adams, W.M. Farmer adaptation, change and “crisis” in the Sahel. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2001, 11, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Twine, W.C.; Holdo, R.M. Fuelwood sustainability revisited: Integrating size structure and resprouting into a spatially realistic fuelshed model. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 1766–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. da Silva, A.P.; de Medeiros, P.M.; Júnior, W.S.F.; da Silva, R.R. Does forest scarcity affect the collection and use of firewood by rural communities? a case study in the Atlantic forest of northeastern Brazil. Econ. Bot. 2018, 72, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Damm, O.; Triebel, R. A Synthesis Report on Biomass Energy Consumption and Availability in South Africa: A Report Prepared for ProBEC; LHA Management Consultants: Pretoria, South Africa, 2008; p. 66. [Google Scholar]
  42. Matsika, R.; Erasmus, B.F.; Twine, W.C. A tale of two villages: Assessing the dynamics of fuelwood supply in communal landscapes in South Africa. Environ. Conserv. 2012, 40, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Wessels, K.J.; Colgan, M.S.; Erasmus, B.F.; Asner, G.P.; Twine, W.C.; Mathieu, R.; Smit, I.P. Unsustainable fuelwood extraction from South African savannas. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 014007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mograbi, P.J.; Erasmus, B.F.; Witkowski, E.T.; Asner, G.P.; Wessels, K.J.; Mathieu, R.; Main, R. Biomass increases go under cover: Woody vegetation dynamics in South African rangelands. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0127093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Skowno, A.L.; Thompson, M.W.; Hiestermann, J.; Ripley, B.; West, A.G.; Bond, W.J. Woodland expansion in South African grassy biomes based on satellite observations (1990–2013): General patterns and potential drivers. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 2358–2369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mograbi, P.J.; Witkowski, E.T.; Erasmus, B.F.; Asner, G.P.; Fisher, J.T.; Mathieu, R.; Wessels, K.J. Fuelwood extraction intensity drives compensatory regrowth in African savanna communal lands. Land Degrad. Dev. 2019, 30, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. UNEP. Review of Woodfuel Biomass Production and Utilization in Africa: A Desk Study; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  48. Swemmer, A.M.; Mashele, M.; Ndhlovu, P.D. Evidence for ecological sustainability of fuelwood harvesting at a rural village in South Africa. Reg. Env. Chang. 2019, 19, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. DME. Energy in South Africa; Department of Minerals and Energy: Pretoria, South Africa, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hoffman, T.M.; Skowno, A.L.; Bell, W.; Mashele, S. Long-term changes in land use, land cover and vegetation in the Karoo drylands of South Africa: Implications for degradation monitoring. Afr. J. Rang. For. Sci. 2018, 35, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Njwaxu, A.; Shackleton, C.M. The availability of non-timber forest products under forest succession on abandoned fields on the Wild Coast, South Africa. Forests 2019, 10, 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shackleton, C.M.; Mograbi, P.; Drimie, S.; Fay, D.; Hebinck, P.; Hoffman, M.T.; Maciejewski, K.; Twine, W.C. Deactivation of field cultivation in communal areas of South Africa: Patterns, drivers and socio-economic and ecological consequences. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 686–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Twine, W. The fuelwood problem: Are we reaching crisis point? Environ. Today 2002, 2, 20–21. [Google Scholar]
  54. Shackleton, C.M.; Buiten, E.; Annecke, W.; Banks, D.; Bester, J.; Everson, T.; Fabricius, C.; Ham, C.; Kees, M.; Modise, M.; et al. Exploring the options for fuelwood policies to support poverty alleviation policies: Evolving dimensions in South Africa. For. Trees Livelihoods 2007, 17, 269–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. DoE. Integrated Energy Plan; Department of Energy: Pretoria, South Africa, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  56. DWAF. White Paper on Sustainable Forest Development in South Africa: The Policy of the Government of National Unity; Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  57. DME. White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of South Africa; Department of Minerals and Energy: Pretoria, South Africa, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  58. Government of South Africa. National Forest Act; Government Gazette No. 19408; Government of South Africa: Cape Town, South Africa, 1998; Volume 400, pp. 1–82. [Google Scholar]
  59. DME. White Paper on Renewable Energy; Department of Minerals and Energy: Pretoria, South Africa, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  60. Government of South Africa. National Energy Regulator Act; Government Gazette No. 27458; Government of South Africa: Cape Town, South Africa, 2004; Volume 478, pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  61. DWAF. National Forestry Action Programme Review; Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  62. DWAF. A Woodland Strategy Framework; Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  63. FSCC. Forest Sector Transformation Charter; Forest Sector Charter Council: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2007; p. 41. [Google Scholar]
  64. Government of South Africa. National Level Principles, Criteria, Indicators and Standards; Government No. 774; Government Gazette No. 30183; Government of South Africa: Cape Town, South Africa, 2007; p. 6. [Google Scholar]
  65. Government of South Africa. National Energy Act; Government Gazette No. 31638; Government of South Africa: Cape Town, South Africa, 2008; Volume 521, pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  66. DEAT. A National Framework for Sustainable Development in South Africa; Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism: Pretoria, South Africa, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  67. DAFF. Forestry 2030 Roadmap (Forestry Strategy 2009–2030); Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Pretoria, South Africa, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  68. DAFF. Agroforestry Strategy Framework for South Africa-Final Draft; Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Pretoria, South Africa, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  69. DoE. Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2019); Department of Energy: Pretoria, South Africa, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  70. DSD. Draft Anti-Poverty Strategy (Abridged Version); Department of Social Development: Pretoria, South Africa, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  71. Meyer, E.L.; Overen, O.K. Towards a sustainable rural electrification scheme in South Africa: Analysis of the status quo. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 4273–4287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. DAFF. Annual Report 2016-17; Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Pretoria, South Africa, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  73. DoE. Annual Report 2018-19; Department of Energy: Pretoria, South Africa, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  74. DoE. Annual Report 2019-20; Department of Energy: Pretoria, South Africa, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  75. DEA. Annual Report 2019-20; Department of Environmental Affairs: Pretoria, South Africa, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  76. DAFF. Annual Report 2009-10; Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Pretoria, South Africa, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  77. DFFE. Annual Performance Plan 2021/22; Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment: Pretoria, South Africa, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  78. DFFE. Working for Forest Programme. Available online: https://www.dffe.gov.za/projectsprogrammes/workingforforest (accessed on 3 February 2022).
  79. PSC. Report on the Evaluation of Government’s Poverty Reduction Programme; Public Service Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  80. Link, C.F.; Axinn, W.G.; Ghimire, D.J. Household Energy Consumption: Community Context and the Fuelwood Transition. Soc. Sci. Res. 2012, 41, 598–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. DAFF. National Forest Sector Research and Development Strategy: Framework for Scientific and Technological Innovation in the South African Forest Sector; Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Pretoria, South Africa, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  82. Nuberg, I.K. Developing the fuelwood economy of Papua New Guinea. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2005, 24, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Caurla, S.; Delacote, P.; Lecocq, F.; Barkaoui, A. Stimulating fuelwood consumption through public policies: An impact assessment of economic and resource impacts based on the French Forest Sector Model. Energy Policy 2013, 63, 338–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Romagnoli, F.; Barisa, A.; Dzene, I.; Blumberga, A.; Blumberga, D. Implementation of different policy strategies promoting the use of woodfuel in the Latvia district heating system: Impact evaluation through a system dynamic model. Energy 2014, 76, 210–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cutz, L.; Masera, O.; Santana, D.; Faaij, A.P. Switching to efficient technologies in traditional biomass intensive countries: The resultant change in emissions. Energy 2017, 126, 513–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Goldemberg, J. How much could biomass contribute to reaching the Paris Agreement goals? Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2017, 11, 237–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Adhikari, N.P.; Adhikari, R.C. Geospatial mapping of biomass supply and demand for household energy management in Nepal. Dev. Eng. 2021, 6, 100070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Viana, H.; Cohen, W.B.; Lopes, D.; Aranha, J. Assessment of forest biomass for use as energy: GIS-based analysis of geographical availability and locations of wood-fired power plants in Portugal. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 2551–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kabir, M.E.; Webb, E.L. Productivity and suitability analysis of social forestry woodlot species in Dhaka Forest Division, Bangladesh. For. Ecol. Mgmt. 2005, 212, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Toth, G.G.; Nair, P.K.; Jacobson, M.; Widyaningsih, Y.; Duffy, C.P. Malawi’s energy needs and agroforestry: Impact of woodlots on fuelwood sales. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2019, 50, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Reang, D.; Sahoo, U.K.; Giri, K.; Hazarika, A.; Nath, A.J. Ethnic homestead forests in North-east India revaled as diverse land-use systems. Agrofor. Syst. 2022, 96, 465–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Nyong, A.P.; Ngankam, T.M.; Feliccite, T.L. Enhancement of resilience to climate variability and change through agroforestry practices in smallholder farming systems in Cameroon. Agrofor. Syst. 2020, 94, 687–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zanchi, G.; Frieden, D.; Parker, J.; Bird, D.N.; Bucholz, T.; Windhorst, K. Climate benefits from alternative energy uses of biomass plantations in Uganda. Biom. Bioenergy 2013, 59, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pandey, C.B.; Singh, A.K.; Saha, D.; Mathur, B.K.; Tewari, J.C.; Jumar, M.; Goyal, R.K.; Mathur, M.; Gaur, M.K. Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC.: An invasive alien in community grazing lands and its control through utlisation in the Indian Thar Desert. Arid Land Res. Mgmt. 2019, 33, 427–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kull, C.A.; Harimanana, L.; Andrianoro, A.R.; Rajoelison, L.G. Divergent perceptions of the ‘neo-Australian’ forests of lowland eastern Madagascar: Invasions, transitions and livelihoods. J. Environ. Mgmt. 2019, 229, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Studies in South Africa during the last two decades reporting on fuelwood use.
Table 1. Studies in South Africa during the last two decades reporting on fuelwood use.
ContextSite% of hhs Using FuelwoodAmount (kg/hh/yr)Original Value (R/hh/yr)Value in 2021
(R/hh/yr)		Reference
RuralGa-Malahlela100---[9]
Fairbairn100659926403486[25]
Matatiele 100184023002888[26]
Maclear100170021542704[26]
Mount Fletcher100173522842867[26]
Joe Gqabi and Alfred Nzo districts94---[8]
Andriesvale area100---[6]
Hlatikulu (*)91---[27]
Athol82319310511899[28]
Welverdiend94328512132192[28]
Athol10038529632496[24]
Okkerneutboom8832488122105[24]
Rolle8936798092097[24]
Welverdiend9639738342162[24]
Xanthia9643037752009[24]
Crossroads1002262--[29]
UrbanBela-Bela91439045707079[14]
Tzaneen6500674910,454[14]
Zeerust6770711411,019[14]
Phalaborwa43---[30]
Queenstown30---[30]
Bathurst90-16413241[31]
Fort Beaufort87-25565048[31]
Grahamstown80-13012569[31]
Alicedale6917917341704[12]
Grahamstown5113475521282[12]
Riebeek East8212235011163[12]
Mean rural (+Std dev)96
(+5.6)		3306
(+1374)		-2446
Mean urban (+Std dev)69
(+22.5)		3670
(+2571)		-4840
Note: all data are from sites where grid electricity was available except those marked *; value in 2021 adjusted for inflation based on the year of data collection.
Table
Table 2. Selected papers showing the fuelwood demand-supply status in South Africa.
Table 2. Selected papers showing the fuelwood demand-supply status in South Africa.
No.RegionReferenceFuelwood Status RecordedScale
1Bushbuckridge, Limpopo Province[42]Demand > SupplyLocal
2Bushbuckridge, Limpopo Province[43]Demand > SupplyLocal
3Bushbuckridge, Limpopo Province[28]Demand > SupplyLocal
4Bushbuckridge, Limpopo Province[44]Demand < SupplyLocal
5Bushbuckridge, Limpopo Province[39]Demand < SupplyLocal
6Kalahari, Northern Cape[6]Demand < SupplyLocal
7National analysis[45]Demand < SupplyNational
8Bushbuckridge, Limpopo Province[46]Not specific (compensatory regrowth)Local
9National[47]Demand < SupplyNational
10Bushbuckridge, Limpopo Province[48]Stable supplyLocal
Table
Table 3. Policy document potentially pertinent to the promotion of sustainable fuelwood supply and use in South Africa (in chronological order).
Table 3. Policy document potentially pertinent to the promotion of sustainable fuelwood supply and use in South Africa (in chronological order).
YearDocument or PolicyCodeMentions FuelwoodReference
1995White Paper on Sustainable Forest DevelopmentWPSFDYes[56]
1998White Paper on Energy PolicyWPEPYes[57]
1998National Forests ActNFANo[58]
2003White Paper on Renewable EnergyWPREYes[59]
2004National Energy Regulator ActNERANo[60]
2004National Forestry Action ProgrammeNFAPYes[61]
2005Woodland Strategy FrameworkWSFYes[62]
2007Forest Sector Transformation CharterFSTCYes[63]
2007National Level Principles, Criteria, Indicators and StandardsNPCISNo[64]
2008National Energy ActNEANo[65]
2008National Framework for Sustainable
Development		NFSDYes[66]
2009Forestry 2030 Roadmap—Forestry StrategyFRFSYes[67]
2016Integrated Energy PlanIEPYes[55]
2017Agroforestry Strategy FrameworkASFYes[68]
2019Integrated Resource PlanIRPNo[69]
2021Anti-Poverty StrategyAPSNo[70]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shackleton, C.; Sinasson, G.; Adeyemi, O.; Martins, V. Fuelwood in South Africa Revisited: Widespread Use in a Policy Vacuum. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711018

AMA Style

Shackleton C, Sinasson G, Adeyemi O, Martins V. Fuelwood in South Africa Revisited: Widespread Use in a Policy Vacuum. Sustainability. 2022; 14(17):11018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shackleton, Charlie, Gisele Sinasson, Opeyemi Adeyemi, and Vusumzi Martins. 2022. "Fuelwood in South Africa Revisited: Widespread Use in a Policy Vacuum" Sustainability 14, no. 17: 11018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711018

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop