Every rainy season, Malawi mobilises itself around tree planting and the language is always hopeful. We speak of fighting climate change, protecting future generations and restoring the country’s forests.
Yet, there is a reality which we often ignore. More households are returning to charcoal and firewood for cooking.
Families that had switched to LPG are going back to traditional fuels. The progress that gave hope of a cleaner and more sustainable future is reversing.
That contradiction deserves far more attention than it currently receives.
- Advertisement -
Malawi appears to be making modest but meaningful progress in promoting cleaner household energy.
- Advertisement -
Gas once became increasingly popular in urban areas. Many families embraced LPG because it was quicker, cleaner and more convenient than charcoal.
Some restaurants and small businesses also adopted it. There was growing optimism that urban dependence on charcoal might gradually decline.
That progress now seems fragile.
The economic pressures facing households have changed the equation completely. As a result, refilling a gas cylinder has become unaffordable for many ordinary families.
- Advertisement -
At the same time, electricity remains unreliable and insufficiently developed to support a meaningful transition to electric cooking.
Blackouts continue to disrupt daily life. Many households cannot trust the grid enough to depend on electricity for preparing meals.
Even those who would prefer electric cooking are often forced to maintain charcoal as a backup.
The consequence is predictable. Families fall back on the fuel that remains most accessible and flexible and that is charcoal.
This is not because people suddenly stopped caring about the environment. It is not because they reject climate awareness or environmental protection.
Most households understand the importance of forests and the dangers of climate change. Many people have personally experienced the effects of floods and droughts.
But environmental concern does not remove the pressure of economic survival.
A household struggling with rising food prices, transport costs and school expenses will naturally prioritise affordability over environmental ideals.
Charcoal survives because it fits the financial realities of low and unstable incomes. It can be purchased in small amounts.
There are no expensive upfront costs and no monthly billing system. A family can buy enough charcoal for one day’s cooking even during difficult times.
LPG, by contrast, demands a larger payment at once. Electricity requires confidence in a power supply that many people no longer trust.
This is the uncomfortable truth behind Malawi’s deforestation problem.
We often discuss deforestation as though it is purely a matter of public irresponsibility or lack of environmental awareness.
We urge communities to stop cutting trees while failing to ask a more important question. What realistic alternatives are available to them?
Tree planting campaigns alone cannot solve a crisis driven by energy poverty.
The contradiction becomes even more striking when one considers the scale of national investment priorities.
Malawi speaks frequently about climate resilience and environmental protection, yet investment in electricity generation remains far below what is needed for a growing population and economy.
Demand for power continues to increase as towns expand, businesses grow and more households seek modern energy access. Unfortunately, electricity supply has not kept pace.
The country remains heavily dependent on hydropower, which itself is increasingly vulnerable to climate variability.
The result is what many experts describe as an energy poverty trap.
Electricity is unreliable. LPG is expensive. Incomes are weak. Charcoal becomes the fallback option.
Then, every rainy season, we plant trees and repeat the same environmental messages while the conditions driving deforestation remain unchanged.
There is also an important social dimension that deserves honesty. Environmental debates in Malawi sometimes ignore the lived realities of ordinary people.
It is easy to speak about clean energy transitions in policy documents and conferences. It is much harder for a family facing daily financial uncertainty to sustain the costs associated with cleaner fuels.
A mother preparing supper for her children is not making a political statement when she buys charcoal. She is responding to what is available and affordable.
A small business owner using firewood is not necessarily rejecting environmental responsibility. They are often navigating impossible economic choices.
That reality must shape policy discussions.
If Malawi genuinely wants to reduce deforestation and fight climate change, then environmental policy cannot be separated from energy policy and economic policy.
The country must invest seriously in expanding electricity generation, strengthening transmission infrastructure and improving reliability.
Clean cooking solutions must become affordable, accessible and practical for ordinary households rather than remaining aspirational alternatives for a limited urban minority.
There is also enormous potential in decentralised solar systems and other renewable energy solutions that could reduce pressure on forests while improving household energy security.
However, such transitions require long-term investment, political commitment and economic planning.
Most importantly, we must stop pretending that tree planting alone is enough.
Planting trees is important and necessary. Forest restoration matters. Environmental awareness matters.
But none of these efforts will succeed sustainably if millions of households remain trapped between expensive gas, unreliable electricity and worsening poverty.
