The enthusiasm with which energy saving stoves are being received in Rwanda is to say something about the cost of fuel. The hidden costs are in climate change.

First, it is a well known fact that biomass is the largest source of energy in the country, with firewood and wood for charcoal making up around 80 per cent of the total. Agricultural residues and peat make another six per cent. Petroleum and electricity account for the rest.

This suggests that almost every household and institution in Rwanda must use either firewood or charcoal for cooking. 

It would be expected that such high usage of wood and charcoal would have a major impact on forests in Rwanda. Yet this is not the case.

Whereas firewood and charcoal in the other East African countries has often been reported to come from natural forests, in Rwanda it comes from tree plantations cultivated for the purpose to earn revenue for farmers and protect the environment.

As things stand in Rwanda, charcoal making and deforestation are not related, if at all. Rare is the moment of such an occurrence where found.

To maintain national tree cover over the recommended ten percent means that Rwanda is sustainably self-sufficient in its firewood and charcoal needs.

That is, except that there is a cost; in terms of the fuel production and distribution – cost of which has of late been on the rise, and the fact that firewood and charcoal can be extremely inefficient in terms of energy use.

One poignant example, cited even in Rwanda’s Biomass Energy Strategy (BEST), is the surprising fact that for every kilogramme of charcoal produced, nine kilogrammes of wood have to be used.

For those conscious of the carbon footprint, even for a country like Rwanda and its comparatively very modest release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the charcoal-wood ratio must seem extremely wasteful. 

Additionally, traditional charcoal stoves and the three-stone fires, quite inefficient in their fuel utilization, are still widely in use in kitchens across the hills. 

To be energy efficient, heat needs to be concentrated on the cooking pot in order to make maximum use of the energy. 

The flame from the three-stone and the heat from charcoal stove tend to be dissipated into surrounding, leading to excessive use of the fuel which demands more fuel.

The cost of this is, therefore obvious, despite the country being self-sustainable in firewood and charcoal production. 

Thus, the variety of energy saving stoves that can now be seen in the market, some to the extent of being subsidised by charity organisations such as Atmosfair to reduce carbon dioxide emission.

Greenhouse gases, of which carbon dioxide is a major culprit, trap heat in the atmosphere leading to global warming. 

And here-in lies the irony. Rwanda will never be accused of being responsible for global warming, unlike countries in the West and China which spew out the bulk of carbon dioxide through their factories into the atmosphere, but stands to bear the brunt.

According to a study by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Rwanda could suffer economic costs amounting to 1 percent of annual GDP by 2030 due to global warming. The institute predicts a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 3 degrees Celsius by the 2050s.

The study notes that a large proportion of the rural population in Rwanda currently lives at altitudes beyond the normal mosquito habitat. 

It explains that as temperatures rise, so will the threshold altitude, increasing by 150% the number of Rwandans at risk of Malaria by 2050. The potential healthcare costs are of the order of $50 million per annum.

It seems that Rwanda may have no choice in the matter if countries most responsible do not heed their international obligations to curb greenhouse gas emissions. 

That being the case, Rwanda’s brave efforts to conserve the environment can only be symbolic. 

Twitter: @gituram