Fuelling the future: Impacts of alternative clean cooking pathways on Zambia's energy system, land and livelihoods

** Pre-print ** Fuelling the future: Impacts of alternative clean cooking pathways on Zambia's energy system, land and livelihoods Authors: Jennifer Cronin1*, Leonhard Hofbauer2, Nancy Chama Serenje3*, Clement Njobvu3, Yanda Hamilemba4, Rebecca Clube1, Julia Tomei1, Pietro Lubello2, Tash Perros1, Ariane Millot5, Steve Pye2, Bernard Tembo4, Francis Yamba3 1 UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London, UK 2 UCL Energy Institute, University College London, UK 3 Centre for Energy, Environment and Engineering Zambia, Zambia 4 Tec Analytics (Zambia), Zambia 5 Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, UK Abstract In Zambia, like many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, firewood and charcoal are the most accessible and affordable sources of energy for cooking for most households. Socio-economic trends including rapid population growth and urbanisation are increasing demands for woodfuels, driving degradation and loss of forests, exacerbating concerns over carbon emissions, biodiversity loss and the resilience of land-based systems. Zambia is faced with the challenge of increasing citizens’ access to energy, whilst ensuring environmental preservation and achieving the country’s climate commitments. Current policy sets ambitions to decrease use of woodfuels and increase uptake of certain alternatives. However, holistic analysis of the wide-ranging impacts of alternative cooking strategies is needed. This paper presents a thought experiment. Reflecting alternative dominant narratives in Zambia, three scenarios are constructed to depict the possible evolution of the cooking sector if driven by a different strategic focus – minimising deforestation through banning charcoal (“Prioritise Forests”), supporting livelihoods (“Prioritise Livelihoods”), and delivering clean cooking through large-scale infrastructure and planning approaches (“Prioritise Centralised Delivery”). A systematic impact analysis is then undertaken to evaluate the implications of each scenario across social, technical, economic and environmental factors. Potential opportunities are identified, including for sustainable rural livelihoods and formal employment creation, along with health benefits. However, substantial transition risks are also identified, such as loss of livelihoods in the charcoal supply chain, and the affordability of cooking for poorer households. This impact assessment, along with insights on the uncertainties and challenges associated with the various approaches, provide a way for policy-makers to explore the desirability and feasibility of different approaches, potential tradeoffs, and how clean cooking can contribute to Zambia’s broader development agenda. Pre-print Key words Clean cooking; land-use; energy system; scenarios; futures; Zambia; just transition; charcoal; biomass 1 Introduction With almost one billion people in Sub-Saharan Africa lacking reliable, clean cooking options, households and commercial users rely heavily on firewood and charcoal (IEA, 2023; Rose et al., 2022). The production of these woodfuels supports rural livelihoods, but their use is also associated with negative environmental, health and socio-economic impacts (Richardson et al., 2021; Branch et al., 2022; Rose et al., 2022). A transition to clean cooking solutions is widely considered integral to achieving sustainable development, as evidenced by the inclusion of cooking in Sustainable Development Goal 7. International and national efforts focus on supporting a transition towards fuels including electricity, biogas and imported fuels (e.g. Liquified Petroleum Gas, LPG) (IEA, 2023; Panja et al., 2025; Rose et al., 2022). However, debates continue around the best set of fuels and technologies in different contexts, and how to bring about the desired transitions, with some also arguing for increased focus on improving the sustainability of woodfuels – particularly charcoal (Njenga et al., 2023). An increasing number of countries are developing clean cooking strategies to direct efforts and attract investment. In Zambia, current policies set ambitious targets for reducing firewood and charcoal use and rolling out a range of clean cookstoves. They recognise the dominant role of women and girls in fuel collection and cooking, and set plans to address some supply and demand-side issues. However, the current approach is somewhat siloed, lacking recognition of how the cooking sector is an ecosystem comprising multiple actors operating at different scales, mediated by markets, infrastructures, policies, regulations, natural resources, behaviours and culture. With a range of national and international organisations arguing strongly for the promotion of particular technological solutions creating a highly contested space, this policy fragmentation impedes progress on clean cooking and Zambia’s associated development goals. Sustainable solutions must address both supply and demand-side issues in tandem, covering not only technical and environmental factors, but also the economic realities and cultural significance of the production and use of cooking fuels in rural, peri-urban and urban settings (Njenga et al., 2023). Previous studies have examined various aspects of clean cooking transitions in Zambia, including households’ needs and decision-making (Atteridge et al., 2013; Jürisoo et al., 2019; Njobvu et al., 2021), along with the barriers to market development for particular fuels and technologies and how to overcome them (EED and CEEEZ, 2022; Serenje et al., 2022). So far, research is lacking on the different potential impacts for livelihoods, environment and economic outcomes of alternative technology-fuel mixes and the transition pathways themselves. Elements such as how markets are set up and how aspects are regulated and supported would all affect the social, environmental and wider economic impacts and, therefore, who wins and who loses. Holistic analysis of these aspects is needed in order for policy-makers to understand the pros and cons of different approaches, any trade-offs, and how clean cooking can contribute to the broader development agenda. Pre-print To address that gap, this study undertakes a thought experiment. By taking a step back to re-examine the overarching objectives of clean cooking and by examining a set of contrasting scenarios, it asks how the cooking ecosystem would take shape if we prioritised particular outcomes that are often cited as motivation for the cooking transition (e.g. to sharply reduce deforestation or support rural livelihoods). It is structured to addresses the following research questions: 1) How would Zambia’s clean cooking ecosystem evolve if driven by alternative policy drivers? 2) What would be the impacts for people, environment and economy? And 3) what should the government do to ensure the national cooking strategy supports Zambia’s wider development objectives? To address these questions, it adopts a mixed-methods approach to examine alternative approaches to clean cooking holistically. Using transition scenarios and a structured impact analysis supported by quantitative modelling, the study undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the potential impacts of different strategies across different communities, income groups and regions, as well as on environmental outcomes and system-wide energy implications. In so doing, it does not aim to recommend a specific strategy. Rather it seeks to provide for Zambia – and other countries with similar challenges – insights and a framework to help policymakers consider the desirability and feasibility of the various options. The paper first provides background on the current cooking situation in Zambia, including challenges and policies supporting the transition to clean cooking (Section 2). Section 3 describes the mixed methods approach to construct scenarios and conduct the structured impact analysis. Section 4 presents the corresponding results. Section 5 examines the uncertainties and challenges associated with implementing the scenarios, and presents policy messages, followed by conclusions in Section 6. 2 Literature review 2.1 Energy for cooking in Zambia Firewood and charcoal are the primary cooking fuels for 56.8% and 26.9% of households in Zambia respectively, due to their affordability and accessibility (GRZ, 2023a). As shown in Figure 1, firewood dominates in rural areas whilst charcoal is the primary fuel in urban areas, and other fuels are used to a lesser extent. While higher incomes are associated with greater levels of electricity use for cooking, most households fuel stack – i.e. use multiple energy sources – due to reasons including taste preferences, cost fluctuations and unreliable electricity supply (Jürisoo et al., 2019; Mulenga et al., 2019; Perros et al., 2022). Pre-print Figure 1 Cooking fuels used in urban and rural areas based on the Living Conditions Monitoring Survey (LCMS) report (ZamStats, 2022). The area of the pie charts is proportional to the number of households. Zambia could theoretically meet biomass demands in an environmentally sustainably manner (Drigo, 2016). Firewood – usually collected as dead wood – is thought to have low impacts on forest loss (GRZ, 2016; Richardson et al., 2021), though increased degradation is observed in hotspots where deadwood is depleted. Meanwhile, charcoal production in Zambia typically involves harvesting live trees, often at a rate that exceeds natural regeneration (Richardson et al., 2021; Rose et al., 2022), making it a major driver of deforestation, particularly around urban centres (Vinya et al., 2011; GRZ, 2017; Sedano et al., 2022; GRZ, 2024a). Forest loss is compounded by the low efficiency of Zambia’s dominant charcoal production methods, which recover only approximately 20% of the input biomass (GRZ, 2024a). This is expected to worsen as, despite relatively high urban electrification rates, charcoal demand is expected to increase to meet the needs of the rapidly growing urban population (Cronin et al., 2025a). Moving away from using charcoal presents major challenges given its central role in rural livelihoods and urban energy use. The charcoal sector is worth an estimated US$600m/year (2.6% of GDP), and provides a livelihood for approximately 500,000 people (GRZ, 2022a). Production activities are closely linked with agriculture: charcoal is often produced from trees cleared when cropland is expanded (FAO, 2015; GRZ, 2024a), and it serves as a critical economic safety net in times of drought or flood when crop yields suffer. The charcoal value chain is also important for urban actors who engage in large-scale trade and retail, meaning there are multiple groups who stand to lose out if there is a rapid or un-managed shift away from charcoal. Regarding health, the combustion of woodfuels, particularly firewood, in poorly ventilated spaces causes exposure to pollutants, which have been linked to respiratory diseases (Bede-Ojimadu and Orisakwe, 2020). LPG and electricity are generally considered to be healthier (Pope et al., 2021; Puzzolo et al., 2024), though the evidence on measurable health impacts of switching from woodfuels to clean fuels is mixed (Clasen et al., 2022; Byaro et al., 2024; Kaulu et al., 2025). The use of woodfuels, in particular firewood, carry a substantial time burden. This falls largely on women and girls, particularly in rural areas, limiting the time available for education and income-generating activities (Kannan and Bessette, 2023). Addressing Zambia’s cooking energy crisis is therefore urgent to mitigate environmental and health risks, and to unlock broader social and economic opportunities. Pre-print Fuel alternatives to firewood and charcoal include biogas, bioethanol, electric cooking and LPG, each of which has advantages and barriers. For example, although the use of electricity for cooking has been increasing, recent periods of load-shedding have severely impacted its adoption and use. Such load shedding is likely to become more frequent due to droughts disrupting hydropower generation, which is the dominant source of electricity in Zambia (Mulenga et al., 2019; Ngoma et al., 2018). Biogas digesters require high quantities of feedstock, are labour intensive to maintain, prone to breakages and their output can be highly seasonal, which has led to widespread programmatic failures (Boyd Williams et al., 2024). Supply chains for ethanol, pellets and briquettes are nascent and generally not yet cost-competitive (EED and CEEEZ, 2022). While electricity and LPG fuel are generally affordable, their current usage is low, and in both cases limited by supply-side infrastructure challenges that require considerable investment to address (ibid.). Furthermore, the promotion of LPG is contentious as it is a fossil fuel and because investments in its supply chain could result in stranded assets (Perros et al., 2024). Although Zambian studies show households that stack electricity and LPG have lower annual cooking costs, charcoal remains dominant due to convenience and familiarity (Jürisoo et al., 2019; Leary et al., 2019; Njobvu et al., 2021). Therefore, even reliable access to electricity and other clean cooking fuels does not guarantee full adoption (Jürisoo et al., 2019). Furthermore, research shows decision-making around cooking is highly dependent on gender, with women more being more risk averse regarding safety and cost (EED and CEEEZ, 2022). This highlights the limitations of single-technology transitions and underscores the need for context-sensitive approaches. 2.2 Policy direction Zambia’s policy framework outlines a clear drive for clean cooking. Ambitious targets to substantially reduce the use of firewood and charcoal are included in various policy documents, including Vision 2030, the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) Implementation Framework and the Ministry of Energy Strategic Plan, while the Eighth National Development Plan (8NDP) provided for a full ban on unsustainable charcoal production by 2025 (GRZ, 2006, 2022b, 2022c, 2023b). The 8NDP promised measures to protect the livelihoods of people involved in the charcoal value chain, and both the 8NDP and the Renewable Energy Strategy and Action Plan (RESAP) promote the development of sustainable charcoal production. The high priority of this issue was further signaled by Zambia’s signing of the Glasgow Leaders Declaration on Forests and Land Use, which pledged to halt deforestation by 2030 (COP26, 2021). Quantified targets to increase the use of improved cookstoves (ICS), LPG, biogas, electric cooking, and overall ‘efficient cooking solutions’ are included variously in these policy and strategy documents, while other fuels such as ethanol and sustainable charcoal are promoted qualitatively. See a summary of policy targets in SI 1. The Energy Efficiency Strategy and Action Plan (EESAP) specifically calls for “higher tier” cooking solutions, arguing this achieves greater health benefits and reduced labour burdens for a similar level of behavioural change (GRZ, 2022d). The dominant role of women and girls in fuel collection and cooking is recognised in the EESAP and the Gender Equality Strategy and Action Plan (GESAP) (GRZ, 2022e), which provide strategies to achieve gender equality in the energy sector. While these policies consider multiple aspects of the clean cooking transition, they are led by several ministries, and are supported by multiple international development partners (Serenje et al., 2022), which presents a challenge for policy coherence and implementation. Progress is uneven, limited by affordability and infrastructure constraints, such as the relatively high costs of new cooking technologies, especially for Pre-print low-income households (GRZ, 2022d). A dedicated Clean Cooking Strategy and Action Plan aims to address these challenges to chart a path towards universal access to clean cooking fuels for Zambia. 3 Methods The study employed a mixed methods approach, which drew on the extensive knowledge and varied experience of the researchers involved. The interdisciplinary team included members with expertise in forestry, economics, energy and gender, and who have been embedded in Zambia’s clean cooking strategy development for several years, including conducting research on both supply and demand side aspects of the sector, along with modeling and policy related to energy and land systems in Zambia and the wider Sub-Saharan Africa region. First, qualitative scenarios were developed through structured discussions within the project team. The dominant proposals and arguments being made in the field of clean cooking in Zambia were assessed. These formed the core ‘motivations’ of the proposed three contrasting scenarios, based on environmental, social and economic priorities, enabling the evaluation of three alternative approaches to clean cooking which resonate with elements that are currently promoted in public and policy discourse. These scenarios are referred to as ‘Prioritise Forests’, ‘Prioritise Livelihoods’, and ‘Prioritise Centralised Delivery’. An iterative, structured approach was then taken to develop the scenario narratives, ensuring each was internally coherent. For each scenario, the levels of cooking fuel and stove uptake were set based on the narratives and the underlying socioeconomic and technical considerations. An impact analysis was then undertaken to evaluate the implications of each scenario across a range of technical, social and environmental factors which would be important to stakeholders including end-users, policymakers and industry. The factors include the ESMAP energy access indicators (affordability, efficiency, convenience, availability, safety) (Bhatia and Angelou, 2015) plus livelihoods, formal employment, health and safety, technical challenges related to the energy system, impact of forest loss, and potential political implications. Following best practice guidelines (Bergman et al., 2025), affected marginalised groups were identified. This allowed for the scenarios to be evaluated for equity and inclusion issues. To contribute insights on the technical and economic issues, the energy system implications were quantified using the open-source OSeMOSYS-Zambia energy system model (Hofbauer et al., 2024). This optimisation model includes a detailed representation of the whole energy system, covering both supply and demand. Over a given time horizon, it creates least-cost pathways that meet given energy service demands under different constraints. It can therefore be used to explore different future scenarios for the energy system. The scenarios share a common set of overarching socio-economic assumptions, e.g., rural and urban population growth, while each is underpinned by a different set of assumptions regarding cooking. This includes constraints depicting the stove mix, assumptions on the use of more efficient kilns and assumptions on the fraction of non-renewable biomass for each of the scenarios, as summarised in Table 1. Model outputs provide results on the energy mix, overall energy efficiency and investment requirements. Pre-print Implications for forest loss are estimated using the LandFutures_Zambia open-source Excel tool (Cronin et al., 2025a, 2025b). In this model, it is assumed that firewood collection does not exceed sustainable levels i.e. wood residues are collected rather than stems being cut, and the rate of wood removal is less than the rate of regeneration – therefore, it does not lead to forest loss. In contrast, a portion of the charcoal produced from natural forests (as opposed to sustainably managed forests) leads to forest loss. For charcoal from natural forests, the wood demand is calculated based on the charcoal demand and kiln efficiencies. The area required to supply the wood demand exceeding the national fraction of nonrenewable biomass is calculated based on the average tree density. Finally, a portion is subtracted representing the area of land cleared for charcoal that later is converted to agriculture (approximately 25%), representing the interconnections between these two dominant activities. The scenarios are depicted in the tool as shown in Table 1. While the author team has drawn on diverse expertise and evidence from a range of sources to conduct this study, some perspectives may be omitted. The scenarios are not intended to be finished products, rather the scenarios and analysis are intended as tools for exploration of alternative approaches to clean cooking. Key uncertainties and challenges for implementation are identified to provide insights on the technical, logistical and political feasibility of the various interventions, as well as the desirability of the outcomes. Rather than advocating for a particular solution, the study thus illustrates the diversity of pathways that Zambia’s clean cooking transition could follow, exploring potential trade-offs associated with alternative approaches. Table 1 Key assumptions used to parameterise the scenarios in LandFutures_Zambia and OSeMOSYS-Zambia model. Scenario name: Base Year Prioritise Forests Prioritise Livelihoods Prioritise Centralised Delivery 2022 2030 2050 2030 2050 2030 2050 Cooking stove mix Numbers shown in Figure 3 Fraction of charcoal made from sustainably managed forests (as opposed to natural forests) 0% 0 0 20 60 20 60 Proportion of charcoal made with improved kilns 0 0 20 60 20 60 Fraction of non-renewable biomass (proportion of the charcoal made in natural forests that exceeds regeneration) 0.3 in all scenarios and constant in time 4 Results 4.1 Scenario descriptions The three co-created scenarios depict different possible visions for clean cooking based on the prioritisation of either: environment (‘Prioritise Forests’), society (‘Prioritise Livelihoods’), or the economy (‘Prioritise Centralised Delivery’). A core element of each is their differentiated approach to charcoal. Prioritise Forests implements a ban on charcoal production and use. Prioritise Livelihoods supports sustainable charcoal production, along with small and medium enterprises. Prioritise Centralised Delivery supports commercial charcoal production, along with other large-scale infrastructure. For comparison, a Pre-print reference scenario is also defined, depicting the continuation of historic trends, with no major shifts in households’ use of cooking fuels up to 2050. The scenarios are illustrated in Figure 2 and described in detail below. Figure 2 Summary of clean cooking scenarios 4.1.1 Prioritise Forests The Prioritise Forests scenario envisions that, motivated by an urgent desire to halt deforestation and forest degradation, charcoal production and use are banned nationwide. The ban is strongly implemented by the Forestry Department and law enforcement, leading to the fuel being fully phased out by 2050. This significantly disrupts fuel access for the growing urban population, triggering a rapid shift to the most accessible alternatives, such as biomass and electric cooking. To reduce the burden on forests from the biomass element, the government provides low-income urban households with improved biomass cookstoves, to be used with briquettes, works with the private sector to develop the briquette supply chain, and leads public awareness campaigns to increase e-cooking adoption. To support e-cooking, the Pre-print government continues to work to increase stable electricity access for urban homes and businesses. Aligning policy and regulatory frameworks improves the enabling environment for Independent Power Producers, attracting investment in the electricity grid. In rural areas, the government continues efforts to rapidly reduce biomass demands by running education programmes on sustainable pruning techniques for firewood, and providing ICS that can use twigs and crop residues instead of larger logs. The most readily available alternatives to firewood are also encouraged. For example, extension services encourage people to produce briquettes from forest and crop residues at household and community level, while in areas where livestock farming is common, households with sufficient manure are assisted to install and use biodigesters to produce biogas for cooking (and a nutrient-rich digestate to use as fertiliser). The government continues funding for the Rural Electrification Authority (REA) and promotes public-private partnerships to roll out mini-grids; this increases the uptake of e-cooking in rural areas somewhat, though the affordability of electric stoves and electricity limit uptake. As cropland expansion is recognised as the other major driver of deforestation and strongly interlinked with charcoal production, the charcoal ban is accompanied by efforts to reduce this. Agricultural programmes continue to focus on intensification by increasing farmers’ access to inputs such as fertiliser and machinery, aiming to increase productivity and therefore reduce the need for forest clearance. Ongoing efforts by the Forestry Department to increase community forest management programmes and build awareness of the wider ecosystem benefits of forests help encourage more sustainable use of forest resources. This is complemented by increased enforcement of forest reserve boundaries to reduce the expansion of cropland into protected areas (Phiri et al., 2023). 4.1.2 Prioritise Livelihoods In the Prioritise Livelihoods scenario, the strategy focuses on creating new employment opportunities in the sector. The Government supports small and medium enterprises (SMEs) through training schemes and increased access to microfinance, as well as facilitating SMEs to participate in the voluntary carbon market. In urban and peri-urban areas, jobs are created in production, distribution, and maintenance of advanced cooking technologies, namely LPG cylinders, improved biomass and charcoal cooking stoves and electric stoves. To support the transition, urban manufacturers of traditional charcoal mbaula 1 stoves are re-skilled to produce these alternative technologies. Urban households increase their use of these charcoal ICS along with some LPG, and somewhat increased uptake of e-cooking. In rural areas, there is a major focus on supporting sustainable firewood and charcoal production. A policy to support the roll out of efficient kilns (e.g. Adam retort kilns) and develop sustainable forestry practices, such as Alternative Coupe and Shelterbelt Strip Systems (GRZ, 2019, 2024b) reduces the demand for wood and the clear cutting of trees. The Forestry Department increases its support for communities to establish charcoal producing co-operatives to manage areas of forest with these rotational harvesting systems, also integrating activities such as beekeeping and edible fruits collection in the unexploited coupe and shelterbelt strips. Forest officers, traditional leadership and law enforcement collaborate to implement 1 traditional stoves made from scrap metal Pre-print Figure 8 Area of natural forest cleared for each of the scenarios In Centralised Delivery, 10% of urban households use bioethanol as their primary cooking fuel by 2050. Consistent with the large-scale industrial focus of the scenario, bioethanol is produced from sugarcane from plantations owned by refining companies. The additional cropland required to grow the feedstocks for this level of bioethanol is small compared to the expansion of cropland needed to feed Zambia’s growing population. While in the Reference scenario, the total cropland area increases from 8.53 Mha in 2018 to 12.74 Mha in 2050, the additional demand for sugarcane in Centralised Delivery requires an additional 30 kha by 2050. Note, other likely feedstock for bioethanol in Zambia are sweet sorghum (Stamenković et al., 2020) and cassava. The country has most experience with cassava, which, following the models of Sunbird Bioenergy and Zhongkai International Ltd, would be most likely produced by smallholder farmers and bought by the refinery via an outgrower scheme. While the lower yield of cassava means more cropland would be required, this option could be expected to result in more positive economic outcomes for smallholders and thus rural communities. The scenarios illustrate that approaches to cooking would be coherent with different types of agricultural transition and, therefore, types of land-use change. In Prioritise Forests, the lack of support for alternative income generating activities risks driving charcoal producers to further expand low yield agriculture, exacerbating forest loss. In Prioritise Livelihoods, the community-level support for cooking related businesses would be consistent with the drive to increase conservation agriculture, while the large-scale, private sector focus of Centralised Delivery is more consistent with expanded commercial agriculture, including farmblock development. In the latter two scenarios, it is unclear whether diversifying incomes for rural people would lead them to reduce or further increase their expansion of cropland. 4.2.3 Economic impacts In terms of GDP, substantial national-level economic gains could emerge with the Centralised Delivery scenario, as there is clear focus on large-scale commercial and industrial developments, SME expansion Pre-print and fostering domestic manufacturing capabilities for key cooking technologies and fuels. These elements have the potential to increase Zambia’s economic self-reliance by reducing dependence on imported resources and energy technologies. In turn, this could reduce Zambia’s exposure to commodity price and exchange rate fluctuations, as well as supporting economic resilience through diversification beyond the dominant mining sector (Chelwa et al., 2024; Cervantes Barron et al., 2024). Economic modelling by Tembo and Pye (2024) revealed that investments in more centralised or decentralised energy technologies lead to similar economic multiplier effects. Therefore, similar levels of GDP growth could in theory be expected in the Prioritise Livelihoods scenario, through its formalised charcoal regimes and SME opportunities for a diverse range of technologies and fuels. In both scenarios, the formalisation of the charcoal sector generates government tax collection opportunities, such as through corporation and income taxes as well as VAT. National GDP growth alone does not necessarily lead to sustainable development, equal benefits to local economies, or improvement of rural livelihoods (Carter et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2024; Tembo and Pye, 2024). Tembo and Pye (2024) argue that the near-equivalence of national-level impacts of these types of approaches (more centralised vs decentralised energy systems) allows policy-makers flexibility to base investment decisions on other concerns such as the distribution of benefits across the workforce and regions. Prioritise Livelihoods is expected to lead to more equitable economic outcomes, as the more dispersed urban-rural employment opportunities boost incomes, while fostering skill development. To further improve these impacts, SME support could be particularly focused to increase the participation of women and other marginalised groups through targeted training and mentorship schemes and increasing access to loans with reduced collateral requirements (World Bank, 2020). If well managed, applying these approaches in the cooking sector could thereby achieve the dual benefits of environmental conservation and inclusive economic empowerment. 4.2.4 Social impacts To evaluate further social impacts, we considered “who wins and who loses?” in each scenario. A major question is what producers do if charcoal production undergoes a major shift. In the Prioritise Forests scenario, the robust implementation of a nationwide charcoal ban dramatically disrupts livelihood activities across the supply-chain (e.g. production, transport, sale). While this may be environmentally preferable, previous studies highlight substantial social risks of such approaches. Punitive approaches have been described as unjust, since they can push already vulnerable communities into more precarious situations (Smith et al., 2015; Wekesa et al., 2023). To a lesser degree, the strong enforcement of existing charcoal regulations, as in the Centralised Delivery scenario, would potentially have similar social impacts, as some of those who currently practice illegal charcoal production would struggle to quickly switch to alternative income generation activities. In contrast, the approach taken in Prioritise Livelihoods to support people to adopt more sustainable charcoal production practices, in a regime of producer associations and cooperatives, would likely produce more inclusive outcomes (Njenga et al., 2023). Similarly, focusing on charcoal production from commercial forestry in Centralised Delivery may enable those in the supply chain to maintain income streams, though potentially for fewer people due to the larger-scale commercial approach. Supporting Pre-print sustainable charcoal activities to become formal enterprises in this way would enable them to be regulated and officially recognised, allowing it to be embedded into the country’s energy planning (Branch et al., 2022). Substantial social impacts arise from the different types of job creation and formalisation seen in the scenarios. In Prioritise Livelihoods and Centralised Delivery, the formalisation of charcoal supply-chains may produce benefits by ensuring producers receive fair remuneration for their products, if wellregulated and enforced, while transporters would benefit from the improved safety, being less exposed to corrupt practices and roadside bribery (Zulu and Richardson, 2013). Further formal job opportunities emerge in Prioritise Livelihoods in cookstove and fuel-related SMEs, and in Centralised Delivery in refineries, commercial manufacturing and forest plantations. While all these offer the potential for increased incomes and safety, the types of jobs seen in Centralised Delivery may have greater potential for the additional benefits of greater job security, sick pay and pensions. Employment gains would likely be concentrated in urban and peri-urban areas in Centralised Delivery, and more geographically dispersed in Prioritise Livelihoods, which could raise political and equity issues. In any case, increasing formal sector employment opportunities aligns well with the growing recognition that to increase youth employment, job opportunities must be actively created, as well as education and skills development (Sumberg et al., 2020). Major benefits of clean cooking likely lie in improved health outcomes, particularly for women and children who are currently disproportionally affected by household air pollution. While influenced by a range of context-specific variables, the worst pollution levels are generally associated with the use of firewood. The use of charcoal, in particular in ICS, can already reduce indoor pollution – in some contexts with similar outcomes to LPG (Pope et al., 2021; Shupler et al., 2024). For rural households, Prioritise Forests has the poorest outcomes as it has the highest rates of firewood through to 2050, whereas Prioritise Centralised Delivery has the best health outcomes for the converse reason. The scenarios are less differentiated for urban households because of the less pronounced health gains of transitioning from charcoal to alternative fuels: Prioritise forests is likely the healthiest urban scenario as it eliminates charcoal by 2050, whereas Prioritise Livelihoods has the highest charcoal usage rates by this time and the worst health outcomes. All scenarios should result in decreasing overall indoor cooking-related air pollution levels. However, they imply a potentially strong divide between the households who are able to afford cleaner cooking solutions and those who cannot. The affordability of cooking solutions presents an equity division in how the scenarios prioritise outcomes for different groups. Affordability depends on the upfront cost for stoves and fuel prices. It is difficult to assess given the variations in fuel prices households can experience, and its strong dependence on the lived experience of a diverse group of poorer households (Gill-Wiehl et al., 2021; Scott and Leach, 2022). In general, improved stoves of any form are more expensive than three-stone fires, unless fully subsidised, and fuels such as LPG, briquettes, electricity and bioethanol all bear costs. Scenarios that increase the price of stoves and fuels may disproportionately impact the poorest communities, if alternative options are inaccessible or unaffordable (Odondi, 2022; Clube et al., 2024). This risks increasing inequality, and presents a substantial barrier to the goals of any clean cooking strategy. Pre-print The largest negative impact on affordability would likely occur in Prioritise Forests because households would have to rapidly find alternatives to charcoal, with poorer urban households likely to struggle with upfront costs of new stoves without adequate support. In both Prioritise Livelihoods and Centralised Delivery, the cost of new stoves may reduce over time as economies of scale are achieved in supply chains within Zambia, potentially more quickly in Centralised Delivery due to the commercial approach. Both scenarios see charcoal prices increase due to more formalised supply chains. However, they also see a focus on socio-economic development that improves the financial situation of at least some households, partly mitigating negative impacts from increased cost of cooking. This will not extend to all households, with for example, rural households in the Centralised Delivery scenario expected to face challenges in affording access to clean cooking technologies. 4.2.5 Overview of impacts Table 2 provides an overview of the impacts across the dimensions considered, summarising key points from the paragraphs above. Table 2 1 Overview of scenario impacts (+ and - symbols denote positive and negative impacts respectively) Prioritise Forests Prioritise Livelihoods Prioritise Centralised Delivery Affordability of fuels and stoves − Rapidly increased upfront cost for clean cookstoves in urban areas. + Economies of scale reduce stove costs. + Increased income, mainly for rural households. − Increased charcoal prices. − Increased upfront cost for clean cookstoves. + Economies of scale reduce stove costs. + Increased income, mainly for urban households. − Increased charcoal prices. − Increased upfront cost for clean cookstoves. Energy system + Reduction in final energy demand. + Very high emission reductions. − Substantial additional investment requirements in the power sector. + Reduction in final energy demand. + High emission reductions. − Some additional investment requirements in the power sector. − Increased import dependence for fossil fuels. + Reduction in final energy demand. + Very high emission reductions. − Substantial additional investment requirements in the power sector, including distribution. − Increased import dependence for fossil fuels. Livelihoods and employment − Rural communities dependent on the charcoal value chain suddenly lose income. + New opportunities emerge gradually for rural communities, such as briquette making. + Increased electricity access creates new economic opportunities in urban and rural areas. − Charcoal producers unable to adapt to new regimes lose out. + Charcoal associations create more stable sustainable income. + Targeted support for SMEs creates diverse employment opportunities, especially in rural and peri-urban areas. − Charcoal producers unable to adapt to new regimes lose out. + Formalisation of charcoal sector improves fair remuneration across supply chain. + Increased electricity access creates economic opportunities in urban and rural areas. ± Large-scale manufacturing creates jobs but urban focus potentially exacerbates the rural-urban economic divide. Pre-print Health − Continuing health risk due to indoor air pollution from biomass in rural areas, though reduced due to improved stoves. + Substantial decrease in indoor air pollution for urban households. − Continuing health risk due to indoor air pollution from biomass and charcoal, though somewhat reduced due to improved stoves. − Increased fire and explosion risk from LPG stoves. − Continuing health risk due to indoor air pollution from biomass and charcoal, though reduced due to charcoal phase down. Land-use and forestry + Fastest reduction in deforestation due to charcoal. + Community forest management improves productive but sustainable use of forests, reducing deforestation. + Plantations established in deforested areas increase forest cover and reduce deforestation in other areas. Economics + Income generation diversified in rural and urban areas. − Requires high investment in forestry enforcement. + Formalised charcoal sector generates government revenue. + Income generation diversified in rural and urban areas. + Formalised charcoal sector generates government revenue. + Income generation diversified in urban (and rural) areas. + Greatest economic multiplier effects expected. Political implications + Likely to be politically challenging to implement due to rural-urban divides. + Aligns with country’s climate commitments. + Potentially offers greater gains for rural livelihoods, countering the prevailing Lusaka-centric political narrative. + Requires high investment in forestry enforcement officers and policing. + Aligns with country’s climate commitments. + Well-aligned with wider economic development ambitions to diversify economy, create revenue. collection opportunities and support local job creation. + Aligns with country’s climate commitments. 5 Discussion Each scenario has advantages and disadvantages. Risks and challenges presented by policy inertia or inconsistency, lack of funding, cultural and social beliefs around cooking fuels are common to all scenarios. This section discusses further uncertainties in how scenario elements could evolve and draws policy messages from the analysis. 5.1 Uncertainties and challenges A clear uncertainty across the scenarios is around the effective implementation of charcoal bans. Empirical evidence suggests that charcoal bans are rarely successful in fully eliminating charcoal due to enforcement difficulties. Rather, weak governance means charcoal production often continues, albeit in an illicit manner – ‘pushed underground’ – with higher risks for vulnerable communities (Zulu, 2010; Wekesa et al., 2023). Hence, attempts at top-down management do not automatically equate to less ecological and social harm, and can be ineffective or counterproductive (Branch et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2015). To be successful, bans require an array of enabling conditions. On the demand-side, alternative fuels must be readily affordable and reliable, while on the supply-side, alternative livelihoods must be Pre-print supported, or people will continue to produce out of necessity (Zulu, 2010; Ablo et al., 2022; Clube et al., 2024). Regarding the point about alternative livelihoods, it will be necessary to further understand and address the interactions between charcoal production and agriculture. Land cleared for charcoal is often subsequently used for crops, and trees cleared for cropland are often used for charcoal, leading many to argue that agricultural expansion is, in fact, the primary driver of deforestation (Ngoma et al., 2021; Sedano et al., 2022; Phiri et al., 2023). With analysis of satellite data, Sedano et al. (2022) contributes insights on the degree to which land cleared for charcoal has been later cultivated - approximately 25% within seven years. However, questions remain over how a charcoal ban, or stringent enforcement of restrictions, might alter these dynamics, as communities would seek alternative income sources and could well increase their agricultural activities, which could undermine the goal of the ban to stem deforestation. The unreliability of electricity supply has been a key issue for Zambia in recent years, due to the impact of droughts on hydropower generation. While it is clear the role of electric cooking is linked to electricity access, the reliability of that access is as important as its presence – if supply is unreliable or unavailable for short or extended periods, people will heavily fuel stack or even reject electric cooking (Ngoma et al., 2018). Much of the industrial activity envisioned in Centralised Delivery, along with the additional economic activities expected to stem from increased electricity access, would also be curtailed if the supply were unreliable. Aside from e-cooking, ultimately, the wider goals of halting deforestation and industrialisation are dependent on a resilient electricity system. There are also technical and commercial challenges for other cooking options. The increase in LPG envisioned in Prioritise Livelihoods stems from support for SMEs to establish a distribution network. While LPG promises the advantages of scalability, usability and relative affordability (Puzzolo et al., 2020), previous scaling efforts in Zambia have had limited success because the imported fuel is subject to exchange rate fluctuations and high transport costs, making it largely unaffordable. Distribution within Zambia has also been limited by the difficulty for retail outlets to establish a minimum viable number of cylinders, and the cost of transporting fuel in rural areas with low population density. Therefore, a key requirement for the success of this option would appear to be domestic refining capacity and a coordinated approach regarding taxation. Other socio-technical obstacles include the uptake of biogas in the Prioritise Forests and Prioritise Livelihoods scenarios, a technology which faced substantial challenges in various contexts (e.g. Diouf and Miezan, 2019; Hewitt et al., 2022). Finally, the uptake of all alternative cooking fuels is fully dependent on the buy-in of users. Studies have shown households make cooking decisions based on taste preferences, cultural norms and habits, as well as costs. This highlights the importance of an approach that takes into account household preferences alongside techno-economic considerations, for example, providing sufficient end-user education to support the sustained adoption of new cooking appliances. Pre-print 5.2 Policy messages The study reveals some important lessons for policymakers. First, the impact analysis reveals that each scenario produces significantly different social, economic and environmental outcomes. As policymakers have different preferences and priorities, there is need for a closer assessment of how different cooking futures fit in with the country’s wider development strategies. Some aspects of the scenarios may be more politically, economically, and logistically viable than others. Holistic analysis as provided in this study provides a way to assess the desirability, feasibility and compatibility of different elements. Second, the study demonstrates the need for an integrated, cross-ministerial approach to clean cooking. Particular cross-cutting elements include the links between charcoal production and agriculture in terms of rural livelihoods and environmental impacts, and the potential for achieving livelihood benefits through aligned industrial strategy. Therefore, close collaboration is needed between the Forestry Department, Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Energy, amongst others, to ensure the intended benefits of a clean cooking strategy are achieved and unintended negative impacts are avoided. Third, it is vital to consider issues of equity and inclusivity. The EESAP and GESAP already recognise the dominance of women and girls in fuel collection and cooking and the need to consider literacy gaps between genders in designing interventions. The study reiterates the recommendation of EED and CEEEZ (2022) that demand-side cooking interventions should target female-headed households and engage effectively with women to understand their priorities and concerns. On the supply-side, the study highlights that inclusive approaches to strongly upscale alternative livelihoods to charcoal are vital for social justice and to ensure the success of the cooking transition as, in their absence, people will likely continue to produce charcoal, but with worsened conditions. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the impacts, challenges, but also the potential opportunities, for marginalised communities presented by alternative cooking strategies. 6 Conclusions Achieving universal access to clean energy requires an equitable, accessible and affordable cooking solution. By co-creating and evaluating three strongly contrasting scenarios for Zambia, this analysis highlights that alternative clean cooking strategies would have different and diverse impacts for economic, environmental and social systems on various timescales. Strongly prioritising either deforestation, livelihoods or economic growth alone is unlikely to enable the full range of potential benefits for people and the environment and avoid adverse impacts; each scenario entails both opportunities and trade-offs. Taking an integrated, systems-wide, inclusive approach to cooking can ensure that trade-offs are reduced, and that the opportunities to contribute to Zambia’s wider development agenda are realised. Rather than advocating for one of the three scenarios presented in this paper, we recommend that policymakers, academics and practitioners utilise them as a starting point for further analysis and discussion. The impact analysis along with the discussion of uncertainties and challenges provide insights to help policymakers consider the desirability and feasibility of different elements. The scenarios focused on Zambia, but the method and findings have relevance to other country contexts in the region who are similarly grappling with the clean cooking transition. Pre-print Acknowledgments This material has been produced with support from the Climate Compatible Growth (CCG) programme. CCG is funded by UK AID from the UK Government. Views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the UK government's official policies. Supplementary Information SI 1 – Summary of Zambian policies relating to clean cooking Policy Publicat ion Year Ministry Clean cooking options promoted, or related targets Vision 2030 2006 N/A Target to reduce the share of wood fuel to 40 percent by 2030. National Energy Policy 2019 MoE No quantified targets for clean cooking. But the implementation plan assigns funding for several tasks including: - Supporting private companies to produce more efficient biomass cook stoves - Joint operations for the enforcement of biomass regulations - Awareness campaigns on sustainable biomass utilisation, and use of alternatives. - Actions to increase electricity access and renewable energy - policy development, grid construction in both urban and rural areas etc. NDC Implementation framework 2021 N/A Targets to distribute 100,000 ICS by 2027, and to reduce charcoal use from 92% in 2021 to 25% of households by 2027. Ministry of Energy Strategic Plan 20222026 2022 MoE Target to reduce the contribution of woodfuel of the total energy mix from 77% in 2021 to 55% by 2026. Gender Equality Strategy and Action Plan 2022 MoE Very detailed targets for energy access, separated by female and maleheaded households. Including: - 18.5% using electricity for cooking 40% using LPG nationally by 2030 fuel - Reduce households using biomass for cooking: nationally reach 29% using firewood by 2030 and 21.4% using charcoal - Target for percentage of households using improved/ clean cookstoves: figure listed as 'tbc' Renewable Energy Strategy and Action Plan 2022 MoE Target to improve efficiency of charcoal production from 20% to 25% by 2030. Promotes liquid biofuels and biogas for cooking. Notes that A2C promotes LPG, biomass pellets, ethanol, electricity, biogas. Plans to enhance the biomass energy market, including for sustainable charcoal. Notes the need to foster synergies between forestry and energy policies. Energy Efficiency Strategy and Action Plan 2022 MoE Targets to: - reach 20% increase of biodigesters by 2030 - establish LPG distribution and storage centres in Northern, Eastern and Central Provinces by 2027 - deploy 100,000 efficient stoves by 2027 (pay as you go) - attain 10,000 MT of wood pellets usage per year by 2027 - attain 20% of cooking using energy-efficient cooking equipment by 2030 Pre-print Eighth National Development Plan 2022 FNP Plans for a full ban on unsustainable charcoal by 2025 Mentions improved cooking devices and biogas The Integrated Resource Plan 2023 MoE Calls for the government to: - Set a target for minimum level of access to clean cooking including electric cooking specifically - Make clean cooking an integral part of rural electrification National Green Growth Strategy 2024 MGEE Target to increase use of energy efficient cooking solutions from 1% in 2022 to 20% in 2030. SI 2 – Additional graphs Figure 2 Electricity generation by fuel type in each of the scenarios References Ablo, A.D., Osei, L., Jarawura, F.X., Yaro, J.A., 2022. Sacrificing the savannah woodlands for energy and livelihoods? Charcoal production in Ghana. Energy for Sustainable Development 70, 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.09.001 Pre-print Atteridge, A., Heneen, M., Senyagwa, J., 2013. Transforming Household Energy Practices Among Charcoal Users in Lusaka, Zambia: a User-Centred Approach (Working Paper). Stockholm Environment Institute. Bede-Ojimadu, O., Orisakwe, O.E., 2020. Exposure to Wood Smoke and Associated Health Effects in SubSaharan Africa: A Systematic Review. Ann Glob Health 86, 32. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.2725 Bergman, M., Tomei, J., Hirmer, S., Stockport, B., Afifah, F., Dixon, J., Hofbauer, L., Leonard, A., Lubello, P., Manzano, E.P., Verrier, B., Daly, M., Fields, N., Gardumi, F., Pye, S., Kausya, M., Mackinlay, K., Nayema, K., Onsongo, E., Kumar, D.S., 2025. Guidelines for inclusive and equitable energy and transport modeling. iScience 28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2025.113218 Bhatia, M., Angelou, N., 2015. Beyond Connections: Energy Access Redefined. ESMAP, https://mtfenergyaccess.esmap.org/data/files/downloaddocuments/full_report_beyond_connection.pdf. Boyd Williams, N., Tilley, E., Kalina, M., 2024. From failure to fairness: A call for accountability within household biogas development. Energy Research & Social Science 115, 103633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103633 Branch, A., Agyei, F.K., Anai, J.G., Apecu, S.L., Bartlett, A., Brownell, E., Caravani, M., Cavanagh, C.J., Fennell, S., Langole, S., Mabele, M.B., Mwampamba, T.H., Njenga, M., Owor, A., Phillips, J., Tiitmamer, N., 2022. From crisis to context: Reviewing the future of sustainable charcoal in Africa. Energy Research & Social Science 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102457 Byaro, M., Mmbaga, N.F., Mafwolo, G., 2024. Tackling energy poverty: Do clean fuels for cooking and access to electricity improve or worsen health outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa? World Development Sustainability 4, 100125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wds.2024.100125 Carter, P., Davies, M., Dziadula, E., Kaboski, J., Segal, P., 2024. When growth does and does not reduce poverty. British Investment Insights. Cervantes Barron, K., Clube, R.K.M., Chabala, R., Matokwani, M., Chikwamo, M.J., 2024. Value addition for who? Challenges to local participation in downstream critical mineral ventures in Zambia. The Extractive Industries and Society 20, 101554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2024.101554 Chelwa, G., Kaulule, N.S., Renzio, P. de, 2024. External Forces and Zambia’s Permanent Debt Crisis. Development 67, 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-025-00431-z Clasen, T.F., Chang, H.H., Thompson, L.M., Kirby, M.A., Balakrishnan, K., Díaz-Artiga, A., McCracken, J.P., Rosa, G., Steenland, K., Younger, A., Aravindalochanan, V., Barr, D.B., Castañaza, A., Chen, Y., Chiang, M., Clark, M.L., Garg, S., Hartinger, S., Jabbarzadeh, S., Johnson, M.A., Kim, D.-Y., Lovvorn, A.E., McCollum, E.D., Monroy, L., Moulton, L.H., Mukeshimana, A., Mukhopadhyay, K., Naeher, L.P., Ndagijimana, F., Papageorghiou, A., Piedrahita, R., Pillarisetti, A., Puttaswamy, N., Quinn, A., Ramakrishnan, U., Sambandam, S., Sinharoy, S.S., Thangavel, G., Underhill, L.J., Waller, L.A., Wang, J., Williams, K.N., Rosenthal, J.P., Checkley, W., Peel, J.L., 2022. Liquefied Petroleum Gas or Biomass for Cooking and Effects on Birth Weight. N Engl J Med 387, 1735– 1746. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2206734 Clube, R., Cyoy, E., Mayleka, N., Meron Tesfamichael, 2024. When Punitive Approaches Fail: Insights into Unjust Outcomes of Kenya’s Charcoal Policies. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36245.13282/2 COP26, 2021. Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use - UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) at the SEC – Glasgow 2021 [WWW Document]. URL https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20230418175226/https://ukcop26.org/glasg ow-leaders-declaration-on-forests-and-land-use/ (accessed 9.3.25). Cronin, J., Njobvu, C., Serenje, N.C., Butnar, I., Yamba, F., Pye, S., 2025a. (Pre-print) Exploring future land-use scenarios: Co-creation of a conceptual and quantitative model for Zambia. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15102105