[Stoves] Why biomass cook stoves are very expensive?

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Paul

>> http://www.differgroup.com/analysis/

>It certainly is indirectly supportive of the GACC approach to solving the
stove problems.  "Indirect subsidies" (called grants) are advocated.

What I read of the method (there is a lot of other written material on their
site) is aimed at subsidising 'pull' and avoiding the subsidisation of
'push'. 

'Pull' means the subsidisation of the creation of demand. This can involve
many things from investing in tools or the distribution system to get
product into the shops, to paying for awareness training on TV. It cost $1m
to train the population of Ulaanbaatar last year to use a TLUD coal stove
properly to limit smoke production during ignition. It was a multi-media
blitz and it worked.

It was effective, a 'pull' item and did not involve subsidy of the product
itself. It is an example of a cost that would normally have been needed to
be included in the product cost as a distribution/marketing cost. This
subsidy reduced the price. In fact, the stoves were substantially subsidised
as well, but the publicity is an example of an indirect subsidy mechanism
properly applied.

This approach was used by ProBEC and the rules for it were debated and
finalised before any action was taken. The project was supposed to develop
viable and sustainable commercial enterprises. That can't be done with a
product subsidy. 

If there is a carbon finance component (often held up as a way to get
expensive stove to people for a low price) it has to be accepted that the
system is not in fact sustainable unless something marvellous happens.
Sometimes the market can develop to a scale that allows mass production to
reduce costs, but that is rare. The subsidy should be applied at the
production system level, for example importing material in bulk and selling
it slowly as the market develops. 

What we really see a lot of is the expectation that carbon finance or other
forms of direct subsidy will lower the cost to people who otherwise would
not pay for the product with little though given to sustainability.

The huge danger in this is that the stoves would not really be acceptable in
the first place were it not so cheap. That is a real danger. If you have a
stove that is just 'cheaper' it is not automatically 'acceptable'. The
worrying thing is that so many unacceptable stoves are spread all over the
place because the funding was accessible, not because the product had a
chance in a normal market.

It is rare to find a stove that is truly acceptable except for only one
aspect: cost. Most programmes are tied to tight deliver schedules and in
frustration and the lack of acceptable products, someone decides to 'pick a
product', roll it out highly subsidised, declare victory and go home. This
is repeated year after year. That is what the article is looking at and
suggesting we change.

Regards
Crispin