[Stoves] Forestry and Fuel

Fri Jan 17 04:04:14 CST 2014

Hi Ronal,

Thanks for your response. Just to clarify, the case study you refer to
is based on earlier work that explores the competitive dynamics of
stove promoters in Darfur, and PPT based on very early thinking for
the current paper. The current paper, which is part of my (yet
defended) thesis, examines how stoves were discursively construed as
being a panacea for the risk of rape in (any) conflict context.

Your assessment of Sudan is spot on. I would also add the immense
resources directed to longtime war efforts, and the related building
of Khartoum to the detriment of the periphery states is also part of
national mismanagement. And the market for charcoal is booming, both
for cooking but also for industry (i.e. to produce heat for small
scale metal working, etc.). Also other reasons of course, for example,
during a 2009 field visit to Blue Nile, some returnee communities, as
a result of poor rains and the cut of support from WFP, thousands
across a handful of villages resorted to eating the roots of small
shrubs.

In the case study you mention, then country director of Practical
Action was involved in some of the first efficient stove projects in
Sudan through CARE. Through his insights and relationships I was able
to meet with some of the early stove developers and designers, and
establish just how much capacity there was in Sudan in the 80s and on.
I also found that USAID central in supporting stove efforts at that
time, and helping to strengthen government and research capacity in
the area.

My comment about stoves being simple relates to the intended
functionality. Burn fuel, produce heat, cook. The designs and
technology behind them are certainly sophisticated, and I do
appreciate the years of dedication scientists and designers dedicate
to design and testing. I would certainly love to see more field
testing, however. There must be ways to get out of the 'controlled'
mindset and develop more effective ways to include sociocultural
factors in the use of stoves. Especially when they are reported as
being able to solve problems that cannot be attributed to cooking
alone.

And yes, much, much more work needs to be done on the smoke issue. I
certainly hope to do more of this in the near future. And like the
topic of violence, I believe the smoke issue demands complementing lab
tests and developing new ways to test stoves in the field. An
interesting paper on the development side is as follows:

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb57889/solarcooking/images/a/a8/Bailis-et-al-2009-Arresting-the-Killer-in-the-Kitchen.pdf

Thanks again Ronal and all. I am constantly learning from your
comments on a variety of stove related topics and discussions.

Warmly,
Samer

On 17/01/2014, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
> Samer and list:
>
> 1.  For others, I recommend a shortened version of Dr. Abdelnour' paper (and
> possibly his thesis) at:
> http://www.growinginclusivemarkets.org/media/publications/case_study_of_fuel_efficient_stoves_for_darfur.pdf
> Interesting comments by Dr. Ashok Gadgil and Crispin.  Crispin says there
> that designing a stove is very complicated - and I agree.  Dr. Samer says
> the opposite below ("As you are all aware, stoves are a relatively
> straightforward technology".)
>
> 2.  Also I found a Ppt that is easier reading:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=abdelnour+stove+ppt&oq=abdelnour+stove+ppt&aqs=chrome..69i57.27083j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8
>     and then pick the third entry.
>
> 3.  I believe Dr. Abdelnour is correct in criticizing the way the Darfur
> stove program was handled.  I worked in Sudan (for USAID) 30 years ago and
> can tell you there are many talented people there who were presumably left
> out of the process of providing a solution to the cooking problem in Darfur.
> I have talked to some of those friends on this Darfur stove situation since.
>   I am sure that one or more International NGOs didn’t do well - but I don’t
> know any of those details.  There was probably also some fault due Sudanese
> government officials who didn’t want to turn down donor help.
>      I helped start this list in 1995 solely because of the way the enormous
> use of charcoal has ruined Sudan.  If there is a country more hurt by
> charcoal use, I hope someone will point it out.  The reason - most all the
> land is owned by the government.  No incentives for anyone to plant trees.
>      I hope we can hear more on some of this - but I am finding no fault
> with Dr. Samer’s criticism of using rape as a sales point.
>
> 4.  However, to the best of my knowledge this rape subject has come up only
> three times on this list.  Twice for rape seed and once in connection with a
> solar cooker (where I think the use of solar cooking might have some
> relevance to this rape issue).
>        We have had dozens of messages about the criteria for a good stove.
> I don’t think the word rape was used once - and if it had, I believe it
> would have been laughed down.
>
> 5.  I think Dr. Samer’s paper fails to give enough attention to health
> issues - which for many years was the key reason for talking about stoves
> and many continue - especially at GACC  (Dr. Kirk Smith influence).  Same of
> course for climate and deforestation (char-making) issues.
>
> 6.  It is not clear to me whether Dr. Samer is being critical of GACC and
> Hillary Clinton’s role - but I think that is misplaced, if there is
> criticism there.
>
> 7.  Mostly though I hope he will explain more on his apparent criticism of
> stove designer’s emphasis on efficiency.  Maybe also of char-making stoves.
> I think it a tall stretch to say that a very few stove entrepreneur’s
> pushing stoves for rape-prevention reasons is reason to condemn all efforts
> of the stove community (a lot on this list) of doing the wrong things for
> efficiency and climate reasons.  Here is the paragraph below, where I am not
> agreeing with any of the four sentences:
>
>> The narratives suggesting that the poorest and most vulnerable people
>> have the agency to solve the world's greatest problems -
>> deforestation, violence, carbon pollution - through simple act of
>> cooking is very dangerous. I believe this puts an unruly burden on the
>> shoulders of poor women. These again depend on a whole slew of
>> imagined narratives that assume away complex reality in order hold
>> poor women as capable of solving these problems.  Further, this
>> implicitly suggests the act of cooking is also responsible for these
>> problems, and not major industries, or excessive energy
>> consumption/consumerism of the world's industrialized middle class.
>
>
> Ron
>
> On Jan 16, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Samer Abdelnour <samer.abdelnour at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing your experience, and the specific parameters in the
>> context within which you work. Can you contextualize what you mean
>> when you suggest industrial/agriculture logging is a 'one time thing'?
>> I'd be keen to learn more.
>>
>> As Crispin suggests, there are very lucrative incentives for
>> organizations that depend on the rhetoric that stoves are a panacea
>> for some of the world's greatest problems. We are all aware that some
>> very large players, from private companies to NGOs support stoves for
>> their ability to generate profits and resources for humanitarian
>> programming. Certainly, the 'stoves reduces rape' rhetoric has
>> mobilized political advocacy, fundraising efforts, prize monies, and
>> supported humanitarian industry efforts in Darfur and elsewhere. In a
>> soon to be published article, I document other motivations for the
>> construction of this rhetoric. The link is provided below for anyone
>> interested.
>>
>> My suggestion that the fuel-efficient stove as a solution to major
>> problems is mythology is something I take very seriously. As you are
>> all aware, stoves are a relatively straightforward technology. By this
>> I mean that they are intended, through combustion, to produce heat.
>> With this heat they cook. The more efficient the design, the less fuel
>> Y required to cook X. Straightforward, causal logic. However, to
>> extend the causality between Y and significantly complex problems such
>> as sexual violence and deforestation requires a number of constructed
>> narratives that verge on myth. For example, in the case of sexual
>> violence the lives of (mostly poor African) displaced women are
>> relegated to having two domestic roles: collecting wood and cooking.
>>
>> In addition, women are suggested as being safe in camps (wherever
>> these may be), while outside they are exposed to violence. These are
>> highly disingenuous and relegate the vulnerabilities and complexities
>> of violence. Yet, with these taken as true, the reduction of Y fuel to
>> produce X food can prevent rape. It is assumed that through the simple
>> act of cooking, women can protect themselves. All NGOs might do is
>> test whether or not women leave the camp less frequently, and the rest
>> of the narratives fall into place. In the mentioned paper, I point to
>> numerous reports that suggest why these narratives are fallacies.
>>
>> A western analogy. In recent years, a number of police officials (i.e.
>> Toronto, New York, etc.) suggested that women who wear short skirts
>> provoke violence. Activist groups responded with global 'slut walks';
>> I've yet to see NGOs start handing out pants as a technology to
>> prevent the rape of skirt-wearing women.
>>
>> The narratives suggesting that the poorest and most vulnerable people
>> have the agency to solve the world's greatest problems -
>> deforestation, violence, carbon pollution - through simple act of
>> cooking is very dangerous. I believe this puts an unruly burden on the
>> shoulders of poor women. These again depend on a whole slew of
>> imagined narratives that assume away complex reality in order hold
>> poor women as capable of solving these problems.  Further, this
>> implicitly suggests the act of cooking is also responsible for these
>> problems, and not major industries, or excessive energy
>> consumption/consumerism of the world's industrialized middle class.
>>
>> Of course, I'm not knocking the importance of stove innovations and
>> their relation to real-world problems. However, I believe the same
>> methodological accountability applied in developing and testing stoves
>> (which you all take great care in) should be held to the extraordinary
>> claims NGOs and advocacy groups are applying to them.
>>
>> For those of you interested, the link to the paper is below, which
>> details the construction of the 'stoves reduce rape' narrative and
>> some of the implications I suggest above. Always happy for feedback
>> and discussion.
>>
>> Warmly,
>> Samer
>>
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259104849_Technologizing_Humanitarian_Space_Darfur_Advocacy_and_the_Rape-Stove_Panacea/file/60b7d529fb1e6ecbd5.pdf?origin=publication_detail
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>
>