[Stoves] Fuel and Forestry etc.

[Ronal W. Larson]

Samer and list

1.  The more of your papers you cite, the more I recognize that you have had quite a long and active association with stove design and use.  I wish there were more people doing what you have done.   Thank you for these efforts.

2.    But you have not commented at all on any of the reasons that I helped start this list - which have to do with charcoal-making and use.  And this interest started from my experiences in Sudan 30+ years ago (a time of peace - I traveled to the South with the Southern Vice-President for instance).   So here are a few charcoal-related questions:
    a.  With the enormous use of charcoal in most of Sudan, were there ever pressures to supply charcoal-using stoves in the present Darfur refugee areas?  
    b.   Was anyone making char in the camp from wood they collected or bought?   Why or why not?
    c.  Anything you can say about both wood and charcoal prices in these camps?
    d.  There are a few char-making stove developers who are supplying both stoves and wood (maybe pellets) to women in exchange for 20% (in one case) by weight of returned char. Zero annual expenditures for stove or fuel.   Assuming a stove that is relatively well suited for the traditional meals, how would this go over in the Darfur camps? 
   e.   This, like solar cookers,  would eliminate all gathering of wood;  would it be fair to say that this form of fuel supply would reduce rape?
   f.   When this list started, the intent was solely to get more meals out of a tree.  Now I and many are proposing to put the char in the ground for climate reasons.  Can you describe any ag/food system presently in place around the camps - or is 100% of the food supplied by relief agencies?


 3.  a. There was apparently a supply for some time of LPG - still on-going?  What are the economics for the relief agencies?

See a bit more below.

On Jan 17, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Samer Abdelnour <samer.abdelnour at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ronal (and all),
> 
> I realize I hadn't responded to all the points you had made, and had mostly clarified and expanded upon my initial points to Richard, and in doing so addressed your points 1 & 2 (again, these aren't a supplement to the paper), as well as 3 to some degree and 7.
> 
> On Darfur (3) there were certainly numerous interventions being promoted. Various stoves and players. I've captured this in a published study you might find interesting, which explores the key players in the construction of the FES market in Darfur. It was what many called a 'stoves war', NGOs and battling out for donor favour, using the pretext of the most efficient stove (whatever that meant, see point 7), most of which under the pretext that better efficiency reduces rape (see point 4). So the current study builds on the foundations of this prior work, but digs deeper behind the market to explore the rhetorical justifications (memes, narratives) that purport stoves to be a panacea for rape. The market-focused paper can be accessed at the link below:
> 
> Social Construction of Subsistence Markets Darfur paper
> 
> Actually, a shorter version of the current paper (which does not capture all the empirical materials) can be found at the Stanford Social Innovation Review blog:
> 
> If Stoves Could Kill blog
     {RWL: Thanks.  Always good to see more.
      I see Dean Still’s and Aprovecho’s names in here.  I hope he, a fairly active list member, can comment on any part of this.
> 
> Related points about charcoal/trees/deforestation. Practical Action in Darfur was doing incredible work on reforestation/planting. If there were 100 of these initiatives Darfur would be greener than it already is during rainy season (much of it is contrary to popular press). They specifically wanted to plant fruit trees which people could value for food/income, and thus might protect (is this another meme?) amongst other trees.
    [RWL:  I am uncertain about your word ”if”.  Has this all stopped?  Why?
> 
> Points 4 about rape. Rape has come up on this list before, I've posted some stuff on it prior. Given that the modern Darfur stoves market (i.e. not the deforestation crisis rage of the 70s-80s) was built on the topic of rape, and sexual violence is one of the 3 problems promoted by GACC as being solvable through stoves, I ask: Why isn't rape being talked about more on this list? Do stove designers/developers not have a responsibility or interest in grounding their stoves in the immediate contextual realities and user needs to which they are actually designed to do and capable of addressing? Rape is certainly no laughing matter, and it is a big selling point for many stove players.
    [RWLa:  I searched the list records before stating there was only one “rape” stove report sent in by Tom Miles.  Can you report the dates you introduced the subject?
    b)   The first reason for non-discussion is I don’t recall it being brought up  But this list also has heard very little on the Darfur stoves - but I am sure there has been a few (I haven’t gone to check)
    c)   But mostly I would guess that this list would agree with the reasons you have given:  the topic was dropped by many (apparently not all) players because there is no direct link between a specific stove type and a rape.
   d) I used the term “laugh” because this group is development oriented - rarely sales oriented.  Promoting a particular stove by brand is not acceptable practice.
   e)  If rape prevention is a big sales pitch item - I don’t recall it ever being used on this list.
> 
> This relates to point 5 (health). Sexual violence is a significant health issue, one which has generational physical, psychological, social, legal and economic effects.
    [RWL:  Maybe - but you seem to be arguing that this list should be discussing it more?   People on this list have a lot more ability to address heart and lung issues.  Has Kirk Smith reported on rape in his writings relating stoves and health?
> 
> Point 6, GACC. I have no vested interest for or against the GACC or Clinton's role. But it is certainly impressive given her political status. I'm quite critical broadly actually of the 'stoves reduce rape' narrative, not the technology. And why should I not be? The vulnerabilities of millions of poor women, many of whom are living in war-torn regions are being marketed as solvable through cooking. Again, my critique is to the extraordinary narratives that suggest by using simple domestic technology women can protect themselves from violence. I don't see how thoughtful critique is misplaced.
    [RWL:  I said I agreed with everything you said about it being inappropriate to base stove sales on reducing rape.  I am only saying it has never been even a minor topic on this list.  We are not in the business of controlling advertising messages.  We might have had such a discussion if brought to our attention with a request for comment - but I doubt many would have felt competent to voice an opinion.
> 
> Point 7 is something I'm likely unqualified to discuss, but I'm learning quickly. On this point I'm quite confused by the number of uses efficiency has come to be associated with. I've not condemned anyone on this list. But I am aware that there are questions with regards to stoves and testing methods alike with regards to fuel, smoke, and energy efficiency, and from a user perspective efficient use of time, resources, fuel, and how these may or may not impact the lives of users and their households, let alone more 'efficiency' reduce deforestation, climate change, rape in war zones, and all the other amazing things cook stoves are suggested to be able to accomplish.
     [RWL:  Here I think this list is competent to comment.  Efficiency is definitely directly related to deforestation.  The making of charcoal and venting (not even flaring the gases) is enormously wasteful - and I claim has created great harm to Sudan.  
	Let me ask you again to comment on each of these four sentences - which I find harmful to the efforts of this list, GACC, etc. - and stove users worldwide  I am simply not understanding use of your words “very dangerous”, "unruly burden”. “imagined narratives”, “assume away”, “implicitly…cooking…..responsible”.   These words don’t apply to anyone (I repeat - anyone) I know working on stoves.   Hopefully you meant them to apply to someone else.    Ron

> 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.


> 
> Hope this clarifies.
> 
> Warmly,with 
> 
> Samer
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140117/f87c06a5/attachment.html>