[Stoves] Fuel and Forestry etc.

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Erin

 

What exactly are you objecting to in your first response to Samer's post?

 

I read the paper carefully and note that you agree on exactly these issues
though Samer does not repeat the block quote because it has been well
covered in other works.

 

Samer's investigation is into exactly you wondered about the stoves/rape
meme: "I think it is a poor one, and I'm often surprised how it's managed to
perpetuate its self, but that's not the reason that so many people build and
distribute cooking stoves."

 

Well, I think he does a pretty complete job of showing that it is why people
fund at least some of the stoves (or whole stove programmes - not all of
course).  The leaflets, at least in the West, are very specific about this
and the meme is repeated in many introductions to stove project documents
(including the ones I participate in - I looked to see: prevention of rape
is ubiquitous).

 

He too was surprised and has investigated how a well-known, clearly defined
and well documented social problem (rooted in gender issues as you say and
well support) turned into something that can be addressed by us collectively
giving one or all women a 'fuel efficient stove' so they need to collect
less fuel. He investigates the problematization process and how a social
problem with complex and deep roots became, in the West at least, something
that it is claimed can be addressed, possibly solved, with a simple
putatively fuel-saving technical solution that indirectly reduces the amount
of time women are 'at risk'.  The meme is in strong conflict with the
reality of ordinary people, refugees or not. As you point out, the risk is
continuous, not restricted to fuel collecting expeditions. Social research
supports this view.

 

It is the misstatement of the problem and the inappropriate claims made and
the misapplication of 'cause marketing' to which he draws attention. He
obviously thinks that social problems require social solutions. I think I
can say that without fear of contradiction by him. He also documents the
shift from a social problem to technical one which is called the
'problematization' or, finding a solution on one plane of existence to
address a problem that exists on another.

 

Human health problems, which you articulated well, are real and require
improved stoves. Fine. Let's make health problems the reason people should
get them. At least some health problems are directly caused by stoves.
Others are made worse by stoves or have no effect. It depends.

 

The overriding concern I have (as is well known) is that the claims made for
'improved' status are in many cases unreliable, inconsistent, and only true
in particular circumstances which may not prevail in the home of an intended
beneficiary, let alone the international community. One size definitely does
not fit all.  

 

Who pronounced the stoves 'fuel efficient'? What measurements were made to
determine this improvement in fuel consumption? Who thinks the distributed
stoves save fuel? What comparisons were made against the background where
the stove will be used cooking the things they cook? As the label says,
"Individual results may vary." Darn right they do.

 

There has been to date a big gap in the stove testing community: the claims
made for relative 'improvement' have to be made against some sort of
standard, a baseline if you will.  Unless the test applied compares
performance relative to the status quo ante in situ, (the existing situation
where the user is) all claims are abstract.  There persists in the stove
community a meme which holds certain things about performance to be
inalienably true. One of those is that improved stoves 'save fuel' and that
this is somehow a universal attribute that some stoves have and other do
not. This is surely, if not untrue, a pretty big stretch of what is true.
Obviously the same things applies to smoke reduction.

 

My private comment to Samer upon reading the article was that he never
challenged the fuel saving ability of the stoves being promoted, the
rejection of which (by the users) is common. There are multiple methods for
making that assessment applied by various players, but the fact that stove
test methods for the most part don't predict fuel savings was not
countenanced in the article. This is not a criticism of his analysis which
still stands. It is a comment intended to drive home further the point that
we can't turn social problems into technically solvable ones if they are not
technical problems, and if we don't have a predictive method of assessing
their performance in the first place.

 

Samer's paper is about the illegitimacy of 'cause marketing' (for fund
raising and fund-directing purposes) fuel efficient stoves as a solution to
the problem of sexual violence against vulnerable women. It is not in the
slightest an argument against the promotion of improved stoves to solve
solvable problems.

 

Some NGO's have tried redefining the problem as one of access to fuel (not
stoves that burn less of it) and provided unlimited free fuel inside the
refugee camps (citation were provided) which did little or nothing about
violence: it simply shifted from outside the camp to inside where the
majority of perpetrators also live. Both of these technical solutions
(provision of fuel efficient stoves and free fuel inside the camps) were
(and still are) proposed solutions to a social problem that has nothing to
do with technology gaps in those societies. Not many social problems have
material solutions. 

 

Best regards

Crispin

 

 

Pish posh Samer, I have read your paper and I find that it ignores the
substantial contributions of the thinkers from the African Gender Insistute
.   The Feminist Africa Issue from 2010 titled "Rethinking Gender and
Violence" is very good, and I think it would be a good one for you to read:
http://agi.ac.za/journal/feminist-africa-issue-14-2010-rethinking-gender-and
-violence

 

One of the more cogent points is this one from  Sexual Violence in Conflict:
a Problematic International Discourse
<http://agi.ac.za/sites/agi.ac.za/files/3._fa_14_-_feature_article_eva_ayier
a.pdf>   by Eve Ayiera 

<blockquote>

"This problematic construction of gender and sex is the platform from which
the international discussions and responses to sexual violence in conflict

launch. The resulting conceptual framework affirms a patriarchal social
order which normalises the aggressive, heterosexual, dominant behaviour
associated

with masculinity and the subjugation of females. .... Violence against women
becomes an integral part of exerting power over women and maintaining a
system of male hegemony. Sexual violence is feminised - it happens to women
because they are female. The current discourse on sexual violence has been
astute in analysing the patterns of sexual violence in conflict, but has
failed to interrogate the normalisation of patriarchy as the basis for human
interaction."

</blockquote>

 

To sum up and repeat the point, rape is a form of violence against women
that happens because there is already a context that it's somehow to ok to
be abusive to women. This is a global problem, and is not limited to any
particular country.  Specific instances of the crime tend to happen in a
very specific cultural context, and to be deeply dedicated to understanding
that context is an investment of considerable time and energy.  Also it
helps to have some understanding of intersectionality - which is the
startling obvious idea that people are often subject to discrimination not
just because they may be wealthy or poor, of some social standing or
another, of some color or another, or of some other point of contention.
They may be subject to discrimination for all or none of these reasons, and
there is a considerable ripple effect on their lives and world outlook and
may even have an impact on how they use something simple and utilitarian,
like a cooking stove. 

I suggest that you read Eve Ayiera's whole paper. It is very good, and may
help you with your thinking. 

 

I don't mind you raising the issue of marketing stoves.  I actually have
been tracking that meme or storyline that you've been talking about very
specifically. I think it is a poor one, and I'm often surprised how it's
managed to perpetuate its self, but that's not the reason that so many
people build and distribute cooking stoves. 

 

Cooking and eating is a vital activity, it's really at the core of
everything, and improving the well being of others is a vital, and often
generous activity.  Many of us work in this field for very simple reasons.
Babies who grow up in households with good stoves don't die of pneumonia.
Women with good stoves are less likely to die of lung problems. Children
aren't marred for life by burns. Families are able to have time for other
activities, often improving the economic life of the family.  Children have
time for school work. Children with good lighting have better opportunities
to learn to reading writing and mathematics.  Families with access to cell
phones can communicate more effectively with far flung loved ones.  Many of
us have seen the impact of a good cooking stove, and it is profound, and in
the best cases it has a long lasting positive change in the life of that
family.  In the worst cases, it does the opposite of that.  I'd like to
believe that we're doing our best as a community to contribute to the best
case scenarios. 

 

Kind regards,

Erin Rasmussen

erin at trmiles.com <mailto:erin at trmiles.com>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140120/06bb0e22/attachment.html>