[Stoves] report with dissapointing results from cleaner cookstoves (Crispin)

Tom Miles tmiles at trmiles.com
Sat Dec 10 15:32:47 CST 2016


Roger,

REAP-Canada seems to have worked with GACC, at least for a time, so maybe you can enlighten us. I don’t see how a stove developer or supplier on this list can have any input on GACC research, development or demonstration. Who suggests or reviews GACC RD&D? I see several high level administrators on the GACC team but I only recognize one stove supplier/developer. Most of us can't afford to attend GACC meetings. Maybe Richard, Radha, or Ranyee can explain how the good ideas from this discussion, or from the ETHOS meetings, can be channeled to GACC and what the mechanisms are for review and monitoring the GACC work program. Ranyee has occasionally explained the GACC position on certain topics but I don’t know that we have had any input in the process. 

We do have an impact. I got a call this year to suggest that this list be shut down. Somebody didn't like the criticism and "misinformation". So I suspect that people involved in funding stove development projects monitor the list.  I refused to shut the list down. As the sole sponsor and owner I prefer to let you people work things out online without being rude. If you insist on being rude then take it offline.   

At ETHOS we discussed the need for health studies for years.  This year we should discuss the GACC health projects. How are health studies and projects developed and carried out within GACC? Who reviews them? I don't see any critical reviews on the website or social media. 

This discussion group and ETHOS participants have spent years working on various aspects of stoves, household energy, and health. We have contributed a lot of time and money to improve the health and welfare of communities in developing and developed countries. After years of individual development and collective discussions we participated in the creation of ETHOS. Then in 2002 (?) we supported the launch of the Partnership in Clean Indoor Air (PCIA).  In 2010 we all volunteered significant time in working groups to develop priorities for GACC. Many of us are GACC "partners". GACC claims 1600 "partners". Later it was explained to me that the only interaction we would have was through competitive GACC contracts. 

How can we help this process? What are the current mechanisms for those in the field to participate in GACC planning and development, or are there any?

Tom




-----Original Message-----
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Roger Samson
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 6:46 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] report with dissapointing results from cleaner cookstoves (Crispin)


Here are a few snip-bits from the GACC web site:

http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/standards/defining-clean-and-efficient.html
"Note that Tier 4 is always the highest performing and most likely to achieve the greatest health or environment benefits".  
"For example, some of the Alliance’s activities are not restricted to the Tiers defined above, some activities are even more restrictive.  Alliance partners also have a broad range of goals. In order to reach 100 million households with a sustained level of adoption, our approach is to support a wide range of activities, while also raising the bar on stove performance over time as the sector matures". 
 
Does everybody understand how they are focussed on activities (specifically large numbers of advanced technology stoves) and not managing for health outcomes or financial benefits to communities.

The main dedicated biomass users are in rural areas if you examine individual country household surveys. 
If GACC were managing for improved health outcomes of people the simplest low cost program they could do is focus on rural areas in the tropics to encourage stoves that are suitable for outdoor use and encourage outdoor kitchens.  There is minimal exposure to the cook or her family as particles readily disperse before they hit the breathing area of the user as well they do not continuously circulate as in poorly ventilated indoor kitchens. I think understanding of particle dispersion is lacking.
 
So you do not need elaborate financially unsustainable Tier 3 or 4 stoves to do this. You do not need to import stoves from outside a country.  

REAP-Canada is managing for health outcomes by supporting locally made clay brick stoves that can be used outdoors within a simple well ventilated outdoor kitchen. 
http://reap-canada.com/online_library/IntDev/Brochure%20-%20REAP%20Noflay%20Clay%20Brick%20Stove.pdf

The improved stoves are made with local materials, skills and knowledge.  Our stoves don’t have a place in GACC’s money burn on Tier Technology that is essentially making developing countries reliant on imported technologies (with the benefits going to the more advanced country). 

The reality is GACC is effectively doing a shotgun money burn on activities because they aren’t following good development practice and managing for outcomes through results based management. 

Roger Samson





More information about the Stoves mailing list