[Stoves] report with dissapointing results from cleaner cookstoves

Sat Dec 10 20:43:29 CST 2016

Hi All

Tom had a few points that raised my eyebrows. Take a look at the governance structure of GACC (which lacks clarity as to roles). It seems to have two councils that have on balance no credible background in International Development. Radha is the only one who has a credible development background (aside from the Nigerian medical doctor/politician who looked pretty good) and its just inappropriate that as an employee of GACC, Radha would also be placed on the advisory council.   The advisory council (I assume it’s their main board but I may be wrong) is then only 6 which is rather remarkable given the scope of their budget (which I couldn't find on their web site, did anyone else find it?).

So it’s pretty understandable why they have ineffective programs is they lack a credible governance structure with sufficient expertise to oversee the organizations mandate. It looks like the Radha road show, if she is the only governing advisor with a development background and she is the CEO. I wonder what kind of external program review they have... perhaps someone knows? .. Who provides them with input it can't just be their leadership and advisory board?

In any event I guess Radha won't be firing herself anytime soon if she is the primary person who understands what the agency is supposed to be doing around international development issues :) 

I find it appalling Tom that anyone would ask you to shut down the Stoves list. It has an amazing history as a forum for free and fiercely independent thinking people to express themselves and their ideas to their peers.  I have learned a lot through the years from the amazing contributions that are shared freely on stoves, biomass and broader development issues. I would participate more but we have gotten more into the area of warm season grass plant breeding and developing beneficial organisms from native grasses in Canada.  

For the record Tom we only applied unsuccessfully for one grant with GACC and we had an intern attend the Laos conference a few years back who found it useful. We work mainly with the rural poor internationally and that doesn't seem to interest GACC as much as clean urban cooking and financing schemes (which seems to be a better link to the background of their board members). 

I think the only way to restructure GACC from a top down agency running ineffective programs for the poor to a more effective bottom-up participatory development agency serving their members is through writing their donors. I don't think they will respond to us. There is nothing like a House of Commons question about how much is Canada or Britain is funding this UN Development Foundation? How much is the CEO making? Why are the taxpayers funding an agency that lacks an effective governance structure with experience around international development and at the same time the agency is have noteworthy failures in improving health outcomes of the poor?    

Best regards

Roger Samson 

 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

 _______________________________________________
 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/

 _______________________________________________
 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/