[Stoves] report with dissapointing results from cleaner cookstoves

Tom Miles tmiles at trmiles.com
Sat Dec 10 22:32:37 CST 2016


Interesting observations. Questions about governance are up at the top floor of the GACC structure. My purpose was to understand where the door is at the bottom floor where anyone, stovers or researchers, could interact with GACC on research and development and tackle the kinds of questions that have been raised here about the purposes and methods of health claims and research. I can’t find the door and don’t know what to expect behind the door. 

Biomass stovers feel threated by two recent events, the RFP for the LPG health study in which GACC appears to be a collaborator, and the recent BBC reporting of the Lancet report. How do they fit in the GACC scheme of improving health through clean cook stoves? How do either fit in our quest to keep doing the good work where we see tangible results on the ground? Will an emphasis on LPG make it more difficult for biomass stove projects to get funded? Will a study on pneumonia make it difficult for work that otherwise reduces trauma, improves general health, and local economy?  It would clearly be easier to reach 100 million stoves by knocking out LPG models. Do we exclude the biomass dependent population in the process? What are the strategies of GACC (managed by the UN Foundation, not the UN), UNEP, WHO and others? 

Tom  

 
   

-----Original Message-----
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Roger Samson
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 6:43 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] report with dissapointing results from cleaner cookstoves


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/
 
 

_______________________________________________
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/






More information about the Stoves mailing list