[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