[Stoves] News: Charcoal stoves to save Haiti or the World

[Traveller]

Haiti might be the sterling example of the failure of official aid - or
sophomoric aid entrepreneurs like the Clintons - in "improved biomass
stoves". I hope someone on this list takes up the challenge of thinking
this right; I can't. Saving forests, lives and climates is elite chatter;
children continue to be victims.

Haiti is in the news again. Clinton Foundation has rushed with help and is
trying to raise money. Members of the Clinton Foundation Community Respond
to Hurricane Matthew; Ways to Support
<https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2016/10/04/members-clinton-foundation-community-respond-hurricane-matthew-ways-support>
.

The Clintons have been saving Haiti for years now. ABC News reports on Clinton
Foundation Statement
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-foundation-statement/story?id=42653561>
just
issued; its earlier item "Friends of Bill": Clinton Controversy in Haiti
after 2010 Earthquake
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/hillarys-state-dept-gave-special-attention-friends-bill-42745387>
.

I know how friends get together to respond to an emergency. I too was
called by friends to help with the Haiti earthquake. I want to write here
about STOVES in Haiti, potentially a sterling case study in failure of
donor dreams, 700 miles from the US with some 2 million poor households.

But stoves need fuel, a primary problem in disaster management. This from Aid
convoys arrive as Haiti gauges full extent of disaster
<http://www.koat.com/article/aid-convoys-arrive-as-haiti-gauges-full-extent-of-disaster/5215015>
(8
October 2016) on USAID emergency relief:


"The mother of three children whose home was destroyed said officials were
handing out wheat, beans, oil and salt.

"Yes, they brought food, but it's not sufficient," she said. "There's no
water. There's no charcoal." (Emphasis added).

What good are stoves without fuel? Why haven't disaster response teams and
refugee camp administrators ignored the basic problem of cooking? (I
vaguely remember that in the refugee camps I worked in back 45 years ago,
there were kerosene rations. They were meant to be used for lighting, but
some people had kerosene stoves and kerosene was indeed used for cooking.)

A USAID blogger claimed in 2014 "Cooking With Green Charcoal Helps to
Reduce Deforestation in Haiti
<https://blog.usaid.gov/2014/03/cooking-with-green-charcoal-reduce-deforestation-haiti/>",
on a biochar project by Carbon Roots International
<http://carbonrootsinternational.com/>.

Matthew may have felled more trees than this or other such "carbon"
projects, and fallen trees have killed people
<http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/hurricane-matthew-death-toll-soars-haiti-161007032418625.html>
(so
much for saving trees).

Crop/tree loss may mean starvation for Haitians
<http://abcnews.go.com/US/famine-fears-rise-haiti-devastating-hurricane/story?id=42724525>
.

GACC has a fantastic Country Action Plan
<http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/476.html> for Haiti, managed in
Washington DC and financed in part by Global Affairs Canada. I am
dumbfounded by the promises:

"The program is expected to lead to a broad range of environmental, health,
economic, and women’s empowerment benefits across Haiti. The specific goals
of this program will focus on delivering *measureable environmental
benefits*, including reduction in deforestation caused by tree harvesting
for charcoal production, lessened land degradation, flooding, and erosion,
reduced depletion of watershed and biodiversity, and lower emissions of
greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants. In addition, black
carbon and other short-lived climate pollutants emitted from the combustion
of wood and charcoal in traditional stoves are a potent climate forcer, and
thus the *substitution of clean fuels* is expected to result in a net
climate benefit. The application of *robust stove standards and testing
protocols* is expected to shift the market to better cooking technologies
and cleaner fuels, which will reduce black carbon and other greenhouse gas
emissions. Implementation of the plan is also expected to deliver *measureable
health benefits* including reductions in chronic and acute illness. The
plan is expected to increase women’s empowerment through reductions in the
drudgery of fuel collection and exposure to gender-based violence and
physical strain from carrying fuel, and will improve livelihoods through
lower expenditures for solid fuel for cooking and the resultant health care
from associated illnesses."

What gobbledygook is this??

I need to inhale, not just smoke.

I don't mind the objectives, nor the dreams of fetishists. However, I think
i) there is no basis in speculating that "measureable environmental
benefits" can be delivered in practice; ii) if "clean fuels" is GACC agenda
rather than "clean combustion", it is a surrogate for gas and electricity
companies and it should stop messing with the pretense of stove testing for
boiling water; iii) "measureable health benefits" require definition of a
baseline, as predicted for the population under consideration, and
assumptions of fixed risk factors, neglect of ignored variables.

The claims of "women’s empowerment through reductions in the drudgery of
fuel collection and exposure to gender-based violence and physical strain
from carrying fuel, and will improve livelihoods through lower expenditures
for solid fuel for cooking and the resultant health care from associated
illnesses" are utterly ridiculous propaganda.

There is some prima facie validity to the argument that lighting may have
reduce the risk of sexual violence:

 Haitian women live in fear of rape in post-quake camps
<http://www.ijdh.org/2010/08/topics/womens-issues/haitian-women-live-in-fear-of-rape-in-post-quake-camps/>
(2010),
Blow-up solar lantern lights up Haiti's prospects
<http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/Change-Agent/2012/0626/Blow-up-solar-lantern-lights-up-Haiti-s-prospects>
 (2012).

But also UKAid VAWG Helpdesk research report VAWG and Energy in Camp-based
Settings
<http://www.sddirect.org.uk/media/1197/vawg-helpdesk-report-94-camp-based-settings-vawg-and-energy.pdf>
(Anna
Park and Erica Fraser, November 2015), with a stark conclusion:

"Most evaluations conclude that the root causes of VAWG are complex and
cannot be addressed by the distribution of energy products."


It is only a research review, but it is also common sense.

"Interventions to date have focused mostly on energy products, rather than
energy services (Bellanca, 2014). This query has found a need for further
research on the potential benefits of *situating the provision of energy
products within a broader focus on systems and context at the camp-level,*
and to work in a coordinated way with protection actors to provide
security, build income-generating skills and address underlying
cultural/social norms that perpetuate VAWG. "

A "focus on systems and context"?? Ah, what a silly notion (though we make
our decisions every day just on that basis, subject to information.)

Are academics and GACC paid to be blind? (My definition of academics: the
group that silently watches a murder in its midst but will not testify to
it until a peer-reviewed paper is published in a journal.)


Nikhil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161014/28cad197/attachment.html>