<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Huck and List<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Pledges were made on 20-21 November one of which, for example, was from USAID. It was a pledge made conditionally based on ‘funding being available’. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>USAID cannot spend funds ‘as it wishes’ from a pool – there is a budget with goals and items. As all spending by the US government is approved basically in the form of a law, it requires the Senate to pass a Bill allowing USAID to give money to the GACC (or anyone else). As you can well imagine, USAID falls under the State Department (Foreign Affairs) so expenditure will be made in support of the foreign policy objectives of the US Government. One of those is to support improved stoves and the stove industry.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>A friend of mine who has worked for the State Department and USAID explained to me that these two bodies have quite different ‘corporate cultures’. USAID tends to have far more leeway in-country to ‘spend wisely and effectively’ with certain autonomy to ‘do good’ in what are often changing circumstances while the State Department sticks pretty closely to the letter of the plan – what he called a check-box approach (goal achieved…check). As this funding is internal, not going to a country mission, (the GACC is a project under the UN Foundation which is a project directed by a number of interests – see the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Foundation">info</a> online) the control of what happens with the money will be under the GACC Board, not USAID. I say that because I have not seen any indication there are strings attached but could be completely wrong – maybe they have to attach strings. Some GACC funding from donors is tied to particular activities in the same way that the UN Foundation gives funds to the UN for specific projects. Behind the scenes it is complicated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>There is a great deal of funding available for improved stove programmes around the world, as there has been for about 30 years. In the West the activities in China and India are often overlooked. They were by far the largest projects undertaken previously and are about to be expanded again. China has already spent billions on improved stoves. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Germany and the Netherlands (GIZ, DGIS and SNV) have traditionally been the major stove project funders in the West. France is stepping up. Asian Dev Bank is joining in (they serve 42 countries, total but the stove thing is new). Private funding has come from BP, Shell and soon maybe, Total – that would be 3 of the 6 Supermajors at least touched the subject. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I am not sure where to fit Indonesia into to mix. They have one of the largest and most expensive and fastest rollout for improved stoves in the world centered around LPG. South Africa, Nigeria, India and many others have some form of subsidy or tax relief for kerosene which is a step up from wood (in most cases). In November the WHO issued a document stating that kerosene cannot be burned cleanly and should be removed from the fuel mix, building on similar things written by Prof Kirk Smith from Berkeley. This extraordinary position is bound to come undone but a lot of damage would be done by then if it was implemented. Reducing subsidies even slightly sends millions of people back to using biomass – immediately. This has been documented well in Indonesia. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>India is contemplating the move (removing the subsidy) right now perhaps based on this extraordinary claim by the WHO that a fuel can be labelled ‘dirty’ because some of the performance of some of the crap products used to burn it badly. Apparently people are not aware that jet fuel is kerosene with little antifreeze in it. Japan is a world leader in clean combustion of kerosene. Japan and RSA have the most demanding standards for combustion (CO) but it can easily be tightened by 90% with existing technologies. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>There is always a certain level of madness and misrepresentation about anything to do with energy so don’t get too excited. Everyone will deal with it as best they can to stop people freezing in the dark while gnawing on raw potatoes. If you want to be a hero, now’s the time. Make better stoves.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Huck etal<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>I answer with little expertise- so hope that someone from GACC can also answer. My guess is that the last Congress’ bill has already served much of its purpose. GACC raised a large amount of money not very long ago, with the US government (State and USAId maybe being the largest agency donors) giving the most (Canada next??). But the funding problem hasn’t gone away and stove funding is still way less than $1 billion.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>GACC is the only group I see on the horizon with an international reputation to take on this sort of funding. I wish they were doing more along the lines of this list, but they will be attending the ETHOS meeting. Some of us will be reporting back in about a month - and can maybe better answer your good question. The important point is that the US Congress is reactive - and better stoves can be very much in the US interest. Any bill keeps an issue alive - and bills only get passed if support is being received.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Ron <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>(I worked two years for the US Congress)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Dec 29, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Huck Rorick <<a href="mailto:huckrorick@groundwork.org">huckrorick@groundwork.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I skimmed the article and the PDF. I’m not sure I am clear on what the bill does. Would anyone want to comment, explain? It seems like it is aiming funding specifically at Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves? And doing so with funds several agencies already have?</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>If someone felt like elaborating on what it would do that would be useful.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"></a><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>