Possible reasons for success or failure of stove programs, World Bank 1994
|
Reasons for success
|
Reasons for failure
|
- Program targets region where traditional fuel and stove are purchased of fuel is hard to collect
- People cook in environments where smoke causes health problems and is annoying.
- Market surveys are undertaken to assess potential market for improved stoves.
- Stoves are designed according to consumer preferences, including testing under actual use.
- Stoves are designed with assistance from local artisans.
- Local or crap materials are used in production, making it relatively inexpensive.
- The production of the stove by artisans or manufacturers is not subsidized.
- Stove or critical components are mass produced.
- Similar to traditional stove.
- The stove is easy to light and accepts different sized wood.
- Power output of stove can be adjusted.
- The government assists only in dissemination, technical advice, and quality control.
- The stove saves fuel, time, and effort.
- Donor or government support extended over at least 5 years and designed to build local institutions and to develop local expertise.
- Monitoring and evaluation criteria and responsibilities chosen during planning stages according to specific goals of project.
- Consumer payback of 1 to 3 months.
|
- Program targets region where traditional fuel and stove are not purchased or fuel is easy to collect
- People cook in the open and smoke is not really a problem
- Outside “experts” determine that improved stoves are required.
- Stove is designed as a technical package in the laboratory, ignoring customers’ preferences.
- Local artisans are told or even contracted to build stoves according to specifications.
- Imported materials are used in the production of the stove, making it expensive.
- The production of the stove by artisans or manufacturers is subsidized.
- Critical stove components are custom built.
- Dissimilar to traditional stove.
- The stove is difficult to light and requires the use of small pieces of wood.
- Power output cannot be easily controlled.
- The government is involved in production.
- The stove does not live up to promised economy or convenience under real cooking conditions.
- Major achievements expected in less than 3 years, all analysis, planning, and management done by outsiders.
- Monitoring and evaluation needs are not planned and budgeted or criteria are taken uncritically from other projects or not explicitly expressed.
- Consumer payback of more than1 year.
|
Source: What Makes People Cook with Improved Biomass Stoves? Douglas F. Barnes et.al., World Bank technical paper nr. 242, energy series. Download version of the report: http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B7frijhUtg-UYjhjMmJjZmMtMTQ3NC00YjBmLWE5YzYtZWRmN2ZkY2Y1ZTFi&hl=en
