World Bank Reasons for Success and Failure of Stove Projects

From energypedia
Revision as of 14:33, 21 May 2010 by ***** (***** | *****)

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.