Development and Dissemination of Improved Cookstoves for Energy Efficient Cooking in Developing Coun

1
Development and Dissemination of Improved
Cookstoves for Energy Efficient Cooking in
Developing Countries
Universitas 21 International Conference on Energy
Technologies and Policy Birmingham, United
Kingdom 7th-10th September 2008

• The Case of Kenya

Temilade Agbaje Institute for Science and
Society, University of Nottingham, UK
2
Why Kenya?

• Kenya has one of the most successful urban stove
  projects in the East African region and indeed in
  the developing world

Installation of improved cookstoves in Kenya from
1984 to 2003
Several other developing countries have attempted
to replicate the Kenyan model but have achieved
less dramatic results
3
Kenya Country Profile

• Agriculture-based economy
• Major produce tea, coffee, corn, wheat,
  sugarcane, vegetables, dairy products, poultry,
  eggs
• Chief foreign exchange earners tea, tourism,
  horticulture, coffee
• GDP per capita US 1700
• No fossil fuel resources

4
Household Energy in Kenya

• Traditional biomass fuels are the most common
  sources of household energy used by over 70 of
  the total population and 90 of the rural
  population
• This constitutes well over two-thirds of national
  energy demand
• Wood is gathered free of charge in rural areas,
  and is being used up at an annual rate 4.7
  higher than is sustainably available
• Charcoal is the dominant fuel in urban areas

5
Introduction to ICS

• The first phase started in the 1950s, when
  improved cookstoves (ICS) were introduced to
  alleviate chronic poverty in rural areas
• The second phase, beginning in the 1970s, took a
  mainly technological approach
• The third phase started in the 1980s, with much
  greater emphasis on mechanisms of dissemination.
  Significant development of improved cookstoves
  began in Kenya during this phase

6
The Urban KCJ Development

• Development of the Kenya Ceramic Jiko (KCJ)
  started in the early 1980s as a response to the
  urban energy crisis
• The early models had a lot of deficiencies, the
  most critical of which was cracking of the
  ceramic liner due to overheating
• Modifications were made with the input of women
  users and local craftsmen

7
The Urban KCJ A Success Story

• Combustion efficiency of up to 40, against
  10-20 with traditional stoves, enabling users to
  make substantial savings on fuel
• Diffusion was so widespread that the stove met
  and exceeded all set targets in record time
• By 1995, with a total over 780 000 KCJs
  disseminated, more than half of all urban
  households in Kenya owned the KCJ, with 20 000
  new stoves being sold every month

8
The Urban KCJ Challenges

• Inadequate monitoring of stoves in use
• Difficulty with quality control as a result of
  proliferation of the technology
• Standardisation of production methods led to a
  reduction in the employment rate of stove-making
  artisans, but it made the stoves cheaper and more
  durable

9
The Urban KCJ Success Factors

• Effectiveness of the technology
• Users needs and preferences such as stove
  affordability, durability and the desire to
  retain as much of existing cooking practices as
  possible were factored into the design
• Extensive training of local informal sector
  artisans
• The profit incentive The market was allowed to
  develop on its own merit, completely free of
  subsidies

10
The Rural Maendeleo Less So

• Encouraged by the success of the KCJ, development
  agencies were eager to replicate the same
  impressive results in rural Kenya
• Despite the fact that the Maendeleo stove has
  been promoted for nearly twenty years now, only
  4 of the Kenyan population currently use the
  stoves

11
The Rural Maendeleo Devt

• Simple, easily transferable, locally available
  and inexpensive technology
• Technology was locally developed with
  participation of stove users (women)
• Local women groups were used to popularise the
  technology
• Subsidies introduced at the outset hampered
  sustainable dissemination
• Practical Action later introduced a commercial
  model which produced better results

12
The Difference?

• Development agencies were responsible for the
  introduction of both urban and rural ICS
• They however neglected to take into account the
  fundamental difference between urban and rural
  energy use patterns cost
• Rural users may be more interested in saving cost
  than in saving the planet
• This highlights the tendency for conflict between
  the priorities of energy users and those of
  technology implementers

13
Lessons Learned

• Retaining elements of familiarity in new
  technology seemingly makes local users more
  receptive
• User participation is crucial to success
• The profit incentive enhances sustainability
• For successful dissemination of new renewable
  energy technologies, priorities of users and
  technology developers have to align
• Design of appropriate technology is a hard slog
  rather than a leap frog