From Traditional to Modern Stoves: A Chronology of Development


By Doug Barnes

India Traditional Stove: Credit C. Carnemark

Recently I participated in a very interesting workshop at Yale University. The workshop was called The Adoption Gap: Design, Development and Diffusion of Household Energy Technologies. The focus of the conference was to examine why improved biomass cooking stoves have not achieved widespread adoption even after over 25 years of promotion. Many of the presentations were very innovative. Included among the speakers was Rema Hanna, who is the author of the controversial study Up in Smoke. She talked about her well designed stove impact assessment. Unfortunately, the stove being evaluated was from India's legacy mud stove program, some of which are still being promoted. Hanna made the valid point that many current programs are still supporting such stoves. While this is true, today there are many  better designed stoves compared to those from the 1990s (see commentary on the paper). Unfortunately, public monitoring and evaluation studies of these new stoves are still fairly sparse. The presentations from the conference are not yet available on line, but I will update this blog once they become available.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I am one of a small number of people that have been involved in improved stove development for almost its entire history. I say fortunately because it has been a very interesting to observe the evolution of the programs over the years. I say unfortunately, because even today with the many innovations taking place, most poor households in developing countries still use open fires or primitive stoves for cooking.  Also, in many countries well meaning non-governmental organizations are still promoting the stoves designed in the 1990s.

I prepared a presentation for the conferences with the title, Improved Stoves:  What Have We Learned, How Do We Move Forward? The ideas for this presentation were taken from my recent book Cleaner Hearths, Better Homes: New Stoves for India and the Developing World. For those interested, a free digital copy of the book is available, or for those more interested in print, copies can be purchased online. The book describes the positive and negative aspects of India's legacy improved stove program that was abandoned in 2002. This legacy program now is universally criticized, but most people really don't understand the pros and cons of the old program. Some aspects of the legacy stove program were quite innovative, including working with NGOs, including women's groups, assigning technical agencies to evaluate design issues, and developing commercialization strategies. Many of these innovations are relevant for the promotion and sale of improved stoves today. 

As part of my presentation, I had one slide on the development of stove programs. For those just now becoming interested in the new stoves, this slide provides a historical overview of the 25 year history of improved stoves.  The text below the break is from a glossy insert in the center of Cleaner Hearths: Better Homes that was published in 2012. The rest of the book is based on empirical findings from short questionnaires and focus discussion groups carried out at the very end of India's program. The book takes a more objective approach identifying both what went wrong and also positive contributions of the program for people in India. Anyway, continue after the break to read my short history of improved stoves.

What Drives Electricity Adoption? A Review of Connection Charges in Sub-Saharan Africa

By Doug Barnes

Household Electricity Meter
Picture Credit: Douglas Barnes

Today many development agencies focus on the price and physical presence of access to electricity as being the main issue for lack of electricity in developing countries.  They may want to alter their thinking.  This is not to say that physical access and the price of electricity are not important, for clearly they are very important.  But a new study on Electricity Adoption and Connection Charges in Sub-Saharan Africa finds that an equally important factor may be electricity connection charges for new consumers.  Africa is the region with the lowest electricity access rates in the world (only 1 in 8 rural households and 1 of 2 urban households have electricity) and also is the region with the highest initial service connection charges.  One question not explored in this paper is the extent to which high connection charges are an indirect way for power companies to confine service to more profitable high income electricity users and to avoid political pressure to extend electricity to poor, low electricity using households. 

For electricity companies, expanding electricity to all makes quite a bit of sense for long term business development.  Electricity would contribute to economic development, and then more people could afford electricity.  As incomes grow even poorer people would buy more appliances and increase their electricity use, making them more financially attractive for electricity companies.  Thus, in the long term policies to expand electricity service make both solid financial and economic sense.

Energy Poverty and Income Poverty: How Do They Differ?

by Doug Barnes, Shahid Khandker and Hussain Samad

There is a continuing discussion over what constitutes energy poverty with several approaches being used to define it.  But as yet, no consensus has emerged for measuring and monitoring energy poverty and explaining why and how it differs from income poverty.  After all, income poverty is a standard measure, so if the two are highly related it would not be worth the effort to develop a unique measure for energy poverty.  In other words, why create a separate indicator of energy poverty because in the end it would just be a reflection of income poverty.  Everyone seems to know about energy poverty,but truly defining and measuring it gets a bit complicated. 

About 10 years ago energy poverty was thought to be related mainly to lack of access to electricity.  More recently the United Nations and Department of International Development of Great Britain (DFID) have broadened definitions of energy poverty to multiple indicators using somewhat arbitrary weights.  International Energy Agency (IEA) has never actually defined energy poverty (except that it is related to lack of access to modern energy), but advocated that better ways of using biomass energy for cooking should be an important policy for household energy.  Also, most international organizations measure energy poverty indicators as outputs (e.g., lack of electricity connections) rather than outcomes (e.g., welfare gains from electricity consumption).  Thus, unlike income poverty—which is usually based on minimum consumption of food and non-food items necessary to sustain a livelihood—energy poverty lacks a well-established theory based on energy demand to establish a relevant poverty line. 

In several recent papers the authors of this post have taken a different approach, focusing on energy demand in order to define energy poverty.  Like income poverty, energy poverty may be defined by the minimum energy consumption needed to sustain lives.  This approach defines an energy poverty line as a threshold of energy consumption needed to sustain life.  Similar to the concept of income poverty, we reasoned that there had to be a point at which energy is essential for living.  After all, people have to cook their food; in cold climates they must heat their homes; and they generally need a minimum level of light in the evening for basic tasks (sometimes including eating).  In theory this is all well and good, but the question remained how to measure that threshold. 

Figure 1:  Energy End Use Energy Consumption by Income Class,
Bangladesh and India

Therefore, we tested this demand approach using rich household survey data sets from Bangladesh and India.  We found that although energy consumption rises with income, this increase is not uniform (Figure 1).  This is because energy consumption at lower income groups turned out to be somewhat flat--in economist's terms it is income inelastic (does not rise with income).  After those minimum levels, energy consumption increased for households with ever higher incomes--once again in economist's terms, income elastic (does increase with income).  The theory is that for those levels where the energy income relationship is inelastic, this is the minimum level of energy necessary to maintain a healthy life.  This is the basic level of cooking, heating, lighting or other energy service needed to sustain life.