Cover Image
close this book Boiling Point No. 25 - August 1991
View the document Funding for Stove- Programmes
View the document The Ups and Downs of Stove Funding
View the document Ten Steps to Heaven
View the document Fuelwood a Burning Issue in Third World
View the document Energy Policies and the Greenhouse Effect
View the document World Bank- Stoves Programme Funding
View the document Improved Stove Programmes& Funders
View the document Stoves as Social Welfare Support
View the document Culture-Specific Illustrations
View the document Cooking With Electricity
View the document Gate/GTZ News
View the document Biomass Densification
View the document Agricultural Residues In Farming Systems
View the document Consultation on Indoor Air Pollution
View the document News
View the document Publications
View the document Letters to the Editor

Improved Stove Programmes& Funders

The following is an extract from one of the papers presented at the WHO Geneva, June '91 meeting on smoke pollution. The final results of the EWC/FWD survey will be reported in a future edition of BP but this extract is included here because of its reference to funding.

Preliminary Results of the EWC/FWD Global Survey of Improved Cookstove Programmes

by J Ramakrishna of the East-West Centre, Honolulu, Hawaii.

A survey questionnaire was sent out to individuals and organizations implemeting improved cookstove programmes (ICPs) in September 1990. The impetus for this effort has 2 sources: the Foundation for Woodstove Dissemination (FOOD) wished to prepare a current and complete directory of improved cookstove programmes that would facilitate exchange of information within the world of improved cookstoves. The Environment and Policy Institute of the East-West Centre (EAPI-EWC) was starting a project that, among other outputs, was to produce a global review of ICPs.

The original questionnaire was sent to about 300 organizations. The 10-page questionnaire was translated into Spanish and French. The collaborators were Association Bois de Feu (ABF)and Centro Mesoamericano de Estudios Sobre Tecnologia Apropriada (CEMAT). The length and complexity of the original questionnaire were probably daunting to most recipients and few completed questionnaires were resumed. In order to boost the response rate, the questionnaire was pared down to 4 pages and sent out again in January of this year. The results presented here are an amalgamation of all responses received.

This preliminary analysis is biased toward the quantitative portion of the questionnaire. The open-ended questions are yet to be analysed.

Table 1: Types of Organizations Implementing ICPs (n = 76)

Non-governmental organizations

40%

Governmental agencies

29%

Research institutes & universities

13%

Semi-governmental agencies

5%

International agencies

5%

Consultancy firms

5%

Other

1%

It should be noted that of the 104 projects that resumed completed questionnaires, only 17 disseminated more than 1000 ICs per month. The large majority of programmes appear to be small in size with monthly dissemination rates ranging in the tens and hundreds. China and India were not included in the survey.

Table 2: Survey Results on the Funding of ICPs

Source of funding

% of projects receiving funds from this source(n=90)

% of funding from this source

National government

32

66

State government

3

74

Foundations & charitable agencies

13

78

International aid agencies

49

89

Mixed sources, relative contributions unknown

24

84

Notes: the "Mixed" category includes combinations of the four categories listed above it. Out of a sample size of 70 projects, the average annual budget was US$88,796. Out of a sample size of 47 projects, the average total budget (to completion of the project) was US$ 361,215.

International funding sources varied widely from church groups and Band Aid to conventional aid agencies. The front-runner was GTZ, closely followed by UNDP, the World Bank and SIDA.