Cover Image
close this bookBoiling Point No. 34 - September 1994 (ITDG - ITDG, 1994, 40 p.)
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentSmoke in the Kitchen
View the documentAny Stove Will Smoke if You Don't Use it Correctly
View the documentAcute Respiratory Infection, Conjunctivitis and Accidental Burns: the Stove Factor
View the documentExposure to Air Pollution From Transitional Household Fuels In A South African Population
View the documentSmoke Removal in Kenya
View the documentChinese Chimneys by Zhu Zhao-ling and Lian Ren jie
View the documentIndoor Air Pollution in Rural Tigray by Jurgen Usinger
View the documentRemoving Smoke from Nepali Kitchens by K M Sulpya
View the documentA Breath of Fresh Air for Smoky Houses
View the documentVietnames Kitchens
View the documentReducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improving Environmental Degradation
View the documentIndian Government's Stove Programme in Question
View the documentCooking energy Efficiency in Indonesia
View the documentPhillipines Ricehull Stove
View the documentStoves for Caf├ęs and Food Stalls
Open this folder and view contentsGTZ NEWS
Open this folder and view contentsNEWS
Open this folder and view contentsR&D NEWS
View the documentPUBLICATIONS
View the documentLETTERS
View the documentAcknowledgments

Indian Government's Stove Programme in Question

Although the Indian Government boasts its improved chulha project has exceeded targets, officials admit the programme has been a failure because of lack of use' acceptance. In Durgapur village in Haryana, about 200 improved chulhas were installed between 1986 and 1987. Within a few months, almost all oi them were dismantled by the women. Asks Chameli, one of the beneficiaries, 'Who has the patience or the time to chop the wood into small pieces to suit the new chulhas? First we did away with the dampers and then we did away with the new chulhas altogether and went back to our old chulhas'.

Many users have totally rejected the National Programme on Improved Chulhas (NPIC) of the : Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources (MNES). The programme has been marred by the Government's insensitivity to local needs and fuel-using habits, in cutting down on subsidies, in its top down approach and its lack of training for users.

MNES claims to have installed 479,000 improved chulhas between April and October 1993, against a target of 360,000, effecting an annual saving of 325,000 tonnes of fuelwood worth Rs19 crore. According to a survey of the NPIC by the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), submitted to MNES in July 1993, the targets for installation of improved chulhas were exceeded by an average of 19 per cent every year from April 1988 to March 1992. The report says 81 per cent of the chulhas are in 'working condition'. However, senior MNES officials admit that the programme - on which Rs80 crore were invested between 1985-86 and 1992-93 has been a failure and that claims of fuelwood saving are exaggerated. A major factor in the programme is subsidy. The NCAER report points out that the installation of 88 per cent of the chulhas was subsidised by the government. However, in 1992-93, MNES withdrew financial support to the 22 technical back-up units (TBUs), which are vital to the programme. MNES wanted the state governments to take over the financing and monitoring of the TBUs. But ministry sources say this has happened only in some states, prominent among which are Gujarat and Orissa, because the state governments themselves face a financial crisis. According to Rachel George, Head of the Home Management Department of M.S. University in Vadodara, 'TBUs played a key role in meaningful implementation of the programme in many parts of the country. 'Reduction in MNES' support has dealt a blow to many of these units.' Says Lalita Balakrishnan, Chairperson of the Rural Energy Department of the All India Women's Conference - one of the non-governmental organizations implementing the improved chulha programme nationwide 'The withdrawal of support to the TBUs leaves us with nowhere to go when we face even minor technical problems in the field.


CHANGING PRIORITIES.

The government has reduced subsidies for beneficiaries and implementing agencies in the national programme for improved chulhas and increased it for entrepreneurs.

Type of chulha

Approved cost

Central assistance per chulha up

For 1993-94 to 1992-93

1. To beneficiaries




Fixed

Rs 25 - 103

Cost minus beneficiary contribution of Rs 5 (max Rs 50)

50% (Max Rs 50)

Portable

Rs 75 - 188

50%(max Rs 50)

33% (Max Rs 50)



75% for SC/ST/hilly areas (max Rs 75)

50% (Max Rs 75)

2. To implementing agencies




Organizational/lnfrastructural

Rs 5

Nil


support to states/agencies




Transport and handling charges

Rs 4

Nil


Publicity awareness

Rs 2

Nil


User's education

Rs 1

Nil


3. To self-employed chulha entrepreneurs for installation)




Fixed chulha

Rs 10 plain areas,

Rs 20



Rs 15 hilly areas

Rs 20


Portable chulha

Rs 5

Rs 5


Source: Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources

Subsidies to users

In addition, the MNES has reduced subsidies to users in 1993 and 1994 and has decided to phase them out completely by April 1995. Peroza Mehrotra, Director of the Heryanya Department of Women and Child Development a nodal implementing agency says, 'Reduction in Union government subsidy would mean a setback to the programme. Most of the women beneficiaries do not have purchasing power. Even the Rs20 charged now is too much for them'. Says Balakrishnan, 'Subsidies cannot be done away with in a programme of this nature. The cost of chulha initiation cannot be footed by the non-governmental organizations nor can this be recovered fully from the beneficiaries who are poor rural women. Dissemination of knowledge, which is crucial to the success of the programme, has also been lacking. 'The disseminator should be a local woman who uses a chulha herself, is accepted by the members of her community, and who has some time to spare from household chores. The users should feel the need for an improved cooking device', according to Dr Madhu Sarin, an architect and development expert who was closely associated with the efforts of women in Nada and Sukhamairi villages of Mayana to design a chulha that suited their needs.

Top-down approach

Sarin is critical of the Government's top-down approach in promoting chulhas. 'The Government selects, costs and adapts models in the laboratories and designates them for propagation in the villages. There is no participation by the rural women in designing the chulha they have to use every day,, she says. Sarin cites the example of a village in Punjab,where 38 per cent of the new chulhas were bigger than necessary and 67 per cent were too high. One woman had reduced the height of her chulha from two feet to eight inches and modified all its dimensions. The NCAER study shows that 45 per cent of the alterations are to widen the opening at the front. In the two-pot chulha, the women block the passage between the first and second chamber and use only one pot for cooking, thus reducing efficiency and filling the room with smoke. 'Planners of the programme forget that building a good chulha and using one are two entirely different things. And a good chulha-maker may not be the best person to train the people in using it', according to Sarin. In their desperation to meet targets, the implementing agencies often neglected training. The quality of training was inadequate, misdirected, and often no more than an admnistrative formality. The entire focus was on making a chulha rather than on understanding its design and operation so that it could be adapted, maintained and repaired without supervision. In the early stages of the programme, the ministry relied entirely on subsidies and concentrated on meeting targets, instead of ensuring a judicious mix of education, technical training and financial assistance. As a result, quality was often sacrificed. According to P.S.S. Gussain, Secretary of the Consortium for Rural Technology; 'Subsidies can function well as an initial promotional device, but only if they are coupled with very strict quality control measures. Peroza Mehrotra says, 'The main reason for the programme not getting full acceptance has been lack of quality control on the chimney pipes for the fixed chulhas and metal, portable chulhas. Quality control is the cornerstone for any programme that seeks to win over the people's confidence'. Her department's insistence on quality has ensured that manufacturers now supply more durable pipes and thermally efficient portable chulhas. In Gujarat, the TBU has promoted a technology that is more durable and reliable than in other states. Says Rachel George, 'Decentralized production of standardized pottery liners could increase the durability of the chulhas. Though this could increase the cost by about 22 per cent, it may be a better way to win user acceptability because the user pays for and owns an efficient stove, rather than a handcrafted one that may not live up to expectations, or one that the user may be tempted to alter. However, the MNES is determined to phase out its support to the programme. The onus of making chulhas and distributing them in rural areas is likely to fall on entrepreneurs. Despite the evidence to the contrary, MNES is of the opinion that subsidies will not be required because there is a ready market for chulhas and so entrepreneurs can easily cover their costs.

Boiling Point has permission to reproduce this article.