household cooking fuels and technologies in developing economies

10
Household cooking fuels and technologies in developing economies Wesley Foell a,n , Shonali Pachauri b , Daniel Spreng c , Hisham Zerriffi d a Resource Management Associates, Madison, WI, USA b International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria c Energy Science Center, ETH Zurich, Switzerland d Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada article info Available online 25 September 2011 Keywords: Clean cooking fuels Energy poverty Economic development abstract A major energy challenge of the 21 st century is the health and welfare of 2.7 billion people worldwide, who currently rely on burning biomass in traditional household cooking systems. This Special Issue on Clean Cooking Fuels and Technologies in Developing Economies builds upon an IAEE workshop on this subject, held in Istanbul in 2008 (Foell et al., 2008). It includes several papers from that workshop plus papers commissioned afterwards. The major themes of that workshop and this Special Issue are: Analytical and decision frameworks for analysis and policy development for clean cooking fuels. Making energy provisioning a central component of development strategies. Strategies/business models of suppliers of modern fuels and technologies. Analysis of successes/failures of past policies and programs to improve access to clean cooking. This introductory paper serves as a preamble to the 11 papers in this Special Issue. It provides a brief background on household cooking fuels and technologies, including: (1) their implications for sustainable development, health and welfare, gender impacts, and environment/climate issues; (2) options and scenarios for improved household cooling systems; and (3) discussions of institutions, programs and markets. It closes with ‘‘Research and Action Agendas’’, initially developed during the 2008 workshop. & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction One of the major energy challenges of the 21st century is the continued health and welfare effects of billions of people facing energy poverty worldwide. In particular, 2.7 billion people, some 40% of the world’s population, currently rely on directly burning biomass for their primary cooking fuel 1 (IEA, 2010). As shown in Fig. 1 (IEA, 2010), the vast majority of those facing energy poverty live in rural areas of the developing world, particularly in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. In the absence of new policies, the number of people relying on solid fuels for cooking will increase over the next twenty years. The implications of these household cooking practices include severe health impacts, gender inequi- ties, and local and global environmental change 2 (see Section 2). While the need for action is clear, the investment and institu- tional challenges to solving this problem remain daunting, and there are a number of key areas where further research is required to guide and inform implementation. The overall goal of this Special Issue of Energy Policy is to provide insight into the current state of knowledge on some of those issues. The Special Issue builds upon a workshop held in Istanbul in 2008 (Foell et al., 2008) as part of the annual conference of the International Association for Energy Economics (IAEE) and includes several papers from that workshop plus some commissioned afterwards. This overview paper will provide (1) a brief background on cooking fuels and technologies and their implications, and (2) a research and action plan that was initially developed during the 2008 workshop. 2. Cooking and development Use of biomass for cooking is in itself not a cause for concern. However, when resources are harvested unsustainably and energy Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol Energy Policy 0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.016 n Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (W. Foell). 1 An additional 0.5 billion people, most living in China, depend on coal for their cooking and heating needs. This implies that over 3 billion people, globally, depend on solid fuels (UNDP and WHO, 2009). 2 Electricity is another major energy poverty problem (nearly 1.4 billion currently lack access). However, this Special Issue is focused on clean cooking (footnote continued) technologies and fuels and does not address this particular problem except to the degree that solutions for one have impacted the other (IEA, 2010). Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7487–7496

Upload: wesley-foell

Post on 04-Sep-2016

221 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7487–7496

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy Policy

0301-42

doi:10.1

n Corr

E-m1 An

their co

depend2 El

current

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Household cooking fuels and technologies in developing economies

Wesley Foell a,n, Shonali Pachauri b, Daniel Spreng c, Hisham Zerriffi d

a Resource Management Associates, Madison, WI, USAb International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austriac Energy Science Center, ETH Zurich, Switzerlandd Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 25 September 2011

Keywords:

Clean cooking fuels

Energy poverty

Economic development

15/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.enpol.2011.08.016

esponding author.

ail address: [email protected] (W. Foell).

additional 0.5 billion people, most living i

oking and heating needs. This implies that ov

on solid fuels (UNDP and WHO, 2009).

ectricity is another major energy poverty

ly lack access). However, this Special Issue

a b s t r a c t

A major energy challenge of the 21st century is the health and welfare of 2.7 billion people worldwide,

who currently rely on burning biomass in traditional household cooking systems. This Special Issue on

Clean Cooking Fuels and Technologies in Developing Economies builds upon an IAEE workshop on this

subject, held in Istanbul in 2008 (Foell et al., 2008). It includes several papers from that workshop plus

papers commissioned afterwards. The major themes of that workshop and this Special Issue are:

� Analytical and decision frameworks for analysis and policy development for clean cooking fuels.

� Making energy provisioning a central component of development strategies.

� Strategies/business models of suppliers of modern fuels and technologies.

� Analysis of successes/failures of past policies and programs to improve access to clean cooking.

ll r

n Ch

er 3

prob

is fo

This introductory paper serves as a preamble to the 11 papers in this Special Issue. It provides a brief

background on household cooking fuels and technologies, including: (1) their implications for

sustainable development, health and welfare, gender impacts, and environment/climate issues;

(2) options and scenarios for improved household cooling systems; and (3) discussions of institutions,

programs and markets. It closes with ‘‘Research and Action Agendas’’, initially developed during the

2008 workshop.

& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

One of the major energy challenges of the 21st century is thecontinued health and welfare effects of billions of people facingenergy poverty worldwide. In particular, 2.7 billion people, some40% of the world’s population, currently rely on directly burningbiomass for their primary cooking fuel1 (IEA, 2010). As shown inFig. 1 (IEA, 2010), the vast majority of those facing energy povertylive in rural areas of the developing world, particularly in SouthAsia and Sub-Saharan Africa. In the absence of new policies, thenumber of people relying on solid fuels for cooking will increaseover the next twenty years. The implications of these householdcooking practices include severe health impacts, gender inequi-ties, and local and global environmental change2 (see Section 2).

ights reserved.

ina, depend on coal for

billion people, globally,

lem (nearly 1.4 billion

cused on clean cooking

While the need for action is clear, the investment and institu-tional challenges to solving this problem remain daunting, and thereare a number of key areas where further research is required toguide and inform implementation. The overall goal of this SpecialIssue of Energy Policy is to provide insight into the current state ofknowledge on some of those issues. The Special Issue builds upon aworkshop held in Istanbul in 2008 (Foell et al., 2008) as part of theannual conference of the International Association for EnergyEconomics (IAEE) and includes several papers from that workshopplus some commissioned afterwards. This overview paper willprovide (1) a brief background on cooking fuels and technologiesand their implications, and (2) a research and action plan that wasinitially developed during the 2008 workshop.

2. Cooking and development

Use of biomass for cooking is in itself not a cause for concern.However, when resources are harvested unsustainably and energy

(footnote continued)

technologies and fuels and does not address this particular problem except to the

degree that solutions for one have impacted the other (IEA, 2010).

Fig. 1. Number and share of population relying on the traditional use of biomass as their primary cooking fuel by region, 2009 (Source: IEA, 2010).

Fig. 2. Premature annual deaths from household air pollution and other diseases

(Source: IEA, 2010).

W. Foell et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7487–74967488

conversion technologies are dirty and inefficient, there are seriousadverse consequences for health, the environment, as well as forsocial and economic development. Globally, about 1(1/2) millionpeople – mostly women and children – die prematurely every yearbecause of exposure to indoor air pollution from inefficient biomasscombustion, greater than the number from malaria or tuberculosis(IEA, 2010; WHO, 2009). In many countries women suffer greatlyfrom the drudgery and heavy physical burden of collecting, trans-porting and processing the biomass used for cooking.

In addition to the direct impacts on human welfare, unsustain-able use of fuelwood can create large pressures on the local andregional environment, including deforestation, soil degradation anderosion. At the global level, emissions of black carbon (a componentof soot), such as that emitted from inefficient biomass burning, arenow known to play a large role in influencing climate change.Residential biomass burning is responsible for an estimated 18% ofglobal black carbon emissions (Bond and Sun, 2005).

The United Nations Millennium Declaration (United Nations,2000) established a quantitative framework for promoting acomprehensive approach to development and poverty problems.Specific numerical goals for the year 2015 were established forcombating poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmentaldegradation and discrimination against women. Although energypoverty is clearly a prominent feature of impoverished rural andurban household in developing countries, there is no specificMillennium Development Goal (MDG) for energy. A subsequentanalysis outlined the numerous ways in which meeting the MDGsrequired changes in energy systems, including cooking fuels andtechnologies (Modi et al., 2006).

The WHO’s publication, ‘‘Fuel for Life,’’ also documented howlack of access to clean and efficient cooking fuels and technologiesrepresents a severe bottleneck holding back progress towardachieving these development goals (WHO, 2006). Improvedcooking systems can alleviate these bottlenecks by reducing childmortality rates, improving maternal health, and reducing thetime-lost by young women and girls in fuel collection, cookingand processing, as well as reducing environmental impacts andpressures on fragile ecosystems. In this section we briefly reviewthree inter-related areas in which cleaner cooking fuels andtechnologies are believed to play a significant role in determiningwelfare of individuals and sustainable development.

2.1. Cooking and health

One of the major implications of widespread use of solid fuelsis its significant impacts on human health, particularly that ofwomen and children (Ezzati et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2004).

The WHO health statistics on women and children impacted byindoor air pollution are staggering to read. ‘‘Globally, pneumoniaremains the single most important child killer and is responsiblefor 2 million deaths every year. Indoor smoke is one of theunderlying causes. The acrid smoke depositing soot in their lungsis responsible for 511,000 of the 1.3 million deaths due to COPD(chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) worldwide per year’’(WHO, 2006). As shown in Fig. 2, the IEA projects that by 2030,premature deaths from indoor use of biomass will also exceedthose due to HIV/AIDS (IEA, 2010).

The above estimates do not include cardiovascular impacts.Based on recent field studies, WHO is including ischemic heartdisease related deaths as one of the impacts of household airpollution in its latest risk assessment in the global burden ofdisease (GBD) project (WHO, 2011). After including these impacts,the recent Global Energy Assessment (Riahi et al., 2011) estimatesthat in 2005, there were 2.2 million deaths due to household airpollution (incomplete combustion of all solid fuels), approxi-mately 10% higher than previously estimated.

Stimulated primarily by the above grim picture, the pastseveral years have seen significant advances in analyzing andevaluating the cost effectiveness of various strategies and inter-ventions to mitigate household air pollution in developing coun-tries. The evaluations are of growing importance, not only inassisting policy makers, including donor agencies, in theirbudget allocations and program design, but also in expandingglobal, community, and household awareness of the potentialbenefits of interventions.

W. Foell et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7487–7496 7489

The WHO conducted the first cost-benefit analysis (CBA) at theglobal level, analyzing several interventions on household cook-ing systems for 11 developing and middle-income WHO subre-gions (Hutton et al., 2006). The assessment included not onlyhealth benefits and costs, but also local (fewer trees cut) andglobal (reduced CO2 and methane emissions) environmentalbenefits. Intervention costs included fuel costs, stove costs andprogram costs. In their paper in this Special Issue, Malla et al.(2011) used the above CBA framework and extended it to conducta ‘‘household-perspective’’ analysis of improved cooking systeminterventions in distinct settings in Kenya, Sudan and Nepal. Incontrast to the global assessment, this assessment was based onvery specific local circumstances. The above two studies, one at aglobal level, and the other at a household level, both yieldedresults suggesting that a range of cooking system interventionswould be justified on economic grounds and be very cost-beneficial. They indicate that several household energy interven-tions not only produce significant health benefits but also makeeconomic sense, both from a societal perspective and at thehousehold level. One notable conclusion of both studies is thatdirect health benefits are a relatively small component of theoverall economic benefits of most of the interventions.

2.2. Cooking and gender issues

In recent years gender issues have become increasingly pro-minent in global energy considerations. In countries wheretraditional fuels dominate household energy use, women gener-ally play the major role in biomass-based energy systems. Alongwith children, they suffer the greatest share of the health burden,as well the time-losses and physical impacts of fuel collection,processing and transportation. Although bearing responsibility forimplementation of most of the energy-related household activ-ities, women usually have less access to the crucial resources,such as financial credit and education, which foster access toimproved energy services. This hinders their participation in theoverall decision making-process.

An increasing number of studies and programs are addressingthese gender issues, leading to new initiatives and directions inthe effort to improve household cooking systems. Internationalagencies, donor institutions, national and regional governments,and NGOs are among those which are devoting increasing atten-tion to the role of women in energy. For example, ENERGIA, aninternational network on gender and sustainable energy, foundedin 1995, has been linking individuals and groups concernedwith gender and energy in developing countries. It fosters infor-mation exchange, training, research, advocacy and action aimed atsustainable energy development that is equable for all. A goodperspective on the scope of studies and programs can be garneredfrom an extensive annotated bibliography on ‘‘Gender and Energyin Asia’’ published by ENERGIA (Wickramasinghe, 2006).

Researchers are increasing their efforts to gather better data onthe household energy systems—what activities are performed bymen and women, their respective contributions in labor and time,and their social, physical, and economic impacts. In a paper in thisSpecial Issue, dealing with access and transitions to cleanercooking fuels in Sri Lanka, Wickramasinghe observed that womenin the surveyed households ‘‘are least concerned about the‘kitchen killer’—the seriousness of the direct biomass combus-tion’’. Rather they are concerned about the burdens imposed bythe fuel chain (i.e. collection, transport and processing of biomassfuels) and are more likely to transition to new fuels and stoves ifemployed in remunerative activities outside of the home oragricultural sector (Wickramasinghe, 2011).

The importance of the burdens that women suffer from thebio-fuels fuel chain has been recently studied by Parikh and

reported in this Special Issue (Parikh, 2011). She explored thelinkages of gender, energy use, health and hardship in theHimalayan state of Himachal Pradesh in India. In addition towomen’s exposure to harmful household air pollution, she docu-ments other health impacts and discomforts such as neck- andbackache, bruising and headaches from collecting and transport-ing of fuels. These impacts have not received adequate attention.The study reported that the economic burden on the poor interms of the equivalent number of work days spent collecting fuelranged from 3 to 7 days per month, often while suffering frompoor health. Parikh makes a strong argument that these issueshave remained on the periphery of policy making, and could onlybe addressed through a paradigm shift to support women in Indiawho provide 30% of national energy.

2.3. Cooking and environment/climate

In the decades of the 70 s and 80 s deforestation due to excessharvesting of biomass cooking fuels was considered to be a majorissue. Over the past few decades, more extensive analysis hasdemonstrated that cooking is not the major cause of deforestationglobally, though there may be hotspots in specific parts of theworld (e.g., McGranahan, 1991, Arnold et al., 2003). Concernabout deforestation impacts from cooking is consequently nowgenerally addressed at a regional or local scale. Of growingconcern now, however, are the adverse environmental conse-quences of the charcoal supply chain in many sub-SaharanAfrican nations (Mwampamba, 2007).

In contrast, mitigation of climate change has become a majordriver of energy policies and programs at the national and globallevels and an important factor in designing efforts to improveprovision of household cooking services to the world’s poor. Thereare, however, some differences of opinion between (1) those whobelieve that for the poor, only renewable resources qualify as‘‘sustainable’’, and (2) those who suggest that high-efficiency clean-burning fossil fuels such as LPG are well suited and sustainable forproviding quality energy cooking systems to the billions withoutgood energy services. Smith articulated the latter position in aneditorial in Science (Smith, 2002). He pointed out that even if it wererenewably harvested, biomass fuel in simple stoves releases non-CO2

greenhouse pollutants such as methane and black particles, e.g.,black carbon. In addition, he points out that by far the largest part ofdemand for petroleum is from other sectors and there is more thanenough petroleum to meet household cooking needs far into thefuture. In his words, ‘‘no matter how the rural poor do their cooking,the GHG production and petroleum demand battles that count willbe fought in Detroit, Yokohama and Stuttgart (as well as Shanghai,Sao Paolo and Mumbai)’’.

Consistent with the above arguments of Smith is the recentanalysis of the IEA (2010). In their Universal Modern EnergyAccess Case, the switch of 1.2 billion people to LPG cooking stovesby 2030 would increase total world oil demand by only 0.9 millionbarrels per day, less than 0.9% of projected global demand in thatyear. They point out that this additional demand is roughlyequivalent to 5% of oil demand in the U.S. today. Because of thediversity of factors involved, the IEA work does not include aquantitative analysis of the scenario’s impact on greenhouse gasemissions (GHG). However, we are in agreement with theirassertion that it is widely accepted that greater conversionefficiencies of improved stoves would result in emissions reduc-tions. The Global Energy Assessment (GEA) also presents aUniversal Access Scenario and quantifies the energy demandand greenhouse gas emissions impacts of a switch to LPG forcooking by 2030 (Riahi et al., 2011). Their estimates suggest thatfinal energy use for cooking drops significantly if access policiesare implemented because of a shift away from inefficient biomass

W. Foell et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7487–74967490

to more efficient LPG. The accompanying increase in total LPG usetill 2030 is estimated by them as being less than half of thetransportation sector energy use in Western Europe today. Inaddition, the GHG emissions impacts of implementing policies tomeet a universal access target by 2030, are estimated by them asbeing negligible, or could even be negative if it is assumed that20% of biomass use is unsustainably harvested. Grieshop et al.(2011) in this Special Issue make the strong statement that ‘‘LPG-and kerosene-fueled stoves have unrivaled air quality benefitsand their climate impacts are also lower than all but the cleaneststoves using renewable biomass’’.

Some recent estimates (Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008;Ramana et al., 2010) conclude that black carbon has the secondlargest contribution to globally averaged radiative forcing aftercarbon dioxide (CO2). Traditional cookstoves contribute a majorfraction of the black carbon emissions from biomass burning. Inaddition to the global warming effects of black carbon, it hasimportant regional effects. These include: accelerated melting ofglaciers, caused by solar absorption by the blackened ice andsnow; and effects on regional rainfall and monsoons. UNEP hasrecently concluded a comprehensive assessment of the climaticeffects of black carbon and tropospheric ozone and has developedalternative scenarios of the climatic impacts of measures todecrease their emissions (UNEP, 2011). The results provide anadditional strong incentive to urgently address the problems oftraditional biomass cookstoves.

3. Energy transition process in household cooking

3.1. Options

When one considers that almost 2.7 billion people still cookwith traditional fuels, fostering an energy transition is a dauntingtask. Halving the number of households using traditional biomassfor cooking by 2015 – a recommendation of the United NationsMillennium Project – would involve one billion people switchingto other fuels. In other words, to meet this target an additional800,000 people have to get access to improved cooking energyevery day. Despite the magnitude of the above task, thepreponderance of international development assistance as ameans of addressing energy poverty has been devoted to effortsto increase the provision of electricity, rather than to improvingthe use of cooking fuels, either traditional or modern.

However in 2010, a major new development initiative waslaunched: the ‘‘Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves’’ (GACC,2010). This is an alliance of UN agencies, governments, localNGOs, international nonprofits, foundations, women’s groups andcorporate leaders. It believes that its members’ blend of diplo-macy, technology, research, advocacy, and economic opportunitywill allow it to achieve its ‘100 by 20’ goal, i.e., 100 million homesto adopt clean and efficient stoves and fuels by 2020, a nearer-term goal than the UN Millenium project.

In general, there are two complementary approaches toaddressing the above problem:

promoting more efficient and sustainable use of traditionalbiomass; � encouraging people to switch to modern cooking fuels and

technologies.

Here, the term modern fuels refers primarily to LPG andkerosene, but also includes modern bio-fuels such as biogas,ethanol, gel-fuels and biodiesel as well as electricity. The appro-priate mix of these two approaches, traditional and modern,depends on local circumstances, including cultural and habitual

factors. Analysts have traditionally focused more narrowly onincome (affordability) and the availability of a sustainable supplyof cooking fuel, resulting in a gap in understanding the behavioralaspects of household energy use. In this issue Kowsari and Zerriffi(2011) develop a new conceptual framework to guide the analysisof household energy choices, with a particular focus on thetransition process. By incorporating a range of human and con-textual variables, the framework avoids overemphasizing incomeas the major determinant of household energy consumption andattempts to address the human dimension of energy use. It alsoviews the household transition process as one that involves allaspects of the energy system: energy services demanded by users,the technologies used to provide those services and the fuelsrequired for the technology.

In the short and medium term, switching to modern fuels issimply not feasible for a large part of the population that stillrelies on traditional fuels. This is particularly true in poor ruralcommunities where access to modern fuels is severely limited byaffordability and availability. In these situations, the most attrac-tive alternative is to improve the energy services provided bybiomass or biogas fuels, primarily through improved stoves, butalso by other measures such as room ventilation, home designand other construction changes.

For the long term, there is general agreement that modernfuels, either fossil-fuel or biomass-based, will play the major rolein providing clean and economically-efficient energy for house-hold cooking systems. The modern fuels differ significantly intheir technical characteristics, availability and, of course, theircosts. Both kerosene and LPG are generally readily available andthe supply is well-established in many developing countries but isby no means universally available. Because of their ability togreatly reduce health impacts as well as the productive time-losses suffered by women and children, LPG and, to a lesserextent, kerosene, have the potential to improve the householdcooking situation in many parts of the world. The availability ofmodern bio-fuels, varies greatly from country to country, as doestheir production costs, but the potential for improved cooking isalso great

3.2. Transition scenario

To illustrate what would be required to provide universalaccess to modern energy services, the IEA has developed a globalenergy scenario through the year 2030—the so-called ‘‘UniversalModern Energy Access Case’’ (IEA, 2010). For the case of cleancooking facilities, it includes targets consistent with the achieve-ment of the Millennium Development Goals. This means that in2015 no more than 1.7 billion people should be still usingtraditional biomass for cooking on open fires or in primitivestoves. And in 2030 there would be 100% access to clean cookingfacilities, including LPG stoves, biogas systems or advancedbiomass cookstoves. These targets are demanding. An additional1 billon people must be provided with access to clean cookingfacilities by 2015 (from the reference year 2009) and an addi-tional 1.7 billion people in the period 2016–2030. It is importantto note that approximately 80% of these people live in rural areas.

However, a different and important perspective emerges fromexamining the investment implications of this scenario. The IEAscenarios assumed a mix of technology solutions and costs foreach region, given resource availabilities and government poli-cies. In order to achieve universal access to clean cooking facilitiesfor 2.8 billion people, the IEA estimated that a cumulativeinvestment of $56 billion would be required in 2010–2030,i.e., an annual average of approximately $2.6 billion. This is theadditional investment above and beyond the investments inIEA’s reference scenario, which takes into account broad policy

Fig. 3. Number of people gaining clean cooking facilities and additional cumulative investment needs in the Universal Modern Energy Access Case (Source: IEA, 2010).

W. Foell et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7487–7496 7491

commitments already announced by countries around the world.Fig. 3 illustrates these additional investments and the number ofpeople gaining clean cooking facilities in the scenario for‘‘Universal Modern Energy Access’’. The cumulative investmentis put into perspective when compared to IEA’s global energyinvestment estimate of more than $26 trillion in the period 2010–2030. The clean cooking investments costs are only 0.2% of thetotal global energy investments and 8% of the investmentrequired for universal access to electricity.

A similar but more policy-focused set of universal accessscenarios carried out by the GEA (Riahi et al., 2011) also estimatesthe costs of achieving universal access to clean cooking fuels andstoves by 2030. Their estimates are significantly higher than that ofthe IEA because they include not only upfront stove costs andcylinder deposits, but also an estimate of recurrent fuel costsassociated with the cleaner cooking technologies. They assumethese costs will need to be financed through subsidies or otherprice mechanisms to incentivize low-income households to switchto improved cooking options by 2030. For the globe as a whole, theGEA annual average cost estimate ranges between $17.3 billion and22.1 billion till 2030. The total estimate varies depending onwhether the costs of the stoves are assumed to be covered throughmicro-lending that does not require additional financing (since loansare recovered through principal and interest payments) or throughgrants that must be covered through public funds.

Achieving the above universal access targets will result inmultiple benefits. The GEA estimates that implementing theseaccess policies can avert between 0.6 million and 1.8 millionpremature deaths, on average, every year until 2030, or a savingsof over 24 million DALYs (Disability-Adjusted Life Years) annually.Additional benefits that are likely to be substantial include timesavings for women and children and potential for improvededucational and livelihood opportunities.

As a complement to investment analysis, the World HealthOrganization has conducted a cost-benefit analysis on a regionally-disaggregated global basis. Taking lost time into account, theirresults (WHO, 2006) show that successful interventions in house-hold cooking systems will typically have very large economicpaybacks. In similar but more specific analysis for three countries(Nepal, Kenya and Sudan), Malla et al. (2011), in this Special Issue,show that a range of successful interventions, including cleaner fuel(LPG) and cleaner burning and more efficient stoves would providevery impressive benefits. Estimated internal rates of return rangefrom 20 to more than 400 percent! (Malla et al., 2011).

If interventions in the energy system give rise to reductions inboth the climate and health impacts, it is a win–win situation. Theresulting benefits are generally called ‘‘co-benefits’’ or ‘‘ancillarybenefits’’. A significant literature has developed around the analysisand evaluation of these benefits (e.g., OECD, 2000; Davis et al., 2000;Smith and Haigler, 2008). The resulting ‘‘co-benefits frameworks’’are now frequently being used to examine the non-climate benefitsof the various interactions for mitigating GHG emissions, or con-versely, to look at the climate benefits of measures with otherprimary objectives, e.g., reducing the health burden of energysystems. These frameworks either monetize the cost and benefitsor put them into a cost-effectiveness metric which allows astraightforward comparison of alternative measures.

In recent years, increasing attention has been devoted to theco-benefits associated with interventions in household cookingsystems in developing countries, e.g., (Bailis et al., 2005; Smithand Haigler, 2008). The initial indications from several co-benefitanalyses of cook systems suggest that some interventions are veryattractive, both from the health and climate perspective. In thisSpecial Issue, Grieshop et al. (2011) comprehensively assess thesebenefits for a wide variety of stove and fuel combinations, includingdetailed analysis of technical performance. Their results indicatethat the health and climate impacts span two orders of magnitudeamong the technologies considered. Several improved stoves havesimilar climate benefits, but different impacts on indoor air pollu-tion. They believe that improved cookstove programs, ‘‘if well done,could yield strong climate and health benefits’’.

Given the above encouraging results from analysis of invest-ment requirements and costs and benefits, one might justifiablyask why this cooking energy transition has not already taken off.Our initial observation from the growing number of studies is thatif co-benefit climate and health costs can be internalized intotheir ‘‘markets’’, it becomes increasingly feasible for householdsin poor countries to pay the remainder of the costs of an improvedcooking system. But this will not happen if government policiesand market forces do not ensure that the impoverished get accessto these improved cooking systems. The next section provides adiscussion of some of these issues.

3.3. Institutions, programs and markets

As discussed earlier, there have been efforts over the past threedecades to disseminate improved household cooking systems,primarily through improved stoves. Many of these early efforts

W. Foell et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7487–74967492

were carried out by international organizations, governments andNGOs. A few have proved successful—many more have failed. TheChinese National Improved Stove Program (NISP) is the mostsuccessful example of broad dissemination—with approximately166 million households adopting improved stoves (World Bank,2011). More recently, a very large program for modern fuels hasbeen successfully carried out in Indonesia—50 million householdsswitched from kerosene to LPG stoves over a four year-period(Budya and Arofat, 2011).

As international and public awareness of the magnitude of theproblem has grown in the past decade, increasing effort is beingdevoted to understanding the reasons for success or failure, andto designing new programs in accordance with this understand-ing. In addition some of the focus is beginning to shift to theprivate sector.

In this Special Issue, Kees and Feldman (2011) focus on the roleof large, international donor organizations in promoting energyefficient biomass cookstoves. They point out that many develop-ment projects over the past decade have introduced stoves thatburn biomass efficiently, greatly reducing consumption ofresources and emission. However, ‘‘scaling up’’ has generally notoccurred. Behavioral change takes time and therefore requireslong-terms investments in the supply chain, including crucialancillary activities such as information campaigns, researchand testing centers, and capacity development. They see animportant role for development organizations in providing thesefunctions in the initial phases of scale-up. In their article they alsoprovide a description of a GTZ project in Uganda, which showsthat a reasonably large-scale introduction of improved biomasscookstoves is possible—more than 500,000 households started touse them since 2005.

Cookstove programs are often implemented by non-govern-mental organizations (NGOs) of varying size, capacity, fundingsources and focus (i.e. some are primarily concerned with solvingenergy poverty problems while others see cookstove programs asa necessary part of the solution to other social welfare problems).Troncosco et al. (2011) in this issue provide an insightful andunique analysis – from the program implementer’s perspective –of the way in which development workers (a Mexican NGO)approached a community with a cookstove program in ruralMexico. Their findings suggest that the success of the programwas constrained by the different underlying visions of thestakeholders, including the sponsors and the team members.The primary difference was between people-centered and tech-nology-centered approaches. It is important that the variousstakeholders come to a shared conclusion which of these canbetter lead to a successful project outcome—or as in some cases,there may be a middle road, which combines these twoapproaches. This is wise advice for meeting the tremendousenergy challenge facing us.

The difficulties in achieving scale and/or in being able tosustainably maintain even large-scale cookstove programs thathave been run by NGOs, donors and governments, coupled withthe recognition that the energy poor also present an economicopportunity, has led to an increasing interest in commercial

approaches to cookstove dissemination. To date there are only afew cases that appear to be demonstrating economic sustain-ability. There is a need to better understand the conditions andparameters, which can lead to a successful commercial programover the long term. With this need in mind, Shrimali et al. (2011)have carried out an insightful study in India on a range ofbusiness entities established to commercially distribute improvedcookstoves. Through interviews and analysis, they tried to estab-lish which ‘‘business model factors’’ have had the most importantinfluence on the scale and sustainability of the businesses todate. They conclude that there are viable business models to sell

improved cookstoves in India despite the significant marketingchallenges, and that the government could play a useful role withtargeted policies. It is important that this type of study be carriedout in other countries, in which commercialization is underway.

In the case of modern cooking fuels, e.g., LPG, the scaling-upproblem appears to be somewhat different. Modern fuels arealready in the domain of large commercial entities throughout theworld, operating under a variety of business models; these fuelsand their associated cooking technologies are well understood.Despite this there remains a great challenge in getting significantpenetration of modern cooking fuels into the developing world, asdescribed in the scenarios of Section 3.2 above. We can point toonly a few relatively large-scale successes. Brazil, in a three-decade program through 2000, which included fuel price admin-istration and subsidies, brought about a very significant penetra-tion of LPG and kerosene for cooking fuels (Lucon et al., 2004;Jannuzzi and Sanga, 2004).

More recently, Pertamina, the Indonesian National Oil Com-pany, in cooperation with several government agencies, broughtabout a cooking-fuels shift from kerosene to LPG in more than50 million households in approximately four years. This so-calledMega-Project is described in this issue by Budya and Arofat ofPertamina, both of whom played roles in this very interestingcommercial effort to shift to a cleaner, more convenient and less-subsidized household cooking fuel. Their description, writtenfrom the perspective of Pertamina, describes in some detail theproject’s major executions steps, the major activities and benefitsfor the various stakeholders, and a retrospective policy analysis ofIndonesia’s largest-ever energy initiative to provide improvedcooking fuel (Budya and Arofat, 2011). For many governments,particularly in countries with a national oil company (NOC), theremay be useful lessons from this Indonesian experience. It alsoprovides an important lesson in terms of thinking about when theenergy transition ‘‘stops’’ or is completed, as this program was aneffort to shift from one ‘‘modern’’ fuel to another ‘‘modern’’ fuel.

3.4. Monitoring of progress

Increasing attention is being devoted to the development ofaggregated indicators to help assess the status and progress of acountry’s development in its efforts to alleviate poverty.The Human Development Index (HDI), developed by UNDP, hasbecome a frequently-used metric for attempting to assess thecomparative level and rate of development (UNDP, 2011). In itssimplest form, the HDI incorporates, in a single number, threedimensions of the achievements of a country: (1) life expectancyat birth; (2) an education index based on two aspects of schoolenrollment; and (3) gross national income per capita, based onpurchasing power parity. Energy does not figure explicitly in theHDI nor does it in the other three frequently-used UNDP compo-site indices, which treat more specific dimensions of poverty andgender. But it does not take a great leap of imagination torecognize the direct ways in which a population’s householdcooking systems could influence each of the factors on which theHDI is based, i.e., health, education, and income.

In a similar vein to the HDI, the IEA has developed an EnergyDevelopment Index (EDI) to measure progress of a country inimplementing modern fuels in its energy systems. It is comprisedof multiple components, each of which reflects an aspect of acountry’s energy access and is given equal waiting in thecomposite index (IEA, 2010). One of these is the share of modernfuels in the household sector. Fig. 4 shows the relationshipbetween the Human Development Index and the Energy Devel-opment Index. The IEA asserts that this is not surprising, con-sidering the contribution of energy to human development.

Fig. 4. Comparison of the Human Development Index to the Energy Development

Index (Source: IEA, 2010).

W. Foell et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7487–7496 7493

The components in the EDI provide a picture of both thequantities of energy consumed as well as the rates of access tomodern cooking fuels and electricity, but do not provide informa-tion on the quality of the energy service provided or its afford-ability. As emphasized by other researchers as well (e.g., Bazilianet al., 2010), the IEA index while useful, needs to be supplementedby other improved indicators to enhance the monitoring ofprogress toward universal access to modern energy. In thisSpecial Issue, Pachauri and Spreng (2011) address this issue byreviewing the literature and applications of energy povertyindicators in general and, in particular, those relating specificallyto the household sector. They make a strong case for increasingthe effort to develop indicators that better capture the salientaspects of the problem being targeted. There is a need todistinguish between indicators that relate to national progressand to the success of policies and programs, and those which helpto monitor and evaluate specific projects. Central to their set ofrecommendations is the importance of prioritizing and develop-ing an appropriate set of attributes and indicators before a policy,program or project is undertaken, as a practical help to designersand evaluators, and not the least, to the end users who are tobenefit from the actions.

Monitoring and evaluation is crucial also at the household orcommunity level. A key element in the transition from traditionalcooking systems is the household’s (1) initial acceptance and(2) sustained use of improved cooking systems, a so-called‘‘adoption process’’. In their paper in this issue, Ruiz-Mercadoet al. (2011) discuss this complex process, and make the pointthat it must be adequately monitored to ensure the sustainabilityof the benefits of the improved system: ‘‘No stove program canachieve its goals unless people initially accept the stoves andcontinue using them on a long-term basis’’. Based on field workin Guatemala and Mexico, they develop a framework of stoveadoption, identify some critical parameters, and put it forth as apossible part of an ‘‘Adoption Performance Test’’, leading to stove-use indicators that could be made widely available for programand policy monitoring and evaluation (Ruiz-Mercado et al., 2011).

4. Moving forward: a research and action agenda

Over the past three decades, donor agencies, national govern-ments, NGOs and other institutions have carried out a variety ofprograms focused on improving the delivery of household cookingprovided by traditional fuels. The largest part of these efforts has beendevoted to the development of improved cookstoves and to increas-ing our understanding of the barriers and incentives associated with

their increased use in households. Parallel to this effort, modern fuelshave been slowly penetrating the household cooking system, but atrates varying widely from country to country.

There is no question that the various technologies adopted –improved stoves, new forms of biomass, commercial fuels such asLPG and dimethyl ether (DME) – are sometimes in competition,yet all are needed. Although there have been significant achieve-ments in the past decades, an unacceptably large population stilldoes not have adequate clean and affordable household cookingservices. The successful diffusion of any of these technologiesdepends critically on the local institutions and physical environ-ment. Policies to increase the deployment of both improvedtraditional and modern fuels must address barriers to accessi-bility, affordability and acceptability.

Recently there have been some examples of rather successfulprograms: a switch from electric cooking to LPG in South Africa; aswitch from kerosene to LPG in Indonesia; major use of improvedcookstoves in Uganda; and sustainable or nearly sustainable com-mercial cookstove companies in India. These programs have beendealing with household numbers on the order of 100,000 per year,not in the thousands as in many earlier programs, but not yet on theorder of 100,000 per day, which would be what is associated withmeeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDG).

And yet another promising development is now emerging.While in the past, most programs have been either governmentfinanced or supported by international donor funding, there isgrowing recognition of the market opportunities for interventionsby both small and large energy corporations. New actors arebeginning to enter the field and there is a significant need forfurther research on these energy businesses, as described byShrimali et al. (2011) in their analysis of alternative businessmodels adopted by commercial entities seeking to marketimproved cookstoves in India. In addition to the business modelparameters that they have identified as important for success,there are important external factors that require further analysis.Key among these are a low risk and stable environment, coupledwith transparency and good governance at the national level.

The emergence of new actors can in part be attributed to thefollowing factors:

1)

It has become more widely recognized that reaching theMillennium Development Goals requires significant changesin household energy systems. Particularly for the very poor,improvements in basic energy services, e.g., cooking systems,are essential for significant increases in other aspects ofwelfare, including health, education and gender equality.

2)

Global businesses have begun to increase their emphasis onsustainable development, including the need for improvedhousehold fuels and stoves. This is in part due to greaterglobal awareness and concern about health and environmentalproblems in developing countries, but also from increasedshareholder activity demanding corporate responsibility andtransparency in international business operations and a recog-nition of the market opportunities at the ‘‘bottom of thepyramid.’’ One result is that private/public partnerships, oftenincluding the participation of development bodies, are begin-ning to emerge as significant actors.

3)

Climate change considerations are increasingly influencingdevelopment strategies. As described earlier in this paper, soot(black carbon) emitted from traditional household cookingsystems is now believed to comprise a significant part of theanthropogenic emissions responsible for climate change.Climate concerns may soon bring this development issue tothe fore as a crucial global issue needing to be addressed.Furthermore, both the voluntary and compliance carbon credit-ing systems (e.g., the Gold Standard and the Clean Development

W. Foell et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7487–74967494

Mechanism) are issuing carbon credits for cookstove projectsdue, in part, to their avoided wood consumption, and thisprovides an additional vehicle for financing cookstoves.

Given the global magnitude and nature of this problem, webelieve that both a Research Agenda and Action Agenda areneeded in order to capitalize on these trends and accelerate thedevelopment and adoption of cleaner cooking fuels and technol-ogies. We present these agenda below. It should be noted thatsince the Istanbul Workshop in June 2008, where the agendasdescribed below were developed, there have been some signifi-cant efforts to increase global attention given to problems ofhousehold energy systems.

One large international program, the Global Alliance for CleanCookstoves was established in 2010 (GACC, 2010). The Alliance’sprimary goal is to work collectively with its members andpartners to stimulate a thriving global market for clean cook-stoves and fuels. For the Alliance, a thriving global market is onethat consists of a range of organizations – from cottage industriesto large-scale companies – that are sustainably supplying clean,efficient, affordable and user-desired cooking solutions (stovesand fuels) at greater scale and that are constantly innovating toimprove design and performance, while lowering cost. This wouldhelp achieve – and ideally surpass – its 2020 target: 100 millionhomes adopting clean and efficient stoves and fuels by 2020.3 Oneof the main elements of this initiative is based upon the idea thatcarbon credits will help clean cooking fuels and stoves to beadopted much faster. However experience to date has been thatonly international players with good contacts to internationalinstitutions will be able to access this kind of money. Care willneed to be taken that this does not become a ‘‘top-down’’program created by the international donor community that isnot able to establish sustainable roots among the three billionend-users of the market it hopes to create.

Our own recommendations focus primarily on areas specifi-cally related to the four major themes examined at the IstanbulWorkshop:

say

imm

http

pila

Analytical and decision frameworks for analysis/policy devel-opment for clean cooking fuels.

� Making energy provisioning a central component of develop-

ment strategies.

� Strategies/business models of suppliers of modern fuels and

technologies.

� Analysis of successes/failures of past policies and programs to

improve access to clean cooking.

4.1. Research agenda

A key conclusion of the Istanbul Workshop was that there is ahuge data and knowledge deficit on this issue. Significantresearch is required in order to strengthen evidence-basedaction/policy if progress is going to be made in changing thetrends discussed above. The current and potential market forclean cooking fuels and technologies is not well understood,including the role that different actors, including the businesscommunity, could play. While the markets are naturally segmen-ted according to income, there are many distortions in bothtraditional and modern fuels.

3 A compilation of the Alliance’s proposed ‘‘Early Actions’’ – activities that it

s will move the clean cookstove sector forward and that the Alliance can start

ediately and ideally complete within a year to 18 months – can be found at:

://cleancookstoves.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Early-Action-Item-Com

tion-FINAL.pdf.

Better understanding and appreciation of household-leveldecision making factors is important, particularly gender andculture specific factors, cash versus other drivers of adoption, andwillingness to pay. Understanding is also lacking on the use ofincentives to switch fuels, the potential role of micro-financeoperations, how manufacturers can participate in creating mar-kets, and how supply-chain problems might affect these markets.Much could be learned from analysis of the efforts of multi-national corporations in other economic sectors to create marketsat the bottom of the income pyramid.

Specific research needs include:

Basic economic research. Application of formal theories,development of new theoretical models and further empiricalanalysis on fundamental economic factors (e.g., demand elas-ticities for various traditional and modern fuels, price forma-tion, market structure and segmentation) are needed in orderto generate new insights into the problem. Adequate casestudies and specific ways of including non-commercial inputs,especially labor and energy, have to be developed. � Technology diffusion studies. Many of the technologies

necessary to alleviate the energy poverty problem exist.However, diffusion of technologies lags behind the need forsuch technologies. Specific case studies as well as furtherdevelopment of technology diffusion models would aid inunderstanding and overcoming diffusion barriers.

� New modeling approaches. There are a number of energy-

economic models in existence. However, their application inrural areas has been limited. Further application of suchmodeling tools and development of new tools would helpprovide further understanding of the drivers of change inthese areas.

� Institutional economics studies. Institutions across a wide

range of scales (from the household to international organiza-tions) have an impact on energy choice and usage in ruralareas. A better understanding of the institutions at play in therural energy sector and how they impact decision-making iscritical to understanding how these markets are structuredand the options for changes in rural energy systems.

� Welfare impact and evaluation studies. Creating effective

energy poverty alleviation programs requires an understand-ing of the impacts of such programs on human welfare.Improved data collection and analysis on specific projects, aswell as comparative analysis, is necessary.

� Analysis of the nexus between energy and developmental

economics. Incorporating energy into development economicsand vice-versa would hopefully advance our theoretical under-standing in both these areas.

� Study of linkages to the climate change problem. There are

numerous linkages between the clean cooking fuels issue andclimate change, both in terms of the impact that the use ofbiomass resources can have on the climate and the impact thatclimate change may have on the biomass resources thathouseholds depend upon. Understanding how these are linkedand how they play into the concepts of burden sharing,adaptation funding and other international debates is criticallyimportant as the post-2012 climate change framework is beingnegotiated and then implemented.

4.2. Action agenda

Complementing the above agenda for targeted research is acommensurate urgent need for timely action to move forward theimplementation of policy development and specific private/publicsector projects. A recurring theme at the workshop was the need

W. Foell et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7487–7496 7495

for specific approaches to increase public and government under-standing of the cooking fuels/technology problem. A generalconsensus was that this would lead to greatly improved decisionsby governments, the private sector and civil society in promotingand implementing the needed energy interventions. ‘‘Cross-coun-try’’ networking and learning mechanisms could be very usefultoward this goal. Specific programs for increased information area high priority for enhancing the above research, but also forincreasing the government and public understanding of themagnitude of the problem. This includes increased capacity-building efforts for dealing with the problem at all levels ofgovernment and regional/local communities.

The identified action areas include:

Data, Analysis and Information Exchange. This area overlapswith part of the Research Agenda above, which calls for amajor effort to erase the large knowledge deficit, particularlyin household decision-making and market structures. In addi-tion to those needs, we believe there is an immediate need formore comprehensive international coordination in this area,including protocols for enhanced data collection, programmonitoring and evaluation, and a framework for disseminationof information among all stakeholders. � Societal Awareness. Although societal awareness of house-

hold cooking problems and their link to economic develop-ment has increased significantly in the past several years inthe industrialized world, particularly among organizations inthe international community, there nevertheless remainsmuch to be done. Increased efforts should be devoted todisseminating a better understanding of the negative impactsthat traditional cooking fuels can have on development. Theseconcerns should be brought into a more central role indevelopment assistance and into the broader socio-economicprograms of the developing countries themselves.

� Role of Government. Comprehensive on-the-ground engage-

ment and collaboration between government, the private sectorand the energy users is sorely lacking in many countries. Manycurrent and past programs of the international community andNGOs simply do not have the resources or sustainability tomeasurably improve this situation. Household energy policiesare often developed in isolation from overall socio-economicplanning, despite the fact they are intimately linked to broaderissues of education, health, economic development and otheraspects of the poverty problem. Areas in which improvedgovernment engagements are crucial include: policy anddialog, information exchange, and regulation (pricing issues,incentives, taxation, financing, subsidies, etc.). Specific pilotprograms should be undertaken to evaluate mechanisms forimproving this engagement and collaboration.

� Policy Tools. Development and institutional embedding of

better policy formulation tools, including specific ‘‘policy toolkits’’, similar to those used in other energy sectors, are neededto aid policy makers in understanding the needs to beaddressed, the options available and the implications ofdifferent policies. The development of frameworks for appliedanalysis of ‘‘co-benefits’’ of policy interventions, as describedearlier in Section 3.2 is a step in this direction. User-friendlypolicy tool kits have been developed for policy makers andpractitioners in other sectors of developing economies, e.g., thehealth sector. Some very interesting examples are those toolkits described in World Bank/IFC (2011a) and World Bank/IFC(2011b)

� Business Models for Private Sector Participation. There is a

growing consensus that the sustainable development ofimproved household cooking systems will require a dominantprivate sector role. A key issue in adequate private sector

participation is development of sustainable business models,and particularly those that would market their product to thepoor. These models include a number of relevant factors,including marketing, financing, quality and maintenance inthe supply chain, consumer targeting and nature of thecommercial organization.

� Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). PPPs have become

increasingly common as a means for addressing salient issuesand sharing risks that neither the public nor private sectorscan handle on their own, the health sector being a case inpoint. Two notable examples in the energy area are the LP GasRural Energy Challenge (Bazilian et al., in press) and therecently established Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves(GACC, 2011). These partnerships, if designed and implemen-ted appropriately, have the potential for developing a commonappreciation among the stakeholders of the projects, i.e., thedonor community, the government, industry and consumers.Establishment of PPPs should be explored for a range ofhousehold energy systems and national environments.

� Philanthropy. As awareness of the household cooking

problem increases, philanthropists in industrialized countriesare beginning to play a more important role in addressingthe salient issues. A sentiment was expressed at theWorkshop toward pursuing the establishment of clean cookingfuels programs with ‘‘new philanthropists’’ in emergingeconomies.

� Large Energy Users as a Stimulus to Household Adoption

of Modern Fuels. Experiences from developing countriesparticipating in the LP Gas Challenge Program suggestthat larger energy users, such as schools, clinics, agriculturalproducers, etc. can play an important role as ‘‘initial adopters’’of cleaner energy fuels and technologies. Such users can serveas an important catalyst in establishing a reliable and efficientenergy supply chain that could be a forerunner to develop-ment of a sustainable household energy system. This strategydeserves increased attention in future program development.

Acknowledgements

We are pleased to acknowledge the important institutionaland financial support organized by Jeffrey Bor of the ChineseCulture University and his colleagues at the Chung-Hua Institutefor Economic Research in Taiwan. This support enabled us to holdspecial IAEE sessions and workshops in Taipei in 2005 and 2007and was instrumental in the early stages of our endeavor togenerate more interest and knowledge of energy poverty. Equallyimportant was the financial support provided by BP whichenabled the holding of the 2008 IAEE Workshop in Istanbul andthe participation of a large number of individuals from Asia, LatinAmerica and Africa. The 26 workshop participants and the TurkishChapter of the IAEE were all instrumental in the success of thatworkshop. Special thanks go to Gurkan Kumbaroglu, who was theIAEE conference organizer in Turkey for logistical support, fororganizing our workshop. Finally, we would like to thank FatihBirol, Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency, for hisand his staff’s enthusiastic and ongoing cooperation with ourefforts and for providing data and graphical material from theIEA’s World Energy outlook 2010.

References

Arnold, Michael, Kohlin, Gunnar, Presson, Reidar, Shepherd, Gillian, 2003. Fuel-wood Revisited: What has changed in the last decade?. Center for Interna-tional Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jakarta.

W. Foell et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7487–74967496

Bailis, Robert, Ezzati, Majid, Kammen, Daniel M., 2005. Mortality and greenhousegas impacts of biomass and petroleum energy futures in Africa. Science 308(5718), 98–103. doi:10.1126/science.1106881 /http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5718/98S.

Bazilian, M., et al., 2010. Measuring Energy Access: Supporting a global target. TheEarth Institute, Columbia University, New York.

Bazilian, M., Cordes, L., Nussbaumer, P., Yager, A. Partnership for access to moderncooking fuels and technologies. Current Opinions in Environmental Sustain-ability, in press.

Bond, T.C., Sun, H.L., 2005. Can reducing black carbon emissions counteract globalwarming? Environmental Science and Technology 39 (16), 5921–5926.

Davis, D.L., Krupnki, A., Thurston, G., 2000. Ancillary benefits and costs of green-house gas mitigation: an overview. Presented at Workshop on AncillaryBenefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigations Strategies, Washington, DC.

Ezzati, Majid, Lopez, Alan D., Rodgers, Anthony, Murray, Christopher J.L. (Eds.),2004. World Health Organization, Geneva.

Foell, Wesley, Pachauri, Shonali, Spreng, Daniel, Zerriffi, Hisham, 2008. CleanCooking Fuels & Technologies. Report from the Energy & Poverty Workshopheld at the 31st International IAEE Conference in Istanbul. IAEE Forum.November.

Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC), 2010. /http://cleancookstoves.org/overview/S.

Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, 2011. /http://cleancookstoves.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Early-Action-Item-Compilation-FINAL.pdfS.

Hutton, Guy, Rehfuess, Eva, Tediosi, Fabrizio, Weiss, Svenja, 2006. Evaluation ofthe Costs and Benefits of Household Energy and Health Interventions at Globaland Regional Levels. World Health Organization.

IEA, International Energy Agency, 2010. World Energy Outlook 2010, Paris.Jannuzzi, Gilberto M., Sanga, Godfrey Alois, 2004. LPG subsidies in Brazil: an

estimate. Energy for Sustainable Development VIII (3), 127–129.Lucon, O., Coelho, S., Goldemberg, J., 2004. LPG in Brazil: lessons and challenges. Energy

for Sustainable Development 8 (3), 82–90. doi:10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60470-6/http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0973082608604706S.

McGranahan, G., 1991. Fuelwood, subsistence foraging, and the decline of commonproperty. World Development 19 (no. 10), 1275–1287. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(91)90073-Q /http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0305750x9190073QS.

Modi, Vijay, McDade, Susan, Lallement, Dominque, Saghir, Jamal, 2006. EnergyServices for the Millennium Development Goals. Energy Sector ManagementAssistance Programme, United Nations Development Programme, UN Millen-nium Project, and World Bank, New York.

Mwampamba, T.H., 2007. Has the woodfuel crisis returned? Urban charcoalconsumption in Tanzania and its implications to present and future forestavailability. Energy Policy 35, 4221–4234.

OECD, 2000. Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. In:Proceedings of an IPCC co-sponsored workshop held on 27–29 March 2000,in Washington DC, 583. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD).

Ramana, M.V., Ramanathan, V., Feng, Y., Yoon, S.-C., Kim, S.-W., Carmichael, G.R.,Schauer, J.J., 2010. Warming influenced by the ratio of black carbon to sulphateand the black-carbon source. Nature Geoscience 3 (8), 542–545. doi:10.1038/ngeo918 /http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo918S.

Ramanathan, V., Carmichael, G., 2008. Global and regional climate changes due toblack carbon. Nature Geoscience 1 (4), 221–227. doi:10.1038/ngeo156/http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo156S.

Riahi, K., Dentener, F., Gielen, D., Grubler, A., Jewell, J., Klimont, Z., Krey, V.,McCollum, D., Pachauri, S., Rao, S., van Ruijven, B., van Vuuren, D.P., Wilson, C.,2011. Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development. In: Proceedings of theGlobal Energy Assessment: Toward a More Sustainable Future. IIASA, Laxen-burg, Austria and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.

Smith, Kirk R., 2002. In praise of petroleum? Science (New York, NY) 298 (5600),1847. doi:10.1126/science.298.5600.1847 /http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5600/1847.shortS.

Smith, Kirk R., Haigler, Evan, 2008. Co-benefits of climate mitigation andhealth protection in energy systems: scoping methods. Annual Review of

Public Health 29, 11–25. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090759/http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090759S.

Smith, Kirk R., Mehta, Sumi, Mauesezahl-Fuez, Mirjam, 2004. Indoor air pollutionfrom household use of solid fuels. In: id Ezzati, M., Lopez, Alan D., Rodgers,Anthony, stopher, C., Murray, J.L. (Eds.), Comparative Quantification of HealthRisks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected MajorRisk Factor, vol. 1. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp. 1435–1494.

UNDP, 2011. Indices & Data 9 Human Development Index9Human DevelopmentReports (HDR)9United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). /http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/S.

UNDP and WHO, 2009. The energy access situation in developing countries. UnitedNations Development Programme, New York.

UNEP, 2011. Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone:Summary for Decision Makers. United Nations Environment Programme andWorld Meteorological Organization. /http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/BlackCarbon_SDM.pdfS.

United Nations General Assembly, 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration./http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htmS.

WHO, World Health Organization, 2006. Fuel for Life: Household Energy andHealth. Geneva.

WHO, World Health Organization, 2009. Global Health Risks: Mortality andBurden of disease Attributable to Selected Major Risks. Geneva, September 1.

WHO, World Health Organization, 2011, Global Burden of Disease Study. /http://www.globalburden.org/S.

Wickramasinghe, A., 2006. Gender and Energy in Asia. 4U Offset Printers, SriLanka.

World Bank, 2011. Household Cookstoves, Environment, Health, and ClimateChange: A New Look at an Old Problem. The World Bank, Washington DC.

World Bank and IFC, 2011a. Healthy Partnerships: How Governments Can Engage thePrivate Sector to Improve Health Care in Africa. World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank and IFC, 2011b. Health Policy Toolkits. /https://www.wbginvestmentclimate.org/toolkits/public-policy-toolkit/S.

References to Papers in the Special Issue

Budya, H., Arofat, M.Y., 2011. Providing cleaner energy access in Indonesia throughthe mega project of kerosene conversion to LPG. Energy Policy.

Foell, W.K., Pachauri, S., Spreng, D., Zerriffi, H., 2011. Clean cooking fuels andtechnologies in developing economies. Energy Policy.

Grieshop, A.P., Marshall, J.D., Kandlikar, M., 2011, Health and climate benefits ofcookstove replacement options. Energy Policy.

Kowsari, R., Zerriffi, H., 2011. Three-dimensional energy profile: a conceptualframework for assessing household energy use. Energy Policy.

Kees, M., Feldman, L., 2011. The role of donor organizations in promoting energy-efficient cook stoves. Energy Policy.

Malla, M.B., Bruce, N., Bates, L., Rehfuess, E., 2011. Applying global cost-benefitanalysis methods to indoor smoke mitigation in Nepal, Kenya, and Sudan:insights and challenges. Energy Policy.

Pachauri, S., Spreng, D., 2011. Measuring and monitoring energy poverty. EnergyPolicy.

Parikh, J., 2011. Hardship and health impacts on women due to traditional cookingfuels: a case study of Himachal Pradesh, India. Energy Policy.

Ruiz-Mercado, I., Masera O., Zamora-Maldonado, H., Smith, K.R., 2011. Adoptionand sustained use of improved cookstoves. Energy Policy.

Shrimali, G., Slaski, X., Thurber, M., Zerriffi, H., 2011. Improved cookstoves in India:a study of sustainable business models. Energy Policy.

Troncosco, K.S., Castillo, A., Merino, L., Lazos, E., Masera, O.R., 2011, Challenges andcontroversies in an improved cook stove program in rural Mexico. EnergyPolicy.

Wickramasinghe, A., 2011. Energy access and transition to cleaner cooking fuelsand technologies in Sri Lanka: issues and policy imitations. Energy Policy.