4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
EXPANDING ACCESS TO CLEAN COOKING IN INDIA
A Roadmap for Leveraging Private Sector Experience in Cleaner
Biomass Cookstoves
Jessica Seddon
Amber Luong1
This work was supported by the Asia Sustainable Energy and
Alternative Energy (ASTAE) Program of the World Bank and is
part of a South Asia regional study on Reducing Short-lived
Climate Pollutants (P146366). Please contact Chandra Shekhar
Sinha (csinha@worldbank.org) for any queries.
1 Corresponding
Author. Contact: aluong@okapia.co
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
1
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
This document builds on a comprehensive primary research review of private sector
activity in producing, marketing, distributing, and servicing improved biomass
cookstoves in India. The research review was supported by the Asia Sustainable Energy
and Alternative Energy (ASTAE) Program of the World Bank. It provides an empirical
basis for a possible approach to leverage private sector experience and expertise to
improve access to clean cooking in India.
Our review found that the private sector actors involved in improved biomass
cookstoves are mostly focusing on what
Box 1
many
would
term
transitional
Biomass is likely to remain an important source of energy for
technologies:
relatively
low-cost
household cooking and other uses. As of 2011, over 65% of all
improved cookstoves (ICS) that do
households, and nearly 80% of rural households, used biomass
reduce
emissions
and
increase
for cooking and heating, generally in traditional low-efficiency,
high emissions stoves. The 2015 CEEW – ACCESS survey on
efficiency relative to traditional chulhas
access to clean cooking technologies and fuel noted the
(stoves) but do not provide health
continued absence of modern cooking fuels across six of
benefits comparable to liquefied
India’s most energy-deprived states - around 78% of rural
petroleum gas (LPG), induction cooking,
households in the surveyed states rely only on traditional
or the most advanced biomass stoves
biomass fuel (wood or dung) for cooking. Households are
making at least partial transitions to LPG and induction cooking
available. The small businesses, social
as soon as these options become physically available and
enterprises, and their community
affordable, but even aggressive policy change cannot
partners we spoke with have much
completely provide economic and physical access to cleaner
valuable experience to offer to the
fuels overnight. A recent CSTEP report, for example, estimates
larger initiative to scale up access to
that traditional biomass would continue to supply 8% of rural
households’ cooking needs in 2030 even after a wide range of
clean cooking, but they will need wellpolicy changes made other options available. Under “policy as
targeted financial and non-financial
usual,” this share would be 48%, along with 10% of urban
support to move toward deploying this
households.
expertise to expand access to
technologies capable of delivering
deeper health, climate, and development impacts.
The entrepreneurs involved in improved biomass cookstoves have an important role to
play. The quest for clean cooking must look at measures that “make the clean available,”
but cannot ignore technologies that “make the available clean.”2 Given the likely length
of the transition to LPG, induction cooking, biogas, or solar energy (Box 1) it is important
to support initiatives that ensure that solid biomass fuels are used in the safest, lowestemission, highest efficiency manner possible. This roadmap focuses in particular on how
public funds could be used to increase the proportion of “Advanced Cookstoves” (ACS)
2 The
phrase refers to the policy choices discussed in Smith, KR., and Sagar, A. (2014). Making the
clean available: Escaping India’s Chulha Trap. Energy Policy 75: 410-414. [Retrieved from:
http://ehsdiv.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/2014/Making_the_Clean_Available.pdf ]
[Accessed 28 October 2015]
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
2
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
that meet the IWA-ISO Tier 3 or better for indoor emissions and efficiency in the
market.3
Entrepreneurship and market-based models play an important part in efforts to increase
access to cleaner cooking. They have historically been a source of innovation in
technology, particularly in incorporating the user-friendly aspects of stove features
beyond pure combustion efficiency. They have developed and refined efficient models
for distribution, logistics, and consumer financing. They are a source of valuable lessons
about bridging the gap between ability to pay and cost of supply.
This report presents a roadmap for leveraging existing private sector activity in India to
accelerate access to clean energy, while at the same time being realistic about the limits
of the market and keeping our eyes on the overall goal of promoting clean cooking
rather than clean cookstoves as an end. We believe that it is important to look several
stages ahead to where the sector needs to be in order to spur leaps in innovation,
building on the deep experience and expertise that the entrepreneurs with whom we
spoke have to offer.
We follow the definition of ACS vs ICS from ESMAP and GACC (2015). The state of the global clean
and improved cooking sector. [Online] Available from:
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf
3
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
3
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
ROADMAP PREVIEW
1. Initiate a technology- and brand-neutral national campaign to (a) increase awareness
of, and sensitivities to, the dangers of indoor air pollution from traditional cooking
practices; and (b) educate people about available cleaner fuels and cooking options.
Next Steps: Identify credible anchor institution for the campaign and develop a
outreach strategy to raise awareness and guide action as options become
available.
2. Establish a goal-oriented, mission-focused clean cooking incubator focused on
bringing together user insights, combustion engineering and related technology design
expertise, operations expertise, and other resources to accelerate development of lowemission/ high efficiency (e.g. Tier 4) biomass stoves. The incubator should be designed
for adaptive innovation, e.g. - have a light institutional footprint, low fixed cost, and a
wide set of partners to work with.
Next steps: Develop incubator blueprint, based on best practices for specialised
incubators focused on early-stage innovation: including leveraging networks for
expertise, focusing on mission/goals while being open about technology
pathways, and building in governance mechanisms for evaluating risky yet
promising investments.
3. Document regional variation in the commercial and non-commercial value chain for
biomass in India in order to a) identify areas that may be viable for developing
businesses to supply biomass-based pelletized solid fuels for households; b) develop
informed strategies to support these fuel supply businesses and limit risks to vulnerable
populations due to competing uses of biomass.
Next steps: Undertake two-stage techno-economic assessment of available
technologies for pelletizing biomass, followed by feasibility assessment of
business models built around these technologies in socio-economicinfrastructural ecosystems analogous to rural India.
4. Targeted, performance- and usage-linked, focused incentives for manufacturers,
distributors, end-users and others in the value chain. These should specifically support
entities that work directly with both end-users and designers/manufacturers of clean
cooking solutions.
Next steps: Review best practices and experience in incentive design to identify
models for use in the Indian context. Pilot the proposed incentives with public
sector, philanthropic, and impact investing partners; document; and scale the
most promising.
5. Strengthen the testing ecosystem to support innovation as well as separation
between ICS/ACS.
Next steps: Support expansion of MNRE testing facilities and staff to lower the
financial and time costs for official certification; develop a credible, neutral
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
4
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
“Consumer Report” facility focused to aggregate user reviews; and increase
access to rapid, low-cost, feedback during the design phase.
BACKGROUND
Status Quo
Most of the stoves on the market in India are “intermediate” improved cookstoves but
not “advanced” cookstoves.4 Though there are some innovative and very low emission
stoves under development and a number of enterprises are seeking to increase sales of
forced draft cookstoves to household customers, sales figures from our interviews
confirmed the majority of improved cookstoves being sold in India are natural draft
stoves.5 Performance data available for stoves tested by the Ministry of New and
Renewable Energy (MNRE) labs show that among domestic size natural draft stove
models, all 20 met IWA ISO Tier 2 performance for thermal efficiency.6 Two models
achieved IWA ISO Tier 3 performance for total emissions, while the remaining 18
achieved IWA ISO Tier 2 performance for total emissions. Data on performance relative
to indoor emissions Tiers were not readily available. Among the larger companies,
Greenway Grameen’s main product, the Smart stove, is an intermediate ICS (IWA ISO
Tier 2 for total emissions and thermal efficiency).7 Envirofit India’s household stove
models,8 the G-3300, M-5000, B-1200, and PCS-1 stoves are all Tier 1-2 for total
emissions, according to the product specifications provided on the Envirofit website and
field testing reported in Muraleedharan et al (2015).9
Shifting private sector activity toward a higher proportion of cleaner ACS will require
substantial “social” investment – funding support that does not seek a traditional
financial return and is structured to help develop the market ecosystem for ensuring
that innovations reach the poorest. Many of the enterprises interviewed still struggle to
develop entirely profitable (e.g. no concessional funding or grants) stand-alone
businesses when they are focusing on relatively low-cost ICS.
4 Again,
we follow the terminology used in GACC-ESMAP (2015).
natural draft stoves are considered “Advanced Cookstoves” (ACS) and can reduce particulate
matter emissions and increase efficiency enough to meet the IWA ISO Tier 3 criteria for indoor
emissions and Tier 3-4 for efficiency in the lab, but their performance tends to be more variable in
the field.
6 Source: http://mnre.gov.in/file-manager/UserFiles/improvedbiomass_cookstoves_manu.htm (as of
October 31, 2015).
7 Ashden Case Study/Greenway Grameen. Avaialable online at
https://www.ashden.org/files/case_studies/GREENWAY%20GRAMEEN%20case%20study.pdf
8 As reported on the Envirofit India website: https://www.envirofit.org/india1/?sub=india_products
as on November 1, 2015.
9 Muraleedharan, V., et al (2015). “Field testing of alternative cookstove performance in a rural
setting of western India, “ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12:2
2015 Feb pg 1773-87
5 Some
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
5
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
The challenges of building market-based models around more expensive ACS are likely
to be significant. There are some indications that ACS with LPG-like performance may
actually be an easier business to develop among populations with the capacity to pay
since customers see a jump in value rather than a marginal improvement on a chulha
(traditional biomass stove). The economics of ensuring accessibility to low income
customers, however, remain challenging.
Building a market-based system for disseminating ACS will require strengthening the
entire value chain to bring down the costs of manufacturing and distribution, as well as
interventions to increase awareness and lower the marketing costs for improved
biomass stoves. Social investments – grants, concessional finance, and other nonmarket support - will still be required to ensure that the ACS are available for even the
poorest households. Enabling clean cooking is an important public health intervention,
and must be supported as such. This support, however, must be implemented in a
manner that maintains strong incentives for performance: for developing and widely
disseminating clean cooking options that lower emissions, improve efficiency, and meet
user preferences for safety, convenience, quality of cooking, and other needs.
Some findings from our recent review of private sector activity in improved biomass
cookstoves and related industries in India:


Low and variable volumes in cookstove sales affect the entire value chain,
beyond simply affecting economies of scale in manufacturing.
o Entrepreneurs expect cost of manufacturing will decrease with volume,
as is typical for small manufactured goods.
o Quality control, a challenge that has affected customer perceptions of
stoves, may also improve with volume, as companies are able to either
manufacture in-house or build stronger relationships with fabricators.
Entrepreneurs reported that low and/or variable volumes make finding
reliable manufacturing and distribution partners challenging, and doing in
house requires financial resources many do not have access to.
o Distributor-dealer networks typically sell stoves as one of several
activities, given the low volumes and high costs of customer conversion,
often demanding higher margins to carry these products.
There appears to be sufficient capacity to augment supply reasonably quickly if
demand were apparent.
o Most cookstove companies reported substantial idle capacity (either inhouse or through their manufacturing partners) that could be brought on
line quickly with limited financial investment or specialised skills.
o Manufacturing expertise for producing high quality stoves and rural
distribution networks (government and private sector) to route products
to end consumers do exist in India, within and outside the stove sector in
industries that are themselves growing (e.g. auto parts supply and ecommerce logistics).
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
6
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.




Distribution channels, as entities that regularly interact with both stove
designers/manufacturers and end users, are critical links for two-way
communication about product design, benefits for users, and performance of
cleaner stoves in the field.
o Strengthening these intermediaries will require additional resources:
some of the steps currently taken to economise on distribution (such as
working with last mile “entrepreneurs” on variable pay, for example,
rather than fixed salary) also make it challenging to invest in extensive
marketing, after-sales service, or market intelligence for design.
Awareness of the health impacts associated with traditional fuels and stoves and
the benefits of ICS/ACS and processed biomass fuels is a critical bottleneck for
demand.
o Other studies have indicated that sales volumes are still low relative to
the market potential, defined in terms of households with capacity to pay
for ICS but still using traditional stoves. The entrepreneurs we surveyed
felt that this was due to a combination of low levels of awareness about
the health impacts and challenge of designing an affordable yet
aspirational product for target users.
o Few enterprises have the resources to do intensive marketing in rural and
remote areas given the high conversion costs, so there are many
geographies in India that likely have no market-driven exposure at all to
cleaner cooking options
Product design is a critical bottleneck for supply.
o Enterprises face a tough product design challenge to combine technical
design for emissions performance while meeting user requirements and
preferences.
o Though some enterprises have leveraged universities both domestically
and abroad for technical R&D, many do at least part R&D in house, often
spending significant resources to do so, even as they wish they could
have spent more.
o Most enterprises lack equipment to do their own in-house testing during
the design cycle, which leads to reliance on the few testing centres in the
country for feedback on performance. The process can be expensive and
time-consuming for enterprises, also limiting their ability to do rapid
redesign.
History matters: Entrepreneurs reported that past initiatives providing free or
subsidised stoves, or else distributing improved cookstoves with a limited
functional lifetime, have affected consumer expectations and willingness to pay.
o The challenge of maintaining willingness to pay in the presence of
perceived alternatives is important to consider for the roadmap as
various forms of incentives and social investments are considered.
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
7
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.


Sources of finance are still lacking; small grants and prizes are helpful, but early
stage companies need low-cost debt, while more established companies are
looking for equity investors.
o Entrepreneurs felt that part of the problem was that many banks and
investors still lack familiarity with the sector.
o Interviews with investors suggested that it was not clear that investors
would find the sector attractive given limited observable demand from
the identified potential market.
o Commercial semi-durable companies offering other products such as
water filters to low-income households viewed the market as unviable
given peoples’ movement to non-biomass alternatives as soon as they
can afford it – there is no middle class market for ICS/ACS.
Consumer finance is also desirable for enabling new customer bases, but it is not
widely available. The consumer finance industry for product purchase is growing,
but companies interviewed cited concerns similar to those conveyed by
distributors about the need for improvements in stove quality, user training, and
after sales service.
Harnessing Market Forces: A Framework
This roadmap includes three categories of interventions to harness market forces for
accelerating access to the cleanest biomass cookstoves: push, pull, and separate.
Push interventions support the supply side of the biomass cookstove industry, creating
room for design, experimentation, and supporting the costs of thoroughly exploring
uncharted new markets with thin margins. There is a gap between the costs of supplying
ACS and the household capacity to pay, particularly when the full range of set-up costs
including learning to serve a complex market are included.
Pull interventions support the demand side. Many challenges faced all through the
value chain, from manufacturing to distribution, would be mitigated if the effective
market were larger and volumes were steadier. Manufacturers could benefit from
economies of scale, and distributors could see a decrease in their costs of customer
conversion. Furthermore, interventions that encourage more of the observed need for
cleaner cooking solutions to translate into willingness to seek out and pay for these
solutions could open new avenues like e-commerce for distribution, greater access to a
wider range of enterprise from risk capital to working capital, and more options for
consumer financing.
We suggest an awareness campaign focused on highlighting health risks and educating
consumers about cost-effective options in the discussion below. This campaign would
ideally increase the level of demand for new options. Advance market commitments, or
guarantees to purchase specified quantities of stoves that meet certain performance
criteria, could also help pull investments and innovation into stove manufacturing, but
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
8
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
these are risky this point because it may not be possible to identify performance criteria
that would represent diverse user preferences and fully and specifically describe a stove
that households would use. We thus suggest starting with a campaign to awaken
consumer demand for cleaner cooking, assuming that prospective stove users know the
most about their other criteria for an acceptable option for their kitchens.
Separate interventions set up structures that reward performance on key impact
parameters of emissions, efficiency, and safety in a technology-neutral way that also
incorporates user-preferences. These include performance-based funding, widely
accessible and low-cost ratings schemes designed to help end-user as well as
donor/funder choice, and institutions that allow ongoing monitoring of field
performance beyond passing lab tests.
ROADMAP ACTIONS
1. PULL: Launch a two-stage national campaign to increase awareness about a) the
health effects of indoor air pollution, and b) available clean cooking solutions.
A commercial-quality awareness campaign could help create more awareness about the
importance of smoke-free kitchens, the impacts of indoor air pollution, and benefits of
clean cooking fuels and technologies. The first part of the campaign would focus on
heightening awareness dangers of indoor air pollution; the second would educate
people about a range of cleaner cooking solutions including advanced biomass
cookstoves.
We suggest that the campaign be rolled out in two stages in order to focus first on the
performance required, and next on various technology options that are available and
will ideally improve over time. Such a campaign would create a performance-focused
“pull” for cleaner cooking options: if users seek cleaner air along with convenience,
value for money, and other attributes, this heightened demand serves as an incentive
for would-be clean cooking entrepreneurs.
Key features of the campaign should include:
 Multi-pronged outreach including mass media, social media, as well as
community-level efforts that highlight dangers without assigning blame. The
recent “Give it Up” campaign to urge higher income households to give up their
LPG subsidies is an example to learn from.
 Commercial-quality design, in regional languages and tailored to regional
variation.
 Pragmatic discussion of a range of available options for reducing indoor air
pollution, from ventilation to improved and advanced biomass stoves to LPG and
biomass. The discussions of solutions must be clear about the relative benefits,
but also remain sensitive to cost and include education about best options
available at different price points.
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
9
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.

Implementation through partners with clear public credibility and no perceived
conflict of interest.
The campaign should not be carried out in isolation from investments to strengthen
supply, incentivize clean technologies, and otherwise extend access to clean cooking for
all households. It should also be subtle enough to avoid creating social stigma around
cooking choices that may be highly constrained by poverty. Lessons from the WASH
(Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) sector may be particularly relevant for designing a clean
cooking campaign, since in both cases behaviour that affects the individual and
surrounding community may be based on choices that can change with knowledge and
social pressure, but it may also reflect coping with infrastructure gaps beyond the
individual’s control.
With these caveats in mind, it may also be worthwhile to explore group marketing/
motivational campaigns to achieve “cleaner kitchen and smoke-free villages,” given the
benefits from improving overall outdoor air quality in more densely populated areas.
These could include, for example, setting up community-level prizes or other rewards
for achieving a certain adoption rate of ACS; integrating community-level targets for
cleaner cooking into the “Rurban” mission, or other initiatives.
One structure to consider for the campaign could be: a national government agency
such as the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy or the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas as an anchor convening institution for a high-level group with relevant
experts and stakeholders overseeing a special purpose fund that could receive both
public funding as well as contributions from Corporate Social Responsibility and
philanthropy.
Why?
There is a range of national and international evidence that awareness of health risks
remains low and that this knowledge gap affects cookstove purchase and usage. The
2015 CEEW-ACCESS report revealed poor awareness about the adverse health impacts
of using a traditional chulha; almost 45% of the non-LPG households interviewed were
not aware of the positive health benefits from using LPG over traditional stoves and
fuel.10 The survey also pointed to a gap in awareness about ways to avail of an LPG
connection. Rehfuess et al (2014) reviews international evidence to find that knowledge
of health benefits was an important factor for adoption.11
Jain et al (2015). There is also inter-state variation in the awareness levels, ranging from 28% of
households in West Bengal without an LPG connection being unaware of the benefits of LPG over
traditional fuels to 59% in Bihar.
11 Rehfuess EA, Puzzolo E, Stanistreet D, Pope D, Bruce NG. 2014. Enablers and barriers to large-scale
uptake of improved solid fuel stoves: a systematic review. Environmental Health Perspectives
122:120–130; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1306639
10
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
10
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
The entrepreneurs we interviewed unanimously felt that greater awareness around
clean cooking and health benefits were a necessary prerequisite for increasing uptake,
but at the same time did not see economic returns for themselves in undertaking this
education. Entrepreneurs we spoke with tended to emphasise “user interface” features
of the devices, such as reduced cooking time, portability, or a modern look rather than
the health or climate benefits. They found that in most cases the health benefits were
simply not a selling point for the stoves, often because health risks from the traditional
chulha were not seen as significant enough to justify purchase. Some customers take
note of fuel savings after adoption, but this feature is often not the primary reason for
purchase. Similarly, smoke reduction was recognised as a benefit by some, but more for
the fact that it reduced blackening on vessels and walls than for the health benefits per
se.
Most of the entrepreneurs involved in clean cooking suggested that messaging and
media focused on making clean cooking products aspirational consumer goods would be
more effective than public health service-type messaging designed to generate fear.
This is broadly consistent with results from behaviour change campaigns in other public
health areas.
Entrepreneurs felt that the effort should be driven by a large and credible third party,
such as a National Ministry (e.g. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Ministry of
Health, Ministry of Women and Child Welfare, NITI Aayog). This perception was based in
part on the view that these agencies had both the funding and a mandate to carry out
these campaigns, but also the assumption that these entities’ support would help
messages about clean cooking carry greater weight. Funding could come from the GACC,
World Bank, GIZ, or private entity such as a philanthropic foundation or corporation, in
coordination with the Indian government. We emphasise the nature of such an external
(outside-the-industry) catalyst due to the scale of awareness activities required, the cost
of methods for doing so, and the importance of bringing an ongoing, consistent,
technology and brand-neutral message that can bolster consumer awareness and
demand for high-performance cooking options. This approach creates pull, yet also
ensures that this force operates to encourage innovative solutions yet to come.
Entrepreneurs felt that the range of approaches would be necessary to reach a diverse
target population - mass media and social media are most effective for striking the
aspirational note often required for rural and urban communities alike, while messaging
from the government carries significant weight among many rural communities.
Promotion of individual solutions will remain the domain and strength of the enterprises
themselves. By decoupling the two messages - the need for a clean cooking solution in
general and the merits of a given device to meet that need - each becomes more
impactful rather having the collective message appear as only a sales strategy.
Past experience with cookstove dissemination programmes suggests that “pull” is an
important factor in achieving scale of use for non-commercial as well as commercial
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
11
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
efforts. State-level awareness campaigns made a difference in the National Programme
on Improved Cookstoves (NPIC), for example. No effective awareness campaigns were
launched as a part of the programme, except in Andhra Pradesh, where the state used
audio-visual materials to significantly improve cookstoves uptake in the state. 12
Recognising the importance of improving awareness levels, MNRE has earmarked funds
under Unnat Chulha Abhiyan (UCA) to support awareness and marketing campaigns to
create an environment that is conducive for uptake of cookstove.13 The Shell Foundation
launched the ‘Room to Breathe’ (RtB) programme in 2008, focused on social marketing
activities to raise awareness regarding the benefits of improved biomass cookstoves.14
The increase in demand reportedly outstripped supply.
Next Steps


Identify credible anchor institution, key partners, and governance and funding
mechanisms for the campaign.
Map opportunities for bundling outreach and implementation with existing
national and state government programs and interactions with households using
traditional fuels.
2. PUSH: Establish a specialised clean cooking technology incubator to help accelerate
ideas through design, development, introduction and scale up stages.
A mission-focused well-networked incubator tailored to needs of clean cooking
enterprises could help bring together critical, expensive expertise and facilities to
accelerate development of low-emission/high efficiency (e.g. Tier 4) biomass stove
options. The incubator should be designed to have a light, agile, institutional footprint
and low fixed cost in order to facilitate experimentation, learning, and rapid adaptation
to support promising technologies.
Clean cooking entrepreneurs seeking to develop and market technologies that meet the
more stringent emissions and efficiency requirements necessary to be considered
“advanced” currently face a three-part challenge: (i) solving a tough combustion
engineering problem of converting minimally processed fuel into thermal energy
efficiently; (ii) meeting the stringent user requirements of cooks producing a variety of
foods; and (iii) developing extremely lean ways to manufacture and distribute the
12 GIZ
(2013) Ingredients for sustainable cookstove interventions. Lessons learned from the NPIC.
Available from: https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/RESOURCE/file/000/000/320-1.pdf
[Accessed 12 November 2015]
13 National Biomass Cookstoves Programme, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of
India. Available from: http://mnre.gov.in/schemes/decentralized-systems/national-biomasscookstoves-initiative/ [Accessed 12 November 2015]
14 Shell Foundation (2013) Social marketing in India. Lessons learned from efforts to foster demand
for cleaner cookstoves. [Online] Available from:
https://www.shellfoundation.org/ShellFoundation.org_new/media/Shell-FoundationReports/shell_founation_social_marketing_in_india.pdf [Accessed 12 November 2015]
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
12
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
products at prices that low-income households currently using traditional biomass
stoves can pay or come close to paying.15
The incubator could be a platform for convening and provide access to a range of
expertise and market linkages to help entrepreneurs meet this challenge, including:
 Connections to specialised engineering talent,
 Frugal product design expertise, particularly in cost-effective ways to understand
needs and aspirations of rural, remote, and/or low-income customers,
 Operations experience required for developing and manufacturing advanced
cookstoves with the potential to scale.
 Distribution expertise for quickly identifying and creating channels for
dissemination of clean cooking products.
Such an incubator should draw on the experience and lessons from similar sectorfocused “high tech” incubators in medical devices, agriculture, and other fields where
deep knowledge of undocumented social practices must come together with challenging
technology development as well as innovative manufacturing and business models. It
could also serve as a model for responding to a larger global problem in cookstove
product development and design: the challenges of executing “hybrid adaptive design”
models that combine the best of technology expertise with the social insights to deliver
strong user performance and the business acumen to grow in particular business
environments.16
In order to best support break-through innovation, the incubator should be structured
to support very early stage ideas about clean cooking technologies as well as
components that could become part of new solutions. There is a range of established
approaches for supporting idea-stage companies, including gradated funding for
experiments, close mentorship, and clear performance-based milestones for funding.
Inducement prize contests, in which particular performance targets are set out and any
entity that meets the goal wins a prize for doing so, could also be used as a way to
source innovative ideas.
Given this focus, it is also important that the incubator function as an open platform and
maintain a strong and diverse network of experts across the country in order to have
rapid, clear access to the specialised talent.
Why?
Many of the stakeholders interviewed noted the need for more investment in research
and design for improving cookstove performance faster. Stakeholders’ concerns varied:
15 There
is an argument for third-party support, including public subsidies, for stoves given their
health and equity implications. However, the scale of the need does call for opportunities for saving
to be explored.
16 ESMAP and GACC (2015)
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
13
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
some of the distributors, microfinance organisations and others we spoke with
described significant gaps in stove quality and robustness. Others were concerned about
variable stove performance in terms of efficiency and emissions, especially when
comparing field vs. lab performance, and many of those interviewed identified a general
failure to meet user needs and preferences. Several of the distribution channels and
consumer product finance entities spoke about the challenges of finding a stove that
met their customers’ needs – they saw the inadequate supply, rather than lack of
demand, as the key challenge in building a market.
On the supply side, manufacturers noted the challenges of finding financial and human
resources for investing in R&D, undertaking both the technology research and user
studies required for thorough product design, and taking the time to develop
manufacturing approaches to limit production costs. Most did invest in both field and
technical research, but all felt that they could use additional resources, bandwidth
and/or expertise.
Stove design involves many iterations, and the cost of each iteration can be substantial
for enterprises requiring tools and dies for their design. Recouping these investments on
a low margin, low volume product is a challenge many entrepreneurs said they still face.
Many also cited the need for better access to testing equipment to do more -rapid
prototyping; often enterprises sending their stoves to one of the three MNRE testing
centres are having them tested for the first time, and some reported spending
significant amounts in fees and time for multiple submissions. Beyond standard
emissions testing, there is also potential for more rigorous testing for a broad range of
user preference parameters such as durability, ergonomics, and safety, which are critical
for sustained adoption.17
In an ideal world, all entrepreneurs would have a combination of solid technical R&D
skills and infrastructure, detailed user insights, along with strong design thinking to
reconcile the first two when they otherwise seem to conflict.18 All of the skills required
to develop advanced cookstoves exist in India today but are often not directed toward
the clean cooking challenge. India has a thriving automobile and engine production
industry, excellent product design institutions, globally competitive business schools,
and skilled business strategists who understand value chains from both research and
direct experience.
An incubator structure could convene the financial and non-financial support services
for clean cooking entrepreneurs to build on their existing experience to develop
advanced stoves and viable business models with potential to scale. The incubator
17 The
recently launched AIREC tool suggests several to consider:
http://ashdenindiacollective.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Cooking-Energy-ServiceDecisionSupport-Tool.pdf
18 For instance, enterprises reported grappling with user requests for design changes that could
reduce combustion efficiency by reducing the height, increasing the opening for fuel, etc.
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
14
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
would provide a convening platform for these inputs, as well as a way for clean cooking
companies to have part-time access to talent and equipment that they otherwise could
not afford.
While a complete blueprint for an incubator is beyond the scope of this report, some of
the services that could be evaluated in terms of level of demand, cost of provision, and
(over time) impact on the industry include:







Access to prototyping and testing equipment, including machine tools, thermal
imaging cameras, and other high-capital-cost equipment.
A skills bureau to link entrepreneurs with product design capacity, skilled
engineers, materials scientists, and others with relevant insights, and operations
research expertise from leading national institutions to help entrepreneurs think
through manufacturing strategies.
Mentorship from CXOs with experience building and scaling manufacturing and
“semi-durables” companies.
Funding for experimentation with technology, focused user studies, and other
“hurdles” that may be outside of cookstove companies’ current budgets.
Assistance with credible market research for consumer segmentation and
insights
Building a sector-based network, including contacts at government, finance
(bank) and value chain levels that entrepreneurs can tap into. The network could
additionally encourage peer-learning and collaborations, such as aggregation of
user insights collected in various regions of the country.
Help with creating plans and testing viable business models
Next Steps




Work with stakeholders to identify clear mission statement for the incubator
as well as performance criteria for evaluation over time.
Identify credible anchor institution for the incubator as well as key partners
and experts to be formally involved in the network.
Identify potential funding models based on a) review of existing incubators
operating in India and internationally; and b) scoping of sources of grant,
debt, and equity finance.
Develop incubator operational blueprint based on best practices for
specialised incubators focused on early-stage innovation, including:
o Investment/grant criteria for funding new ideas.
o Resources and services to be offered, and evaluation criteria for
determining their effectiveness over time.
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
15
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
3. PUSH: Document regional variation in the commercial and non-commercial value
chain for biomass in India in order to a) identify areas that may be viable for
developing processed biomass fuel supply businesses for households; b) develop
informed strategies to support these fuel supply businesses and limit risks to
vulnerable populations.
Processing biomass for use in household stoves would be an important step toward
enabling households to use available materials more efficiently and safely. Creation of a
steady and accessible supply of fuel may also help create more demand for highperformance stoves that rely on processed fuel by eliminating one of the perceived risks
associated with these stoves.
It is not clear, however, whether, where, and at what scale fuel supply for households
may be a viable business. Briquette manufacturers serving industrial consumers of
biomass tend operate at large scales and distribute their processed fuel over a wide
territory or even internationally; other pilot projects operate on a more local scale from
raw materials supply to customers. It is also important to understand the risks that
greater commercialisation of biomass may pose for vulnerable households that depend
on foraged fuels.
With this in mind, we recommend a comprehensive and regionally differentiated study
of the value chain for biomass in India in order to:
 Compile a comprehensive catalogue of available technologies for pelletization,
including capacity and economics of operation at various scales.
 Survey and catalogue supply chains for various forms of biomass, building on
existing secondary data such as the MNRE-IISc Biomass Atlas.
 Identify potential areas where fuel-stove value combinations for household use
might be viable, based on both supply side factors (biomass availability and
existing uses) as well as demand side (population density, potential market size,
transport infrastructure and logistics costs).
 Identify potential institutional infrastructure (e.g. community, business, and
industry groups) that could be strengthened to support robust biomass supply
chains. In particular, how the initial capital put at risk in setting up pelletization
equipment could be reduced.
 Understand potential social risks involved in marketization of biomass – how will
access to cooking and heating fuel for the poorest be affected?
The resulting roadmap would guide further action to build an enabling and truly
inclusive ecosystem for processed biomass, expose opportunities to entrepreneurs who
may be able to act on the market intelligence about the biomass landscape, and identify
policy priorities for protecting households that currently rely on foraged non-market
biomass.
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
16
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
Why?
Processed biomass is essential for improving cookstove performance to meet public
health and environmental goals as well as improve user satisfaction. Controlled fuel
allows for increased efficiency, lower emissions, and the more “LPG-like” cooking
experience that users desire.19,20 Furthermore, processing biomass has the potential to
generate sustainable rural businesses that provide livelihoods and employment in
addition to a steady supply of fuel for higher-performance stoves.21
The challenge is to develop an ecosystem that produces and distributes processed
biomass reliably enough to be trusted by users, at low enough costs to be affordable for
target households, and with enough competition to avoid new forms of exploitation as
biomass is drawn away from non-market systems that allowed for household foraging.
This ecosystem has not yet emerged on a widespread basis for various reasons. The
supply chain for biomass often originates in wastes that are costly to collect or managed
through informal (non-market) social relationships. These supplies are intermittent in
some areas, leading to higher economic costs of production as cost of raw materials
varies and machines may lie idle. Price discovery can take time when moving from initial
pilots that employ only labour to collect unpriced “surplus” biomass to larger-scale
operations. In the short run, those who control significant sources of biomass may be
able to take advantage of those who have invested in difficult-to-move capital
equipment for processing. Finally, demand for briquettes for industrial use absorbs
much of the biomass that has been aggregated into reliable supply chains and the
economic value of this use may be higher than household willingness to pay. 22 Without
a reliable ecosystem for pellets, consumers are wary of investing in stoves that rely on
processed biomass and exposing themselves to risk that their access to cooking energy
would be disrupted.
19 Clean
Cooking Catalogue, Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. Retrieved from:
http://catalog.cleancookstoves.org/stoves
20 Paul Wilkinson, Kirk R Smith, Michael Davies, Heather Adair, Ben G Armstrong, Mark Barret, Nigel
Bruce, Andy Haines, Ian Hamilton, Tadj Oreszczyn, Ian Ridley, Cathryne Tonne and Zaid Chalabi.
(2009). Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: Household energy.
The Lancet. PP 9-33. [Retrieved from:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cathryn_Tonne/publication/40035427_Public_health_benefits
_of_strategies_to_reduce_greenhousegas_emissions_household_energy/links/0fcfd510b962f7d3a8000000.pdf ]
21 Ashden India and Shakti Foundation. (2014). Clean cooking energy for all: Renewed thinking in five
key areas. Briefing paper series on decentralised renewable energy for sustainable energy access.
[Retrieved from: http://shaktifoundation.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/3FINAL-COOKING.pdf ]
22 The economic value of biomass for industrial use is in principle capped by the price of alternative
fuels. In the short run, industrial willingness to pay may also be capped by the cost of foregone
production, which may be higher than the cost of alternative fuels.
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
17
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
Evidence suggests that it may be possible, however, to develop such an ecosystem in
parts of India. British Petroleum (BP)’s experiment with the Oorja stove illustrated the
potential demand for fuel-stove combinations at certain price points. Their model of
selling a household pellet stove and processed biomass pellets was initially successful:
they sold over 400,000 stoves since 2006. 23 However increasing demand for raw
materials led to a jump in the price for procuring biomass in late 2008. The resulting
pellet price could no longer compete with subsidised LPG, and sales in the household
segment declined significantly.
The economics did not work in this initial foray, but there are signs that the household
market for biomass pellets and pellets stoves remains viable if costs can be contained
through innovative business models or technologies and/or targeted incentive support
aimed at health, gender, environmental or other impact. In spite of efforts to increase
access to LPG for the poor, who now receive the subsidy by direct benefit transfer (DBT),
reliable supply is still a major barrier to widespread adoption. Furthermore, studies have
been done that question the assumption that most homes relying on traditional
biomass get it for free, and therefore would be unreceptive to having to pay for
processed fuel. The recent CEEW survey of 6 states found that only 44% of respondents
in these states use entirely free-of-cost biomass, and those who pay for their biomass
do so at rates that exceed the useful energy-equivalent cost of LPG.24
Although no business has yet reached anywhere near the scale of BP's household
business at its peak, there are several enterprises experimenting with small-scale,
decentralised production and supply of biomass pellets to assure a low-cost and reliable
supply (including First Energy, which developed a micropelletiser with support from
Villgro).25
It is worth learning from these experiences in more detail, since processed biomass has
potential to bridge the gap between traditional biomass cooking and clean fuels like LPG.
Identifying specific interventions to encourage the growth of supply chain of processed
biomass for household use, however, requires further information.
First, we need to understand more about the extent and location of actual “excess”
biomass – and ensure that potential entrepreneurs are aware of these facts. India has
two major sources of biomass: crop residues and waste from wood processing
industries. These two streams have different dynamics of production: crop wastes are
seasonal, and ownership is dispersed. Wood processing industries have concentrated
ownership and more even temporal patterns. Although the resource may be smaller in
23 Thurber
et al (2014). "'Oorja' in India: Assessing a large-scale commercial distribution of advanced
biomass stoves to households", Energy for Sustainable Development. 19 (2014) 138-150.
24 Jain et al (2015). Survey covered Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, and
West Bengal.
25 http://www.villgro.org/first-energy
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
18
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
scale, in northern states of India such as Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh pine
needles and lantana (an invasive plant) are other sources of biomass for fuel processing.
It is unclear how much actual “waste” there is, and where this “waste” is. Within the
paper and plywood industry, the prevalence of plantation forestry suggests that
companies have a strong incentive to monetise all available biomass. It is important to
understand what biomass they consider “waste” and what prevents them from
monetising it.
Crop residue remaining after forage, fodder, and cooking is estimated at 120-150 MT
annually26, but anecdotally, these figures may overlook fuel use by marginal households.
It is important to understand what informal activities might be inadvertently displaced
(thus harming vulnerable communities) by further developments of markets for biomass.
Second, we need to understand the factors that have supported existing supply chains
for processed biomass. While the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) has developed an
atlas of biomass in India using satellite data, the subsequent breakdown of industry vs
household usage is informal and imperfectly documented. Some of this biomass has
been organised into supply chains to feed a growing industrial demand for briquettes
(used in industrial boilers) and increasingly pellets (for industrial furnaces); other
biomass has been aggregated for use in power plants. The major industry types which
use processed biomass as fuel are leather industries, brick kilns, textile industries, food
processing industries, chemical industries and pharmaceutical industries. They replace
coal and in some cases, wood also. Annually, more than 5,000 million units of electricity
is generated using biomass in India and is also providing employment of more than 10
million man-days in rural parts of India.27 Bagasse, rice husk cotton stalk are some of the
prime raw materials used in power generation. MNRE has been exploring various
possibilities to use the surplus biomass including the agro and forest residues along with
the energy plantations for generating 10,000 MW of power in 10 years. 28 There are
about 500 briquette manufacturers in India with at least 200 of them situated in Gujarat
itself. Gujarat also has a briquetting association named All Gujarat Biomass Briquette
Association (AGBBA).29
These same supply chains also feed stoves for commercial use, with biomass processed
into either pellets or briquettes depending on the stove design. Among businesses
Biomass Power and Cogeneration Programme, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy,
Government of India. Available from: http://mnre.gov.in/schemes/grid-connected/biomasspowercogen/ [Accessed 12 November 2015]
27 Biomass Power and Cogeneration Programme, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy,
Government of India. Available from: http://mnre.gov.in/schemes/grid-connected/biomasspowercogen/ [Accessed 12 November 2015]
28 MNRE (2013) Empowering rural India the RE way. [Online] Available from:
http://mnre.gov.in/file-manager/UserFiles/compendium.pdf [Accessed 12 November 2015]
29 Study on Feasibility and Market Identification of Densified Biomass Briquettes. April 2014. Center
for Energy & Environment Nepal
26
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
19
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
focused on commercial users, we identified at least seven supplying stoves designed to
use processed biomass pellets and two businesses built around supply of briquettes and
briquette stoves.
Third, we need to examine regionally detailed scenarios to understand where the
economics of processed biomass for household use are viable. Technology for
processing does not seem to be a constraint in principle – various scales and types of
briquette/pellet presses are available to meet needs of different contexts. 30 However,
we need to match the supply and demand to costs of processing and fuel, given a
constraint of being competitive with LPG costs to households, in order to identify
specific regions where the economics of biomass show a possibility of business viability.
The price of biomass will be driven by industry consumers wherever they exist, so an
understanding of the competing sources for the biomass will be an important driver of
viability.
Next Steps



In-depth comparison of available technologies for pelletisation: capacity, raw
material requirements, cost, economies of scale.
Map market ecosystem, from raw materials supply chains to potentially
addressable market to identify promising areas for pilot enterprises.
Work with stakeholders to establish pilot enterprises and document experiences
to identify appropriate strategies for scale – including replication, franchising,
etc.
4. PUSH, SEPARATE: Investing for Impact: targeted performance- and usage-linked
incentives for manufacturers, distributors, end-users and others in the value chain.
The gap between stove prices and ability to pay for ACS (and fuel supply if these ACS
rely on processed fuel) will remain for a significant segment of the poorest households.
One entrepreneur felt that the benchmark for “affordable,” given full access to
consumer finance, was a stove that paid for itself in terms of cash fuel savings within a
year. This is a challenging benchmark for the poorest. Although 70% of households in
Uttar Pradesh and more than 60% of households in Madhya Pradesh paid for at least
part of their biomass, the CEEW-ACCESS report found that more than 60% of
households in West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Odisha relied on entirely free-of-cost
biomass.
Our analysis of private sector activity highlighted several areas where performancelinked social investments could be used to support small businesses, social enterprises,
30 Sunil
Dhingra (TERI) has compiled a list of various available technologies, for example.
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
20
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
NGOs, Self Help Groups, and others involved in accelerating access to clean cooking and
motivate them to apply their expertise toward ACS. These include:
o Low-cost capital to manufacturers for upgrading facilities, with concessional
repayment terms contingent on producing and selling stoves that meet a certain
performance criteria. This would mimic the impact that carbon finance has had
in enabling wider uptake of stoves produced by Servals and distributed by
Sapient – carbon finance covered the cost of stoves, so the retail price could be
used to support a more extensive distribution, servicing, and customer
interaction model.31
o Tax breaks and exemptions32 for ACS companies in line with other renewable
energy products. This would potentially encourage more innovative
combinations of domestic and imported parts, as well as allow for faster import
of stove models developed elsewhere in the world.
o Support to distribution companies, social enterprises, and partners such as Self
Help Groups and NGOs that interface with both end users and manufacturers in
order to develop these as channels for market intelligence as well as
disseminating innovations. This should include, in particular, measures to
motivate them to work with new products and gather feedback as well as reduce
the risks that they and their customers face in trying new technologies. Some
options could be:
o Support to distribution channels that would allow them to offer a rapid
replacement warranty in case of any flaws or breakdown in the stove.
The existence of a warranty appeared to improve both customer
willingness to purchase as well as the comfort of the financier in
providing consumer finance and risking its reputation. The warrantyexchange could also be used as a mechanism to collect deeper ongoing
customer feedback about the devices – trading information for a new
stove – a development that would be valuable for stove designers.
o Support to distribution channels that enables them to hold a larger inventory of
ACS in locations closer to the end user. Most of the distributors did not get credit
from manufacturers, noting that they also did not expect to get credit from such
small/new companies. This reduced their ability, however, to hold inventory and
to be able to hold it in locations that allowed rapid response to consumer
interest after any awareness training.
o Usage-based micro-payments to end users as a form of direct incentives that
offset the cost of investing in the stove. Technology for remote monitoring of
stove usage is now available from several sources and has been deployed in India
as part of larger research studies to track stove adoption rates. Nexleaf Analytics,
31
https://www.atmosfair.de/documents/10184/30784/Non+technical+summary+English/11206e2ac480-46e9-bda8-43adc203e00f
32 Cookstove entrepreneurs also noted the burden that state-level taxes imposed on their
manufacturing and distribution strategies, similar to general business concerns. Some of these may
be resolved with the implementation of the GST.
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
21
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
in collaboration with TERI and UCSD, is running a pilot program to link
documented usage to micro-payments from an impact fund. The methodology,
which includes initial testing of the stove performance as well as follow-up audits
to ensure continued emissions reduction in field use, has been certified by the
Gold Standard Foundation.
Next Steps



Partner with established distribution channels to run pilots testing the impact of
various forms of support (warranties, rapid fulfilment of orders, and support for
dedicated sales force) on sales of advanced stoves as well as quality of market
intelligence for manufacturers/designers.
Scale up existing use of usage-based micropayments link to larger streams of
finance.
Identify potential sources of low-cost finance for cookstoves businesses,
including leveraging new government programs for small businesses and
entrepreneurs.
5. SEPARATE: Strengthen the testing ecosystem to support innovation as well as
separation between ICS/ACS.
Stove performance testing is useful at various stages of development and for supporting
a range of decisions that influence private sector activity. (Table 1) We recommend
three groups of interventions:
 Lower the cost and time required to achieve official certification by MNRE. This
could be accomplished by increasing the number of testing centres as well as
expanding their staff capacity so that they can test stoves faster and provide
more detailed feedback.
 Invest in a credible, neutral Consumer Report facility to aggregate independent
reviews and user feedback. This body should be carefully structured to be visibly
independent of the clean cooking industry. This structure could include, for
example: core funding adequate for undertaking its own studies, oversight by a
group of experts respected for their impartiality or else comprising a range of
competing perspectives, and an ombudsman and clear process for addressing
actual and perceived conflicts of interest.
 Ensure that the incubator facilities mentioned in Point #2 have adequate
facilities for rapid testing during the design cycle, are open to all entrepreneurs,
and have internal processes to protect intellectual property.
Table 1 presents some of the potential use cases, requirements, and impacts of these
interventions and more – in short a summary of “specs” for innovative ways that
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
22
4 January 2016: Draft for Comment.
interested parties from government to consumer protection groups could improve the
testing
ecosystem
in
India.
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
23
DRAFT - 2015-11-30. NOT FOR CITATION.
Table 1
Development
Stage
R&D
Impact
Financing,
including
public and
private
sources.
Consumer
Confidence
Testing Requirements
Testing Impact
Possible Intervention
Rapid, low cost,
confidentiality around IP,
medium accuracy.
Feedback during design cycle
allows faster iteration and
production of technically sound
product for user testing, also
enables faster integration of user
testing with technical evaluation.
This aspect of testing – the
“certification” – allows the
finance side of the market to
work effectively to support ACS.
The existence of standard and a
way to measure it allows for a
range of results-based contracts
to be written to support
cookstove companies.
(i) Support for the R&D Incubation centres described above.
This kind of testing could be
carried out by a number of public
or private agencies, and would
help inform consumer
differentiation between stoves at
the point of purchase. It could
help overcome some of the
legacy of suspicion of product
quality. Although companies,
most notably Envirofit, do
advertise in-house durability
(i) Support to scale, disseminate, and refine existing initiatives
such as the Ashden India Renewable Energy Collective Cooking
Energy Decision Support Tool. This is currently designed for
funders/distributors rather than a customer choice tool, but
many of the considerations would be the same for consumer
choice.
Timely, accurate, thirdparty verifiable,
technology-neutral, and
carried out by a
sovereign or otherwise
credible agency with a
reputation at stake. The
certification should be
low-cost (time and
money) to allow smaller
companies to access it.
Timely, low-cost, and
transparent
methodology. Also
including usability factors
such as durability, ease of
use, aesthetics, etc.
(ii) Support for manufacturers to purchase testing equipment
for in-house use.
(i) Expansion of the number of GoI/MNRE testing centres as
well as staff capacity to reduce the turn-around time and cost,
as well as provide more detailed feedback to entrepreneurs on
why and how their stoves failed the test. This would address
common concerns entrepreneurs expressed.
(ii) Alignment or translation of testing standards for GoI/MNRE
testing centres with global standards to enable international
funders to compare impacts.
(ii) Creation of a technology platform for aggregating
distributor insight and customer reviews about stove models
available in India, potentially linked to some form of financial
rewards for submission of information in order to encourage
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
24
DRAFT - 2015-11-30. NOT FOR CITATION.
Development
Stage
Field
Performance
Tracking
Testing Requirements
Low-cost, non-invasive,
remotely monitorable. If
used for impact
financing, process must
also be auditable if not
replicable.
Testing Impact
Possible Intervention
testing, the message may be
more credible if it comes from a
third-party source.33
feedback. The process would require some mechanism for
auditing as well, since community of reviewers would likely be
too thin to rely on rating/ reputation of reviewers to limit false
reviews.
The gap between field and lab
performance is well documented
in India and elsewhere,
particularly for stoves that do not
rely on processed (and therefore
somewhat controlled) fuel. This is
an important additional piece of
information for enabling
investors to reward actual
performance, and designers and
manufacturers to address
product deterioration other than
reported by the customer.
(iii) Collaboration between the industry and a credible
consumer standards rating agency such as the Bureau of
Energy Efficiency (BEE) to develop a series of verified customer
star-rating type tools.
(i) Direct research support to help innovators develop, pilot,
and validate low-cost field methods for tracking stove
performance.
(ii) ongoing and continually updated meta-analysis of results
from field studies, similar to ongoing reviews and revision of
clinical practice in health, or teaching methodologies in
education.
33 http://www.envirofit.org/images/news/Lessons_learned.pdf
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
25
DRAFT - 2015-11-30. NOT FOR CITATION.
Conclusion
This roadmap involves a series of ongoing initiatives anchored by ecosystem building
organisations such as governments, donors, multilateral and bilateral development
banks, and global coalitions. It is based on extensive interviews with individual
businesses and other organisations with experience from business-like pilot programs,
as well as review of the secondary literature.
It is a starting point, but also needs an ongoing anchor with links to public, private, and
philanthropic sectors. Each of the interventions listed here could be carried out
independently and effectively by a range of stakeholders.
 The awareness campaign, for example, could be coordinated by one or more
Government of India Ministries or an existing program such as Unnat Chulha
Abhiyan. This group could run contests for regional advertising ideas, television
serials, or movie ideas, subcontract to media companies, and coordinate field
outreach through public health agencies.
 The incubator could be run by universities, corporate houses as a form of CSR, or
foundations with a history of successful investments in innovation. They could be
supported by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, in the same way that
the Department of Science and Technology has supported technology incubators
or the Department of Biotechnology has supported health technology
incubators.
 The incentives and social investments could be undertaken by government,
multi- and bilateral donors and impact investors, private CSR, or set up as
voluntary markets.
 The biomass study could be commissioned by any organisation, though ideally
would work with locally based researchers, build on the existing MNRE - IISc
Biomass Atlas, and set up a template for ongoing updates.
 Testing centres for certification purposes must be undertaken within the
government or by explicit contractual arrangement, but nearly any interested
donor could support the other forms of testing with a range of research
organisations, NGOs, or businesses.
The collection of initiatives, however, would almost certainly lead to more impact if
there were a coordinating body to help broker relationships, document and
disseminate lessons, and identify course corrections as needed. The anchor and
coordinating institution could be run on a relatively limited budget, sourcing
programme-level funding from domestic government, philanthropic, impact investing
sources as well as international funds.
Please send comments to Amber Luong aluong@okapia.co by January 15, 2016
26