Nigerian Clean Cookstoves Market Development
Programme
For Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
PROJECT DOCUMENT
FOR A PROPOSED NIGERIAN CLEAN COOKSTOVES MARKET
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
NIAF Project No; CG0008
P a g e |1
P a g e |2
P a g e |3
ABBREVIATIONS
BC
BLP
CBN
CDM
CKD
CME
CO
CSR
DARE
DFID
DSA
EDF
ERPA
ESMAP
EU
FAO
FOTE
FW
GACC
GDP
GHG
GoN
GS
HAP
HH
IAP
ICEED
ISO
IWA
KfW
LGA
LPG
MCS
MDG
M&E
MFI
MoE
MoF
MWA
NACC
NBS
NCEE
NCEEC
NCEF
NCERD
NCHRD
NCPRD
NCCMDP
NCCS
NESREA
NIAF
Black Carbon
Better Life Programme for Rural African Women
Central Bank of Nigeria
Clean Development Mechanism
Completely knocked down parts
Coordinating/Managing Entity
Carbon monoxide
Corporate Social Responsibility
Development Association for Renewable Energies
Department for International Development
Distribution & Sales Agent
European Development Fund
Emission Reduction Purchase Agreement
Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (World Bank)
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organisation
Friends of the Environment
Firewood
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
Gross Domestic Product
Greenhouse gases
Government of Nigeria
Gold Standards
Household air pollution
Household
Indoor air pollution
International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development
International Standards Organisation
International Workshop Agreement
Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
Local Government Area
Liquid Petroleum gas
Mfamiyen Conservation Society
Millennium Development Goal
Monitoring &Evaluation
Microfinance Institution
Ministry of Environment
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Women Affairs
National Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
Nigerian Bureau of Statistics
National Centre for Energy & Environment
National Centre for Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Nigerian Clean Energy Facility
National Centre for Energy Research and Development
National Centre for Hydropower Research and Development
National Centre for Petroleum Research and Development
Nigerian Clean Cookstoves Market Development Programme
National Clean Cooking Scheme
National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency
Nigerian Infrastructure Advisory Facility
P a g e |4
OM
PC
PCIA
POA
PM
PMU
PR
QC
RBF
RUWES
SC
SERC
SGS
SM
SME
SON
USAID
VAT
Tüv
WACCA
WB
WBT
WHO
Operations Manual
Product Center
Partnership for Clean Indoor Air
Programme of Activities
Particulate matter
Project Management Unit
Public Relations
Quality Control
Results Based Financing
Rural Women Energy Security project
Steering Committee
Sokoto Energy Research Centre
Swiss Certification company, formerly known as Société Générale de Surveillance
Subsidy Mechanism
Small and Medium Scale Entreprise
Standards Organisation of Nigeria
United States Agency for International Development
Value Added Tax
German Certification company, technical inspection company
West African Clean Cooking Alliance
World Bank
Water Boiling Test
World Health Organisation
CURRENCY
1 Euro = 220 Naira
1 USD = 160 Naira
P a g e |5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1 CONTEXT, ISSUES & CHALLENGES
4
6
10
14
1.1 Cooking Energy Issues..................................................................................................................................................... 14
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
Lack of access to modern energy services .......................................................................................................................................... 15
A heavy reliance on woodfuel ............................................................................................................................................................ 16
Cooking with woodfuel is perceived as cheaper................................................................................................................................. 18
Relieving the health impact of energy use ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Gender aspects ................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Impacts on the local and global environment .................................................................................................................................... 26
1.2 Economic importance of the cooking energy sector ...................................................................................................... 29
2 A STOVE MARKET AT ITS EARLY STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7
30
Traditional stove use remains the norm ......................................................................................................................... 30
Fundamental changes occurring at household level ...................................................................................................... 32
A fragmented market and distribution chain ................................................................................................................. 33
Local versus foreign producer capacities ........................................................................................................................ 34
Difficulties encountered ................................................................................................................................................. 35
Lack of clean stove certification ..................................................................................................................................... 36
Problems & Attitudes toward changes ........................................................................................................................... 36
3 INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND SECTORAL PUBLIC POLICIES
39
3.1 Overview of the stakeholders ......................................................................................................................................... 39
3.1.1 Ministries and local governments................................................................................................................................... 39
3.1.2 NGOs ............................................................................................................................................................................... 39
International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development (ICEED) ..................................................................... 39
Developmental Association for Renewable Energies (D.A.R.E) ...................................................................................... 39
Mfamiyen Conservation Society ..................................................................................................................................... 39
Friends of the Environment (FOTE) ................................................................................................................................ 39
Project Gaia Nigeria ........................................................................................................................................................ 40
Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves .......................................................................................................................... 40
3.1.3 Stove suppliers ................................................................................................................................................................ 40
3.1.4 Financing institutions ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
Alitheia Capital ................................................................................................................................................................ 41
Bank of Industry .............................................................................................................................................................. 41
Atmosfair GmbH ............................................................................................................................................................. 41
DevA Access and Empowerment Int'l Limited ................................................................................................................ 41
Informal faith/Social/market based Groups ................................................................................................................... 41
3.1.5 Universities and Laboratories ......................................................................................................................................... 41
3.2 Policy environment ......................................................................................................................................................... 42
4 CURRENT CLEAN COOKSTOVE INTERVENTIONS
43
4.1 Clean Cookstoves Interventions by NGOs and private firms .......................................................................................... 43
4.1.1 National Stove testing centre ......................................................................................................................................... 43
4.1.2 USAID/ICEED’S Energy Efficient Woodstoves Project ..................................................................................................... 43
4.1.3 Developmental Association for Renewable Energies (D.A.R.E) ...................................................................................... 43
4.1.4 Mfamiyen Conservation Society ..................................................................................................................................... 43
4.1.5 SOSAI............................................................................................................................................................................... 43
4.1.6 SMEFUNDs ...................................................................................................................................................................... 43
4.1.7 Toyola Energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 44
4.1.8 Quintas Energies ............................................................................................................................................................. 44
4.1.9 OANDO- Clean Cooking Fuel Initiative ............................................................................................................................ 44
4.1.10 Tower Aluminium ........................................................................................................................................................... 44
P a g e |6
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.4
Clean Cookstoves Interventions by Government ........................................................................................................... 44
Nigerian Clean Cookstoves Alliance ................................................................................................................................ 44
The Renewable Energy Programme of the Federal Ministry of Environment ................................................................ 45
Jigawa State’s Alternative Energy Fund .......................................................................................................................... 45
Lagos state government ................................................................................................................................................. 45
Niger state government .................................................................................................................................................. 45
Current Stove Activities with Carbon Financing ............................................................................................................. 45
Envirofit .......................................................................................................................................................................... 46
C-Quest ........................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Atmosfair ........................................................................................................................................................................ 46
Reflection for future intervention .................................................................................................................................. 47
5 REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.1.5
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
48
Enhance Demand ............................................................................................................................................................ 48
Understanding and motivating the consumer ................................................................................................................ 48
Consumer Finance .......................................................................................................................................................... 48
Innovative Manufacturing and Distribution Methods .................................................................................................... 49
Access to Finance (social investment, working capital, carbon) ..................................................................................... 49
Entrepreneur training and capacity building .................................................................................................................. 49
Foster an Enabling Environment ..................................................................................................................................... 49
Standards and testing ..................................................................................................................................................... 49
Fuels and technology ...................................................................................................................................................... 49
Monitoring and evaluation ............................................................................................................................................. 50
Building the evidence base (research on impacts and benefits) .................................................................................... 50
Champion the sector and engage national stakeholders ............................................................................................... 50
6 MAJOR ISSUES
51
6.1 SWOT Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 51
6.2 Discussion of the Main Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 52
7 PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES
54
7.1 Programme development objective ............................................................................................................................... 54
7.2 Specific objectives........................................................................................................................................................... 54
8 PROGRAMME DESCRIPTION
8.1
8.2
8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4
8.2.5
8.2.6
8.3
55
Concept ........................................................................................................................................................................... 55
Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 55
Component 1: Promotion and awareness raising .......................................................................................................... 56
Component 2: Quality control and stove certification ................................................................................................... 57
Component 3: Financial Support Mechanism................................................................................................................. 59
Component 4: Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 61
Component 5: Support to local producers ..................................................................................................................... 61
Programme management ............................................................................................................................................... 63
Geographical scope......................................................................................................................................................... 63
9 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
64
9.1
9.1.1
9.1.2
9.1.3
9.2
9.2.1
9.2.2
9.2.3
Institutional and legal framework .................................................................................................................................. 64
National level .................................................................................................................................................................. 64
State level ....................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Stakeholder mapping ...................................................................................................................................................... 66
Stakeholders ................................................................................................................................................................... 69
Beneficiaries ................................................................................................................................................................... 69
Possible collaborating entities ........................................................................................................................................ 69
Contracting authority and implementation agency........................................................................................................ 71
Contracting authority...................................................................................................................................................... 71
Implementation agency .................................................................................................................................................. 71
9.2.4 Supervision ..................................................................................................................................................................... 71
10 DURATION, COSTS AND FINANCING PLAN
72
P a g e |7
10.1 Project implementation planning .................................................................................................................................. 72
10.2 Indicative costs............................................................................................................................................................... 72
10.3 Financing plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 73
10.4 Carbon financing possibilities ........................................................................................................................................ 73
11 MONITORING AND EX POST EVALUATION
82
11.1 Evaluation criteria and indicators (as mentioned in the logical framework) ................................................................. 82
11.2 Evaluation ex-post plan .................................................................................................................................................. 82
11.3 Communication plan ...................................................................................................................................................... 82
12 JUSTIFICATION OF DONOR CONTRIBUTION
76
12.1 Contribution to the economic and social development of beneficiary populations ..................................................... 76
12.2 Significant impact on the global environment ............................................................................................................... 78
12.3 Innovation and exemplary nature.................................................................................................................................. 79
12.4 Collaboration and inclusiveness..................................................................................................................................... 79
12.5 Demonstrable and replicable effects ............................................................................................................................. 79
12.6 Economic and financial sustainability after the project ................................................................................................. 80
12.7 Ecologic and environmental sustainability .................................................................................................................... 80
12.8 Social and cultural sociability ......................................................................................................................................... 81
13 RISKS ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX
83
86
FIGURES
Figure 1 Fuel use in Nigeria ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2: Average fuel prices in 3 states of Nigeria ................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 3: Comparison of cooking fuel costs in three states (2013) on an end-use basis ......................................................... 19
Figure 4: Cost of cooking in 3 states in Nigeria ........................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 5: Fuel quantities usually purchased ............................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 6 Monthly fuel costs ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 7: total wood off-take for cooking purposes ................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 8: wood off-take savings by type of fuel ....................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 9: Nr of different stoves in use ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 10: Main reasons for preferring a stove ....................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 11: Indicated reasons for justifying a national stove programme ................................................................................ 38
Figure 12: Stakeholder arrangements at national level........................................................................................................... 64
Figure 13: Stakeholder arrangements at state level ................................................................................................................ 66
TABLES
Table 1: Main source of cooking energy used ......................................................................................................................... 17
Table 2: Collected Wood .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 3 Comparison of Cooking Fuel Prices in Nigeria, based on survey data in 3 states (2013) ............................................ 20
Table 4: Cooking fuel availability ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Table 5: fuel price data in different countries ......................................................................................................................... 23
Table 6 Major causes of deaths in Nigeria ............................................................................................................................... 24
Table 7: Summary of the Status of Evidence on the Health Effects of IAP .............................................................................. 24
Table 8: Health Impact of using cooking stoves ...................................................................................................................... 25
Table 9: Perception of woodfuel availability changes ............................................................................................................. 26
Table 10 Estimated potential monthly fuel savings and payback time ................................................................................... 27
Table 11 Estimated Annual Cooking Energy Quantity and Value ............................................................................................ 29
Table 12 Indicative stove price table ....................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 13: Prevalence of eating out of the home ..................................................................................................................... 32
Table 14: Fuel preferences ...................................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 15: Reasons for being an ideal fuel ................................................................................................................................ 32
Table 16: Type of electric cooking or water heating appliance ............................................................................................... 34
P a g e |8
Table 17 SWOT Analysis of the Nigerian clean stove Context ................................................................................................. 51
Table 18: Carbon registration scenarios .................................................................................................................................. 73
Table 19: Carbon off-take scenarios ........................................................................................................................................ 74
Table 20: Operating Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................. 74
Table 21: Expected benefits of NCCMDP to 2020.................................................................................................................... 77
P a g e |9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nigeria successfully made the transfer to middle-income country, as witnessed by a high economic growth, a
modernizing infrastructure for transport, electricity and ICT. Still lagging far behind is a modernization of the
cooking energy systems: Nigerians still use the same traditional cooking systems as their ancestors, leading to
high economic costs from poor health and sanitary conditions, rampant deforestation, and high greenhouse gas
emissions.
The Government’s strategy to alleviate cooking problems is based on the provision of a large annual budgetary
allocation intended to reduce the price of kerosene for cooking by the poor. However, in reality only a small portion
of the subsidy ends up with the intended beneficiaries. As a result, some 90+ percent of the population continues
to use woodfuels for most of their daily cooking.
Nigeria is endowed with large liquid and gaseous petroleum resources, much of which are exported at the
moment. Some 4m t of LPG is exported annually compared to an entire consumption of Nigeria of 300k t per year.
The most likely ultimate solution for modernizing cooking energy in Nigeria is LPG. This was confirmed by a NIAF
1800 household energy survey in three States, which showed that households indeed prefer LPG over kerosene
but are afraid for the high costs. If all households and small businesses were to switch instantaneously to LPG, the
annual consumption would be on the order of 6.5m t per year. Large scale economies as a result of the increased
supply would reduce the cost of cooking to affordable levels for a majority of households. However, LPG pricing is
based on international prices and is not made available to the suppliers at localized prices.
At the moment the use of LPG is constraint both by the supply and the demand: a chicken and egg situation
persists, whereby there are not enough bottles to satisfy the demand, and there is often no supply in regions with
demand. In addition, there are some regulatory issues with suppliers - retailers and with equipment that needs
attention before LPG can be used on a larger scale.
The way out is a strategy that promotes LPG for all households and small businesses, and fuel-efficient wood
stoves for those households that cannot afford LPG in the short-term. The Government should take the lead in
implementing this strategy, even though most activities will be implemented by private parties. More precisely, the
proposed strategy to modernize cooking energy in Nigeria comprises the following:
•
PR campaign, informing the public about the strategy to quickly switch to LPG or clean woodstoves,
announcing which type of support is available to realize this, and request collaboration to realize this switch
quickly
•
Immediately stop the kerosene subsidy, and instead use part of the money to

facilitate the procurement of LPG bottles and stoves by private companies

buy down the costs of clean and fuel-efficient woodstoves
•
Improve the regulatory framework for LPG supply and use
•
Launch a program to supply clean woodstoves
•
Assist private LPG supply companies to set up a safe country-wide LPG supply infrastructure.
It is proposed that the Government’s financial support for the cooking energy sector thus transforms from an
annual fuel subsidy to a one-time capital investment subsidy, and leads to far greater economic benefits. Indeed,
the entire strategy can be financed over a 7 year period using the sole annual amount now spent on kerosene
subsidies.
Estimates for the level of effort for the proposed multi-stakeholder programme show that some USD 420 -740
million will be needed to reach the goal of a majority of households in Nigeria with modern cooking access by
2020, depending on the penetration grade of LPG stoves. This document presents therefore two separate
scenarios, (i) a programme focusing on clean wood stoves mainly, with a modest switch to kerosene and LPG
(woodfuel scenario); and (ii) a programme focusing on a maximum switch to LPG (LPG scenario).
In both scenarios, penetration rates of clean stoves in urban areas are close to 90% and in rural areas 40% for the
wood scenario and 50% for the LPG scenario. End-user energy savings are 16% for the woodfuel scenario and
23% for the LPG scenario.
Overall, estimated economic benefits for the woodfuel scenario (net present value) from fuel savings (if any),
better health conditions, employment generation, reduced in CO2 emissions, protection of forest cover, and time
to procure fuel amount to nearly USD 3595 million by 2020 as compared to a NPV of the total programme costs of
P a g e | 10
307 million, which shows that implementing the programme is highly justified. Not valued in this analysis are
reduced deaths from improved indoor-air pollution and increased well being from abolishing the use of wood fuels.
Fuel savings may not be obtained when households switch from woodfuels, but other non-quantifiable benefits
exist (such as the equivalent of the consumer surplus for rural electrification), and this will furthermore mainly
depend on reduced LPG price as a result from the obtained scale economies. The NPV of the LPG scenario are
529 million US$ giving a total benefits of 2972 million US$. While this is somewhat lower than for the woodfuel
scenario, the benefits far exceed the costs with a ratio of 5.6.
The Government will need to indicate its priority with regards to LPG versus woodfuel based solutions.
P a g e | 11
INTRODUCTION
The Nigerian Clean Cookstoves Market Development Programme (NCCMDP) is an initiative by the Government of
Nigeria (GoN) through the Federal Ministry of Environment (MoEnv). It has been developed with assistance from
the Nigerian Investment Advisory Facility (NIAF) in collaboration with the Global and the Nigerian Alliance for Clean
Cookstoves (GACC, NACC). The development of the programme is financed by DFID through NIAF, with
contributions from GACC and USAID-Nigeria.
Lack of access to modern cooking energy solutions in Nigeria results in high economic costs through
environmental degradation, poor health conditions in households, institutions and small businesses from air
pollution, and unnecessary cooking fuel expenditures. Poor urban and rural households both experience these
issues. The proposed programme is designed to improve the above conditions rapidly, and eventually throughout
the entire country. The Development Objective is to increase access to modern and clean cooking energy for
households, small businesses and institutions in Nigeria, with an emphasis on the poor. This is expected to lead to
considerable economic benefits accruing to poor households as well as the country as a whole.
Given prevailing demographic trends, it is proposed to accelerate a commercially oriented programme as much as
possible through financial incentives. The priority is to give access to clean cooking energy solutions for as many
beneficiaries as possible in a relatively short period of time before addressing the sustainability of the clean
stoves supply chain. One should keep in mind that there are about one million additional households every year as
result of population growth, so any programme that reaches less than one million stoves per year might not really
be worth the effort.
While this is the first time in Nigeria that such an ambitious programme is being developed, the timing is right.
Clean cooking solutions have become global front-page news, and Nigeria is one of the countries with the largest
potential for improvements in terms of sheer numbers. Now that is clear that poor cooking conditions lead to local
and global environmental problems, it has been recognized that there is an urgent need for a solution. There are
not only environmental benefits: the economic benefits of a fuel saving programme are large too, as the market
for commercially sold cooking fuels such as firewood, charcoal, kerosene and LPG in Nigeria is estimated to be in
excess of USD 3 billion per year. This number is increasing, as Nigerians purchase rather than gather fuels now
more than ever before.
The principles and major conditions for such programme have clearly been identified and firmly established. The
five interrelated components are:
(i)
Raise public awareness and communicate benefits of adopting clean and efficient stoves;
(ii)
Ensure stove quality and performance at entry as well as during their operational life, with clearly
defined benefits for all supported stoves;
(iii)
Maintain a financial support mechanism to accelerate adoption of clean stoves;
(iv)
Realize substantial monitoring and evaluation activities, feeding stove performance back to the
programme design; and
(v)
Support private production and assembly of clean stoves in Nigeria. The programme will support all
types of stoves that satisfy agreed performance criteria, irrespective of the fuel, and after verification
in the national stove-testing laboratory.
Several stakeholder consultations have taken place, in Nigeria and abroad, trying to identify the main issues,
barriers, and solutions. Consultations for the USAID-Nigeria Efficient Wood Stove Project yielded information about
key barriers and opportunities for expanding access to clean cooking solutions at the state level. A NIAF financed
1800 household survey in Kaduna, Kano, and Rivers identified and quantified main cooking issues and
perceptions about proposed solutions. The GACC has been very helpful in the networking process, by organising
two of the meetings and by bringing global experiences and best practices to Nigeria. Dialogue with the GACC,
World Bank, EU, DFID, Shell, KfW and other is underway to identify possible participation in realising the
programme.
As a matter of principle, it is impossible for one single programme or project to cover the entire market, instead
there is room for simultaneous initiatives. What the NCCMDP sets out to do is to define the general framework for
guiding these initiatives. As long as the same principles are adhered to, different initiatives are only expected to
enhance each other. Nigerian demographics impose one principle: initiatives need to be large as there is really no
time to waste efforts on small and insignificant activities. Another important principle is that every household
selects its own clean cooking solution: there is really not one size that fits all. Households have a free choice of
stoves, but there shall not be any free stoves disseminated!. The program will not promote preferences for certain
P a g e | 12
stoves, but rather promote any stove that meets predefined performance criteria. Every stove model that seeks to
be promoted under the programme therefore needs to be tested in an independent national stove-testing
laboratory. All stove models promoted under the programme necessarily satisfy the same performance conditions,
irrespective of the fuel used.
Institutional arrangements depend on the specific circumstances in a State, and design work on essential
components should therefore be state-based, such as the detailed financial support and tracking mechanism, the
M&E mechanism. Prospective approaches should be tried and developed so that lessons can be learnt for the
nation-wide roll-out. To immediately gain experience with the proposed approach, several large-scale pilot projects
are expected to be implemented in states with significant buy-in:
(i)
In Niger State, the Governor announced his intention to roll out a state-wide programme for clean
cooking stoves, provided substantial budget for this, and requested technical assistance from NIAF
for realizing this program1;
(ii)
In Katsina State, the EU delegation has recently made available a substantial amount of funding for
two projects with agroforestry and clean stove activities (about 8 million Euros, with >20% co-funding
requirement); ICEED and Oxfam with GACC support are jointly developing the work plan for these
activities in 7 LGA, while it is still unknown who will be developing a similar programme in 5 other
LGAs in Katsina;
(iii)
The Rural Women Energy Security project of the Federal Ministry of Environment (RUWES) focuses on
disseminating solar lighting and clean cooking equipment throughout the country; NIAF assistance
was requested for scaling up, and a capacity needs assessment will be carried out to determine how
to best organize this assistance;
(iv)
Similarly, the Better Life Programme for Rural African Women (BLP) requested NIAF assistance to
start a stove dissemination pilot through women’s groups in 3 states;
(v)
In Jigawa State the Governor signed an MoU with NIAF and requested assistance, but the level of cofunding has not been assigned yet.
Implementing such programme successfully will only be possible if the Government, Development Partners, NGOs,
private commercial firms, academia, and the financial sector are willing to contribute towards the same goal
under the same stringent conditions. This will be a challenging approach, but no-one said it would be easy.
Fortunately, benefits for the individual beneficiaries are also considerable, increasing chances of accepting to
commit to the implementation of the programme.
1
The work plan will be developed once the Steering Committee is established and a Project Management Unit appointed. This
is expected in March or April 2014.
P a g e | 13
1
CONTEXT, ISSUES & CHALLENGES
1.1
Cooking Energy Issues
With a population of 170 million people, Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa. It is expected that Nigeria
will be the 4th most populated country in the world by 2050 if current growth rates persist. This gives the scale of
the issues to be tackled and of the potential impacts, making it critical to act quickly and decisively.
In this context the stove programme needs to satisfy quite a few separate criteria to realize an impact, whether
this is on fuel consumption, wood off-take, indoor air pollution, or global environment:
(i)
Population growth is a major influencing factor, and any programme that intends to be based on
building commercial markets needs to take this into account. Between now and 2020, there are
likely to be 5 million more households. An ambitious stove programme intending to reach 10 million
households over a 7-10 year programme is thus in reality less than half as effective, or alternatively it
needs to reach 15 million households to obtain its original target: the programme thus needs to be
large indeed;
(ii)
Therefore, a “shock intervention” could be a good solution, whereby temporary incentives are given to
households to quickly change their behaviour, by buying a new stove and/or start using a new fuel in
the short term;
(iii)
Fuel markets are considerably distorted: kerosene is available at submarket prices, competing with
firewood, charcoal, and LPG that are free market goods. Recent information shows that the Federal
Government spent in excess of USD 1 billion per year on this subsidy2. However, the supply at
subsidized prices is limited and few households may actually be able to benefit directly from this.
Survey data show that households buy, on average, kerosene at parity with diesel prices3 but this is
despite the fact that 30% - 50% of the households buy in small quantities: prices for quantities less
than a litre would normally increase the per-litre price above the normal pump price. This implies that
at least some of the subsidy indeed ends up with households, but far less than intended. It is unlikely
that the kerosene support subsidy will be lifted any time soon due to possible social unrest, although
there are signs that there is political willingness to address the efficiency of the subsidy distribution.
An alternative would be regulatory intervention to provide additional benefits for using other fuels;
(iv)
There is a quasi-total lack of information on forestry resources, biomass fuel chains, and households’
practices on cooking and fuel use. This makes it very difficult to develop a programme purely based
on market development, as it is not known if and how sustainable markets could develop. Cursory
evidence shows that biomass resources throughout the country are disappearing indeed, but the
three states survey shows that households using biomass resources for cooking do not feel much
pressure. Lack of information makes it very difficult to predict what can be done in a sustainable
manner; however, from a practical point of view, since 50% or more of all households in Nigeria use
biomass fuels, and they use it inefficiently, a programme to increase the efficiency and reduce the
fuel consumption will help to create a more sustainable situation than before;
(v)
The survey shows that a considerable number of households use kerosene or LPG for all or some of
their cooking, in urban as well as in some rural areas. In rural Kaduna 40% of households reported
using kerosene for cooking on a regular basis, and 84% in urban Rivers. Some 23% of surveyed
urban households use LPG in Rivers (16% in Kano and 10% in Kaduna), while in rural areas this
ranges between 1.5% to 6%. The transition towards modern fuels is in full swing, evidently in some
states more than in others. As a consequence, the programme should fully integrate the promotion of
both modern biomass stoves and high efficient kerosene and LPG stoves;
The chairman of the House Committee on Petroleum (Downstream) indicated in November 2013 at a congress that the
purported subsidy has never benefited the masses, which has hitherto been suffering to get the product at regulated price,
noting that the amount was spent between 2010 and 2012, adding the breakdown of the figure to about N110 billion spent in
2010; N324 billion in 2011; and N200 billion in 2012.
3 Kerosene and diesel are interchangeable products; normally, prices for both products should be equal.
2
P a g e | 14
1.1.1
(vi)
Not many households use charcoal (except in Kano); this is fortunate, as the multiplier effect makes
it a wasteful fuel.4 It is recommended for the programme to refrain from actively promoting a switch
to charcoal, although efficient charcoal stoves can be (quietly) promoted so that these are available
to households who must cook with charcoal.
(vii)
Finally, the survey revealed that health impacts of cooking with wood on open fires (whether indoor or
outdoor) are felt by those who cook with it, which suggests that a national clean stove market
development programme should look at both reducing exposure to cooking smoke from wood and
promote switching to cleaner fuels, as well as educating women on the risks to themselves and their
children.
Lack of access to modern energy services
It is recognised that access to modern energy services— including electricity, clean and renewable fuels and
efficient and clean stoves—is important to the achievement of most of the Millennium Development Goals.
For example, access to modern energy services is critical to improve agricultural productivity and to generate
employment opportunities in small enterprises that are likely to help eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
(MDG1). Women in households with access to modern energy services are likely to be able to shift from timeconsuming wood collection and preparation of daily meals to devoting time to other economic or educational
activities as a way to promote gender equity (MDG3). This is a reality in Nigeria, as the 2013 survey indicates that
gathered wood is a major fuel in rural areas of the three surveyed states with roughly half of rural households
collecting wood and makes a substantial contribution toward meeting the cooking fuel need of urban households
in Kaduna and Rivers state.
Likewise, maternal health can be favoured (MDG5) and child mortality reduced (MDG4) through the use of clean
cooking equipment and/or cleaner fuels. In rural areas of Kaduna, Kano and Rivers and in urban Kaduna, where
wood is the main cooking fuel, the frequency of respiratory problems is highest, the study showed. Access to
modern energy services thus strengthens prospects to escape the poverty trap.
Box 1 Importance of modern energy in achieving the Millennium Development Goals
Goal 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. Access to modern energy facilitates economic development by
providing more efficient and healthful means to undertake basic HH tasks and the means to undertake productive
activities. Modern energy can power water pumping, thus providing drinking water and increasing agricultural
yields through the use of machinery and irrigation.
Goal 2. Achieve universal primary education. In impoverished communities, children commonly spend significant
time gathering fuelwood, fetching water, and cooking. Access to clean cooking fuels or technologies facilitates
school attendance. Electricity also facilitates communication and education, particularly through information
technology but also through providing such basic needs as lighting.
Goal 3. Promote gender equality and empower women. Improved access to electricity and modern fuels reduces
the physical burden associated with carrying wood. Access also frees valuable time, especially for women,
widening their employment opportunities. In addition, street lighting improves the safety of women and girls at
night.
Goals 4, 5, and 6. Reduce child mortality; Improve maternal health; and Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other
diseases. Most staple foods require cooking. Reducing HH indoor air pollution through more healthful cooking
fuels and stoves decreases the risk of respiratory infections, chronic obstructive lung disease, and lung cancer
(from burning coal). Electricity and modern energy services support the functioning of health clinics and hospitals.
Goal 7. Ensure environmental sustainability. Modern cooking fuels and more efficient cookstoves can relieve
pressures on the environment caused by the unsustainable use of biomass fuels. The promotion of low-carbon
renewable energy is congruent with the protection of the local and global environment. Using cleaner energy also
reduces greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
Goal 8. Develop a global partnership for development. Electricity is necessary to power information and
communications technology applications.
It takes 7-12 kg of wood to produce 1 kg of charcoal; even if the efficiency of a charcoal stove is twice as high as a firewood
stove, a charcoal stove still uses more wood than a firewood stove for the same cooking task.
4
P a g e | 15
Source: IEA (International Energy Agency). 2010. World Energy Outlook 2010
Until recently, the Federal Government had not attached high priority to promoting access to modern cooking
energy services, nor provided any budget lines. Instead, it is concerned with the access to electricity. This focus of
priority accorded to electricity access by the federal government is echoed by donors in their support efforts for
Nigeria. An overview of donor funding from 1999 to 2007 indicates that energy and environment received a
dismal 1% of total grants5 made available to Nigeria.
1.1.2
A heavy reliance on woodfuel
It is generally accepted that energy and development are mutually reinforcing factors 6. Energy poverty can be
evaluated through the reliance of the population in developing countries on solid fuels – including traditional
woodfuel (firewood and charcoal) and coal- for cooking and heating.
Households in Nigeria predominantly rely on firewood for cooking purposes as this fuel is used by 72.2% of the
population. Firewood provides energy for poor and barely monetised populations, hence most of rural and
periurban households. Firewood can be collected on woody formations around villages and towns and lower
quality woody biomass is also gathered around the house and the fields. According to the NBS socio-economic
survey on Nigeria (2010) the use of firewood has been decreasing from 79.6% in 2009. This may come from a
reduced access to such resource (scarcity, prices) or fuel switching and modernisation trends.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the NBS survey shows that 56.5% of the population gathers firewood, 23.8% use
kerosene, and 15.7% purchases firewood. Charcoal is used by 1.3% of the population and LPG by a mere 1.0%.
LPG consumption in Nigeria has increased only very slowly over last 30 years and per capita consumption is far
behind many other countries in Africa, even though Nigeria is a major exporter of LPG. The main urban fuel is
kerosene with 53.7% of the households using it, followed by almost equal split between firewood collected and
purchased. The main rural fuel is collected firewood followed by an almost equal split between purchased
firewood and kerosene.
Electricity is hardly used, which may well be related to the quality of supply rather than the number of connections:
the overall electricity connection rate is about 47%. However, the rate of connecting new customers is lower than
the population growth, resulting in an overall percentage of the population with electricity decreasing.
Although the above data are somewhat old and shifts may have taken place, it is safe to say that both firewood
and kerosene are the two main fuels used for cooking. What is unknown is the extent to which firewood is still
gathered instead of purchased, which may have changed considerably. Also, it is thought that the demand for
charcoal for cooking is on the increase following scarcity and high cost of affordable kerosene. 7
The above data, and more, will be collected in the GHS expanded general household survey that will be launched
by NBS soon with a national coverage, and is expected to be repeated regularly in the future.
Expanding access to pro-poor energy services in Nigeria, ICEED, 2012
Bank (2005), Energy services for the Millennium Development Goals,
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/MP_Energy_Low_Res.pdf
7Rising charcoal business, Nigeria News World, 13 August 2012
5
6World
P a g e | 16
Figure 1 Fuel use in Nigeria
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
other
electricity
LPG
Kerosene
Charcoal
FW purchased
FW collected
urban
rural
total
Source: NBS socio-economic survey on Nigeria (2010)
In the meantime, the 2013 NIAF household consumption survey carried out in Rivers, Kano and Kaduna states
gives some indications about current fuel use patterns. The table 1 below shows the results broken down for three
different situations: all households (to determine what is the main fuel in absolute terms), when they use one fuel
only, and when they use more than one fuel. A total of 60% of the households indicates to cook with one fuel only.
Of these, the majority uses firewood in all rural areas and in urban Kaduna, and kerosene in the other areas.
Likewise, of the households using more than one fuel for cooking, the majority uses firewood in Kaduna (urban
and rural), rural Kano and Rivers, and kerosene in the other areas. The fuel transition is in full swing in Rivers and
Kano, and less so in Kaduna, but more households now use other fuels than firewood compared to 2010.
Table 1: Main source of cooking energy used
KADUNA
Urban
All households (100%)
FW
73%
Kerosene
16%
Charcoal
2%
LPG
6%
Rural
KANO
Urban
Rural
RIVERS
Urban
Rural
91%
5%
2%
0%
22%
49%
12%
13%
79%
8%
11%
1%
18%
62%
1%
14%
60%
35%
1%
2%
Use one fuel only (60% of households)
FW
84%
93%
24%
kerosene
13%
4%
55%
charcoal
2%
1%
10%
LPG
1%
0%
11%
86%
6%
6%
1%
13%
78%
1%
6%
51%
46%
1%
1%
Use more than one fuel only (40% of households)
FW
57%
86%
19%
61%
kerosene
20%
8%
41%
13%
charcoal
2%
5%
15%
25%
LPG
13%
0%
17%
1%
26%
40%
1%
25%
67%
27%
1%
2%
Source: NIAF 2013 household consumption survey.
In this sample, which is not representative of Nigeria, some 57% use mainly firewood, 29% kerosene, while LPG
and charcoal are used by 6% and 5% respectively. This confirms the trends indicated by the NBS survey and
shows further progress towards other fuels than firewood. However, the variations are large; in urban Kano and
Rivers, combined use of kerosene and LPG is far higher than the use of firewood. Kaduna is a firewood state;
Rivers and Kano use mainly kerosene and to a lesser extent charcoal (Kano only) and LPG.
Another trend is that households increasingly use purchased firewood instead of gathered. The three state survey
found that only in Rivers, which is overwhelmingly forested, the majority of households gathers wood (75-80% of
the wood energy used is collected). In the more sparsely forested areas of Kaduna, less than 1/3rd (rural, urban is
P a g e | 17
26%) gathers firewood, and 25% in rural Kano (2% in urban Kano). More and more households resort to
purchasing firewood compared to the earlier NBS survey. Charcoal is not used much, except in Kano, where the
survey showed that 45% of the wood energy for urban dwellers and 26% of rural ones comes from charcoal. In
Rivers (urban) and Kaduna (urban & rural) about 10% of the wood energy is in the form of charcoal.
Table 2: Collected Wood
KADUNA
Urban
Firewood gathered
35.9%
Rural
KANO
Urban
55.1%
3.9%
Rural
43.4%
RIVERS
Urban
21.7%
Rural
60.2%
Source: NIAF 2013 household consumption survey.
It is noted that there are no reliable measurements of the total quantities of fuel used. Estimates made by the
consultant show that kerosene consumption for cooking in 2010 could be as much as 564 thousand cubic
meters. The 2013 survey collected some information about quantities used for each type of fuel. For those
collecting wood, between 80 and 180 kg of collected wood are used monthly, with somewhat larger amounts in
River state (where households collect more) and in rural areas. For those buying wood, the estimated monthly
consumption averages between 120 and 200kg. Charcoal use is mainly concentrated in Kano where 50 to 60
kilograms are used monthly while kerosene users consume an average 5 to 15 litres per month for cooking.
Although Nigeria is an oil exporting country, it reimports most of its end-user products. Liquid Petroleum Gas
(LPG) is produced in the country at a rate of 3 million tons per year, most of which is exported despite a
recent increase in local consumption to an estimated 300 thousand tons from the 100-150 thousand tons per
year it has been for the past decade8. Much of the additional gas that could be transformed into LPG is flared off,
which is less expensive for petroleum companies than transforming it into LPG.
1.1.3
Cooking with woodfuel is perceived as cheaper
Woodfuel prices are said to have recently increased in Nigeria as a result of scarcity and high price of kerosene
and cooking gas.9
In the recent NIAF survey, uneven fuel prices can be observed across states and rural or urban zones, see Figure
2. It is particularly striking that all types of fuels are more expensive in Rivers state. The price of firewood in Rivers
is roughly double than in Kaduna and Kano so it not surprising that this fuel does not play a major role there.
Mean prices for kerosene are remarkably constant across all survey areas. They show that most households pay
market prices and do not benefit much from the kerosene subsidy. One possible explanation for the relatively high
cost of charcoal is that it needs to be transported longer distances than wood because of pressures on the
resource base10. Cooking gas is a very high quality fuel that carries a premium price. It is used only by urban
dwellers with very few exceptions. Survey results indicate that there is a price premium of at least 50% in Rivers
relative to Kano and Kaduna.
Consumption was 50,000 t in 1983 and 100,000 t in 1993; source: ESMAP/World Bank; LPG companies recently reported
that consumption is increasing. Current consumption levels are estimated from the 2013 NIAF survey.
9http://allafrica.com/stories/201201231050.html
10 Since there are only a few observations for charcoal users in Rivers, and for rural cooking gas users in Kaduna and Kano,
the results are essentially unreliable.
8
P a g e | 18
Figure 2: Average fuel prices in 3 states of Nigeria
Average fuel prices (N/kg or l)
400
350
300
250
Firewood
200
Charcoal
150
Kerosene
100
Cooking gas
50
0
Urban
Kaduna
Rural
Kaduna
Urban
Kano
Rural
Kano
Urban
Rivers
Rural
Rivers
Source: NIAF 2013 household consumption survey.
Woodfuels are commonly thought as the most economical solutions when compared to modern fuels such as
electricity and all liquid and gaseous fuels (mainly LPG and kerosene). However, a comparison of the cost of
cooking using different kind of fuels shows a narrowing gap, see Figure 3.
Figure 3: Comparison of cooking fuel costs in three states (2013) on an end-use basis
Average prices (Naira per delivered MJ)
4
3.5
3
Collected Wood
2.5
Purchased Wood (kg)
2
Charcoal (kg)
1.5
1
Kerosene (l)
0.5
Cooking Gas (kg)
0
Urban
Rural
KADUNA
Urban
Rural
KANO
Urban
Rural
RIVERS
Looking at the end-use cost of cooking fuels, all cooking fuels are logically still more expensive in Rivers. Higher
prices may reflect higher incomes in Rivers. Perhaps wood and charcoal come from longer distances. Subsidized
kerosene, more frequently available in Kaduna and Kano, may be holding woodfuel prices down there.
In Kaduna and Kano it appears that cooking gas is only about 30% more expensive than kerosene on an end-use
basis. Purchased wood is very low cost in comparison. And of course, collected wood costs nothing out-of-pocket
but the time and effort of family members who gather it.
P a g e | 19
Table 3 presents data calculated from the NIAF survey and combined for urban and rural areas11. It shows that
firewood remains the cheapest source of energy when bought in the city or countryside alike, affordable for the
poorest, about one third cheaper than charcoal and more than two times cheaper than kerosene and cooking gas
in a rural context. This is partly due to the fact that firewood price does not reflect true costs of supply; particularly
the cost of replacement (i.e., the trees that were cut to make firewood or charcoal) is not incorporated in a context
of unsustainable supply.
Table 3 Comparison of Cooking Fuel Prices in Nigeria, based on survey data in 3 states (2013)
Fuel
Stove
efficiency
* (A)
Energy
content of
fuel** (B)
17,5%
17
3,0
Average
selling
price
urban***
(D)
Nairas/kg
(/l)
16,0
20%
29
5,8
42,2
30,8
7,3
5,3
Kerosene
35%
35,5
12,4
147,9
152,4
11,9
12,3
Cooking gas
55%
42,7
23,5
292,2
346,5
12,4
14,8
MJ/kg (l)
Firewood
(purchased)
Charcoal
Efficient
energy
content
(C=A*B)
MJ eff/kg (/l)
Average
selling
price
rural**
(D)
Nairas/kg
(/l)
12,7
Price per MJ
efficient
urban
(E=D/C)
Price per MJ
efficient
rural
(E=D/C)
Nairas/MJ eff
Nairas/MJ eff
5,4
4,3
Source: MARGE calculation
*) to be updated when the national laboratory becomes operational; **) as commonly found in handbooks; ***) from 2013
NIAF survey
Kerosene already is an interesting cooking fuel options for households if they can find it at the subsidised price,
which is about half the real supply costs. But as kerosene can rarely be found at this price, it is as expensive to
use for cooking as cooking gas in rural areas and more expensive in the city, the survey revealed. The cost of
cooking with charcoal in urban settlements is higher than in rural areas (where charcoal can be obtained at a
cheaper price) and comes very close to that of “modern fuels”, cheaper than kerosene but more expensive than
cooking gas there. Finally, based on survey results, cooking gas is competitive with kerosene and with charcoal in
urban settings.
However, this is only true when these fuels are used on traditional cooking stoves. The figure 4 below gives a
comparison of cooking costs with improved cookstoves.
Note that data for charcoal users in Rivers and cooking gas users in rural Kaduna and Kano is essentially unreliable
because of the limited number of observations there.
11
P a g e | 20
Figure 4: Cost of cooking in 3 states in Nigeria
Cost of cooking in
3 states (Nairas/MJ eff)
14.0
12.0
10.0
Rural Now
8.0
Rural ICS
6.0
Urban Now
4.0
Urban ICS
2.0
0.0
firewood
charcoal
kerosene
cooking gas
Source: MARGE calculation from 2013 NIAF survey12
Households do however usually rely on more than one fuel for cooking (40% in the NIAF survey); they are
equipped for this too and have a variety of cooking stoves in their kitchens. Reasons for this include fluctuating
fuel prices, ease of fuel procurement, specific cooking habits or preferences (i.e. charcoal for slow cooking and
roasting, firewood for fast cooking and frying), taste (charcoal for barbequing), and even availability of cash at a
particular time in the week or month. Since kerosene, firewood and charcoal can be acquired in very small
quantities, always, and often close to home, this is a fall-back position often applied, particularly when there is no
time for gathering free fuel. It is perceived cheaper to buy on a daily basis even though the per-unit costs may be
higher in this way compared to bulk purchase once a month. The size of the usual quantity acquired is a proxy for
the poverty level: household buying once a month generally are richer than households buying on a daily basis.
The majority of households in the 3 state sample purchase (45% of the sample) small quantities of fuel only
(firewood, charcoal and kerosene); they lack the cash to buy in bulk at lower per kg prices. Some 22% are
somewhat well to do and buy in bulk at the first of the month if and when they have money, and the richest 23%
always buy in bulk.
Assuming the following ICS performances: 25%, 30%, 45%, and 55% for woodstoves, charcoal stoves, kerosene stoves and
LPG respectively (no variation for the latter).
12
P a g e | 21
Figure 5: Fuel quantities usually purchased
Purchasing quantities
120%
100%
80%
na
60%
bulk
40%
1st of month
20%
small quantities
0%
Urban
Rural
KADUNA
Urban
Rural
Urban
KANO
Rural
RIVERS
Source: NIAF, 2013 Household consumption survey
As mentioned earlier, firewood gathering is practised by many rural and peri-urban households, and sometimes
even urban households. From earlier national data, it appears that the trend is towards the purchase of firewood,
even in rural areas. This is likely to increase the deforestation rates, as the commercial supply of firewood is less
sensitive to preserving tree and forestry resources. However, it is not known to what extent this is practiced at the
national level but it is expected that the trend is similar in other areas. Travel distances are unknown, as well as
whether these increase. Where firewood becomes less easily available for free gathering, it instead has to be
transported from more remote locations for purchase. The population density and state of resources in a
particular area will determine whether this is still feasible. Since commercial supply involves labour, transport,
increased transaction costs, this raises the cooking costs for households.
Although there are considerable differences between the three states, availability of fuels appears to be relatively
good except subsidized kerosene, with more than 60% of the households reporting that charcoal, firewood and
kerosene at market prices are usually or always available, LPG at 50%, and subsidized kerosene at less than 20%.
Both firewood for gathering and LPG appear to be problematic in Kano.
Table 4: Cooking fuel availability
Fuel
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely or never
LPG
36%
14%
38%
11%
Kerosene
N50/litre
6%
13%
28%
53%
Kerosene
Market price
38%
22%
35%
4%
charcoal
FW purchased
FW gathered
LPG
31%
30%
34%
6%
38%
29%
29%
4%
46%
23%
23%
8%
36%
14%
38%
11%
Source: NIAF, 2013 Household consumption survey
Figure 6 below shows total monthly cooking fuel costs for the survey regions; there is a large variation (urban
cooking costs are in Kano: 4000 Naira/m; in Rivers: 3000 Naira/month; and in Kaduna 2000 Naira/m). In rural
areas the costs are far lower, primarily because of a larger contribution from gathered firewood. If the programme
could reduce fuel costs by 10%, households would reduce fuel costs by USD 10-30 per year. This is a substantial
amount of money, which would certainly justify the investment in a clean stove.
P a g e | 22
Figure 6 Monthly fuel costs
Average monthly cost (N/HH/mo)
4500
4000
3500
3000
Cooking Gas
2500
Cooking Kerosene
2000
Charcoal
1500
1000
Purchased Wood
500
Collected Wood
0
Urban
Rural
KADUNA
Urban
Rural
Urban
KANO
Rural
RIVERS
Source: NIAF, 2013 Household consumption survey
Compared to other countries, energy prices observed in Abuja are not out of line, see Table 5. Certainly, petroleum
fuels are cheaper, in part because of the kerosene subsidy, but firewood and charcoal are comparable or lower
priced. In view of progressing deforestation, petroleum fuels are likely to play a more prominent role in the
future: even at the prevailing retail prices, they remain in fact a cheap source of cooking energy.
Table 5: fuel price data in different countries
Firewood price (US$/t),
for purchase of small
quantities (for a week)
Charcoal price (US$/t),
purchase in bag
Monrovia,
Liberia
Kigali,
Rwanda
Maputo,
Mozambique
Abuja,
Nigeria
na
56
70
25
153
450
400
320
Other
Dar es Salam,
Tanzania:
555
Kwa Zulu
Natal: 775
Kerosene price,
US$/m3, what people
reasonably pay
LPG price, US$/t for a
bottle of 12-25 kg
Source of data
1314
1100
930
760
2300
3000
2070
1690
Consultant
observations, May
2011
Consultant
observations, Dec
2012
Consultant
observations, Dec
2012
Consultant
observations, Jan
2013
The Charcoal
Project, 2012
While it is true that the immediate costs of cooking are lower for firewood than for kerosene and LPG, this is not
necessarily so when external effects are taken into account: the health and environmental costs of cooking can be
considerable, as described in the next few sections.
1.1.4
Relieving the health impact of energy use
Smoke contains large quantities of particulate matter (PM) and gaseous pollutants that are emitted when burning
solid fuels in traditional stoves. Typically PM is composed of particles with a size of 10 micrometres or less
(PM10), and the smaller the size the more dangerous it is for human health. Wood smoke contains a lot of PM2.5
P a g e | 23
and PM1 which penetrates deep into the lungs to cause permanent long-term damage. Smoke is a sign of poor
combustion characteristics of the stove, as much of the smoke can actually be burnt and turned into energy. In
addition, absence of excess air can cause carbon monoxide (CO) to be produced and emitted in the exhaust
gases. CO in certain concentrations is immediately deadly. Inefficient combustion of woodfuels in poorly designed
stoves thus results in high levels of indoor air pollution (IAP), from a mixture of PM, carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, formaldehyde, and benzene that often go well beyond levels considered harmless.
In developing countries, cooking habits involving poorly performing stoves using woodfuel or coal result in high
daily exposures for most women and children to pollution from indoor cooking smoke up to 20 times higher than
the maximum recommended levels of the WHO and other environmental agencies around the world 13. Nigeria is
no exception with more than 95,000 annual deaths caused by smoke from cooking with wood and the loss of
almost 4 million years of life according to the WHO, mostly women and children. 14This makes it the third cause of
deaths, behind malaria and AIDS as shown in Table 6. The burden of disease attributable to solid fuels is the
highest in Africa and the sixth highest in the world
Table 6 Major causes of deaths in Nigeria
Causes
Annual Deaths
Malaria
HIV/AIDS
Indoor air pollution from solid fuels
Road accidents
225,000
192, 000
95, 000
9, 000
Source: World Health Organization, National Burden of Disease Estimates 2010
Because mothers and their young children are the main household members who regularly breathe such smoke,
they are disproportionately affected by the related health issues. Many studies have revealed the extent of health
issues linked to IAP, as compiled in Table 7.
Table 7: Summary of the Status of Evidence on the Health Effects of IAP
Health outcome
Nature and extent of evidence
ALRI* (children under 5)
COPD** (adults)
Lung cancer
10-20+ studies from developing countries; fairly consistent
results across studies; but confounding is not dealt with in
many studies; supported by studies of ambient air pollution
and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and, to some extent
by animal studies.
Cancer of nasopharynx and larynx
2-3 studies from developing countries; consistent results
Cataracts
across studies; supported by evidence from smoking and
Tuberculosis
animal studies.
Low birth weight
2-3 studies from developing countries; supported by evidence
from ambient air pollution and ETS.
Perinatal mortality
Acute otitis media
No studies from developing counties, but an association may
Cardiovascular disease
be expected from studies of ambient air pollution and studies
of wood smoke in developed countries.
Asthma
Several studies from developing countries, but results are
inconsistent; some support from studies of ambient air
pollution, but results are also inconsistent.
Source: World Bank. 2011. Household Cookstoves, Environment, Health, and Climate Change. Washington,
DC: World Bank.
* Acute lower respiratory infection
**Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
The 2013 household survey in Kaduna, Kano and Rivers showed that people do not often experience respiratory
diseases caused by smoke from the kitchen as these are well ventilated, but if they do, it is mostly from the
13WHO
(World Health Organization).2005.WHO Air Quality Guidelines Global Update 2005.Copenhagen: World Health
Organization.
14 WHO March 2009, Estimated deaths & DALYs attributable to selected environmental risk factors, by WHO Member State,
2004. Department of Public Health & Environment
P a g e | 24
cookstove. Households also seem to keep very young infants away from the kitchen. These results are indicative
only, as they cannot be extrapolated to the national situation.
Table 8: Health Impact of using cooking stoves
Health Impact of using cooking stoves
How often do you or any other person who
cooks in your house suffer from a bad
cough or other respiratory problems?
What do you think causes this problem?
How often is a baby exposed to smoke
when you or someone else is preparing
food using a stove or open fire?
Almost never
Sometimes
Frequently
Very frequently
Continuously and severely
Smoke from kitchen
A simple cold
Smoke from wood
Dust
Almost never
Sometimes
Frequently
Very frequently
Continuously and severely
KADUNA
KANO
RIVERS
Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural
57%
60%
71%
41%
65%
58%
41%
37%
23%
55%
26%
31%
2%
3%
3%
4%
2%
3%
1%
0%
2%
0%
5%
7%
0%
1%
0%
0%
2%
1%
74%
84%
79%
89%
65%
70%
23%
14%
16%
10%
34%
27%
3%
1%
5%
1%
0%
2%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
2%
59%
55%
71%
46%
76%
75%
38%
36%
23%
51%
16%
16%
2%
7%
4%
1%
4%
3%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
5%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
Source: NIAF, 2013 Household consumption survey
Kerosene and cooking gas are generally recognised as “cleaner fuels” since their combustion characteristics
depend less on user influences than “dirty” fuels such as charcoal and firewood. Nevertheless, poorly designed or
operated kerosene and LPG stoves may also emit considerable soot and smoke. Solid fuel stoves are typically
more difficult to control than kerosene or LPG stoves, and this could influence their combustion performance. For
instance, to reduce the power output of a firewood stove, wood need to be taken away from the fire, and some
users will be able to realize this with more (or less) smoke emissions than others; the power output of charcoal
stoves usually can be better controlled through a lever or a door, although households often forget after some
time that this is possible. Nevertheless, low levels of pollution can also be obtained with woodfuel stoves, but only
if the stove and fuel are well adapted to each other. In Mongolia it was shown that the combustion quality of a
good lignite stove can be on the same order of magnitude as good as a cooking gas15 stove as long as the user
knows how to properly operate the stove.
A comprehensive stove programme targeting the entire spectrum of fuels, and inviting users to upgrade their
cooking energy solutions, could substantially improve the health-related impacts in a solid fuel dominated society.
This will in turn alleviate the burden on the national public health system.
An evaluation of total health benefits generated by a widespread use of improved cookstoves through the
intended intervention taking into account time saved and costs for health care occurring for households and
public health systems leads to over USD 240 million economic benefits by 2020 16.
1.1.5
Gender aspects
The reliance on inefficient cookstoves and fuels leads to enormous burdens that disproportionately impact women
and girls, particularly because cooking and the procurement of fuel remains primarily a woman’s responsibility. It
has been observed that women and girls spent hours walking far distances to collect fuel for their families’
cooking needs, and faced increased vulnerability to gender-based violence and other safety issues in some
regions. The time spent collecting fuel and preparing and cooking food can take numerous hours, which leaves
less time for the completion of other responsibilities, income-generation opportunities, education, and rest. In
addition, the health of women and children is negatively impacted by the inhalation of smoke from unclean fuels
for cooking. However, this has not been systematically documented and there are few reliable statistics to analyse
this better.
15Personal
communications (MARGE) about the results of PM2.5 and PM1 emission tests for solid-fuel (lignite) heating stoves
in Mongolia.
16 Consultant calculations from GTZ data in “Economic evaluation of the improved household cooking stove dissemination
programme in Uganda”, 2007.
P a g e | 25
1.1.6
Impacts on the local and global environment
Nigeria has one of the worst deforestation rates in the world. Between 1990 and 2010, Nigeria lost 47.5% of its
forest cover, an average of 409,650 ha or 2.38% per year, or around 8,193,000 ha in total. 17 Approximately half
of the country’s population relies on the forest for energy, fodder, construction materials, income, and medicine18,
and will be seriously inconvenienced if they cannot continue these practices.
The main driver of deforestation in Nigeria is agriculture but in the north of the country, over grazing and clearance
of trees for firewood share a significant responsibility as well, while logging leads to increasing fragmentation of
the southern forests. Other factors include general infrastructure development and urban expansion. The
aforementioned factors are aggravated by outdated forest laws and weak law enforcement capacity, a lack of
manpower in the forest sector and a general lack of resources for forest management at all levels. 19
So although wood collection is not the central cause of deforestation, it certainly contributes. Illegal charcoal
production and even export20 – as was recently reported in newspapers – certainly contributes as well. Charcoal is
the worst fuel from the environmental point of view (both from the deforestation and the CO2 point of view), but
end-users often prefer it over firewood for its superior combustion characteristics. Collected firewood often comes
from trees outside the forest (and are thus not counted in the forest statistics), and in addition people do not cut
whole trees but collect dead wood, branches, twigs and leaves instead. There are no reliable statistics on the
state of the resources used for firewood and charcoal production. It is noted that ESMAP, in both Energy
Assessment Studies (1983, 1993), already warn for overexploitation of forestry resources, even though the
population was much smaller than it is now.
Households in the 2013 survey are not aware of the supply deficit, see Table 9 below; they report largely that
there are no changes compared to 1-2 years ago, and in Kano and Kaduna they are a bit more optimistic than in
Rivers about the wood availability. However, without further investigation this may be without significance as they
could easily confuse (commercial) availability of the fuel with state of the resources. The decline in forestry
resources, both public and private, is real and well documented, but the population may be unaware of this. Given
the continued availability of commercially supplied firewood and charcoal, households may confound this for a
sustainable supply, unaware of or ignoring destruction that occurs in further away areas.
Table 9: Perception of wood fuel availability changes
Availability of firewood,
Compared with 1-2 years ago
More
equal
less
KADUNA
Urban
23%
56%
21%
KANO
Rural
28%
49%
23%
Urban
36%
39%
25%
RIVERS
Rural
15%
67%
17%
Urban
22%
44%
33%
Rural
16%
58%
26%
Source: NIAF, 2013 Household consumption survey
It is thus not surprising that “reducing deforestation and protecting the global environment” are cited in the survey
among the least important reasons for launching a national clean stove programme in Nigeria (2013).
A marketing and awareness campaign should inform the general public of these issues so that they understand
the rationale behind the national stove programme: the country’s natural forestry resources are rapidly
disappearing, and this will have consequences for them in the medium to short term, as prices of these fuels are
likely to increase.
Besides the local impacts, wood harvested unsustainably (i.e., through deforestation or forest degradation)
contributes to global warming. In addition, wood fires are important sources of black carbon whether or not wood
is sustainably harvested, and are a major source of greenhouse gases. These emissions are determined by the
combustion characteristics of stoves using particular fuels. Thus stoves that reduce wood consumption do not
necessarily reduce black carbon emissions, but stoves with better combustion characteristics do. Measurements
on heating stoves using coal in Mongolia showed that some 90% of all PM emissions are generated during the
first 10 minutes of starting up the fire, almost irrespective of the quantity of fuel used. Stoves with better
combustion characteristics were able to reduce both the period over which these emissions were generated (i.e.,
FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment Nigeria 2010
Supplement to Expression of Interest in Joining the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), December 6, 2011
19 FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment Nigeria 2010
20 Thy consultants published the following manual in 2013: How to be rich exporting wood charcoal
17
18
P a g e | 26
3-4 minutes only) as well as the absolute level of emissions (mg of PM emitted per second). Although specific
behaviour may be different when firewood is used, the principles remain the same.
A national cookstove programme would thus help relieve pressure on both local forest resources and the global
climate. Ideally an associated but separate intervention should ensure that the supply of wood products from the
forest is sustainable, i.e. that the total supply does not exceed the replacement value.
Table 10 below gives potential monthly fuel savings and average payback time in the proposed intervention for an
upgrade in firewood, charcoal and kerosene stove efficiency. At the user level, this would result in financial
savings, freeing up money for other purposes (health, education, food…).
Table 10 Estimated potential monthly fuel savings and payback time21
Fuel type
Monthly savings (Naira)
Firewood
Charcoal
Kerosene
Payback time (months)
Urban
Rural
581
758
354
431
439
253
5,8
4,4
13,6
Source: Best estimates by the consultants based on NIAF survey data
At the national level, the level of wood savings depends largely on the solution adopted by beneficiaries: switching
to kerosene and LPG would induce larger wood savings (on the household level) than using improved stoves.
However, if households switch to charcoal, which is a more convenient solid fuel than firewood, pressure on wood
resources would effectively increase. This is due to the inefficiencies of the charcoal production process in which a
lot of wood is wasted22.
The total reduction of wood off-take depends on the difference of: (i) efficiencies of stoves used; (ii) the types of
fuel used; and (iii) behaviour of users and their knowledge about fuel saving techniques, when compared between
today and the future when the programme is implemented. This is by all means a complex situation as many
independent parameters can influence the results.
Modelling was undertaken, and some of the results are presented in the figures below as indications of the
expected results. Some of the conditions used in the woodfuel scenario include:

Some 35% of urban 25% of rural kerosene users would switch to cooking gas by 2020 as well as 35% of
urban and 20% of rural charcoal users and 15% of purchased firewood users in urban areas and 10% in
rural areas.

A fuel saving gain of 20% for modern kerosene stoves combined with a penetration rate of such stoves of
30% in urban areas and 15% in rural areas by 2020, and charcoal users switching to kerosene by 2020:
35% of urban and 25% of rural households;

A fuel saving gain of 20% for charcoal stoves23 combined with a penetration rate of improved stoves of
85% in urban areas and 50% in rural areas by 2020 and purchased firewood users switching to charcoal:
15% of urban and 10% of rural households;

20% fuel saving gain for wood stoves using purchased wood and a penetration rate of improved stoves of
85% in urban and 50% in rural areas;

30% fuel saving gain for wood stoves using gathered wood and a penetration rate of improved stoves of
50% in urban and 25% in rural areas.
In the LPG scenario the price of LPG is considerably reduced through regulatory intervention and many household
adopt LPG as a major cooking fuel; the main differences with the firewood scenario are the following:
21MARGE calculations, derived from estimated monthly expenditures from NIAF survey 2013. Baseline: 17,5% efficiency for
woodstoves, 20% for charcoal stoves, 45% for kerosene stoves, Intervention: 25%efficiency for woostoves, 30% for charcoal stoves
and 55% for kerosene stoves. .
22 100 kg of wood typically results in 12-15 kg of charcoal.
23 I.e., the new charcoal stove uses 20% less fuel than the stove in use now.
P a g e | 27

Improved wood stoves and charcoal stoves are used by 75% of the urban and 50% of the rural population
by 2020; there are no improved kerosene stoves;

There is no more kerosene and charcoal use in 2020, all households using these fuels have adopted LPG

Some 25% of urban users of purchased firewood and 20% of rural users switch to LPG by 2020;

Some 50% of urban users of gathered firewood and 20% of rural users start purchasing their firewood by
2020.
Figure 7: total wood off-take for cooking purposes
50
40
total wood offtake (m.t/yr, wood
scenario)
50
total wood offtake (m.t/yr, LPG
scenario)
40
30
with NCCSMDP
30
with NCCSMDP
20
business as
usual
20
business as
usual
10
10
-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Source: consultants’ estimates
Figure 7 shows that the total wood off-take can be reduced from 41 million t per year to 31.7 million t in 2020, a
26% reduction in the case of the woodfuel scenario, or a reduction of 38% in the LPG scenario. Which scenario is
pursued, wood will remain a major cooking fuel and longer-term supply options will need to be investigated soon.
Switching to liquid or gaseous fuels is important, but it is unlikely to reduce the wood off-take on a signification
scale in the short term: in the woodfuel scenario, 83% of the end-use energy comes from firewood or charcoal, in
the LPG scenario this is reduced to 77%.
Figure 8 shows that the emphasis should be on charcoal and purchased firewood. It is noted that although there
are only a few charcoal users compared to (purchased) firewood users, the impact is quite large. It would require
intervention among many more firewood users to obtain the same impact as obtained among a few charcoal
users.
Figure 8: wood off-take savings by type of fuel
differential wood off take
(thousand t, LPG scenario)
differential wood off take
(thousand t, woodfuel scenario)
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-2,000
-5,000
gathered
firewood
-10,000
purchased
firewood
-15,000
wood for
charcoal making
-20,000
-4,000
-6,000
-8,000
-10,000
-12,000
Source: consultants’ estimates
P a g e | 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
gathered
firewood
purchased
firewood
wood for
charcoal making
Assuming that 26% of the wood resources saved thanks to the programme contribute to the preservation of forest
cover in Nigeria24, such intervention could generate a benefit worth 50 million USD per year by 2020.
1.2
Economic importance of the cooking energy sector
There are a number of predictable economic benefits when cooking energy issues are resolved, accruing from fuel
savings, additional supply chain activities for fuels and stoves, health benefits, and environmental benefits.
However, an upgrade in fuel (e.,g, to LPG), may not result in financial savings, although it most likely will result in
health, convenience, and time benefits. The total estimated financial value of the market for cooking energy in
Nigeria is large as can be seen in Table 11. However, put in perspective, this represents just over US$ 120 per
household per year.
Table 11 Estimated Annual Cooking Energy Quantity and Value
Fuel type
Firewood *)
Charcoal
Kerosene **)
LPG
Total value
Quantity (million t/yr)
28,6
1,2
1.1
0.32
Value (million US$/yr)
1 868
407
1 035
490
Source: best estimates by the consultants based on projections from NIAF survey 2013 data
*) the Quantity contains purchased and gathered firewood; the latter has zero value; **) Kerosene in million m3
Support to the local cookstove producers will create jobs and wealth among artisans, SMEs, distributors etc. all
along the chain from sourcing raw materials to delivering to the customer. Women should be particularly involved
in the latter tasks. Once large and sustainable markets for clean cookstoves are in place, this will be an incentive
for research & development and further investment in the sector, at least in order to keep up with the
demographic dynamics.
Forest resources constitute a significant element in Nigeria’s economy, as the sector accounts for about 2.5% of
the Gross Domestic Products (GDP) and employs 1.8 to 2 million people to supply fuelwood and poles, together
with 75,000 people working in logging activities in the south. Any policies with a positive impact on forest
conservation are thus likely to help maintain the sustainability of the sector while the demand for forest goods and
services continues to rise25.
FAO/Wisdom data suggest that per 1 t of charcoal, some 38 man-days of work are associated with the production
of charcoal, including cutting of wood, transport and retailing (Driego, 2012, Rwanda). The estimated production
level of 1,2 million tons of charcoal thus would provide full time employment to about 45 000 people. This could
well be underestimated, as there are no reliable statistics and recent newspaper articles cite charcoal making as
a lucrative business with rapidly raising production26.
Source: Economic evaluation of the improved household cooking stove dissemination programme in Uganda, GTZ, 2007
See footnote 12
26 http://dailytrust.info/index.php/environment/15483-how-booming-nasarawa-charcoal-is-taking-over-other-businesses
24
25
P a g e | 29
2
A STOVE MARKET AT ITS EARLY STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT
2.1.1
Traditional stove use remains the norm
Traditional woodfuel stoves account for the most widespread cooking technology in Nigeria. They are neither
efficient nor clean in using energy, resulting in unnecessarily high fuel consumption and indoor air pollution. Local
culinary practices and habits vary a lot, reflecting the ethnic diversity that is larger in Nigeria than anywhere else in
Africa. There also are many different types of traditional stoves being used, satisfying these culinary practices.
According to the Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, 90 million Nigerians of which the greatest part of rural
households, and almost all public institutions, cook with wood on the traditional “three-stone fire”. Small
commercial operators such as small caterers often rely on open fires as well. People who purchase wood and
charcoal usually have a simple metal stove, manufactured by local welders 27.
Traditional metal woodstove28
Kerosene users rely on stoves of varying quality causing varying levels of pollution but typically use low-cost
imported stoves (Chinese or Indonesian), although some locally made ones exist. Kerosene and LPG stoves use is
concentrated in urban, peri-urban areas and towns.
Chinese kerosene stove
Indonesian kerosene stoves
The 2013 NIAF survey confirmed that wood stoves are the dominant cooking device in all rural and some urban
areas and that almost all firewood is used in a “3 stone” stove. No improved wood stoves were encountered
during the survey, showing that the use of improved stoves is negligible.
Modern efficient stoves reduce fuel consumption (possibly by 20% or more), are easier to cook with and could
show reduced emissions (PM and CO and CO2). However, so-called “improved stoves” range from NGO promoted
self-constructed cheap improved stoves with limited efficiency and emission gains to imported modern devices
with good performance and high prices attached. The latter category thus remains unaffordable for the majority of
Own observations
http://www.areanet.org/fileadmin/user_upload/AREA/AREA_downloads/AREA_Conference_11/Presentations/THE_SAVE_80_WOODSTOVE_C
DM_Project_2711_Yahaya_Ahmed.pdf
27
28
P a g e | 30
Nigerians. However, it is an issue that households do not know which stove to select. Under the proposed
programme, this issue will be solved by promoting only eligible stoves. Eligible stoves have been declared eligible,
based on tests in a national laboratory to see if a few nationally established performance and safety standards
have been met.
The process of “declaring eligible for support under the programme” is a formal process, ultimately giving users
rights to certain benefits: first of all, the performance of these stoves should under normal conditions continue to
meet the standards; secondly, the stove supplier must give a warranty for the quality and performance of the
stove; and thirdly, certain financial support will be available for accelerating the adoption rate of eligible stoves,
Second generation wood and charcoal stoves are already being promoted in Nigeria; these stoves have been
tested in other laboratories but not in Nigeria. Envirofit, Save 80, StoveTec and others are operational in Nigeria
and are able to sell stoves. They typically use carbon financing to reduce the initial purchase price to the user so
that the price difference with traditional stoves becomes less: clean stove cost USD 25 or more, while traditional
stoves are free or cost a few USD only.
Envirofit woodstove
Save 80 woodstove
O-Gas 3KG Cylinder, Stove & Gas
Oil multinational companies such as Oando and Techno Oil 29 are developing cooking gas stoves at affordable
prices. Oando has recently put on the market an “all in one” cooking gas products with the launch of a 3 kilograms
combo cylinder and stove that reduces the upfront investment cost.
Table 12 below gives indicative prices of basic and advances cooking technologies that can be found in Nigeria at
the moment.
Table 12 Indicative stove price table
Price
Basic
woodstove
Basic
charcoal
stove
Improved
woodstove
Improved
charcoal
stove
Kerosene
stove
LPG stove
$3
$3-5
From a few
dollars (1st
generation)
to $20-$100
(2nd
generation)
From
25
From
$10
for
small
Chinese
stoves
to
over $100
for Japanese
stoves
From $50
for combo 3
Kg cylinder
and burner,
then
$30
for a refill
$13-
Source: As observed in Abuja Garki II market, Lagos market and indication from stove producers
29http://www.ventures-africa.com/2013/02/techno-oil-launches-gas-stove-for-low-income-earners/
P a g e | 31
2.1.2
Fundamental changes occurring at household level
There are a number of important changes to daily life observed in Nigeria. As life gradually becomes more urban
due to the rapid population growth, households move into more permanent buildings. This may have
consequences, as building regulations sometimes prohibit the use of firewood, forcing households to adopt other
fuels. This switch to other fuels also occurs through a drive for modernization as households look for multiple ways
to improve their life. As a result, they slowly start picking up the use of more modern fuels, to complement the use
of more traditional fuels. In Rivers state this process has gone far and most households now use kerosene or LPG,
and very few use firewood. Although rich in wood resources, the price of woodfuels is the highest in Rivers state.
The number of mobile phones in the 2013 household survey in Kaduna, Kano and Rivers was shown to be on
average almost 3 phones per households, irrespective of whether or not they have electricity at home. Ultramodern phones and ancient cooking stoves do not go well together, people want progress on several fronts
simultaneously. Since more modern stoves and fuels are available, households slowly reflect and start adopting
these.
The urbanization also gives opportunities that were not available before, such as being able to buy breakfast,
lunch or dinner on the street. Small food shops provide value for money, as one can eat without having to prepare
the meal at home, thereby saving time and money on food preparation and fuel while only spending small
amounts of money for the rapid provision of a meal. This phenomenon reaches more than 30% of the households
in Rivers state, urban as well as rural, and is quite visible in Kaduna and Kano as well. This has consequences for
the design of the stove programme and improving fuel efficiency among food vendors should be included in the
programme.
Table 13: Prevalence of eating out of the home
KADUNA
Urban
Rural
3.5%
1.7%
12.5%
8.0%
1.9%
1.3%
Eating out
Share of HH members eating breakfast out
Share of HH members eating lunch out
Share of HH members eating dinner out
KANO
Urban
6.4%
13.4%
3.1%
Rural
2.3%
9.4%
2.5%
RIVERS
Urban
Rural
11.7%
9.6%
30.3%
28.6%
2.9%
2.7%
Source: NIAF, 2013 Household consumption survey
When asked about identifying their ideal fuel, households responded overwhelmingly preference for kerosene
(Kaduna, Kano) and LPG (Rivers). It is clear that the national stove programme should take these preferences into
account.
Table 14: Fuel preferences
Preference for ideal fuel
None
Firewood gathered
Firewood purchased
Charcoal
Kerosene
Cooking gas
Electricity
KADUNA
Urban Rural
9%
7%
16%
23%
14%
15%
1%
3%
43%
44%
14%
7%
3%
1%
KANO
Urban Rural
9%
13%
1%
22%
9%
26%
8%
13%
42%
23%
23%
3%
8%
0%
RIVERS
Urban Rural
7%
4%
5%
13%
1%
3%
1%
1%
27%
37%
52%
36%
7%
7%
Source: NIAF, 2013 Household consumption survey
The reasons why these fuels have been indicated as ideal fuel are given in table 15 below, mainly dealing with
features of modern life: speed of cooking, ease of using it, lowest costs, and less smoky.
Table 15: Reasons for being an ideal fuel
Reasons for being ideal fuel
It is faster
KADUNA
Urban Rural
24%
22%
KANO
Urban Rural
24%
18%
P a g e | 32
RIVERS
Urban Rural
30%
26%
It is easier to use
It is cheaper
It is less smoky and clean
It is Available
It is does not blacken the pot
It is convenient
It is safer
It is Accessible
It is free
It is durable or lasts long
Gives good taste and aroma
22%
5%
16%
8%
4%
8%
2%
5%
5%
0%
0%
13%
6%
18%
9%
4%
9%
2%
9%
7%
1%
0%
17%
17%
10%
10%
9%
5%
6%
3%
0%
1%
0%
12%
30%
2%
20%
7%
5%
2%
4%
1%
1%
0%
10%
16%
9%
3%
12%
3%
8%
1%
3%
5%
1%
18%
9%
11%
4%
10%
3%
8%
4%
6%
1%
0%
Source: NIAF, 2013 Household consumption survey
2.1.3
A fragmented market and distribution chain
Several improved stove suppliers with second generation stoves have been active in Nigeria and a number of
organisations have initiated pilot cookstove programmes over the last ten to fifteen years. So far none has
achieved the scale required to make an impact, let alone serve the entire country. Scaling up such programmes
into a sustainable industry, as has been the case in quite a few other West African countries, has not occurred
either. A different approach is therefore needed.
There is hence an enormous theoretical potential cookstove market in Nigeria ready for the development to serve
a large market across both rural and urban areas: the initially estimated value could be around 650 million
dollars30. Although the companies currently present on the clean cookstoves market may have sold a few
thousands of units, if they continue to rely just on market development by their company only, millions of Nigerian
households which are in need of a better stove will have to wait a very long time.
Figure 9 below shows the total number and variety of different stoves that are reported by the respondents. At a
minimum (in rural Kaduna and Kano) there are 1.3 stoves per household on average, and this is almost 1.6 in
urban Kano. It does not mean that they are used, but they are present in the homes.
Figure 9: Nr of different stoves in use
600
500
electricity
400
LPG
300
kerosene
other biomass
200
charcoal
100
firewood
0
Kaduna
Urban
Kaduna Rural Kano Urban Kano Rural Rivers Urban Rivers Rural
Source: NIAF, 2013 Household consumption survey
30
MARGE estimates on year 7: assuming 2,1 million clean stove users among firewood gatherers ($5 stove), 6,9 million clean
stove users among households who purchase wood ($35) stoves, 1,6 million clean stove users among charcoal users ($35
stoves), 2,5 million improved kerosene stove users ($50) and an additional 3,3 million LPG users ($65).
P a g e | 33
Another element to realize is the fact that households using a particular fuel have more than one stove:
respectively 11%, 5%, 14%, and 26% for wood, charcoal, kerosene, and LPG.
Table 16 below shows the distribution of different electric cooking and water heating appliances available in the
homes of the respondents. Indeed, the situation of one household one stove is no longer valid and has been
overtaken by a situation whereby households own different cooking appliances, using different fuels and may
switch fuels or stoves at any time or if conditions change.
Table 16: Type of electric cooking or water heating appliance
kettle
range
grill
microwave
rice cooker
other
32%
18%
16%
11%
8%
15%
Source: NIAF, 2013 Household consumption survey
A few suppliers and manufactures are present in a number of states and sell first generation improved stoves but
mainly operate on a local scale only, without broad distribution channels. They usually target specific areas or
communities in particular states only, and rely on a limited number of sales points or agents, providing both
limited supply and access. In addition, it is unknown how well these stoves preform, as there is no quality
assurance programme in place.
This is valid also for some second generation stove producers, such by Quantas Energies, for example, who
disseminates T-lud gasifier stoves using a few sales representatives going around Ondo and Lagos states and the
federal capital territory. Some NGOs work at the community level, engaging with or training women or other type of
“ambassadors”. Tower aluminium which recently started partnering with Envirofit by assembling the products
locally is organising their distribution through its own existing network, with the ultimate potential to go national.
Oando is selling its combo cooking gas stove in designated gas stations and SMEs (small and medium scale
enterprises) in 5 pilot states/cities: Lagos, Abuja, Kaduna, Port Harcourt and Warri.
There is a need to organize the supply and make it more responsive to the potential market. The market is large
enough so that there is room for many – if not all – suppliers interested to participate in this idea to
professionalize the supply chain. There is a need to identify a few market aggregators, who are able to scale up
the supply of stoves, both in terms of quantities and in terms of locations.
2.1.4
Local versus foreign producer capacities
The capacity of local producers is more often than not limited in terms of production potential, availability of
trained staff, investment capacity etc. In the absence of assistance they are likely to experience issues in scaling
up production levels and/or improving the stove quality. A national cookstove programme should ensure that
stove producers are indeed able to deliver the quantities needed to satisfy the market, and to get the products
accessible to consumers. This is most likely effective if both local and foreign stove manufacturers are involved.
It is often said that employment generation should be the driving force of the activity, and therefore local
production should be promoted, but this needs to be put more in perspective. The production process itself leads
to fairly limited employment, which in addition is often highly qualified labour. Distribution and sales of stoves
leads to a much larger employment potential so that imports are not always negative, particularly if imported
stoves can be supplied at lower prices than from local production.
Imported industrial type stoves or those assembled locally (Envirofit, Stovetec, TLUD) are easier to acquire quickly
in large numbers than locally produced ones. But, they would only represent a small part of the overall market as
many households will find it unaffordable to upgrade to such modern and efficient technologies. Quite a few of the
2nd generation stove models are already for sale in Nigeria, but the numbers do not match the needs in case the
national clean cookstove market development programme starts: up to 200,000 stoves per month, whereas
current annual sales of all 2nd generation stove combined is probably less than one-tenth of this.
For LPG, the stove should be considered together with the cylinder and given the target population, with a
preference for 3 and 6 kg cylinders. These used to be manufactured in Nigeria, but are now cheaper to import
P a g e | 34
(e.g., from India). Lack of scale economies is one reason, but high import duties on steel are another reason.
Employment generation should be an important driving force for the programme, although a trade-off between
low-cost cylinders and local production needs to be carefully evaluated: the employment generated for filling,
distributing, and transporting of cylinders is far higher than from the manufacturing. Oando is currently looking at
increasing the supply of cylinders as this is the only way to increase the consumption of gas.
It is interesting to note that local welders manufacture basic charcoal stoves as well as kerosene and LPG stoves,
but of poor quality and reliability. The stove programme intends to only promote reliable stoves with a minimum
warranty period, which might be difficult to meet by these producers without further assistance and training.
Therefore one should consider reinforcing these local entrepreneurs to deliver larger numbers of stoves that meet
an agreed national quality standard and associated safety guarantee.
At the same time, it appears that some local companies are becoming active in the field of assembling more
efficient biomass stoves (e;g; Quintas T-Lud gasifier stove). Although the number of such companies in Nigeria
remains small, in the future they may have a larger role to play in the transition to cleaner cooking energy
solutions. They could cover upper market segments with larger financial means available such as institutions and
small businesses as well as urban woodfuel users.
Other foreign businesses are seeing the opportunity to integrate into the Nigerian stove market as is the case for
Toyola Energy which, after obtaining some successes in promoting improved woodstoves in Ghana as well as Togo
and Burkina Faso, is now looking to expand production and sales in Nigeria.
Current programmes are region and segment focused. The national cookstove programme should look at
incorporating these programmes and articulate a country-wide intervention that focuses on professionalising the
supply chain of stoves, ensuring that clean and high efficient woodfuel stove models are available alongside
better kerosene and LPG stoves – and that are sold with a guarantee that the user can rely on certain quantified
performance characteristics. The national clean cookstove market development programme will need to look into
how to scale up both local production and imports simultaneously: there is room for many entrepreneurs, and
given the scale needed, the more producers and importers are involved, the likelier that the programme will
become a success. They will all need to comply with the basic rules laid out under the programme: professional
supplies, satisfy minimum standards, and give warrantees.
2.1.5
Difficulties encountered
Most of the difficulties faced by local producers in the field of production, staffing and finance have been
highlighted earlier; lack of capacity, knowhow, and financing. Imported cookstove suppliers are also facing some
challenges. High import duties that increase final prices have been reported. For example, DARE has experienced
35% import duties on the Save 80 clean cookstove. The Ministry of Environment’s renewable energy fund provides
import rebates to qualifying technology, but it would be more efficient if the import duty were automatically related
to the performance characteristics of each stove. Efficient cookstoves should indeed be eligible for import duty or
other tax rebates to foster their market penetration but only after certification by the national certification
authority (to be established). This would require a policy change.31
Widespread corruption is also raising the cost and complexity of doing business in Nigeria, and this becomes
particularly worrisome if subsidies are involved. Maximising subsidy benefits for personal use will be attempted
always and anywhere if opportunities exist – not just in Nigeria. However, it is especially prudent in Nigeria to
explicitly incorporate this idea as a reality and integrate mechanisms to circumvent any attempts to make use of
such opportunities.
Developing the distribution channels to make products available to consumers is another difficulty. For cooking
gas, the poor energy infrastructure means that it can hardly be made available to consumers outside the southern
regions and when it is, only in limited quantities and at a high costs. Since road transportation is the only option
for inland distribution and roads generally are in poor condition, a nationwide distribution system will be complex
and is likely to increase the transaction costs. So even while local production opportunities may lower production
costs, there is a risk that the prevailing poor infrastructure may offset these benefits. Following some disturbances
in the supply in 2007 when the refineries stopped producing LPG, the situation has stabilised and wholesale
prices (i.e., ex Lagos) have been reduced from 250k Naira/t to about 100k Naira/t; despite this, however, retail
prices remained roughly the same.
31
GACC Market Assessment Nigeria, 2011
P a g e | 35
Lastly, many products claiming better efficiency and cleanliness still have to demonstrate such statements in the
absence of national standards on cookstoves. Only stoves that are measured by the national stove laboratory
using the agreed stove testing methodology and standards specific for Nigeria would be supported by the
programme, The independence of this laboratory is important, as it will decide which stove models and which
stove suppliers may get access to subsidies. For that reason, results of stove tests by another laboratory will need
to be carefully considered (e.g,. only Tüv or SGS certification can be accepted).
2.1.6
Lack of clean stove certification
At the moment there is no clear internationally accepted definition of what a clean cookstove is, let alone what the
performance criteria are that distinguish improved stoves. The concept depends on a set of criteria related to the
performance of a traditional stove model taken as reference, and the relative improvements made by the
improved stove and the tests that are carried out to determine product durability. This method is inherently
difficult as there is not one traditional stove model but many, and different cooks obtain different performances
even using the same stove model. Moreover, different “burn cycles” are used when cooking different types of
food32.
The “Lima consensus”33, signed by a number of organisations active in the field of clean cookstoves around the
world within the framework of the 2011 PCIA (Partnership for Clean Indoor Air) Forum, gives draft standards to
help classify clean stove according to performance standards in terms of indoor air pollution (CO emissions and
particulates), fuel savings and safety, following a defined measurement protocol.
The ISO International Workshop Agreement (IWA) from February 2012 established international guidelines for
laboratory performance on emissions (total and indoor), efficiency and safety. The IWA also included resolutions
that identified remaining areas for the clean cooking sector to address. The partners of the Global Alliance for
Clean Cookstoves (GACC) are collaborating to address these resolutions, including research, protocol
development, expanding the IWA Framework to address a broad range of stove and fuel types, and linking
together with other guidelines being developed, including for health and humanitarian settings. However, some
open issues remain with reference to the testing methodology applied in this process, including the water boiling
test protocol (WBT 4.2.1) which appears to allow misinterpretation of the testing results. Until all issues are
resolved, extreme care is needed when applying the WBT 4.2.1 protocol, particularly in view of comparative
differences in cooking practices and equipment (traditional food and pots vary a lot in Nigeria). Alternative
protocols for testing exist and could possibly also be applied.
To identify a particular stove model as an eligible clean cookstove in Nigeria, qualifying it for financial, logistic
and/or technical support under the national clean cookstove market development programme, does thus
necessarily imply setting efficiency and emissions standards, ideally coupled with durability and safety standards
specifically applicable for Nigeria. The standards as proposed by GACC are a good starting point but may need to
be updated to reflect conditions in Nigeria. Once a standard is agreed and in place, it will need to be accompanied
by strict verification and quality control by a designated authority, and possible updating over time.
Setting clear standards and the use of labels would give eligible stoves visibility, and help build people’s trust in
their performance. It would also give eligible suppliers visibility and communicate that these are trustworthy
companies where you can obtain an eligible clean stove. Standards should ideally be set by SON (Standards
Organisation of Nigeria), based on inputs by the Ministry of Environment in conjunction with relevant bodies like
the Energy Commission of Nigeria, Manufacturers Association of Nigeria, Nigeria Society of Engineers etc.
However, the risk of over-regulation exists and should be avoided: the SON procedures to get PV systems certified
are so cumbersome that some international companies do not want to import these into Nigeria. It is necessary to
have an application process that is simple, yet transparent and clear, and respected by all stakeholders. In the
absence of international standards – or widely accepted standards for clean stoves, it is not possible to accept
certification from other testing organisations, and all stoves for which support is sought under the NCCMDP should
be tested by the Nigerian testing organization.
2.1.7
Problems & Attitudes toward changes
There is no literature covering issues of people’s perceptions of potential problems associated with cooking fuels
and stoves or willingness to change in Nigeria, except for cooking gas and the more recent 2013 household
survey in 3 states. According to a more general ESMAP study, the major barriers for prospective new cooking gas
32
33
E.g., cooking beans, deep frying, water boiling, preparation of sauce, etc.
The Lima Consensus, PCIA, 2011
P a g e | 36
consumers are related to cost, availability, safety and cultural patterns. The importance of the cost hurdle is
inversely proportional to the income ladder, even more so when the cooking equipment has to be acquired
whereas the availability problem touches mainly rural populations. The study also illustrates a well-known cultural
phenomenon linked to cooking habits: the perception that certain dishes taste better when cooked over wood.
This means that in some cases, even though people may upgrade to kerosene or cooking gas, they would still be
using wood for some of their cooking. This is also true for large social or family gatherings as woodfuels remain
connected to festive cooking, even for high-income urban dwellers.34
A recent advocacy visit to Zamfara state by the “Mobilising Women for Access to Clean Cookstove” NIAF work
stream team35 confirmed that: (i) communications to spread the values of clean stoves (income, health and
environment saving) are essential for successful dissemination; and (ii) that women can be convinced of the
possibility of cooking with other technologies through hands-on demonstration.36
Most households in Nigeria are not likely ready to spontaneously switch fuels or stoves because they lack the
information or understanding to make such decision:

Do clean cookstoves actually exist and where they are available in Nigeria?
-
Do these stoves deliver benefits (money, time, durability, health)?
-
Generally prices are higher than for traditional stoves, but does this pay back for itself?
-
What to look for – how to distinguish clean cookstoves from ordinary stoves?
-
What are the rights of the consumer when he/she buys a clean stove?

Where to find a reliable retail store close to their homes

Confirmation that safety is not an issue for LPG (and methanol)37.
In addition, wood fuel prices are not very high and people often use free own-made stoves, the financial incentive
to replace these for fuel saving models is moderate at best. Also, as the financial returns in terms of fuel saved
are not very important for users who gather fuel, they may likely be reluctant about taking a loan to pay for a new
stove. Financial schemes such as micro-financing could indeed facilitate an upgrade in cooking fuel and stoves for
the poor but may not be appropriate especially in the northern parts of the country where households may have
religious constraints for interest banking. Note that experience in other development projects involving microfinance mechanisms has shown that poor households in general are reluctant to get indebted particularly for
acquiring a common appliance such as a low-cost stove. This could be another driver against change for a large
part of the population that is not able to pay the upfront cost of a clean stove.
However, for a relatively large proportion of simple woodfuel and/or kerosene stove users, a moderate willingness
to pay for clean cooking technology does exist that likely can be matched with the selling price of the cooking
equipment they currently use. It is particularly noted that the $100 Save 80 wood stove sells quite well in Kaduna
state, where it is being marketed with a carbon financing subsidy.
Many households, however, do not want to be registered when they buy a clean stove. If unregistered, the stoves
cannot be tracked easily while this is a requirement for carbon financing. When financial support is provided
under the stove programme, registration is needed, to avoid double dipping and fraud.
The 2013 survey also showed that households have existing networks they can rely on in terms of financial help,
be that through membership in a formal credit institutions (roughly one third of households in each survey domain
except Kaduna) or family and friends (more than 30% of all households declared getting financial assistance from
family or friends ).
It also highlights a real interest for improved stove technologies across the survey sample and that prior efforts
are gaining some visibility in some areas (Kano). Communication and advocacy should therefore form a key
element of the programme.
Nigerian LP Gas Sector Improvement Study, March 2004, World Bank/ESMAP
Part of the Climate Change Sector, Nigerian Infrastructure Advisory Facility.
36 Climate Change Mobilising Women for Access to Clean Cookstove Work stream, Zamfara Lessons, March 2013, NIAF
37 In the NIAF survey, roughly 45% of respondents hold that using cooking gas could pose a risk to themselves and a very
similar share hold that it could pose a risk to society at large. As with any new technology, there appear to be real barriers to
overcome in peoples’ perceptions of the safety of cooking gas before it can penetrate the marketplace as a standard
household fuel.
34
35
P a g e | 37
In the end, the adoption of cleaner fuels and stoves depends largely on customising stoves to local needs and to
different segments of the population in terms of fuel types, cooking patterns and cost-effective price. Indeed, a
programme can only be effective if there is an acceptable proposed solution for everyone, and one-size-fits-all
solutions that have been promoted in the past may no longer be appropriate.
The 2013 household survey in Kaduna, Kano, and Rivers identified 3 first priorities for the selection of a new
stove: speed of cooking, price of the stove, and ability to cook clean, and the 4 second order of priorities: ease of
lighting, appearance of the stove, operational costs (fuel efficiency), and modernity of the stove.
Figure 10: Main reasons for preferring a stove
Important aspects when choosing a stove
NOT AT ALL
SLIGHTLY
FAIRLY
QUITE
VERY
F4A. Price
F4B. The cost of usage (including maintenance…
F4C. Cooking speed
F4D. The ease of lighting
F4E. Modernity (the newness of the stove design)
F4F. Cleanliness (whether or not it produces soot…
F4H. Appearance (the way the stover or cooker…
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
Source: NIAF, 2013 Household consumption survey
When asked what the priority of a national stove programme should be, if one is launched, people indicated that
health improvements & safety as well as reducing cooking costs are the main reasons in its favour. Reducing
deforestation, protecting the global environment, and modernizing kitchens are the least important reasons
indicated.
Figure 11: Indicated reasons for justifying a national stove programme
Rationales for National Cookstove Programme
Least Important
Most Important
F5`1. To stop cutting down trees
F5`2. Improve health & safety (indoor air quality)
F5`3. Reduce the cost of fuel use to households
F5`4. Protect the global environment
F5`5. To modernize all kitchens in the country
-800 -600 -400 -200
Source: NIAF, 2013 Household consumption survey
P a g e | 38
0
200
400
600
800 1000
3
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND SECTORAL PUBLIC POLICIES
3.1
Overview of the stakeholders
3.1.1
Ministries and local governments
The Energy Commission of Nigeria is responsible for overall energy sector planning and policy implementation in
Nigeria, while the Ministry of Environment under its Renewable Energy Unit also has a mandate to reduce carbon
emissions and mitigate environmental degradation including emissions from unclean energy sources. The Ministry
has launched a couple of activities including the Rural Women Energy Security (RUWES) project and the National
Clean Cooking Scheme’ (NCCS) to promote clean cooking energy sources and technologies in Nigeria. Other
relevant Ministries are Science and Technology, Health, Women Affairs, Petroleum resources and Education, and
Finance. Most national policies and programmes are implemented at state level which implies state governments
are also key stakeholders in developing and implementing a national clean Cookstoves programme. Some state
governments are more innovative than others and a few have made own funding available for addressing related
issues: in Jigawa state, the government set up a stove factory and so far distributed 80,000 stoves for free.
3.1.2
NGOs
There are few NGOs working on promoting clean cookstoves in Nigeria. Some of these organisations include
International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development (ICEED), Developmental Association for Renewable
Energies (D.A.R.E), Mfamiyen Conservation Society, Friends of the Environment (FOTE), Project Gaia and recently
the Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. The profile of these organisations is as follows.
International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development (ICEED)38
The International Centre for Energy, Environment & Development (ICEED) is Nigeria’s leading Think Tank on clean
energy and climate change. ICEED provides ideas that link energy and climate change policy reforms to prosperity
for Nigeria’s poor. ICEED presently hosts the Nigeria Alliance for Clean Cookstoves and acts as its secretariat.
Developmental Association for Renewable Energies (D.A.R.E)39
D.A.R.E is an acronym for “Developmental Association for Renewable Energies.” A Renewable Energy NGO based
in Kaduna, Kaduna State, Nigeria. The organisation has executed quite a number of projects around Nigeria, like
the UNFCCC registered CDM project 2711: “Efficient Fuel Woodstoves for Nigeria”, among others and aims at
making use of Nigeria’s abundant solar energy resources by transforming it into other forms of energy, through the
use of latest appropriate technology.
Mfamiyen Conservation Society40
The Mfaminyen Conservation Society (MCS) is a community based organization that seeks to facilitate community
development which addresses the physical needs of the Mfaminyen Communities in Akamkpa and Etung LGAs of
Cross River State. The organisation was conceived to serve as a vehicle for conservation and preservation of the
high tropical rainforest, one of the hot spots of the world. One of the conservation projects of the community is the
dissemination of “Ekwuk” stove, a locally constructed efficient wood fuel stove which is made from clay and other
materials sourced locally in the communities.
Friends of the Environment (FOTE)41
Friends of the Environment (FOTE) was established to promote environmental sustainability through advocacy,
education, awareness creation and initiatives in the areas of renewable energy sources, waste management,
economic empowerment and gender issues. FOTE has advocated for cleaner and efficient energy technologies for
38www.iceednigeria.org
39www.dare-world.org/dare.org/
40http://mfaminyen.org/
41www.fote-ng.org
P a g e | 39
women since the 1990s with the promotion of locally made clay stoves in a rural community in Lagos, to the
construction of pilot biogas plants for cooking for women enterprises in Lagos and Enugu States and recently the
popularization of LPG usage in two communities in Lagos under the GEF small grants project.
Project Gaia Nigeria42
Project Gaia is an initiative promoting a clean cookstove, an ethanol stove technology in select developing
countries including Nigeria. The stove burns alcohol fuel without smoke, is easy to use, is highly efficient, and
affordable to run. Project Gaia is working to introduce the Clean Cook stoves to families in the Niger Delta area of
Nigeria and has pilot households in Delta State.
Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves43
The Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves is a public-private partnership that seeks to introduce 10 million clean
cookstoves to Nigerian homes and institutions by 2020. The Alliance supports policy change, better technical
standards and innovative financing in the development of a national clean cookstoves industry. It has four
government institutions including ECN as founding partners. The Alliance also has a number of private sector and
donor agencies including USAID and Shell Nigeria.
There are linkages in the activities of some of the stakeholders listed above. For example the Renewable Energy
unit of the Ministry of Environment, as well as ICEED, are members of the Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.
On the other hand, ICEED is leading the Development of a National Programme (NCCMDP) on behalf of NIAF for
the Ministry of Environment. The Programme will provide a market-based approach to mobilise state and nonstate actors in delivering an ambitious cooking energy programme to enhance the achievement of the National
Clean Cookstoves Scheme and other initiatives of the Ministry to promote clean cookstoves in Nigeria.
3.1.3
Stove suppliers
Most kerosene stoves in the Nigerian market are imported from China by general retailers while LPG cylinders and
stoves are mainly imported by LPG marketers and retailers. Apart from traditional cookstoves, efficient wood and
charcoal stoves are also mainly imported from the United States, Europe and Asia with the exception of Toyola
efficient charcoal stoves which are produced in Nigeria. ENVIROFIT, Stove Tec, and ECOZOOM are some of the
major suppliers of efficient wood and charcoal stoves in Nigeria. Envirofit is reviewing options for setting up a local
assembly plant, which Quantas has already done for the T-LUD stove.
However, the bulk of the stoves currently used are manufactured locally from clay and/or metal by stove artisans
in the neighbourhood of users, or are even self-constructed by the users. These stoves are widely used and
accepted as a fact of life without questioning their price, quality, or fuel consumption behaviour.
Envirofit as well as C-Quest both managed to register a stove POA under the CDM. They have invited other stove
initiatives to join and as part of project preparation the team is now discussing the issues for joining the existing
PoAs; new CDM activities cannot be registered any longer as Nigeria officially qualifies as a middle income
country. However, Gold Standard projects can still be registered, using the voluntary carbon and CSR market.
LPG burners are often integrated with the cylinder, particularly for the smaller cylinder sizes of 3 and 6 kg. The
availability of cylinders if hampering further growth in the number of LPG users. Cylinders used to be
manufactured in Nigeria, but the plants have all been closed. Oando, in collaboration with a number of micro
financing institutions, has recently set up a scheme whereby new imported cylinders can be purchased and paid
over an extended period of time.
3.1.4
Financing institutions
The following are the most known and active organisations that provide or are interested in injecting financing in
one way or another in the supply chain of stoves and fuels. It is likely that other organisations exist that are not
mentioned here. In addition there are cooperatives and associations that provide financial services to its
members.
42http://www.projectgaia.com/page.php?page=nigeria#sthash.EI90USf0.dpuf
http://www.nigeriacookstoves.org
43
P a g e | 40
Alitheia Capital
Alitheia Capital is an impact investment firm focused on enabling access to finance housing and energy for low
income households as well as small and growing businesses. It has a particular interest in working with
established MFIs. Alitheia Capital in partnership with Oando, a leading energy company in Nigeria, currently
provides wholesale funding to select microfinance institutions in Nigeria for distributor financing for the retailing
and acquisition of LPG fuels and cookstoves. Consumer finance might be provided as well, but preferably through
the intermediary of the retailers. The initiative aims to promote clean energy and reduce dependence on dirty fuels
including wood, kerosene, and charcoal, but with a preference for LPG 44.
Alitheia’s discussion with Oando is in advanced stages and is expected to lead to the choice of a pilot area where
LPG will be newly introduced on a relatively large-scale. Niger State has been identified as one of the likely
candidates for this pilot.
Bank of Industry
The bank of industry has a mandate to provide financial assistance for the establishment of large, medium and
small projects as well as expansion, diversification and modernization of existing enterprises; and rehabilitation of
ailing ones in Nigeria. It has a particular interest in working with Micro Entrepreneurs. The Ministry of Environment
is collaborating with the bank through the Access to Renewable Energy Project (AtREP) to provide funding to
women entrepreneurs interested in setting up energy enterprises in the country. This is to ensure the success of
the Ministry’s National Clean Cooking Scheme (NCCS) project and enhance the participation of women in
increasing access to clean cooking technologies in Nigeria.
Atmosfair GmbH
Atmosfair, a German Carbon offset organisation, provides carbon finance to reduce the cost of Save 80 stoves
presently sold in the northern part of Nigeria. The stoves are sold by a local organization, Developmental
Association for Renewable Energy (DARE). The Save 80 stoves are high quality German made stoves for use by the
high end households and for institutions.
DevA Access and Empowerment Int'l Limited
DevA (Development Access) provides micro finance. It is a MFI-NGO established to provide developmental access
to economically active people who have difficulty or do not have access to commercial sources of funding, for
starting and improving business and improving the quality of life. The organization supports rural communities,
self-help and solidarity groups, micro entrepreneurs, promote participation of women in business and offer easy
access to financial services and simple and affordable technological tools in rural areas and for the
underprivileged. DevA provides loan facilities, one of which is “RENTA” which is designed to help the active poor
avail themselves use of modern technology such as solar lamps, solar cookers, biomass stoves, etc. while making
payments over a period of 3 to 12 months45.
Informal faith/Social/market based Groups
Informal organisations such as Savings and Credit Co-operative Organisations (see section 7.5) and women social
groups also provide members with opportunities to buy efficient energy equipment and pay back over time in an
agreed number of instalments. This arrangement is based strictly on trust.
3.1.5
Universities and Laboratories
There are six Energy Research Centres under the Energy Commission of Nigeria with specific technical/research
roles46. These are:
i.
ii.
44
National Centre for Energy Research and Development (NCERD), at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka
(responsible for research in solar and renewable energy)
Sokoto Energy Research Centre (SERC), at Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto
(also responsible for research in solar and renewable energy)
http://www.thealitheia.com/current-initiatives.html#bullet03
45http://devapeople.webs.com/devaempowerment.htm
46http://www.energy.gov.ng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:research-centres&catid=37:about-
ecn&Itemid=85
P a g e | 41
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
National Centre for Energy Efficiency and Conservation (NCEEC) at the University of Lagos (responsible for
research in energy efficiency and conservation).
National Centre for Hydropower Research and Development (NCHRD) at the University of Ilorin
(responsible for research in hydropower).
National Centre for Energy & Environment (NCEE) at the University of Benin (responsible for research in
energy and environment).
National Centre for Petroleum Research and Development (NCPRD) at the Abubakar Tafawa Balewa
University, Bauchi (responsible for research in petroleum).
Only two of the above mentioned centres i.e. The National Centre for Energy Research and Development (NCERD)
and Sokoto Energy Research Centre (SERC) are involved in research on clean cookstoves and fuels.
In addition, a Clean Cookstoves Development and Testing Centre is being established at NCERD, University of
Nigeria, Nsukka, South East Nigeria with support from the Global Alliance for clean cookstoves. The centre will
combine stove development and testing, research and services and will have an Advisory Board that will include
the Standards Organization of Nigeria, Energy Commission of Nigeria, Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves and
ICEED.
3.2
Policy environment
The market for clean cook stoves in Nigeria is not yet prominently developed although a few isolated attempts
have been launched. However, more than several thousands of clean stoves have not been disseminated, a far
cry from the actual potential. Indeed, it is a policy failure that access to modern cooking energy receives lower
attention than access to electricity. Despite the fact that the combined value of the market for cooking energy 47
approaches USD 3 billion per year and receives a subsidy of more than USD 1 billion per year, the Government
has not paid serious attention to the policies and regulation needed to properly manage this sector. As a result, a
clear programme for addressing this challenge is lacking.
There is a growing traction within government, the private sector, civil society and donors to address the
challenges of cooking energy. This is not in the least because of international attention generated on this issue.
Recently, the Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves launched a public-private-partnership to introduce 10 million
clean cookstoves by 2020 and this programme will join the NCCMDP. It seeks to strengthen policy frameworks,
technical standards, create more innovative financing and promotion.
In 2009, the government presented its vision 2020, with five main themes, of which two are supported by the
proposed project:
 Achieve energy supply security by utilising the nation’s renewable energy resources (including wind, solar,
hydro and biomass) to diversify the energy consumption mix;

Development of efficient and sustainable energy generation and consumption patterns.48
The Federal Government has initiated a set of policies supporting the clean cookstove sector, however
implementation capacity is limited. The most important measure is the decision to fund a subsidy to reduce the
price of kerosene for household. The National Clean Cooking Scheme (NCCS) and Rural Women and Energy
Security project are part of the Renewable Energy Programme carried out by the Ministry of Environment.
The Government of Nigeria has an essential role to play in sending the right signals to investors and professionals
in the cookstove sector alike by putting in place regulations and policies that back-up and promote the
development of the clean cookstove industry. This can take the form of a direct subsidy for households for the
purchase of a clean cookstove, VAT exoneration and reduced import tariffs for products that meet the required
eligibility criteria. It is proposed to organize an all-inclusive effort to use clean cookstoves, switch cooking fuels in a
coordinated effort building on individual programmes and efforts by a large variety of stakeholders, all working
towards the same goal.
47Cooking
48
fuels only
Report of the Vision 2020 National Technical Working Group On Energy Sector
P a g e | 42
4
CURRENT CLEAN COOKSTOVE INTERVENTIONS
4.1
Clean Cookstoves Interventions by NGOs and private firms
4.1.1
National Stove testing centre
ICEED signed an MOU with the Energy Commission of Nigeria on the July 4, 2013 for the establishment of a
national stove testing centre at the Centre for Energy Research and Development (NCERD), University of Nigeria,
Nsukka. This initiative is a collaboration between the following: Energy Commission of Nigeria, Standards
Organisation of Nigeria, ICEED, Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves and the National Centre for Energy Research
and Development (NCERD), University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
4.1.2
USAID/ICEED’S Energy Efficient Woodstoves Project
The International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development (ICEED) with support from United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) Nigeria is implementing a project that will install efficient
woodstoves in boarding secondary schools in Ebonyi and Niger States in addition to distribution of one hundred
(100) household stoves in each state. The project seeks to address the silent health crisis being experienced by
cooks as a result of indoor air pollution by removing important barriers to the market expansion of clean cooking
stoves in the two project states.
4.1.3
Developmental Association for Renewable Energies (D.A.R.E)49
D.A.R.E is an acronym for “Developmental Association for Renewable Energies.” A Renewable Energy NGO based
in Kaduna, Kaduna State, Nigeria. The organisation is one of the sole suppliers of the SAVE80 improved wood
stoves and has sold over 16,000 to customers at a reduced price all over Nigeria using CDM pre-financing to
subsidise and make the stoves affordable. The organisation presently assembles the Save80 stoves but plans to
commence Production in Nigeria, when enabling environment and policy are available to allow setting up of own
production facilities.
4.1.4
Mfamiyen Conservation Society50
The Mfaminyen Conservation Society (MCS) is a community based organization that seeks to facilitate community
development which addresses the physical needs of the Mfaminyen Communities in Akamkpa and Etung LGAs of
Cross River State. The organisation was conceived to serve as a vehicle for conservation and preservation of the
high tropical rainforest, one of the hot spots of the world. One of the conservation projects of the community is the
dissemination of “Ekwuk” stove, a locally constructed fixed- efficient wood fuel stove which is made from clay and
other materials sourced locally in the communities. The organisation has successfully disseminated 10,000
Ekwuk stoves in the pilot phase of Nigerian Clean cook Stove Programme and has scale up to commercial scale
since 2011 with a new model of stoves that can be moved around.
4.1.5
SOSAI
SOSAI is a social enterprise that deals in the dissemination of renewable energy solutions including solar PVs and
efficient wood and charcoal stoves. The organisation is based in Kaduna, with an early focus on Kaduna state but
the organisation has since started distribution in other parts of the country. The organisation has disseminated
about two thousand (2000) clean cookstoves till date but has a target to reach 1.2 million households in Nigeria.
SOSAI presently distributes Envirofit and Stovetec stoves.
4.1.6
SMEFUNDs
SMEFUNDS is a major distributor of biofuel (ethanol) stoves in Nigeria. The organisation has presence in twenty
states in Nigeria and is presently investing in market expansion for its biofuel stoves. The stoves use biofuel which
can be purchased in twenty (20) designated ‘green centres’, one in each state where the organisation operates.
49www.dare-world.org/dare.org/
50http://mfaminyen.org/
P a g e | 43
The organisation has disseminated the ethanol stoves to about 150,000 households across the nation. The
company plans to establish two bio-refineries with a combined capacity of about one million litres of bioethanol
per day in Nasarawa and Lagos States in the near future.
4.1.7
Toyola Energy
Toyola Energy is a Social Entrepreneurial business with a mission of providing Clean Cookstoves to low income
households in a financially sustainable and scalable way. The organisation was founded in Ghana in 2006 and
has since expanded to three other countries in the West African sub-region; Togo, Benin and Nigeria. The
organisation is relatively new in the Nigerian market and has presence in just one State (Ogun) in Nigeria. The
organisation has sold over twenty thousand (20,000) improved charcoal stoves in Nigeria and is in the process of
completing a factory, which is expected to start production in Nigeria by the end of 2013.
4.1.8
Quintas Energies
Quintas Energies is an organisation that promotes High efficent T-Lud gasifier woodstove for households,
institutional and small businesses uses. The organisation is based in Akure but has presence in Lagos and Abuja.
The commercialisation of the stoves started at the end of 2012 and the organisation wants to increase production
(10 stoves per week) and distribution of the gasifier stoves.
4.1.9
OANDO- Clean Cooking Fuel Initiative
Oando Marketing Plc (OMP) in partnership with Alitheia Capital has set up a Clean Cooking Fuel Initiative. The
initiative is in line with OMP's plan to switch millions of Nigerians from biomass to clean, efficient, affordable and
sustainable LPG using Oando's ‘OGAS’ 3kg cooking stove. Oando introduced this portable 3kg cylinder to suit the
purchasing power of low income socio-economic group who have been hindered primarily by affordability and
accessibility. The cooking stoves are directly available to end-users through the company’s existing vast network of
over 500 retail stations and a growing network of authorised distributors. The initiative has raised $11 million and
has disbursed about $1 million. The initiative makes the adoption of clean cookstove affordable and accessible
through provision of micro finance loans to both entrepreneurs and end-users.
4.1.10 Tower Aluminium
Tower Aluminium, a foremost company in cooking utensils sector in Nigeria, is in a Joint-venture with Envirofit to
help disseminate carbon credit subsidised stoves in Nigeria. Dissemination of the improved wood and charcoal
Envirofit stoves started in March, 2013 but the long term plan is to create demand in a way that will encourage
the local production of the Envirofit stoves in Nigeria. The company currently distributes the clean stove through
cooperatives and other social networks in Lagos state.
Appendix 1 gives an overview of these various actors and the scope of their activities.
4.2
Clean Cookstoves Interventions by Government
4.2.1
Nigerian Clean Cookstoves Alliance
The Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (NACC) is a public-private partnership that was recently established to
to introduce 10 million fuel-efficient stoves to Nigerian homes and institutions by 2020. It works with its partners
to scale up access to clean cookstoves by developing innovative financing mechanisms, supporting quality
assurance and standards, influencing policies and communicating the value of clean cooking.
Current partners of the Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves include:









Federal Ministry of Health
Federal Ministry of Environment
Federal Ministry of Women Affairs
Energy Commission of Nigeria
Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd.
Oando Plc
USAID-Nigeria
GIZ-Nigeria
Bank of Industry
P a g e | 44

International Centre for Energy, Environment & Development.
The Secretariat for the Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves is managed by the International Centre for Energy,
Environment & Development (ICEED). NACC is an affiliate of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.
4.2.2
The Renewable Energy Programme of the Federal Ministry of Environment
The Federal Ministry of Environment under its Renewable Energy Programme has launched the Rural Women
Energy Security (RUWES) project targeted towards the underserved rural woman who is usually off grid, energy
poor and has the highest incidence of health related issues from harmful energy practices. In order to address
cooking energy, the National Clean cooking Scheme (NCCS), a sub project under the RUWES, was launched in
2012 in partnership with the Bank of Industry to also train women as clean cookstove entrepreneurs. The NCCS
seeks to address the need for clean cooking technologies to ensure success of the various tree-planting
campaigns nationwide as well as curb deforestation. The Scheme with an intervention from the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) has benefitted ten (10) pilot Secondary Schools in Kaduna State which had their
kitchens retrofitted with LPG. The scheme is expected to kick off in Borno and Bauchi States as the two state
governments have indicated interest in retrofitting high volume firewood consumers such as schools, hospitals,
hotels and prisons considering the rapid desert encroachment in the states. The REP is in various stages of talks
with state governments for commencement of the project at the state level.
4.2.3
Jigawa State’s Alternative Energy Fund
The Jigawa state government set up the Alternative Energy Fund as a response to solve environmental
degradation and reduce the rate of desertification in the state. Since the lunch of the programme, the state has
produced and disseminated some 80,000 improved wood stoves free to households in Jigawa State over the
period of several years. Presently, the demand for the improved wood stove outweighs the rate of production. A
review of the performance and quality of the stoves should be carried out as a priority. In order to meet up
demand and ensure the sustainability of the project, the state government plans to commercialise the production
of stoves starting from 2014.
4.2.4
Lagos state government
The Lagos state government is presently promoting the use of LPG as alternative to fuelwood. The state has set a
target to disseminate 100,000 LPG stoves through loans which are administered by the state Micro finance
institution at low interest rates. The LPG project is designed to benefit only residents of the state, thus the state
works with registered community development associations in the state to ensure the recipients are bona fide
residents of the state.
4.2.5
Niger state government
The Niger state government on December 17, 2013 launched a safe cooking energy programme. The programme
is expected to deliver clean cookstoves to 500,000 households in the state starting with 50,000 within twelve
months starting from March, 2014. The state intends to achieve this target through public private partnership with
technical support from NIAF.
4.3
Current Stove Activities with Carbon Financing
Nigeria currently has three existing registered carbon projects (Programmes of Activities) for efficient stoves:

Envirofit – Africa Improved Cooking Stoves Programme of Activities

C-Quest – Distribution of fuel efficient improved cooking stoves in Nigeria

Atmosfair – Efficient Fuel Wood Stoves for Nigeria
Initial contact with these programs indicates that all of these would be open to licensing their POA in the future.
With respect to registration, the Programme may establish a new registration document, or it may license an
existing registered project for a fee.
The NCCMDP aspires to use multiple brands of stoves and to be national in scope. All of these PoAs would have
the flexibility to use multiple brands and models of efficient biomass stoves, although none are applicable to
kerosene or LPG-based stoves. Only Envirofit’s POA covers both wood and charcoal stoves. Two are nation-wide
and one (C-Quest) is restricted to Kaduna state.
P a g e | 45
All of these have a CDM registration qualifying them for carbon sales either on the European Carbon Markets (EU
ETS), other markets that may adopt CDM as a registration standard (like future Australian, Korean or Californian
markets) or governments buying the credits to fulfil domestic or international targets. One of the POAs, (Atmosfair)
has Gold Standard registration which is additionally suitable for the Voluntary Carbon Markets. The other two POAs
may be able to sell credits into the voluntary markets, if they additionally do a Gold Standard labelling process, or
if they convert their status to the Gold Standard (a process that may be allowed by the Gold Standard in the
future). Envirofit plans to seek Gold Standard accreditation in 2014.
4.3.1
Envirofit
The Coordinating and Managing Entity for this POA is Envirofit International51. The POAs geographic boundaries
are limited to the nation-states of Ghana and Nigeria. The POA was registered with the CDM on November 24,
2011 and will expire after 28 years. The POA is classified under the CDM as a Small Scale programme and as
such is limited to energy savings up to 180 GWHth/year per CPA. This translates to allowing each CPA included
under the POA to offset a maximum of roughly 47,000 t CO2e per year or 470,000 over the ten-year term of the
CPA.
To date there have been no CPAs issued under this POA in Nigeria. At the time of POA registration a CPA was
submitted for Ghana. Envirofit is currently in the process of registering a POA in Nigeria, and plans to achieve
validation by the end of 2013. The CPA will include two Envirofit stove models: the G3300 and the M5000.
4.3.2
C-Quest
The Coordinating and Managing Entity for this POA is C-Quest Capital52. The POA’s geographic boundaries are
restricted to the Nigerian state of Kaduna. The POA was registered on August 8 th, 2012 and will expire after 28
years. The POA is classified under the CDM as a Small Scale programme and as such is limited to energy savings
up to 180 GWHth/year per CPA. This translates to allowing each CPA included under the POA to offset a maximum
of roughly 47,000 t CO2e per year or 470,000 over the ten-year term of the CPA.
There is one registered CPA under this POA
4.3.3
CPA #
Owner
Approval Date
Stove Type(s)
1
C-Quest
07 Nov 12
EcoZoom
Zoom
Envirofit M5000
CPA Stove Limit
Dura,
13,950
Atmosfair
The Coordinating and Managing Entity for the POA is Atmosfair53. The POA was registered on October 24, 2011
and will expire after 28 years. The POAs geographic boundaries are limited to the nation-state of Nigeria. The POA
is classified under the CDM as a Small Scale programme and as such is limited to energy savings up to 180
GWHth/year. This translates to allowing each CPA included under the POA to offset a maximum of roughly 47,000
t CO2e per year or 470,000 over the ten-year term of the CPA.
There are five registered CPAs under this POA:
CPA #
1
2
3
4
5
Owner
Atmosfair
Atmosfair
Atmosfair
Atmosfair
Atmosfair
Approval Date
10 Nov 11
11 Jul 12
11 Jul 12
29 May 13
29 May 13
Stove Type(s)
Save 80
Save 80
Envirofit G3300, M5000
Save 80
Envirofit G3300, M5000
http://cdm.unfccc.int/ProgrammeOfActivities/poa_db/T0ZKV3S1F2JH8RL75D9GQ6AMO4XNIC/view
http://cdm.unfccc.int/ProgrammeOfActivities/poa_db/GS2VTKUD3ZW59CAQYJEP740XFN1HIR/view
53 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/RWTUV1245685309.5/view
51
52
P a g e | 46
CPA Stove Limit
3,200
3,200
3,750
9,600
11,250
4.4
Reflection for future intervention
The two main guidelines that can be developed to form the basis for the NCCMDP are: (i) inclusiveness of
stakeholders and (ii) geographical targeting. The NCCMDP will never be successful if it excludes possible
stakeholders of if it doesn’t build on the experience and efforts already in place. Even though these efforts are
small compared to the needs of the national programme, whatever lessons learnt so far must be taken into
account. This also means that it would be beneficial if the own programmes as existing now by some of the
stakeholders could be moulded into the NCCMDP without major modifications. The implication is that the support
offered by NCCMDP could be in addition to what these stakeholders have already arranged for and in place.
The country is large and different institutions are active in different parts of the country. Therefore, it is
recommended to launch the NCCMDP on a State by State basis. This will facilitate a number of important
elements: first of all, it will allow the programme to pilot its activities in a few states before expanding and scaling
up; secondly, it will allow States to easily provide different levels of support within the same programme. As an
example, a particular State may be willing to provide more support for LPG than other States, or for women
empowerment, etc. Finally, this will maximize the flexibility and develop tailor made support within the programme.
Although in the long-run carbon financing could make a significant difference, particularly if carbon values
increase, so far the ongoing programs have not been very successful. One of the reasons found is that Nigerian
households do not like administrative hassles, and tend to refuse registering for the purchase of a subsidized
stove. This, plus the fact that the existing PoAs are fairly small could suggest that carbon financing might not be a
priority for the moment.
P a g e | 47
5
REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES
A list of exhaustive interventions can be drawn from clean stove interventions carried out elsewhere around the
world. It can be divided into three main categories of action:
i. Enhance demand: understanding and motivating potential users, developing better and more technology, and
providing consumer finance;
ii. Strengthen supply: creating innovative distribution models to reach a wide variety of consumers, attracting
more finance and investment, increasing access to carbon finance, enhancing market intelligence and
creating inclusive value-chains;
iii. Foster an enabling environment: engaging national and local stakeholders, building the evidence base for the
benefits of clean stoves and fuels, promoting international standards and rigorous testing protocols and
enhancing monitoring and evaluation.
While action could be desirable on all of these aspects, the most urgent issues and interventions needed to
quickly develop large adoption of clean cookstoves in Nigeria are described into the national clean stove
programme outlined in section 6. Other key actions could then be implemented with a specific timetable and
stakeholder’s engagement.
5.1
Enhance Demand
5.1.1
Understanding and motivating the consumer
The following was recommended during the NACC/GACC stakeholder workshop:
(i) Commission a customer segmentation study to identify and better understand the needs and preferences
of the consumer segments in different regions in Nigeria. This has mainly been done through an end-user
behaviour survey realised by NIAF in three states of Nigeria in 2013, to complement the market
assessment carried out by GACC.
(ii) Develop a national multi-media marketing campaign to educate households and make them more aware
of the crucial issues that they should look at when replacing their stoves, why it is in their interest to
change stoves, and where they can find clean stoves.
5.1.2
Consumer Finance
Several options exist that should be explored so that beneficiaries have options to select. Institutions need
different solutions than households. As of now, it is not certain which would be the best option as this would need
to be field tested.
(i) Develop a subsidy programme to make certified stoves attractive to the end users and convince them to
quickly replace their old stove for a clean model.
(ii) Develop financial products (microloans, top-up loans, and fuel saving schemes) targeted to the needs of
would-be clean cookstove purchasers. It is observed that households in Nigeria are wary of registering
their name and address in order to obtain benefits; stove subsidies requiring tracking for carbon
monitoring found this out in practice;
(iii) Promote clean energy-focused savings and loans associations, women’s savings groups, and community
networks.
(iv) Pilot new types of cookstove offers, including try-before-you-buy and layaway schemes, to reduce
consumer-perceived risk.
P a g e | 48
5.1.3
Innovative Manufacturing and Distribution Methods
(i) Add clean cookstoves and fuels to large non-cooking product distribution/wholesale networks such as
supermarkets, agricultural outlet stores, and hardware stores where households already tend to come
frequently.
(ii) Improve existing cookstove and fuel-specific distribution networks to ensure consumer access and
affordability and increased adoption and sustained use.
(iii) Develop enabling policies to encourage private sector actors to build regional/national stove production
centers to reduce cost of manufacturing, shipping/freight, and tariffs. This will result in more affordable
cookstoves and more profitable business models.
5.1.4
Access to Finance (social investment, working capital, carbon)
(i) Design a revolving working capital fund to support operational needs of women business groups,
suppliers, manufacturers and distributors.
(ii) Explore the use of a partial risk guarantee fund
(iii) Work with private sector financiers to provide additional financing options to address gaps identified by
the private sector.
(iv) Develop an innovation fund to support improvements in design, production, delivery, and after sales
service.
(v) Increase access to carbon finance. Develop a pre-finance carbon facility to support enterprises and
consumers in the sale and adoption of cleaner and more efficient cookstoves.
5.1.5
Entrepreneur training and capacity building
(i) Train entrepreneurs on how to improve quality of products, better understand consumer preferences and
incorporate feedback, attract investment, market and distribute their products, and keep financial
records.
(ii) Specifically target women entrepreneurs and networks to increase their engagement in the cooking value
chain.
5.2
Foster an Enabling Environment
5.2.1
Standards and testing
(i) Establish a Nigerian Clean Cookstove Testing and Knowledge Centre, which will assess performance of
cookstoves against national standards and possibly future international standards set through ISO
processes for emissions and fuel efficiency. The results of this should be disseminated through labelling
and/or consumer education activities.
(ii) Develop and enforce a certification system to distinguish stoves that meet national standards (as
certified by the Nigerian testing center).
(iii) Provide a market incentive to stove producers/marketers to attain standards by educating consumers
about the benefits of certified and labelled cookstoves and fuels (see “Understanding, motivating, and
meeting the needs of consumers” above).
5.2.2
Fuels and technology
(i) Increase the supply of LPG through a separate LPG Market Transformation Initiative to adept to
accelerated market development through a variety of measures to be implemented by the private sector.
In addition, the Government has not set a market price for LNG for use within Nigeria but applies a price
based on international markets. For liquid petroleum products, an internal price is applied for the supply
P a g e | 49
within Nigeria that is lower than for export. If such price could be established for LNG (and ultimately LPG)
the cost of cooking with LPG would be much lower.
(ii) Commission and disseminate research on scaling up of promising technologies that have proven to be
viable, fuel efficiency, availability, production, processing, and new technologies, including sustainable
woodlots, improved charcoaling technologies, briquettes, waste to energy conversion, and
affordable/accessible biofuels such as bio-ethanol, bio-diesel, biogas.
(iii) Establish a comparative value for different fuels showing which are most efficient and when.
Box 2: Fuel switching experiment
As a thought experiment, assume that the entire commercial cooking fuel
market magically and instantaneously switches to LPG. A rough estimate of
the annual consumption is about 6.5 million t of LPG (in 2015), with an
approximate market value of about 10b USD; the current commercial fuels
market value is roughly 4b USD, and LPG consumption is 0.3 million t.
The second thought experiment builds further on this; what can the
current, inefficient subsidy on kerosene mean if applied to LPG under the
above conditions. The approximate budget in 2012 for subsidizing
kerosene was 1.5b USD. The average price of LPG as seen in the 3 state
NIAF household survey, USD 1550/t, would be lowered by 10% to USD
1400/t, which would further increase adoption rates.
5.2.3
Monitoring and evaluation
(i) Increase the capacity of NACC to be the central coordinator of M&E for the sector.
(ii) Establish M&E systems throughout the value chain by requiring M&E as part of all funding opportunities
and providing training on proper M&E methodology (especially for carbon credit projects that are already
operating within Nigeria, but also for the NCCMDP which is expected to use carbon financing for raising
much of its financing).
5.2.4
Building the evidence base (research on impacts and benefits)
(i) Evaluate existing baseline data on household energy in Nigeria and identify which regular data collection
efforts could potentially contribute in the future to systematically improving and updating the household
energy database (i.e. Census, Living Conditions survey, etc.).
(ii) Commission and disseminate research to build evidence base on the relationship between cookstoves
and health, livelihoods, environment, and women’s empowerment.
5.2.5
Champion the sector and engage national stakeholders
(i) Develop an online Nigeria knowledge portal and promote it through partner networks, events, and
NACC/Alliance email listservs.
(ii) Lobby and sensitize key national and county government institutions on the benefits of clean cooking on
health, environment and economy. Work with the Nigerian government to create enabling policies that
reduce import tariffs for clean cookstoves, especially for organisations assembling or producing within the
West Africa region.
P a g e | 50
6
MAJOR ISSUES
6.1
SWOT Analysis
Table 17 SWOT Analysis of the Nigerian clean stove Context
Strengths
Weaknesses
clean stove dissemination contributes directly to MDGs,
especially poverty reduction (reducing respiratory diseases,
improving living conditions) and environment protection
(reducing CO2 emissions and forest degradation), and should
therefore be considered as a priority by the government
clean stove use is attractive for households because it
reduces fuel expenses, time spent for cooking and/or fuel
collection time, and results in cleaner kitchen air
No successful large scale dissemination of clean stove across
the country. Currently, there are no market aggregators
clean stove dissemination could generate added
value/additional revenues for players of stove supply chains
Numerous stove producers and importers are present in
Nigeria, working across different fuel types
Some interventions are already benefiting from carbon
finance
Population is open to modern products as shown by the rapid
increase in the use of mobile phones
Sometimes limited but existing willingness and ability to pay if
product benefits are demonstrated
Some well-established microfinance institutions across the
country
Existing basic market knowledge as to fuel preferences:
kerosene as the leading urban fuel while firewood dominates
rural markets
Some awareness of the negative health impacts of cooking
on traditional biomass stoves
Poor rural population is the largest segment of the target and
also the most difficult to reach (less than 50% of rural
households gather fuel and may not pay for their cooking fuel
or stove, and need to be convinced about the benefits)
Although households know about improved stoves, they do
not know what it could mean for them and where to obtain.
Lack of market intelligence
Absence of efficiency and emissions standards leading to
certification of cookstoves
Absence of coordination among the different actors
Lack of appropriate technical and financial support to local
clean stove supply chains
Lack of efficient independent quality control and monitoring
systems, leading to potentially poor thermal and sanitary
efficiencies of clean stove disseminated and no warranty of
positive impacts
Not sure that new cookstoves provide enough incremental
benefits compared to incremental costs for households that
are using smartphones
Weak political will to address biomass issues head-on,
leading to lack of commitment, weak institutional
arrangement, regulation, coordination and financing
Lack of coordination between donors and overly reliance on
pre-selected clean stove models supported by each donor
Lack of coordination at national level and ethic in carbon
finance raising
Religious beliefs can be an additional hurdle in some parts of
the country
Low adoption of clean stove and of LPG and good kerosene
stoves
No effort to address deforestation even though the
deforestation rate is extremely high
Carbon market is down, giving low prices for reduced carbon
emissions
Opportunities
Threats
Rising energy prices
Lack of political promotion of the issue and solutions (Ministry
of Environment/Energy) leads to launching other initiatives
with controversial implications (such as LPG bottle give away
programmes)
Support to market development alone leads to limited market
penetration of cookstoves with no durable impact as the
population grows
Corruption and political interference (favoring certain
technical solutions, or regions)
Increasing scarcity of firewood and of subsidised kerosene
Global and national dynamics on clean stove (GACC and
NACC) linked mainly with increasing international awareness
P a g e | 51
Opportunities
Threats
on health impacts of biomass fuels combustion
Health reasons provide enough justification to promote
modern fuels and stoves
Some among donors and/or practitioners to coordinate and
join efforts in the field of clean stove
WACCA initiative under development
Carbon funds and agreed methodologies available
Initial subsidy scheme to trigger quick and large adoption of
clean stove
State-level dynamics in place committed to quickly start
implementing pilots
6.2
Failure to integrate larger dynamics and gather donors under
a large programme in the field of clean stove (World Bank,
EU)
Many other priorities exist, while stoves are generally not
ranked as the most pressing priority (e.g., rural electrification)
Too much attention and no action
Subsidy programme not acceptable
Stoves producers not having the capacity to supply at largescale, particularly when manufactured locally
Discussion of the Main Issues
The above SWOT analysis presented in Table 17 permits identifying the current major issues regarding clean stove
dissemination in Nigeria:


Setting up a framework for large-scale and relatively quick intervention under which donors and practitioners
can operate efficiently and relatively independently towards the same goal of providing access to clean
cooking solutions in a relatively short period of time. This requires:
-
defining the framework conditions under which stoves and stove suppliers can be supported by the
programme
-
realizing a fail-proof mechanism to verify that stoves and stove suppliers continue to adhere to these
conditions without undue pressure on personal information
-
providing the means to support the stoves and stove suppliers as long as these operate within the
framework conditions.
Giving as much attention as possible to the supply of truly modern stoves; including for rural populations that
are open to “modern-ness”, as a push for switching to more modern stoves and fuels that is highly justified for
health reasons, but not ignoring lack of funds to invest for a large part of the (rural) population.
-
Focusing on the most pressing fuel issues: improved biomass stoves in rural areas and in urban areas
improved kerosene stoves and promoting a switch to LPG.
-
Trying to down-play the growth of charcoal as much as possible due to the aggravated impact on wood
resources.

Securing a significant initial financial support to quickly harness clean stove technologies within rural and
urban populations; this can consist of any of three separate elements: (i) exonerating VAT for the most
efficient and/or clean stove models; (ii) (partly) reducing import duties for highly efficient stove models; and
(iii) explicit investment subsidies that can be applied in-line with the specific objectives for each State, and
should be applied temporarily only to induce quick changes and adoption. At this point, the preference is for
investment subsidies, as these are easiest to implement and administer, particularly since this is supposed to
be a temporary measure.

Ensuring technological neutrality based on healthy commercial competition and the following basic principle:
“Each household should have access to the fuels and stoves they prefer, at their true economic prices
integrating health, environmental and economic externalities”. Households thus should be allowed to have a
free choice of stove and/or fuel. Embedded in this principle also is the fact that stoves should never be
handed out for free.
P a g e | 52

Setting up an efficient and independent quality control and monitoring system, including a well-equipped
independent laboratory for particulate measurements and fuel consumption, in order to easily distinguish
between well performing stoves and non-performing ones, and for warranty purposes safeguarding the energy
and sanitary efficiencies of clean stove disseminated and avoid counterfeits/imitations. The quality control is
realized at two points:
-
at entry, when all stove models are verified for eligibility under the programme; they will all be tested in
the same laboratory; irrespective of the fuel they use, they will be tested against the same criteria and if
eligible, they can be supported to ease dissemination;
-
during operation, when it is verified that stoves continue to perform against the original criteria so that
households obtained what they paid for.

Providing appropriate technical and financial services to clean stove supply chain stakeholders.

Adopting and enforcing appropriate and regularly updated policies, regulations and tax systems aiming at
creating incentives for clean stove supply chain players to up-scale their activity, lower the selling prices and
continuously improve their products.

Actively promoting and demonstrating the benefits of clean stoves to foster populations buy-in through an allinclusive programme encompassing all types of fuels and eligible stoves.
P a g e | 53
7
PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES
7.1
Programme development objective
The proposed development objective (PDO) is to increase access to modern and clean cooking energy for
households, small businesses and institutions in Nigeria, with an emphasis on poor households.
7.2
Specific objectives
There are five specific objectives, constituting the 5 components of the programme:

Carry out a promotional and awareness campaign to convince households and small businesses to
quickly adopt eligible clean cookstoves;

Quality control, which consists of two subcomponents
•
identify eligible cookstoves, verifying which models can be supported under the programme as they
meet required national quality, performance and safety standards;
•
Create an active verification process, monitoring stove quality;

Realize an operational financial support mechanism stimulating accelerated stove replacement and
adoption;

M&E, to verify performance of the stoves and estimate the impact of the programme

Support local stove producers for quality enhancement and scaled-up production capacity.
P a g e | 54
8
PROGRAMME DESCRIPTION
8.1
Concept
Lack of access to modern cooking solutions in Nigeria results in high economic costs through environmental
degradation, poor health conditions in households from air pollution, and unnecessary cooking fuel expenditures.
This is valid for poor households in urban and rural areas alike. The proposed programme is expected to improve
these conditions rapidly and sustainably. A public awareness campaign will raise awareness about both the issues
and solutions, and will promote households to act now rather than later by quickly replacing their dirty stoves. The
stoves that will be promoted include all stoves that meet the performance conditions set by the Nigerian
Government, and include all possible fuels.
Stove models should be appealing to households and express confidence that they will continue to perform well
throughout their useful life. All stoves that will be promoted have in common that they combust cleanly and
efficiently, and come with certain performance guarantees. As always, beneficiaries have a choice of which fuel or
stove to use, and therefore a range of LPG and kerosene stoves will be promoted under the programme as well as
2nd generation wood stoves including owner constructed stoves in poor rural households. In fact, the programme
is indifferent as to which stoves to promote, as long as they meet the agreed national criteria. This could therefore
also include stoves which require a different fuel supply, such as biogas, bio-oils, and biofuels (ethanol or
methanol): although stoves can be promoted under the programme, there is no support for the fuel supply side
and if a stove model requires different fuel supply, the promoters of the stove should ensure an adequate supply.
Since different households require different solutions, all eligible stove models will be offered simultaneously so
that households can make the appropriate choice corresponding to their specific needs. The essential element is
that each and every stove model that will be promoted satisfies the agreed performance criteria and comes with a
warrantee.
Thus, the essence of the programme is that households know (i) what they are buying, (ii) why they are buying this,
and (iii) what their rights are. This will be highlighted in the awareness campaign. The programme will essentially
be realised by modernising the stove supply chain, providing certified stoves to households at attractive prices,
offering a micro financing scheme for households who want to use this, and distributing transparent subsidies.
Checks, balances, and transparency through independent M&E agents will help to transform this sector into a
more professionally operating one, capable of increasing access to modern cooking solutions for a large part of
the Nigerian population in a relatively short time. The large-scale dissemination of clean stoves over a number of
years is expected to reduce prices, thereby avoiding the continued need to provide subsidies.
Quite a few stove models are currently being promoted by organisations and individuals, some of them with good
and some with poor quality stoves, some with 2nd generation stoves, and some are promoted under one of three
carbon financing schemes. Potential clients do not know what they get and are confused. Moreover, the scale of
any of these efforts is far too small to make an impact. The proposed programme will act as an umbrella
programme providing common support for all eligible improved stove models and producers, inviting all stove
producers and suppliers to join the programme. The support given under the programme for promoting these
stoves will be over and above what each supplier does for himself.
Thus, the programme essentially professionalises the supply chain, raises understanding and creates more
knowledge among potential customers, and provides incentives for replacing old stoves for clean ones. This
requires a well-functioning certification programme to identify which stoves can be supported under the
programme, and it requires a well-functioning programme to monitor & evaluate performance of the stoves in real
life. If stoves do not perform as originally promised by their suppliers, they should be fixed or replaced; if problems
persist, these stoves should ultimately be eliminated from the list of eligible stoves that can be supported.
Beneficiaries must be able to count on the promised performance of the stoves.
8.2
Description
There are several principles that form the basis behind the programme:




The end-user selects the solution that fits his/her needs, whether an LPG, kerosene, charcoal, or firewood
stove
Urban and rural households, small businesses and institutions using commercial wood fuels or gathered
wood fuels will be addressed
The delivery of the stove products to end-users is entirely commercial and private
The use of market aggregators will be promoted to scale up the supply and distribution level
P a g e | 55





To accelerate adoption levels, a support mechanism will be developed to give financial incentives to
households and manufacturers or suppliers to quickly change stoves to better performing ones
Financial support is temporary, targeted, and well defined, and absolutely no free hand-outs are allowed
Measures to avoid large-scale fraud should be incorporated, including independent monitoring
(Micro)- finance will be provided as a voluntary option to households, as well as finance to manufacturers
or suppliers
Private local manufacturers of efficient stoves and LPG cylinder can be supported as it is expected that
the largest quantity of clean stoves will need to be locally assembled or manufactured.
The programme should preferably be implemented by states or geographical zones, using as much as possible
capable local organisations for the implementation, incorporating and reinforcing any stove programmes that may
already exist. Buy-in from authorities, such as State Government, is required and for practical reasons an
approach addressing State by State might be useful, particularly if State Governments contribute to financing of
the programme.
The proposed stove programme has five interdependent main components, each of which is necessary for the
success of the programme:
•
•
•
•
•
8.2.1
Promotion and awareness raising
Quality control and stove certification
Financial Support Mechanism
Monitoring and Evaluation
Support to local stove producers
Component 1: Promotion and awareness raising
The awareness campaign will address the lack of knowledge among the target population about the issues
regarding safety and air pollution in the kitchen, about fuel consumption and deforestation, and about climate
change as result of cooking. Many households will regard a stove as a common or banal commodity and do not
see the need to even think about changing it. But, as households have embraced modernization at other levels
(i.e., by using smart phones), they may become aware of the opportunities to further improve the wellbeing of their
family, by reducing cooking fuel expenditures and hospital bills for respiratory problems, and simultaneously
helping protect the local environment and assisting with cleaning up the global environment.
The awareness campaign will thus focus on explaining the issues, propose and promote solutions, and make
people aware of how they can apply the solutions themselves by providing the information where to buy, what to
look for, what the warrantees mean for each of the different stove models, etc. It will also explain the rights and
obligations of buyers and suppliers alike. Finally, it will explain the support mechanisms that exist for changing
their stoves. No-one is obliged to buy any stove they don’t want, or take a micro credit: the options are there to use
for those who appreciate them.
The core message on health improvements and health impacts linked to the use of inefficient cookstoves will be
instrumental for advocating clean cookstoves. In addition to the household energy survey commissioned by NIAF
that has provided insights on perceived health impacts of traditional stove use, two surveys should soon be
available that will further inform this question. Project Gaia is currently researching the impacts of ethanol stove
use on health while Shell is financing a survey comparing traditional and Envirofit stoves. 54
The campaign should be multifaceted including mass media and direct reach-out activities, whereby simple
demonstrations can be realised close to the households’ homes. This is seen as key by local improved stove
producers and distributors to drive sales, who should be actively pursuing this as well. Product centres, where
most (or at least many) eligible clean stoves are on display, or retail stores might be good candidates for
organising such demonstrations.
It has been proposed to learn from the HIV campaign (behaviour change communication) previously led in Nigeria
that was successful as advocacy was taken forward by the people affected. Women and other direct targets (as
beneficiaries and people mostly affected) need to be put in the centre.
The campaign will be implemented over several years, using all possible promising media and channels. It has
been suggested to ask a popular singer to become the “face of clean stoves”, which seems a good idea. The
Note that this data should also be used to lobby federal government (re: import, duties, tax rebates) and state governments
for budgetary interventions.
54
P a g e | 56
possible involvement of the Nigerian national film industries, “Nollywood” (in the south) and “Kannywood” (in the
north), to both work with iconic actors and actresses to lead messages and with producers to makes movies
focussing on this theme is another interesting option. Television, radio, social media may all be used to advance
households’ knowledge and understanding of the issues and solutions.
The wife of the former Head of State, Mrs Ajoke Murtala Mohammed has unveiled the Clean Cooking Energy
Ambassadors Network, and this needs to be nurtured further. It is also thought that geopolitical champions should
lead the clean cookstove initiative. This is true at the state and the community level. Political parties, head chiefs,
subordinates, association heads, religious groups, youth, women etc. have all a role to play.
A communications consultant specialised in behaviour change communication will be hired to develop this
component further. The campaign will be realised by a private media firm. It is proposed to develop a national
campaign, which can be used as a model for the various states after fine-tuning to the specific circumstances in
that state. The subcomponents are the following:
8.2.2
-
Develop the main messages for the awareness campaign (mainly by the Steering Committee and the
PMU)
-
Design the awareness campaign (by a behavioural change communications specialist)
-
Implement the campaign (by a private communications firm)
-
Obtain feedback to refine and fine-tune the messages and the campaign.
Component 2: Quality control and stove certification
There should be no doubt about the performance of the stoves included in the national programme in terms of
safety, fuel efficiency, and emissions. Stoves that meet or outperform the agreed standards will be certified as
“eligible for support” under the national clean cookstoves market development programme (NCCMDP). Users
should not be deceived and experience problems with underperformance from what was promised by the
suppliers. Consumers should be assured of the quality of their stoves, and manufacturers should get incentives
for developing even better stoves. Both users and suppliers should benefit from the support (whether financial or
technical) offered under the NCCMDP.
Different testing services are needed for the NCCMDP, which can be provided by different types of laboratories.
R&D testing is needed for stove model development and fine-tuning; this requires access for stove suppliers to a
laboratory for fuel consumption and emission testing. The accuracy of the tests and replicability of results are not
major concerns as long as relative performance to the traditional stove can be demonstrated convincingly.
Eligibility tests are the second type of tests needed, which require a higher level of precision.
The reputation of the eligibility testing laboratory must be outstanding, both from a point of view of technical
expertise and independence. Stove suppliers may complain if the results are not in-line with their expectations.
For the purpose of the stove programme, one must be absolutely certain that the lab has not made mistakes and
should be assessed by an international standards and accreditation organization55.
There are various steps required to reach stove certification.

Identification of a testing facility (or participating laboratory)
The Energy Commission of Nigeria and International Centre for Energy, Environment & Development signed an
MOU on the July 4, 2013 for the establishment of the national stove testing centre at the Centre for Energy
Research and Development (NCERD), University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Although the GACC has indicated in 2013 its
intention to finance the equipment, this has not materialized yet. This laboratory is expected to carry out eligibility
testing. The Standards Organization of Nigeria designated this laboratory as its national stove testing laboratory.
The International Centre for Energy, Environment & Development in partnership with the Energy Commission of
Nigeria and the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves have already established a Nigerian Clean Cookstoves
55
In another country, a stove supplier went to court to obtain what he thought was his right as he trusted his own perception
better than the eligibility testing results by the certification laboratory. However, since the eligibility testing laboratory and its
testing protocols had been assessed by an international accreditation organization, it could provide adequate proof that its
test results were correct. The stove supplier had to accept that his stove could not be included under the programme until it
shows improved performance. Thus, he started working with an R&D lab to improve the performance of his model – and that
is exactly what is needed: any product that meets the performance criteria will be supported.
P a g e | 57
Design and Testing Centre in collaboration with the Akanu Ibiam Federal Polytechnic, Unwana, Afikpo, Ebonyi
State. Some limited stove testing has been realized here so far.
The owner of the national testing laboratory should ideally sign a Cooperation agreement with the PMU, allowing it
to receive some assistance. This could include support from the programme to acquire the additional testing
equipment and receive initial training and capacity building by a senior Laboratory Testing Advisor56 to be
contracted by the PMU. The laboratory will be responsible for providing testing services of stove emissions and
efficiency performance following an agreed testing protocol. It does not determine whether a stove is eligible; it
simply measures and documents the performance of the tested stoves. The test results are reviewed by a
committee, which ideally would be the NCCMDP Steering Committee. The committee decides, based on the test
results, which stoves are eligible for support under the NCCMDP. Note that past the initial establishment phase,
the laboratory should preferably be able to provide its own financing to remain sustainable57. To be eligible for
support, the laboratory should have an operational business plan, including a management structure and proper
facilities and equipment to carry out the testing according to the protocol in the Cooperation agreement between
the laboratory owner and the Programme Management Unit. An appropriate international testing facility could
assist the owner of the Nigerian laboratory to become fully operational. This international testing facility should
have scientific experience with stove emission and efficiency testing.
As part of a normal due diligence process, the testing centre should be assessed by an independent specialist and
accreditation organization with regards to the testing set up of the laboratory and the testing protocol. Tüv and
SGS are organisations capable of doing such an assessment. This will be required as the Government will commit
large sums of money for subsidies based on the proper functioning of the laboratory.

Setting-up of testing protocols
Testing criteria and testing protocols will need to be identified for use in Nigeria, taking into account variations in
culinary practices and equipment throughout Nigeria. The testing should give reasonable indications for results in
the field, i.e., how the stove will perform when used by households for actual cooking. This can be done in
collaboration with other recognised independent testing facilities. Ideally a South-South transfer would be
favoured, for example, in China, India, Indonesia, or South Africa similar efforts are underway. Protocols and
criteria applied by other countries could be used as a starting point, while the GACC could possibly also provide
further guidance.

Setting-up of performance standards
There are various ways of determining adequate performance standards for clean cookstove technologies. One
could deduct national standards from a benchmarking of existing national standards elsewhere in the world.
Another approach may be to establish acceptable emissions and efficiency levels after having tested and
evaluated performances of the whole range of clean stoves offered on the Nigerian market. The Ministry of
Environment should lead in designing satisfactory criteria for cleanliness (emissions) and reduced environmental
impact (efficiency), probably through the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency
(NESREA), preferably backed by international standards.
It is ultimately the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) that will register an agreed stove standard. It might
take a few years before SON will be able to realize this, and interim standards specifically for the programme
could be used in the interim. This underlines the importance of the Steering Committee that will act as the interim
decision maker, as there needs to be broad buy-in for the standards selected.

Selecting eligible stove producers and stove models
The programme addresses stoves for households, institutions, and small businesses in Nigeria. Stove suppliers
and manufacturers will need to get their stove model(s) tested by the participating laboratory in order to be put on
the list of eligible stoves. The verification will be confirmed by the SC when the stove model meets or exceeds the
national stove standard as tested by the laboratory. The PMU will ask the national laboratory to carry out the
eligibility testing of stoves and stove producers. This will yield two lists: (i) eligible stove models, and (ii) eligible
stove producers/suppliers; these lists will be maintained and regularly updated, and is prominently used in the
awareness campaign. The actual declaration of eligibility is the responsibility of the Steering Committee.
Note that the cost of setting-up a laboratory should not exceed 100,000 euros for a facility that allows to both test product
development and certification.
57 This is possible through securing of national dedicated funding (Education, Research etc.), international one (Collaborative
Research programmes, Innovation grants etc.) or through the provision of paid services to stoves producers inside and outside
of Nigeria.
56
P a g e | 58
Note that stoves can be locally manufactured, produced or assembled, or imported. Two types of stoves could be
submitted for testing: (i) proprietary stoves (such as Stove Tec, Envirofit, etc), and (ii) public domain stoves (such
as owner-constructed Rocket Stoves). For the first category, stove manufacturers can submit their stove model(s)
for testing; only they will be able to manufacture these stoves in Nigeria or elsewhere unless they allow production
under license; imported stoves from a global stove manufacturer also fit in this category. For the second category,
some stove producers could ask to be registered as eligible producer; this will be only for the production of eligible
public domain stove types.
Each stove on the list of eligible models will be accompanied by a unique registration number or certificate so that
its origins can be traced. Ideally all certified stove should be stamped with a specific label that will help people
recognize the eligible and performing stoves from any other stove sold as “improved”. It would also be easier to
communicate and raise awareness around clean stoves thanks to this visual aid.
It is understood that some producers may find this cumbersome, as some of their products may already have
been vetted by international laboratories, but for reasons of transparency, only stoves that have been shown to
comply with the same transparent rules and tested in the same laboratory should be supported. This would
increase the transparency as there would be no exceptions and all suppliers in Nigeria would comply with the
same rules. If stoves have already been approved by an international laboratory before, chances are good that
they will be approved for the Nigerian standard without problems.
The participation of eligible stove suppliers in the programme is not a voluntary process: they should sign an
agreement with the PMU that outlines their responsibilities and the support they can get in return. As long as they
keep their responsibilities, they can be supported by the programme. Supplying only eligible stoves, guaranteeing
the performance and quality for a defined period of time, submitting new stove models for eligibility testing, and
sharing information about numbers of stoves and field performance are among their responsibilities. Support that
can be provided in return includes awareness raising, financial support, and technical assistance. The agreement
can be either on the national level or the state level. In any case, stoves that have been declared eligible at the
national level should be automatically eligible for participating in a state programme, although an agreement with
the state-PMU will be required.

Quality control of eligible stove producers and stove models
Under the M&E component stoves need re-testing, which will be done by the laboratory. This is for both randomly
selected stoves are well as stoves that have been identified as having performance problems. A complaints facility
will be set up do deal with customer complaints and get the attention from stove suppliers.
8.2.3
Component 3: Financial Support Mechanism
Subsidies are a contaminated concept in Nigeria mainly due to large-scale diversion of subsidy funds under
several programs in the recent past. However, there are programs in Nigeria that generally do deliver subsidies to
the intended target groups, such as the agricultural fertilizer subsidy programme that uses mobile telephone
vouchers. Since it is the intention of the national programme to quickly replace traditional stoves with cleaner
models, some form of financial support is expected to be needed. This is also in line with expectations from State
Governors, who generally want to maximize support for their constituencies. Globally, there is tendency for subsidy
support to move towards results based financing, whereby beneficiaries are paid on delivery of clearly identified
deliverables.
Financial support will be provided to accelerate the broad and expedient adoption of clean cookstoves across
various fuel user groups, states and classes around the country as well as the switch to cleaner fuels. Several
different levels of support are possible, all leading to a direct or indirect reduction of the retail price of clean
stoves:
(i)
First of all, direct financial subsidy to the user of the stove is likely to be most direct and effective; it
could act as an extra incentive to act now rather than later, and quickly purchase a clean stove. A
proven mechanism such as similar to the fertilizer programme or an RBF type programme is
preferred;
(ii)
A second possibility is to temporarily reduce import duties or support for assembly from components
and completely knocked down parts (CKD); a three year window was discussed as potentially
beneficial, as it would give incentives to suppliers to quickly increase imports, leading to scale
economies. Ideally local production should be supported for longer periods that these can eventually
take over imports, in which case after-sales services can also be more easily provided as well.
(iii)
The third possibility is temporary VAT exoneration; for which a five to seven year window was
discussed as potentially beneficial. This possibility may lead to political difficulties, as many
P a g e | 59
programmes propose to exonerate their products and this is not always appreciated by the
Government;
(iv)
Similarly, a temporary company tax reduction on the local production and/or assembly from CKD to
allow companies to scale up or start production of clean cookstoves in Nigeria;
(v)
Finally, a variety of financial support mechanisms can be provided by the banking sector, whereby
they make financing for stove supply actors available at subsidized rates. MFI/MFB may already have
a mechanism in place that can be used.
There are likely two types of certified stoves that can be supported under the national stove programme:
obviously, all stoves must meet the national stove standard, but there are some that just meet this or (far) exceed
it. Ideally stoves in the first category stoves should have retail prices equal or somewhat higher in price than
traditional stoves for a particular fuel; stoves in the second category are much more efficient and cleaner, and the
financial support level could therefore be higher as well. Some preliminary work by GACC on this could possibly be
used as guidance. Details still need to be worked out. A flat fee representing the financial support could be used
for all certified stove models within each category to reduce production prices and promote competition. The
financial support component consists of the following activities:
•Identify the support levels for new stoves
This is based on actual costs compared to the cost of traditional stoves, on the average emission savings to be
obtained by each stove model as well as on people’s willingness to pay58. The precise level of support could in
principle change from state to state and should be approved by the Steering Committee.
•Develop the mechanism to deliver the financial support
The mechanism should be simple and easy accessible by households, small businesses, and institutions, and not
easily prone to abuse and corruption. Strong MFI institutions might be interested in becoming involved, not only to
distribute the financial support, also to offer micro loans to customers for the purchase of stoves, or any other
business. Local governments and/or organisations that are well-rooted within the communities could possibly also
be part of the system, although in some states they may be rather weak.
• In states with a clear interest in and willingness to support local improved stove deployment, financial
support could be channelled through local governments that may add some of their own resources into the
stove financing scheme to further reduce user purchase price59. Niger State is a good example which
provided most of the financial support for launching a state-wide stove programme as a pilot.
• In states with less local political commitment, microfinance institutions with a decent customer base
could manage the subsidy system. In any of these two cases MFIs would be available to provide micro-loans
to users that require or prefer it on top of the subsidy. In this case, microfinance institutions could be
supported in two ways depending on their size: either through wholesale finance, a lump sum is allocated to
a large MFI to refinance its current loans so that it can develop its portfolio or if small, by providing financial
guarantee to a deposit bank (commercial bank) that then lends to the MFI. In order to select appropriate
local MFIs, the programme needs to work closely with the national Association of Microfinance banks, an
official regulatory body recognised by the CBN. Also, if LAPO is identified as a potential partner, as it has
offices in most states, it would be necessary to look for additional partners. For sustainability reasons it
would not be advisable to rely on a single financial partner holding a monopoly.
• The precise circumstances will vary from state to state and custom-made solutions may be required.
The actual delivery of the financial support to the end-user can be through a variety of means, such as a voucher
system, mobile money, etc. An appropriate way to deliver the subsidy may be through the use of cell phone
vouchers. Indeed, with 105 million mobile phone users in Nigeria60, such a scheme is already been used in the
agriculture sector to subsidize access to fertilizer for farmers in rural Nigeria. Using this database and system is an
option to reach rural farmers. The subsidy can also take the form of instant mobile phone credit being transferred
to the user account if and when they register their new stoves.
The 2013 NIAF survey could not determine households’ willingness to pay for improved stoves (the question was found
difficult to answer by respondents during the pre-test and was removed), but it can assert that if substantial outlay would be
required, households do have financial resources.
59 This is the case in Zamfara and Jigawa states, where officials are willing to support women entrepreneurs disseminating
clean stove.
60 If the data from the 3 state survey is valid for the whole of Nigeria, some 83% of households use mobile phones in 2013,
and has on average 2.4 phones: 325 million phones in total.
58
P a g e | 60
Carbon financing could play an important role as the potential reduction in carbon emissions is large indeed.
However, trade-offs are the effort and time it takes to develop a facility to sell the credits as compared to some
other sources of possible funding. NIAF is collaborating with Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to establish a Nigerian
Clean Energy Facility (NCEF) as a special purpose vehicle to accommodate intervention in this area and
circumvent the often unworkable situation in Ministries dealing with these issues. A firm commitment from CBN 61
to develop the facility has been obtained. Although the NCEF was expected to be launched before the end of
2013, this did not happen and instead the CBN encountered some turmoil with high level management that
delayed launching of new facilities. Ideally, if CBN standing is back to normal, the financial support for clean
stoves – both to end-users and from donors funding the programme - would be channelled through the NCEF62.
8.2.4
Component 4: Monitoring and Evaluation
Improved stoves should be of good quality and perform at least according to the national standard. To verify this, a
mechanism will be put in place to collect information that can be used to fine-tune the programme as well as for
M&E purposes. In addition, many of the stoves are likely to be promoted using carbon financing independent of
the national stove programme, and these stoves require a transparent M&E system in itself. It is proposed to
develop a simple and smart mechanism to monitor all improved stoves that will be promoted in the country. The
mechanism consists of three elements, each with its own characteristics:
•
Installation checks
After a producer sold a stove with subsidy, the installation and use of the stove by the beneficiary will be checked.
This could be done through arranging visits, inserting confirmation codes that can be sent by text message in
stove boxes or else. Once this is properly verified with the beneficiaries, the PMU will obtain the green light to pay
the registered producer the counter value of the financial support. The exact mechanism how this will work is still
to be developed. This verification mechanism should be set up to maximise inputs by locally-based organisations.
•
Regular Monitoring & Evaluation
Performance of stoves in households will also be monitored through statistical sampling. This is required to
determine the impact of the programme in terms of fuel savings, health improvements, and CO2 emissions. This
M&E work will be contracted to private organizations.
•
Random Checks.
In addition, from time to time, randomly selected certified producers need to submit a stove for verification
(details to be developed) for retesting, and also certified stoves will occasionally be randomly purchased from the
market to verify compliance with the quality standards. If a certified producer does not comply with the standards,
he will need to make corrections or risks being taken off the list of certified producers; this also holds for
producers of (open source) certified stove models: if they experience quality problems, this must be fixed or they
will no longer be allowed on the list of certified producers. To ensure that the stove quality does not deteriorate
over time, as was observed in other countries in Africa, random quality performance checks will be organised. This
work will be contracted to a different independent organisation and is meant to complement & cross-check the
regular M&E effort.
•
Checks based on user feedback - Complaints Facility.
Consumers are suggested (through the publicity/promotional campaign) to register complaints if and when their
clean stoves are not performing as expected. If a certified producer or a certified stove model receives a
significant number of complaints, a verification check should specifically research this question with a view to
rapidly find solutions. Depending on the level of feedback obtained, this work will be realized by the PMU or
contracted to a private company.
A “three-strike you’re out” rule will apply, meaning that suppliers failing to comply receive a first and second
warning but get excluded from the programme if they are found at fault a third time.
8.2.5
Component 5: Support to local producers
Although most rural households use mobile telephones nowadays, they also continue to use the 3 stone open fire
stove for their cooking. Simple, mainly Chinese made 2nd generation woodstoves exist that perform quite well and
61
62
CBN financial commitment expected: 50 billion Nairas
Climate change sector, Finance workstream
P a g e | 61
that would modernize the kitchen if used on a daily basis. Certain types of Rocket stoves also exist that can be
assembled in the house of the beneficiary with some assistance. However, most modern stoves cannot be
obtained for free and must be purchased, sometimes for prices that range from $5 to $25 or more. While there is
market for these types of stoves, as demonstrated through actual sales, it is certain that not all households can
afford such stoves.
Since traditional rural stoves are free (three stones) or often owner-constructed from mud, clay and bricks, the
step to purchasing an improved stove is large. The benefits in terms of health and fuel consumption would be
large too. However, there is no financial payback time for households that collect their fuel rather than purchase
it. In summary, even though rural households are looking for ways to modernize their life, a 2nd generation stove
may be a bridge too far. Whether rural households are willing to pay relatively large amounts of money for a stove
that reduces fuel consumption and smoke inside the kitchen remains to be seen. They are more likely to be willing
to install a user constructed or a simple clay stove as a first step in modernising their kitchens.
Therefore, it is likely that a specialised support programme for local stove producers is realised prior to the launch
of the publicity and awareness campaign. The support programme assists stove producers to manufacture lowcost, local stoves with good performance, and assist in developing training programmes for teachers who will work
with households to install better stoves at their homes. The role of women in this process is likely to be crucial as
they have easy access to the target households and may be able to convince them to change or update their
stoves. Participation from women empowerment groups should therefore be proactively sought.
A number of states intend to, or have already set up a public stove manufacturing plant. Generally this is not inline with international best practices, which show that a commercial private supply chain is better in innovating
and supplying low-cost stoves than a public supply chain.
At the same time, it appears that some local companies are becoming active in the field of (assembling) very
efficient biomass stoves (e;g; Quintas T-Lud gasifier stove). Although the number of such innovative companies
present in Nigeria remains unclear, they have a role to play in the transition to cleaner cooking energy in Nigeria.
They are likely to cover upper market segments with larger financial means available such as institutions and
small businesses as well as urban woodfuel users. Because their products can or may be able to compete with
imported high efficient stoves, the support programme should look at:
•
Providing financial support as necessary
The programme should look at helping stove producers cover their investment needs through adequate financing
mechanisms. Since microfinance lending cannot exceed 200 million Nairas, larger stove manufacturers will need
to deal with deposit banks. But commercial banks generally perceive that clean cookstove entrepreneurs do not
have sufficient prospective cash flow and collateral. In this context, assistance for suppliers to scale-up could be
provided in the form of a guarantee fund for buying off part of their risk. They would need to qualify and adhere to
specific clean energy guidelines for the stoves to be produced.
Another mechanism may be to set aside a sum of money (innovation facility-type) to be distributed through grants
allocated to selected cookstove interventions via calls for project proposals (selection criteria to be set). Suppliers
would be asked to propose ways to increase production or reduce production costs, and those who promise the
largest changes would receive funding. The results based financing (RBF) mechanism63, based on the outputbased aid principle, could also be useful for disseminating clean stoves, whereby suppliers are rewarded for
having disseminated stoves as a way to correct initial market failure. In Indonesia a large-scale clean stove
programme is being developed based on this mechanism.
•
Assisting in building the distribution network
Independent distributors may also be able to benefit from microfinance loans, tapping into the supply of stoves
from known stove producers that may also have their own distribution channels. There should be stringent
conditions on who would be eligible, e.g., only procure approved stove models from eligible suppliers, extent the
warrantees, and adhere to the three strikes or you’re out principle.
•
Enabling access to carbon finance
The carbon credit financing process is cumbersome for individuals and requires a minimum amount of emission
reductions in order to be effective since the baseline costs are fairly high. Support could be provided to cookstove
suppliers in various ways: on the one hand, there is a need for a national baseline study accessible for all to ease
63
Results Based Financing: Framework for Promoting Clean Stoves, November 2012; EAP CLEAN STOVE INITIATIVE KNOWLEDGE
EXCHANGE SERIES, World Bank
P a g e | 62
access to carbon financing in Nigeria; on the other hand, a number of Programme of Activities for clean
cookstoves exist in Nigeria that could potentially register other clean cookstove interventions (Atmosfair, C-Quest
Capital, and SME-Fund Clean Carbon Network). At the moment the market for carbon credits is at its lowest value
point and it may not be worthwhile to develop new Programme of Activities for a while.
•
Professional training
Local stove manufacturers may need technical support in order to improve their stove models or to scale up
production capacity to be eligible for the national programme. They could also benefit from a range of business
and management related training such as business administration, accounting etc. This support could be provided
on a case by case basis, for community level demand helping produce simple first generation improved stoves, or
more generally through a Stove Development Center for more sophisticated requests (see 9.2). A database of
business leaders and experts with specific skills who are willing and able to be contracted to teach others their
skills would be helpful.
8.2.6
Programme management
The programme requires a strong and independent programme management unit (PMU) in charge of day to day
operations on behalf of the Ministry of Environment. Its task is mainly to liaise with stakeholders, contracting,
monitoring and reporting progress, and fund raising. All components will be realized by other stakeholders, mainly
private firms. The PMU reports to a high level Steering Committee, which composition is yet to be determined but
could comprise the main stakeholders of the programme, and should be chaired by the Federal Ministry of
Environment. Members include Ministry of Finance, Central Bank, Ministry of Industries, Ministry of Rural
Development, participating donors, SON, Chamber of Commerce or Private Sector Federation, representatives of
stove manufacturers and fuel suppliers, NIAF, NACC, and representatives of large-scale financial supporters, etc.
The PMU will operate according to an Operational Manual (OM), which describes all types of interventions and
arrangements possible under the programme. The OM will be discussed and agreed with all donors and the
Steering Committee. The OM will be developed once pilot activities are under way in a number of states. The PMU
will directly manage all contracts dealing with the national tasks of the programme, while coordinating and
monitoring the tasks at the State level.
ICEED is proposed as a good candidate to undertake the PMU responsibilities. ICEED is an independent
organization that has realized many if not most of the stove experiences in the country, and presently hosts the
National Alliance of Clean Cookstoves. It would need to expand its capacity, and particularly employ certified
accountants, procurement specialists, and technicians. It would need to develop a procurement and financial
management manual that needs to be approved by the steering committee. More details will be provided in
following Chapter 9.
8.3
Geographical scope
The programme should cover the whole of the Nigerian territory in the medium to long term (5 to 10 years). Since
state buy-in and support is required for the implementation at the state level, specific support from the NCCMDP
should be state-dependent. It is proposed that the national programme is implemented on a state by state basis,
starting in those states were demonstrated buy-in is considerable (demand driven). To this effect, a call for
proposals could be organized among states to identify the candidates with the largest buy-in. This guarantees that
there are no undue administrative or organizational barriers during implementation.
Proof of concept should take place in a few pilot states and currently confirmed plans exist to develop a
programme in 7 LGAs in Katsina State, and in Niger State where the Governor provided substantial co-funding.
Although the two state programs are called “pilots”, they should be implemented at a large scale intending to
cover most of the state. The World Bank has tentatively pledged support for implementation in two additional
states, one in the North and one in the South under its NewMap project, and further financial support is sought
from GACC for these pilots as well as operational costs for the NACC. In these pilots, proof of concept will be
pursued prior to launching the national programme. In addition, Jigawa State signed an MOU to request
assistance for launching a pilot programme without pledging financial support. In Jigawa State the Governor has
supported the production and dissemination of 80,000 stoves at a public stove production factory and is
interested in advice on scaling up. One of the issues to be addressed is that until now stoves have been given out
for free, which is not possible under the NCCMDP.
In Katsina a joint ICEED – OXFAM project is in the process to negotiate EU grant funding under the 10th European
Development Fund (EDF). This is an agricultural programme addressing sustainable wood supply from farmers
P a g e | 63
mainly on private lands, including a programme to disseminate 50,000 ceramic stoves to reduce the consumption
of woodfuel. Under this project, the NCCMDP principles will form the basis for the activities.
Further discussions are underway with the Better Life for Rural African Women programme (BLP) and the Rural
women security scheme (RUWES) of the Ministry of Environment to identify if and how to organize a pilot
programme in several states after realizing a capacity needs assessment.
9
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
9.1
Institutional and legal framework
9.1.1
National level
The programme is “owned” by the Ministry of Environment and implemented mainly by third parties.
Implementation is split between national level activities and state-based activities. An independent PMU will
manage the implementation of all activities at the national level on behalf of the ministry. A high level steering
committee will be set up to guide the programme and supervise implementation. The Ministry of Environment will
chair the Steering Committee, and members will be the main stakeholders and funders of the programme; the
PMU will act as the secretariat. The PMU reports to the Steering Committee.
The Ministry, partly through the PMU, will be responsible for fund raising from all possible organizations, including
Ministry of Finance, bilateral and multilateral organizations, donors, and private organizations (CSR). In addition,
the possibility of carbon financing presents itself too, which could be a substantial source of funding as a
reduction of 10-13m t CO2 per year could easily be obtained.
Figure 12: Stakeholder arrangements at national level
Federal Govt
Of Nigeria
Ministry
of
Environment
CSR
well respected Fund
Steering
Committee
MFIs
PMU
NCCMDP
20 m stoves
Multi/Bi lateral
Donor
organizations
ICEED
Management, procurement
Service contracts (PR, QC, SM, ME)
Equipment (lab, testing)
Subsidy disbursement
Coordination States
to suppliers
Figure 12 above shows the proposed organizational set up of the NCCMDP at the funding level, and Figure 13
below at the implementation level. Programme funding will be deposited into a separate account managed by a
Financial Institution (FI). Although this institution is yet to be identified, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the
Bank of Industry (BOI) have been mentioned as candidates. The Nigerian Clean Energy Facility (NCEF) that is
under development could possibly be a good vehicle for this purpose. Whichever mechanism is chosen, it needs to
have broad acceptance and confidence from banking stakeholders and donors.
P a g e | 64
The PMU develops the parameters for implementation, such as technical and safety standards to be used for all
stoves, procedures for selecting eligible stove models, and determines the subsidy level. The SC approves all
these parameters. The PMU further develops the national level awareness campaign and monitors progress made
by states. It issues mainly service contracts to private organizations and procures equipment when needed. The
PMU is staffed with highly qualified persons and operates relatively autonomously: it submits an annual work plan
with budget to the SC which it can implement if approved. All subsidy payments are made by the FI to participating
MFI in the different states on request of the PMU. Subsidy payments are verified by an independent auditor. In
addition, annual audits will be carried out to identify & correct any misuse of funds by suppliers.
There is no preference for any stove model or fuel: all stove models that pass eligibility testing can be supported.
The criteria will be announced by the Steering Committee, or the Ministry of Environment, and include PM
emissions, fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. Any stove model satisfying the criteria – irrespective of the fuel –
can be included in the programme and benefit from the PR activities and a subsidy. It is expected that most of the
eligible stoves are firewood and LPG stoves, although kerosene and charcoal stoves are likely to be included as
well.
Once the national laboratory identifies eligible stove models for inclusion in the programme, participating stove
suppliers can submit business plans to the PMU to share their plans for disseminating eligible stoves in the
country and request a subsidy. This will result in a time-based subsidy contract between the PMU and the supplier
and favouring large suppliers or market aggregators. Suppliers with an intention to work nationally will sign a
contract with the PMU; suppliers who intend to work mainly in a particular state will sign a contract with the State
PMU.
The level of subsidy should be subject to certain criteria: at least relative to the performance of the stove in terms
of emissions and possibly fuel consumption. The cleaner the stove, the higher the subsidy. The exact subsidy
distribution mechanism is not developed yet and the following ideas will be explored further:
9.1.2

The subsidy is requested by a supplier for a period of 6 months, for a certain number of stoves (i.e.
(50,000 or 100,000) and is ideally for dissemination in a particular State; the paid subsidy is based on
the actual number of stoves sold (for which proof must be made available by the supplier), and the actual
subsidy level depends on the stove model. The PMU will organize a verification of the data provided by the
supplier to determine if the results are real. After six months the suppliers can request another subsidy
contract that will be awarded if the results for the earlier contract have been positive.

Suppliers request a certain amount of subsidy for a period of 6 months; the supplier who requests the
least amount of subsidy per stove (for a specific performance level) obtains a contract for the largest
number of stoves that can be supported.

Suppliers must comply with the criteria and if they fail, they will be removed from the programme; an
independent quality monitoring system will be set up to verify this over time. Quality is controlled mainly
at entry (during the eligibility testing), and then verified over time if performance remains as indicated
during the eligibility testing.
State level
State level activities are an extension of those at the national level and follow exactly the same direction.
P a g e | 65
Figure 13: Stakeholder arrangements at state level
Ministry
of
Environment
NCCMDP subsidy funds
Steering
Committee
PMU
NCCMDP
20 m stoves
ICEED
On demand
NCCMDP assistance
State
CCMDP
National Level programme
PR & awareness (NACC, PR firms)
Quality Control ( Natl .lab, firms)
Subsidy Mechanism (MFIs)
M&E (M&E firms)
STATE PMU
MFIs
Subsidy disbursement
to suppliers
State Programmes (with own budget contribution )
PR
QC
SM
ME
PMUs at the state level will manage clean stove activities in that state. Since state governments provide additional
budget, they most likely want to appoint an organization in their state to act as PMU. This should be fine as long as
the PMU adheres to the overall guidelines provided under the NCCMDP. Some due diligence on the state PMU will
be required, particularly regarding the institutional capacity and the ability to work relatively independently. Once
the pilot activities have been completed, operational manuals will exist to assist state PMUs develop their
programs.
In principle, state programmes pursue the same 4 components as the national programme, based on exactly the
same criteria. However, to avoid dormant or non-active PMUs, competition will be introduced at the state level in
two ways:
9.1.3

There may be large suppliers active at the national level, whether franchised distributors for one (or more)
particular stove model(s) or market aggregators regrouping several smaller suppliers distributed
throughout the country;

Some social advocacy or otherwise engaged organizations may exist that expressed interest in
disseminating stoves and agreed to adopt the NCCMDP guidelines. The Better Life Programme for African
Rural Women is such a programme, which is already in the process of organizing a pilot in three states
and which hopes to scale up to a nationwide level in the near future. Sure-P also indicated its interest to
become involved as PMU. If either of these pilots is successful, one could consider using BLP or Sure-P
(or any other qualified organization) as a vehicle for disseminating stoves in more than one state.
Stakeholder mapping
A first attempt to map the potential stakeholders for the stove programme is presented in the following matrix
below. This will be subject to further discussions over the next few months when the programme components are
further developed. As a matter of principle, setting up the distribution chain should be entirely in the hands of the
private sector. Implementation of the awareness campaign and the financial support mechanism could be
realized by a combination of public and private institutions. The main role for the PMU is to manage contracts for
implementation and liaise between stakeholders at state level.
Project
Stakeholders
National Level
P a g e | 66
State Level
Local level
Management
Ministry of Environment
Steering committee
(various public, donor &
private members)
MoEnv PMU
State PMUs
MoEnv
Awareness
raising
MWA
NACC
Stove suppliers &
distributors
MoEnv
SON
Quality
control
Universities
Stove suppliers &
distributors
Stove importers
MoEnv PMU
Individual SC members
could be involved in
certain states with the
same issues as on the
national level
Anchor or focal point in
key organizations, both
high level support and
practical implementation

Will carry out the same
tasks as the MoEnv PMU
but then at the state level
and report back to MoEnv
PMU
Issue regular messages
using all types of media
explaining why stoves
need to be updated, how,
what, etc
set specifications for
stove performance
standards
Develop standards,
testing protocol,
certification testing
Set up & operate
laboratory to test for
eligibility (i.e., stove
models that can be
supported under the
national stove
programme)
Request international
independent certification
agency to verify the
laboratory and testing
protocols
GACC can assist with
these activities
P a g e | 67
Anchor or focal point in
key local organizations,
both high level local
support and practical
implementation



Advertisements where
to get stoves

Verify/Enforce that
suppliers adhere to
standards
Agree with standards and warrantee period


Issue specific messages
referring to the
programme in the state,
where to get info, where
to get stoves, what
support is available, etc
R&D testing for suppliers
Communicate standards,
quality control,
warrantees

Liaise with State PMUs
Advertisement campaign to buy specific stoves
Sign subsidy contract with
national suppliers
State PMUs

Hosts the project, chairs
the Steering Committee
Coordinate between high
level organizations, raise
funding, monitor
implementation, provide
institutional support
Manage day to day tasks,
monitor & guide project
implementing partners,
reporting progress in
Nigeria as well as to the
outside world
Set up feedback
mechanism using local
companies
Communicate standards,
quality control,
warrantees
Sign subsidy contract
with state-wide or local
suppliers


Correct quality
problems when/if
arising
Set up feedback
mechanism to deal
with complaints
Set up feedback
mechanism using local
companies
MoF
State government
Bilateral or multilateral
organizations and donor
organizations, and
private sponsors
Carbon finance suppliers
(CDM, voluntary market)
CBN
Financial institutions
(MFI/MFB)
Support
Market Aggregators,
which are large
companies with a nationwide or state-wide
distribution chain
(groceries, hardware,
petroleum companies)
International stove
suppliers
Nigerian stove suppliers
LPG suppliers
Kerosene suppliers
MoEnv PMU, NACC
National Bureau of
Statistics
M&E
MoEnv PMU
State PMU
Carbon Finance Suppliers
Financial institutions
Large stove suppliers

Fiscal incentives, budget
for programme

Budget for programme

Commitment for
programme, fiscal
incentives, budget for
programme


Budget for programme

Agree on general rules for participation and supply of
budget for programme
NCEF used as a vehicle
for collecting & moving
funds for project
expenses to various
financial intermediaries
Could be involved in the
Could be involved in the distribution of a subsidy
distribution of a subsidy
(and loans) for stoves; could also be a distribution
for stoves
agent for certain stove suppliers

Could also be a distribution agent for certain stove suppliers (wood, kerosene,
LPG) , in addition to their core business. They sign a subsidy contract with the
MoEnv PMU.
Import of stoves (wood, kerosene, LPG), set up national
and/or state distribution chain, possibly assembly
plant. They sign a subsidy contract with the MoEnv
PMU.
Large-scale manufacturing of stoves (wood, kerosene, LPG), national + state +
local distribution chain; They sign a subsidy contract with the MoEnv PMU if
disseminating nationally or with the state PMU if disseminating state-wide only.
Set up enhanced LPG supply in a number of key nonserved urban areas, and possibly LPG stove supply
chain too. In principle there is no support from the
NCCMDP for this; it is likely that NCEF would be
interested to provide support for this (on own merits).


Set up kerosene stove supply chain

Set up information exchange on improved stove manufacturing, supply and use,
organize contacts with global manufacturers and projects
Independent monitoring of several indicators in
ongoing and planned major statistical work (LSMS,
Census, poverty surveys etc); focus on fuel use and
improved stove use
Set up M&E mechanism, at national level and
coordinate with State level, and contract organizations
to realize this
Set up M&E mechanism at state level and coordinate with national level, and
contract organizations to realize this
Monitor performance of carbon credit supported stoves
Monitor subsidy payments for supported stoves
Monitor stove sales


P a g e | 68
9.2
Stakeholders
9.2.1
Beneficiaries
Households – buy a new stove model at a subsidised price; only eligible stoves (as determined by the national
laboratory) are supported. Its decision includes the selection of model, decision to buy, sign a short User
Agreement with the supplier, payment of the related price or optionally sign up with a microfinance bank for
specific payment arrangements. Different sales models may also be used. In principle, households should benefit
only once from the subsidy, although this may be difficult to verify in practice as there is no habitant registration
obligation, no functioning cadastre, and no functional SIM registration system; however, the introduction of a
national ID card is being piloted and could possibly be used at a later stage.
Small businesses – similarly to households, buy a new stove model at a subsidised price. Its decision includes the
selection of model, decision to buy, sign a User Agreement with the supplier, payment of the related price or sign
up with a microfinance bank for specific payment arrangements. Food stalls, restaurants, canteens, etc. are
examples of small businesses that could be interested in replacing their stoves.
In addition, the stoves need to be produced and supplied, transported to product centers and suppliers, and sold
to end-users. The target of more than 15 million stoves over the next 7 years will lead to quite a bit of business for
the actors in the supply chain, not for the initial purchase, also for the replacement after a few years. Similarly,
households are expected to switch fuel, particularly towards LPG and possibly kerosene, away from firewood and
charcoal. This quantity of fuel needs to be produced and supplied, which will generate employment for quite a few
people. However, the reduced use of wood fuels in the future will lead to an employment reduction.
Institutions – such as hospitals, boarding schools, get a new stove model that could be financed by state
government financing; however, since the stoves have clear benefits, including a payback time, a financial
contribution from the institution itself should be pursued.
9.2.2
Possible collaborating entities
Eligible stove supplier - signs a Participation Agreement with the state PMU (or MoEnv PMU if operating nationally).
It is the entity responsible for supplying eligible stoves in time and of good quality, providing warranty, a 1 year
minimum after-sales service and meeting other requirements in the Participation Agreement with the PMU. A
supplier can be selected as being eligible by the Steering Committee, on nomination of the PMU after verification
of compliance by the testing laboratory. The supplier in principle hooks up with the DSA for reaching out to
beneficiaries and distributing supported stoves.
Distribution and Sales Agents – Could operate within one or more participating states, and are identified as main
intermediaries and/or market aggregators to disseminate eligible clean cookstoves covered by the NCCMDP in a
particular state or nation-wide. They provide a link between an MFI and suppliers in a way to inspire confidence
among potential users. A DSA is an organization where beneficiaries can visit and be confident that the stoves
offered comply with the NCCMDP criteria. A DSA should have wide coverage in the area where they are active.
Specifically included are women entrepreneurs in the more rural parts of the country, where simple owner
constructed clean cookstoves are promoted. It is hoped and expected that some national retailer chains (i.e.,
hardware, supermarkets) show interest in this as well. They could sell eligible stoves from different suppliers
including LPG and kerosene stoves. The DSA signs a participation agreement with the MoEnv PMU or State PMU
for the subsidy distribution. The DSA will be asked to operate one or more Product Centers, where eligible stoves
are on display.
MFI (or MFB) Partners – could be in charge of managing the subsidy system in relation with both sales and
distribution agents and customers (households and small businesses); this area needs more research and
discussions before a more precise mechanism can be developed.
Mobile money – popular way of making payments and receiving money through mobile phones, and could be used
to distribute the subsidy.
Mobile phone company – in charge of distributing subsidies to users’ mobile phones on behalf of the programme.
They could also be used for M&E purposes. These companies do not set any of the rules, they simply implement
what is prescribed and make use of the publicity and increased business they get in return for this.
P a g e | 69
MWA – Ministry of Women Affairs is involved with mobilizing women groups to act as intermediaries for obtaining
scale in the supply of eligible stoves.
National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency- in relation with the national testing
laboratory could be involved in the quality assurance aspects of the M&E programme to verify that safety,
efficiency and emissions standards for eligible cookstoves remain applied.
Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves – works closely with the MoEnv PMU to take part in the implementation of
some components of the national programme and coherently organises all stakeholders and provides guidance so
that the national clean stove programme indeed is a programme of collaborating actors. NACC is particularly
involved in the PR and awareness raising at national level.
Nigerian Clean Cookstoves Design and Testing Centre- is being established by the University of Nigeria, Nsukka
National Centre for Energy Research and Development as Nigeria's clean cookstoves testing lab to conduct stove
eligibility tests. If this testing centre passes the required independent assessment, it should sign a Cooperation
agreement with the MoEnv PMU. It is responsible for providing testing services of stove emissions performance
following an agreed testing protocol. It does not determine whether a stove is eligible but could give test results to
the PMU which submits it to the committee that can decide on eligibility. If it does not pass the test, then either
another centre should be set up or this one upgraded. Ideally a separate certification laboratory will be used for
the eligibility testing.
Nigerian Clean Energy Facility (NCEF) – could serve as the primary financing window of the programme, regrouping
all financial resources provided by the various development agencies and stakeholders supporting the programme
in a flexible and scalable way. The facility is expected to be launched this year when initial financial commitment
from the Central Bank of Nigeria is secured (CBN).The NCEF is currently being negotiated and set up.
Product Centres – could be established by a financing agency as a tool to facilitate the distribution of eligible
stoves; at a product centre most stoves are on display and users can purchase a stove and get their subsidy
contribution towards the purchase. Product Centers and DSA could be one and the same in certain states.
Public Relations/Communications Consultant - is contracted by the MoEnv PMU for developing a communications
strategy plus implementation plan for advertising and promoting new stove models, and public awareness of
health and environment related issues. It may well be that one PR company is needed for national work, and
several companies for state-wide work.
Quality Assurance Agent - is contractually responsible to the MoEnv PMU for verifying that the quality of eligible
stoves provided by Stove Suppliers is in compliance with the Participating Agreement executed between Supplier
and the PMU and assisting the PMU with checking supporting documentation for subsidy payments. The QAA
performs its inspections at random and at unannounced times as part of the M&E effort throughout the entire
duration of the Subsidy Programme, and reports its findings to the PMU. Quality Assurance Agents are likely to be
“state-specific” and working closely with the monitoring agency/consultant and the standards organization.
Standards Organisation of Nigeria – in relation with NESREA, issues a certification label – a range or various
labels could be issued each corresponding to a level of performance (as for energy efficient electric appliances in
Europe and the USA, using a range A to E to express the performance). This process should not add too much
complexity, as performance criteria include fuel efficiency, emissions, and safety. SON will also carry out eligibility
testing for stoves at the NCERD, Nsukka.
Stove Development Centres – such Stove Development Centres could be used to channel training and capacity
building for stove designers and producers in particular areas where there is a large potential for this. Assistance
with the design of clean stoves as well as production issues can be obtained there. These centres should not
design stoves for support under the consumer subsidy mechanism, but merely support stove producers to develop
and improve their own stove models. One of such centers is located at Akanu Ibiam Federal Polytechnic, Unwana,
Afikpo, Ebonyi State.
Women entrepreneurs –, promote and sell eligible stoves among local women groups, friends and family, that
correspond to the need, aspirations, cooking habits and financial capabilities of local populations, mostly in rural
communities.
P a g e | 70
9.2.3
Contracting authority and implementation agency
Contracting authority
The Ministry of Environment (MoEnv) is the owner of the National clean stove programme and chairs the high level
Steering Committee. It liaises with other Ministries to align policies in favour of the rapid adoption of clean
cookstoves, including the provision of subsidy and possible (temporary) exoneration of VAT and reduction of
import duties. It promotes the programme both internally within the Government and externally towards
stakeholders and among the population, and will organise a large-scale awareness campaign. The Steering
Committee will assist with these activities.
Implementation agency
An autonomous Programme Management Unit (PMU) is proposed to manage the NCCMDP at the national level. It
should have its own budget approved and supervised by the Steering Committee. The committee should include
representatives from participating donors (WB, DFID), private companies (GACC, SHELL, Chamber of Commerce,
etc), selected central government agencies (MoF, MWA, CBN, SON, etc). The NACC will be involved as the
secretariat for the Steering Committee.
The PMU will be responsible to manage all project activities at the national level, including all five NCCMDP
components. Its responsibilities include developing all selection criteria (stoves, suppliers, state PMU, MFIs),
dealing with national level eligible stove suppliers and producers, managing the financial support system, the
selection and verification of eligible stoves, the national publicity and awareness campaign, and the M&E system.
Important decisions, programme parameters, work plan and budget shall be submitted to the SC for approval. It
mainly issues service contracts and/or participation agreements with the associated organizations and firms,
which will be responsible for implementation and/or delivering the results. An audit will be carried out every year
to review accomplishments as compared to the proposed work plan and to verify disbursements and costs.
The PMU could be hosted by the Ministry of Environment, but the institutional capacity and justification might be
lacking. Instead, the PMU could be hosted by ICEED, which has the largest experience with stove issues in Nigeria
and hosts the NACC, and which may not have such capacity problems.
The PMU should liaise closely with state-PMUs to monitor state-level activities and intervene in case of need.
State-PMUs will be appointed by the state SCs and can consist of a variety of organizations mainly depending on
the specific situation in-state.
The Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves is likely to be involved as well, particularly in the
communications/awareness campaign and with support to local producers.
9.2.4
Supervision
A high level Steering Committee will be established by the MoEnv to provide guidance and oversight to the PMU in
realising project activities. The SC approves and maintains a list of eligible stove models and eligible suppliers at
the national level, based on information from the national stove testing centre, and based on criteria established
for the minimum performance of eligible stoves.
The possibility of an Advisory Committee should be investigated, particularly for establishing the minimum
performance criteria for eligible stoves as well as desired subsidy levels for each of the stove models. Possible
members would be universities, research institutions, as well as financing institutions and NGOs.
P a g e | 71
10
DURATION, COSTS AND FINANCING PLAN
10.1
Project implementation planning
The programme is expected to start towards the end of 2014 when some tangible results are in hand; it is
expected to last until 2020. Major milestones still need to be worked out as are some of the tools. The approach
taken is to develop all these elements on the go through the realization of state pilots. Nevertheless, there are
political choices to be made in establishing the ultimate goals of the program. Even though the objectives are the
same, a different approach may reach quite different results.
As it is quite clear that LPG will be the ultimate solution for access to modern cooking energy in Nigeria, this may
be difficult to adopt for many poor households. Nigeria has large LPG resources and this fuel is accepted by
households as a good but expensive solution that may be adopted later in time. So, some households may have
difficulty buying into cooking with LPG in the near future. On the other hand, the Government can also decide that
households should continue to use wood, but more efficiently than before. In summary, the Government should
set the target in terms of expected penetration rates of clean stoves for the different fuels, particularly LPG.
Two scenarios are presented in this document: (i) focus on clean wood stoves, trying to develop sustainable
markets for such stoves while simultaneously also promoting LPG and improved kerosene stoves for households
that can afford it; and (ii) strong focus on LPG stoves, trying to promote as much as possible the use of LPG stoves
and immediate adoption while using clean wood stoves only for those who cannot afford LPG at this time.
10.2
Indicative costs
Until 2020, about 420 million US$ is needed to finance the main elements of the national clean stove market
development programme focussing on wood stove market development, giving access to clean cooking solutions
to an additional 15 million households reaching about 52% of all households in Nigeria. The costs for the program
pursuing a more aggressive approach to adopting LPG as a clean cooking solution is about 740 million US$,
leading to 29 million additional clean stoves and 75% clean energy access rate. The preliminary cost breakdown
for the woodstove scenario is as follows in Table 18:
Table 18: Tentative Budget for NCCMDP
Component
PMU
Awareness/Comm
Supplier support
Guarantee Facility
M&E
Fin – Duty waiver
Fin – VAT exempt
Fin - Subsidy
Total Cost
(million USD)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Total
4.0
10.0
20.0
4.0
10.0
20.0
4.0
5.0
20.0
2.0
2.5
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.5
28.8
60.0
-
5
18
10
4
5
31
18
7
5
24
14
5
5
20
12
5
5
20
12
5
5
20
12
5
5
22
12
5
35.0
155.1
89.7
34.7
71
95
77
46
44
43
44
420.2
Source: project team
This does not include support from state governments for the operation of state PMUs and possible state
awareness campaigns.
P a g e | 72
10.3
Financing plan
The programme could be self-financing after a few years, if reasonably priced carbon credits can be obtained for
the financing of parts of the programme64. Seed money is needed for the first years of the programme. Table 18
below shows a tentative, not confirmed, and indicative potential financing plan. Stoves are expected to be sold at
about 60% of their normal retail prices, which is obtained through defiscalization and possibly a direct subsidy.
At the moment the Government allocates more than 1 billion US$ per year on subsidies for Dual Purpose
Kerosene. According to the NIAF survey in 3 States, it seems that only a small quantity of this actually ends up
with poor households. Rather than continuing the subsidy, the NCCSMDP could be entirely financed if the DPK
subsidy allocation for one year only can be used if spread out over the duration of the project. Thus rather than
subsidizing the fuel, it is proposed to reduce the end-user cost of equipment that allows households to reduce
their fuel consumption and enjoy cleaner indoor air.
Table 19: NCCMDP Financing Plan
Financing options
(million USD)
GoN fiscal incentives
GON subsidy
GACC
Carbon financing
World Bank
Shell
Other
TOTAL
2014
28.0
4.0
30.0
1.5
2.0
5.5
71.0
2015
49.2
6.6
20.0
3.9
5.0
2.0
8.1
94.8
2016
37.9
5.3
10.0
5.8
5.0
2.0
11.2
77.1
2017
2018
2019
2020
32.3
4.5
31.5
4.6
31.9
4.8
34.0
4.9
7.3
9.0
10.4
11.6
2.0
0.2
46.3
2.0
42.7
44.4
43.9
Total
244.8
34.7
60.0
49.4
10.0
10.0
25.0
420.2
Source: project team
Note: this Table shows tentative financing sources and does not imply that funding from these sources is confirmed.
10.4
Carbon financing possibilities
There are a few scenarios to use carbon financing as part of the funding for the NCCSMDP given that potentially a
large reduction in CO2 emissions is possible, approaching 10 million t of CO2 per year. This could become one of
the larger carbon reduction programs in the World if all stoves under the programme can be included in the
scheme. Table 20 below shows an analysis of the options for using the Programme of Activities that are already in
place.
Table 20: Carbon registration scenarios
Purchase the
whole
POA
from
one
player. Make
NIAF the CME
Use two POAs
and play them
off of each
other
Develop a GS
CDM POA
Cost
Purchase
price
must
be
negotiated
with
POA owner.
Risk
Ownership
of
POA
negates the risk that
CME will neglect their
POA duties
Overall costs could
be
negotiated
down
in
the
presence
of
competition.
Between 120,000
USD and 150,000
Could create un-needed
confusion
and
complexity for NIAF.
Reduces risk of relying
on one POA CME.
Gives
design
and
implementation control
Timing
Time will be
spent
in
negotiation and
in
transferring
CME ownership.
Could
double
negotiating time
12 – 18 months
to register.
Viability
It is unclear
whether the POA
owners
are
willing to sell.
Overall
Reduces risk for NIAF
by
giving
more
control over the
carbon process
All three POAs
are structurally
capable
of
inclusion in The
Program
Pending approval
from CDM and
Potential to lower
costs and reduce risk.
Could
increase
complexity of The
Programme.
Gives
long-term
flexibility and control,
The budget table assumes current carbon value at USD 0.75/ton; the programme could be autofinancing by 2020 if USD 2/t
were obtained
64
P a g e | 73
Use one POA
(likely
Envirofit)
USD
to NIAF.
GS authorities.
Purchase
price
must
be
negotiated
with
POA owner.
POA owner neglects
CME responsibilities and
creates a bottleneck for
the carbon revenue
Possibly quickest
option
It is highly likely
that any of the
POAs
will
participate in The
Program
but could take longer
to set up.
Easiest option but
poses risks for longterm implementation
Table 21 shows the carbon credit purchaser options for the programme. Because of the large potential benefits,
this will need to be reviewed closely as it may actually be difficult to find a purchaser for this amount of credits.
Table 21: Carbon off-take scenarios
Cost
Risk
Government
Purchaser
Low cost due to size
of
potential
purchases
Low Risk once
government
purchaser is found.
Voluntary
leading
to
Government
Could lead to higher
carbon
purchase
prices in the short
term,
but
will
increase negotiation
prices.
Depends
on
negotiations
with
POA Owner
Unable to find
voluntary market
offtakers
The transition to
a
government
purchaser might
create delays
ERPA unlikely to be
large enough to
cover programme
scale up.
Pending
negotiations with
POA owner
Voluntary
Markets
Costs are associated
with finding buyers
willing to offtake
large volumes.
Time and energy
will be needed to
sell off tranche’s
of credits
Compliance
Markets
Low transaction cost
At high volumes
the
voluntary
markets
might
become
over
supplied and lead
to glut.
Depressed prices
persist
POA
owner
existing ERPA
Timing
Credits
quickly sold
are
Viability
Overall
At high volumes a
government purchaser
will be the best option
for stable pricing.
Voluntary markets will
cover small volumes at
higher
prices.
Transition
to
government purchaser
might delay
It is unlikely that any
existing ERPA will be
flexible
to
accommodate
the
scope
of
The
Programme.
The voluntary market is
viable only at small
volumes.
This option is the
best option for the
intended volumes
of The Program
Could lead to high
carbon prices in
the short term if
suitable contacts
are lined up.
Compliance
market
prices likely to remain
depressed for several
years
Carbon price on
compliance market
too low to make an
impact
Unlikely to offer
enough scope to
meet the projected
need
of
the
programme.
Not suitable for a
project this size,
but could provide
short term.
The following table shows the options for operating the carbon financing scheme, with their associated costs,
risks, delays, and expected viability.
Table 22: Operating Scenarios
Develop
new
operations based on
a
single
coordinating
financial institution,
expanding
to
multiple
entities
(XacBank model)
Develop
new
operations
using
Cost
Risk
Timing
Viability
Overall
Cost savings will
occur
from
following
proven
processes and
building
out
from a singular
institution
Planning
and
design costs will
Financial institutional
risk. The coordinating
entity could create a
bottleneck
for
implementation.
Will allow for
quick
start
pending
the
willingness of the
selected
coordinating
body
High viability
This option will allow
NIAF to focus efforts
on a programme
design built to meet
the objectives of the
programme.
This
take
Will take the
most time of all
This option is
possible but will
This option is not
necessary given the
option might
too long to
P a g e | 74
another model
be
upfront
higher
Accelerate
POA
owner operations
Low
Long term costs
might be high
implement
operational
options
take longer
Unlikely to have the
structural foundation
to scale fast enough
Slow
No POA owner
currently
has
operations that
can reach The
Programs goal of
15 million stoves
in seven years
availability of proven
models for scalable
improved
stove
subsidy programs.
Will likely require
major adjustments
to
accommodate
scale.
Given the complications in developing a scheme that allows all clean stove transactions to benefit from carbon
financing and the low value of carbon for the foreseeable future, it may be wise to not pursue this at the moment.
This is particularly true if the availability of grant or concessional funding from other sources is demonstrated to be
available.
P a g e | 75
11
BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAMME
11.1
Contribution to the economic and social development of beneficiary populations
The national clean cookstove market development programme will contribute in many ways to improving
economic and social conditions of the Nigerian population, please refer to Appendix 3 for more detailed
information. Direct and indirect benefits are reviewed in the economic analysis based on projected market
development for the different stove models. This type of analysis has a relatively high degree of uncertainty, but
unfortunately there are no other ways to estimate the benefits better. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis is carried
out as well, to determine the influence of the different parameters on the obtained benefits. The programme is
expected to lead to households changing stoves, fuels, and/or behaviour. Any of these changes will introduce
uncertainties that may or may not be easy to predict.
The programme will particularly lead to direct economic benefits for clean stove users, from fuel savings as a
result of the capacity of clean cookstoves to reduce fuel consumption. Stoves using the same fuel are expected to
reduce the fuel consumption by 20% or more, which would result in appreciable savings for benefitting
households. Although households switching to more efficient fuels are expected to reduce their energy
consumption, they may not always reduce their fuel bill. A reduction of only 10% of the cooking fuel expenditures
in the country is estimated to yield roughly 400 million USD per year, which would largely be absorbed by poor
households. In fact, the poorest households most likely use the most inefficient stoves, and the impact on them
may be the largest if they adopt a truly efficient stove. Households adopting LPG as a fuel may experience higher
fuel bills though. This will depend on the price setting policy of the government: at the moment, the price is set in
relation to export markets; on the contrary, for gasoline the price is set at two separate levels: one for internal use,
one for exports. It is hoped that the Government realizes that there could be a huge internal market if the price
were set to promote this.
Indirect economic benefits for users include health, environmental benefits and improved well-being, which could
also be considerable. It is certain that lives will be saved from a cleaner indoor air environment while less doctors’
visits will be needed, freeing time and reducing healthcare costs for families and subsequent burden on the
national healthcare system. However, a reduction of the number of deaths as result of the programme has not
been estimated for lack of data, although the reduced number of doctor’s visits has been estimated and taken
into account.
Environmental impacts also provide key economic benefits for the federal and state governments, reduction of
deforestation as a local effect and reduced greenhouse gas emissions as a global effect. The local effect is
extremely difficult to estimate, not only because of the quasi-absence of any baseline data, also because the
causality between reduced wood fuel consumption and deforestation is difficult to establish without a substantial
monitoring effort and in the absence of baseline data. It will require a considerable effort to determine the real
impact of reduced wood offtake on the tree resources base in Nigeria, and this is beyond the scope of the activity
as it will need to start with a full resource assessment and complemented by monitoring of wood fuel flows.
Greenhouse gas emission reductions can be measured in the laboratory for the different stove models and
projected over the entire stove market. In the absence of reliable baseline data, it was assumed that 10% of the
wood savings from the programme actually contribute to avoided deforestation. The economic benefit is then
calculated using average reforestation costs of the resulting saved forest cover 65.
Cognitive well-being is developed through assessing one’s interactions with their environment and other people.
Richer households generally tend to use more LPG, electricity than poor households which tend to use more
woodfuels. When households start using more kerosene or LPG as result of the program and refrain from using
woodfuels, they will perceive higher cognitive well-being. However, this has not been estimated and taken into
account in the economic analysis.
Employment generation is another benefits category. New stoves need to be manufactured or assembled,
transported, and distributed. Incremental fuel consumption needs to be produced, transported, and distributed.
As a result of the programme, substantial fuel switching is also likely to take place, resulting in jobs being created
and lost as well, particularly in the woodfuel and LPG supply areas.
Finally, households that stop gathering woodfuel but start buying a cooking fuel reduce their time required to
procure the fuel. This remains valid throughout the fuel ladder – if one can speak about that – as electricity does
not need any time to procure, LPG is procured only once a month and sometimes even delivered at home.
65
See footnote 17 WHICH IS THAT NOW
P a g e | 76
Charcoal is easier to purchase and transport than firewood, and kerosene is even easier to obtain. When
households modernize the fuels they use, they will obtain time savings for procuring these fuels. Table 23 below
summarizes the economic value of the main benefits expected from the NCCMDP, woodfuel scenario and the two
figures below show the distribution of benefits for the two different scenarios.
Table 23: Expected economic benefits of NCCMDP to 2020, woodfuel scenario
Benefits (million USD)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Reduced fuel expenditures
96
126
153
177
214
245
271
Reduced carbon emissions
2
4
6
7
9
10
12
Reduced deforestation
6
16
24
30
37
42
47
Employment generation
31
41
36
32
33
39
35
355
361
368
376
385
395
404
29
80
117
146
173
193
210
518
628
704
769
850
923
979
Improved health
Reduced time to procure fuel
Total
Source: project team
Figure 14: Distribution of benefits for the two scenarios (NPV, million USD)
reduced fuel procurement
time
4000
3500
decreased health costs
3000
2500
2000
increased employment
generation
1500
reduced deforestation
1000
carbon reductions
500
0
-500
LPG
Woodfuel
fuel bill savings
-1000
-1500
Source: project team
Support to actors in the supply chain involves creating employment opportunities; the entire clean cookstove
market represents a minimum of USD 80 million of equipment per year during the implementation of the
programme (around 2 million stoves per year, focus on woodstoves), with a maximum of 140 million in year 2. In
the case of the LPG scenario, the market value ranges between 160 million and 300 million US$ per year. The
programme aims to ensure that a substantial part of this market is covered by national suppliers and
manufacturers. There is nothing wrong with quickly importing low-cost stoves to cover immediate and initial
demand, but the medium-term goal should be to manufacture these stoves locally. It is therefore recommended to
make fiscal support for importe d solutions time-bound. The value added from incremental employment far
exceeds the benefits of importing lower-costs stoves through imports. This will help to transform the entire market
and make it sustainable, allowing households to benefit in the long-term.
P a g e | 77
11.2
Cost Benefit Ratio
Table 24 shows the costs and benefits stream per year as well as the Net Present Value of the sum over the
programme period for the wood scenario. The NPV of the costs are 307 million USD while the benefits amount to
3595 million USD, giving a benefit-cost ratio of 11.7. The NPV of the LPG scenario are 529 million US$ giving a
total benefits of 2972 million US$ (NPV). The reason that the LPG scenario has higher economic costs and lower
benefits can be explained by the fact that cooking with LPG is more expensive than with wood, kerosene, and
charcoal, and there are thus incremental costs; the financial support for LPG stoves is higher than for firewood
stoves. However, the number of households benefitting from access to clean cooking energy under the LPG
scenario is higher: 75% of all households will have a clean stove under the LPG scenario versus 52% for the wood
stove scenario.
Table 24: Annual Cost Benefit Flows, woodfuel scenario
million USD
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
NPV total
programme
39
39
34
10
8
6
6
39
financial support
32
56
43
37
36
37
39
32
subtotal
71
95
77
46
44
43
44
71
Benefits
518
628
704
769
850
923
979
518
Net benefits
447
533
627
722
806
881
935
447
Costs
Source: project team
The programme has higher benefits than costs, and the sensitivity of the benefit-cost ratio researched as result of
variations in the different parameters to determine the most important threats. The benefits of the program are
most sensitive to variations in the LPG price, and the cost of a doctor’s visit. It is assumed that a substantial
increase in the use of LPG, i.e., more than tripling of the current consumption, leads to a 25% price reduction at
the pump. The LPG scenario is very sensitive to the projected price changes: if the price reduction is 10% only, the
benefits are reduced by 60%. If the price reduction is 15%, the benefits are reduced by 40%. However, if the price
reduction is 30%, then benefits increase by 20%. Without LPG price reduction, the LPG scenario is not viable. The
project performance is indeed very sensitive to the price of LPG. The reason is that households are likely to
increase their fuel bills in they switch to LPG, and the accounted benefits are not able to fully cover these
incremental costs. However, some benefits are not incorporated, such as the ease of cooking, the increased
safety in terms of burning, not blackening the pots. If the stove program does include a large push for LPG stoves,
the Government should make sure that from the regulatory environment’s point of view nothing prevents an enduser LPG price decrease.
The second variable with considerable impact on the economic performance of the project is the price of a
doctor’s visit, and the relative improvement between the different fuels. A 20% increase or decrease in the price of
the doctor’s visit (base cost is US$ 31 or 5000 Naira, although only 50% of this is taken into account to reflect the
fact that many poor households will avoid going to the doctor unless absolutely necessary) will lead to a 16%
increase or decrease of the economic performance of the project for both scenarios. More analysis is needed to
better quantify this risk. The current analysis assumes that one doctor’s visit is avoided per year if households
gathering firewood adopt a clean stove; for household purchasing firewood this is 1.25 visits per year, for charcoal
using household 1.5 visits, for kerosene households 2.0 visits, and for LPG using households this is 2.5 visits66.
See Annex X for a few graphs with project performance data, including the growth in access to clean stoves, urban
and rural penetration of clean stoves, the total reduction in wood use, and the number of users of different fuels.
11.3
Significant impact on the global environment
First estimates show that over the 2014-2020 period, 65-68 million t CO2eq could be saved by the programme.
Depending on the precise selection of stoves by beneficiaries, the annual emission reduction could be as much as
66
This corresponds to 100% health benefits for LPG, 80% benefits for kerosene, 60% for improved stoves and charcoal, 40%
for improved stoves and firewood, and 30% for improved stoves and gathered firewood
P a g e | 78
16m t per year. Although the use of LPG is considerable in the LPG scenario, in energy terms wood fuels still
contribute much to the total quantity of energy used for cooking in Nigeria. Therefore, the use of clean stoves
would result in a considerable reduction of black carbon emissions. It has not been possible to estimate this in
more details in the absence of more precise deforestation data as well as updated consumption pattern data
beyond the three states where the cooking energy survey was carried out.
Depending on the evolution of the market for emission reductions, the possibility exists that carbon financing can
contribute to the overall financing of the programme. At the moment, with prices of carbon at the compliance
market less than 1 USD per ton, the contribution to the overall financing could still be meaningful. For the
voluntary market, which shows much higher prices for carbon savings, the results of the programme could be too
high to absorb. This issue is to be monitored and discussed further to see how the considerable benefits can be
captured by the programme that initiated them.
11.4
Innovation and exemplary nature
The approach chosen by the national clean stove programme is quite innovative in the way that its focus is on
setting the programme variables as a way of defining who and what can obtain support under the programme.
This implies, among others, to develop quality standards and determine which stoves are eligible for support
rather than the usual approach pre-determining one or more designated stove types for support. The entire
programme is based on the fact that it sets the variables, and support is available to those who comply and are
able to contribute.
A second innovation is that the programme works across all fuel and stove types as an umbrella programme. It is
agnostic about the choice of stoves or fuels, as long as the end results comply with the programme variables. This
is fully justified and in fact reflects real life conditions, as every household will have his or her own preferences
when it comes to deciding which stove and which fuel to use. Most households already use more than one fuel or
one stove, and as a result of the programme, everyone who is interested to improve the situation in her/his own
kitchen will be able to do so.
11.5
Collaboration and inclusiveness
The programme is ambitious and will have little chance of obtaining success if it excludes parties that are willing
to participate. Therefore, all who want to participate and adhere to the common conditions set forth by the
programme are welcome to join forces. Support by the programme will indeed be extended to all who are willing to
participate, who fully apply the transparent rules, and who are able to deliver results. The opportunities are large
indeed, and there is no use for separate programmes or efforts. This is not about politics, it is about generating
economic benefits for the poorest in society.
Programme management units (PMU) can be set up in different parts of the country, with the intention to reach as
many beneficiaries as possible. The selection of the national PMU will be agreed with the steering committee
members, but the selection of state-based PMU will be demand driven. Their selection will depend on the potential
reach and the capacity to deliver of the potential PMU, and its capacity to intervene without too much supervision
and support. It might therefore be possible that more than one PMU is active in the same geographical area, and
within reason that should not lead to conflicts.
PMUs can be government organizations, non-government organizations, and private companies. The main criteria
for selection are its ability to deliver results (i.e., clean stoves sold & delivered to households, small businesses,
and institutions), on a large scale, independently, and with qualitatively good results.
11.6
Demonstrable and replicable effects
The programme intends to start as a pilot in a few states to eventually grow nationwide. In this way, lessons
learned from the first states of interventions will be exploited to trigger quicker results in other parts of the
country. However, the pilots are not designed as small-scale activities and are designed to quickly grow large
market shares for clean cookstoves across all types.
The pilots that are pursued are: (i) in Katsina, a joint Euro 5.7 million proposal of ICEED-Oxfam has been approved
by the EU Delegation; this is an agroforestry proposal for 7 LGAs with a stoves component for which 80% EU
funding has been allocated; (ii) in Jigawa and Niger state, MoUs have been signed with NIAF, and implementation
details are being sorted out; (iii) the Better Life Programme for Rural African Women has proposed to start a pilot
in 3 states, with a view to see if this can be scaled up more considerably. In Kaduna, Kano and Ebonyi states
P a g e | 79
possibilities for pilots are being discussed as well. Finally, the Ministry of Environment’s RUWES programme could
be supported also.
Figure 15: Programme benefits by category (NPV 2014-2020, Woodfuel scenario)
Distribution of economic benefits
reduced fuel
procurement
time
17%
fuel bill savings
23%
decreased
health costs
51%
11.7
carbon
reductions
1%
reduced
deforestation
3%
increased
employment
generation
5%
Economic and financial sustainability after the project
The first budget calculations indicate that the programme could become self-financing after a few years (when
based on carbon pricing of 2 USD/t, which is currently not possible at the compliance market but may be possible
at the voluntary market). However, the volumes are large, and it will be difficult to find a corporate buyer for this.
Even if such buyer is found to ensure the programme long term financial sustainability, some seed funding will be
required during the initial years.
The vision for the programme is that, although it is assisted in the beginning, it puts in place a sustainable supply
chain for clean stoves. Given the large volume of stoves to be sold, it is expected that scale economies occur,
allowing for the large-scale manufacturing of clean stoves in Nigeria. When reduced retail prices occur in the
future, many households will opt to buy a clean stove again when they need a new stove.
The net present value of the net project benefits amounts to about USD 421 million over the 7 years of the
project. This is thanks to large benefits in terms of fuel savings, employment generation, environment and health.
Some 42% of the benefits are from fuel savings, and 33% from health improvements (See Figure 12 above).
11.8
Ecologic and environmental sustainability
Clean cookstoves have a lower environmental impact both locally by reducing pressure on woody biomass
resources and globally by reducing GHG emissions from cooking. The switch to LPG and kerosene that will
eventually occur will further enhance ecological sustainability but still contribute to GHG emissions. The use of
clean firewood cookstoves will reduce wood offtake and deforestation, but may not reduce black carbon
emissions. Moreover, the expected scale-up of local clean cookstove production will further ensure long-term
environmental sustainability. At the moment clean stoves are not available except on a small scale, and at high
prices. The expected result of the programme is that clean cookstoves are available everywhere and at lower
prices. One cannot and should not force households to stop using wood fuels, but ensure that they have access to
clean burning stoves that minimize the consumption of wood. Eventually households might switch away from
woodfuels, when their economic development includes this possibility.
P a g e | 80
11.9
Social and cultural sociability
Awareness raising and communication is one of the five components of the project as it is recognised that clean
cookstoves cannot be imposed but must rather be desired. This requires households to understand why it is
important to change their stove and/or fuel now instead of waiting some time longer. It should also be understood
what the consequences of adopting a clean stove are, in terms of expectations, both duties and benefits.
Messages and products must be tailored to be fully acceptable by Nigerians. By encompassing all stove and fuel
types, the programme wants to ensure that each household can upgrade its cooking practices within its cultural
comfort zone.
P a g e | 81
12
MONITORING AND EX POST EVALUATION
12.1
Evaluation criteria and indicators (as mentioned in the logical framework)
This is developed along with the logical framework, see Appendix 2.
12.2
Evaluation ex-post plan
A mid-term and final evaluation should intervene as part of the M&E system. The mid-term evaluation should be
led in 2017 and the final evaluation from 2020.
12.3
Communication plan
The communication strategy will be detailed as one of the main components of the programme. Additionally, the
PMU will communicate on implementation status and achievements all along the duration of the programme.
P a g e | 82
13
RISKS ASSESSMENT
P a g e | 83
Risk Category
Risk
Rating
Risk Rating Explanation
Risk Description
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Timing for
Mitigation:
Prep/Impl.
1. Project Stakeholder Risks
1.1 Ministry of environment
M
1.2 Laboratory
M
1.3 Local financial institutions
M
1.4 Stove suppliers
M
Not being committed, launching
other initiatives with controversial
implications (such as LPG bottle give
away programmes)
Subsidy programme not accepted
Not being objective and independent
Not performing up to the standards
Not having the capacity to
implement, or the willingness to be
involved
Not having the capacity to supply at
large-scale, particularly when
manufactured locally
Early discussions and propose a
detailed justification for the proposed
programme including subsidy
Strict supervision in the early times
Independent verification
Early discussions, identify their needs,
and see how part of the funds can be
routed through them
Specific training programme and
credit through financial institutions
prep
impl
prep
prep
2. Operating Environment Risks
2.1 Country
M
Corruption and political interference
(favoring certain technical solutions,
or regions)
2.2 Institutional (sector &
M
multi-sector Level)
3. Implementing Agency Risks (including FM & PR Risks)
3.1 Capacity
L
3.2 Governance
L
3.3 Fraud & Corruption
4. Project Risks
4.1 Design
4.2 Social & Environmental
4.2 Programme & Donor
L
M
L
L
NIAF/ICEED is well placed to manage
implementation of the programme
Procedures in place with NIAF are
solid
idem
The design is solid but the ambitions
are high; the ambitions should be
high to get an impact
There hasn’t been much attention to
the issues until now, and there is no
environmental monitoring in place;
however, the measures are intended
to improve this situation
Until now, GACC has announced a
10m stove programme but not put in
place any tailored approach to realize
this. The proposed programme is
being developed in conjunction with
P a g e | 84
Build in transparent checks and
balances
prep
4.3 Delivery Quality
M
GACC.
The verification system still needs to
be developed but is intended to
address this. The main issue is the
geographic coverage, if stoves are
produced throughout the country,
how to maintain the quality.
P a g e | 85
APPENDIX
Appendix 1 – Cookstove Interventions in Nigeria
Appendix 2 – Logical framework
Appendix 3 – Economic Analysis
P a g e | 86
Appendix 1 –Cookstove Interventions in Nigeria
Organisation
Partners
Products
DARE
Lernen - Helfen - Leben Save80 very efficient
e. V. (German NGO),
wood stoves,
atmosfair gGmbH
produced in Germany,
(German
assembled locally
Carbon offset
organization – upfront
financier).
SOSAI
C-Quest Capital (CDM),
Solar Sisters
Very efficient
woodstoves (Envirofit,
Stovetec, Ecozoom)
DEVA
StoveTec
Efficient woodstoves
C-QUEST
Envirofit, Shell
Foundation
Envirofit stoves (wood
and charcoal)
SME FUND
Set up the Carbon
Credit Network
Biofuel gel produced
from sawdust, grass
and waste paper ($1
per liter) and
How/where (target)
Had target of 12.500
households in northern
Nigeria (Pilot Phase) but
has upscalled to a target
of 100,000 households
per annum country wide
Financing
CDM, Instalmental
payments (without
interest) after
endorsement by
Group Head:
- District Head
(Hakimi).
- Village Chief.
- Imam
- Pastor
Based in Kaduna, early
focus on Kaduna state to
then go national.
Designed to target over
1.2 million
households, with the
potential to be
expanded
Targets rural Agricultural
communities in some
States in Southern
Nigeria.
The work will begin in
villages in Kano State in
the north of the country
in March 2011 and is
then planned to extend
to other parts of the
country based on
demand.
Stoves are imported
from Singapore, ethanol
partly produced locally
(one plant in Abuja and
CDM and consumer,
carbon money
managed by C Quest
who provide the
stoves at already
reduced prices
Status/Perspectives
Production in Nigeria, when enabling
environment and
policy available to allow setting up of
own production
facilities.
Scaling up dissemination to other
parts of Nigeria since 2012: Has sold
over 16,000 SAVE80 to customers at
a reduced price all over Nigeria thanks to CDM
pre-financing.
Currently Assembling in Kaduna
Nigeria, have a Manufacturers
licence and MAN membership to
Produce in Nigeria sometime in
future. Currently doing a 2nd pilot
have so far distributed a total of 1500
stoves in Nigeria.
Consumers
About 2000 stoves have been
distributed.
CDM and consumer
?
Energy in Common,
United States, soon
Carbon finance
Want to scale-up production to meet
the demand.
DRAFT
Organisation
Partners
Products
associated stoves
Mfaminyen
Conservation
Society
Wild Gift Leadership
Network, Cross River
state government
Ekwuk efficient
woodstoves
OANDO
Lift Above Poverty
Organization
Microfinance Bank
(LAPO) and Alitheia
Capital to provide soft
loans for low-income
households in Nigeria
to purchase Liquefied
Petroleum Gas (LPG) or
cooking gas
Agreement with an
Asian company for the
manufacture of the gas
stoves
OGAS 3kg cooking
stove, an integrated
offering that comes
with a cylinder,
burner, and gas.
SHELL
GIZ
?
Shea butter production
community
?
Institutional stoves
USAID
International Centre for
Energy, Environment
and Development
(ICEED)
Institutional and
household stoves
TECHNO OIL
3kg gas
stove&cylinder
88
National clean stove programme
How/where (target)
two under construction
in Lagos). Products sold
in 20 states through
social groups and in
green shops with local
green ambassadors.
Rainforest communities
in Cross River State
Financing
Own-building of
efficient stoves
Low-income households.
Available to end-users
via the company’s
existing network of over
500 retail stations and a
growing network of
authorised distributors.
5 Urban Centers to start:
Lagos, Port Harcourt,
Kaduna, Abuja and Warri
The new TechnoGas
stoves are targeted at
the low income group
that relies on kerosene.
Soft loans via LAPO
Microfinance Bank,
financed by Alithea,
funded by Oando
?
Installed prototype of
efficient mud wood
stove in shea butter
production community
Efficient Institutional and
household fuelwood
stoves targeted at 100
Secondary Schools with
boarding facilities and
?
GIZ
Consumer
USAID and consumers
Status/Perspectives
Completed the pilot phase of
Nigerian Clean cook Stove
Programme (10,000 Ekwuk stoves
built) and has scale up to commercial
scale since 2011
Quest to provide innovative and
affordable LPG cooking stoves to an
estimated 5 million low income
households over the next five years
Align with the policy drive of the
Lagos State Government to increase
the use of cooking gas among a
significant proportion of the
populace within the next four years
?
Still active ?
The project has started in Ebonyi
State with 60 litre institutional stoves
to be installed in 30 schools
beginning May, 2013 and 100
households and is expected to be
DRAFT
Organisation
Project Gaia
Partners
Products
HydroChem of Linde
AG, NEPAD Pan-Africa
Cassava Initiative, Delta
state Government
Methanol made from
flaired gases and
associated stoves
National clean stove programme
How/where (target)
200 pilot households in 2
states .
Delta state
Financing
Funded by United
States Environmental
Protection Agency
(USEPA), Pilot stoves
provided to the
families
Toyola
Energy
Improved Kenyan
Giko-type charcoal
stoves
Ogun State with plans to
reach other parts of the
country.
Carbon finance (VER
Gold Standard),
Consumers
Quintas
Energies
High efficent T-Lud
gasifier woodstove.
For households,
institutional and small
businesses uses
High efficiency
woodfuel and charcoal
stoves
Akure (Ondo state),
Lagos and Abuja (FCT)
Consumers
In Lagos at the moment
through social groups
Consumers
Tower
Aluminium
Envirofit
Alternative
Energy Fund
Jigawa State
Government
Improved wood stoves
Jigawa State
Jigawa State
Government
Lagos state
CDAs, Community
LPG small stove &
Lagos state
State governement
89
Status/Perspectives
extended to schools in Niger State.
Pilot phase completed, now the Delta
State government is working closely
with HydroChem of Linde AG, a
technical partner on the Project Gaia
team, to develop a natural gas-tomethanol plant to capture this
untapped energy. Project Gaia is
working with the NEPAD Pan-Africa
Cassava Initiative to convert flared
gas to methanol by building a
methanol plant to provide alcohol
fuel for alcohol stove users.
Newcomer to the Nigerian market
but has sold up to 20,000 units till
date. Also has a factory which is
expected to start production by end
of 2013.
Started commercialisation end 2012.
Wants to increase production (10
stoves per week) and distribution.
Products already available in Lagos
with intended expansion to other
parts of the country. There is a plan
to start a manufacturing plant in
Nigeria by the end of 2013.
Has produced and disseminated
70,000 improved wood stoves free to
households in Jigawa as a means of
protecting the environment. There is
however plan to commercialise the
stoves starting from 2014.
DRAFT
Organisation
government
Partners
development
associations
MoEnv,
RUWES
project (Rural
Women
Energy
Security)
MoEnv, NCCS
(National
Clean
Cooking
Scheme)
Products
cylinder
A variety of improved
stoves across all fuels
(Envirofit, Save 80,
Bananagas,
Wonderbag…)
A sub project under the
RUWES, was launched
in 2012 in partnership
with the Bank of
Industry
National clean stove programme
How/where (target)
Getting rural women
organised to acquire
small renewable energy
products (solar lamps
and appliances) across
the country. 1 million
women registered
The Scheme has
benefitted ten (10) pilot
Secondary Schools in
Kaduna State which had
their kitchens retrofitted
with LPG.
90
Financing
has its own
microfinance bank
providing loans.
Micro-loans provided:
6-month stove repay
for users (+buy-back
scheme), 2 years for
women
entrepreneur.
IFC/USAID and BOI
involved to mitigate
the risk
Contribution of the
BOI, with an
intervention from the
United Nations
Development
Programme (UNDP)
Status/Perspectives
To be launched in May 2013
The scheme is expected to kick off in
Borno and Bauchi States as the two
state governments have indicated
interest in retrofitting high volume
firewood consumers such as schools,
hospitals, hotels and prisons
considering the rapid desert
encroachment in the states.
Appendix 2 –Logical framework
Goal
To
increase
access to modern
and clean cooking
energy
for
households, small
businesses
and
institutions
in
Nigeria, with an
emphasis on the
poor
Specific Objectives
Expected outputs
Carry out a promotional and awareness campaign to
convince households and small businesses to quickly adopt
eligible clean cookstoves
Tailored messages and communication materials are
developed for each relevant media & target audience
Households, institutions and small businesses are
informed of the benefits of improved stoves and risks
associated with the use of traditional fuels and stoves
Households, institutions and small businesses are
informed of where to buy, what to look for and what the
warrantees mean for the stove models
Indicators
Number of media covered
Messages developed
Number
of
communication
materials
produced
and
distributed
Number
of
demonstration/awareness raising
sessions organized
Percentage
of
households/institutions/small
businesses
knowing
about
improved stoves and related
issues
Ensure quality control through the identification of eligible
cookstoves and the creation of an active verification process
A stove testing facility is set-up
Testing protocols are set-up
Testing laboratory operational
and number of tests carried
out/stoves tested
Performance standards are agreed
Written testing protocols
Eligible stove producers and products are selected
Written performance standards /
SON
registered
stove
performance standards
Ongoing monitoring of quality control of eligible stove
models and producers is carried out
List of eligible stove producers
and stove models available
Monitoring system in place for
ongoing quality control
Realize an operational subsidy-system
accelerated stove replacement and adoption
stimulating
Appropriate financial support level for improved stoves
is identified
MoU(s) signed with institution(s)
involved in delivery of the subsidy
The delivery mechanism to deliver the financial support
is developed
Number and level of subsidies
and stoves distributed
Households make use of the subsidy mechanism in
place to acquire new stoves
DRAFT
Ensure proper Monitoring & Evaluation, to verify
performance of the stoves and estimate the impact of the
programme
National clean stove programme
Installation checks are carried out
Number of installation & random
checks carried out
Performance of the stoves in operation is regularly
monitored by statistical sampling
Publications on the impacts of the
programme (health, fuel savings,
CO2 emissions etc.)
Random checks are carried out
User feedback is integrated via a complaints filing
system
Updated M&E database
Volume and financial value of
carbon credits generated
CO2 emissions are monitored so as to obtain carbon
finance
Support local stove producers for quality enhancement and
scaled-up production capacity
92
A mechanism is set-up to provide financial assistance
to local stove producers
Number of
supported
stove
Assistance is provided for building the distribution
network
Number
of
distribution
networks/outlets developed
Access to carbon financed is facilitated for individual
producers
Number of producers with access
to carbon finance
Professional training is provided
Number of
organised
training
producers
courses
Appendix 3 –Economic Analysis T O B E U P D A T E D
Basic assumptions from the most recent 2013 NIAF survey were used so as to build economic projections of the proposed programme.
Energy prices and breakdown of fuel users in each zone were weighed using state population while quantities used were calculated based on the number
of respondents to derive average fuel expenses.
Energy prices (N/kg or l)
Urban
Rural
Energy quantities/month
(kg or l)
Urban
Rural
Fuel expenses/month
(N)
Urban
Rural
Fuel expenses /month
($)
Urban
Rural
Main fuel used
Urban
Rural
FW collected
0.0
0.0
108.7
129.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6%
40%
FW purchased
19.4
13.7
147.2
154.0
2,104.5
1 782.7
13.4
11.4
30%
38%
Charcoal
60.6
44.9
61.3
48.0
6,592.3
5 822.3
42.0
37.1
6%
6%
Kerosene
147.1
143.4
11.8
8.7
15,999.7
18 600.5
101.9
118.5
42%
14%
LPG
240.3
263.8
14.5
9.6
26,127.4
34 217.3
166.4
217.9
11%
1%
Targets for adoption of clean cookstoves and fuel switches during the lifetime of the programme
Targets: energy efficiency (% of all HH using that fuel by the end of year 7)
Urban
Rural
Use of improved kerosene stoves
30%
15%
Use of improved charcoal stoves
75%
50%
Use of improved FW stoves
75%
50%
Use of improved FW gathered stoves
50%
25%
Targets: fuel switching (% of all HH using that fuel by the end of year 7)
Urban
Rural
Annual growth LPG (of old time users)
15.0%
10%
na
50
Switch from kerosene to LPG
25%
10%
Switch from charcoal to kerosene
35%
25%
Switch from FW purchased to charcoal
15%
10%
Nr of rural users in y1 ('000 hh)
DRAFT
National clean stove programme
Switch from FW purchased to kerosene
10%
5%
Switch from FW gathered to FW purchased
0%
0%
Summary results: differences between the baseline scenario (no changes in fuel or stove uses) and intervention scenario
Incremental fuel users (million HH)
in 2020
over period
LPG users
2.7
13.3
Kerosene
-1.1
-5.0
Charcoal
0.8
3.5
Fw purchased
-2.0
-9.1
Fw gathered
-0.5
-4.1
Incremental fuel consumption ('000 t)
in 2020
LPG
over period
457
2247
Kerosene
-219
-1039
Charcoal
309
1335
Fw purchased
-6059
-27128
Fw gathered
-303
1790
HH with access to modern cooking energy (million)
in 2020
% of HH
- baseline
12.9
37%
- scenario of Programme (NCCMDP)
25.2
72%
- total nr HH in 2020
34.7
Additional HH with access (2020)
12.3
CO2 emissions (million t)
in 2020
over period
- baseline
66.5
501
- scenario
57.4
466
9.1
35.1
14%
7%
- total savings
- as %
94
DRAFT
Total Wood off take (million t)
National clean stove programme
in 2020
over period
- baseline
41
310
- scenario
37
294
4
16
10%
5%
- total savings
- as %
Distribution of savings
- wood for charcoal making
-54%
- FW purchased
165%
- FW gathered
-11%
Markets for clean cookstoves
Urban stove markets (millions)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
LPG
0.62
0.66
0.47
0.38
0.48
0.17
0.18
Kerosene
0.33
0.65
0.43
0.33
0.22
0.11
0.11
Charcoal
0.19
0.37
0.25
0.19
0.12
0.06
0.06
FW purchased
0.65
1.30
0.87
0.65
0.43
0.22
0.22
FW gathered
0.09
0.19
0.13
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.03
Total Urban
1.88
3.17
2.15
1.63
1.32
0.59
0.60
Rural stove markets (millions)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
LPG
0.09
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
Kerosene
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.05
Charcoal
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.05
FW purchased
0.39
0.13
0.26
0.39
0.52
0.52
0.39
FW gathered
Total Rural
0.23
0.08
0.15
0.23
0.30
0.30
0.23
0.80
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.00
0.75
Total markets for stoves (millions)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
95
DRAFT
National clean stove programme
LPG
0.71
0.68
0.50
0.42
0.53
0.22
0.22
Kerosene
0.37
0.67
0.47
0.37
0.28
0.17
0.16
Charcoal
0.23
0.39
0.28
0.23
0.19
0.12
0.11
FW purchased
1.04
1.43
1.13
1.04
0.95
0.74
0.61
FW collected
0.32
0.26
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.33
0.26
Subtotal
2.68
3.43
2.65
2.38
2.31
1.59
1.35
Accumulated
2.68
6.11
8.76
11.14
13.46
15.05
16.40
96
DRAFT
National clean stove programme
Appendix 4 –Project Performance
Woodfuel Scenario
Access to modern stove
100%
60%
80%
50%
60%
penetration rate modern
woodfuel stoves
urban
40%
all modern
stoves
combined
30%
20%
10%
0%
40%
rural
20%
0%
1
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Reduction in fuel use
FW purchase
urban
FW gathered
urban
FW purchase
rural
FW gathered
rural
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
-
97
3
4
5
6
7
total wood offtake (m.t/yr)
with NCCSMDP
business as usual
1
8
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
DRAFT
7.0
7.0
urban users
6.0
National clean stove programme
rural users
6.0
5.0
LPG
5.0
FW-g
4.0
kerosene
4.0
FW-p
3.0
FW-p
3.0
kerosene
2.0
charcoal
2.0
charcoal
1.0
FW-g
1.0
LPG
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
LPG Scenario
Access to modern stove
100%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
all modern
stoves
combined
40%
30%
penetration rate modern
woodfuel stoves
50%
urban
40%
rural
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
8
98
2
3
4
5
6
7
DRAFT
70%
National clean stove programme
Reduction in fuel use
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Access to modern stove
FW purchase
urb
80%
FW gathered
urb
60%
FW purchase
rur
40%
FW gathered
rur
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
16.0
5
6
7
20%
0%
1
8
urban users
14.0
all modern
stoves combined
2
3
4
7.0
10.0
8.0
8
5.0
FW-p
FW-p
4.0
FW-g
3.0
kerosene
charcoal
4.0
7
LPG
kerosene
6.0
6
rural users
6.0
12.0
5
FW-g
LPG
2.0
charcoal
1.0
2.0
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
8
99
2
3
4
5
6
7
8