indian national improved stoves program

7/22/2019 Indian National Improved Stoves Program

1/30

The Indian National Improved Stoves Program

byJamuna RamakrishnaCountry Studies No. 2

10 July 1991

Risk and Development ProgramEnvironment and Policy InstituteEast-West Center1777 East-West RoadHonolulu, Hawaii 96848 USA


2/30

The East-West Environment and Policy Institute publishes Occasional Papers, Work ingPapers, and Project Papers.Occasional Papers are monograph-length manuscripts, which are subject to internal andexternal peer review, edited, and distributed at a modest cost.

working Papers present results of completed and ongoing research and inform interestedcolleagues about work in progress. They are reviewed internally, edited, and distributed inlimited numbers for comment and discussion.Project Papers present research results with the least possible delay. T hey are approved forpublication by a research associate, are not always reviewed or edited, and are distributed bythe projects.

Covers printed on premium recycled paper


3/30

ContentsCountry Study No. 2: Ind ia

Introduction 1National Programme on Improved Chulhas (NPIC) 1Evolution of NPIC 4NPIC at the State Level: Karnataka 5Apparent Problems 8Conclusions and Recommendations 9Acknowledgements 2 5References 2 6


4/30


5/30

IntroductionThe Indian National Improved Stoves Program

Improved cookstoves (ICs) have had a long history in India. A national program wasestablished in December 1983. Previous efforts were relatively small in scale and ambition.In the eight years since i ts inception, the National Programme on Improved Chulhas (NPIC)has expanded and evolved; approximately 8 million ICs have been disseminated. The targetfor 1990-91 is 1.8 million ICs. In this brief report, the objectives, history, structure, andachievements of NPIC will be described. I n addition, the strengths and limitations o f theprogram will be discussed using the state of Karnataka as an example.National Programme on Improved Chulhas (NPIC)

Objectives, History, AchievementsFor the first two years, NPIC was run as a pilot project (National Programme on theDemonstration of Improved Chulhas (NPDIC)). I t became a full-fledged program in 1986.National administration of the program has always been the responsibility o f the Departmentof Non-Conventional Energy Sources (DNES). NPIC's objectives are:1) Energy/fuel wood/forest conservation;2) Employment generation;3) Elimination/reduction of smoke, drudgery, and health ha7ards particularly to women andchildren;4) Ecological/environmental improvement; and5) Taking science and technology to the heart of the household.Dr. A. R. Shukla, Principal Scientific Officer, DNES, and head administrator o f NPIC, ranksthe first and third objectives as the most important, with employment generation takingsecond place. NPIC has a wide coverage and operates in every state, district, and block ofthe country. Since ICs are usually designed for biomass fuels, and primarily for fuelwood,most ICs have been placed in rural households that belong to lower income groups. Urbanand periurban households, however, are also served by NPIC; the portable metal ICs aredirected mainly towards this market. In addition, community-scale ICs are disseminated byNPIC for use in hostels, military encampments, and small-scale commercial operations. Themid-day meal program in schools also benefit from community-scale ICs.

Administrative structureThe DNES directs and coordinates NPIC. The NPIC office in Delhi has a staff of five

or six fulltime employees. I t is their task to oversee the progress of the program. They areaided by six regional DNES offices and 12 monitoring cells. The regional offices are locatedin Chandigarh, Luclmow, Ahmedabad, Guwahati, Bhopal, and Hyderabad. Each regionaloffice has 10 staff members while there are six staff in each of the monitoring cells. Thestaff of these offices and cells monitor all active DNES projects including NPIC. There is no


6/30

2fulltime staff person at these offices or monitoring cells devoted solely to NPIC activities.These DNES outposts serve mainly as conduits for directives issued in Delhi. Their presence /also allows DNES to monitor ongoing projects more frequently than would otherwise bepossible.

NPIC is unique among improved cookstove programs (ICPs) globally in that it has awell-established system of technical support. Specially designated technical backup units(TBUs) conduct research on ICs, and provide technical advice to DNES and the implementingagencies. There are 22 TBUs; the goal is to have one in each of the 25 states. These unitsare often based in educational institutions and, in addition to scientific staff and theirassistants, have the facilities to measure the fuel utilization efficiency of ICs Two of thebackup units are also equipped to conduct emissions testing. TBUs are mandated to developIC designs that not only meet the established minimum efficiency criterion but also are suitedto the diet and cooking practices o f a given area. Several of the TBUs are also capable ofcertifying ICs, that is, determining that they meet minimum requirements for inclusion inDNES' l ist of approved IC models (which are then eligible for subsidy through NPIC).

Each state selects one or two nodal agencies for the implementation of NPIC. I n mostcases, the nodal agencies are state government departments such as energy development,science and technology, rural development, forestry, social welfare, or housing and panchayatiraj (local administration). Only in a few instances is the nodal agency an NGO or voluntaryorganization. I t is official DNES policy, however, to encourage nodal agencies to recruitNGOs to implement at least 25% of the annual target.Each state is assigned an annual target by DNES. The nodal agency then meets thistarget using its own administrative structure following guidelines provided by DNES.

Generally, most o f the activity occurs at the block level. A t the state and district levels, themain activity is the distribution of the target and the disbursement of funds. The distributionof the annual target to district and block levels appears to be based on population and theprevious year's achievement. Monitoring of the program at the state level consists mainly oftacking expenditures and target achievement. Moni toring of IC performance occurs mainlyat the block and village level. Figure 1 shows an overview o f NPIC administration in onestate, KarnatakaAt the village household, the ICs are built by self-employed workers (SEWs) whowork on a contract basis for the implementing agency. SEWs may be local potters, masons,artisans, or village level workers such as the health worker. They may be men or women.

The SEWs are overseen by gram sevikas (women who assist block-level functionaries withvillage-based development efforts) and eventually by the Block Development Officer (BDO).The SEWs are trained in 10-day courses run by the TBU. Each course trains 20 SEWs; abudget of Rs. 8000/course is provided by DNES. Each year, active SEWs attend a three-dayrefresher course to learn about developments in IC construction and maintenance; the budgetfor these courses is Rs. 3000. The targets for these courses are set by DNES though the datesare determined locally by the TBU in conjunction with district and block-level field


7/30

3functionaries. (For an indication of these targets, see Table 2 which shows the 1990-91targets for Karnataka state). Each SEW has a contract to build a maximum of 300 ICs every /year. SEWs receive a payment of Rs. 10 per IC built (this amount is Rs 15 in more remoteand inaccessible locations; i t is Rs. 5 for portable metal ICs delivered to households). I naddition, the SEWs are responsible for carrying out repairs, maintenance, monitoring, followup and users' education for the period of one year. For these services, SEWs collect asupervisory fee o f Rs. 5 from beneficiaries. The choice o f the IC design is based on thefindings o f a baseline survey conducted by the SEWs o f existing cooking practices (Annexe1). Th e gram sevikas identify prospective users in a village and supervise SEWs in theconstruction phase.

The BDO, district and state level officials monitor progress periodically. These upper-level management staff also attend a day-long training course once a year. This course isusually conducted by staff from the TBU and the nodal agency. DNES provides the targetand budget (Rs. 1000/pmgram) for these managrment exposure courses as well.Financial structure

NPIC is funded under Government of hidia's New 20 Point Programme and MinimumNeeds Programme NPIC's budget for 1990-91 is Rs. 125 million. Th e program's majorexpenditure is subsidies. A l l ICs are subsidized to the consumer to some extent. The amountof subsidy depends on the type of stove and the socioeconomic status o f the recipient.Portable metal stoves receive a 50% subsidy regardless o f the status o f the consumer. Mudstoves are fully subsidized to those belonging to scheduled castes and tribes. Others receive a60% subsidy. Some state governments bear a portion of program management costs but thisseldom amounts to more than a fraction of DNES' contribution.Funds are distributed by DNES to the nodal agencies in each state. H a l f the funds arereleased at the beginning o f the fiscal year (April); the second payment awaits the receipt of aUtilization Certificate (Annexe 2) for the previous year and completion of 30% o f the targetfor the ongoing year. The nodal agencies distribute funds to the district offices which in turnpass the monies on to the BDOs. Where necessary, the BDO puts out tenders and enters intoa contract with the lowest bidder to manufacture the metal components of IC& Thecomponents are then transported to the villages and ICs are built by SEWs. Portable metalstoves are bought directly from the manufacturers. SEWs are responsible for transportingthem from the BDO's office to the user's household. The payment to SEWs is to be made by

nodal agencies in nine equal installments over the period of one year after ensuring that allresponsibilities have been fulfilled satisfactorily.

Monitoring and evaluation systemThe SEW makes a follow up visit to monitor performance and user satisfaction. TheSEW keeps a record of his or her work on a chulha card that remains with the user.Subsequently, inspecting officers record their comments on this card as well. The monitoring


8/30

schedule is as follows:1) A l l (100%) ICs are surveyed and followup action taken at the village and block level.2) A t least 10% of the ICs are surveyed by district level officials.3) A t least 2% o f the ICs are surveyed by state level officials.Consolidated monthly reports are submitted to DNES. The types of information collectedduring these monitoring activities can be gleaned from this summary report. A copy of theproforma is attached (Annexe 3). The method for selecting households or villages forinspection is not specified.

There have been three external evaluations of NPIC conducted by research institutions.Their findings are presented in Boxes 1, 2, and 3. There appears to be no set schedule forevaluation.Evolution of NPIC

4

The experiences of the last eight years has influenced the present structure of NPIC.Two major changes have occurred in NPIC due to lessons learned along the way. Th e firstmajor change was the introduction of SEWs in recognition of the fact that monitoring andfollowup activities were not being adequately performed under the original program structure.Previously, groups of potential beneficiaries were trained by nodal agencies to build ICs intheir respective and neighbouring villages. Users were not required to pay the IC buildersanything. There was little incentive for builders to provide follow up services. There wasalso a high drop-out rate among trained chulha builders. The SEW system tries to addresssome of these deficiencies in NPIC's original structure. The supervisory fee that the users arerequired to pay the SEWs is meant to insti ll a feeling of ownership and, hence, create agreater degree of interest in the subsequent condition and performance of the IC.The second major change has been in a greater responsiveness to user needs and arecognition of technological and practical limitations. Th e first wave of change came withthe elimination of dampers and baffles from IC designs. Field surveys had found that thesedesign features were frequently ineffective for various cultural and practical reasons and hadthe potential for becoming barriers to adoption. The removal of the dampers may be seen asa compromise between the reality of user interests and the ideal world of efficiencyobjectives. The second wave o f design changes has been in a shift from mud stoves built insitu to the use of mass-produced pottery liners that SEWs can use as inserts for the ICs. Thisinnovation was introduced in order to minimize the opportunities fo r error in IC construction.Controlling the quality of mass-produced liners is logistically more feasible than ensuring thequality of individual ICs built in situ. Also , the stovebuilding skill of the SEWs is reducedsince, under the new method, construction consists of packing insulating material (clay, straw,dung mixture) around the insert and attaching the asbestos cement pipe for the chimney.These are both relatively recent changes: SEWs were introduced in 1988-89 whileliner dissemination has not yet started in earnest. Chulha production centres where potters areto be trained in liner manufacture have not been set up. The change wrought by the SEWs


9/30

NPIC at the state level: Karnataka

5has yet to be assessed; i t is too early to determine the effectiveness of the liners. There havebeen no formal evaluations o f the NPIC since these changes came into effect.

Objectives, history, achievementsNPIC's objectives are the same in all the states. Kamataka's IC history is slightlydifferent from that of the other Indian states in that it predates NPIC. Since 1975, Karnatakahas had a independent body to act as liaison between state government agencies and thescientific community. This body, the Karnataka State Council on Science and Technology(KSCST), is mandated to foster the development and transfer of technology and scientificknowledge to the rural areas of the state A s part of their activities, they began an improvedcookstove program in 1983, disseminating an IC designed at the Centre for Application ofScience and Technology to Rural Areas (ASTRA) o f the Indian Institute of Science. Th is IC,

the ASTRA ole, was later approved by DNES and disseminated by NPIC. The existence o fKSCST and its well-established infrastructure allowed NPIC to grow rapidly in Karnataka. Inthe first year o f operation a training course was run in each of the 175 blocks of the state.To date, 350,000 ICs have been disseminated in Karnataka under NPIC. The target for 1990-91 is 100,000 ICs. The program operates in every block and in probably 75% o f the villagesin the state.Adminstrative structure

The nodal agency in Karnataka is the Department of Rural Development andPanchayati Raj (DRDPR). NPIC is part of that department's Integrated Rural EnergyProgramme (IREP). I t is here the state's annual target is distributed among the districts.Table 1 shows how this was done for the 1990-91 target o f 100,000 ICs.

The TBU is KSCST; monitoring activities are also coordinated and supervised byKSCST. The state-level manpower investment in NPIC is as follows: Th e director of IREPhas three full-time staff members who are in charge o f administration. One of KSCST'ssystem analysts supervises the TBU's NPIC activities. He is assisted by one full-timemonitoring supervisor and three or four part-time research staff. Research activities aresupervised by scientists who work on an honorary basis. Two potters/masons are on the staffas well.Field operations at the district level are overseen by a chulha supervisor. There is onesupervisor (also called "project assistant") in each o f ten districts. The remaining districts(where 'REP is active) have Junior Engineers trained and deputed by KSCST. Each district,then, has an individual who monitors the work of the SEWs. Since this is the only individualat the district level with technical expertise, he/she may be called upon to assist with thedistrict biogas program as well. The situation is reversed at the block level, where the gobargas (biogas) supervisor has the additional responsibility of providing technical assistance to


10/30

6NPIC. The district chulha supervisor is on the staff of KSCST though he is on DRDPR'spayroll.

KSCST staff run the regular and refresher training courses for SEWs. The typicalSEW training course has the following curriculum:Day 1 T h e o r y of ICsDay 2 Constru ction of demonstration ICDay 3 G r o u p of trainees construct ICDay 4 V i l l a g e visi t to discuss potential problems and solutionsDay 5-6 Trainee constructs IC in village under supervisionDay 7-9 Fol low upDay 10 Audiovisual materials reinforce main principles.A manual on ICs is available to the SEWs for a fee o f Rs. 12.50.

In order to appreciate the NPIC financial structure and monitoring system inKarnataka, it is necessary to be familiar with the state's administrative structure (see Figure1). Karnataka has a panchayati raj system, that is, a decentralized system o f decision makingand administration. The state is divided into zillas or districts. These are fairly autonomous;planning, administration, and monitoring of development activities occurs at the zilla parishad(district council). Th e officers of the parishad are elected. Several committees meetperiodically to vote on planned activities and budget allocations. The status of the presidentof the zilla parishad is on par with that o f a minister of the state government. District-levelfunctionaries (such as the district engineer) report to zilla parishad officials rather than totheir respective ministries. The next unit o f administration is the block. Block developmentprojects are coordinated and implemented by the BDO. He or she is assisted by a mukhyasevika Th e mukhya sevika is the "chief" sevika who oversees the work of the gram sevikas.Each block has three or four gram sevikas, and they do much of the village-level groundwork for development projects. I n programs like NPIC, much depends on the BDO's level ofinterest and involvement. There is another administrative unit between the block and theindividual village: the rnandal panchayat which consists of a cluster of five or six villages.The zilla parishad is to the mandal panchayat as the state government is to the zilla parishad.There is a general non-interference policy as long as administrative directives and circularsare heeded. Mandal panchayat secretaries have rural development assistants who occupy thefinal rung in the administrative heirarchy o f NPIC in Karnataka.

NPIC activities fall within the purview of the zilla parishad's deputy secretary fordevelopment activities. He or she oversees distribution of the district target to the blocks.Once again, this is done on the basis of population and the previous year's achievement. A l lsupervisory staff attend day-long management exposure programs once a year. KSCST runsthe program for state and division supervisors. Project assistants (chulha supervisors) providethis service for supervisory staff at and below the district level. A t these managementexposure programs guidelines for NPIC administration are elaborated and audiovisualmaterials on the technical aspects o f ICs are shown. Table 2 shows the training coursetargets for 1990-91.


11/30

7Financial structure

In 1990-91, DNES provided Rs. 7.6 million to DRDPR for NPIC. T h e DRDPRtransfers funds to the zilla parishads when the central government releases the funds. Thetiming of this transfer and subsequent movements of funds follow the same pattern as thatdescribed under NPIC. The structure of subsidies and the SEW contracts also remain thesame.Monitoring and evaluation system

The district chulha supervisor is required to check 100 ICs per month and send his/herreport to KSCST. An indication of the rate at which these inspections are conducted can beobtained from Table 1 which gives the total number of ICs checked by the supervisorsbetween 1 April 1990 and 31 December 1990. In addition, KSCST, block, zil la parishad andstate officials periodically conduct field inspections o f the ICs. The schedule follows thatpresented in the NPIC description above. The same pro forma is utilized by the chulhasupervisor and KSCST staff for monitoring purposes (Annexe 4). Monitoring data aretabulated on a monthly and yearly basis by the KSCST monitoring supervisor. A collation ofthe 1989-90 data is presented in Table 3. Th e chulha supervisor performs simple repairs asneeded during his monitoring activities; he informs the SEW concerned about morecomplicated modifications that might be necessary.

Besides these monitoring activities, there have been four evaluations of NPIC'sperformance in Karnataka, conducted primarily by KSCST and the Indian Institute of Science(See Box 4). As with the national program, evaluation appears to be conducted on an ad hocbasis.

Midstream adjustmentsLike NPIC, the Karnataka state program has changed and grown over time. Therehave been and continue to be changes in stove design and construction. Users now have thechoice of two- or three-pan ICs or a 2+1 design that has water heating and cookingcapabilities. There is a pilot dissemination program to test the viability of prefabricated fired-clay stove tops. I f these prove successful, some of the existing problems o f breakage andinadvertent design modification may be solved. There does not as yet appear to be a move

towards developing and testing pottery liners for the ASTRA ole.The structure o f the program has also altered with the introduction o f SEWs. I tremains to be seen whether this addition is sufficient to compensate for overburdened staff at

the village level. Further, following a DNES directive, there is an active effort afoot to drawNGOs into the arena. Their involvement may, in the longterm, be the keystone to NPICeffectiveness in rural areas.


12/30

Apparent problems8

Running a national improved stove program in a country as environmentally andculturally diverse as India and which has such a large population of potential users requiresan enormous amount of resources and coordination. Establishment and operationalization ofthe administrative system itself takes a long period. Many of the problems that appear tocharacterize NPIC are simply a function of its size and scope. Nonetheless, as mentionedearlier, efforts are being made to learn the lessons of accumulating experience.

One major problem inherent in a program the size of NPIC is the huge administrativeand personnel requirements, primarily in the field. There is no easy answer to this problem:the current solution relies on SEWs who are essentially village level workers with a myriadtasks besides the building and monitoring of ICs. Th e task o f the SEWs is made moredifficult by the conditions under which NPIC operates: 1 ) the annual IC target for a givenstate may be large but is dispersed geographically. I n many cases, this means that the SEWmust travel substantial distances in order to complete his/her contract; 2) the SEW is notreimbursed for travel time or expenses; 3) though a payment schedule for SEWs has been setup, limited feedback from the field shows that remuneration is not reliable after the firstpayment (See Box 5); 4) funds are often released late in the fiscal year to blocks, leavingonly two to three months for the bulk of the target to be met. Th e monthly targets given tothe districts also fol low this schedule: 50% of the 100,000 ICs to be disseminated in 1990-91will be installed between January and March 1991. Table 1 shows the progress made inKarnataka between 1 Apri l 1990 and 31 December 1990 at which time only three monthsremain to achieve targets. I t can be seen that in most districts, a major portion o f the workremains to be done.

The delay in releasing funds seems to have two causes. First, i f DNES does notreceive the Certificate of Utilization for the previous year from the state, i t will not releasethe second payment of funds. Th is appears to be a bureaucratic hurdle, in the main. Second,further delays may occur at the district level because consensus cannot be reached about howthe funds should be allocated among the various blocks. There is much political pressure todistribute funds equally regardless o f the relative need or market for ICs. I t was instructive tolearn how the political process works in two zilla parishads: the Bangalore Urban District(BUD) and the Bangalore Rural District (BRD). BUD is small, has no elected officials, and alimited annual budget. There are no committees to debate or vote on development activities.BUD is simply an agency that implements these activities. BRD, on the other hand, is large,has elected officials, and a substantial budget. A n assembly of 59 members meets monthly toexamine, debate, and vote on various projects. Nine standing committees present theirprogress reports. A l l development activities have to be approved by committees as do budgetallocations to blocks. BUD's NPIC progress report shows that 927 ICs had been built by 31January 1991 out of a target of 1500 for 1990-1991. BRD had disseminated 3807 in thesame time period out of a target o f 6500. BRD's second installment of funds of Rs. 300,000were released and cleared for use only in January 1991. Quality control under such timeconstraints is difficult to achieve.


13/30

9The administrative burden and personnel shortages described above also characterizeother levels o f NPIC but they are most obvious and damaging at the village level. Thosecharged with monitoring the program also have many demands on their time. The BRDPlanning Officer noted, for instance, that the zilla parishad has to monitor between 300 and

400 currently operating development schemes. There are two deputy secretaries and twoassistant secretaries responsible for district development programs under the chief secretary ofthe zilla parishad. Even granting that not all these schemes are functioning in all blocks, themonitoring task is formidable. I t appears that most monitoring at the district and state level isdone on an ad hoc basis. During official visits to villages fo r whatever reason, functionariesinspect ICs. There is no set method for sample selection at the village or household level.There is no established means for utilizing the monitoring data thus gathered. There do notappear to be funds earmarked for the analysis of these data either.The challenge is to design an effective monitoring system that is not cumbersome, thatis not a drain on NPIC. Given NPIC's size and personnel constraints, some of the monitoring

procedures are too laborious and therefore ignored in the field. The chulha card while logicalin rationale is too time-consuming to fi ll. I t is not being used in Karnataka, for instance.Conclusions and Recommendations

It is time to review NPIC's objectives and its structure and to determine the suitabilityof the structure for meeting the objectives. NPIC's objectives need to evolve just as NPIChas altered its operations in response to experiences gained. KSCST staff, on the basis oftheir monitoring activities, have reached the conclusion that there is a discrepancy betweenusers' interests and NPIC's goals. B y and large, users are not concerned about saving fuel.Rather, they would l ike to reduce smoke levels and keep cooking pots and the kitchen clean.Though NPIC ranks reduction of smoke highly among its objectives, there is no doubt thatdecreased fuel consumption is its primary concern. Such a disagreement between userinterests and program objectives indicates the need for user education and extensivepreparatory work prior to program initiation. Given the structure of NPIC funding, andcurrent staffing patterns, there l ittle opportunity for this to occur.

One way of improving the situation would be to identify those areas where cookingfuel is scarce and/or expensive, and people perceive the need to conserve fuel, and to focusdissemination, education, and follow-up efforts on these areas. Consolidating the target wouldhelp improve effectiveness as well. During the early stages o f the program, there was anattempt to create "smokeless villages," that is, villages in which 75-80% of the householdshad ICs. Th is concept is no longer in vogue. Many of the implementation and qualitycontrol difficulties might be reduced by consolidating the target i f not to the point of havingsmokeless villages then at least to where there is a critical mass of users in high priorityareas.

DNES has formulated guidelines for identifying high priority areas and populations.These are as follows:


14/30

10* Scheduled caste areas and households (at least 20% of the target);* Scheduled tribe areas and households (at least 10% o f the target);* H i l l y areas, the northeastern region, and islands;* Areas experiencing serious deforestation and fuel scarcity;* Semi-urban areas and slums;* Community kitchens o f hospitals, hostels, military and paramilitary forces, religious andcharitable institutions, roadside restaurants, hotels, etc.* Commercial/industrial establishments that use wood as fuel.While these are broad guidelines which can be difficult to apply since no decision criteria arespecified, they do provide a starting point for selecting NPIC project sites. Consolidating theannual target by focusing on those parts of the country that fall within the parameters laid outin these guidelines would be better than trying to cover every block in the country every year.NPIC, after all, is a longterm project so areas that have lower priority wil l eventually beselected as well.

The guidelines quoted above specifically mention community-scale ICs: the effort inthis area could probably be redoubled to great profit. I t was not possible to determine whatfraction of ICs installed are community or commercial ICs. According to DNES guidelines,at least one SEW in each block/district is trained in and assigned specially to thedissemination of large-scale ICs. Since the potential for fuel savings is much greater incommunity or commercial operations and because the incentive to save may be readilyappreciated by the user, more may be accomplished by diverting NPIC program attention tothese large-scale operations. This has been the conclusion of Dr. Lokras, co-designer of theASTRA ole, after obtaining preliminary field results o f 40% savings using community-scaleASTRA oles in small-scale processing of areca and cashew nuts.There is li ttle incontrovertible evidence that NPIC is at present achieving either of itstwo main objectives: reduction of fuel consumption and removal o f smoke. Mo st of theevaluations that have tried to estimate achievement o f these objectives have relied on surveysof user perceptions. The many problems associated with this method will not be discussedhere; suffice to say that questions remain regarding the relationship between reportedperceptions and reality. Field measurements o f actual fuel consumption or smoke levels havebeen few and far between. Field data on fuel consumption show a wide range o f efficiencies.This points not only to the difficulties of controlling quality in construction and disseminatingsuitable operating and maintenance procedures but also to the inherent limitations of mudstove technology. Table 4 shows the results of recent waterboiling tests done on 20 ICs inKarnataka; the efficiencies range from 8% to 35%. Field evidence of smoke removal of ICs

is similarly inconclusive. I f anything, limited evidence (Ramakristma et al., 1989) shows thatwomen cooking on ICs are exposed to levels o f air pollution akin to those to which womenusing traditional stoves are exposed.Problems remain both of technology and technology transfer. I f these could beresolved, NPIC might achieve its goals. The problems of technology are difficult to surmountgiven the constraints: any technology developed must be affordable to a population with


15/30

extremely limited disposable income and with no past history of purchasing cookstoves (inmost cases). A t the same time, the IC must allow people to continue their traditional cookingpractices. In certain areas, this poses a special problem; for instance, where the staple food isrod, the cook requires access to the combustion chamber and the height of the chamber maybe determined by the size of the rod. In the final analysis, al l parameters-- flexibil ity,efficiency, high power, low power, smoke removal, low cost, ease of operation-- cannot bemaximized simultaneously: some compromise is essential.

The technology transfer issue has its own complexities. Though DNES directives urgestate governments to call upon NGOs in implementing NPIC this does not appear to happenwith any frequency. Indeed, many of the NGOs that were involved in NPIC's early stagesseem to have withdrawn. Karnataka, in fact, only this year is trying to assign 20% o f thetarget to NG0s. KSCST conducted its fi rst training course for NGO stove builders last yearat the request of the Rural Education Development Society in Tunakur. The reluctance seemsto be mutual: the state governments would like to retain control over DNES funds whileNCTOs have to weigh the benefits of having their IC programs externally funded againsthaving to deal with NPIC's bureaucratic tangle. This is unfortunate since the technologytransfer problem may be eased by the active involvement of NG0s. These organizations havethe personnel, the commitment, and the longterm involvement with user groups to manage theburdens of education, monitoring and follow up.

Both halves o f the equation need to be present: a sound technology and a soundmeans of transferring that technology. This was illustrated during a field trip to the SocialWork Research Centre in Khori, Haryana. SWRC is an NGO with all the skills, facilities anddedication necessary to run an ICP. Bu t a mud IC is sti ll a mud stove and is prone to"design drift." W e visited a village where both SWRC and NPIC had been installing ICs.There were two main differences between households that had had ICs buil t under the twoprograms. Those who had. interacted with SWRC still had the IC in place and in operation:much altered, not saving fuel (by their own admission), and not visibly "smokeless". Th eSWRC households expressed satisfaction with their ICs regardless, a response that is probablyindicative o f their good rapport with SWRC. The NPIC households had reverted to theirtraditional stoves and had little positive to say about the IC they had had. Perhaps there issome merit to the argument that in the long run, it is better to introduce "the best possible"product even i f that means it cannot be subsidized: people will adopt a technology i f is aperceptible improvement over what they had previously and may even be will ing to pay for itbut in order for that to happen they have to be offered a sound product that meets their needs.

11


16/30

e,wr".Os_, ..C/5 c o i IC)'>-. A 1 , - - ,1-11:4"5>,--,

41 C . ) 1 0 1 4 :514t) - Z :,,g . e o s ,-a ' 8 4

48a .2O 8 t G 0= 1 m 4 9l., 0401 A 5 v , . . s5 o= 7)= , . . . . , ,8 0 8 11. tid ( 1 ) . 11) 0 . ..., PP 8 >sL

.

zc:'g:E42,e-

t4-4O t I c g .g ) ; 1i4

4O,, g ,8 ?. 0 C3.a4 a t A 1 1a . agD1 1 4 3 2 v i ' -O .,?... o ..5: tc ntilg1a1

ICI ,g,'4= 1 14

2a

e,: oet) 0


17/30

13

District Target Achievement Total ICs Inspected31 March '91 31 December '90 1April '90-31 Dec. '90

Bangalore, Urban 1500 795 153Bangalore, Rural 6500 3314Belgaum 6000 2000 77Bellary 4000Bidar 4000 2209 162Bijapur 6000 876 670Chitradurga 6000 904Chikmaglore 4000 1660 314Dakshin Kannada 8000Dharwad 6000 25Gulbarga 6000 663Hassan 4000 1142 28Kodagu 2000 650 91Kolar 4000 1247 83Mandya 4000 2037 408Mysore 6000 2166Ralchur 4000 250Shimoga 4000 497 645Tumkur 8000 3814 645Uttara Kannada 6000 1800 104STATE TOTAL 100,000 26,049* 3380

Table 1NPIC district targets and achievements in Karnataka state, 1990-91

*This total includes 5139 portable metal stoves installed in six districts. These account foralmost 20% o f the total.Source: KSCST records.


18/30

Source: DNES, 1990.

State

Scheduled Castes and Tribes All others TotalStatus of IC Total Percent 2-pan 3-pan Total Percent 2-pan 3-pan Total Percent 2-pan 3Using 971 5 6 . 3 8 3 7 1 3 4 1464 68.1 1 1 5 1 313 2435 62 .8 1 9 8 8 4Alteredand using 208 1 2 . 1 1 7 8 3 0 287 13.3 171 1 1 6 495 1 2 .8 3 4 9 1Rarely using 45 2 . 6 2 8 1 7 96 4 . 5 81 1 5 141 3 . 6 1 0 9 3Not using 161 9 . 3 1 4 7 1 4 174 8 . 1 153 2 1 335 8 . 6 3 0 0 3Dismantled 340 1 9 . 7 2 9 8 4 2 130 6 .0 72 5 8 470 1 2 .2 3 7 0 1TOTAL 1725 1 0 0 1 4 8 8 23 7 2151 100 1628 523 3876 1 0 0 3 1 1 6 7

State 2Division 5Dis t r ic t 25

Source: KSCST records.

14

Table 2Karnataka Targets for Training Courses, 1990-91

Tyne of course T a r g e tRegular training of SEWs/potters 4Refresher training of SEWs 2 5Management training for officers & field functionaries

Table 3Summary of NPIC Progress, Karnataka, Apri l 1989-March 1990


19/30

15

K1 2+1 MDF 6 35

K2 2+1 MIRF 2/5 26K3 2+1 MRF 3/3 33K4 2+1 LF 3/1 25

K5 2+1 MDF 4/1 33K6 2+1 MRF 4/3 33K7 2+1 SF 3 19K8 2+1 LF 3/1 25Si 2 pan LF 12 21S2 2 pan LF 3 14S3 2 pan MRF 3/3 12

S4 3 pan MIN 6 16S5 3 pan MDF 4/1 15

S6 2 pan MRF 4 11

S7 2 pan SF 6 15

Table 4Summary of Water-boiling Field Test Results for ICs, Karnataka

Household S t o v e Economic Family Eff i c iencyID T y n e Sta tu s S i z e o f Stove (%) Remarks

* Pan & hole relationship satisfactory; smallgap between 1st pan bridge and fireboxresulting in partial leakage of smoke.* Pan & hole relationship bad.* Pan & hole relationship quite satisfactory.* Pan & hole relationship bad; gap betweenpan & hole resulting in partial leakage ofsmoke.* Pan & hole relationship bad.* Pan & hole relationship very bad; clearancbelow vessel bottom was high.* Pan & hole relationship very bad; gapbetween first pan bridge and firebox lid.* Pan & hole relationship bad; clearnce belovessel was high.* No firebox lid or lid to ash removal inlet;chimney is 3" dia. asbestos cement pipe.* First pan bridge is slightly broken; pan &hole relationship very bad.* Pan & hole relationship very bad; primaryair hole big; no secondary air hole; clearancebelow vessels significantly high; pan betweepan and hole.* Pan & hole relationship very bad; clearancbelow vessel high.* Pan & hole relationship very bad; gapbetween hole and pan; with firebox lid andmud chimney; gap between fi rst pan bridgeand firebox lid.* Pan & hole relationship very bad; no fireblid ash removal inlet lid; 4" dia asbestoscement chimney; fiat-bottomed vessel used ofirst pan.* No firebox lid or ash removal inlet lid; muchimney; pan & hole relationship very bad.


20/30

Household S t o v e Economic Family E ffi ci encyID T y p e Sta tu s S i z e o f Stove (%) RemarksS8 3 pan MRF 4 25

S9 2 pan MRF 3 18S10 2 pan MDF 2/2 30

GM1 2 pan MDF 3 9

GM2 2 pan MDF 2/2 23

Source: KSCST records.

16

Table 4(Continued)

* With firebox lid, ash removal inlet lid &mud chimney; pan & hole relationship verybad; primary air hole too big; gap betweenhole & pan.* With firebox lid, ash removal inlet lid, &mud chimney.* Without lids to firebox & ash removal inlwith 4" dia asbestos cement chimney; pan &hole relationship very bad; entrance to firstpan is restricted.* Firebox lid and grate badly damaged; panhole relationship very bad; clearance belowvessels high.* Pan & hole relationship bad; clearancebelow vessels is high; 2" dia exit pipe is fixat entrance to chimney (4" dia asbestos cempipe).

NOTES: A l l these stoves are based on the general ASTRA ole design. The 2+1 is a modified ASTRole where the third pan is adapted for heating water. The codes for economic status are as follows:MDF = medium farmer; M U ' = marginal farmer; LF = large farmer; and SF = small farmer.


21/30

17

Agency No. ICs No. ICs % ICs

1986

installed in use in useNEDA 340 122 36CBRDARC 68 28 68LORP 204 164 80ETC 204 100 49

1985 138 50 361986 627 340 541987 51 42 82

Box 1: Evaluation of NPIC in Uttar PradeshAt the request o f DNES, the Gi rl Institute o f Development Studies, Lucknow,conducted an evaluation of improved chulhas in rural Uttar Pradesh (UP). The studywas done i n fou r districts i n the central and eastern regions o f UP: Lucknow,Barabanld, Ghazipur, and Azamgarh. The districts were chosen because the maximum

number of ICs had been installed there. Three villages were selected in each district,based on the same criterion. I n each village, 68 households with ICs and 18 houseswith traditional stoves were surveyed between March and May 1987. Households wererandomly selected; landholding and social groups were taken into consideration.In these districts four agencies had installed ICs: N EDA (Non-Conventional EnergyDevelopment Agency, UP), LORP (Labour Organization for the Rural Poor), ETC(Extension Training Centre), and CBRDARC (Chandra Banu Rural DevelopmentAgency and Research Centre). I t is quite interesting to compare the performance ofthese implementing agencies. NEDA and ETC are government and semi-governmentagencies. LORP and CBRDARC are voluntary organizations. NEDA and CBRDARChad disseminated ICs in the central region sample households (83% and 17%) whileLORP and ETC had equal portions of the work in the eastern region. In UP as a whole,67% of the ICs have been installed by NEDA and 33% by NG0s.Table A below shows the relative performance of the different agencies in the studysample:

The statistics indicate that users do not replace their old ICs with new ICs; they revertto their traditional stoves instead:Year of N o . ICs N o . ICs % ICsinstAllation i n sample i n use i n useat time of survey

Continued...


22/30

18

Box I (Continued)Reasons fo r disuse have been tabulated both by implementing agency and instraight frequencies. Either method of tabulation shows that the majority o f thehouseholders said that the IC takes more fuel than the traditional stove. Oth erreasons mentioned less frequently (in relative terms) are that smoke was noteliminated, the IC was not "compatible", and that it takes more time.Data were also collected on the extent to which householders had modified theIC. Ou t of the total sample of 816 ICs, 374 had been modified (46%). Th e mostcommon alterations included changing of the pot hole size, removal of the chimney,and o f the dampers. T h e feeding chamber had also been changed in the ICsinstalled by CBRDARC. These modifications were tabulated according to theeducational status of the household head (not of the cook), ranging from illiterateto postgraduate degree and there appears to be no relationship. Regardless o feducational status, 43-48% o f the users had modified the IC. Th e ICs bui lt byNGOs seemed to slightly less prone to modification, though the range is quite wide:CBRDARC (27%), ETC (40%), and LORP (43%) compared to NEDA (55%). N otsurprisingly, the modified ICs had a higher percentage o f use (90%) than those thatwere not modified (21%).The evaluation study concluded. that NPIC had met its objectives but that becauseof improper implementation and lack of monitoring the ICs were not fulfilling theirpotential. The implementing agencies were found to be target driven and henceinadequately concerned about the quality of their dissemination efforts. Improvedmonitoring was recommended along with user education and training, and follow-upservices. I n addition, campaigns promoting ICs were suggested to create andmaintain interest in the stoves.


23/30

19

Tamil Nadu# ICs # ICs # ICs in use Total ICs in useinstalled demolished a s installed modi fied % of installed

1984-85 891 514 227 150 421985-86 1427 734 464 229 491986-87 311 108 183 20 65Rajasthan1984-85 1044 373 228 442 641985-86 3102 568 1545 989 821986-87 786 166 550 71 79West Bengal1984-85 465 421 42 2 9.51985-86 286 226 50 10 211986-87 418 279 116 23 33

Box 2: Evaluation of NPIC in Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal

Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) was asked to evaluate NPIC activities between 1984.-1987 in Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal; in 1987, these states were given the first,second and third prizes respectively for quality and quantity of ICs installed. As part of theirevaluation, TERI surveyed perceptions, measured fuel consumption, conducted water-boilingtests (WBTs), cooking tests, and kitchen performance tests (KPTs). T h e findings aresummarized here.There were large variations in acceptability of ICs among and within the evaluation sites.Furthermore, TERI did not find any correlation between level of acceptability and fuel scarcity,literacy, o r economic status o f the user. Th e y concluded that user education and thecompetence of IC builders had the most impact on IC acceptability. In this regard, they foundthat many users were not familiar with IC maintenance procedures (such as chimney cleaning)and principles of operation (such as the purpose of the baffles). Modifications had been madein all the evaluation sites to a greater or lesser degree. Users ranked smoke removal as theprimary benefit of ICs; a majority of the users reported fuel savings as well. Actual fieldmeasurements of fuel utilization efficiency are equivocal: fuel savings were observed in twoout of five villages.The tables below provide an overview of the extent and mode of IC usage.

From these data, it is difficult to say whether the number of users modifying their ICs isincreasing or decreasing. I t does appear, however, that the percentage of users (in total) hasbeen increasing over the years. The sample size in 1986-87 i s s m a l l , s ot h a tc o n c l u s i o nh a st o

be tentative. Also, the ICs in that sample were only just installed; usually there is a critical sixmonth period before people make the decision whether to adopt the IC or not.Continued...


24/30

20

Tamil Nadu IC TC % SavingsVillage 1 17.6 4.5 15.6 4.7 -12(14) CVx = 0.26 (8) CVx = 0.30Village 2 21.3 7.9 14.0 5.3 -62(10) CVx 0 .37 (10) CVx = 0.38

RajasthanVillage 1 21.1 8.6 17.3 4.1 -21.8(11) CVx = 0.41 (12) CVx = 0.24

West BengalVillage 1 27.4 12.6 34.2 9.8 19.8(14) CVx 0 .46 (14) CVx = 0.29Village 2 21.5 12.2 23 8.7 6.3(15) CVx 0 . 5 7 (13) CVx 0 . 3 8

Box 2 (Continued)

The findings of the kitchen performance tests are given below.Energy consumption

(M.TiadulUday)

Note: Th e figures in parentheses indicate the number of households in which the tests werconducted. Th e test was repeated four to five times in each household.


25/30

21

Box 3: Evaluation of NPIC in Gujarat, Maharashtra and KarnatakaThe Operations Research Group (ORG) conducted the th ird evaluation o f NPIC atDNES' request. They were assigned the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. Inchoosing their study sites, ORG first identified the three districts with the "best"performances in each state (determined by the number of ICs installed by the end ofDecember 1986), and then the three best blocks in each district. The villages in each blockwere sorted into three categories (good, average, and poor performances). S ix villages werethen selected in each block, two from each category. In each study village 35 householdswere chosen, 25 with ICs and 10 with traditional stoves. Selection criteria for householdsare not specified. The data presented here were gathered in a survey conducted in early1987. A trained investigator visited five or six households in each village and noted thecondition of the IC. Informal interviews provided additional information.From their study of user characteristics, ORG concluded that a greater effort had beenmade to reach the disadvantaged in Gujarat and Karnataka. I n al l fairness, it should benoted that in the Maharashtra study districts, members of scheduled tribes and castes made

up only four to six percent of the general population.Different IC models were introduced in the three states. The Nada and Sahayog chulhas

in Gujarat, Magan and Pragati in Maharashtra, and ASTRA in Karnataka. A greaterpercentage of Sahayog and Pragati chulhas than Nada and Magan chulhas were found to bein working order during the survey. The table below shows the overall survey results.(in percent)State W o r k i n g (in use) Demol ishedGujarat (n=1347)Maharashtra (n=1321)Karnataka (n=1329)

51.4 4 7 . 139.4 5 5 . 677.4 1 9 . 1An important difference among the three states is that NGOs installed 69% o f the ICsin Gujarat. I n Maharashtra and Karnataka, al l ICs had been installed by the stategovernment. NGOs appeared to have a greater success with ICs than their governmentcounterparts in Gujarat; 54% of ICs installed by NGOs were working compared to 43% o fthose installed by government agencies.One-third of all ICs surveyed in Gujarat and Maharashtra were demolished within sixmonths of construction. One eighth of ICs in Karnataka met a similar fate in the same timeperiod. I n Gujarat and Maharashtra the top two reasons fo r demolishing the IC wereincreased fuel consumption and difficulty in preparing certain foods. I n Maharashtra,increase in cooking time was a close third. Those who demolished their ICs in Karnatakacomplained similarly regarding increased fuel consumption. Another common complaintwas that the IC had been damaged.About 14% of existing, working ICs had been modified in Gujarat and Maharashtra.This figure was 21% in Karnataka. The most common modification was removal o f thechimney in Gujarat and Maharashtra. In Karnataka, the firebox lid was removed. Overall ,there were few instances where the IC had been modified prior to demolition.

Continued...


26/30

22

Box 3 (Continued)The majority of respondents in all three states said that the IC decreased smoke in the

kitchen (the greatest convenience identified) and increased fuel consumption (the worst /problem identified). Hence, they reported no reduction in fuel collection time. Th emajority of Karnataka users said that cooking time had been reduced. Most people said thatsaved time was used to attend to household tasks. ORG reports that in Karnataka the ICwas retained and used even when it consumed more fuel. Th e authors speculate that thismay be because the increase in fuel consumption was marginal.

The survey results regarding user education and followup are mixed. Gujarat had thehighest percentage (80%) of users who had been trained by the chulha builder in the use,maintenance and repair of their ICs. Maharashtra had the lowest (35%). Most Karnatakausers said they had received training in use and maintenance but only 41% had beeninformed how to repair their ICs. M ost Karnataka users had not received any followupvisits. In comparison, between 55% and 65% Gujarat and Maharashtra users had receivedat least two followup visits. Only 40% o f the Karnataka users said that the chulha mistry.was easily available in case o f need (as opposed to 77% and 56% fo r Gujarat andMaharashtra). Ye t, more ICs were found to be working in Karnataka than in the otherstates.

Based on their fmdings, ORG recommended the greater involvement of NGOs in theimplementation of NPIC, the introduction of SEWs to relieve the burden on mukhya sevikasin Maharashtra and Karnataka, the removal of dampers from most IC models, the promotionof ICs of different sizes (one, two and three potholes), the development and disseminationof prefabricated pottery liners fo r ICs, and the disbursement o f funds fo r publicitycampaigns.


27/30

23

Performance measureICRVP study Intensive study Karnataka study1986; (n =280) 1 9 8 7 ; (n=86)percent of households 1988; (n=3294)Fuel consumption (%)

Ungra

Less 82 64 28Same 10 24 27More 8 12 45Smoke in the kitchen

301988

No smoke 94 80 79Smokey 6 20 21Cooking time

1987 351 65

Less 93 66 43Same 3 24 26M, 4 10 31

in 1988), this change was not as drastic. The detailed results are shown below.Study Year Sample size % in use Age of ICUngra 1984 150 100 6 (months)1985 450 97 181986 450 91.5 301988 450 84 45KRVP 1986 2201 79.6Intensive 1987 351 65Karnataka 1988 3294 60

Box 4: Evaluations of ICs in KarnatakaRavindranath et al. (1989) present a concise summary of past evaluations o f the ICP inKarnataka. They compare the outcomes o f microlevel dissemination efforts in one village(Ungra) and the statewide dissemination program. The "Ungra Study" is a longitudinal oneconducted in a relatively small number o f households in 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1988. Amuch larger study was conducted in the three food zones of the state in 1986. Since thedata were collected by the Karnataka Rajya Vignana Parishad this is called the "KRVPstudy". I n 1987, data were gathered in three districts each of which represent one of thefood zones. This is called the "intensive study". Finally, an extensive study was conductedin 40 blocks of 14 districts in 1988. Th is is called the "Karnataka study".The Karnataka study showed that 60% o f the stove disseminated were being used.Though the Ungra study also showed a decline in stove use over time (100% in 1984, 84%

In three o f the studies, fuel conservation was measured by comparing per capita dailyfuel use of ICs and traditional stoves over three to seven days. These data show decreasingfuel conservation over time in Ungra (47% savings in 1985, 33% in 1986). I n the largersurveys, the IC was shown to have a much lower fuel-conserving capability (19% savings).In opinion surveys, users were asked to evaluate the IC's performance in terms of fuelconsumption, smoke reduction and time savings. The results are shown below.

Continued...


28/30

24

Box 4 (Continued)The authors believe that the benefits accruing from the ICP in Karnataka could begreatly enhanced by some alterations to stove design and to the organizational structure ofthe program. Their recommend that IC models that are more appropriate to the differentfood zones in Karnataka be developed and disseminated and that measures be taken to

eliminate the vulnerability of the existing model's stove top to cracking and breakage.The stove program itse lf has suffered the ill-effects of target chasing, lack of qualitycontrol, overburdened and under-trained supervisory staff, and a lack of user education. Thepacing of program activities is such that the bulk of the work is done in the last quarter ofthe fiscal year. This leaves little opportunity for the pre- and post-installation activities thatare often critical to user acceptance. The authors note that IC usage is particularly lowamong households belonging to scheduled castes and tribes (see Table 3) and suggest thatthe 100% subsidy offered to these users may be partially responsible. Accordingly, theyrecommend that no household receive a 100% subsidy for the IC.


29/30

25ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people gave generously o f their time and experience during the preparation of thisreport, including Dr. Veena Joshi (TERI), Drs. A.R. Shukla and B.M.L. Garg (DNES), thestaff at the TBU at IIT, Delhi, Dr. P.P. Gusain (Development Alternatives), Mr. Sunderlal(SWRC, Khori Centre), Dr. N.H. Ravindranath (Center for Ecological Smdies/ASTRA, IndianInstitute of Science), Drs. R. Shailaja, K.S. Jagadish, Lokras, and Gandhi (ASTRA), Messrs.Rajagopal, Dinesh, and Shivkumar (KSCST), Mr. Kampapuru Math (DRDPR), Messrs.Hanumanthappa and Dinikar Babu (BRD Zil la Parishad) and Mr. Shivram (BUD Zil laParishad). Needless to say, they bear no responsibility for any errors or opinions this reportmay contain.

REFERENCESDepartment of Non-conventional Energy Sources (ONES), Ministry of Energy, Government of

India (1990). Memorandum regarding implementing o f the National Programme onImproved Chulhas-- Administrative Approval 1990-91. ONES, Circular No. 403/1/90-IC,New Delhi.Department of Non-conventional Energy Sources (ONES), Ministry of Energy, Government ofIndia (1990). Annual Report, 1989-1990. DNES, New Delhi.Operations Research Group (ORG) (undated). Evaluation of national chulha programme inselected districts in Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. ORG, Baroda.Pande, P.N., and P.S. Garia (1987). Evaluation of improved chulhas in rural areas: A case

study of Uttar Pradesh. Gin Institute of Development Studies, LucIcnow.Ravindranath, N.H., R. Shailaja and A. Revankar (1989). Dissemination and evalution of fuelefficient and smokeless ASTRA stove in Karnataka. Environment Monitor 5(2): 48-60.Ravindranath, N.H., D.S. Sudhakar Babu, R. Shailaja (1989). Conservation of biomass:Potential of a fuel efficient woodstove. Energy Management, April-June, pp. 14-20.Ravindranath, N.H., D.S. Sudhakar Babu, R. Shailaja,, and KS. Jagadish (undated). Cooking

practices using ASTRA stove in different food zones of Karnataka. Unpublished paper ofthe Centre for the Application of Science and Technology to Rural Areas, Indian Instituteof Science, Bangalore.

Tata Energy Research Institute ('fERI) (1989) Evaluation of improved chulha programme inTamil Nadu, Rajasthan, and West Bengal. TERI, New Delhi.


30/30

indian national improved stoves program

Documents