stakeholder perspectives in a cookstove implementation project in rural mexico karin troncoso,...

Stakeholder perspectives in a cookstove implementation

project in rural Mexico

Karin Troncoso, Alicia Castillo Leticia Merino and Elena Lazos

National University of Mexico (UNAM)

• In Mexico 25 million people use fuelwood in open fires mainly for cooking

• The use of fuelwood has negative health and environmental impacts

• Since the 70’s, a technology that addresses these 2 problems has been developed: The Improved Cookstove

• The interest for ICS came first from governments and environmental organizations that became concerned about the possible link between fuelwood harvesting and deforestation

• Exposure to smoke was later identified as a serious health problem, especially for women and small children

• Therefore, the designs of improved cookstoves have been driven mainly by the perceptions of external stakeholders, and actual people’s perceptions have played a minor role.

• The adoption of improved cookstoves has been limited, due to several factors:– Problems with the technologies– Problems with the diffusion methodology– Cultural aspects

Case study

• The implementation program carried out by GIRA, a local NGO

Project location:

Purépecha Region

19 municipalities220,000 fuelwood users

30 communities

1,500 ICS built

Improvement of life quality in rural homes

through the sustainable use of fuelwood in the

Purépecha RegionHealthstudy

Indoor air pollution

study Efficiencystudy

Diffusion,construction,

follow up

giragrupo interdisciplinario

de tecnología ruralapropiada

Greenhouse gas emissions

study

Social perceptions

study

Patsari cookstove

Technology:

Research questions

• How was the strategy followed by the NGO in this implementation project?

• How was the relation between the different stakeholders of the implementation project?

• What are the constraints faced by these projects?

Research methodology

• A qualitative research methodology was followed, which explains actions from the stakeholders’ perspectives

• Interviews were made to:– Researchers– Students– Development worker– Stove builders– NGO team– Technicians– Users

Results

Diffusion strategy

• The project followed an adaptative management strategy, giving place to three different ICS models

• The diffusion focused on women

• There was a follow up of the ICS

• In the first stage women had to pay 30% of the value. The second and third models were given for free as a reward for women’s participation in the studies

Relations between stakeholders

• Managing the relation between the studies and the implementation was a complex issue:– Lack of joint planning– Lack of a shared vision– Lack of communication– Lack of clarity with regards to the NGO’s

support to the study teams

Relation between the project and the users

• Many women got tired of the studies; they were not explained the extent of their involvement

• The diffusion of three different models caused problems

• Women were aware about the health problems and low efficiency addressed by ICS

• Women who adopted an ICS were in general satisfied

• Women did not know who had built their ICS

Stakeholder visions

• Two different visions on the approach to be followed by implementation projects were observed: A people-centered vision, and a technology-centered vision

Technology-centered vision

People-centered vision

Project

Focus on technology improvements as a way to ensure better adoption rates Diffusion by replicable technology kits It is unfeasible to offer a comprehensive follow-up

The adoption is a process and takes time The project requires involvement with the user’s situation A participatory work would have enabled a better performance of the teams and a better project outcome

User The user is responsible for the use she makes of the technology

The users are not aware of the need to change their cooking habits The implementer shares responsibility in the adoption

Technology-centered vision

People-centered vision

Strengths

Less expensive diffusion process Faster process The project can cover more communities

Favors the participation and considers the specific needs of every user

Weaknesses

Users are usually unaware of the need to change their cooking habits Without a project the NGO ability to obtain resources for the ICS is lost

Slow and expensive process

Project constraints• The diffusion program was constrained by the

NGO’s commitment with the donors• Technology requires external supplies• The studies took the NGO out of their diffusion

scheme • The studies involved a number of problems

regarding their approach with the users• Low adoption rates involved problems for the

studies• The NGO needs to decide which of the two

visions better represent its objectives

Thank you