Transforming household energy systems in Rwanda:

Early adopters and impacts

Pam Jagger and Ipsita Das, UNC-CH

FLARE Conference – December 2016

3-4 billion people cook with biomass and inefficient technologies –In Africa absolute numbers will increase through 2050

Consequences of energy poverty

4 million deaths per year

Economic impacts (time and money)

Climate change and environmental degradation

The global community has woken up to the problem of cooking with biomass…• There is a long history of household

energy projects in Africa• Planting trees for fuel

• Promoting fuel saving stoves

• At national scale – biomass energy viewed as backward – promote transition to electricity for household energy

• There is renewed interest in domestic energy issues for two reasons: • The health AND climate effects of HAP

have been illuminated (Lim et al., 2013; Ramanathan et al. 2008)

• Deforestation rates in some parts of Africa are reaching critical levels Jagger and Perez-Heydrich (2016)

How do we cope with this problem?

How do we mitigate the climate and health impacts?

Climate impact

Health impact

Ideal

A sticky problem: We want people to switch to clean fuels and stoves

• Clean cookstoves are expensive

• Fuels are costly and require processing

• Markets are thin or missing

• Culture and preferences are strong countervailing forces

HAP and biomass reliance in Rwanda• Household air pollution (HAP) is #4 risk factor for burden of disease in

Rwanda

• Heavy reliance on biomass for cooking

(>95%)

• High rates of deforestation

• High population density/growth

• Missing markets for modern fuels &

cooking technologies

• Women & children bear health and economic

burden of biomass reliance

• Policy environment primed for cookstove

adoption; GOR support for cookstove

initiatives (DelAgua/Envirofit; Canarumwe)

• Evidence base and local capacity is weak

The Model

• A private cookstove and fuel pellet firm in Gisenyi, Rubavu District

• Philips/Mimi Moto gasifier stove(s) and renewable biomass fuel pellets

• Households sign contract with Inyenyeri for monthly pellet purchase

• Membership packages-monthly

• 1 stove, 30kg pellets, 6,000RWF

• 2 stoves, 45kg pellets, 9,000RWF

• 3 stoves, 60kg pellets, 12,000RWF

• At contract signing household received stove at no additional cost (lease)

• Households can supply sustainably harvested biomass in lieu of cash payment

• Mostly done by rural customers

• Ratio of 1 rural household: 4 urban households optimal for pellet supply

Stove and fuel pellet promotion• Cell-level marketing (radio programs/billboards)

“Cook Fast”; “Stay Clean”; “Life Made Easy”; “Always the Cheapest Fuel”

• Village-level cooking demonstrations

• Door to door visits from CSRs to explain contract model and demonstrate stoves (started in September 2015)

• Contract signing

• Follow-up from CSRs to answer questions

• Home delivery of pellets; stove maintenance

Research questions• Who are the early adopters of the Inyenyeri household energy

system?

• What factors act as drivers and barriers to adoption and sustained use of the Inyenyeri household energy system?

• Does adoption and sustained use of the Inyenyeri household energy system:

• Reduce personal exposure to carbon monoxide (CO), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) for cooks?

• Reduce symptoms of acute and chronic respiratory disease, cardiopulmonary disease, burns and eye irritation?

• Affect time use, expenditures and household well-being?

Impact Evaluation funded by NIEHS (R01ES023861)

Sustained Adoption study funded by the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves & USAID TRAction

Study design

• Household-level RCT• Cells (N=2) and Umudugudus (N=22) purposively

selected

• All household randomized (N=~2800)

• 1,462 household selected for study

• Random assignment to Treatment and Control (952/506) • Delayed-entry comparison group

• Random sub-sample of 180 households (120 T/60 C at baseline)

• Purposive sub-sample of 30 households selected for qualitative interviews from 120 EM households

Sample and data collection timeline

• Baseline (July/Aug 2015) & Endline at 30 months (N=1,462)

• Household Poverty and Cooking (HPC) survey

• Health assessment for cooks and household members

• CO used as proxy to model exposure to PM2.5

• Baseline, 12, 24, 30 months (N=180)• In-depth HAP exposure for 180 households/cooks

• Measure exposure to PM2.5 , CO & PAHs

• Small version of HPC• Collect health information, time use, fuel and stove use,

expenditures on fuel etc.

• Objective measures of stove use

• Qualitative interviews at 12 months (N=30)• Focus on adoption and sustained use

Cooking at baseline • Stove ownership – relatively simple

portable (77.6%) and fixed (33.4%) charcoal stoves

• 9% of households have a traditional fuelwood burning stove

• 9% of households have a LPG or electric stove

• Fuel use mirrors stove ownership

• But lower on LPG & electricity during past 30 days

• Incredible range of ventilation situations

• 78% of primary cooks are female

• 85% are literate

• 35% are hired into the household

Midline survey: Improved stove use/pellet use

• Over 85% households had heard of Inyenyeri

• Seen billboards (76%); visited by Inyenyeri CSRs (58%); attended village cooking demos (47%); heard radio program (20%)

• 24% had signed contract with Inyenyeri

Baseline (N=180) Wave 2 (N=180) Wave 2-Signed Contract (N=43)

Portable charcoal stove Fixed charcoal stove Mimi Moto stove

Gas cooker Electric cooker Traditional stove

Fig.1 Share of Cooking on Stove

Determinants of early adoption (N=180) Contract signed

Household Characteristics (at baseline)Household members (number)Children under 5 (number)Used portable charcoal stove (vs. 3-stone) Used fixed charcoal stove (vs. 3-stone)Assets (number)Household membership in savings institution (0/1)Duration of stay in current dwelling (years)Own agricultural land (0/1)

++++++

Household Expenditures at baseline (RWF)Total expenditures in past 4 weeks (RWF)Cooking fuel budget share (%)Per capita cooking fuel expenditures (RWF)Per capita rent expenditure (RWF)Per capita hygiene expenditure (RWF)Per capita education expenditure (RWF)

--+++

Cook and Household Head Characteristics (at baseline)Primary cook is hired (0/1)Primary cook is female (0/1)Household head is female (0/1)Age of household head (years)Head is married (0/1)Head has secondary or above education level (0/1)

+++

Perceptions of Main Decision MakerKnowledge of negative impact of cooking practices on health of young childrenKnowledge of negative impact of cooking practices on forestsKnowledge of negative impact of cooking practices on local air qualityThink that some stoves produce less smoke than othersThink that some fuels produce less smoke than others

-

Drivers and barriers to adoptionDRIVERS BARRIERS

Attributes of stove (N=43)

Speed of cooking (61%)Less smoke produced (12%)Status and design (9%)

More smoke produced (35%)Cost of fuel (12%)Taste of food (12%)

Attributes of fuel (n=43)

Cleanliness (72%)Speed of cooking (12%)Cost of fuel (9%)

More smoke produced (33%)Cost of fuel (23%)Taste of food (12%)

Qualitative study findings(preliminary)(N=30)

Stove burns cleanStove does not blacken potsBetter for environmentNo mess as with charcoalCooks food fastCheaperLike customer serviceLike home delivery of fuelGood for frying and other high temperature cooking events

Stove cooks too fastNeeds constant tendingIssues with burning food (rice)Pellets damaged by water/moisture or handlingRun out of fuel mid monthMakes pots blackBurns holes in pots

Me

an

va

lue

of fu

el p

urc

ha

sed (

RW

F)

Affordability is a barrier to adoption

Mean value of cooking fuel purchased (in RWF) (last

30 days)

Baseline (N=180) Wave 2 (N=180)

Wave 2-Not signed

contract (N=137)

Wave 2-Signed

contract (N=43)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Among non-adopters, roughly half indicate that they are interested in Inyenyeri but don’t at present have money to sign up and pay for first month of pellets

This suggests liquidity constraint as a barrier to adoption

Pellet supply chain is a barrier to adoption• Improved stoves

• Started with Philips

• Now using Mimi Moto

• Pellets

• Major bottle-neck to scaling-up

• Humidity

• Pelletizing equipment

• Power supply

• Feedstock

• Quantity

• Composition

• Maintenance and repair of equipment

Impacts of adoption (DID, PSM)• We ran a series of DID and PSM models to test whether 12 months

after the intervention took place there were any impacts on:

• Particulate matter exposure• No observed effects

• Health symptoms (self reported)• Burns (no observed effect)

• Night phlegm (no observed effect)

• Shortness of breath

• Blood pressure (no observed effect)

• Pulse rate

• Fuel expenditures• Cooking fuel expenditures (no observed effect)

• Charcoal expenditures

• Time use • No observed effects on absolute amount of time spent cooking, on

childcare and cleaning, on non-agricultural activities, wage/salary/commissions, casual part time or day labor, other (water and fuel collection etc.)

Impacts of adoption (DID and PSM) Charcoal purchased for cooking

Shortnessof breath

Pulse rate

Intervention (household signed contract*time) - - +++

Household Characteristics (at baseline)Household members (number)Children under 5 (number)Used portable charcoal stove (vs. 3-stone) Used fixed charcoal stove (vs. 3-stone)Assets (number)Household membership in savings institution (0/1)Duration of stay in current dwelling (years)Own agricultural land (0/1)

++++++

+

--

---

---

Household Expenditures at baseline (RWF)Total expenditures in past 4 weeks (RWF)Cooking fuel budget share (%)Per capita cooking fuel expenditures (RWF)Per capita rent expenditure (RWF)Per capita hygiene expenditure (RWF)Per capita education expenditure (RWF)

--

Cook and Household Head Characteristics (at baseline)Primary cook is hired (0/1)Primary cook is female (0/1)Household head is female (0/1)Age of household head (years)Head is married (0/1)Head has secondary or above education level (0/1)

++

--

Perceptions of Main Decision MakerKnowledge of negative impact of cooking practices on health of young childrenKnowledge of negative impact of cooking practices on forestsKnowledge of negative impact of cooking practices on local air qualityThink that some stoves produce less smoke than othersThink that some fuels produce less smoke than others

+--

Conclusions and Implications• Reality of ‘stove stacking’ – acknowledge and leverage

• Cheaper new clean cooking technologies

• Multiple burners

• Socio-demographics and awareness of hygiene are adoption determinants

• Importance of perceived cost of cooking system

• Biomass pellet supply/access – barrier in Rwanda

• Need to buy in large quantities; extra pellets available at only one retail location

• High sign-up and upfront costs

• Few impacts observed

• We are working with Inyenyeri to come up with a strategy to increase take-up within the study population

Collaborators and Co-Investigators

• Access Project (Baseline) and Laterite, Rwanda• Field team of 32 Rwandese + 5 data entry staff

• UNC Investigators on NIEHS Parent Study:

• Dr. Sudhanshu Handa (PI), Human Resource Economist

• Dr. Pam Jagger, Environmental Science and Policy

• Dr. Leena Nylander-French, Occupational Health

• Dr. Karin Yeatts, Epidemiology

• UNC Investigators on GACC/TRAction Study

• Dr. Pam Jagger (PI), Environmental Science and Policy

• Dr. Valerie Flax, Nutrition

• Dr. Joe Pedit, Environment Science

and Engineering

Upcoming FUEL LAB Activities

• Wave 3 of Rwanda study (May-July 2017)• NSF funded Coupled Natural Human Systems Project in

Malawi – to study the terrestrial, atmospheric and human impacts of biomass reliance (with West, Grieshop, Bailis)

• Ongoing research on health, environment, and economic impact of fish smoking in Ghana

www.fuel.cpc.unc.edu