Improved cookstoves

What are the different kinds of cookstoves?

‍

Cookstove projects are divided into two main activities: replacing existing cooking apparatus with either stoves that use fuel more efficiently or stoves that use a different type of fuel entirely. Emission reductions are achieved by reducing pressure on forests or reducing fossil fuel use. The stoves are replaced in both households and institutions, like schools. With either project approach, the project’s potential for impact is fully dependent on implementation.

‍

Improved efficient cookstoves

These stoves have improved combustion efficiency, which means that the stove makes better use of the heat the fuel generates. The stoves still use firewood or charcoal, but they use much less if used correctly. In short, users can cook the same amount of food using less fuel.

‍

Fuel-switching cookstoves

These stoves use a completely different type of fuel. Common fuels include bioethanol, biomass pellets, solar cooking, Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG), domestic biogas, or electricity. Emission reductions are achieved by reducing the use of firewood or charcoal. When calculating carbon credits for these stoves, any emissions caused by the production of the new fuel need to also be taken into account.

What are carbon credits for cookstoves?

‍

Typically, carbon credits for cookstoves are quantified by determining an accurate baseline against which emissions can be measured. That involves calculating the total emissions associated with traditional cooking practices and fuel use. Then, stakeholders — local communities, verifiers, nonprofits, and local governments — give feedback on the design of a project to ensure it’s “real” and “additional.” In other words, the climate impact is measurable and wouldn’t otherwise occur without the work of the carbon credit project. The revenue from carbon credits funds or pays back the investment required to distribute or sell them in target communities and to monitor and ensure their use — typically annually or biannually.  

‍

By purchasing carbon credits, buyers are facilitating the distribution of cleaner cookstoves and incentivizing their use. Without the incentives created by carbon credits, community members wouldn’t be able to purchase the cookstoves themselves and would be unlikely to switch over to new ones. By incentivizing their use, cookstove projects not only provide the stoves but also make them the easier choice for cooking at home. 

‍

Establishing the credit quantities from clear baselines and consistent monitoring is essential to the integrity and effectiveness of cookstove carbon credits. The fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB), or the amount of wood fuel that is unsustainable in a carbon project, is critical to the emission reduction calculation. New research on this and other criteria make cookstove carbon credits and the methodology for determining them more accurate. Beyond fNRB, the type and efficiency of the stove factors into evaluating baseline fuel use, as well as the factors used to convert fuel use into carbon emissions, the type and efficiency of the stove, and how you determine stove use both before and after the project.

‍

In general, this is a project type that's heavily reliant on understanding human behavior and practices. Many projects are based on survey results. The more quantitative a project can be with data collection, the easier it is to develop a strong baseline and measure accurate impact over time.

Cookstove baselines and evaluation

‍

Each method of developing an emissions baseline for cookstoves comes with benefits and trade-offs between cost and conservativeness. For instance, the most accurate method is a Kitchen Performance Test (KPT), which physically measures the amount of fuel used over a three day period. However, a KPT is expensive and depends on accurate timing to avoid holidays or other times of increased cooking. 

‍

Baseline development generally includes some or all of the following: 

‍

• Global default value
• Scientific literature or national household/demographic surveys
• Baseline surveys
• Back-calculating
• Kitchen Performance Tests
• Stove use monitors

‍

Baselines generally start with the global default value of 0.4 tons of wood fuel per person per year, a value set by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). From there, a series of further standards and cross-checking can establish the accuracy of the baseline. 

‍

If a project relies on demographic surveys, for example, an assessment should also cross-reference the value for baseline fuel use with scientific literature in peer-reviewed publications. 

‍

After quantifying the amount of fuel used, the project’s performance is also monitored to determine the difference between the old baseline and the new stove use. Monitoring is typically done via surveys, physically weighing the amount of fuel used in a KPT, or attaching digital stove-use monitors for real-time tracking.

Cookstove adoption and permanence

‍

With any cookstove project, adoption and usage are vital to establishing emission reductions. If the new stove is only used part of the time, for instance, then the maximum level of calculated carbon reduction isn’t being achieved. This is why monitoring, evaluating, and involving local stakeholders are so important.

‍

Best-practice cookstove projects emphasize training people to use and maintain their stoves, as well as ongoing engagement with users. This is often done through partnerships with non-governmental organizations or local associations and community workers.

‍

Permanence refers to the length of time that carbon is sequestered instead of being released by human activities. With cookstoves, permanence depends on the continued avoidance of deforestation and fossil fuel use. If an area that is protected from deforestation by a cookstove project loses biomass because of other factors, the emission reduction gains from the cookstoves are no longer relevant. This might happen if the region experiences forest fire or land conversion. 

‍

There is currently no method of accounting for non-permanence in cookstove projects, which makes it impossible to use permanence as a screening criterion for cookstoves. That makes the other criteria, like those listed below, particularly significant.

Cookstove leakage

‍

Leakage in carbon credit projects refers to the possibility that the carbon emissions avoided will “leak” to another area. For cookstove projects, leakage occurs when the old stoves continue to be used, even if they aren’t used for cooking. Some stoves might be used as heaters, for instance, or to generate smoke to deter insects. When both old cookstoves and the improved ones continue to be used, it’s called “stove stacking.”

‍

The quality of cookstoves plays a role as well. Are they performing as intended? These stoves are often more expensive than traditional ones. If repairs are needed, is the user able to perform them or have them performed without needing to revert back to their old cookstove? 

‍

Many projects have built in buffers to account for adoption and potential leakage shortcomings. Projects quantify or adjust leakage to reduce claimed emission reductions at a permitted rate of 5%. So, if 100 tonnes of emissions are avoided, 95 credits are issued – 5% less than the original 100 tonnes.

‍

Another risk of cookstove projects is something called the “rebound effect.” This is where households increase their overall fuel consumption or don’t achieve the anticipated fuel efficiency, even after receiving access to improved cookstoves. Usually, this occurs when the household increases the amount of cooking it’s doing because fuel goes further, reducing the cost of each stove use. Even though it is cleaner cooking, the higher use rate will result in higher emissions.

‍

A “Kitchen Performance Test” is a good way to catch the impact of a rebound effect and readjust, solidifying their place as a key criterion for establishing carbon credits. If the project relies on surveys or especially assumed stove efficiency, the impact of the rebound effect may not be captured.

Cookstove additionality

‍

Additionality refers to the amount of emission reductions that wouldn’t have been achieved without carbon credit sales. Because traditional cookstoves are such a major driver of climate change — each one emitting as much as six tonnes of CO₂ annually — these projects are usually very additional. Moreover, this additionality is easier to show because the more efficient cookstoves are a direct result of the sales of carbon credits. Most households in targeted areas wouldn’t be able to afford an improved cookstove on their own. Carbon credits reduce or completely cover the cost.

‍

For fuel switch projects specifically, additionality is also dependent on ensuring there's a viable and accessible alternative fuel source for communities. If a project spends all its money giving people improved stoves but the new fuel source is too expensive, low volume, or hard to access, implementation will be low and the project will not be as additional.

Social co-benefits and risks of cookstoves

‍

Efficient cookstoves also enhance the quality of life for the users and are extremely impactful in increasing their user’s health by reducing pollution. Poor indoor air quality from cooking is a leading cause of premature death globally, contributing to 3.7 deaths annually. Women and children bear the brunt of poor indoor air quality caused by cooking; they account for 60% of those premature deaths. Stoves also cost less to use because they take less or different fuel, allowing the households to spend less on cooking overall as well as less time collecting wood or other cooking fuels.

‍

There are other potential risks to consider beyond those associated with calculation of the number of carbon credits generated by the project. As with any carbon credit, the potential for market distortion should also be considered. Do the new, more efficient cookstoves affect local producers and entrepreneurs, or does carbon finance out-compete them? If a community depends on charcoal production, this could also be impacted by new stoves.