Transforming household energy systems in Rwanda: Early adopters and impacts. Pam Jagger and Ipsita Das, UNC-CH FLARE Conference December 2016

Transcription

1 Transforming household energy systems in Rwanda: Early adopters and impacts Pam Jagger and Ipsita Das, UNC-CH FLARE Conference December 2016

2 Consequences of energy poverty 4 million deaths per year Economic impacts (time and money) Climate change and environmental degradation 3-4 billion people cook with biomass and inefficient technologies In Africa absolute numbers will increase through 2050

3 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)

4 How do we cope with this problem? Climate impact Ideal Health impact How do we mitigate the climate and health impacts?

5 Clean cookstoves are expensive Fuels are costly and require processing Markets are thin or missing Culture and preferences are strong countervailing forces A sticky problem: We want people to switch to clean fuels and stoves

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 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 (PM 2.5 ), 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

10 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

11 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 PM 2.5 Baseline, 12, 24, 30 months (N=180) In-depth HAP exposure for 180 households/cooks Measure exposure to PM 2.5, 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

12 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

13 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 Fig.1 Share of Cooking on Stove 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

14 Determinants of early adoption (N=180) 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 Maker Knowledge of negative impact of cooking practices on health of young children Knowledge of negative impact of cooking practices on forests Knowledge of negative impact of cooking practices on local air quality Think that some stoves produce less smoke than others Think that some fuels produce less smoke than others Contract signed

15 Drivers and barriers to adoption DRIVERS BARRIERS Attributes of stove (N=43) Attributes of fuel (n=43) Qualitative study findings (preliminary) (N=30) Speed of cooking (61%) Less smoke produced (12%) Status and design (9%) Cleanliness (72%) Speed of cooking (12%) Cost of fuel (9%) Stove burns clean Stove does not blacken pots Better for environment No mess as with charcoal Cooks food fast Cheaper Like customer service Like home delivery of fuel Good for frying and other high temperature cooking events More smoke produced (35%) Cost of fuel (12%) Taste of food (12%) More smoke produced (33%) Cost of fuel (23%) Taste of food (12%) Stove cooks too fast Needs constant tending Issues with burning food (rice) Pellets damaged by water/moisture or handling Run out of fuel mid month Makes pots black Burns holes in pots

16 Affordability is a barrier to adoption Mean value of fuel purchased (RWF) Mean value of cooking fuel purchased (in RWF) (last 30 days) 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Baseline (N=180) Wave 2-Signed contract (N=43) Wave 2 (N=180) Wave 2-Not signed contract (N=137) 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

17 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

18 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.)

19 Impacts of adoption (DID and PSM) Charcoal purchased for cooking Shortness of 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 Maker Knowledge of negative impact of cooking practices on health of young children Knowledge of negative impact of cooking practices on forests Knowledge of negative impact of cooking practices on local air quality Think that some stoves produce less smoke than others Think that some fuels produce less smoke than others

20 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

21 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

22 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