40 likes | 233 Views
Embedding cooking energy in the development process. Key messages. Traditional cooking practices kill 1.5 million people a year and have major socio-economic and environmental impacts.
E N D
Key messages • Traditional cooking practices kill 1.5 million people a year and have major socio-economic and environmental impacts. • Progress towards greater access to cleaner cooking energy has been insignifcant and will not change under a business-as-usual scenario in the near future. • Investing in cleaner cooking fuels and technologies pays off from a societal point of view. • There is a huge data and knowledge deficit! Research is required to strengthen evidence-based action/policy.
GLOBAL/NATIONAL • Data collection and monitoring • Inclusion of cooking energy-related questions (e.g. fuel use, stove use, expenditure, fuel collection) in national surveys (e.g. LSMS, national statistics) • Additional household-level data collection at country/programme/project level (e.g. project monitoring) • Modelling cooking energy scenarios • Cooking energy modelling (e.g. impact of price fluctuations) • Urbanisation as a threat and an opportunity • Climate relevance: contribution of traditional cooking energy and opportunities for mitigation • Embedded in ongoing energy modelling (e.g. IEA, WEA) • Economic analysis • Impact evaluation (for better data and assumptions) • Cost-benefit analysis and other economic tools
NATIONAL/LOCAL • Multisectoral Policies/Collaboration • Pro-poor vs. market approach (low hanging fruits) • Multi-sectoral policy processes • Institutional analysis (what resonates with different policy-makers?) • Financing mechanisms • Subsidy (general, targeted) • Microcredit • Resource economics: sustainable production & commercialisation • LPG/kerosene • Charcoal • Biomass (e.g. wood, biomass pellets) • Household-level decision-making • Gender-specific and culture-specific power factors • Adoption factors: cash vs other drivers (e.g. knowledge, prestige, time savings) • Willingness to pay