The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.The true scale of the worlds indoor air pollution (IAP) problem only became apparent with the publication of the World Health Organization's (WHO) ‘burden of disease report (2002). This triggered efforts to pull together the work of diverse and dispersed groups tackling the issue, while the scientific case for intervention also progressed through the work of researchers such as Professor Kirk Smith, University of California, Berkeley, and others. It is important to remember, however, that while awareness of IAP is increasing, efforts to find a solution are not new. In the 1980s and ‘90s, for example, government programmes in China and India provided tens of millions of stoves to households. Although the achievements of these programmes and projects were mixed, overall they provide a wealth of information on what works and what does not. Both of those programmes and more recent efforts are summarised in this section. More extensive information is also available on the website of the umbrella-group, the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air - www.pciaonline.org/www.pciaonline.org. Case Study One: Chinas National Improved Stove Programme In China, during the 1980s, a government programme led to the installation and use of over 175 million improved stoves – although the main aim was fuel efficiency rather than smoke reduction or removal. It has been described as the countrys most cost-effective rural energy conservation initiative. According to Practical Action (an IAP specialist-NGO): The success of [this] programme is attributed to stove designs suited to users needs, targeted national promotion schemes and effective local implementation, including setting up commercial rural energy companies. Direct subsidy from the government per stove was relatively low, and varied between areas, with higher subsidies in countries where need was greatest.” In the first seven years of the programme, an estimated 100 million stoves (70% of which remained in frequent use) were put into rural homes. Cost to the government was around US$200 million. Cost to householders was $1 billion – about $10 per stove. Chinas programme minimised bureaucracy, targeted areas with biomass fuel deficiencies, and created self-supporting energy companies to make the stoves. These were supported by local agencies overseeing technical issues from design through to installation and servicing. The stoves – mainly ceramic and metal – were appropriately priced, built to last, reduced fuel consumption and costs, proved convenient to use and cut smoke pollution. Consequently, the programme benefited millions of households with only limited subsidy. Case Study Two: Indias National Improved Chulha Programme In India, a heavily subsidised programme (the government met 50% of costs) led to the installation of 30 million stoves. It ran from 1984 until 2002, when funding was discontinued. This generated very mixed results and follow-up research shows only 10 million stoves remained in use. Unlike Chinas programme, Indias was country-wide and its dispersed structure meant funding was thinly spread and monitoring was poor. The administrative structure was too centralised and slow, with responsibility passing downwards through national and regional bodies to local talukas (groups of villages), which were already implementing a number of different initiatives, thereby diluting the focus. Also, the fact that the government met half the programme costs, resulted in stove-makers addressing their needs, rather than users demands. Small-scale manufacturing and lack of service support often resulted in poor design and construction, frequent breakdowns and short-life usability. Finally, many stoves failed to provide adequate (or indeed any) smoke extraction. Other national initiatives Another programme in Sri Lanka is reckoned to have put improved stoves into 800,000 homes or around 25% of the population and created a self-sustaining stoves industry. In Kenya, a similar number were introduced, but mainly to urban households. Reviewed as a whole, these programmes demonstrate that convincing communities of health risks remains a major challenge, but poor people are more likely to invest in better cooking and heating equipment if it is affordable, readily available and they can see the benefits. For the poorest at-risk communities, subsidies remain an important tool. Initiatives by other organisations: World Health Organization Since publishing its ‘burden of disease report, WHO has encouraged research into the health effects of indoor air pollution, supporting third-party efforts to tackle the issue and providing evidence to policy makers on the need for action. World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Program (ESMAP) In 2002, ESMAP launched the Global Village Energy Partnership aiming to connect 400 million people to electricity and cleaner fuels by 2012. Each year, it aims to double the number of poor villagers with access to light, heat and power, and provide 50,000 communities with energy services for schools, hospitals, and clinics. Its research and intervention programmes span India, China, Guatemala, Mongolia and Nicaragua, focusing on raising awareness, health impact studies and assessment of policies, as well as efforts to cut indoor air pollution. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) This initiative, led by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, aims to halve mortality related to indoor air pollution in target regions. Partners commit resources and expertise to develop local action plans with the support of governments and key stakeholders from health, environment and agricultural sectors, non-governmental agencies, commerce and industry. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) LPG Challenge This project aims to link private sector know-how with UNDPs expertise in development and consultation to provide clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to rural communities in developing countries. The LPG Challenge uses pilot schemes to encourage industrial providers and appliance suppliers by reducing commercial risk and tackling market and technical barriers. Research Research centres leading efforts to gauge the health impact of IAP and the benefits of IAP reducing interventions include: the School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley, (research headed by Professor Kirk Smith); Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, (research headed by Dr Nigel Bruce); Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL), (research headed by Professor Dan Kammen); and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, (research headed by Professor Jyoti Parikh). Development community It would be impossible to mention every project and initiative addressing indoor air pollution in the development community, but among the most prominent are:GTZ, a German-based development NGO, with one of the largest portfolios of IAP-related projects in the world. Practical Action (formerly ITDG) has projects in Kenya, Nepal and Sudan, working with communities, local businesses and policy-makers to develop and scale-up locally appropriate interventions to reduce indoor air pollution in homes. Similar projects are being undertaken by Aprovecho and HELPS International, both international NGOs, in Guatemala. In India, the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Development Alternatives (DA) are working on improved biomass burning stoves. There are other schemes in Kenya, sponsored by Winrock International, and in Nepal, sponsored by the Child Welfare Scheme. Together these schemes represent a varied and multi-layered patchwork of attempts to reduce the impact of IAP. Once disparate, they are increasingly coordinated and overlapping. However, a sustainable solution remains elusive. This is why the Shell Foundation is directing efforts and resources to this issue.