Dear Paul >> http://www.differgroup.com/analysis/
>It certainly is indirectly supportive of the GACC approach to solving the stove problems. "Indirect subsidies" (called grants) are advocated. What I read of the method (there is a lot of other written material on their site) is aimed at subsidising 'pull' and avoiding the subsidisation of 'push'. 'Pull' means the subsidisation of the creation of demand. This can involve many things from investing in tools or the distribution system to get product into the shops, to paying for awareness training on TV. It cost $1m to train the population of Ulaanbaatar last year to use a TLUD coal stove properly to limit smoke production during ignition. It was a multi-media blitz and it worked. It was effective, a 'pull' item and did not involve subsidy of the product itself. It is an example of a cost that would normally have been needed to be included in the product cost as a distribution/marketing cost. This subsidy reduced the price. In fact, the stoves were substantially subsidised as well, but the publicity is an example of an indirect subsidy mechanism properly applied. This approach was used by ProBEC and the rules for it were debated and finalised before any action was taken. The project was supposed to develop viable and sustainable commercial enterprises. That can't be done with a product subsidy. If there is a carbon finance component (often held up as a way to get expensive stove to people for a low price) it has to be accepted that the system is not in fact sustainable unless something marvellous happens. Sometimes the market can develop to a scale that allows mass production to reduce costs, but that is rare. The subsidy should be applied at the production system level, for example importing material in bulk and selling it slowly as the market develops. What we really see a lot of is the expectation that carbon finance or other forms of direct subsidy will lower the cost to people who otherwise would not pay for the product with little though given to sustainability. The huge danger in this is that the stoves would not really be acceptable in the first place were it not so cheap. That is a real danger. If you have a stove that is just 'cheaper' it is not automatically 'acceptable'. The worrying thing is that so many unacceptable stoves are spread all over the place because the funding was accessible, not because the product had a chance in a normal market. It is rare to find a stove that is truly acceptable except for only one aspect: cost. Most programmes are tied to tight deliver schedules and in frustration and the lack of acceptable products, someone decides to 'pick a product', roll it out highly subsidised, declare victory and go home. This is repeated year after year. That is what the article is looking at and suggesting we change. Regards Crispin _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/
