Cookstove Standards and Labeling: Opportunities for Sharing and Alignment

Enhance manufacturer competitiveness Cookstove Standards and Labeling: Opportunities for Sharing and Alignment Enhance manufacturer competitiveness Create level playing field for the industry Spur technological innovation Facilitate export-led growth Differentiate products to distinguish highly efficient products Avoid dumping of low-quality, inefficient products Local markets become more attractive for multinational commerce Product differentiation allows manufacturers to distinguish their high efficiency products Local producers can become more competitive in the domestic and international marketplace Local producers don’t have to compete with low-quality, inefficient products that are dumped on their market

Two Phases for Standards Developing Standards Implementing Standards ADAPTATION TO LOCAL CONTEXT GLOBAL HARMONIZATION SUPPORTING DECISIONS COMBINING EXPERTISE ENFORCEMENT Definitions Indicators Certification Policies Enforcement Labeling Testing Consumer awareness Methods Reporting Financial incentives Awards

Two Phases for Standards Developing Standards Implementing Standards ADAPTATION TO LOCAL CONTEXT GLOBAL HARMONIZATION SUPPORTING DECISIONS COMBINING EXPERTISE ENFORCEMENT Definitions Indicators Certification Policies Enforcement Labeling Testing Consumer awareness Methods Reporting Financial incentives Awards

International standards bring all experts together to resolve technical challenges Standards development alternates between Working Groups and National Committees Working Group 1 – terms and definitions; conceptual framework for testing Working Group 2 - improvements to lab protocols to address multiple stove/fuel combinations, cooking practices Working Group 3 - field testing methods Working Group 4 - social impact assessment Fuels Task Group – reviewing standards for fuels for relevance and gaps Communications Task Group – communicating within committee and to external audiences Participating Countries (29) Observing Countries (14) Secretariat Countries (2)

International standards bring all experts together to resolve technical challenges Standards development alternates between Working Groups and National Committees Working Group 1 – terms and definitions; conceptual framework for testing Working Group 2 - improvements to lab protocols to address multiple stove/fuel combinations, cooking practices Working Group 3 - field testing methods Working Group 4 - social impact assessment Fuels Task Group – reviewing standards for fuels for relevance and gaps Communications Task Group – communicating within committee and to external audiences Participating Countries (29) Observing Countries (14) Secretariat Countries (2) Portfolio of standards products that work together

Components of Laboratory Testing Standard Standard test sequence – phases for operating stove and fuel Emissions methods (PM2.5, CO, BC) Efficiency methods Safety and durability methods Equipment (including maintenance and calibration) Reporting test results Marking and packaging Voluntary performance targets Terms and document about to be opened for ballot Field Testing draft is in early stage of development Gold Standard methodology for SLCP reductions for projects

Voluntary Performance Targets (draft Technical Report) Incorporates lessons and misunderstandings from ISO International Workshop Agreement (IWA) from 2012 Tiers separately for PM, CO, Safety, Durability (only methods and indicators for BC, using standards to gather more data, including to address questions about BC/OC ratios) Default and alternative targets (includes method to customize for countries) Based on published test results and aligned with WHO guidelines (Clean Cooking Catalog http://catalog.cleancookstoves.org) Clear descriptions of how tier levels were set, potential impacts with explanations of data limitations

Addressing conflicting goals Our goals are often in opposition to each other, even though they are all important: reflect typical usage conditions and impacts yield repeatable, accurate results reflect the relative performance of different designs cover a wide range of models within a category easy comparability with results from other test procedures be inexpensive to perform completed and ready to use in the market “ Any energy test procedure is a compromise; it does not fully meet any of the criteria for an ideal test, but it satisfies enough of them to discourage excessive complaints “ Standards and Labeling Guidebook, CLASP

Standards can work in multiple layers Lower cost and more controlled evaluations of many technology and fuel options Set conservative (more inclusive) criteria Higher cost but more accurate of fewer technology options Set more stringent limits

One final trade-off and challenge… Standards are not effective unless they are complete and published. Want to resolve all disagreements, complete data and research PERFECT DONE Publish the best possible document now, living with some disagreement and research gaps Design as an ongoing and iterative process

Two Phases for Standards Developing Standards Implementing Standards ADAPTATION TO LOCAL CONTEXT GLOBAL HARMONIZATION SUPPORTING DECISIONS COMBINING EXPERTISE ENFORCEMENT Definitions Indicators Certification Policies Enforcement Labeling Testing Consumer awareness Methods Reporting Financial incentives Awards

“Push” and “Pull” to improve technologies in the market Standards lead to higher quality products by removing the worst-performing products from the market. This increases consumer trust and improves market competition Labels provide clear market signals to purchasers and program administrators, with many potential benefits, including: Showing lifetime costs, including fuel purchases Conveying benefits of relevant cookstoves and fuels Qualifying stoves for programs and policies, e.g., incentives, subsidies S&L programs foster development of crucial market infrastructure (test labs, enforcement programs, training programs) that deliver long-term economic & social benefits

Types of Labels – Should be customized to market Consider programme goals, audience needs, and existing labels to avoid confusion. Seek consumer feedback. Tiers of efficiency Compare different products Displays more information Comparative Labels Set efficiency level Simple design “This product is efficient” Endorsement Labels DRAFT Comparative Labels Category scale allows consumers to compare the energy efficiency of products Encourage competition among manufacturers Comparative labels may be mandatory or voluntary. Similar concept to IWA tiers. Advantages Gives manufacturers options among a wide range of efficiencies and emissions Provides strong market incentive for efficiency and low emissions Market evolves over time at accelerated pace Low per unit transaction costs Technology costs borne by consumer who also receives savings benefit Disadvantages Impact of program less predictable May be difficult to change labeling scheme May or may not maximize consumer benefits Endorsement Labels Simple label allow consumers to identify the most energy efficient products Endorsement labeling programs are inherently voluntary since they do not seek to eliminate the least efficient products from the market. Usually voluntary — manufacturers can opt in or out Provides market association between quality and high efficiency/low emissions Can have large impact if endorsement level becomes de facto standard Impact of program difficult to predict Criteria for market entry Cross-cutting for multiple products “This product meets quality standards” Certification / Quality Marks

Typical steps in developing standards and labeling programs Decide whether and how to implement standards and labeling Develop testing capacity Design and implement program, including monitoring verification, enforcement Analyze and set standards Design and implement communication campaign Ensure program integrity Evaluate S&L program 1a 1b 2a 2b 2c 3 4 Requires sustained resources and commitment

Unique challenges for cookstoves market and S&L

Impacts of S&L in other sectors Just getting started. Will take a long time. Good examples from other sectors This took >30 years! Other examples 1974 2005