1. Cookstove Standards and Labeling: Opportunities for Sharing and Alignment

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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
Clear descriptions of how tier levels were set, potential impacts with explanations of data limitations

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. “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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Unique challenges for cookstoves market and S&L

17. 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