1. Reviewing the Effectiveness of Fuel-Efficient Stove Programming: A Darfur-Wide Review Beyond Firewood: Exploring alternative fuels and energy technologies in humanitarian settings New Delhi 11-12 December 2008 Eugene Cole, David Stone and Grant Wroe-Street ProAct Network

2. Content 1.Context, Methods & Objectives 2.Findings 3.Conclusions and some implications for the future FES implementation in Darfur

3. Jambo-sized, SD variation, Kisra variation, Tara Different FES models being used in Darfur FNC, Practical Action, CHF, Rocket

4. 1 Context, Methods & Objectives Context The increasing number of FES projects in the three Darfur states led the Darfur Fuel Efficient Stove Working Group (FESWG) to commission a review of projects to determine whether the multiple stated objectives of the projects were being achieved. The review was undertaken by ProAct Network on behalf of the administered by CHF International and co-funded by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA).

5. 1 Context, Methods & Objectives Methods Initial desk study, field missions to North, South and West Darfur. Data collection through three teams comprising of a State Coordinator, a Focus Group Discussion Leader, and a total of 50 enumerators working under the Team Leader Darfur specific tools developed : House Hold Survey Questionnaire (English & Arabic), Checklist for FGD, separate interview checklists for different stakeholders, FES Implementers Questionnaire Focused on 4 key sectors: protection, environment, health/safety and livelihoods

6. FES Review team training session

7. 1 Context, Methods & Objectives Objectives The review was prompted by the recognition that there were multiple FES projects across Darfur: but it was apparent that there was a duplication of efforts, too many pilot projects being undertaken, inadequate use of existing resources, no sharing of best practices Stated objectives for FES projects in Darfur included “FES reduce firewood consumption”, “FES reduce GBV”, “FES is a protection tool” or that “FES reduce deforestation” but these had not been evaluated.

8. Introductory meeting – Sheikhs and Omdas

9. Findings 1.The review covered 35 agencies which had implemented FES projects between January 2006 to February 2008, providing 131,660 stoves to 316,957 beneficiaries. 2.The review was “undertaken in the full spirit of a transparent inter-agency initiative to benefit all, serving programmatic purposes as well as agency capacity- building and network building” and thus points no fingers 3.Despite the differences between implementation models, between camps, between receiving environments, and between the three States, there is one single sentence answer from the Review: “FES projects remain a recommended intervention in Darfur.”

10. Findings 4.There is widespread support for a fuel-efficient stove initiative –The improved mud stove has the highest uptake so far –80 – 99% of the people targeted by the FES projects, use them frequently 5.At least a 50 per cent cash saving made on fuelwood (charcoal or wood) purchase when a fuel-efficient stove is used – most savings were recorded in Nyala, South Darfur. 6.Increase in family well being: (including GBV) reduction in fire wood collection duties or wood purchases, more time for women to undertake other family duties or IGAs, reduction in risks of cooking accidents and fires, reduction in respiratory diseases

11. Focus group discussion

12. Findings 7.Fuelwood collection was identified as the single and highest priority need that compels women to leave the camp setting, even in the face of danger –frequency was reduced by 50 per cent in North Darfur, 57 per cent in South Darfur and 40 per cent in Zalingie, West Darfur. 8.Current fuel-efficient programmes in Darfur were not found to be stand-alone projects –Undermine the effectiveness and sustainability –There are no stand-alone budgets for FES implementation 9.There is scope for improved inter-agency collaboration and an increased use of national partners who, arguably, are the “most important”

13. Findings 10.Monitoring and evaluating the impacts of FES- related activities is very poor –No element of community participation –No single means exists to measure or compare indicators between the different FES projects –Any measurement of success is thus based on the indicators stated by the main project of the sector within which FES is embedded. 11.Poor record of knowledge management in relation to FES activities –More than 80% of FES-related projects – merely start all over again, ignoring the lessons of the previous Implementers. 12.There is no deliberate capacity building strategy embedded in any of the FES projects.

14. Grass structures require frequent maintenance: FES projects will not entirely stop women from leaving the camps

15. Findings 13.Sustainability – the fact that some projects implementing agencies currently provide everything for the IDPs to produce stoves is not contributing to the persistence of the technology 14.Quality of training being provided Skills and competence of trainers Most of the trainers were initially trained through a FAO initiative High staff turnover in most of NGOs that participated in this training

16. Brick Kilns at Aboushouk IDP Camp, North Darfur – FES projects will note entirely solve deforestation

17. Conclusions FES projects have much to offer the people in Darfur – from a protection, environmental, livelihood and health Despite the acknowledged benefits of FES projects, inadequate planning, poor coordination, an almost total lack of monitoring and project evaluation and poor investment in longer term sustainability and uptake of fuel-efficient stoves At the state level, the FES WG should set up an employed technical team tasked with a FES extension programme and work with government to enhance its technical capacities and maintain government’s policy direction in this regard. Despite having benefits in multiple sectors FES projects do not provide a magic bullet

18. Fuel efficient stoves in El Fasher market place – evidence of potential sustainability and actual market value

19. Thank you To colleagues in Darfur who assisted in the review, particularly in the data collection To the Women’s Commission for funding our attendance at the conference and For your attention www.proactnetwork.org