Fuel-efficient cookstovesmay relieve Darfur\u2019s suffering.A \u201csimple\u201d ideais making a difference to vulnerable people in a region threatened by political violence and climate crisis.Darfur offers a laboratory to test the success of the humanitarian response.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.s4f.solutions\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/despite.png\")
<\/p>\n
Despite the generosity of donor organizations and donor nations, people wonder where the money goes.Reports on Global Humanitarian Aid parse the funds, sources, targets, and met and unmet goals.<\/p>\n
In 2013 alone, the most significant government contributors \u2014 the United States, United Kingdom, Turkey, Germany, Sweden, and Japan\u2014 provided US$19.7bn on top of US$5.8bn from private donors(Swithern, 2015).The tenmost significant recipients of international humanitarian aid were Syria, South Sudan, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Philippines, Palestine Authority, Jordan, Somalia, and Sudan (Swithern, 2015, p. 73).In 2013, only Syria received more long-term humanitarian assistance than Sudan (Swithern, 2015, p. 100).<\/p>\n
Sudanwas the third-largest recipient of global humanitarian aid in 2010. Most of those funds went to the humanitarian crises created by the chronic conflict in Darfur. Shifts in the recipients reflect natural disasters in The Philippines, the Ebola crisis in Liberia, and new and\/or continuing conflicts in South Sudan, Somalia, and Sudan.<\/p>\n
The total international aid includes climate-specific adaptation funds, peacekeeping efforts, crisis intervention, food distribution, water access, and refugee shelter. The total package contains direct foreign investment, long- and short-term debt as well as debt forgiveness and other portfolio elements.<\/p>\n
In short, the world contributes generously within its means. Some contributions are beyond reproach. But others leverage funding for political gain and influence. Corrupt governance consumes many resources as does corruption along the entire distribution chain \u2014 actions that diminish the goodwill of individual grantors and undercut the ethics of contributing government agencies. Darfur is a case in point.<\/p>\n
Darfur\u2019s context<\/h1>\n
Almost 8 million people inhabit Darfur, the vast western region of Sudan. It is the tribal and circumstantial home to over 20 percent of Sudan\u2019s total population. A thousand miles remote from Sudan\u2019s capital at Khartoum, it is a desperately parched land vulnerable to climate change, extremist infiltration, internal tribal conflict, historic genocide, and gender-based sexual violence as a weapon.<\/p>\n
Sudan has been categorized as a chronic humanitarian emergency for over 20 years. Conflict and natural disasters have led to massive scale displacement. Markets have collapsed, political and ethnic tensions have led to a breakdown in social support mechanisms. People have lost their assets, and the food security situation is critical.\u00a0 Darfur ranks highest in humanitarian caseloads and with most of its people dependent on humanitarian assistance to meet their basic needs (UNOCHA, 2013).<\/p>\n
The peace process in Darfur has not been fully inclusive, and all agreements have yet to be implemented. The situation remains extremely dynamic, with pockets of improved stability as well as new conflicts emerging throughout the region. The year 2013 marked the 10th anniversary of the Darfur crisis tenth with a harvest of almost 3.4 million internally displaced people, including 1.4 million people receiving food aid in camps (UNOCHA, 2013, p. 9). And, as Darfur\u2019s protracted crises near their 20th anniversary, the worldwide attention human rights activists, humanitarian organizations, practitioners, researchers, and the global community continue despite other existential threats.<\/p>\n
The Darfur catastrophe, dating to the late 1970s, is considered a unique case study because many contributing stressors and shocks have played a role in exacerbating the crisis. For many, it appeared to be a conventional African political and interest conflict between contradicting agendas (a government-rebel, Arab-African, Arab-Arab struggle for power and ethnic conflict). However, this is only the tip of an Iceberg based on the impact of gradual climate change for over 50 years as well as urbanization, marginalization, and competition on dismissing recourses between pastoral- and agriculture-based communities (Suliman, 2006).<\/p>\n
However, the international media have represented the Darfur conflict through a naive lens as an ethnic war between African descendant groups and Arabic tribes\/nomads known as the \u201cjanjawid\u201d (or \u201cJanjaweed\u201d mounted gunman) (O\u2019Fahey, 2004), the group regaining power through violence in Khartoum in June of 2019.<\/p>\n
This inaccurately simplifies a complex reality. For example, wealthy farmers (mostly African descended tribes) can cross the ethnic bridges by changing their livelihoods from farming to pastoralists and to \u201cBaqqara\/Baggara\u201d (in Arabic: cattle herdsmen\/cowboys) (Suliman, 2006; O\u2019Fahey, 2004). Within a few generations, the descendants would have an \u201cauthentically\u201d Arab genealogy (O\u2019Fahey, 2004). Thus, the ethnic classification of fighting groups in the Afro-Arabic conflict is very fluid. Many disagree on the causes of the Darfur conflict; however, no one can deny the resulting ugly consequences and the humanitarian misery. Darfuris typically describe their continuous misery with the despairingexpression \u201cUmm kowaak\/Umm Kwakiyya,\u201d meaning \u201cthe mother of damnation\u201d (Gasim, 2013; O\u2019Fahey, 2004).[1]<\/a><\/p>\n Although Sudan was the third-largest recipient of global humanitarian aid in 2010, most of those funds went to the humanitarian crises created by the chronic conflict in Darfur \u2014 displaced people, a shattered economy, gender-based violence, and more. That conflict and the consequent dependence on international aid created an immediate need for long-term and sustainable solutions.<\/p>\n Recently, most of the international aid donors have emphasized the need for establishing a new program paradigm. Any new model must capture the previous lessons learned. This study examines whether fuel-efficient cooking stoves (FES) programs in Darfur possess the necessary and intended resilient features. A third of humanity worldwide uses open or pit fires for warming and cooking; the fires consume resources, exhaust time, and pollute the environment. The availability of fuel-efficient cookstoves can make a meaningful and resilient impact on the users and their surroundings.<\/p>\n \u201cFuel-Efficient Stoves (FES) are specifically designed to reduce fuel consumption andprovide a substitute for the traditional three-stone fire. They can be made of mud,clay, or metal, and they can use different types of fuels, such as fuelwood, charcoal,briquettes, biofuels, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or kerosene\u201d (FOA).<\/p>\n \u201cResilient\u201d programscommonly sequence through the following design dimensions:<\/p>\n The DarfurFES programs have passed through three stages between 1997 and 2008(Abdelnour & Branzei, Fuel-Efficient Stoves for Darfur: The Social Construction of Subsistence Marketplaces in Post-Conflict Settings, 2010):<\/p>\n kills over 1.6 million people, predominatelywomen, and children, each year. This is<\/p>\n more than three people per minute\u201d (Warwick & Doig, 2004).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n (2) The number of hours spent during oneroundtrip to collect firewood; and(3) The number of kilometers traveled duringone roundtrip to collect firewood\u201d (Gender-Based Violence in Humanitarian Settings: Cookstoves and Fuels, 2016).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The evolving FES intervention model atStage III has several of the resilience characteristics and livelihood outcomes; nevertheless, it cannot be considered a \u201cstandalone\u201d resilience program.Moreover, in Sudan, it lacks two essentialprinciples of resilience: \u00a0national ownership and effective participation ofDarfuri women in decision making.<\/p>\n A best practice resilience interventionrequires comprehensive, dynamic, and proactive continuous improvement. It is a multi-sectoral and integrated intervention with a single intended outcome\u2014to create communities resilient against shocks or stresses which could not be achieved by an individual intervention like FES programming.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Given the chronic nature of the conflict and the dependency on humanitarian support, there is a need for longer-term and more sustainable solutions. There is a growing desire to find an empirical intervention to strengthen local communities\u2019 resilience to shocks, build up assets, and reduce dependency on humanitarian support. The international response in Darfur has been dominated by short-term humanitarian reactions focusing on meeting acute needs and saving lives. This classical humanitarian response has created aid dependency and has impacted community members\u2019 appetite to seek livelihood opportunities.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Thus, everyone seeks innovative programs to respond to critical humanitarian needs, help returning populations bounce back for the better, and link longer-term humanitarian programs to an exit strategy.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Darfur\u2019s protracted humanitarian catastrophe has contributed to international donors\u2019 fatigue. Taxpayers are demanding and putting a stronger emphasis on transparency and austerity in overseas humanitarian and development assistance.\u00a0 Donors, policymakers, development, humanitarian practitioners, international humanitarian and development agencies,NGOs, and Faith-based organizations (FBOs)must ride the wave of change (Brattberg, 2013).<\/p>\n This much is indisputable: doing humanitarian business as usual, despite its saving lives, does not help the affected populations tolerate any other anticipated shocks and stresses. All parties are looking for new intervention with a mobilizing banner fulfilling everyone\u2019s wishes, a one-shotinvolvement ensuringthe best value for money and creating self-dependency for the beneficiaries. This has created a demand for \u201cresilience.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cResilience\u201d is a concept born in psychologicaltheory, structural engineering, and corporate strategy that has also come to describe the desired outcome in the humanitarian and development sector(Bahadur, Ibrahim, & Tanner, 2010).Resilience suitably describes a readily desiredmental model for humanitarian and development programs (Bahadur, Ibrahim, & Tanner, 2010)<\/p>\n Rather than critiquing the merits of resilience as a goal, this paper focuses on the value of Fuel-efficient Cookstoves Programs as resilience intervention mechanisms proposed by many agencies and non-governmental organizations.<\/p>\n In the context of Sudan, resilience is shaped by the following donors\u2019 visions: US Office for Federal Disaster Assistance (OFDA), the European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and the Department for International Development, UK \u201cDFID\u201d(Development Aid at a Glance: statistics by region, 2013) (OECD, 2013). These are the four largest humanitarian donors in 2012, and they plan to continue in Sudan for the foreseeable future.<\/p>\n The donors\u2019 definitions most properly shape the resilience programs implemented by UN agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Sudan. As a sunflower turn toward the sun, these organizations are motivated by the scarcity of funds and lack of creativity. The USAID and DFID mental models for resilience will dominate because of the size of their contribution and their political leverage. USAID and DFID lead the influential donors in Sudan with aparticular focus on Darfur. Most recently, DFID announced the allocation of UK\u00a3<\/em>67 million for a resilience programin Sudan(Project Details SHARP-Sudan Humanitarian Assistance and Resilience Programme, 2013). The intent was to spend this money during DFID\u2019s operational plan for 2013-2015.<\/p>\n DFID and USAID conducted bilateral discussions on building resilience to food security threats in the Horn of Africa during March 2012. In their discussion note, they considered the following definition of resilience:<\/p>\n \u201cDisaster Resilience is the ability of countries, communities and households to manage change, by maintaining or transforming living standards in the face of shocks or stresses – such as earthquakes, drought or violent conflict – without compromising their long-term prospects\u201d<\/em> (Frankenberger, et al., 2012).<\/p>\n The DFID and USAID Discussion Note adopted a hybrid conceptual framework(Figure 1). It integrates DFID\u2019s Disaster Resilience & Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, TANGO Livelihoods Framework, and CARE Household Livelihood Security. This hybrid framework maps the role of context, shocks, institutions and livelihood strategies in resilience. It reframes all elements and processes, as well as the outcomes. The interaction of these elements with shocks and stresses in processes drives households toward pathways of resilience or vulnerability. It provides a panoramic view enablingidentification of the cross-cutting areas and intervention entry points.<\/p>\n Figure 1:<\/strong>The resilience framework.Adapted from DFID Disaster Resilience Framework (2011), TANGO Livelihoods Framework (2007), DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (1999) and CARE Household Livelihood Security Framework (2002) from (Frankenberger, et al., 2012, p. 5).<\/p>\n The USAID\/UKAID Discussion Note outlined the following ten core principles for resilience programming (Frankenberger, et al., pp. 2-3):<\/p>\n management, conflict mitigation, and socialprotection;<\/p>\n The definition and guiding principles of resiliencies programs indicate some common resilience elements in the ongoing interventionsuggesting resilience does not necessarily mean creating an entirely new programs paradigm. There is a need to identify the elements, markers, best practices, and lessons learned in the past and in ongoing programs to consider strengthening the current and future resilience programs design. This encourages thinkingacross sectors and leaves behind the classical sectoral frame towards a more holistic and integrated approach.<\/p>\n Darfur has minimal established resilience programming, and no standard definition of the term among humanitarian and development stakeholders(Salih, 2013). To date, resilience programs have focused on financial\/economic resilience and considering livelihood diversification as theprimary resilience strategy. The programs have targetedbuildingthe ability of households and communities to withstand the shocks and stresses through income generation only. The humanitarian actors rarely consider the multi-causal factors of shocks when programming. Many UN agencies and NGOs have considered fuel-efficient cook-stoves programs as one of the few resilience intervention programs implemented in Darfur (Abdulmonin, 2013; Salih, 2013).<\/p>\n Fuel-efficient cook-stoves programs in Darfur can be traced back to the last century. The Greater Darfur region (which is now divided into five states) consumed around 21% (1.606 million tons of oil equivalent) of Sudan\u2019sannual burning ofbiomass energy according to the available records for 2001 (Hood, 2009).<\/p>\n Biomass (fuels dependent on waste, vegetation, manure, and so on) had been the primary source of Darfur\u2019s household energy for several decades.\u00a0 During the startup of the Darfur conflict in 2003 and later the demand on biomass fuel had increased largely due to 1) the security situation impact on the supply chain for all resources of energy 2) Urbanization because of internal displacement, and 3) Climate change and deforestation.<\/p>\n Tradition, scarcity, and needs made open pit stoves the dominant source of heating and cooking. Smoke emitted by the fires presents a significant direct and indirect health threat, especially when used indoors. It rather quickly exhausts the surrounding natural vegetation. And, it puts women at risk of rape and other violence as they forage for fuels farther from home.<\/p>\n Image from Darfur Women Network<\/a>.<\/p>\n Vulnerable community members (women and children) commonly play a significant role throughout the supply chain of traditional fuel. Women and children endure most of the health hazards, risks, and labor impact starting from the tedious and repetitive work of locating and harvesting biomass fuel to their role as end-users.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, Darfuri women, the main stakeholders in sourcing and using household energy, are not usually well represented in the decision-making mechanism and institution. FES implemented programs commonly do not proactively include beneficiaries in their designs. Furthermore, the recipients do not seek their legitimate role in influencing program designs due to literacy barriers and ignorance of their rights. The Cooperative Housing Foundation (CHF International, also known as \u201cGlobal Communities\u201d), one of the primary implementers of FES programs in Darfurheld its first workshop for the end-users and other FES supply chain actors on 25 September 2008 at the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs \u201cOCHA\u201d (Abdelnour & Branzei, 2010). This workshop included IDP women representatives for Greater Darfur. It is considered a hallmark in the FES programs\u2019 timeline as it recognizes the importance of the engagement of the different stakeholders and overriding illiteracy problems (Abdelnour&Branzei, 2010).<\/p>\n The implemented FES programs have passed through three different phases of justification using the macro- micro-, interlacing discourses which are closely interlinked to the global discourse(Figure 2). The discourse adopted at the micro-level is to prove eligibility and entry channel to the donors\u2019 macro-discourse for resource mobilization (Abdelnour& Branzei, 2010).FES programs implemented in Darfur during 1997-2008 can be categorized according to conflict, technology, milestones, and market into three main stages. The NGOs are pragmatic in communicating the beneficiaries\u2019 voices through the different stages according to the appropriateresources mobilization strategy (Abdelnour & Branzei, 2010).<\/p>\n Nonetheless, \u201cAs of 2011, about 1.26 billion people do not have access toelectricity and 2.64 billion people rely on traditional biomass (fuelwood, charcoal, dung andagricultural residues) for cooking mainly in rural areas in developing countries\u201d (Malla & Timilsina, 2014). FES programs implemented to correct this are either vertical programs or activities within programs. They either use a technology\/efficiency approach or a people-centered one (Foell, Pachauri, Spreng, & Zerriffi, 2011).<\/p>\n FES technology has evolved over the years. In 1997 \u201cStage I\u201d Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stoves were in use due to the relatively stable security situation at Darfur,which facilitated the LPG supply chain.There was also the small-scale production of mud stoves using local materials.<\/p>\n Image from theWorld Food Programme<\/a><\/p>\n Later, in Stage II (2005),with the influx of NGOs donors\u2019 money, metal stoves were imported from India to respond to increasing needs.<\/p>\n In 2008 (Stage III), NGOs recognized the importance of using a hybrid approach\u201cpeople-technology centric\u201din the implemented programs in Darfur. Several technology stoves became available, including solar and bricks stove (Abdelnour & Branzei, 2010).\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Image from Gold Standard<\/a><\/p>\n \u201dGiven the fact that biomass is and will remain the mostimportant fuel for almost one-third of the world\u2019s populationand considering its adverse impacts on people and environment,the challenge is how to make its use sustainable and nonpolluting\u201d (Kees & Feldman, 2011). The cornerstone for any successful FES intervention is the behavioral change among all the actors in the supply chain with aparticular focus on the end-users (Darfuri women).These interventionsrequire a political system that \u201cacknowledges the relevance of efficient and modern cookstoves and supports a massive scaling-up by setting clear targets\u201d (Kees & Feldman, 2011, p. 7599). Without significant behavioral change, \u201cscaling-up still remains the major challenge\u201d (Kees & Feldman, 2011, p. 7596).<\/p>\n Behavioral change requires long term intervention and investment as well as a good understanding of the Darfuri cultural context. In Stage I,the beneficiaries drove FES design and supplies. Stage II was directed by suppliers, program implementers, and donors.The resources were mobilized under the discourse of protectingwomen against rape and violence. (See Figure 2 below: Abdelnour & Branzei, 2010, p. 621). The Stage II and III FES supplies exceeded the demand due to duplication of projects and competition between the implementers for the donors\u2019 resources in a sort of \u201cresources heliotropism.\u201d<\/p>\n Intervention failures require analysis to \u201cunderscore the need to monitor andrecalibrate development interventions to the evolving and idiosyncraticneeds of their beneficiaries. Most development organizationsheed shifting funding priorities and adjust their discourses strategically\u2014 and these changes pattern their actions\u201d (Abdelnour & Branzei, 2010, p. 626).<\/p>\n Poor coordination between donors in Sudan is also a common characteristic of failed interventions. It leads to duplication of many projects, misuse of resources, and failure to capture lessons learned from previous interventions. NGOs, governments, and elites within different sectors in many occasions, used poor coordination either to achieve tactical goals or for theirinterests. It is much easier to submit and secure donors with the previous written concept notes and proposals based on the past proclaimed successes.<\/p>\n Massive supplies characterized stage II with an increase in cost per unit because of the overhead charges and high logistic prices to a security fragile area like Darfur(Hamid, 2007). Despite this, organizations such as CHF either distributed the FES for free or at lower prices (Abdelnour & Branzei, 2010, p. 622). However, \u201cThe CHF approach is not moving towards sustainability. IDP housewives will return home withoutthe knowledge of manufacturing the stoves, the best way to utilise [sic] their stove and the bestcooking practices. Practical Action, one of the leading organizations in user-centric [sic] approach, raised the concerns that CHF intervention is creating dependency\u201d (Hamid, 2007, p. 2).<\/p>\n The criticism of this approach by different FES implementers may indicate competition for \u201cDonors Dollars\u201d using different rationales (efficient\/technology-centric approach versus the people-centric and resilience). FES designs have movedfromlocally made mud stoves to metal stoves to solar energy stoves. Abdelnour and Branzei (2010) sketched an excellent overview of the FES intervention stages in Darfur categorized by conflict, technology, milestones, and market. I have added the different discourses used over the timeline for (Figure 2) fuel-efficient stove development interventions in Darfur.\u00a0<\/p>\n Figure 2 by Asaad Taha \u00a9 2015<\/p>\n This is not an examination of resilience elements in fuel-efficient stove programs. It is not intended to measure either the outcome or impact of FES programs asthat is complicatedresearch requiring tailored baseline indicators and field surveys pre and post the intervention. Moreover, measuring the resilience outcomes and impactsremains an evolving science at a theoretical stage.<\/p>\n Building resilience is a continuous and dynamic process making it difficult to measure by nature. \u201cRisk reduction strategies are preventative in nature and are therefore implemented ex-ante<\/em> \u2013 before a shock or stress occurs\u201d(Frankenberger, et al., 2012, p. 10). \u201cThe dynamic nature of vulnerability and the resilience-building process places particular importance on monitoring of both changes in conditions and households\u2019 responses to those changes over time\u201d (Frankenberger, et al., 2012, p. 35).Moreover, Darfur is still experiencing ongoing shocks and stresses hindering any real process of monitoring and evaluation.<\/p>\n My analysis depends mainly on analyzing secondary sources of data, including evaluation reports, articles, programmatic review, concept papers, case studies, project assessment, and interpersonal communications.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n As mentioned earlier, FES programs have passed through three stages. It progressed from being user-centric Stage I to supplier Stage II FES implementers\/donors.The end of Stage III recognized the need for a hybrid approach.Under the discourse of building Darfur\u2019s economy, more attention was given to the local FES production and supply chain. FES programs, including the Darfuris as producers and consumers has enabled the emergence ofa subsistence market for FES entrepreneurs and FES biomass. \u201cTheoretically, severe disruptions in social relationships and patterns oftransactions among Darfuri internally displaced persons (IDPs)creates an exchange vacuum that offers a baseline for studying theemergence of subsistence marketplaces. As Darfuri IDPs reweave asubsistence economy, fuel-efficient stoves are one of the very firstmarket-based development interventions\u201d(Abdelnour& Branzei, 2010, p. 2).<\/p>\n Among the poor, entrepreneurs develop business models based on the co-production and sharing concept due to the social interdependency created by the communal state of poverty and illiteracy (Viswanathan& Rosa, 2010). Their social networks penetrate across family and community boundaries allowing the passage and exchange of information. The information provesan asset, especially in security-fragile places. FES interventions contribute to resilience through creating assets for the FES beneficiaries\u2019 chain (trainers, producers, suppliers of FES and solid fuel, and household users, i.e., the vulnerable group of community \u201cDarfuri Women.\u201d<\/p>\n By 2008 over 52% of Darfuri communities were engaged in FES market transactions (Abdelnour & Branzei, 2010, p. 625). The Darfur Low-Smoke Stoves Project reports the CleanClear\u00aeprogram provides microfinancing to help women afford Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) stoves(Darfur Low-Smoke Stoves Project, 2019):<\/p>\n A related study in Sri Lanka found women in a war-torn region, motivated by their instinct for survival and the subsequently acquired ability to cope with shocks and stresses, are more entrepreneurial than women in secure conditions (Ayadurai & Sadiq, 2006).<\/p>\n The Berkeley Stove innovation claims their USDE60 unit \u201cCould double the disposable income of therefugee woman over its 5-year life,\u201d but they also recognize the supply chain challenge presented by a military, low-quality control and precision in a low industrialized economy(Gadgil, 2018). And, a UNAMID project to support local manufacture, distribution, and use of mud stovessaves an average of 99 Sudanese pounds per day on firewood by using the new stoves(Elzarov, 2019). (That\u2019s USD$2.20\/day in 2019 dollars.)<\/p>\n It remains challenging to identify economic facts in the continuing fluid sociology and economy of Darfur. But considering that a 2011 UNstudy reports almost 20 percent unemployed and nearly 47 percent below the poverty level, any cost saved has a significant impact on Darfur\u2019s average household of six(Key facts and figures for Sudan* with a focus on Darfur, 2012). Against a UNOCHA 2013 claim of Sudan\u2019s gross national income per capita income of USD$1,529, the impact of $803\/year is clear. But given the condition of Sudan governance amid the tensions and violence in Khartoumfrom December 2018 continuing well into 2019, any reported statistics are questionable.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, FES interventions have created market transactions between the suppliers and consumers based upon mutual benefits, a \u201c1-to-1 interactional marketplace\u201d (Viswanathan, Sreehumar, & Arias, 2008). Such interventions, then, support the process of building the disrupted Darfuris social fabric and trust. This 1-to-1 interaction in the longterm enables the reconstruction of social relationships bypassing tribal and ethnic boundaries. It creates the benefits reciprocity, information exchange and mutual trust which are forms of \u201cnonmonetary capital\u201d(Sridharan & Viswanathan, 2006).<\/p>\n In these collective societies, trust is the dearest social asset in markets that depend mostly on non-formal business transactions. \u201cTrust\u201d is a currencyimportant to financial facilities and provides access to non-formal credit sources based upon a worthy recommendation. Building community members\u2019 monetary and nonmonetary assets is one characteristic of resilience programs. But trust has been severely damaged during Darfur conflict and post the conflict.<\/p>\n It is worth noting the pure FES technology\/Efficiency centric intervention \u2014 The Stage II CHF approach \u2014 associated with imported metal stove from India threatens the local production chain based upon local materials (mud) and skills. This type of intervention targeted scalability and coverage driven by donors\u2019 hunger for activities \u2014 not the outcomes or impact. In the longer term, such intervention creates dependency because it destroys any emergent subsistence marketplace.<\/p>\n The imported metal stove from India unit cost is not within the Darfuris\u2019 affordability threshold (Abdelnour & Branzei, 2010; Hamid, 2007). The suppliers (FES implementers) through all the FES stages largely subsidize the FES prices to keep it within Darfuri affordability, and this does not produce the best value of donors\/taxpayers\u2019 money. This approach is antagonistic to several resilience principles:<\/p>\n On the other hand, the embedding of the Darfuri women in the production and supply chain of FES revitalized the local markets in four ways. First, they kept prices low by making stoves locally with indigenous materials. Second, they empowered women providing income, relieving their time cooking, and reducing their risk of gender-based violence. Third, correctly configured, the FES programs position Darfuri women as produced and users. And, fourth, effective programs integrate feedback to improve the process and program.<\/p>\n However, the past FES programs lacked the national ownership and effective engagement of Darfuri women in program design and monitoring.Recently, WFP introduced Safe Access to Firewood and Alternate Energy \u201cSAFE\u201d program, an attempt to overcome the shortfall of the previous intervention(Abdulmonin, 2013). It is a multi-sectoral program including capacity building, agriculture-based livelihoods and FES activities led by CBOs (including Women Interest Groups \u201cWIGs\u201d) starting from the design, implementation, and monitoring at the village level(Abdulmonin, 2013).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThe WMO and the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction estimate that \u2018one dollar invested in disaster preparedness can save seven dollars\u2019 worth of disaster-related economic losses\u2019 (WMO, 2009)\u2019. Thus, investing in resilience programming that reduces exposure to risk is significantly more cost-effective than post-disaster responses\u201d (Frankenberger, et al., 2013).<\/p>\n To monitor, measure, and maximize resilience, \u201cwe must know not only how households spend supplemental income from social protection mechanisms (there is ample research on this), but also the long-term impacts of those decisions, which kinds of investments promote resilience, under what circumstances, and in what time horizon we can expect to observe the impacts of safety net assistance on household resilience\u201d (Frankenberger, et al., 2013, p. 23)<\/p>\n While evolving FES programs in Stage III (the hybrid people\/efficiency centric model) have several resilience characteristics, few programs can embody all the defined attributes. \u201cIt must be recognised [sic] that is not the intention to imply that the characteristics can or should be applied as a form of checklist\u201d (Harris, 2011). The intention is to operationalize \u201cthe characteristics by unpacking what they could mean in practice\u201d (Harris, 2011) from the experience of previous programs. Resilience programming is about being dynamic, desirousof continuous improvement, integration, and thinking differently from the design phase to the proper program closure.<\/p>\n Although FES current interventions have several resilience characteristics, they cannot be considered as standalone resilience programs. Resilience programsmust bemulti-sectoral interventionscreating ownership, breaking through the silos, and the arbitrary boundaries between different disciplines to address the current, short- and long-term needs of the affected people. The current gap in Darfuri household energy and the lack of feasible near-future alternatives justify FES intervention continuity. Many practitioners consider it an old wine which has undergone a series of bottling style upgrades; nevertheless, it is still needed as an activity or project under any resilience programportfolio.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Author\u2019s Bio:<\/strong>Asaad Taha is a Social Entrepreneur, Future Thinker, and Thought Leaderwith multisectoral expertise across the continuum of delivery from the strategic level to frontline field experience. He has worked for and engaged with global and national organizations across continents including UN agencies, Donor DFID, U.S. Government Department of State and USAID, European Union, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Community-based Organizations (CBOs), and private sector stakeholders. Bilingual (English\/Arabic) speaker, currently chair and serves as a member of several advisory groups, such as the Program Design Topical Interest Group at The American Evaluation Association (AEA) and Patient Safety CultureTechnical Expert Panel at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Asaad is Managing Partner at S4F Solutions\u2122 and Principal Advisor to Nile Harvest\u2122.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Abdelnour, S., & Branzei, O. (2010, Aug.). Fuel-Efficient Stoves for Darfur: The Social Construction of Subsistence Marketplaces in Post-Conflict Settings. Journal of Business Research, 63<\/em>(6), 617-629.<\/p>\n Abdulmonin, A. (2013, March 6). National Public Information Officer: WFO-Sudan Country Office.<\/p>\n Ayadurai, S., & Sadiq, M. (2006). Profile Of Women Entrepreneurs In A War-Torn Area: Case Study Of North East Sri Lanka. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (JDE), 11<\/em>(1), 3-17. Retrieved from https:\/\/ideas.repec.org\/a\/wsi\/jdexxx\/v11y2006i01ns1084946706000234.html<\/p>\n Bahadur, A., Ibrahim, M., & Tanner, T. (2010). The Resilience Renaissance” Unpacking of Resilience for Tackling Climate Change and Disasters.<\/em> The University of Sussex. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies. Retrieved June 5, 2019, from https:\/\/www.fsnnetwork.org\/sites\/default\/files\/ids_resilience-renaissance.pdf<\/p>\n Brattberg, E. (2013). Doing well by doing good: the role of humanitarian aid in Europe’s global strategy.<\/em> Swedish Institute of International Affairs. Retrieved June 15, 2019, from Swedish Institute of International Affairs: https:\/\/www.ui.se\/globalassets\/ui.se-eng\/publications\/ui-publications\/doing-well-by-doing-good-the-role-of-humanitarian-aid-in-europes-global-strategy-min.pdf<\/p>\n Bromwich, B. (2008, July). Environmental degradation and conflict in Darfur: implications for peace and recovery.<\/em> Retrieved June 3, 2019, from Humanitarian Practice Network: https:\/\/odihpn.org\/magazine\/environmental-degradation-and-conflict-in-darfur-implications-for-peace-and-recovery\/<\/p>\n Darfur Low-Smoke Stoves Project<\/em>. (2019). Retrieved from Gold Standard: https:\/\/www.goldstandard.org\/projects\/darfur-low-smoke-stoves-project<\/p>\n (2013). Development Aid at a Glance: statistics by region.<\/em> OECD.<\/p>\n Elzarov, Z. (2019, Feb. 11). Protecting the environment and women in Darfur through fuel-efficient stoves<\/em>. Retrieved from African Center for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes: https:\/\/www.accord.org.za\/conflict-trends\/protecting-the-environment-and-women-in-darfur-through-fuel-efficient-stoves\/<\/p>\n Foell, F., Pachauri, S., Spreng, D., & Zerriffi, H. (2011, Sept. 25). Household cooking fuels and technologies in developing economies<\/em>. Retrieved June 10, 2019, from Elsevier: https:\/\/www.academia.edu\/14981826\/Household_cooking_fuels_and_technologies_in_developing_economies?auto=download<\/p>\n Frankenberger, T., Campbell, J., Njoka, J., Spangler, T., & Nelson, S. (2012, March). Building Resilience to Food Security Shocks in the Horn of Africa. 1-5. US AID & UK AID. Retrieved May 30, 2019, from https:\/\/www.fsa.usda.gov\/Internet\/FSA_File\/2012_frankenberger_note.pdf<\/p>\n Frankenberger, T., Spangler, T., Nelson, S., Langworthy, M., & TANGO. (2012). Enhancing Resilience to Food Security Shocks in Africa.<\/em> USAID\/DFID. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.fsnnetwork.org\/sites\/default\/files\/discussion_paper_usaid_dfid_wb_nov._8_2012.pdf<\/p>\n Frankenberger, T., Swallow, K., Mueller, M., Spangler, T., Downen, J., & Alexander, S. (2013). Feed the Future Learning Agenda Literature Review: Improving Resilience of Vulnerable Populations.<\/em> Rockville, MD: USAID.<\/p>\n Fuel-efficient mud stoves in Darfur, Sudan. (n.d.). SAFE: Safe Access to Fuel and Energy<\/em>, 1-2. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.fao.org\/fileadmin\/user_upload\/emergencies\/docs\/FES_2pager-fnl.pdf<\/p>\n Gadgil, A. (2018, Jan. 27). Effectively Responding to Humanitarian Crises: The Berkeley-Darfur Stove Case Study. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Retrieved Jan. 27, 2018, from http:\/\/ethoscon.com\/pdf\/ETHOS\/ETHOS2018\/Gadgil.pdf<\/p>\n Gasim, O. (2013). Minister of Social Affairs East Darfur State. (A. Taha, Interviewer)<\/p>\n (2016). Gender-Based Violence in Humanitarian Settings: Cookstoves and Fuels.<\/em> UK AID: Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. Retrieved Kay 25, 2019, from https:\/\/www.cleancookingalliance.org\/binary-data\/RESOURCE\/file\/000\/000\/478-1.pdf<\/p>\n Hamid, A. (2007, July). Fuel Efficient Stoves for IDPs in Darfur: A partial solution for the biomass energy problem in Darfur. Sharing<\/em>(13), pp. 1-8. Retrieved May 20, 2019, from https:\/\/practicalaction.org\/docs\/region_sudan\/practicalactionsudan_13_jun_07.pdf<\/p>\n Harris, K. (2011). Resilience in Practice: Operationalising the Ten Characteristics of Resilience through the Case of Greening Darfur.<\/em><\/p>\n Kees, M., & Feldman, L. (2011, April 9). The role of donor organisations in promoting energy efficient cook stoves.<\/em> Retrieved from Elsevier: https:\/\/www.cleancookingalliance.org\/binary-data\/RESOURCE\/file\/000\/000\/358-1.pdf<\/p>\n Key facts and figures for Sudan* with a focus on Darfur<\/em>. (2012, Jan. 15). Retrieved from https:\/\/reliefweb.int\/sites\/reliefweb.int\/files\/resources\/darfur_fact_sheet_v32.pdf<\/p>\n Malla, S., & Timilsina, G. (2014). Household Cooking Fuel Choice and Adoption of Improved Cookstoves in Developing Countries: a review.<\/em> Development Research Group Environment and Energy Team. The World Bank. Retrieved May 29, 2019, from http:\/\/documents.worldbank.org\/curated\/en\/542071468331032496\/pdf\/WPS6903.pdf<\/p>\n O’Fahey, R. (2006, Oct. 1). Umm Kwakiyya of the damnation of Darfur. African Affairs: Royal African Society, 106<\/em>(425), 709-717. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/afraf\/article-abstract\/106\/425\/709\/48721<\/p>\n (2013). Project Details SHARP-Sudan Humanitarian Assistance and Resilience Programme.<\/em> DFID. Retrieved from iati.dfid.gov.uk\/iati_documents\/5708044.odt<\/p>\n Salih, M. (2013). Humanitarian Program Officer: DFID Sudan Office. (A. Taha, Interviewer)<\/p>\n Solman, M. (2006, March). The War in Darfur: The Resource Dimension. London. Retrieved May 20, 2019, from http:\/\/new.ifaanet.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/12\/DarfurpaperinArabic.htm<\/p>\n Sridharan, S., & Viswanathan, M. (2006). Marketing in subsistence marketplaces: Consumption and entrepreneurship in a South Indian context. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25<\/em>(7), 455-462. doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/07363760810915671<\/p>\n (2013). SUDAN United Nations and Partners Work Plan 2013.<\/em> Geneva: UNOCHA. Retrieved June 3, 2019, from https:\/\/reliefweb.int\/sites\/reliefweb.int\/files\/resources\/SUDAN_HWP_2013.pdf<\/p>\n Swithern, S. (2015). Global Humanitarian Aid: A Development Initiative.<\/em> Washington, D.C.: Development Initiatives. Retrieved May 30, 2019, from https:\/\/reliefweb.int\/sites\/reliefweb.int\/files\/resources\/GHA%20Report%202015_embargoed.pdf<\/p>\n Viswanathan, M., & Rosa, J. A. (2010, June). Understanding subsistence marketplaces: Toward sustainable consumption and commerce for a better world. Journal of Business Research, 63<\/em>(6), 535-537.<\/p>\n Viswanathan, M., Sreekumar, A., & Arias, R. (2017). Extreme Marketplace Exclusion in Subsistence Marketplaces: a Study in a Refugee Settlement in Nakivale, Uganda. (V. G. eds. Ayelet Gneezy, Ed.) Advances in Consumer Research, 45<\/em>, 933-938. Retrieved May 12, 2019, from http:\/\/www.acrwebsite.org\/volumes\/1024899\/volumes\/v45\/NA-45<\/p>\n Warwick, H., & Doig, A. (2004). Smoke \u2013 the Killer in The Kitchen: Indoor Air Pollution in Developing Countries.<\/em> London: IDTG Publishing. Retrieved May 31, 2019, from https:\/\/www.esmap.org\/sites\/default\/files\/esmap-files\/Smoke_The%20Killer%20in%20the%20Kitchen_Indoor%20Air%20Pollution%20in%20Developing%20Countries.pdf<\/p>\n <\/p>\nThe case for resilience<\/h1>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Building resilience as an intervention mechanism<\/strong><\/h1>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.s4f.solutions\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/shocks.png\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
Fuel-efficient Cook-stoves \u201cFES\u201d Programming<\/h1>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.s4f.solutions\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/vun.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.s4f.solutions\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/fes.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.s4f.solutions\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/gold.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.s4f.solutions\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/behavour.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.s4f.solutions\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/figure.png\")
<\/p>\nDarfur Fuel-efficient cook-stoves: resilient programs or recycled solutions?<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Conclusion\u00a0<\/h1>\n
References<\/h1>\n