Fourth Quarter 2010 ‘Gyapa’ Kitchen Survey Monitoring Report

Consultant: Dr. Wilhelmina Quaye

Food Research Institute of Council for Science and Industrial Research, CSIR

Gulf House Avenue

Accra, Ghana

Tel: +233 (0) 208 132 401

Contents 1 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 2

2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Background and Survey Objectives ................................................................................. 3

2.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Study Area, Sampling and Analysis ................................................................................. 4

3 Survey Findings ................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Stove use .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 User Manual ..................................................................................................................... 8

3.3 Impact of Promo and Adverts .......................................................................................... 8

3.4 “Gyapa” Sales Price ......................................................................................................... 9

3.5 “Gyapa” Quality Assessment ......................................................................................... 10

3.5.1 Age degradation analysis ............................................................................................ 10

3.5.2 User comment on Gyapa facsimile products .............................................................. 11

3.5.3 User comment for improvement ................................................................................. 12

3.6 Sustainable Development Indicators .............................................................................. 13

3.6.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 13

3.6.2 Ease of cooking and of accessing fuel for cooking, in comparison to coal pots ........ 14

3.6.3 Improved livelihood (cash savings) in comparison to coal-pots ................................ 14

3.6.4 Changes in Charcoal Prices ........................................................................................ 16

3.6.5 Pay-back time ............................................................................................................. 17

4 Parameters in PDD Monitoring Plan ................................................................................. 17

5 General conclusions ........................................................................................................... 19

1 Summary

Gyapa kitchen survey monitoring for the fourth quarter was conducted in Accra -Teshie (Greater Accra

region of Ghana) in December 2010. The objectives of this monitoring survey were (1) to track fuel

efficiency associated with ‘Gyapa’ as compared to other stove types, (2) assess quality of ‘Gyapa’ in use,

(3) obtain information on user perceptions and (4) assess the effectiveness of promotional strategies, (5)

evaluate the monitoring parameters required by the project monitoring plan relevant to field survey

(“Kitchen Survey”). Key survey findings cover fuel efficiency, quality assessment, impact of promotional

activities and air quality with the use of Gyapa vis-à-vis traditional charcoal stove options on the

Ghanaian market.

Cash Savings

An estimated average daily cash savings of GHC0.47 per household was established from this survey.

Daily expenditure on fuel before ‘Gyapa’ use of GHC0.96 reduced GHC0.49 per household with

‘Gyapa’. This translates into annual cash savings of approximately GHC172 per household (Gyapa used

for 365 days). On the average non-domestic users spent GHC2.2 daily on fuel before using ‘Gyapa’.

With Gyapa, there was savings of GHC1.0 daily. This translates into annual savings of approximately

GHC288 per non-domestic user working 288 days in a year.

Gyapa Quality Assessment

The general outlook of 25% of ‘Gyapa’ observed during the period of interview was rated ‘very good’,

67.5% ‘good’ and 7.5% bad. About a third of the sample interviewed suggested that manufacturers should

ensure consistency in quality particularly liner quality, material for metal casing, ventgate and basement

content in order to sustain market demand for Gyapa in Ghana. Other quality issues mentioned include,

quality painting, equal flippers and good cement bonding. Majority (95%) of the respondents did not

receive user manual at the point of sale.

Promotions

Gyapa advert on television was the most common source of information about Gyapa among respondents

in Teshie-Accra. Other sources of information about Gyapa mentioned by respondents include

recommendations by friends and radio adverts. Market demonstrations and educational campaigns were

also suggested as strategies to improve the Gyapa industry in Ghana. Selling points should include fuel

efficiency which still remains the most preferred characteristic of ‘Gyapa’, fast cooking and heat retention

capacity as well as environmental and health benefits associated with Gyapa use.

Air Quality with Gyapa use

Air quality with ‘Gyapa’ indoors was better than traditional charcoal stove (coalpot). With coal-pot users

are exposed to smoke emissions, ash and a lot of heat causing irritation of the eyes. These health hazards

are alleviated with Gyapa. Gyapa is clean since ash is retained in the lower part of the stove and limited

heat exposure since heat intensity can be regulated.

2 Introduction

2.1 Background and Survey Objectives

More than 80% of Ghanaian households use either wood or charcoal as their predominant

cooking fuel. Whilst wood is used in rural areas, charcoal is mostly preferred by a large

proportion of urban households in Ghana. However, the charcoal production process is

responsible for a great deal of deforestation and high emissions of greenhouse gases such as

carbon dioxide and methane. This is because charcoal is produced in simple earth-mound kilns

with estimated carbonisation ratios of about 8 tonnes of wood to 1 tonne of charcoal. To avert the

negative consequences of charcoal production and consumption, Relief International and

EnterpriseWorks is disseminating the Gyapa fuel efficient charcoal stove. The Gyapa is fitted

with a ceramic liner to improve fuel efficiency by up to 50% over the traditional coal pot. The

Gyapa also cooks faster, can be regulated and is clean since ash is retained in the lower part of

the stove. The Gyapa is made locally by small scale metal workers and ceramicists thus

contributing to employment creation in the Ghanaian economy.

Under Relief International carbon financing project, emissions reduction from the use of Gyapa

has to be regularly monitored. Carbon finance allows the stoves to be marketed at an affordable

price, whilst building on manufacturing skills, marketing channels and the fuel supply chain.

This report presents the fourth quarterly kitchen survey (QKS) conducted in Teshie, a suburb of

Accra in the Greater Accra Region. The first monitoring survey was conducted in Accra-Madina

(Greater Accra Region), second in Kumasi (Ashanti Region) and the third QKS in Takoradi

(Western Region). The main objective of the current monitoring survey was to gauge consumer

perception about the ‘Gyapa’ product and also investigate the performance of ageing ‘Gyapa’

stoves. Ultimately, this information will help effect necessary adjustment in the carbon dioxide

emission reduction calculations. Perceptions about ‘Gyapa’ usage were sought in relation to

quality, ease of use, fuel savings, likes and dislikes. Others involved effectiveness of the project

marketing strategies and project sustainability. Gyapa monitoring surveys have to be conducted

regularly to validate information on fuel savings (and thus carbon emission reduction) and other

benefits associated with the use of ‘Gyapa’ over other stove options, particularly the traditional

charcoal stove popularly known as ‘coalpot’.

2.2 Methodology

Structured questionnaire instrument consisting of both closed and open ended questions was

employed in this survey. Methods included one-on-one interview, interviewer’s observation

within the subjects’ kitchens as well as discussions if more than one person is active in the

kitchen. Questions asked covered respondent’s biodata & contact details, stove usage, impact of

project promotional activities, quality assessment and sustainability development indicators. The

survey questionnaire was pre-tested and necessary changes effected to ensure consistency and

high quality results. Conditions of the various component of ‘Gyapa’ in use were assessed

through personal observations at the time of interview using a 1- 4 rating scale; excellent (1),

very good (2), good (3) or bad (4). The survey was conducted in December 2010.

2.3 Study Area, Sampling and Analysis

A List of ‘Gyapa’ customers in Accra-Teshie obtained from ‘Gyapa’ sales and contacts records

compiled by EnterpriseWorks-Ghana served as the sampling frame. From this sampling frame, a

random sample of 40 subjects were generated using excel. Sampling was conducted to reflect

proportions of the various ‘Gyapa’ sizes sold in Accra-Teshie. The sample therefore consisted of

85% domestic and 15% non-domestic ‘gyapa’ stove users. Data collected were cleaned and

cross-checked on the spot after interviewing to ensure superior data quality. Data was analyzed

using excel and SPSS software package. Table 1 presents names of ‘Gyapa’ users interviewed,

contact details, types of stoves used before purchasing ‘Gyapa’ and period of usage or “age”

recorded in months. Age in months has been translated into age in years, where a ‘Gyapa’ used

for between 12 and 24 months is designated one year old. Average age of ‘Gyapa’ in use was 28

months.

Table 1: Contact Details of respondents.

ID Customer Name Contact Size of

Gyapa

Age

Mths

Age

Yrs Stove Used before Gyapa Application of Gyapa

TS001 Salomey Kaa Anang 0243968410 Large 28 2 Traditional Wood Stove Cooking to sell and Family

TS002 Peter Afutu 0242683419 Medium 44 3 LPG Family meals only

TS003 Salomey Anang 0274152123 Medium 41 3 Coalpot (Traditional

Charcoal stove)

Family meals only

TS004 Beatrice Martey 0261958724 Medium 44 3 Coalpot Family meals only

TS005 Ramatu Yacubu 0541010183 Large 41 3 Coalpot Cooking to sell and Family

TS006 Naomi Bortey 0246289967 Small 44 3 Coalpot Family meals only

TS007 Ruby Laryea 0285445987 Medium 40 3 Coalpot Family meals only

TS008 Florence Ashidan 0547602864 Medium 15 1 Coalpot Family meals only

TS009 Grace Owusu 0547762959 Medium 13 1 Coalpot Family meals only

TS010 Monica Tabil 0242709356 Medium 2 0 Kerosene Family meals only

TS011 Mercy Kai 0249703209 Medium 24 2 Coalpot Family meals only

TS012 Ida Asamoah 0548686101 Medium 16 1 Coalpot Family meals only

TS013 Miriam Sana 0248930931 Medium 15 1 Coalpot Family meals only

TS014 Auntie Kai 0243747461 Medium 36 3 Coalpot Family meals only

TS015 Linda Sowah TS016 Medium 16 1 Coalpot Family meals only

TS016 Hannah Kwakye 0242322378 Medium 4 0 Coalpot Family meals only

TS017 Pamela Nuamesi 0242846110 Medium 76 5 LPG & Coalpot Family meals only

TS018 Sylvina Laryea 0241666818 Medium 24 1 Coalpot Family meals only

TS019 Adjele Apenteng 0272894930 Medium 28 2 Coalpot Cooking to sell and Family

TS020 Paulina Tebi 0244809866 Medium 16 1 Coalpot Family meals only

TS021 Martha Kunadu 0274870684 Medium 26 2 Coalpot Family meals only

TS022 Esther Amartey 0540875660 Medium 13.0 1 Coalpot Family meals only

TS023 Mary Anum 0274757127 Medium 29.0 1 LPG & Coalpot Family meals only

TS024 Agnes Tetteh 0272879170 Medium 24.0 2 Coalpot Family meals only

TS025 Gladys Mensah 027246672 Medium 40.0 1 Coalpot Family meals only

TS026 Azuma Janet Salifu 0203682497 Medium 28.0 2 Coalpot Family meals only

TS027 Benewa Akosua 0243701227 Medium 29.0 3 Coalpot Family meals only

TS028 Agyeman Rose 0279700776 Medium 21.0 3 Coalpot Family meals only

TS029 Mensah Joyce 0246969236 Medium 36.0 3 Coalpot Family meals only

TS030 Doris Doe 0275780917 Medium 45.0 3 Coalpot Family meals only

TS031 Vida A Boye 0276041781 Medium 29.0 3 Coalpot Family meals only

TS032 Ophelia Sowah 0246274336 Large 15.0 3 Traditional Wood Stove Cooking to sell and Family

TS033 Felicia Dap 0244425315 Medium 40.0 1 Coalpot Family meals only

TS034 Edina Amerley

Tawiah

0248122313 Medium 16.0 1 Coalpot Cooking to sell and Family

TS035 Georgina Mensah 0208180122 Medium 13.0 0 Coalpot Family meals only

TS036 Evelyn Owusu 0268634586 Medium 29.0 2 Coalpot Family meals only

TS037 Charlotte Akorkor

Odai

0242646383 Medium 36.0 1 Coalpot Cooking to sell and Family

ID Customer Name Contact Size of

Gyapa

Age

Mths

Age

Yrs Stove Used before Gyapa Application of Gyapa

TS038 Victoria Marku

Adjei

0543400357 Medium 26.0 1 Coalpot Family meals only

TS039 Comfort Oforiwaa 0260506547 Medium 29.0 2 Coalpot Family meals only

TS040 Amoako Daina 0243968410 Medium 32.0 1 Coalpot Family meals only

3 Survey Findings

3.1 Stove use

Ninety percent (90%) of the respondents used medium size ‘Gyapa’ stove, small size 2.5% and

large size users constituted 7.5% of the sample interviewed. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the

respondents were domestic users and 15% non-domestic users of ‘Gyapa’ as shown in figure1.

Coalpot (Traditional Charcoal Stove) was mostly used before ‘Gyapa as shown in figure 2.

Regular food preparations were made during the time of interview. These include ‘banku’,

‘ampesi’, rice, ‘fufu’, and soups like palm nut soup, groundnut soup and light soup. However

respondents indicated that intensity of food preparation was slightly high during the Christmas

period. Relatively large quantities of food were prepared to share with loved ones during the

festive period.

Other Stoves used in addition to “Gyapa”

Close to 60% of the sample interviewed used other

stoves in the same kitchen with Gyapa; mostly in

combination with coalpot (45%), LPG (20%) and traditional wood stove ((10%). Between 1 and

2 of Coalpot, traditional wood stove or LPG were used in combination with ‘Gyapa’. Gyapa

was used more than three times daily by 35%, thrice (40%), twice daily by 22.5% and once daily

by 2.5% of the sample interviewed. Gyapa was used every day of the week for household

cooking. Non-domestic users mostly used it 6 days per week.

Appeal of the Gyapa

Fuel efficiency still remains the most preferred characteristic of ‘Gyapa’. This was expressed by

40 percent of the sample interviewed. Gyapa was also liked due to its fast cooking and heat

retention capacity as reported by 30% of the sample interviewed. Charcoal users are becoming

more environmental and health conscious and therefore opted for Gyapa among available stove

options on the Ghanaian market. About 18% of the sample interviewed liked Gyapa due to the

reduction in health related hazards. Other likes about Gyapa include mobility (7.5%), less

messy (5%) since ash is retained in the lower part of the stove, easy to regulate heat intensity and

user friendly (5%). From the current survey, the most common dislike about Gyapa is liner

cracks which was reported by 32 percent of the sample interviewed. Other dislikes about

‘Gyapa’ include small ventgate (12%), easy removal of basement (12%), light painting (12%)

and poor quality metal casing (12%) among others. Table 2 presents likes and dislikes about

‘Gyapa’.

Table2. Likes and Dislikes about “Gyapa”

Likes % Response Dislikes % Response Uses Less Fuel 40.0 Liner cracks 32.0

Cooks faster and retains Heat 30.0 Small vent gate 12.0

Less risky in terms of health hazards 17.5 Easy removal of basement 12.0

Mobile 7.5 Light Painting 12.0

Less ash and less messy 5.0 Metal casing not durable 12.0

Can be used to cook any kind of food 2.5 Unequal flippers 4.0

Easy to regulate heat intensity 2.5 Liner holes too small 4.0

Weak cement bonding 4.0

Too heavy 4.0

Liner hole spacing too wide 4.0

3.2 User Manual

The level of Gyapa sales with user manual still remains low. User manual was received by only

5% of the sample interviewed similar to results obtained in other QKSs. According to this group

the user manual was very useful and would go a long way to improve the useful life. Majority of

the respondents stressed the need to add user manual at the point of sale. Suggestions to improve

the distribution of the user manual are bulleted below:

User manuals should be added to ‘Gyapa’ at the point of sale

Instructions should be in different languages

The manual should educate potential buyers where to get original Gyapa.

Instructions should be informative (how to use ‘Gyapa’ with dos and don’ts ) and

educative on fuel savings and environmental benefits

Manual should be colourful

Manual should educate users on the use of flippers

Potential users should be educated not to drag Gyapa on the ground since most

manufactures do not include sturdy underneath

3.3 Impact of Promo and Adverts

Gyapa advert on television was the most common source of information about Gyapa in Teshie-

Accra. Other sources of information about Gyapa include recommendations by friends and radio

adverts. Percentage response to sources of information about Gyapa is presented in figure 4.

3.4 “Gyapa” Sales Price

Average sales price (price at which respondents bought ‘Gyapa’) of small size ‘Gyapa’ was

GHC4.50; this was reported by only 1 user. Sales price of medium size ‘Gyapa’ ranged between

GHC4.50 - GHC12.00 depending on date and place of purchase with an average of GHC9.20.

Sales price for large size Gyapa was between GHC15 and GHC35. Descriptive statistics on

purchase price of ‘Gyapa’ is shown in Table3. According to respondents, the just right price for

small size ‘Gyapa’ was GHC5.00. While the average just prices for medium and large size

‘Gyapa’ were GHC9.40 and GHC25.00 respectively (See tables 3 & 4).

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics on Purchase Price

Size of Gyapa

Minimum purchase price(GHC)

Maximum purchase price(GHC)

Average purchase price(GHC)

Std. Deviation

Small 4.50 4.50 4.50 -

Medium 4.50 12.00 9.20 1.98

Large 15.00 35.00 26.70 10.4

Table 4. Just Right price

Size of Gyapa Minimum (GHC) Maximum (GHC) Average (GHC) Std. Deviation

Small 5.00 5.00 5.00 -

Medium 5.00 15.00 9.40 1.96

Large 25.00 25.00 25.00 -

3.5 “Gyapa” Quality Assessment

Quality of ‘Gyapa’ used by the sample interviewed was assessed through personal observations

at the time of interview. Conditions of the various component of ‘Gyapa’ including liner, vent

gate, bonding, basement, flippers, handle and sturdy were rated on the scale of 1 to 4; Excellent

(1), very good (2), good (3) or bad (4). The general outlook of 25% and 67.5% of ‘Gyapa’

observed during the period of interview were rated very good and good respectively. Table 5

presents component specific condition of ‘Gyapa’ observed on the field at the time of survey.

Comparatively, quality of stove condition observed in Takoradi during the third quarterly survey

was better. The reason being that stoves observed in Teshie-Accra were much older. This

observation could probably be an indication of progress on quality issues as well.

Table 5. Percentage response on Gyapa Quality Assessment

Component Excellent (%)

Very good (%)

Good (%)

Bad (%)

Remarks by interviewer

Liner - 10.0 42.5 47.5 Some liners had developed cracks

Vent gate - 7.5 65.0 27.5 Significant proportion of the Vent gates had

removed probably due to improper handling

Bonding - 7.5 80.0 12.5 -

Basement - 12.5 47.5 40.0 Significant proportion of basement had

developed cracks

Flippers - 22.5 70.0 7.5 Unequal flippers was common

Handle - 17.5 75.0 7.5 -

Sturdy - 9.1 86.4 4.5 Majority of Gyapas did not have sturdy

underneath

General

Outlook

25.0 67.5 7.5 Most stoves were in good shape and functioning

properly

3.5.1 Age degradation analysis

The average age of Gyapa was 28 months; minimum of 2 months and maximum of 76 months;

standard deviation of approximately 14 months. This information was obtained from descriptive

statistics using SPSS. There was

significant correlation between

age of ‘Gyapa’ used and the

general outlook using Pearson

correlation analysis method. This

implies that the general outlook

of Gyapa is dependent on age and

probably on the usage given that

all manufacturers use similar

quality of raw materials.

Correlations

General Outlook Age of Gyapa

General Outlook Pearson Correlation 1 .386*

Sig. (2-tailed) .014

N 40 40

Age of Gyapa Pearson Correlation .386* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .014

N 40 40

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

3.5.2 User comment on Gyapa facsimile products

None of the respondents would want to buy a stove that looks like ‘Gyapa’ but does not have the

original ‘Gyapa’ brand. The primary reasons assigned to original ‘Gyapa’ choice over facsimile

products include counterfeit products and poor quality implications of facsimile products. All

the respondents indicated willingness to buy original ‘Gyapa’ again and again basically due to its

fuel efficiency (67.5%), good quality (15%), and convenience (15%) as shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Reasons for buying original Gyapa again and again

Reasons % Response

Economical 67.5

High Quality 15.0

Convenience 15.0

Can be used indoors 2.5

3.5.3 User comment for improvement

Gyapa users are demanding quality product. About a third of the sample interviewed suggested

that manufacturers should ensure consistency in quality particularly liner quality in order to

sustain market demand for Gyapa in Ghana. Suggestions made in this quarters monitoring survey

were similar to previous quarters monitoring surveys that showed the need for high quality with

respect to liner, flippers, metal casing, painting, handles and vent-gate. Promotional activities

including Gyapa adverts on television and radio, market demonstrations and educational

campaigns were also suggested as strategies to improve the Gyapa industry in Ghana.

Suggestions for improvement are presented in table 7.

Table7. Suggestions for improvement of ‘Gyapa’ performance in Ghana

Suggestions % Response

Ensure quality liner 20.6

Consistent Quality product 11.8

basement should be solid 8.8

Radio Advert only 8.8

Market Demonstrations 8.8

TV & Radio Adverts 5.9

TV Advert only 5.9

Educational Campaigns 5.9

Ensure equal flippers 5.9

Print more manual 5.9

Spray instead of painting 5.9

Ensure adequate labelling 2.9

Print Media Advert 2.9

3.6 Sustainable Development Indicators

3.6.1 Air Quality

Gyapa was mostly used outdoors by 68% of the sample interviewed while indoor users

constituted 32%. Air quality with Gyapa usage as compared with traditional coalpot was good

due to less exposure to heat and the associated health hazards. With coal-pot users are exposed to

a lot of heat and sometimes cut from sharp edges. With Gyapa heat intensity can be regulated.

Gyapa is clean since ash is retained in the lower part of the stove. Some respondents also

complained about smoke emissions and eye irritations with the use of traditional charcoal stove

or coalpot. Thirty-two percent (32%) of the sample interviewed used ‘Gyapa’ indoors for an

average of 4.3 hours daily (minimum 1 hour and maximum of 10hours daily; standard deviation

of 2.38). While an average of 4.1 hours daily (minimum 2 hours and maximum of 6 hours daily;

standard deviation of 0.93) was established for outdoor use. Five percent (5%) of the indoor

Gyapa users observed smoke emissions particularly when charcoal combustion was incomplete.

Smoke emission during lighting was observed by 2.5 % of outdoor users. Figures 6-8 indicate

proportions of the sample interviewed that used ‘Gyapa’ indoors and those that observed smoke

emissions either using indoor or outdoor. Close to 55% of the sample interviewed confirm

irritations of the eyes when using coalpot as compared to Gyapa. The rest were not sure of any

such experiences.

3.6.2 Ease of cooking and of accessing fuel for cooking, in comparison to coal

pots

Comparatively, coal-pot consumes more fuel than ‘Gyapa’. Unlike the coal-pot, heat intensity of

‘Gyapa’ can be regulated by using the ventgate. When raining, ‘Gyapa’ can be used indoors but

is difficult to use coal-pot indoors when you do not have proper kitchen. Other likes about

‘Gyapa’ over coal-pot already enumerated in table 2 include, fast cooking, less messy/less ash,

less risky in terms of health hazards and less/no smoke emissions.

3.6.3 Improved livelihood (cash savings) in comparison to coal-pots

Fuel savings with Gyapa usage was calculated as follows:

[(A - B)/A]* 100

Where

A= Expenditure on daily fuel consumption before ‘Gyapa’

B = Expenditure on daily fuel Consumption with ‘Gyapa’

Fuel Savings made by sample interviewed are presented in tables 9 and 10. A comparison of

fuel expenditure on stove used before ‘Gyapa’ and fuel expenditure with ‘Gyapa’ use was done

for all the homes sampled using the above mention formula. On the average, domestic Gyapa

user saved 49% of daily fuel expenditure. Daily fuel savings per household of GHC0.471 was

estimated. This translates into annual savings of approximately GHC172 per household. As

shown in table 10, the average non-domestic user spent GHC 2.2 daily on fuel before ‘Gyapa’

usage. With ‘Gyapa’ the average non-domestic user spent GHC1.2; making average savings of

GH1.0 daily. This translates into annual savings of approximately GHC288; food vendor

working 6days/week throughout the year. Thus the two average annual cash savings were found

to be:

Domestic users: GHC172 as compared to previous QKSs of GHC94 in Takoradi, GHC113 in

Kumasi and GHC339 in Madina-Accra.

Non-domestic users: GHC288 as compared to previous QKSs of 202 in Takoradi, GHC317 in

Kumasi and GHC696 in Madina-Accra. The variations could probably be due to differences in

charcoal prices in the various locations as well as size of cooking operations. As already noted,

the respondents were asked to estimate current values of charcoal consumption before using

‘Gyapa’ at the time of interview. This implies that price changes (discussed under section 3.6.4)

in charcoal had been adjusted for. Hence the fuel savings without adjustment in charcoal price

changes would be

Domestic users: GHC242

Non-domestic users: GHC406

Table 9. Daily Savings on Charcoal Expenditure with Gyapa – Domestic Users

Respondents ID Daily Expenditure of Fuel before Gyapa(GHC)

Daily Expenditure of Fuel before Gyapa (GHC)

% Savings on Fuel

TS002 0.25 0.17 32%

TS003 1.42 1.14 20%

TS004 1.42 0.57 60%

TS006 1.14 0.35 69%

TS007 2.14 1.07 50%

TS008 1.42 0.71 50%

TS009 0.28 0.17 39%

TS010 0.71 0.71 0%2

1 It must be noted that respondents were asked to estimate current values of charcoal consumption before using

Gyapa. This implies that price changes in charcoal has been adjusted for 2 TS010 used Kerosene stove before Gyapa and spent the same amount on fuel

TS011 1.43 0.43 70%

TS012 0.36 0.21 42%

TS013 1.35 0.57 58%

TS014 1.28 0.5 61%

TS015 1.14 0.43 62%

TS016 1.14 0.43 62%

TS017 1.00 0.43 57%

TS018 1.28 0.5 61%

TS020 1.14 0.43 62%

TS021 1.50 0.75 50%

TS022 0.33 0.22 33%

TS023 0.43 0.28 35%

TS024 0.60 0.4 33%

TS025 1.00 0.67 33%

TS026 0.43 0.28 35%

TS027 1.00 0.37 63%

TS028 0.47 0.36 23%

TS029 1.00 0.67 33%

TS030 1.00 0.67 33%

TS031 0.40 0.3 25%

TS033 0.75 0.43 43%

TS035 0.64 0.32 50%

TS036 1.00 0.76 24%

TS038 0.52 0.25 52%

TS039 1.00 0.43 57%

TS040 1.00 0.28 72%

Average 0.96 0.49 49%

Table 10. Daily Savings on Charcoal Expenditure with Gyapa -Non-Domestic Users

Respondents ID Daily Expenditure of Fuel before Gyapa(GHC)

Daily Expenditure of Fuel before Gyapa (GHC)

% Savings on Fuel

TS001 1.67 1.00 40%

TS005 2.83 1.67 41%

TS019 2.83 1.28 55%

TS032 2.83 1.70 40%

TS034 0.62 0.41 34%

TS037 2.43 1.21 50%

Average 2.20 1.20 45%

3.6.4 Changes in Charcoal Prices

All the respondents indicated increment in charcoal prices over the last three months period prior

to this survey charcoal prices had gone up by margins ranging between 18% and 100%. The

average margin of price increase was 41% (standard deviation of 17%). Charcoal was easily

accessible and available to the entire sample interviewed. The cost of a bag of charcoal ranged

between GHC13:00 and GHC23:00 in Teshie-Accra as at December 2010.

Only 15.4% of the sample interviewed in Teshie-Accra had noticed slight changes in fuel

consumption of ‘Gyapa’ with age. Again just about 7.5% were able to give estimated change of

25% (using Gyapa for 24 - 45 months). This has to be confirmed through an in-depth research on

change in ‘Gyapa’ fuel consumption with age.

3.6.5 Pay-back time

The above calculations show that a domestic ‘Gyapa’ buyer will typically save enough money to

pay back the cost of the ‘Gyapa’ approximately within 21 days. The calculation is as follows:

Pay Back Period = Cost of medium Gyapa/Daily Savings =GHC10.00/0.47

The above calculations show that a commercial Gyapa buyer will typically save enough money

to pay back the cost of the big size ‘Gyapa’ within 35days. The calculation is as follows:

Pay Back Period = Cost of Gyapa /Daily Savings = GHC35/1.0

4 Parameters in PDD Monitoring Plan

One of the key aims of ths survey was to evaluate certain of the parameters listed in the project

Monitoring Plan. The parameters relevant to this survey are listed here following the numbering

and format of the Project Documents, and our findings entered.

Sustainable Development Indicators

ID # Sustainable

Development

Indicator

Monitoring

source

Monitored result

SD1 Air quality Monitoring

Kitchen Survey

(MKS)

This survey showed a very clear improvement in air quality as expressed by Gyapa users, and confirmed by the observations of the survey team. See section 3.61 above.

SD2 Lively-hood of

the poor

Monitoring

Kitchen Survey

(MKS)

This survey found that users had experienced, in their own

judgment, an average price increase of xx% over the past 3

months. Poor families using traditional coal pots are forced

therefore to devote ever larger portions of their income to

fuel purchase. This survey (3.6.3) showed significant cash

savings by users of the Gyapas. With the price of the

medium size Gyapa averaging xx GHC (xx Euros) over the

period monitored, and average fuel savings assessed at

over xx kg a year, the current price of charcoal in Accra

averaging GHC xx (xx Euros)/kg, and assuming a stove

lifetime of 3 years, the financial saving for charcoal users in

Accra are xxGHC (Euros xx) per year . On average it takes x

months to save the purchase price of the Gyapa. Annual

cash savings average xx GHC (xx Euros) for domestic users

and xxGHC (xx Euro) for non-domestic (commercial) users.

SD4 Access to

Energy

Services

Monthly Sales

Records and

Monitoring

Kitchen Survey

(MKS)

A large number of people, as evidenced by sales record

data, have improved access to energy services by virtue of

the availability of the original Gyapa. This is clear from the

survey results above. For example, most customers

reported improved ease of cooking due to faster lighting,

less mess, venting, suitability for indoor use, and such

factors (see section 3.6.2). Comparatively, the coal-pot

consumes more fuel than Gyapa. Unlike the coal-pot, heat

intensity of Gyapa can be regulated by using the vent gate.

When raining, Gyapa can be used indoors but is difficult to

use coal-pot indoors when you do not have a proper

kitchen, due to carbon monoxide emissions.

SD4b Product

Quality

Monitoring

Kitchen Survey

(MKS)

Product quality was assessed by observation of the

surveyor and by canvassing users. xx% of Gyapa observed

showed a high level of durability and quality, with an

average age of the xx Gyapas being xx months (minimum

of xx month and maximum of xx months; standard

deviation of xx months). xx% of respondents preferring the

Original Gyapa for performance and durability reasons,

others for aesthetic reasons, and all interviewees stated

they would choose it again.

SD4c Exclusive

usage

Monitoring

Kitchen Survey

(MKS)

This survey found that xx% of Gyapa customers, in the

random selection, were using inefficient stoves as

secondary cooking implements See section (3.1)

SD5 Human and

institutional

capacity

Not applicable (not within remit of this survey)

Technical Parameters

Technical Parameters

3 Clustering

definitions

Monitoring

Kitchen

Survey (MKS)

Quarterly This survey found that the relevant cluster definitions

are:

Small domestic

Medium Domestic

Medium and Large Commercial

Medium and Large Institutional

4 Usage factor Usage KT or

Monitoring

Kitchen

Survey (MKS)

Every two years This survey did not investigate drop off rate

5 General conclusions

General conclusions from the survey are bulleted below:

For domestic users, average annual cash savings was estimated at GHC172 (payback

period of 21 days) )

For commercial users, average annual cash savings was estimated at GHC288 (payback

period of 35 days).

On the average medium sized ‘Gyapa’ was used by 90% of the sample interviewed

Fuel efficiency, fast cooking, heat retention capacity and reduction in health related

hazards as compared to traditional charcoal stove were the most preferred characteristics

of ‘Gyapa’.

Majority (85%) of the sample interviewed used ‘Gyapa’ for family meals preparation and

the rest used for both family meals and for food vending

On the average, just right purchasing price of small size ‘Gyapa’ was approximately

GHC5.00. For medium sized Gyapa (GHC9.40) and large sized ‘Gyapa’ (GHC25.00)

The general outlook of 25% and 67.5% of ‘Gyapa’ observed during the period of

interview were rated very good and good respectively using a 1- 4 rating scale; excellent

(1), very good (2), good (3) or bad (4). Only 7.5% was rated bad.

The average age of ‘Gyapa’ was 28 months; minimum of 2months and maximum of

76months

All the interviewees in Teshie-Accra indicated willingness to buy original ‘Gyapa’ again

and again basically due to its fuel efficiency (67.5%), good quality (15%), and

convenience (15%) over the traditional charcoal stove among others

Table 11: Summary of Survey Results

Item Summary Results

Fuel Savings

On the average, domestic Gyapa user saved 49% of their daily fuel expenditure.

Estimated daily fuel savings of GHC0.47 per household. This translates into annual

savings of approximately GHC172 per household. On the average non-domestic

user spent GHC 2.2 daily on fuel before using ‘Gyapa’. With ‘Gyapa’ the average

non-domestic user spent GHC1.2; making average savings of GH1.0 daily. This

translates into annual savings of approximately GHC288; food vendor working

6days/week throughout the year. On the average a food vendor served close to 100

people daily; about 30% of their customers were children.

Changes in fuel consumption

with Age of ‘Gyapa’

About 15% of the sample interviewed had noticed slight changes in fuel

consumption of Gyapa with age. However only 7.5% could give an estimated

reduction in fuel efficiency of 25% (using Gyapa for 24 - 45 months).

Use of ‘Gyapa’

Ninety percent (90%) of the respondents used medium size ‘Gyapa’ stove, small

size 2.5% and large size users 7.5%. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the respondents

were domestic users and 15% non-domestic users of ‘Gyapa’. Gyapa was used

more than three times daily by 35%, thrice (40%), twice daily by 22.5% and once

daily by 2.5%of the sample interviewed. Gyapa was used every day of the week for

household cooking.

Types of stoves used before

‘Gyapa’

Types of stoves used before ‘Gyapa’ include Caolpot only (60%), Traditional wood

(18%), Traditional wood & coalpot (13%) LPG only (8%) and LPG & Coalpot

(3%)

Current stove use in addition

to ‘Gyapa’

Close to 60% of the sample interviewed used other stoves in the same kitchen with

‘Gyapa’; mostly in combination with coalpot (45%), LPG (20%) and traditional

wood stove ((10%).

Gyapa quality assessment The general outlook of 25% and 67.5% of ‘Gyapa’ observed during the period of

interview were rated very good and good respectively using a 1- 4 rating scale;

excellent (1), very good (2), good (3) or bad (4).

Air Quality Air quality with Gyapa usage as compared to traditional coalpot was good. This

was due to less exposure to heat and the associated health hazards. With coal-pot

users are exposed to a lot of heat and sometimes cut from sharp edges. With Gyapa

heat intensity can be regulated. Gyapa is clean since ash is retained in the lower

part of the stove.