| Main knowledge bank page |
Recent additions |
Recent changes |
What links here |
Categories |
Category cloud How-to guides | Organisation profiles | Project profiles | ||||||||||||
Camp Cooking: Family - Community - Central? by Matthew Owen
Despite high level concern within UNHCR, there is no sign that the dependence of most refugees on wood as fuel will be reduced in the near future, and there is likewise no certainty that significant numbers will return home within the next few years. [top] [end]Two wood saving optionsConsiderable energy savings can be made by more centralized cooking.
[top] [end]Communal cookingThe traditional camp arrangement of rows of shelters, each with their own stove or fire, is the least efficient overall in terms of energy consumption for cooking. However, shelters can be grouped around central spaces in which cooking and social interaction can take place (see Figure I ). Given refugee co-operation, this may be taken further by making the communal sub-division the basic administrative unit for the supply of food, fuel, sanitation and water. In this way a camp becomes more a large settlement made up of many smaller, self contained units which become the lowest administrative units rather than the household. The feasibility of such arrangements may depend on the social traditions of the refugees themselves, certain groups being more likely to support closer integration than others.It may be unrealistic to attempt to impose shared cooking systems under a communal living arrangement, as individual households are still likely to prefer controlling their own food and fuel. Under pressure of fuel shortage, however, and with-some distributed rations taking excessively long to cook, neighbouring families within the same unit may decide to share the cooking of certain slow-cooking dishes such as maize and beans. This may later progress to other foods. As well as achieving such direct fuel savings, living and cooking in close proximity may result in the spread of innovative cooking practices.
It may be possible for camp management to help the process of energy-saving under a communal system by offering incentives for conservation efforts on the part of the refugees. This has been demonstrated in Burundi where each family, normally using a three-stone fire in a ten-hut communal unit, was required to construct a mudstove, and in return the whole unit was provided with a simple cooking shelter with a plastic sheet roof. It may even be feasible at the communal level to supply kerosene or some other fuel which is more popular and less environmentally damaging than biomass. This option is not considered realistic for individual households because of the likelihood of their selling pan of the fuel or the stove, but in a communal setting there may be group pressure to at least retain a portion of the fuel, thereby reducing dependence on less environmentally friendly fuels. Kerosene is now recognized as often being a more efficient and economical fuel than wood. [top] [end]Institutional cookingBecause of its higher efficiency and much lower fuel consumption, some camps provide food from a central kitchen, particularly for hospitals, orphanages and occasionally schools. A wide variety of agencies operate different cooking systems depending on their own policies and previous experiences, but still achieving levels of efficiency much higher than those of family or community based arrangements.There are several improved cooking systems available for institutions which use biomass fuels. These tend to increase in efficiency and durability with increasing cost from simple brick platforms with sunken fireboxes ($0.50 per person catered for and built on site) to free-standing, galvanized steel cylinder stoves with integrated stainless steel cooking pots and chimneys (up to $8 per person and manufactured industrially; see BP 10-Sept 86). Energy savings of over 50 per cent (compared with open fires) are achievable using the more expensive systems, even allowing for a certain amount of mismanagement by cooks. A proposed institutional catering unit for a refugee camp is shown in Figure 2, combining a food preparation area and stores for food and fuel. Well designed institutional stoves have other benefits such as improved cooking and kitchen conditions.
The principal obstacles to institutional catering are not likely to be technical but social. Any suggestion of mass catering is likely to be resisted in the strongest manner by the refugees themselves. This is largely through fear of losing control over the one asset which they can normally trade with - namely food. Any institutional system which is to be introduced successfully must therefore allow the refugees to retain tight control over their own food, even if this means allowing known loopholes or systems of over-rationing to persist. As well as the food control issue, there are many other reasons for resistance to institutional catering; such as the fear of poisoning, preferences for individual or traditional cooking methods, more strict timetabling of meals, the risk of getting smaller portions, and perhaps loss of family individuality and self-respect. Its possible introduction must therefore be discussed through full consultation at all levels within the refugee group. An experimental arrangement whereby involvement is voluntary and can be reversed is most likely to achieve success, with possible incentives for participation. Such a system would have to be well administered to avoid double rationing of those families who opt to participate. Refugees are likely to want to cook for themselves, but options involving employed caterers could also be considered. [top] [end]SummaryCompared with existing per capita levels of fuel consumption, and the known savings which are achievable under institutional catering systems, reductions in firewood consumption of an enormous 90 per cent are theoretically possible. These require the introduction of commercially made cooking equipment, well installed in suitable kitchens, with basic training and proper fuel management systems, such as have been used for many years in schools and other institutions in East Africa. Even a less drastic move towards more community-based living and cooking arrangements is likely to result in significant energy savings.The social resistance to these changes is likely to be high, but may be surmountable given careful planning, diplomacy, refugee consultation, incentives for participation and some capital outlay. The author thanks Howard Frederick (CARE Ngara) for fuel consumption data and Bernie Ross (formerly Red Cross Burundi) and Rico Caveng (Swiss Disaster Relief Karagwe) for ideas on communal catering. For further information on institutional catering contact Bellerive Foundation, PO Box 42994, Nairobi, Kenya. [top] [end]Contents: Boiling Point 37: Household energy in emergency situations
Categories: Boiling Point 37| Refugees | ||||||||||||
Page created:
15 August 2007; Last edited:
02 December 2008; Version: 1 | ||||||||||||
Pagename: CampCooking @HEDON: NNGA | ||||||||||||
