| Main wiki page |
Recent additions |
Recent changes |
What links here |
Categories |
Category cloud How-to guides | Organisation profiles | Project profiles | |||
Wood-Fired Stoves in Guatemala – A Brief History by Manuel Tay
[v][e]
[top] [end]Stove trials & tribulations[top] [end]First scenarioGuatemala, which is in the Tropics, has been known as a wooded country since time immemorial. The original inhabitants developed a culture which, for centuries, was in harmony with the environment, thus maintaining a carefully preserved balance. Of this concept of the world and of the universe, there remain traditions, writings and monuments which have defied the passage of time and the barbarism of the European cultures which came to America with new customs and the ambition to exploit, to subdue and to destroy. In the rural regions of the country, which became a natural refuge for the survivors of the Spanish invasion, and on the edges of the towns where the migrants settled, the main form of energy used was taken from the forests: wood. The equipment for cooking food was rudimentary: three stones on which to place a cookpot, and beneath the pot enough wood to cook the meal.[top] [end]Second scenarioGuatemala’s history has been marked by momentous events that have influenced its development. The 1976 earthquake destroyed a large part of the country, leaving its mark on the inhabitants. International aid provided large quantities of building materials, food and medicine. At the same time, people belonging to various institutions arrived who, as was to be expected, acted in the interests of those institutions. A group of engineers who had arrived with this motivation, joined forces with a group of Guatemalan engineers, and taking advantage of the prevailing circumstances, decided that it was a good opportunity to suggest some improvements in the dwellings being rebuilt; in particular in the kitchens, where they suggested that cookstoves be installed to reduce the workload associated with preparing meals.Thus they carried out some tests, interviewed cooks, and started sketching preliminary designs and approximations. Ultimately, they developed a definitive model which they decided to promote. This prototype was baptized ‘Estufa de Lorena’ – “estufa” (stove) because it did not correspond to the traditional way of cooking (over a three-stone fire), and “Lorena” because it was built from a blend of clayey earth (in Spanish ‘lodo’) and sand (‘arena’). [top] [end]Third scenarioThe next step, following completion of research into stove design, was dissemination. A leaflet was prepared, explaining the different design methods and announcing the first theoretical and practical course – to be held in the town of Quetzaltenango in Guatemala in January 1977. Attention should be drawn to the fact that the first course participants were all foreigners. The appearance of a household utensil which attracted the attention of families and groups caused institutions with different aims to join the group that was launching the new stove model – NGOs, religious groups, international organizations, grassroots teams. Once familiar with the methods of building and disseminating the prototype, they began designing, organizing and implementing stove projects, and at the same time encouraging the inflow of large sums of money. The justifications given for the interest charged on this finance were that the advantages of the cooking “equipment” was exaggerated, that an attempt was being made to achieve purely statistical objectives, and that the origin of the “invention” was beginning to be disputed. The organizations working on dissemination programmes practically awarded themselves “the patent” in order to obtain better support in the organization of the financing.[top] [end]Third scenarioThe next step, following completion of research into stove design, was dissemination. A leaflet was prepared, explaining the different design methods and announcing the first theoretical and practical course – to be held in the town of Quetzaltenango in Guatemala in January 1977. Attention should be drawn to the fact that the first course participants were all foreigners. The appearance of a household utensil which attracted the attention of families and groups caused institutions with different aims to join the group that was launching the new stove model – NGOs, religious groups, international organizations, grassroots teams. Once familiar with the methods of building and disseminating the prototype, they began designing, organizing and implementing stove projects, and at the same time encouraging the inflow of large sums of money. The justifications given for the interest charged on this finance were that the advantages of the cooking “equipment” was exaggerated, that an attempt was being made to achieve purely statistical objectives, and that the origin of the “invention” was beginning to be disputed. The organizations working on dissemination programmes practically awarded themselves “the patent” in order to obtain better support in the organization of the financing.[top] [end]Fourth scenarioThe Lorena stove quickly became popular in Guatemala, Central America and other countries. Publications appeared in different parts of the world reporting on energy savings during cooking, using a more general term, i.e. improved stoves.This was the hour of glory of the Lorena stove. The financial success of the project prompted the development of improved stoves on which key components were added, eliminated or modified.The procedures and construction materials also changed. All these modifications were arguments in favour of developing new models. And even though their appearance or shape were distinctive, they always applied the same basic principle. The Lorena stove lost its personality. However, none of the modifications were a success. In technical or cultural terms they were justified, but in the long run the objectives of the movement were lost sight of. Writing this report after 18 years of daily involvement in the process, there is no alternative to simply telling the story. [top] [end]Fifth scenarioThis process has been studied by engineers, anthropologists, forestry and energy specialists, as well as by people who were simply curious. Each has his or her qualified version of the events. We, the protagonists of the movement, are trying to find a standpoint that may help us to correct a tendency which is entrenched in the customs of Guatemalan society. We have seen that a large amount of finance has been invested in projects presented as successes. Doctoral dissertations and ambitious technical essays have described the intricate network of variables that make up this simple thing called fire, which heats the family and supplies the energy needed to cook food. In reports that would fill volumes, in various languages, authors have recounted their experiences. Some have praised the efforts undertaken, others have been a death sentence for the Lorena stove. We, with the best intentions in the world, or with no intentions at all, have limited ourselves to telling the story. Every opinion on this subject would be useful. It would also be certain not to be the first.[top] [end]Author profileManuel Tay is an engineer and General Director of the ‘Dirección General de Fuentes Nuevas y Renovables de Energía in Guatemala’ (Office of New and Renewable Energy Sources) within the ‘Ministerio de Energía y Minas’ of the government of Guatemala. He has long-term experience in energy and environmental projects and is the contact person responsible for the FWD Focal Point for Latin America within CEMAT.[v][e]
[top] [end]Stove Profiles, Stories and Burning Issues
| |||
Page created:
19 August 2009; Last edited:
17 September 2009; Version: 1 | |||
Pagename: StoveImages:Wood-FiredStovesInGuatemala–ABriefHistory @HEDON: QTRA | |||
