Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation
Share via:


Fuelwood consumption is the main source of GHG emissions in Ethiopia. Scaling up new cook/baking technologies can have a significant impact.



This seed proposal is based on Ethiopia's Climate-Resilient Green Economy - Green economy strategy and was prepared by a member of the Climate CoLab staff. We invite other CoLab members to link to this proposal or to use it as a starting point for creating new proposals of their own. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has not reviewed nor endorsed this proposal.

"Fuelwood consumption is the main source of GHG emissions in Ethiopia. The wood is mainly used for residential baking and cooking purposes. As most of the households, particularly in rural areas, use highly energy-inefficient technologies (e.g., open fire or three-stone technology), the improvement potential here is huge. The dissemination of technologies leading to a reduction in fuelwood consumption, either by making more efficient use of it or by shifting to other, less carbonintense fuels, can be a major lever for GHG abatement."

"Most of the efficient cooking-stove technologies are readily available, have already been tested for applicability, and have been deployed on a large scale in Ethiopia. A number of governmental and donor organisations as well as the private sector have already been active in the dissemination of such stoves. This existing institutional infrastructure and experience, as well as the grassroots level organisation of the governmental institutions involved, can prove instrumental in scaling up the production and distribution effort."

Potential Barriers

"There are, however, potential barriers to the adoption of some of the technologies, for cultural reasons or for costs (particularly for LPG and biogas stoves), and the production of large volumes of high-quality stoves needs to be ensured."

What actions do you propose?

Scale up the most impactful and cost-effective improving cooking/baking technologies.

"The STC [Sub-Technical Committee of CRGE initiative] analysed different technologies:

  • Fuel-efficient stoves
  • – Baking stoves, such as the mirt for baking injera bread
  • – Cooking stoves, such as the tekikil for cooking
  • Fuel-shift stoves
  • – LPG stoves (mostly for cooking)
  • – Biogas stoves (mostly for cooking)
  • – Electric stoves and electric mitad (both cooking and baking – in rural areas without grid access, this can also include off-grid solar-powered stoves).


The pattern of stove usage varies between regions and according to cooking/ baking traditions. One common feature, however, is that most households need both a stove for cooking (sauces, coffee, etc.) and a stove for baking (injera). This is reflected in scale-up plans."

"For 2030, the following scale-up targets were estimated (in percentage of rural/urban households respectively):

  • Fuelwood-efficient stoves: 80% rural/5% urban (both cooking and baking)
  • LPG stoves: 0%/5%
  • Biogas stoves: 5%/1%
  • Electric stoves: 5%/61% (weighted for cooking and baking).

(The distribution between the different types of stoves will be refined during the phase of work detailing the implementation plan for this initiative.)"

Who will take these actions?

Where will these actions be taken?

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

How much will emissions be reduced or sequestered vs. business as usual levels?

If the stove implementation were scaled as proposed above, "[t]he total abatement potential of stoves is nearly 51 Mt CO2e in 2030. At 34.3 Mt CO2e, the scale-up of fuelwood-efficient stoves contributes the largest share of this total potential, 14.0 Mt CO2e can be achieved from electric stoves, 2.3 Mt CO2e from biogas stoves, and 0.6 Mt CO2e from LPG stoves."

What are other key benefits?

"Efficient stoves increase the available income of the relatively poor rural population, create employment, and improve health and gender equality."

What are the proposal’s costs?

The abatement cost calculation also differentiates among stove types:

– Stove cost. Stove cost varies by model ... Costs and period of usage were calculated as follows:

  • Fuelwood efficient stoves: USD 6 – 8; with an average durability of 5 years
  • LPG stoves: USD 107; average durability 7 years
  • Biogas stove (including digester infrastructure): USD 912; average durability of 20 years (of the expensive and more robust digester infrastructure)
  • Electric stove and electric mitad: USD 20 – 63; with an average durability of 7 years.

– Programme cost. The team estimated the cost of the programme on a per stove basis. The calculation includes costs for product development and testing, training of manufacturers, promotion of the technology, administrative overhead, programme evaluation, and follow-up. The actual costs have been evaluated based on the experience of implementing organisations such as the Ministry of Water and Energy and GIZ and set at nearly USD 30 per stove on average. The programme costs have been accounted for as operating costs.

– Fuel cost savings. In order to determine fuel cost savings, the team compared average fuel expenditure before and after a technology change. The savings have been accounted for as (negative) cost.

Without accounting for the potential benefits for users of more efficient stoves, the cost of implementing the stove scale-up would be positive, e.g., around 8 USD/t CO2e for fuelwood-efficient stoves. Including the benefits, however, the cost becomes negative (money-saving over their lifetime) for most stoves types, with the figures ranging from USD -21 to USD -14. The only notable exception is the abatement cost for LPG stoves, which remains positive at USD 120, due to the (currently) more expensive fuel."

"As the only potential socio-economic disadvantage, LPG stoves may increase dependence on imports of technology and fuel."

Time line

By 2030.

Related proposals



The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia's Climate-Resilient Green Economy - Green economy strategy: