Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Development and disempowerment : appropriate technology in development aid in the high Himalaya Hunt, Cynthia Irene 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0065.pdf [ 5.09MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0076877.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0076877-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0076877-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0076877-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0076877-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0076877-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0076877-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0076877-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0076877.ris

Full Text

DEVELOPMENT AND DISEMPOWERMENTAPPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY IN DEVELOPMENT AIDIN THE HIGH HIMALAYAbyCYNTHIA IRENE HUNTB.A., The University of Minnesota, 1990A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTERS OF SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESResource Management Science ProgrammeWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIANovember 1993©Cynthia Irene Hunt, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.- (Signature)Department of-Ju4&The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate 1JAM1J L V1DE-6 (2/88)Development and Disempowerment:Appropriate Technology in Development Aidin the High HimalayaABSTRACTSince the second World War, western nations have been involved in various forms ofdevelopment, as their contribution to the social and economic well being of the worldpopulation. In spite of these efforts, inequities and injustices prevail. Throughout thisperiod, question have been raised on the effectiveness of this aid to development. Althoughstrides have been made in global economic growth, development aid appears to have failedin the context of the cultural and spiritual needs of those receiving it. This has lead to theconceptualization of Appropriate Technology. The tenant of Appropriate Technology is thatit emphasizes self-reliance and equity over simply growth. This study examines a model ofdevelopment in terms of the concepts of Appropriate Technology and explores the basicphysical and spiritual needs of people, as well as the impact on the environment.This thesis addresses a case study of solar cookers as Appropriate Technology aid inLadakh, India. The specific objectives are to: (i) examine the theoretical foundations ofconventional development and of Appropriate Technology; (ii) describe the Ladakhi societyin terms of its spiritual-traditionalism and of the impacts of recent, rapid change; (iii) use acase study involving the promotion of solar-box cookers, to examine the application of AT;(iv) analyze the relationship between components of solar box cooker programs onvillager-perceived benefits and impacts of use; and (v) suggest possible improvements inthe Appropriate Technology program’s frameworks. The thesis concludes thatdevelopment must address a central problem within its theory, that of pluralistic worldviews, in order to meet a mandate of improving the lives of the impoverished.The findings of the case study concluded that there is no one appropriate technology, thatsocieties are in flux and that local people must be involved in the identification andimplementation of any growth that occurs. Technological changeper se may result only infragmentation of the social and cultural aspects unless the people affected are involved. Thethesis concludes that development must address a central problem within its theory; that ofpluralistic world views, in order to meet a mandate of improving the lives of theimpoverished.1TABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT iiLIST OF TABLES vLIST OF FIGURES viINTRODUCTION 11.1 Objectives 11.2 Background to the problem 21.3 How does this apply to Resource Managers’ 51.4 Why Ladakh9 51.5 Research Questions 81.6 Scope and Limitations 91.7 Methodology 101.8 Organization 12THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK2. DEVELOPMENT WITH A HUMAN FACE 142.1 Identifying the problem 142.1.1 From colonialism and development 152.1.2 Problems in the paradigm 162.2 Dualism within development 182.3 Development as if people mattered: Appropriate Technology 202.3.1 Let goods be home-spun 202.3.2 Technology with a human face 213.3.3 The concept of Appropriate Technology 232.4 Measuring appropriateness 242.4.1 AT conceptual identifiers 242.4.2 Evaluating AT 252.4.3 Barriers and possibilities 273. LADAKH 303.1 Defining Ladakh: geographic and cultural context 313.1.1 Living within a limited resource base 353.1.2 Habitation patterns to conserve and improve the land 373.1.3 Spiritual beliefs: philosophy of cooperation within the wheel of life 403.1.4 Social structures: A no-growth economy, polyandry and monasticism 423.1.5 The 0mm-presence of the sacred 443.2 Ladakhi institutions and development 483.3 Change and its impact 503.4 Energy investments within development 523.4. iThe insidious nature of development 543.5 The impact of development on Ladakhi institutions 553.5.1 Village institutions: within the case study 553.5.2 The four intensive study site villages 553.5.3 Other villages: the importance of change 63CASE STUDY4. THE CASE STUDY: APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY IN LADAKH 654.1 Aims of the case study 664.2 Methods 664.3 The programs 714.3.1 LEDeG program 724.3.2 TCV-D program 744.3.3 DNCE program 75114.3.4 SSP program .754.3.5 Cooker type 764.4 Variables and measures 804.5 Results 824.5.1 Technical capability 824.5.2 Village surveys 884.5.3 Comparison of program components 1044.6 Summary of findings 1125. CONCLUSIONS 1155.1 Development in Ladakh 1155.2 AT in practise 1155.3 Differing perceptions 1175.4 Barriers to AT 1185.5 The option is no option 1185.6 Recommendations 1195.6. llnter-program cooperation 1195.6.2 Matching needs, willingness and tools 1195.6.3 Supporting a wide range of options 1205.6.4 Investing in local knowledge and skills 1205.6.5 Need for better testing and evaluation 1215.6.6 AT, development and tied aid 1215.6.7 The nature of the beast: the Trojan Horse 122LITERATURE CITED 124APPENDICES 135Interview List 136Survey questions in database 137Database from user’s survey 141Questionnaires used in survey 148Database from technological capability testing 162111LIST OF TABLESTable 3.5.1 Village institutions within the case study 56Table 4.2.3 Survey participation 70Table 4.3.1 AT programs in Ladakh 71Table 4.3.2 Characteristics of AT programs in Ladakh 73Table 4.3.3 Solar cooker characteristics 78Table 4.4.1 Variables in the case study 81Table 4.5.1 Technical capability of all cookers in the survey 83Table 4.5.2 Fuel need, as categorized by village type 89Table 4.5.3 Fuel need as categorized by program 89Table 4.5.4 Willingness to use a new technology, categorized by village 92Table 4.5.5 Introduction, follow-up and understanding from AT programs 94Table 4.5.6 Benefits and impacts from cooker use 96Table 4.5.7 Common complaints about cookers 99Table 4.5.8 Cooker capabuility and use 100Table 4.5.9 Comparison of additional technology preferences, by program 101Table 4.5.10 Frequent and infrequent users of cookers and their village locations..105Table 4.5.11 Summary of results, listed by program 110Table 4.5.12 Summary of results, listed by village type 110Table 4.6.1 Ranked ummary of results, listed by program 113Table 4.6.2 Ranked summary of results, listed by village type 114ivLIST OF FIGURESFigure 2.4.1Figure 3.1.1Figure 3.2.1Figure 3.5.2Figure 4.2.1Figure 4.3.1Figure 4.3.2Figure 4.3.3Figure 4.5.1Figure 4.5.2Figure 4.5.3Illustration 3.1.1Illustration 3.1.2Illustration 3.1.3Illustration 3.1.4Illustration 3.1.5Illustration 3.1.6Illustration 3.1.7Illustration 3.5.1Illustration 3.5.2Illustration 4.5.1AT evaluation 26People and place 36Ladakhi institutional characteristics 49The 26 villages surveyed within the case study 64Methodology framework for the case study 67TCV-D model solar cooker 76LEDeG model solar cooker 77DNCE model solar cooker 79Daily maximum temperatures in cookers 85Diurnal temperatures in cookers 86Comparisons across cookers: net impacts 97Map of Ladakh 32Map of Central Ladakh 34Profile map of a Ladakhi village 38Profile map of a Ladakhi village showing connections tosurrounding landscape 39Photograph of a typical Ladakhi village 41Map of a typical, traditional Ladakhi kitchen 46Photograph of the traditional Ladakhi stove 47Photograph of the Tibetan refugee camp 57Photograph of a hinterland village 62Map of Central Ladakh showing villages with fueldeficiencies 90VCHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONTalleyrand, asked for a definition of non-intervention, said it was aterm used in politics that meant intervention (Black, 1991:1).1.1 ObjectivesThe world has experienced over 40 years of development.1Conceived in 1949,development offered a model of global economic and social transformation. It produced aconventionalized and universal framework for poverty-alleviation through economicgrowth. Development as a program has undergone changes due to numerous failures inimplementation. Development as a singular mode of global social transformation is nowquestioned. The loss of biophysical and cultural diversity, increasing violence, and rise ineconomic inequities casts a dubious shadow on the efficacy of development2.Technology transfer remains problematic, especially within the two-tiered structure of adeveloped-underdeveloped world. This is particularly true in instances of aid originatingfrom the scientific-materialistic world view being transferred to a spiritual-traditionalsociety3.Dissatisfaction with the concept, practises and results of development has led to agrowing demand for careful evaluation of aid programs. This thesis examines the currentmodel of development in terms of its ability to address the basic spiritual and physicalneeds of people and its impact on the environments in which they live. The thesishighlights the concepts of Appropriate Technology (AT) as a form of development aiddesigned to bridge the growing gap between aid deliverers and recipients. The studycatalogues the components of the AT concept to determine how components relate to oneanother and create programs capable of addressing the conditions of the poor. The analysisis conducted with reference to a case study of AT aid in Ladakh, India, where technological1 Development, once simply meaning change or evolution, is now commonly used to describe both thephilosophy of global change modeled on Euro-American experience, and the practice of aid programsintented to bring change to pre-industrial, impoverished societies.2Critiques of development include Black, Development in Theory and Practise (1991), Button, The GreenFuse (1989), Gran, Development by People, (1983), Moon, The Political Economy ofBasic Human Needs(1991), Pereira, Asking the Earth (1989), Sachs, The Development Dictionary (1992), Shiva, StayingAlive (1989), among others whose opinions can be found in such journals as Development Dialogue, TheEcologist and Third WorldResurgence.See Pollard Appropriate Technology: Appropriate or just a misfit? in The Ecologist, Vol. 13, #1,1983:27-34; or Henryk Skolimowski, Ecology, Education and the Real World, in Trumpeter 8:3, Summer1991, for a discussion about the problems faced when transfering world views between societies.1change is resulting in fragmentation within a traditional society. As an example of AT, thisstudy looks at the use of solar cookers to address fuel problems in hinterland and urbanareas in this remote, Himalayan district. In this sense, the study provides useful insights onthe gulf between concept and practice in development aid.The objectives of this thesis are to (i) examine the theoretical foundations of conventionaldevelopment and of Appropriate Technology (AT); (ii) describe the Ladakhi society interms of its spiritual-traditionalism and of the impacts of recent, rapid change; (iii) use acase study, involving the promotion of solar box cookers, to examine the application ofAT; (iv) analyze the relationship between components of solar box cooker programs onvillager-perceived benefits and impacts of use; and (v) suggest possible improvements inthe AT program’s frameworks.1.2 Background to the problemAs a concept and practise, development is born of an occidental world view. It was adaptedfrom its ecology-based meaning of “unfolding of the predetermined” to encompasshumanity’s move toward a more perfect form of political, social and economic organization(Esteva in Sachs 1992:8). The means to reach this perfect society were based within thescientific-materialist world view that provided for the industrial and technical revolutions inthe West. Development was based on a monologue as the mode of transfer, economicgrowth as the tool, and poverty alleviation as the goal4 (Rosenthal, 1984:88-9).The bi-polar world of the developed-underdeveloped came into being within an altruisticreasoning to continued and rapid economic growth5.Under-development is credited withcreating the Fourth World6,where societies and their environments became furtherimpoverished through their forced participation in a process of westernization (Pitt,1976:266). After 20 years of aid, there were calls to redefine the approach to development.In 1973, RobertMcNamara declared “development has been a failure” (IBRD, 1981:242).Thirteen years and several redefinitions later, the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment reminded the world that “The gap between rich and poor nations is widening4mrough both the Marshall Plan and International Development Aid.5 In early development document, from the Truman era, U.S. goals are clearly stated as using aid to pmduceeconomic security and continued growth, halting the spread of communist fundamentalism and supportingthe moral obligation to alleviate poverty. See Goldsmith, 1992:12.6The Fourth World consists of Third World, subsistence peoples who became impoverished throughwarfare, dislocation and particularly through the development or modernization of their society.2not shrinking-and there is little prospect, given present trends and institutionalarrangements, that this process will be reversed” (WCED, 1987:12). Again, in 1992, theUNDP declared the 1980s were “a decade that shattered many lives and many hopes-withmounting external debt, faltering economic growth, increasing unemployment, growingcivil strife, rising ethnic tensions, threats to the environment and the persistence of abjectpoverty” (UNDP, 1993:9). Why, after years of restructuring approaches and shifting goalswithin development, has impoverishment persisted?E. F. Schumacher began questioning development while working as an economist inBurma. “If 90% of these people are impoverished according to global standards,” he wrotein his letters home (Wood, 1984:260), “then why are they so happy?” Schumacher usedhis questions to conceptualize a different form of aid, development as ifpeople mattered.His Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) explored a pluralistic worlddevelopment, which allowed room for a developed society outside the occidental paradigm(Pollard, 1983:32). Its tools and techniques stressed meeting local needs and localizeddefinitions of sufficiency, balance and change. Successful development was dependent onreinvesting in knowledge at the village level, where people made informed choices abouttheir future (McRobie, 1981:2).AT is one manifestation of Schumacher’s work. As ITDG looked for an intermediatetechnology, not modern nor traditional, AT looked for technologies within developmentprograms that were locally appropriate (Carr, 1985:45). AT’s technology is people’stechnology; not that reserved to the already rich and powerful. The philosophy is containedwithin India’s swa-raj (self-rule) and khadi (wholescale self-reliance) (Hoda, 1976:145).The idea was not to develop toward an externally defined utopian vision, but to fit changeinto existing local social, economic and political systems.AT challenged some of the assumptions and actions of conventional development.Pluralistic development implies accepting that there are many possible models of adeveloped society. Khadi and swa-raj suggest decentralization and self-reliance overinclusion in the global economy (Kantowsky, 1980:11). AT tends to channel aid throughgrassroots movements, and stresses redistribution of wealth and intellectual ideas overeconomic growth (Daly and Cobb, 1989:290; Freidman, 1992:74). In essence, AT usesthe eastern concept of the middle path, striving toward balance before growth, meetingneeds before unlimited wants (Sen, 1992:104). On paper, AT appears to be capable of3using an already existing global institution (development aid) to create self-reliance andsupport a sustainable system.In practice, the radically different mode of development suggested by AT remains withinconvention in some important ways. Underlying AT’s benign conceptualization arepractices of enforced change and imported world views. Critics7question the degree towhich AT allows indigenous value systems to define appropriate. They also argue thattechniques, purpose, use and approach behind a given tool, remain largely western withinthe market system. It is a band-aid approach to traditional culture’s breakdown in the faceof rapid change (Nandy, 1983:149).When the world view of a spiritual-traditional culture comes into contact with that of agrowth-centred, modernist and powerful society, is an exchange within change possible?Among the Buddhist peoples of the Western Himalayas, the question of what formdevelopment will take, is fundamental to their survival. When development brings itstechnologies and strategies for growth, resource exploitation and market competition, thelocal people have great difficulty understanding the purpose of this change. Unless chosentechnologies and programs coincide with their spiritual world view, it is debatable whetheror not the transferred technology can address local needs and improve standards of living.While the debate continues, trillions of dollars are spent each year for development. Whileprogrammers try to fit design to need within a world of confusing political barriers, theresults are increases in the incidence of hunger, violence and environmental degradation(WCED, 1987:7-29). Development agencies, whether multi-lateral or grassroots, might bebetter served by asking the recipients of aid, why development?This question of why was taken to some aid recipients in Ladakh, India. A case study ofsolar box cookers within AT aid, is used to compare the promises of the “middle path” ofAT to actual field performance (Schumacher, 1973:56). The study offers empirical data,gathered from aid program directors and hundreds of aid recipients who participated in fourdifferent programs, on the impacts of aid. The study is incorporated into this thesis, whichoffers information within the vein of conciliatory problem-solving. It providessuggestions, already evident to some of the villages surveyed, for improvement indevelopment program structure.7 See, for example, David Burch, Nicolas Jequier, Nigel Pollard, Witold Rybczyuski, C. P. Timmer, andM. Willoughby.4The rationale for this work is founded on the belief that the complexity of problem solvingand the multi-disciplinary nature of programming within the development arena, demandaccurate data and careful analysis. Problem evaluation should be carried out within aninterdisciplinary framework, with attention to workable, conciliatory suggestions forchange. Conclusions are directed toward positive change, at a local or project level, withindevelopment, rather than creating yet another critique of development as a whole.1.3 How does this apply to Resource Management?The fact that outside-intervened, imposed social change has never been successful in thelong run, (Fnere, 1970:122-3, Illich, 1968:41) is of fundamental importance to the critiqueof past development aid and its philosophy, to the evaluation of AT in Ladakh, and to allprofessionals within resource management fields. How can development survive and howcan resource managers be effective in their work unless this central tenet is recognized anddealt with? As deliverers of development - ideas, technologies, programs, projects,management schemes and the power they represent, - resource managers must realize thatinvestment of ownership of all of these must be within the local community. In the future,resource managers will fulfill a new and important role in communities, that of liaison,supporting local choices in social change. Resource managers may work as facilitators,providing the outside input needed to initiate change, encouraging cross-culturalcommunication, and interfacing between the possibly extremely differing world-views ofthe deployers and recipients of aid.1.4 Why Ladakh?Ladakh, a district within the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), India, occupies thewesternmost edge of the Tibetan Plateau. It is a high altitude desert, isolated fromneighbouring regions by the highest mountain ranges in the world. Over thousands ofyears of habitation, durable relationships between humans and nature were established inthis land of scarce resources and harsh climate. Lacking exploitable resources, change didnot come to Ladakh in the form of invasions or conquests. Instead, it came either alongtrade routes (stretching west to Istanbul and east to Beijing), or through the religiousteachers (and texts) of Mahayana Buddhism. However, over the past 30 years, Ladakhishave experienced a new form of change. Through the efforts of the Indian NationalGovernment and numerous international aid agencies, development has come to Ladakh.5For numerous reasons (e.g., its geographic isolation, resource scarcities and isolationistpolicies of India) Ladakh escaped the full onslaught of numerous development fashions. Itwas not severely impacted by massive industrialization, the green revolution, humandevelopment or other early forms of aid. It has experienced these, but generally later and inless volume than did other parts of the Third World.Again, for many reasons (including road construction connecting Ladakh to the outsideworld; an Indian program emphasizing Wastelands Development; the growing dependenceon IMF loans; and tourism), Ladakh is currently experiencing a large influx of aid.Typically, development in Ladakh takes one of two forms. Some aid is within nationalprogress programs, to electrify villages, build road linkages and provide social systeminfrastructure. Money invested in these programs is generally delivered by the Centre8 andprojects tend to be large-scale and directed by outsiders. The second form of aid is that ofsustainable, grassroots or AT development. These strategies pay more attention to existingecological threats, cultural maintenance and meeting basic human needs. This aid tends tobe internationally financed, supporting smaller, participatory projects and is decentralizedin delivery. Almost all aid in Ladakh retains the development paradigm: a universalizeddefinition of poverty, that this poverty is the nemeses of progress, that economic growthwill alleviate poverty, and which uses the materialist world as the model to follow(Angorama, 1992).However, some aid agencies in Ladakh have discovered that societal goals cannot be metwithin conventional aid strategies. The traditionalism of the Ladaichis considers spiritualgrowth, social balance and ecological co-existence as their concept of progress (NorbergHodge, 1991:137; Rizvi, 1982:115). How, the agencies asked, can international aid beused to help meet local goals within a country and, a world, increasingly turning to anothereconomic paradigm?Within AT aid in Ladakh, a full spectrum of the concepts, practices, technologies and goalsexists. Some aid is geared toward economic problems, other forms target the rapidly-growing problems within self-reliance. These differences allow undertaking a comparativestudy of the impacts of aid. One particularly problematic introduced technology supported8The Centre is the national government in New Delhi.6through AT is the solar box cooker (SBC)9.Programs use SBCs (as a part of holisticcommunity health strategies) to address growing fuel shortages and expenditures, andenergy-related health issues. The SBCs make use of some of Ladakh’s abundant supply ofsolar energy to cook food and heat water. The cookers are designed as a supplementarycooking stove, to be used in conjunction with traditional or kerosene stoves. To differingextents, the programs encourage village sufficiency and respect for traditional tools andpractices. Encouraging use of SBCs is difficult in that these tools must interface with thetraditionally-important kitchen and hearth. Within this problem, the social, technical andeconomic aspects of technology transfer can be seen. How aid groups approach the puzzle,and how the users adapt to a new technology, allows for an evaluation of AT in practice.Ladakh presents numerous advantages to the researcher wishing to study the intentions andimpacts of aid10. First, the entire history of development aid is immediate in Ladakh; it isknown to the people currently living there. First-hand experience is common anddocumentable in almost all villages. Second, records of most development projects in situcan be examined. Third, many technologies (used in development work) are still in place,so the technical capabilities of these devices can be rigorously tested. Finally, there arepeople, both outsiders and Ladakhis, living in the area who question the impacts andeffectiveness of aid, along with the contribution development makes to this isolatedsociety. These people can contribute a great deal of relevant information and experience toany development study conducted in Ladakh.The dilemma presented by the Ladakh case study is that of a perceived need to develop aregion supporting a culturally rich, long-lived society that appears under-developed, withinwestern measures of gross economic production. Recognition of this dilemma helps toaddress the fundamental question I am interested in here: “Is development needed?”Furthermore, the Ladakhi case offers some answers to the question: “Can aid supportcultural diversity and meet basic needs, while accepting the potential for differingdefinitions of ‘developed’?”This study documents the lack of attention to, and consensus on, the definition of needs ina community. It attempts to illustrate the numerous factors affecting the acceptance,9Solar box cookers, solar cookers, cookers and SBCs all refer to the passive solar technologies used withinAT aid programs in Ladakh. These terms will be used interchangably throughout the thesis.10This information is based on personal experience from a 1989 research project on the impacts of ATtools and programs on the agro-ecology system in Ladakh.7effectiveness and impact of development projects. It asserts that many of these factors areneglected in planning and implementing development aid. It documents the need torecognize local values that assist in producing community self-reliance and self-respect.Finally, the study suggests areas where program changes might result in more appropriateexpenditures in development aid. The Ladakh case study presents all the necessarycomponents for an in-depth exploration of issues fundamental to the developmentargument, and for opening the dialogue between the various factions within thedevelopment problematique.1.5 Research QuestionsThis study focuses on the use of AT aid to provide greater energy self-reliance in Ladakh.From a case study of the introduction and use of solar cookers, two main issues emerge.The first addresses whether solar cooker technologies are an appropriate supplement totraditional and fossil fuel source. The second issue looks comprehensively at local people’sneeds, and asks if solar technologies can meet these needs. Specific questions addressed inthis thesis are:1. Are locally-defined needs in energy use patterns reflected in methods usedto address needs in AT development programs in Ladakh?2. Are technically-capable solar box cookers promoted by the AT programs inLadakh? are these cookers actually being used by local peoples? Do thesecapabilities address locally-defined needs?3. Are AT programs structured to facilitate positive impacts, acceptance anduse of solar cookers?4. Is there a correlation between frequency of use of solar cookers and village-defined need, willingness to use, tool capability, the user’s understandingof the tool, net positive impacts in villages, and ease of use?5. Are there significant differences between villages or between AT programsin Ladakh with respect to solar cooker use?6. What conclusions can be drawn from this particular case study in referenceto the design of future AT programs and their solar technologies?8These questions are addressed first by examining the development-underdevelopmentproblematique from the more Hegelian viewpoint of the AT movement. The study looks atAT’s methodology of working within the conventional framework of development aid,while supporting self-reliance and diversity in cultures. The questions are then dealt with inthe context of an seven month case study of solar box cooker programs supported by ATdevelopment aid in Ladakh.1.6 Limitations and ScopeAs a work that addresses the technical, cultural and spatial attributes contributing to theacceptance of new technologies and their introductory programs, this thesis is interdisciplinary by nature. It depends on contributions from numerous branches of study, inparticular, concepts drawn from anthropology, engineering and planning, sociology andtheology, all contained within development studies. However, due to time and lengthconstraints, there are aspects of the biophysical, socio-economic and political impacts ofdevelopment aid that are not fully explored.This thesis depends heavily on work published by people of the “Third World” on theimpacts that aid and technology have had on them. India, and its grassroots movements, isa leader in the anti-development and alternative development approaches. All too often,these voices are heard only through the interpretations of western scholars, or are seen instudies published by researchers who spend little time in the field. What is lost in suchtranslations is unknown. While recognizing the valuable contribution many westernauthors have made to development theory, I prefer to draw on the works of those impactedby development whenever possible.One of the inherent limitations of grassroots movements is their lack of funds andinfrastructure to undertake careful scientific and policy analysis of aid impacts and thetechnologies they introduce. The groups working in Ladakh invest most of their time andmoney on the day-to-day functioning of projects and organizations, so few resources areavailable for research. Often there is great disparity among what is known to these groups,the perceptions of visiting outside researchers, and what is published in Western journals.The capability of introduced technologies, the people’s reactions to and the overall impactof these technologies, and the change in policy over the years of development aid, can beintelligently discussed by many working in Ladakh, but it remains largely unpublished.This is a reflection more of grassroots and alternative development groups’ priorities, not9of their knowledge of the subject. This study is, as far as this author is aware, the firstsystematic evaluation of use, impact and technical capability of four AT programs’ solarbox cookers projects, over three seasons’ use in Ladakh. This study could not have beencompleted without the previous work undertaken by the Ladakh Project, the LadakhEcological Development Group, the Leh Nutrition Project, and the Central Tibetan ReliefCommittee.The key to research on use of ATs is an understanding of the reasons why people use, ordo not use, technologies, the desired impacts of using technologies, and the significance ofvillagers’ household organization. It should be clear to other social scientists that eightmonths in the field is insufficient time to gather accurate ethnographic data. One of thepremises of the development critiques is that universal frameworks, designed from verysmall trials, working across religious, cultural, biophysical, socio-economic and spatialbounds, are limited. I agree with this belief and think that the value of the results from mystudy in Ladakh are best suited to the application of AT work in Tibetan and Ladakhicommunities.1.7 MethodsIn order to carry out the research in this thesis, the following methods were employed.First, a literature review and consultation process was undertaken. This addressed issueswithin the theories of development and AT approaches to aid and served as preparation forfield work. Second, interviews and archival research in Leh, Ladakh, provided informationnot available in North America; in particular, the unpublished reports from AT programsoperating in Ladakh. A field survey was conducted within Ladakh. Data analysis ofinformation gained in the field, exploring means and trends was undertaken. Finally, a testof the AT theoretical framework for appropriateness was conducted.Within the field survey, data were gathered through seven means. An experiment wasconducted to test the technical capability of the solar cookers used in the AT programs.Interviews with program directors and technicians supplied programmers’ views on the ATprojects. Surveys of 283 solar cooker users were conducted in 26 villages. Observationswere used to supplement or validate survey information. Repeat visits were made at 13survey sites. Finally, a participatory research program was undertaken in the Tibetanrefugee camp in Ladakh. The program was used to test the technologies and methods usedin other cooker programs, and to offer suggestions for future changes. Conclusions drawn10from this entire body of work are used to suggest i) areas of needed future work on thistopic, ii) suggestions for change within AT programs in Ladakh, (iii) concepts relating ATto community self-reliance and (iv) some implications for resource managers.The nature of the question, does technology transfer work?, demands information frommultiple sources and numerous disciplines in the natural and social sciences. The questionsuggested collection of empirical data from the deliverers and users of technologies, andfrom within the context of its use. This was undertaken in several ways. First, making useof a case study allowed for the exploration of unique, contemporary events (AT aidprograms and their adoption by AT users) over which there was little control. The casestudy allowed for collection of information on how programs were structured and received,how components of programs interacted, and why certain assumptions on needs and waysto address needs were developed. By comparing four differing AT programs in the casestudy, internal and cross-program comparisons could be used to help explore the impactsof solar cooker use as a form of technology transfer (Patton, 1980:64-5).In addition, the research question demanded a cross-cultural study, including an interfacebetween aid donors and recipients. Information gathered in surveys was supported withdata from the cooker experiment, interviews, and observations. First hand experience witheach of the cookers used in the AT programs added to the researcher’s ability to evaluateresults. The experiment provided important, comparative data on all models of cookersused in the four AT programs. Researchers, program directors, technology users and non-users, and village leaders offered unique views about the value of SBC projects. Togetherthey offer a more representative picture of what was happening within the four programs inLadakh. Numerous translators and several different surveys and observation techniqueswere helpful in obtaining the qualitative data.Due to the lack of previously published data, knowledge was generally located within theexperience of the people participating in development. The researcher was an activeparticipant in the introduction and evaluation of one of the four SBC programs; locatedwithin the Tibetan Refugee camps of Ladakh. The disjoiner created by traditional researchmethodologies of whose knowledge or social reality is valued, is only just developing inLadakh (See Chambers, 1983:54-56, and MacGuire, 1989:8). Most of the study’sparticipants did not recognize a positivist hierarchy of fact and knowledge (that is, only thatof recognizing observable facts as valuable). To avoid suggesting a hierarchy of knowersin a social reality, and practicing “research imperialism”, all persons’ observations were11accepted on equal grounds. It was hoped that participants would not be distanced from thework, its results, and their confidence in their own form of knowing.The data collected in surveys and observations often dealt with concepts and phenomenacommonly known only to the Ladakhi and Tibetan people. For example, the data includedviews on the presence of ihas (spirits) in the house and appropriate treatment of, orcoexistence with, these spirits, even though these phenomena are outside the experience ofthe researcher. What has significance to the Ladakhis and Tibetans themselves is reportedin this study. The closeness of the researcher and client, made possible through the use ofparticipatory work in the refugee camps, aided in bridging the knowledge gaps found earlyin the field work. This practice was vital to clarify both problems and solutions. It istherefore suggested that participatory research was the most logical choice for thisparticular study.I remained as objective as possible in undertaking and carrying out this research. Never-the-less, it is inevitable that personal biases may have emerged. I have taken great pains toensure the integrity of this work by presenting various viewpoints throughout the textwhile attempting to clearly state my own position.1.8 OrganizationIn the next chapter the theoretical context of the thesis is presented. In order to access theimpacts of AT within Ladakh, it is imperative that the contexts of aid and Ladakhi societybe understood first. A brief history of development aid is accompanied by questions raisedconcerning the impact of conventional aid programs. Doubts about the efficacy of aid, andthe redefining of development, gave rise to the Intermediate or Appropriate Technologyapproach to aid. The chapter then explores the components of AT that may offer potentialfor bridging the gap between conceptual goals and practical results in development aid.The context of the case study is set in Chapter Three. Salient aspects of Ladakhi society,especially the dynamics of traditional social change and their system of spiritual ecology,are explored. The geography, history, basic village socio-political structure and response torecent development aid are examined to offer a greater understanding of Ladakh. Thedifferent institutional structures that provide continuity and stability to the traditionalsocietal framework are described. The indigenous sense of self-reliance, sufficiency, andself-respect are contrasted to the world’s perception of Ladakh as under-developed. This12contributes valuable information to local and outsider differences in definingappropriateness, and will aid in understanding Ladakhi reactions to outside-intervenedchange.Chapter Four presents the results and discusses the case study of four AT programsmaking use of SBCs in Ladakh. It describes the archival work, survey methods, surveydesign and nature of the SBC performance testing used in the field. It presents the resultsfrom technical capability tests of six models of SB Cs, used by the four AT programs. Ituses the AT framework for determining appropriateness to examine the technical capabilityand social acceptance of the cookers. It does this through presenting survey results ofquestions addressing the users’ need for change, willingness to use, SBCs technicalcapability, program frameworks and support systems, locally-incurred benefits from use,and frequency of SBC use. Results are discussed by comparing the performance of cookermodels, components within each of the programs, and relationships between these andactual use of the cookers. Finally, it lists areas where programs might improveperformance and acceptance, and the local baniers to change suggested from the data.In the concluding chapter, differing perceptions of development are considered.Determination of appropriateness is considered within the case study of solar cooker use,and from the distinct Ladakhi viewpoint. Components of the appropriateness equation thatcontributed to use of some cookers, and, through their absence, to the non-use of others,are identified. Through comparing areas where successes were seen in the four programs,of suggestions are offered for future improvements in AT delivery. Finally, the numerousbarriers to the acceptance of AT are discussed. These include the impacts of using a globalmodel within development, mismatched goals within development aid, the “foreclosure ofoptions” through investment in inappropriate technologies, and the loss of self-respect in aculture defined as underdeveloped. It considers the “Trojan Horse concept”11 of a pioneertechnology bringing unintentional or uncontrollable change into a society.11“Throughout all classes, nationalities and religions the consensus was for ‘more technology’ becausetechnology was viewed as powerful but neutral, entirely at the service of the user. In reality, of course, amodel of civilization follows hot on the heels of modem technology. Like the entry of the Trojan horse inthe ancient myth, the introduction of technology in the Third World paved the way for a conquest of societyfrom within.” (Sachs,1992:13).13CHAPTER TWODEVELOPMENT WITH A HUMAN FACEThe Age of Enlightenment, and the theory of progress to which itgave rise, was centred on the sacredness of two categories: modernscientific knowledge and economic development. The act of livingand of celebrating and conserving life is sacrificed to progress, andthe sanctity of life has been substituted by the sanctity ofdevelopment. (Shiva, 1988:xiv)In this chapter, the history of development is briefly examined. The link of multiple worldviews to failings within conventional development is considered. One radical departurefrom basic development precepts, that of Appropriate Technology (AT), is explored12.Thepotential for success within this movement, which invests aid in simple technologies andindigenously-designed programs, is discussed. Finally, the AT’s potential for addressinglocally-defined needs within pluralistic developments is considered.2.1 Identifying the problemDevelopment is a word with great power. It is used to denote the process of global socialtransformation, revealing power through that process’ implied scope and scale. However,it is also a ‘plastic word’ artificial and pliable in that it encompasses concepts so varied thatit loses meaning (Porksen, 1992:1). Taken literally, it is the act or process of growing,progressing or developing. Within the context of international development aid, itencompasses humanity’s move toward a more perfect form of political, social andeconomic organization (Lele, 1991:607). In practice, development is meant to useeconomic growth to increase human welfare and bridge the gap between the impoverished,traditional world and that of modern affluence (Berthoud, 1992:72; Simmons, 1992:16).A problem with implementing development is its polarization of diverse cultures into justtwo categories, the developed and the underdeveloped. The terms intone a superiority tothe lifestyles that define the western world. Using the western world as a model ofdevelopment, it then suggests a singular path in a competitive economic system and aL2The following convention will be adhered to: AT (initials capitalized) will denote the general conceptand concept as practised associated with the Appropriate Technology movement, AT represents themovement, innovation, strategy or mode of technology-practice. Technology or tool (plain text) is theactual technology, the artifacts themselves as used in the movement. Italics will be used when emphasis iswarranted or to signify an oxymoronic use of the term.14consumer-based society These foundations make multi-faceted change questionable(Chossudovsky, 1992:10).2.1.1 From colonization to developmentAs a concept, development slowly emerged from the word’s biological and evolutionaryuse in the late 1700s. It was seen as:• . .the process through which the potentialities of an object ororganism are released, until it reaches its natural and complete, full-fledged form (Esteva in Sachs, 1992: 8).Development moves from the appropriate form of a being towards an ever more perfectform. Social scientists adapted the biological use of development to suggest there existed auniformed perfection in social structures (Wilbur and Jamieson in Wilbur, 1984:12). Thisapplication of the concept within societal development is problematic in two ways. First, itnegated the human and environmental “surprise” in evolution, especially the creativityshown within adaptation (Pannikar, 1993:6). Erroneously, people were catalogued intomechanistic and predictable units to be developed by outsiders. Second, it became acceptedthat the industrial mode of production and social institutions in the west were componentsof the model for the ever more perfect form. Developing the entire within a singular modelwas first implemented through colonialism and then realized through development aid(Rosenthal, 1984:88-9).Colonization provided for the concentration of wealth underlying industrialization andcreation of modern empires (Chandra, 1973:24-25). In this process, colonizationsupported a paternalistic relationship between Europe and the colonies, and created thewealth and power to globalize this two-tiered world (Banerji in Bagchi, 1983: 38).Colonization allowed for the construction of infrastructure for resource exploitation,transplanted the European socio-political system, and encouraged de-skilling of people anddishonouring of traditional knowledge and culture (Nandy, 1983:148).The ideology and institutions nurtured by colonial rulers remained in place afterindependence (Moon, 1991:215). By the end of the Second World War, colonialism andimperialism became politically unpalatable to the war victors. Economies had growndependent on an international market system (Dube, 1990:1-2; Moore-Lappe, 1987: 146).The newly independent countries were led in-large by colonial-trained cadres in search of anational vision. The post-war structural adjustment left western economies in search of15new directions. The budding scientific and technical revolutions needed peace-timechallenges. Continued economic expansion was dependent on creating greater ability toconsume products and services. The threat posed by the spread of communism was seenas the post-war challenge in the west; the threat of capitalist market capture and exploitationof the liberated colonies to be defended by the communist world (Pereira, 1988:10;Webster, 1984:89; Weismann, 1974:38-39). Development as an altruistic yet rationalinvestment met the goals of the new world order (Dedijer, 1972:22). The spirit of the timeis reflected in President Harry Truman’s inaugural address:The peoples of the earth face the future with grave uncertainty. Inthis time of doubt, they look to the United States as never before forgood will, strength and wise leadership. It is fitting therefore thatwe take this occasion to proclaim to the world that.. .We mustembark on a bold new program for making the benefits of ourscientific advances and industrial progress available for theimprovement and growth of underdeveloped areas. More than halfthe people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery.Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Theireconomic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicapand a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas. For the firsttime in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to endthe suffering of the people. The United States is preeminent amongpeoples in industrial and scientific techniques. I believe that weshould make available to peace-loving peoples the benefits of ourstores of technical knowledge in order to help them realize theiraspiration for better lives. And in cooperation with other nations weshould foster capital investment in areas needing development. Suchnew economic development must be designed and controlled for thebenefit of the peoples of the area in which they are established. Theold imperialism - exploitation for foreign profit - has no place in ourplans. What we envisage is a program of development based onconcepts of democratic fair dealing (Truman, 1967:341).2.1.2 Problems in the paradigmDevelopment was born in the west, within post-war leaders who made clear the economic,political and social intents of development aid. Development’s mandate was to ‘transformall self-sufficient, subsistence forms of existence by introducing them to progress’(Groynmeyer in Sachs, 1992:66). Both in its pragmatism and its altruism, it was designedto deal with the growing poverty in the non-industrialized world. Just as the developmentconceptual model had transferred from Europe to North America, technological advancesand wealth concentration could create the same positive change elsewhere. While there wasno room for the ‘old imperialism’ in development, there was also little questioning of16transfemng Euro-American technology as the means to deal with poverty. (Hancock,1989:70).The first twenty years of development resulted in enormous advances, particularly ininfrastructure, agriculture and medicine. Yet poverty persisted and by the 1980s wasgrowing in many parts of the Third World. Redesigning the development process, andredefining the nature of the poverty-problem and economic growth-solution, did not lead tosuccess (Shiva and Bandyopadhya, 1989:112). Max Weber (quoted in Kantowsky,1980:181) believed the social evolution of Asia could not “catch up to Europe” until itadopted “Euro-American Protestantism and discarded its “other-worldliness”. In a 1990World Bank report on aid in India, it was stated that chances for the success of aid werelimited as aid continued to be “concentrated in areas where [it was] not likely to have largeimpacts on growing poverty” (Lipton and Toye, 1990:41).Here, critics say, is the heart of development’s failure. According to Esteva (1993:22),development was not a sense of western culture, but wholly western. Development wasnot to be a synthesis of global ideas, or a locally-controlled process. Instead, its“underlying presupposition of a western anthropology and cosmology” only supportedonly one world view, one set of social institutions and one societal goal (Pamkkar,1993:2). This scientific materialism paradigm based life goals on hard work for individualgain, stress on capital accumulation, and the importance of scientific and technologicaladvances. Two assumptions were made: first, that all societies should, could and wanted toparticipate in a global modernism; second, that the scientific-materialist world view held thepath to poverty elimination (Kothari, 1981:14-15). Within this critique of aid, Shiva(1988:10) wrote:Satisfying needs through self-provisioning mechanisms wasequated to poverty; the cultural perception of prudent subsistenceliving as poverty has provided the legitimization for the developmentprocess, and through dispossession and deprivation the development process created real poverty. Insufficient and inadequateparticipation in development was labeled the cause for under-development. But actually, loss ofpolitical control through enforcedparticipation in development creates underdevelopment. (emphasisadded)The possibility that involvement in development could create under-development13,meritsexamination, as it is central to the genesis of alternative development movements.13Rarely was the term underdeveloped used to refer to people living in Europe or North America. Morecommonly, impoverished was used, often to describe living conditions in minority communities or rural172.2 Dualism within developmentSelf-reliance, as described in the Cocoyoc Declaration of non-aligned countries in 1974,would probably not lead the Third World to the wealth of Euro-American development. Itwould, however, support a development that met the very different goals of societies thatcould not find legitimacy in modernism. Cocoyoc development supported:self-confidence, reliance primarily on one’s own resources,human and natural, and the capacity of autonomous goal-setting anddecision making. It excludes dependence on outside influences andpowers that can be converted into political pressure (Sen,1989:750).Fromm describes the spiritual-traditional society as one based on being rather than having.The traditional society has difficulty with competitive materialism and its endless,unfulfilled desires (Fromm, 1979:114). Tonnes perceived healthy societies as those ofmythical wholes, where knowledge, participatory governance and direct relationships withlocal environments preserved values and collective rights. According to Tonnes (quoted inJones, 1983:142), the myth, legend, folklore, poetry, and magic necessary to create thesocial institutions and ultimate meanings of traditional societies could not fit in“fragmented, self-motivated, ego-centric, gesillschaft societies”.These traditional societies made high demands on, and limited the freedom of individuals.Complex kinship and family ties created an interwoven web that, while it did not providefor individual freedom, maintained the basis for self-respect and security. “No sustainablesociety is possible when nobody owes anything to anybody else” (Berthoud in Sachs,1992: 85). What was seen as violations of rights to outsiders, were considered theconstraints which provided for harmony of the community as a whole.Sarvodaya is the Indian traditional society’s conceptualization of development. Translatedas ‘the welfare of all,’ sarvodaya supports economic, social and political self-reliance at thevillage or regional level (Kantowsky, 1983:182-183). Inequity and resource exploitationare discouraged through a complex system of inter-relationships, self-reliance is possible atthe regional level, but not the individual (Kothari, 1982:2 1 1). Gandhi (1965:52) supportedareas with a large percentage of the population was dependent to some degree to subsistence farming. Aclear distinction was made between thenot-evolved intoned by underdeveloped, and the not-materially soundimpoverished.18the movement as a means to adapt modernism into existing traditions to suit local needs andavert the chance for devastation:God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after themaimer of the west. If (we) took to similar economic exploitation itwould strip the world bare like locusts.When India gained its independence in 1947, Gandhi, philosophic leader of the Quit Indiamovement, offered advice to the new prime minister of the country. He suggested thatIndia not follow the path of its colonial past, nor that of its colonial ruler. He dismissed themodernization thesis of a high technology, capital- and energy-intensive world seen in boththe West and the USSR. Gandhi suggested sarvodaya as a means to support the diversityof India’s cultures and make use of the knowledge, science, technology, and humanresources already in place. He fought the argument that sarvodaya could not function in themodern world, with its set of complex problems. Gandhi suggested that there “wasabsolutely no evidence that industrialism can function in today’s world, with its set ofcomplex problems” (Gandhi 1968:336). If India were to survive, Gandhi insisted, then allof its diverse cultures must be empowered to improve their own lot (Hoda, 1972:40).Biswas (in Sen, 1992:264-265) uses a story about the Vynad people of the Western Ghatsof India to illustrate the problem of development. “The politicians and international dogooders were sent to the tropical, mountainous home of the Vynad because the tribals werebackward, and experts could bring them forward”. Without asking the people, the Vynadhouses were replaced with ones inappropriate for the climate; they tended to melt in therains. The project was undertaken because of a nationalized development scheme that statedtraditional homes, kuccha, of simple mud and thatch, were to be replaced by those pucca(‘good’) ones, of brick and mortar. As soon as the experts left the villages, the Vynad“returned to building kuccha homes, not understanding why the outsiders insisted onsomething different”. Homes that werepucca in Delhi made no sense locally.In 1981, the newly-appointed Development Officer of Ladakh, responsible for themodernization of this ‘backward’ district, commented to a long-time resident of the area,‘people were not particularly interested in sacrificing their leisure or pleasure simply formaterial gain.. .If Ladakh is ever going to be developed we have to figure out how to makethese people more greedy. You just can’t motivate them otherwise” (Norberg-Hodge,1991:141).19Appropriate aid does not abandon the ‘other-centred worlds’ but makes room for theirconcept of progress (Sen, 1983:762). In recent years the re-designing of aid recognized thevalue of pluralistic world views. It allows for capital development in some geographicareas and societal realms, and non-material development in other realms (Daly and Cobb,1989:165-169; Freidman, 1992:72-74). It insures that costs and benefits are defined inmeta-economic terms, and are accounted for locally. Pluralism solicits the full participationof the people defined as underdeveloped and values their ability and right to identifycommunity needs. To temper this, it makes clear distinctions between wants and needs andprovides for security over large-scale capital risks (Rau, 1992:68; Shiva, 1989:67).2.3 Development as if people mattered: Appropriate TechnologyOne such form of re-development, AT, grew out of the threats modernism presented totraditional societies or marginalized peoples. Its conceptual roots can be traced tosarvodaya, M. K. Gandhi and, in particular, E. F. Schumacher. Projects were aimed atrecreating sufficiency, in ecologically, socially, politically, economically, scientifically andculturally sustainable systems. AT works within the premise that technology alwayschanges a society; therefore, the closer the match between tool and societal goals, the betterthe chance of change being appropriate. In post-independence India, AT developed as amiddle path to change.2.3.1 Let goods be home-spunWorried about the negative impacts of continued technological or economic dependence,the sarvodaya approach to development was espoused by some of the great philosophers ofIndia (Narayan, 1978:2-3). A national program of aniyodaya, the decentralization ofeconomic and political power to the grassroots, they said, would be economically sound,allow for local control on resources and change, and move India toward appropriatedevelopment (Gandhi, 1966:61; Hoda in Jequier, 1976: 14).Prime Minister Nehru (quoted in Narayana, 1972:67) fundamentally disagreed with thisutopian, vision. He was determined to liberate the ‘insular and backward’ villagers, whowere the barrier to India’s ability to become ‘internationalized and advanced’. India must becompetitive first, not sufficient on the micro-level, with large-scale industrialization,modem infrastructure and support of urban workers. Although sarvodaya was rejected bypost-independence governments, it flourished in the informal sectors of tens of thousands20of villages. Having no access to the international development aid of the 1950s and 1960s,these villagers created their own agricultural, technological and economic possibilities todeal With emerging problems14 (Krishnaswamy in Kunen, 1991:171; Srinwasan inSethna, 1979:262-265).2.3.2 Technolov with a human faceSome of the results of India’s industrialization were in sharp contrast to the concepts of theGandhian model15.Aid programs seemed to create greater disparity and impoverishment16(Douthwaite, 1992:233). Hoda (1976:149-150) saw development not as a deliberate formof exploiting India, but “largely incapable of aiding India” as it was “largely incapable ofunderstanding India.” In the 1950s, E. F. Schumacher17visited Asia to study the dilemmaof development (Willoughby, 1990:59,62). His experiences in Burma, then later, Indiaand Nigeria, led to the founding of a new form of aid within the Intermediate TechnologyDevelopment Group (ITDG).During Schumacher’s time in Burma, and later in India, he noted that his perceptions ofunderdevelopment were inaccurate. Although people had low monetary incomes, they didnot perceive themselves as poor, but culturally rich and economically sufficient. He notedthat in most cases, the aid did not meet people’s stated needs, nor did it result in animprovement in their cultural and economic well-being (Wood, 1984:245). Examiningthese failings18,Schumacher explored the possibility of locally-controlled economicsystems meeting locally-defined needs, sarvodaya. (Schumacher, 1962:1-3).After his work in India, the influence of sarvodaya spurred Schumacher’s formulation ofITDG (McRobie, 1981:18-20). Production by the masses, not mass production, would14 There was a global shift from rural community support to urbanization, industrialization andinfrastructure development in the post-war era.15This model drew from numerous other philosophers in India, including but not limited to, A.V. Bhaveand J.C. Kumarappa of Sarvodaya, Swami Shraddhananda of the Aryasamaj movement, Baba-ji of theMahaiwari (village-ownedland)- lauldka (creating a worldly dimension of social order) movements.l6the McNamara-WorldBank address of 1973, in IBRD’s The McNamara Years, for his examinationof the failure of aid.-7Schumacher, working with John Maynard Keynes, was largely responsible for The Keynes Plan,presented to the Bretton Woods conference, founding international mechanisms for multilateral fmancing;Schumacher’s Trade Policy and Full Employment, and a Schumacher paper attributed to Sir WilliamBeberridge Full Employment in a Free Economy both addressed the importance of free trade in achievingthe British goal of full employment.t8Does Economics Help? An Exploration ofMeta-economics, paper presented to the 1972 Annual Meetingof the British Association for the Advancement of Science, published in After Keynes, ed by J. Robinson(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1973:26-3621support and enhance local skills, knowledge and resources. ITDG19aimed development atthe poorest, at small-scale and simple projects and supported the non-consumptivephilosophy. Lacking the support of conventional development, Schumacher appealed togroups already marginalized by colonization and aid. Improving the efficiency of traditionaltools, while re-investing in community economy and skills, fit village contexts and needs.Simple technologies, grassroots decision-making, local control of funds were ideas alreadyknown to some of the villagers. Schumacher’s (quoted in Wood, 1984:329) aidpopularized sarvodaya through his concept of aid being to ‘Find out what the people aredoing, and help them do it better.’In the 1970’s dissatisfaction with a singular concept for development came to a head. Thepersistence of poverty demanded the design of new tools and frameworks to meet the basicneeds of Third World peoples. The search began for appropriate tools that could assistvillager’s in their quest to regain their self-sufficient. As Hoda stated in 1976:The present level of aid is only of marginal significance and comeswith so many project conditions, tying of aid, foreign consultantsand sophisticated technology that it saps the initiative and freedomof action of the developing world. The developed countries are onlyinterested in selling their turn-key projects. Scientific andtechnological advances in the West are having an impact on theThird World countries that is detrimental to their developmentprospects. (Hoda in Jequier, 1976:149)Confronting poverty through meeting basic human needs, reducing population growth andmigration, redistributing income and stimulating growth in the poorest sectors offeredlegitimacy to groups supporting alternative forms of development. AT, as an already testedbasic needs approach, received a great deal of attention. In particular, developmentplanners were interested in AT’s pluralistic concepts. Linking need and tool with context ina development problem, appealed to those who had seen large-scale or centrally-plannedaid’s failings. It was during this time in the 1970’s that AT was provided with sufficientresources to test concepts and programs. An AT framework and its approach tounderdevelopment, impoverishment and marginalization problems was designed. Inaddition, AT formulated development that supported traditional societies which operatedoutside western or industrialized socio-economic conventions (Brown, 1977:277-279).19Schjiiacher’s group was named the Intermediate Technology Development Group; later the type of workundertaken by 1TDG and its founding concepts were incorporated into AT.222.3.3 The concent of Aøropriate TechnolovAT has no meaning in itself. Appropriate, as in the case of current use of the worddevelopment, has become a plastic word (Porsken, 1992:4). It is used freely to connotesuitable methods and local ownership of change. Within the AT movement, appropriatedemands to be defined by the context of any technology’s use. AT can be “a collection ofsmall-scale, simple tools or technologies,” or “a radical, liberator philosophy” (Boyle inWilloughby, 1990:169). In its simplest definition, AT is a Technology designed to bestmake use of a country’s resources to achieve its development objectives.20 (Stewart inStewart etal. 1990:5; Schutter, 1980:2). Emphasis is placed on the context in which a toolfunctions; the political, social, economic and environmental framework which presentsopportunities and barriers for development. The context lessens ambiguity in AT, as itanswers appropriatefor who? and appropriate where and when? As Willoughby puts it:AT is a concept, a social movement or innovation strategyassociated with a mode of technology-practice aimed at ensuring thatthe technology is compatible with its psycho-social and biophysicalcontext. (Willoughby, 1990:44)AT lacks a definitive statement in this need to place it in context. A project supportingmedium-scale, complex machinery within a frame of labour-intensive production andparticipatory management can be AT. A simple plough as a part of an outside-directed aidproject may not be AT. However, there are four key factors that help identify AT inpractice.21The first is an agreed recognition of the existence of inappropriate technology.These inappropriate technologies are both the artifacts used (often large-scale, capital-intensive, highly-complex, or machinery-dependent industries) and their framework(dependence on technology-transfer, centralization of control, or a western-definedefficiency). The second factor is the recognition that choice of technology is central todevelopment. The technology chosen strongly influences the path of local economics,health of social structures and distribution of local resources. The third factor recognizesthat the current pattern of human development cannot continue. Biological and culturalsurvival depend on mitigating the damning effects of uncontrolled economic growth,20 Development objectives vary radically, in some countris it is human, eocnomic and participatory-democratic growth, in others basic needs programs that emphasize redistribution of resources, or as anetbicval choice of wise-use of scarse resources in some ‘developed’ countries(Willoughby, 1990:169).2For discussion, see Clark’s The Political Economy of Science and Technology, McRobie’s Small isPossible, Stewart’s Technology and Underdevelopment and Willoughby’s Technology Choice: A Critiqueof the Appropriate Technology Movement.23political disenfranchisement, ecological alienation, and loss of indigenous knowledge,adaptation methods and cultural diversity. Recognizing the value of pluralistic developmentmay allow greater flexibility in societal change.The final factor links the use of inappropriate technologies to the foreclosure of options.Options are lost when first, investments are made in inappropriate technologies. This tendsto de-skill local people and remove local control. When this happens, future choicesbecome more limited, which further impoverishes a village or group of people. Technologytransfer is by far the greatest contributor to the foreclosure of options, repressing localinnovation and economies, while encouraging an acceptance of psychological dependence.Underdevelopment follows foreclosure as context is removed from a technology choice, orpolicy is set and technology chosen apriori to exploring local possibilities (Willoughby,1990:311).2.4 Measuring appropriatenessIt a case study of AT aid, it is important to have common, and specific criteria by which tomeasures results of AT work. It is still debated if AT is a fully developed theory, completewith testable hypotheses and methodology,22 or simply a concept-as-practiced.23Withinboth concepts, there are specific lists of conceptual identifiers and specific variables thatallow for the quantitative and qualitative analysis of programs.2.4.1 AT conceptual identifiersAppropriateness is central to the normative characteristics that identify AT. Within a givenproject, the following identifiers should be presentThe Delft University theory of AT states that AT consists of three elements. These are applicable tools,used to obtain the means of self-management, self-sufficiency and self-development in order to satisfy basichuman neeth within the context of a group’s cultural and natural environment. Application of the politicaltheory of the movement is used to describe the relationship between western technology and alienation,subordination and oversupply; and appropriate technologies with self-development, self-management andself-supply within locally-generated development frameworks. The hypothesis is three-fold: i) there exists ahuman goal of meeting basic physical and spiritual needs, ii) meeting of needs must be accomplished in aholistic manner and iii) economic dependence cannot exist within the effort to fulfill basic human needs.AT is seen as the tools and the process used to fulfill needs with methods of liberated people workingtogether. See Riedijk in Appropriate Developmentfor Developing Countries, 1984: Deift University Press,The Netherlands, 4-12.See evaluations of AT theory in Clark, The Political Economy of Technology, de Schutter,Fundamental Aspects ofAppropriate Technology, McRobie, Small is Possible, Stewart, et al. The OtherPolicy, Willoughby, Technology Choice: A Critique of the Appropriate Technology Movement,24i) Technology is more than a tool, it represents an evolutionary process of innovation,incorporating skills and experiences of people within their needs, the context of a givenplace and design that facilitate work (Schumacher, 1973:128).ii) Technology is not neutral is reflected in Reddy’s (1975:332) statement that “Technologyis like genetic material: it carries the code of the society in which it was produced andsurvived and tries to replicate that society.” Technology, as with needs, should be definedin situ24 Tools should reflect place; local environment and institutions should not be redefined to fit the tools.iii) The choice of technology is crucial to the development of a place, indeed, it isfundamental to the development problem. Technological choice should open local options,encourage innovation, and create machines that serve people (Willoughby, 1990:313).iv) Technology creates linkages and relationships. Technological choices, as witheconomic, social, political or spiritual choices, should be seen within the relationships,institutions and behaviour that govern community life. These relationships are unique intheir context, while singular choices affect the functionality of the whole process. A single-blade plow, pulled by oxen, may be used not solely for the efficiency of the plow, butbecause of the effectiveness of the entire system of healthy linkages in which it works(Vacca, 1983:52), andv) Technologies are not static, but an important part of community development.Endogenous innovation, adaptation and experimentation are vital to maintaining the healthof the biophysical and psycho-social context of the community. Local technologies willbest be adapted on a continuing basis (Pollard, 1983:34).2.4.2 Evaluating ATThe normative characteristics form the foundation when evaluating AT programs. Thesecan be quantified by answering four questions of any AT project. The questions are:-Does it fulfill identifiable needs?-Does it reinvest knowledge in the community?241fiidin broad paranietres of social, economic, political, environmental and spiritual health.25-Can the program and tool be locally maintained?-Does itfunction satisfactorily under operating conditions? (McRobie, 1981:39)All these questions should be answered within the issue of encouraging self-reliance, whilehaving positive, cross-sectoral impacts, and work within the local environmentalconstraints. Many AT evaluative frameworks are extraordinary complex. A simplified, fourstep evaluation can be used, which is much easier to understand, more easily duplicated forcomparative evaluation, but looses some precision in its simplicity.Need: Program:As defined in situ Does technology choiceby locals; is there and program supportreason for change? community-basedknowledge and skills?Use: ImpactIs the device used? <i Does impact match need?Does it serve many Does it support local health?needs and create ahealthier situation?Figure 2.4.1 AT EvaluationAdapted from Stewart in Stewart et al.As a form of community development, AT programs result in far-reaching consequences.The nature of change in any society is complex. Inter-related impacts from an action canresult in intentions not matching results in any of the program stages. AT evaluationmaintains a structure to search out relational impacts to make these problems more apparent(Clark, 1984:184, Schutter, 1979:102, Stewart in Stewart eta!. 1990:123). Programs arebroken down into their component parts, and results examined. Then, the components areconsidered in their inter-relational impacts, and impacts on the context of the project. Thecomponents are then re-integrated into the project as a whole for consideration. Importantto these steps is to include participants and programmers view equally, as perceivedimpacts can be very different between the two groups. Who is making the decisions,receiving benefits and feeling impacts is asked. (Clark, 1984:180; McRobie, 1981:2). Inaddition, development options used in the area, indigenous and imposed, should beincluded in an evaluation. Options of potentially more effective tools, or those with fewer26human and environmental constraints and greater potential in creating other developments(in options, contributions or knowledge creation) (McRobie, 1981:2; Stewart in Stewart etal, 1990:5). Finally, areas of technology investment should reflect the existing regionaltechnology and knowledge of technological concepts. Adapting local technologies tochanging objectives and conditions should be the foremost consideration (Singer,1977:11).The evaluation process is complete when one last variable is considered. Taken as a whole,these are the barriers and constraints on using ATs in a particular situation. This often takesthe evaluation beyond the village to a national or international level; it wanders into realmsof politics, culture, religion, economics and social organization.2.4.3 Barriers and PossibilitiesThere are currently several key barriers to the adoption of AT. These barriers are also oftencontributors to failed AT. At the micro-level, an important barrier to acceptance is a strongfeeling among users that they are being given a second best technology. ATs tend to bepractical, affordable and localized in costs and benefits. This is in stark contrast to westerntechnologies, which produce consumer goods within a market economy and have what canbest be described as “pizzazz”.25 While a country’s people are encouraged to export theirresources (to be manufactured into western technologies for others), they are asked toadopt energy-efficient, sustaining tools. ATs are a daily reminder of the differencesbetween Third World and modern tools (Ulnch in Sachs, 1992:284).The barrage of advertising is one form of what some critics call the ‘Trojan horse’ entranceof technology into a culture. Jungk and Galtung (in Ulnch in Sachs, 1992:283) see thethreat of technology as “more insidious than any other form of development aid.” Theynote that technologies, appropriate or western, are often accompanied by a “catalyst” (anoutside expert). The catalyst and tool introduce ideas that change local perceptions of time,space and culture. ‘Trojan machines,’ often intended to meet basic needs, undermine aculture from within, with their alien industrial work ethic, time rhythm, and changedrelations in social systems. Some argue that no matter how well-intentioned the project,25 These western goods are advertised in all forms of media; they quite often receive subsidies and canexternalize a large share of their costs. With most desired western technologies, television, electricity,automobiles or refrigerators the real costs of production-mining, damming, low-paid labour, culturalmarginalization-are not immediately seen or spatially felt.27evaluations will fail to recognize the insidious change sponsored by aid (Dube, 1992: 4;Ulrich in Sachs, 1992:278).AT supports a sarvodaya approach to community health. This approach adheres to thebelief that an established system of local decision-making is best able to protect naturalresources and reject unsuitable technologies, techniques and goals (Dunn, 1978:7).Powerful political and economic barriers exist to self-sufficiency. Even if an AT programwere technically and economically feasible, political constraints opposed to its grassrootsstructure may prevent adoption (Carr, 1985:45). As Stewart (1977:111) puts it in hercritique of AT functioning within current systems of aid:AT can only be AT when it succeeds in benefiting the majoritymarginalized by an unjust system. The process of developmentsupports that system. The power elite in the established sociopolitical system are without exception the losers in AT.As there are political barriers to adopting AT, there are also coercive reasons to supportthese programs. AT can be used by those in power to placate people, as a temporaryprovision of basic needs, while forestalling the fundamental political changes necessary todeal with impoverishment (Kothan, 1982:42). Conventional aid’s capture of the ATphilosophy is seen as a way to perpetuate the structures that support the current scientific-materialist system.AT’s social change definitions challenge the very assumptions of the development concept.They make use of an Eastern sense of Dharmic “middle path” or the Vedic “balance of thecosmic world order”; change is not revolutionary, but works toward a synthesis of ideasthat result in offering people the choice to create the kind of communities they need. Thesetwo belief systems support living in harmony with a place and its inhabitants, and life-goals of co-existence over dominance.There is not yet sufficient evidence to determine if an AT path of development can workwithin a world of such rapid change. Past AT evaluations show that it can often work at thelocal level, where people have the desire and freedom to regain control of their owndevelopment. Where societies still living within spiritual-traditionalism exist, AT appearscongruent with their concepts of change. As Rizvi (1983:115) put it:Only if it builds on a sure foundation - the wisdom of generationswith its instinctive understanding of the importance of maintaining abalance between man and nature - can development fulfill its28purpose of helping a people rooted in the past to face the inescapablechallenge of the twentieth century.In the Himalayan land of Ladakh, the Buddhist culture of the Tibetan Plateau supports aspiritual-traditional life system that has recently been subject to rapid change. ChapterThree looks at the ideologies that define Ladakhi society and sets the stage for theexamination of how AT is implemented in a place where alternative development seemscalled for.29CHAPTER THREEWHY LADAKH?If we develop good and considerate qualities within our own minds,our activities will naturally cease to threaten the continued survivalof life on Earth (Tenzin Gyatso, the XIVth Dalai Lama, 1990:i)Ladakh is a rugged and isolated land on the western-most edge of the Tibetan Plateau,which traditionally supported a small population on a sustainable basis.26 Although forcenturies it was the juncture of major Asian trade routes, exposing its people to outsideinfluences, as a whole it developed its complex society in relative isolation. Due to itslocation, geography and lack of easily exploitable resources, it was not subject to theinvasions and conquests so prevalent in other areas of Asia. While foreign powers werenot particularly interested in Ladakh, Ladakhis, in turn, were not particularly interested inthe outside world.The culture that developed in Ladakh was one based on spiritual ecology. Dominated by atheology of Mahayana Buddhism, a sense of living in-place was embedded in everyvillage. Compassion, as a religious belief, determined the day to day activities of people.Spiritual, rather than material growth was emphasized, and harmony was considered thegoal of all household and village activities.Life in Ladakh has changed radically in the past generation. Beginning in 1948, borderconflicts resulted in the loss of over one-third of Ladakhi territory and the construction of amilitary road linking the district with greater India. As it became possible to develop theregion by importing bureaucracy, infrastructure and development programs, theCentre27government felt compelled to do so. Projects within agriculture, health care,education, energy and resource exploitation were undertaken with little or no localconsultation. Finally, in 1974, Ladakh was opened to tourism, and the development ofLadakh began in earnest.Several small, alternative development projects have been established as a response to theeffects of modernization in Ladakh. These projects question the wisdom of changing the26’Pijs description of Ladakh is taken from numerous sources, and from personal experiences. The sourcesinclude Mann, The Ladakhi; Norberg-Hodge, Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh; Pains, Peaks andLamas; Rizvi, Ladakh; Sneligrove and Richardson, The Cultural History of Ladakh; and Sumi, Old andHassnain, Ladakh: The Moonland.27 Centre refers to the national government in New Delhi30traditional Ladakhi society. Rather than a development that encourages trade with outsideregions and dependency, they support development that supports local sufficiency.Ladakhi values are founded on goals fundamentally different from those of most westernsocieties. There is conflict between development and tradition. To understand this conflict,the following pages sketch the physical and cultural geography of Ladakh and its isolateddevelopment during the last several millennia, and the institutions that characterize thesociety.3.1 Defining Ladakh: physical and cultural geographyLadakh currently covers over 64,000 square kilometres on the western-most edge of theTibetan Plateau29.Present-day Ladakh consists of several tahsils (administrative districts)comprising 70% of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), India (Mann, 1986:1)(Illustration 3.1.1). It is a high-altitude desert in the rain shadow of the Himalayanmountains. Rainfall averages less than 50 mm per annum and temperatures range from+350 C in summer months to -40° C in the seven-to eight-month-long winter. Habitableregions range in altitude from 2,500 to 5,500 metres above sea level (Ahluwalia, 1980:5).It is an extremely rugged land, crossed by the Zanskar and Ladakh ranges, and sandwichedbetween the tallest mountains in the world. Its complex geography of high mountains andtreacherous river valleys have largely isolated Ladakh from contact with its powerful Asianneighbours.Ladakh was viewed as a ‘moonscape’ or ‘desolate’ land by marauding tribes, Asianpowers and the first Europeans to explore the region30.As Mann (1986:3) states it wasviewed as singularly poor in exploitable resources. Largely ignored by outsiders the areadeveloped on its own terms. The vast majority of the land was suitable only to limitedpastoral activities, the economic mainstay of the entire Tibetan Plateau for over fourthousand years (OIIR, 1992:12). Contact with the outside world was because of itsstrategic location along several of the important trade routes linking the Arabic world to28Pjstoric Ladakh covered almost 100,000 square kilometres. Almost one-third of Ladaichi territory is nowunder the control of Pakistan (SkardulBaltistan) and Chinese-occupiedTibet (the Aksai Chin and Rumdok).29The Tibetan Plateau is the largest high-altitude plateau in the world. With an average elevation of 4000meters, it covers over 1.4 million square kilometers. lii this text, Ladakh will be referred to as a part of theWestern Plateau, that region of more rugged topography and less precipitation of western Tibet,Northeastern Pakistan and India lying between the Himalayas and Kun Lun mountains.30see the journals of Cunningham, Franke, lliu-Ch’ao, Moorcroft and the Tibetan Chronicles for earlydescriptions of Ladaich.31South Asia and China. Although not a major trading partner with these countries, Ladakhsupplemented its subsistence-based economy with caravan trade-goods in exchange forpásturage, draft animals, labour and the fine pashmina wool of Ladakhi animals31. AlongIllustration 3.1.1 A map of Ladakh, showing location in India, the occupied territories and study site area.31Pashmina is the fine underwool combed from highaltitude animals such as goats, sheep, yaks, gazelleand antelope. Most pashniina used in South Asian goods is from the Tibetan Plateath32with bartered goods, innovations, religious teachings and news reached Ladakh via thesebranches of the Silk Route. As in other Himalayan societies, the great mountain barriersand narrow mountain paths limited the amount and pace of outside influence andinterchange (Fisher, 1989:iv). The evolution of Ladakhi social, religious, political, culturaland technological systems matched local goals; it was not imposed by outside powersthrough warfare or coercion (Dargyay, 1982:77; Rizvi, 1983:75).Today, the entire region supports a population of only 132,000 inhabitants32.Almost alllive in semi-isolated villages (Illustration 3.1.2). Each consists of several kinship groupsand is maintained through subsistence agro-pastoral activities. Leh, with about 8000inhabitants, is the only major population centre. Most villages are models of self-reliance.Each family provides for itself the basic necessities of life. Specialists (doctors,astrologers, musicians, theologians and silversmiths) serve the community as a whole.Many routine tasks, such as shepherding and harvesting, are done on a cooperative basis.While the majority of people own their own land and animals, it is cooperation whichensures their survival.Water is the most limited resource on the Western Plateau. Irrigation permits the creation ofsmall oases of cultivated fields, spring-fed pastures and woodlots in this sparsely vegetatedland. Most of Ladakh appears totally barren, although even graveled hillsides or steep screeslopes support native vegetation which can provide pasturage or be harvested for itsmedicinal properties. In spring and summer, the high-altitude pastures are verdant withgrowth from glacial melt waters, providing rich pasturage for herds. Villages are locatedwhere glacial run-off can be channeled into terraced fields of alluvial soils. Less than0.002% of the land is forested and only 0.1% of the land cultivated (Mann, 1986:97).Intricate systems of irrigation channels abound in every village. Water is shared andconserved by all residents. For example, a cloudy spring means less glacial snow melt,therefore, less irrigation water. In consequence, each farmer will plant fewer fields so thateach plant will have a good chance of survival (Osmaston, 1985:76).Advocates of environmental determinism suggest that the Western Plateau illustrates a casewhere human life systems are controlled by their environment. But, although Ladakhis livein an extremely harsh environment, the people have demonstrated choice and creativemanipulation in living here (Osmaston, 1990:141). Archaeological evidence suggests hu321981 Indian Census at 130,000; estimates from Indian government records since that time.33-0000EE;T9TEDS11:-Ut0/SJ-5,‘S•‘‘S-/,•.?TTTAUt“),7•,‘5’,;,_‘5—-,__).-,;-suosted6(#).,-z/‘—---——--I/_—______vPU5IJUtH•-J’‘S,/•‘,•,,-,S••-peDuenT;uI—po)I0o’J.,/efsTTTAUII[Sfl/peuenT;uIJUsDV-5flHD(of‘‘—/<;O%:-:-:‘sr’--‘,-:;•‘-.-:edLeEflTApng/_._7-‘--,-SISOATV-.-,-•I)/‘SI---aUt7sbp-t-..J--P______—IpuabIo5.-‘N-I////S0SS—._,—vi.‘‘-_<(VIman habitation for almost 10,000 years, even though more attractive lands were availablefor inhabitation elsewhere (Ota, Dec. ‘91-May ‘92:49). The Ladakhi lifestyle developedover thousands of years as a result of experimentation and adaptation. This lifestyle doesnot rely on the expropriation of other’s resources, long-distance transhumance oracceptance of extreme poverty within sectors of the population.3.1.2 Living within a limited resource baseGoldstein (1981:6-7) used the term ‘environmental encapsulation’ to describe the limitedpotential of the Plateau ecosystem to support growing populations. The socio-economic,political and cultural organization adapted to a situation where there was little capacity forincreased agricultural production. While vast tracts of pasture surrounded villageagricultural lands, these pastures could not be cropped because of the lack of irrigationwater. Additional factors limiting the expansion of cultivated land include poor qualitysoils, finite amounts of composted ash and nightsoil to improve tilth, steep slopes, northfacing aspects, and limited labour. There was little competition among land uses, but rathercomplementary subsistence between valley-bottom and pastoral uses.Within this environmentally-defined limitation, there are few options for socialdevelopment. The Plateau people probably experimented with numerous tactics. Someherders and bandits expropriated other’s resources. Some groups depended on circularmigrations over large territories to live within ecological constraints. As Chatterji (1987:217) observes, Plateau people responded by developing agro-pastoral and socio-economicinstitutions that ‘achieved harmony with the natural environment.’Research on the cultural ecology of the Tibetan Plateau shows the cultural, social andpolitical responses to the high-altitude, limited-resource, mountainous environment. Theseresponses are embedded in or expressed through the Plateau people’s meta-philosophy ormyth33.An adaptation of Chatterji’s model of the Ladakhi religion-environment connectionreveals the process of living ‘in-place’ (Figure 3.1.1).The model suggests that Ladakhis (and most Tibetans) chose to live within limitedresources. Agro-pastoral production developed and land health had to be maintained.33See for example, Aziz, Tibetan Frontier Families; Ekval, Fields on the Hoof: Nexus of Tibetan Society;Guillet, “Toward a Cultural Ecology of Mountains: The Central Andes and the Himalaya Compared,”Current Anthrolopigy.35Ladakhis created the mythology explaining their existence, and institutions that allowed thesystem to work. Their culture is revealed in location and size of their villages, theinteractions between villages and nomadic communities, in economies which combinesubsistence activities with barter-based markets and trade extensions. As the below modelsuggests, these patterns were institutionalized, but are also found within the philosophy ofdaily living. Whether Mahayana Buddhist34 or Muslim, the Ladakhi meta-religiousphilosophy equates to a sense of living in-place.Figure 3.1.1 People and place: manifestation of the Ladakbi religious connections to the land.HARSH ENVIRONMENTFINiTE RESOURCE BASELIMITED PRODUCTION POSSIBILITIESSELF-SUFFICIENT, COOPERATIVELY-STRUCTURED,SCATTERED SETfLEMENTSAGRO-PASTORAL SUBSISTENCE LEVEL ECONOMY ANDA THEOLOGY SUPPORTING CONSERVATIONRELATIVE POPULATION HOMEOSTASIS DUE TO INCAPACITY TOSUSTAIN HIGH POPULATION GROWTh, ACHIEVED ThROUGH SOCIALCUSTOMS SUCH AS POLYANDRY AND MONASTIC LIFEMONASTERIES AS TilE KEY INSTITUTION,SACREDNESS AS A KEY CONCEFIDOMINANCE OF RELIGION IN DAILY LIFE(Adapted from Chatterji, 1987:218)34Buddhists comprise over 80% of the population in Leh and Zanskar in the Ladakh tahsil, and about 35%of Kargil tahsil, Shia and Sum Muslims represent about 15% of the Ladakh tahsil, with this populationcentred in Leh and Chushot villages, and about 60% of Kargil. Statistics from Kaul’s interpretations of the1981 census data. Census information was not gathered in the 1991 due to regional strife.36Harmonious living patterns established in Ladakh date back at least as far as the Bon35religion, which flourished for at least several hundred years prior to the introduction ofBuddhism in 240 BCE (Ahluwalia, 1982:3). Although the Islamic faith does not share thesame spirits of land, air and water, it participates in the reciprocal relationship betweenpeople and place. Islam is a recent arrival in Ladakh, beginning with raids into Baltistanaround 1500 AD. In most areas of Ladakh, Islam has been practised for only severalhundred years (Rizvi, 1983:44).The manifestations of durable relationships are numerous in Ladakh. The complexity oflife-patterns are best explained by the concept, structure and practise of spiritual ecology.Based within the harsh environment, and going beyond the bounds of any one of thereligions of the Western Plateau, spiritual ecology reveals how Ladakhis created a balancedand compassionate society, structured institutions to govern communities, and practicetheir beliefs in daily life (Goldstein and Beau, 1990:48; Gokhale-Chatterjee, 1987:457;Miller, 1978:385; Rizvi,1987:434). These three areas will be briefly explored to provide animage of the Ladakhi world view.3.1.2 Habitation patterns to conserve and improve the landAltitude, latitude and topography combine to create a climatically-unique, semi-arid plateauin Ladakh. The climate, in turn, determines the flora, fauna, land use and habitationpatterns within a system of altitudinally-denved life zones (Ekvall, 1968:5-6; Kantowsky,1983:23). Dependent on a system of vertical zonation36 the Ladakhis do not identify‘good’ and ‘bad’ land (Illustration 3.1.3). Neither do they limit their concept of landholding to the average one hectare of valley-bottom cultivated land. Rather, Ladakhis seeeach vertical zone as a component within a complicated, functional system (Illustration3.1.4). An agro-pastoralist talks of any land as ‘good’ in terms of the use for which it isnaturally suited. People recognize the need for a diversity of land types for production,valley-bottom fields, hillside woodlots, distant fuel- and medicinal plant- gathering areas,and high-altitude pasture (Kantowsky, 1983: 22; Osmaston, 1985:76-78). A 1981 Indiangovernment survey designating over 87% of Ladakh’s lands as “very poor quality,wasteland or glacial cover” (Sumi, 1983:148). However, the Ladakhi view of theimportance of each component to the integrity of the entire system, and making optimal35Pre-Buddhist, anitnist religion of the Tibetan Plateau361n India, this is often refered to as vertical habitation patterns.370 CD0:frC<--0p,I-.C0-C---ICDP’Frio.0p,CDrCD0-t0CD0CD000-00ctrHCD(D<•C—0.00rCDJCO.00r0’0 CD0CO0-0 rt CO(CDCDCD 0.0HO) DC.0rt0)0COOcCCD0-0 CD DCoe0)0(00IOH.ZrttC00CDO.0(D0F-OCCDi-0--.00CD<cCDCDW0)-OCDC1frCHCDZQ.<rthl.00)--0rtCO00000(0DCOCOrt-bCD-OCDO0CO)-CDH00cOO-000CDC-‘Oct00000.0•CD0rOOD)CD—C0(DCOCOCflCDrOtO0C-”C-010’0CD0.0-CO0,030-1-0.0‘10)101010CDHHCDCO0.0.0riO0’‘11-(0<‘<ctCD0)C 11CCDCD010OctQCD 00(0.0H00<OCD[p CDO 0 l•4 0c’ ii CD0 CCD—O—00ifiustration 3.1.4 A profile of a typical Ladakhi village, showing land use and the production, consumptionand recycling systems. Adapted from maps of the village of Phyang and information on agro-ecology fromvillagers.From the high pasture:— seasonal pastures— glacial melt water— soils and minerals— biomass gathering areas— connections to other villages,trade routes, distant pastures— spiritual retreats-dung & scrub fuel gathering39use of all land available to a community, allows for the support of a healthy, resilientpopulation (Illustration 3.1.5).3.1.3 Spiritual Beliefs: philosophy of cooperation within the wheel of lifeThe complicated relationships derived from vertical zonation reflect more than theenvironmental constraints of production in Ladakh. These relationships are encompassedwithin a greater belief in living in balance with the environment, and a compassionatetreatment of and respect for all land and animals (Pallus, 1965:197). There is a singularabsence of human dominance over their environment (Ekvall, 1968:80). This belief isexpressed through many Himalayan religions, and practised within ahimsa, the principle ofnot destroying life. True development is four-fold: the valuing all life, a principle ofreciprocity, commitment to people and place, and a primacy of valuing the sacred (deSilva, 1990:18-19; Regenstein, 1991:234). It creates an all-inclusive sharing,acknowledges responsibility and acceptance of the ‘un-seen’ and ‘un-known’ (Tucci,1980:165). The dominant Buddhist and Bon faiths heighten these principles through theirrecognition of the existence of spirits inhabiting the land, air and water and who controlproduction (Goldstein, 1987:61; Ekvall, 1968:81). In Islam, Muslims are called to care forall living communities as the “whole of the rich and wonderful universe belongs to God,not man.” Man is no more than the khalfa (trustee) of God and will “render an account ofhow he treated the trust of God on the Day of Reckoning” (Regenstein, 1991:255).The people knew that to disturb the soil or abuse the water of their extended ecosystem wasto risk upsetting the delicate balance in their lives. Disrupting the Sa b dag or kLu (soil andwater spirits) through tilling new soils or polluting or over-use of water could bringmisfortune on an entire community (Ekvall, 1968:5-6; Snellgrove and Richardson,1980:58-59; Ortner, 1978:278). Humans are allowed to gain sustenance from theenvironment by the greater powers (Vigoda, 1989:27). Spiritual ecology creates a systemof rewards and controls in each community; production is optimized, balance and stabilitycreated, resulting in a greater degree of success over time within the social system. As inother mountain peasant societies, Ladakhis aim for security over risk in output, with asense of responsibility toward all sentient beings (Guillet, 1983:570; Kantowsky,1983:22). As Vigoda (1989:28) describes the meta-religious spiritual ecology of theregion, “persistent spirit belief is an indication of the strength of the Tibetan’s world view,combined with the sheer logic of their environmental taboos, and the congruence betweenBuddhism and ecology.”40,tI ¶ It0w,- 4- C•0,j I: H4’Illustration 3.1.5 A typical village in Ladakh. The edge of the village is defined by the extent of theirrigation canals; with 100% of farm lands irrigated. Glacial melt water feeds the fields and the high altitudepastures, used to graze animals.I¶44I42K -I(-I*1..tA41The circular nature of life in most Ladakhi villages produces another form of care for allaspects of the life-system. Belief in rebirth reinforces the knowledge that all sentient beingsare a part of a greater whole manifested in the desire to reach enlightenment. A bad rebirthcould result as a life lived as an insect; hence the respect shown all life forms. The Tibetanterm actually translates as ‘mother sentient being’ implying that any living creature could beyour mother and therefore deserves respect and kindness (Dargyay, 1984:51; Gross,1993:13).3.1.4 Social Structures: A no-growth economy. polyandrv and monasticismThese religious and ecological beliefs were manifested through Ladakh’s social structures.Life was dominated by a no-growth belief: in both a village’s population and it’s economy(Dargyay, 1984:54-56). The economy supported a non-debtor, in-kind revenue system,with the concept of ‘cash crops’ virtually unknown. Even within the wool trade, mostexchange was barter-based. The majority of trade consisted of intra-kinship group andinter-zonation exchange, trade served social, political, cultural, ecological as well aseconomic ends (Ekvall, 1968:18,70). A great deal of the trade occurring along the SilkRoutes of Ladakh was in exchange for pasturage, draft animals or labour. Few Ladakhisexperienced debt.Individual material gain was not only subordinate to spiritual growth, but was consideredthe antithesis of community cohesion and functionality. The social fabric, which providedfor most community needs, including identity, and reproduction, was strained byindividualism. The monastery or mosque was the repository of excess production, theequalizer through redistributing wealth, and responsible for centering the village within itsenvironmental constraints (Kaul, 1992:56; Norberg-Hodge, 1991:77).Social institutions provided for low population growth, an important contributor toecological balance. Polyandry and monasticism both aided in limiting village growth(Ahluwalia, 1980:62). Although monogamy and polygamy also existed in Ladakh,fraternal polyandry was common throughout the Western Plateau. It is the key to the abilityof the people to adjust to living within environmental constraints. As Goldstein (1981:11)states:it contributed to social stability by preventing the fragmentation ofland.. .and by helping keep the population within limits.42Usually, the eldest son inherited the entire family’s wealth; its house, land and animals,and was the male child who would marry37. If he and his wife agreed, other brothers,usually not more than three, would also become husbands in the marriage. This preventedthe fragmentation of holdings while providing for a sufficient labour base in each home(Goldstein, 1981:11). The mono-marital principle, with only one male and one femalereproducing per generation, population remained stable over centuries (Chatterji, 1987:218;Mann, 1986:56). Polyandry was a logical response to certain environmental constraints,but also became a social institution that supported the status of the women in a village(Norberg-Hodge, 1991:69).Excess population was handled in various ways. Unmarried children could stay in theirparents’ home, or join their married siblings home as productive, needed and respectedmembers of those families. They could also choose a life of spiritual practice and learning;a life that accorded more respect than other choices within a community (Gross, 1993:12).Somewhere between 10 and 30% of the people remained celibate and within the religioussystem (Aihuwalia, 1980:62). According to Vigoda (1989:32), monasteries were notsimply repositories of excess population, but valuable contributors to the spiritual andphysical health of the community. Here, village doctors and astrologers were often trained.The community’s hereditary and financial wealth was stored in the gompa, and could beshared in time of need, and the kushok (reincarnate head monk) or lamas (monks)adjudicated village disputes as impartial outsiders (Mann, 1986:165-166).Choice in life styles aids in dispelling the myth that traditional mountain societies did notoffer people opportunities. Plateau women generally experienced more freedom than inother Asian societies. They could marry or choose not to, enter higher learning institutions,or control property. Women participated fully in family decision making, commonlycontrolled household incomes, enjoyed village festivals, drinking and dancing, side-by-side with the men. They had superiority over the junior husbands in a household or couldinter-marry between Buddhist and Muslim communities (Dargyay, 1984:35; Mann,1986:73-76). Young men and women who wanted to follow a life of religious dedication,did not need to severe ties to their family, often returning home to participate in family371f the eldest son chose not to marry, either to pursue a religious life or for other reasons, another sonwould inherit the family holdings. If a family were without male heirs, the eldest daughter inherited andmaintained ownership of the family holdings. Her husband would join the family as a mag pa, with thesame rights as a woman joimug a male heirs family. If a couple were childless, a male could take onanother wife in order to produce children or the couple could adopt children (See Cunningham, Dargyay,Ekvail, Goldstein, Mann, Norberg-Hodge, or Pallis for ethnographic information on the Western Plateau).43festivals. Both had the opportunity to travel in pursuit of their religious studies, or couldchoose to leave the gompa if they discovered the religious life did not fulfill their needs.Characteristics of femininity, self-confidence strength and dignity were not deemed asuniquely male or female, encouraging equity (Norberg-Hodge, 1991:66).3.1.5 The omni-presence of the sacredIn the Ladakhi world view, there was not a rock, a blade of grass, not a place on earthwithout spiritual essence. To Ladakhis, the earth was a living entity, full of the mythical,and they were interconnected in its existence. Religion was inseparable from life, as wasbelief from practice, resulting in an inescapable logic of living within their limited resourcebase (Norberg-Hodge, 1990:45). The system’s checks, those of lack of economic andpopulation growth, and community cooperation and identification, were not seen as formsof coercive control. These were benefits of a system which supported harmoniouscommunity relations, allowed for spiritual quests and encouraged coexistence with thesacred.Inequity was not desirable in a society based on cooperation. Villages can be characterisedby equity both within and between households. An illiterate farmer could be a goba(headman). Family decision-making included children, women and elders participatingequally. Although classes existed, the rigid Indian caste system never penetrated theHimalayan barrier, and vast discrepancies in wealth were absent in most villages (Kaul,1992: 152-153; Mann, 1986:17-22). Class distinctions involved a reciprocal relationshipbetween nomads, agriculturists, merchants, artisans, monks and elites. Rarely was aperson barred from a household on the basis of class or religious beliefs. Often, religiousceremonies were gatherings of all village members (Norberg-Hodge, 1991:48, Rizvi,1983:70).Because the rationale of their belief system was different made it no less valuable38.Reverence for all life resulted in a lack of will to exploit resources, desire to create hecticmarkets, or provide for an over-abundant material wealth. This belief supported the38 Indeed, today, western scholars are beginning to recognize the important contribution made by thepressence of the sacred and support of tradition within a culture Journals such as Alternatives, TheEcologist, In Context, and Resurgence often support this view. In addition, see Alvares in Sachs, TheDevelopment Dictionary; Bhave, The Intimate and the Ultimate; Capra The Turning Point; Jones, “FromFragmentation to Wholeness: A Green Approach to Science and Society” in The Ecologist; Kothari,Rethinking Development; Shiva, Staying Alive; and Sale, Dwellers in the Land.44absence of inequity, poverty, competition and uncontrolled greed. Spiritual growth did notendorse the negative side effects seen in scientific-materialism, especially that of theCartesian split of human-other39,or the fatalism of environmental determinism (Gross,1993:10). A wholeness in Ladakhi spirituality was reflected in individuals. Sound interpersonal relationships, individual mental health, introspective thought., and anencompassing system of social welfare resulted. Ladakhi life was generally filled with freetime and laughter (Norberg-Hodge, 1991:76,85, 136).The kitchen and hearth serve as the focal point of Ladakhi family life (Illustration 3.1.6). Ina land where winter temperatures often reach 40°C below zero and winter is eight monthslong, it is not difficult to understand the importance of the family hearth as a refuge fromthe cold. Nor is it difficult to understand the spiritual significance that would centre on thisimportant space. Ladakhis believe that disruptions to the hearth, or more specifically, to thekLu (spirit) that abound in and near the hearth, will bring misfortune to the whole family(Rizvi, 1983:132). As the only heated room in the house, the kitchen naturally serves as agathering place for the family.Activities in the kitchen illustrate the need for cooperation within all tasks in Ladakh.Preparation of meals and maintenance of the fire requires the entire family’s input. Forexample, the grandfather stirs the tea while seated beside the warm ash tin, thegrandmother operates the bellows, without which the fire would die in the low-oxygenatmosphere. A daughter feeds the fire, while another family member prepares the food.One child grinds the spices, and one brings dippers of water to the soup pot. Someonechurns the milk with a leather sash looped around a central utility pole. Each familymember is an important contributor to, notjust consumer, of a meal.The kitchen is where family decisions are made, with discussions including, not excluding,the young children. Work and social skills are passed from generation to generation in anatmosphere of patience and joy. The stove and pots represent a source of family wealth.Stoves made of iron are decorated with religious symbols in copper and brass (Illustration3.1.7). Behind the stoves, shelves of gleaming pots are on display. Behind the shelves, astoreroom houses at least four years’ supply of grim, high-altitude barley, as a ‘bank’against poor crop years. Windows are few, to better hold in heat in winter, but one or twoallow easy communication with neighbours (Norberg-Hodge, 1991:13).39see, for example, Walter, “Scientific Materialism” The Ecologist, 1980; and Pomtt, Seeing Green.45TypicalTraditionalKitchen(tch’ap-tsang)be11owc____J1support Dt’ap-khgQ_0pillarscale:1cm0.5mdoorgrainstoragenye-tsangI I I I0 supportpillarstoveextracarpets,secondstoreyteatablessolt‘apbedsI-1 windowsEASTorSOUTHIllustration 3.1.7 Photograph of a traditional Ladakhi stove, showing the Buddhist symbols whichdecoratemost hearths.473.2 Ladakhi institutions and developmentA traditional Ladakhi village, largely identified by its self-sufficiency and local control ofinstitutions (Figure 3.2.1), functioned similarly to a cooperative business. The village, ormore precisely the place, was the focus of identity; decision making was based on thehealth of the community as a whole (Gokhale-Chatterjee, 1987:458). Individuals weresubordinate within ‘departments,’ such as the cooperative work groups of professionals orspiritual fraternities. This cooperation produced balance and a tremendous amount ofvillage-based autonomy. Repeatedly, scholars characterized a healthy village as balanced,sufficiency-oriented, and ecologically sound’.Ladakhi habitation patterns of small, scattered villages, are almost universally determinedby the environment. The great distances and geographic relief between villages havesupported autonomous institutions. Inter-village interaction, and hinterland-centre activitywere largely decided at the local level. Outside governance and religious imposition waslimited, benign or supportive in nature. Villagers were ‘taxed’ through a feudal corveesystem (labour constriction) on the trade route (Goldstein and Tsarong, 1987:446). Thelocal gompa (monastery) belonged to a sect of religious lineage, linking gompas andvillagers across the entire Tibetan plateau.Due to the geography of Ladakh, decision making and control remained either at the villageor household level41. Most resource use, structural adaptation and growth decisions andredistribution of wealth were made within village institutions. The village ‘council’ andreligious leaders spent little time on dispute resolution - it was uncommon for differences torise beyond informal gyut, chaspun or chutso42 resolution. Production inputs and outputswere traded at the local level, village artisans and specialists village (astrologers,musicians, doctors, blacksmiths, butchers and carpenters) served almost all needs. Thehousehold was the level of production for food, shelter and clothing. Cash exchanges werekept to a minimum to avoid monetary inflation and inequity issues. Contacts with Leh (as40SeeBray, Cunnignham, Franke, Goldstein and TSarong, Norberg-Hodge, Mooreroft and Rizvi41 This information draws from Aziz, Dargyay, Goldstein, Mann, Norberg-Hodge, and von FurerIlaimendorf.42 The Gyut or Rigs is a a bigger social group than a family; a group of people who trace descent from acommon ancestor or ancestress; a Chaspun is an informal but important friendship formed between twopeople. The Chutso is a sub-group within a village that often has a ‘representative’ in the village council.All serve the purpose of and additional support system, to help with work, personal problems or disputesettlements. For example, if farmers are in dispute over irrigation water, a gyut member might work tofacilitate agrecement. See Mann, 1986:48-54, Norberg-Hodge, 1991:52-53.48the trade centre) and the world at large were on a limited basis. Economic and governanceactivities based on mutual aid, occurred informally at all levels within the village. Educationwas also an informal and multi-disciplinary activity. Home training, apprenticeship andmore formalized monastic training all blended to provide for complete, culturally-appropriate education. Institutions’ central purposes were to maintain tradition through abalanced and equitable economy, harmony in resource use and conservation and disputeadjudication. The moral economy of the Ladakhi is a form of inclusive Buddhisteconomics.Although the social system of a Ladakhi village appeared lose or casual, it was not(Goldstein and Tsarong, 1987:444-446). Social networks, the religious and friendshipsupport groups, and hereditary and professional clans, all served the needs beyond the purFigure 3.2.1 ada iinstitutional characteristicsComm unity Health SpectrumIntegrated FracturedLocal Control Outside ControlParticipatory governance Governance by outsidersSupportive religious institutions Loss of spirits and the sacredRich dialogue in oral traditions Monologue, one-way communicationsSufficient, diversified economy Inflation ,dependency in economic systemEcologically sound Environmental problemsStable population base Growing population base; dislocated peopleEducation supports local skills Education controlled by outsidersEquity DisparityLow unemployment Growing unemploymentParticipatory social safety net Collapse of social safety net(Adapted from Mann, 1986)49pose or scope of the family unit. Village stability and risk reduction lay behind the systemof social support and institutional function. While decisions were made in consideration ofthe health of a whole, they were generally not enforced upon the village by outsiders.Ladakhi villages are not uniform. There have always been differences between hinterlandcommunities and trade centres, and in upper and lower Ladakh. Today however, thesedifferences are heightened, with many villages seeing the weakening of control by localinstitutions for the first time (Norberg-Hodge, 1989: 126) Change within these institutionscoincides with the rapid modernization of the area43. A shift to the right in the CommunityHealth Spectrum appears necessary to encourage economic growth and materialconsumption. A shift to the left would support spiritual traditionalism as seen in Ladakh,and possibly the aims within the AT movement. A villager’s personal definition of health inthe community will make an important statement on what form of development would bewelcome and important in that locale.3.3 Change and its impactChange came to Ladakh in a rapid succession of events. Ladakh, as an independentBuddhist kingdom, was incorporated into India after the (Jammu) Hindu Dogra invasion inthe 1830s. After Indian independence in 1947, Ladakh lost part of its Balti territory in anIndo-Pakistani border conflict. In 1950, the increasing severity of the Chinese occupationof Tibet severed emotional, cultural and economic links to the country that had oftendominated Ladakh. The 1962 border conflict between the Indian and the Peoples’ Republicof China (PRC) governments, resulted in the construction of the Srinagar-Leh road totransport troops and supplies. Change induced by external investments in energysubsidies, consumer goods, communications links, a new system of education, politicalstructure and outsider presence (military, refugee, tourist, bureaucrat); arrived along sideheightened Centre44 interest in the region. Finally, in 1975, the region was opened toforeign tourists. A misleading view of the outside world and the process of developingLadakh began in earnest. Ladakh’s relationship, to itself and to the outside world,experienced change of unprecedented scope and pace (Rizvi, 1983:67-74).43Rapid change in traditional instituions is not unique to Ladakh; it is common place in most places thattraditional cultures and development or modernization meet. For further reading, see The Ecologist, 1987andThe Centre is the national government in New Delhi. Most development monies and decisions comefrom the Centre to the state, and then down to the district level within the state.50Because its inhabitants had lived within the limits of their resources, the Western Plateauhad an abundance of unexploited natural wealth. As soil gods were not to be exploited,mining was almost unheard of. Copper, gold, silver, borax, and precious stones were allthere for the taking (Chopra, 1981:195-9). The Plateau represented limitless space for thetwo most populous countries on earth. With seven of the eight great rivers of Asia arisingfrom the mountains of the Plateau, then rapidly tumbling from its 4000 metre heights, theserivers represented the largest unexploited hydro-power resource in the world. In someareas, pastures seemed under-populated, agricultural lands expandable, and industrywholly underutilized(Goering, 1991990:22; OuR, 1992:5-12).Development of the region was based on the ideology of modernization, seen in India sincethe time of its independence, emphasizing ‘man’s ascendancy over nature with a priority onproduction’ (Viroda, 1989:33). With development, Ladakh became a ‘backward’ area, itslands were universally lumped into the category of wasteland, valueless to the Indianeconomy and the Ladakhis, who could not read nor write in either of the two nationallanguages.As a small minority Buddhist district governed by the Muslim-dominated Jammu andKashmir state and a Hindu India, almost all decisions concerning Ladakh’s future are madeby non-Ladakhis. Locals have little representation in state and centre governments (onerepresentative to each). Local administrators are largely outsiders, appointed for two tothree year terms. This is particularly telling in the case of the Development Commissioner(DC), the centre-appointed administrator in charge of ‘improving the conditions andintegrating development’ for the entire region (Dube, 1992:164). The DC overseesdepartments with vast differences in mandates and conflicting budget demands. Heenforces nationally-defined programs, works in a language and within a culture he does nottruly understand, in an area where over 80% of the population is defined as impoverished(Angorama, 1992).In 1962, the government implemented the 20 Point Programme, designed to result in thebetterment of all people, strengthening the nation as a whole and furthering the path of self-reliance (Bhattacharya, 1982:24). The program would lessen the cost of maintaining newlypositioned bureaucracy and army troops through increased regional hydro-powerproduction and making better use of sparsely populated lands (Hanif, 1992). Due to itsstrategic location, developing Ladakh in compliance with national policy, resulted in themajority of Centre funding being used to support government administrators and the army.51Two development programs receive the majority of the money and emphasis; infrastructureimprovement (over 50% of all funds from the 1960s to the 1980s went toward road andbridge construction) and energy development (over 50% of funding since the mid-1980s)(Rizvi, 104; Angorama, 1992). Of particular interest to this study are the decisions madein energy investment.3.4 Energy investments within developmentWhile regional energy demands and dependence are growing, energy investments haveskyrocketed in the past ten years (Angorama, 1992). Fossil fuel expenditures (which carrya national subsidy) and the 4 mW Stakna hydroelectric power project45 represent acontinual drain on government funds.Ladakh’s complex geography limits the effectiveness of hydroelectric transmission andimported fossil fuels. Currently, the multi-million dollar Stakna project provides electricityfor about 40% of the villages around Leh, and it functions only about eight months eachyear (freezing temperatures and sediment build-up prevent year-round operation). Back-uppower comes from diesel generators. Over 60% of the population have no access toelectricity (compared with 20% nation-wide average). At great cost to the government,hydro-electric power is now available to about 20,000 Ladakhis and army personnel in theIndus valley (Hanif, 1992).Although less than half of Ladakhis are dependent on fossil fuels for at least a portion oftheir heating and cooking fuels, there are growing fuel problems in the Leh area. Keroseneis the most commonly imported fuel. Coke, propane and fuelwood are also imported inlarge amounts over the dangerous Leh-Srinagar road (Goering, 1990:22). Subsidies forfossil fuels, which account for between 40-60% of the total expenditures of the nationalgovernment, amount to more than 3.2 billion Canadian dollars per year46 while end-useprices have increased 1400% since 1972 (Times of india, Sept. 16, 1992). Petroleumproducts used in army camps, in government establishments, and those available throughthe black market, receive government subsidies directly or indirectly representing 90% oftheir costs (Tnpathi,1992). For the majority of the people living in Ladakh, fuels remain45 Stakna construction began in the 1980s, and is ongoing. Located on the Indus River, about 30kilomeires upriver from Leh, it currently produces half its power potential.‘T.u 1992 dollars.52the traditional dung and scrub wood. For these people, centralized energy development haslittle value.The most recent oil shocks from the Gulf War, an IMF-imposed austerity program, and anational goal of supplying electricity to all villages in India by the year 2020 suggestalternative energy development in the region (Chossudovsky, 1993:271). Extremelylimited water sources, moisture deficits, and saline soils eliminate the possibility offuelwood plantations. However, small, rapidly moving streams at the heart of eachcommunity, suggest potential for micro-hydro power. With the Himalayas blocking themonsoons and the thin atmosphere of high altitudes, Ladakh has a greater number ofsunshine hours per year than any other place in India and the second highest global incidentsolar radiation47(Arun 1990:1490). Even in winter when temperatures plummet, the sunshines with regularity. Small scale, alternative energy devices suit decentralized use. Thismatches the pattern of scattered villages and household-centered energy use found inLadakh. Solar energy flows freely, passive harnessing of solar energy requires only aninitial equipment investment, and low maintenance costs.Small scale energy projects allows investment to be localized at specific points of energyshortages and mitigates the social, environmental and economic impacts which accompanythe use of fossil fuels and large-scale hydro electric projects. Small scale projects are bestsuited to serve the 80% of the Ladakhi people with limited cash or access to the marketeconomy (LEDeG, 1988:9).In both technical and economic terms, greater investment in renewable energy devices is anoption for easing energy shortages in remote, mountainous areas. Yet in Ladakh, aselsewhere, almost all national and internationally-sponsored energy development continuesto emphasize conventional large-scale sources. Objectives of these projects are to providefuel and power to the army, outsiders and the powerful who could voice dissatisfactionwith government. Development is intended to stimulate the local economy by providingjobs in large scale projects. Thousands of unemployed and impoverished residents findwork on the big dams, irrigation works and road building projects. But most of theseprojects are located in a small section of Ladakh, near Leh and Kargil and the large armycamps, where the outsiders and powerful live. Government feels compelled to invest inregions that can help maintain power. As Norberg-Hodge (1992: 146) comments:470n1y the Sahara desert has a higher incident solar radiation than the cold desert areas of the TibetanPlateau.53Development money flows freely into large-scale projects aimed atincreasing market transactions...Yet when it comes to small-scaleprojects that truly promote self-reliance; such as village-scale hydroelectric installations or solar ovens and water heaters for thehousehold, the question is immediately asked: ‘can the people pay?’3.4.1 The insidious nature of developmentThere are hidden costs to subsidizing only a segment of the population. In Ladakh,government policies have resulted in a recent population boom. Immigration representsmost of the 35% population increase over the past thirty years. In a land with very limitedpotential to support this new population on a sustained basis, the immigrants develop amore mobile population, breaking the reciprocal relationship between people and place.The increase in the presence of outsiders amplifies other changes increased interpersonalconflict, pollution, inflation, insecurity, loss of identity and rapid drain of resources out ofthe district. The newcomers work within the formal market, and are accustomed topurchasing fuel, foodstuffs and clothing.Two additional energy changes in Ladakh are having an important impact on the human-land relationship in the area. Communication links with the rest of India are an importantconsideration in government’s investment in a steady source of electricity. Television andradio have had a dramatic impact on the indigenous population. For the first time, people inand around Leh can compare their society with the outside world on a daily basis.According to Norberg-Hodge (1991:96), the message they receive is that traditional lifesystems are inferior. This has been reinforced by the annual summer influx of between10,000 and 15,000 western tourists, the second major, fuel-related change. The touristsexacerbate energy shortages with their demands to cook a wider variety of foods, heatwater for bathing, electrify hotels and run the buses and taxis. These impacts radiate fromLeh through popular trekking routes. There, fuelwood and dung are over-harvested andtrekkers demand greater consumption of fossil fuels for light and cooking. Together,increased mass communication with the outside world and increased tourism precipitateschange in Ladakhi villages unprecedented in history.543.5 The impact of development on Ladakhl InstitutionsTraditional forms of development in Ladakh have induced major changes in the institutionalstructure of villages and in the reciprocal human-land relationship. Organizations thatdefine Ladakhi communities, the monasteries and nunneries, the schools and healthsystem, the governance forums and cooperative work and support groups, are in turmoil.Apparently less destructive, are alternative forms of aid such as appropriate technology, ormore specifically the introduction of solar cookers to supplement supplies of traditionalfuels. To assess the impact of this form of development aid on Ladakhi society, theintroduction of solar cookers was studied in several villages.3.5.1 Village institutions within the studyTwenty-six villages participated in solar technology programs whose objectives was tointroduce solar cookers. Each village can be located along the community health spectrum(page 47) using villagers’ perception of the health of their institutions as indicators. Thesetwenty-six villages were placed in one of six categories of the spectrum (Fig. 3.5.1). Theserange from autonomous and healthy to fractured, although some of the villages exhibitcharacteristics of several categories.3.5.2 The four intensive study site villages48.Four villages were studied more intensively in an attempt to document relationshipsbetween technology transfer, acceptance and institutional change. These four villages arethe Tibetan refugee camp, the Centre town of Leh, the Muslim village of Chushot and thehinterland community of Hemis Shukpachang49.A brief description of these four villages,their institutions and relations to the larger world follows.1. Refugee campThe refugee community in Ladakh are Drog-pa, nomads, from western Tibet. Over 15,000Drog-pa fled their native homeland as the Tibet - Peoples’ Republic of China conflict inof the information in this section comes from long discussions with villagers during the period ofthe field study.49me community of Hemis Shukpachaug was used to base hinterland studies from; solar surveys coveredan area of about fifteen kilometres to include three other villages of Themisgang, Tia and Ang.55Table3.5.1 Village institutions within the case studyVillage institutions:Description, continuity and place of control in six village typeswithin the Ladakh case study sitesRefugee Centre Centre Muslim Road HinterlandCamp Influenced Village InfluencedGovernance Exiled Outside Outside Local Local LocalReligion Disrupted Disrupted Declining Intact Declining IntactEconomy Cash Cash Mixed Mixed Subsistence SubsistenceMarket Outside Outside Outside Local Local LocalCommunications Local Outside Outside Local Local LocalEducation Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside MixedSocial Net-village-whole Disrupted Disrupted Mixed Mixed Intact Intact-Family Disrupted Disrupted Disrupted Intact Intact Intact-Inter-personalRelations Disrupted Disrupted Disrupted Disrupted Disrupted Changing-Pop growth Slow Rapid Rapid Rapid Slow SlowEnvironment-Quality Very poor Poor Acceptable Poor Healthy Healthy-Relationship Lost Breakdown Breakdown Breakdown Stable Complete(Compiled from Maim, Rizvi and Norberg-Hodge)creased in the past 34-four years. They left behind family members, large herds of yak,goat and sheep, and, in many cases, their possessions. Suffering almost a 50% mortalityrate as they came into exile, the refugees generally arrived impoverished and ill. The Indiangovernment granted 400 hectares of Indus valley land to the refugees in 1963 (Illustration3.5.1). Today, over 3500 people live in eleven camps50,in crowded housing, on thewind-blown and saline land, with little access to water or sanitation facilities. Fiercesandstorms blow up the Indus in summer. Previously unsettled, because of its poorquality, the land has little ability to grow crops, or graze the animals which were an integralpart of the Drog-pa ‘s personal identification. As they lost their animals, the refugees lost50An additional 2600 Tibetans occupy nine camps in Eastern Ladakh. These refugees maintain their herds,on land shared by Ladakhi nomads.56Illustration 3.5.1 The Tibetan refugee camp, looking across the Indus River valley to the Ladakh Range.SiP ‘ i,::rt4i‘•;;‘.‘,Iii‘‘UII ‘; L$2’4’u1.i :4‘—I,II ‘ ‘i—:i•:..i ,4 Ill 11*t. Y.di57their means of sustenance, ability to trade, fuel (dung) and means of transport. Social crisisof physical and mental dislocation was thus compounded by poverty.The refugees are Mahayana Buddhists, their religion is an integral part of their identity.Within the camps, they have constructed two small monasteries, but most young monksmust leave to study religious teachings. Authority once nested within the nomadichousehold now rests in the Tibetan Government-in-Exile in Dharamsala, H.P. Localgovernance is supplied by Dharamsala’s appointed chief representative while elected campleaders facilitate action in each camp. Education is centralized in the main camp. Thecurriculum is prescribed in Dharamsala. People work as coolies on road gangs orconstruction sites, as teachers or in the market of Leh. Although a few of the refugees havebecome ‘wealthy’ by Ladakhi standards, average wages are $20 per month. Families havebeen broken and in consequence, there are numerous one-parent households, and orphanedchildren. Family life is also disrupted in homes where both parents must work. The socialsafety net, traditionally the extended family, has been replaced by a central relief committeeand international aid agencies. With little access to dung, people depend on kerosene forfuel. More than 80% of the families have no access to any fuel other than kerosene.Between 50-75% of family incomes are spent on fuel. While conditions in the camps areharsh, the Tibetan arts and oral traditions thrive. As exiles, their own culture and the lifethey lead back in Tibet have become idealized and cherished. The refugees describethemselves as victims. Almost all want to return to their homeland after it regainsindependence (Vigoda, 1989:60). The camps in Ladakh are a temporary necessity.2. Leh: the CentreThe town of Leh is the only population centre in the district. The population of 8000permanent residents more than doubles in the summer months with an influx of tourists,bureaucrats and army personnel. It is located several kilometres off the Indus up a largeside valley, at the junction of two important trade routes. Leh was the capital and tradecentre of the kingdom of Ladakh for over three hundred years and is now the governmentadministrative centre for the district. Its population has always been an interesting mix ofpeople, as Yarkiandis, Kashgaris, Tibetans, Indians, Turks and Kashmiris; Muslims,Buddhists, Christians and Hindus gathered to trade. For centuries, new ideas accompaniedgoods to this major stop along the Silk Road.58Leh is the focus of growth in Ladakh. The rate of change is so great that the relationshipbetween people and land is disrupted. As described earlier, Ladakhis traditionally identifywith place and the Buddhist philosophy of the middle path. This world view placed greaterimportance on balance than growth and on cooperation rather than competition or rivalry.Yet, development aid, government services and the cash economy replace these traditionalvalues with competition and commerce. Today, there is a great deal of conflict in Leh overoutside control of government and the market, the growing pollution and waste problemsin the city, an education system that does not necessarily meet local needs, and growingreligious tensions. The social safety net is disintegrating under the pressure of the marketeconomy and an inter-generational schism is developing. According to Rizvi (1989:111)and Norberg-Hodge (1989:96), this conflict is directly tied to the loss of sense of identitywith place.Almost all residents of Leh depend on fossil fuels for at least part of their fuel needs andalmost all homes are connected to the Stakna electric supply. Most people still gather orpurchase dung for winter heating fuel, but kerosene and coke heaters are becomingcommon. Bottled gas is also available in Leh, with about 15% of the homes making use ofpropane for cooking. Fossil fuels are estimated to represent about 50% of the fuel used forcooking (Hamf, 1992).3. Muslim villageChushot, the largest Muslim village in upper-central Ladakh is located about 20 kilometersupstream from Leh. On the south bank of the Indus, and at an altitude of 3500 metres, thevillage of over 400 homes stretches for over five kilometres and is sub-divided into threesmaller communities. Two bridges, one at each end of Chushot connect the village to themain road on the northern bank of the river. The road through the village has recently beenupgraded from a track. Its proximity to Leh is deceiving. Bus service can be sporadic, andprivate vehicles are unheard of throughout Ladakh.The Chushot villagers are Shia Muslims who followed their Queen from Baltistan intoLadakh in the 1600s. These original immigrants were, for all intents and purposes,assimilated into Ladakhi culture although they remain proud of their Balti heritage, and livedifferently than the strict Shia Muslims in the Kargil region and the Suni Muslims who59dominate in Leh (Rizvi, 1989: 124) As Balti Shia Muslims, they have differing forms ofstructuring their village institutions.The Balti system is not based on a belief in ihas, as found in Buddhist communities. Theland, hearth and water are not sacred, but a sense of spiritual ecology exists in anadaptation of the Islamic demand of stewardship of God’s creation. Safeguarding, if notenhancing, the soil and water is an integral aspect of farming. Because they do not practicepolyandry, lands are subdivided to be distributed among sons who marry. With recentreductions in mortality rates, and more children surviving into adulthood, farm-lots toosmall to support a family are becoming common. The Baltis, as late arrivals to Ladakh,settled on previously uninhabited and ecologically poor land. Although there is an amplesupply of Indus River water for irrigation, the land is more saline and, therefore, not asproductive as side-valley lands. Winds ranging up to 50 or 100 km/hour on most summerafternoons create dust storms which rob the soil of its moisture, lodging in barley fieldsand causing human and animal health problems. Combining the physical land quality withthe human management system, Chushot agricultural and pastoral economy has never beenas healthy as that of other Ladakhi villages.The Chushot social safety nets consist of extended families, professional clans, castegroups, marriage connections (often to Buddhist women and their families) and themosque. The Baltis maintain an arms-length relationship with outsiders in village decisionmaking. As well, they maintain loose market and family ties to outsiders. Decision makingis dominated by adult males within the mosque. Schools are strongly influenced byreligious leaders. Traditional structures have remained largely intact, but many Baltis feelthis is a consequence of their lack of attractiveness to outside settlement, investment,tourism and some amount of neglect from the government. Chushot has not changedgreatly because outsiders don’t see an opportunity for gain there (Khan, 1992).Recent rapid population growth on environmentally inferior land has impaired localsufficiency. Tuberculosis and dysentery are becoming a problem as a result of crowdedliving quarters. Fuel shortages are a growing worry, as is inflation, which impacts thoseBaltis involved in the market economy. There are feelings of growing disenfranchisementfrom Leh, government and their neighbours, due largely to the religious and separatiststrife in Ladakh over the past five years, and locally perceived neglect of Chushot by thegovernment.604. Hinterland villageThe hinterland community of Hemis Shukpachang lies at least a three hour uphill walkfrom the Leh-Srinagar road (Illustration 3.5.2). As with most off-the-road, hinterlandcommunities in Ladakh, Hemis Shukpachang villagers are still largely in control of theirinstitutions and the rate of change occurring in their communities. Interaction with theoutside world is limited to trade excursions to Leh or Khalse, or traveling to festivals inneighbouring villages and monasteries. Otherwise, this village of about 60 houses, remainslargely self-sufficient and independent. Village governance lies firmly in the hands of thegoba, his ghansum (assistants), professional leaders (traditional doctors and astrologers).Each household participates in decision making on an informal basis. Consensus is almostalways reached through ample discussion which often occurs along the footpaths and in thefields. The gompa still has a large input, especially in cases of difficult dispute resolution.Although Hemis Shukpachang has a state-sponsored medical and development office andCentre-sponsored schools, the medical office is often vacant school taught by locals.Participation in the formal economy is marginal, trade is primarily on a barter basis,supplemented by cash sales.The people of the village all practice traditional professions, although some supplementtheir income through government postings or the tourist trade. Each home is at the centre ofa traditional farm; with average holdings of one or two hectares. The village is wealthy inthat it has a sufficient supply of irrigation water, several year-round springs of clear water,healthy soils within fairly flat or meticulously maintained, terraced fields, and large familywoodlots and pastures. Even at an altitude of 3700 metres, the villagers produce highyields from their barley, potato, mustard, wheat and pea fields. Households have a ‘bank’of up to an eight year supply of barley. Houses are large and well-kept. A winter barn isusually located on the first floor, kitchen and storage spaces directly above, and numerousbed, guest and alter rooms, and open space for drying on the roof. Some houses haveincorporated a shelkhang (glassroom) as a solar-heated room into their homes. There is fullrecycling of nutrients in the village. Dung and fuelwood is burned in the kitchen. Somekerosene lanterns are used for light. Animal urine and human nightsoil is mixed withtopsoil and ash, composted and returned to the field. Field stubble is grazed before it isturned over. Crops are rotated and seeds traded between farmers to aid in healthy cropproduction.61Illustration 3.52 Photograph of Hemis Shukpachang, a typical, remote Ladakhi village. Fields of barleycover the majority of the valley-bottom, villages perch on the edge of productive lands, high-altitudepastures are used to graze animals.62Inter-personal relationships are maintained through an intricate social web. People are notisolated or ostracized in times of need, celebration or daily living. Village harmony andbalance guides decisions and actions, to upset this balance, for whatever purpose, isundesirable. It allows villagers to shrug off differences and forget difficulties,concentrating instead on the positive aspects of village health. Personal goals, even that ofenlightenment, are subservient to collective goals. The Bodhicitta path to enlightenment thatdominates in central Ladakh’s hinterland villages is of a collective nature. Within MahayanaBuddhism, all sentient beings will reach enlightenment together.In the hinterland communities, institutionalized education carries the greatest impact. Manychildren are sent away to school, in order to receive their Class Ten ticket. The currenteducation system prepares children tojoin the service sector or continue their training, butnot for a traditional life in their home village. Few children are exposed to schools thatteach traditional as well as ‘modem’ education. A generation of children are ill-prepared tocontinue the spiritual-traditionalism of their parents. There are serious concerns that whenthese children reach adulthood, the social systems in villages will collapse.3.5.3 Other villages: the importance of rapid changeCentre-influenced and road-influenced villages fall along the middle of the spectrumrepresenting neither the severe disruption experienced in the refugee camps or the stabilityseen in hinterland villages. Although they still manifest strong traditions within thehousehold, these are often overshadowed by outside influences. Villagers express feelingsof being pulled away from their centuries old systems of ecological balance and socialharmony, toward a modern, ego-centred life-pattern (Interviews in Shey, Khalse, Palam,Stok, 1992). People often feel ill-equipped for the change and therefore experience feelingsof alienation and resistance (Norberg-Hodge, interview 1989). These impacts hit theyounger generation and women particularly hard. The young are often distanced from theirown heritage, or lose confidence in their village’s traditional knowledge. As the systemchanges, women lose the status of being the single female in a home of severalpolyandrous husbands. They lose some of their power over household decision makingand control of the ‘purse.’ Women may see an increase in their work-load as men moveaway from the home to work for cash. Inter-generational conflict emerges as identities areshaken, and inter-village or class conflicts can emerge with the loss of power (Mann,Goldstein and Tsarong 444; Norberg-Hodge,).63Figure 3.5.1 The 26 villages surveyed in the case studies, village typeRefugee Centre-influenced Road-influencedand camp Centre Muslim village IlmuteilandI I I I ITibetan- Leh-Chanspa- Sabu Chushot ThemisgangRefugee- Sankar- Shey Stagmo Tia- Angcamp Gompa Thikse Stok HenusAlpha- Spituk Phyang Stakna ShukpachangAnny- Choglamsar- Khalse Saspol MathoCamp Village ULetopko NaUgBasgo MarteslangLamayuru ShangNimu LikkirWanlaLazingThe rapid change in Ladakh is occurring simultaneously with the opening of the area to theoutside world and the advent of development. In some areas, this change is not welcome.In all areas within the study area, people expressed concern regarding the scope and scaleof change. They question a development path geared toward modernization when theyobserve its influence on the institutions that have supported their lives for centuries. Thedeterioration of the monastery, system of governance, traditional education forums andsocial safety nets all reduce their level of self-reliance and control. In addition, HelenaNorberg-Hodge (1991:139) notes that:An equally important factor in cultural breakdown is the sense ofinferiority produced by contact with the modern world.In response to growing awareness of the destructive aspects of conventional aid, alternativeprograms are designing and implementing development that supports social structures. Theobjective of these programs is to reinforce local security, increase material well-being andconserve the foundations of well-being in remote villages. They are intended to address thegrowing problem of loss of self-respect which is reinforced by conventional development’sdefinition of the Ladakhi people as impoverished. Instead of targeting traditionalinstitutions as culprits of backwardness, these programs attempt to build on localstructures.64CHAPTER FOURTHE CASE STUDY:APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY IN LADAKHWe used to hold change in one hand and tradition in the other. Thenexperts came from the outside and brought us development. But itwas so big, we couldn’t hold it. First we had to set aside our way ofchange. And then we had to set aside our tradition.-a Ladakhi man talking about development aid.Development aid will have significant impacts on Ladakh. The people have uniquedefinitions of human well-being and needs, that are not homogenous across the district.Alongside, and often in conflict with, a traditional society exists a booming touristindustry, a strong military presence, a rapidly growing and modernizing regional capital, alarge refugee population and an internal political struggle. Rapid change, both led by andfollowing behind modernization, is a new and threatening challenge to a culture based onbalance. Attempts to develop the region with nationalized plans have largely not beensuccessful while representing a significant cost to the Indian government51.How then canthe Ladakhis balance change, development and tradition?AT programs have been undertaken in Ladakh by government agencies, local grassrootsgroups and international aid agencies with the intent of better meeting local needs withlimited development funds. This chapter examines data gathered in a case study of four ATprograms which introduced solar box cookers to address growing energy and healthproblems in the region. The case study focuses on cooker users who participated in thefour programs, and a group who purchased cookers on the open market. The case studycovered users in 26 villages in central Ladakh.Examined in this chapter are the results from the case study. First, the methodology used inthis research is described. Then, results from performance tests of cookers used by thedifferent programs are presented. The, results are used to determine the ability of programsan interview with the Development Commisionerof Ladakh, Mr. A Angorama, September, 1992.He stated that the failure of development was two-fold. First, the majority of the people living in Ladakhhave been left out of the development process. Most hinterland villages still lack access to electricity, donot have functional schools or health clinics and have no easy access to raods and markets. At the sametime, for many people involved in the development process, the provision of infrastructure has not resultedin significant personal gainas. He feels that for development to be successful, both personal well-being andthe modernization of Ladakh must occur.65to correctly identify user’s needs and willingness to use technologies. Information gatheredfrom surveys and observations is used to examine the effectiveness of introductionprograms, and the acceptability and impact of cooker use within the home. Finally,comparisons between different programs are made to help identify areas where cookerprograms could be improved.4.1 Aims of case study: research questions and objectivesTwo related questions have developed from technology transfer theory that will beaddressed to the case study in Ladakh. First, what components within AT programscontribute to or hinder the acceptance and use of a transferred technology? Second, doestechnology transfer work, and is it of value, when carried out within the framework of AT?These questions are addressed through the following research questions:1. Are locally-defined needs in energy use patterns correctly identified andreflected in methods used to address needs?2. Are the solar box cookers technically capable of functioning under the localconditions?3. Are AT programs structured to facilitate understanding, do they result inpositive impacts and encourage acceptance and use of solar cookers?4. Is there a correlation between frequency of use of solar cookers and village-defined need, willingness to use, tool capability, the user’s understandingof the tool, net positive impacts in villages, and ease of use? and5. When results from the above examinations are compared, are theresignificant differences between villages or between AT programs in Ladakhwith respect to solar cooker use?The objectives of this work are to use the case study to examine a form of AT as it ispractised, to examine the relationship between components within each of the four ATprograms and use of cookers, to compare differences between programs, and to suggestpossible improvements in AT frameworks.4.2 MethodsThe study adopts the case study design because this is a commonly used mode of inquirywithin planning, sociology and political science; all areas important to development66planning (Yin, 1981:14). The case study is particularly suited to examining and evaluatingcontemporary events within a real-life situation. The research questions are geared todiscovering why people use cookers, how programs adapt to user demands and whatcomponents of a program impact use. In this particular case, there was little opportunity forcontrol over actual behavioral events, and the study was interested in conducting “researchon real, as opposed to stated, organizational goals” (Marshall and Rossman, 1989:44-46).First, a preliminary data collection stage was initiated, followed by a formal process, whichis outlined in Figure 4.2.1.Data were collected using seven methods in this field work. First, archival research wasundertaken in two program offices (LEDeG and DNCE). The LEDeG program supports alibrary with information on programs it undertakes and has kept a record of technologydesign, testing and use. In addition LEDeG maintains records on its solar projects, andmany of the people who purchased solar technologies in the past. Although LEDeG did notFigure 4.2.1 Methodology framework for the case studyICS#1:LEDeG I______________Does Technology 1 Locally.designedl I Program analysis: ITransfer Work?-and built cooker AT framework II locally operated II program IEvaluate in 4 differingvillage settings: Centre,refugee camp, Muslim,and hinterland village,each of the 4 programsData CollectionProtocol:Define Process andProcess outcomes,effects1. Needs evaluation2. Programs in use3. Village surveys4. Performance test5. Re-evaluationsCS#2: TCV-DHP-designed,local-materialcooker inoutside mgd.programCS#3: DNCE-BDDelhi-developed,ntl-scale program,state operated.CS#4: SSPTest programwith all devicesused in other3 programs.Survey in all 26villages, all solar usersin the 4 programs.Re-survey in 4 abovehighlighted villages.Compare comonents inAT framework.Conduct technicalcapability tests for alldevices.Compare results ofdifferent programs.Compare frequencyof use with above.67have a record of solar cooker purchases, information on other technology use assisted infinding owners of cookers.The Block Development Office (BDO) supports the distribution of the DNCE cookers. Theoffice has a record of most users of the various BDO services, including a fairly completerecord of solar cooker purchasers outside the Leh-town area. The records helped locateSBC users. The BDO keeps records on introduction and follow-up program techniques,and user-surveys. These reports were used to help determine the process used and changein the process within the DNCE program.Second, interviews and correspondence with the three AT program directors (TCV-D,LEDeG and DNCE) provided information on each program’s goals, methods andachievements. The fourth program, SSP, was designed as a participatory research programto aid in the evaluation of the other three programs. Interviews were conducted with SSPtechnicians. Information from the archival search and interviews is aggregated in Table4.3.2.Third, surveys of 283 cooker users living in 26 villages were conducted. The surveysmade use of four different interview types: structured, informal interview, and key-areasdiscussion52.The observation-based interview did not make use of an interpreter, whilethe others depended largely on local residents to act as interpreters. Interview structure wasdesigned to match differing interpreter skill levels. The structured interview was largelydeveloped by Solar Box Cookers International, of Sacramento, California. Results fromthese interviews were used within an international survey of solar cooker users, althoughthe interviews were adapted to fit local data requirements. Informal interviews and key-areas discussion interviews were used when either interpreters could not precisely translatequestions, or a more informal setting was preferred. The observation-based interview wasused on occasions when an interpreter was not available, or for observation of previously-stated use and actually-observed use was desired. The surveys were tested in the first twomonths of field work; and data collection continued for the following five months. Table4.2.3 shows the break down of surveys used.Each of the surveys gathered answers to 25 questions3which covered information on:- household data,53Basic 25 questions appearing in the data base are placed in the Appendix.68- views on development or change in the village or area- household fuel situations and need for alternative fuel sources and technologies,- willingness to try a new technology- the nature of the introduction and follow-up programs in the village and the perceivedvalue of these programs to the user,- benefits and impacts of use of the cooker,- frequency of use of the cooker,- likes and dislikes concerning use, design and cooker program,- suggestions for changes either in the cooker itself or the introduction program.In addition to the surveys, observation between stated answers to questions and what wasactually observed about cooker use or demographic data was recorded. This added a fourthform of information gathering.Data collection occurred in all villages where technologies could be located. In some cases,cookers distributed in programs in the 1980s could not be located. Attempts were made tocontact all past and present solar users in each village; about 50% of all cooker users werecontacted and surveyed54.In some instances, a neighbour, kinship group member, orrelative was allowed to share use of a family cooker. If these persons were fairly frequentusers, they were included in the study55.Participation in the survey was 100% of solarusers contacted, although some users preferred not to address certain questions and askedto remain anonymous. In some instances, non-owner users offered information thatowners seemed uncomfortable volunteering.A fifth method of data collection was repeat visits in 13 villages, either to talk with cookerusers not previously found, or to follow-up with users previously interviewed. In fourvillages, numerous visits and surveys were made. These intensive study sites were used tooffer greater ethnographic information, gain the trust of participants, observe the actual useof cookers over several seasons of use, and test interview validity with repeat questioning.Project implementation (village programs), technology training programs and evaluationmethods were observed whenever possible.two of the three agencies had incomplete records of the number of cookers sold or given away, thetotal number of cookers used in Ladakh can only be estimated. Out of approximately 354 cookers inLadakh (in the three programs), 200 users, or 56%, were contacted.55These ‘non-owner’ users were included when they stated they had tried using the cooker at least tentimes, over two or more seasons, and held opinions on value, limitations and changes in fuel consumptionrepresentedby cooker use.69Table 4.2.3 Numbers of each survey used in fieldwork, according to program participation.Program Structured Informal Keydiscussion Observation Test CookersL* # #a* LTCV-D1 20 10 0 0 4 TRCLEDeG1 0 7 0 0 5 TRC2 11 20 5 0 2 Chanspa3 3 4 7 04 2 0 0 05 3 14 16 66 8 4 6 4TOTAL 27 49 34 10DNCE 1 0 3 0 1 3 TRC2 6 11 2 0 2 Chushot3 1 15 8 04 13 5 0 05 0 9 5 56 3 1 7 11TOTAL 23 44 23 12SSP 1 11 19 0 0 2(A) TRC2 0 5 0 0 2(B) TRCTOTAL 11 24Key:= Number of interviews of each type in each village#a= number of cookers tested in SSP experimentL = Location: 1 Camps (army and Refugee) TRC = Tibetan Refugee camps2 Centre Chanspa = Near Leh3 Centre-influenced Chushot = Muslim village4 Muslim village5 Road-influenced A = SSP-LEDeG model, plastic6 Hinterland B = TCV-D model with 22°If locations not listed, no interviews were conducted in that village type for that model.A sixth form of information gathering was a 193 day experiment with all models ofcookers used in the above four programs. Six variations of three basic models (the TCV-D,the LEDeG and the DNCE cookers) were tested for their technical capability, with a total offourteen cookers included in the test (details on the experiment are found in the variablesand measures section).Finally, a participatory research project was added to facilitate the cooker capability testing,and to involve a group of local users in the design of cooker programs. This is the fourthAT program in the case study, the SSP project. The primary purposes of SSP were to i)undertake a capability test of each of the cookers used in the TCV-D, LEDeG and DNCEprograms ii) use the cookers within an AT framework in the Tibetan refugee camps, iii)70actively involve users in framework design and evaluation of the program and iv) offersuggestions for change in cooker design and AT program framework.4.3 The ProgramsThe four different solar cookers programs compared in this case study are the TCV-D,LEDeG, DNCE and SSP programs (Table 4.3.1). Each is a form of AT aid and complieswith the general AT concepts in that a program:- makes use of a proven technology,- uses its tools to fulfill an identifiable, locally-defined need,- uses tools to support and enhance local skills and knowledge and- makes use of relatively simple and cheap tools, and can be sustained without outsideaid after the end of an introductory period.The programs range from indigenously-operated, local programs which stress village self-sufficiency, to government-sponsored programs that focus on technological efficiency andlowering fossil fuel use in impoverished homes (Figure 4.3.1) All four programs shareimportant similarities in that they:- work within the conceptual framework of development aid, making use of outsidefinancing and technicians,- work within the conceptual framework of AT by building on local technologicalexperience,- make use of tested technology, defined as ‘appropriate,’- offer subsidies of 50% or more of cooker cost to users,- encourage local participation beginning at the planning stage of the project, and- use introduction programs to encourage greater use of the technologies.Table 4.3.1 Spectrum of AT program structure in LadakhParticpatory, locally-4 Government, largebased and project, or outsidemulti-purpose aid directed aidLadakhEcological Tibetan Children’s VillageDevelopment Group Indian Design Solar ProgramSolar program (I’CV-D)BlockDevelopmentOfficer’s DepartmentSonam ling Test of Non-ConventionalSolar Progam Energy solar program(SSP) (DNCE)71The four programs that will be compared have their characteristics summarized in Table4.3.2. A brief description of each program and its central emphasis is provided, followedby a discussion of the experimental program.4.3.1 LEDeGProramAn international organization concerned with the impacts of modernization established theLadakh Ecological Development Group (LEDeG) in response to the conflict betweentraditional Ladakhi societies and development. Started in 1984, LEDeG sponsorstechnology and cultural programs, supports vocational and handicrafts training, and worksin inter-cultural education. Based out of its Ecology Centre in Leh, with a staff of between40-50, LEDeG depends mostly on international aid and private funding.LEDeG’s mandate is to “demonstrate means by which the Ladakhi people can improvetheir standard of living without thereby suffering environmental or social imbalance”(LEDeG, 1987:46). Within this, their AT projects stress the best use of locally-availableresources and materials, technology reproduction at the local level, and cookingtechnologies used to mitigate (not replace) fossil fuel use.(Dawa, 1992). The LEDeG ATintroduction programs stress the context; supporting a healthy, local environment andculture is the purpose of the tool (Norberg-Hodge, 1992). LEDeG currently undertakes theconstruction, distribution and maintenance of almost a dozen solar, hydro and windtechnologies. A design and testing program operates out of their Ecology Centre; withfurther testing done in homes. The solar cooker project is a small part of LEDeG’s ATwork (Dawa, 1992).The LEDeG staff works with villagers who have expressed an interest in incorporatingsolar technologies into their homes. LEDeG uses this interest as the primary measure ofneed, as those expressing interest, should be are those with fuel needs and a willingness touse technologies. Staff visit the village for a discussion with potential users, or villageleaders. Usually a local planning session or demonstration program precedes technologyintroduction. LEDeG also attempts to train locals in the maintenance and repair oftechnologies, offering them up to six month apprenticeships at the Ecology Centre.Follow-up programs were conducted in the earlier years of solar cooker introduction, butthere was no systematic cooker evaluation (Dawa, 1992 and Tsering, 1992).72Component ProgramcharteristicsTCV-D LEDeG DNCE SSPTibetanRefugee BasedinLeh National program EvaluativeprogramCampAT framework In ILP.*, full local Full participation and Decentralized energy Borrowed from otherparticipation in investment in prqjects, making use prqjects in the studyprojects. In Lmiakh, community, adheres of small-scale techs, evaluation to produceoutside-directed to philosophy of AT mandated to lessen a framework for ATdirected dvpmt. aid fossil fuel dependence use.Program Fuel use Cultural conservation, Fuel use Evaluation of ATemphasis AT programsFinancing Intl andlnchan International donors National ministry International donorsdonorsYears in Ladakh 3 month program 14 years w/ parent org. 26 Less than 1 year#staff None inLadakh 40-50 15 3AT variety Solar cookers only Micro-hydro, ram pumps, Pumps, pressure Other solar technologieswind, other solar cookers, stovesOtherprograms Fuciwood Cultural program, arts, Village supportprogram Traimngandhealthconservation, handicrafts, voc. trainingjob trainingLocation ofvillages TCV only ThroughoutLadakh Leh Block villages Tibetan camps, near Leh#villages served 1 91 25 4Yearsw/cookers 3 8 5 1#cookers 54 150-200 80-100 30Subsidy to user 100% 33-100% 25-50% 50-100%Needs evaluation RequestfromTCV Villagers come to Targetedatimpoverished, 100% evaluation as partdirector Ecology centre, input from village heads of experiment tousers not asked or pilot projects redesign programsParticipation Littleuserparticipa- R&D, construction Stateand Centre R&D, construction, test,ion in TCV; direc- and test with Ladakhi redesign with local stafftor’s choice staffIntro order Only cookers used Dependent on request Dependent on local needs Dependent on local needsfrom villagersProgram:R&D 10 years in HP, 1TDG +14 years in 19 years with DNCE, Less than 1 yearmany successful Ladakh, many many successfulprograms successful programs programsLocal testing none AU technologies Limited All technologiesConstruction Locals participate At Centre or village Outside (Jammu) 2 models on siteStaff make-up HP w/ local help Mostly Ladakhi State and local Mostly TibetanTraining On-site, use and On-site or at Centre On-site, use and repair Some R&D, on-site use,repair repairProgram dvpmt lIP Ecology Centre Centre and state LocalIntroduction 70% info session 70% information session 50% information 100% demonstration30% demonstration 30% demonstration 50% demonstrationFollow-up Locally trained Up to users unless use 25% surveyed program, 100% surveyed, sometechnician within a pilot project some local technicians redesign and trainingEvaluation None Within pilot projects User survey in some User survey for all usersvillagesTable 43.2 Summary of information on each of the four AT programs included in the case study734.3.2. TCV-D ProgramThe Tibetan Children’s Village (I’CV) program within the Tibetan refugee camp was basedon a small, ten year solar cooker program operated in Himachal Pradesh (HP), India. DidiContractor, the designer, and a small group of technicians experimented with solar cookersin response to local fuelwood shortages. The program addresses social and environmentalconsequences of fuel shortages, supports local cottage industry, encourages local problem-solving and appropriateness in development. As a small group, the project works only withcookers, but incorporates these into an AT program. Design research was undertaken forten years at Ms. Contractor’s Suni Cottage, in HP. Funding for the program is largelyfrom grassroots movements and government subsidies. Forty locally-trained techniciansaid in training and building of cookers, and offer demonstrations of cooking in HP(Contractor, 1992).Ms. Contractor came to Ladakh to undertake a project at the request of the TCV director.The main kitchen atTCV was consuming over 200 litres of kerosene per day for the over2000 people it serves. The director requested that solar cookers be built to lessen this fuelconsumption. Ms. Contractor undertook the TCV-D project with the goals to i) provideeach residential home within TCV with two cookers, ii) use these cookers for baking breadfor the 2000 residents and staff, iii) lessen kerosene consumption, and iv) provide anexample that could encourage further use of solar technologies. The TCV-D cooker wasdesigned to be simple and cheap to build, largely from indigenous materials, and be easy tomaintain and use (Contractor, 1992).The TCV director did not consult with the 30 people expected to use the technologies.Several HP technicians worked in conjunction with Tibetan vocational training students toconstruct 54 cookers in the school compound. No locally-constructed, experimentalcookers were constructed. A training program on the use and maintenance of the cookerswas held for the houseparents and cook staff. When working in HP, this AT programinserts cookers into women’s support groups or village self-sufficiency system(Contractor, 1992). In Ladaich, this was not done. The director asked for HP assistance forthree reasons; to gain knowledge of solar energy, to obtain funds for cooker constructionand because of their inability to acquire Ladakhi-based AT aid (Tenpa, 1992).744.3.3. DNCE vrogramThe Block Development Office (BDO) of the Leh district currently operates a Departmentof Non-Conventional Energy Sources (DNCE) sponsored alternative energy program. TheBDO-DNCE mandate is to address the energy needs of the 80% of the Ladakhi peopledefined as impoverished, especially those in hinterland villages without access to fossilfuels (Hanif, 1992). The BDO makes use of alternative energy sources in order to achievethe goals of the (Centre-sponsored) 20 Point Program to provide adequate energy to allcitizens by the year 2020. The BDO focuses its development programs on basic needs,over cultural support. The department supports the use of numerous technologies,irrigation and water services, and vocational training programs. The office is supportedthrough national and state government grants, a small portion of which goes to alternativefuels. It has a staff of more than 15 people and serves 25 villages in the block (Angorama,1992).The DNCE cooker was tested within the national alternative-fuels program and has metwith success when introduced elsewhere in India. Local testing was limited, usually withstaff experimenting with local foods and introduction program frameworks. The BDOsponsors programs in villages where interest has been demonstrated, and in ‘target’villages. Participants must be below the poverty line (earning less than 440 IRlmonth;about $17) and living in the Leh block, in order to receive a cooker. After a preliminarymeeting with village leaders, a demonstration program is conducted in villages. Cookersare sold to villagers who participate in the introduction program. Local technicians are nottrained. Follow-up and evaluation programs are mandated by the Office of Science andTechnology, J&K government (Hanif, 1992).4.3.4 SSP ProgramThe Sonam Ling Solar Project (SSP) was the experimental, participatory research projectthat ran in conjunction with other research for this thesis. Operated by the author, andfunded through an international aid grant, SSP had three components. The first was to runindependent tests on each of the cookers used in the other programs. These tests werecarried out in the Tibetan refugee camp, under similar micro-environmental conditions andequal use. This was done to provide the basic information on technological capability, overa period of 193 days. The second purpose was to distribute and use cookers (of eachmodel) within the refugee camp under a participatory AT program. In addition to elements75from other solar programs, a food subsidy was added to SSP. This allowed the refugeesthe freedom to experiment with cooking methods, without worry about their limited foodbudgets. The cookers were used for up to six months within the refugee camp, then theprogram and cooker performances were evaluated. Finally, evaluation information wasused by participants to design a solar program useful to the refugees. This programborrowed elements from each of the other AT programs. Several villagers fromChoglamsar (village), Chushot and Chanspa then joined the SSP program.SSP was a participatory program, with the 35 recipients chosen by their demonstratedwillingness to try new technologies and to offer feedback on performance. Users helpeddesign the program, evaluated cooker capabilities, experimented with cooker design anduse, and then participated in creating a program for further use in the refugee camp.4.3.5 Cooker typeSix variations of the (three) models associated with the LEDeG, TCV-D and DNCEprojects were tested in the case studies6:two variations of the TCV-D model, three of theLEDeG model and one DNCE model (Table 4.3.3). A brief description of each modelfollows.Fifty-four TCV-D cookers were constructed in 1989, all within the Tibetan Children’sVillage compound. The cookers are constructed of adobe brick, with a small amount ofwood for framing. The hot box is lined in black-painted sheet metal, with straw insulation.Other models of SBCs are produced and used in Ladakh; but they are not common.76All cookers use double-paned glass, with a surface area of 1 metre by 0.6 metre. Forty-eight of the cookers are constructed on rooftops in communal homes at the village; sixcookers are on ground level at a large dormitory. All the cookers are anchored on the roofsor ground; they are not portable and cannot be oriented to the sun. The cookers wereoriginally constructed so that the glass is oriented at a 90° angle to the ground (variation 1)(Figure 4.3.1). In 1992, several of the cookers were rebuilt at a 22° angIe (variation 2,reconstruction undertaken within the SSP program), in an attempt to capture more sun’srays for more of the year. The cookers have a capacity of six 1.5-litre bread pans. The dooror hatch to the cooker is a small opening at the front of the cooker, so constructed that largewater containers or pots cannot be inserted into the cooker.The LEDeG cooker (and two of the three variations) is the result of many years of testingin the Leh area (Figure 4.3.2). The cooker has been used in dozens of communitiesthroughout upper and central Ladakh; including the remote Nubra valley area. Between 150and 200 cookers have been built and distributed since 1984. All cookers are constructedof materials available in the local market. The box is made of plywood over a woodenframe. The interior of the hot box is sheet metal, and insulated with either coconut husk orstraw. Most cookers use a single pane of glass (variation 3), with a surface area of 0.5metre by 0.65 metre. Some double-paned cookers were constructed to test for greater heatretention (variation 2). (Through the SSP program, the LEDeG design with two ‘panes’ ofa special ultra-violet resistant LDP film were tested for performance capability (variation 3).This model will be discussed under the SSP program.) The cooker is constructed so that it57The Ecology Centre supports an AT office in Kargil as well as the office in Leh. The Kargil Centre alsoconstructs and distributes solar cookers. It is unknown how many cookers are in use in this part of greaterLadakh.Figure 4.3.2 The LEDeG solar cooker77Table 4.3.3 Solarcooker characteristicscan be oriented toward the sun at either a 30° or 60° angle to the horizontal (whilemaintaining a flat interior surface) and to take advantage of summer and winter sun. Thecookers are portable, weighing about 12 kilograms and measuring approximately 0.5 metrex 0.75 metre x 0.75 metre. The cookers were specifically designed to serve two purposes,to cook food and heat water. The entire front of the cooker functions as the hatch, so that Sor 6- litre pots or a 20-litre jerrycan can easily be placed inside.Cookers tested within SSPfor use in the thesis:Test cooker# Model #infield Test cooker # Model # in field1-2 TCV-D90° 48 7-8 LEDeG2x 125-1503-4 TCV-D22° 6 9-11 LEDeG 25-505-6 SSP-LEDeG plastic 6 12-14 DNCE 100The DNCE solar cooker (Figure 4.3.3) was developed at the solar energy centre inHaryana state, over a 10 year period of research and testing. The model is used nationallyand must be reproduced to standard by state-sponsored manufacturing agencies; in J&Kthe agency is located in Jammu (city). Over 350,000 cookers have been distributed acrossIndia. There are approximately 100 cookers in use in 25 villages are throughout centralTCV-D54Number in studyNumber in LadakhLocationMatenals54LeG DNCERefugee campsAdobe brick, sheet metal, woodenframe, straw insulation, withglass top78150-200Upper and central LadakhPlywood, sheet metal,wooden frame, coconut huskinsulation with glass door0%40%100%100%0.6m square1.Sm x lm x 0.75m6880-100Upper and central LadakhPlastic, sheet metal, fiberglass insulation, mirror,with double-paned glassdoor0%% local materials% locally-availablematerials% local constructionGlass surface sizeCooker sizeCapacity: litres foodCapacity: litres waterCooker weightPrimary functionHatchReflectorCover9980%0%approx. 100kgBread baking15 cmx 40cmNot possible (adobe sidewalls)Canvas cloth, can be insulated03m square0.6m x 0.6m x 0.25m100%100%0325m square0.Sm x 0.75m x 0.75m122012kgWater heating, baking38cm x 52cmCan be attachedCan use blanket, can beinsulated6614kgFood cooking56 cmx 56 cmBuilt inBuilt in cover, can beinsulated78Ladakh58.The BBO-DNCE program has operated for four years, while previous state-sponsored programs made use of the same DNCE model. They are made of a heavy plasticbox over a metal frame. The hot box is sheet metal, insulation is fiberglass. A doublepaned glass top and a large reflector mirror, both measuring 0.5 metre x 0.5 metre, directssun rays into the box. Weighing about 14 kilograms, and measuring 0.65 x 0.65 x 0.25metres, the cooker resembles a large suitcase when closed. The entire glass top functionsas the hatch or door, allowing easy access to the interior. The cooker’s adjustable mirrorallows for use in all seasons. The cookers are designed chiefly to cook food, with acapacity of 8 litres of food, in specially-made, shallow pots that are sold with the cooker.Water capacity is limited, and specially-designed containers must be manufactured. Thecooker has an insulated lid that can be closed to allow heat retention for hours after the lossof direct sunlight, and allows the cooker to be moved easily and safely.All of the above-mentioned cooker models are used in the SSP program. In addition, SSPdesigned and used one variation of the LEDeG and one of the TCV-D models. The SSPLEDeG variation was one that used two ‘panes’ of UV-resistant LDP film. This film hasproved a suitable replacement for glass, which is expensive and fragile, when used in othercooker programs in the equatorial region. The film had never been tested in temperateregions or at high altitudes. Several LEDeG models were fit with the LDP film and testedThe BDO office in Kargil also operates a solar cooker program which was not evaluated in this study.The army makes use of the DNCE model, with between 50-200 cookers being used by army personell.Figure 4.3.3The DNCE cooker usedby the BDO programBoxpots79within a LEDeG program framework. The second SSP variation was the redesign of theTCV-D cooker, with a change in angle of the glass top of the cooker (from 90° flat surface,to a tilted 22° surface). This change was tested to see if the cooker-use season could beextended.In total, SSP tested 14 cookers, of six variations, on a daily basis for the entire field studyperiod. This fulfilled the need to record the technical capability of each of the abovementioned cookers. In addition, 21 other cookers were used in the program.4.4 Variables and measuresVariables measured in the thesis are drawn directly from AT literature. According toMcRobie, co-founder of ITDG (1981:39), appropriate tools and programs can bespecifically identified. The tools should address locally-defined needs, invest in localknowledge and skills, and produce a situation where participants are more self-reliant. Inaddition, the tool is one that is fully tested before large-scale implementation is undertaken.The program should remain flexible in order to react to local change, and use evaluations asfeedback to match needs with program results. These concepts directed the variableschosen, and were included in each of the surveys conducted in the field.In conducting the study, and in presenting the results, the focus remained on the user’sperceptions of how effectively cookers functioned. The user surveys covered informationin the following conceptual framework:1.frequency ofuse is related to2. a local need and willingness to use a different cooking system,3. technical capability4. user’s understanding oftechnology,5. functionality, and6. household and village benefits and impacts.In combination, the variables attempt to present a holistic picture of why users may or maynot adopt a new technology (Table 4.4.1). Frequency of use will be used as thedeterminant of whether or not the program has been successful. Need and willingness areacceptable general measures of whether a change within a home will be considered.Technical capability is vital as people will stop using a cooker that does not work.80Knowledge of how the cooker works provides the comfort needed in making atechnological change. Functionality, benefits and impacts contribute to ease of changewithin the home.Concurrent with the user survey, a capability test on all models of cookers was undertaken.This do the cookers work? aspect of the research question makes use of a different formatfrom the other variables. Fourteen SBCs, representing six variations of three models, weretested over 193 days and during spring, summer, autumn and early winter. Thetechnologies were used under similar micro-climatic conditions and carried the same loads.The cookers were located within three kilometers of each other (in the Tibetan refugeecamp), placed on the same desert-type surface, experienced the same outside airtemperatures, degree of cloudiness or shade, and incident solar radiation. Each wasmaintained oriented toward the sun and hatch opening was limited (to retain internal heat asmuch as possible).Table 4.4.1 Variables in the case studies_________________VARIABLE1. frequency of useTO INDICATE PROBLEM DEFINEDif all other variables combinein a situation wherebenefits outweigh impacts2. a. needb. willingnessc. abilityif there a fuel problemtechnology acceptanceas a measure of success of a program,local adaptation of the technology orneed so great, negative impacts notconsidered as important as fuel savings.3. technical capabilityaffordable technologycapability-i- functionality4. a. program introis fuel defined as a problem?as cookers are an intrusive technology,will, a new technology be accepted by users?could the household afford aneeded techb. follow-upincluding those interesteddoes the cooker usedmatch defined needs,will it work in this context?c. comprehensionsupport understandingactual understanding5. ease of usedesigndid the program make learning easy,encourage further dissemination, carry outproblem checking, and establish a localsupport network?do users understand how cooker functionsand are confident in using it?6. impactsuse problemsdesignproblemsnet perceived gain (benefits)difficulties incurred in usedifficulties caused by designnet loss (impacts)did net gains make use of a new techworth effort invested: economic,health and micro-environment, time,soil fertility, travel, controldid net loss make use of new techdis-advantageous: socio-political changes,social! household disruption, religious.814.5 Results and discussionCookers were tested for i) maximum daily temperatures, ii) hourly temperatures, iii) load,iv) ability to cook specific kinds of food, v) ability to maintain heat during cloudy weatherand after sunset and vi) ability to heat and pasteurize water. Outside temperatures, hours ofsolar radiation and percent clouds, were recorded in conjunction with cooker performance.Mm/max thermometres were used for maximum daily temperature readings, withthermometers always suspended in the air and centrally located in the cooker. Readingswere taken at the end of each day, without opening the hatch to take readings.Thermometers were pre-tested and variance taken into account; the same thermometerswere always used in the same cooker. Hourly temperature readings were made through theglass (without opening the door) and were taken on 17 out of the 193 days, and at leasttwice each month. Loads were measured in kilograms of raw food or litres of waterloaded. Cloud cover was estimated by visual examination. On cloudy or stormy-weatherdays, cookers were uncovered and temperatures taken. Cookers (whenever possible) werere-oriented toward the sun on a bi-hourly basis; the glass was cleaned each morning.Technical capability was primarily measured through the cooker test (operated in theTibetan refugee camp). Secondary capability data came from the users, who were surveyedfor their perceptions of how well the cookers performed. In some instances, wheninterviews coincided with cooker use, performance tests were run in villages.4.5.1 Technical capabilitySeven issues were addressed within the question do the cookers work? These componentstaken together answer:- do the cookers achieve sufficient temperatures for sufficient periods to cook food?- can they cook enough food of the local diet to feed the average Ladakhi family?- are the cookers reliable enough to be functional on partly cloudy days?Each of the seven questions will be discussed individually in order to answer do thecookers work? The results are displayed in Table 4.5.1 and outlined below.82The first question looked at the number of days the cookers achieved minimum cookingtemperatures of 100°C (Column 1 in Table 4.5.1) and whether the cooker stayed above100° for at least two hours in order to be able to cook food (Column 2 in Table 4.5.1)59.Table 4.5.1: Technical capability of all cookers; according to the temperatures they produce and according tothe type and amount of food they can cook?Does the solar box cooker work?Experiments with six models used by four programs1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.#Days #Days #Meals Time to cook Max Maintain CookCooker Th100° T>100° cooked 61 food load T° in food/193 >2 hrs/ 17 /51 Bread/Rice/Meat F/W clouds eaten?1. TCVD-22° 109 10 5 5 6 0 9 - 6 30 min* 38%(2 (56%) (59%) (10%)2. TCVD-90° 103 7 5 5 6 0 9 - 6 30 min* 40%(2) (53%) (41%) (10%)3. SSPLEDeGP 86 4 5 3.5 6 6 12-20 <1 hour* 35%(2) (47%) (24%) (10%)4. LEDeGMod-2x 153 13 19 2.5 3.5 4 12-20 <2 hours* 72%(2) (79%) (77%) (37%)5. LEDeGReg 142 12 19 3 4 4.5 12-20 <1.5 hours* 70%(3) (74%) (71%) (37%)6. DNCE 180 17 44 2 2.5 4 6 - 6 .c2.S hours 90%(3) (99%) (100%) (86%)1: Number of days temperature reached 100°C or more (total days 193)2: Number of days temperature reached 100°C or more for more than two hours (total days 17)3: Number of meals cooked out of a total of 51 on 17 days tested4: Time required to cook 6 litres of food (bread, rice and meat soup) on 17 days tested5: Maximum load cooker holds in foodlwater6: Time taken for temperature to drop by 20% or below 80°C in partly cloudy weather, measurements on 3days in 30% clouds, with outside temperature between 15-25°C.7: Percentage of meals cooked that are foods within the local diet, of the total cooked in column 3*with a blanket covering cookera: number of cookers tested; temperature differences between the cookers tested was less than 3°CThe tests show that all the cookers achieved temperatures sufficient to cook food, althoughthere are great differences between the six models. The first three obtained sufficienttemperatures between 44-57% of the days, while the last three showed that 74% or moreof the time, sufficient temperatures were reached. The average maximum temperatures for59Tests undertaken by the (Indian) government show that SBCs can continue to cook food at temperaturesas low as 85°C once an initial temperature of 100°C is achieved and maintained for at least half of thecooking time (Tripathi, Oct. 8,1992 interview).83each model over the entire 193-day period is shown in Figure 4.5.1. Similar differencesbetween the first and last three cookers is seen in their ability to maintain cookingtemperatures (Column 2) with the DNCE cooker performing four times better than theSSP-LEDeG cooker. Average diurnal measurements for each model over the 193-dayperiod is shown in Figure 4.5.2.The second issue to be addressed is to test a cooker’s ability to actually cook food. Hourlytemperature measurements were taken on 17 days between June 1 and December 10, 1992,to determine how many meals out of a total possible of 51(17 days at three meals per day,with temperatures reaching and maintaining 100°C for at least two hours for each meal) thecookers could produce (Column 3, Table 4.5.1). Results reveal a marked differencebetween the models’ capabilities. The total daily output is determined by temperaturesachieved, which in turn controls the amount of time needed to cook each meal. Acomparison of times needed to cook bread, rice and meat stew in each model also revealsdifferences between capabilities (Column 5). Here it can be seen that cookers 1 and 2 onaverage took twice as long to bake bread than cookers 4, 5 and 6. The TCV-D cookerswere not used to cook meat because they often did not retain high enough temperatures forsufficient time to fully cook meat. Cooking capabilities are also addressed by data inColumn 7 which shows a record of the number of times on 17 days that the cookerssuccessfully cooked foods representative of the local diet.A third important issue concerns the different functions the cookers were designed for. TheLEDeG cooker was specifically designed to heat water and to cook food. The interior ovenspace was designed large enough to hold jugs of water. The cooker can make use ofutensils commonly found in Ladakhi homes. The 20-litre jerrycans which most familiesuse to haul water from springs to their homes, fit within this cooker. Large five or six litrepots also fit easily inside. The DNCE cooker makes use of small pots, designed strictly forfood preparation, supplied with the cooker. The cooker was designed with a small capacityto achieve high maximum temperatures, producing more meals per day, over a longer use-season (less than 50% of the time required by the other cookers). What it achieves in heatis lost in capacity per use; but its per day capacity is normally sufficient to cook for theaverage family. Heating water and cooking sufficient quantities of food for large familiesremains a problem. The TCV-D cooker is limited by its small oven space, its extremelysmall hatch for loading and its slow cooking speed. It cannot handle large or tall pots, norwater jugs. It was chiefly designed to bake bread and so only oblong loaf pans or smallpots fit through its door.84Figure 4.5.1 Daily maximum temperatures taken in 14 cookers over a seven month period; temperatures areaveraged to cooker model.SBC Daily Maximum TemperaturesAsorogo for TCV—D. LEDoG nd ONCESBC Daily Maximum TemperaturesAoorogo for TCV—O. LEOoG od ONCESBC Daily Maximum TemperaturesAveroge for TCV—D, LEDeG ood ONCESBC Daily Maximum TemperaturesAvorogo foe TCV-D. LEDeG od ONCESBC Daily Maximum TemperaturesAvorogo for TCV--D. LEDeG od ONCESBC Daily Maximum TemperaturesAvoroge for TCV—O. LEDeG ond DNCE31 34 J7 310 313 316 fl9 322 225 228JUNE 1992TCV-D Model LEDeG Model _ ONCE ModeliLl JL4 JLJ JLIO JLI3 2L14 ;Llg JL22 1L25 JL28 3L31JULY 1992TCV—l) MeoJel lND,.0 Modcl I)NCE Model150500150l0O150(-I1000)0)10C-)100I)soAl A4 A7 AlO A13 A16 A19 A22 A25 A20 531AUGUST 1992_TCV-OModol LEOeGModel ONCEModelSI Sd S7 RIO 513 Sb S19 522 525 925SEI’TE2sIBER ;0’52TCV—D MoJel • 150-0 Model l)NCI5 ModelC)§55001 04 07 010 013 010 019 022 022 020 031 NI No N? NW 513 516 519 NC NO N2S DI 04 D7OCTOBER 922 NOVEMIOER AND DECEMBER 992TCV-O Model LEOoG Model ONCE Model 1CV—O Nlodcl LEDeC ModS DNCE Model*ker temperature differences of individual models were between O.5’C and 3’C Total number of each model averaged:All cookers were tested within the Sonam ling Solar project, cookers 2(9O’rncllocated at the TCV compound.385Figure 4.5.2 Diurnal temperatures taken on 17 days in 14 cookers, with temperatures averaged by cookertype. Daily Average Temperatures: HourlyTCV-D, LEDeG and DNCE Models150U100Cno50015010050150U100C000500700 1000 1500 700 1100 1500 700 0100 1500 700 1100 1500 700 1100 1500Time. June and July 1992TCV-D LEDeG DNCEDaily Average Temperatures: HourlyTCV-D, LEDeG and DNCE Models700 1100 1500 700 1100 1500 700 1100 1500 700 1100 1500 700 1100 1500Time, August and September 1992TCV-D LEDeG DNCEDaily Average Temperatures: HourlyTCVD. LEDeG and ONCE Models700 11001500700 11001500700 11001500 700 11001500700 11001500700 11001500Time, October and November 1992TCV—D LEDeG DNCE* cooker temperature differences of individual models were between 0.5°C and 3°CAll cookers were tested within the Sonam Ling solar project, cookers were located at the TCV compound. Totalnumber averaged for each model: TCV-D:2 (900 model), LEDeG: 3 (regular model), DNCE: 3.86Finally, the capability of the cookers to maintain temperatures was tested (Column 6). Thisis important on partly cloudy days, or when food is prepared in the late afternoon to beeaten in the early evening. Temperature measurements were taken on three days with atleast 30% clouds, and on five days in the late afternoon, after direct sunlight was no longerentering the cooker. Time taken for temperatures to drop by 20%, or below 80°C, wererecorded. As outside temperatures effect this, measurements were made when outsidetemperatures were between +15°C and +25°C. Only the DNCE cooker is constructed withan insulated lid that can be closed to maintain temperatures in the cooker. The LEDeGcookers maintain heat for at least an hour when a blanket is draped over the glass area ofthe cooker. The TCV-D cooker tends to lose heat rapidly.The cookers also showed great variance in their technical capability at different times of theyear (See Figures 4.5.1 and 4.5.2). All cookers performed well in August, when the sun isclose to being directly overhead and the angle of incidence is high. The cookers’ abilitiesvaried greatly in the winter, when the sun’s path was low along the horizon, outsidetemperatures were cold and hours of sunlight reduced. The TCV-D cookers function fortwo to four months per year because they are stationary models whose glass surface cannotbe adjusted to changing sun positions. The LEDeG and DNCE cookers are adjustable forsummer and winter positions; either by flipping the LEDeG box or adjusting the DNCEmirror. In the study, the LEDeG cooker obtained sufficient temperatures until November;the DNCE cooker continued to work until the end of the study in December. (Users reportthat the LEDeG cooker worked for between six and eight months each year, and that theDNCE cooker worked between ten months and year-round.)In summary, all the cookers work at least part of the year, and perform well for differentpurposes. If summertime use alone is expected of the cookers, then each is functional. Ifthe cooker is meant to function well as both a cooker and water heater, or if the cooker ismeant to be a baking oven, then not all models can be labeled functional. Matchingexpectations, purpose for use, and cooker limitations and capabilities will be furtherexplored in the next section where user’s perceptions of capability are addressed in villagesurveys.If year-round use is expected, it can only be said that the final three cookers (LEDeG-2x,LEDeG and DNCE) function well. These cookers produce at least four times more outputin meals than the first three models tested, with the DNCE cooker functioning wellthroughout the entire test period. The DNCE cooker appears the cooker of choice;87however, if both water heating and food cooldng are important, the LEDeG cooker workswell. Although it appears that the first three cookers on the list (TCV-D90°, TCV-D22° andSSP-LEDeG-P) will not perform well enough to be classified as cookers that work, usersurveys will assist in discovering if the cookers are liked under actual use conditions.4.5.2 Village surveysA. Do the cookers match village-defined needs and willingness to use?In addition to technical capability, economic, cultural and social factors in each communityalso determine cooker use. Data from the village surveys were compiled to address theremaining variables in the model. The first four questions60address the users perceivedneed for change and the ability to purchase a cooker. They include a need for an alternativefuel and willingness and ability to adopt a new technology into the home. While theseindicators are sufficient to determine if users wanted to try a solar cooker, qualifiers ofneed and willingness, along with differing program approaches to measure theseindicators, will be further addressed in the discussion. Here, the results reflect thevillagers’ perceptions. Subsidy levels, ability to pay, and who was chosen to participate (orreceive a subsidy) were explored [the cookers costing between 1R400 and IR1000 ($15 to$37)].It is an integral part of any aid program to address the question is there a needfor change?All users were asked if they recognized fuel as a problem, and were asked to expand on thenature of that problem. Fuel use patterns were also recorded. Respondents are categorizedfirst by locale, and then program participation (Tables 4.5.2 and 4.5.3). Each of the tablesreveals interesting information on fuel problems.Table 4.5.2 shows strong differences between the refugees (who are solely dependent onpurchased fuel for their water heating and cooking) and the members of hinterland villages(who remain largely self-sufficient in providing for their fuel needs). Those living in areaswhere urbanization has led to fuelwood and dung shortages, and which have easier accessto purchased fuel, respond affirmatively to fuel as a problem. Users further defined fuel as60The questions in this section are listed in the appendix. These three questions were: Do you have a fueldeficiency?, What percentage of your fule is fossil fuel?, are you willing to accept new technologies thathave an impact on your kitchen into your home? Did the programs offer a subsidy, or was the cookeraffordable?88a problem in terms of its environmental, social (health and time), economic and/or politicalaspects. For most hinterlanders using fuelwood and dung, fuel shortages (or time investedin gathering) were not seen as a problem. The exception was that winter fuel use (largelyfor heating, not cooking) was seen as a problem. From the spatial distribution of theperceived problem, it would appear there are areas where cookers could be helpful(Illustration 4.5.1). There are more users near Leh and this Centre area who state they havefuel shortages and that these are fossil fuel dependencies. Generally, movement away fromthe Centre or away from the road coincides with lower fuel problems.Table 4.5.2: Fuel need, as categorized by village typesIs there a fuel problem?Responses by village typeRefugee Centre Centre Muslim Road HinterlandCamp Influenced Village Influenced(65*) (65) (44) (20) (42) (44)Fuel Prob?a 100% 66% 45% 50% 33% 4%% Fossil fb 100% 35% 11% 12% 11% 0%a: Do you have a problem with fuel, either in deficiency, cost, scarcity, unreliability or time to gather orpurchase? Responses show the percent of users who are in agreeement that they are experiencing a seriousfuel problem.b: Whatpercentage ofyourfuel use isfossilfuel?*Total number ofresponses in each localeTable 4.5.3 Fuel need, as categorized by program participationIs there a fuel problem?Responses per programTCV-D LEDeG DNCE SSP NONE(30*) (95) (70) (35) (52)Fuel Prob** 100% 37% 51% 100% 35%%fossils f 100% 10% 16% 85% 29%*Total number ofresponses in each program**Same questions asked as in Figure 4.5.489I I IWhen user response is categorized by program participation, patterns are not evident. Thetwo programs concentrating on the refugee camps (TCV-D and SSP) showed a user-defined problem with fuels, with all participants experiencing dependence on fossil fuels.Respondents within the LEDeG and DNCE programs offered a mixed response in fueldeficiencies and dependencies in their homes.In the concept of AT, diagnosing need is matched in importance by a user’s willingness toaccept new ideas into daily life. The solar cookers are not going into the kitchen, but theyhave impacts on this important (to the users) room. As discussed previously, the kitchen isnot only the room where food is prepared and eaten, but it is the room where the familyspends a large amount of time, where ideas are exchanged, inter-family relationships maintained and decisions made. It is the only heated room in the house during the long, coldwinters and is usually heated by a traditional fuelwood-burning stove. It is throughtraditional kitchen practises, job assignments and gestures that many of the familyrelationships, accommodation and personal value are defined and maintained. To someextent, the cooker changes the purpose behind gathering in the kitchen, the timing of mealpreparation and who is in charge of and aids in cooking. This change is not total: thecooker is only used for some meals, on some days, during certain seasons. However, dueto the centrality of the kitchen to traditional Ladakhis, it is important that programparticipants are interested in trying a new technology that will impact their kitchen.The results of this question are separated into responses per village type and responses perprogram (Table 4.5.4). Again, the users from the refugee camps responded overwhelmingly in the direction toward acceptance. They explained that their kitchens were nolonger an important room in the house (or they lacked a kitchen). This response ofunimportance was echoed in some of the homes from the Centre and Centre-influencedvillages. For some users from the Centre, the significance of their kitchen had changed agreat deal in the past ten years. They stated they were now more willing to adopt newtechnologies that affected this part of their lives. On the other hand, many peoplementioned that they did not want to change their kitchen and the social habits associatedwith it. Those needing to supplement their cooking fuel were willing to try the technology.For those who felt the kitchen was a very important part of their lives (190 of the 282participating in the survey), just 13% (or 26 persons) were willing to welcome new ideasinto their kitchens. For almost 70% of these respondents, they did not want any changethat would effect their kitchens.91Table 4.5.4 Willingness to use a new technology that effects the kitchenWilling to incorporate new technology into kitchen?Responses by village typeRefugee Centre Centre Muslim Road hinterlandCamp Influenced Village Influenced(65*) (65) (44) (20) (42) (44)Kitchena 90% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0%Responses per programTCV-D LEDeG DNCE SSP NONE(313*) (95) (70) (35) (52)Kitchen 97% 13% 11% 80% 27%a: Are you willing to introduce new technologies into your home that impact your kitchen? those inagreement*Total number ofresponses in each area orprogramAll four programs offered subsidies toward the purchase of their solar technologies,making cookers affordable to most people who participated in the cash economy. Withthese subsidies, cookers cost about the same amount as a 10 month supply of kerosene fora family of four who were dependent on fossil fuels for more than 75% of their cooking.Two programs limited the people qualified to participate in their program. The TCV-Dprogram was a predetermined project, established to serve only those within the TibetanChildren’s Village. Refugees outside the compound, and the general Ladakhi population,could not participate. In the DNCE program, any Ladakhi living in the Leh block couldpurchase a cooker, but only those people earning less than JR 440/month could receive asubsidy. Tibetans were not allowed to participate in this program because they are notpermanent residents of Ladakh. The SSP program allowed anyone to participate in theprogram, due to with limited resources, the program covered only a few villages. TheLEDeG program was the most inclusive. Anyone who came to their Centre asking for solartechnologies, and willing to donate labour or local materials to construction, learning orinstallation, would receive a subsidy toward the purchase of a cooker.More than 80% of the people in each program received a subsidy of 50% or more on theircookers. Of the non-owners who participated in the survey, 25% stated that they wouldlike to purchase technologies but could not afford it. Many of these people earned slightlymore than the DNCE upper limit or were refugees looking for a program that would offerthem a subsidy. Additionally, 21% of respondents stated that subsidies went to people whocould already afford the cookers.92In summary, some of the cookers were distributed in communities that did not have highresponses to perceived need for change or willingness to use a new technology. In severalcommunities, people stated that they had other reasons for purchasing a cooker, forexample, some used cookers seasonally to heat food taken to the fields during busyplanting and harvest times. Other persons were intrigued by technologies they saw in Lehand simply wanted to try them. In aggregate, 69% of the cookers went into villages wherefuel was seen as a problem and there was willingness to try a new technology. However,31% of the cookers were placed in villages where people did not perceive a serious fuelproblem, and what fuel problems they were experiencing were shortages of fuelwood anddung61. In these communities, change was accepted in some aspects of their lives.However, traditional kitchen habits and practises remain culturally important, with peoplereluctant to accept change in the kitchen. The importance of raising, processing, cookingand eating of food is central to hinterland village life. The stated reluctance of using acooker reflects, in part, this fact.B Introduction and Follow-up: Do eole understand their solar cookers?Another important quality of AT is the ability to reinvest knowledge, power and wealth inthe village. Investing in education programs that allow villagers to make informeddecisions about technology choices is vital (McRobie, 1981: 184). The third major questionin the model is that of understanding. AT introduction programs in Ladakh are designed toresult in the people understanding some basic concepts of solar energy, how to usecookers, and being able to adapt the technology to fit individual needs. These factors areparticularly important in dealing with cookers, as they require changes in traditionalcooking patterns. Understanding the basic principles of solar energy and technologies, andspecifically, how cookers work, allows users to confidently determine how to adjust theircooking, when to use or not to use the cooker, and to be creative in adopting the cookerinto their lives.61 This statement is an example of linkages between problems experienced in Ladakh, and the need tofurther explore fuel questions. Many respondents stated that their herd sizes were dropping, resulting in fuelshortages. Solutions to this problem might need to include animal husbandry, options,designing andplacing acceptable fuel efficient stoves, and questioning if animals are being culled for use in the touristirade.93This set of questions62examines the nature of introduction, follow up and maintenanceprograms, and to what degree users are confident in their use of cookers. All fourprograms use some form of introduction program, although they did not offer a program inevery village where they placed technologies. Generally, if only one or two persons from avillage express interest in solar technologies, those persons are asked to participate inanother village’s program, or attend a demonstration at a solar centre. Over half the cookerusers stated they attended some form of solar training program in their own village (Table4.5.5). In some villages, sponsors also undertook follow-up programs which includedtraining a local person to then work as a technician. A village-based technician, trained todiagnose problems, carry out repairs and help users, was reported present by 30% ofLEDeG participants, 51% of DNCE participants and 100% of SSP participants.Table 4.5.5: Introduction, Follow-up and UnderstandingIntroduction and Follow-up ProgramsDo people understand how to use their cookers?Resnonses ver aroramTCV-D LEDeG DNCE SSP NONE**(30*) (95) (70) (35) (52)Introa 76% 63% 95% 100% 31%Followb 53% 30% 51% 100% 25%TJndcrstand’ 16% 58% 87% 95% 40%Comfortabled 0% 7% 26% 48% 4%* Total number ofrespondents in each program.**Most respondents who did not identify their cooker with any particular program said they attended someother introductionprogram.a Didyou attend an introductionprogram, held in your village, in a language you could understand, thosein agreementb: Didyouparticipate in afollow-upprogram that helped trained a localperson to maintain SBCs and helpyou use?C: Do you understand how your cooker works and know what might be wrong when it doesn’t work?d Do you understandyour cooker’sfunctioning well enough to try new recipes and explain solar cookingtofriends?62These questions are listed in the Appendix. They are: Did you attend an introduction program, and howhelpful was that program?, Did you participate in a follow-up program and how helpful was that program?,Did program participation help you in understanding the basic concepts of solar energy and how yourcooker works? and Do you understand how to use your cooker well eneough to be creative in cooking, trynew recipes and help friends learn how to use cookers?94Finally, Table 4.5.5 presents results of questions on impact of the introduction program.They ask if the users obtained a basic understanding of solar energy principles, sufficientinformation on how to use their cooker and a degree of confidence in cooker use. Themajority of users responded affirmatively. However, in the TCV-D program there was aclear problem in communicating between deliverers and users. This lack of understandingis highlighted by the final question. Here, TCV-D users state they did not feel comfortablein their knowledge of cooker use. Indeed, all the programs appear to have had problemsdesigning education programs that instill confidence in using this new technology. In theSSP program, a food subsidy was offered to purchase raw food and encourageexperimentation during the first few weeks of ownership. This idea was stated as a largecontributor to feeling comfortable with cooker use; it was not used in the other three formalprograms.In summary, while each of the programs undertakes introduction demonstrations, furtherexploration of the context, content and approach of these programs appears necessary inorder to explain the lack of understanding. In the short term, understanding cookerfunction facilitates use, and to some extent, accrues benefits from use. For a program tocontinue and to spread to potential users in a village, understanding is vital. Lowunderstanding rates revealed in the study suggest the need for further exploration ofintroduction program content and style.C. Benefits and Impacts: what changes result from cooker use?Probably the most difficult to measure, and possibly the most important among thevariables, was exploring user-perceived benefits and impacts of cookers. The surveysincluded open-ended questions, allowing users to explain what aspects of the cooker andits use were liked or disliked. Generally, the respondents did not list a wide range of likesabout the cookers, although many people experienced numerous benefits from use. Userswere freer in listing some hindrances to use, and a list of 30 dislikes was compiled. Whenexamining benefits and impacts by aggregate responses per program, the informationappeared inconclusive. To clarify results, users were sub-divided into those who used theircookers frequently, at least six months (or a total of 60 days each year), and those whowere infrequent users.Benefits were closely linked to what people identified as needs in their area. In addition,the degree of benefits were circular in that the more the cooker was used, the greater the95benefits experienced, followed by greater use of the cooker. In the SSP program, forinstance, fuel savings was identified as the most pressing need and seen as the largestbenefit. The more people used their cookers, the more fuel savings occurred, whichencouraged even greater use. This is seen in differing total benefits when between frequentand infrequent users (Figure 4.5.3).All the frequent users stated one of three factors as the most important benefits of cookeruse (Table 4.5.6). People did not generally identify one benefit from use. They stated that acombination of time savings, improved kitchen environment63,ease of use, and fuelsavings together was seen as the largest benefit of use. Fuel savings (both fuelwood-dungTable 4.5.6 Benefits and impacts from cooker use, responses categorized by program.Benefits, impacts and most common dislikes of cooker useResponses per programTCV-D LEDeG DNCE SSP NONEJ* F I F I F I F I F(30) (0) (30) (65) (3) (67) (10) (25) (12) (41)Socioeconbenefitsa 0% 0% 23% 76% 100% 97% 0% 92% 33% 85%Fuel Savings>10%b 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 47% 0% 82% 0% 63%Expectations metC 0% 0% 6% 27% 0% 65% 0% 80% 8% 56%Least-liked:Functionalityd 63% 0% 86% 12% 33% 1% 100% 8% 83% 5%1e 13% 0% 10% 2% 35% 12% 20% 14% 28% 6%PerformancJ 13% 0% 33% 1% 100% 44% 50% 28% 41% 2%General dislikeg 20% 0% 66% 21% 100% 22% 50% 12% 83% 4%*Total number of respondents in each program, categorized as infrequent and frequent users, those inagreement. Responses to benefits and impacts within the home were open-ended questions on the survey,where users listed up tofour things they liked and did not like about the cooker.a: Using the cooker resulted in fuel and time savings, improved kitchen environment,, was easy to useb: Using the cooker resulted in at least a 10%fuel savingsC: The cooker worked at least as well aspromised through the introduction programd: The cooker was unreliable, extremely slow, and only worked a short time each yeare: The cooker was designed so that use was difficult, or its capacity was too smallf: The cooker did not perform as expectedg: The cooker does not cook thefood we eat in this house, disrupts our kitchen, is uncomfortable to use63 Househoold environment improvbements were a mixture of leessened smoke in the kitchen and lesssmell and mess from kerosene use.96Figure 4.5.3 Comparisons across cookers: Expressed positive benefits in a household between frequently,intermittently and infrequently used cookers.—40Ll 30II::Benefits of use among frequent cooker usersAll SBCs used at least twice weekly, eight months per year (total 55)Individual cookers40353025H20+ 15C ) 10C+-c 5øv.z0Use twice weekly, eight months per year Use twice weekly, ten or more monthsAll SSCs used twice weekly or less, summer only (totai 85)Individual cookers4Use less than twice per month Use twice per week, summo oniyBenefits of use among infrequent cooker usersExpectations metFuel savings97and fossil fuel) and the associated economic benefits of reduced smoke or fumes, wereother commonly stated benefits of use.The third important factor was whether or not expectations were met. When the cooker’sactual performance matched its promised performance, users expressed much greatersatisfaction with the cooker, even without experiencing high fuel savings. Expectations notbeing met was sited as a dislike of the cookers. Many users described a major benefit interms of what the cooker was not; in that it was not disruptive, or that there were notproblems in the functionality of the cooker.The one program clearly lacking user benefits was the TCV-D program. A telling statistic isthat when pressed for positive impacts from cooker use, 89% of the respondents stated thatthey “had to use it.” Part of the problem within the program is who benefited from use.These cookers functioned fairly well during the summer months, and resulted in some fuelsavings for the central kitchen at the TCV compound. Users stated that while they did thework, the central kitchen received the benefits. In addition to this problem, users noted thattheir expectations were not met in the program, nor did they feel confident using the cookerin spring and autumn, when food might not fully cook.Cooker design was seen as both a benefit and impact, because design has direct impacts onperformance and portability. Among the infrequent users, functionality, a dislike of thecooker generally associated with its disruptive nature, and performance less than what waspromised were the three most important impacts of use. Users cited slowness, seasonalityand unreliability as the major cooker performance problems. Another impact (related topreviously stated problems in education programs) was the inability to cook foods includedin the local diet, discomfort in using the cooker and the waste of food improperly cooked.Disruptions of the traditional kitchen, through change in intra-familial relations, redefinitionof jobs, change in diet, and altering spirit-worship practises, were associated withcomplaints about change in general. Within the household, the kitchen was one of tworoomsM where traditions were socially and materially expressed. Changing the continuityof this tradition was disturbing. Outside the household, people showed a reserve forchanging village political and social patterns. Many felt new technologies resulted in villagepower shifts, especially within the paspan or chaspun, where cooperation was vital.The shrine room being the other tradtionally significant room, found in Buddhist homes.98Working and living within village norms remains key to a harmonious village: newtechnologies could set users apart.When asked the open-ended question, what do you dislike about using the cooker? a longlist of dislikes was given. The seven most frequent responses are given in Table 4.5.7.These dislikes reflect impacts previously discussed. For example, the most commoncomplaint within the TCV-D program was that the cooker was slow, reflecting usersdissatisfaction with the functionality of their cooker.Table 4.5.7 Most frequently stated impacts of cooker use, categorized by program.Common Complaints about cookers*Responses by programTCV-D LEDeG DNCE SSP NONE(30**) (95) (70) (35) (52)Can’t cook foodweeat 73% 23% 7% 15% 10%Can’t cook morethan onemeal/day 33% 21% 10% 33% 10%They said it couldwork all year; not 23% 23% 16% 33% 20%Temps’ not whatthey said wouldbe 66% 31% 13% 33% 20%Its very slow 90% 37% 25% 25% 28%Changes social patterns 6% 21% 16% 9% 21%Like traditionalway we cook 6% 20% 14% 9% 20%*people were asked to list three complaints about their cookers. The total list covered 30 differentcomplaints, each respondent listed up tofour dislikes.**Total number ofrespondentsperprogramD. Frequency of useFinally, this information is considered in light of asking the users their frequencly ofcooker use. This was accomplished with two questions. The first asked how many monthseach year the cooker functioned; while the second asked how many months each year thecooker was used (with an average frequency of at least twice each week). The TCV-Dcooker was so constructed that it functioned on average two months each year, therefore,99none of the users could state they used it for six months each year. All the other programshad cookers that did function for at least six months each year; capability and use arecompared in these programs. These results are summarized in Table 4.5.8.Each of the other cookers were used less than they were technically capable of functioning.For respondents from the SSP program, two reasons were given for a frequency of usethat closely matched technical capability. The first was need; users were experiencingsevere fuel problems and clear and immediate benefits resulted from use of the cooker.The second reason given was that the users were not disappointed in the cooker, itperformed as well or better than expected and this further encouraged use. The lower actualuse in the DNCE program was often attributed to not using the cooker in the coldest ofwinter months, when a fire was often burning in the home, or not using on very windydays when the cooker could blow over65. Lower use was not directly associated with acomplaint about the cooker, but with the environment in which the cooker functioned.Table 4.5.8 Cooker capability and useAre They Used?Cooker use and solar acceptanceResponses per programTCV-D LEDeG DNCE SSP NONE(30*) (95) (70) (35) (52)SBC function>6 mo/yeara 0% 40% 97% 75% 79%33% 82% 71% 48%E. Did the cookers facilitate use of other solar technologyIn creating a sustainable AT program, projects should result in the use of the cookers and asufficient understanding of solar technology principles to encourage future investment inother solar use. This was accomplished in some villages and within certain programs morethan others. SBC users were asked if they would be willing to use other solar technologies(Table 4.5.9). Many respondents were familiar with other models of cookers, water65 The hinged mirror that projects up from the DNCE cooker makes the cooker unstable on very windydays. In gusty winds, the cooker can blow over and food in pots spill.Frequency of use>6 mo/yrb 0%__________________________________________________*Total number ofrespondents in eachprogram.a Does your SBC workforfoodpreparation more than six monthper year? (those in agreement)b: Do you use your cookerfor food preparation at least twice each weekfor more than six months each100heaters, greenhouses, and shelkhangs (improved glass rooms within homes). The tableshows that greenhouse and shelkhang technologies were popular additional technologychoices throughout all village types66.Persons in the Muslim village and Road-influencedvillages were users who liked their current cooker and wanted additional technologies. Atelling response came from the refugee camp. Here, among the 30 users who ownedcookers that did not perform well, who did not understand how solar energy technologiesworked, and who did not experience benefits from use, reported that they believed solarenergy technologies did not work well. Of these 30 users, 47% stated that they did notwant to try any solar technology. The introduction of an insufficient cooker, within aninsufficient program, in this case had broad impacts.The results of this question may also suggest a different technology introduction order invillages. Greenhouses and shelkhangs are the most popular desired technology in everyvillage type. In the hinterland villages, where the kitchen remains important and there is anunwillingness to incorporate new technologies that impact kitchen traditions, greenhousesand shelkhangs may be the best pioneer technology. In the refugee camps, there was also aTable 4.5.9 Comparison of additional solar technology preferences between village typesRefugee Centre Centre Muslim Road HinterlandCamp Influenced Village Influenced(65*) (65) (44) (20) (42) (44)Differentcookera 6% 12% 16% 15% 9% 11%Waterheaterb 21% 2% 3% 1% 9% 13%Greenhouseshelkhant 38% 67% 70% 45% 51% 63%I like mineplus othersd 12% 19% 11% 35% 31% 13%Nonee 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%*Total number ofresponses in each area.a Respondents stating that they would like to have a different model ofcookerb: Those who would like a solar water heater.C: Those who would like a solar greenhouse or a shelkhang, a solar heated space or room in their home.d: Those who stated they liked their present cooker and would lalso ike to try other solar technologies.e: Those who stated that they do not want to use any solar technologies, including their current cooker.66 In fact, the Department of Agriculture’s greenhouse program (which offers subsidies for theconstruction of greenhouses) is very popular throughout Ladakh, with over a three year waiting list toreveive a greenhouse.101demand for solar water heaters over cookers. Non-disruptive technologies could have ahigher net positive impact, and could be followed by a second solar technology, such ascookers, which have both positive and negative impacts.F. Response from the solar programs: goals. impacts and useThe mandates of the four programs studied were used as the evaluation basis from theprogrammers viewpoint. Each director offered an opinion on the match between his or herprogram goals and actual impacts. Within the TCV-D program, the mandate was to reducefuel consumption through the use of cookers67.Other AT components were not importantin this program. The director stated that he was pleased with the result of the cookers, andwould like to invest further in solar in the future. The fuel savings at the central kitchenwere not specifically recorded, although fuel savings were experienced in the summermonths. The cookers provided about 33% of the kitchen’s bread each day, and could beresponsible for savings of up to 10 litres of kerosene per day (of a total use of 200 litres) inJuly and August. TCV continues to invest money in the maintenance of the currentcookers. The director was interested in upgrading the cookers (to increase their use overseveral seasons, but this was not feasible due to cooker design. The cooker functioned for56% of the days in the evaluative study (see Table 4.5.1, pg. 83). Use was reported to beabout two months each year.The LEDeG program mandate was the most encompassing of all four programs69.LEDeGgoals stressed re-investing knowledge and control at the local level. The programemphasized local involvement in design, implementation and monitoring of programs.LEDeG supports technologies that serve multiple, locally-defined purposes. Their solarcooker was designed to function as a cooker and as a water heater. It could be reproducedin the community and was easily repaired. The cooker’s function was to reduce fuel use,reduce health hazards from smoke, and to make use of locally-available energy sources.67Infopatjon from interviews with Mr. L. Tenpa, director of TCV.The central kitchen at TCV also made use of a solar water heater, which operated from May to October.This technology was thought to be a major contributor to fuel savings during these months. In the monthof August, 1992, fuel use was recorded. The total savings averaged 30 litres per day, or 15% of totalconsumption. The solar water heater providied up to 800 litres of pre-warmed water to the kitchen each day.69Jnfojation from interviews with Mr. S. Dawa, director, and Mr. L. Tsering, technical officer, forLEDeG.102The cooker was a small component of the overall LEDeG-AT program. In 1992, cookerswere not the highest priority, nor the most functional tool offered by LEDeG. The programhad not been fully evaluated by LEDeG, but the director stated he was generally pleasedwith response to solar technologies as a whole. The LEDeG model functioned reasonablywell as a cooker, and very well as a water heater. Numerous users responded that cookeruse resulted in fuel savings. There was a lessening demand for cookers (about 20 eachyear), while overall demand for new LEDeG technologies continued to rise. LEDeG hasreceived feedback that the cookers do not perform as well as expected; it continues to workon improving the design and performance of the cookers.The DNCE program worked within a broad BDO-mandate of improving the well-being ofthe poorest people throughout India70.The solar cooker program fit into this mandate.After successful programs elsewhere in the state, the local BDO decided to fund the cookerprogram in Leh block. The program’s purpose was to reduce fuel use and the economicproblems associated with dependence on fossil fuels. An introduction program facilitatedhousehold knowledge of use, repair and maintenance of the cooker. The program looselyadhered to the concepts of AT.The program conducted evaluations on cooker use in some villages participating in the firsttwo years of the program71.Users response was positive: cookers were used and fuelsavings reported. Maintenance and repair costs remained low, few recipients discontinueduse of the cookers. The director will expand the program in 1993 as the demand forcookers continues to slowly grow. Evaluations will assist in overcoming some of thedifficulties experienced thus far, including a lower-than-expected cooker performance inwinter, lack of recipe information, and insufficient number of villagers trained astechnicians. One of the most serious reported program drawbacks is a continued lack offunding and staff, and the resulting lack of follow-up programs. Funding is dependent onthe number of cookers placed in the field (not on the number of functional cookers). Thisplaces pressure on the BDO to put as many cookers as possible in the field, regardless oftheir effectiveness. Another drawback is the fact that the cooker cannot be replicated at thevillage level. The plastic shell of the cooker demands that it be imported from themanufacturer in Jammu.70Infoaüon from interviews with Mr. M. Hanif, Block Development Officer for Leh block, Ladakh.71 DNCE model cooker programs have been sponsored in the past in Ladakh. The current program isnow in its third year.103The SSP program was an experimental program designed to blend the functionalcomponents of other programs into one AT cooker project72.Its primary purpose was tofully test cookers used by all the programs. Additionally, it was mandated to traintechnicians to design, build and install cookers, and to offer cookers to the neediest peoplein the Tibetan refugee camps and surrounding villages. The program completed the testingof all models in this study, and designed and tested several other models73.Experimentalcookers did not function as well as expected, and user satisfaction was lower thanexpected, as was over-all program response rate. A participatory evaluation project resultedin suggested changes to make within the camps. These suggestions will be incorporatedinto future programs and, in turn, evaluated. The program did not place fully-trainedtechnicians in the refugee camp, while it plans to continue training in 1993.4.5.3 Comparison of roram comoonentsValuable information can be gathered by comparing components of the AT equationbetween each of the programs. Each of the components will be briefly compared betweenprograms in order to draw out differences in program results. Furthermore, the userswithin each program will be sub-divided into two groups: those who used the cookers withsome frequency (at least sixty days per year) and those who did not use them frequently(See Table 4.5.10 for a list of frequent and infrequent users, and their village locations).Technical capabilities and non-use of cookersAn important constraint common across programs was the technical capability of thecookers. Survey respondents who used cookers infrequently74listed technical capability asthe biggest hindrance to use. Three of the models used within the survey functioned forless than three months each year (Models 1-3 in Table 4.5.10). For those people usingthese cookers, all responded that they did not feel it worked sufficiently well to merit use.Of the 40 respondents, all stated that unreliability (30%), a short use season (23%),extremely slow cooking times (37%), and inability to maintain heat on partly cloudy days(10%) resulted in their not using the cookers.72Infopaüon is from the director of the vocational training institute at TCV and the author.73 Also tested were hot boxes, a metal LEDeG cooker model and the Solar Box Cookers, Internationalcardboard model.74Less than two limes each week, in summer only.104Table 4.5.10 Locations of cookers, the six models of cookers in the study, and their useInfrequentlyused solar cookers Frequently used solar cookersListed by model Listed by modelLocations: 1* 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 T#Refugee 30 6 4 7 8 10 (65)Centre 4 2 32 27 (65)Centre-influenced 5 1 15 23 (44)Muslim 2 18 (20)Roalinfluenced 1 17 1 13 14 (46)Hinterland 4 11 2 2 4 20 (43)Total 30 6 4 5 37 3 12 74 112 (283)*Cooker models: 1: TCV-D90’2: TCV-D22’3: SSP-LEDeG-P4: LEDeG2x5: LEDeG6: DNCEThe other three cooker models functioned more than four months each year; however,19% of total of models 3-6 (33% of the LEDeG models and 3% of the DNCE model),were not often used. For the 45 respondents who did not use their cookers, the actualtechnical capability was a secondary issue. Perceptions were important; 42% (19) of theinfrequent users of the LEDeG model responded that the cooker did not meet performanceexpectations. For these people, the failures experienced when food did not cook because offluctuating or low oven temperatures made them lose confidence in their models. Two ofthe three infrequent users of the DNCE model stated that the cooker’s limited capacityresulted in their perception that it was incapable of producing sufficient food to warrantchanging cooking habits.Technical capability was a significant factor in use. Also important was the user’sperception of the technical capability of the cooker. For those users who experienced less-than-expected results, cookers were seen as limited in capability. Thirty-nine of the 45(87%) infrequent users owned cookers that could function for six (or more) months eachyear. A sound design that matches either the single purpose of cooking, or the two-foldpurpose of cooking and water heating, is important to the program. The response of the105infrequent users shows that it is also important not to promise more than the cooker willproduce in actual use.Social acceptance and non-use of cookersReasons for non-use among the remaining respondents varied. Of all of the 45 infrequentusers, 60% responded that fuel was not perceived as a serious problem, and change wasunwelcome in 64% of the users’ kitchens. This response was found across programs, andwas prevalent in villages away from the Centre. A lack of understanding of cooker use wassecond in frequency of responses (22%). People stated that education programs showedthem how to load and unload the cooker, and to cook one or two meals. These users didnot feel that the education programs taught them how to adapt cooking habits to match SBCcooking methods. Eight out of ten stating lack of understanding as a problem were in theTCV-D program (who had fuel problems). Finally, three of the infrequent users (7%)listed significant positive benefits from use of the cookers ( savings in time and fuel); theydid not use the cooker because it interfered with normal kitchen habits. In listing dislikesabout their cookers, all but one of the 45 (98%) had complaints about the ease of use ofcookers. Many of the users (26%) stated that they were not opposed to solar cooking perse, but that the benefits received were not worth the needed change in kitchen habits.Among the forty-five infrequent users, a large number had a clearly stated need andwillingness to adopt cookers into their home. Their resulting lack of cooker use revealedthe importance of matching needs with technically-sound technologies. In the case of theTibetan refugee camp, an 89% support for change in fuel and stove type was found. Yetmany participated in a program that did not match this condition to a program thatsupported this change through technology, education and positive impacts.Technical capability and frequent use of cookersAmong the frequent cooker users, each of the components in the AT model seemedimportant to encourage use. Fifty-five per cent of respondents stated the technical capabilityof the cooker was important to their continued frequent use of the cookers. However,frequent users were clearly divided into two camps. To many of the respondents, thisseemed an odd area of discussion in the survey; they assumed the cookers would workwell. For the 23% of the frequent users who were disappointed in the performance of thecookers, this was an important issue that needed addressing. The habit of daily use,106whether for cooking or for water heating, encouraged a higher frequency of use (18% ofrespondents). It became part of the users’ daily routine, made them more comfortable withhaving a cooker associated with their kitchen, and increased the total benefits from cookeruse.Respondents, on average, used cookers less than actual technical capability. For the DNCEand the LEDeG-2x models, use was more in line with maximum capability. These twomodels can easily be used year-round for cooking and water heating. Whether used forbathing or cooking, water heating resulted in fuel savings and was seen as a valued use forthe cooker.Social acceDtance and freauent use of cookersThe remaining components, those of need, understanding, benefits and ease of use, werealso important in frequent cooker use. For the models that performed well, and had a high,year-round use rate, significant fuel savings were reported in homes. For those personsusing cookers because they were experiencing fuel deficiencies, this type of immediate,positive impact encouraged use. For example, ten of the twelve (83%) LEDeG mod-2xmodel users lived in villages located in or near Centre villages listed fuel as a serious andgrowing problem, and all used their cookers at least six months each year. Among theseusers, those stating that they did not understand how to use the SBC to cook food in wintermonths, still depended on it to produce hot water. Seventy-four per cent stated theyunderstood how cookers worked and grasped the basic principles of solar energy.The majority (62%) of frequent users lived in or near Centre villages, in the areas wherethey were experiencing changes in their kitchens and fuel problems, and were more likelyto see immediate benefits from use. Some of the users worked in the cash economy; thesepeople stated that the cooker represented a time-saving device for them. To some users,time was a factor; while at work, they could prepare the noon-time or nightly meal. Fuelsavings almost always resulted in more cash available within the household to spend onfood, clothing or other items. Many of the people (54% of those frequent users in theCentre villages) stated their dislike for kerosene stoves. The stoves are subject todangerous malfunctions, are smelly and smoky when burning, demand maintenance andbreak down with regularity. Preparing meals in the cooker meant less use of a dislikedstove.107Each of the programs targeted one or more components within social acceptance toencourage persons to use cookers. The DNCE program specifically targeted peopleexperiencing fuel problems, living a considerable distance from fossil fuel supplies, orthose who could not afford to purchase fuels. They depended on an encompassingintroduction program to convince this group to try cookers. Immediate benefits in fuelsavings were noticeable in households with very limited incomes. While much of thesuccess of this program can be attributed to the fact that the cooker performed very well,the DNCE program and target participants also facilitated success. The SSP programfunctioned similarly. Largely operating in the refugee camp, the base population wasexperiencing fuel problems; saving fuel was a major target. The program emphasizedunderstanding cooker use through a food subsidy that allowed experimenting with use. Itdepended on user understanding (users helping users) to assist in spreading the program.The LEDeG program targeted users expressing a clear willingness to try a cooker. Thiswas followed by introduction and follow-up programs in villages. The cooker designallowed several purposes to be served, making the cooker more adaptable.Additional findingsThe results of the surveys are generalized in Table 4.5.11 according to the programparticipated in, and in Table 4.5.12 according to village type. In comparing results acrossprograms, differences are seen between programs, cookers and locations. A closerexamination of specific instances in the four villages which had repeated surveys, andwhere the researcher spent more time in discussion with cooker users75,highlights someof these differences.In the Tibetan refugee camp fuel was seen as a serious problem. The refugees were heavilydependent on kerosene for cooking, while more than 50% of the population falls below thepoverty line76 and has difficulty purchasing fuel. Not only were the refugees economicallyimpoverished, but the majority had lost their animals during their flight into exile. This left75Repeat surveys in these four villages were conducted for several reasons. First, return visits to thevilalges allowed the researcher time to become more familiar with cultural influences on technology choice.Second, repeat surveys assisted in validating information. In these four villages, when surveys wererepeated, answers remained fairly consistent. If their were differences, respondents often attributed this toquestioning the intent of the survey or the use of the data. Third, these visits helped to eliminate problemsin the surveys to increase accuracy in other villages. Finally, it allowed for examination of some cookersoutside of the SSP research program, while they were in use. When discrepencies were not explained, thefirst response was accepted and presented.76 poverty line in India is measured along economic terms. It stood at IR 440 per month (or about$17).108them without the means to regain self-sufficiency77,and without their chief fuel source.Two solar programs were conducted almost exclusively within the camp (TCV-D, makinguse of an adobe, horizontally-placed glass surface model, and SSP program, whichexperimented with all six models of cookers). The TCV-D program installed cookers thatworked only two or three months each year and did not result in high fuel savings.Participants in the TCV-D program did not feel comfortable using their cookers nor did theprogram result in users understanding solar principles. The SSP program used threemodels that worked two to three months each year, and the LEDeG and DNCE models thatfunctioned between six months and year-round. An introduction, follow-up and foodsubsidy program was included within the SSP project, which resulted in higher rates ofunderstanding and cooker use being facilitated. Among the three models that functionedwell, fuel savings (between 10-40%) and net positive impacts (time, fuel savings, lesssmoke, smell and mess from kerosene, less economic pressure within the home) wereimmediate for many users.Along with a clear fuel need, a strong willingness to use new technologies existed in bothprograms. Within the SSP program, 10 of the 35 users were given cookers that did notfunction well. These 10 people participated in introduction programs, which eight out often stated resulted in their learning how to use cookers, and they received food subsidies toassist in experimenting with use. Use for cooking was low in these users from Septemberto October, when the cookers were no longer capable of achieving temperatures above100°C78.The remaining 25 persons used functional cookers. All 25 used their cookersmore than six months each year, 96% stated they received positive benefits, 68% reportedthat the cooker and program facilitated use, and 100% reported that they liked their cookerand would like to try other solar technologies. Of those persons disappointed in the cookeror program, 16% stated that they thought the DNCE cooker’s capacity was too small,another 16% said they had to re-orient the DNCE mirror toward the sun too often. Sixteenper cent were disappointed in the amount of fuel savings. Those using the LEDeG cookergenerally had lower fuel savings than those using the DNCE cooker. Others complainedthat doors could be opened and heat lost, and one had the glass broken in the cooker.‘ Over 95% of the refugees were Drog-pa, nomads, from Western Tibet. Their job skills centred ontending their herds. Without pastwelands available in the camps, most of the refugees have becomedependent on fossil fuels and wage labour. Over 50% of the refugees now work as coolies, building roads,buidlings and other infrastructure projects. Education is limited, and there is little immediate opportunityfor re-training in order that they fill skilled jobs posts in Ladakh.78Many of the users continued using the cookers for water heating.109In looking at these two programs operated in the refugee camp, some clear differencesbetween use, and reasons for use can be seen. The SSP program resulted in higher rates ofunderstanding, regardless of the cooker used. While beginning with lower rates ofwillingness, it had higher rates of use. Functional cookers and the program they operatedwithin were credited by users as reasons for high rates of use.Table 4.5.11 Summary of Information, which programs encouraged use, with response by programTCV-D LEDeG DNCE SSP NONE(30) (95) (70) (35) (52)Need 100% 37% 51% 100% 35%Willingness 97% 13% 11% 80% 29%Understand 16% 58% 87% 95% 40%+ Impacts 0% 60% 98% 68% 78%Usefacilitated 0% 33% 51% 48% 25%Use>6mo. 0% 33% 82% 71% 48%4.5.12 Summary of Information, which programs encouraged use, with response by village typeRefugee Centre Centre Muslim Road HinterlandCamp Influenced Village Influenced(65*) (65) (44) (20) (42) (44)Need 100% 66% 45% 50% 33% 4%Willingness 90% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0%Understand 57% 76% 70% 90% 57% 36%+Impacts 41% 98% 79% 90% 63% 77%Use facilitated 27% 43% 34% 60% 31% 20%Use> 6 mo/yr 35% 54% 57% 90% 48% 32%The Muslim village offers an interesting case. Most villagers (18 of 20) participated in theDNCE program. Here, fuel need was evident, but the people were initially reluctant toaccept change in their traditional kitchens. Kerosene dependency, a growing problem in thevillage, coupled with limited incomes was resulting in economic hardship. Although110reluctant to try the cookers, attitudes changed after several months of cooker use. Usersattributed this to immediate and dramatic positive benefits experienced in the householdfollowing use of the cookers. However, many respondents were clear to point out that theyfelt compelled to adopt cookers; if not for pressing fuel deficiencies, change would nothave occurred. As a means of compromise, cookers were used as a supplement to thetraditional fire; often it was carried to fields during planting and harvest seasons or used fornoontime meals when people were working outdoors. Users did not make maximum useof their cookers, generally choosing to preserve the tradition of the hearth for morning andevening meals.In the Centre village of Leh, people are experiencing rapid change. Fuel shortages anddependencies are only a small portion of this change. Modernization, an influx of touristsand outsiders, along with a breakdown in traditional institutions are contributing to both afeeling of insecurity and fuel problems in the Leh area. Dealing with such fundamentalproblems might be outside the scope of an AT program, yet in pockets within the Centre,program acceptance was high. One such area included eight homes where LEDeGintroduced cookers. These homes were located on a footpath that LEDeG technicianstraveled on a daily basis. With ready access to these people, the users gained a thoroughunderstanding of solar principles, cooker abilities and limitations and how to repair andmaintain the cookers. In an additional nine homes within close proximity and similar fuelneeds, but without daily access to LEDeG technicians, use of cookers was dramaticallylower. Indeed, in the homes along the path, all eight cookers were still in use several yearsafter their introduction, in the homes off the path, seven of the nine cookers were no longerused.In the hinterland community, most respondents stated that although they felt the cookerswould result in lower dung and fuelwood consumption in their homes, they were reluctantto change kitchen patterns. The difference between this community and the Muslimcommunity can be seen in the perceived fuel problem and the presence of ihas or spiritsassociated with the hearth. Not only were users reluctant to change important kitchenhabits, but they did not perceive a pressing need to do so. Users were interested to try thenew technologies, but once problems with the cookers were experienced, they did notmake a significant effort to overcome these difficulties. It was not so much a dislike ofsolar technologies, as expressed when users were asked if they would be willing to tryother technologies. It was a statement that as long as they did not have to change theirkitchens, they would prefer not to. Therefore, they did not want to use cookers.111In some instances, the same cooker model, capable of producing the same results, andused by people with similar backgrounds, was viewed as having differing value. Onecooker would be used and appreciated by a user; another user would state that the cookerwas not worth the effort using it. A common difference found in surveys producing thisresult was differing expectations of cooker potential. If the cooker did not performreasonably close to what was promised, then it was more likely to be disliked or not used.No new technology user liked being let down by actual performance, especially if animportant change in habits was required. Programs that tended to over-estimate cookercapability often met with lower use rates.Cooker-user mismatches could also result in not using the cooker. A large family mightfind the small capacity of the DNCE cooker a severe limit, whereas families which moved acooker between field and home frequently might prefer this model. In the case of thecookers built at the Children’s Village in the refugee camp, 48 of the 54 cookers were builton the roofs of the residential homes to reduce the potential of broken glass or cookersbeing opened and heat lost. The users, who are the housemothers at the homes, are almostall refugee Drog-pa, nomads from the Western Plateau. The women had lived most of theirlives in tents; none of them were accustomed to climbing ladders. Cooker use demandedthat they steep and unstable ladders, carrying heavy loads, in order to use the cookers. Thiswas considered a major hindrance to use for the women.4.6 Summary of findingsWhen comparing results by ranking summary responses according to the program and thevillage type, several differences can be seen (Tables 4.6.1 and 4.6.2). First, in looking atthe results ranked by program of participation, a clear difference exists between programsin their ability to address need. The TCV-D did not provide a technologically sound cookerto address the highest fuel needs and willingness to adopt a new technology found in thestudy. The DNCE program provided a functional cooker, within a comprehensiveprogram, and experienced the highest use and benefits of all programs. The other programsmore closely matched needs with program results. Within the SSP program, the balancealso corresponded with positive outcomes. Comparing this result with the result within theTCV-D program, it might suggest that a different cooker, and a more inclusive programmight have resulted in different use patterns within TCV. Important in this issue, is the112statement made by 23% of the users within TCV-D that, based upon their previousexperiences, they did not believe solar technologies worked. Recognizing this obstacle,and planning education approaches to deal with it, would have to be incorporated into thedesign of any future programs.When categorized by total program results, the LEDeG cooker program ranks mid-level orlower. Looking at individual village results show that in many cases, positive results wereachieved. For example, 42 out of the 65(65%) cookers in the Centre village were LEDeGcookers (Table 4.6.2) These cookers were placed in homes where need for a supplement tofuels was needed and new technologies acceptable (42% and 28%), education programsresulted in a large percentage of understanding of cooker principles (54%), and use rateswere high (87% used six months each year).Table 4.6.1 Summary of Information, which programs encouraged use, with response ranked withinprogramsTCV-D LEDeG DNCE SSP NONE(3*) (95) (70) (35) (52)Need 1 3 2 1 4Willingness 1 4 5 2 3Understand 5 3 2 1 4+Impacts 5 4 1 2 2Usefacilitated 5 3 1 2 4Use6mo. 5 4 1 2 3*Total snimber participating in the programRanking is by per cent of participants responding affirmatively, refer to Table 4.5.9.When grouping the ranked responses according to village type, differences betweenresponse to programs within the refugee camp and the Muslim village stand out. Whilebeing reluctant to try a new technology that would impact traditional kitchens, and only halfof the participants expressing the presence of fuel deficiencies, there was a high rate of useand benefits resulting from the program. TCV-D shows an opposite result; fuel problemsand willingness to try a new technology were not matched by the program and tool.113Table 4.6.2 Summary of Information, which programs encouraged use, with response ranked by villageUse>6mo/yr 5 3* Total number of respondents per village type.Ranking is by per cent of participants responding affirmatively, refer to Table 4.5.10In summary, the data reveals three issues that are central to the success of programsaccording to the respondents. The first is that the cooker must work function well enoughto encourage change. Cookers that functioned moderately well were as accepted as thosethat functioned very well when they were incorporated into introduction programs that didnot oversell their capabilities. Different cookers performed well for different things; forexample, the difference between water heating capabilities of the LEDeG and DNCEcookers. Second, initial unwillingness can be overcome in programs that match need to atechnology that meets needs. Immediate benefits appear to offset a resistance to change.Finally, understanding facilitated use in the short term and might contribute to overcomingunwillingness to use.typeRefugee Centre Centre Muslim Road HinterlandCamp Influenced Village Influenced(65*) (65) (44) (20) (42) (44)Need 1 2 4 3 5 6Willingness 1 2 3 4 4 4Understand 4 2 3 1 4 5÷Impacts 6 1 3 2 5 4Usefacilitated 5 2 3 1 4 62 1 4 6114CHAPTER FIVECONCLUSIONSShow me a man who has come to help, and I will run for my life.H. D. Thoreau5.1 Development in LadakhThere is no universally accepted definition of development. In western thought,development means inclusion in the cash economy and increased consumption. In othersocial contexts, as for example, that of Ladakh, development means living in harmony withpeople and place. In the western sense, development is having; in the Ladakhi sense,development is being. In the west, revered life-styles include competition, rivalry andmaterial growth. In Ladakh, right livelihood encompasses cooperation, harmony, balanceand spiritual growth.Recognition of the above paradox by westerners within development aid was best capturedin Schumacher’s statement (in Wood, 1989:260) on his reaction to the Burmese people:If 90% of these people are impoverished according to globalstandards, then why are they so happy?The concept of AT emerges from this recognition and, in general, seeks to solve locally-defined needs through the application of technologies that make use of local resources.5.2 AT in practiceRather than being a simple tool, AT is defined as a program that:- employs a proven technology,- uses that technology to address locally-defined needs,- introduces the technology in a program that enhances and employs local skills andknowledge, and- ensures that use of the technology persists in the absence of external subsidies.AT literature states that these criteria must be present and balanced in an appropriateprogram. In situations where all of the above criteria were satisfied in Ladakh, cookerswere accepted. In these instances, the results reveal that AT is a viable option in thedevelopment of Ladakh. In several villages, programs were successful with an imbalance115among, or even the absence of one or more of the criteria. In such a case programs workedbut were not necessarily appropriate. Finally, the data reveal instances where the failure touse cookers can be linked with weakness in, or absence of one or more of the fourcomponents of AT. The results from the case-study suggest that while it is not possible tobe predictive of program outcome, it is important to pay close attention to each componentof AT, and the linkages between these components, in order to offer potentially appropriateprograms. A brief look at the case study results highlights differences between AT inconcept and AT in practice.First, in programs where all criteria were present, the programs did work. This is shownwithin the SSP program, where people were experiencing severe fuel problems andshowed a willingness to use a new technology. This was matched by a program that, tosome extent, delivered functional cookers. In the portion of the SSP program wherefunctional cookers were used (three out of the six models used in the program), fuel needwas met with an appropriate tool. Even among users testing functionally-limited cookers,the introduction program resulted in a high level of understanding and a willingness to tryother solar technologies. The program experienced the second highest use of cookers.The DNCE program offers an example of a successful program that lacked what AT theorystates is an important element. Although many of the users were reluctant to try a newtechnology that impacted the kitchen, this program had the highest positive impact,facilitated use and frequency of use. People adapted to the cooker, and adapted the cookerto better fit into their traditional kitchen practices.The summarized, ranked outcomes of the TCV-D program reveal an instance where thefailure to use cookers can be linked to weakness in, and absence of several of thecomponents of AT (Table 4.6.1). This program was undertaken within the refugee camp,where fuel problems and willingness to try a new technology were the highest in the study.However, the program ranked last in delivery to users. The program can be compared tothe SSP program which, working within the same base population with the same needs,had a greater level of success. There were two key differences between the programs.First, the cookers functioned well for 71% of the 35 people involved in SSP. Second, theSSP program used a participatory program framework that insured understanding ofcooker use, encouraged feedback and inclusive evaluations, and remained sufficientlyflexible to adapt to change. A valuable component within this framework was the use of a116food subsidy. Users stated that this food allowed greater experimentation with cookers,resulting in a broader understanding of the capabilities and limitations of their cooker.Both predicting program outcome and looking for contributors to program success aremore difficult when looking at the results grouped by village type (See Table 4.6.2). In thecase of the refugee camp, a high need was not matched by high program results for allparticipants. In the Muslim village, there was a lack of willingness to use new technologiesand just 50% of respondents defined fuel as a problem. However, this program had thehighest use of cookers. The largest difference between the refugee camp and the Muslimvillage was the capability of the cookers used. Eighteen of the 20 respondents in theMuslim village were making use of a proven technology, while 61% of users in the refugeecamp had cookers that had not functioned well. Further study into areas of fuel deficienciesmay assist in determining contributors to the differences seen within the refugee camp,Center villages, Centre-influenced and the Muslim village.5.3 Differing perceptionsThere are evident differences between the impacts of the programs when viewed byprogram deliverers and recipients. This study concentrated on information from the usersof a new technology. These are the people who must decide whether or not to use thecookers, and live with the impacts and benefits of that decision. Their perceptions of thevalue of the cooker will largely determine use, success and future potential of an ATprogram. By concentrating first on the user, and information gathered at the village level,program evaluators are more likely to be able to see impacts, benefits and barriers to use.Many aid evaluations are largely dependent on information derived from agency recordsand personnel, with brief field visits to determine project success. Conducting evaluationsin this manner can easily mask actual results, resulting in inaccurate conclusions regardingindividual programs.Evaluations should not be undertaken with the intent of designing programs that canchange traditions, but with the intent of changing misplaced perceptions of solartechnologies. As seen in the case study, some users who had mal-functioning cookersperceived that all solar technologies did not work. In the future, program designers willhave to take the history of solar programs in the area into account when designing newtechnology introduction models. Experiences with both functional and mal-functioning117cookers will have a strong impact on how technologies are received. Evaluation of past useis essential.5.4 Barriers to ATA fundamental criticism of AT is that it does not adequately address the political barriers toadoption that it faces within the development industry. AT philosophy is fundamentallydifferent from that of conventional development aid, and from those who hold power andcontrol money in international arenas. AT supports self-sufficiency and devolution ofpower; in general, international business, development aid and banks do not. For example,in both international aid and national programs in Ladakh, most research and moneydesignated toward energy development programs are invested in large-scale, centralizedprojects. This results in development frameworks which concentrate on providing aid topopulation centres, support use of subsidized fossil fuels or large-scale energy systems,and depend on a top-down program delivery and management system. AT must come toterms with working within this arena as a form of development aid. It must recognize thatin an era of rapid change, the acceptance of small-scale, grassroots, subsistence-baseddevelopment is limited not solely by its own potential, but by the power held in other formsof development.Barriers also exist at the village level. A gap exists between AT funders, often from awestern world view, and aid recipients, who have a Ladakhi world view. Political,economic, social and cultural barriers can hinder the entrance of AT, the discovery of localneeds and forms of problem-solving, and the creation of positive change. A final barrier tothe use of any form of grassroots aid is the power of telecommunications as it permeateshinterland regions. The influence of media and advertising is one that hinders the supportof cultural diversity and conservation of traditional heritage.5.5 The option is no optionThe case study reveals apparently-successful AT programs in many villages throughoutLadakh. This appearance can be validated only if a wide range of options to a givenproblem are considered with an AT chosen as the best option available. In the case of theSSP program within the refugee camp, many users gladly accepted and used newtechnologies. But it should also be noted that the only other option available was thecontinued use of kerosene stoves, a much less desirable choice. If the Tibetans were118offered either solar cookers or propane stoves, it cannot be said that participants wouldhave chosen solar technologies. Outside the experience of the experimental SSP program,users were not offered a choice of several cookers, each program used only its model.Success then, is tempered by the knowledge that sometimes technology use represents alack of options, not choice.5.6 Recommendations5.6.1 Inter-program cooterationCooperation between AT programs in Ladakh is important for many reasons, and shouldbe actively fostered. First, by themselves, each of the AT projects in Ladakh is small andrelatively powerless. They lack the staff and funds to individually deal with existingbarriers and create a voice heard at distant planning centres. Working alone, or worse, incompetition, they negate part of their potential impact to broach the entrenched barriers toalternative development aid.Second, cooperation allows programs to make good use of scarce resources. The casestudy reveals impacts suffered from the lack of evaluations which are attributed to a lack ofhuman and financial resources. Absence of evaluative feedback results in programcontinuation while impacts remain unknown, with one program’s mistakes potentiallyrepeated by another. Successful innovations can have limited impacts if they are not sharedand widely dispersed. Most important, information sharing can increase the likelihood ofsuccess within individual programs, and enhance the reputation of AT as a whole.There is a clear lack of cooperation among the four AT programs in Ladakh. Information isnot freely available, staff and methods are not shared, and mistakes often repeated. Someof this is a result of distant funding agencies and their ability to dictate research andprogram implementation actions in the field. Some of it is a result of differing philosophiesbetween programs, and some results from outright competition between them.5.6.2 Matching needs, willingness and toolsUnderstanding needs and discovering locally-appropriate tools to address needs arefundamental to AT. Local people must be included in the discovery process as it is theirdefinitions of need and willingness to use new tools that will determine program content.119Just as Ladakhi definitions of needs differ from Western needs, individual villages andhouseholds perceive problems differently. Cooker placements in homes where fuelproblems are recognized but where there is an unwillingness to use a new technologyshould be reconsidered. A dilemma is presented within this suggestion: what if a personrequests a cooker, yet there is evidence that the cooker will not be used? Or, as in theinstance of the high frequency of use shown in the Muslim village in this study, shouldcookers be withheld from areas of strong unwillingness to try a cooker? Participation by allpersons should be encouraged; but this should go hand-in-hand with introduction,education and follow-up programs that explore root causes of problems to better matchlocal needs, willingness and tools. In villages where there is doubt about the matchbetween need and use, a program may also consider trial periods, with the removal ofunused technologies from the field.5.6.3 Supporting a wide range of oDtionsAT programs should be innovative in creating numerous problem-solving options.Programs must recognize there are instances where any change may produce benefits. Inthese cases, the tool offered is not necessarily the best choice, but simply better thanexisting conditions. This can be shown in the case of high rates of AT acceptance in theMuslim village. People were experiencing fuel shortages, but were also reluctant to accepta new technology into their traditional kitchens. Cookers eventually met with a high userate and resulted in numerous positive impacts. Users stated that they were happy withtheir cookers. However, they also stated they would have included an option for improvedchulas (fuelwood stoves) had they been more involved in design of the program. ATprograms operating in Ladakh should develop and support a sufficient range of options inproblem solving, increasing choice at the local level. Numerous options can better ensurethat technologies chosen will match local needs, result in long-term use, and supportinnovation.5.5.4 Investing in local knowledge and skillsAT mandates creation of locally-sustainable programs. This is accomplished in severalsteps. The first investment is an introduction program that results in user understanding ofthe cooker and solar principles. This enhances use frequency, aids in dissemination of thecookers throughout the community, and supports expansion of use into other solartechnologies. The second investment is providing a local technician to assist in user120problems, maintenance and reproduction of technologies. Through this, solar cookers, orother technologies, are adapted to fit local conditions and employment opportunitiesenhanced. Finally, investment in local decision making supports the village system ofadaptation to change and adoption of new ideas. Reinvesting control in the communityprovides needed tools for the community to deal with other issues surroundingmodernization.5.5.5 Need for better testing and evaluationOnly thoroughly-tested tools are considered appropriate in AT philosophy. Technologytesting and evaluation programs should be a vital component of each of the programs.Testing could have limited the negative impacts experienced within some of the fourprograms in Ladakh. For example, the LEDeG program undertook testing at its Centre(and staff homes) prior to field tests. Cookers that performed well at the Centre were thentested in the field. Cookers should then be tested for their ability to function in the localenvironment and culture. A careful evaluation of the technical capability and socialacceptability of the cookers should follow. Construction of large numbers of cookersshould follow only carefully operated and evaluated pilot programs. Otherwise, a loss ofvaluable time, money and human resources, and a foreclosure of options can result. Toavoid a high number of un-used cookers, and the ensuing belief that solar technologies donot work, testing programs can limit the scope and scale of mistakes.None of the three regularly-operating programs in the case study invested in encompassingevaluations of cookers. The participatory research project in the Tibetan refugee campexplored the potential of numerous cookers, and dependent on local suggestions for changein project and tool design. The opinions of both those designing technologies and thoseusing them on a daily basis offer valuable information to AT programs. Both viewstogether would best maintain program flexibility, and therefore, the ability to adapt tochanging needs within Ladakh.5.5.6 AT. development and tied aidAT depends on working at the village level, within small, flexible, locally-operated andlocally-controlled programs. ft may be difficult for the Ladakhi AT programs to balancephilosophy, operation and the mandates of external funding agencies. One result of thetying of aid in the case-study programs was an apparent need to get as many technologies121in the field as possible. This number was used to justify continued funding from donors.Numbers of technologies distributed took precedence over high use rates among distributedtechnologies. This compromises the underlying philosophy of the programs, andcontributes to the existence of discarded technologies in villages. Whenever possible,autonomy from funder dictates of quantity over quality is preferable.5.5.7 The nature of the beast: the Trojan HorseA. K. N. Reddy stated that no technology is neutral. Technologies bear the imprint of thesociety that produces them. The change that is ushered into a community through theintroduction of a new technology can be likened to the tale of the Trojan Horse. Unknownimpacts are delivered to the heart of a village in the benign guise of novelty. In a villagelacking a stated need for change, the introduction of a solar cooker may mark its user asdifferent from other community members. In traditional Ladakhi society, materialsuperiority and individuality is not necessarily considered beneficial. Instead it could leadto damage of important social connections in the village. Change, for the sake of change,may not be a welcome event in such a case.122Literature CitedAhiuwalia, H. P. S., Ladakh: Hermit Kingdom. Viking Publishing House, Pvt., Ltd.,New Delhi (1980).Allan, Nigel, “From Antarky to Dependency: Society and Habitat Relations in the SouthAsian Mountain Rimland,” Mountain Research and Development. Vol. 11, #1(1991) pp. 41-45.Attwood, Donald, “Poverty, Inequality, and Economic Growth in Rural India,” in Powerand Poverty: Development and Development Projects in the Third World (Ed:Donald Attwood, Thomas Bruneau and John Galaty). Westview Press, Boulder(1988).Aziz, Barbara, Tibetan Frontier Families. Vikas Publishing House, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi(1978).Aziz, Barbara, Jural Friends and Buddhist Teachers,” in Culture and Morality: Essays inHonour of Christoph von Furrer-Haimendorf. (Ed: Adrian Mayer) OxfordUniversity Press, Delhi (1981).Bagchi, Amiay Kumar, Colonialism and the Nature of the ‘Capitalist’ Entreprise in India.Arun Publishing Pvt., Ltd., Delhi (1983).Bagchi, Amiay Kumar, “Technological Self-Reliance, Dependence andUnderdevelopment,” in Science. Technology and Development (Ed: Atul Wad).Westview Press and IT Publications, London (1988).Banister, Alison, “The Joy of Solar Cooking,” SOL. #79, Nov-Dec 1990 pp. 6-7.Berthoud, Gerald, “Market”, in The Development Dictionary (Ed: Sachs, Wolfgand) ZedBooks, London (1992) pp. 70-87.Bhattacharya, Vivek Ranjan, New Face of Rural India: March of the 20 Point Programme.Metropolitan Press, New Delhi (1982).Bhave, Vinoba, The Ultimate and the Intimate. Element Books, Dorset (1986).Biswas, Ramesh Kumar, “A House is not a Home,” in Indigenous Vision: Peoples ofIndia Attitudes to the Environment. (Ed: Sen, Geeti) Sage Publications, New Delhi(1992) pp.264-271.Black, Jan Knippers, Development in Theory and Practice. Westview Press, Boulder(1991).Brazel, Anthony and Melvin Marcus, “July Temperatures in Kashmir and Ladakh, India:Comparisons of Observations and General Circulation Model Simulation,”Mountain Research and Development. Vol. 11, #2 (1991) pp. 75-86.Brown, R. H., Appropriate Technology and the grass roots: towards a developmentstrategy from the bottom up,” Developing Economics Vol. 15, #3 (1972) pp. 253-279.123Burghley, Michael, “Honoring Life’s Inherent Design,” in For the Conservation of Earth(Ed: Vance Martin). Fulcrum, Inc., Denver (1988).Burch, David, “Appropriate Technology for the Third World. Why the Will is Lacking,” inThe Ecologist. Vol. 12, #2, March-April (1982). pp. 52-66.The Caracas Report on Alternative Development Indicators, Redefining Weath andProaress: New Ways to Measure Economic. Social and Environmental Change.Toes Book and Bootstrap Press, New York (1989).Carr, Marilyn, The AT Reader Theory and Practice in Appropriate Technolov.Intermediate Technology Development Group of North America, New York(1985).Chambers, Robert, “Reversals, institutions and change,” in Farmer First: FarmerInnovation and Agricultural Research (Ed: Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey andLori Ann Thropp). IT Publications, London (1989).Chambers, Robert, Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longman Scientific andTechnical and John Wiley and Sons, New York (1983).Chandra, K. P., Resources. Values and Development. Vikas Publishing House, Delhi(1973).Chatterji, Sandhya, “The Indigenous Culture of Zanskar,” in Indigenous Vision: Peoplesof India Attitudes to the Environment. (Ed: Sen, Geeti) Sage Publications, NewDelhi (1992) pp.233-240.Chopra, Suneet, “Garo Myths: The Environment as Lexicon,” in Indigenous Vision:Peoples of India Attitudes to the Environment. (Ed: Sen, Geeti) Sage Publications,New Delhi (1992) pp. 91-100.Chossudovsky, Michel, “India Under IMF Rule,” The Ecologist. Vol. 22,16, November-December (1992) pp. 271-275.Ciochetti, David and Robert Metcalf, “Pasteurization of Naturally Contaminated Water withSolar Energy,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology. Vol. 47, #2, February(1984) pp. 223-228.Clark, Norman, The Political Economy of Science and Technology. Basil Blackwell,Oxford (1985).Cleveland, Harlan, The Global Commons: Policy for the Planet. The Aspen Institute andUniversity Press of America, Inc., Lanham, MD (1990).Crook, J.H. and Crook, S.J., Himalayan Buddhist Villages: Environment. Resources.Society and Religion in Zanskar and Ladakh. Aris and Philips, Warminster, UK(1987).Cunningham, Alexander, Ladahk: Physical. Statistical & Historical. Sagar Publications,New Delhi (1970) (originally printed in London in 1854).124Daly, Herman and Cobb, John, For the Common Good. Beacon Press, Boston (1989).Dargyay, Eva, Tibetan Village Communities. Aris and Phillips, Ltd. Warminster (1982).Dana, C.L. Ladakh and Western Himalayan Politics: 1819-1848. Munshiram ManoharialPublishers, Pvt. Ltd., Delhi (1972).Dedijer, M. A. Underdeveloment in Rural India. Vikas Publishing House, Pvt. Ltd.,Delhi (1972).de Schutter, 3., Fundamental Aspects of Appropriate Technology. Deift University Press,Aiphen an den Ryn, Deift (1980).de Silva, Padmasiri, “Buddhist Environmental Ethics,” in Dharma Gaia: A Harvest ofEssays in Buddhism and Ecology (Ed: Allan Hunt Dainer). Parallax Press,Berkeley (1990),de Voe, Dorsh Marie, “The Refugee Problem and Tibetan Refugees,” The Tibet Journal.Vol VI, No. 3, Autumn (1981).Devall, Bill, Simple in Means. Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology,Peregrine SmithBooks, Salt Lake City (1988).Dogra, Bharat, Creating Wealth.: Fogetting Its Purpose. Raksha Kunj, New Delhi(1992).Dollfus, Pascal, Lieu de neige et de genevriers organisation sociale et religieuse descommunicautes boddhistes du Ladakh. Editions du Centre National de la RecharcheScientifique, Paris (1989).Douthwaite, Richard, The Growth Illusion. Green Books, Devon, England (1992).Downs, Hugh, “The Image of the Mountain and the Sherpa Landscape,” in MountainPeonle (Ed: Michael Tobias). University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK (1986).Dube, S. C., Tradition and Development. Vikas Publishing House, Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi(1990).Dunn, P. D., Aporopriate Technology: Technology with a Human Face. MacMillan,New York (1978).Esteva, Gustavo, “Development,” in The Development Dictionary. (Ed: Sachs, Wolfgang)Zed Books, London (1992) pp. 2-25.Esteva, Gustavo, The Earth is Not an Ecosystem. IDEAS CBC Radio Transcripts,Toronto (1993) pp. 12-18.Esteva, Gustavo, “Regenerating Peoples Space,” in Towards a Just World Peace:Perspectives on Social Movements. (Ed: S.N. Mendlowitz and R.B.J. Walker)Butterworths, London (1987) pp. 271-298,Ekvall, Robert, Fields on the Hoof: Nexus of Tibetan Nomadic Pastoralism. Holt,Rinehart and Winston, New York (1968).125Fisher, James, “Himalayan Research,” in Himalayan Anthropology: The Indo-TibetanInterface (Ed: James Fisher). Mouton Press, The Hague (1978) pp. ix-xii.Fox, Richard, Gandhian Utopia Experiments with Culture. Beacon Hill Press, Boston(1989).Fromm, Eric, To Have or to Be? Harper and Row, New York (1976).Galtung, Johan, Development. Environment and Technology: Toward a Technology forSelf-Reliance. UNCTAD, New York (1979).Gandhi, M. K., Picture of Free India. Pearl Publications, Bombay (1965).Gandhi, M. K., The Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. (Ed: Shriman Narayan),Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, (1968).Goering, Peter, “The Response to Tourism in Ladakh,” Cultural Survival quarterly. Vol14, #1 (1990) pp. 20-25.Gokhale-Chatterjee, Sandhya, “Stratification and Change in the Contemporary LadakhiSociety,” in Himalayan Heritage (Ed: M. Raha) Gian Publishing House, (1987)pp. 456-468.Goldsmith, E. “Whose Common Future?” The Ecologist. Vol 22, #4, July/August (1992)pp 167-192.Goldstein, M. “The balance between centralisation and decentralisation in the traditionalTibetan political system,” Central Asiatic Journal. Vol. 15, #3, (1971) pp. 171-182.Goldstein, Melvyn and Cynthia Beall, Nomads of Western Tibet. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley (1990).Goldstein, Melvyn, “Reexamining Choice, Dependency and Command in the TibetanSocial System: ‘Tax Appendages’ and Other Landless Serfs,” The Tibet Journal.Vol. XI, No. 4, Winter,(1986).Goldstein, Melvyn and P. Tsarong. “De-encapsulation and Change in Ladakh,” inHimalayan Heritage (Ed: Manis Raha), Gain Publishing, Delhi (1987) pp. 443-455.Gran, Guy, Development by People. Citizen Construction of a Just World. Praeger, NewYork (1983).Gronemeyer, Marianne, “Helping,” in The Development Dictionary. (Ed: Sachs,Wolfgang) Zed Books, London (1992) pp. 53-69.Gross, Rita, Buddhist Resources for Issues Concerning Population Pressures andResource Consumption. Unpublished paper (1993).Hancok, Graham, Lords of Poverty: The Power. Prestige and Corruption of theInternational Aid Business. Atlantic Monthly Press, New York (1989).126Henderson, Hazel, Thinking Globally. Acting Locally: The Politics and Ethics of theSolar Age. The Horace M. Aibright Conservation Lectureship, University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley (1982).Hewitt, Kenneth, “Axis Mundi: Living Space, Custom, and Identity among the KalashKafirs of the Hindu Kush,” in Mountain People (Ed: Michael Tobias). Universityof Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK (1986).Hoda, M. M., Appropriate Technology and Research Projects. Gandhian Institute ofStudies, Varanasi (1974).Hoda, M.M., “India’s Experience and the Ghandian Tradition,” in AT: Problems andPromises (Ed: Nicolas Jequier). OECD, Paris (1976).Hougan, Glen, “Cooking under the Sun,” Alternatives. Vol. 17, No. 2(1990) pp. 13-14.Hulscher, Willem, “Energy for Rural Development,” ITC Journal. Number 4, (1990) pp.373-378.Hunt, Cynthia, Unpublished field research journals, November 1, 1986- April 15, 1987,Tibet.Hunt, Cynthia, Unpublished field research journals, June 15- August 15, 1987, Ladakh.IBRD, “September 24, 1973 Address to the Board,” The McNamara Years at the WorldBank. Johns Hopkins University Press, (1981) pp. 231-293.Illich, Ivan, In the Mirror of the Past. Marion Boyars, New York (1992).Illich, Ivan, Towards a History of Needs. Pantheon Books, New York (1978).Jackson, David, The Mollas of Mustang: Historical. Religious and Oratorical Traditions ofthe Nepalese-Tibetan Borderland. Library of Tibetan Works and Archives,Dharamsala (1984).Jequier, Nicolas, Appropriate Technology: Problems and Promises. OECD, Paris (1976).Johnson, D. L. and F. Vogel-Roboff, “Pastoralism: Some Alternative Futures,” in Makingthe Most of the Least: Alternative Ways to Development. (Ed: Berry, Leornard andRobert Kates) Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc., New York (1980) pp. 77-94.Joldan, E., Harvest Festival of the Buddhist Dards and Other Essays. Kapoor Brothers,Srinagar (1985).Jones, Aiwyn, “Beyond Industrial Society: Towards Balance and Harmony,” ]]Ecologist. Vol. 13, #4, (1983). pp. 141-147.Jones, Alwyn, “From Fragmentation to Wholeness: A Green View of Science,” jJEcologist. Vol. 18, #1, January-February (1988) pp. 30-34.Kak, B.L., Chasing Shadows in Ladakh. Light and Life Publishers, New Delhi (1978).127Kantowsky, Detlef, Recent Research on Ladakh: History. Culture. Sociology. Ecology.Weitforum Verag, Munchen, West Germany (1983).Kantowsky, Detlef, Sarvodaya the Other Development. Vikas Publishing House Pvt.,Ltd. ,New Delhi (1980).Kantowsky, Detlef, “Social Stratification in Ladakh”, Recent Research on Ladakh.Munich, Welform Verlag (1981).Karan, P. P., “Ideology on Landscape: A Study of Tibet”, The Tibet Journal. Vol VI,No.3, Autumn (1981).Kaul, Shridhar and H. N. Kaul, Ladakh Through the Ages: Towards a New Identity.Indus Publishing Company, New Delhi (1992).Klee, Gary, World Systems of Traditional Resource Management. Halsted Press, NewYork (1980).Korten, David, “People-Centered Development Toward a Framework,” in PeopleCentered Development Contributions toward Theory and Planning Frameworks(Ed: David Korten and Rudi Klauss). Kumarian Press, West Hartford, CT (1984).Kothan, Rajni, “Masses, Classes and the State,” in Towards a Just World Peace:Perspectives on Social Movements (Ed. Mendlovitz, Saul and R. B. J. Wlaker)Butterworths, London (1987) pp.387-399.Kothari, Rajni, Rethinking Development. In Search of Humane Alternatives. AjantaPublications, New Delhi (1988).Krishnaswami, A., “Social Economics, Toward an Ethical Market,” in EconomicDevelopment and Poverty. (Ed: R. Kunen) Oxford University Press, Delhi (1991).Ladakh Ecological Group (LEDeG), Ecology and Principles for Sustainable Development.LEDeG, New Delhi (1986).Ladakh Ecological Group (LEDeG), Ecological Steps Towards a Sustainable Future.LEDeG, New Delhi (1988).Ladakh Ecological Group (LEDeG), Technological Report of the Ladakh EcologicalDevelopment Group. LEDeG, New Delhi (1987).Lele, Sharachchandra, “Sustainable Development: A Critical Review,” WorldDevelopment. Vol. 19, #6, (1991) pp. 607-621.Longhurst, Richard, “Rapid rural appraisal: an improved means of information-gatheringfor rural development and nutrition projects,” Food and Nutrition. Vol. 13, #1(1987) pp. 44- 47.Lovins, Amory, “The Soft Energy Path,” The Center Magazine. Sept/Oct (1976) pp. 32-45.Mamoria, C.B., Geography of India: Agricultural Geography. Shiva Lal Agarwala andCompany, Agra 91975).128Mann, R.S., The Ladakhi: A Study in Ethnography and Change. Anthropological Surveyof India, Calcutta (1986).Marshall, Catherine and Gretchen Rossman, Designing Oualitative Research. SagePublications, Newbury Park (1989).Mathur, Han Mohan, Anthroixilogy and Development in Traditional Societies. VikingPublishing House, Pvt., Ltd., New Delhi (1989).McRobie, George, Small is Possible. Jonathon Cape, London (1981).Mendis, Patrick “Buddhist Economics for Human Development,” in Development. #2,(1993) pp. 13-17.Metcalf, Robert, “Pasteurizing Contaminated Water with Solar Box Cookers: Methodologyand Equipment,” Unpublished, (1991).Metcalf, Robert, “Saving Lives with the Sun,” Solar Box Journal. Vol. 11, #3, Fall (1991)pp. 1, 11.Metcalf, Robert, “Solar Box Cookers and Sustainable Development”, paper presented atChildren’s Earth Fund Workshop, UNCED Pre-Conference Meeting, Geneva,March 27, 1991.Metcalf, Robert, Solar Water Pasteurization: A Microbiologist’s Perspective,” Solar BoxJournal. Vol. 11, #3, Fall (1991) pp. 6-7.Metcalf, Robert, “The Third Annual Think Tank,” Solar Box Cookers InternationalNewsletter. Summer/Fall (1991) pp. 2.Miller, Beatrice, “Tibetan Culture and Personality: Refugee responses to a Tibetan Culture-bound TAT,” in Himalayan Anthropology: The Indo-Tibetan Interface (Ed: JamesFisher). Mouton Press, The Hague (1978) pp. 365-394.Moon, Bruce, The Political Economy of Basic Human Needs. Cornell University Press,Ithica (1991).Moore-Lappe, Frances, Rachel Shurman and Kevin Danher, Betraying the NationalInterest. Grove Press, New York (1987).Mullick, S.C. “Solar Cooking,” in Advances in Solar Energy Technology (Ed: W.H.Bloss and F. Pfisterer). Pergamon Press, Oxford (1987) pp. 1150-1154.Nair, Kusum, In Defense of the Irrational Peasant: Indian Agriculture after the GreenRevolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1979).Nandy, Ashis, The Intimate Enemy. Oxford University Press, Delhi (1986).Nandy, Ashis, “Resisting History,” in The Ecologist. Vol. 13, #4 (1983) pp. 148-149.Narayan, Shiriman, Towards the Gandhian Plan. S.Chand and Company, New York(1978).129Nitzberg, Frances, “Changing patterns of multiethnic interaction in the WesternHimalayas,” in Himalayan Anthropology: The Indo-Tibetan Interface (Ed: JamesFisher). Mouton Press, The Hague (1978) pp. 103-110.Norberg-Hodge, Helena, Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh. Sierra Club Books, SanFrancisco (1991a).Norberg-Hodge, Helena, “Learning from Ladakh,” Tibetan Bulliten. September-October(1991b) pp. 14-17.Norberg-Hodge, Helena, “Lessons from Traditional Cultures,” in The Futurist. May-June,(1992) pp. 60.Norberg-Hodge, Helena, “May a thousand seeds grow from every plant,” Ecology andBuddhism. WWF-Penguin, Washington, D.C. (1990) pp.44-56.OuR: Office of Information and International Relations, Tibet Environment andDevelopment. OuR, Dharamsala (1992).Ortner, Sheery, “The White-Black Ones: The Sherpa View of Human Nature,” inHimalayan Anthropology: The Indo-Tibetan Interface (Ed: James Fisher). MoutonPress, The Hague (1978) pp. 263-268.Ota, S.B. “Ladakh: Evidence of Stone Age Culture,” in Himalayan Today December ‘91-May ‘92, pp. 4-51.Pallis, Marco, Peaks and Lamas. Vikas Publishing, New Delhi, (1965).Panmkar, Ramon, The Earth is Not an Ecosystem. IDEAS, CBC Radio trasncripts,Toronto (1993). pp. 2-5.Papworth, John, “Non-Local Local Government and Local Power,” The Ecologist. Vol18, #6, (1988) pp. 213-222.Patton, Michael, Oualitative Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills (1980).Pereira, Winin and Jeremy Seabrook, Asking the Earth. The Other Press, Goa (1990a).Pereira, Winin, From Western Technology to Liberation Technology. Centre for HolisticStudies, Bombay (1990b).Pereira, Winin, The Other Side of History. Centre for Holistic Studies, Bombay (1990c).Pereira, Wimn, “The Sustainable Lifestyle of the Warlis,” in Indigenous Vision: Peoples ofIndia Attitudes to the Environment. (Ed: Sen. Geeti) Sage Publications, New Delhi(1992) pp. 189-204.Poats, Susan, “Gender and Intra/Inter-Household Analysis in On-Farm Research andExperimentation,” in The Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Modeof Production (Ed: Richard Wick). Westview Press, Boulder (1989).130Pollard, Nigel, “Appropriate Technology: Really Appropriate or Just a Misfit?” in Ih.Ecologist. Vol. 13, #1 (1983), pp. 27-34.Porritt, Jonathon, Seeing Green: The Politics of Ecology Explained. Basil Blackwell,Oxford (1984).Porsken, Ule, Plastic Words. IDEAS Transcripts. (1993) pp. 1-8.Rau, B., From Feast to Famine: Official Cures and Grassroots Remedies to Africa’s FoodCrisis. Zed Books, Ltd., London (1991).Reddy, A. K. N., “Alternative Technology: A Viewpoint from India,” Social Studies ofScience. Vol 5, (1975) pp. 33 1-342.Regenstein, Lewis, Replenish the Earth: The history of organized religion’s treatment ofanimals and nature. Crossroad, New York (1991).**Ribbh, S.H., Culture and Society in Ladakh. Ess Ess Publications, New Delhi(1986).Rich, Bruce, “The Greening of Development Banks: Rhetoric and Reality,” The Ecologist.Vol. 19, #2, May-April, (1989) pp. 44-52.Riedyk, W., AT for Developing Countries. Delft University Press, Deift (1984).Rizvi, B.R., “Muslims of the Kashmir Valley and Kargil: A study in cultural continuityand change,” in Himalayan Heritage (Ed: M. Raha) Gian Publishing House, (1987)pp. 426-442.Rizvi, Barbara, Ladakh: Crossroads of High Asia. Oxford University Press, Delhi (1983).Robinson, John, George Francis, Russel Legge and Sally Lerner, “Defining a SustainableSociety: Values, Principles and Definitions,” Alternatives. Vol. 17, #2(1990) pp.36-46.Rosenthal, Peggy, Words and Values: Some Leading Words and Where They Lead Us.Oxford University Press, Oxford (1984).Runge, Carlisle Ford, “Common Property and Collective Action in EconomicDevelopment,” World Development. Vol. 14, #5(1986) pp. 623-635.Rybczynski, Witold, Paper Heroes: A Review of Appropriate Technology. Prism Press,Dorchester (1980).Sachs, Wolfgang, “Development: A Guide to the Ruins,” The New Internationalist. No.232, June (1992) pp. 4-29.Sachs, Wolfgang, The Development Dictionary ZED Books 1992.Sachs, Wolfgang, “Environment and Development The Story of a Dangerous Liaison,”The Ecologist. Vol. 21, #6, Nov/Dec (1991) pp. 252-257.131Sachs, Wolfgang, “On the Archaeology of the Development Idea,” The Ecologist. Vol. 20,#2 Mar/April (1990) pp. 42-43.Sale, Kirkpatrick, Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision. Sierra Club Books, SanFrancisco (1985).Schneider, Bertrand, The Barefoot Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome. ITPublications, London (1981).Schumacher, E. F., Good Work. Harper and Row Publishers, New York (1979).Schumacher, E. F., Needs. Science and Economics. Gandhian Institute of Studies,Varanassi (1962).Schumacher, E. F. ,Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. Blondand Bnggs, London (1973).Schumacher, E. F., “Technology with a Human Face,” in Stepping Stones: AppropriateTechnology and Beyond (Ed: Lane de Moll and Gigi Coe). Schocken Books, NewYork (1978).Sen. Amartya, On Ethics and Economics. Blackwell Press, Oxford (1987).Sen, Amartya, Sarvodaya, “Tradition and Modernity,” Contributions to Indian Sociology.Vol. 217, (1983) pp.119-123.Sen, Geeti, Indigenous Vision: Peovles of India Attitudes to the Environment. (Ed: Sen,Geeti) Sage Publications, New Delhi (1992).Shiva, Vandana, Staying Alive. People Tree Press, New Delhi, (1989).Shiva, Vandana and Jayanata Bandyopadhyay, “Development, Poverty and the Growth ofthe Green Movement in India,” The Ecologist. Vol. 19, #2. (1989) pp. 111-117.Simmons, Pam, “Women in Development, A threat to Liberation,” The Ecologist. Vol. 22,#1, January/February (1992) pp. 16-21.Singh, Nanndar, Economics and the Crisis of Ecology. Oxford University Press, NewDelhi (1978).Singer, Hans, Technologies for Basic Needs. ILO, Geneva (1977).Shah, Jasmine, “Pran Tarang - The Flow of Life,” in For the Conservation of Earth (Ed:Vance Martin). Fulcrum, Inc. Denver (1988).Skolimowski, Henryk, “Ecology, Education and the Real World,” Trumpeter. Vol. 8, #3,Summer (1991).Sneligrove, David and Richardson, Hugh, A Cultural History of Tibet. Prajna Press,Boulder (1980).Spooner, Brian, “Insiders and Outsiders in Baluchistan: Western and IndigenousPerspectives on Ecology and Development,” in Lands at Risk in the Third World:132Local-level Perspectives (Ed: Peter Little, Michael Horowitz and Endre Nyerges).Westview Press, Boulder (1987).Srinwasan, A. R., “Social Ethics and Socio-economic Development Problems,” inSarvodaya: Participating in Development (Ed. K. K. Sethna), Gandhian Institutefor Studies, Varannasi (1979).Stewart, Francis, Technology and Underdevelopment. MacMillan Press, Ltd. London(1977).Stewart, F. in Stewart, Frances, Henk Thomas and Ton de Wilde. The Other Policy. ITPublications, Washington, D.C. (199).Streeten, David, First Things First: Meeting Basic Human Needs in Developing Countries.Oxford University Press, New York (1981).Sumi, T., M. Old and F. Hassnain, Ladakh: The Moonland. Light and Life Publishers,New Delhi (1975).Tenzin Gyatso, His Holiness the XIVth Dalai Lama, “Responsibility,” in Dharma Gaia: AHarvest of Essays on Buddhism and Ecology. Parralax Press, Berkeley (1990).Tester, Frank, “As If People Matter More: Rethinking Impact Assessment and InternationalDevelopment,” Canadian Dimension. Vol. 23, #1, Jan-Feb (1989).Thiessen, Tracy, “When Technology is Not Enough,” SOL. #79, Nov-Dec. 1990, pp. 8-10.Third World Network, Third World: Development or Crisis? Third World Press, Penang(1985).Tucci, Giuseppi, The Religions of Tibet. Routledge and Kegan Press, London (1980).Ulnch, Otto, “Technology,” in The Development Dictionary. (Ed: Sachs, Wolfgang) ZedBooks, London (1992) pp. 275-287.UNDP, World Development Report. Oxford University Press, Washington, D.C. (1993).Vacca, Roberto, Modest Technology for a Complicated World. Pergamon Press, NewYork (1980).Vigoda, Marcy, “Religious and Socio-Cultural Restraints on Environmental DegradationAmong Tibetan Peoples - Myth or Reality?” The Tibet Journal. Vol XIV, No. 4,Winter (1989) pp. 57-67.Vohra, B.B., “Managing the Environment,” in Natural Heritage of India: Essays onEnvironmentManagement (Ed: Ashok Basu and Padam Gautam). H.K. Publishersand Distributors, Delhi (1989).von Furer-Haimendorf, Christoph, “Trans-Himalayan Traders in Transition,” inHimalayan Anthropology: The Indo-Tibetan Interface (Ed: James Fisher). MoutonPress, The Hague (1978) pp. 339-358.133Wahid, Siddiq, Ladakh: Between Earth and Sky. W.W. Norten and Company, New York(1981).WaIler, Robert, “Scientific Materialism, The Straightjacket of Western Culutre,” IhEcologist. Vol 10, #6, July/August (1980). pp.224-229Warry, Wayne, “Doing Unto Others: Applied Anthropology, Collaborative Research andNative Self-Determination,” Culture. Vol. 10, #1 (1990) pp. 61-73.Webb, L.J. and D.M. Smyth, “Ecological Guidelines and Traditional Empiricism in RuralDevelopment,” in Traditional Life-Styles. Conservation and Rural Development(Ed: J. Hanks). IUCN, Bandung, Indonesia (1984).Webster, Andrew, Introduction to the Sociology of Development. MacMillan, London(1984).Weismann, Steven, The Trojan Horse. Ramparts Press, San Francisco (1974).White, Louise, Creating Opportunities for Chance: Approaches to Manain DevelopmentPrograms. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder (1987).Willoughby, M. Techno1ov and Choice: A Criticiue of the Appropriate TechnologyMovement. Westview Press, Boulder (1990).Wilbur, Charles and Kenneth Jamieson, “Paradigms of Economic Development andBeyond,” in The Political Economy of Underdevelopment. (Ed. Charles Wilbur),Random House, New York (1984). pp. 4-26.Wood, Barbara, Alias Papa: A Life of Fritz Schumacher. Jonathon Cape, London (1984).World Bank, World Development Report 1992: Development and the Environment.Oxford University Press, New York (1992).World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future. OxfordUniversity Press (1987).Yin, Robert, Case Study Research: Designs and Methods. Sage Publications, NewburyPark (1989).134Appendices135INTERVIEWS WITH PROGRAM DIRECTORS, INDIAN GOVERNMENTOFFICIALS, AND SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY EXPERTSLEDeGSonam DawaLobzang TseringHelena Norberg-HodgeDNCEM. HamfA. AngoramaS. RafiqS. DawaNoor ShahTCVDLeshikTenpaDidi ContractorPhuntsokTenzin DoijeLodoe GyaltsenSolar Energy, GeneralMatin Tak, LehAngchuk Kalon, LehTaric de Villers, BelgiumPaul Mirmont, ParisTsering Norbu, ChushotNam Tsenng, StagmoSonam Wangchuk, LehArul Singh, LehWazir Mohammed Au, LehDr. Phuntsok, LehBeverly Blum, Sacramento, CABrigadeer Vombtkare, LehJ.L. Trivedi, DelhiK. Triparthi, Delhi136SurveyQuestionsinDatabaseVillage#andnameInterviewIDVillagetypeSBCModel#YearsusedKitchenDescription1.ChoglamsarA-RRR1.Refugeecamp1.TCV-D22’0.<1monthTibetan2.Traditionalkitchen;Refugee2.Centre2.TCV-D90’2.<6monthsLadakhistove,biomasscampfuels,hearthseats,Ihas2.Leh-ChanspaA-UU3.Centre-influenced3.SSP-LEDeG-P4.<1yearhonoured,localdietSankarGompa4.Muslimvillage4.LEDeG-2x6.<2years4.Mixedkitchen:3.Themisgang-A-i’LadakhiandfossilfuelTia-Ang-5.Road-influenced5.LEDeG8.2-3yearsstoves,biomassandHemisffuels,hearthseats,IhasShukpachang6.Hinterland6.DNCE10.>3yearshonoured,mixeddiet4.Chushot5.SpitukA-T6.Mixedkitchen:6.PalamA-JUseDidyouwant?DidLadakhistove,possibly7.SabuA-FReligionyouseekoutsolar?withfossilfuelstove,8.StagmoA-M1.Pasteitherfuelsused,tradi9.StokA-G1.Buddhist-0.Notminetionsimportant,no10.SheyA-JRefugee2.PresentIhos,largelytraditional11.i’hikseA-J2.Nochoicediet,(Muslimor12.StaknaA-L2.Buddhist3.Non-owner,useChristian)13.MathoA-Fneighbours4.Askedtotestit14.NangA-D3.Muslim8.Modernkitchen:15.MarteslangA-D6.Neighbourhad,orfossilfuelstove,ffuels16.ShangA-F4.Other%Subsidylikedhowitlookedused,nohearthseats,17.PhyangA-Cthashonoured,mixed18.AlphaAA-E0.NA8.Aftertheintrodiet(refugee)19.AlphaBA-EProgramprogram,Iwanted20.LikkirA1.0-24%10.Modernkitchcn:21.SaspolA1.TCV-D10.Wentoutlookingfossilfuelstove,ffuels22.UktopkoA-D2.25-49%for itused,traditions23.BasgoA-C2.LEDeGunimportant,noIhos,23.LazingA3.50-74%mixeddiet24.KhalseA3.DNCE25,LamayuruA-D4.75-100%26.NimuA-D4.SSPA-B5.None1SurveyQuestionsinDatabase(continued)KitchenImportance0.Noresponse2.Thekitchenhelpsidentifyourselves,wespendalot ofourtimethere,Idon’twant ittochange4.Itsimportanttouse,welikeourkitchenalot,changeunwelcome6.Itschangedalotinthepasttenyears,nowlessimportant8.Itsneverbeenthatimportanttous10.Ourkitchenisadepressingroom,wespendaslittletimeaspossibleinthere,wewanttochangeourkitchen,wedon’t haveakitchenFuel2:%Fossilfueluse0.100%biomass2.noffuelsforcooking4.80/20biomass/ffuel6.50/50biomass/ffuels8.20/80biomass/ffuels10.>80%ffuels, alotofourmoneyNewIdeas:acceptanceoftechnologies0.Idon’tlikenewtech’sinkitchen2.Newtechisokay.notinmykitchen4.Changeandtech’sareokay,Idon’tlikeSBCs6.WeneedSBC,butlikeourfire8.Newtech’sokay,we’llacceptifweneed10.Noproblemwithnewtech’sinkitchenFuel1:Isthereafueldeficiency0.NoproblemI.Onlyaprobleminnon-cookinguse(lighting)2.Rarelyaproblem3.Onlyinnon-cooking(heatinginwinter)4.Aprobleminworstofwinter5.Takestimetogather, and/oritsbecomingmoredifficult6.Noaccesstoffuels,longwaytopurchase7.Ffuelscarcityorunreliability8.Don’tlikesmoke,smell,mess;health,environment concerns9.Moneytopurchaseaproblem10.Moneytopurchasealargeconcern,itmakesuspoorIntroductionProgram0.Didnothave2.BriefdiscussioninLeh4.DemonstrationinLeb6.Cametoourvillage,notagoodprograsn8.Agencyrepresentative talkedwithvillageleaders,thenhadvillagedemo10.SameasaboveandgaveusfoodsubsidyandcookbookFollow-upProgram0.Didnothave2.Didnothave,friendshelped4.HadtogotoLehforhelp6.Cametoourvillage,notofgreathelp8.Cametoourvillageatleast once,ofgreathelp10.TrainedlocaltechniciantohelpDoyouUnderstandhowtousesolar?0.Neverunderstood2.Explained,but Idon’treallyunderstand4.Itdoesn’t workthewaytheyexplained,Idon’t knowwhat todo6.Can’texplainhowitworks,but Icanfixitanduseforconventional cooking8.Don’tunderstandenoughtotrynewthings, butIunderstandhowsolarworks10.Icanexplainsolar,trynewthingsandshowfriendsImpact1:Generalbenefits0.Don’tlike,familymakesmeuse2.Weneedtousefor$fuelsavings4.Itsgoodtouseinsummer,duringplantingorharvest6.Positiveoutweighsnegativeinuse8.Savesfuel10.Positiveeconomic,environmental,andtimeimpactswithoutnegativesideeffectsBowwelldoesyourcookerwork?0.Notwell2.Good2-3mo/yr4.Cooks4mo/yr,hotwater4mo/yr6.Cooks6mo/yr,hotwater4mo/yr8.Cooks6mo/yr,sometimes2moremo/yr.hotwater4-6mo/yr10.Cooks8mo/yr,sometimesallyearandhotwater24mo/yrImpacts2:Whatdoyoulikeaboutsolar?0Nottouseit1.Wehaveto2.Askedtotryit3.Likenewgadgets4.Itsnotdifficulttouse,easy5.Itssafer withchildren6.Lesssmokeinside,healthbenefits7.Keroseneisstinky,messyorsmoky8.SavestimewhichIcanre-invest9.Savesdung10.SavesfuelandmoneyDoessolarworkingeneral?0.No2.Notmine4.Othersolardoes,notSBCs6.Yes,butSBCshavelimitedability8.OtherSBC5do,mineisjust okay 200SurveyQuestionsinDatabase(continued)10.Mineandothersolar worksNegImpacts:whatdoyouleastlike?0.None1.Itdoesn’t work2.Itdoesn’t fitintooursocialsysteminhome3.Cant cookthefoodweeat4.Promisesmadebutnotkept:cap.itisslowandseasonalinuse5.Itsunreliableoncloudydays, wastesfood6.Needsplanning,adjust-ing,watching7.Foodnotreadywhenwecat8.Potsordesignwrong10.Light afireanywaysoritdoesn’tsaveenoughfuel1.Summeronly,lx/mo2.Summeronly,2-4x/mo3.Summeronly, atleast 2xlwk4.6mo/yr.<2xlwk5.6mo/yr.atleast2xlwk6.4-5months/year.almost daily7.6mo/yr.daily8.8mo/yr, atleast2x)wk9.8mo/yr.daily10.At least10mo/yr.atleast4x]wkWouldyoulikeasecondsolar?0.Nosolar,itdoesn’twork2.Propanestoveorelectriclights4.SBCifitsfree6.Othersolar(esp.shelkhangorgreenhouse)8.AreliableSBC10.Ilikethisone,andshelkhangorgrhouseExpectationsmet?0.No2.<25%expectations4.luseonlyforwaterheating6.Okay,50%ofwhatIhopedfor8.Yes, allmet10.ItworksbetterthantheytoldmeDesignEase:whatdesignproblemsdoyouhave?0.Designdoesn’t workforourneeds1.Needmoneyforrepairsandmaintenance2.Designonlyworks1-2hourseachday3.Cloudyordustyhourseffectsheatloss4.Doesn’tcaptureearlymorning,lateafternoonorwinter sun5.Wrongsizetofitourneeds6.Tooheavyorimmobile7.Needlockorcover8.Want ittobenearmykitchen9.Potsnotright, needtoholdmore10.LikeitverymuchIwouldlike...0.NottouseI.NotSBC,othersolar2.DifferentstyleorsizeSBC3.Makemycookerworkallyear4.Someonelocaltrainedtohelp5.Moreeducation6.Recipesinmylanguage7.Repair infoandhelp8.Itstoomuchwork,needinfoonmakingitlesswork9.Financialsupport,maybeSWHalso10.Noproblems,IlikedesignandwayitworksFuelSavings0.None2.Negligible4.Lessfuel, lesstime6.5-10%andsometime8.l1-40%andsometime10.>40%andtimeFrequencyofUse0.Didn’tuse,doesn’tworkEaseofUse:whatuseproblemsdoyouhave?0.Can’tuseoftenenoughtomakeadifference1.Unreliable,don’tfeelconfident usingit2.Disruptsourkitchenandtraditions3.Can’t cookthefoodweeat inthishouse4.Sometimesfooddoesn’t cook,throwitaway5.Fooddoesn’t tasteright6.Takestoolong,foodnotreadywhenweusuallyeat,disruptive7.Needpots,partsorhelpmaintaining8.Needmoreinfo,demoorrecipes9.WantmorehelpansweringQ’s,but Ilikeit10.Likeitverymuch3SurveyQuestions inDatabase(continued)ComplaintsorExpectationsnotmet:Itdoesnot...1.Savetimeandwork13.Beeasyto22.Needtoheattheinkitchenmaintainandrepairroomanyway, SBCcan’t dothat2.Savemoney14.Lastmorethan5years23.Saiditwouldbe3,Savefueleasytolearn15.Iwouldget follow-4.Cookthefoodweuphelp24.Payforitselfineatoneyear16.Iwouldget recipes5.Cook]bakemoreinmylanguage25.Needtoadjustvarietymirrororoventoo17.Takestoolongtooften6.Cookmorethanitcook,longerthantheycan,morethanonesaid26.Notdisruptourmealperdayfamilypatternsandit18.Wewereaskeiltodoes7.Workallyeartry,butwon’tbuyourselves27.Idon’tlikenew8.Tempsarenotwhattechnologiestheysaidtheywouldbe19.Wegotonebecause ourneighbor28.Itwasn’tofferedto9.Besaferwithsaiditwasgood, butitsthepeoplewhoneeditchildrennotthatgoodinthisvillage10.Reducesmoke20.Wegotoneaswe29.Techsaresecondweretoldthiswasgoodbest,westernersdon’t11.Keepkitchencoolbyworkersuse12.Helphousehold21.Wedon’treally30.Iwouldlikeaenvironmenthaveafuelproblemsopropanestovewedon’tuselikeweshould4;9 EPE E E E E E > E’E E E EN- (P 0 (0 N- N- N- N- N- NJ N- 0 N- N. N- N- N. 0 N. CO 0 (P (0I— N.J — — .- .— N.J . .- ,— — — N.J— N.JCz0 0 (P N- N- (P N- (P (P (P (P N. (P (P N- (P CD (P (P (P U) N) (P N- N- (P (P N- U) (P N- N.) (P (PN.J—- N- —0 0 (P 0 N- 0 (P 0 C N- ‘ C 0 C 0 0 C C C (00 C NJ N- (P CD (P (P (P CD (P (P CD (0 (P (P (P C (PCzNJcY N- N) N- N- N- N- N) N- N- N- N- N- N- N- NJ — N- N- N- N- N- N- N- N- N) N.) N.) N) N) N) N) N- N.) N.J N) N- N.) N.) N- N.) U) N- U) U) NuJcU-C N- NJ N- C N- N- NJ N- 00 N- N- N- N- C C N.J NJ N- C N.J N.J N- N- N- N- N- N- N- N- NJ N- N- N- N- (P (P CD 0 (PN.-NJ NJ N.J C N- C NJ C NJ N- C C N- NJ NJ NJ NJ C N- NJ N- C (P N- (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P C C C CorU)ON- C N- C N-N- C C C C C NJ N-N- C C N-N- C C N- C N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N- N-IN- NJ N- (P (P (P (P (P> C N- C NJ NJ N- C C 0 N-1C NJ NJ N- 0 0 N- N- C C N- 0 N- N- NJ NJ N- C C N-IC N- N- (P ‘ (P (P (P (P (PC — C U) N) U) — — N) C N) U) N) U) N) (P U) C — N) Ct) C U) — — N) — U) — N- U) (P (P NC— — N- C N- ‘ N-I -.. NJ N- p C oN-NJN-N-N-CNJN-ON-CON-CN-NJCN-ONJN-N-NJN-N-NJN-N-NJN-Q(P(PIO(P(P(P0000D000(0 (P NJ C (P N- NJ N- 0 NJ 0 N- NJ N- N- N- N- (0 - (P (0 (P (P - (0 (0 (P CD (P C C C C (Pz0- C(P(PN-N)(P(PN)N)(PN)N)CCCO(P(PCN-NJN-(P(P(P(P(PN-(P(P(P(P(P (P(P(P(P(P(P(P(P(P(P(P(P(PC (P (P (P (P (P (P C (P (P C (P C C (P (P (P C (P (P (P (P C (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P(P (P (P (P (P(P (P 0 C C CI I III Io ‘Io ‘ 2 (P NJ NJCD N-0joiOIO 0 oIoI.i I(P WJ(P (P CDI(P (P (P ( (P (P (PI(P: I° (P (P (P - -- .. - ..)..— ‘I I 1 IN- NJ N- NJ N- N- N- N- N- NJ NJ NJ N- N.J N.J NJ N- N- N- N- N.J NJ N- N- N- N- NJ NJ NJ NJ N-f N- N- NJ N- N- N- N-I N- N- NJ N- N- N- N-.2CCCCCCCCCCCCOCCCCO00OQCCCCCCCOCOCCCCCCCCCO(PCC(UCU(P C C C C C C C C) N- C) C C (P C N- C) C) C N- N- C) N- C N- C C C C C C 0) C (P 0) 00 (P N- C) C C C (P C CC — .---—N- C C C C C C C C C C 000000 00000 C C C C C C C C C C 0 C C CD CD C C (0 C CO (P JI-SC:(P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P (P 0 (P -Ii — — -h-,- —C NJ N-IN- N- N- NJ NJ NJ N- NJ N- N- NJ NJ N- NJ N- N- NJ N- ‘J N- N- NJ N- N- N- NJ (P N- N- N-IN-I N- NJ ! II N) N) N) N) N) N) N) N) N) N)N- N- N-IN- N-IN- N- N- ‘N- N- NJ N- N- N- N-N- NJN-INJ NJ NJ N- N-•N.)N) N- NJ COIN.J NJN.J N- N- N- N- N- N) N) N) N.)< (P U Ow u.. CD— - SC: -J ZOo. O’or U)- o > x >- 8 = 8 ± ±± - or or - - - - - or or or or or orP0)>zci)Ici)CfJCci)c>a)2U)a,0)>a,Cm.0CuCI0)0)00 0 0—.01.01.0>LL I U000 0000 ooooooo0000o 00000000100 O0IO 00000 000010.0.0 .0 .0 .0.0 .0 .0.0 Ct .0 .0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0.0 .0 flIt tctctItIfl .0 .0 .01.0 .c .0 .0 .0.0U1 UIU U UIUU,U U U U U U U UUUUIUUjUU,UIUiUIUIUU U U,U UU.U141-ozCC.)>-0(ID1Cf)Cci)-F—9-i - - I I Li, cc- -ccl4JzL[ccII0 cc 0 cc 0 0 0-- ‘ccl.-ccc ccc ccc— ccc——z Iccor-ccccp.. c- occc.. ci,0 cccccc—r’.cc-c--ccccçsj .-— ccc(SJz Ic- cc cc cc cc cc ‘ 2 cc 2 cc cc cc 2 2 cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc 2 cc cc cc cc cc cccc1 cc cc 0 cc cc L’ cI) cccc cc 51cc o 0 cc cc cc cc 0 0 cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc - cc cc cc cc- cc cc cc cc cc- - c-c cc cc ccECL————‘-———— ,-——.——— .—Li)cc cc cc cc cc cc 00 0 00000 cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc ccc cc ccc cc ccc cc cc - ccc cc cc cc cc cc - ccc- ccccccC)jcc ccrcc 00000000cc 000cc cc- cc cc cccc cc c’c cc-ccc - cc- cc cc- Sc-icc ciSc- cc cc Sc- Sc ccc cc cc cc[———.-.—— i__i(C) (- cn)cc cn cc- a c cc a cc a, cc cc cc 0 .a- - cc cc cc cc cc ccc cc 0 0 cc) cc ccc ccc - cc cc cc. - 0 cc) ccc c.c cc cc ‘cc cc 65 66 66 6 66 6 6 66 6 5 ccj S S2 cc cc 2 2 2 cc cc- 2 12 ccc 0 ccc cc cc - - cc cc cc cc ccfs cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc ccj cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc ccI I I I Iz Icc 0 0000 0 000 0 cc cc - Sc - Sc Sc ccc ccc Sc- 0 Sc- 0 0 00 0 cc 0 cc 0 ccc 0 0 ccc ccc Sc Sc- ccc0—cccc 000 0 000 00000 0 0 Sc Sc Sc cc cc cc cc 00 ccc ccc c-cc cc cc1 ccc ccc ccc c-c ccc cc ccl ccc ccc cc cc (Sc Sc ccI I I I Icc 2 0cc cc 0 H O0O 2 00 0 0 2 00 2 0 cccccc cc cc!ccicc 2cc ccceH2 02 dcc cc cccc cc cciccccCi, Sc- Sc Sc Sc Sc- Sc Sc Sc- 151 ccl Sc Sc Sc-cc cc- - cc cc ccc cc cc cc cc cc 000 Sc- cc 0 dcc cc cc cc cc cc Sc- cc 0)-——IL1i5 ccc ccl ccc Ccc 151 Ccc (‘I ccc ccc ccc c-cc — ccc csc —— 0 c’ ccc —Vcc0ooooooo0Ioooooooooccccccccccw’occccSc-ccIccj-ccsccccccc—VcccJ cc cc cc cc cc a 000 0 cc cc 00 0 cc 0 cc cc cc cc- cc 0 r— 0 Sc- Sc cc ccc- cc cc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc c-cc - - cc cc- ccD —Uc-c cc 0 00 00 00 0 0 0000 000 0 0 cc cc-- -- cc cc cc cc ccc- cc- ccc ccc- cc cc— i_ I I IVSc 000000000-00 0000cc cc 2 2 22022 C5 Sc- - - -! cc ccc ccc c-c ccc ccc cc ccc cc cc c-c ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc cc cc c’cc ccc c-c cccj cc cc Sc- Sc- 0 220 0 cc 0 0 cc cc 0 0 0 0)0 0 0 cc 0 Sc- 0 cc cc 0 0 ccVcc 2 cc 2 cc cc cc ScC cc cc cc- cc cc Sc cc Sc cc cc cc 0 0 cc cc cccc)0 0 cc cc- c-c — Sc cc— Sc Sc-j cc Sc- ccIcc IIc-c c-.c c-cc cc c-c- ccc ccc cc cc c-cc ccc cc- ccc c-c c-cc —— cc c-fl cc- ——— ccc ccc — .— ccc (cc ccc ccc —.— c-cc— — ccc c-c‘ccV cccccccccccocccocccccccccccccccccccc.ccccccccccc-cccccnccccccccccccccccccSc-cncccccccnSc-IVF—>)(>- <i 0 Z zog:’-—>X>-i<cc00wcc 0Z0cCY<ccLI0wu-JZ0Q0’ccv)F-‘ Sc- Sc Sc- Sc- Sc -Sc- Sc- Sc- Sc Sc- Sc- Sc Sc- ccc (‘I (‘Ic-c ccc cc cc- cc cc cc, ccc cccccchc-c c’c ccl ccc ccc (cc ccc (cc ccc (cc ccc ccc ccc cci ccc c-ccc, ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ci ccc ccc ccc c’c ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc cccc-c c-c ccc c’c ccc c-c c-ccV-c ccc c--c (cc cccVccc ccc c-c rccjRc c-c ccc ccc>-.-1-4 I Ii I0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL C) C) C) C) C) C) C) CC 0) 0) 0) U) U) C) C) 0) 0) 0)> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 0 ojo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -J - -J -J -J -J-J-C -J J-J -I -J -J>‘0)2:ccC,cc>C,Li)00ccc0)cc142wrTruw’ I!i’I<1CDUDCu’u’(9 —JIZO,-CD>p I—‘-—! OD: m— >S<:a ç:Q-CI— r— CS)C-9CD - 6-- - 6-- 6 --- -C--)—— C.CS)CDCD C--.CD CDC-.OC-.CD CDCDCC-CDOCDC’-CDCD C-CD9— C”)— — C’)—C-I r r- c’ .- r-1 ,-6 6 - 6 - 6 6 6 6 - 6 — 6 6 ç c-l-: 6 CD _ --9————— —I —C.D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C CD CD 0 0 CD C CD C) CD CD C CD CD 616 CD C CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C) CD C-I (p CjCDIz IC-ICCICD 2 6666 63 66 6 6 - C 6-66 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6—.-.-.--———LCD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C CD CD C CD CD CC) C CD CD CD CD CD CD C-I C-) C-’) C-) CD CD CSI CDTC C-I CD C-I C C-),<C)CD CD C’I CD CD C CD CD C CD CD 0 0 CD 0 CD 0 CD 0 0 CD CD 0 0 a) 0 CD CD CD CD C-) C-I C’I C CD CD C’) CD CD C-I C-) CD CD C————— ICC) C’I CD C CD C— DC CS) DC DC DC C—IDC DC C— 0 0 C’.) C C”) C’) (CC CD CD DC CCC C— C CD C/C C/C C-I C— C’.) CC- CD CD CD C”)1 “Cl CD C’) CC- CD C-) CD—— - IC:-r— — — — — — — — — —-...)_C-lCD CD C) CD DC CD C’- 00 DC DCC) CD DC 0 F.’. DC a) DC DC CD CD CD 0 CD DC CD C.. CD CD DC CD CD CD DC DC CD CD DC DCjCD C-I CD CD C—E ICD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD -‘C- CD CD CD CD CD CD CDj CD CD CD CD CDCD CD CD CD CD C) CD CD 0 (CCC CD CD (CC CD 00 (CC CD CD C) C) CD CD CDCD CD CD CD CD CD C CD 0 CD CD CD CDC-.C CD CD C C-Iz6 6 6 6 6 0 CD 6 6 6 666 66fà61j 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6CD CD CCC CD CD CD C-I CD C’.) C”) CDCD CD CD CD 0 0 CD CD1 0 0 0 C 616 0 0 C C C’-) C--I CD CD C’.) C’.) C”) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD16 666 6 CD6 aj6a6 +l66 6Cl) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C-I C-) CD CD CD CD CS) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CDI CD CD CD CD CD CD CDI lii IIII II I>1-IiC-’)C-IC-C-’)._C-C’)C-IC’)C’)C-IICS)C-IC”)ICC-JC-IC_i_C-IC-IIC-IC-IIC-IC-I_L0CCCJ_iCCI.—bC0Cl__CCI J‘ICDCD CD CD C-I CD CD CD CD’CD CD CDCD C-I CD C-I CD CS) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C C o6o 0 CD 000 CD CCCCDCDCCI CD DC C/C DC CD DC CD C/C CD CD CD CS. DC CD DC C/C DC C.’. CO C-.CI C’) C’. F’.. C-.. C) C-I CD C-I C-I— C CC- .— C/C CD (C- C/C CD .- CD CD CC —CDC’) CD ‘) CD ‘CD ‘ CD CD C-’)CC-) CD ‘CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CD CD CD CD CD C-)ICD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C-I CD CD C”) (P C-I CD CD1 CD 0 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (P CD CD CD CD CD1 CDJ C-I C-) C-I C-) C-) C-I (5) C-) C-) C-) C’.) C-) C-) (5) C’) (CC C-I C-) C-) C-) C-) C”) CC) CD C-I C-I C’)’ CI CC- CC- C-) C CD C”) C’) C-I CC) C-’) C-) CI C-I C”)DCD “C- CD CD CD 0 CD CD a) CD CD CD CD 0 CD CC CD CD 0 CD a) CD CD CD C CD CD CD C CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CO C CD 0 CCCD CD CD CD CD CD C..) C-) CS) C-) CD — CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C-I C-) C’) C-) CD C-I — C-) CD CD CD CD CC- CD C-I C-I C-) CD CD CD CD CC- CC- CC- CC-1I Ii CI CI CI ‘ — CD C’) C-I C’) C-I CD C-I C’) CI C-I C-’) CC C-I — .-: CD — CI CI— I —CI riz —JCD CCC C/C ‘-C- Cfl C/C C/C CD (CC CCC CDJCD(D (CC CCC CDCDCDCDz0C,)CIDCiD0c’.)C.”.)>‘0)Cl)C)0)>C)-QCCDLCI(X -‘CCI C.). C) CD CD -C-ICDC-IC-ICD CD CC- CC-CD CD CDZQ0ZOO.C-I C-ICC))DC143C-I C-)<CD C)C/C C/C1 C/CCICIjCIC/CC’)C-) C”) C-IC/C CCC CD CD CD CIC CCI U (3— C -J jz 0C-I CD C-I C-I C-I C-I C-I C’) C-IC-CC-IC’)C”) C-I CI CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CDC-) C’) CI C-I1 C-C C-I C-I C-I iC-I C-) CD CD CD CD CD 1 CD CD CC- CD CC) CD CC) CD1 (C- CD- - T- T‘ ‘C CD C/C Cl) Cl) CD CD J Cl) C/C C/C C/C C) Cl) C/C C/C CD CD C/C CD C) C/C Cl) C/C C/Y Cl) CD CD C— C— C- C- C- C- C- C- C- I- C- C- C—1! i_-J -J - - C -J -J C -J -J - J = J=iJ= -- T TX TX CD I CD I CD CD0(0a03aCOCa(0cl)CDCCD1dD(1)CDCDCCDtI7I‘%%%%%%%-cccc00—•——CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC00000000000000000000----‘3’3--030303030303(0(0U’(0(0(0(0(0(0(0.-..---..-U’U’U’U’(0(0(0(0CO’3‘3‘3‘3‘3030303‘303-0303:03(0(0((00303(0(0((0((0(0(0(00(0‘30303030303CO(0((0CO(0(0(0(00303((0(0((0((0COU’U’U’U’((0(0(0(0(0CO-0303(0(0030)0)0)030303(0COCO(0(0(0(00)030)0)0)0)(00)(0CO0)0)030)(3)0)030)0)0)COv--(00‘3U’’3’3’3’3U’N(CO(00U’U’U’U’C)03003---U’’3-((0(.3U’U’0U’U’0U’003U’U’U’U’0U’U’00)(‘303030)U’-U’-U’0)CD(0CD0)-(00)03030--0)0)0)0)0)--0)030)(0030)030)00)0)0(003(00(0I’-)-0)0)-0c00)--03U’03030)03(‘3.--‘30303(‘3(‘3(-3-.((0U’030303U’U’U’0)(‘3(0U’‘3)(‘3(‘30)((003U’U’0303U’(‘3(‘3?c-0)0)030)-030)--0)(0030)000)--------(‘3((3---030)0)-----CCD03(-3-03(.3-j--H0)0)(‘3-0--.-0)00----(‘3r’3o3(.303-3(.3(‘303--03-----03-((3((3((3--((30303C.‘3‘3’3)(3)0)’3’30)0)(‘3U’U’(003(.3‘3‘3‘3COCO(0‘3(0CO(0(0(0--(000CO‘3‘303-CO0)-.U’U’0-0)((0‘1C((0‘3C03—-03‘3-’0)--00)030.3‘3r.3—--03---‘-03--.—----‘030)0)(0-0)030)0303(3)00(00)CD0)03(00--0)----0)-CD0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)--03—.----.-.--—-‘03000-00000--03-0)(0(00)0)03p(0030doo000oozo0.3-030)03(00303CD0)030)030)030303CD0300)03030303CD0303030303030)000)030)0)0)0)(0030)03000000(‘3‘3030)000.)‘30)0303(0(00300303(.3-030)03030)0)030)0)000)0)0)0)0)0)0)000)0000(‘3Cz003(0(0-030303003-03-0)03030)0)003CD00(3)0)0)0-03030)0)0030)---0(‘3-03(00)--(00)0)030030)0)0)0)0)-(0(00)030)03(003(00)03-(00)03030)0300003---0)0)3-CD0(0(0-(0(0(0CD000-(00)CD-CDCD(00)(003CD0)0‘3-0)0‘303‘30)00CD03(00)0)03‘30330-0)0)0)--0)03‘3(0(003CD0)03-U’U’0)03(00)(00)‘3‘303(0(0CD0(0(00(00(0(000)030.3(0((3(0—‘-.-.-a-00303030000303(0(0(0(0030)03-0-————-_——----—.—————.—--030300303030030(0000(0(0(0(0(0(0oo(0(0(00(0(000000(0000’3(0.’37a—-—.—.--.3(‘3(3)(00)00003(0(00303030)(‘30.300)0)0)0)00)0)00)CO00)0030)00030)0’)0)0’)0030300-,03;03.—-0(0(0CO-0U’030303(0CO030)COU’U’-0-00COCOCO(0-0-0(0(00’)-000CO03(330)(‘3’3’30((3!z00’)0’)0)0)0’)0300000000’)0)(00’)0’)030)0)0)00’)0)030)00)0’)0000’)0)03030)0003030)0)0)-.—.-.‘30303030%)-*-—(‘30303-‘3030.)030’)‘3-COCO‘30300CD‘30’)‘300303030)0’)03(00.3‘303CO(00.301‘3‘30)-U)-0(003(0(0.--0I--(003(0‘3(3)‘3-03HIztI0((3H0‘3I‘303C)DC)(0>—IC)0303C)>H030ZC)3ç(03030303(303>H(3)03)03i<iI(0 0 9 9 - 99 9. (0 0 6o (0 0 N- N-F- — — .— N________i__ - - -a)- (0 (0 N- (0 N- (0 o .- (0 N- N- N- -,- .-— N- N- —— N- N- NJ NJzN- N- N- —(0 jN- 0 (0 N- CO (C) (DO a) N- (0 0 N- N._C’J— —— N‘— N. N- a) N- a) N- N- a)— N- 0 (0 0 N) CO CO N- N- (N N- N- (0 (0 (0 (0 (0— N- a) (0 NN- —— N- NJ N- N- NJ N- —- Nz00(0(0(00 0(0 (DNJCO 0(0 (0(00(0 N- N- (0 CO N- 00(0(000(0 (0 (0(0(0 (0 (0 (0 000(0(00z0 N- N- N- 0) 0 (0 0 0 CO (0 (0 N- (0 CO (0 (0 CO (0 (0 (0 (0 CO 0 CO 0 (0 CO 0 CO CO 0 0 0 (0E I(0 a (0 (0 (0 CO 00 a N- (0 CO N- (0 N- CO - - - COO (0 N- (000 (0 0 00000 COO) (0—-(0(N.0 0 000(00 a) 0 00 CO (0 N-- CO ) N- - N- (0 COLON- COCO a) (0 0)0 CO CO 00 COLD a) (0- -.---------------N- N- (DO 0CO COLD 0(0 N-CO (0 COJ_EJNC N- (N 0 0) CO CO 0 (0 a (0 - ‘a- CO N- ‘a COO) CO (0 CO N- ‘a (0 (0 0 0) 0 0 CO (0 ‘a CO CO CO CO CO 0 ‘a CO CO.(0(0)000(0 6(0 (0 N- ‘a ‘a OLD ‘a ‘a (0 * (0 ‘a 000) 0)00 COO N-N-CO 00)0 CO CO ‘a CO COII —00 ‘a N-OLD (0(00 a-b 00(0 ‘a- a- (0 a- a- a- ‘a- a- CO CO a- 00(0 ‘a- 0000(0(0(0(0000 CO a- aS 6 6 66 a a 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 6 6 6000 N-CO N- 000COCO COIC CON-N-N-N-N-COO a- COCO N-CO CO COCOCOCO N-N-COO) NJ 0 CO CO COCO COO COCO CO——00 a- ‘a- ‘a- CON-CO NJ N- a-ICO COLD ‘a- N- a- 0(0(0 a- NJ (0 ‘a- (0 a- a- 00(0 a- CO a- (0 a- a- CO (DOCOOCO (0(0(00COCO a- 00(0 a- (0 a- CO ObO 000L000CO (OCO N- ‘a- a- ‘a 000)0(000 a- a- 00000(DCOCO ‘a>‘-O——O-N-N-NJO-Q:,--,-,----OONJN-O ,—2N- N- N- N- N- N- (0 a- a- 0 N- 00 N- N- 0 N- ‘a- a- NJ (0 N- N- NJ N- ‘a- N- ‘a- ‘a- N- ‘a- a- ‘a- ‘a- a- a- N- N- N- N- (0 a- N- N- N(0U.-(0(0 (N N- a- NJ a- N- (0 N- N- N-la- a- 0000 N- (0 N- N. ‘a- a- a- (0 N-a- (DO ((C a- N- (OCOCO N- ‘a (00(00)0)0 a-aZ)U. IiN- a- (0 a- a- N- N- N- (0 (0 N- N- N- NJ N- NJ N- N- a- (0 (0 N- N- a- N- a- a- N- (0 (0 (0 a (0 N- (0 (0 (0 N- (0 CU N- a- (0 (0 (0 NJa- a- NJ a- N- NJ N- (0 (0 N- N- N- N- N- N- N- N- a- a- (0 N- N- a- N- N- N- N- a- a- a- a- a- N- a- a- a- NJ ‘a- N- CU a- ‘a- a- ‘a- aN- N- N- N- CU N- N- a- a- N- N- N- CU N- N- N- CU CU N- N- N- N- CU N- N- N- CU N- (N (N N- CU N- N- N- (‘U NJ N- N- N- (N (N CU NCOCO00OOCO0COa-COCO(DOOQCO’a’(DCOw(Da-Wa-COCOa)CO(D(DOOOOCO(oCOCOCOWCOCOO(000(0(0(0(0000 a-a-a- OCN (Na (000000000 (NC’) a- a) (NC’) (0 (NC’) ((CC’) CflC) NJ (NC’) CU(NN- N-— N- 00000 , 000 N- NJ (Na) N- — NJ— CU N- N- N- —— (N CC) CC) C’) NJ NJ CU ((C CU NJ N- NJ C’)0a.0000(0(0(0(0(0(0 00000(0(0(00)0(0(0 0000000u)(0W(00)(0(0 (00(000 OWN- N- N- N- N- N- N- N- N- N- N- N- N- 0000(0 N- N- 0) N- N- (0 N- N- 00CC) (N N- N- (NC’) (‘(C NJ CC) (N (NC’) C’) C’) NJ N- (Na.I)z90>)cl)zliD(1)0ci)C>0)C)0)C)0)>C)(a.00(N (N C’) (N (N (fl0 (NzU>(NNrDiD.01.0U)a)U)C)C)a.145C) =.0.00(0O C).0.0(NO)C).0(NC).000000000o do o 0E °°EE0) 0 0)0)0)Oi(NlU) 0) (N0E(00)(N (N C’) (N0E0)(N0(N00001)0) 000 0 000000(N00(NO)00)a) CC) C’) 0)> > > > > >S >S >• >C) 00)0)00)00) C)- >. >, >, >. > >, )‘, >, >, >, (a (C (a (a (a (a (C 0) 0)0 0 0) 0)0) 0) C) 00)0) 0)‘? 2 2 2 “‘EZ 0 E 0 0_-}Iu! o[<1ctIouIfl. i*LizL* zLh itLLLtN- 0 0 N— Co N- r— 0 (000 N-cO co co [(0 Co NE_ (P r-- N- Co-cc - coo— H NJ —5.___ —--- -------- —------_—-N- 0 01(0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 (0 0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 0 (0 (0 (0 (0Z I2 2 0 0 0 0 (0 0 0 0 Cf)c0 (0 (0 (0 (0 0 0[0[ Co NJ (0 (0 (0 (0 Co ‘0 0 Co NJ 066635666 6666366666 3 333 663’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 6 3’ 66 3’ 3’ 3’ 5 5 3’ 3’ 5 5 3’ 6 co co 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 56 6r6 3’ 3 3 6 6 3 3 3-----3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ ¶3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3I —00000000 0(0(0 CoO coo coo Co 63 00000 CoCo 00 0 NJ (0000(0(0.000(0 ‘Jo- - - - - -- - -- E - - --- - - - - -- - - - -(00(0(0 N- (0(0 N- 0000— Co N- (0 NJ (0(00(0 NJ (0(00 NJ 0(00 N- (00 0 Co (00 - 0(0 - - 00(00 — — —E IcJ ,— — — — — —E6 6 3’ 3’ 6 6 3’ 6 6 6 3’ 3’ 3 5 3’ 3’ 6 6 6 3’ 3’ 6 3’ 5 3’ 6 6 3’t3 6 6 6 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3 3 3’ 3’ 66N- (P 0 0 0 0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 NJ 6 o co ¶6 co co o rj co 6 o - o - - ccj - - - o co - - - 0z — ,——,— I3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 6 6 6 5 6 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 5-13’ 3’ 3’ 3’ 3’ c3’ 3’ 3 3’ 3’ 3’ 3 ‘ ,c0 Co 0 Co 0 0 0 Co 0 CO Co 0 0 0 Co 000 Co 0) 0 0 0 Co 0 0 Co CoO 00 Co (0 0 0 0 0Co0 00 CO 0) (0(0c: ( co co Co 0 0 0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 - - 0 (0 Co - Co - (0 3 3 (OCo 0 0 Co - (P Co Co - (0 00(00 (0(0____z-0) 0 Co CO (0(0 (0 (0 (0(0 (0 0(0(0 (0 (0 - (0 Co (0(0 (0 0(0(0 (0 (0 Co - (0 CO Co(0(0 0 0)00 (0>-j0NJO000000000000JNJNJNJ.-j NJ NJ NJ (0 NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ Co NJ 0 (0 NJ NJ NJ (0 - (0(0(00UU (0 (0 Co Co Co- (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 Co (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 0 N- (00 (0 N- N- (0 N- CO CoCo0NJ NJ Co Co NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ Co (0 NJ 0I— I —rNJ NJ NJ NJ (0 NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 0 (0 (0(0NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ — NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ CO NJ NJ Co NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ00 0 0 00 2 2 (0(0 (0 (0 (0 CO CO 000 0 0 0 00 000 0 (0 (0 (0 0 0 Co (0 (0 (00(0 0 00H0000000Cfl00Cfl0COC0COCO000COCO00000(00000fl0Co0Zo,ncoNJNJNJNJNJNJNJNJnNjNJNJconNJNJNJN0NJNJ00NJNJNJ0000NJNJ000NJcO—00cC06 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0(0 (0 (0 (0 (0(0 (0 (0 (0(0(0 (0 (00 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (00 (000 (0(0 (0 (0 ‘0 00(0<000 <000<000< 000 wU- <00<000(0< <<000(0 <000<00j(n (0(0 (0 (0 (0 (0 CO (0 NJ C’) CO NJ C’) (0 (0 CO CO (0 (0 (0 U) (0 CO (1) U) (0 CO (0 (0 (0 C’) U) (0 0 NJ (0 0) NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ (00‘1)zC>C?)C.)CVCeCeCeU,U,-’(C)‘C)0)>0-o0CO (0(0 (0 (0 0(0(0 (0(0V146>0>0-oN- N- (0NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 00 0) CO (CC 00000 (0 (0 (0 N- N- N- N- N- CO 000 0 00 — - - .— NJ NJ NJNJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ(0(0(0(0(0(0000Co(0< 0fHIHhIH1133’3’ zz Zz((00o.-3° <(0(00)-aCC-)zrIDII)S0.0a-—--> >--.—9 2- —ç- - -—z0z000 ouu,:0 — —zC C 0 (C (C (0 co (0 (0 (0 (0 00C__zC’,u7 - CfC C’, C (‘, 0LuLLI cC (C - (C - - (‘, C’, (0 C’, 00E ——C,cj C’, cC m ( (C C’. — Cfl C) 000)l(C,0 (0 (0 0) (0 (0 (0 - (0 C’J 00x ——,?0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 ‘, r.J ‘, C 0 0( rJ 0) (0 0) (0 — (‘, r (‘, 0) 0 cn— 00W00c00)0) U) 00(0 (0 (0 00(00 ‘ ‘( (0(00C’- (0 (0 CC 00 C’J (‘, C (‘1 0 0(‘C (‘C 00 00) (‘C C’, C’, 0) d(0 0(0(0 C’, 0(0 (‘C CU 00 CDCC CC (0 00(0 0(0000(0000000000000>-———CUCUCU000CU———- - - - - - -LuLu Lu0 (C CD 0(0 CC) CU F- CC) C’. CDDu_ U.CU (‘C CU C’, (CCC CU CU—CU CU CU (0(0(0 CU CU CDHo0(0 0W00WW000CC) 0 CC) CC) CC) (C) CC) ‘CC CC) CC) CC)(C,c’, C’.j C’, CU CC) CC) CU . . C’) C’, C’,0_Q_(C CD Cd) Cd) ((C Cl) U) Cr) U) U) Cd) (0(0<CC) C’) CU CU Cd) Cl) (‘C CU (‘1 (‘1 ((C CC) C’)I Cd’) (C CC) (CC CC) (C) u u U) C?) Cd) C!) U) I:Dth(5 CU C’, (‘, C’, CU CU CU CU CU CU C’C CU CU>DD0CC C) ((IC)>>>>>Cc0 C 00i E 2 2 E 2 2 E— Ct Ct .0 .0 .0 .0 C 0 CV CV CV -— —>V_ij.jjjZZ>F—(C0)C,0(C0(C)(C0)C,>(C(CC,-QC,C147SURVEY FORMAT #11992 SOLAR BOX COOKERS INTERNATIONAL SOLAR SURVEYSTRUCTURED INTERVIEWINDUS RIVER VALLEY - SONAM LING STUDY 19921992 SOLAR COOKING QUESTIONNAIRE INTERVIEW #__--ORGANIZATIONCOMMUNITY____________ DATE________INTERVIEWER_____________PERSON INTERVIEWED_____________________ADDRESS___________________________Purpose: To survey the person who does the most cooking in the household. Thequestions are about cooking. Of special interest are awareness and interest in solarcooking, especially about people’s experience building and using solar cookers andproblems they have encountered.TO INTERVIEWERS:PART I: EVERYONEINTERVIEWED SHOULD COMPLETEPART IllS FOR ALL WHO HAVE SEEN A SOLAR COOKER WORK AND/OR EVERTRIED SOLAR COOKINGPART 1115 FOR THOSE WHO ARE USING SOLAR COOKERSFor statistics purposes, please estimate the following:Age of person interviewed:____under 20____20+____30+____40+____50+Please also estimate the general family income compared to others in the communitylower___average higherPART 1 FOR ALL1. What time of the day do you serve hot cooked food or hot beverages?morningnooneveningother2. For how many people usually?1483. Which cooking fuels do you use MOST?(check up to 4)___wood__charcoalker senebut ne/bottledgaselectricitysolar energyo her __________________For only those checked above:WOOD:If you wood, compared to last year it___ costmore_costs lesscosts the sameIf you gather wood, compared to last year do you have to walkfar her__less farthesame distanceDo you have a special stove to burn wood?no____yes. What type?CHARCOAL - compared to last year does it costmor__lesssameKEROSENE - compared to last year does it costlessthe sameBUTANE/BOTTLED GAS - compared to last year does it costlesssameELECTRICITY- compared to last year does it costlessthe same4. Do you have any problems with cooking fuels? (Check all that apply)_noneexpensetime/distance to get fuelscarcity, unreliabilitysmelly, smokyother:___ __ ___5. How many hours each week do you spend gathering or buying fuel?______6. How many hours each day do you spend cooking?7. As the one who does most of the cooking, are you149mostly at home ormostly away from your house during the day?8. For you, what is the hardest part about cooking family meals?9. Do you have an area near your house which is mostly sunny several months of theyear?yes____no10. How long ago did you first hear about solar cooking?just now____less than a year ago1-2 years ago3_4years agomore than 4 years11. Have you ever seen food cooked in a solar cooker?yesno: Would you like more information about solar cooking on sunny days?yes___no.END OF PART 1. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.PART II: IF YOU HAVE SEEN A SOLAR COOKER WORK AND/ORTRIED ONE12. How long ago did you first see a solar cooker work?less than a year1-2 years3..4yearsmore than 4 years13. What did the solar cooker(s) look like?a.__b.____ c.____14. What do you see as the main advantages of solar cooking on sunny days?15. What do you see as the main disadvantages of solar cooking?16. If you have ever tried to cook in a solar cooker yourself what was your experience?triedone or twice, didn’t like ituse for awhile, didn’t like itliked it, but I don’ use anymorestill using - SKIP TO 19.17. What are the main reasons you don’t use a solar cooker on sunny days?don’t have a cookercooker is brokencooker was hard to usenemore information: (describe)couldn’tcook food right:150which foods?cooking outside is a problem because____other: Please describe:18. Would you want to try solar cooking again someday?no. Why not?yes. What would help?recipes for solar cooking____acooking demonstrationsomeone to answer questionsnaffordable cookerhelp/parts to repairother. Describe:END OF PART II. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.PART III. IF YOU STILL USE A SOLAR COOKER19. What is the solar cooker made of?Outside of cooker:CardboardAdo eWo dB skets__MetalOther:describe:Cooker window:Glassdescribe:InsulationNewspaperRichullsOther: describe:20. Compared to last year do you use a solar cooker__ more__lessabout as often as last year?21. How long have you been solar cooking?less than one year1-2years3-4 yearsthan 4 years: how many?22. How often do you solar cook?most sunny days151____several times a monthseveral times per year23. About what time do you usually put food in the solar cooker to cook?24. Do you often have to worry about dusty, cloudy or rainy weather?yes. Which months?__________no25. What foods do you solar cook most often?26. What foods come out best in your solar cooker?27. What foods haven’t cooked right in your solar cooker?Were they____undercookedover cookedpoor taste or textureothdescribe:28. for foods that didn’t cook right do you think it was because of____not enough sunshinetimeof daytype or amount of food?didn’t use dark, covered potsIneed special recipesother. describe:29. About the slower cooking time - would you sayit’s nice because I don’t need to watch or stirit’s a problem to plan ahead and put food in the solar cooker early in the dayother:describe:30a. When you use your solar cooker do you notice that you use less cooking fuel?noyesb. Does using a solar cooker save you money?noyes31. Does solar cooking take less time and work for you while the food is cooking?noyes32. What do you like about solar cooking compared to your other cookingmethods?33. What do you like most about solar cooking?34. Do any of the following describe your cooker?durable?152flimsy?_____too light?tooheavy?easy to carry?_ immovable?attractive?notattractive?none of the aboveo her:describe:35. Have you had any problems with the cooker itself?noyes. Please give details36. Have you had any solar cooking problems that you found solutions for?Problem:Solution:37. Have you found other uses for a solar cooker besides cooking?_noyes: describe:38. How did you get a cooker?I borrowed oneIt was a gift: from whom?I bought myselfIbuilt myselfAny problems building?____noyes39. What do you think are the main reasons more people haven’t jit solar cookers?_ i s ructionsaren’t clear, too complicatedhard to find materials neededmaterials needed are too expensivethey would rather buy one40. How many other people do you know who have a solar cooker?(number)41. About how many people do you know who use their solar cooker sometimes?(number)42. Have you told other people about solar cooking?noyes: about how many?THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HELPING US153SURVEY FORMAT #2INFORMAL INTERVIEWINDUS RIVER VALLEY - SONAM LING STUDY 1992TROMBE WALLS, GREENHOUSES, IMPROVED SHINGSAK, COOKERS,WATER HEATERSInterview # DateCommunity House # or nameInterviewee nameFamily namesNote on why these people are being interviewed: observed solar at house, told byvillagers, LEDeG notes, LNP notesNumber of persons in homeAges/relationsPlace of originYears/generation in campBuddhist____ Muslim____ Ladakhi____ Tibetan____ NOTA____Profession of TWO heads of homeOther working family membersEducation in home (all)Formal economy pay: monthly summerwinteragriculture/animal salesinformal tradeself-sufficiency: home_________ clothes food% informalsavings? purposeHome ownershipland ownershipland descriptionanimalspasture rightsrangewho tends?Fuel useCOOKING: kerosene________ propane________ coal/cokefuelwood________ fueldung__________Amt. summerAmt. winterHEATING: kerosene________ propane________ coal/cokefuelwood________ fueldung__________Amt. winter# MONTHS154Est. budgets eachwho gatherswhereproblems in recent yearsSolar in kitchen OK?STOVE SYSTEMS IN HOMEstove typeother stovesstove pipe: straight___________elbownoticeable smoke in kitchenC02 measurement of chulatemp at stovetemp: corner_____ceiling________floor________time of day meals cookedwhotime neededSMOKELESS CHULA USERSwhen builtcost subsidy?who builtwhy purchasedrepair/maintenancechanges in time cookingchanges in smokechanges in fuel usehealth improvewho?C02 measureSOLAR USERSsolar type(s)general conditionwhen installedcost subsidy?by whomwhy purchasedwhere did you hear of /see solarrepair/maintenanceany monitoringby whoeducation programcooking lessonshelp in repairsolar q/s taken to what group155general problemslocal innovations1. cookerswhat food cookedwhat doesn’twater warmed amts. s/wmonths/year usedmeals/daywho usesany fuel savingsdislikes2. Water heaters: (YP)capacity fills/daymonths/year usedused for: preheating cooking_________preheating washing_________pasteurizing water_who usesany fuel savingsdislikeslikes3. Trombe wall Improved shinksakeffect in wintereffect in summer Vinside temps takenToday’s temps: at wall____ ___floor_________ceiling_far corner_________ adjacent room wall_________ ceiling_________air circulation ventsair closed at nighthow clean is glasswho cleansstill using stove in roomany fuel savings4. Greenhouse SIZEmonths usedplants grown: summerwinterpurpose of growing: bedding plants for farmbedding plants for salewinter foodsOther uses (animals)glass____________plastic__polyethylene156FOR ALL USERS OF APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES:neighbors using solarneighbors using smokelesswho told you about solar/smokelesswhat improvements would you likewhat would make you useGENERAL OBSERVATIONSAre these people well offinnovative thinkersany equalitycommunity statusclean homeinvolved in tourismfamily healthouthousewater supplywho gathers how farfood storage157SURVEY FORMAT #3KEY AREA DISCUSSION - SHORTENED FORMINDUS RIVER VALLEY - SONAM LING STUDY 1992TROMBE WALLS, GREENHOUSES, IMPROVED SHINGSAK, COOKERS,WATER HEATERSInterview # DateCommunityInterviewee nameFamily namesNote on why these people are being interviewed: observed solar at house, told byvillagers, BDO, LEDeG, LNP, HA-TCVGo to townWhynumber trips/yearInformation from neighbors: Well-beingEducationVillage positionConnections: DAg, LEDeG, BDO, LNPSolar useOBSERVATIONS ON ARRIVALDooryard: cleanliness, barn, wallsnumber of animals and keepfields: where, number, soil, waterTrees: wood, fodder, fruit, constructionToolsGrain bankOuthouseWater supplyInvolved in tourismHouseOrientation/windowsComposting toiletRoofLoSar/Lhas (spirits present)16 book pole (measure of affluence)158INSIDE HOMEnumber personsAges/relationshipPlace of originYears in campBuddhist____Muslin____ Ladakhi____ Tibetan____ NOTA____ShrineWorkAny in schoolInformal economy %Home/Land ownershipPasture rightswho tendsKITCHENdowrywindowsfoodtraditional furnitureStoveCleanlinessSolar in kitchen OK?FUEL USEcooking winterheatingsuppliesHEALTHnutritionagesmokeM/F or age problemSOLAR USERS (Solar Box Cookers, Solar Water Heaters)solar typesconditionwho installedwhencost subsidyLIKE NOT LIKEUse record159OUTSIDE SOLARtrombesgreenhousefunction/conditionALL SOLARFollow up by SubsidizersREPAIRSlocal innovationsNEIGHBORS AND SOLARwho whatCOMMUNITY SOLARtypeconditionwho fundedwhencost subsidylabour by whomInterviewee participationperception of valuedoes family use?VillageGOMPAJANI GOMPA (monastery/nunnery)WATER TESTSHISTORY160SURVEY FORMAT #4SOLAR TECHNOLOGY, OBSERVATION-BASED, WITHOUTINTERPRETERTOPICS COVERED:Dooryard: animalsfieldswealth?House: size16 book polewindowsorientationFamily: generationsclasseducationfarmer?connections in Leh, government, tourist trade, health promotionSolar technology: SBCSWHGHTROther technologiesQuestions about use of SOLAR TECHNOLOGY1. From whom? Subsidy?2. Fuel a problem3. Cooker and kitchen - any problems?4. How did they learn to use?5. Impacts: months/yeartype of foodwaterfuel savingstake to fieldtime savingschichoenihasajossmoke6. Likes/dislikes7. Cooks/can’t cook8. Who told you about solar? Neighbours with solar? Others wanting solar technology?161Database from Technological Capability TestingDATE Hrs % cloud SBC max load cooking SBC max load cooking average SBC max load king SBC max load cooking averageSunshier cover # temp (L) lime # temp (L) lime max temp # temp (L) lime It temp (L) time max templ&2 3&4ii 10.5 8 1 73 1 0 2 76 1 0 74.5 3 110 1 2 4 110 1 2 110J2 10 12 1 78 1 0 2 79 1 9 78.5 3 108 1 2.5 4 109 1 2.5 108.5J3 9,5 16 1 83 1 0 2 82 1 0 82.5 3 108 1 2.5 4 109 1 2.5 108.5J4 4.5 60 1 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 9 3 115 1 2 4 114 1 2 114.5J5 464 1 0 0 0 2 0 00 0 3111 1 2 4110 1 2110.536 46419813299 1398.5311012411012 11037 5 56 1 104 1 2.5 2 102 1 2.5 103 3 114 1 2 4 114 1 2 11438 5 56 1 109 1 2.5 2 102 1 2.5 191 3 107 1 2 4 108 1 2.5 107.5J9 3 76 1 86 1 1) 2 87 1 9 86.5 3 88 1 0 4 89 1 0 88.5J10 6.5 44 1 198 1 2.5 2 108 1 2.5 108 3 110 1 2 4 111 1 2 110.5Jil 28419030288 3989394354923593312 6 50 1 119 3 3 2 111 3 3 110.5 3 111 3 3 4 112 3 3 111.5313 6 50 1 119 3 3 2 112 3 3 III 3 112 3 3 4 112 3 3 112J14 5.544199302993099310935410435 105315 6 50 1 105 3 5 2 198 3 5 105.5 3 102 3 5 4 105 3 5 103.5316 10 16 1 110 3 4 2 110 3 4 110 3 107 3 4 4 109 3 4 108317 10 16 1 110 3 4 2 112 3 4 111 3 113 3 3 4 114 3 3 113.5J18 10 16 1 115 3 4 2 114 3 4 114.5 3 116 3 3 4 115 3 3 115.5J19 10 16 1 113 3 4 2 113 3 4 113 3 116 3 3 4 116 3 3 116J29 12 9 1 115 3 3 2 116 3 3 115.5 3 120 3 3 4 121 3 3 120.5J21 5.5 66 1 90 3 0 2 93 3 9 91.5 3 90 3 9 4 91 3 0 90.5322 382180392803080 381394803 080.5323 832111833212033119312033412033 120J24 4 64 1 102 3 5 2 102 3 5 102 3 194 3 5 4 105 3 5 104.5325 10 16 1 120 3 3 2 121 3 3 120.5 3 121 3 3 4 121 3 3 121326 7.5 44 1 120 3 3 2 121 3 3 120.5 3 121 3 3 4 121 3 3 121327 6 50 1 115 3 4 2 114 3 4 114.5 3 117 3 3 4 118 3 3 117.5J28 8 32 1 121 3 3 2 118 3 3 119.5 3 119 3 3 4 120 3 3 119.5J29 8 32 1 120 3 3 2 120 3 3 120 3 119 3 3 4 119 3 3 119J30 6 50 1 115 3 4 2 114 3 4 114.5 3 117 3 3 4 117 3 3 117JL1 8 32 1 119 3 3 2 120 3 3 119.5 3 120 3 3 4 120 3 3 120JL2 3 72 1 129 3 3 2 120 3 3 120 3 120 3 3 4 121 3 3 120.5JL3 4 64 1 121 3 3 2 121 3 3 121 3 122 3 3 4 121 3 3 121.5JL4 6 50 1 121 3 3 2 121 3 3 121 3 122 3 3 4 121 3 3 121.5JL5 8 32 1 122 3 3 2 121 3 3 121.5 3 123 3 3 4 121 3 3 12231.6 10 16 1 123 3 3 2 123 3 3 123 3 123 3 3 4 123 3 3 123162DATE Hrs % cloud SBC max load cooking SBC max load cooking average SBC niax load cooking SBC max load cooking averageSunshinc cover # temp (L) 6me # temp (L) nie max temp # temp (L) thxe It tenip (L) 6nie max tempI&2 3&4JL7 12 0 1 121 5 5 2 121 5 5 121 3 123 5 5 4 122 5 5 122.5J18 10 16 1 121 5 5 2 120 5 5 120.5 3 122 5 5 4 122 5 5 122JL9 6 50 1 119 5 5 2 119 5 5 119 3 121 5 5 4 119 5 5 120JL1O 2 84 1 52 0 0 2 55 0 0 53.5 3 50 0 6 4 52 0 0 51JL11 4 64 1 115 5 6 2 116 5 6 115.5 3 115 5 6 4 116 5 6 115.5JLI2 8 32 1 120 5 5 2 120 5 5 120 3 121 5 5 4 121 5 5 121JLI3 8 32 1 121 5 5 2 122 5 5 121.5 3 121 5 5 4 121 5 5 121JL14 6 50 1 119 5 6 2 120 5 5 119.5 3 118 5 6 4 118 5 6 118JL15 464110290210909101397004990098JLI6 2 80 1 52 0 0 2 55 0 0 53.5 3 59 6 6 4 54 0 0 52JL17 6 50 1 118 5 5 2 119 5 5 118.5 3 121 5 5 4 122 5 5 121.5JL18 8 32 1 121 5 5 2 120 5 5 120.5 3 121 5 5 4 121 5 5 121JLI9 8 32 1 121 5 5 2 122 5 5 121.5 3 121 5 5 4 123 5 5 122JL2O 120112355212355123312355412355123JL2I 6 50 1 118 5 5 2 117 5 5 117,5 3 118 5 5 4 120 5 5 119JL22 6 50 1 116 5 5 2 117 5 5 116.5 3 118 5 5 4 120 5 5 119JL23 19 16 1 122 5 5 2 123 5 5 122.5 3 121 5 5 4 122 5 5 121.5JL24 10 16 1 122 5 5 2 121 5 5 121.5 3 121 5 5 4 121 5 5 121JL25 9 24 1 121 5 5 2 122 5 5 121.5 3 122 5 5 4 121 5 5 121.5JL26 8 32 1 120 5 5 2 121 5 5 1205 3 121 5 5 4 121 5 5 121JL27 7 40 1 120 5 5 2 121 5 5 120.5 3 121 5 5 4 122 5 5 121.5JL2B 10 16 1 125 5 5 2 124 5 5 124.5 3 126 5 5 4 125 5 5 1255JL29 7 40 1 120 5 5 2 120 5 5 120 3 121 5 5 4 122 5 5 121.5J[39 3 72 1 110 5 6 2 109 5 6 1095 3 110 5 6 4 110 5 6 110JL31 10 16 1 121 5 5 2 121 5 5 121 3 121 5 5 4 120 5 5 120.5Al 10 16 1 121 5 5 2 121 5 5 121 3 121 5 5 4 122 5 5 1215A2 10 16 1 122 5 5 2 122 5 5 122 3 122 5 5 4 124 5 5 123A3 8 32 1 104 5 6 2 104 5 6 104 3 107 5 6 4 110 5 6 1685A4 4 64 1 102 5 6 2 102 5 6 102 3 104 5 6 4 104 5 6 104AS 740112655212655126312655412655126A6 19210002000 039004000 6A7 8 64 1 110 6 7 2 111 6 7 1195 3 112 6 6 4 113 6 6 112.5A8 8 32 1 121 6 6 2 121 6 6 121 3 121 6 6 4 121 6 6 121A9 8 32 1 120 6 6 2 121 6 6 120.5 3 121 6 6 4 122 6 6 1215AlO 4 64 1 102 0 0 2 103 0 0 1025 3 110 6 7 4 112 6 7 111All 284180002830081.5380004849082163DATE [Irs % cloud SBC max load ccoking SBC max load ccoking average SBC max load ccoking SBC max load ccoking averageSunshinr cover # temp (L) thne # temp (I) thoe max temp # temp (L) nie # temp (L) 6nie max temp1&2 3&4A12 12 0 1 126 6 6 2 126 6 6 126 3 126 6 6 4 125 6 6 1255A13 5 54 1 121 6 6 2 122 6 6 121.5 3 122 6 6 4 123 6 6 1225A14 7 40 1 126 6 6 2 125 6 6 1255 3 126 6 6 4 127 6 6 1265A15 19 16 1 126 6 6 2 126 6 6 126 3 126 6 6 4 126 6 6 126A16 8 32 1 123 6 6 2 123 6 6 123 3 124 6 6 4 125 6 6 1245A17 11 8 1 125 6 6 2 124 6 6 124.5 3 125 6 6 4 125 6 6 125A18 8 32 1 123 6 6 2 123 6 6 123 3 124 6 6 4 125 6 6 1245A19 8 32 1 126 6 6 2 125 6 6 1255 3 126 6 6 4 125 6 6 125.5A20 9 24 1 124 6 6 2 125 6 6 1245 3 125 6 6 4 125 6 5 125A21 11 8 1 126 6 5 2 126 6 5 126 3 125 6 55 4 126 6 5 1255A22 110 1125 652125651253125 655 41266 51255A23 11 0 1 126 6 5 2 126 6 5 126 3 127 6 5 4 127 6 5 127A24 11 0 1 127 6 5 2 128 6 5 1275 3 127 6 5 4 127 6 5 127A25 11 9 1 126 6 5 2 127 6 5 1265 3 126 6 5 4 124 6 5 125A26 11 9 1 127 6 5 2 128 6 5 1275 3 128 6 5 4 128 6 5 128A27 11 9 1 127 6 5 2 128 6 5 1275 3 128 6 5 4 127 6 5 1275A28 10911286521286 5128 3128 65 4128 65 128A29 10 0 1 126 6 5 2 127 6 5 126.5 3 126 6 5 4 126 6 5 126A30 19 0 1 124 6 5 2 125 6 5 1245 3 124 6 5 4 123 6 5 1235A31 10 0 1 126 6 5 2 127 6 5 1265 3 127 6 5 4 125 6 5 126Si 9 18 1 125 6 5 2 124 6 5 1245 3 126 6 5 4 125 6 5 125.5S2 2811900029009903100 004980099S3 2 81 1 90 0 0 2 98 0 0 98.5 3 98 0 0 4 96 0 9 97S4 372188002900989386 004890 087.5S5 4 63 1 87 0 0 2 87 0 6 87 3 89 0 0 4 90 0 0 89.5S6 2821100362100361903101364100361005S7 2 82 1 100 3 6 2 101 3 6 1015 3 100 3 6 4 100 3 6 10088 1 91 1 71 0 0 2 72 0 0 71,5 3 69 0 0 4 71 0 0 70S9 1 91 1 79 0 0 2 80 0 0 79.5 3 80 0 9 4 80 0 0 80Sb 0 100 1 69 0 0 2 70 0 0 69.5 3 69 0 0 4 70 0 0 69.5Sil ii 0 1 119 3 4 2 120 3 4 119.5 3 118 3 4.5 4 119 3 4.5 118.5S12 10 9 1 117 3 4 2 118 3 4 1175 3 115 3 45 4 114 3 45 114.5513 10 9 1 117 3 4 2 118 3 45 1175 3 115 3 4.5 4 115 3 45 115S14 5 54 1 104 0 0 2 103 0 0 1035 3 104 0 0 4 192 0 1) 103S15 5 54 1 106 3 6 2 107 3 6 1C65 3 100 3 6 4 110 3 6 100.5S16 3 81 1 82 0 0 2 83 0 0 82.5 3 80 0 0 4 80 0 0 80164DATE Hrs % doud SBC max load cking SBC max load king average SBC max load ldng SBC max load cking averageSunshinc ver # temp (L) time # temp (L) time max temp # temp (L) time # temp (L) time max temp1&2 3&4S17 2 81 1 75 0 0 2 75 0 0 75 3 75 0 0 4 77 0 a 16S18 46311000(3210001)10039901)4990099S19 11 0 1 11)5 0 0 2 106 3 6 1053 3 103 3 6 4 100 3 6 1033S20 63 40 1 104 0 () 2 105 3 (1 1043 3 100 0 (3 4 101 0 0 1003S21 8 27 1 106 0 0 2 107 3 6 106.5 3 102 0 () 4 103 0 0 102.5S22 5 54 1 100 0 0 2 100 0 0 100 3 97 0 0 4 98 0 0 97.5S23 10911050(32106001053397004970097S24 10 9 1 11)5 0 0 2 106 3 0 1053 3 103 0 0 4 104 0 0 1033S25 10 9 1 110 3 6 2 199 3 63 1993 3 104 0 0 4 105 0 0 1043S26 10 9 1 107 3 6 2 1 3 63 1073 3 103 0 0 4 100 0 0 1033S27 10911003721003010439801)4990 098.5S28 10911053721003010033100004100 00100S29 11)9110430110431)10431000049901)99.5S30 9 18 1 103 3 0 2 100 3 0 1033 3 97 0 0 4 98 0 0 97.501 2 80 1 83 0 1) 2 84 0 0 83.5 3 79 0 0 4 79 0 0 7902 28018401)2850084.5378004791)078.503 2 80 1 83 0 (3 2 83 0 0 83 3 81 0 0 4 83 0 0 8204 11)1)110710210001)105331001)04990099.505 640110200210201)102394004950 094.506 6 40 1 102 0 (3 2 100 0 0 101 3 92 0 0 4 91 0 0 91.507 11)0110401)21000010439)00492009108 82011030021000011)3339)00492009109 100110300210000103339)004900090010 1001103002104001033386004870 086.5011 13019901)2990099386004870 086.5012 11)1)110101)2100001003380004810080.5013 64019501)2950095382004820082014 480195002950096380004810080.5015 6 40 1 94 0 0 2 95 0 0 94.5 3 76 0 0 4 77 0 0 76.5016 6 40 1 9) 0 0 2 89 0 0 89.5 3 77 0 0 4 77 0 0 77017 550185092850085372004750 073.5018 820188002880088380004820081019 9 10 1 88 0 0 2 89 0 0 88.5 3 82 0 0 4 84 0 0 83020 820188002890088.5382004820082021 9019)0029)009)382004840083022 6 33 1 83 0 0 2 84 0 1) 83.5 3 78 0 0 4 79 0 0 78.5165DATE Hm % doud SBC max load couldug SBC max load ldng average SBC max load cldng SBC max load cldng averageSunshine cover # temp (L) 6me # temp (L) me max temp # temp (l 6me # temp (L) me maxtearip1&2 3&4023 9 0 1 87 0 0 2 88 0 0 87.5 3 80 0 0 4 81 0 0 80.5024 4 55 1 80 0 0 2 82 0 0 81 3 76 0 0 4 78 0 0 77025 8 11 1 87 0 0 2 88 1) 0 87.5 3 79 0 0 4 79 0 0 79026 9 0 1 87 0 0 2 88 0 0 87.5 3 78 0 0 4 80 0 0 79027 9 0 1 87 0 0 2 88 U 0 87.5 3 78 0 0 4 78 0 0 78028 9 0 1 85 0 0 2 86 0 0 85.5 3 77 0 0 4 78 0 0 77.5029 8 ii 1 86 0 0 2 86 0 0 86 3 77 0 0 4 78 0 0 77.5030 9 0 1 85 (1 0 2 86 0 0 85.5 3 75 0 0 4 75 0 0 75031 85 7 1 85 0 6 2 86 0 6 85.5 3 72 0 0 4 74 0 0 73NI 856185002860085.5370004710070.5N2 8 11 1 83 6 0 2 83 0 0 83 3 70.0 0 4 71 0 0 70.5N3 811 185062860085.5369004700069.5N4 8 11 1 85 0 0 2 85 0 0 85 3 66 0 0 4 68 0 0 67N5 4 55 1 61 0 6 2 62 0 0 61.5 3 51 0 0 4 52 0 0 51.5N6 811184002850084.5364004650 064,5N7 8 ii 1, 82 0 0 2 83 (1 0 82.5 3 65 0 0 4 65 0 0 65N8 9 0 1 82 0 0 2 83 0 0 82.5 3 62 0 0 4 64 0 0 63N9 8 0 1 81 0 0 2 81 0 0 81 3 62 0 0 4 63 0 0 62.5N19 8 0 1 81 6 0 2 82 6 0 81.5 3 62 0 0 4 64 0 0 63Nil 8 0 1 80 0 0 2 81 0 0 80.5 3 60 0 0 4 62 0 0 61N12 80180002800080359004610060N13 80178002800079360004610 060.5N14 8 0 1 79 0 0 2 79 0 0 79 3 59 0 0 4 60 0 0 59.5N15 8 0 1 78 0 0 2 79 0 0 78.5 3 59 0 0 4 60 0 0 59.5N16 2 72 1 33 Ii 0 2 33 0 0 33 3 20 0 0 4 21 0 0 20.5N17 8 0 1 78 U 0 2 80 0 0 79 3 59 0 0 4 60 0 0 59.5N18 3 60 1 35 U 0 2 36 0 0 35.5 3 25 0 0 4 25 0 0 25N19 45 42 1 35 0 0 2 36 0 0 35.5 3 29 0 0 4 30 0 0 29.5N20 2.5 66 1 33 0 0 2 33 0 0 33 3 20 0 0 4 21 0 0 20.5N21 2.566130002300030324004250024.5N22 2 70 1 28 0 0 2 30 U 0 29 3 20 0 0 4 21 0 0 20.5N23 7 U 1 68 6 0 2 68 (1 0 68 3 51 0 0 4 52 0 0 51.5N24 7 0 1 68 0 0 2 69 6 0 68.5 3 52 0 0 4 52 0 0 52N25 7 0 1 67 0 0 2 67 U 0 67 3 49 0 0 4 48 0 0 48.5N26 7 0 1 65 0 0 2 65 U 0 65 3 48 0 0 4 48 0 0 48N27 7 0 1 64 9 0 2 65 0 0 64.5 3 42 0 0 4 44 0 0 43166DATE Hrs % doud SBC max load cooking SBC niax load cooking average SBC max load cooking SBC max load cooking averageSunshine cover # temp (L) 6me # temp (I.) 8me max temp # temp (L) thee # temp (L) thee max temp1&2 3&4N28 7 0 1 60 0 0 2 60 0 0 60 3 40 0 0 4 41 0 0 40.5N29 5 28 1 55 0 0 2 55 0 0 55 3 40 0 0 4 40 0 0 40N30 7 0 1 54 0 0 2 55 0 0 54.5 3 35 0 0 4 36 0 0 35.5Dl 3 56 1 30 0 0 2 31 0 0 30.5 3 20 0 0 4 20 0 0 20D2 3 56 1 30 0 0 2 31 0 0 30,5 3 20 0 0 4 21 9 0 20.5D3 4 42 1 38 0 0 2 38 0 0 38 3 28 0 0 4 30 0 0 29D4 1 84 1 20 0 0 2 21 0 0 20.5 3 15 0 0 4 16 0 0 15.5D5 5 28 1 40 0 0 2 41 0 0 40.5 3 31 0 0 4 30 0 0 30.5D6 614144002440044 331004300 030.5D7 3 56 1 32 9 0 2 33 0 0 32.5 3 26 0 0 4 25 9 0 25.5D8 7 0 1 44 0 0 2 43 0 0 43.5 3 28 0 0 4 28 0 0 28D9 7 0 1 42 0 0 2 41 0 0 41.5 3 27 0 0 4 26 0 0 26.5D10 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0167DATE Firs % doud SBC max load cooking SBC max load king average SBC max load cooking SBC max load cooking averageSunshim cover # temp (L) tinie # temp (I time max temp # temp (L) time # temp (L) time inaxtenip5&6 7&8Ji 10.5859812.5619012.599710512819512105J2 10 12 5 190 1 2.5 6 190 1 23 190 7 110 1 2 8 199 1 2 199.5J3 9.5 16 5 99 1 2.5 6 99 1 2.5 99 7 110 1 2 8 107 1 2 1983J4 4.5 60 5 190 1 3 6 98 1 3 99 7 115 1 2 8 112 1 2 1133J5 4 64 5 99 1 3 6 97 1 3 98 7 110 1 2 8 119 1 2 110J6 4 64 5 98 1 3 6 98 1 3 98 7 110 1 2 8 199 1 2 199317 5565971369913987112 12811112111318 5 56 5 109 1 2.5 6 103 1 2.5 1013 7 110 1 2 8 111 1 2 1193J9 3 76 5 84 1 0 6 83 1 9 83.5 7 89 1 9 8 90 1 0 89.5J19 6,5 44 5 99 1 4 6 91 1 4 99.5 7 110 1 2 8 111 1 2 1193JIl 284578396773977.57853088539 85112 6 59 5 98 3 5 6 190 3 5 99 7 IlL 3 3 8 113 3 3 112J13 650599356993599711133811333112114 5.5 44 5 90 3 0 6 89 3 9 89.5 7 109 3 33 8 105 3 33 1053115 6 50 5 93 3 9 6 99 3 9 99 7 111 3 3 8 114 3 3 1123116 19 16 5 96 3 5 6 95 3 6 95.5 7 119 3 3 8 119 3 3 119J17 19 16 5 98 3 5 6 97 3 5 97.5 7 116 3 3 8 115 3 3 1153J18 19 16 5 109 3 5 6 99 3 5 99.5 7 115 3 3 8 116 3 3 1153J19 19 16 5 99 3 5 6 99 3 5 99 7 116 3 3 8 117 3 3 1163129 12 9 5 199 3 5 6 101 3 5 1903 7 118 3 3 8 117 3 3 1173121 5.566586396853085.57993989239 91122 3 82 5 80 3 9 6 81 3 9 80.5 7 88 3 0 8 89 3 0 88.5123 8 32 5 100 3 5 6 190 3 5 100 7 119 3 3 8 120 3 3 1193J24 4 64 5 99 3 9 6 91 3 9 99.5 7 109 3 33 8 195 3 3.5 1053125 19 16 5 104 3 4 6 195 3 4 1043 7 118 3 3 8 118 3 3 118126 73 44 5 192 3 5 6 195 3 4 1033 7 119 3 3 8 118 3 3 1183J27 6 50 5 192 3 5 6 102 3 4 192 7 121 3 3 8 120 3 3 1203J28 8 32 5 194 3 4 6 105 3 4 1943 7 120 3 3 8 121 3 3 1203129 8 32 5 194 3 4 6 109 3 4 195 7 121 3 3 8 122 3 3 1213139 6 59 5 190 3 5 6 192 3 4 191 7 117 3 3 8 118 3 3 1173ILl 8325993561093599.57121338122331213JL2 3 72 5 95 3 5 6 99 3 9 92.5 7 108 3 43 8 119 3 4 199JL3 464588306853986.57119338118331183JL4 6 50 5 104 3 4 6 105 3 4 1013 7 122 3 3 8 121) 3 3 121J[S 832 5104 3 4 6195 3 41943 7122 3 3 8122 3 3 122Jl.6 19 16 5 105 3 4 6 109 3 4 1953 7 124 3 3 8 125 3 3 1243JL7 12 9 5 107 5 6 6 107 5 6 197 7 124 5 4 8 125 5 4 1243JI.S 19 16 5 104 5 6 6 109 5 6 195 7 122 5 4 8 125 5 4 12333L9 6 59 5 195 5 7 6 100 5 0 192.5 7 122 5 4 8 122 5 4 122JL19 2 84 5 39 9 9 6 41 9 0 40 7 55 9 0 8 57 0 9 56Lii 464597996979997711655811655116JL12 8 32 5 196 5 6 6 109 5 6 106 7 121 5 4 8 121 5 4 121JL13 8 32 5 196 5 6 6 197 5 6 1093 7 123 5 4 8 124 5 4 1233JL14 6 59 5 101 5 0 6 191 5 9 101 7 121 5 4 8 121 5 4 121168DATE Hrs % doud SBC max load cooking SBC max load cking average SBC max load cooking SBC max load cooking averageSunshinc cover # temp (I 6ine # temp (L) dine max temp # temp (L) dnie it temp (L) dine niaxtelop5&6 7&8JL15 46458600688008771020081030 01023JLI6 2 80 5 40 0 0 6 42 0 0 41 1 55 0 0 8 59 0 0 571L17 650510656610656106712155812154121JL18 832510956611056109371225581235 41223JL19 8325110566111561103712355812354123JL2O 120510756610756107712555812554125JL21 6 50 5 107 5 6 6 107 5 6 107 7 109 5 6 8 111 5 5 110JL22 650589006890089710856811055109JL23 101658800 6) 0089712354812554124JL24 1016510856610856108712354812554124JL25 92451105661115 61103 712254812254122JL26 8 32 5 107 5 6 6 107 5 6 107 7 121 5 4 8 121 5 4 121JL27 7 40 5 108 5 6 6 110 5 6 109 7 120 5 4 8 121 5 4 1203JL28 10 16 5 114 5 5 6 112 5 5 113 7 126 5 4 8 127 5 4 12633129 74051085661095 61083 7120 54812254121JL3O 372598006990098.5711156811156111JL31 1016511056611056110712354812554124Al 10 16 5 112 5 6 6 113 5 6 1123 7 126 5 4 8 126 5 4 126A2 10 16 5 115 5 5 6 111 5 6 113 7 126 5 4 8 126 5 4 126A3 832510656610656106710955811155110A4 4645093761063709.5 7108 558109551083A5 7405113556114551133712554812554125A6 1 92 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0Al 8645093761063709.57115558114551143A8 8 32 5 114 5 6 6 115 5 6 1143 7 121 5 4 8 121 5 4 121A9 8 32 5 113 5 6 6 113 5 6 113 7 121 5 4 8 121 5 4 121Al0 464598376993798.5711455811455114All 2 84 5 78 0 0 6 80 0 0 79 7 91 0 0 8 90 0 0 a5A12 12 0 5 116 5 6 6 111 5 53 1163 7 125 5 4 8 125 5 4 125A13 5 54 5 112 5 6 6 112 5 6 112 7 121 5 4 8 121 5 4 121A14 7 40 5 116 5 6 6 116 5 6 116 7 125 5 4 8 125 5 4 125A15 10 16 5 118 5 5 6 119 5 5 1183 7 125 5 4 8 126 5 4 1253A16 8 32 5 111 3 5 6 112 3 5 1113 7 124 5 4 8 124 5 4 124Al7 118511856611656117712554812554125Al8 8 32 5 111 3 5 6 111 3 5 111 7 124 5 4 8 125 5 4 1243A19 8 32 5 116 5 6 6 115 5 6 1153 7 125 5 4 8 126 5 4 1253A20 9245118566119561183712454812654125A21 1185117566118561173712454812654125A22 110511756611956118712654812754126.5A23 1105119566119561197126548127541263A24 11 0 5 118 5 6 6 119 5 6 1183 7 126 5 4 8 127 5 4 126.5A25 11 9 5 119 5 6 6 119 5 6 119 7 126 5 4 8 128 5 4 127A26 11 9 5 118 5 6 6 119 5 6 1183 7 127 5 4 8 128 5 4 1273A27 119512056611856119712754 8128 541273169DATh His % doud SBC max load cking SBC max load ng average SBC max load king SBC max load cooking averageSunshine cover # temp (L) 6me # temp (L) time max temp # temp (L) tinie # temp (L) time max temp5&6 7&8A28 10951145661145611471275481285 41275A29 10 0 5 115 5 6 6 116 5 6 1155 7 124 5 4 8 126 5 4 125A30 100511256611256.511271255481265 41255A31 1005111566112 5651115 7125 54812754 126Si 9 18 5 111 5 6 6 112 5 65 111.5 7 126 5 4 8 127 5 4 126.5S2 28159900699099971695681165551695S3 2 81 5 99 0 0 6 89 0 0 89.5 7 198 5 6 8 116 5 53 199S4 3 72 5 85 0 9 6 86 0 0 85.5 7 91 9 9 8 93 0 0 92S5 4 63 5 93 0 0 6 99 0 0 99 7 169 3 3.5 8 105 3 3.5 195.556 2 82 5 89 0 9 6 92 0 9 99.5 7 194 3 3.5 8 169 3 35 195S7 282589006890089719756810856107.5S8 191586006810080,5789908900089.5S9 1 91 5 85 0 0 6 86 0 0 85.5 7 98 3 6 8 98 3 6 98S19 0 169 5 70 9 0 6 71 0 0 79.5 7 81 9 0 8 81 9 0 81511 11 0 5 164 3 5 6 107 3 5 1055 7 120 3 33 8 121 3 35 1205S12 10 9 5 101 3 5 6 103 3 5 192 7 121 3 33 8 122 3 35 1215S13 10 9 5 101 3 5 6 102 3 5 1015 7 121 3 35 8 122 3 35 1213S14 5 54 5 82 0 9 6 85 9 0 83.5 7 199 3 4 8 110 3 4 1695S15 5 54 5 85 0 0 6 88 0 9 86.5 7 119 3 4 8 111 3 4 1163S16 3 81 5 75 9 0 6 75 0 0 75 7 169 3 45 8 191 3 4.5 1695S17 2 81 5 70 0 9 6 72 0 0 71 7 92 9 0 8 95 9 0 93.5S18 4 63 5 88 0 0 6 89 0 0 88.5 7 115 3 4 8 116 3 4 1155S19 11 0 5 100 3 6 6 1(8) 3 6 100 7 119 3 4 8 120 3 4 119.5S20 6.5405% 096980997711534811734 116S2l 8 27 5 99 0 0 6 169 0 9 99.5 7 117 3 4 8 119 3 4 118S22 5 54 5 94 0 0 6 94 0 0 94 7 119 3 45 8 Iii 3 4 119.5S23 19 9 5 99 0 9 6 169 0 0 99.5 7 118 3 4 8 119 3 4 118.5S24 19 9 5 100 3 6 6 101 3 6 169,5 7 118 3 4 8 119 3 4 118.5S25 10 9 5 101 3 6 6 101 3 6 101 7 119 3 4 8 120 3 4 119.5S26 16 9 5 103 3 6 6 194 3 6 1035 7 118 3 4 8 119 3 4 118.5S27 10 9 5 101 3 6 6 101 3 6 101 7 118 3 4 8 119 3 4 118.5S28 10 9 5 103 3 6 6 164 3 6 1035 7 119 3 4 8 119 3 4 119S29 10 9 5 103 3 6 6 105 3 6 104 7 119 3 4 8 119 3 4 119S36 9 18 5 100 3 6 6 101 3 6 1695 7 116 3 4 8 118 3 4 11701 2805999069990997980089900 98.502 2 80 5 89 0 0 6 93 0 0 89.5 7 98 9 0 8 99 0 0 98.503 286592096910991.57989089800 9804 10 0 5 103 3 6 6 194 0 0 103.5 7 118 3 5 8 118 3 5 11805 6 40 5 101 0 0 6 1(8) 0 0 169.5 7 116 3 5 8 115 3 5 115506 6 40 5 0 0 9 6 169 0 0 50 7 114 3 5 8 115 3 5 114307 10 6 5 0 0 9 6 169 0 0 59 7 118 3 5 8 118 3 5 11808 82050606900049.5711635811735116509 19 0 5 0 0 9 6 169 0 0 50 7 118 3 5 8 117 3 5 117.5010 19 0 5 6 0 0 6 98 0 0 49 7 117 3 5 8 118 3 5 117.5170DATE His % doud SBC max load cooking SBC max load cooking average SBC max load cooking SBC max load cooking averageSunshine cover # temp (L) thne # temp (L) time maxtelllp # temp (L) time # temp (L) time inaxtenip5&6 7&8011 7 30 5 0 0 0 6 94 9 0 47 7 114 3 5 8 116 3 5 115012 10050006% 0948711435 8114 35114013 6 40 5 95 0 0 6 95 0 0 95 7 110 3 5 8 ill 3 5 110.5014 4 60 5 96 0 0 6 95 9 0 95.5 7 119 3 5 8 110 3 5 119015 6 40 5 95 0 0 6 95 9 0 95 7 109 3 5 8 119 3 5 109.5016 640592006940993710000810036100017 550592096940993710200810100101.5018 8 20 5 100 0 0 6 191 9 0 100.5 7 119 3 5 8 111 3 5 119.5019 9 10 5 100 0 9 6 191 0 0 103.5 7 iii 3 5 8 112 3 5 111.5020 8 20 5 100 0 0 6 99 0 0 99.5 7 110 3 5 8 110 3 5 110021 9 9 5 101 0 0 6 102 0 0 1915 7 115 3 5 8 116 3 5 1155022 6 33 5 100 9 0 6 103 9 0 1015 7 115 3 5 8 116 3 5 115.5023 9 0 5 101 0 0 6 101 0 9 101 7 115 3 5 8 115 3 5 115024 4 55 5 92 0 0 6 93 0 0 92.5 7 110 3 5 8 111 3 5 110.5025 8 11 5 100 0 0 6 101 0 0 1005 7 114 3 5 8 115 3 5 114.5026 9 0 5 100 0 0 6 105 0 0 102.5 7 Ill 3 5 8 112 3 5 111.5027 9 9 5 99 0 9 6 102 0 0 10)5 7 114 3 5 8 113 3 5 113.5028 9 9 5 99 0 0 6 100 0 0 99.5 7 114 3 5 8 115 3 5 114.5029 8 11 5 98 0 9 6 100 0 0 99 7 114 3 5 8 115 3 5 114.5030 9 0 5 98 0 0 6 103 0 9 99 7 111 3 5 8 111 3 5 111031 8.575950069700% 710835810935108.5NI 8.56597006980097.5710035.581073 5196.5N2 811597906930097710035.5810735196.5N3 8 11 5 96 9 0 6 97 0 0 .96.5 7 105 3 5.5 8 100 3 55 105.5N4 811596906970096.5710136810136101N5 4 55 5 81 9 0 6 83 0 0 82 7 98 I 0 8 95 0 9 96.5N6 8 11 5 94 0 0 6 95 9 9 94.5 7 104 3 6 8 105 3 6 104.5N7 811595996950095 7194 36 8194 36 194N8 90594096950094.5710036819136100,5N9 80594096950094.5710000810000100N19 80594006950094.5710009810000100Nil 8 0 5 94 0 9 6 95 I 9 94.5 7 10) 0 9 8 101 0 0 1035N12 8 0 5 95 9 9 6 95 0 9 95 7 191 0 0 8 192 0 0 1015N13 8 0 5 93 9 9 6 94 9 9 93.5 7 192 0 9 8 193 9 0 1025N14 8 0 5 00 9 9 6 91 0 0 00.5 7 103 0 0 8 103 9 9 103N15 8 9 5 90 0 0 6 91 0 0 93.5 7 102 0 0 8 103 9 0 102.5N16 2 72 5 46 0 9 6 44 0 I 45 7 52 0 0 8 52 0 9 52N17 80586006869086795008960095.5N18 3 60 5 58 0 I 6 58 9 I 58 7 62 I 9 8 62 0 0 62N19 4.5 42 5 62 0 0 6 62 0 I 62 7 70 0 I 8 71 0 0 79.5N20 2566551006509051.57590085990 59N21 2.5 66 5 45 9 0 6 42 9 0 43.5 7 57 0 0 8 58 0 0 57.5N22 2 79 5 47 0 0 6 47 0 I 47 7 51 0 0 8 52 9 0 51.5N23 7 0 5 83 9 0 6 84 9 I 83.5 7 00 0 0 8 91 9 0 00.5171DATh firs % doud SBC max load cooking SBC max load cooking average SBC max load cooking SBC max load cooking averageSunshine cover # temp (L) 6me # temp (L) 6me max temp # temp (L) nie # temp (L) 6me max temp5&6 7&8N24 70583006810682 7 6089006 )N25 7 0 5 84 0 0 6 84 0 0 84 7 91 0 0 8 91 0 0 91N26 7 0 5 84 0 0 6 80 0 0 82 7 87 0 0 8 88 0 0 87.5N27 705800068000807880088900 88.5N28 7 0 5 74 0 0 6 74 0 6 74 7 84 0 0 8 85 0 0 84.5N29 528573006720072.57760087600 76N30 7 0 5 74 0 0 6 74 0 0 74 7 83 0 0 8 85 0 0 84Dl 3 56 5 36 9 0 6 35 0 0 35.5 7 50 0 0 8 51 0 0 50.5D2 3 56 5 36 0 0 6 36 0 0 36 7 50 0 6 8 51 0 0 50.5D3 442568606680068778008790678.5D4 1 84 5 30 0 0 6 31 0 6 30.5 7 35 0 0 8 36 0 0 35.5D5 5 28 5 62 0 0 6 63 0 0 62.5 7 69 0 0 8 69 0 0 69D6 6 14 5 62 0 0 6 61 0 0 61.5 7 69 6 0 8 69 0 0 69D7 3565486064860487520085206 52D8 7 0 5 63 0 0 6 64 0 0 63.5 7 65 0 0 8 66 II 0 65.5D9 7 0 5 62 0 0 6 63 0 U 62.5 7 64 0 0 8 65 U U 64.5D19 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 7 U 0 0 8 0 U U 0172DATE Wa % doud SBC max load cooking SBC max load ldng SBC max load cooking averageSumhin cover # temp (L) iue # temp (L) me # temp (L) thue max temp9,16,11ii 19.5 8 9 105 1 2 16 105 1 2 11 104 1 2 104.7J2 16 12 9 110 1 2 16 109 1 2 11 108 1 2 109.033 9.5 16 9 165 1 2 10 104 1 2 11 105 1 2 104.7J4 4.5 60 9 116 1 2 10 105 1 2 11 108 1 2 167.735 4 64 9 108 1 2 10 104 1 2 11 105 1 2 105.736 4 64 9 168 1 2 10 106 1 2 11 106 1 2 106.737 5 56 9 119 1 2 10 111 1 2 11 110 1 2 110.338 5 56 9 167 1 2 10 108 1 2 11 107 1 2 167.339 3769851010871911881 086,7310 6.5 44 9 195 1 2 19 108 1 2 11 106 1 2 105.3JIl 2 84 9 84 3 6 10 83 3 0 11 85 3 0 84.0312 6 50 9 119 3 3.5 10 111 3 3.5 11 112 3 3 111.0313 6 59 9 199 3 3.5 19 110 3 3.5 11 111 3 3 110.0314 5.5 44 9 93 3 0 19 94 3 0 11 94 3 0 93.7J15 6 59 9 196 3 4.5 10 109 3 4.5 11 194 3 4 191.3316 10 16 9 102 3 3.5 10 105 3 3.5 11 105 3 3.5 104.0J17 10 16 9 196 3 3.5 10 105 3 3.5 11 105 3 3.5 105.7318 10 16 9 109 3 3.5 16 105 3 3.5 11 105 3 3.5 167.0J19 10 16 9 199 3 3.5 16 107 3 3.5 11 105 3 3.5 1073320 12 0 9 116 3 3.5 10 109 3 3.5 11 108 3 3.5 169.0J21 5.5 66 9 88 3 0 10 09 3 0 11 09 3 0 89.3J22 3 82 9 85 3 0 10 81 3 0 11 84 3 0 83.3J23 8 32 9 118 3 3 10 117 3 3 11 119 3 3 118.0324 4 64 9 193 3 3.5 19 103 3 4 11 194 3 4 1033325 10 16 9 118 3 3 10 116 3 3 11 118 3 3 117.3326 7.5 44 9 119 3 3 10 118 3 3 11 117 3 3 118.0327 6 50 9 115 3 3 10 116 3 3 11 116 3 3 115.7328 8 32 9 115 3 3 10 118 3 3 11 118 3 3 117.0J29 8 32 9 117 3 3 10 118 3 3 11 120 3 3 1183J30 6 59 9 113 3 3 10 116 3 3 11 115 3 3 114.7iLl 8 32 9 126 3 3 10 121 3 3 11 120 3 3 1203311 3 72 9 116 3 4 10 108 3 4 11 108 3 4 108.7JL3 4 64 9 112 3 3 10 112 3 3 11 111 3 3 111.7JL4 6 50 9 118 3 3 10 116 3 3 11 121 3 3 1183JL5 8 32 9 121 3 3 10 124 3 3 11 122 3 3 1223JL6 10 16 9 124 3 3 10 124 3 3 11 125 3 3 1243JL7 12 0 9 124 5 4 19 124 5 4 11 124 5 4 124.0J[.S 10 16 9 129 5 4 19 121 5 4 11 121 5 4 120.7JL9 6 50 9 118 5 4.5 19 119 5 4.5 11 119 5 4.5 118.7JLIO 2 84 9 55 0 0 19 55 0 9 11 58 0 0 56.0JL1I 4 64 9 117 5 4.5 19 117 5 4.5 11 119 5 4.5 117.7JLI2 8 32 9 122 5 4 19 121 5 4 11 123 5 4 122.0JL13 8 32 9 122 5 4 19 121 5 4 11 123 5 4 122.0JL14 6 50 9 122 5 4 19 122 5 4 11 123 5 4 1223173DAlE Hrs % doud SBC max load cooldng SBC max load ccoldng SBC max load ccoking averageSunshin cover # temp (L) time # temp (L) time # temp (L) time max temp9, 10,11JL15 4 64 9 100 0 0 10 102 (1 0 11 103 0 0 101.7JLI6 2 80 9 55 0 0 10 55 0 0 11 59 0 0 56.3JL17 6 50 9 122 5 4 10 122 5 4 11 122 5 4 122.0JLI8 8 32 9 125 5 4 10 125 5 4 11 125 5 4 125.0JLI9 8 32 9 124 5 4 10 122 5 4 11 125 5 4 123,7JL2O 12 0 9 126 5 4 10 126 5 4 11 125 5 4 125.7JL2I 6 50 9 109 5 6 10 109 5 5 11 119 5 5 109.3JL22 6 50 9 108 5 6 10 110 5 5 11 111 5 5 109.7JL23 10 16 9 122 5 4 10 123 5 4 11 125 5 4 123.3JL24 19 16 9 122 5 4 10 123 5 4 11 125 5 4 123.3JL25 9 24 9 120 5 4 10 119 5 4 11 121 5 4 120.0JL26 8 32 9 119 5 4 10 120 5 4 11 120 5 4 119.7JL27 7 40 9 119 5 4 19 120 5 4 11 119 5 4 1193JL28 10 16 9 121 5 4 II 122 5 4 11 123 5 4 122.0JL29 7 40 9 119 5 4 10 120 5 4 11 120 5 4 119.7JL3O 3 72 9 108 5 6 10 107 5 6 11 110 5 5 108.3JL31 10 16 9 122 5 4 10 122 5 4 11 122 5 4 122.0Al 10 16 9 122 5 4 10 124 5 4 11 124 5 4 123.3A2 10 16 9 123 5 4 10 123 5 4 11 123 5 4 123.0A3 8 32 9 108 5 5 10 119 5 5 11 199 5 5 109.0A4 4 64 9 108 5 5 10 108 5 5 11 199 5 5 1083A5 7 40 9 124 5 4 10 125 5 4 Il 125 5 4 124.7A6 1 92 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0.9A7 8 64 9 111 5 5 10 112 5 5 11 113 5 5 112.0A8 8 32 9 121 5 4 10 121 5 4 11 122 5 4 1213A9 8 32 9 122 5 4 10 123 5 4 11 123 5 4 122.7AlO 4 64 9 110 5 5 10 119 5 5 11 112 5 5 110.7All 2 84 9 87 0 0 10 88 0 0 11 89 0 0 88.0A12 12 0 9 120 5 4 19 120 5 4 11 120 5 4 120.0Al3 5 54 9 121 5 4 10 122 5 4 11 121 5 4 1213A14 7 40 9 124 5 4 10 125 5 4 11 126 5 4 125.9A15 10 16 9 123 5 4 10 122 5 4 11 123 5 4 122.7Al6 8 32 9 124 5 4 10 125 5 4 11 124 5 4 1243A17 11 8 9 124 5 4 10 124 5 4 11 125 5 4 1243A18 8 32 9 124 5 4 10 124 5 4 11 124 5 4 124.0A19 8 32 9 124 5 4 10 125 5 4 11 124 5 4 1243A20 9 24 9 122 5 4 10 122 5 4 11 123 5 4 1223A2l 11 8 9 124 5 4 10 126 5 4 11 124 5 4 124.7A22 11 0 9 124 5 4 10 125 5 4 11 125 5 4 124.7A23 11 0 9 126 5 4 10 125 5 4 11 126 5 4 125.7A24 11 0 9 125 5 4 10 125 5 4 11 125 5 4 125.0A25 11 9 9 124 5 4 10 125 5 4 11 125 5 4 124.7A26 11 9 9 125 5 4 10 126 5 4 11 126 5 4 125.7A27 11 9 9 126 5 4 10 127 5 4 11 127 5 4 126.7174DATh Firs % doud SBC max load cooking SBC niax load cooking SBC max load cooking averageSunshine cover # temp (L) time # temp (L) time # temp (L) time max temp9,19,11A28 19 9 9 125 5 4 10 125 5 4 11 125 5 4 125.9A29 19 0 9 124 5 4 19 l2 5 4 11 12 5 4 125.3A39 10 0 9 123 5 4 19 124 5 4 11 125 5 4 124.9A31 10 9 9 123 5 4 10 124 5 4 11 124 5 4 123.7SI 9 18 9 124 5 4 10 124 5 4 II 125 5 4 1243S2 2 81 9 109 5 55 19 110 5 55 11 119 5 5 109.7S3 2 81 9 109 5 55 10 109 5 5.5 11 110 5 5 109.0S4 3 72 9 90 0 9 10 91 9 0 11 93 9 9 91.3S5 4 63 9 99 9 9 10 109 9 0 11 109 0 9 99.7S6 2 82 9 104 3 4 19 194 3 4 11 193 3 4 103.7S7 2 82 9 106 3 4 10 194 3 4 11 197 3 4 194.3S8 1 91 9 88 0 0 10 89 9 0 11 89 0 9 88.7S9 1 91 9 95 (1 (1 10 94 9 0 11 % 0 9 95.0SlO 0 109 9 89 9 9 19 80 0 9 11 89 0 0 80.9Sil 11 0 9 118 3 4 19 118 3 35 1 116 3 3.5 117.3S12 19 9 9 118 3 35 19 118 3 35 11 116 3 3.5 1173S13 19 9 9 118 3 3.5 10 117 3 35 11 117 3 3.5 1173S14 5 54 9 105 3 4 10 194 3 4 11 104 3 4 194.3S15 5 54 9 107 3 4 10 107 3 4 11 194 3 4 194.7S16 3 81 9 190 3 4.5 19 191 3 45 11 10) 3 5 1093S17 2 81 9 89 0 9 10 0) 0 9 11 89 9 0 89.3S18 4 63 9 113 3 4 10 115 3 4 11 115 3 4 1143S19 11 0 9 115 3 4 19 116 3 4 11 116 3 4 115.7S29 6.5 40 9 115 3 4 19 115 3 4 11 116 3 4 1153S21 8 27 9 115 3 4 20 116 3 4 11 116 3 4 115.7S22 5 54 9 110 3 4.5 10 109 3 45 11 110 3 4 199.7S23 10 9 9 115 3 4 10 116 3 4 11 117 3 4 116.0S24 19 9 9 117 3 4 10 118 3 4 11 118 3 4 117.7S25 10 9 9 112 3 4 19 113 3 4 11 114 3 4 113.9S26 10 9 9 114 3 4 10 115 3 4 11 116 3 4 115.9S27 19 9 9 114 3 4 10 114 3 4 11 116 3 4 114.7S28 10 9 9 114 3 4 19 115 3 4 11 116 3 4 115.9S29 19 9 9 115 3 4 19 116 3 4 11 116 3 4 115.7S30 9 18 9 113 3 4 10 114 3 4 11 116 3 4 114301 2 80 9 95 0 9 10 91 0 9 11 95 9 9 93.702 2899950010% 0911949 095.003 2809% 0010% 0911% 9 0%.004 19 0 9 113 3 5 19 114 3 5 II 115 3 5 114.005 6 40 9 112 3 5 20 115 3 5 11 113 3 5 113306 6 40 9 111 3 5 10 111 3 5 11 112 3 5 111.307 19 0 9 114 3 5 10 115 3 5 11 114 3 5 114.308 8 20 9 114 3 5 10 114 3 5 11 116 3 5 114.709 19 0 9 114 3 5 19 116 3 5 11 116 3 5 115.3010 19 0 9 114 3 6 20 112 3 6 11 112 3 6 112.7175DATE Hi % doud SBC max load cooking SBC max load king SBC max load cooking averageSunshinc cover # temp (L) 6nie # temp (L) time # temp (L) time max temp9,10,11011 7 30 9 111 3 6 10 112 3 6 11 113 3 6 112.0012 10 0 9 104 0 0 10 105 0 0 11 104 0 0 104.3013 6 40 9 105 0 0 10 105 0 0 11 105 0 0 105.0014 4 60 9 103 0 0 10 104 0 0 11 104 0 0 103.7015 6 40 9 100 0 0 10 100 0 0 11 103 0 0 100.0016 6 40 9 100 0 0 10 101 0 9 11 100 0 0 1003017 55099900101000011990099.3018 8 20 9 lii 3 6 10 109 3 6 11 110 3 6 110.0019 9 10 9 199 3 6 10 108 3 6 11 109 3 6 108,7020 8 20 9 107 3 6 10 107 3 6 11 108 3 6 107.3021 9 0 9 114 3 6 10 114 3 6 11 114 3 6 114.0022 6 33 9 113 3 6 10 114 3 6 11 114 3 6 113.7023 9 0 9 111 3 6 10 111 3 6 11 112 3 6 111.3024 4 55 9 199 3 7 10 110 3 6 11 109 3 6 109.3025 8 11 9 113 3 6 10 113 3 6 11 113 3 6 113.0026 9 0 9 111 3 6 10 110 3 6 11 112 3 6 111.0027 9 0 9 111 3 6 10 112 3 6 11 112 3 6 111.7028 9 0 9 109 3 6 20 109 3 6 11 110 3 6 1093029 8 11 9 107 3 6 10 108 3 6 11 108 3 6 107.7030 9 0 9 106 3 6 10 106 3 6 11 106 3 6 106.0031 8.5 7 9 100 0 0 19 101 0 0 11 103 0 9 1033Ni 8.5 6 9 103 0 0 10 101 9 0 11 101 0 0 101.7N2 8 11 9 104 3 6 10 105 0 0 11 104 0 9 104.3N3 8 11 9 102 0 0 10 103 0 0 11 103 0 0 102.7N4 8 11 9 100 3 6 10 101 0 0 11 101 0 0 100.7N5 4 55 9 95 0 0 20 95 0 0 11 95 0 0 95.0N6 8 11 9 98 0 0 10 100 0 0 11 101 0 0 99.7N7 8 11 9 99 0 0 10 100 9 0 11 10) 0 0 99.7N8 9 0 9 99 0 0 10 99 0 0 11 100 0 0 99.3N9 8 0 9 98 0 0 10 97 9 0 11 99 0 0 98.0N10 8 0 9 98 0 0 10 97 0 0 11 99 0 0 98.0Nil 8 0 9 98 0 0 10 97 0 0 11 98 0 0 97.7N12 8 0 9 98 0 0 10 95 0 0 ii 98 0 0 97.0N13 8 0 9 98 0 0 10 97 0 9 11 98 0 0 97.7N14 8 0 9 98 0 0 10 97 0 0 11 % 0 0 97.0N15 8 0 9 97 0 0 10 95 0 0 ii 95 0 0 95.7N16 2 72 9 50 0 0 10 49 0 9 ii 50 0 0 49.7Ni7 8 0 9 93 0 0 10 95 0 9 ii 94 0 0 94.0N18 3 60 9 60 0 0 10 61 0 0 11 61 0 0 60.7Ni9 4.5 42 9 69 0 0 10 70 0 0 ii 70 0 0 69.7N20 2S 66 9 56 0 0 10 56 0 0 ii 55 0 0 55.7N21 2.5 66 9 55 0 0 10 55 0 0 11 55 0 0 55.0N22 2 79 9 50 0 0 10 51 0 9 ii 50 0 0 50.3N23 7 0 9 86 0 0 19 87 0 0 ii 87 I 0 86.7176DATh Hrs % dead SBC max load cooking SBC max load cooking SBC max load cooking averageSunshico cover # temp (L) 1nae # temp (L) thee # temp (L) 8me max temp9,10,11N24 7 0 9 85 0 0 10 86 0 0 11 87 I) 0 86.0N25 7 0 9 87 0 0 10 85 0 0 11 86 0 0 86.0N26 7 0 9 85 0 0 10 85 0 0 11 85 0 0 85.0N27 7 0 9 83 0 0 10 82 0 0 11 85 0 0 83.3N28 7 0 9 81 0 0 10 82 0 0 11 81 0 0 81,3N29 5 28 9 81 0 0 10 80 0 0 11 83 0 0 81.3N30 7 0 9 78 0 0 10 78 0 0 11 79 0 0 78.3Dl 3 56 9 39 0 0 10 40 0 0 11 39 0 0 39.3D2 3 56 9 38 0 0 10 38 0 0 11 39 0 0 38.3D3 4 42 9 76 0 0 10 76 0 0 11 75 0 0 75.7D4 1 84 9 32 0 0 10 33 0 0 11 33 0 0 32.7D5 5 28 9 65 0 0 10 64 0 0 11 65 0 0 64.7D6 6149860010660011660 066.0D7 3 56 9 50 0 0 10 51 0 0 11 50 0 0 50.3D8 7 0 9 65 0 0 10 66 0 0 11 66 0 0 65.7D9 7 0 9 64 0 0 10 65 0 0 11 66 0 0 65.0D10 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0.0177DATh His % dood SBC max load cooking SBC max load cooking SBC ions load cooking averageSunshinc cover # temp (L) time # temp (I,) time # temp (L) time max temp11314Ji 10.5 8 12 124 1 ii 13 125 1 1.5 14 125 1 1.5 124.7J2 10 12 12 125 1 ii 13 125 1 1.5 14 126 1 1.5 125.333 9.5 16 12 125 1 Ii 13 125 1 Ii 14 125 1 15 125.0J4 4.5 12 126 1 1.5 13 126 1 15 14 128 1 15 126.7J5 4 64 12 125 1 1.5 13 126 1 1.5 14 126 1 1.5 125.736 4 64 12 126 1 1.5 13 127 1 1.5 14 128 1 1.5 127.0J7 5 56 12 128 1 15 13 126 1 1.5 14 130 1 15 128.0J8 5 56 12 128 1 15 13 128 1 1.5 14 130 1 1.5 128.739 3 76 12 109 1 2 13 109 1 2 14 114 1 2 110.7Jl0 6.5 44 12 128 1 1.5 13 130 1 2 14 130 1 1.5 129.3ill 2 84 12 105 3 2 13 105 3 2 14 107 3 2 105.7J12 6 50 12 128 3 2 13 127 3 2 14 130 3 2 1283J13 6 50 12 128 3 2 13 128 3 2 14 130 3 2 128.7314 5.5 44 12 129 3 2 13 128 3 2 14 130 3 2 129.0315 6 50 12 130 3 2 13 130 3 2 14 131 3 2 130.3J16 10 16 12 131 3 2 13 131 3 2 14 131 3 2 131.0317 10 16 12 131 3 2 13 130 3 2 14 132 3 2 131.0318 10 16 12 130 3 2 13 130 3 2 14 131 3 2 130.3319 10 16 12 130 3 2 13 131 3 2 14 134 3 2 131.7320 12 0 12 129 3 2 13 132 3 2 14 136 3 2 132.3J21 5.5 66 12 108 3 2 13 110 3 2 14 111 3 2 109.7322 3 82 12 103 3 3 13 106 3 3 14 106 3 3 105.0323 8 32 12 129 3 2 13 129 3 2 14 131 3 2 129.7J24 4 64 12 120 3 2 13 120 3 2 14 121 3 2 120.3325 10 16 12 129 3 2 13 131 3 2 14 135 3 2 131.7326 7.5 44 12 129 3 2 13 129 3 2 14 133 3 2 1303327 6 50 12 128 3 2 13 128 3 2 14 130 3 2 128.7328 8 32 12 129 3 2 13 131 3 2 14 135 3 2 131.7J29 8 32 12 129 3 2 13 130 3 2 14 133 3 2 130.7J30 6 50 12 128 3 2 13 128 3 2 14 131 3 2 129.0iLl 8 32 12 129 3 2 13 130 3 2 14 131 3 2 130.0JL2 3 72 12 120 3 2 13 121 3 2 14 126 3 2 1223JL3 4 64 12 128 3 2 13 129 3 2 14 131 3 2 129.3JL4 6 50 12 129 3 2 13 129 3 2 14 130 3 2 1293JL5 8 32 12 129 3 2 13 131 3 2 14 132 3 2 130.731.6 10 16 12 130 3 2 13 133 3 2 14 135 3 2 132.7JL7 12 0 12 135 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 136 5 3 135.7JIB 10 16 12 134 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 135 5 3 134.7JL9 6 50 12 131 5 3 13 131 5 3 14 132 5 3 131.3JL10 2 84 12 98 0 0 13 99 0 0 14 1CO 0 0 99.0JL11 4 64 12 129 5 3 13 130 5 3 14 131 5 3 130.0JL12 8 32 12 133 5 3 13 133 5 3 14 135 5 3 133.7JL13 8 32 12 135 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 136 5 3 135.7JL14 6 50 12 130 5 3 13 131 5 3 14 131 5 3 130.7178DATE firs % cloud SBC max load couking SBC max load ccoking SBC max load ccoking averageSunshine cover # temp (L) me # temp (L) time # temp (L) time max temp113,l4JL15 4 64 12 128 5 3 13 129 5 3 14 131) 5 3 129.0JL16 2 80 12 98 9 0 13 98 9 9 14 1 9 0 98,7JL17 6 50 12 135 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 136 5 3 135.33L18 8 32 12 135 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 136 5 3 135.3JL19 8 32 12 135 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 135 5 3 1353JL29 12 9 12 136 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 136 5 3 136.1)J[.21 6 50 12 131) 5 3 13 133 5 3 14 131) 5 3 131.0JL22 6 50 12 129 5 3 13 134 5 3 14 133 5 3 132.0JL23 10 16 12 135 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 136 5 3 135.7JL24 10 16 12 135 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 135 5 3 1353JL25 9 24 12 135 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 136 5 3 135.7JL26 8 32 12 135 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 133 5 3 1343JL27 7 40 12 135 5 3 13 133 5 3 14 135 5 3 1343JL28 11) 16 12 133 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 136 5 3 135.0JL29 7 40 12 135 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 136 5 3 1353J130 3 72 12 126 5 3 13 127 5 3 14 129 5 3 1273JL3I 11) 16 12 133 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 135 5 3 134.7Al 10 16 12 135 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 136 5 3 135.7A2 10 16 12 135 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 135 5 3 1353A3 8 32 12 129 5 3 13 131 5 3 14 139 5 3 130.0A4 4 64 12 124 5 3 13 129 5 3 14 130 5 3 127.7A5 7 40 12 136 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 136 5 3 136.9A6 1 92 12 9 0 3 13 0 9 9 14 9 0 9 9.9A7 8 64 12 125 5 3 13 129 5 3 14 127 5 3 127.9A8 8 32 12 131 5 3 13 133 5 3 14 131 5 3 131.7A9 8 32 12 132 5 3 13 133 5 3 14 133 5 3 132.7A10 4 64 12 125 5 3 13 128 5 3 14 126 5 3 1263All 2 84 12 119 5 3.5 13 114 5 3.5 14 113 5 3.5 1123A12 12 9 12 135 5 3 13 137 5 3 14 135 5 3 135.7A13 5 54 12 132 5 3 13 133 5 3 14 133 5 3 132.7A14 7 40 12 135 5 2.5 13 135 5 2.5 14 134 5 2.5 134.7A15 10 16 12 136 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 135 5 2.5 136.0A16 8 32 12 136 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 136 5 2.5 1363A17 11 8 12 136 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 136 5 2.5 1363A18 8 32 12 134 5 2.5 13 136 5 2.5 14 135 5 2.5 135.9A19 8 32 12 135 5 2.5 13 136 5 2.5 14 136 5 2.5 135.7A20 9 24 12 134 5 2.5 13 134 5 2.5 14 135 5 2.5 1343A21 11 8 12 136 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 137 5 2.5 136.7A22 11 0 12 137 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 137 5 2.5 137.9A23 11 0 12 137 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 137 5 2.5 137.0A24 11 0 12 137 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 137 5 2.5 137.9A25 11 9 12 137 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 137 5 2.5 137.9A26 11 9 12 137 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 137 5 2.5 137.9A27 11 9 12 137 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 137 5 2.5 137.9179DATh His % cloud SBC max load cooking SBC max load king SBC max load cooking averageSunshinc cover # temp (L) dise # temp (L) ñie # temp (L) nie max temp1Z13,14A28 10 9 12 136 5 2.5 13 138 5 2.5 14 138 5 2.5 137.3A29 10 0 12 136 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 137 5 2.5 136.7MO 10 0 12 136 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 137 5 2.5 136.7Mi 10 0 12 136 5 2.5 13 137 5 2.5 14 137 5 2.5 136.7Si 9 18 12 135 5 2.5 13 136 5 2.5 14 137 5 2.5 136.0S2 2 81 12 120 5 3 13 121 5 3 14 122 5 3 121.0S3 2 81 12 121 5 3 13 121 5 3 14 122 5 3 1213S4 3 72 12 110 5 3.5 13 109 5 3.5 14 111 5 3.5 110.0S5 4 63 12 118 3 3 13 120 5 4 14 121 5 4 119.7S6 2 82 12 110 3 3 13 111 3 3 14 112 3 3 111.0S7 2 82 12 111 5 4 13 112 5 4 14 112 5 4 111.7S8 1 91 12 103 3 3 13 105 3 3 14 104 3 3 104.7S9 1 91 12 103 3 3 13 103 3 3 14 104 3 3 104.0Sb 0 109 12 3 4 13 91 3 4 14 91 3 4 .7Sil 11 0 12 135 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 136 5 3 1353S12 10 9 12 135 5 3 13 137 5 3 14 135 5 3 135.7S13 10 9 12 134 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 136 5 3 135.0S14 5 54 12 129 5 3 13 130 5 3 14 130 5 3 129.7S15 5 54 12 135 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 135 5 3 1353S16 3 81 12 126 5 3 13 128 5 3 14 127 5 3 127,0S17 2 81 12 119 5 3 13 120 5 3 14 118 5 3 119.0S18 4 63 12 128 5 3 13 130 5 3 14 130 5 3 1293S19 11 0 12 135 5 3 13 137 5 3 14 136 5 3 136.0S20 6.5 40 12 135 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 135 5 3 135.0S21 8 27 12 135 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 135. 5 3 135.0S22 5 54 12 133 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 136 5 3 134.7S23 10 9 12 136 5 3 13 137 5 3 14 137 5 3 136.7S24 10 9 12 136 5 3 13 137 5 3 14 137 5 3 136,7S25 10 9 12 135 5 3 13 137 5 3 14 137 5 3 1363S26 10 9 12 136 5 3 13 137 5 3 14 136 5 3 136.3S27 10 9 12 135 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 137 5 3 135.7S28 10 9 12 135 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 137 5 3 136.0S29 10 9 12 135 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 135 5 3 1353S30 9 18 12 136 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 137 5 3 136301 2 80 12 110 3 3 13 111 3 3 14 113 3 3 111302 2 80 12 112 3 3 13 111 3 3 14 112 3 3 111.703 2 80 12 110 3 3 13 110 3 3 14 111 3 3 110304 10 0 12 135 5 3 13 134 5 3 14 135 5 3 134.705 6 40 12 130 5 3 13 131 5 3 14 134 5 3 131.706 6 40 12 130 5 3 13 131 5 3 14 130 5 3 130307 10 0 12 134 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 135 5 3 135.008 8 20 12 134 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 136 5 3 135309 10 0 12 135 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 135 5 3 1353010 10 0 12 134 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 136 5 3 135.3180DATE lies % doud SBC max load cooking SBC max load king SBC niax load cooking averageSunshinc cover # temp (L) thrie # temp (L) time # temp (1 thue maxtenip113,14011 7 30 12 131 5 3 13 134 5 3 14 134 5 3 133.9012 10 0 12 135 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 136 5 3 1353013 6 40 12 128 5 3 13 130 5 3 14 139 5 3 1293014 4 60 12 117 5 3.5 13 120 5 3.5 14 120 5 3.5 119.0015 6 40 12 126 5 3 13 128 5 3 14 127 5 3 127.0016 6 40 12 126 5 3 13 128 5 3 14 129 5 3 127.7017 5 59 12 120 5 3.5 13 121 5 3.5 14 120 5 3.5 1203018 8 20 12 132 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 135 5 3 134.9019 9 10 12 131 5 3 13 132 5 3 14 134 5 3 1323020 8 20 12 131 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 135 5 3 133.7021 9 0 12 135 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 135 5 3 135.0022 6 33 12 124 5 3 13 133 5 3 14 134 5 3 1303023 9 0 12 131 5 3 13 132 5 3 14 136 5 3 133.0024 4 55 12 122 5 3.5 13 123 5 3.5 14 125 5 3.5 1233025 8 11 12 132 5 3 13 134 5 3 14 134 5 3 1333026 9 9 12 132 5 3 13 134 5 3 14 135 5 3 133.7027 9 0 12 133 5 3 13 134 5 3 14 135 5 3 134.0028 9 0 12 132 5 3 13 134 5 3 14 135 5 3 133.7029 8 11 12 134 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 133 5 3 134.0030 9 0 12 134 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 136 5 3 135.0031 8.5 7 12 134 5 3 13 134 5 3 14 134 5 3 134.0NI 8.5 6 12 133 5 3 13 133 5 3 14 134 5 3 1333N2 8 11 12 132 5 3 13 133 5 3 14 133 5 3 132.7N3 8 11 12 133 5 3 13 134 5 3 14 134 5 3 133.7NI 8 11 12 134 5 3 13 134 5 3 14 135 5 3 134.3N5 4 55 12 134 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 135 5 3 134.7N6 8 11 12 119 5 3.5 13 119 5 3.5 14 120 5 3.5 1193N7 8 11 12 134 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 135 5 3 134.7N8 9 0 12 132 5 3 13 133 5 3 14 134 5 3 133.0N9 8 0 12 133 5 3 13 134 5 3 14 135 5 3 134.0NI0 8 0 12 132 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 135 5 3 134.0Nil 8 0 12 135 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 135 5 3 135.0N12 8 0 12 134 5 3 13 134 5 3 14 134 5 3 134.0N13 8 0 12 134 5 3 13 136 5 3 14 135 5 3 135.0Nl4 8 0 12 135 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 135 5 3 135.0N15 8 0 12 134 5 3 13 135 5 3 14 135 5 3 134.7N16 2 72 12 87 (1 0 13 88 0 0 14 89 0 3 88.0N17 8 0 12 139 5 3 13 131 5 3 14 132 5 3 131.0N18 3 60 12 91 0 0 13 92 0 0 14 92 0 0 91.7N19 4.5 42 12 % 3 3 13 97 3 3 14 99 3 3 97.3N20 2.5 12 85 (1 0 13 87 0 11 14 87 0 0 86.3N21 2.5 12 87 0 0 13 88 0 0 14 87 0 0 87.3N22 2 70 12 88 0 0 13 89 0 0 14 99 0 0 89.0N23 7 0 12 121 3 3 13 123 3 3 14 121 3 3 121.7181DAlE Hrs % cloud SBC max load cooking SBC max load king SBC niax load cooking averageSunshine cover # temp (L) 8me # temp (L) time # temp (L) time max temp1 13, 14N24 7 0 12 121 3 3 13 121 3 3 14 123 3 3 121.7N25 7 0 12 125 3 3 13 128 5 4 14 126 5 4 126.3N26 7 0 12 122 5 4 13 125 5 4 14 125 5 4 124.0N27 7 0 12 120 3 3 13 123 5 4 14 124 5 4 1223N28 7 0 12 121 5 4 13 123 5 4 14 124 5 4 122.7N29 5 28 12 124 5 4 13 124 5 4 14 125 5 4 124.3N30 7 0 12 122 5 4 13 124 5 4 14 125 5 4 123.7Dl 35612950013% 1)014953495.3D2 35612983313960014983397.3D3 4 42 12 103 3 3 13 103 3 3 14 103 3 3 1033D4 1 84 12 69 0 9 13 79 0 0 14 72 9 0 70,3D5 5 28 12 110 3 3 13 111 5 4 14 112 5 4 111.0D6 6 14 12 110 3 3 13 112 5 4 14 112 5 4 1113D7 3 56 12 87 0 0 13 89 1 3 14 89 1) 0 88.3D8 7 0 12 115 3 3 13 115 5 4 14 115 5 4 115.0D9 7 0 12 114 3 3 13 116 5 4 14 115 5 4 115.0D10 0 0 12 9 0 0 13 0 11 0 14 0 0 0 9.9182

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0076877/manifest

Comment

Related Items